Lady Jade says: DONATE to B.J. Lawson on June 29!

First, Daily Paul picks up on this story. Then, Campaign for Liberty gets wind, followed very soon thereafter by LRC blog. Now, the absolutely undisputed #1 source for the hottest (literally!) news and developments in liberty has given her seal of approval! Rachel Mills (aka ladyjade3 on YouTube), something of a celebrity in Ron Paul circles for work such as this, has just added to her list of hits with a cordial request for Ron Paul supporters and liberty lovers everyone to donate to B.J. Lawson- a "sterling" Ron Paul Republican Congressional Candidate in North Carolina's Fourth District, the words of blogger Daniel McCarthy- on June 29, which is Sunday. (Tomorrow, as of the time of this update.)

Remember, everyone: pledge to donate to B.J. Lawson tomorrow, June 29, at http://lawsonlibertyfund.com. Or just go ahead and donate. The goal of the money bomb is to generate $80,000, which would give B.J. quite a nice financial result to report for the 2nd Quarter. Digg bomb forthcoming at 5:00 PM.

SCOTUS does its job.

And by its job, I mean to correctly interpret the Constitution and defend it against legal transgressions. Today, it ruled that- as the 2nd Amendment clearly states- individuals have a clear right to bear arms, and the fascist D.C. handgun ban was overturned.

It is quite troubling that the decision came down by a vote of 5-4. It just boggles my mind that any Supreme Court justice could possibly disagree with the sentiment that an individual does indeed have a Constitutionally-protected right to own a gun and that outright bans on guns violate this right. The decision can be summed up by the phrase, "Same old party lines," with the Right- Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito- voting for the decision, and the Left- Wicked Witch of the West (aka, Ginsburg), Breyer, and Stevens- voting against it. Kennedy, who is probably the most non-partisan judge on the court, thankfully sided with the right on this one. I'm disappointed, though, in Souter, who is also a very non-ideological member of the court who judges each case as an individual case. I would have thought that this would be an issue where he would side with the right.

The troubling part of this decision is its implication for the future. With the likelihood of McCain or Obama being the next President, there is a lot to be afraid of regarding their possible picks of justices. While most potential retirements in the near future- Stevens, Witch, Breyer- are on the left, Scalia is also up there in age. The prospect of a McCain or Obama judge replacing him with a "moderate" judge could lead to a hard reversal of this decision. Here's to hoping that Scalia holds on to that seat for the next 8 years.

For some ludicrous arguments by the likes of Breyer and Stevens, take a look at the article.

Bob Barr updates.

1. Here's a terrific interview he just gave with MobLogic.tv. Oh, and the interviewers is SMOKING hot!



2. He'll be on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. Also in that post, it states that he's been invited to appear at the Coke Zero 400 NASCAR race at Daytona on July 5th. As a NASCAR fan, this really excites me. It's also a great opportunity for him to tap into a conservative segment of Republican voters.

3. Barr's statement on the latest FISA sham compromise letting telecomms off the hook.

4. Liberty Maven has audio of the recent interview Bob did with Dennis Miller. He also has audio from a terrific interview with Alan Colmes.

5. Here's a video with the Washington Post.

B.J. Lawson vs. David Price: Round 1

You guys decide who won the first match. My verdict: Dr. Lawson. Kinda makes you want to donate to B.J. on June 29, doesn't it?

$300 million prize for innovation?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080623/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_energy;_ylt=AkZ4iFfc3UdBGCKQJgCWQDCs0NUE

Senator McCain proposes providing a prize of $300 million dollars to whoever can come up with a zero-emission car battery.

As any good citizen should do in contemplating such a decision, the first thing I do is wonder who is going to pay for it?

"I could pay for it by canceling three pork-barrel projects that are unnecessary and unwanted."

So instead of saving money by canceling "pork-barrel projects" we would continue spending money on other, more "worthy" projects?

I am all for having a zero-emission car but I'm not too sure how I feel about spending $300 million dollars to benefit a few.

Lets leave it up to the automobile makers, they know a strong demand will begin to grow for zero-emission vehicles (if it already hasn't). A strong demand for their product would be enough of an incentive. We don't need our government giving favors to a few.

Bob Barr as a "cautionary tale"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080622/ap_on_el_pr/bob_barr

I love how the Associated Press is already comparing Barr to Nader in 2000, but I guess any press is good press. Maybe this will force the Neocon brain trust to re-think some of their platform issues, lest they lose a big chunk of votes.

This is simply pathetic on Obama's part.

He's pre-empting racial tactics by Republicans by criticizing them for using racial tactics... before they even use them. If, as Senator Obama says, race should not be an issue in this campaign, as it absolutely SHOULD NOT be, then why is he, without prompt, bringing it up in the media? This is straight from the play book of Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton. This is victimization before he's even a victim. It's very calculated and politically motivated, and it is VERY cynical.

This as well as his constant use of collectivist themes ("The rich suck," "We need UNITY, but under my plans, and the rest of you can screw off," "Individual salvation depends on collective salvation," etc.) render him a very poorly-suited vessel for bringing about a post-racial politics. Someone who says something "Republicans can't run on their record," in doing so inferring that every Republican out there supports every policy of the Bush Administration and is complicit in the consequences of them, is someone who is clearly a big supporter of using group identity to define people and clearly not interested in the value of people as individuals. Only destroying the very idea of collectivism and embracing the idea that we are all unique individuals with the same inalienable rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness can defeat racism. A part of this process means voting for Bob Barr instead of Senator Barack Obama.

Great Lawson Liberty Fund Video

Use this to promote the June 29 money bomb for B.J. Lawson in online forums, blogs, social networks, or wherever.

More catchup on Barr pimpage.

His very passionate and well-written confession of guilt over the War on Drugs.

Obama goes back on one of his biggest promises

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080619/ap_on_el_pr/obama_money_analysis

Obviously, he must have been nervous about the presently "close" national polls between he and McCain. Every time Obama made this promise in his speeches, I knew he would never keep it. How many other promises will Obama break before the end of this election? I guess it depends on how much he subscribes to the "win at all costs" motto.

Lawson Liberty Fund Money Bomb

A supporter of B.J. Lawson has set up a Money Bomb for June 29, 2008, which is the 12th wedding anniversary for B.J. and his wife, JoLynn. Make sure you all sign up at http://lawsonlibertyfund.com.

Bombs away!

Scotland warns of massive stock market crash

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/06/18/cnrbs118.xml

"The Royal Bank of Scotland has advised clients to brace for a full-fledged crash in global stock and credit markets over the next three months as inflation paralyses the major central banks.

"A very nasty period is soon to be upon us - be prepared," said Bob Janjuah, the bank's credit strategist."

I know where I'm moving my money...Au!

More intros

Dana Mazer, who has been leading the Republican Liberty Caucus group in North Carolina, has now come on board. Also, another UNC Students for Ron Paul-er, William Harris, has come on board.

Welcome, guys!

Ross Perot is back - and with his charts

Texas billionaire and 1992 presidential campaign stirrer-upper Ross Perot is back - and he's brought his famous charts along with him. Perot has launched PerotCharts.com to document the obscene levels of U.S. government spending and waste. It's an issue that unfortunately is not as cognizant to the average voter as it should be, but will one day come back to haunt us and our children if we don't do something about it.

We may not agree with everything Perot argues, but this site should prove a valuable resource in research and policy presentation.

And yet another introduction...

And a late one, at that.

Welcome aboard, Ian! And thank you for your help in promoting this blog.

How to promote Liberty Republicans online

Help spread the message for freedom put forward by Liberty Republicans by visiting the following sites and show your support with a vote and/or comment:

Give it a Digg

Have you Reddit yet?

Stumbleupon it.

If you can't find the link to the blog directly to just submit it as a new item.

Others to follow ...

Announing another new writer.

My friend Matt, another UNC Students for Ron Paul man, has come on board. (Tucker) Welcome!

Announcing new writer.

We have a new writer on board, Marshall Shoemaker (Liberty in Iowa). Marshall stuck his neck out earlier this year to run for State Legislature in Iowa as a fresh-faced 22-year old. He's certainly one to look out for in the liberty movement in the future.

The UK's Ron Paul? Britain's True Conservative.

For those of you who do not know, today (Sunday, June 15) is the anniversary of the Magna Carta, the British document that established the tradition of Constitutional law that protects individual liberty in the western world and that serves as the legal inspiration for the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, not many Americans know of this document or appreciate its significance, a by-product of negligence in understanding the importance of our liberties and of maintaining our Constitutional system of government. But while our basic freedoms have been under assault in recent years, so has also been the case in my ancestral homeland, the UK.

This week, the sacred British traditions enshrined in the Magna Carta were dealt a serious blow by Parliament. The Labour Party (the UK's equivalent of the Democratic Party in the U.S.), who currently controls government under the leadership of Prime Minister Gordon Brown, introduced new legislation that would extend the detention period for terror suspects without charge to 42 days. Whereas the mere presence of detention without charge is a clear violation of Habeas Corpis, a hundred years old principle dictated by the Magna Carta, extending the period of detention to 42 days is a simply unacceptable increase in power of the state and is a serious threat to liberty. It is fundamental to the freedom of the individual that he/she must be allowed to live his/her life without coercion by anyone, as long as there is no coercion of others' life and liberty. That a person can be held without charge for a crime completely contradicts a free society and establishes the basis for tyranny. This is the initiation of a trend very damaging to the concept of a free British society. What's to say that in the future, the government won't ask for the period to be extended to 90 days, or six months, or even a year?

Unfortunately, this legislation passed on Wednesday by a very narrow margin of 9 votes. What is encouraging, though (and surprising, from the perspective of an American) is that the Conservative Party- essentially the UK's version of the Republican Party- was opposed to the legislation. The Tories (British nickname for the Conservatives) joined the Liberal Democrats (who would be best compared to the left-wing of the Democratic Party here) in fighting the legislation, while most of Labour pushed for it.

But no Tory, or for that matter any other MP, has offered such spirited opposition to the proposal and gone to such extraordinary lengths to defeat it as David Davis, a Shadow Cabinet minister, who this week resigned from Parliament in protest of the Bill's passage. Mr. Davis, who led the Conservatives' opposition to the measure, has committed to running in a by-election (when a MP resigns, a special election for the seat called a "by-election" is automatically held) from his district on the platform of protecting civil liberties. In doing so, he gave an eloquent and alarming speech laying out the specific anti-freedom actions pursued by the UK government recently- which reads quite similarly to a list of legislation enacted and being promoted in the US- and boldly initiating a new struggle for British civil liberties.

But while Mr. Davis is promoting a stance in line with his Party's, this move was truly one of political courage. For one, he resigned from one of the most power seats in the Conservative Party and, effectively, has surrendered any chance he would have at a cabinet post if, as expected, the Tories win power in the next Parliamentary election. The move, according to The Independent, is also said to have angered Tory leader David Cameron with the perception of instability in the Party that has come in the aftermath of the resignation. Cameron, who has been working hard to build momentum for the Conservative Party, who is set to become the next Prime Minister after the next Parliamentary election. All of this gives every indication that Davis is now permanently out of power and out the running to one day be leader of the Conservative Party, which would position him to one day be Prime Minister if the Conservatives hold Parliament under his leadership. This is not exactly a typical quality for a man who very recently made a strong challenge for the leadership of the Conservative Party when it last came up, which would have set him up to be the next Prime Minister of the UK.

Mr. Davis has also opened himself to great public criticism, particularly by the notoriously harsh, yet substantially influential, British media. He has been accused of making a mere self-promoting publicity stunt, the London Times calling it a "disastrous ego trip." The Sun, a right-leaning publication owned by Rupert Murdoch, accused him of "treachery to David Cameron" in a scathing attack in which they call him a "quitter" and say he has "gone stark raving mad." Even by media that has been positive to Mr. Davis, such as the Daily Telegraph. Many in the media suspect him of attempting to exploit the situation to engineer public momentum behind him to challenge for Conservative leadership, a notion he has roundly and convincingly rejected.

This historic act by David Davis solidifies him firmly as Britain's very own Ron Paul. It is an important and inspirational moment in the international movement for liberty, and this is certainly the case for America. Obviously, an act in specified defense of liberty by a politician this powerful and well-known in the cradle of modern Constitutional law of the world qualifies as such. But it is particularly important in that it re-establishes the notion that conservatism- true conservatism- has as one of its fundamental tenants the staunch defense of individual liberty from encroachment by government under any and every pretext. This is absolutely necessary in America, as "conservatism" has come more to resemble the nature of police statism that purges freedom to "promote" security, however ineffective its tactics may be in this regard. While Tory leaders like Davis, Cameron, and former Prime Minister John Major excoriate the British government's offense on civil liberties; in America, the "conservative" Bush Administration has trampled on the Bill of Rights- with the President even saying that the Constitution is "just a goddamned piece of paper"- while Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain calls the Supreme Court's rejection of suspension of Habeas Corpis in the Military Commissions Act "one of the worst decisions" in the history of the Supreme Court. A writer at the "conservative" National Review even claimed that the Court's upholding of Habeas Corpis proclaimed that the America people had "lost to radical Islam."

As Constitutional lawyer Glen Greenwald explains in this terrific piece on Friday, what the "right" of American politics currently pursues is nothing resembling conservatism, but rather authoritarianism. Basic preconditions to true conservatism are the preservation of tradition and restraint. For America, entails preserving America's tradition of as a free society rooted in individual liberty and restraint of government from encroaching on this liberty by Constitutional law. Inherent in the actions advocated by "conservative" Republicans like George W. Bush, John McCain, and most of the Republican Party wholly contradict these ideas. In order for the freedom movement to advance in America, conservatism must once again be identified in its true context. Self-identified libertarians (sadly, since I am one) simply do not amount to a large enough number at this point to ensure victory; and Democrats, who voted in overwhelming majority to institute the Patriot Act and the Real ID clearly cannot be trusted completely, if at all, to faithfully carry forth this agenda. The American Right must once again reacquaint itself with its purpose in order to have the numbers and momentum to prevail. In a sense, we who seek to preserve and promote individual liberty- be we of the left, right, or the libertarian column- are all true conservatives.

The Long Run is Really....Long

I endorse the goal of this blog, and its readers, and am glad to be included.

As a recovering Republican myself, I can understand the attraction of saving the GOP from itself.

I worked in the first Reagan administration, at the Federal Trade Commission, for Wendy Gram, wife of then-Senataor Phil Gram (R-TX). We worked on deregulation and costs of taxes.

Before that, I worked for Murray Weidenbaum, in the Center for Study of American Business. We came up with estimates of the total costs of regulations on the U.S. economy, and a variety of other pro-market topics.

More recently, I testified in the US Sentate, at the invitation of Senator Mitch McConnell, against McCain-Feingold.

In short, I have been in the trenches working for the Republican Party, and what it SAID it believed in, for the first two decades of my professional life. In the long run, maybe the Republican party will come back towards some of its roots.

But....the long run is long. I appreciate the fact that Paige asked me to contribute here. My role, as I'm sure is clear, is to stir things up a bit and ask questions. I understand that some of you may get upset, and have sharp responses. That's fine.

Here's the thing: We are the sort of people that are going to have to lead America back to its real values, if America is to be led. The Republican Party has been hijacked. If there were more people like Ron Paul and BJ Lawson in the Republican party, I might be a Republican, too.

At this point, I'm certainly not. But let's have a dialogue, and let's learn from each other. And if I say something that you think is wrong, let me know about it.

An obviously late introduction.

I was going to introduce our new blogger, Libertarian Gubernatorial Nominee Mike Munger, but I was away from the computer the last couple of days, on account of my sister getting married. Clearly, though, he has upstaged the grandiosity of any introduction I could have given him. From blogging live from candidate school to taking a shot at the very Party I and others are trying to take back, the man has shown he is completely fearless. This, along with his unmatched intellectualism and his principled advocacy of liberty, is why I vigorously endorse him for Governor of North Carolina, encourage you all to support him, and am proud to consider him a friend.

And yes, you're right, Mike: the NCGOP took a major leak in our faces. It was positively unnecessary for them to do what they did. Needless to say, though, they angered a lot of other people in the Party than just Ron Paul Republicans. In light of all of this, I encourage them all to either come to the 4th District to help Lawson for Congress or to get on board with the Libertarian Party in North Carolina this year in supporting Bob Barr and Mike Munger. With their energy behind them, B.J. CAN win the 4th District, and the terrific statewide LP candidates can get between 5-10% of the vote in this state, both of which will send a message to the Party here.

And Mike, you rock, and thanks for blogging here. I hope this blog will help you greatly.

Statist Quo

We all watched Ron Paul get disrespected, mistreated, and dismissed by the Republican Party. He raised a remarkable amount of money, had strong organizations in a lot of states, and got 35 delegates even in Republican "winner take all" system. He came in fourth, and brought in a lot of new people, people the Republicans are going to need to do well in November.

And the Republicans acted like he was some drunk uncle with an embarrassing secret, instead of the most exciting thing to happen in more than a decade.

Now, the NC Repubs have dealt a death blow to the enthusiasm of the Ron Paul Republicans, with their high-handed tactics in choosing delegates.

Then, this week we all found out that the "statist quo" is going to be preserved in our state for the debates. Only the two candidates from the political cartel are going to be allowed to participate.

Some problems with this:

1. The Libertarians did what is required to get on the ballot. That's not easy. Why isn't it enough to get into the debate?

2. The Republicans are confident that they don't need to show respect to Ron Paul; you Republicans will go to the polls like sheep and vote for McCain anyway. And they believe that they can leave me out of the Gov debates, so you will vote for Pat McCrory.

Are they right? Are you just going to vote for the lesser of two evils?

Or are you guys going to stand up, and remember the way Ron Paul was treated?

I hope, at a minimum, I can count on your support on July 3, for the Money Grenade Brigade. I need at least 1,000 separate contributions. I don't care how big the contributions are. But I need 1,000 to contribute, or pledge to contribute, on July 3.

Greetings from Campaign School!

Greetings from DC, where I am learning about how to raise money, win friends, and influence media.

It is actually a pretty great opportunity.

Please consider going to my campaign site, and let me know what I've got right and what I've got wrong.

And I look forward to posting here now and again, to let you know what sorts of things are worrying me about the directions our nation is taking.

Mike Munger
Libertarian Candidate for NC Governor

Announcement: New Writer

I am pleased to announce a new contributor to Liberty Republicans, Kacy. Kacy is a friend of mine who was with me in UNC Students for Ron Paul since the very beginning, and he is now interning for Lawson for Congress. He's a very bright individual and quite web-savvy, and he created a July 4 money bomb website for B.J. Lawson, Lawson Liberty Fund. He is going to be a very valuable contributor going forward. (BTW, Kacy; could I get a web banner to advertise the LLF? Thanks!)

I am about to expand the roster of writers quite a bit. I want to keep this blog regularly updated and start generating a lot more traffic.

Common myths about America

If you want to know how to foment a libertarian revolution, look no further than the complete abolition of government's unholy alliance with education. Thanks to our wonderful government schools, countless children are exposed to an array of lies about America history, economics, politics and government. Critical discussion of ideas is a no-no; school boards are just fine with children accepting whatever dogma is presented to them in the classroom. It's no wonder so many people grow up ignorant about the morality and benefits of a free society.

These are some of more prevalent myths circulating out there. Feel free to add your own.

Myth #1: America is a democracy.
Fact: no, it isn't.

It's true that America is a de facto democracy, because pretty much anything people want, they can get from government, but it was never intended to be so. The word "democracy" appears nowhere in the Constitution, and for good reason: the Founding Fathers hated it. Democracy was rightly seen as mob rule on the way to statism. Even Alexander Hamilton, the archetypal big government advocate among our forefathers, once declared, "We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."

The word "Constitution," of course, refers to that governing document, the supreme law of the land, that Republicans and Democrats trot out every so often whenever it fits their agenda, but which neither party consistently defends. National politicians take an oath to defend it, and then most subsequently turn their backs to it.

Myth #2: the Republican Party is conservative.
Fact: the GOP is neo-conservative, liberal, and statist - but is not conservative.

The public generally perceives President Bush to be a rightwinger or a conservative, and the Republican Party to advocate limited government. If only that were true! The Republican Party is controlled by neo-conservatism, a fake brand of conservatism owing its existence to Leon Trotsky, a revolutionary communist of the old Soviet Union. Irving Kristol, a prominent neo-con, wrote in 1995 that neo-cons "[accept] the New Deal in principle, and ha[ve] little affection for the kind of isolationism that [once] permeated American conservatism." Note the phrase: "accept the New Deal in principle." A true conservative who believes in individual freedom despises FDR and the statism he stood for. Libertarians, even more so. As for "isolationism," this slur is a bit of a myth in its own right. America has never been "isolationist," even from the early colonial days. Our forefathers traded with and welcomed foreigners to our shores. We needed international commerce to survive as colonies; why would be make ourselves into a fortress?

The correct term for the true conservative point of view - which is certainly not represented today by the GOP - is non-interventionism. It's based in part on George Washington's Farewell Address, which warned against meddling in foreign affairs. America is not, and cannot be, the world's police, and we have no business telling other countries what to do. Republicans used to know that before 9-11 "changed everything."

Myth #3: you can own property in America.
Fact: you never really own property in America; you rent it from the government.

You can never actually own a home, or anything else, in America. With a home, at some point, you will pay off your mortgage. And with a car, at some point, you will have paid the bank. But you will always owe a property tax on both. Real property is also subject to zoning and anti-discrimination laws, and commercial property to a host of regulations and laws. And if that's not enough, well, government can use its eminent domain power to legally steal your land outright and force you to settle.

You also own nothing you have purchased. Everything you buy, you pay a sales tax on. The sales tax is doubly evil because it forcibly robs the consumer and, at the same time, enslaves the retailer by forcing him to be a tax collector for the government. It might be a little slavery - but it's still slavery (being forced, at the point of a gun ultimately, to produce and live for others).

If you cannot control something 100%, then you do not really own it. You don't own a home; you pay the government rent for the "privilege" of living in it. Same with a car. And if you run a business, you are subject to an array of laws ranging from labor regulations, minimum wage requirements, anti-discrimination laws, zoning ordinances, and so forth. Try disobeying our sovereigns, and they'll come arrest you; resist, and you may lose your life. The same goes with all other taxes, especially income tax. You don't really own the money you earn; you owe part of it to the government. And when you die, if your estate is worth "too much" (if it's "not fair" that you have "too many" things while others have less), the government takes a slice out of that as well.

The reality is that we are all serfs, renting our property out from a government that can come take it at any time. And not one of these laws, including and especially taxation and zoning laws, is actually necessary.

Myth #4: America's economy is capitalist.
Fact: it's a mixture of command economy and capitalism.

America has never been a capitalist country, which is why Ayn Rand titled her book: "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal." True capitalism is laissez-faire, the absence of any and all government regulations and controls on the economy. It's insane to say that this is the state of the modern American economy. There are a plethora of laws and regulations which destroy and enslave some businesses while favoring and coddling many others. Everything from corporate welfare to subsidies to insider trading laws to incorporation is an example of government intervention in an otherwise free economy. It's easy to hate "big business," but try getting a job from a poor person and see where you end up. Nonetheless, bashing business makes good politics, and the lemmings are led straight over the cliff.

Myth #5: capitalism leads to Great Depressions, slavery, and imperialism.
Fact: these and all other alleged "evils" of capitalism are only possible with government.

We have had, in America, a Great Depression, slavery, and imperialistic policies. What we have never had is capitalism. So it's only the ignorant who make such a demonstrably false claim.

The reason we had a Great Depression was that we have a Federal Reserve whose job it is to artificially set interest rates and manipulate the nation's monetary supply. This is government intervention - the very opposite of laissez-faire capitalism. The Great Depression was brought on because Fed policies encouraged the cancerous growth of speculation. It had nothing to do with free enterprise. In a purely free market, there will be recessions, but the market is self-correcting and simply does not permit the sort of extreme losses witnessed during the Great Depression. Despite the historical reality that government caused the Depression, it was business that needlessly took the fall and government that looked like the hero in the form of FDR and his repulsive socialist policies. But try telling this to a statist liberal, who knows next to nothing about history or economics.

As for slavery and imperialism, these are prohibited in societies where the initiation of force is outlawed - that is, truly capitalist societies. Rand recognized that capitalism is "a SOCIAL system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned." (Emphasis added). Capitalism by definition banishes the initiation of force by one man against the other, and prohibits slavery of all kinds. Slavery is enforced by the state, and imperialism is an act of government; again, both have nothing to do with true capitalism.

The Omega and the Alpha

Tonight in less than an hour, a very bittersweet moment will occur, as Ron Paul will officially end his bid for the Presidency of the United States. You can view the announcement here.

Obviously, this campaign was one of the most monumental Presidential campaigns in history with regard to its long-term political impact. It is a hugely important development in the campaign for liberty, as the campaign raised more than $30 million in total, received 2nd and 3rd place results in many caucuses with a competitive field, and won more than 1 million Republican primary and caucus votes, beating the total of any Libertarian Party candidate in any previous general election. All, while many in the Party actively worked against him to demean him and shut him out. He was able to get the libertarian message across to millions more with unprecedented access to mainstream media coverage and revolutionary use of the internet. He was able to accomplish in just a few months what the Libertarian Party hasn't been able to accomplish in almost four decades.

Personally, this campaign was my re-engagement with politics. I was involved in Republican races in 2002 and 2004, volunteering for the Elizabeth Dole for US Senate and interning for (very regrettably) the Bush campaign in 2004. It was a good education in political campaigning, as I canvassed for both Dole and Bush and phone-banked for Bush, as well. But I have regretted working for both massively over time. I knew I was libertarian in my views during then, but I was at that point "politically pragmatic" and thought, since the Democrats were offering no sound alternative on a number of issues where I was upset with Bush (Iraq, civil liberties, drugs, spending, corporate welfare, etc.), I decided to hold my nose and support the guy I thought was slightly better. That turned into quite a very regrettable mistake.

The issue that really tipped the iceberg for me was the steroids issue that was brought up in early 2005, when the House Government Reform Committee (not really sure what this has to do with juice) conducted witch hunts against Major League Baseball on the issue and went way beyond the proper role of government. The fact is that people have the right to put in their bodies what they wish and accept the consequences, and if we don't like the influence of people doing it on kids, then it is the responsibility of families to EDUCATE their own children about the issue and why they shouldn't do it, not the government's responsibility to conduct an expensive and completely ineffective war will have no hope of ridding steroids and will violate our civil liberties and right to consume what we want. An at the time Freshmen North Carolina Republican Congressman, Patrick McHenry, made political use of the issue to get his name out to a national audience by grilling Commissioner Bud Selig on live t.v. in what was a completely shameful display. A couple of months later, he was the keynote speaker at the North Carolina Federation of College Republicans Spring Convention in 2005. I simply hated the speech, and I couldn't stand the hypocrisy in his comments, making mention of "individual liberty" and "limited government" and then stating that it was the responsibility of government to pervasively violate both principles. I came to the conclusion during that speech that I just could not support the Republican Party in the direction it was going under George W. Bush, and when I got home, I immediately changed my registration from Republican to Libertarian. After the Libertarian Party was de-registered by the North Carolina State Board of Elections, I basically quit on politics altogether and had lost hope.

Ron Paul gave me hope again. I had known of him for quite a while dating back to Freshman year of High School, when I first started thinking about and coming to libertarianism, and he became a hero of mine. At the beginning of the cycle, I was very interested in Chuck Hagel, who was making rumblings at the time about running and was an anti-war, demonstrably fiscally conservative and federalist Republican, and he is a terrific man who I could definitely have supported. When I first heard that Ron was running, I was immediately very interested and enthusiastic, but I wanted to see where the campaign got. And then, during the South Carolina debate, he had the courage to tell the truth about 9/11 and our foreign policy, and when I first heard his statement on the radio the next morning, I said to myself, "I have to get into this." I started the Students for Ron Paul Chapter at UNC, and we built a large group, with over 200 listed members. About 10-15 were active, but that was a good group, and we were 2nd only to the Students for Barack Obama on campus among Presidential candidates. We rounded up a group of 10 people to go to South Carolina to canvass and make phone calls, and it was a great experience for everyone.

I was unbelievably surprised and heartened about the lengths to which the campaign achieved. The fundraising, the crowds, the energy, the enthusiasm, the extent to which the message has traveled in such a short time: as a libertarian, it is true inspiring. The best part of this is how he handled himself as a candidate as the campaign went on. He was attacked viciously by opponents and had his name dragged through the mud, the epitome of which was Jamie Kirchick's smear job about his newsletters, an issue that he has explained over and again and absolutely does not concord with what he has written throughout his career. Like in his 1987 book, Freedom Under Siege, written years before the nasty newsletters were published, in which he wrote:

There are times when it seems like we get our system of values from television productions. Professional wrestling is one of the few programs which started on TV in the late 1940s and now claims more viewers than ever. There are no rules, and it is associated with contrived (but unreal) violence: mockery of the referee, racism, absence of sportsmanship, yelling, screaming, and hatred. Reasonable rules of decency are totally ignored. The shows get worse every year; belts, chains, and cages are now part of the acts. Twenty wrestlers are put into a ring without a referee and a free-for-all erupts -- the more violent, the more the crowd cheers the ridiculous charade.

But nonetheless, he stood firm and continued to say what truly was in heart and mind, consequences be damned. Not only is he a man with the right message, but he is a man with the right approach and the right conduct, and we in this Revolution could learn much from him in this respect.

Commencement ceremonies at the end of academic years serve as the beginning of something new while celebrating the end of the process of getting to that point. Ron Paul's exit tonight from the race is just that: a commencement. This year has been an education for all of us in the liberty movement: an education of the principles of liberty to those who have never come across them, an education in how to campaign at a grassroots level for those who have never been in politics before, an education in the way to run a campaign and in the way not to, and an education in how we conduct ourselves as we continue forward. Let us celebrate this great campaign and this great candidate who achieved unprecedented heights for libertarianism and set forth a tremendous foundation for us, as well as the beginning of the next phase. We have many more campaigns that need our support, such as the campaign I'm working on, B.J. Lawson for Congress in North Carolina's 4th District. We have some of the smartest people in America on our side, and we have the right message and principles. It's now up to us to take the baton from Ron Paul and run with it. If we stick together and stay involved, we will win when the time is right, and this time may be sooner than we think.

This Revolution continues!

Catching up on my Barr pimpage.

A few stories that need to be covered.

1. Apparently, Tom DeLay's wife has seen the light and intends to vote for Bob.

Tom DeLay will vote for John McCain but the former House Republican leader said his wife, Christine, is planning to vote for Libertarian presidential nominee Bob Barr.

"I'm trying to convince my wife not to do that," the Texas Republican told editors and reporters at The Washington Times on Friday. "She said it publicly yesterday."

I'm not the biggest Tom DeLay fan in the world, and I would say that at least his wife seems to have good judgment, except that statement would naturally be nullified by the fact that she's married to him. However, she seems to have her moments, at least. But she's not the only relative of a corrupt politician who seems to like liberty, as...

2. Hilldog's brother may vote for him, as well.

“If my sister doesn’t end up with the nomination, I gotta take a look at who I’m gonna vote for,” he said.

Horrors.

Does that mean, Fiore asked, Rodham would vote for Republican John McCain?

“I didn’t say that. It could be Bob Barr,” he said, referring to the Libertarian presidential candidate who, as a House member from Georgia, was a prime player in the impeachment of Rodham’s brother-in-law, Bill Clinton).

Then again, she was raised a Republican and was a Goldwater Girl, so this news isn't totally surprising. The limited government instincts look like they're there.

3. Bob Barr in a great interview on Bloomberg TV. Parts one, two, and three.

4. Bob Barr in another great interview on Glenn Beck a few nights ago. Parts one, two, three, four, five, and six.

When non-supply side apologist or free market-leaning economists who are most likely Democrats strike

I just came across this great tidbit, courtesy of the great Greg Mankiw. Paul Orszag, a well-respected public finance economist who used to work for the Brookings Institution (not exactly a right-wing bastion) and who is now Director of the Congressional Budget Office, prepared a report for Congressman Paul Ryan, the Ranking Member of the Budget Committee, on issues of spending. Citing Greg's citation verbatim:

With no economic feedbacks taken into account and under an assumption that raising marginal tax rates was the only mechanism used to balance the budget, tax rates would have to more than double. The tax rate for the lowest tax bracket would have to be increased from 10 percent to 25 percent; the tax rate on incomes in the current 25 percent bracket would have to be increased to 63 percent; and the tax rate of the highest bracket would have to be raised from 35 percent to 88 percent. The top corporate income tax rate would also increase from 35 percent to 88 percent.

Such tax rates would significantly reduce economic activity and would create serious problems with tax avoidance and tax evasion.

Looks like the new generation of spend-happy Democrats is going to have a lot of trouble financing all of the goodies they want while still maintaining a strong and growing economy.

Obama on the Economy: Do more of exactly what got us into this crap.

Today, Barack Obama called for Congress to spend another whopping $50 billion in economic stimulus. I find these particular excerpts by him cited by the article to be particularly fascinating:

The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee cited the largest monthly increase in the unemployment rate in over 20 years, and record highs in oil prices, food prices and foreclosures.

"Such relief can't wait until the next president takes office. ... That's why I've called for another round of fiscal stimulus, an immediate $50 billion to help those who've been hit hardest by this economic downturn," Obama told a crowd in Raleigh, N.C.

He said that he supports the expansion and extension of unemployment benefits, as well as a second round of tax rebate checks.

So his answer to rising oil and food prices is more inflationary deficit spending? (And we're supposed to believe that he is some sort of fiscal conservative, as he tries to claim, who is concerned about deficits? Then again, I've already detailed how Senator Obama has a thing for big spending.) This, while Helicopter Ben has sent all of the choppers in the battalion into Red Alert mode this year?

And his answer to addressing the unemployment rate is further subsidizing unemployment?

His answer to easing job losses during this depression is to send out rebate checks that are most likely going to be spent on more imported goods? Is Wal-Mart really that large of a percentage of our GDP?

As the article states,

the jury is still out on how successful those rebates will be stimulating the economy.

The mess we are in right now is precisely due to deficit spending policies of this kind and due to the active manipulation by the government the economy through discretionary policy, be it on the fiscal side or the monetary side. The racking of $9.4 trillion in national debt, as my nifty clock to the right keeps track of by the money, is having some serious consequences, and will continue to have serious consequences. This, while we have $50-70 trillion in present value stacked in unfunded liabilities of our government, depending on the source. This, while the Federal Reserve's manipulation of market interest rates has caused massive instability in financial markets. Nearly every economic problem we are facing in this country- inflation, decline in the manufacturing base, malinvestment, declining savings, our massive current account deficit, destruction of the currency in foreign exchange markets, the current mortgage and credit crises- can be traced to the presence and wicked interaction of discretionary policies.

Preventing recession and generating growth are two fundamentally different concepts. Preventing recession also prevents the process by which causes of long-term decline, such as bad debt and perverse incentives, are cleaned out of the market. Broadly defining the economy as "in recession" in the first place is useless. Macro data is often horrendously unreliable given the complexity of the macroeconomy, and the fall of production overall in the economy does not necessarily entail that every industry is in recession and that the sky is falling because some in the economy (often a relatively small minority) have no jobs. On the other hand, economic growth policy entails having a policy framework that facilitates strength in the fundamentals of growth. There is broad consensus among growth theorists that long-term growth is sourced in the following:

* Vibrant entrepreneurship (thank you, Mr. Schumpeter)
* Innovation
* High personal saving rates
* Physical capital investment
* Human capital investment (i.e., education investment)
* Public infrastructure investment
* Protection of property rights and enforcement of contracts

Most growth theorists would agree that low and simple taxation and regulation, although not all do.

Further Obama proposals cited in the article:

Obama has pledged to keep the tax cuts in place for everyone except those making roughly $250,000 and up. He has also made proposals to cut taxes further for the middle class, some of which he reiterated in his speech: exempt seniors making less than $50,000 from having to pay income tax; give a tax credit worth up to $500 per working person ($1,000 per family) to offset the Social Security tax on the first $8,100 of earnings; and expand the earned income tax credit.

To boost retirement savings, he has also proposed a 50% federal match on the first $1,000 of savings for families that earn under $75,000.

1) What's with setting an arbitrary threshold for maintenance of tax cuts at $250,000? If Senator Obama is as big of a fan of small businesses as Democrats claim to be, he would realize that there are quite a few small businessmen making exactly that amount or perhaps a little higher. Does he really want to throw a huge new burden on small business owners who file individual income taxes? Furthermore, does he really think that someone making six-figures is part of the evil "money culture" oppressor class that he seems to hate so much? That's a pretty ridiculous assertion, if in fact that is what he is saying. And it's not as if the revenue from getting rid of the tax cuts for those with incomes greater than $250,000 is going to generate much more revenue, or even enough to fund all of his grand programs.

2) So the answer to easing the burden on low-middle income families is to add more complication and paperwork to their tax filing every year? I beg to differ.

3) How the hell is a federal match on the first 50% of $1,000 saving for families earning under $75,000 going to boost saving substantially? $1,500 a year over, say, 30 years or so (maybe not even that many years, for many families who will see upward income mobility) would build a nominal nest egg principal of $45,000, with the real figure being significantly less after inflation. A saver at this level would have to get some really kick-ass return in order to finance a decent standard of living in retirement, and people saving at this level probably aren't going to afford the instruments that generate this type of return. This proposal, with its arbitrary constrictions, is pure poppycock. But hey! Social Security and Medicare will be in tremendous financial shape at that time and will affordably be able to finance a nice middle class standard of living for retirees in the future with absolutely no crushing cost to the productive economy! Oh, wait.

And besides, tax-preferenced schemes to boost savings such as this have tricky effects, such as giving breaks to people already saving and, in cases like tax-preferenced IRAs, re-channeling saving into another financial insturment. The use of the tax code to engineer some type of economic outcome, which is really just a form of central planning, typically doesn't work very well, and often has effects just as negative as other lovely central planning instruments like price controls, direct subsidies, and regulation. (For a grand example of a royal screwup by tax-preferencing, observe the health care industry.)

However, it is at least encouraging that he's at least thinking about saving.

Further down in the article, there is mention of a new education program he is planning to unveil. I'm not one of those libertarians who opposes public education. An educated citizenry is a necessary precondition for the maintenance of a free soceity, and a quality public education system develops the quality human capital that produces economic growth and the functioning of a free market. (Of course, the education system must be funded justly.) However, federal involvement needs to end. Public education systems need to be the cornerstone of state economic development plans, rather than shelling out taxpayer-funded sweetheart deals to massive corporations as many states do. (And as we have a storied tradition of doing here in North Carolina.) NCLB has caused a serious chirade in public education systems around the country with its one-size-fits-all masturbatory emphasis on testing and the externalities of it, including the dreadful "teach the test" philosophy. Given Obama's previously stated support for NCLB, I'm pretty sure his new program is not going to go more in the direction of decreasing federal involvement.

Barr-Root 2008: My Analysis (Finally)

I'm a couple of weeks late in discussing this, but I've finally come around to it. My apologies for my tardiness.

I am obviously very pleased about Bob Barr's nomination for President. I endorsed him a couple of months ago for office, and I will easily support him vigorously and vote for him in November. As I stated in a previous post, I disagree with the key objections of some libertarians to him based on past votes in Congress, as I believe they are either ignorant (accusing him of having an anti-civil liberties record because of his Patriot Act vote, when in fact he had a long record of defending the Bill of Rights and fought to get sunset clauses into the Patriot Act before he voted for it, is just wrong) or misguided (as in the case of drugs; he did go to work for the Marijuana Policy Project after he left Congress, so while his position isn't perfect, he's coming around). Furthermore, his coming around on DOMA and calling for repeal of the definition of marriage for purposes federal law is very welcome.

That Bob Barr is an effective politician and will be an effective candidate for the Party is undoubtable. He is a very intelligent, passionate, and well-spoken man who has impressive credentials in a sphere of issues- Civil Liberties- that must be addressed, will have great political appeal, and will bring many new voters to the Libertarian Party. Representative Barr is often criticized for his lack of charisma, but I think he brings another intrinsic quality that will be very politically appealing: seriousness. When he speaks, he comes across as very focused, professional, and businesslike. I believe that these are the characteristics that many people are looking for in a leader now, and they contrast well with Obama's brash aloofness and McCain's temperamental brazenness. Furthermore, it is a terrific quality in a messenger for libertarianism, which is too often associated with the word "kook."

This brings me a great deal of uneasiness about Wayne Allyn Root's selection as the Vice Presidential candidate. For all of Barr's sobriety, Root is in equal measure grotesquely obnoxious in a way reminiscing of the used car salesman from hell. This is readily apparent in any video of him available online. He is firmly a man of Vegas, and not only does he seem oblivious to the possible political drawbacks of such a personality, but promotes this persona as if it is that of a model citizen. While brings great energy to the ticket and is a confident (even intelligent) speaker. He can also be serious and focused, as he demonstrates in this debate with Mike Gravel. However, generally speaking, he also has a certifiably basket case personality, and the campaign should always make sure to keep a bottle of Valium close by at all times.

Given the potential candidates for the position, though, he's probably the best choice. Steve Kubby, the other major candidate for the nomination, goes to great lengths to do nothing to perpetuate the common libertarian stereotype of what The Economist calls the "Refer Madness" wing of the LP. Mary Ruwart, while a very intelligent woman and an effective and rational communicator, also possesses a skeleton closet full of not-so-carefully-worded writings, such as the child porn fiasco. It is disappointing, though, that she did not even declare her candidacy for the position, if for no other reason than the silent declaration that she will have nothing to do with this campaign. She would have been an effective evangelical on its behalf.

The really good news for the Party is that it looks like it's united behind this ticket. I was very worried about the prospect of a blowup at the site of a Barr-Root ticket, given that both are former Republicans. The Radical Caucus certainly seemed to be leading an energized "Anybody But Barr" movement, but it did not culminate in a massive walkout after the ticket was formed. This is good news, as it appears the LP is starting to understand the unprecedented political opportunity they have on behalf of liberty, in light of Ron Paul's illuminating campaign. More political pragmatism throughout in the LP going forward can only be positive.

Barr-Root will be the ticket that will establish the LP as a true political force. I would project right now their popular vote total will fall somewhere in the range of 5-20%, which would be simply outstanding. From this campaign will come more money, more perception of credibility, more motivation for activists, and the construction of a legitimate organization that will establish it as THE 3rd Party. Where the Perot campaign failed in establishing a long-term 3rd Party movement, it did so because it emphasized a quixotic, and largely authoritarian, set of policy positions and was centered around a candidate who was perceived as kooky. The Barr campaign will succeed because it will be lead by a candidate who is serious and will focus on a truly new "way," as opposed to the Democratic and Republican "ways."

But Barr-Root will also have a positive impact for us libertarian Republicans who want to bring the Party back in line with the ideas of Goldwater and the rhetoric of Reagan. For one, both candidate symbolize the disaffected Republican: the fiscally conservative, socially tolerant, pro-civil liberties Republican who is tiring of the Bush Republicans' expansion of government spending and regulation, assaults on the Bill of Rights, failed Iraq War and foreign policy, use of divisive social rhetoric in lieu of addressing more important issues, and the general incompetence of leaders in the Party. Barr-Root will obviously be heavily targeting disaffected Republicans, but its greatest performance will be among Independents (which include all non-Republicans and non-Democrats) and among new voters. The success of Barr-Root will demonstrate the potency of libertarianism as a political force and the necessity of advocating for truly limited government if they are to maintain a long-term movement that can sustain and repel the anti-liberty tide being generated by the new Democrats.

I have never been as excited about a Presidential Campaign as I have been about Ron Paul's campaign. Barr-Root will receive every ounce of it going into November.

GO BOB BARR!

Freedom is Popular

Ok, I apologize again for not keeping the blog updated nearly enough. I am quite busy with the Lawson for Congress campaign, and it's just now getting ready to pick up.

Anyhow, I am also writing at the Lawson for Congress website for the blog page. I will often copy posts that I make there to here. Here is my latest entry, of which I am, quite frankly, immensely proud. It came while I was doing some policy research for the campaign, and I stumbled upon this terrific column from the Wall Street Journal. Without further adieu, let it rip.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It’s time for a little exercise. I’m going to cite a recent article from a couple of months ago, and I’m going to have you all guess the name of the author. Let’s see just how good you guys are. Ready? Go!

Nearly 16 years ago in these very pages, I wrote that “‘one-size-fits all’ rules for business ignore the reality of the market place.” Today I’m watching some broad rules evolve on individual decisions that are even worse.

Under the guise of protecting us from ourselves, the right and the left are becoming ever more aggressive in regulating behavior. Much paternalist scrutiny has recently centered on personal economics, including calls to regulate subprime mortgages.

With liberalized credit rules, many people with limited income could access a mortgage and choose, for the first time, if they wanted to own a home. And most of those who chose to do so are hanging on to their mortgages. According to the national delinquency survey released yesterday, the vast majority of subprime, adjustable-rate mortgages are in good condition, their holders neither delinquent nor in default.

There’s no question, however, that delinquency and default rates are far too high. But some of this is due to bad investment decisions by real-estate speculators. These losses are not unlike the risks taken every day in the stock market.

The real question for policy makers is how to protect those worthy borrowers who are struggling, without throwing out a system that works fine for the majority of its users (all of whom have freely chosen to use it). If the tub is more baby than bathwater, we should think twice about dumping everything out.

Health-care paternalism creates another problem that’s rarely mentioned: Many people can’t afford the gold-plated health plans that are the only options available in their states.

Buying health insurance on the Internet and across state lines, where less expensive plans may be available, is prohibited by many state insurance commissions. Despite being able to buy car or home insurance with a mouse click, some state governments require their approved plans for purchase or none at all. It’s as if states dictated that you had to buy a Mercedes or no car at all.

Economic paternalism takes its newest form with the campaign against short-term small loans, commonly known as “payday lending.”

With payday lending, people in need of immediate money can borrow against their future paychecks, allowing emergency purchases or bill payments they could not otherwise make. The service comes at the cost of a significant fee — usually $15 for every $100 borrowed for two weeks. But the cost seems reasonable when all your other options, such as bounced checks or skipped credit-card payments, are obviously more expensive and play havoc with your credit rating.

Anguished at the fact that payday lending isn’t perfect, some people would outlaw the service entirely, or cap fees at such low levels that no lender will provide the service. Anyone who’s familiar with the law of unintended consequences should be able to guess what happens next.

Researchers from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York went one step further and laid the data out: Payday lending bans simply push low-income borrowers into less pleasant options, including increased rates of bankruptcy. Net result: After a lending ban, the consumer has the same amount of debt but fewer ways to manage it.

Since leaving office I’ve written about public policy from a new perspective: outside looking in. I’ve come to realize that protecting freedom of choice in our everyday lives is essential to maintaining a healthy civil society.

Why do we think we are helping adult consumers by taking away their options? We don’t take away cars because we don’t like some people speeding. We allow state lotteries despite knowing some people are betting their grocery money. Everyone is exposed to economic risks of some kind. But we don’t operate mindlessly in trying to smooth out every theoretical wrinkle in life.

The nature of freedom of choice is that some people will misuse their responsibility and hurt themselves in the process. We should do our best to educate them, but without diminishing choice for everyone else.

So, who wrote this article? I’ll give you guys three guesses.

John Stossel, perhaps the most visible libertarian media personality in America? Wrong.

How about Ron Paul? Good thought, but not this time.

How about (insert third guess)? (Most likely) Wrong.

This article, titled “Freedom Means Responsibility” and appearing in the Wall Street Journal on March 7, was written by none other than George McGovern, former Democratic Senator from South Dakota and 1972 Democratic Presidential Nominee. Obviously, this does not quite sound like the same guy who, in his ‘72 acceptance speech, called for Nationalized Health Insurance, enforcing laws against drugs, and guaranteed income for everyone. It certainly appears as though Senator McGovern has had a change of mind on many issues, if not a sea change in philosophy. This is quite welcome from my vantage point, and I of course completely agree with everything that he states in his article.

Senator McGovern’s column, more broadly speaking, demonstrates that the concept of individual liberty isn’t just a libertarian idea, as I’m sure that Senator McGovern would not define himself as a libertarian (he did support Hillary Clinton for President, after all). Freedom is a desire that we all have as individuals and, as such, is the concept that unites us all across the boundaries of political affiliation, religion, race, and sexual orientation. It’s the principle that united us in forming this country and repelling the tyranny of King George I. It is the ideal that united us when we repelled and defeated fascism in World War II. It is the desire that unites, through our history, the slaves and abolitionists who toiled to end this oppression, the women who struggled for their right to vote, and the courageous protester who refused to yield her seat on the Montgomery City bus. It is when the discussion turns to taking away liberty that we become divided, as the coercion of that fundamental human desire necessitates that one exercises it (through freedom of action in government) while another loses the ability to exercise it. We are never as divided as we are when we tax income and argue over how the revenues should be allocated; take away people’s freedom of speech and association with whom they want, or to do with their bodies as they wish; start wars without aggressive provocation; or to directly subjugate people.

But as Senator McGovern states, freedom means that we all as individuals are responsible for the consequences of our own choices. We are not responsible for making choices for others in how to spend their money and live their lives or for saving people from themselves, and even if try, transactions costs are so high that we would never be able to enforce this code of conduct on the entire society. Even within small private associations, it is nearly impossible to control the actions of others, be it a friendship, a marriage, a business partnership, or a team. We have all had experiences in which our friends, family, and loved ones have made decisions which have hurt them, and it is a natural human reaction to feel pain for them. But people are people, and people have free will; they exercise it to their benefit and to their detriment. We must understand this, accept the consequences of our own actions and others’ actions, and learn from them if we are to progress as individuals and as a society.

Furthermore, given the imperfection of human nature and the fact that we will all make mistakes during our lives, we are hardly qualified to determine through the central planning mechanism of government what are the “good” choices we should impose on others and the “bad” choices we should prevent others from making. This does not mean, as Senator McGovern suggests, that we do not try to educate people and give them advice about their choices. Certainly we should do this, and a education system, both private and public as well as academic and non-academic, is a vital precondition to successful lives , economic growth, and the functioning and maintenance of a free society. We gain experience from life and expertise in whatever field of industry we pursue, and this is valuable information we should pass on to others and to future generations so that they may have models of success and failure on which they can base their actions. But we cannot be so sure about our own thoughts about what decisions are right and what decisions are wrong that we mandate them as law for everyone.

Freedom also means that pursuing our own actions means that we are also responsible for the consequences of our actions that coerce others’ liberty. When firms and individuals pollute, they damage the private property of others through direct physical property damage, decreasing property values, and harming individuals’ health (thus decreasing their productivity and garnishing their incomes). When one party in a contract violates the terms of it, they violate the right of others to enter into and participate in an associate with trust and honor. When someone smokes a cigarette, the second-hand smoke from the action often leads to others’ developing lung cancer. In cases such as these, it is our responsibility through the government’s enforcement of property rights and contracts to punish the violation of other peoples’ liberty and establish justice, which can be accomplished through the mechanisms such as statutory financial penalties, property and contract law, and litigation in the court system.

We are at a crossroads in the history of this country. While the government could always have afforded and preserve more liberty for the people throughout our history, there has been a very disturbing and gradual trend over nearly a century toward a society where freedom is not only coerced more and more by government, but it is understood and appreciated less and less by people. With the arrival of the internet and other new mass communications technologies, we now have the ability to disseminate information in a matter of fractions of a second and to communicate and organize with others. If we are fully prepared to understand and cherish the tremendous benefits of liberty as well as accept the responsibilities it entails, then we can join the likes of Ron Paul and George McGovern to reclaim the path toward living the dream of our founding fathers that inspired them to sacrifice so much give us this great country of ours. If we do not act now, this dream may forever be lost.

Bob Barr polling 6% in North Carolina

From Public Policy Polling:

With Obama as the Democratic Nominee:

John McCain 43%
Barack Obama 40%
Bob Barr 6%


With Clinton as the Democratic Nominee:

John McCain 39%
Hillary Clinton 34%
Bob Barr 6%

This is a solid start for the Barr campaign, and it hasn't really even started rolling yet. When the campaign starts raising money (and it will) and getting more media, those poll numbers will only rise.

Libertarianism is strong in North Carolina, with strong leadership at the stead. The Ron Paul Meetup groups had large numbers in N.C.. B.J. Lawson won a convincing victory in the Republican Congressional Primary in the 4th District. Mike Munger is the best candidate the Libertarian Party has ever run for N.C. governor, and with unprecedented media exposure for libertarian candidates, he is polling very similarly to Barr. If I was calling it right now, I would predict that Barr will get Double-Digits in November.

I have a post with my analysis of the Libertarian Party Convention and on the Barr-Root ticket coming up tonight. In short, I am obviously very happy that Barr is the nominee, and while I do believe that Root will be an energetic and articulate cheerleader for the Party, I really worry that his "personality" (if it can be called such) will have quite the grating effect on voters. Furthermore, I really worry that going with Root will alienate a large segment of the Party who will be needed on the ground working for the ticket in order for the LP to make the splash that's needed in November. I really wish that Mary Ruwart would have been able to put aside her self-righteousness and run for the Vice Presidential nomination. She surely would have won, and a Barr-Ruwart ticket would have had the perfect balance.

Check back around 8 PM; hopefully, it will be done before then. It better be: my Pens are fighting for their Stanley Cup lives tonight; fingers crossed.

LET'S GO PENS!