But Cerf offered Rand an alternative: if she gave up 7 cents per copy in royalties, she could have the extra paper needed to print Galt’s oration. That she agreed is a sign of the great contradiction that haunts her writing and especially her life. Politically, Rand was committed to the idea that capitalism is the best form of social organization invented or conceivable.

Giving up her royalties to preserve her vision is something that no genuine capitalist, and few popular novelists, would have done.

So, what do you think capitalism is? Making a buck? Greed is good? Dog eats dog?

The following generally accepted definition, displayed even in Wiki, is equally misleading:

Capitalism is an economic and social system in which capital, the non-labor factors of production also known as the means of production, is privately controlled; labor, goods and capital are traded in markets; profits are distributed to owners or invested in technologies and industries; and wages are paid to labor.

Are you ready for the definition of capitalism? Want to think a little more?
Here it is:
Capitalism is a social system wherein two adults can freely enter into any contract between themselves.

When two people are not able to enter freely into a contract – it’s not capitalism. When one adult can freely pay another willing adult to medically treat him, that’s capitalism. When another person has to be preapproved (licensed) by somebody else, or when the treatment should be preapproved by somebody else (FDA), or when the payment should be received only from another person preapproved by somebody else (insurance), or when either of them has to pay to somebody else for the entering into the contract (taxes), then it is not capitalism.

What Ayn Rand and her publisher did was a true example of capitalistic exchange: both entered freely into a contract. Ayn Rand got something worthy from this contract, otherwise she wouldn’t have entered it. And the publisher did. The idiot who wrote the article doesn’t understand it:

Giving up her royalties to preserve her vision is something that no genuine capitalist, and few popular novelists, would have done.It is the act of an intellectual, of someone who believes that ideas matter more than lucre.

The facts

Obama released the Torture Memo and said that those who designed the rules for torture may face criminal charges.
It was reported most recently here, here, and here. Watch Obama talk about it here.

Counterarguments

His opponents (Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Really) argue that:

1. This is a politically motivated witch hunt.
2. Obama flipped-flopped on that decision in 24 hours.
3. Torture was supported by the congressional Democrats.
4. Torture was supported by the majority of Americans.
5. Torture produced the results and saved American lives.
6. It wasn’t torture.
7. It was perfectly legal.
8. Our enemies will use the Torture Memo as a recruiting and educational tool against America for years to come.
9. In the future, people will be afraid to give advice to the President because of the risk of criminal charges brought by the next administration.

My thoughts

1. So what if it is politically motivated? Why don’t we judge an argument on its face regardless of the motivation of the messengers? Very often the discussions of issues in the media and the blogosphere deteriorates into the pissing match on motivations of people making arguments. I’d rather listen to a true message by a bad person than to a false message by a good person.
2. I don’t care. For the topic we are discussing, it doesn’t matter.
3. Yes, and they are immune from the prosecution by our laws. They might have been wrong also, so what? If the torture is wrong, we shouldn’t prosecute the responsible officials because the people who are calling for prosecution supported the torture when it was enabled? If the torture is wrong, we should go ahead with the prosecution, regardless of how inconsistent the politicians are.
4. This is completely irrelevant. We are a republic, not a democrathy. If anything, it’s good to punish once in a while politicians who blindly follow the majority of population instead of following the law. Next time, it’ll help them to keep their heads cool when the mob insists on doing something illegal.
5. This is probably the main argument. Cheney wants Obama to release other memos proving that the torture saved lives. I don’t mind releasing all the relevant information, but the argument itself is bogus. Here’s the question to see this in the proper light: If by cutting the terrorist’s genitals, poking his eyes with a screwdriver, and breaking his knees with a hummer, we could save lives, should we do it?
   My answer is no. If your answer is yes, then we should have a completely different discussion on a completely different topic whether the end always justifies the means. And even if you are right and I am wrong, and the end does justifies the means at least on the question of torture, and if you win and I lose, than you should run the risk that I would be allowed to make my case in court against you.
6. I can hear the response to my previous point: It wasn’t a torture and it saved lives. If it wasn’t a torture then it’s ok and enough by itself even if it didn’t save a single life. If it was a torture, then it is bad even if it saved lives. So saving the life is irrelevant for our discussion.
   Now, maybe it wasn’t a torture. I think it was, and I have no doubt that from the common sense point of view it was a torture. It might have been a relatively soft kind of torture in the entire range of possible tortures developed by the people through centuries, but it is up there (cont.)
7. On the other hand, I understand that from the legal point of view, it might not be a torture. Based on the legal arguments of both sides, one thing is clear: it’s not absolutely accepted that it wasn’t a torture. So let this legal question be tested in courts where the defense and the prosecution are able to prepare and advance their best arguments. We’ll all benefit by getting better legal understanding on where the robust interrogation ends and the torture begins.
8. We can’t make our decisions based on what our enemies will say about it. It’s safe to assume that they’ll hate us regardless of what we do. I could make a point that releasing a memo like this shows American resolve in adherence to the Rule of Law to many potential terrorist recruits and may prevent them from participating in illegal activities against America, but it’s as irrelevant as the other argument.
9. I will be happy if the politicians are afraid to do something illegal regardless of how supportive for their ideas the current President or the Congress is. For example, I’ll be happy if the future administration will sue Obama’s administration for financially ruining the USA with extreme borrowing and taxing, and for the war in Afghanistan. I think it’s healthy to instill fear in the politicians for their actions. It’s healthy for the nation to know that when the politicians swear to uphold the Constitution and then act against it, their greatest risk is not just they may not be reelected. They might end up in prison.

This article was also published on OpEdNews.

Passover, Tea Parties, Slavery, and Redistribution? All of these are connected.

Only 53% of Americans believe capitalism is better than socialism. How does socialism differ from capitalism? Redistribution. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” “Social justice.” “Economic justice.” “Fairness.”

Paying for somebody else’s housing – redistribution. Paying for somebody else’s healthcare – redistribution. Paying for somebody else’s education – redistribution. Paying different amounts of income tax per person – redistribution.

Why do we celebrate Passover? Because a long time ago, one April, Jews got up and left the country where they were slaves.

What is slavery? Using force to get other people’s property. What is redistribution? Using force to get other people’s property.

Imagine two slaves. One complains about slavery and another does not. For whatever reasons – he may be afraid, or he may even support the idea of slavery. Does it make him less of a slave? If a slave does not ask for freedom and can afford to pay part of the product of his labor, is he not a slave? How can we then be against “… tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans who don’t need them and didn’t ask for them?”

I am not talking about small peanuts either. Those “wealthy” Americans are working an extra 10 to 20 years of their lives not getting a penny, just to pay income tax.

The greatest irony is that the vast majority of American Jews and African-Americans, people whose ancestors suffered extremely from slavery, people who should know better, are now in favor of slavery. In favor of redistribution.

“Sacrifice.” “Give back to society.” “Ask what you should do for your country.” “Responsibility.” “Fairness.” All that is smoke to cover and justify slavery.

It’s not that we have bad politicians. The problem is that we are bad. The politicians more or less represent what we want. “Get the wealthy.” We have no shame for going after the property of others.

When you sit around your Passover Seder tonight, drink a glass of wine against slavery, against redistribution, for freedom!

Image courtesy of ibiblio.

There is little doubt that the U.S. is moving away from its main constitutional principle of limited federal government toward a tax/borrow/print and spend government usurping unlimited unconstrained unconstitutional powers. In the process the government destroys individual liberties unconditionally guaranteed and protected by the Constitution.

How Did They Trick Us into Accepting the Mess?

We are on the way to a totalitarian and bankrupt (financially and morally) state. How did this happen? What was the technique the government used that tricked us into compliance and acceptance of the direction toward a “Bright Socialist Future”?

After all, by and large, Americans are proud, hard-working, freedom-loving, success-appreciating, charitable individuals. How did we become government handout and favors seekers, racial, sexual, and religious whiners, who-do-you-know what-group-do-you-belong-to and not what-can-you-do people?

The Cheburashka Scheme

After thinking long and hard, I came to realize that it’s all based on a single political technique, the Cheburashka scheme. It’s not that faced with a problem the federal government develops new and advanced methods for how to cloud our minds. They use the same technique over and over again. It’s simple and powerful. And it works.

It works on you regardless of whether you are a Republican or Democrat, and it works for the government regardless of whether it is Republican or Democrat. It does not require a lot of work in selling another anti-constitutional, liberty killing, federal government expanding, money wasting government initiative. Of course, they use focus groups, polls, and speech writers to refine the technique, but they always end up with a variation of the Cheburashka scheme that a friend once told me.

Imagine a person, a young man, walking down a street in Moscow, say during the 80’s. He sees a young woman crossing his path. She slows down and opens her coat for a brief moment exposing her nakedness to the complete stranger. Then she wraps herself back up in her coat and walks away as if nothing had happened. Nobody noticed anything. The young man continues his walk when, in a couple of minutes, a man approaches him and asks: “Did you see Cheburashka?” “Yes,” replies the still somewhat confused young man. “Pay three rubles.”

So this is the scheme in its genius simplicity: provide a service that the person didn’t ask for and then present a bill.

(It is irrelevant of course that Cheburashka is a well-known Russian toy and a hero of many famous children’s cartoons, invented in 60’s by the Russian writer Eduard Uspensky. “Cheburashka” has the same relevance as Ella Fitzgerald’s chi-chi: “I can’t give you anything but chi-chi.”)

Cheburashka in the U.S.

How do politicians use the Cheburashka scheme? Here are a few examples.

“Did you see War on Terror?” “Pay.” “Did you see special programs for mortgages to people who couldn’t afford them?” “Pay.” “Farm subsidies?” “Social security?” “Drugs approval?” “Healthcare?” “Did your company receive bailouts?” “Did you get a low interest loan?” “Do you deduct your mortgage?” “Do you enjoy government-insured deposits?” “Pay, Pay, Pay!”

Like the young man on the street in Moscow, you are desperately looking around, feeling insulted, violated, yet left alone to the grace of your burglar. You realize that you are innocent but an integral part of the Cheburashka scheme: its target, its engine, and its facilitator.

So, I am not asking you to take an active position or, God forbid, resist or try to remove yourself from the scheme. No. I just want you to be aware next time when you are the target in the Cheburashka scheme.

Today, for example, the U.S. announced its intention to extend its power to seize non-bank financial companies. “… it’s a necessary thing for any government to have a broader range of tools for dealing with these kinds of things, so you can protect the economy from the kind of risks posed by institutions that get to the point where they’re systemic,” said Geithner.

A Major Rule of the Scheme

An important rule in the Cheburashka scheme is to pretend that the whole thing is routine and insignificant. Like using innocent-sounding  words (“tools”) when taking away your basic liberties.  What comes to your mind? A screwdriver? A hammer? Sickle and hammer?  Remember Bush’s: “One of the most important tools to combat terror is the Patriot Act?” You do want the country to be protected, don’t you?

Now Obama’s publicani are asking for tools. Do you want the economy protected? “Did you see Cheburashka?”

———————
Cheburashka image from here.

Look at some of my favorite signs from this Friday’Teaparty:


#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8

#9

#10

#11

#12

#13

#14

#15

#16

#17

#18

#19

#20

#21

#22

#23

#24

#25

#26

Let me know if you know who took the picture, where it was taken, or who is holding the sign. What’s your favorite?

2. “A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future. (Applause.)” The reason we are in trouble now is because taxes were decreased for all?

3. “Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market. People bought homes they knew they couldn’t afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway.” You don’t think it’s the government regulations that created the problem? People were offered a great deal by the government: buy a house with no down payment, no income verification, below the government artificial cost of money. If the price of the house goes up, you’ll make a lot of money. If down, you’ll get out. Or, as it turns out, be bailed out, or will get even better terms. Who was irresponsible except the government? Fixing the cost of money artificially low and insisting on banks lowering their standards of lending?

4. “It’s an agenda that begins with jobs. (Applause.) ” Former Soviet Union and Cuba and North Korea has full employment. What good does it do? If the people are not willing to voluntarily pay for the products of those jobs, why do we need them?

5. “I called for action because the failure to do so would have cost more jobs and caused more hardship.” How do you know that? Some economists who expect the governemnt handouts for their reasearch support that, some don’t. Is your famous judgment the only proof you can offer? It’s not acceptable when you take my money to do so. Use your own money if you are so convinced. And others who agree with you.

6. “Over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs. More than 90 percent of these jobs will be in the private sector — jobs rebuilding our roads and bridges; constructing wind turbines and solar panels; laying broadband and expanding mass transit.” Suppose this hazy numbers are correct. Who are you to use the force to get other people money to start building wind turbines? If it’s such a good thing start you own company and make it success. Why do you experiment with our money? I noticed you are not talking about ethanol anymore. You were very enthusiastic about it just a year ago. What happened?

7. “I have told each of my Cabinet, as well as mayors and governors across the country, that they will be held accountable by me and the American people for every dollar they spend.” “And we have created a new website called recovery.gov so that every American can find out how and where their money is being spent.”
Bloomberg News is suing you to get information to identify the recipients of about $2 trillion in emergency loans. Why do you hide this information?

8. “That’s what this is about. It’s not about helping banks — it’s about helping people. (Applause.) It’s not about helping banks; it’s about helping people. Because when credit is available again, that young family can finally buy a new home. And then some company will hire workers to build it. And then those workers will have money to spend. And if they can get a loan, too, maybe they’ll finally buy that car, or open their own business.” And maybe they won’t be able to pay their loan. What then?

9. “In order to save our children from a future of debt, we will also end the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. (Applause.) Now, let me be clear — let me be absolutely clear, because I know you’ll end up hearing some of the same claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: If your family earns less than $250,000 a year — a quarter million dollars a year — you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: Not one single dime. (Applause.)” Do we have the right to get their money? Is it their money or ours? Or yours?

10. “And yesterday, I held a fiscal summit where I pledged to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term in office.” “But we have already identified $2 trillion in savings over the next decade. (Applause.)” In about trillion dollar stimulus bill that you just signed before this pledge, can you identify the best three programs that you are proud of? That are not wasteful?

But do you know what Fret is? Have you heard about Deeksha?
Fret stands short for fluorescence energy transfer. It’s an application of nanotechnology developed by the scientists at Stanford University and the Carnegie Institution a few years ago. It transfers the levels of crucial chemicals in living brain cells involved in everything from learning to memory to mood and perception to nanosensors. See here.

Deeksha is a transfer of spiritual energy to the brain. Sounds a bit non-scientific, but there may exist some supporting evidence. Judge for yourself. Check pdf here.

Publicani is based on the assumption that it is possible to transfer intellect from one person to another. This thriller looks into social problems that such transfer would create. How far-stretched this assumption is? With explosion of Fret research we may not be too far away scientifically.

But socially, we are already there. The government creates special programs and allocates resources to people who in the government’s opinion need it the most. Programs like “No child left behind” and affirmative actions help certain group of people to get better education. The programs are based on transfer of money from one group of people to another to make the recipients smarter. The donors, “the rich,” could have used their money themselves to improve their intellect. What if they pay the money to the best scientists to get private lessons in whatever they want? Unfair?

Obama famously said: “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” What if he spreads your intellect around?

…these are examples of the modern state of the USA. 

Those are just some examples: not necessarily the best examples, just indicators pointing to a rotten state.

Before we discuss what is the root of these problems, who do you think the enemy is?  The lobbyists? Potential terrorists? The rich?

It feels like a seven-headed dragon is conducting a full-scale assault on our life, property, and liberty, attacking us from the left and right – both Republicans and Democrats voted for the Iraq war and the Patriot Act.  Attacking us from above and below – both the government makes laws assaulting our liberties and the people keep voting for such a government.

How do you fight a dragon? Face to face, or rather face to seven faces fighting will not work: even if you are successful and you cut one head/government program, two others will grow in its place right away. The right approach is to hit the red bird with the silver arrow to start a needed chain of events: the bird will drop a key from a lockbox with a magic sword that you use to fight a tiger guarding bottle with the dragon’s heart …

So, where is the red bird? What is the single target I should aim at?

My answer is: Income Tax.

Just hear me out. I know there is a social perception that taxing the rich is fair. Try to say in front of your friends, “I hate the income tax.” You’ll feel uncomfortable because the social pressures for taxing the rich are too high. To say “I hate the income tax” to other people is as hard as in the famous psychological experiment to ask strangers in subway to give up their seat for you.

I don’t want to argue that the income tax is illegal or unconstitutional. Such arguments have been made and even recently have been tried with partial success in the court of law. But the laws are made by the people and could be changed by the people.

Also, let’s put aside for a moment the belief that without income tax we are not able to function. The highways. The schools.

Because actually, we can. Income tax is about one trillion dollars a year. This is as much as we spent every year in Iraq. We could do without Iraq, couldn’t we? Even if we couldn’t, one trillion dollars is about as much as we spend every year on our foreign bases in Germany, Japan, and hundreds of other places. We could do without them, couldn’t we? Even if we couldn’t, one trillion dollars is about the difference between the federal budget now and the budget ten years ago when the government was of a reasonable size, well-funded.    

The income tax is immoral and is the source of all evil facing Americans. Deep inside, everybody knows what is good and what is evil, what is right and what is wrong, and here are seven reasons why the income tax is wrong and evil:

1.      Income tax steals from others

Stealing means taking by force from others what belongs to them.

This definition opens three ways of attacking the uncomfortable truth that income tax is stealing: a) it’s not by force, b) it did not belong to others, and c) the end justifies the means.

Argument a) is the weakest. People who say that paying income tax is a volunteer action assume that they can talk on behalf of every tax payer, and they cannot. If a single tax payer does not want to pay income tax and has to anyway, it means that the income tax is collected by force.

The second argument, b), is also in my opinion not very strong. Proponents say that people owe part of their income to other people in the country for the opportunity, safety, and infrastructure. If this is true, then this price for these services should have been announced in advance and the tax payers should have been given a choice, whether to pay for such services or not, and the decision of how much they are willing to pay should have been theirs. 

The “end justifies the means,” argument c), on its face sounds reasonable. If society wants something strongly enough, then why can’t it ask all its members for small sacrifices? The right answer is: if many people in the society want that, let them pull their resources together voluntarily and achieve that goal for themselves or their beneficiaries without forcing anybody else to participate in their saving of the world. If they are not able to convince that part of the society essential for their project, then their project is not worth it and it’s not up to them to claim that the project is so important as to force others to participate.    

2.      Income tax identifies you

It’s impossible to have privacy in a society where the government is able to uniquely identify you and keep a file on you. You may not care so much that there is a unique number that identifies you.  You may even think that that’s the cost of living in society.  But again, by following these laws, you are inadvertently forcing your neighbor who may not want an identifier to have one.  In the US, it is done by the number which is erroneously called the social security number (SSN). In actuality it is the income tax number. You can not drop out of social security and ask the government to dismiss your social security number.

Soon, the Federal ID is coming. It will be based on SSN.  The draft and government healthcare will be obviously based on SSN.  Personal number gives the ultimate control. In Nazi camps, identification numbers were tattooed on the forearm of the prozoners.

3.      Income tax corrupts you

Income tax seduces people to form groups to make political cases to rob other groups. Why should people be subsidized in any activity by somebody else? Farming, buying a house, healthcare, having children? Why should somebody else be forced to assume this responsibility for the subsidies?

Also, about 50% of the wage-earners don’t pay income tax at all. This means that only a small part of the population is paying income tax. Why? Noisy majority free-riders will say: “Yes, it’s fair, because the rich can afford it.” Do you think it’s fair?

4.      Income tax slows down your path to success

The rate of income tax, considering state, federal, and local income taxes, is about 50%. It may appear to be less, but if you take into account that you pay a much greater price for your goods and services to compensate the producers for their income tax, 50% is actually a conservative estimate.

Given this rate, it means you have to work twice as long to achieve your goal. So if you started working at 20, and could have achieved financial success at 60, without income tax you could have achieved it by 40. That argument alone should be enough to convince anybody that income tax is evil.

5.      Income tax ruins your family

Because of income tax, both spouses have to work in order for your family to make as much money as if one spouse worked alone with no income tax. Then, your kids don’t have enough supervision. Then, they might not study as well, and might get into bad influences and end up on drugs.

A non-working spouse at home could be a ticket to a financial freedom to the entire family by going into a real estate, developing a small business, or writing a book.  

Because you don’t have time for house/family management (financial decisions, home improvement, medical appointments, vacation planning, dealing with mail), something that non-working spouse could have taken a lead, you are both under a greater stress.

6.      Income tax is insulting

It’s demeaning to keep receipts if you have a dinner with a business associate to claim it on your tax return in a few months. Regardless of the government’s low time estimates, filling taxes is a hard, stressful job and takes a lot of time.

7.      Income tax claims all your money

The fact that somebody else decides what part of your income you have to pay in taxes means that this somebody has 100% control of money you “earned.” So your money in fact belongs to this somebody who then decides how much of it to give you back.

Next time when people around you discuss any political topic, have the courage to say: “I hate income tax!”

Because I hate income tax, I wrote “Publicani.” You can read it for free on http://www.publicani.com/book. The word “publicani” originally meant the same as an IRS agent during biblical times.

The tournament consisted of five games. Because I chose to play 2-day option (there was also a 3-day option), I played the first three games with a shortened time control: 1 hour for the entire game for each player. THe fourth and fifth games I played with normal time control: 90 minutes per 30 moves and then 1 hour for the rest of the game for each player.

In my first game I played against James Hiltunen. He had a better position from the opening, but then I “showed” him a pawn which he took. That gave me a strong initiative, Under pressure he made a non-obvious error, which let me make a small combination in a style of ‘find the best move.” I won the game. It turned out that after that game my opponent kep winning all his game until the last round where he lost to Lawinger.

In my second game I faced James Crenshow, a strong player, but not too confident in himself. All the game I had a better position and kept pressure, but there was nothing decisive. James was defending well, but it was taking him a lot of time. He lost this game on time, in a position where I still had some advantage.

In my third game, I played aganst Daniel Lawinger. He chose an unorthodox opening, on which I didn’t react the best way. After he forced exchange of Queens, I still had a small advantage though, due to controlling greater space. I kept this advantage almost until the end of the game. My game was also easier to play but he didn’t have clear weaknesses and defended well a-la Petrosian. I couldn’t find any break-throughs and after exchanges the game simplified. A draw.

The fourth game showed an opening battle with Haizhou Xu, which I didn’t handle well and ended up in a worse position. To get out of a bind I gave up a pawn (computer says that there was no bind, and that I shouldn’t have given up the pawn – see my comments.) AFter than Xu had a small advantage, but because of opposite-color bishops I was able to equalize. Another draw.

In my first game, I took a score sheet from the organizer’s table and after I won the game, I went afain to the organizer’s table, noticed a cartoon box there labeled “Chess Games,” took an extra score sheet, went back to my table, copied the game, and put the score sheet into the box. I did the same thing with my second game. Before my third game, I decided to save a trip to the organizer’s table, and took two score sheets. I wrote down the moves on one of them, but becaue it was a draw, I thought it was not worth the trouble to copy the game for the game box, so I’ve thrown away an empty score sheet. THe same happened during my forth game. Another draw, and I didn’t need the extra score sheet.

For my fifth game I got the pattern. I took a single score sheet. After I won the game, I went to the organizer’s table, took another score sheet, went back to my table, copied the moves on the new score sheet and put it into the games box. I played that game against Daniel Pomeranz who wanted to simplify the game and avoid all complications at all costs. With each exchange his postion was getting a little worse. I had a small advantage in the endgame when he made a natural and useful move which turned out to be a fatal mistake. I won the game and became NY state cochampion.

One final comment. That was the first tournament in my life to which I haven’t done any chess preparations. On the other hand, I just came back from a silent retreat where I meditated and kept silent for two weeks. Make the conclusion yourself.