Reflection on 2008, Forecast for 2009

The year 2008 will definitely go down in history as interesting.

The election of Barack Obama will be an interesting historical side note next to the mass defection from the old parties, lead by none other than myself.

Sure, it's ambitious to the point of almost hysterically out of touch with reality, but why not? That's what they said about everyone who changed the world. Plus, I'm not going to be the one who changes the world anyway, I'm just going to be out in front of the pack. It's not that people will be following my influence, but they will be following in my footsteps.

The old parties have compromised themselves right into a corner such that no escape is possible without stepping on large numbers of their constituents. In fact, for the DNC it is so bad that no matter what they do now the stain of their economic policies will tar and feather them for generations to come. People will leave the DNC party as if the letters identified them as a leper in the old testament.

Who would want to be a member of the party that caused more financial hardship in American history than any other? Only the die hards. Let them die.

The GOP will be seen as an ineffective shield against the DNC. Who wants to be part of that legacy? Only the die hards. Let them die.

The rest of the people will be looking for some place to go. The Libertarian party will be natural place for them to congregate.

Our future could not be brighter! I will have very little time to bask in the excitement of the party growth, as I will be busy finding the disenfranchised voters and leading them to the party of principle. But it will be worth it. The grass roots growth of the party of principle will be tremendous, and while it will likely not be enough to put a Libertarian in the white house, it may be enough to put one in a governors mansion. Then the true avalanche shall begin, and the whole political apparatus will be ours, and freedom restored.

Yeah, it won't be my doing, but I'm enjoying being out front calling back to the rest of you saying "Over here!"

Killing Compassionate Conservativism

For the better part of my life I have heard the phrase "Compassionate conservative" and come to believe and support in its goals. I had believed it was a counter balance to the "bleeding heart liberal". I was wrong. It is not a counter balance at all, but a pablum alternative.

That may sound like a pretty harsh statement for my friends who still subscribe to the compassionate conservative marketing slogan, but it is not a repudiation of the values of conservatives, only the mindset of those marketing conservatism.

The whole point behind putting the adjective compassionate in front of conservative is to soften the supposed hard image of the conservative. This should insult any conservative to his core. A conservative, by his very philosophical nature, believes in justice, honesty, self reliance and property rights. What is hard about any of those concepts? What needs to be softened? Is it possible to have too much justice? Is it possible to have to much honesty, or self reliance or even property rights? What then needs to be smoothed over and made more palatable to the American voter? Nothing! Then why do it?

It's all a marketing ploy. A gimmick. A slogan to put in a press release, a commercial or a speech that ultimately means nothing but sounds good.

The purveyors of modern conservative thought have bought the lie told by their adversaries that they are cold and heartless. This lie comes from the people who pretend to sell compassion. It comes from those who wish to rob from Peter to buy the vote of Paul by giving Paul an undeserved and unearned slice of the blessings of Peters industry. Those criminals waved a banner with the word compassion written on it so long that the sales and marketing folks in the conservative camp thought it would be a good idea to appropriate the very word for themselves.

It was a misguided idea for it held in it short term gains and long term loses. Reagan and others like him were able to use the catch phrase to propel themselves to power, but ultimately it proved to be unsustainable because compassion is not a core value of men. Men are inherently more focused on self-interest. It is not a winning long term strategy to build your house on a transient emotion. With only the fewest of exceptions, men have compassion to a larger and smaller degree as their personal circumstances change, but men always have self-interest to motivate them.

It is time to stop shying away from the nature of men, and to proudly harness it for the better of all of us. We can only do this when we drop the pretense of compassion and appeal to the ever present self-interest of the electorate.

Compassionate conservatism is destined to fail so long as it continues to compete with those who are willing to steal from one person to buy the votes of another, because those who practice compassionate conservatism are conservatives, and thus unwilling or at least hesitant or even inept at stealing to buy votes. This puts them at a distinct disadvantage, and time has shown this is the truth. The recent election of socialists thieves proves the point. So long as conservatives are unwilling to stand for the things have proved to be the bedrock of their success, justice, honesty, self-reliance and property rights, then they will continue to compete at a disadvantage, and they will continue to lose.

Remove the word compassionate, and focus on those things that are true of all American voters, and return to power bringing with you your values, most especially, justice.

Technology, not Politicians

Recently I was listening to a political talk show on the radio and the speaker was talking about the evils of gerrymandering congressional districts. I had to laugh a bit because he was attempting to assert that only the GOP does this, and that the DNC was completely innocent of such shenanigans. Lets forget who is at fault for a moment, and focus on the solutions. It should not surprise you that some very elegant solutions exist, technical solutions. Upon investigating this issue one discovers that technology is not the problem, but politicians are.

The root problem is that neither side wants to play fair. This is a war, so all is fair, right? Wrong. This is not a war. In a war it's perfectly acceptable to kill your opponents. In American politics it is illegal, and more importantly, a social taboo, to kill your opponents. Ours is a great debate. And with this in mind the only thing stopping us from using a technological solution is ourselves.

Let me explain what I mean by technological solution. The basic problem is one of geographically mapping population to physical districts. There are a great deal of very potent mathematical algorithms that could be applied. The data exists. Every 10 years the United States Census Bureau counts all the people, and where they live. It is almost a trivial thing to go from this data to congressional districts by use of any number of systems.

This would remove the politician from the process, and thus the catch.

They want their hands in the pie. They see the districts as their personal pie. They pretend to be offended at gerrymandering, but in truth they embrace it at every turn and only complain when it seems to work against them.

But math does not care about any political ideology. Math is without bias. The algorithm chosen would be made public. The census data fed into it would be made public. Then anyone who ever wanted too could validate the output and verify that the districts rendered are proper. This removes all the hanky panky.

While it is true that, likely, the average person does not immediately grasp the finer details of any such mechanical approach, it is ultimately unimportant for enough people exist that do understand the minutia that all sides can verify to their satisfaction that the process has been executed fairly. And in the end this is what our goal should be, unbiased and fairly distributed districts that represent a cross section of geography and population.

This will still render some districts as leaning in one direction or another, but it will not be done with politicians intention, rather it will happen by the natural groupings that people form when they exercise their right of free association.

More importantly, this will require politicians to hone their skills when it comes time to participate in the great debate. The concept of a safe district will be less sure, and will require incumbents and challengers to better understand and appeal to those people they wish to represent.

There is technical no reason why the same processes cannot be used at all levels, precinct, city, county, state an national. The only thing standing between fair districts and you, are your representatives. Why not do something about it?

Advancing Freedom

As a freedom loving person I've grown tired of putting up with the misguided rants of the slavers. It is high time we stop being the silent majority and starting being the activist majority. Let us put aside our complacency and put our hand the the torch of freedom that time in inexorably passing to us even without our consent. The forces of the slavers have pushed us back into a corner where no matter which way we turn we step into some trap or another.

This is the same as putting a sealed pot into a stove. The pressure is building up and it can either be released gradually, or explode. A gradual, controlled release is nothing more than lip service token talk from the left to appease the freedom loving people of the world while they affix the final chains of our servitude. Therefor we need, and demand, an explosion!

Take to the pen. Write your papers. Write in your blogs. Write email to your friends and family.

Take to the air waves via radio and tv. Call in to radio shows. STOP buying products that support slaver shows.

Take to the streets. Prepare your banners, talk to your neighbors, and get off your asses.

Take to the ballot box! Campaign. Rally. Vote.

It is time to push the boundaries of servitude back to the far reaches of society, and beyond. Enough of the reckless socialist tax and spending policies that are even now threatening our economy like never before. Resist the stimulus bribes by the politicians. Demand sound fiscal policy. Demand fair taxation. Demand real money and not fiat currency.

Demonstrate our power to those who believe they wield power. Our numbers are a crushing weight under which they cannot hope to prevail if we but apply it.

Pledge, as our founding fathers before us did, our lives, fortune and sacred honor to the advancement of freedom. No longer shall we fight a defensive battle on the retreat plan, but we shall renew our strength and crush our enemies utterly. We shall show no quarter, and expect none. We shall meet them on every battlefield and give them no rest. We shall harass them, and confound them, and frustrate their plans and the sweep them out of office and into the trash bin of history where the belong along with their failed and outdated ideas.

The time of freedom is approaching. You can join us, or be crushed by us, but no one shall stand on the sidelines any longer and watch as an observer.

Washington D.C. will hear us, or be def at its own peril.

What's your solution [to fix the economy]?

After all the hoopla over the supposed credit crunch and the ensuing panic in Washington, and the sideshow during the election, and the bail out package that went from three pages to 400+ pages and 700Bn to 850Bn someone asked me "what's your solution?"

Simple, a return to fiscal sanity. Allow the free market to be free again!

Bankers and money lenders have known for a very long time the indicators that single a good credit risk and a bad one. The government has no place dictating to lenders what their business criteria should be. This has utterly failed us, as you can see.

Freedom dictates that people be able to use their own judgment when disposing of their private property. For the government to regulate otherwise is for the government to claim ownership of that property.

Let the banks stand or fall on their own merits. This is how the system improves itself. Government has universally failed in any efforts to be smarter than the market and this track record alone should be enough to have the people marching in the streets demanding that government stay out of our banks.

Beyond the track record is the violation of rights. Here too the government has it wrong. There is no right to borrow money. There is only the right to lend money. The government has attempted to manufacture a right where none exists. Whenever the government manufactures a right, then the laws of the underlying system, in this case economics, are ignored. Mind you, those laws do not cease to operate, they are just covered over, in this case by bad paper money. Eventually those laws assert themselves once again, and always, like now, the house of cards that the government has built comes tumbling down.

My solution? Stop pretending the laws of economics are anything other than immutable laws. Stop wishing that enough government regulation can force an outcome of anything other than what the laws predict. Economics is deterministic. You can cost yourself a fortune pretending otherwise, or worth within the bounds of those laws.

Return to sanity.

Allow the free market to be free again.

The Religious Right

For a long time I have listened to the left, especially the secular left, drone one and on about the religious right, and I've discounted it. Then I ran into one of them. Now, I'm on the right, and I'm religious, but I'm not the religious right.

The thing that seems to distinguish them is an almost complete disconnect from reality.

Here is an example. While discoursing with this person he asserted that allowing gay civil unions, prostitution and abortion would be the end of the free western world. I know, it's nuts, but that's what he's said.

OK, he has a point about abortion, but lets drop it because he only tossed that in as an after thought anyway because he knows I'm a Libertarian and he knows the party platform. He apparently doesn't know I oppose that plank. Point is, this topic can be left out, and it's his strongest one.

Anyway, per my friend the reason gay civil unions and prostitution will bring down the world as we know it is because of "moral anarchy". This is where he really tipped his hand something fierce. In his world view there should, obviously, be a "moral authority", which he believes is the government. It must be this exact world view the left cannot stand. Of course, that is also partly because they don't recognize any moral authority, but that's also beside the point. It is his inability to see the obvious, that he's wrong.

Prostitution poses absolutely zero threat to the civilized world. Nevada is surviving just fine. Prostitution will be going on with or without legal sanction. The government not making prostitution illegal is not the same as the morals of the country going to hell.

Gay civil unions, not even "marriage" mind you, poses absolutely zero threat to the civilized world. Gays wanting to register their relationships with the state to secure inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights and so on detracts nothing from the population at large. Getting the government out of the religious aspect of marriage, and having it focus on the contractual aspect alone, cannot possibly lead to "moral anarchy".

Don't get me wrong, the liberal left is still nuts, especially on issues of economics, but with this sort of focus from the right it's no wonder the two can never make any headway at solutions and they both alienate anyone of reason. Of course, the left has it's hard cases too who are just as blind to reality.

In the end, it's a good thing. It leaves the Libertarian party in that much of a stronger position to help those stuck between these two waring extremes.

Taxation without Representation

One of the clarion calls of the American revolution was "No Taxation without Representation". This phrase alone is likely the most identified of the rhetorical lines used to stir up the masses against British rule.

And how far have we come in this time?

Strangely, we have come full circle. For again we are demanding taxes of those without representation. Who? You might ask, is so unfortunate to be taxed without the benefit of political representation. The answer is, all the tax payers!

This may well strike you as an odd statement, for even just recently many millions of Americans marched their way into voting booths and flexed their political might to pick out a new crop of representatives.

But who actually went to the polls? Two distinct classes of people, the taxpayers, and the non-payers. Roughly 1/3 of all tax returns filed in 2004 had no tax liability*. That means 1/3 of the people are voting on how the rest of the 2/3 of the populations taxes is going to be spent. You combine that with an approximately even split of conservatives and liberals on the taxpayers side of things and the outcome is clear. The non-taxed people are wagging the dog!

They are the biggest swing voters in the system, and how do you think they will react to any candidate or party that might take away their non-tax status? How will they react to any group that offers to give them even more? And how can the taxed, or more properly named, enslaved, ever break free of this?

There is only solution. The elected must be unwilling and unable to bribe the electorate. This cannot be possible in the current system. The ability to offer deductions and special tax breaks to selected groups is the ability to bribe the electorate. So long as this system exists the tax payers will remain taxed without true representation for those elected will be in a constant state of conflict of interest. They must either choose the good of the taxpayers, at the expense of themselves or choose themselves.

We must level the playing field by demanding the fair tax. This is the only way to remove the ability of those in DC to bribe the electorate.

* http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/542.html

Being Libertarian

What does it mean to be a Libertarian?

It means many things to different people, and indeed I do not think I can explain what it means without explaining my understanding of the Libertarian world view.

The world of politics is like a circus show. The ring masters are putting on an excellent show, but doing it desperately for they must keep the audience riveted to their performance lest the audience take a moment to look down and realize that while they were not paying attention someone has shackled them at the ankles to their seats such that they are not willing participants, but slaves in the circus of the absurd.

But like ringmasters the slavers are absurd for they have left the chains unlocked. All the more reason to keep the audience from looking down, for any sane person would object to being shackled, even if they happen to like the show and the popcorn and peanuts happen to be free (to them). The old parties are completely invested in keeping the show going, for so long as people are chained they shall continue to serve the ringmasters, and do it for peanuts.

But not everyone continued to look at the circus. Some looked down and saw their chains and saw they were unlocked, and thus self inflicted if they should stay in them, and then did the unthinkable, they let themselves free.

Those around them, unaccustomed to seeing people be free, reacted in every way one does when they see things upsetting to them. Some with horror, some with disgust, some with uncomprehending eyes and others, a very few, joined them.

This then, becomes our burden. For while it is possible for someone to find the key to freedom attempt to keep it to himself, it is not common. A mans soul naturally wants to share his good fortune, and finding the path to freedom and justice compels us to attempt to assist those left behind in the circus of the absurd.

As Libertarians we are ethically challenged to help free our fellow men from the bondage they find themselves in. Because of this standard we must be exceptionally aware of our philosophy, exceptionally aware of the facts of current events, and tirelessly eager to share them both.

We must learn our philosophy in great detail. Our philosophy is a finely crafted machine that works as a whole to remove the chains of bondage from the lives of men. It is powerful, intricate, robust and yet accessible to anyone who wishes to know how it works. It gives the operator the power to free the enslaved, but like any mighty machine it must be operated with care lest it be ineffective. Unlike other philosophies, ours is incapable of causing harm. But the machine itself still requires human application to be of use. And for this cause we operators are morally bound to constantly renew and improve our understanding of the mighty machine which has been entrusted to us.

We must be aware of the constantly changing political reality that is regurgitated before us in the daily news called the circus of the absurd. These things are the raw materials we feed into our liberty machine to help the audience see the show for what it is, a spectacle devised to distract you from the frauds being committed in their names. Our liberty machine takes these moments and shows them for the ugly realities that they are, and by doing so allows the people a chance moment to look down, see their shackles and decide to remove them. The liberty machine offers freedom, but the does not impose it.

Thus we are morally driven to apply our machine to all who will allow us, and this compels us to activism. For we cannot know who wishes to be free if we do not get out there and ask! Only by invading the territory of the old parties and asking everyone we meet, "Would you like to be free?" can we find those who have seen that they are chained down and wish to get up, and then we can help them up and introduce them to the liberty machine and start the process anew, but with an ally this time.

Wasted Votes

One of the standard objections raised by the apologists for the old parties is that voting Libertarian is wasting your vote.

History continues to prove such arguments increasingly flimsy, and this last election cycle is another example of the argument getting weaker.

While it is patently obvious that voting for Bob Barr in the 2008 election would not have secured him a single electoral vote, it did accomplish other very important goals.

The Libertarian party had its strongest showing of force in the 2008 election, and that has the old parties taking notice. They may not be losing sleep, yet, but they will. The constant erosion of their bases that they have taken for granted and abused over the years, more so in recent years, will eventually put them on notice. Once on notice they will react by changing their platforms and putting forth more freedom minded candidates. That is ultimately the goal of the Libertarian party, to influence the politics of America directly or indirectly. While it may not lead to electoral victories in which Libertarian candidates achieve the highest office, it will still be an important victory.

However, I believe if you look down the road even farther you will find that the old parties are in fact doomed to failure, and the Libertarian party stands as the best able to capitalize on their losses. I believe the old parties have nearly run their course. They offer either old cliches where original thought is needed, or compromise away all value should they stumble upon it. The old parties continue to show their loyalty to special interests, and have converging platforms. The party of principle does not have such weakness, and it continues to attract new supporters. New supporters from the old parties ranks. Angry and perhaps even desperate supporters. Activist supporters. The ones the old parties need the most. Eventually there is a critical mass, an no amount of fast talk will save them.

This is the critical component of our future success. The old parties are screaming louder and louder and in turn make their supporters more and more def. The party of principle does not need slick ads and fancy gimmicks because it has unshakable values grounded in principles that have stood the test of time. All we need do now is get the word out. People are hungry for a new message, our message. People want to be free of government intrusion, and neither old party offers that. People want fiscal sanity, and neither old party offers that. People want what we have, and neither old party offers that.

All we have to do now is stay the course. Time will show our continued growth. And soon silly arguments like the wasted vote will be obvious to all, and then the migration will happen.

Make no mistake, the old parties will fight to the death to retain their power. They may try to buy us off for a while with token efforts at reform, but ultimately their true character will assert itself and they will revert to their old ways and find themselves out of step with the people who will be coming to our party en mass. The old parties will do every conceivable thing to destroy us, and we shall have to stand strong.

Thankfully we have an excellent example, the statue of liberty herself. Our very image stands against the injustice and sheds light on the world. We have to but close our eyes and remember who we are and what we represent, and then standing against the attacks of the old parties in the midst of their death throws will be doable.

The future is ours, if only we have the tenacity to take it.

1+2=Free

Freedom is so simple that many fail to see it. One should note that I consider freedom and base morality equivalent. This is not to say that people cannot or should not hold themselves to a standard higher than base morality, for indeed I believe they should, only that base morality is all we should be able to demand from another human. Because any transgression of base morality means, necessarily, that someones freedom has been abridged, it is proper to use these terms interchangeably.

It is no mistake in saying that the encapsulation of the Libertarian philosophy is that no one has the right to initiate force or fraud in human relationships.

Freedom really is that simple. But if it is so simple, then how can so many people have difficulty grappling with it? Because it is buried under a mountain of details.

Let me draw on another field that is essentially very simple, yet gives many people fits: math. Mathematics is so simple it's frustratingly difficult! All of math boils down to two things, addition and notation. Subtraction is addition. Multiplication is addition. Division, you guessed it, addition. Even calculus functions and transcendental functions can be reduced to addition. All mathematical operations are definable in terms of addition.

Notation is the other foundation of all mind boggling mathematics. How we express such things as fractions and exponents are essentially simple.

The mountain of details is the exact numbers and the complexity of the functions layered one atop another. The same is true for freedom. When one begins to grapple with a morality problem you must approach it much like a math problem. You define your terms, look at the order of precedence and apply the rules to arrive at a result. If you have done it properly you will not only arrive at the correct result, but your work will be independently reproducible.

This is key. An answer to a problem, either in math or morality, must be reproducible to be of any value. It is for this reason that I put forth this fundamental theorem of freedom:

Freedom is the absence of the use of force or fraud in human relationships.

You will immediately grasp the simplicity of this rule, and then also immediately have difficulty seeing how it applies in many situations. None the less, now that you know the fundamental theorem of freedom you will be able to peel away the layers of any morality problem, reducing each in step to either contributing to force and fraud, and thus indicating oppression, or not contributing to force or fraud and thus indicating freedom.

However, like mathematics, morality problems also have notation. Notation in math is often used to signify precedence. Unfortunately morality problems rarely are so explicit in their formulation and so one must apply order of precedence to render a proper understanding.

Mathematics has a standard precedence which is in operation at all times, that is, evaluation precedes from left to right. Morality problems have no need for topographic directions, but they do have need of a fundamental precedence, and thus I give you the fundamental precedence:

The individual is supreme.

Like mathematics, morality problems only have one correct solution. In all morality problems you will be able to arrive at the correct solution if you apply the fundamental order of precedence and the fundamental theorem of morality. Any failure will be found in a mistake of either of these two principles.

When faced with a morality problem, identify the individuals involved, and look for force or fraud. As you find these things, or don't find them, so too shall you arrive at the correct solution.

I need a new label!

Labels are used in every day life because without them we would spend an inordinate amount of time describing things and people in great detail when the details are, in many cases, unimportant to the topic at hand.

Clearly details are always important because that's where the devil lives, but in everyday conversation it is often reasonable, and indeed advantageous, to be able to express ideas in the shorthand of labels.

Pretend for a moment that you and a new friend are going to go to lunch, and you offer the simple "We can take my car". It is clearly sufficient for most applications. The make, model and serial number of your car is unimportant, that is, most of the time. It could be that your car is full of trash and other unpleasant things such that the passenger would not be comfortable, and as a new friend you might be unaware of the discomfort travel in your car would cause. Your established friends would know that when you say "my car" you mean "my car and all its junk." But the new friend will be unpleasantly surprised when he arrives with you at your car and then is faced with either suffering, or making his discomfort known. This is because the devil lives in the trash in your car! The unspoken trash. The assumed trash.

All labels carry this risk.

But some labels are even worse because, by their very definition they lead to misunderstanding.

In politics, the labels "conservative" and "progressive" are two such examples.

I shall start with "progressive". The problem with this label is that, to many, progress denotes positive change. Yet most or all of the positions put forth by "progressives" are, in fact, a return to slavery and other forms of oppression. For the most part the only thing progressive about "progressives" is that their policies help those who feel the need assuage their guilty feelings about being successful, while imposing their values on the rest of us.

Then we come to "conservative", a label I have resisted for a long time because it is often applied to me, and even sometimes by me because it was often close enough for the conversation at hand. But I believe I can no longer carry the mantle of "conservative". The problem is that I'm not interested in conserving anything! I'm an evangelist for freedom. I'm not happy with the status quo. I'm not interested in being some sort of political equivalent of the environmentalist nut jobs (another fine label).

I need a new label!

I am pushing freedom forward, not backwards. I stand for individual freedom, not collectivized oppression. I stand for individual freedom, not tradition for the sake of tradition. When traditions serve the individual, I support them.

I think the only label that makes any sense for me now is "Libertarian". I shall endeavor to correct people when they use any other label.

Won't do it for you

I had the pleasure of speaking with my local Libertarian Party regional representative and during our conversation he said something that I have known, but had not expressed so clearly:

"The Libertarian party won't do anything for you. It enables you to do things for yourself."

This is exactly why I joined the party. I'm not looking for a hand out, or even a hand up. I just want government to do what it should, and nothing more.

Unfortunately there are far more people who believe that the government exists to do things for them, beyond just keeping the peace, securing the safety, operating just courts and putting out the occasional fire. It has been mentioned many times that the culture of entitlement is a plague on our society, and I think it bares repeating. The culture of entitlement is a plague on our society.

Until men are willing to stand on their own power they will not be complete people. Part of the growing up process is a complete separation, financially, from the parents. I'm not saying that the nation is filled with children but I am saying we have a great many underdeveloped adults who for lack of nothing more than the proper perspective believe the world owes them something.

The worst part has been that the bi-cameral uniparty has discovered this and exploited it. The irony of exploiting people by delivering unwarranted goods and services is beyond measure. By accepting these unwarranted goods and services they grow dependant on them. For at first the "assistance" seems like a wind fall, but soon, as per human nature, the receivers become used to having the assistance and naturally factor it in to their thinking when they are allocating their own resources. Thus, to remove the assistance represents an honest hardship as they have to refactor their thinking. The effect is to capture the receivers into the orbit of those who control the supply.

And that is the antithesis of Libertarianism because this system of entitlement ultimately puts others in control over yourself. Libertarianism rejects the lordship system and offers in its place a system of freedom.

It's The Fringe, Not The Middle

For a long time I have asserted that it is the fringe elements of society that define our freedoms, not the mainstream. Often I look for examples of this, and they are legion, but here is an excellent one because it is not a single issue. Most examples are very specific, such as a freedom of speech issue, but this one is messy. A messy issue such as this is a good place to work on your political thought because it requires you to take many things into account all at once, as opposed to the simpler single issue items. But more importantly, life is messy. The simple issues stick out because they are exactly that, statistical anomalies.

A teacher in Ohio has sued over being required to pay dues to a union that supports abortion when she does not. There are at least two issues immediately obvious, freedom of speech and the right to free association, and at least one adjacent issue being abortion.

Lets get the abortion issue out of the way because it only serves to clutter the mind. The fact that the plaintiff objects to her money being used for abortion is irrelevant, for indeed one could substitute any issue and the higher argument would still stand.

Ohio is not a right to work, and that turns out to be a sort of non-issue. On the one hand, the right to free association means that private organizations should and do have the right to exclusively hire from any union they wish. They have the right to enter into agreements with union that limit their pool of eligible workers.

Part of the problem is that the teacher is not working for a private enterprise. I hold that private groups may be so exclusive, but not so for public groups. State organizations do not have the same rights as private ones, and should be barred from entering into any exclusive deals with unions. This practice leads to corruption as union leaders begin to wield power against the state organizations the state is tempted to buy them off with favors and other undeserved rewards.

State organizations are fundamentally different from private ones in that they, above all other organizations, are required to most strictly adhere to labor regulations and public policies. Failure to do so will bring anger in the electorate who will act to clean up the mess, unless, of course, the public hands are tied by exclusive contracts.

On top of all this is the freedom of speech issue. Anyone joining a union of their free will must be willing to accept that the authority delegated to the union leaders may result in uses of the union dues that they personally disagree with. But that is not what's happened here. To practice her trade in a public organization she is compelled to join a union. She has had her free will diminished. It is true she could choose to practice something other than education, or could choose to work in a non-union private school, but as I've demonstrated the requirement of an exclusive union contract is improper and so she is the victim of fraud.

The state of Ohio has perpetrated the fraud of an exclusive union contract, and then used it to coerce potential workers into violating their rights of free association and freedom of speech.

Columbus, OH (LifeNews.com) -- An Ohio teacher has filed suit against two teacher's unions over the fact that her compulsory union dues are used to promote abortion. Kathy Hart, a fourth grade teacher from the Coldwater Exempted Village School District filed the lawsuit in federal court.

Hart sued the state’s largest teacher union for forcing her to pay compulsory union fees to fund the union whose activities violate her religious faith.

National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys are providing Hart with free legal aid and filed the suit this week in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.

Hart, an active member of the Catholic Church, has been a teacher in the Ohio public school system since August 1996.

Because the public school she works in is unionized, she works under a collective bargaining agreement which forces her to pay compulsory union fees to the National Education Association (NEA) union and its state and local affiliates - the Ohio Education Association (OEA) union and the Coldwater Teachers Organization (CTO) union.

Due to her Catholic faith, Hart doesn't like to pay the fees because the NEA takes a pro-abortion position and the unions support pro-abortion political candidates.

Hart had asked that the union divert her compulsory fees to a charity, thereby accommodating her religious objections to supporting financially unions she believes to be involved in immoral activities.

NEA union officials agreed to allow Hart to redirect her compulsory union dues to a mutually agreed upon charity. However, OEA officials refused to accommodate Hart and used the CTO to collect forced union dues from her paycheck.

In response, Hart filed suit alleging that the union officials’ actions were religious discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission authorized Hart in September to proceed with her own civil action against the OEA and CTO.

“OEA union bosses have a long and abusive record of violating employees’ rights by refusing to accommodate religious objectors in the workplace," National Right to Work Foundation vice president Stefan Gleason told LifeNews.com.

Gleason says the dues issues are another reason his group supports Right to Work laws allowing employees to refrain from supporting unions and their political agendas.

Hart's case follows a case involving another Ohio teacher who won a federal district court ruling saying that requiring her to pay dues to the National Education Association is a violation of her First Amendment Rights.

Carol Katter sued to stop being forced to fund the organization because her money would be used to promote abortion.

The Ohio affiliate of the national group told Katter she could only be exempt from paying union dues if she changed religions.

http://www.lifenews.com/state3683.html

Fairness Doctrine is Tyranny

"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
-Thomas Jefferson

It might strike someone as unlikely that the founding fathers would have had to deal with topics akin to the mislabeled "fairness doctrine", but indeed they did, and the above is how Thomas Jefferson responded to it.

Radio stations are required to purchase a license from the federal government in order to transmit. Never mind that this is tyrannical in and of itself, the point is, they pay a tax in the form of a license.

They pay this tax with the expectation that they can operate a business. Some of them choose to operate the business of selling political talk. This is the free will choice they make, and they can choose to put any political talk, left, right, center, off the chart or otherwise on the air. But the mislabeled "fairness doctrine" would thwart their free will and dictate that they must propagate ideas that they did not choose.

Our judgment that this is tyranny is confirmed by that of a mind no less than Thomas Jefferson.

The Libertarian ideology utterly opposes the mislabeled "fairness doctrine" and urges you to protect your freedom by joining it.

Spending our way to economic prosperity!

Current events are a great way to illustrate the madness that passes for economic and political thought these days. As I've stated before, my blog is not a running commentary on the events of the day, but some events are interesting enough to catch my attention. The most recent being President Elect Barack Obama's as reported by CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/06/obama.jobs/

Headline Reads: Obama outlines initiative to create 2.5 million jobs

In the text of the article is the important target date "...by 2011". When I read that I tend to think that means than, at midnight 2011-Jan-01 there will be 2.5 million new jobs. We can be gracious and give it all of December 2008, even though he's not in office yet, and that happens to give us 25 months. This means the Obama administration must create 100,000 jobs a month, on average.

This is a very tall order, but it's actually achievable. All the government has to do is hire 100,000 people a month for 25 straight months and, viola, promise achieved.

Never mind that this is likely just another campaign promise. When you spend a great deal of your time creating and reciting lies you get into the habit.

What will the effect of this policy be? I can tell you what it will NOT be. It will not be a economic boom, or even a positive economic effect. It will be a net loss. This is because the government does not add wealth to the economy. It might add money, but that causes inflation which moves the wealth around, but does not create any. Or, it might tax people to pay for these workers, and again that moves the money around, but it does not create wealth. At best it is an economic break even, and when was the last time you saw a chaotic system such as the economy be static at equilibrium? (never)

This policy will ultimately drive the economy down.

The way to create wealth is to get the hell out of the way of businesses. Businesses can't wait to grow! They love to grow! They love to hire people to do more things.

Anyone who understood even basic economics would see the negative effects this policy will have. Barrack is not stupid. He knows this about his own policy. Why does he do it? Because he also knows this will add 2.5 million people who will now look to the government for their next check. He knows it will add dependency. He wants people to need him. He needs people to need him. He's the Santa Clause we all wish existed, and if you want the toys in your stocking all you have to do is whatever he says.

If this policy is any indication of how the Obama administration will govern, then we're in for a terrible economy for the next 4 to 10 years, because he will be unable to stop with just this one bad policy and will do his level best to enact more.

What would Jefferson Say?

I was watching the HBO special about John Adams, and in the course of the story he finds himself in Philadelphia talking to Thomas Jefferson, who we all know was the principle author behind the Declaration of Independence. That turned my mind to the great document itself. I wondered how many of the charges leveled against King George III would be equally fitting if leveled against the current United States Government?

I have heard others state that, if you take the list of offenses in the document and look at the US government of today you will see many of the same offenses.

I extracted the large list of offenses from the document and see how our current government stacks up. I choose the middle section of the document, which is a list of offenses, but left out the other charges in the opening and conclusion areas.

To make it more proper I have replaced the pronouns He and Him with [Our government] and [it] respectively.

[Our government] has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

I don't think that has happened often, and when it does it is usually at the state level. More than once state voters have adopted resolutions, or even attempted to amend their constitutions, only to have an out of control court over turn the will of the people. But on the whole I think we're safe on this score, at least as it was in comparison to what Mr. Jefferson witnessed.

[Our government] has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, [It] has utterly neglected to attend to them.

This has not been an issue, and indeed is not likely to ever be as it reflects the form of government. There is no King from which assent is required, and thus no possibility of Royal neglect.

[Our government] has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

Again, this is a throwback to the form of government faced by the colonists.

[Our government] has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

This has not been a problem, at any level that I'm aware of. Congress meets at the same place as always and on a regular schedule known well in advance. No complaints there.

[Our government] has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

We have not seen this happen.

[Our government] has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

No dissolutions, no way for this to happen.

[Our government] has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

Well, I suspect we have the exact opposite issue now! Our government seems to be completely at ease allowing anyone into the country without any process what-so-ever, and then even defending their status here.

[Our government] has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing [its] assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

Not a problem thus far.

[Our government] has made judges dependent on [its] will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

Not a problem in that the legislatures set the salaries, but they are elected, and no single government authority asserts its will over judges directly. The higher courts, of course, and properly, influence the lower courts by overturning those rulings that do not meet their standards, but on the whole the courts are not on an iron grip other than its own.

[Our government] has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

Now this is beyond true! George Washington had 4 cabinet members, President Barrack Obama will have 15! The size of the federal, state and local governments has swollen out of all proportion with the size of the population, and a good many of these officers "harass our people, and eat out their substance".

[Our government] has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

This has not been a problem, in that it is our legislature that might keep a standing army, and thus it cannot be without our consent. And in a broader scope neither has the government sought to quarter such troops without our consent in out private homes.

[Our government] has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

This has not happened. The military is still subserviant to the President.

[Our government] has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving [its] assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

This is actually starting to happen. With the UN, and the WTO and so on the government has, in some limited cases, asserted that foreign authorities were higher than our own constitution.

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

Again, our troops, and not in our houses.

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

No problem here. Anyone in uniform that commits a crime can expect to be prosecuted for it.

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

If anything the exact opposite is true. The government seems to be rushing head long into all sorts of "free trade" agreements.

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

I believe this has happened in some rare cases, but not nearly to the extent that Mr. Jefferson witnessed. I also believe that, in most or even all of the cases, they were later repealed or confirmed by vote.

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

This looked like it might have started happening except that it was beaten back, specifically the denial of Habius Corpus was a problem that we seem to either have resolved or in the process of resolving.

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

Guantanamo Bay anyone? Not on a large scale, but such things begin small. This looks like it might soon be undone.

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

This does not seem to be a problem.

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

Not a problem.

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

This has been a slow process where states rights have been usurped by the federal government, and the counties and cities usurped by the states. Power has been collecting in fewer hands.

[Our government] has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of [its] protection and waging war against us.

The government has not waged a shooting war to be sure, but it has done some things to intentionally reduce our abilities to resist it should the need arise.

[Our government] has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

No, this has not happened.

[Our government] is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

Not yet, but I do not put it beyond the government to call on NATO or UN troops to assist should an internal conflict break out.

[Our government] has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

This has not happened

[Our government] has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

Not so much armed conflicts, as playing one group off another, but that's to be expected.


In my conclusion, while some things are similar, Thomas Jefferson would not write the document as he wrote this one if he were doing it today.

I see people as victims of uncontrolled free market capitalism

Recently I received this statement in an email from a liberal friend. It was in the context of discussing economics as the liberal left sees them versus how the Libertarians see them.

I could not let such an uninformed statement stand. But I also thought it would be good to include in my daily comments here as it is instructive to others who might be liberal, or who might be talking to liberals.

To be a victim one has to be deceived or cheated by the dishonesty or brute force of others. There are two avenues of injury then, force and fraud.

It is not possible to be coerced in a free market, as the act of coercion cancels a free market. This has always been recognized as a crime. The use of deceit in any private transaction has also always been recognized as a crime.

The next problem is the word "uncontrolled", which is really the same as free. Any controlled market would, by definition, not be free. A controlled market would mean that some transactions are illegal. This thwarts the freedom of will of the participants. It should be noted that control is not the same as regulation. Regulation simply lays out the standards of business, such as the requirement of an APR being showed in any loan or credit transaction. A control would be a law stating that the interest rate cannot go above a specific, and arbitrary, number.

Finally we come to the word "market". This is a common error by the left, to blame something other than the individuals involved. The market is nothing more than a statistical description for the private transactions between individuals. It is not a corporal thing one can touch. The market is not like a bridge. If you're driving on a road and it suddenly collapses beneath you, then of course you can blame the system for any reasonable driver might just happen to be at the wrong place and time. But the market is just an abstract concept without any ability to harm anyone. If individuals are cheating each other, then that is not a fault of the market, but of the individuals involved.

The worst part of my friends thinking is that she concludes two wrong things. First, she concludes that capitalism is to blame for people cheating each other. Second she falsely believes that the Libertarians would turn a blind eye to injustice.

Both errors are the natural result of ignorance. People not understanding capitalism or free markets is one thing, but people unable to understand the touchstone statement of Libertarianism "The government exists to remove force and fraud from human relationships" has to make me wonder what could possibly have gone wrong in their thinking?

My friend is not stupid. I have to concluded she failed in her application of the principles of Libertarian thought. Libertarians hold that the markets must be free, and anyone coerced or deceived has every expectation of a government ready, willing and able to undo the injustice and punish those who have committed the crimes.

Given this situation her statement could never come to pass. This is a common problem for those on the left because they have never lived in a free society, so they cannot know what one feels like. They see injustice, and blame the wrong things because they have never been exposed to real freedom. In the world "the system", that amorphous body of evil things, often does people real harm, and so they blame "the system", and by accident label the system capitalism when, in fact, capitalism was never involved.

People living in "the system" are NOT free to practice capitalism, thus to blame it is to misunderstand. People in modern America are not in a semi-capitalist system, and because they are not the term capitalism should not be applied. We Americans live in a mixed system that capriciously allows capitalist like activities in some areas, and not others. In fact, we are in a highly controlled market.

In a free market all injustices would be sent to the courts, and the courts would resolve the issues. This is because the only source of injustice is one person inflicting injury upon another.

In our polluted system we not only have individuals injuring each other, but we have "the system" itself! And, as liberals are not by and large stupid, they see the injustice and erroneously associate it with the label that has been applied, that being capitalism and conclude that capitalism must be the source of the injustice when, in fact, it is the pollution itself that causes the problem.

What would our world look like, in your view...

I understand your theoretical arguments, but what about practicality? What would our world look like, in your view, if we did exactly what you think should happen?

This is a big question! I do not believe society could simply transition from what it is today to the Libertarian ideal over night. I believe it would take at least three full generations to work the acceptance of bondage out of our mindset. I'm also going to limit it to a Libertarian USA, and it's just too much to hope for the whole world to embrace Libertarianism (until we demonstrate its power, of course!)

Thus, to answer the question best I should start by explaining the basis from which all else will flow, then I apply it to various topics.

I start with what I will call the four points of Libertarianism
* The Libertarian ideal is focused on the freedom of the individual
* Your life belongs to you
* You property belongs to you
* Government exists to remove force and fraud from human relationships

From these points we can see immediately that personal responsibility is not just a good idea, it's required. Because no one owes you anything. You have to earn your way through life. This would eliminate all entitlement programs. Entitlement programs are contrary to the third and fourth points. I do not owe anyone else anything of mine which I have legally earned.

From these points we can see that by definition, property rights means the ability to dispose of property as you see fit. Affirmative action would vanish. The minimum wage would vanish. Unions would likely grow stronger in a Libertarian world. Collective bargaining is perfectly acceptable to the Libertarian world view.

From the four points we can see that the government would have to get out of our bedrooms and the marriage business. Issues like hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, and adoption would be a thing of the past. However, part of the potentially ugly side of Libertarianism is that people would be free to discriminate against anyone they choose.

From the four points we can expect income taxes to be consigned to the dust bin of history. It is neither the governments place to try to enforce some Utopian ideal of equality, nor is the income tax compatible with true property rights. Of course, the government cannot operate without money. The income tax would be replaced with the fair tax. The required taxes would be tremendously less because of the discarded entitlement programs. The government would operate many more toll roads and charge many more use taxes than it does now.

The Libertarian world does not have drug laws, nor motorcycle helmet laws, nor seat belt laws. It does have baby seat laws. What you do with your own body is up to you, but a child is not ready to make those same decisions. It does have DUI laws. It does have drinking age limits and cigarette age limits as well as other drug age limits.

The government would not be able to spy on you, without a proper warrant. The government would not be able to strip you of your rights at the stroke of a pen.

Public education, like many public services, would be replaced by free market services. This does not mean the government would have no role. The government could reasonably make the case that all parents, who are responsible by virtue of choosing to become parents, owe their children an education up to and including high school. The government would be responsible to administer standardized tests to make sure the children are keeping pace. The parents would have their choice of whatever schools, including home school, that they wish. The pledge of allegiance would be a non-issue. Prayer in school would become a non-issue. Condoms in school would become a non-isse. Those that wanted such things would have them, those that did not would not. There would be other issues of course, but I think you can see the ideal.

The military would always be an all volunteer force. The military would be a strictly defensive weapon. It would only initiate force if attack was imminant. (Iraq was not a credible threat to the US.) The USA would stop seeing itself as the world cops! Everyone, not convicted of a violent crime, etc, would have the right to own and carry a weapon, open or concealed, without a permit.

Businesses would still have to meet work place safety guidelines. Businesses would not be able to dump pollution into a river and walk away. Business would, however, never pay another dime in income taxes. Businesses could not make political contributions. Individual people could make as many and as large a contribution as they wished.

Things like NAFTA would exist, but they would require that imports be essentially manufactured to the same standards, by people with the same labor conditions. Trade barriers would exist, but they would not be tarrifs. Tarrifs are an incentive to cheat. It would be all or nothing. If the products are up to standards, it can pass without anything more than a standard port usage fee. If it is not up to standard, it cannot enter the country. No middle ground.

Banks would not report deposits. Loans, insurance policies and all other complex financial instruments would continue to be regulated, but perhaps a bit differently. The emphasis would always be on openness and accountability.

Health care would be provided by doctors, and not insurance companies. Insurance companies would not be allowed to second guess or refuse to pay for covered care items. Only doctors can practice medicine! This extends to pharmacy companies as well. They cannot give free samples or kickbacks of any kind to doctors, clinics or hospitals. Only doctors can practice medicine!

Many, most, perhaps even all, of the licesnesd professions would remain so. Doctors, lawyers, accountants, airline pilots and so on would all be required to pass reasonable training and compentency tests.

Tort reform would be a must. Reasonable, or even unreasonable but not the current unlimited, caps on damages for negligence and product failure would have to be established.

The government would NEVER EVER bail out a company in distress. We would all stand around and watch it die, or live. Sell the corporate jet!

Illegal immigration would be a thing of the past. The boarder would be patrolled, and people could enter the country provided they could reasonably document they are not a known criminal, they have a place to stay and a job, and are not infected with a communicable disease. You would not be required to speak English. The path to citizenship would begin when you enter the country. Being caught in the country without proper documentation would be an instant ticket out of the country. Immigrants who want to come here and build a better life for themselves and their families are welcome with open arms.

Lastly, and far and away most importantly, the national anthem would be replaced by the Star Wars movie theme... OK, I made that last one up!

"...you and I could perhaps agree..."

A friend and I were exchanging emails and after a short paragraph she added this closing statement:

Don't get me wrong...on most political compass tests I am liberal/libertarian. So, you and I could perhaps agree on libertarianism with regard to social issues. ;-)

This statement sort of twisted in my mind for a while because it bothered me. This one bothered me because it contradicted my world view. But the contradiction was subtle. When faced with such a statement I wrestle with it and examine it from every angle I can until one of three things happens:

• I get distracted by something else
• I accept the statement as correct and adjust my world view
• I figure out what bothers me and reject it
  

In this case the last item is what happened.

People often produce such statements in the course of a light exchange, as was ours, without following them to their logical ends. But when talking about philosophy one cannot afford to be loose because it is at the extremes that the boundaries are located, not in the middle. So the measure of any such statement is always found at the logical ends, and thus I shall take this statement to see where it goes.

The statement holds a contradiction, but it's a slippery one until you examine it. The key phrase comes at the very end "...with regard to social issues." The problem here is that my friend has attempted to divorce financial issues from social ones. I'm fairly sure she does not even realize the contradiction herself.

Freedom is always a social issue no matter what the topic. To understand you must first understand the concept of freedom. One person alone in the universe has total freedom for that person could never infringe upon someone else. That person also has no social aspects for social requires multiple people. When you introduce another person into the universe, now the potential for one to infringe upon the other exists.

If you could imagine a single person, alone in the universe, you would easily grasp that whatever he choose to do with his life is his business alone, and what he choose to make with his efforts would be his property. By his creative thought and efforts the person has brought into being things which did not exist before, and having done so at the expense of his own life has the highest claim to the creations. In short, he owns his life, and he owns the fruits of his labor, called his property.

Upon adding another person to the universe you would not change the essence of the first person. The first person would still own his own life, and his own creations. The second person, being a person, would also own his own life and creations. From this we perceive that people are, by their very nature, the owners of their own lives and property.

Adding a third person does not change the essence of the first two, and as a person he too shares their essence. Indeed, adding arbitrarily more people to the universe does nothing to alter the essential fact of freedom being the right to own ones life and ones property.

The fundamental flaw in her statement is that she attempts to disconnect ownership of life and ownership of property. But by doing this she divides freedom, and by doing that she introduces bondage. For wherever freedom is infringed upon by another, bondage exists. And this is her message to me, and I suspect to the world.

People understand bodily bondage easily, for being physically bound is hard to ignore. Being the victim of property crimes is more abstract, but no less damaging.

The statement she expresses, if taken to its logical end can be better stated as "You are free of body, but slaves of property".

And in this, we cannot agree. Libertarianism rejects bondage, oppression, slavery and tyranny in all its forms, and liberals do not.

I doubt my friend meant her statement as a precise example of liberal philosophy, but in fact this is what she managed to produce. The danger in such statements, and indeed why it bothered me in the first place, is that it sounds reasonable, when in fact it denies reason by containing such a contradiction. Statements like these accidentally confuse the discussion, and in the minds of those less interested to undertake a study such as mine could mislead them into the unfortunate position of supporting them.