institute newspaper logo sized

Donor Matching Funds Announced!

A generous donor has offered to match all contributions dollar-for-dollar for the next $10,000 raised, doubling the impact of your donation and helping us reach our fundraising goal faster.

$18,110 of $60,000 raised

Support Today!

Blog

The Robber Barons: Historical Fact vs. Progressive Mythology

The Robber Barons: Historical Fact vs. Progressive Mythology

by | Apr 7, 2023 | ,

The standard theory of monopoly within the mainstream of the economics profession is that monopolies increase prices and reduce production levels compared to competitive industries. So I gathered historical economic data on prices and production for seventeen of the industries accused of monopolization during the congressional debates over the Sherman Act. Surprisingly, no other economist had apparently ever done this! What I found was that while real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) increased by about 24 percent from 1880 to 1890, the industries accused of “restricting output” increased their production by 175 percent on average, seven times more than the economy in general. For example, steel production rose by 258 percent, zinc 156 percent, coal 153 percent, steel rails 142 percent, petroleum 79 percent, and sugar 75 percent. And during that same time period, as the consumer price index (CPI) fell by 7 percent, the “trusts” that were accused of monopolization dropped their prices by far more. The price of steel rail fell by 53 percent, refined sugar became 22 percent cheaper, lead declined in price by 12 percent, and zinc by 20 percent, for example. This trend of production in these industries dominated by “trusts”—the supposed “natural monopolies”—outstripping GDP as a whole and prices declining faster in these industries than the CPI continued on for the next decade as well.

– Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Ph.D., The Politically Incorrect Guide to Economics

Military Conscription is Slavery: Woodrow Wilson Edition

Military Conscription is Slavery: Woodrow Wilson Edition

by | Mar 29, 2023 | ,

By the guidelines set down by the Selective Service Act, all males aged 21 to 30 were required to register to potentially be selected for military service. At the request of the War Department, Congress amended the law in August 1918 to expand the age range to include all men 18 to 45, and to bar further volunteering.[7] By the end of World War I, some two million men volunteered for various branches of the armed services, and some 2.8 million had been drafted.[8] This meant that more than half of the almost 4.8 million Americans who served in the armed forces were drafted. Due to the effort to incite a patriotic attitude, the World War I draft had a high success rate, with fewer than 350,000 men “dodging” the draft.

– Selective Service Act of 1917, Wikipedia

The Capitalist Competition Myth

The Capitalist Competition Myth

by | Mar 25, 2023 |

Capitalism involves far more cooperation than competition—think of the number of mutually beneficial transactions you’ve had today compared to the number of competitions you’ve been in today
– Chris Freiman, author of Why It’s OK to Ignore Politics
Democratic socialists sometimes object to capitalism on the grounds that it’s unduly competitive but democracy also looks pretty competitive to me
– Chris Freiman, author of Why It’s OK to Ignore Politics

Blame Mexico? Blame Neocons! Blame Big Pharma! Blame the USA!

by | Mar 23, 2023 |

ABC News: If fentanyl is so deadly, why do drug dealers use it to lace illicit drugs?

I have an alternative explanation. America has been fighting endless wars almost the entire century. Many have come home from these never-ending wars with injuries and pains. Doctors got them addicted. The prescriptions often expired but not the pain. So the first drug dealers who created the addictions were neoconservatives who have sent so many to wars of choice that never end and it is dubious that we are safer but it is indisputable that we are now burdened by a much heavier debt burden in addition to the ordinary burdens of life. Then doctors in cooperation with big pharma. After having created the need and the addiction, so production increases to meet the soaring demand. Government created the demand. Then withdrew supply. So who really created the problem?

And with respect to Mexico, really, what should we expect? Our demand for drugs in the USA is probably a larger market than the GDP of Mexico. We are both narco-states. We demand. They supply. Global supply chain. And the USA must have extensive distribution networks. We expect Mexico to cut off supply and say they are a corrupt narco-state. Why can’t we choke off distribution? Maybe we are also a corrupt narco-state?

Mexico supplies the fentanyl demanded by Americans. America provides the weapons and ammunition for the Mexican drug cartels.

The money the drug cartels use to buy Mexican politicians, probably USA politicians and American weapons comes from the U.S. dollars they receive selling to Americans.

The answer is not invading Mexico. We need to stop blaming others for our own problems. Stop the endless wars. Legalize drugs. Legalization will alter incentives. Create competition. And producers will, unless government also grants them immunity, will be subject to product liability. So maybe instead of being addictive and deadly it will become addictive and safe or, at least, much safer. And we can add this to the list of the many addictions Americans have.

And maybe, just maybe, if our government changed its messaging from war and fear to hope and peace, Americans would have less addictions. The cause of our national mental health problems is government! And what would best serve Americans is immunity, a vaccine, against government. Government is the disease! Government is the most deadly disease!

This blog was originally featured at KryptoAnarchy.com and is republished with permission.

My Testimony Before the Maine State Senate

by | Mar 20, 2023 |

frrpuy6xsaad1bw

In support of Ld 1054, Defend the Guard legislation:

Thank you all so much for the opportunity to testify before your committee today.

Today is the 20th anniversary of the beginning of Iraq War II.

The consensus now is that we should not have done it. Iraq was not manufacturing unconventional weapons and was not in league with Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda.

Many representatives and senators from that time have excused themselves for voting for this disastrous war by claiming that they did not vote for war at all, but for authorization to let President Bush decide whether to launch one.

This war would not have happened if Congress had insisted on their Constitutional obligation to declare war.

Rep Ron Paul introduced a declaration of war in the foreign affairs committee. He of course voted against it and urged his colleagues too as well. But he was challenging them to take responsibility for their decision instead of delegating it to the president. Chairman Dennis Hastert told him “We don’t go by that part of the Constitution anymore. It’s an anachronism.”

Hastert might have cited the UN Charter there, but it does not supersede the US Constitution and Bush did not get a resolution authorizing the war from the UN Security Council either.

The simple fact is that if Congress had been forced by the people and the states to declare war if they wanted one, Iraq War II would never have happened. That means there would have been no war in Libya, Syria or Yemen either, as they were all consequences of the war in Iraq.

More than two million people have been killed. Ten trillion dollars have been wasted. The conservatives now agree with the progressives: None of it should ever have happened.

If only a few states had had Defend the Guard legislation at the time, it would not have.

By passing this measure now, you can help to stop the next unnecessary war.

This is the patriotic thing to do. That is why, as you heard, the American Legion supports it. Frankly this should not even be controversial at all. The US Constitution is the law. Congress is in defiance of it. They must be made to obey the charter which delegates authority to them in the first place.

The men who have testified before you today have given everything they have, including their best friends, in service to their oath to that Constitution. I know it means everything to them.

Thank you.

These Iraq War Supporters Are Still in Congress

by | Mar 18, 2023 | , ,

On March 19, 2003 the United States began its military invasion of Iraq. The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq passed Congress in October 2002, with 296 congressmen and 77 senators voting in favor of giving President George W. Bush carte blanche authority to decide if and when to go to war.

Twenty years later, this is a list of members of Congress who voted for the AUMF and are still in office.

There are sixteen congressmen, including nine Republicans and seven Democrats.

  • Ken Calvert (R-CA)
  • Darrell Issa (R-CA)
  • Mike Simpson (R-ID)
  • Hal Rogers (R-KY)
  • Sam Graves (R-MO)
  • Chris Smith (R-NJ)
  • Frank Lucas (R-OK)
  • Joe Wilson (R-SC)
  • Kay Granger (R-TX)
  • Sanford Bishop (D-GA)
  • Steny Hoyer (D-MD)
  • Stephen Lynch (D-MA)
  • Bill Pascrell (D-NJ)
  • Adam Schiff (D-CA)
  • Brad Sherman (D-CA)
  • Adam Smith (D-WA)

There are ten senators, including five Republicans and five Democrats.

  • Susan Collins (R-ME)
  • Mike Crapo (R-ID)
  • Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
  • Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
  • Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
  • Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
  • Tom Carper (D-DE)
  • Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
  • Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
  • ​Ed Markey (D-MA)1Ed Markey voted for the AUMF as a member of the House and has since been elected to the Senate.

These politicians voted for arguably the most unnecessary foreign policy blunder in United States history and incurred no electoral repercussions.

Podcasts

scotthortonshow logosq

coi banner sq2@0.5x

liberty weekly thumbnail

Don't Tread on Anyone Logo

313x0w (1)

313x0w (1)

Pin It on Pinterest