Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder.

"Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder."
-George Washington
I do not know the context of these words, but they hold truth without context.

Put into the context of today the few men would need to be a mere 547. 435 congressmen +100 senators +2 executives +9 court justices. Out of hundreds of millions of people we need to find those that rare few that put principle as their highest self interest.

But those people are not as rare as we might think at first. Part of the problem is the way we treat these people. They should all be given every opportunity to act transparently, for openness helps.

What are the virtues we're looking for? For on the one hand the Libertarian party holds up self interest as an ideal, and on the other we require of our candidates that they keep the national interests at heart. This means we need someone who understands that by protecting all peoples rights he protects his own. When someone approaches him with an idea that would payoff for himself, at the detriment of others, he needs to know that by accepting a short term gain he also accepts a long term loss. Therefore our candidates need to have a very large picture of the world.

We draw our candidates from our party members. We cannot afford to hope they will just happen to have the large picture. We must actively educate ourselves at all times. We have to know what is going on, and how it relates to our philosophy. Libertarianism is not for the lazy. This poses a bit of a problem because most people are lazy! But the problem is surmountable. For it turns out that the average person is plenty smart enough to understand the Libertarian philosophy, but is not sufficiently exposed to it.

This is a departure from earlier understanding where it was believed that the average person was uninterested. I do not believe this is the case. I believe most people have been fooled into thinking the topics are beyond them, and thus have stopped trying. There has been an endless parade of experts and talking heads babbling endlessly about minutia of policy, such that all reasonable people have long ago stopped listening.

We have to unclog the ears of the normal person, and that can best be done with man to man coverage. We are the party, not our TV commercials. We need to talk to those around us, and then meet new people. And we need to learn how to best do it.

We will never persuade people by weight of our intellect (except those amazing few who do have towering intellect) but we can persuade them by a consistent message of truth. We have to take a lesson from the glacier. The glacier is slow and methodical, and it always wins. The glacier wins by time and pressure. We have both of these. We cannot expect someone who has just been exposed to the Libertarian ideals to suddenly embrace them. They have to arrive at the conclusion that Libertarianism is a higher philosophy than their current one by use of their rational minds.

A rational mind is like a flower. It cannot help but grow if exposed to sunlight and water. The sunlight is the truth contained in Libertarianism, and the water is your FRIENDLY application of it. I stress friendly as much as possible. The truth we are spreading cannot be pounded into someone like a nail into a piece of wood, but must be gently massaged into them.

This would seem a slow process, and it is, but it is doable, and on a national scale our success is guaranteed if we understand the nature of exponential growth.

It is important for each of us over the next year to find two people and convert them, and repeat. That is all it takes. However, the convention must be complete. Complete in the sense that they also find two people and convert them.

This means we must master some new skills. We must learn how to approach people, for the standard political argument setting is worthless. Indeed, we are not interested in politics, but philosophy. It seems a strange contradiction, but it is not. Politics is the application of philosophy. Philosophy is the set of values and reasoning we use to direct our actions. Thus, with the right philosophy the right politics naturally follows.

This is had the amazing effect of allowing us to forget the persons of politics. We waste far too much time with accusations of this person did this, or that person did that, and we can focus on the heart of the matter, our philosophy. When talking with someone about Libertarianism it is important to understand that you are presenting a new way of thinking. Do not presume that you are smarter or better educated that the receiver. Listen to their ideas. People hold their ideas very firmly because they represent a large part of their self identity. You cannot hope to convert people in a day, or with a hammer.

But like the glacier, you can win.

Talk to people about the "why" of everything. This is something most people assume. Take public education for example. Rather than debate the finer points of how public education fails or succeeds, ask why it exists at all? Few people will have an answer. And you have planted the seed of truth in their mind. Then you expose it to light and water, and it grows.

As the minds of America become fertilized with these seeds, the glacier of public opinion will turn the course of the nation to where it needs to be.

Finally, there is one other issue that needs to be addressed, and that is the lost minds. Some minds simply will not see the truth, or prefer the short term over the long term in all cases. When you are involved with these minds, you are wasting your time, move on. It is much better to spend your time looking for the next mind that can accept the truth than waste your life on a lost cause.

I will have to better crystallize my thoughts on this in the future.

Sunday, November 23, 2008

The lies of Socialism

Now that I have exhausted the planks in the Libertarian platform I was considering what to write on next, and I have plenty of options. Obviously current events are always plentiful, relevant and useful, but also overdone. It seems the vast majority of blogs are just peoples ranting about the problems of the moment.

The Libertarian party, and myself, take a longer view of the world. We don't see isolated events, but an avalanche of consequences from the actions taken by those with a poor guiding philosophy. We Libertarians propose a broader view of the world. I decided to continue in that vein. I'm planning to do some current event oriented posts to be sure, but that is not the major thrust of this blog. This blog is about the philosophy of Libertarianism in its pure state first, and applied to our political situations second.

With that in mind, I shall take on one of the arch enemies of Libertarian though, that is, socialism. Socialism is an exceptionally virulent flaws philosophy because it has just the right mix of feel-good ideas to cover over the unbroken history of failure. Every generation that embraces socialism, or worse, communism, has to learn again that it is based on lies that generate nothing but mediocrity and stagnation at best, and horrific misery at worst.

I shall start with a working definition of socialism, so those reading may better understand these thoughts. I shall use the definition I found on wikipedia: "Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society."

This definition leaves out some critical points. Taken by itself you might be tempted to conclude that socialism is not all that bad, and perhaps is even a good thing. This is because the first lie of socialism is that of production being freely given to the state or otherwise collectivized. The state must enforce this status by coercion. People in general do not grant the product of their lives to anyone else without a threat or the expectation of some reward. The reward in this case is freedom from penalty. This is not to say that charity never happens, for it is clear that charity exists and indeed Americans are exceptionally charitable people. And there is the crux of the first lie, the lie of omission, the lie that says people will, in general, willingly surrender their production. It takes only a cursory observation to see that people will not, and the harder people look, the more this situation is confirmed.

Why does the IRS even have an enforcement division if people are, in general, willing to give up their life to the collective? It exists because the government must take from the people by force, or the threat of force.

The second lie is that of seeking an egalitarian society. This is pure poppycock. History shows us that people intentionally seek what is best for themselves. This means a few key things with respect to socialism. First, those people saying they wish everyone to be equal probably, at some level, likely believe it, but they are conveniently forgetting the human condition of scarcity of resources.

Pure equality, wherein everyone has exactly the same share of the available resources, would mean that to improve ones own situation you would have to either increase the available resources for everyone, reduce the number of people in the system, or apportion the resources unequally. It would be improper to apportion them unequally, so that is ruled out. It would be morally reprehensible to reduce the number of people, so that is ruled out. Thus that leaves only increasing the supply as a reasonable answer. However, some resources are fixed, such as land, there can exist no personal improvement in a socialist system.

Also complicating the search for equality is the human diversity of opinion. Whereas some might very highly value a given resource, others may have no use for it at all. What then is a system of pure equality supposed to do? Pretend for a moment that each day every human is allotted a ration of peanuts. It makes no difference how large the allotment is. For some people it will never be enough, and for others it will be far too much. Now consider the person who is allergic to peanuts. What of them? Only an exceptionally unfair mind would say that the allergic person must stockpile the peanuts, or worse, discard them, and derive no use from them at all. Thus there will exist a situation wherein one person will have a need unmet by the system, and another will have a surplus provided by the system, and yet that same system will resist allowing them to trade. For free trade will unbalance the equality.

These two things, scarcity and perceived value, are some of the rocks upon when the ship of Socialism always runs aground.

But the lying is contained only in those areas. There is another hidden lie, the lie of the collective. There is no such thing as a collective. No matter how much we beat our chests and proclaim we care for the whole, we care for ourselves more. Self preservation is the highest form of self interest. This is not to state that people will not sometimes do things that seem to be in the best interest of others. Indeed, there is more than enough evidence to show that people will do heroic things, often to their own demise, coming to the aid or rescue of others. But in all those cases the person either did not expect the full consequences, or could not live with the consequences of inaction.

There is no common good, only individuals. The common good is a statistic, not a data point. Statistics hide the humanity behind the numbers. With that in mind, any average, arithmetic mean or median will have included in it values higher and lower that the middle. The only way to raise the value is to increase the numbers at the low end. Recall the fact of scarcity and it is obvious that the only way to improve the statistic is to chop down the big numbers and use those resources to inflate the lower ones. But these are not mere numbers. These are people's lives.

The failed attempt at justification is made with phrases like "They can afford it" or "They don't need it" or even "It's not fair" while simply overlooking that the "they" in those ideas are real people and the action involved is a real crime. (It must be a crime, for taking someone's property by force has always been regarded as theft.)

A persons life is a series of thoughts and actions. Those thoughts and actions result in a persons production. No two people are identical. Some people will produce more things of value than others. Therefore, if equality is the goal, then the only recourse is to take some of the "overproduction" from some and give it to others. Never mind the fact that this is slavery, for the producers are at the receiving end of a whip, being made to support others with no benefit to themselves.

The final result of this system can be nothing more than a downward spiral in production and innovation. The human is a highly adaptive creature and when the cause of self interest is muted, as I've shown here must exist in a socialist system, then the incentive to be productive and innovative is also diminished. As this mindset takes hold in the producers the "common good" will inevitably drop until it reaches the threshold of mere subsistence.

These are the lies of socialism. They need to be pointed out to everyone without exception. The Libertarian party rejects all of these lies. Of course, nature abhors a vacuum and so we cannot idly stand by and denounce this system without proposing an alternative. The Libertarian party steadfastly promotes capitalism, personal property, free trade and self interest in its place. Whereas the socialists run aground of the realities of the human creature and condition, the Libertarian party harnesses them to fuel a better tomorrow for everyone.

That has to be the irony of all irony's. The socialist system purports to wish to raise the collective good, but by its means only depressed it. The Libertarian philosophy wishes to promote the individual good and by natural consequence of its means promotes the statistical common good as well.

Thursday, November 20, 2008

3.7 Self-Determination

3.7 Self-Determination

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty.

Can anyone say "Declaration of Independence"? I love it. This is exactly the encapsulation of clarity of thought that our party should be known for. Do the other parties hold up such sentiments as something upon which to base an entire government? no. Why? Because they are, in fact, counter to the cause of liberty.

Let me not mince words here. The Democratic party is the party of modern slavery. They embrace stealing from one person to support another. The Republican party is the party of false conservatism. They talk a good game, but fail to deliver when given the opportunity. Only the Libertarian party is the party of principle. We put our ideals on display, and then live them. We support them, promote them and expect nothing less from everyone else.

It hasn't always been this way. My grandfather was not a socialist, but he was a Democrat. Somewhere along the line his party abandoned him. When I first joined the Republican, under Ronald Reagan, she wasn't perfect (no party is) but she practiced what he preached as best she could. Over the years it has run off an abandoned me. I was nearly a man without a party until I decided that I had it within me to do something about it.

This is my goal, to alter the government. It is well past time to return the power of the government to its best purpose, removing force and fraud from human relationships. All else is window dressing, expensive window dressing at that. All else will result not only in unwise spending of treasure as the government chases an unreachable goal, but will also cost in the infrignment or even wholesale abrogation of rights. This cannot be tolerated. Neither party will stand up for the common man, and so now we must stand up for ourselves.

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

3.6 Representative Government

3.6 Representative Government

We support electoral systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state and local levels. As private voluntary groups, political parties should be allowed to establish their own rules for nomination procedures, primaries and conventions. We call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns. We oppose laws that effectively exclude alternative candidates and parties, deny ballot access, gerrymander districts, or deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives.

The Libertarian party, unlike the major parties, has a clear vision of how our government should be selected. States elsewhere, but echoed here, Libertarians denounce all forms of violence for political gain where a peaceful alternative exists, and in the USA that is the election.

We also hold that parties are private organizations, and as such are exempt from most of the regulations currently impossed upon them, especially that of the open primary as it violates the members right to free association. Political parties are like marketing brands, and as such violating their ability to put forth the candidates they choose dilutes their power.

As parties are private groups they should not be using tax dollars to finance their campaigns. The use of tax dollars is a violation of the tax payers right to free association. Why should yor tax dollard, potentially, go do finance political campaigns for candidates with whom you do not agree? Tax payer financed campaigns serve only one purpose, to maintain the status quo. The government only gives the money to those that qualify, and at the same time places the bar for qualification intentionally out of reach for minority parties.

As for all the other points, they can be summed up in the word clean. The Libertarian party stands for clean elections that are focused on proper representation of the people, not the retention of power of those already in power.

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

3.5 Rights and Discrimination

3.5 Rights and Discrimination

We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.

This might sound like feel good liberal drivel, but it's actually a very clear statement of the greater role of government. When we say "We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant." we are, of course, talking about the government. People have the right to be irrational and repugnant, in their personal actions, but not in the sphere of government.

What I find as a glaring missing element here is the element of faith. On the whole I find the Libertarian party holds a sort of low key hostility to matters of faith. I think this stems from the heavy Ayn Rand influence, and it is time to put the hate down. People have the right to believe in God, and to express it however they wish, again, provided it does not curtail the rights of others. Our party will never be more than an insignificant sideshow if it does not actively make the changes needed to embrace people of faith.

What this doesn't say, nor should it, is that the government should enforce some utopian everyone likes each other view of the world by abriding the right to free association, expression and trade with such morally repugnant programs such as affirmative action. This needs to be understood by the reader. The government is not a schoolyard monitor striving to help everyone get along and play nice. The government exists to remove force and fraud from human interaction, nothing more.

Monday, November 17, 2008

3.4 Free Trade and Migration

3.4 Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property.

This is another excellent example of a clear principle, but it does need to be examined to be understood in the context of the real world. One of the unspoken but critical elements of free trade is the assumption of a level playing field. That is, all the participants have the same sort of man made barriers.

Take food imports for example. Many south American countries wish to import food into the United States because they can get the best prices for it here, and at the same time do not adhere to the same quality controls as the US growers. This inequality is abhorrent to free trade, and would not be permitted under a Libertarian government.

Worse, in many countries the government actively supports industries that wish to export to the US and other countries.

The Libertarian party stands against tariffs as a tool to equalize the playing field. If the product is comparable, and the conditions are as well, then let it go, otherwise stop it completely. The collection of a tariff is a bribe from a foreign company to have the US government look the other way.

Immigration should also be relatively easy. History shows us that a more open policy is economically good for the country. Of course, the Libertarian Party does not turn a blind eye to the reality that not all immigrants are simply looking for a better life. The government has the responsibility to stop everyone at the boarder and confirm their intentions and their legality before allowing them into the country.

Sunday, November 16, 2008

3.3 International Affairs

3.3 International Affairs

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and its defense against attack from abroad. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.

This plank is the first one where the clear message is most likey to be muddled. America does not own the rest of the world anything, as was discussed earlier, but it is in the best interest of our people to not allow the free flow of goods and services to be compromised. Thus we will walk a bit of a tight rope. We cannot afford to be isolationists, yet neither are we imperialistic.

The world has gotten mre dangerous with time, not safer. In 1908 the possibility of a single military attack that could kill, literally, billions of people did not exist and now it does. Worse, the number of nations with the ability to carry out such devastating attacks is on the rise. Each military advancement represents a new threat, and the threats are world wide.

At the same time America stands against terrorism. The war on terror is a political boondoggle to be sure, but neither should America simply turn a blind eye to those in such serious need. Rather than sending the Marines, we should equip and train those in need to meet their own needs. While this action would, technically, be military aid, it would be thousands to millions of times less expensive than our current path, and many times more effective. Not only would this path enable those in bondage the ability to free themselves, but it would remove the hazards to our own people. We would have very few, if any, troops in the theater of combat and would not have to sustain an ultimately unwelcome occupation force.

It is a romantic notion that the United States was formed by the courageous actions of the American revolutionary soldier. It is accurate, but not the whole story. One of the critical components was the intervention by France. With the arrival of the French fleet the British were no longer free to range the coast as they had done, and the issue was quickly decided. In turn American intervention in France brought on the liberation of France. We Libertarians hold up as our symbol that of Lady Liberty, a gift given too us by the French for the hope we bring to the world. We cannot forget that liberty is not always won from the inside alone, but that outside intervention is sometimes required.

Nothing could produce a better place to live for all people, including Americans, than a world at peace with liberty and justice for all.

Friday, November 14, 2008

3.2 Internal Security and Individual Rights

3.2 Internal Security and Individual Rights

The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens. The Bill of Rights provides no exceptions for a time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government's use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law.

This plank is extremely important and should be adopted by all the parties. (Well, they all should really. But adopting this one would not jeopardize the other parties sacred cows.) The government cannot be held accountable if it actively covers up its misdeeds. The fact that tyrannical governments from the dawn of time have attempted to do this demonstrates the danger of the precedent.

There is simply no excuse for lack of elected oversight. The threat of terrorism is minuscule compared to the threat of nuclear annihilation, which still exists. And yet at the height of the cold war during the Cuban missile crisis the civilian government was kept informed and in control of decision making. Indeed, it is reasonable to conclude that only because of this did we manage to escape such disaster.

The current threats are much more insidious. Todays threats are very individually directed. The government can take covert actions against individuals for any reason it wishes and does not require any judicial oversight. There is no legitimate use for this level of power. This should alarm everyone, conservative or liberal. For the pendulim of abuse will swing back and forth leaving arbitray misery in its wake if this situation is not corrected.

Thursday, November 13, 2008

3.1 National Defense

3.1 National Defense

We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.
"Country first [and only]" might be a good way to restate this plank. The people of America have paid a tremendous price for the defense of others. Often those expenses, in blood sweat and treasure have resulted in lukewarm allies that, such as in the case of Spain, cut and run at the first sign of opposition. And yet America has continued to put herself on the line day in and day out for "the west".

Clearly our national interests span the globe as our citizens and businesses span the globe. But this neither gives use cause nor license to meddle in the affairs of other nations. The people of the world should shutter at the very thought of harming an American citizen for the terrible retribution it would bring upon themselves, but they should also know that Americans will not needlessly interject themselves into their internal affairs.

It should be noted that all of the significant wars of this nation, with the possible exception of the Mexican-American and the war of 1812 if you wish to include that as significant, have been in response to our "entangling alliances". The American battle flag has flown over more foreign capitals than any other flag in modern times. This has not generated an outpouring of world wide support. Many of the peoples we have liberated now are less than enthusiastic allies. Nations know no gratitude.

This policy would almost surely mean the United States departing the United Nations. It is not a secret that the United States provides most of the manpower, equipment and money for UN actions, and has paid nearly nothing in return. The UN has, as its charter, the requirement of member nations to stop genocide wherever it may be happening. While as a humanitarian I agree with this, in principle, that the strong should protect the weak, but the United States is not in a position to do this, and the world has rejected her attempt at leadership for this effort which results in the USA acting alone, even if under the banner of the United Nations. The United States can join the world when it chooses to police itself, but should not stand alone in that capacity.

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

3.0 Securing Liberty

3.0 Securing Liberty

The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments.

This plank addresses securing liberty on two levels, first how the government and the citizens relate, and then how our government should relate to others, but it's deeper than this. This plank shows the core belief of the party laid bare for all to see with the words "only purpose of government."

The government has no purpose except to protect rights. It does not have any purpose in education, health care, retirement planning or any other activity except those that protect the rights of of individuals. It should not be lost on the reader that the rights protected are those of the individual and not any group or class.

To fully understand this on must understand the difference between a right and a privilege. A right is the A right is the sanction of independent action, per Ayn Rand*. A right cannot be revoked, unlike a privilege. The US Constitution enumerated some of your rights in the first ten amendments. Each one explicitly limiting the powers of the government with respect to individuals. At no time does the US Constitution grant license to the government to dabble in the myriad of things it does beyond protecting its people.

The Libertarian party ultimately calls for a return to constitutional rule. The ideal of constitutional rule unleashes the creative energy of the individual while providing the safest environment as well. Nothing can lead to a better quality of life for the citizens than this.

* It is proper to quote Rand in this case as Objectivism, the name she gave to her own philosophy, played a large role in the foundation of the party.

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

2.10 Retirement and Income Security

2.10 Retirement and Income Security

Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. We favor replacing the current government-sponsored Social Security system with a private voluntary system. The proper source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.

The consistency of the libertarian party is fantastic. Neither major party offers such a clear unwavering message of respect for the individual. I think we sometimes forget that the nation is made up of individuals. There is no such thing as "the common good". The common good is a statistical approach to government that is willing to either forget those at the fringe as insignificant or hammer down those in the middle in some misguided attempt to instill equality.

The Libertarian party says loud and clear that you not only have the right, but the responsibility, to rise to the level of your character. Sometimes I think this is what scares people the most about the Libertarian message. It not only enables you to be the best you can, but it demands it as well. Being second best is for collectivists. Why else would one turn to the overnment if not out of fear of failure? For individuals with courage the government is an obstacle, for people of fear it is a refuge.

Retirement can be a scary idea. For those of us blessed to live into old age we will see a time when our ability to earn is greatly decreased, perhaps to zero. We will begin to stare down the face of the "fixed income" monster. Inflation is a real thing when your purchasing power is slipping away from you faster than your years. Who wouldn't want a nice cozy security blanket? Or at least a safety net to keep you from being on the streets.

One major problem with this thinking is that to have the security blanked you have to hire the government to be your legally sanctioned thief. He robs from some to give to someone else. The victim has perpetrated no crime and reaped no unearned rewards, and yet he is punished.

Another major problem is the impossibility of it. The government plans put forth thus far have continued to show their roots in economic fallacy. They will, over time, continue to fail the very people they have targeted to help. Along the way the congress will siphon off the money for other boondoggle projects, and use the cash to continue to bribe voters.

And that where the heart of the matter lie. By supporting such policies people have compromised their integrity. They have said that it is OK to steal, and that it is OK to be bribed in the short term for promises that cannot be delivered. The Libertarian party rejects such moral and intellectual compromise. We stand tall like our symbol, the statue of liberty, and we hold the torch of principle up for everyone to see.

The past is prologue. Democracy is based on the foundation that, given the information, the majority of the people will choose the right path the majority of the time. The republic is founded on the principle that all are created equal and have unalienable rights. And all that is required of us it to forgive ourselves for being deceived, and to stand back up and say with a clear voice "never again". The errors and sins of the past are unalterable, but the future is not set. We have it in our power to act today to clean up the mess and put our house in order.

The only question left is, will you join us and begin this day to live up to the content of your character?

Sunday, November 9, 2008

2.9 Health Care

2.9 Health Care

We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions.

As of late the country has allowed itself to be confused by rhetoric from the left. The lie from the left is that people have a right to health care. This is sheer sophistry. Think of the other rights, the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, the right to defend yourself and the right to be safe from unreasonable searches. All of these things are limits on what the government can do to you, not for you. None of them cost anyone else any money.

The perpetrate the lie that we have a right to health care is to say that someone else owes health care costs to those who cannot afford it.

I am not surprised that this grand lie, told in smooth words by politicians hoping to bribe your vote away from you with promises of things they cannot honestly deliver, has been detected and rejected by the Libertarian Party. I stand with them.

Their are those who say that "it is too expensive" and some respond with "If the government did not take so much money from you in the first place we could all afford it", but those are smoke screen arguments. The simple truth is that inequality is a state of being, and the government cannot ever erase that. Some people can afford excellent care, others cannot. Sometimes those who cannot are put in that position by circumstances outside their control. None of these things equates to an obligation on the part of the rest of society to pay for the care of another.

Saturday, November 8, 2008

2.8 Education

2.8 Education

Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.

By now it should not come as a surprise to anyone following this blog that the Libertarian Party would stand against the economic injustice of the educational system.

Nothing can be more important than children. The preamble of the constitution mentions them as a primary reason for the existence of the union at all. "... to ourselves and our posterity". Thus the responsibility and right to care for, including educate, the next generation falls on the parents.

The government has usurped this right. The state has laid claim to your children. It has said that it has the right to force you to use its educational system in which you have nearly no control, or to pay double to go outside the system. It happens every day that Americans across the country are forced to pay for educational services that do not apply to their own children, and that contain content in which they do not agree in environments that they do not approve.

While it makes some sense to codify the requirement of education, the methods employed are specifically designed to allow the state access to your child's mind. With this truth exposed we must ask ourselves why? Why would the government want access to your child's mind so strongly that it is willing to enact such laws? I do not have the answers and leave it to the reader to draw his own conclusions except that I note history shows that when the government attempts to assert rights it does not have the result is universally negative.

When you couple this with the observable fact of the failure of the public school systems in terms of price for performance it should come as no surprise that the Libertarian Party points out the reality that the free market system can and would do a better job.

Friday, November 7, 2008

2.7 Labor Markets

2.7 Labor Markets

We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment. We oppose government-fostered forced retirement. We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union. We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.

This plank is properly named, but misleading none the less. This plank is not so much about labor, but about the right to free association. The Libertarian Party believes that all people have the right to associate, in business or socially, with whomever they choose for whatever reasons compel them. While this may, in rare extreme situations, lead to the free expression of discrimination, consider the alternative.

If people who wish to associate are not allowed by government edict then all that has been accomplished is the government using its might to refuse people their rights.

If people who do not wish to associate are forced too, then the government has again used its might to overpower the free will of the participants.

On the surface this may seem absurd, and indeed it is, but it happens daily in the USA. The right of free association is an expression of free will. Thus both parties must consent to association, for if either objects then only force could compel the objector to accept the situation.

This happens in daily life when employers are forced to hire people they do not wish to hire, such as in the case of some union labor situations. This is the example of both rights being violated. Not only is the employers right to free association violated by being required to hire a union employee against his will, but the non-union applicants are also denied their rights as they wish to be employed but are disallowed.

Not only do these violations extend to requirements of association, but they also cross into freedom of speech. The government has no right to impose its will and force either employer or union to negotiate. The government overpowers the freewill of participants in these cases.

These are not trivial violations of no consequence to the individual. Not only can individuals seeking employment be victimized, but the whole area of trade between supposed free individuals is under the thumb of the government. With the exception of criminal activity the government has no right to tell its citizens the criteria it may use during trade negotiations.

This grates on the nerves of "reasonable" people, but that is because they are too busy projecting their ideas of fair and right onto others. The modern reasonable person believes that trade should be limited to pure economic factors, specifically availability, ability and money. If you have an item, and wish to sell it, you are required to accept the first person who comes along and offers the requested price and no other criteria may come into play. This is essentially absurd as it denies both the buyer and the sellers the use of their full mental capacities.

The question is no longer one of freedom, but of what do the "reasonable" people wish to allow?

The self described "reasonable" people need to realize that by enforcing their views on those around them they are doing nothing more than using might to replace the reason they claim to have. If the "reasonable" people truly believed in their professed values, one of which is freedom, the would see that their only legitimate tool is persuasion, not power.

The governments rightful place in labor markets is the same as in any other market, to stop the use of force and fraud and all other actions are improper.

Thursday, November 6, 2008

2.6 Monopolies and Corporations

2.6 Monopolies and Corporations

We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association. We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals. We oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Industries should be governed by free markets.

This is another affirmative statement of individual rights, specifically the rights of free association and private property. It also goes so far as to say that the government should get out of all services that can be provided by the free market.

We should really strongly consider the ramifications of such a plank. The presence of the government in any industry is almost characterized by monopoly, or nearly so. We all know the dangers of monopolies, and yet the government wishes you to believe it is somehow above abusing its power. All of this in the face of the history of abuses.

The government doesn't always directly manipulate the markets, sometimes it props up under performing industries with subsidies, and other times it suppresses industries with regulations and taxes. (I do want to note that I do not oppose all subsidies. The only exception is when the government adds some new burden of regulation, then it should be required to pay for those hardships, at least initially.)

The biggest problem with subsidies is that it opens the door to corruption. Yes, it distorts the markets as well, but the corruption is the most dangerous factor. Once the government begins handing out freebie goodies the questions will become, "Who gets them?" and "How much?" and those subsidies become tantamount to corporate welfare, or put in an even worse light, out right bribery. As industries become dependent upon subsidies, which they always will, then the industries will also become dependent upon those who supply them.

This will always have the effect of cementing the support of those who receive the handouts to those who do the handing out. The battle will then turn from "if" there should be a subsidy to "how much?" The various political groups will vye for the support of the dependent with ever increasing promises.

In all of this no one seems to notice or care where the money is coming from in the first place. It will most obviously come from taxes. Thus the government will be happy to steal from one group to pay for the support of another in ever increasing amounts. Those with any mathematical training will see the inductive nature of the problem and will conclude that, as with all economic systems, the demands will outpace the resources. But until such time as economic reality asserts itself the government will continue to victimize its own citizens with corporate welfare.

Those with any sense of history can confirm that this progression has been exactly what has happened.

The party of principle rejects such servitude for its citizens. You should too.

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

2.5 Money and Financial Markets

2.5 Money and Financial Markets

We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item. We support a halt to inflationary monetary policies, the repeal of legal tender laws and compulsory governmental units of account.

Once again, a clear vision of property rights. Clearly your money is, in fact, yours. As a virtue of being yours you have the right to dispose of it as you wish. Money is not any different from any other object. You should be able to trade and use it just as you would anything else.

The last part is where the plank gets more interesting. The halt to inflationary monetary policies (and I presume that means fiscal policies as well) would be a radical break from the last 100 years or so of bi-cameral uniparty policy. It would mean the government would have to stop printing money on demand, and it would have to stop spending money like crazy. Neither of these things are in the mind set of the current politicians in Washington.

Going even deeper you see "... the repeal of legal tender laws and compulsory governmental units of account.", which is lawyer speak for what appears on the front of your federal reserve note, commonly, erroneously, called a "Dollar", which reads "This note is legal tender for all debts public and private." This little sentence sums up the power of the government to require someone to accept payment in dollars, even if a contract was for other items, like gold.

The value of doing away with the legal tender laws is not immediately obvious, but Gresham's law is in operation under the tender laws. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%E2%80%99s_Law) The effect of this law is that those things of objective value will be replaced by those things of dubious value as a result of the government enforcing this law. The end result is that people end up using the fiat money for trade rather than money of real value.

The dangers of fiat money are well known and do not need explanation here.

It's an ambitious plank, and completely unrealistic at the moment, but I would leave it in because it will become utterly indispensible once the party begins to have success and shows the country via its tax policies that it has a much better grasp on economics than the bi-cameral uniparty.

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

2.4 Government Finance and Spending

2.4 Government Finance and Spending

All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.

Well if anything ever said "smaller government" this is it. I find it strange that people look at this plank and see it as "extreme" when all it is stating is that the Constitution should be followed. How radical is it that government be constrained to those things which it is legally empowered to do?

One thing this plank does not do is say how the federal government would get its funding. Going back to the unamended Constitution the Feds would have to apportion their costs to the several states. That plan proved to be a little ambitious, apparently. As an almost Libertarians it seems that we cannot risk going back to that system when you consider the foreign threats. The world is a dangerous place, and we have real enemies. No matter the source of those enemies we cannot merely go home and pretend it all never happened and then hope they reciprocate.

The US must be able to maintain a strong military to counter those threats. This cannot be allowed to fall prey to the same things that made the original funding plan unworkable. Therefore I would suggest that a full scale adoption of the fair tax be added to the charter to remove this glaring oversight. The fair tax would level the playing field, be revenue neutral, abolish the IRS, and take away all the inherently unfair things about the massive tax code that causes so much political corruption.

As for debt, I agree in general, in that the government is taking on huge amounts of debt for no long term purposes, but rather to buy votes. I do think the government should be allowed to take on debt for specific projects. World War II paints a very graphic picture of the need of the government to be able to raise capital in the form of debt. A blanket "no debt" plank sounds good, but it is a naive understanding of finance. There will always be a problem with the government wishing to take on debt to buy votes, and it the reason why no platform can be anything more than a standard set of guidelines. Judgment will be required.

This means that even under Libertarian rule people will need to be ever vigilant. The major difference is that the Libertarian party welcomes such citizen oversight, whereas the other parties shun it.

Monday, November 3, 2008

2.3 Energy and Resources

2.3 Energy and Resources

While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.

Seems like a pretty simple platform, which again states "Free market". But it's always more than that. Of course the free market is the best possible solution to our energy needs, but many people mistakenly believe that the government should fund research into alternative energy sources.

I'm happy to disabuse people of this notion with the fact that most (perhaps all) of the significant advances in any alternative energy sources have come from private funding, with the possible exception of nuclear power. Even with that exception nuclear power was harnessed for war, no peace and peaceful adaptation of the technologies was left largely to the private sector.

Government interference distorts the free market, and much like the mortgage debacle currently being felt world wide, such interference will cause problems. Simply put, governments are not well suited in terms of core competencies, to identify, develop and deliver goods or services. They are good at some things, but being a business is not one of them. Therefore their efforts nearly always end in failure and while they are trying they distort the market making it unstable.

Worse, government should not be in the investment business at all because this not only distorts the line of business, in this case energy, but also distorts the stock market. Government rarely move with anything short of a mountain of money. Putting such money into any venture will cause the system to unnaturally react to the presence of the money.

Worst of all, unqualified politicians often try to dictate their uneducated views of right and wrong onto the people and the market by picking winners and losers. Very few, if any, private enterprises can compete for resources against a government that has both a taxable population and a free running printing press at its disposal. Small companies, the source of most serious innovation, have no chance. Politicians will pick winners based on such things as how it will bring jobs to their district and so on, and no on product worthyness.

Sunday, November 2, 2008

2.2 Environment

2.2 Environment

We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet's climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior.

I love the way this starts. Even the bicameral uniparty is not so stupid as to say "We want a polluted environment". At least the cliche ends there.

The Libertarian party, yet again, affirms its faith in people. Land owners have a clear vested interst in getting the most from their land. And the government does have a dismal track record.

The key to understanding this plank is in the held in the phrase "...requires a clear definition...", likely passed over by readers who are not looking for the essence of the plank. I would add to it this tiny bit "...requires a clear and reasonable definition..."

The Libertarian party does not advocate letting anyone do anything on their land. The discharge of pollutant into a stream, or the air or what have you is not a Libertarian value. The question is, when do those discharges become an infringement on the rights of others. Others have a right to drink clean water, and breath clean air. At the same time, 100% emission free operations are unrealistic and not required. The environment is perfectly capable of absorbing and disposing of reasonable amounts of some pollutants.

This is where the clear definition comes in. Without understanding what is reasonable, in scientifically verifiable terms as to the impact of the pollutants, clear definitions of good environmental policy is not possible. The knee jerk reaction is to have zero emissions. This is prohibitavely expensive in many cases, and unrequired in a even more.

The basis once again rests on the balance of rights. If we were to take coal fired electric generation plants as an example, each city might have one. Each plant is busy making electricy and pumping some amount of pollution into the air. However, should everyone suddenly decide that they too wish such a plant on their property it would quickly become a problem with all the pollution in the air.

The mistake is to think that "we the people" by "right of emminant domain" can capriciously tell some people they can have coal plants and others they cannot (all dressed up in land zoning regulations.) The right thinking is to reliaze that the first person to use the resource has the stronger claim, and those who would come after know of the first persons claim. Thus, if they choose to build such coal plants they should first be required to make sure that the operation of such would not violate the established clear and reasonable definition.

In the event that new information is presented that alters what is reasonable, the government will have to take responsibility and compensate those who are adversely effected because not to is to wash its hands of the errors in its own past. The government cannot be above responsibility for its own rules. If the current science of the day establishes what is thought to be a reasonable level of emissions, and businesses build accordingly, they have in fact blessed the businesses operation. To then come back at a later date and say "we were wrong" without also saying "we live up to our error" makes the government unaccountable. Any government that is unaccountable will act erratically, which will only hurt people who have every reason to believe they are safe from such random harm.

Saturday, November 1, 2008

2.1 Property and Contract

2.1 Property and Contract

Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates. We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade. The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever. Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.
I don't think, in general, people understand the importance of property rights. Ownership is defined by the power to control. If you do not have the right to control a thing, then just because the government says you own it does not make it so. Indeed, the government would wish to have it both ways. It wishes to pretend you own something, for purposes of assigning guilt and responsibility, but wishes to control that same thing for purposes of power.

People also, in general, do not understand the nature of freedom. I think people have become accustomed to their government imposed boundaries and do not even see them. It is as if they are standing at the end of their leash and not realizing all they have to do is go unhook themselves. And it is perfectly legal to do! As voters we can legally impose our own leashes. Then the question becomes, where should we draw the line?

For various reasons the lines have not been drawn to maximize freedom, and the time has long passed where we should now remove those artificial boundaries and place them to extend the individual freedoms of all people.

I want to comment on one of the more disturbing and controversial aspects of true freedom. Consider freedom of speech. Ostensibly, it is legal to say anything you wish, even vile and disgusting things like as might be expressed by Nazi's, white supremest or Black Panthers. (While this is, in fact, not the case, most people believe it is.) And I don't mean just say it in your home either. You can stand on a street corner and wave your communist flag, a disgusting symbol if there ever was one, and that's that. You can get on TV and radio, if you can, and spew your vile messages forth, and it's happened and it will continue to happen.

Many people see this and understand that to censor these deranged folks is to drive them underground where they must do their damage in secret. And to allow their freedom of speech, however vile they may get, is to protect all the other people who have a more wholesome message.

The only caveat is, the speaker is responsible for what he says. And what could be more reasonable? Nothing.

So if we see freedom of speech in such extreme terms, why is it that we do not see property rights the same way? After all, they are exactly the same thing. The only difference is that with speech we are merely saying what we believe, and with property rights we are enacting what we believe. Why do we not allow everyone the right to handle their property with the same wide latitude as we do what they say?

What most people do not grasp is that it is the fringe that measures our freedoms, not the middle. The middle never test the boundaries, only the fringe. The problem with this reality is that the fringe does not have the power to set the boundaries. So the question becomes, where does the middle allow the fringe to go?

Apparently the nation has allowed itself to say nearly anything, but not do what those same admonitions would require. This leads us to a strange mental place where we can say things, but not do things. This is a logical contradiction. This contradiction is the beginning of the erosion of all other rights. What it really means is, if you can say a thing, but not put it into practice, then your words have no reality. Once words have no reality then lies become truth. This is exactly what we have seen in the last 100 years.