*Written by Rob Rimes.

I had a long weekend but it is now over. My time in Gainesville with my cousin and friends was a blast, as I haven’t actually been partying too hard over the last month. This trip was a good way for me to drown in bourbon, Irish whiskey, tequila, Long Islands, Guinness, ginger beer and Pabst. I’ve been trying to be healthier in an attempt to lose weight and potentially live a somewhat longer life but even with my more health conscious attitude, my inner party monster still needs to be entertained and unleashed every now and again. What better time than with other party monsters that I genuinely cherish in a wild college town during graduation weekend? There was no point in taking any prisoners, as we ran roughshod over downtown Gainesville leaving no bottle unturned. A few days later, my stomach still hurts and my head is still swimming in a sea of 86 proof delirium – a special shout out goes to 1.75 liters of Old Crow Reserve.

To those who might find my more health conscious behavior a bit unsettling, there is no need to worry. It’s not called selling out when you do it because your liver hurts and you’ve been pissing blood. The blood part was not related to the booze but it was still a wake up call to straighten my shit out some what. Have no fear though, I will not go soft and become a shell of my former self like so many writers and artists who went clean only for their work to suffer and lose its appeal. Trent Reznor immediately comes to mind, although his Academy Award for a very boring and minimalist film score probably proves me wrong but only if you take the Academy seriously and turn a blind eye to their petty politics.

Anyway, my first night in Gainesville on this latest trip was intense. It started almost immediately with two Guinness Draughts and four Long Island iced teas while I watched my friends play pool. I didn’t participate in the contest because I was enjoying my own game of drown the writer in the dark and dingy corner of smoke and neon light. It is a one-player game but the odds are always steep and the challenge is never dull. Needless to say, I won the bout and went on to fight in other bouts in other venues for the remainder of the 48 hour tournament.

The weekend wasn’t all about completely succumbing to vices however. I mean, I never came across any other substances to entertain myself with and that’s fine, the booze was enough. I did get to spend a lot of the time talking politics and economics with the college kids, some of them a part of the Occupy Gainesville movement. Now while we didn’t see eye-to-eye on solutions, we did agree on the vast majority of the problems. My job, from my standpoint, was to try and get them to understand that you can’t just blame the banks for the madness. The government is just as responsible as is the Federal Reserve. Truth is, they were really receptive to a lot of the things I was saying. Now I had half a dozen conversations with a dozen or more people but for the most part, other than two or three close-minded joiners, they got what I was saying and left the conversations with the intent to look into their new perspective on these matters themselves. One of them even promised to pick up some of the books I wrote down for him on a napkin (titles by Ron Paul, Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, Milton Friedman and more modern authors Jeffrey Tucker and Stefan Molyneux – who has a ton of free e-books).

One interesting thing I discovered among talking to multiple college kids, is that their only real beef with Ron Paul is his pro-life stance. I told them that it is an issue I also disagree with Dr. Paul on. However, I told them that if you look at the rest of his platform and like it, writing him off over one issue is a bit careless. Especially since Dr. Paul thinks that it should be an issue left up to states and not the federal government regardless of his personal opinion on it. Most of these kids understood that but had a hard time envisioning a country were states’ rights were protected, at least on this issue. I explained that you cannot pick and choose issues and that the rule had to apply with everything. If you make one exception, you will make plenty more. They got and respected it but still had a bug in their ass about it and I get that. I then spoke to them about Gary Johnson who is basically a clone of Ron Paul policy-wise but is pro-choice instead of pro-life. Most of the people I talked to had not heard of Johnson and were actually pretty excited upon finding out his stance on the abortion issue. They also liked that Gary Johnson was not a Democrat or a Republican. I didn’t bring up all the issues they said they had with Obama however, as there were a lot more than what they had with Paul. Regardless of this, they will probably vote for Obama again even though they claim they are opposed to war, Gitmo and a plethora of other issues he has failed them on.

Now don’t get me wrong, not everyone was cordial. There were those few dumb bastards in the mix and fucking with them and sending them off in a self-conlficted rage was quite amusing. One kid was calling for anarchy and at the same time was calling for government to step in and regulate the banks more. Point is, this kid’s whole world-view was completely hypocritical. On one hand, this kid (and those like him) want to scream “Fuck the man!” and “Fuck the police!” while on the other hand want the government (the man and the police) to step in and regulate everything even more than they do now. I don’t understand how so many young people can’t seem to make a correlation between these two things? You want the government who is bought and paid for by the banks to regulate the banks? You can’t see how this is completely asinine, let alone how this is what has caused all these problems to begin with? Your solution to the problem is more of the problem itself? Does the meth addict break the cycle by taking more meth? No, the meth addict dies! Common sense is like a disease in the hipster socialist-anarchist psyche.

The ones who are so passionate in their ignorance don’t even care about the real crux of the problem. They want to continue to buy into their conflicted and hypocritical indoctrination and smash anyone who doesn’t swim in their sea of shit. On top of that, they don’t want to better themselves, they want to stay at the bottom so they can continue to bitch as they wallow in dirt and filth because if they were to try and actually get out of it, they’d be outed as a “sell out” or even worse a “hard-working capitalist pig consumer”. Yep, keep pointing your Djarum-clutching fingers as you slur your PBR-soaked words kiddies.

Not all is lost on the generation after mine however. Amongst the sea of those I dealt with, only a few were bad apples and completely hopeless. I remember myself at that age, as I had a similar view of the world. It was someone challenging me on my preconceived notions that got me to pay attention and learn how this whole game really works. If at least one of those kids breaks free from the mold and is affected by our encounter, my debt is repaid. I enjoyed the friendly and civil debates and even had fun with the assholes. In the end, it is about standing your ground and living by your own code not the code of some undefined group whose ideology is lesser than the sum of its parts.

I got home, feeling pretty good about how most of the weekend went down. I also felt great for ignoring my responsibilities for a few days while not even paying attention to what was going on in the news. I didn’t really miss anything, other than Rick Santorum finally wiping away his bitch tears to endorse Mitt Romney, which just gave me flashbacks to 2008 when he was riding that Romney train hard. Something tells me that if I had the same debates with Santorum supporters that I had with the college youth of Gainesville, it wouldn’t have been as civil. I hope that all of those sweater-vests the Santorumites bought up like quaaludes at a disco are constructed of Iranian dog hair and Chinese asbestos. It would be the perfect ending to such a vile group of people.

*Written by Rob Rimes.

Anybody but Obama! That has been the mantra shouted out by Republicans and Tea Partiers all over America for quite some time now. The reality pill that no one on the right is willing to swallow that I myself took a double dose of a few years ago is that the two groups are really just one in the same. Sure, the Tea Party talks a big game and I really wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt.. no, I really did. However, this 2012 election cycle on top of their complete lack of real vigilance after their hollow midterm victory in 2010 has just gone on to prove my worst fears about these “non-partisan” big talking “fiscal” conservative hacks.

So as I type this while sitting at the bar in my favorite local Irish pub, I must reflect on the incident that inspired this article. You see, it was just this past Saturday that my local chapter of the Tea Party decided to hold an event in an effort to celebrate Tax Day. By “celebrate”, I mean bitching and moaning about crazy spending and government waste while trying to sound like true fiscal warriors out to chop off the heads of our big government leviathan. Now I didn’t attend this Tea Party and truth be told, I haven’t gone to one in well over a year because I just don’t see the point in trying to parade around with those who are primarily hypocrites and blind to the fact that their actions have a stark contrast to their rhetoric. Honestly, I’d rather spend my afternoon eating ribs and going to a bar to work on my writing in an effort to really bring forth some change in this country or at least give some ammunition to the hundreds of thousands who read my words regularly. I did witness the latest installment of the angry Anti-Obamanoids however and I can’t not share what I saw and my thoughts on it and the whole Tea Party movement in general at this point.

I tried to blow passed them but I couldn’t help but slow down my car and gawk at the ludicrous display, as I rolled by the event on my way to the local barbecue joint. My how the mighty have fallen in just a short short time. The saddest part, and I can only speak about my local chapter, is it looks like the numbers of participants has dwindled from where it was just two years ago. It was kind of sad actually. In what is a pivotal election year, participation at this rally was nowhere near the magnitude of the monstrous rallies that were spread across America leading up to the 2010 midterm elections. It’s like two-thirds of the Tea Partiers were satisfied enough with the Republicans taking back the House of Representatives that this much bigger election doesn’t even matter. This lack of participation has been apparent in the fact that the number of people voting has been down quite consistently across all the primaries from just four years ago when Obama bitchslapped McCain and his Alaskan parrot.

Then again, maybe those two-thirds that seem to be missing are of a much smarter stock and have decided to abandon the hopeless Tea Party crusade as I have. Maybe, just maybe, they see the forest for the trees and understand that this “Anybody but Obama!” mantra is complete and utter bullshit! Yes, Obama is shit as president and this isn’t in any way being written in defense of him but to think that anyone could just walk onto the job and do better is fucking moronic and completely careless. It just goes to show how clueless a lot of these damn dolts are. The fact that the roadside was decorated with Mitt Romney signs further proves my point.

You see, even just a few months ago, these Tea Party people – while screaming, “Anybody but Obama!” – were adamantly opposed to Mitt Romney. These tea-sippin’ geniuses clung onto every other candidate that wasn’t Romney in an effort to get someone to the top of the heap. Then again, for the most part, the vast majority of the Tea Partiers didn’t give Ron Paul a real shot at the top. Everyone else got their day though: Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. Hell, even Jon Huntsman gained some key delegates early in the voting process. However, during this long and arduous game of pass the hot potato, no one gave it to the only guy who actually practices what these hypocritical hobbits preach. Again, as I’ve pointed this out countless times, Dr. Paul gave birth to the Tea Party but the group that exists now is just the Tea Party In Name Only. So I guess “Anybody but Obama!” doesn’t include the only guy who could statistically beat Obama. This is why Republicans continue to fail and why the Tea Party is deader than shit.

These people don’t want a real solution to the things that they bitch and complain about. What they want is for a Republican victory over the Democratic led progressive machine. I guess the fact that the guy that all these anti-Obamanoids are now rallying around is also a progressive doesn’t really seem to matter. You see, these people are the establishment and they are a part of the problem. Their goal is soulless and their aim is bullshit. Now that the smoke is starting to clear, these people are lining up behind Mitt Romney, the guy they all talked shit about for years. The same guy who provided the model for Obamacare in Romneycare. You know, Obamacare – the issue that got these people so up in arms just 24 months ago!

So why do they now support this guy? Because the Tea Party has been co-opted and taken over by sheep and shepherds who don’t understand that they are really just sheep as well. These people, who are typically glued to the O’Reilly Factor and Rush Limbaugh day-to-fucking-day, don’t have the aptitude for politics that they believe they do. They’re malleable idiots being shaped and formed by the pontificating jackturds who speak to them from the other side of a speaker or screen where the words they utter are manufactured by a sinister agenda fueled by corporatist pigs and an unrelenting all-too-powerful two party system. This isn’t conspiracy theorist lunacy, it is facts – plain and simple. To deny it only solidifies your ignorance. To not question everything and educate yourself just shows that you give way too much trust over to people you do not know who only have their own best interests at heart. And this just really goes back to my earlier comment about the Tea Party’s complete lack of real vigilance.

If the Tea Party was as vigilant as they claimed they were and if they stood for the principles plastered across their signs, they’d have already put several of their heroes’ feet to the fire. I don’t have to look much further than my own state of Florida to give examples of Tea Party sweethearts who have proven to be nothing more than progressive neocon establishment bitches. Marco Rubio, a senator from Florida who many Tea Partiers want to run alongside Romney, has been fiscally irresponsible, supported unconstitutional war, tried to limit the freedom of speech, supported pro-police state legislation across the board and committed many other heinous acts that should completely disqualify him from being a Tea Party superstar. Allen West, a Florida congressman, has also voted almost consistently in-line with Rubio while sitting on the House side of Congress. Then there’s Michele Bachmann, who is just a complete mess and a retched dingbat, as well as Herman Cain who proved that giving deals on pizza toppings doesn’t make you knowledgeable enough to become president. The long list of Tea Party politicians that stormed the steps of Congress two years ago have gone on to perpetuate the madness they ran against while still gaining the approval of the intellectually lazy Tea Party majority.

As I drove by the event this past Saturday, I did notice a few young people holding up a giant Ron Paul banner. Those kids get my respect and at least there are a few sane people left in a sea of bad apples. While their valiant effort was dwarfed by the overabundance of Romney propaganda, they did look like the only people there who were actually enjoying themselves. Then again, the ex-soccer moms and their obedient husbands, whose kids are now adults and moved out of the house, did show a wee bit of energy waving their “Anybody but Obama!” signs from the comfort of their overpriced and overly-stylized lawn chairs. They probably don’t want to overexert themselves like the three youngsters with the Ron Paul banner however, as their senior entitlements may soon run dry. Who’s fault is that really?

I understand that there are people, some who I am still friends with, that feel it is necessary to play this Tea Party game. The truth is, it’s a waste of time. The real movement is dead and has been dead for quite awhile. Even if it could magically be brought back to its early glory, it would still be associated with the Tea Party name and just like the words “liberal” and “conservative” before it, the name “Tea Party” has been so bastardized and abused that there is no coming back from the shitty abyss it has sunk to. Fuck these giant corporately co-opted groups. It’s time for people to be self-educated, self-starting, self-thinking individuals again and let the bullshit die. Find your own path and don’t be swayed and if you come across those who share your principles and your beliefs, embrace them. Just stay truly vigilant and don’t let them piss all over the dream and leave it a urine-soaked carcass not even worthy of being kicked around for sport. At least the Occupy Wall Street movement had the sense to tell corporate sponsorship to fuck off. With that, they get more respect from me than the Tea Party, who has continually compromised their principles and values because one really doesn’t have those things when they are just adopted from what some billionaire pundit has dictated to his obedient flock.

If you people were really worried about the state of this country, you’d do something about it. Something real, something that actually mattered! However, that starts with getting off of your asses and doing your own self-educating. And yes, I’m talking to all you people with stacks of books with the names Beck, O’Reilly, Limbaugh, Levin, Savage, Coulter, Ingraham and Hannity scrawled across their spines. Maybe it’s time to trade those in for books with the names Mises, Rothbard, Hazlitt, Hayek, Friedman, Sowell, Rockwell and Paul on them. What’s the worst that could happen? You might actually learn something, gain my respect and be a lot less of a fucking tool.

Recorded 10 March 2012 at the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama. Featuring Peter Klein, Joe Salerno, David Gordon, Shawn Ritenour, Guido Hulsmann, and Jeffrey Herbener. Includes a Question and Answer period.

Murray N. Rothbard presented this speech at the Michigan Libertarian Party Convention, held in Southfield, Michigan, in May 1989. This selection also includes a question and answer session. Special thanks to Bob Roddis for making this video available.

*Written by Rob Rimes.

I’ve been spending so much time covering the 2012 presidential election that I really needed a break from it all. Sure, there were the Nevada caucuses this past weekend and I do plan to write my two cents on the results but I was thoroughly distracted by three days of greatness. Saturday was spent at the Hilton in Naples, FL at an all-day event held by FEE: the Foundation for Economic Education. Sunday was full of lots of meat, beer, a bounce house and the Super Bowl. Monday capped off the long weekend with an event at the Ritz-Carlton that was put on by one of the greatest libertarian think tanks in the world, the Cato Institute.

Friday night, I planned to get to bed early, as I wanted to be bright and alert for the all-day FEE event in my hometown. Unfortunately, I couldn’t get to sleep so I sat in my room, sipping a tall glass of 1792 Ridgemont Reserve Bourbon while picking at some leftover BBQ ribs and watching ‘Battlestar Galactica’ on Netflix, as I haven’t watched the newer series but was a big fan of the original as a kid. I typically don’t get into shows until they are over, as I hate the suspense of waiting week-to-week for cliffhanger resolutions. After that, I tried to kill time in ‘Just Cause 2′ on my PS3 but I just couldn’t doze off. It was well after 3 a.m. before my head finally hit the pillow, which seemed like the quickest sleep I ever had when my iPhone alarm started blaring Wu-Tang Clan’s “Bring the Ruckus” at 6 a.m.

Saturday – FEE’s 1st Annual Winter Freedom Academy: 

So I woke up, showered, killed a bowl of Cracklin’ Oat Bran with a peanut Sweet & Salty bar, threw on a three piece suit, jumped in my car and drove down to the Naples Hilton half-asleep nursing a heavy hangover. Needless to say, I was ready for ten or so hours of hardcore economic thinking. Truth be told, as soon as I hit the hotel, I wandered into Shula’s Steakhouse looking for a tequila sunrise. Apparently it was too early and the bartender wasn’t working yet so I had to fill up on bagels and Diet Coke, which had a very negative effect on my mind and my nerves, as I gave up caffeine a month or so prior. It did nip that hangover in the bud though.

While waiting to move into the hall where the event was being held, I had a good long talk with one of my local heroes, Ismael Hernandez, who runs the Freedom & Virtue Institute. I also spoke to my friends from the Libertarian Party of Collier County, FGCU’s Eagles for Liberty and the Ayn Rand Society for Individual Rights of Naples (ARSIRN). After immersing myself in philosophical and political discussion for a good forty-five minutes, I felt ready to begin my day of economic awesomeness.

The event was emceed by Michael Yashko, who not only did a great job at coordinating and managing the event, but also gave a fantastic presentation on the Founding Father’s Constitution versus the abhorrent version of that sacred document we are stuck with today. I’m not sure if anyone at FEE was filming the event but if they did, I’d definitely link to the video on TheSwash.com as part of our Tuition Free Tuesdays weekly feature.

Yashko was then followed by Professor Nikolai Wenzel who teaches at Hillsdale College as well as Florida Gulf Coast University. Prof. Wenzel’s presentation was a perfect compliment to Mr. Yashko’s as it was about constitutional constraint and government mischief. Wenzel gave a great lecture and like Yashko’s (and really all the lectures at this event) I’d love to post video of it to the Swash so that our loyal SwashPeeps could experience it for themselves.

The next speaker was Lawrence Reed, who I have had the pleasure of seeing several times now between events held by FEE – which is the organization he is the president of, The Southwest Florida Young Republicans and Eagles for Liberty, who are FGCU’s chapter of the more widely known Students for Liberty. Mr. Reed’s lecture was called “Money Mischief Since the Founders”. It was an amazing lecture jam-packed with so much knowledge that taking notes was damn near impossible but it did give me several ideas for articles I should probably write. Like his other lectures I’ve seen, one about the myths of the Great Depression and another that compared the United States to Rome during its collapse, this fifty minute lesson was a real treat and had me captivated the whole time. I leaned over to my friend Shawn when Mr. Reed wrapped up and whispered, “I could sit through four hours of this guy.” He nodded in agreement.

The next speaker was Ismael Hernandez who gave an incredible speech about compassion. Not government compassion with a gun to your head but real honest truthful compassion and how to express it effectively. Mr. Hernandez spoke about his past and how he grew up in Puerto Rico as a communist raised by a Black Panther father and how he came to America and experienced this country for himself without the direct influence of communist rhetoric. After telling his very personal tale and giving the audience the rundown on how compassion truly works, the crowd got to their feet and applauded Mr. Hernandez for his great story and his invaluable insight.

After Ismael Hernandez’s great lecture, we all went off to lunch. I was fortunate enough to partake in a special luncheon with Lawrence Reed that helped to benefit students wanting to go to FEE camps to learn about economics. At that lunch, I was seated next to both Michael Yashko and Lawrence Reed, which was awesome in itself. While munching on salad, a turkey sandwich and a cookie, I got two more doses of Mr. Reed, who went on to tell those of us at the special luncheon two stories. One was about Nicky Winton who saved 669 mostly Jewish children from the Nazis and found homes and safe passage for them in Britain. The second story was about a pirate radio station somewhere in Soviet controlled Europe. I can’t even begin to try and retell these tales, as Mr. Reed did it in such a profoundly poetic way. However, both these stories were really touching and went to show that no matter how bad we think we have it in the United States right now, it could always be very much worse. In retrospect, this is why we need to fight for liberty and freedom because it isn’t a stretch to envision an America that could fall that far.

After lunch, we went right back into more fantastic lectures. Professor Bradley Hobbs of FGCU gave us a pretty awesome lesson about business and economics. He spoke to us about his personal experiences growing up on the Space Coast where, as a kid, he worked for his father in the family pharmacy. The business has been so successful over the years that it has grown large enough to fill up an entire strip mall, minus a bagel shop and a medical supply store that the family also owns. Hobbs lectured greatly and had a very pleasant demeanor that made his presentation enjoyable, which made me feel like I should go back to school and take up economics at FGCU. The college is practically in my backyard, therefore much closer than George Mason where I was thinking of applying if I decided to go back to college.

The next speaker was former CEO of BB&T, John Allison. Mr. Allison, who has had several appearances on one of my favorite shows – ‘Stossel’, has been known to be a big fan of Ayn Rand and her philosophy: objectivism. In fact, Mr. Allison used to assign ‘Atlas Shrugged’ to all of his senior executives as required reading. He has referred to ‘Atlas Shrugged’ as “the best defense of capitalism ever written.” He’s been a large contributor to the Ayn Rand Institute and through the BB&T Charitable Foundation has given dozens of colleges and universities millions of dollars to start programs devoted to the study of Rand’s work. Apart from all this backstory, Mr. Allison gave one of the most inspiring lectures of the day. He talked about leadership and how to properly grab the reigns of a company or any situation and take control effectively and respectfully. John Allison gave us insight into the TARP bailouts and how he fought against them but ultimately lost and was forced to partake in the financial tyranny. He spoke heavily against regulation, especially in the financial industry. Truth be told, I walked away from these lessons with the intent to leave Wells Fargo and put all of my money in BB&T. You have earned a new customer Mr. Allison, even though you no longer work for BB&T.

Following John Allison was author John Blundell. This well-spoken Englishman talked to us abut his newest book ‘Ladies For Liberty: Women Who Made a Difference in American History’. Blundell, who wrote a well-respected book about Margaret Thatcher turned his attention to many of the woman who have played a major part in building and shaping America throughout the years. He gave us some deep insight into the book and how it came to be and through his passion he sold me on buying a copy on the spot: call me an easy sell. I got to talk to Mr. Blundell one-on-one while he signed my book where we briefly discussed the possibility of him doing a follow-up book about woman who fight for liberty today.

After Blundell, two FGCU professors closed out the day. First up was Dean Stansel, who gave a great talk about taxes at a more local level. He pulled out a bunch of studies he did for the Cato Institute that showed the correlation between taxation and economic growth in various cities throughout the last several years. It didn’t teach me anything I didn’t already know but it did present a lot of data, collected through Stansel’s hard work, that solidified my beliefs even further.

The last of the final speakers was Professor Carrie Kerekes. Prof. Kerekes gave us a pretty solid rundown of FGCU’s economic and business programs. I feel like it was a thirty minute infomercial for FGCU but it was effective and made me incredibly happy to know that there was a university, just down the street, that was teaching the right side of economics. If I do indeed end up going back to school, I think I may be a future student of several of the professors who spoke at this FEE event.

Once the event was officially over, I got a tequila sunrise or six and sipped them down at the bar in the hotel lobby where I mingled with the other attendees. I didn’t hang long, as I don’t nurse my alcohol and was pressed for time as I had to drive down to my boss’ lounge to celebrate two of my other bosses’ birthdays. I left that crazy party fairly early however, as I was tired from a previous night of no sleep and a day full of awesome economic discussion.

I do have to say that the FEE event was, by far, one of the greatest economic and political events I have ever attended and trust me, I’ve been to a lot more than my fair share. If you are in the Naples area and you don’t go next year, you’re certainly missing out on a great day; consider me a FEE lifer at this point.

Sunday – Super Bowl XLVI:

The following day was Super Bowl Sunday and even though I couldn’t care less who won between the New York Giants and the New England Patriots, I was geared up to party with my peeps and indulge in a lot of food and booze. It’s hard watching American football when it isn’t a New Orleans Saints game but the overindulgence in food and booze made dealing with my team not being in the big game much more bearable.

I kicked the day off by going to my mum’s where I watched the Chelsea v. Manchester United game, which may have been the best EPL game I’ve seen this season even though it ended in a tie. Between kicks and goals, my mum and I emptied two cans of Pabst Blue Ribbon into a bowl full of flour and made some real serious beer bread. Shortly after this, I helped my friend Michael make our special treat: meat turtles. Essentially, you take a giant mound of ground sirloin and mix it up with a bunch of shredded cheese and whatever sauces you may want to put in it. You then wrap the big ball of meat in a shell of bacon – woven together. You then stick three hot dogs through it – making four feet, a head and a tail, which creates the shape of a turtle (see pic to the left).

So we took our meat turtles (made of Kobe beef and Kobe bacon) and our beer bread to Michael’s co-worker Mikey’s house. Lots of Mikes I know but it gets even more confusing when Mikey’s father and grandfather are also both named Mike. Anyway, we blew up a bounce house, drank beer and had a real party going even before the Super Bowl kicked off. To compliment the day even more, Mikey’s dad made a monstrous beef brisket and a giant mound of pulled pork. There was also BBQ chicken, homemade baked beans and so much other food that listing it all would take entirely too long for me to type and too long for you to read. Plus this is making me hungry again.

The food was beyond amazing! I gorged until I couldn’t move, waited a while and gorged again. We all drank beer and whiskey to wash down the giant mounds of meat scattered throughout the large kitchen and followed that up by firmly planting ourselves in recliners in front of a giant screen to watch the game. I missed parts of the contest between the Giants and Patriots as I kept nodding off into sporadic but very short-lived food comas. When I was able to be mobile enough to get up, I only did so to cut myself a piece of red velvet cake. I was on a serious mission and it was mission accomplished!

In the end, the Giants won and I couldn’t find anymore PBR or whiskey.

Monday – The Cato Institute’s Policy Perspectives 2012:

I woke up late Monday morning, as my alarm either didn’t go off or I somehow crawled across my room, turned it off and then crawled back into my bed. While that is theoretically possible, I’ve never made it comfortably back to my bed after turning off my alarm. Usually I awake to find myself curled up in the fetal position trembling from being in my boxers on my very cold tile floor. It’s kind of like waking up on a frozen lake with nothing more than swimming trunks on. Luckily for me, I didn’t find myself on the floor and I didn’t have to fight off hypothermia as I showered and threw on a suit to head down to the Ritz-Carlton, Naples Resort for the Cato Institute event featuring Tucker Carlson, David Boaz, Ed Crane and Robert Levy.

I arrived at the Ritz-Carlton just before 10 a.m., so I at least got there before the opening reception and was able to score the best table in the house for attendees who weren’t a part of a larger group. The early bird most definitely catches the worm and in my case, these words were never truer, as the table I selected was quickly filled with a few other like-minded early birds – one of which provided me with one of the best moments of my life.

The woman who sat to my left came to my table and asked if she could sit there or if it was reserved. I told her anyone could join me, as I was by myself with seven empty chairs surrounding me. She sat down and I’m not sure how we arrived to this point but we started talking about objectivism. After several minutes of discussing Ayn Rand’s philosophy, this woman – who’s name is Elayne Kalberman, opened up and told me that she used to work for Rand. In fact, she was the sister of Nathaniel Branden, a very close confidant and partner of Rand who helped bring her philosophy to the world.

Mrs. Kalberman went on to tell me that she used to be a part of a group that would meet with Rand weekly at her home to discuss ‘Atlas Shrugged’ while it was being written. This small group of intellectuals met in an effort to make sure that Rand’s philosophy was coming through and that all the points that she needed to make were hit effectively. So here I am, sitting in a room full of libertarians of all ages who would probably worship this woman, if they were even slightly aware of her presence there and I was the lucky guy that got to sit next to her out of the 400 plus other people!

I’m not going to discuss the details of all the things she told me and the stories I found so engaging and incredible, as they are her tales to tell, not mine but it is worth mentioning that we talked for a few minutes about the fall of one-time objectivist and Rand ally Alan Greenspan. Mrs. Kalberman and I discussed the Federal Reserve, inflation and she shared her insightful thoughts and solutions on it with me. We spoke about her brother and about the fact that there was a falling out between their family and Ayn Rand. One thing she did say, that I will share, as I know others who knew Rand felt the same way, is that Mrs. Kalberman didn’t like the way Ayn Rand treated young people who wanted to better understand objectivism. Rand was often times mean and had a very abrasive attitude towards those wanting to come to the same conclusions Rand arrived at.

Mrs. Kalberman and I also talked about Murray Rothbard, my favorite economist and someone who she had a lot of dealings with throughout the years. She was a pleasure to sit next to and a very nice woman. I hope to one day cross paths with her again as I couldn’t fully pick her brain on things due to the fact that we only had a few minutes here or there to discuss these things between all the different speakers who were at the event.

Speaking of which, the event was emceed by Cato’s Robert Levy who is not only hilarious and quick-witted but also a great teacher and speaker. Next up was Cato Founder and President Ed Crane who gave us an informative Powerpoint presentation that included a great scene from ‘Monty Python’s Life of Brian’ about people needing to be individuals and not a collective desperate to follow a leader. Cato’s Executive VP David Boaz lit up the room with his lecture, as he always does. He talked about effective ways of reclaiming freedom and entertained the crowd with his sharp and witty ways. All the Cato speakers aren’t just near-geniuses they are all practically stand-up comedians who know how to properly mix together their lessons and their humor in a way that keeps everyone engaged.

This was followed by a reception in the courtyard outside of the event hall where I may have drank too much “lady wine” – my name for white wine. After the fifteen minute binger, we were brought back into the large hall for lunch. We were served some sort of strange salad with a green dressing that was more like an emerald-colored Béarnaise sauce than actual salad dressing. The main course was a chicken cutlet covered in tomato sauce with a strange potato thing and a mixture of spinach leaves and mushrooms, which was surprisingly the tastiest thing on the plate. Dessert was a small rectangle thing that looked like it came straight out of ‘Alice in Wonderland’. When I bit into it, I realized that it was the world’s fanciest piece of key lime pie. I don’t mean to knock the Ritz-Carlton, as they host events incredibly well, but being the food snob I am, I wasn’t all that impressed with the culinary display on this day.

After lunch we got the main event, which was a great lecture by Tucker Carlson who owns the Daily Caller, works for Fox News and has previously worked for CNN and MSNBC. He talked about the 2012 presidential race and gave us all some of his personal insight on Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum. He talked about supporting Ron Paul during his 1988 run for president when he ran under the Libertarian Party. He spoke about Rick Santorum the man but understands why people are turned off from him due to his stance on social issues. Tucker told us about his relationship with Newt Gingrich and mentioned that Newt’s office is practically next door to his. He also talked about Romney being the “prefect candidate”.

Tucker explained that all the things that the voters gripe about they actually don’t care about because it rarely, if ever, sways the consensus. He talked about how people always point to flip-flopping but defends it saying that when you get all the facts and new data becomes available, you should take the best stance and in certain cases, that could mean that a politician flip-flops. Realistically, the issue is what they flip-flopped on and why, not just that they switched positions. While I understand this point and agree with it to some degree, I do feel that politicians should be real students of the game and truly study up and know what it is they are voting on or supporting. I’m not a politician but if I don’t know something as fully as I should, I tend not to comment on it and I’m honest about it when pressed on it. Maybe it’s different when you’re playing the games that the Beltway Suits play.

He also told us that the night before the Cato event he was in Chicago with Andrew Breitbart and a few others where they had dinner with domestic terrorists and leaders of the Weather Underground, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. He said that they pretty much denied everything Tucker asked them about and that these fighters for socialist causes hosted the dinner event in the penthouse of one of Chicago’s nicest and tallest buildings. Maybe it took place in the penthouse that the Joker crashed in ‘The Dark Knight’, seems fitting anyway. In any event, Tucker finished by telling us that Ayers asked where he was going from there and Tucker responded by telling him a Cato Institute event, which caused Ayers’ lip to quiver.

During the Q & A session after the lecture, Tucker said that he didn’t believe Ron Paul would run third party and that Gary Johnson going third party and potentially getting a Paul endorsement would most certainly split the vote and get Obama re-elected. Tucker said that Obama was beatable and then went on to talk about how Ron Paul is resonating with people and that the GOP is essentially careless in not embracing him and more of his ideas, as it could cost them the race. He was also asked if Hillary Clinton would run as Obama’s VP but Tucker was certain she wouldn’t and then shared some recently acquired insider knowledge that she may become the new head of the IMF or the World Bank. He then spoke about how Joe Biden is made to look dumb by the press who are fed stories from the White House but in actuality, even though he is an outspoken passionate blowhard, he understands the game much more than Obama and is actually a solid VP for the Democrats.

At the end of Tucker’s time on stage, people quickly filtered out of the large hall, as I walked towards the front of the room to talk to the man. We talked about a few different issues but the most important part, at least for me, is that he was very complimentary of what it is I do. We talked about building Internet new sites from the ground up and he gave me some solid advice on what I need to do to take TheSwash.com to the next level. We talked about the difficulty in getting started and how to build your brand and bring in other contributors. He said that he really likes the name “The Swash” as it was really memorable and it sounded “dirty”. It was a great discussion with a great guy that only wanted to offer advice and to help out another guy clawing his way up from the bottom of the barrel to the top.

Tucker dipped out and so did I while running into a good friend and congressional candidate Trey Radel. I talked to my friend Trey and mentioned interviewing him for the Swash. He’s game and I’m going to try and set something up. He’s already got my vote, not because he’s a friend – I have other friends in the hunt, but because of his stance on NDAA, SOPA and PIPA. He’s also a very pro-constitution candidate, which we don’t have enough of. This was followed up by a thirty minute wait in the valet line and a trip to my local watering hole to reflect on the awesome weekend.

I did good this round.

When a presidential candidate declares, as Ron Paul has, “We’re all Austrians now,”  it’s inevitable that his critics would try to discredit him—whether they understand what he’s talking about or not. That’s what Matthew Yglesias does in his Slate piece “What Is ‘Austrian Economics’?”

I recommend the piece because it’s highly informative—about what Austrian economics is not.

We’re off to a rocky start with this: “The Austrian school originally referred to a set of classical liberal thinkers with diverse interests who came out of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.”

The earliest Austrian economists did not make their mark by advocating free markets and other classical-liberal ideas. They did so by proffering a revolutionary positive (not normative) theoretical approach to understanding how markets work, focusing on value, price, and capital, theory. What Wikipedia says is consistent with my understanding of the matter: “When Carl Menger, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, and [Friedrich von] Wieser began their careers in science, they were not focused on economic policy issues, much less in the rejection of intervention promoted by classical liberalism. Their common vocation was to develop an economic theory on a firm basis.”

Economics vs. Politics

Yglesias thus conflates Austrian economic theory with libertarian political theory. In fairness, he is not alone in committing this error. Many libertarians do the same, which is unfortunate. Austrian economic theory describes how purposive action by fallible human beings unintentionally generates a grand, complex, and orderly market process. An additional ethical step is required to pronounce the market process good. Economic theory per se cannot recommend but only explain markets. This is what Ludwig von Mises meant when he insisted that Austrian economics is value-free. Anyone of any persuasion ought to be able to acknowledge that economic logic indicates that imposing a price ceiling on milk will, other things equal, create a shortage of milk. But that in itself is not an argument against the policy. Mises assumed the policymaker would have thought that result bad, but the economist qua economist cannot declare it such. As Israel Kirzner likes to say, the economist’s job in the policy realm is merely to point out that you cannot catch a northbound train from the southbound platform.

Yglesias writes: “Austrians reject the idea that there is anything at all the government can do to stabilize macroeconomic fluctuations.” It’s odd to say this without also pointing out that Austrians believe that government causes the instability of inflationary booms, recessions, and depressions. In light of that point, the suggestion that government is capable of stabilizing the economy may be seen in its proper light.

That said, Yglesias’s statement is not quite right. Some prominent Austrian macroeconomists think that in a second-best world, the central bank (which of course wouldn’t exist in a first-best world) should counteract a sudden and substantial monetary contraction. In other words, deflation is not necessarily a cure for inflation. Mises made the point metaphorically in 1938: “If a man has been hurt by being run over by an automobile, it is no remedy to let the car go back over him in the [opposite] direction.” (See Steven Horwitz’s “Deflation: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.” )

Distorts Markets

“In the view of the Austrians,” Yglesias goes on, “practically every economic policy pursued by the federal government and Federal Reserve is a mistake that distorts markets. Rather than curing recessions, claim Austrians, stimulative policies cause them by producing unsustainable bubbles.” Well, yeah, and it’s amply demonstrated by George Selgin, William D. Lastrapes, and Lawrence H. White in“Has the Fed Been a Failure?” (See my summary, “‘F’ as in Fed.” ) As they put it:

Drawing on a wide range of recent empirical research, we find the following: (1) The Fed’s full history (1914 to present) has been characterized by more rather than fewer symptoms of monetary and macroeconomic instability than the decades leading to the Fed’s establishment. (2) While the Fed’s performance has undoubtedly improved since World War II, even its postwar performance has not clearly surpassed that of its undoubtedly flawed predecessor, the National Banking system, before World War I. (3) Some proposed alternative arrangements might plausibly do better than the Fed as presently constituted. We conclude that the need for a systematic exploration of alternatives to the established monetary system is as pressing today as it was a century ago.

Yglesias understands that the Austrian theory of the business cycle has something to do with artificially low interest rates breeding malinvestment, but he thinks it can’t be right because “it’s hard to understand why business people would be so easily duped in this way. If Ron Paul and Ludwig von Mises know that cheap money can’t last forever, why don’t private investors? Why wouldn’t firms avoid making the supposedly dumb investments?”

Gerald P. O’Driscoll and Mario Rizzo addressed this long ago in The Economics of Time and Ignorance:

[T]here are profits to be made from exploiting temporary situations. . . . Though entrepreneurs understand [the macro-aspects of a cycle] they cannot predict the exact features of the next cyclical expansion and contraction. . . . They lack the ability to make micro-predictions, even though they can predict the general sequence of events that will occur. These entrepreneurs have no reason to foreswear the temporary profits to be garnered in an inflationary episode. . . . From an individual perspective, then, an entrepreneur fully informed of the Austrian theory of economic cycles will face essentially the same uncertain world he always faced. Not theoretical or abstract knowledge, but knowledge of the circumstances of time and place is the source of profits.

Spending Shifts

Puzzlingly, Yglesias also thinks he can refute the Austrian theory by noting that “[s]pending patterns shift all the time without sparking a recession.” To which, Peter Klein replies, “Of course, Yglesias’s breezy summary of the theory skips over the time structure of production, the difference between consumption and investment, the role of interest rates in securing intertemporal coordination, the problem of expectations, and the other basic elements of the theory, which ten minutes of Wikipedia browsing could have explained.”

Yglesias reveals his unfamiliarity with the Austrian literature when he writes, “Many of the original Austrians found their business cycle ideas discredited by the Great Depression, in which the bust was clearly not self-correcting.” Considering that Herbert Hoover’s and Franklin Roosevelt’s New Dealimpeded the market’s correction process, one wonders how the 1930s could possibly have discredited the Austrian theory of the origin of recessions.

Finally, Yglesias contends that “the Austrian school . . . preaches despair and demands no action at all.”

Balderdash. Since it explains that busts are central-bank-caused and hence avoidable through market-based money and banking, its implicit message is one of hope and optimism. And as for demanding no action, on the contrary, it puts forth a long list of actions for those who want stable economic growth—all of them designed to dismantle the interventionist state.

Sheldon Richman is editor of The Freeman, where this article originally appeared.

Source: Reason.

Written by Murray N. Rothbard.

The Austrian theory of money virtually begins and ends with Ludwig von Mises’s monumentalTheory of Money and Credit, published in 1912.[1] Mises’s fundamental accomplishment was to take the theory of marginal utility, built up by Austrian economists and other marginalists as the explanation for consumer demand and market price, and apply it to the demand for and the value, or the price, of money. No longer did the theory of money need to be separated from the general economic theory of individual action and utility, of supply, demand, and price; no longer did monetary theory have to suffer isolation in a context of “velocities of circulation,” “price levels,” and “equations of exchange.”

In applying the analysis of supply and demand to money, Mises used the Wicksteedian concept: supply is the total stock of a commodity at any given time; and demand is the total market demand to gain and hold cash balances, built up out of the marginal-utility rankings of units of money on the value scales of individuals on the market. The Wicksteedian concept is particularly appropriate to money for several reasons: first, because the supply of money is either extremely durable in relation to current production, as under the gold standard, or is determined exogenously to the market by government authority; and, second and most important, because money, uniquely among commodities desired and demanded on the market, is acquired not to be consumed, but to be held for later exchange. Demand-to-hold thereby becomes the appropriate concept for analyzing the uniquely broad monetary function of being held as stock for later sale. Mises was also able to explain the demand for cash balances as the resultant of marginal utilities on value scales that are strictly ordinal for each individual. In the course of his analysis Mises built on the insight of his fellow Austrian Franz Cuhel to develop a marginal utility that was strictly ordinal, lexicographic, and purged of all traces of the error of assuming the measurability of utilities.

The relative utilities of money units as against other goods determine each person’s demand for cash balances, that is, how much of his income or wealth he will keep in cash balances as against how much he will spend. Applying the law of diminishing (ordinal) marginal utility of money and bearing in mind that money’s “use” is to be held for future exchange, Mises arrived implicitly at a falling demand curve for money in relation to the purchasing power of the currency unit. The purchasing power of the money unit, which Mises also termed the “objective exchange-value” of money, was then determined, as in the usual supply-and-demand analysis, by the intersection of the money stock and the demand for cash balance schedule. We can see this visually by putting the purchasing power of the money unit on the y-axis and the quantity of money on the x-axis of the conventional two-dimensional diagram corresponding to the price of any good and its quantity. Mises wrapped up the analysis by pointing out that the total supply of money at any given time is no more or less than the sum of the individual cash balances at that time. No money in a society remains unowned by someone and is therefore outside some individual’s cash balances.

CONTINUED at the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

Presented by Joe Salerno at the Mises Circle in New Orleans, 5 November 2011.

*Taken from the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Written by Murray Rothbard.

Protectionism, often refuted and seemingly abandoned, has returned, and with a vengeance. The Japanese, who bounced back from grievous losses in World War II to astound the world by producing innovative, high-quality products at low prices, are serving as the convenient butt of protectionist propaganda. Memories of wartime myths prove a heady brew, as protectionists warn about this new “Japanese imperialism,” even “worse than Pearl Harbor.”

This “imperialism” turns out to consist of selling Americans wonderful TV sets, autos, microchips, etc., at prices more than competitive with American firms.

Is this “flood” of Japanese products really a menace, to be combated by the US government? Or is the new Japan a godsend to American consumers?

CONTINUED..

*Written by Cody Bennett.

What we now know as the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) began as an act by President Lincoln and Congress in 1862. It created the position of the commissioner of Internal Revenue and enacted an income tax to pay for the expenses of the Civil War (Revenue Act of 1862). Initial rates were around 3% for incomes exceeding $800, which allowed for the majority of the working populace to be exempt. However, by 1864, rates had risen to 5% for low-income families, and up to 10% for anyone making $10,000 or more. By the end of the war, more than 10% of Union families were paying some sort of federal income tax.

In 1872, Congress allowed the temporary wartime tax to expire and federal income taxes didn’t become an issue again until 1894. The case of Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co. was a five-to-four landmark decision by the Supreme Court that the Income Tax Act of 1894 was unconstitutional on the grounds that it was a direct tax. Under the Constitution at that time, direct taxes must be apportioned among the states based on population. Since the act allowed for Congress to distribute the funds without apportionment, it was deemed unconstitutional.

Early in the 20th century, there was a populist movement for tax reform that climaxed on February 3, 1913 with the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

This is one of the worst blemishes on the United States Constitution. It holds no regard for individual liberty and exists only to further the existence of the State, by whatever means necessary. It fundamentally changed the entire nation, nullifying a very important part of the Constitution. Forty-two states ratified the amendment. I can happily say that Florida didn’t even consider the issue.
The Bureau of Internal Revenue was founded once again. In the first year of its new existence, the BIR doubled its workforce, creating a whole new system of collection and organization. The newly revitalized institution was slowly becoming a standing army of tax collectors.

The first Form 1040 appeared that same year after Congress levied a 1% tax on net incomes above $6,000, and a 6%-10% progressive tax on incomes exceeding $500,000. However, five years later, the top bracket was being taxed up to 77% in order to finance our efforts in WWI. Percentages dropped sharply during the 1920’s, and remained low until the Great Depression.

In less than a century, what was basically a tax revolution seems commonplace to most Americans. Filing an annual income tax return has become an accepted must do. And you should file for a return, not because the IRS will get you, but because that money belongs to you anyway. The problem is that it shouldn’t have been taken from you in the first place.

I have a buddy who lives in Brooklyn, New York. He paid $2700 total in NY State and NYC income taxes for the fiscal year 2010. He only got $135 on his return. If he were investing $2700 into private stocks and received the same sort of return, I can bet he would fire his broker, withdraw his assets, and invest elsewhere.

The problem, though, is that you can’t fire the federal government, and you can’t opt out of paying taxes, either. The money Congress appropriates each year for its budget is your money. For too long they’ve been making mal-investments resulting in bad returns. The Chicago Climate Exchange is a good example of this. It was supposed to be a $10 trillion a year industry. Now it’s bankrupt.

In the 1950’s the BIR changed its name to the “Internal Revenue Service” to emphasize the “service aspect of their work”, even though its essential function remained the same. This is propaganda at its finest.

One of my heroes, Karl Hess, practically had his life ruined by the Internal Revenue Service in the 1960’s. He was the principle speechwriter for Barry Goldwater in the ’64 presidential election. Goldwater lost to Lyndon B. Johnson by a landslide. Shortly thereafter, Johnson had the IRS audit Hess. They charged him with tax resistance, confiscated nearly all of his property, and placed a 100% lien on all of his future earnings. You call that “service”?

When Hess questioned an IRS collector about a certain deduction that didn’t seem right, the agent told him, “it doesn’t matter if it’s right, what matters is the law.”

Feeling that the IRS would have a good sense of what is right and what is law, Hess sent them a copy of the Declaration of Independence with a letter attached telling them he would never pay taxes again. The IRS responded by revoking his ability to use American money. When he told them that he wouldn’t be able to feed himself if he couldn’t use money, they replied, “That’s not our problem.”

Hess became a heavy-duty welder, using only cash and bartering for food and supplies. He went on to become a prominent practitioner of “appropriate technology” and has been a major influence on libertarian thought over the last fifty years. He died in 1994…an anarchist.

If 10 million Americans had joined Hess in his anti-tax crusade, it would have transformed, perhaps even abolished the way we handle taxes in this country. I suggest we do exactly that.

Abolish the Internal Revenue Service.

The IRS is the single-most authoritarian institution in the country. In 1998, under Clinton’s watch, the Taxpayer Bill of Rights III was passed. It’s hardly a step toward more liberty, though. This law shifts the “burden of proof” from the taxpayer to the IRS. This means the IRS can legally seize assets and enforce liens without obtaining judgment in court. It allows for those in power to silence their political enemies by physical coercion. THIS IS TYRANNY.

Economist Murray Rothbard defines a State as two things: a) an entity that acquires its revenue from the general population by physical coercion, and b) an entity who has a monopoly on the provisions for defense and protection.
The IRS is the physical arm of the state—the hand in your pocket—that takes what does not belong to it, and turns it over to congress for appropriation without apportionment among the many states. And if you don’t allow their hands in your pockets, they’ll be around your neck.

We are at a critical point in history. Our children and grandchildren will ask us, decades from now, where we were and what we did. Will we be the silent observers? Or will we lead a charge for independence? Will we be able to tell them stories of how we actually dismantled the system, and that we did it without throwing bricks or turning over police vehicles, that we killed the beast from within, using its weaknesses against it, that the revolution was not a lie?