Liberty Republicans

Seatbelt laws for safety of citizens? Give me a break!

2009-02-06T18:53:00.002-05:00

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090204/ap_on_re_us/seat_belt_laws

At least the government finally admits what we have known all along--traffic laws are not about safety, but about squeezing even more money out of law abiding citizens.

Salt Water for Liberty

2008-11-07T19:01:00.000-05:00

My ocean dive.

And beer for our horses.

3 Percent!!!

2008-09-21T01:59:00.001-04:00

"3 percent in the poll said they would support someone else"

http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2008/09/21/news/breaking_news/doc48d5b05a90f91577330741.txt

Must have been no option for the third party voters such as *cough* Bob Barr *cough*.

Government take-over

2008-09-08T00:34:00.004-04:00

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac now under control of the government.

http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2008/09/07/news/breaking_news/doc48c4445632064440291992.txt

After a long day of work, I get home, fire up the internet and read this...

"The Bush administration announced Sunday it was taking control of the two institutions to avert the potential for major financial turmoil."

The first thing that I could think of was...wow we really are on our way to Socialism.
These were two privately owned businesses that are now under complete control of our government. My new career goal is to create a trillion dollar business, do whatever I want and then if I ever make a mistake, the government will step in to help me out! Wow, what a business model.

"Both companies were placed into a government conservatorship that will be run by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the new agency created by Congress this summer to regulate Fannie and Freddie. The executives and board of directors of both institutions are being replaced."

I wonder what other companies will be put under control of our government?

McCain fights inexperience with inexperience

2008-08-29T14:35:00.003-04:00

John McCain has announce his VP running mate:

Sarah Palin....

what? who?

http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2008/08/29/news/top_story/doc48b80db69010d962639386.txt

Thoughts?

I.O.U.S.A.

2008-07-31T04:26:00.003-04:00

As has been widely reported, Congress last week passed H.R. 3221, a "comprehensive" housing bill, with our favorite fiscally irresponsible 4th District representative voting in favor of it. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill will cost about $37 billion next year, and it provides $25 billion over the next two years in "relief" for failed semi-governmental institutions Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. However, the CBO states that the cost of this "bailout" for Fannie and Freddie could be as high as $100 billion. These estimates do not even include the $300 billion that the bill authorizes the Federal Housing Administration to spend on guaranteeing loans through 2011. This bill ultimately could cost as much as $500 billion.

Never mind the considerable cost of the bill and the borrowing it will entail at a time when the Administration projects the budget deficit next year to be near $500 billion. Or the fact that, by allowing Fannie and Freddie to purchase mortgages as high as $625,000 and giving borrowers and lenders alike a free ride, the bill will do absolutely nothing to address the problems in our mortgage markets and our financial markets in general. The real shame about this horrendous piece of legislation is a provision that has absolutely nothing to do with mortgages at all, but does have everything to do with the most pressing economic issue we face. The bill increases the public debt ceiling, which is the amount of debt that the government can "legally" have, to $10.6 trillion.

This limit has had no real meaning historically, as Congress has increased it periodically from $43 billion in 1940 to now $10.6 trillion. This trend over time reflects an absolute lack of willingness of our representatives in Washington to stop increasing spending at such a blinding rate and to make the hard decisions necessary to reduce the debt and prevent the economic collapse it will bring if left unchecked. In addition to the economic issue at hand, the debt and the conscious increasing of its limit by our representatives is a moral issue. In pushing more and more of the costs of their excesses on to future generations, our representatives, including David Price, show themselves to be individuals of truly repugnant moral character.

But while our representatives are to blame for their behavior, we the people are to blame for electing them and not holding them accountable for their behavior. Much of this is likely due to what appears to be a genuine lack of concern for the debt, as a recent Pew Research Poll finds that deficits rank behind the economy, education, jobs, health care, energy, Social Security and Iraq. What many voters fail to realize is that most of these issues are directly tied to the deficit and our future fiscal outlook, particularly the health of the economy. It is absolutely essential that voters learn about deficits, debt, our long-term imbalances, and their horrifying consequences, so that we may elect responsible representatives who will take action to resolve what has truly become a crisis.

Thankfully, we have a golden opportunity before us to educate voters on the issues. Documentary films have shown to have tremendous impact in raising awareness and public profiles of issues, and a new documentary about the debt will be released in August. The film is appropriately titled I.O.U.S.A. and will be debuting on August 22. There will be a special screening the night before on August 21, which will be accompanied by a live discussion featuring former Comptroller of the Currency David Walker, Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffet, and Blackstone Group Chairman and former Commerce Secretary Peter Peterson. As the trailer states, "You can't afford to miss this film."

America: A nation of debt

2008-07-29T19:42:00.001-04:00

Yesterday, newspapers and wire services across the country reported that the U.S. government's deficit is expected to surge to an astounding half-trillion dollars next year. Here's the kicker. That figure doesn't include billions more dollars that will likely, nay most definitely, be spent on the Iraq War. And if the economy doesn't pick up, that figure will undoubtedly grow even bigger as Washington officials try to correct our economic woes by pumping artificial money into the hands of unsuspecting Americans.

Folks, this is big. We are facing the largest deficit in terms of dollar amounts in U.S. history and no one seems to care -- at least our presidential candidates don't seemed shaken by the bleak news.

Neither Barack Obama nor John McCain are proposing any budget cuts. Rather, Obama is promising to expand social programs, health care and education initiatives. McCain is promising tax cuts across the board and will keep troops in Iraq. Without budget cuts in other sectors, both candidates' campaign platforms are a recipe for disaster.

Officials reported yesterday that the record high deficit is being driven by the economic downturn and the government's attempt to boost the economy by providing 130 million households with stimulus checks. What the mainstream media has failed to mention is some of the other reasons why the Land of the Free is up to her ears in debt.

Who do you think is bailing out all those mortgagors hit hard by the tumbling housing market? What about the failing banks? The corporations who made bad investments?

Well, obviously it's the government bailing these people out. Wrong. You are bailing those people out! Yes, that's right. You, the taxpayer. Your tax dollars, my friends, are going to pay for the mistakes, irresponsibility and misjudgment of others.

When will the madness stop? Will the government soon start footing the bills for compulsive shoppers who are months behind on their credit card payments? This sounds absolutely absurd of course and rightfully so.

Our politicians need to realize that there is no "quick fix" to this economic recession. Printing more money doesn't solve our financial problems. While it may create more physical money, it decreases the purchasing power of what's in our wallets.

Spending billions of dollars that we don't have is only going to worsen our predicament, not aid it. You don't have to be an economist to figure that out.

Help the President with Law Enforcement! Stop the Feds from Criminalizing Everything

2008-07-28T08:19:00.002-04:00

I have an old metal sign, framed and hung on my office wall.

It says: Help the President with Law Enforcement! Repeal the 18th Amendment....for Prosperity!

Lots of stuff is illegal just because it happens to be against the law. Or to paraphrase the old gun slogan: If everything is criminalized, then all citizens will be criminals.

Interesting conference at Heritage; MP3 here.

Thanks to William G. Atwell, Prison Fellowship Ministries, for sending it along.

But...I have to ask: Ed Meese? Ed MEESE? I accept that big Ed has it right on the federalism (return police power to the states) issue. But yikes.

By itself the pure "return power to the states" perspective is only a half measure, or quarter measure. Here is my view.....

The ideal is self-ownership, and self-responsibility. I drink too much, I have an accident, I owe very large restitution, and since I committed violence, I go to jail. I have violated, egregiously, my promise not to initiate violence against others.

In most matters, I would like for the "policy" choices (say, do we smoke marijuana?) to be "local." Meaning, I decide for me, and you decide for you. My mind decides for my body. That's local control.

Once politics gets into it, then I start deciding for you, and you start deciding for me. Not good, but less is better. Better if these choices are local, made at the small town level than at the county level. Better at the county level than the state level. And better at the state level than the federal level. And better at the federal level than at the North American Union level. (EEK!)

So, sure, moving from the fed level down to the states is a small improvement (although the states abused that right in Jim Crow, and resisted basic human rights for blacks for decades).

But the real problems is criminalizing everything. It's not FEDERAL criminalizing everything, it's making crimes of consensual behavior at ANY level. Moving from fed to state control simply makes it easier to get some states to do the right thing, the opposite of Madison's argument in Federalist #10.

I don't see that it matters that much if you are in fed prison, or a city jail. In both cases, you might as well free your mind, 'cause your ass ain't goin' nowhere.*

Help the President, the Governor, the Mayor, and the traffic cop with law enforcement. Get rid of a bunch of laws.

(*Plagiarized from Jon Stewart)

John McCain: Cold Warrior?

2008-07-27T23:18:00.003-04:00

Ellen Goodman thinks McCain is stuck on Vietnam. While I think she has a good point, I think he's just stuck in an overall Cold War state of mind. He is constantly agitating towards Russia, even suggesting we kick them out of the G8, as if the Bush administration hasn't done enough of that by placing a missile defense system on their doorstep. This hasn't produced the best results - Russia recently declared its right to strike preemptively, Russian planes are making more regular and provocative flights near US ships, and there are rumors that Russia is going to start basing nuclear bombers in Cuba again. In addition to all that, the so-called foreign policy expert has shown that he might not really be as on top of things in the Middle East as he'd like us to think he is. For example, he completely botched the timeline of the Sunni Awakening and the Surge (after he'd already shown us that he doesn't know the difference between Sunnis and Shiites). He also seems to have forgotten his geography - he stated that there was an "Iraq-Pakistan border" in an interview recently (possibly a Freudian slip illustrating his plans to erase Iran?). And finally, he has shown disdain for the troops by opposing Senator Webb's GI Bill and advocating unequal and inadequate care for veterans depending on where they served.

McCain says he would only ever consider reinstating slavery in the case of World War III. You be the judge as to whether he might just be crazy enough (or senile enough) to start it.

UPDATE: Charley Reese has a good article on LRC today about McCain being unfit to be President. Lew posts this addendum from the blog as well.

Seriously, Rudy

2008-07-22T16:54:00.003-04:00

Rudy Giuliani was featured today on one of the morning talk shows criticizing Barack Obama in an attempt to suck up to John McCain. Giuliani, seemingly eyeing up the vice presidency, praised McCain's position on his support for the surge of troops in Iraq. Rudy went on to say that if it were not for the surge there would probably be a civil war in Iraq. Hmm, does Rudy know what's been going on in Iraq the past few years? It looks pretty much like a civil war to me.

Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board

2008-07-20T12:32:00.002-04:00

Here is an interesting letter I received today about my previous campaign:

"The attached documents were sent into the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board as they did not contain a "paid for by" attribution statement as required by Iowa Code section 68A.405.

At this point I would appreciate your written response to the following:

1. Did you pay for the costs of these materials?
2. If not, do you know the name and address of who did?
3. Is there any other response you would like to make to help resolve this matter?

...here is where it gets interesting...

At this point you are under no obligation to provide a response. If you prefer, I can seek a subpoena to obtain testimony or documents. If you do choose to respond, please be aware that the Board will review any such response when making determinations concerning this matter. I would appreciate your response or a statement that you prefer I seek a subpoena on or before August 7, 2008."

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

Apparently someone paid for a mailing in my name that was sent to Cedar Falls, Iowa voters. I did have a pamphlet that I had made with the help of campaign donations, it had the "appropriate insignia" on it.

Apparently people aren't allowed to practice the freedom of expression..."to protect any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used."

Now granted I knew about the campaign disclosure laws, and had followed them. I am just kind of mad that some independent citizen or organization spent there hard earned money on dispensing a message, their message to fellow citizens.

If I know who it was I am supposed to cry foul to the state government.

Bah hum bug.

Indoctrinate U

2008-07-20T05:47:00.004-04:00

Check out this eye opening documentary film about the lack of diversity in opinion and politics in our American colleges and universities:

http://indoctrinate-u.com/pages/welcome.html

The film even includes a few interview snippets from Michael Munger. Sign up and get this film screened in your college hometown!

Not a Dime's Worth of Difference

2008-07-17T17:16:00.002-04:00

In case it wasn't hard enough to distinguish the policy differences between McCain and Obama, President Bush is doing all he can to neutralize the few foreign policy differences that exist between the two candidates. By accelerating the withdrawal of forces from Iraq and contemplating intervention in Darfur, President Bush may just be able to sever the MoveOn crowd from Obama (their relationship is already on the rocks because of Obama's sell-out on FISA). Given that the "Far Left" was Obama's foundation of support during the primaries, losing them may make McCain's life a lot easier. Just goes to show that there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties, and they'll do anything to stay in power.

Welcome, Emily!

2008-07-17T17:04:00.002-04:00

Emily is a Journalism and Political Science Major at Ohio. She is currently interning at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. She's got a fantastic blog running, which I've added to my blog roll. I'm very excited to have her on board, as she is a talented and insightful writer.

About that New Yorker cover...

2008-07-17T13:48:00.002-04:00

I blog post I wrote this week: http://emilylmullin.blogspot.com/2008/07/about-that-new-yorker-cover.html.

Comments welcome.

Stimulate Me

2008-07-17T13:04:00.002-04:00

A post I just made at the Lawson for Congress blog. Have fun!

There has been much discussion about the use of the rebate package passed by Congress and signed by the President to stimulate the economy. B.J. recently covered the topic in his post, “Shiller vs. IMF,” laying out the arguments of those who favor using it and those who oppose it. As with most government initiatives, success is best measured by its unintended consequences:

President Bush Boosts Porn Industry With Economic Stimulus Plan, According to AIMRCo

NEW YORK, July 2 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — An unforeseen and surprising beneficiary of the Economic Stimulus Plan, a plan that George Bush contends will “boost our economy and encourage job creation,” has surfaced this week. An independent market-research firm, AIMRCo (Adult Internet Market Research Company), has discovered that many websites focused on adult or erotic material have experienced an upswing in sales in the recent weeks since checks have appeared in millions of Americans’ mailboxes across the country.

According to Kirk Mishkin, Head Research Consultant for AIMRCo, “Many of the sites we surveyed have reported 20-30% growth in membership rates since mid-May when the checks were first sent out, and typically the summer is a slow period for this market.”

Jillian Fox, spokeswoman for LSGmodels.com, one of the sites reporting figures to AIMRCo, added, “In a June 15, 2008 survey to our members, thirty two percent of respondents referenced the recent stimulus package as part of their decision to either become a new member, or renew an existing membership.”

The economic stimulus plan, which includes a check for up to $600 for individuals and $1200 for married couples (among other benefits), is the product of an agreement between House leaders and the Bush Administration, focused on reviving a struggling economy in the wake of flagging economy.

Fox also added, “Getting more people to buy porn was probably the last thing Bush had on his mind when he came up with his ’stimulus package,’ but we’ll take it.”

One might reasonably question if the money we borrowed to pay for these “rebates” are going to spur capital investment and wealth creation. Or do these data suggest that we’re simply seeing “Congressmen Gone Wild”? It appears our incumbent Representative and others in Congress who supported this legislation have succeeded in seeking a short-run economic boost to satisfy their constituents and facilitate their re-election while ignoring- and in fact exascerbating- very serious fundamental and long-run challenges.

Long-run economic growth results from a number of fundamental factors, which include the accumulation of physical capital (which is a function of personal saving in a healthy economy), human capital (which is a function of education), technological advancement, protection of property rights, and a strong legal system. The accumulation of high debt by government necessitates that resources in the future must be redistributed from investment in these productive forces to paying the bills we’re stacking up now, which crushes long-run economic growth. Furthermore, the building of a large government debt has a number of negative by-products in an international economy. Absorbing private domestic saving necessitates reliance on foreign saving for domestic growth, as well as possibly on foreign purchasing of government bonds to finance deficit spending. When foreign investment decreases and/or leaves the country, which may occur for a number of reasons (market insecurity, a decline of the value of the dollar due to inflationary monetary policy or payment of foreign debt… either of these sound familiar?), then with it goes the source of growth. At this point, interest rates increase with high government borrowing, and the central bank is in a tough spot. It can either inflate to lower interest rates, which will hurt consumers, increase costs for businesses, and decrease returns of investors; or it can do nothing and allow high interest rates to lead to a recession. In any of these situations, economic growth is either stagnant or significanlty negative in the end. Thus, “stimulus” spending ultimately gives no real economic boost at all.

By creating more debt to “stimulate” the economy, Congress is attempting to rebalance a house of cards and delay its eventual collapse, even at the cost of potentially worsening it. We are delaying action on making hard choices that must be made today to shore up the country’s financial future and are making the these choices much harder for ourselves down the road. A $9.4 trillion national debt- with more hundred-billion deficits and skyrocketing interest payments expected down the road- and $53 trillion in present value of unfunded liabilities are absolutely nothing to ignore. These are phenomena that will wreck the economy much more powerfully than any near-term recession that may come, and they will not go away on their own nor by creating a significant amount of new debt.

Finally, we should note that the “stimulus packages” being in the form of rebates implies somehow a lessened burden of taxation for now to achieve a change in some economic variable. Real tax cuts are cuts in the burden of government on the taxpayers, and as such, they are long-term commitments that allow us and our communities to keep more of their resources. Cutting taxes in the short-term and spending in deficit in no way represents a tax cut, as the government has one of two options to finance remaining spending. It can borrow and accumulate debt, which necessitates either a future tax increase to pay off the debt or a stalling of long-term growth and decline in opportunities available to the future. Or, the government can print money to finance deficits, which causes price inflation that squeezes consumers. As Milton Friedman would say (paraphrasing), “A tax cut is not a tax cut at all without a spending cut.”

Radio Ad....

2008-07-13T10:14:00.001-04:00

A blog post about the radio ad I'll be running this week.

Comments welcome!

Mike Munger

Say goodbye to your civil liberties...

2008-07-10T22:02:00.001-04:00

http://www.jbs.org/index.php/jbs-news-feed/7-jbs-news-feed/1979-senate-violates-constitutional-rights-passes-wiretap-bill

Wake up America! Your civil liberties are daily being diminished. Republicans are the foxes at the hen house, and Democrats are looking the other way! You thought 1984 and V for Vendetta were bad? Thats nothing compared to what is going to come. Thanks Obama you just sold our country out!

Yes, smoking is bad but....

2008-07-02T22:15:00.005-04:00

http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2008/07/02/news/breaking_news/doc486bfe337a625547896984.txt

Recently, Iowa lawmakers passed a state-wide smoking ban....well not really state-wide. Casinos are somehow excluded from this ban. The smoking ban was signed April 15 and was only put into place just yesterday, July 1st.

Iowa law makers have decided it is there duty to control private businesses and control the morality of its people.

Fortunately, the group, Iowa Bar Owners Coalition have filed a petition for the court to reconsider the constitutionality of the law.

It will be interesting to hear what the state of Iowa has to say about trampling on civil liberties yet again.

A Favor to Ask

2008-07-02T09:43:00.002-04:00

Dear Friends:

As you know, I have been working to run for Governor of North Carolina, as a Libertarian, for the past two years. Well, we got the 105,000 signatures, and we got on the ballot.

But then things got…weird. I was invited to the final debate, in October, at Queens College in Charlotte. But then that debate got cancelled, and ANOTHER debate, only without the Libertarians in it, got scheduled instead.

The state of NC is really dragging its feet in getting out new forms, so Libertarians can register. The state Board of Elections will barely meet with us, and the county Boards of Elections won't accept checks for filing fees for our candidates. I put up more than $1,000 worth of yard signs, and the state took them all down, because (get this) there is "no election going on at this time"! Ouch.

The only thing that can change this is participation at the grassroots.

And the only kind of participation that matters is….small contributions, from lots of folks!

That's why we are running a small money bomb tomorrow. It's so small, it's really just a money grenade.

Won't you join the Munger "Grenade Brigade"? Here's what you do, ANYTIME ON JULY 3 or JULY 4. Yes, ANYTIME:

1. Go to http://www.munger08.com

2. Click on "contribute"

3. Give $25, or less (the amount doesn't matter as much as the fact you show your support for democracy and free choice in politics!)

That's it. That's all I need.

Please help! Even if you have already given, PLEASE just give something. It isn't the money, as much as it is the message that lots of folks care.

Mike Munger
http://www.munger08.com
munger4ncgov@gmail.com

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

2008-06-27T00:57:00.003-04:00

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.

And for yet another reminder of what we're up against, here's another viewing of B.J. vs. David Price, in which Congressman Price excuses his vote for the Patriot Act by saying it was "passed overwhelmingly" and it was just a "temporary measure." I guess if the 356 other Congressmen who voted for the Patriot Act jumped off a bridge, David Price would, too. And the last time I checked, the Bill of Rights doesn't allow for temporary violation; it doesn't allow for ANY violation.

Oh, and if someone can't answer a question as simple as "Did you read the bills?", how can we trust him to answer the infinitely more pressing questions of our time as the Representative of the 4th District of North Carolina? Your donation will come at a cost, but as this video demonstrates, Liberty is PRICEless!

SCOTUS does its job.

2008-06-26T15:44:00.002-04:00

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.

2008-06-25T18:27:00.002-04:00

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

2008-06-24T01:30:00.004-04:00

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?

2008-06-23T17:18:00.004-04:00

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"

2008-06-22T16:57:00.002-04:00

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.

2008-06-21T02:54:00.003-04:00

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

2008-06-21T00:50:00.002-04:00

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.

2008-06-20T19:28:00.001-04:00

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

Obama goes back on one of his biggest promises

2008-06-20T15:52:00.003-04:00

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

2008-06-18T15:49:00.004-04:00

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

2008-06-18T11:32:00.004-04:00

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

2008-06-16T21:27:00.003-04:00

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

2008-06-16T21:08:00.002-04:00

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...

2008-06-16T20:40:00.001-04:00

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

2008-06-16T18:58:00.004-04:00

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.

2008-06-16T16:45:00.002-04:00

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

Announcing new writer.

2008-06-16T12:04:00.002-04:00

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.

2008-06-15T12:03:00.019-04:00

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

2008-06-15T11:17:00.002-04:00

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.

2008-06-14T23:36:00.003-04:00

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

2008-06-14T21:09:00.002-04:00

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!

2008-06-13T10:51:00.002-04:00

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

2008-06-13T00:41:00.002-04:00

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

2008-06-12T20:07:00.002-04:00

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

2008-06-12T16:53:00.003-04:00

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.

2008-06-10T07:47:00.003-04:00

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

2008-06-10T03:51:00.004-04:00

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.

2008-06-10T00:41:00.008-04:00

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)

2008-06-09T14:27:00.003-04:00

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

2008-06-09T00:08:00.002-04:00

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

2008-06-02T16:50:00.004-04:00

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!

Back from Mexico.

2008-05-28T17:25:00.002-04:00

Some interesting things happened in the last couple of weeks, but I wasn't really able to comment on them greatly due to having been in Mexico. I'm back now, and I've got two topics in the pipeline I'm going to discuss:

1) The new Libertarian Party Presidential ticket, and
2) A recent rubbish statement by Mike Huckabee in this entry on the Huffington Post. I'm sure you'll be able to find which one I'm referring to.

Stand up to George Bush: Elect a Republican to Congress!

2008-05-25T16:28:00.003-04:00

What in the world could bring me, a self-identified libertarian Democrat, to the point of advocating electing a Republican to Congress?

Two things.

First, a Republican like North Carolina's BJ Lawson.

For those who don't know Lawson already, he is arguably one of the most dynamic and exciting libertarian Republican candidates this year. With Jim Forsythe out of the race in New Hampshire, the list of Republican congressional candidates representing a new generation of libertarian politics is lead by BJ Lawson and Virginia's Amit Singh.

Second, there needs to be a Democratic incumbent who is failing to stand up for the district he is elected to represent. In North Carolina's 4th District, we have such a problem.

Ironically, a front page story at the liberal blog Daily Kos helps make the case.

The great minds in Bush's Homeland Security department came up with a doozie this year: let's move the facility where we study the most infectious and dangerous disease among livestock from the isolated island it's now on (accessible only by ferry or helicopter) and put it where there are lots of livestock operations. Brilliant!

The Associated Press has the details on a plan to move the nation's leading center for research into animal diseases from Plum Island to the heartland of America:

The only U.S. facility allowed to research the highly contagious foot-and-mouth disease experienced several accidents with the feared virus, the Bush administration acknowledged Friday.

A 1978 release of the virus into cattle holding pens on Plum Island, N.Y., triggered new safety procedures. While that incident was previously known, the Homeland Security Department told a House committee there were other accidents inside the government's laboratory.

The accidents are significant because the administration is likely to move foot-and-mouth research from the remote island to one of five sites on the U.S. mainland near livestock herds. This has raised concerns about the risks of a catastrophic outbreak of the disease, which does not sicken humans but can devastate the livestock industry.

One of the five likely sites of the research facility is the town of Butner in Granville County, just outside of the 4th District and the Durham metropolitan area.

Here is where the incumbent in the race stands:

My current assessment is that the Granville County site would be a good location for the NBAF, and that our region of North Carolina would reap many economic and agricultural benefits from such a facility.

Here is BJ Lawson's view:

As a citizen, physician, and father, I strongly oppose NBAF in our backyard. Join me in opposing David Price, and opposing NBAF. As your Congressman, I will work for the people of the Fourth District by seeking to make our federal government smaller, not larger. I will work to preserve private property rights, and not encourage unaccountable environmental hazards in our backyards.

The AP article outlines a government simulations of a simulated foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in Kansas:

A simulated outbreak of the disease in 2002 — part of an earlier U.S. government exercise called "Crimson Sky" — ended with fictional riots in the streets after the simulation's National Guardsmen were ordered to kill tens of millions of farm animals, so many that troops ran out of bullets. In the exercise, the government said it would have been forced to dig a ditch in Kansas 25 miles long to bury carcasses. In the simulation, protests broke out in some cities amid food shortages.

Stand up to George Bush and his Department of Homeland Security, elect Republican BJ Lawson.

Rhetorical genocide

2008-05-20T21:09:00.000-04:00

Statists have managed to do one thing exceptionally well, much better than freedom fighters: public relations. Those who advocate annihilation of individual liberty have done an excellent job of convincing countless individuals that they are incapable of running their own lives, and thus need a benevolent overlord, the state, to accomplish the task for them.

The reason statists have done so well on the PR front has all to do with how they package their particular brand of state-slavery. When you boil down the rhetoric, the statist believes simply in enslaving the individual, subjecting him to the arbitrary whim of "majority rules," sacrificing him on the altar of democracy. The statist believes in forcing you - at the point of a gun - to live for everyone else, thereby sacrificing your individuality, talent and ability for the unearned, undeserved benefit of others.

Of course, few realize this, precisely because of the rhetoric itself. Statists have done such a great job of corrupting the English language that to question their Orwellian doublespeak is to invite ridicule and political reproach. Below, I've assembled some of my favorite leftist-statist terms and phrases, as well as some terms whose meanings have been completely changed by modern politics:

Fairness
Statists constantly push for "fair" legislation, especially in the realm of economics. We need to make the rich pay their "fair share" (which fairness, of course, is always in the form of more, not fewer, taxes), says the liberal. Prices should be set, by government, at a "fair" level for the consumer. The list goes on.

The word "fair" is not objective. It is purely subjective. What is fair to one man is injustice to another. But of course, the politician has in mind but one concept of fairness: his own. The politician can't get away with saying, "my way or the highway," but that is precisely what he means when he deems something fair (or unfair).

I personally believe that no taxation is fair, because taxation is inherently a violation of property rights. Therefore, any tax rate is, to me, unfair. On the opposite side, the totalitarian believes 100% taxation is fair - that the state should own everything, all property, all money, all means of production and labor. And there is every imaginable position in between (good example: the "Fair" Tax!). Who is to say whose definition should be used? Why, the politician, of course.

Let's say that politician proposes a 35% income tax rate on the rich. He calls that variation of legalized theft "fair." But why is 35% fairer than, say, 36%? Or 34%? Or 34.5732628%? It doesn't matter, because the ultimate figure, regardless, is arbitrary. It simply measures the degree to which we individuals are property of the state, and nothing more.

The only "fair" tax is no tax, because no man owes any other man a living.

Capitalism
The term "capitalism" has been especially corrupted. It is probably the greatest casualty of the rhetorical genocide employed by statists.

Let's be clear: America is NOT a capitalist country; it is a mixed-economy country. Ayn Rand properly defined "capitalism" as being inherently laissez-faire: "Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned."

Note that Rand defined capitalism as a "social" system. This is valid because Rand recognized the interdependency of rights and the economy. One cannot have a free economy if one is not free, and one cannot be free if his rights are not protected 100%.

Capitalism must be laissez-faire, because any infringement, even a minor one, conveys that man is subject (to how small a degree, it matters not) to the dictates of the state. If you're only robbed of 1% of your freedom, you are still robbed, and such suggests that you can be robbed of 5%, 10%, etc. (see above discussion on "fairness"). Once you concede that some of your rights may be destroyed, there is nothing to prevent all of them from being destroyed.

What we have in America is an unholy alliance between government and business, in the form of corporate welfare, subsidies, preferential tax treatment for corporations, privileges, and so forth. Government should neither aid nor inhibit businesses. A complete separation of economy and state would render our society capitalist. Until then, it is, as Rand eloquently put it, a mixture of freedom and controls.

Government "asking you" to do something
During the presidential primary this year, many Democratic candidates spoke of "asking" the American people to do a number of things, especially to pay more in taxes. This is statist-speak: phrasing force as request.

The government doesn't "ask" us to do anything, especially when it comes to paying taxes. If you don't believe me, try turning down that request. "Nah, I'd rather not pay taxes, but thanks for asking!" See how far that gets you.

The truth is, if you don't pay your taxes, you are arrested; and if you resist arrest, you are killed. "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force!" said George Washington. A very succinct definition of the state, indeed.

Again, there is more than what meets the eye (or ear) when you hear a statist speak in terms of asking you to do something. The statist is not asking you for anything, for he will not take "no" for an answer, and could care less about your disagreement. It matters not that you can vote him out of office; someone else will merely "ask" you to pay up. What the statist really means is that you WILL do whatever he is "asking" of you, and he will see to it by initiating force to compel you to do so.

"Will of the people"
There is no such thing as a "will of the people" in America. Democracy is not so structured. Democracy means simply that a majority of people get to tell a minority of people how to live their lives. That's it. When someone proclaims "the will of the people," he means simply the will of a majority of people.

But majoritarianism (basically, democracy) is not only not a value of this country ("democracy" appears nowhere in the Constitution and our Founding Fathers ridiculed it), it is completely invalid. "Since there is no such entity as 'the public,' since the public is merely a number of individuals, the idea that 'the public interest' supersedes private interests and rights, can have but one meaning: that the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others." So said Rand when speaking of the mythical "public interest" allegedly embodied in democracy.

Democracy basically means that your rights and values are subject to a popular vote. It is mob rule, a lot of people telling a few people how to live their lives. But truth and values are not subject to a popular vote. It didn't matter that chattel slavery, Jim Crow, and Nazism were popularly supported regimes. From a democratic standpoint, they were just, because "majority wins!" But from a moral standpoint, they were violations of human rights.

"Progressive"/"Liberal"
We commonly associate these two terms with the statist. Somehow, statism, an ancient concept, is said to be "modern" and "progressive." Meanwhile, the relatively young notion that man should be free from his government is considered regressive, reactionary, and outmoded.

Equally absurd is how the word "liberal" has lost its meaning. Many libertarians identify themselves as "classical liberals" to distinguish themselves from statist liberals. Although "liberal" should mean something in the neighborhood of liberty, today it certainly does not. The liberal agenda is based almost entirely on destroying individual rights.

-----
There are many more terms and phrases, too many to identify here, which are misleading, fradulent, and corrupted. The point of all this is that it's important to always think about what someone is actually saying - cut through the pleasantries and rhetoric and get to the root of what someone really means. After all, ideas have consequences, especially when it's a politician's ideas. And odds are, whenever a politician is speaking, he already has designs on your liberty.

Barack Obama: Enemy of Freedom

2008-05-19T00:41:00.004-04:00

This quote should scare every single person in the U.S., particularly libertarians:

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.This is, obviously, code for, "Individual liberty doesn't mean shit to me. If I have my way, I'm going to regulate and micromanage your daily lives and take away your liberty you have, and I'm so much better and smarter than you that I have the right to do so."

After reading this, I have lost every single bit of respect I have ever had for this man. Screw him.

Crap like this really makes me want to leave the GOP at times.

2008-05-16T17:11:00.003-04:00

After reading this piece of slime from the RNC website on Obama's position on marijuana. Where to begin?

1) The idea that taking a federalist position is somehow failing to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" is absolutely asinine. The Constitution gives no explicit power to the federal government to regulate marijuana; nothing in Article I even remotely gives Congress this power. The Gonzales v. Raich decision is "based" on the interstate commerce clause, which is an utterly bullshit argument because the interstate commerce clause deals with INTERSTATE transactions, not INTRASTATE transactions as Gonzales v. Raich and the RNC cockamamie post seem to think. Which brings us to ...

2) I thought that the GOP was the Party AGAINST judicial activism? Apparently it's not the case if judicial activism seeks to impose a cultural dictate on everyone (which is interesting, because these same people oppose "judicial activism" on issues like abortion and gay marriage). This whole "take the GOP back to the principle of limited government" thing is going to be a lot harder than I thought.

3) Why in the world would the GOP use the interstate commerce clause as a justification for RESTRICTION? The conservative position has always been that the interstate commerce clause is around for the purpose of ensuring MORE freedom, not less. (As some states may pass laws restricting the flow of goods or people across states, in absence of the ICC. The interstate commerce clause serves more as an establishment of jurisdiction than a justification for restrictions.)

4) Is this seriously the best that the neocon power base of the GOP can do to co-opt Ron Paul's message? Do they really think they can do it by making an argument that is completely fallacious and contradictory to Ron Paul's principles?

5) What is this hostility to the idea of individual liberty, which entails that everybody has the liberty to choose what is best for themselves and their own bodies?

6) Why is the GOP citing a State Department document when discussing content of Article 2 of the Constitution? Why can't they just look to the damned thing itself and cite it directly? Perhaps because the leadership doesn't really read it on a regular basis (it does, after all, have seven articles and 27 amendments; who has time to read all of that shit?), which is probably why a post like this went out as an official representation of GOP principles.

Barack Obama: Corporate and Special Interest Tool, and a Fiscally Irresponsible One At That

2008-05-15T16:33:00.005-04:00

While he's not the only one, it seems that Barack Obama rather likes wealthy farmers. In fact, he likes them so much, that he supports the recent incarnation of the Farm Bill, which is projected to cost $300 billion over the next five years. In this statement, he asserts:

"To help address this, we need to stand up to the special interests, bring Republicans and Democrats together, and pass the Farm Bill immediately. And while we're at it, let's strengthen the Emergency Food Assistance Program, the Food Stamp Program and the Commodity Supplemental Food Programs and launch additional anti-hunger initiatives to help ensure that no American goes hungry."

Jacob Sullum in this article lists the litany of special interest boondoggles aboard this gravy train. They include a $170 million earmark for the salmon industry, special tax breaks for racehorse owners (of all people), and "marketing aid" for fruit and vegetable growers. Sure, the bill denies subsidies to " individual farmers earning more than $750,000 a year and couples earning more than $1.5 million." But as Richard Posner notes, the vast majority of the subsidies will go to the 10 largest farm enterprises, which are (I assume) incorporated.

Farm subsidies are grossly inefficient. Sullum cites an economists' estimate that Farm Subsidies cost $25 billion in taxpayer funding and $12 billion in higher food prices. A CATO study found that the opportunity cost of farm subsidies over the last two decades is $1.7 trillion (with a t). Meanwhile, we are protecting U.S. agriculture against foreign competition, ensuring that lower-middle income consumers are saddled with even higher food costs than would otherwise be the case.

It's one thing for Obama to support a policy as stupid and corporatist as the Farm Bill. It's quite another for him to assert that supporting it somehow is an "affront" to special interests, when it clearly isn't. How in the world anyone could consider this to be indicative of "change" is beyond me.

Democrats: We like quality, accessible education, unless private schools provide it.

2008-05-13T23:57:00.004-04:00

The hypocrisy of politicians can absolutely astound me at times. One of the themes that the Democratic Party likes to tout is their support for making college more affordable and accessible to lower-middle income families. Apparently, Democratic Massachusetts State Rep. State Rep. Paul Kujawski didn't get the memo.

Massachusetts legislators, demonstrating a growing resentment against the wealth of elite universities in tight economic times, are studying a plan to levy a 2.5% annual tax on the portion of college endowments that exceed $1 billion.

The effort takes aim at one of the primary economic engines of the state, which is home to nine universities with endowments that surpass the $1 billion level, led by Harvard University's $35 billion cache, the nation's largest.

The Massachusetts House recently approved sending the proposal to the Department of Revenue for further study. The inquiry is expected to take months and few in the education field expect it to yield changes in the tax law.

Supporters said the proposal would raise $1.4 billion a year. Based on the most recent size of Harvard's endowment, the university would have to shell out more than $840 million annually.

This, while Harvard is unveiling a new financial aid regimes stipulating that families earning less than $60,000 a year pay NO tuition, and families earning less than $180,000 a year pay no more than 10% of their income.

This is, quite simply, a stupid idea. Universities with large endowments get those usually because they are either very good universities or because they have very rich alumni (which is probably because they are very good universities). Taxing large endowments will have a number of negative impacts. It will take away a significant incentive for universities to improve, which would generate more endowment donations and increase their ability to compete with the likes of Harvard for top students. (Of course, a tax this small will be a drop in the bucket for Harvard; it's really going to affect universities with endowments much smaller and closer to the floor threshold for the tax.) It will discourage financial aid initiatives like the previously mentioned on by Harvard as well as capital investments. For universities under the $1 billion endowment, the tax could lead to them increasing tuition in order to fund projects rather than accept gifts/donations in order to remain below the $1 billion cut off to avoid tax liability. From a more macro perspective, it could even lead to some liquidation of assets held by these endowments, which, considering the sizable holdings in some of these funds, could have a real adverse effect.

One wonders why there would even be need for such a tax. If there is a deficit in Massachusetts that needs closing, there are plenty of other taxes they could raise or impose. (Since it is, after all, the People's Republic of Massachusetts, I will assume that spending cuts are completely off the table.) In my humble opinion, the opening sentence of the cited excerpt reveals that perhaps this idea is coming to the forefront for no need at all.

Hat tip to Free Exchange for this one. Greg Mankiw, a Harvard employee, also has a post about this.

McCain to libertarians and small-government conservatives: (Insert Bird Finger)

2008-05-13T15:44:00.004-04:00

That's the message he would send if he chose this guy to be his Veep. As NewsMax reports, he is apparently at the top of the list.

I've seen this coming for a long time. In the Fox News debate in September, Huck made a clearly conscious effort to single-out McCain's service in the military. McCain and Huck were the only two candidates on the Republican side who did not attack each other (except Ron Paul, who attacked no one, of course). If you think about it, these two authoritarians are a pretty good match for each other in terms of appealing to the authoritarian wings of the Party: McCain brings cred with the "I"m going to bomb the fuck out of those Arabs" wing, and Huckabee brings cred with the "The government must be our nanny and somehow protect us from our evil, sinning selves" wing. Furthermore, Huckabee's ability as a campaigner and speaker who can connect provides a good match for McCain's often cold demeanor.

What a tragedy this ticket will be for the Party and the country. Unfortunately, I think it's probable.

NC Republican Primary: Thoughts

2008-05-11T18:37:00.003-04:00

Going race by race, I now analyze the results from the 2008 North Carolina Republican Primaries of interest:

U.S. Congress, District 4

It will be very difficult for me to give an uncolored analysis of this race, being that I work for B.J. Lawson. In any event, this was a very exciting outcome. It is a demonstration of what a intelligent, well-spoken candidate who runs a positive campaign with a strong message of individual liberty and committed and impassioned volunteers can do in the Republican Party. The who's who of the power base in the District 4 GOP were campaigning hard and very against B.J., putting out negative mailers, t.v. ads, emails, and phone calls to GOP activists and voters. Clearly, it was not enough, as B.J. defeated Augustus Cho (whose entire campaign was deeply negative and unsubstantive) by a count of 71% to 29%. It received massive praise on the blog of The American Conservative magazine, and Dave Weigel at Reason Magazine's Hit and Run blog has made numerous postings on it over the last few days. (This, in addition to the mentions on other libertarian-oriented blogs.)

This has already had repercussions for the local GOP. Durham County GOP Melodie Parrish, who actively supported Cho and worked for his campaign, resigned from her position essentially in protest of the victory. Martha Jenkins, the District 4 GOP Chair who also actively supported Cho and worked for the campaign, is getting requests for her resignation. Obviously, this campaign has torched Cho's career with the Party, as his effectiveness is certainly questionable and has had his reputation damaged by his failure to answer basic questions.

We have not seen the end of the fallout of this Primary. This victory represents an important milestone in the quest of liberty-minded Republicans to take back the Party, Congress, and the Presidency. With a party stacked completely against him, B.J. won with flying colors. He has provided a proven blueprint for other candidates around the country to follow in winning GOP nominations. This is a very important first step. It will be quite hard for us to defeat David Price in November, but with proper funding and a maintenance of the energy I saw on the ground, it is doable in a year when voters around the country want change.

U.S. Congress, 3rd District

Representative Walter Jones defeated Onslow County Commissioner Joe McGlaughlin by a healthy margin, 59% to 41%. This is a very welcome outcome. Representative Jones isn't perfect along libertarian lines, but he is a good and honest man and is a strong ally for anti-Iraq War Republicans. A primary loss for Jones would have been an absolute tragedy for this movement and for Washington.

North Carolina Governor

Pat McCrory took the Republican Nomination by a healthy margin, 46% to 37% over Fred Smith, the closest challenger. Liberty Republicans-endorsed candidate, former NC Supremre Court and State Court of Appeals Justice Bob Orr, unfortunately did not fare as well as other endorsed candidates, garnering 7% of the vote. Justice Orr is the best candidate for NC Governor I have seen in my lifetime (the Winston Salem Journal agreed) and would have made a fabulous governor. He is brilliant and intellectually interested, and he won me over with his principled stance against the corporate weflare/recruitment incentives policy of the state, which he correctly justified on Constitutional and free market grounds. But alas he was just too honest and principled of a player for the power brokers of the Party to back. I have been told by a friend in the campaign that this will be Bob's last run for office, which I hope is not at all true.

I have mixed feelings about Pat McCrory. On the one hand, I do believe he can be an effective executive; he was such as the Mayor of Charlotte. I definitely don't think he is either a libertarian or a limited government conservative. However, I would easily have taken him over Fred Smith, who is the epitome of a corporate puppet, authoritarian, social reactionary and no friend to liberty-minded Republicans. (In addition to being thoroughly unimpressive intellectually, an impression I personally garnered after an interaction with him.)

North Carolina Lt. Governor

Bob Pittenger cruised to an easy victory, winning 59% of the vote. Liberty Republicans-endorsed Greg Dority won 10%, finishing last. However, he and the rest of the candidates were running as huge longshots. Pittenger was the establishment's choice from the get-go. This is highly unfortunate, as he is both a douchebag and an ignoramus. I saw him when he came to speak to the UNC College Republicans a few months ago. After making a snide comment to me when I came in late, I was obviously turned off by him on a personal level from the beginning. However, he made a comment that is simply unforgivably stupid for any public official to make. I shit you not, he said this in his speech, word for word:

"I don't know how George Bush could have funded his war without cutting taxes."

Umm.... Bob, have you ever heard of borrowing? He then had the audacity (or perhaps ignorance, which would be quite believable) to identify the aforementioned policy as "fiscally conservative."

I have no idea what I will do in November in this race. I do know what I absolutely will not do, and that is vote for Bob Pittenger. I don't care how libertarian/conservative he may be (I don't think he is in the slightest either); as a voter and North Carolina citizen, I simply cannot reward this kind of incompetence with my vote. And I don't see how it advances the cause of the Republican Party in any state, let alone North Carolina, to be running candidates who are dumber than Dan Quayle.

North Carolina Superintendent of Public Instruction

Richard Morgan won the nomination easily, with 51% of the vote. Liberty Republicans-endorsed (at least before election night, when I found out something I didn't know before announcing the endorsement) Eric Smith finished in second, receiving 25% of the vote. Morgan has ruffled the feathers of many Republicans in the state, after his power-sharing deal with the Democrats earlier this decade when the North Carolina House of Representatives was split. I'm not sure what I'm going to do in this race in November.

Hopefully, this is about to become a daily thing.

2008-05-11T17:46:00.003-04:00

Now that I'm off school for the summer, I will have more time to post on the blog. I plan to make postings every day.

I'll be posting an analysis of the North Carolina Republican primary in about an hour. Stay tuned.

What tax is justifiable?

2008-05-03T16:23:00.006-04:00

One of the characteristics distinguishing libertarians from market anarchists is that libertarians accept the presence of the state as a mechanism to protect individual liberty from coercion and enforce private property rights and contracts, whereas anarchists reject the existence of the state all together. This naturally entails the existence of law enforcement, courts of justices, the military, and (for those who accept the existence of the nation state) border enforcement. Some libertarians with more consequentialist concerns (such as myself) may advocate the state's provision of services that serve either as preconditions to the maintenance of liberty, that enhance the functioning and bolster the consequences of a system of liberty, or both. Such services would/may include public transportation infrastructure, public education, and/or border enforcement.

A conundrum for libertarians arises, however. Many libertarians adhere to the idea that taxation is inherently coercion, as it compels agents to submit a certain proportion of assets acquired or value traded in a transaction or face consquences for failure to do so. The income tax, for instance, is considered theft: enforced at gunpoint, one must either submit property acquired or face the consequence of jail time and loss of liberty. A broad-based consumption tax, such as a sales tax, does not entail the same level of compulsion for consumers, as individuals may affect the level of tax paid by changing their consumption behaviors (and, in cases where a consumption tax only applies to new goods, by purchasing old goods). However, it still establishes the fundamental idea that a consumer (or a producer, who is usually responsible for collection and submission of consumption taxes, and in the case of a value-added tax, is the party directly responsible for payment) must transfer a proportion of their existing assets to a third party in order to undertake an activity that they already have a right to pursue without precondition established by others. Excise taxes also suffer from this fundamental problem; however, because, the amount of coercion relative to the broad-based consumption tax is much lower, as the tax applies to far few goods and there is much greater ability of agents to avoid the tax.

Thus, the problem exists: by what just means should a libertarian advocate funding the functions of government he or she accepts should exist?

Clearly, on initial inspection, the revenue source which would be most often considered justified in a libertarian framework would be voluntary contributions. If one is completely entitled to use or distribute one's property however they wish, then if they voluntarily contribute a portion of it to government for the purpose of financing services, then I really can't view any sort of libertarian opposition to the property holder's decision.

User fees would naturally follow as an acceptable form of revenue generation, and they are usually the first point made by libertarians when discussing just taxation. If the government provides a service, then those who use it can directly pay a fee for doing so. This is especially true if a service is tradable. A perfect example is postal service, for which consumers must pay a stamp fee to use. The principle may even be extended, for instance, to gasoline taxes: if drivers want to travel on public highways, then they can pay a fee (the gas tax) while driving on them for when for their availability and maintenance. Local property taxes may also be considered user fees, if the revenues are devoted toward the funding of law enforcement and courts of justice that are responsible for protecting private property rights. (However, the distortionary effect of property taxes can be significant. Perhaps this problem could be alleviated if the tax was in the form of a Georgian land value tax.)

The a similiar foundation for the justification of both voluntary contributions and user fees exists for the use of lotteries. The concept of a lottery entails that services (entertainment, potential prizes, etc.) are awarded by the government, and the fees paid to the provider (the government), after covering operating costs, finance other services (usually public education). If one values the entertainment from playing a lottery enough to voluntarily transfer a portion of his assets that would go to other purposes to gain it, then I could no more see libertarian opposition to state lotteries than I could to profit-earning entrepreneurs appropriating their earnings to other purposes than the production of their goods and services. It amazes me, for example, that in North Carolina, the GOP Party line on the recent institution of a state lottery was opposition. I'm sorry, but isn't the conservative position on fiscal policy supposed to be that the mandatory tax burden should be as low as possible and that people have the right to do with their money as they please? Granted, there was a lot of impropriety in the implementation of the lottery, but that is a separate issue. (Of course, the main reason why the NCGOP opposed the lottery was unrelated to finances and individual liberty. Scroll down to Article V, Section 3)

But if it is the case that voluntary contributions, user fees, and lotteries cannot fund all of the necessary functions of government and to an adequate level to protect individual liberty, property rights, and enforce contracts? What other forms of taxation are acceptable on libertarian grounds?

Certainly income (including wage/payroll taxes) and broad-based consumption taxes would be ruled out by many libertarians (including me), for philosophical reasons I stated above. But furthermore, these taxes penalize the very activities that generate growth: work, saving, investment, creativity, entrepreneurship, and consumption. Not only are these the most unjust forms of taxation, but they are also the most economically inefficient.

Excise taxes do suffer from the same problem that broad-based consumption taxes do, which is that effectively coerce agents to hand over a certain proportion of their property in order to carry out a particular transaction. Granted, this effect is not nearly to the degree of that created by broad-based consumption taxes, as the consumer has much more power to avoid the tax (via the availability of tax-free substitutes). On economic efficiency grounds, however, there can be serious distortions caused by excise taxes. This is effectively the same effect as that caused by subsidization of the production of private goods: an inefficient redistribution of resources toward production and consumption of certain goods and away from others. If, for instance, an excise tax on the sale of oil was instituted, this would eventually drive up market prices for oil. This could cause, for instance, substitution in consumer's energy consumpiton patterns toward corn ethanol-based fuel, which would lead to inefficient levels of corn production and higher corn prices. This would squeeze lower-middle income consumers who must then face higher prices of corn and corn-based products. The efficiency effects of excise taxes vary across the board, however.

If we operate on a "choose the least evil" principle, certain excise taxes may qualify. For instance, luxory taxes are unlikely to cause great distortion in consumer decision-making, since the goods for which they will apply are likely to face inelastic demand curves in their markets. (Since buyers, namely upper-middle-to-upper income consumers, will generally have high purchasing power.) Given that these goods are luxories and not essentials for life, the power to avoid them would be high. Furthermore, a luxory tax could even be considered a user fee, of sorts, as they could be used to fund policy protection for these luxory goods.

But there is one other form of taxation that I don't hear many libertarians discuss, which is Pigovian taxation. Pigovian taxes levy penalties for the negative externalities of a market activity; for instance, pollution. Pigovian taxes can be quite justified on libertarian grounds. Negative externalities of market activities (or at least most of them) ultimately represent damages to private property, either directly through physical damage or indirectly by decreasing property values. If we believe that government exists to protect private property rights, then levying a tax on negative externalities to effectively penalize property damage would perform this mandate. Pollution taxes would protect property rights by levying penalties for damaging other people's property. Cigarette taxes could even be considered Pigovian taxes, as by taxing cigarette purchases, they charge penalties for the harmful health externalities of second-hand smoke, protecting people's property rights to their labor and productivity. Furthermore, Pigovian taxes can be justified on efficiency grounds, as levying a Pigovian tax reduces the cost of negative externalities of an activity and provides an incentive for the producer of the negative externality to reduce it. This brings the level of the market activity to a socially optimal level.

So by my count, at least, here are the government revenue sources that are justifiable, livable, and absolutely unjust in a libertarian framework:

Justifiable

* Voluntary Contributions
* User Fees
* Lotteries
* Pigovian Taxes

Livable

* Excise Taxes

Unjustifiable

* Income Taxes
* Broad-based Consumption Taxes

What are your thoughts?

More socialism from McCain.

2008-04-29T17:38:00.003-04:00

Now, he is proposing socializing risk in the health care industry.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is proposing a greater federal commitment to people without health insurance on Tuesday, suggesting that it help funds states to set up non-profit risk pools to help Americans who are denied coverage or can’t afford it.

Sure, this may only cost $7 billion a year (although I suspect that being a lowball estimate, but the expense is not important. This is still socialized medicine. It completely undermines any credibility that McCain may have in calling himself a free-market, small government conservative. If he's willing to have the government intervene to centrally plan (and to steal people's money at gunpoint to do it), even with something at small expense, he's willing to do it everyhwere. Socializing risk in any industry is stupid, but particularly stupid in health care. These pools will be riddled with moral hazard issues, and the cost will increase vastly, particluarly for states.

This is going to be a very long campaign for Repbulicans of libertarian or small-government bend. We have a verifiable socialist as our nominee.

Obama's dangerous arrogance.

2008-04-27T17:25:00.010-04:00

Barack Obama has been unfairly targeted by the Clintons and other political cynnics in a vicious personal campaign, and for this I have true empathy for him. He has engaged in negative campaigning himself, this is true, but the level to which his name has been drug through the mud is astounding. Be it the guilt-by-association game with Jeremiah Wright, cynnical race-based tactics, or a combination of both, his opponents have engaged in a horrendous campaign against him for which they should be condemned.

With that said, I have some serious issues with his campaign. Of course, my fundamental issue with him stems from his platform, particularly on economic issues. His economic policies have been described by some as "Libertarian Paternalism" (an oxymoron, I know) and based on the ideas of Behavioral Economics, the school followed by his Chief Economist, Austin Goolsbee. Behavior economics makes interesting observations, and there are smart economists in every school, and Goolsbee is most certainly a smart economist. But like many Behavioral Economists, Goolsbee, while he does adhere to some free market ideas, often comes to the conclusion that not only should government intervene in situations of market imperfections, but that it has the ability in these cases to set everything right. This is certainly something that Obama's personality seems to embrace. From this article on Reuters.com today:

"Is race still a factor in our society? Yes. I don't think anybody would
deny that," Obama said on "Fox News Sunday."

"Is that going to be the determining factor in a general election? No,
because I'm absolutely confident that the American people -- what they're
looking for is somebody who can solve their problems," the Illinois senator said
in an interview taped on Saturday.

Barack Obama comes across as someone who believes he is so great, that he can solve everyone else's problems. He has made similiar assertions like this in the past. This is an extremely dangerous attitude for a chief executive to have. For one, it is an attitude that tends to lead to Presidents going beyond their codified rulebook in the Constitution. This has been a serious problem with the current Administration, which I think many would agree has been incredibly arrogant.

Secondly, this type of mindset tends to motivate policies that often create more problems in the end. A good example is the FDR Administration in the time of WWII. The Administration set price and wage controls, most likely motivated by the idea that they were so smart that they could manage the economy perfectly in war time (or not). But alas, they began to run into a problem: the wage controls and the draft provided massive disincentives to go to work. So how did they try to get around this? With more central planning: they provided tax exemptions to employers to provide health benefits to attract workers. Over time, this has created a massive problem in the health care industry in tying health coverage to employment, which has generated tons of wasteful expenditures through the classic principle-agent problems that arise in third-party coverage, increased health care costs massively, and left tens of millions of Americans without insurance. The politicians who could "solve the peoples' problems" gave them tons more than they ever solved, if they even solved any at all.

But most dangerously, Obama's attitude that he can solve everyone's problems (and that, furthermore, he thinks everyone else wants someone who can solve their problems and will by default come to the conclusion that he can do it) comes with a corollary. Naturally, he will view many things to be problems that others may disagree are problems. Someone who believes they can solve everyone's problems for them not only thinks people incapable of solving their own problems, but believes he has the right to impose his view of what is right and wrong- and what in society are problems- on everyone else in society, including those who disagree with them. And furthermore, he believes he has the right to take their property, at gunpoint if necessary, to address what he views to be problems.

Someone's problems are his or her own. No one else is responsible for solving them, and no one who believes he or she should help someone else solve another's problems has the right to take from others in order to do it. It is in a free society with a free market economy that respects private property that the most problems can be solved, as it is only in this circumstance that the type of natural good will that it takes to motivate large scale action by cooperation of individuals can occur (this is not to say all problems will be solved; they won't be). When the role of helping others is forced upon individuals in society, the role this motivation plays is eliminated and replaced with the idea that money and professional bureaucrats can finish the job. And yet, despite social spending tripling as a percentage of GDP since the early 1960s, here we are with the greatest amount of income inequality we've ever had, the greatest amount of educational inequality we've ever had, the greatest amount of division we've ever had, a health care system increasing starkly in cost and inaccessibility, inflation we haven't seen in more than 15 years, and a whole host of environmental problems.

You can't solve everyone's problems, Barack. Only we as individuals can solve our own unique problems and help others solve theirs. Did you hear that? YES, WE CAN!

Shame

2008-04-25T18:40:00.004-04:00

That's what I feel for my party after watching this ad.

This is absolutely disgusting. The ugly collectivism of this ad flies right in the face of a the underlying principle of individualism that is the bedrock of a free society. This ad is the tactic not of someone or some people interested in protecting individual liberty or who possess the quality of leadership, but in dividing us into group and promoting group stereotypes solely for the purpose of gaining power. Only this ad will not get North Carolina Republicans one inch closer to power, as it will surely alienate the very people we must build bridges with in order to build our party and reduce government. This ad will damage the campaigns of Republican candidates around the state, especially those like B.J. Lawson who are fighting so hard for the principle of limited government in a heavily Democratic district.

Shame on the Party for this ad. I am especially disappointed in Linda Daves, who up to this point I held in the highest regard, for endorsing this. She lost some respect from me in the last couple of days.

Wesley Snipes: Victim of tyranny.

2008-04-24T18:25:00.002-04:00

Today, Wesley Snipes became a victim of tyranny, being sentenced to 3 years in prison for misdemeanor "crimes" for not filing his taxes. I will leave aside the fact for now that there is no law specifically requiring individuals to pay income taxes, and thus Mr. Snipes committed no crime. I am nearly as troubled, if not more troubled, by the judge's justification for his draconian sentence:

During the sentencing, Snipes apologized for his actions, but the judge indicated that a major reason for the maximum penalty was to deter others from trying something similar.

This is tyranny in an especially heinous form. The role of the judicial branch is to interpret laws and, in the case when laws are broken, to apply punishment based solely on judgement of what is suitable for the crime committed. To use sentencing as a mechanism to promote your own agenda (and clearly, this judge has an agenda) is not only dishonorable, but it violates the mandate of the judiciary.

A truth you dare not tell.

2008-04-21T17:50:00.004-04:00

Today, Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana, suicided his political career by suggesting that it's time for Republicans to "get over" Ronald Reagan.

Gov. Daniels: People need to get over Reagan, already
POSTED April 21, 12:19 AM
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels elicited several hushed gasps and raised eyebrows late last week as he lectured a conservative crowd that it was “time to let Ronald Reagan go.”

The governor delivered his remarks to a room full of fellow red-staters at the Fund for American Studies’ annual conference and donor retreat at the Newseum.

“Nostalgia is fine and Reagan’s economic plan was good,” Daniels said. “But we need to look towards the future rather than staying in the past.” Daniels added that the GOP needed to work on uniting behind Sen. John McCain instead of constantly comparing the Arizona senator with the Gipper.

While he prefaced his remarks with the disclaimer that his thoughts were “somewhat controversial,” he hoped that he “would not be misunderstood.”

Incidentally, applause was somewhat less enthusiastic as he left the stage than when he began by poking fun at Barack Obama.

In reference to Obama’s recent comments about “bitter” small-town folks, Daniels remarked that he had to “release the iron grip from [his] gun” in order to make the flight into D.C. from the Hoosier State.

Quite frankly, I have never understood the religious observance that conservative Republicans (or at least Republicans who say they are conservatives) have paid to Reagan. (I especially don't understand the sometimes-bordering crypto-homoerotic rhetoric in which so many supposedly turbo-man, anti-gay Republicans describe the man. But hey-ho.) The Reagan legacy was not one of minimalist free market economics as is claimed, but rather one of the type of socialist planning firmly reminiscent of FDR. (Well, it's reminiscent of economic policy the U.S. has employed since Hamilton, but I digress.) The point of supply-side tax cuts is inherently to attempt to engineer market activity through manipulation of a variable, in this case tax rates. However, Reagan's form central planning went well beyond simply cutting taxes, but to run deficits that to this day compose record percentages of GDP expand government spending more than the Kennedy/Johnson and Clinton Administrations did in their respective 8 year tenures. (Although his record of expanding government has been blasted by King George II, and in just 6 fiscal years no less.) Sure, most of this expenditure increase went toward the military, but the necessity of doing this to "knock out the Soviet Union" was debatable, and much of it was just flat out corporate welfare. And for his famous (or infamous, depending on your perspective) tax cuts, he was a royal tax raiser, as well: the 1982 "rollback" of taxes is to this date the largest tax increase in U.S. history as a percentage of GDP (and is comparable in cost to the health care programs offered by the two Democratic candidates for President, for reference), and it pushed through a massive increase in Payroll Taxes to cover projected shortfalls similiar to the ones coming as the baby boomers begin entering retirement. (So much for the ideas of shattering the welfare state and promoting individual liberty.) The Reagan Administration was anything but a small government, its tenure was anything but fiscally conservative, and his economic policies where anything but lasseiz-faire.

That Reagan was a skilled politician is not debatable. I would even say his ascent provided benefits for camp seeking to reduce government and promote liberty, if for no other reason than that he provided an effective mouthpiece for a period. However, the consequences of his Administration abandoning the mission to reduce government (if that was ever their intent in the first place) are most of the economic problems the U.S. has faced since its tenure and will begin to face soon, and this has been quite harmful for this movement in significantly damaging its credibility. The numerous scandals plaguing the Reagan Administration, a history that has reared its head again in the Bush 43 Administration, have further contributed to this. But perhaps the most disastrous consequence of Reagan's tenure for conservatives fighting for small government the tight marriage of the Republican Party with certain members of the religious right, which has resulted in them essentially controlling the reigns of the Party. The Party is no longer primarily associated wiht less government, but rather with being the party that hates gays, feminists, and any aspect of culture that does not resemble that constructed by the Taliban in its fervent insistence on imposed religious fundamentalist code. Not only has this led uncountably many with pro-small government leanings who would otherwise vote Republican from quite simply being too fightened to do so, but it has left the Party under the contol of those who really love the government and seek to use it to promote their ends. In other words, the Republican Party has turned into exactly that which most members claim to hate. And voters sense this.

While Daniels did not go the next step and call out the Reagan Administration, he took a courageous first step in the public eye that needs to be taken if the Republican Party is to counteract the building of a storm that will lead to much, much larger government. If Republicans continue making reverance to a ghost as a primary aspect of their pitch to voters, its relevance will reduce to nothing. It is certainly necessary to jettison Reagan from their rhetoric if Republicans are to again be taken seriously as people who want to reduce the size of government.

Announcing a new writer.

2008-04-15T19:23:00.003-04:00

I am pleased to announce an exciting addition to the Liberty Republicans team. Kris is an old friend of mine from College Republicans and Student Congress days at UNC-Chapel Hill and has since moved on to Law School at Wake Forest. He is brilliant and a terrific writer and will contribute much to the blog, particularly on legal and philosophical issues.

On libertarian opposition to Bob Barr.

2008-04-15T17:26:00.004-04:00

Anyone who is a libertarian knows that libertarians can be some of the hardest people to please. (Guilty) Elections and choices of candidates are no exception. Rarely will you ever hear a libertarian (big or small L) voice great satisfaction with the Libertarian Party. Considering that a Libertarian Presidential candidate has garnered more than 1% of the vote and approached 1 million votes just one time in its history, why should we? Given our natural aversion to government, it goes without saying that we rarely voice happiness with any individual candidate for office even from our own party, much less a Republican or Democratic candidate/politician. (Ron Paul is a tremendous exception, although you'll find a number of libertarians who even found him unacceptable for various reasons.)

Almost every election year when it seems as though libertarians (again, big L and small l) have a candidate who has the potential to launch our movement into a strong and perhaps permanent foothold in the political mainstream, it seems as though there is a violent backlash against said candidate from a sizable chunk of libertarians. The Rothbardians despised Ed Clark in 1980 for his "low-tax liberalism" style of libertarianism. Pro-Choice libertarians had major problems with Ron Paul in 1988, an election year of less consequence, and of course they and pro-open borders libertarians had issues with him again this time around as his campaign really picked up steam. Other issues libertarians had with Paul included his insistence on federalism, his "making the perfect the enemy of the good" on many economic issues, and mistrust of him on the issue of race in light of newsletter-gate.

Again this year, another high-profile libertarian candidate with the potential to take the movement to a mainstream foothold is Bob Barr, a former Republican Congressman from Georgia. Congressman Barr was a high-profile participant in the impeachment of President Clinton in the 1990s, which gained him considerable notoriety at this time. Since 9/11, he has been a vocal critic of the Bush Administration's incursions on civil liberties, building his pedigree through numerous media appearances and speaking engagements around the country. Given that he is a notable former Congressman, and the expanded profile of libertarianism in light of Ron Paul's surprisingly successful Presidential campaign, he is in an unprecedented position to take libertarianism to the next level.

But alas, numerous libertarians have been quick to the draw to voice their issues with Bob Barr. Like Ron, he is facing heat on the issues of abortion and immigration. While this was a problem with a sizable number, it still didn't seem to be something that was hugely prohibitive for most of these libertarians with Paul, as LP members and activists around the country worked energetically for the campaign and turned out to vote for him. Furthermore, his positions on these issues don't fundamentally disqualify his libertarianism, as there are libertarian arguments for the pro-life and restricted immigration positions. (The restricted immigration article by Kinsella doesn't even cover the national defense argument.) If, like Paul, libertarians' issues with Barr were limited to just these two issues, I wouldn't see much of a problem.

But their problems with Barr are not limited to just these two issues, and they are problems that have given even Ron Paul supporters pause. To begin with, libertarians have voiced serious mistrust of what appear to be Barr's conversions on the Patriot Act, the War in Iraq, the War on Drugs, and (at least at the federal level) Gay Marriage. These are major issues for libertarians broadly because his past positions contradict some bedrock libertarian principles: civil liberties (the Patriot Act), non-intervention (Iraq War), freedom of choice (Drugs), and freedom of association (gay marriage). This mistrust on the War in Iraq, War on Drugs, and Gay Marriage is understandable, and Barr has been wrong to support these ventures in the past. But I don't think there's much reason to doubt his commitment to protecting civil liberties. Barr did not support the Patriot Act until working to attach sunset clauses to the legislation. Under the circumstances of the time (the panic of 9/11), he should be commended for having the initiative to review the legislation (which most members of Congress didn't) and the concern for the Bill's intrusion on civil liberties to ensure that the legislation was not permanent while at the same time weighing national security concerns that, I'm sure for everyone at that time, were genuine. He also exercised similar diligence to protect civil liberties in inserting amendments to the Clinton Administration's Comprehensive Anti-Terrorism Act of 1995, and he was noted by Michael Barone in a 2002 USNWR article after his 2002 Primary defeat as "a strong voice for civil liberties." Once can accuse Bob Barr of many things, but not being a principled defender of the Bill of Rights isn't one of them.

I do believe additionally that his conversion on foreign policy, drugs, and gay marriage, though, are genuine. For starters, he has gone to work for the Marijuana Policy Project; if one doesn't truly advocate something, they don't spend their time and energy to work for its promotion. As Barr himself explains,

I, over the years, have taken a very strong stand on drug issues, but in light of the tremendous growth of government power since 9/11, it has forced me and other conservatives to go back and take a renewed look at how big and powerful we want the government to be in people’s lives.
Furthermore, his progression toward libertarianism did not just happen in a day or month, or a year before an election, as was the case with Mitt Romney's sudden embrace of statist social conservatism. This is something that occurred over the course of about 6 years. He began working with the ACLU shortly after his 2002 primary defeat by John Linder, and he joined very soon after. He could have bolted immediately to the Libertarian Party and attempted to take it over and run for President on its ticket in 2004, but instead he worked to support Badnarik's campaign before making the full switch to the LP. Unlike Romney, he didn't just show up to the party with a boatload of money, nice hair, and some clever spinning away of his past; he got down in the dirt and worked for libertarian principles near and dear to his heart. Barr still opposes drug legalization and gay marriage at the state level, but his federalist position to remove the federal government from these issues is wholly consistent with achieve libertarian ideals through a Constitutional approach and qualifies him as a proponent of libertarian policy at the federal level. This progression also, in my view, qualifies his change in position on Iraq as legitimate.

However, in all of their fury, the new "anti-Barr" contingent of libertarians has dug up another "skeleton" to come after him, an article he recently authored calling for more concern in U.S. foreign policy about Latin America. Many are calling this advocacy of "interventionist" policy in the region; a left-libertarian friend of mine posted a note on Facebook about the article titled "Bob Barr wants to invade Latin America." If you actually, read the article, you will find absolutely no evidence that he advocates any sort of military intervention in Latin America. Barr writes that we should devote more "concern" and "resources" to the region, but there's nothing to indicate these should be of a military nature. By my reading, he's advocating for more assertive diplomatic efforts in Latin America, with perhaps a pumped up intelligence presence, which are wholly justifiable and not at all inconsistent with the doctrine of military non-interventionism. This is some serious reaching by Barr opponents.

I urge libertarians who have raised these issues with Barr to please reconsider both the substance of their concerns and the consequences of failing to get behind and push a campaign that could be the next step toward cementing permanence in the mainstream of American politics. Bob Barr may not be perfect on policy at every level of government, but at the federal level he is an ace. The fact is that we are going to have to build a broad coalition including people we don't currently typically think of as libertarians, both for huge electoral improvement in this campaign and to draw more to our ranks in future campaigns if we are to make effective policy change. Bob Barr offers us the opportunity to do this.

Barr on Hannity and Colmes

2008-04-14T13:01:00.003-04:00

Bob Barr made a recent appearance on Hannity and Colmes that I just found on the net and got a chance to look over. It was an interesting and effective appearance, and Barr did a terrific job of stemming back the relentless and idiotic attacks of both Hannity and Colmes. He displayed why he will be a tough and effective messenger for libertarians. I and other libertarians disagree with him on some issues (I want drugs legalized at all levels; I believe gay and lesbian couples should have the right to form domestic partnership contracts enforced by state governments), but his federalist stance on these issues is more than acceptable. The idea is that he may oppose legalizing drugs or gay marriage himself, but he is not going to use the federal government to enforce these values on the entire country or to restrict the liberty of everyone to partake in either activity. This is a legitimately libertarian view (I call it "federal libertarianism"), and the federalist stance on social issues like these is one that all libertarians (pro or against on these issues) running for national office should take. The fact is that there is no way that libertarians would be able to legalize drugs or gay marriage for the entire country without either 1) violating the Constitution, as the power over addressing these issues is clearly enumerated to the states under the 10th Amendment; or 2) pursuing a Constitutional Amendment to legalize them, which certainly would never pass.

It's interesting that both Hannity and Colmes were attacking him with pretty equal energy. I think both like many in their respective parties (perhaps even most) sense that someone like Barr would be an effective candidate for the LP and would be able to attract lots of voters from both parties. Barr is currently at 7% in a poll that his Exploratory Committee commissioned, and that number should go much higher. I would venture to say that he would get a vast majority of Ron Paul's Republican Primary votes, probably around 85%. (Which would be about 700,000 votes to start.) He would furthermore be able to draw a significant portion of conservative Republican voters with his views on economic issues, abortion, federalism, and immigration, all areas where McCain is decided either too statist or, in their view, flat out wrong. Furthermore, he is well-positioned to attract Democrats with his stances on civil liberties (and the amount of energy he has put into this issue over the last few years) and the Iraq War. Something that really works in his favor on this front is the contentious Democratic Primary, as a recent poll suggests that a fifth or more of Democratic voters may vote for McCain if their candidate isn't the nominee. I think it likely that, should the Libertarian Party be on the ballot nearly every state and the Libertarian candidate be significant with a well-run national campaign (which Bob Barr would be), these Democratic voters would be much more inclined to go with this candidate than McCain. In any event, I see Barr being able to reach the 15% threshold showing in polls to get into the debates, which would be a watershed moment in the history of this country and launch the libertarian movement to the next level.

On another note, Hannity is a massive tool. For one, in trying to intimidate Barr and voters who may go LP this time in the Presidential election, he tries to play the fear card; i.e., if you don't vote for McCain, then you're going to get all of these nasty things. Barr handled this question perfectly: if the Republican candidate isn't good enough, doesn't have a good enough platform, and/or can't promote his platform and message effectively, then he doesn't deserve to win regardless of how many other candidates are in the race who may have kindred principles. But what speaks even worse for Hannity are the issues he decided to play: taxes, health care, immigration, and judges (which I won't address, since there may or may not be a retirement during the next Presidency). Where was Hannity when McCain:

* Voted AGAINST both Bush taxes (and justified his votes not on fiscally conservative grounds, which McCain now says was his justification and would have been a most correct one; but class warfare arguments);

* Pushed for a Bill of Rights with Ted Kennedy and John Edwards that would have placed onerous regulations on the health care industry, and is now peddling a health care plan in which the federal government's in manipulating the health care market will expand hugely through means such as fundamentally altering reimbursement, federalizing physician licensing and tort reform (the latter of which will surely come in the form of socialist limitations on damages and awards to attorneys, which for some reason is being peddled by Republicans as a "free market" policy), and effectively subsidizing care for high-risk patients (which will be HUGELY expensive);

* And collaborated with Ted Kennedy in pushing an immigration bill (supported by BOTH remaining Democratic Presidential Candidates) that clearly granted amnesty to immigrants here illegally, and (according to a conversation I had with Bay Buchanan when she came to speak at Duke University) is playing a leading role in trying to kill the hard-line Heath Shuler bill.

And then, of course, Hannity reverts to the tactic that the McCain campaign and its apologists are playing to a nauseating degree: the "honor" card. Hannity tells us libertarians and disaffected conservatives that we should just take it up the arse and deal with it because McCain told him personally that he would be a good conservative. And if we don't trust McCain and follow in line with him, then we are calling him a liar: how dare we have the gall to think such about a war hero!

Furthermore, you have to love how Hannity side-steps a substantive discussion of the merit of federalism in dealing with the issue of drugs. And why would he? After all, those identified as authentic conservatives have always advocated adhering strictly to the Constitution and enumerated powers under the 10th Amendment, and the power to deal with the issue of drugs clearly falls into the realm of the states as indicated by the entirety of the Constitution. As someone who is a fierce supporter of the 5th Amendment, I believe in principle that Hannity has every right to not incriminate himself as the false conservative, which would inevitably occur if he was to take this issue on with Barr.

Anyhow, let it roll:

We would never make an issue of this, even though we just did.

2008-04-11T00:54:00.004-04:00

I just read a very amusing piece of double-talk courtesy of Howard Dean, via ABC News. Here's the just of the article:

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said Thursday that swing voters participating in focus groups commissioned by the D.N.C. bring up John McCain's age unprompted.
"We didn't bring it up, but they volunteered it," said Dean who explained that voters have two concerns about McCain's age.

But lo and behold! Democrats would NEVER bring up an issue like this before the media, because they are just way too ethical!

While knocking McCain's "old-fashioned" views, Dean maintained that the Democratic Party was unlikely to invoke McCain's age in the fall campaign.
"I doubt we will bring it up in the election," said Dean, referring to the age issue. "There is somewhat of a higher ethical bar on what we do."
"We don't have any Lee Atwaters or Karl Roves on our side," he added.

Oh, yeah. The Democrats have no one on their side who would dare stoop to the levels of personal destruction as part of campaign strategy. Oh, wait.

I used to have a lot of respect for Howard Dean, but this latest episode is just one of many that have led me to the conclusion that he is, quite simply, a massive douchebag.

Note: This post is, by no means, a defense of John McCain, but rather a calling out of, well, cockameme by the DNC. I do not want this post to be confused with support of any measure for McCain. I do not support him, and I will not vote for him. Period.

Ron Paul raising questions about Iraq.

2008-04-10T23:36:00.002-04:00

Ron Paul today pointed out the absurdity in U.S. foreign policy, which is certainly rooting its ugly head in Iraq, in the testimony of Crocker and Petraeus before the House International Committee. It's really quite perturbing that many in the pro-Iraq War crowd are touting the surge as some sort of a justification for the war in the first place. Five years and $800 billion (after this year, if the appropriations are approved by Congress, which they will be) later, where, exactly, has it gotten us? Al-Qaeda's strength now is estimated to be as great or greater than before 9/11, according to the N.I.E.. Afghanistan is a mess, now that we have pulled resources out. (Not that going in and starting a nation-building project was the smart thing to do in the first place, as Scheuer points out in Imperial Hubris, but still.) We're up to $9.2 trillion in debt, mostly because of fighting two wars at once, while the dollar is sinking and CPI is up 4% for 2007, the highest it's been since the oil spike of 1991 during the Persian Gulf War. (To both of which war has contributed.) And now Hezbollah has declared its intention to begin targeting Americans. (Nevermind that attacks domestically are still a serious threat, with our non-secured borders.)

Besides, the point of the surge was not to improve security in Iraq, although prospects are far from certain on this end, given that leaders of key Sunni militias that we are depending on have been assassinated in recent months, that a "labor strike" may be emerging (due to members complaining of "not being paid enough"; at least they are learning capitalism and collective bargaining, right?), and whole host of other problems on the horizon. The point of the surge was to facilitate political reconciliation to avoid, at least in the short-mid term, the prospect of a civil, and perhaps even regional, war. Given that Sunni militias are being given free reign; that they are aiming to "stem Iran;" that Turkey is engaged in a simmering situation with the Kurds in the north; that al-Sadr continues to behave belligerently (and that Maliki is responding belligerently), and that Iran is undermining al-Sadr within his own militia in a move that could ignite one of the most destabilizing forces in the country; the prospects for avoiding civil/regional war are dim.

On related note, it's really quite disturbing that any military or diplomatic official will refuse to state flat out that the executive branch has no Constitutional authority to launch an offensive against Iran.

Anyhow, it's viewing time:

Refuting the "Libertarian Dem"

2008-04-09T21:31:00.004-04:00

Libertarianism has been gaining a lot of steam in recent years, primarily among young people. We saw this culminate in Ron Paul’s Presidential campaign, which generated unexpected success financially and at the ballot box. A consequence of its growing popularity is an increase in the framing of positions in terms of individual liberty. This isn’t something new: Americans are instructed from elementary school that America is a “free country,” and politicians have routinely throughout history attempted to appeal to this sentiment. But the frequency of politicians referring to individual liberty has noticeably increased over the years, be it appeals to liberty when speaking in favor of tax cuts, free trade, civil liberties, or going to war to “defend liberty.”

In 2006, Kos authored a post titled “The Libertarian Dem” in which he attempts to frame the “progressive” policy agenda in libertarian terms and speaks, correctly, of the political returns to be had from doing so. Naturally, I found this post to be quite repulsive on a number levels, and as such feel the compulsion to refute it, focusing on specific points he makes. So, without further adieu, I’m off and running.

“A Libertarian Dem believes that true liberty requires freedom of movement -- we need roads and public transportation to give people freedom to travel wherever they might want.”

Well, there’s always the walking, sailing, or flying options; but the presence and improvement of public infrastructure substantially improves the functioning of a free market economy and a free society. However, the implication here is that roads and public transportation can only be provided by the government. This is a flawed assertion. Any way they are provided, one has to pay for these services to be available, be it an excise tax, private toll, or transportation fare, so it doesn’t really matter who provides the roads.

“A Libertarian Dem believes that we should have the freedom to enjoy the outdoor without getting poisoned; that corporate polluters infringe on our rights and should be checked.”

Fair point. But how does this diverge from mainstream libertarianism? Due to the general lack of understanding of economics that he routinely displays on his blog, I’m going to assume that Kos has never heard of the work of Coase (ha!) regarding to enforcement of property rights and its role in preserving the environment and reducing the negative externalities of activities. It is a central tenant of libertarian thought that the role of government is to enforce property rights and contracts, which is the foundation required for functioning of a free market economy and free society.

Furthermore, Kos ignores where pollution has been driven by government intervention through ways such as corporate welfare subsidies (which drive, for instance, discharge of water effluent by inefficient subsidized agricultural production, environmentally destructive and inefficiently high oil and mining production, etc.) and regulations restricting competition (and thus concentrating market power in the hands of large industrial firms, who can then pollute and have the resources to prevent retribution for such).

“A Libertarian Dem believes that people should have the freedom to make a living without being unduly exploited by employers.”

This is why libertarians support the right of workers to form unions and collectively bargain with employers. This is why all mainstream libertarians support enforcement of labor contracts. However, people should also be free to choose to work without having people like Kos, when they get elected to government, tell them that they have to join a union to do so. They should also have freedom from the inevitable government-induced reductions in salary that occur from the Payroll Tax and mandated or tax-subsidized employer-provided health insurance. (But expecting Kos to acknowledge the exploitation of people by the government is obviously expecting a bit too much.)They should also be free, if they choose, to work for less than an arbitrarily set minimum wage that is mandated by the government.

Furthermore, the question that Kos both fails to ask or answer is: how do exploitative employers get into this position? More often than not, they get into this position as a result of government intervention via mechanisms such as corporate welfare subsidies, using force to break up strikes, laws restricting/hampering unions (for example, right to work laws), and protective tariffs and other policies restricting competition.

Of course, if employees voluntarily choose, given understanding of pretexts, to work in dangerous conditions and/or low wages, exploitation doesn’t occur. Yet one could easily get the sense that the policies Kos would advocate would, in fact, prevent people from voluntarily making this choice, because after all: who would make this choice? There is no possible way that anyone could conceive this situation to be in their self-interest, so we should let omniscient messiahs like Kos who know what’s REALLY best for everyone save us from ourselves.

“A Libertarian Dem understands that no one enjoys true liberty if they constantly fear for their lives, so strong crime and poverty prevention programs can create a safe environment for the pursuit of happiness.”

Is Kos seriously implying that mainstream libertarians do not support government-provisioned crime enforcement? Has he even bothered to read the Libertarian Party platform, or the work of scores of libertarian writers? Furthermore, this statement by omission reeks of a very strong antipathy toward the role that self defense has in “crime prevention.” I think we all know what I mean by this, and the role that a certain something plays in self defense. But of course, we all know that curbing this right that is “not clearly guaranteed” by the Bill of Rights will reduce crime. Oh, wait.

On the topic of poverty, notice how Kos ignores the very concept that government can be the source of poverty through mechanisms such as monetary inflation, taxation, fiscal deficits, zoning laws, seizure of land through eminent domain, and the lack of enforcement of property rights and contracts. (However, in the article, he does acknowledge the stupidity of some small business regulations. Good for him.) Furthermore, Kos makes two fatally flawed assumptions. The first is that social spending effectively reduces poverty, an assumption that is clearly flawed given that social spending on the federal level (including welfare payments, education, local economic development, etc.) has tripled as a percentage of GDP since the 1960s (the increase has been the same if you include Social Security and Medicare) while poverty hasn’t been dented.

Secondly, he assumes that those heartless mainstream libertarians don’t care about people in poverty. This is a disingenuous and intellectually dishonest assertion. Libertarians have no problem with helping people get out of poverty. What we have problems with are 1) stealing other people’s property to do it, 2) spending the stolen money of others while not reducing poverty, and 3) the ways in which government creates poverty. Furthermore, the idea inherent in this assumption is that poverty can only be reduced through government action, and those who oppose this action oppose poverty reduction. Private organizations, both domestically and internationally, have shown to be tremendously effective in reducing poverty.

It is often stated that the level of effort taken to help the needy is the mark of the degree to which a society is compassionate. But where is the compassion in government officials elected by either plurality or majority forcefully taking the property of the minority who did not elect them to office and using it to help others? Love can only emanate freely from the heart; it cannot be imposed on society or even extracted from others by forceful coercion. Relationships in which one or more of the partners do not hold for the other true love freely emanating from the heart are loveless relationships and, more often than not, fail. Thus, the level and intensity of compassion required to effectively help the needy can only occur in a free society where government does not force one person to help another. The idea that individuals should love their fellow man and help those in need and the onus for them to do so are undermined by a central authority taking their property and doing it for them.

One last observation on this point that I would like to make pertains to the opening statement of this excerpt: “A Libertarian Dem understands that no one enjoys true liberty if they constantly fear for their lives.” I cannot help but notice the eerie similarity in the context of this statement to those made by the Bush Administration in arguments for their various War on Terror policies, be it the Iraq War or various anti-4^th Amendment measures they have sought. (Patriot Act, domestic surveillance, etc.) The “fear for your life” card is a common rhetorical tactic played by those who advocate greater government intervention and control, the implication being that if you do not accept their worldview and policy proposals, then you or others around you will die. I find it quite interesting how Kos and others of his ilk have roundly condemned such rhetoric from the Bush Administration, yet as demonstrated by this statement, they are more than willing to use it to browbeat others into giving them their property so they can pursue their agenda. (Or Kos and the IRS will come and take it from you at gunpoint.) These are not the arguments of people interested in liberty; they're the arguments of people interested in authority.

“A Libertarian Dem gets that no one is truly free if they fear for their health, so social net programs are important to allow individuals to continue to live happily into their old age. Same with health care. And so on.”

I think this point almost entirely captures the essence of his overall thesis, so I will use it as a broad umbrella to address the entirety of his post. Kos’s argument resembles a common argument made by many on the left in rebutting mainstream libertarianism by attempting to frame their worldview in terms of individual liberty. Upon examination, the argument has five major flaws. Firstly, it confuses freedom for power. Freedom is the ability to make choices without coercion from others. Power is the ability to make particular choices given an array of choices. There’s a big difference between the two concepts. So when Kos talks about providing public transportation, social safety nets to “allow individuals to continue to live happily”, and reducing people’s “fear for their health,” he is talking about providing a more numerous and greater quality array of choices, and thus more power (to some). What he proposes does not actually increase individual freedom, and in fact reduces it if these services are to be provided by stealing the property of others through income or broad-based consumption taxes. (At least certainly in the case of safety nets, although possibly in the case of public transportation, as well, if it is to be funded through either of these taxes.)

Secondly, as I discussed earlier regarding poverty and public transportation, this argument presumes largely that only government actions can provide greater power for individuals in some of the areas Kos discusses. As I mentioned earlier, this ignores the ability of private associations to provide these services and the preconditions of human relations required for their effectiveness. But what it also ignores is the essential and irreplaceable role that individual responsibility plays in establishing this power. For instance, an individual’s health isn’t a function of the third-party health care financial coverage one has: it is a function of the individual’s lifestyle choices and, to some extent, the externalities of the actions of others. Government action cannot force better lifestyle choices out of people, both because these choices must result from self-initiative and because the enforcement of such measures is completely impractical and ineffective. To the extent that negative externalities of others’ activities negatively impact an individuals help, then a libertarian government mandated to protect property rights (and one’s body and value of one’s labor are properties of the individual) must enforce retribution.

Thirdly, this argument ignores where government is responsible for the ills Kos identifies. I’ve addressed this on the topics of pollution, labor relations, and poverty, but this is most certainly true of the health care industry, as well. Subsidization of employer-provided health coverage, patent laws, restrictions against alternative medicine providers, medicine distribution schemes (the prescription drug benefit, VA control of flu vaccinations, etc.), AMA monopoly power over medical accreditation, restrictions against purchasing insurance across state lines, and laws restricting nurse practitioners are all examples of ways in which the government has increased cost and decreased quality of our health care system.

Fourthly, this argument confuses libertarianism for anarchism. Libertarianism advocates for the existence of government and the limit of its power to preventing coercion of individual liberty, protecting property rights, and enforcing contracts. Anarchists advocate for no government. There is a huge difference, and realizing this difference invalidates many of the criticisms of the mainstream libertarian framework brought up by Kos and others.

Kos later on in his post states that these perspectives are consistent with “maximizing individual liberty.” Thus, we arrive at the final major flaw inherent in this argument. To Kos and others who promote these ideas, liberty is a variable to be somehow objectively manipulated. Liberty is not a variable. Liberty is a principle. It can either exist completely and entirely in a society or it can’t. This is representative of the general ideas behind the thought of Kos and his ilk: 1) their worldview and system of values is so perfect that it should be forcefully imposed on everyone else through government; 2) they are so smart that they know what every single individual wants; and 3) they have the ability to create optimal outcomes through the mechanism of government, if only they should get this chance. This worldview is not consistent with the idea that everyone should have the ability to make their own choices without coercion by others or the government because it presumes that the ability of some to make choices should be restricted in order to provide others with a greater array of choices. In other words, this worldview is not consistent with the principle of liberty.

On a personal note, I do not want this to be an anti-Kos blog. While I clearly disagree with him on a vast array of issues and find much of his rhetoric and tactics to be despicable on the level of Karl Rove, I do have respect for him. He is intelligent and quite politically savvy, however misguided many of his ideas are. This post is no exception.

I'm back.

2008-04-09T21:30:00.001-04:00

After a two-month hiatus, and lots of things distracting me, I have finally found some time to post here again. I am, in a few minutes, going to post a project I had started working on before I left. Stay tuned.

To all who read my blog. (Which is all of 2 of you, and I hope it's that many...)

2008-02-02T21:20:00.000-05:00

I apologize for my inactivity over the last couple of days. I have been swamped with work.

I will update with new postings tonight.

Do it, Ron!

2008-01-29T22:30:00.000-05:00

There has been a lot of discussion about the possibility of a Ron Paul independent/3rd Party/Libertarian run for President if he does not get the Republican Nomination, which at this point looks likely. Today, new poling numbers from Rasmussen, arguably the best name in the polling business around, that more than justify such a run.

In short, these polls plot three different scenarios of a race involving Ron Paul and Mike Bloomberg as independent/3rd Party candidates: Romney as the Republican Nominee, Obama as the Democratic Nominee; Romney as the Republican Nominee, Clinton as the Democratic Nominee; and Obama as the Democratic Nominee, McCain as the Republican Nominee. The numbers are, needless to say, striking, and both worrisome for the Republican Party and quite discouraging for Mike Bloomberg. They are as follows:

With Obama and Romney:

Obama 42%
Romney 30%
Paul 8%
Bloomberg 6%

With Clinton and Romney

Clinton 46%
Romney 32%
Paul 7%
Bloomberg 7%

In both those scenarios, Paul and Bloomberg are statistically tied, but Paul is ahead. The fact that he is still able to draw this much support with another well-known 3rd Party candidate in the race is quite telling.

However, this doesn't even begin to tell the story. Here are the numbers in the scenario that I personally think will be most likely from the Democratic and Republican perspective:

With Obama and McCain:

Obama 40%
McCain 33%
Paul 11%
Bloomberg 5%

McCain and Obama are, quite simply, surging toward their nominations. McCain has racked two of the historical big three, New Hampshire and South Carolina, and he's topped it off with a huge win tonight in the most demographically diverse (and CLOSED) primary in the GOP contest this year: Florida. With the Giuliani endorsement coming, I just don't see how he can be stopped in the huge delegate states. Huckabee will probably win the southern states, but McCain has shown he can do extremely well there already with wins in South Carolina and Florida. It's POSSIBLE that the anti-McCain contingent in the party, which is certainly strong, will mobilize and try to stop him, but they've already failed in South Carolina and Florida. Romney will still rack up some delegates, and he'll probably win a few more states, but the evidence suggests that McCain is set to take the big delegates states of California and New York. With the Giuliani endorsement (I'm sensing an AHNULD endorsement will come with it in Cali), this should pretty much seal the deal. Lot's of my fellow Paulites are hoping for a brokered convention, but I suspect there would be some type of deal in the works (particularly between McCain and Huckabee) to prevent this from happening and us from enacting our 2nd ballot strategy. I think a McCain-Huckabee ticket is a safe assumption from the Republican side at this point, especially with Lieberman saying today he wouldn't run as Veep again on the GOP ticket with McCain.

Obama has shown that he can energize and turn out his base, the black community, with a monster of a win in South Carolina that positively shocked everyone and blew the polls out of the water. I just don't see how he can be stopped; Hillary's biggest asset, Bill, has turned out to be a net negative for her. She can't make the electability case anymore, because Obama is besting her in head-to-head matchups in polls. Hillary may win more states on Super Tuesday (although I dispute this is as certain as the pundits are making it out to be), but with all of the heavily black-populated areas in states next Tuesday, it's quite possible (I'd argue probable) that Obama will come away with more delegates. Even in the event of a brokered Democratic Convention, I think we can safely say that Edwards would release his delegates to Obama. Hillary's got no energy; Obama's got it all. Obama will be the Democratic Nominee.

This is Paul's time to strike to promote the liberty movement. Obama and McCain are two candidates who can be hit hard on issues relevant to the liberty movement. McCain has made the "100 years" declaration in Iraq, and Obama can't make the commitment to get out before 2012. Furthermore, Obama has a voting record on Civil Liberties that is less than sterling: he voted for the Real ID, and he voted for the Patriot Act reauthorization. Paul will be able to draw substantially from anti-war voters in the Democratic Party who will not wait another 4 years for a withdrawal and will not stand for a candidate who essentially supports the creation of a police state. Furthermore, McCain has done little to support the notion that he is a small government conservative: he voted against both Bush tax cuts, he campaigned in 2000 on a prescription drug benefit for senior citizens, he is a co-author of the McCain-Lieberman bill on greenhouse gas reductions that will impose a serious cost, he is using his earmark crusade, which will do NOTHING to resolve our fiscal problems since funds will be distributed by the executive branch and not Congress, as a smoke-and-mirrors campaign for fiscal conservatives. Add to that the addition of Tax Hike Mike as a potential Veep, and you have a match made in hell for small government and fiscal conservatives still in the Republican Party. From these sources, Paul will be able to substantially build his libertarian base, which we can assume in a general would be a substantial amount of the 20% of the voting populace estimated to be libertarian by CATO, and he would certainly be able to get into the debates in October with more than 15% support in polls.

I am a Republican. I've been a registered Republican as long as I've been a registered voter. But my commitment is to my principle, and my principle is the defense of liberty and small government. These are, of course, the stated principles of the Republican Party. If the Republican Party is willing to nominate not just a Presidential candidate, but a Vice Presidential candidate, who is virtually indistinguishable from the Democratic nominee on so many issues regarding economic and individual liberty, then the Republican Party deserves to be punished for nominating a candidate that fails the test twice in a row and for not hearing the message in the Midterm Congressional elections. Ron Paul is the leader of the Liberty movement right now. If he splits and runs as a Third Party candidate due to the Republican Party being too stupid and unprincipled to nominate him, then I will have no choice but to support him.

Trust Me, Kos: That cliff is a lot longer than it looks.

2008-01-29T03:44:00.001-05:00

I have never really been a fan of the work of Markos Moulitsas. I find him to be primarily interested in the promotion of party politics and not so much in intellectual enlightenment. Now, though, I am struggling to remain civil when reading his latest post on his blog. (By "civil," I mean "Holding back vivid thoughts of violence toward his nose.")

In the latest round of what has seemed to be a particular interest of his- slamming Ron Paul smears that are unprovable, irrelevant to today's important issues, or just flat out ignorant- he pretty much accuses Paul and his supporters of being silent on the issue .

For all the talk of "freedom" that the Paulbots claim to believe in, they sure as heck have been silent on the horrible FISA bill we're fighting to fix in the Senate right now. Same for Ron Paul. Why the silence? And the CATO people and the libertarian publications like Reason, where are they?

Here we are engaged in a huge civil liberties issue, and progressives are being forced to fight this thing alone. It's easy to talk about "liberty". It's much more impressive to actually do something about it.

By actually doing something about it, Markos, do you, by any chance, mean actually write a bill about it that had progressive queen Naomi Wolf (who is a TREMENDOUS fox) fawning over him? Furthermore, if one looks for Markos' own efforts in this battle, one would not find much: a search of his website for entry under his name discussing FISA will find just one post in which he indicates a substantive action he has taken on the issue in the past year. It is a post from the 16th of this month in which he (quite naturally) cites his own article in The Hill. In the vast majority of entries of his, he discussing FISA in only brief passing, uses it in a partisan rhetorical tirade in support of one of "his" candidates, mentions it as only a small part of attacking Congressional leadership of the Democratic Party, or viciously attacks Joe Klein of Time on the topic. See for yourself.

Of course, Ron Paul supporters haven't done much on the issue. There are only 112 hits when you search "FISA" on Daily Paul's website. They've just been posting Reid's and Pelosi's phone numbers on Ron Paul Forums in a thread entitled "Switchboard Shutdown: The FISA Flood Begins." There's only 172 hits on a Reason search for the world "FISA." Oh: and nevermind that the LP petitioned pro-FISA Democratic Senators.

For more perspective, FD and DW take on the issue at his spot. As much as I would like to conclude by commenting on my very specific and extremely violent feelings toward Markos, I will refrain, both because it counterproductive to achieving the goal of ending these wiretaps, if for no other reason than I will likely become subject to the unaccountable NSA that we are trying to stop.

Government-Enacted Health Care Squeeze

2008-01-28T22:40:00.000-05:00

A terrific piece from the past week's Economist details some issues arising from Medicare, Part D and continuing debates over health care policy. Here's the article in full:

Boon or bane?

Jan 24th 2008 | NEW YORK
From The Economist print edition
Medicare spending is soaring, but could that ultimately harm the elderly?

WHEN George Bush signed a controversial bill that reformed Medicare, the government health plan for the elderly, into law back in 2003 he declared it would be “the greatest advance in health-care coverage for America's seniors since the founding of Medicare.” The reform's central provision, known as Part D, subsidises the supply of prescription drugs by private insurers. Critics mocked the chaotic launch of that scheme, and feared its huge cost would end up wrecking the budget.

So who got it right? At first blush, it would seem that Mr Bush did. Despite those teething pains, the Part D plan has taken off in earnest. Many millions have signed up, and private insurers have flocked to the scheme. Polls show the plan is popular. But look closer and the plan's warts appear. For one thing, as predicted, it is hugely costly. The official Centres for Medicare and Medicaid Services recently estimated that while overall health spending grew only 6.7% in 2006 to $2.1 trillion, about the same rate of increase as in 2005, Medicare spending shot up 18.7%—double the rise a year earlier and the fastest since 1981. That could well affect the elderly in coming years by forcing the government to make cuts elsewhere.

Mindful that recession may be coming, Democrats are now trying to boost spending on Medicaid, the government health scheme for the poor, by tacking on provisions to the big economic stimulus package wending its way through Congress. Bush administration officials have made clear they will not allow cuts in Part D, as some Democrats propose, so how to pay for this is unclear. What is clear is that costs are already squeezing Medicare, as a big row over doctors' pay reveals.

Doctors and hospitals already had a disincentive to take on Medicare patients, as cost-cutting laws enacted by Congress years ago were anyway hurting their margins. But in late December, Congress went further, and very nearly enacted a mandatory 10% cut in doctors' reimbursements for Medicare patients. In the end, doctors got a six-month reprieve; efforts are now under way in the Senate to extend that reprieve for a further two years. If such cuts go through, most doctors will think again about treating Medicare patients.

Mr Bush's Medicare reforms are popular today, but a backlash may be coming. Some private firms have been caught manipulating the elderly into signing up for inappropriate plans. Questions are being asked about why the public is subsidising the marketing expenses of pharmaceutical companies—expenses that the public sector does not incur. Those doubts will turn into howls if Part D puts the rest of Medicare under the scalpel.

Medicare, Part D was, of course, a terrible policy enacted by the Bush Administration that will be INCREDIBLY costly going forward. And of course, the predictable result of this big-spending plan has been a marked increase in the prices of drugs covered by Medicare, Part D, as well as in the premiums of drug-covering plans. And don't worry that this policy will likely lead to giving the government price-setting power in the drug market, which will have disastrous consequences for R&D spending and, based on experience in Europe, a massive delay in the timing of new product launches. But no matter, because Karl Rove got his wish: a wipe-out win over Kerry in the 60+ age demographic in 2004.

However, I find it ironic that, as the article points out, the very people it was sold to are likely the people who will be directly hurt by it. Slashing reimbursement to physicians for treating Medicare patients will lead to a huge decline in care for Medicare patients. This will inevitably lead to calls from Democrats who are seeking a nationalized health care system with all of its vices to institute regulations forcing physicians to treat Medicare patients with the decline in reimbursement.

So much for small government.

Changed Moniker.

2008-01-27T23:07:00.001-05:00

I changed my moniker from my name to "LibertyRepublican." You may call still call me by my first name, as well.

I apologize for not introducing everyone to FD. He is going to be a guest writer on this blog at times. He is a Democrat, but his views will line up with the views of Liberty Republicans probably about 85-90% of the time: he's just chosen a different route. But no bother: we in the Liberty movement are all in this together, and we have to work together. I think it will be healthy to get his perspective on things from the (D) side.

I would love to get more writers here, so if you are a Liberty Republican and would like to writer for the blog, please email me at pmms972008@gmail.com.

The Libertarian Republican in Florida

2008-01-27T14:50:00.000-05:00

Hello! This is my first post at Liberty Republicans. While I consider myself a libertarian Democrat and blog most of the time at Freedom Democrats, I plan on popping up here from time to time to comment.

This Tuesday is the Florida primary, an event of far more importance for the Republican Party than the Democratic Party. With Fred Thompson out, the Republican field has settled down to five: John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani, and Ron Paul. Sadly, Florida may be the first time that Rudy Giuliani finishes ahead of Ron Paul. But the libertarian Republican should not be discouraged.

This is, after all, Rudy's "firewall" that was supposed to be his big win going into Super Tuesday. Remember when he was ahead in the polls here? Now, he'll be lucky to finish third ahead of Mike Huckabee.

My hope is that Ron Paul will stay in the race long enough, and Rudy Giuliani will drop out soon enough, for Paul to regain his lead over Giuliani in the popular vote and in the delegate count.

Libertarians in Florida, and across the nation, should also take pride in the drop in Huckabee's poll numbers. The nomination of Tax Hike Mike has been avoided, but a VP position is not yet out of the question. He'll keep in the race and probably sweep the South on Super Tuesday, a McCain-Huckabee ticket built on their need of joining forces to block Romney from the nomination is one possible scenario. But there are so many possible scenarios.

On Tuesday, Romney could beat out McCain, or vice versa. From the perspective of slowing down the Republican nomination and keeping McCain away from the White House, I will be cheering for a Romney victory. For my view of the real John McCain, check out my Freedom Democrats post.

Libertarian Republicans should be cheering on a Romney victory because it will continue to make the Republican primary competitive. A McCain win could solidify him as the nominee, potentially making Super Tuesday a total sweep for McCain. If Romney wins, the Republican establishment will not solidify behind one candidate. Ron Paul supporters saw what happened when the Republican establishment got behind one candidate (or non-candidate) in Louisiana. The only chance for Ron Paul to do well in caucus states like Idaho and Alaska and pick up delegates by winning Congressional districts in Georgia and California is for the establishment to stay divided.

The True Meaning of Conservatism and Liberalism, and The Heart of Our Division

2008-01-26T20:15:00.000-05:00

One of the unfortunate realities of today's political environment is the fixation on the idea of a divide between two groups: the Conservatives vs. the Liberals. Perhaps this is a natural consequence of a society that cherishes competition (and God knows how much I cherish competition myself), but it is unfortunate that we should prioritize association with these identities and the clash between them to the point where we treat the situation the same as Yankees vs. Red Sox. (Or, to use an example with more local (and personal) relevance, Carolina vs. The University of New Jersey at Durham.) But rarely is the question ever asked: what does it truly mean to be a conservative or a liberal?

As one studies political philosophy extensively, one finds that the labels "conservative" and "liberal" typically do not describe an unmistakably clear set of policy positions. It is often the case that "hyphenation" of these terms develops: the segmentation of these groups into certain subgroups. For instance, the term "paleoconservative" is used to describe conservatives of the Pat Buchanan variety: protectionist, isolationist, culturally conservative, fiscally conservative, and pro-civil liberties. This is in contrast to the "neoconservatives," as represented by the Bush Administration, who generally favor free trade, military interventionism, restriction of civil liberties in the name of security, and are not as concerned with fiscal restraint, favoring Supply-Sider ideas about taxes and tolerating the existence of the welfare state. However, even within these subgroups there can exist substantive disagreement on certain issues. For instance, in the paleo tent, there can be a disagreement over what role the Federal Government should play in regulating cultural matters. Typically, paleocons tend to support adherence to Federalism, whereas some, like Buchanan, tend to favor a more activist approach using the federal government to preserve traditional culture. Furthermore, within the neoconservative tent, an issue of considerable divide tends to be immigration, with those such as President Bush and Senator John McCain favoring less restrictive immigration policies, while others like Duncan Hunter tend to favor more restrictive policies. One achieves a similar analysis when observing liberalism.

So, what do the terms "conservative" and "liberal" really mean in the realm of politics? I contend that they mean exactly what they mean in every other realm of life. From a search on Merriam Webster online, one finds this definition of "conservative":

3 a: tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : traditional b: marked by moderation or caution c: marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners

As for liberalism? Well, quite a few ideas come to light here:

2 a: marked by generosity : openhanded b: given or provided in a generous and openhanded way c: ample full
4: not literal or strict : loose
5: broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms

Thinking about these definitions of "conservative" and "liberal," can you unmistakably pin down someone's position on any issue whatsoever when they possess conservative or liberal attitudes and/or world views? Let's take, for instance, the Bush Tax Cuts. By these definitions, one who is a "conservative" may have objected to them on the grounds that they would produce large deficits, if conservatism is indeed "marked by moderation or caution." On the other hand, one could view the tax cuts as quite a liberal policy, given that they were "provided in a generous and openhanded way." In fact, an analogous situation occurred in the 1960s: conservatives in Congress opposed the tax cut proposals of the Johnson Administration, an administration that history has tended to label as the poster-child of American liberalism, on the fear that they would produce large deficits. Instead of this scenario playing out in 2001 and 2003 when the tax debates came up, we have seen the exact opposite situation: the tax cuts were linked to the "conservative" position, while opposition to them was considered the "liberal" position.

My point in all of this is that, in terms of defining consistent and predictable sets of political positions, the terms "conservative" and "liberal" are rather useless. Instead, what these label describe more than anything are attitudes and the psychological approach through which one arrives at positions. Conservatives value adhering to tradition, caution, and restraint from radical change. Liberals value anti-orthodoxy and generosity, and they tend to possess more lax attitudes toward society and to react more favorably to change. What it all boils down to is that the individual who possesses these attitudes is ultimately the authority over what positions they take based on these attitudes and their own understanding of issues.

Hence, we have arrived at the source of the division in our society. It is precisely because we in society seek so firmly to establish a form of team sport in politics, with the "liberals" vs. "conservatives," where we view politicos and voters as members of these two teams and cheer them on as they take on our opponents, that we have established this rigid division in our political system and our society as a whole. Identity politics, and particularly party politics, is a particularly divisive and destructive form of collectivism that suggests we maintain loyalty to groups rather than loyalty to our own attitudes, world-views, and unique conclusions on policy positions. It is only when we begin to view ourselves and each other as individuals with unique perspectives, and understand what is truly meant by the terms "conservative" and "liberal," that we can end the division of today and conduct ourselves with the primary motivation of what is best for our country.

Just to clear something up.

2008-01-26T20:08:00.001-05:00

Apparently, I have been introduced to the world through The Crossed Pond, and with some confusion as to my sex. As badly as my mom (or mum, for you blokes "Across The Pond") wanted otherwise (hence the name), I am in fact a male.

Play Nice, Boys: We're All In This Together

2008-01-25T18:43:00.000-05:00

In the last couple of days, Ron Paul 2008 has announced the addition of their first two economic advisers, both of whom are absolutely top notch aces in the financial sector. These two men are Don Luskin of Trend Macrolytics and Peter Schiff of Euro Pacific Capital. Schiff has been rocking with EuroPAC the last few years, reaping huge returns through investments in foreign markets, and he has gotten nearly every major call in the financial world in the last few years right. Luskin has been around the block for a while and is known as a top notch investment strategist, being credited for numerous innovations in investment strategizing that have paid dividends for a number of institutional investors. On top of this, he is a also a terrific debater and a whitty writer; his blog, The Conspiracy To Keep You Poor and Stupid, is some of the best mix of economic analysis and sardonic humor you will find, and he has conducted a just and glorious Holy War over the years on the economic anti-Christ himself. Together, they form probably the best pairing from the financial world you will ever find teamed with a campaign.

The problem? Well, they don't like each other very much.

Hopefully, they will put their personal conflict behind them in pursuit of the greater good. Both are top notch, and I am fans of both.

Welcome!

2008-01-25T16:44:00.000-05:00

In the course of the past year, I have been thoroughly re-energized in my political involvement by the campaign of Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. After being disillusioned for years by politics, particularly by a President who has fundamentally contradicted the princples that my party, the Republican Party, is supposed to stand for, this great man has brought these principles back to the forefront and given rise to a widespread movement to bring the country back to one in which government is limited in its size and operations by the Constitution and in which economic and individual liberty govern us. I have become firmly committed to this movement, as I am the Coordinator of the Students for Ron Paul chapter at the University of North Carolina, and I am currently the Youth Coordinator and a Volunteer Coordinator with the BJ Lawson for US Congress campaign in District 4 of NC.

I am currently a 4th-year Senior at UNC, double-majoring in Economics and Math. I aspire to one day become an economist in the financial sector and to do what I can to champion the principle that has led to the greatest growth and advancement of all human kind and
the idea for which all most fundamentally yearn: the principle of Liberty.