Skip to content →

Category: Terrence Daugherty

So-called “Wage Slavery” is Better than Unemployment

In the midst of all this hoopla over Trump’s Carrier deal, I was reminded of the economic ignorance exhibited by his supporters and critics alike. I don’t want to harp too much on this topic, so suffice it to say, while the Carrier deal was a victory for freedom, it has likewise fueled protectionist rhetoric, but not in the typical sense.

There are some who argue that it is better for American companies to stay in America, not so much out of nationalistic pride, but for the sake of protecting Chinese workers (or other similar labor forces) who presumably work at slave labor rates and under harsh conditions. Whether the working conditions and wages in Chinese factories fail to meet the standards and working conditions of those in America, it is a moot point. If sheer emotion and compassion for our fellow man — the Chinese — were the basis upon which we should build our arguments, then what would matter most is the overall increase in the quality of life for Chinese workers who are given employment by American companies who seek cheaper labor than what can be found in America.

Someone smarter than I once said that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. This much is certain when one takes into account the reduction of living quality for Chinese workers once their employment is terminated. What is thought to be good for them, is actually bad; and whether or not supporters of protectionism realize this, it will either reveal their harmful ignorance or  their false humility. The same argument being made for protecting the jobs of Americans could be used for the Chinese. Under China’s command economy, it is no wonder why the quality of life of its workers is already so low. Imagine if China actually allowed capitalism to flourish within its own borders. I imagine Chinese work ethic and Chinese ingenuity would far exceed that of many Americans, and businesses would still move their. Conjecture aside, the important matter is consistent free market practices which are ethically superior because it allows choice in the market whereas the government-controlled economies of America and China alike, do not.

The Carrier deal was good in only one respect — the net decrease in taxation. And though it was only granted for one company at this moment, we should celebrate any and all instances where it is revealed that taxation stifles business and true progress. Moreover, the only people who should really be celebrating this deal relative to their own convictions, is us libertarians. Why? Because we deplore taxation. The failure to retain the majority of jobs provided by Carrier should be reason enough to draw criticism from Trump’s supporters. Over 1,300 — that’s two-thirds — of Carrier’s jobs are still moving to Mexico; a place where the same arguments can be made for their workers who would no doubt benefit from American employment. Alas, Trump’s supporters, not unlike Clinton’s, still refuse to face the reality of their own indifference to real economic problems.

Image result for chinese factory

Leave a Comment

Ignorance Begets Ignorance in Journalism

“I’m going to be honest with you, I’m not a reader. I don’t like to read long books. I like to read news. So I couldn’t tell you that there was a book that I read that changed my life. More so, I love to read news and I love to read commentary and I love to watch TV. I love to watch news. I’m a watcher and I’m a writer. A reader in the sense that I like to read news but I have a very short attention span, so sitting down with a book is very difficult for me.” — Tomi Lahren.[1]

The one thing… the only thing I like about Tomi Lahren is that, unlike the vast majority of people who hold to such boisterous opinions on politics and economics, at least she openly admits to her own ignorance and lack of study. She brazenly stated that she doesn’t like to read and that she doesn’t make it a point to do so.

I find this to be a problem with most people; and sadly most people are able to cast votes for decisions that personally affect myself and others. And typically such decisions are built more so on emotion than on reason. Tomi is no less of a sensationalistic harlequin than Trevor Noah from The Daily Show, but at least she’s honest about her own lack of knowledge. However, both do their jobs because a large audience takes their nonsense seriously.

This is ignorance begetting ignorance… Tomi Lahren’s lack of sufficient knowledge is characteristic of the skill that is required for today’s journalism. No person, especially journalists, should read the news to become intellectually informed. You read news to be apprised of current events and to be exposed to another original opinion that is hopefully built on some sort of meaningful rationale. Tomi admits to having no original thoughts; no legitimate rationale for her commentary. She’s the poster child of modern journalism; the regurgitation of clamoring willful ignorance.


Leave a Comment

How Progressive Rhetoric Provides a Platform for Hypocrisy

The fact that Progressives criticize the so-called “Alt-Right” for believing in “scientific race differences,” “the preservation of one’s own tribe and culture,” and for believing “that some degree of separation between peoples is necessary for a culture to be preserved” is immensely hypocritical. Why? Because Progressives believe in exactly the same things.

This, coming from those whose entire ideology is premised upon Darwinism — that which likewise spawned the birth of eugenics and the idea that humans are only as viable as their utility. This is how they can arbitrarily decide who’s fully human and who’s not (see: Dred Scott v. Sandford & Roe v. Wade), and who’s worthy of State-sanctioned privileges at the expense of another’s freedom, and who’s not.

Progressives believe in so-called “safe-spaces” — havens for Progressivist sensibilities against the possibility of offense. Such pusillanimity is the rampart from which they hurl their double standards. They condemn so-called “cultural appropriation,” and also believe that all people groups (save those of European descent) should preserve their cultures through the preclusion of integration with white people.

If anything be certain, it’s that the Alt-Right are not much different from Progressives. Through their own respective means of virtue signalling, both groups of ideologues hate freedom, peddle collectivism and racism, and remain foes on the basis Statist superiority. They remain enemies of liberty, and objects of ridicule and should be scorned by all Reformed Libertarians.


Leave a Comment

Clinton Supporters Are Not Afraid to Debate. They’re just…

This election season has been rather fascinating thus far, especially if you’ve taken comfort in God’s sovereignty — which I highly advise. I’ve especially appreciated the willingness of Trump supporters to engage in dialog, no matter how intense or malicious it might have been. Even if there was little progress, at least there was a willingness to pursue deliberation.

Clinton supporters on the other hand have turned callous and apathetic to the political process and to the wealth of criminal evidence against their favored candidate. Hillary Clinton could herself perform an openly egregious act far worse than Trump, and they’d be sure to spin it in whatever way possible to rationalize their obsequious devotion to a blatant enemy of liberty.

They won’t debate the finer points of their ideology or worldview because they know authoritarianism has already been established. They just have to endure the inconvenience of the election process — the only mechanism standing in the way of fully realized despotism. So, they’re not idiots or cowards for refusing to debate. They’re patient and confident in the system that now works in their favor.

There’s no legitimate oversight from the press, save WikiLeaks. There’s no effective oversight from the other branches of government either; they’re essentially obsolete. There’s certainly no oversight from the federal agencies which exist to serve only the interests of the federal government.

No, Clinton supporters are sadistic. They’re enjoying the dissolution of freedom and have no qualms with refusing to debate. What’s the point when they’ve already won?

Leave a Comment

No, Self-driving trucks are not threatening one of America’s top blue-collar jobs

Last week, a friend of mine — a Facebook ‘friend’ — who was an avid Bernie Sanders supporter, posted the following article from the LA Times entitled,

Robots could replace 1.7 million American truckers in the next decade

The idea behind this article from the LA Times is to essentially demonize the development of capital and technological advancements — like automation — for fear of unemployment. In actuality such advancements increase the quality of life for people all around while likewise reducing their cost of living and the amount of work exerted. The idea that ingenuity is somehow a threat to mankind’s way of life is rather specious, not to mention counterproductive if widely accepted. Likewise, if I may be so bold to suggest, it is the reason why so many people live in poverty and without the leisure that many of us in first-world countries get to enjoy most often (e.g. Washing Machines).

This premise — an antithesis between labor and capital — is based upon an ignorance of economics and it’s often used to exploit hardworking Americans for political expediency. How much easier is it to garner votes if you can convince your constituency that you’re going to save them by sustaining their well-being (i.e. employment and accompanying benefits)? Such faux paternalism seems to be the key  to career politics.

Is capital a threat to labor? If by threat you mean that it can lead to the dissolution of jobs in one industry only to create more jobs elsewhere, and greater opportunities for each individual whose time was previously consumed by said labor, then sure, it’s a threat. It’s a threat to a harder way of life. The whole point of developing capital is to decrease the amount of work exerted as well as the costs of production. This also leads to the creation of affordable products for consumers while likewise freeing up people to pursue greater ends.

Think about it this way, if companies were still using horses and buggies to transport goods, it would take much more longer for their products to reach the market than it does now. The demand would be a nightmare, not to mention the impact it would have on consumers. However, with the advent of eighteen wheelers and big rigs came an alleviation; it allowed shipments to be timed in accordance to production, instead of the other way around. Did the invention of big rigs mean more jobs? Well, not necessarily. More jobs came as a consequence of market growth and the need for labor to accommodate for product abundance and its distribution. Greater profits means allocating more capital (e.g. big rigs); and more capital means greater profits.

So, does this mean there was an outcry from the horse-and-buggy industry when Freightliner Trucks was founded? Probably. The problem was not with the advent of trucks though, but rather with those who refused to see the market potential in using such capital. If these big rigs were never imagined, never created, and never used, and we still used the aforementioned primitive means of transport, then those 1.7 million jobs for truck drivers would have never existed. Instead, there would be 1.7 million more laborious jobs involving the raising of horses and the construction of buggies. Likewise, I can’t imagine today’s truck drivers jumping at the opportunity to be a reinsman or bull-whacker tasked with transporting goods across the country in light of the fact that it can be done with a 500 hp / 1,600 ft-lb torque truck.

Leave a Comment

Jim Crow Redux?

They say the political climate follows after culture. Well, after years of being decidedly inconsistent on the matter of rights, Americans are seeing a repeat of history; and once again, racists will have their way and it will be enforced by the powers that be.

meme not credited to author or blog
Leave a Comment

Governance Is Not Arbitrary

One misconception among Christians today, is that the government would have the authority to criminalize certain actions by fiat. The problem however, is that there is no Biblical justification granting governing authorities an arbitrary basis for punishing or restraining evil. If anything, the basis is definitive (as opposed to arbitrary), but many Christians by and large have failed to come to this realization and only decry government actions if they’re unmistakably egregious.

Moreover, the distinction between vices and crimes[1] should not vary from person to person, nor from governing authority to governing authority because governing authorities are people no different than you and I. This means they are held to the same ethical standard.

Perhaps the most important distinction to make is that the sin of a man does not always necessarily entail physical restitution nor punishment; particularly when there is no physical offense committed against another person or another person’s property. Sure, there is a metaphysical aspect regarding all sin, but God is the only one who has the right to decide the means of expiation, especially when transgressions are committed solely against Him.

It is when a sin becomes criminal — viz. when a sin is an encroachment upon the property of another, including acts of aggression against the victim’s person — that man has legal grounds on which to take punitive action or to exact restitution. This is confirmed by the fact that the Proprietor of all creation has delegated subsidiary ownership of property to each individual human, as indicated by certain provisions of His Law pertaining to actions and choices of man vis-à-vis other men. These prohibitions include the act of murder, stealing, and certain types of false witness (e.g. aggression, theft, extortion, perjury, and breaking of contracts).

Unless otherwise stated by God in His Word (e.g. specific commands to Old Testament Israel), man has a default code of conduct to which he is to adhere. When Christians make allowances for others — especially governing authorities — to negate any portion of this standard, then we make allowances for all men to negate all portions of this standard which is a position entirely hostile toward God.


[1] In Lysander Spooner’s work, Vices Are Not Crimes, Spooner defines vices as, “those acts by which a man harms himself or his property” and crimes as “those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another.”

Leave a Comment