Manatee Libertarian

Random Ramblings

2011-02-05T14:42:00.008-05:00

I admit, I'm a news junky. I love watching the news. My TV is always on Fox News, and when I have time, I love reading the New York Times. How many people out there watch Fox News and read the New York Times? Not many, unfortunately.

The reason Fox News blows away the other news networks is because it is more in-tune with the American population than it's competitors. I'm always in favor of free market competition, and I'm glad we're a center-right country, but I really wish more people would watch MSNBC, and better yet, Al Jazeera.

I've been watching Al Jazeera English for a little over a week now (ever since #Jan25), and yes, their journalists and interviewees range from disliking America to outright hating us. Kind of like MSNBC is with Republicans, and Fox News is with Democrats.

Herein lies the only caveat of being a free society. We're free to watch what we please, and free to not watch what we don't want to see.

If you only watch Fox News, you'll have a much different view of America than if you only watch MSNBC. If you only watch Al Jazeera, you'll have a much different view of America than if you only watch American stations.

I'm convinced every Libertarian goes through a moment of Enlightenment. Something happens to us where suddenly our eyes open to an entire world outside of the box we have been living within our entire lives.

Wisdom is a powerful weapon. To the politicians, we are all "Useful idiots". Politicians create chaos to keep us occupied, so we don't go digging around for information they don't want us to know. Fortunately, the Democrats and Republicans each have their idea of what you should and shouldn't know, and they are almost always inversed. That's why I enjoy the New York Times and Fox News, because it's usually hard to believe the story they are reporting is actually the same story.

The situation in Egypt is much different on Al Jazeera than it is on Fox News or MSNBC. Which one is telling the truth? None of them. They're all spinning the events to their target audience. Fortunately, by watching all three, we can use our own judgement to infer the real story, a talent sadly lost on most people.

We know most people are Libertarians who simply haven't realized that fact yet. So how do we convince them? Well, I don't think we can. It's a lot like hypnosis, it only works if the subject wants it to work. Until they have been Enlightened, they will have no desire to leave the comfort of their box.

If you know of someone who is passively-active in politics, ask them to do you a favor. Say you're doing a research project, and ask them to watch two nights each of Bill O'Reilly and Chris Mathews. On the first night, have them write down only positive things about the show. What they liked, what they agreed on, and so on. Then on the second night, write down only negative things about the show.

For a select few, this one simple task will be enough to lead them down the path of Enlightenment towards Libertarianism. For the rest, their results will be extremely revealing, and you will be able to use their answers to try and help them along the journey of Enlightenment.

Libertarians Call for Democrat Party Chair Karen L. Thurman to Step Down

2010-01-05T15:36:00.005-05:00

The Libertarian Party of Manatee was amused to see Florida Republican Party Chairman Jim Greer announce his resignation because it likely represents no change at all, and even if it does mean a substantive change in the Republican Party it very likely won't be one in the direction of liberty if recent history is any guide.

In his resignation latter Jim Greer cited "the conservatives" as a prime reason for his leaving. It is important to note that when Jim Greer says "the conservatives" what he really means is "those few Republicans that are sick of people like me, Charlie Crist, John McCain and all the other democrat lights who only oppose big government spending when we're not the ones doing it."

OK, so that's what he says, but his own people say his lack luster efforts at fund raising and dubious party spending are the real problem.

Either way, he should go.

While the GOP is doing some house cleaning it should also do some soul searching, and perhaps some reading of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and lpf.org for good measure.

The only bad news is that we have to wait until February 20th to actually see him depart. Talk about the longest exodus you've ever seen.

What does all this have to do with the Democrat Party Chair and why are we calling for her to step down? Solidarity. The Republicans and the Democrats share so much in their ideology that she should immediatley step down, as well as resign her position in the US congress, to help show her GOP tax and spend friends that she hasn't forgotten them.

So please, call Karen L. Thurman at 850-222-3411 and ask that she please step down.

Splitting the vote: another myth.

2009-12-23T21:51:00.000-05:00

I'm so sick and tired of hearing how voting for a Libertarian only takes votes away from Republicans. What tripe! I'm here to proclaim loud and proud that the Libertarian party is not populated entirely by disillusioned Republicans.

What hubris to just assume that Libertarians are nothing more than an angry fringe faction of the Republican Party.

Libertarians are from all walks of life, and we have one solid core that no other party, large or small, can claim. We hold the principles of freedom as the highest values for a political party.

Democrats have embraced socialism. This is incompatible with the principles of freedom.

Republicans won't stand up for individual rights. This is incompatible with the principles of freedom.

There are millions of people who see this dichotomy and have decided to make the choice to do something different. Many of them toss their hands in the air, falsely believing that there is no way to break the stranglehold of the two parties, and register as an independent.

Others register with the Libertarians. Don't think for a moment they all came from the Republican party; as if the Libertarian party was some sort of refugee camp for beaten down Republicans.

Perhaps it is wishful thinking? Perhaps those who spew such drivel believe that if they say it enough it must be true, and thus by saying it they can adopt the Libertarians into the GOP orbit by default.

I'm here to tell you, DNC, that your voters are far more disillusioned than the GOP of late. The GOP has suddenly grown a backbone. Being the underdog is what they know best, and they are suddenly good at it again. But the Democrats around the nation are now looking at the ruin their elected officials are trying to foist on the nation and they are asking themselves not only "what have I done?" but "what the hell do I do now?"

AND THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY IS HERE TO HELP!

We are the party that millions of democrats are looking for, and we're getting our message out.

We're coming for your disillusioned voters who yearn to be free. Discount us at your own peril.

Nanny State Belts Citizens

2009-06-30T08:51:00.002-04:00

Today the forces of the nanny state took another step in Florida.

Yes, the new "seat belt" law is now in effect. It is now legal for the cops in Florida to pull you over and issue tickets for no other reason than because you are not wearing your seat belt, and I say, what the hell is wrong with these people?

No, not the idiots who don't wear seat belts, and not even the idiot cops who might enforce this law, but the idiot law makers who passed such a stupid law.

If I'm not wearing my seat belt and the worst happens, who is injured? I am, and no one else. So why then does the government think it has the right to tell me not to do admittedly stupid things that hurt no one else?

It thinks it has this right because it has been sold a lie. The lie is that the government exists to protect the people from all threats. The truth is that the government exists to protect people from external threats only. Things we choose to do to or with ourselves are our business.

Now, follow the money. Who benefits from this stupid situation? Two groups. First, the authorities that will be collecting the money from these fines stand to benefit directly. Second, the insurance companies that should now see a drop in the avoidable injury claims as more people are coerced into wearing seat belts. Who is missing from this group? The riders! The riders are not going to benefit from this usurpation of their natural right to choose.

This is because the riders no longer have a choice in the matter and so any gains in safety they might enjoy are negated by the coercive methods used to procure them. Without choice the benefits accrue to others, in this case the state and insurance companies.

So the next time you wear your seat belt, see it for what it really is, a device of your own personal subordination to the government and the insurance companies who bought them.

Republicans to Ban Tobacco!

2009-06-06T14:58:00.002-04:00

"Sen. Tom Coburn, who is also a medical doctor, is calling for an outright ban on the sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products."

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/coburn_tobacco_ban/2009/06/05/221915.html

Leave it to the Republicans to advance the nanny state while pretending to be the champions of individual freedom!

How long is it going to be until the government is told that it does not have the right to tell people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies?! The answer is, however long it takes us to tell them.

Tell your government, right now, that you're sick of the nanny state. The government does not know what is best for your, and even if it does, it does not have the right to enforce its ideals on your life. If you want to smoke, then here in the land of the free and the home of the brave why the hell are you not allowed to?

Who is this feel good senator to tell the whole of America that they cannot smoke tobacco?

What's next? Drinking alcohol?

OH MY GOD.

Have we not had enough of prohibition already?

If you outlaw cigarettes, only outlaws will have cigarettes. I'm tired of the these elected fools helping prop up organized crime. What is this, some sort of organized crime stimulus package? Wouldn't surprise me if the man gets kickbacks from Colombian tobacco lords (or at least, he will be getting them)

STOP THE MADNESS NOW.

What's wrong with this picture?

2009-06-04T01:03:00.002-04:00

And now, a dramatic reading from the Constitution, Article I:

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

Drugs and Freedom

2009-06-02T23:56:00.002-04:00

Looks like our overlords in the DNC are showing once again how anti freedom they are, and how conflicted in their philosophy.

It's ok to remove an "nonviable tissue mass" (otherwise known as a developing baby) from a woman's body (called choice), but that same woman cannot smoke a joint!

What is wrong with this picture?

I'll tell you, hypocrisy.

The Democrats (and the Republicans too most of the time) want to control you, and damn the consequences. Never mind that the war on drugs is a complete failure. Ask any DEA agent and he will tell you that the availability of drugs has not gone down despite the billions of dollars spent on it.

That means the DEA is an employment program! Which is bad enough, but if we're going to hire people why not have them do something useful like build roads or damns or paint houses or something, ANYTHING, other than run around pretending to be either 007 or urban combat teams terrorizing the hell out of people are hurting no one.

Whoa, wait a moment! Did I say drug users are hurting no one? Good point, alcohol users are hurting people and so we should outlaw that too. Yes, some people will abuse drugs and hurt others, but most of the time they only hurt themselves. We have proved that interdiction is a failure, and so now the only thing left is to clean up the mess since we can't prevent it. It's against the law to abuse someone else, so let that stand and lets get on with life.

FREEDOM means the ability to chose to do something or not. The DNC does not trust you to make the right choice, so it is going to make it for you.

Now, help me tear down the nanny state!

Credit where Credit is Due

2009-05-31T08:16:00.002-04:00

Freedom lovers,

Governor Charlie Crist vetoed the raid on the concealed carry weapons (CCW) fund.

He did it to shore up his image as a conservative.

He did the right thing.

Thank you governor.

Everyone else should thank him too:

Phone number: (850) 488-4441 or (850) 488-7146
Fax number: (850) 487-0801

Send your email to the Governor at this address:

Charlie.Crist@MyFlorida.com

IN THE SUBJECT LINE PUT: THANK YOU for your VETO of the CW Trust Fund Sweep

Arlen Specter - Rino to Dino

2009-04-28T22:59:00.002-04:00

Today Pennsylvania's "Republican" U. S. Senator Arlen Specter became Pennsylvania's "Democrat" U. S. Senator, and nothing changed.

The Senator claimed it was for philosophical reasons, and the Republicans were dismayed to their core, but why should they be? It was for philosophical reasons. The reason being, he has a better chance (in his mind) of maintaining his position in the Senate as part of the current ruling class.

All other talk is pure rubbish, because there is no significant philosophical difference between the GOP and the DNC. Oh the GOP claims it, but lets check the record:

* Massive government spending: Check
* Assaults on every liberty we have: Check

Oh sure, Bush thwarted federal spending on some fetal stem cell research, and the DNC wants to close Guantanamo Bay, but otherwise their are no differences.

Where then, I ask, does this leave the voters of Pennsylvania? Are they going to now find a "real" Republican to put up against Specter in 2010? And would it matter even if they did? A "real" Republican would just be another lip service RINO that would ride the crest until winds of politics blew a different direction.

This is all because the Republican and the Democrats are not rooted in any sort of principles. Their only concern is the acquisition of power, and once acquired, the maintenance of it. what they do with this power is use it for more of the same. They care nothing for the people the pretend to represent and serve.

Now, lest anyone point their finger at me and scream "Hypocrite!" let me explain that I know a thing or two about changing parties. I was a life long Republican, until November 5th, 2008. I have already well documented my reasons for leaving the Republican party, but unlike Specter I did not just jump to a party that better suited my re-election prospects. I moved to a party that walks its talk. Specter did not move to a philosophy that better suited his personal beliefs, he simply switched mascots

The people of Pennsylvania now have one more very visible reason to see the dysfunction that is in their elected officials. Many of them voted "for change", and now they have a golden opportunity to see that the only change they have received is more of the same under a different mascot.

One can only hope that the voters of Pennsylvania, now twice betrayed, once by President Obama being more of the same, and now by Specter being more of the same, will stand up and demand real change. Change that puts liberty first. Change that demands freemarket answers to economic problems. Change that removes government from our personal lives.

Pennsylvania, now is the time to demand the Libertarian party.

Obama, the Special Olympics and Perspective

2009-03-21T14:58:00.002-04:00

I've seen the video. Obama said his bowling is something like watching a Special Olympics athlete.

Then the world went nuts about that comment.

We have the DOW in a tailspin, government spending at an all time high, the Federal Reserve going nuts, all threatening to drive inflation into the stratosphere, and we're worried about a something this stupid?

And to make it worse, the "offended" group hasn't cried fowl.

The only people "defending" the "offended" group are the hard left liberals with nothing better to do. They are the economic equivalent of those who moved deck chairs about on the Titanic. They can't imagine doing anything constructive.

Let the testing begin!

2009-03-09T19:06:00.003-04:00

Well,

Now that the world believes Barak Obama is the President, the testing of his mettle has begun in earnest.

The North Koreans are going to test their longer range missile.
The Iranians are full speed ahead in their nuclear program.
The Russians laughed in his face at his (ridiculous) offer to pull back the missile defense system deployed in Eastern Europe.

AND NOW

The Chinese think they can harass our navy ships.

The worlds now holds its breath to see if Obama will be like his democratic predecessors, Clinton and Carter, both totally unprepared to deal with international bullies, or if he will man up like Reagan and Bush, and the man he pretends to be, Lincoln.

We should hold our breath too!

Should the Obama Administration show the characteristic Democratic weakness then we could be in for a very bad four years. Couple that with the economic disaster the Democrats are heaping upon us and it might be the saddest chapter in this great nations history yet.

And we're not off to a good start either.

The Obama administration has thus far managed to offend our most stalwart ally, the United Kingdom, and has shown its proclivity to appeasement by trying to buy off the Palestinians in the Gaza strip rather than letting Israel really clean house.

It makes me sad to think that the only thing that will keep this country "safe" is nuclear weapons. But once again our technology may be the only thing that can offset the otherwise fatal policies of liberal leaders. Let us hope the fools in Washington don't manage to disassemble them all before a leader that is willing to actually defend our interest is installed.

The Liberal Knife at our Throats

2009-02-10T22:18:00.003-05:00

A few days ago I happened to be listening to Rush Limbaugh, and he made an offhand comment about an author named Saul Alinksy. I'd never heard of the man. I did a little research and found his book "Rules for Radicals" and thought, what the hell? I ordered it from Amazon.com. It arrived. I began reading.

The first chapter of the book holds this paragraph [emphasis his]:

I believe that man is about to learn that the most practical life is the most moral life and that the moral life is the only road to survival. He is beginning to learn the he will either share part of his material wealth or lose all of it; that he will respect and learn to live with other political ideologies if he wants civilization to go on. This is the kind of argument that man's actual experience equips him to understand and accept. This is the low road to morality. There is no other.

His road to morality is nothing more than extortion. Those who own material wealth must give to those who do not, or else.

Indeed he is right that this the low road, for it leads through hell and can get no lower.

But, thankfully, he is wrong in his last sentence. There is another way. Indeed, he has deluded himself into a accepting something that cannot be. He asserts that the experience of men will lead them to this conclusion, but he ignores that the experience of men is essentially self-centric. People can not be expected to "share" (under threat of harm) forever. Eventually they will devise a mechanism for their deliverance.

The avoidance of the low road is to devise the deliverance beforehand. Lucky for us, we know the way. The road to freedom and prosperity for as many as possible begins by resisting the extortion and defiance of the threat.

The road to freedom and prosperity for as many as possible will be paved on the backs of those few who will organize the resistance and push those who would menace us into "sharing" back.

It is no wonder that the so called radicals of the 1970s failed so miserably! If this is the height of their intellectual achievement then they would have been much better off staying home. It is sheer sophistry to think we could extort morality out of men at large for those doing the extortion would be amoral.

This is ultimately why I am optimistic, not merely hopeful, but confidently optimistic that we are on the verge of a great awakening in the United States. The people know right from wrong. They know that "sharing" under duress is wrong, and they will not tolerate it for long. Even the benefactors of such ill gotten gains will be unhappy as their appetites will grow beyond the governments ability to feed. Then the real clash will happen, and those who have spent their lives learning how to produce, manufacture, serve and work will sweep aside those who can hardly be bothered to even learn to read.

Most Americans, young, old, rich, poor, northern or southern, want nothing more than to be left alone to live their lives in relative peace. The government will be unable to accommodate this, and true anger the likes of which has not been seen in decades, will emerge.

No manufactured crisis or government orchestrated market collapse will be strong enough to hold back the will of the people who still yearn to be free. They will easily identify the chains that hold them (I'll make sure of it) and they will cast them off, and with those chains they will bind the serpent that is Socialism and once again cast it into the abyss from which it crept.

These things are unavoidable. The socialists know it, which is why they try so hard to rush all their programs. They hope that by stampeding things into place they will either be proved right, which the laws of economics will not allow, or they will so entrench themselves that they cannot be removed, with the law of numbers will not allow.

The harder they push, the stronger the backlash will be.

How could anyone not be optimistic in times like these? The future of conservative thought is brighter than ever for it will be showing us the way out of the darkness that the socialists are bringing.

A Little Rebellion Now and Then - A Conservative's Perspective

2009-02-09T23:27:00.004-05:00

There’s an old saying that seems to hold more truth in it the more time that passes. Don’t ask where it came from, probably a humorist of the caliber of Will Rogers or P.J. O’Rourke, but definitely not Jon Stewart, because it’s actually witty and a bit insightful. At any rate, it says that “Politicians, much like diapers, need to be changed often and for the same reasons.”

Looking around, it’s not that hard to see why somebody would say that. Once upon a time a person lived two different lives. The first would be life before politics, a life dedicated to whatever career or profession they had set their sights on. Often times they would be successful, rising above the others in the same field, other times they would be Harry Truman, but regardless they would have life experience under their belt, knowledge of something besides the Capital Beltway. They ‘d have wealth of successes and failures to claim as their own that would perhaps give them a wisdom and a degree of foresight that would help them in the tasks that were there in front of them.

Then they would have their political lives.

The truth is that the Founders, they perhaps never saw a profession rising out of politics. The Constitution, it would carefully crafted for that exact reason. Two years in Congress, six in the Senate, four in the Presidency, perhaps someone would return for another term or perhaps they would seek a higher office, but the entire framework would be devised that no one man might find himself elevated above others, spending their life in public office to the exclusion. Having seen and felt the effects of those who ruled believing they had a divine right to sit in the seat of the mighty, they wanted to spare the people from the inevitable corruption that it would seem to breed.

There, even by the first President precedent would be set for generations to come. Without a doubt George Washington could have found himself as the President of the Republic for the remainder of his years, and yet it would be a temptation that he would not yield to. Even as France began brief republican experience across the ocean, it had to be seen as truly remarkable, that which Washington did in that singular act of refusing to serve a third and possible a fourth term, fading off into the sunset. Lesser men would find the same too difficult to refuse.

In the over 150 years before the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution was passed, limiting a president to two terms in office, only one man Franklin Delano Roosevelt, would break that tradition handed down since Washington.

Looking around, it’s obvious that the Founders, they were on to something there…

Let’s face it, we have, in recent years, come to see the rise of perhaps some of the most corrupt and immoral leaders to rise from the ranks of this Republic to assume the roles of leader, leaving many to wonder where the system has gone wrong.

In recent years we have watched as one Governor would resign amidst a sex scandal with high priced prostitutes, another arrested while trying to sell a Senate Seat and impeached for a host of other crimes, now standing trial in Illinois, yet another still finds himself under investigation for a host of pay to play scandals in his own state, a mayor sentenced to time in prison for obstruction of justice, two men elevated to Cabinet posts despite a history of tax evasion, only one who would withdraw his name, congressmen hiding FBI money in their freezers, another congressman now tied to a lobby firm raided by the FBI, this on top of his other questionable dealings, and a host of other scandals and dirty deals that have either gone unnoticed or forgotten about because they just cease to shock us anymore. The list, it just seems to go on and on and on with no signs of letting up any time in the near future. There are good and decent legislators in Washington and around the nation, those who view their service for the sacred trust that it is, and yet they are largely forgotten, as the host of others seem to take this perpetual perp walk to the podium to give their election or re-election speeches or to say, whoops I messed up or it really wasn’t me, I didn’t do anything wrong.

There we are left to wonder, are there any more Mr. Smith’s left in Washington?

Yet as frustrating as it may be, or as difficult as it may seem the responsibility is squarely placed on our shoulders as the electors. As much as the founders perhaps tried to protect the people from the abuses that we have now seemed to grow accustomed to amidst our current political climate with the rise of the career politicians, it won’t do it all of the time. There, these politicians, these so called leaders, they flourish and remain in positions of power and esteem because we allow them to remain there, despite having the instruments at our disposal to remove them from the place of honor that they now find themselves in.

There it must be the role of the enlightened citizen to hold their leader to account and to refuse to allow for them to degrade and sully the office that they hold, it is the role of the enlightened citizen to show the courage and the fortitude to struggle to remove them from their office when they have been so inclined to denigrate it for personal gain or wealth, seeking to do their business, with little regard for the people’s business.

There, perhaps it’s been now over 200 years since that revolution that would give birth to this Republic, yet, as children of it, it our role to be ever determined, ever vigilant to make that stand against abuses of power, as did our forbearers.

After all, a little rebellion, even if solely political in nature, is a healthy venture.

But then just a few thoughts I suppose…

Bailouts, Stimulus and Freedom

2009-02-06T01:01:00.002-05:00

For the last weeks we have heard nothing but the specifics of one form of massive government spending or another. Be it a bailout or a stimulus package they both have two common elements that threaten your freedoms.

First, they will seriously erode the value of your dollar. Don't think that freedom and economics are not linked. Many people seem to believe there is no link, but then why was the revolutionary battle cry "No taxation without representation" so iconic? It shows the clear link, indeed, the inseparability of economic freedom and civil freedom.

Second, they both put the governments hands on massive amounts of what is rightly the private sector. We have already seen the governments sticky fingers on things. Do you think the government can make an economic argument for meddling in the compensation packages of the executives of the big banks? They don't even try. They make a social argument along the lines of "it's not proper". Who the hell is the government, specifically the President, to say what is proper compensation and what is not? And what criteria is he really using?

In both cases the problem is the concentration of power. In both cases power is being transferred from the private sector to the government. It's the age old equation of tyranny. More power in fewer hands.

Think I'm making this up? We have a historical precedence to study and consider. The public education system. The very moment a school begins to accept federal funds, for any program what so ever, the entire curriculum of the school falls under the heavy hand of the federal government.

An entire industry was corrupted by two things, free flowing federal dollars, and strings on those dollars. And what has been the result? Have American schools, which, by the way neither needed bailout nor stimulus at the time, advanced even farther ahead of the pack? Or have schools around the world made serious progress? You know the answer. The rest of the world is catching up, and government is directly to blame for slowing us down.

Another result has been the tyranny that is the National Education Association. The NEA has crushed all opposition to anything that might upset its applecart. Vouchers, crushed. School choice, crushed. Merit pay, crushed. In short, it has done everything it can to insolate itself against competition, which is the free market, which is freedom itself. The NEA is the government master of your childrens education, and by proxy, your children, and to a large extent you.

You still have the option to pay twice and send your child to a private school I suppose. Chalk one up for freedom, for the rich. The poor are stuck.

And the exact same thing is now happening to huge sectors of the American free enterprise system. The banks are now directly run by the government. They are effectively multiple branches of the same entity. The rules that apply in one will apply in all. This is the concentration of power at work.

Why is that dangerous?

Because there are no one-size fits all solutions to problems as diverse as economics on a global scale. Diversity has always been a safety net for the consumer. If one company fails, another is there or will be there shortly. Diversity and innovation come only from competition.

History proves I'm right too. We have far more companies doing innovation today than ever before. Those who point to the old saw of Wal-Mart putting mom and pop out of business never stop to ask what those displaced mom and pop are now doing. They had to innovate. They created new companies and new jobs. They didn't get hired on at minimum wage. Oh sure, a few proved to be unable to adapt, but the vast majority found new services to perform. And we are all better off for it. We have both now, Wal-Mart and the new stuff.

Capitalism does not concentrate power, it diversifies power.

Socialism concentrates power.

Concentrated power is tyranny.

Capitalism is freedom.

Your government is trying to buy you. Will you be bought?

Washington State Goes for Broke with DNA

2009-02-05T14:55:00.002-05:00

I was, once again, surprised and disgusted by the ever reaching hand of government.

Some legislators in Washington State seems to want to just forget those pesky civil rights like protection from unreasonable search and seizure, so long as it solves crimes.

As long as we're going to just take DNA from everyone we arrest, lets also just arrest everyone so we'll have a nice database of it to begin with. In fact, lets also do it to newborns.

Once again we are faced with the old dilemma that just because you can do something does not mean you should. We could also attach tracking devices to everyone. The proponents say it will "solve crimes, protect people and save lives". Lets just grant that they are right. That still does not make it something we should do.

This brings up a critical point. For the last few decades those of us who value civil rights have been on the retreat. We're defending our positions, not advancing the cause of freedom. It's time to take the initiative and push back the ever reaching hand of the government. Make them understand that, if they encroach on our rights, they are out of a job.

It has gotten especially bad in the last few as people seem to think that by dropping a "few unimportant" civil liberties they will increase their personal safety. Let me clue you in on something. These measures are not about your safety, but about the establishments safety. All of these things are designed to make the establishment look busy, but do little to effectively address the issues they claim to address. They have the side effect of taking away your otherwise harmless liberties, in this case, your right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

Wake up.
Get informed.
(which will make you angry)
Then get involved.
And do it now.

A Cautionary Tale: The Need for the Libertarian Party - A Conservatives Perspective

2009-02-02T21:51:00.005-05:00

There’s an adage, an old wisdom that is as old as the Republic itself and that must be remembered if freedom and liberty is to be valued; it simply tells to us that where people fear the government there shall always be tyranny, but where government fears the people there will be democracy.

A constitutional Republic unlike anything the world had ever seen before, even from the time of the ancients, the fundamental basis would find itself rooted in the best principles of the democratic ideal. Keenly aware that though the hearts of men might be filled with the best of intentions, the founders also knew their deeds could be done with the worst of malice. In that they would derive the foundations of their vision of government on the inalienable, indivisible, incorruptible rights of the people, the justly derived liberties found within the actual equality of all humanity, both as individuals and as a collective society bound together.

For over 200 years, this has been America, that “Republic, if we can keep it”, in the immortal words of Benjamin Franklin, and it has always found itself within the tenants of that revolutionary wisdom handed down from one generation to the next.

And there… well there, as the people’s Representatives within government, the same basic truth has to find itself as a cautionary warning to the Political Parties that compromise the American landscape.

This isn’t to say that these Parties, they somehow constitute a inherent American foundation or a constitutional requirement within the nation. Rather, tying together, binding together elected and appointed officials within government, they have become what must be a body that is of the people, for the people and by the people, and there within they, as the government, must be fearful of the people.

The truth is that a long time ago, with the passage of time and history, as the nation has grown older, we have lost a significant portion of our revolutionary spirit. When outrages occur, when it is felt that the government isn’t representing us, we have lost that part of our national experience that tells us to take to the streets demanding something more of it. Perhaps with the technological revolution and the onset of the communications age a portion of that has been reclaimed by some as they take the time to mobilize or to voice their unhappiness with the system, but even there it has become largely institutionalized.

In that there comes a realization… that within the scope and the framework of this current political climate and this current chapter of political history, there is an absolute necessity for credible third parties that are willing to take up the banner of a fight, even if it is an uphill battle the entire way, all for the task of ensuring a voice for the people.

Without a doubt many out there who are a member of the Big Two Political Parties have felt as if their Party has left them. It has been a reality since the beginning of party politics in the United States. The Republicans would abandon their Whig and Free Soil roots in order to form this new Northern Abolitionist Party. Al Smith, the former Democratic Governor of New York and two time Presidential Candidate for his Party would walk away from it in 1936, outraged at the direction it had gone in, and would form his own movement to battle his one time colleague and successor as Governor and Party nominee, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt, the machine busting Governor turned Vice President then President, would find himself disgusted by the direction his onetime Vice President, William Taft, had taken the Republicans in after he exited the political scene. Once more returning to the stage he would form his own party. Though failing to win the election, he would take enough votes from Taft to withhold his re-election from him.

And round and round, so it has gone as one generation passed to another, and political re-alignment changed the landscape of the nation.

There, we are taught a valuable lesson and one that cannot simple be ignored, Political Parties in America must fear their members or pay the price for it. Then, as the old saying goes, a little revolution now and then is a healthy thing.

That is what makes a Party like the Libertarian Party vital. Though young and new, still within the pangs of its own adolescence, it serves as a potential warning to those who understand their history that there is a third way there. Though aimed at created for itself political success based on its platform and policies, the truth is that it serves as a watchdog against the larger party that might forget its base or forget its roots and seek a path that runs contrary to it in the arrogance of its leadership. What they offer is a home to those who feel not as if they were abandoning their party, but those who have come to believe their party has left them.

Though they are yet to break the three percent margin on the national political scene in a presidential race, they do remain a cautionary tale. Considering the fact that they had not, during the last election, ran a traditional neo-libertarian, as they had in the previous elections, but rather a conservative who had not long ago sat with Republicans in the same party, and the success they had in forcing a runoff ballot in Georgia when victory should have easily been assured to Senator Saxby Chambliss, it reminds the Republican Party and the elected officials that bear that R behind their name that they are taking aim directly at them. They have candidates that will appeal to conservatives and they will find a home their if the party forgets their base.

There, though they may not win, those Republican leaders should perhaps learn a lesson caused north of the border. In Canada, 12 years of continuous Liberal rule was assured because of the simple fact that the Conservatives had split, some feeling abandoned by their traditional alignment and forming a third party, handing election after election to their opponents.

But then just a few thoughts I suppose…

Wyatt McIntyre is a conservative political vlogger, blogger, commentator and co-host of Patriot Action Live. His writing and thoughts on a variety of topics, from history to politics can be found at www.wyattmcintyre.com

Michael Phelps, Pot, and You

2009-02-01T20:18:00.002-05:00

Seems our most recent golden boy, Michael Phelps, is possibly acquainted with cannabis, and so what?

The whole media hype about the man doing what he wants to do is a bit insane and should alarm all of you that it's even considered a crime. Sure, he showed poor judgment in doing pot, and sure, it was stupid to put oneself in risk of legal problems, but otherwise it's harmless and you should all be asking yourself "who is the victim?"

If there is no victim, then where is there a crime?

The man knows the risks, and wanted the hit. Who are you to say he can't have it? Don't think for a moment you, personally, are not at fault. You are. You, kind reader, are the very reason Michael Phelps was put into any sort of jeopardy for smoking weed. You, because you allow this farcical war on drugs to continue in your name.

No Victim, no crime.

Except in a few oddball cases, like drugs.

Wake up America. The best and brightest that you have to offer wants to get stoned every now and then, and but for a minority of chicken little's that decry the evils of drugs they can't do it. Let the man do what he want's.

I thought you were pro choice? Get your laws off my body, and that sort of thing. How nuts is it that this country allows a woman to murder her child, but not a man to kill his brain cells?

The government uses drugs to hold you down. Don't go along. Vote the bastards out.

Days Later and We're Still Hated!

2009-01-31T21:16:00.003-05:00

This headlines really say it all:

"Iran says Obama's offer to talk shows US failure... 'Western ideology has become passive'..." Seems that all the prognostication of Obama making the world love us was a bit overblown. Obama may have managed to give the western critics a moment of pause, but not because they suddenly love us, only because they need a new thing to bitch about. It's way past time for America to wise up, grow a backbone, and own up to its place in the world, at the top. Someone has to be at the top, and the whole world should get on its knees and thank God it is the US. The US has shown so much restraint in the use of its power that it is unprecedented in all of history. We just tend to get more by bashing fewer heads. That all said, some people in the world still don't like us. It would not matter who was president. They don't like us. The Libertarians say, this is a fine state of affairs and that we should only concern ourselves where our direct national interests lie. If we were at all smart about this we would be running head long to break the dependence we have on foreign oil. This would allow us to keep our troops at home, and let the rest of the world take care of itself. You want a stimulus package? Spend 700 billion dollars increasing our abilities to produce energy here in the USA. Drill oil. Mine coal. Build nuclear power plants. Erect wind and solar farms. Put those millions of reserved acres of land back into corn production. Find new sources of energy. That would do something worth while. But no matter what we do or who is president, people are going to hate us. Let them. And keep our American boots ready to apply to their necks if they should even think of attacking us.

A moment of clarity

2009-01-30T22:43:00.003-05:00

My ex-party, the Republican party, did something right. When anyone does something right you need to positively reinforce them so they might do it again.

Good job for resisting the "stimulus package".

EXCELLENT JOB. Not one of you, not a single one, crossed the line and followed the Democrats into the abyss of that bad legislation. It's not often that any party shows complete unity.

Were I still a Republican, I would have been proud.

I hope your men in the Senate can follow your example.

Git'mo Respect - A Conservative's Perspective

2009-01-28T12:22:00.004-05:00

Well it wasn’t the shock to end all shocks….

Perhaps the most repeated promises of his Presidential Campaign, the newly sworn in Commander-in-Chief, Barack Obama, would move quick to make good on it. The doors of the Guantanamo Bay prison would be closing, shutting for good, the first major policy break from the Administration of George W. Bush put into play.

It was a move that, by the best of arguments, was aimed at restoring American moral authority, both at home and abroad. After all, questionable interrogation techniques had been used there, one that, by the accusations of some, violated the base human rights of the enemy combatants being detained at the facility. If the United States is to be regain its moral authority to be seen as a world leader, then it can’t be seen as torturing its prisoners.

At home his base could almost be heard sigh a collective sigh of relieve when that first stay would be issued. Abroad, the move would find itself well received as well by world leaders such as the Chancellor of Germany who would give it her approval, saying that this… well this would go a long way in restoring America’s reputation abroad. Just don't expect a lot of help from her in dealing with the situation created by shutting the prison.

The end of Bush… the end of Gitmo… what more could people ask for? Well besides perhaps the answer to the question of what is going to happen to these prisoners.

That isn’t a tough one to figure out.

Let’s take a brief trip through time. With all things being considered equal it’s perhaps not the favorite practice of some out there, those who wish to either forget the past eight years as if they never happened, believing, as Director Spike Lee once claimed, that there are two periods of American History, Before Obama and After Obama, or because they wish to look back fondly on the eight years of President Bill Clinton as the good ole days in American politics, when the only enemy the nation had were apparently the White House Interns and the President had that issue well in hand.

Perhaps one of the least advertised aspects of the Clinton foreign policy was a practice his administration engaged in called Rendition. Quite simply, without putting too much on the details, it’s the act of shipping off your prisoners and your terror suspects, which were more than a few in number, off to other countries, such as Saudi Arabia, where obviously human rights are a foremost concern, so that they can “interrogate” your prisoners for you. Apparently Don’t ask, Don’t tell was more than just a military policy, it was the order of the day.

Now, let’s fast forward a few years, who is that are in the White House advising the new President on foreign policy and legal matters? Well for all those folks who sat back and longingly waxed nostalgic for the return of the Clinton Administration, it was a welcome showing of the usual suspects. Hillary Clinton in the State Department, after all the bullets she dodged from sniper fire one has to know she will be tough on terrorists, and Eric Holder, President Clinton’s Deputy Attorney General, as the soon to be confirmed head of the Justice Department. And they are not alone, the appointment process has seem to be a veritable Who’s Who of the old White House.

But don’t worry, these questionable interrogation techniques are going to stop here at home, the dark days of Gitmo are gone, American’s can sigh a sweet, long awaited sigh of relief and they will be so loved abroad that drifter teenagers can stop sewing Canadian flags to their backpacks when they go to foreign countries. Life is good.

The dirty little secret, well, just wait and see, it won’t be long until once more start shipping these prisoners out, putting them on the quickest plane to these places that will once more do our dirty work. But so long as our hands our clean we have little left to worry about. What we don’t know, it can’t hurt our reputation with the other countries of the world, right? After all, we’ll still have our moral authority in the world to lead.

The simple reality of the matter is that, whether the American people like it or not, is that Gitmo was one of those necessary evils in a time of war. Perhaps it made us queasy to the stomach to think about, perhaps it offended our collective consciences, and yet it served as a valuable tool to combat terrorism. It could have been that, at times, the methods employed crossed a line and could be considered extreme, but then when one thinks about what this country was up against then there has to come the realization that there is a necessity to take action, even if it leaves us uneasy. That is why they are called tough choices and we elect people to make them for us.

It is yet to be seen what the Obama Administration will do with enemy combatants, but if history is any example, it’s been pre-determined by his high level appointments to these positions. There, policies such as Rendition are not an act of leadership but a void of it, believing somehow that you can hold a degree of integrity while still embracing questionable means of interrogation, so long as it’s not publicly or done by your administration.

Otherwise what else are you going to do with these terrorists? Last thing any responsible President is going to want is to bring them to American shores, and give them a home here, even if it’s in a prison.

But then just a few thoughts I suppose…

Online Blogger and commentator Wyatt McIntyre is a guest contributor to Manatee Libertarian, his regular Podcasts, Blogs and V-Logs can be viewed at www.wyattmcintyre.com.

Racism and the First Lady

2009-01-26T22:25:00.002-05:00

Michelle, welcome to the frank discussion about race that your husband predicted.

You're now going to be sharing ground zero with him for the next four years where every decision you make will be scrutinized. And you didn't even get a pass on your very first day!

Yes, it turns out the racists are already snipping at you. The racist organization known as The Black Artists Association is tossing mud because you choose the apparel you thought was best, apparently with no regard for the skin color of the designer of the apparel. CONGRATULATIONS AND APPLAUSE FOR THE FIRST LADY!

But for the openly racist Amnau Eele I have nothing but disdain and scorn. Such race mindedness is exactly the sort of thing that holds minorities out of the mainstream. Amnua, I can only hope this was a lapse in judgement and that otherwise you are willing to judge an artist by the content of his work and not his skin, but considering the group you founded, I can only expect that you are a dedicated racist. Your kind is nothing more than the cerebral soul mates of the KKK.

The thinking you are exhibiting will never lead you to the land of equality you seek for you're not allowing others to think for themselves. You would oppress the first lady with your racist ways. I'm glad Michelle Obama has a much broader mind than you. In this instance she set a very fine example for her daughters and the world.

If this is the sort of thinking we can expect from the Black Artists Association then it may be a very long four years indeed for you as it seems clear that Michelle Obama has the potential to rise above your kind and show the world in no uncertain terms that she is an American first, woman second and black person third and in so doing will elevate the all of America and, thankfully, show your last century thinking to be exactly what it is, out of time.

Inauguration Day

2009-01-20T09:41:00.002-05:00

Today is one of the greatest days in the history of the world, and it has nothing to do with Obama.

There is a veritable avalanche of media hype about the inauguration of President Obama, and some of it makes good sense. After all, he is the first bi-racial President.

Today is important for something far greater than the man. Today the world will witness, once again, the peaceful transfer of power in the greatest nation on the face of the earth. These men are political opponents, and yet President George W. Bush will stand right next to Mr. Obama as he takes the oath of office.

Not many countries can say that about themselves, and we were the first and we can still say it. If you ever needed a reason to be proud of your country, Mrs. Obama, this legacy is it.

Kings progress.

2009-01-19T12:40:00.003-05:00

Today we celebrate the life of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. III, a great man who had a great impact on this nation.

And what did he do?

Did he free the slaves? no, not literally, but in a sense yes. When Dr. King began his civil rights efforts the average black man or woman was in the bondage of second class citizenship. It might seem like centuries ago, especially to those of us such as myself who are too young to have lived through it, but in terms of history it is still fresh. There are plenty of people alive today who marched with King and who can relate their personal experiences.

Was he out to make it so that Rosa Parks could sit in the front of a bus? No.
Was he out to make it so that white-only restaurants had to serve black people too? No.
Was he out to see schools opened to people of color? No.

Those were symptoms of a bigger problem he was hoping to address. The problem was racism itself. Not personal racism so much, although I'm sure he stood against that as well, but the systemic racism that cast one group of people into a second class citizenship.

What, then, was his goal? How would we know if he succeeded?

He told us plainly in his famous "I have a dream" speech. He dreamed of a time when people of all colors would be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

I propose that, in a great measure, his dream has failed as much as it has succeeded.

That has to come as a shock to many of you, for anyone can see that, at least by the very minimal measurements I have just put forth his movement was a raging success. The system is free of such things as white-only restaurants, bus seating by color and school segregation. How then can I make such a bold statement?

I make the statement because his dream was bigger than just racism, but involuntary servitude of any kind was repugnant to him. And yet today there is just such a system being placed around the necks of Americans of all color.

My mind is drawn to the racist concept of affirmative action. The very bedrock of the idea is that, all other things held equally, in any give industry or profession the mixture of people in all levels of an organization should be roughly equivalent to the racial distribution of the people who make up that organization. It's a nice sounding theory. I even agree with it, in theory.

But what does that theory say about the American black voter? If it were true then there should be, roughly, 50% of the black voters in the GOP and 50% in the DNC. But that's not what we see. One is forced to ask why?

The reason is because the movement was derailed. It lost its dream when it lost Dr. King. He never dreamed of government housing projects and affirmative action and free schools and high taxes and motrgage company bail outs and all the other things that have inserted themselves into the mindset of the civil rights movement. This is because none of those things are civil rights.

None of those things are rights because they are all services that must be supplied by someone. That someone is the tax payer. The taxpayer does not derive any benefit from those services and is therefore in involuntary servitude.

We all lost when King died. King would never have stood for the welfare state as we see it today. King would have recognized that such a redstributionist policy is nothing more than theft with grandious verbage to mask the injustice.

All King wanted was a fair shot at the American dream. He wanted a better life for his children. He didn't want a goverment nanny state, as those who have hijacked his movement have corrupted it with the introduction of these false civil rights.

But where does this leave us, the Libertarian party? It leaves us with a golden opportunity to revive some of the dream.

The Obama administration will fail to deliver on even a small portion of its promises, and those it does deliver on will cost the US economy such that all will suffer. The fact that a bi-racial man will soon occupy the whitehouse will allow many of the minority voters to put down their blind party aliengence and reliaze that, no matter what the color, the content of a liberals character leads to bondage of people of all color.

This will leave them wondering where they might turn? They will see that the GOP offers no solutions for they are simply the other half ot he DNC.

We can offer them a true alternative.

The Libertarian party offers respect of the individual.
The Libertarian party offers protection of private property.
The Libertarian party offers freedom of life style choices.
The Libertarian party defends the right to defend yourself.
The Libertarian party offers the one neither old party will, freedom.

All we have to do is get the message out.

No More World Police

2009-01-16T11:19:00.002-05:00

I was speaking with a colleague when the question was put to me "Would the Libertarians have supported America's entry into World War II?"

This is not a simple question, and it behooves us to remember we are looking at this from decades after the event, but I think we can still draw some important conclusions.

When the Libertarians say that the US should not be the world police, we mean this specifically in that we should not be sticking our nose into conflicts where we have no direct interest, such as was the case in Mogadishu.

There are three compelling cases that the Libertarians would support military action.

The first one is easy, self defense. Few will deny the right to protect yourself, and the Libertarians are absolute on this point. Everyone has the right to defend himself. This extends to preemptive actions as well. One does not have to wait to be attacked to defend oneself.

The second is a clear economic interest. This is really an extension of the first, only in terms of property and not life. The USA cannot stand by idle while its supply of oil or other needed commodities are threatened. Libertarians absolutely support the right to protect property.

The third case is a bit trickier, and has lead us into some sticky situations where we do not belong. The third case is that of genocide. The systematic extermination of a class of people, for any reason, is an attack on humanity at large, and as members of humanity we have the moral obligation to act if we can.

With these as the ground rules, what conclusions can we draw?

Would the Libertarians support America's entry into world war II? Absolutely, on all three counts. Americans were being killed on ships being torpedoed, our economic interests were in serious jeopardy, and of course, Pearl Harbor removed all doubt about the intent of the combatants. The presence of holocaust was largely unknown, and it is only with hindsight that we can say the Libertarians would support war on that criteria as well.

Would the Libertarians support the attack on Afghanistan? Absolutely. We are defending ourselves from a clear, present and proven danger.

Would the Libertarians support the attack on Iraq the first time? Yes, the threat of Iraqi expansion into the Saudi oil fields was compelling.

Would the Libertarians support the attack on Iraq the second time? Yes, but not for the reasons the Bush administration put forth. I find it preposterous to think that Iraq posed a clear and present danger to the US mainland, and it was well contained against expansion into the Saudi oil fields. However, it should be acknowledged by all that we set Saddam Hussein up and used him in our proxy war against Iran. Therefore we are partially responsible for his actions, and he proved to be a genocidal bastard. It rightly falls to us clean our own proxy house.

Would the Libertarians support any military action in the pirate situation off of Somolia? Of course. American interests are being threatened.

Would the Libertarians support any military action in Gaza? No. We have no interested there.

Would the Libertarians support preemptive attacks on Iran? If a clear and present danger presents itself, of course.

Would the Libertarians support military action in Darfur? Only if genocide can be shown, which I believe is the case.

What wars would the Libertarians not support? The invasions of Panama and Grenada to name a few.

Time to Get Angry

2009-01-14T23:36:00.002-05:00

We see it all the time, a marching liberal mob demanding some concession from the mainstream. And it makes the news. And it has a corrosive effect. And it does not have to be the exclusive tool of the left.

The right can, and should, get angry!

You think you're grumpy now because Obama is about to be president, just wait until he actually is!

Get out your signs.
Get out your bullhorns.
And get out the message.

Socialism is not the answer.
Socialism exists only to keep the socialists in power. It does nothing to solve the problems of the average citizen and only exacerbates those of the poor citizen, at the expense of the rich.
Socialism is the enemy.

Americans still believe in freedom, they just don't fully understand it.
Americans still believe in fair play, they have been sold a fraud.
Americans still believe in conservative values, they just haven't gotten passionate about them.

In the meanwhile, the left has done nothing but erode the foundations of the country, and many of us has sat on our asses and watched it happen.

So get pissed off already!

You're not helpless. You hold the keys to power. You are the majority. Why do you think the TV continues to pump its pablum into your house day in and day out? It's not because of the market forces! The market has proved the liberal message is a loser with the American people. It is because they have to do this to put forth even the illusion of acceptance. People tend to follow other people and people tend to believe what they hear over and over.

Stop acting like you can't win, like it's out fate to slide into a socialist system.

Organize.
Protest.
BE SEEN PROTESTING.

And take the country back, so you can give it to your children.

Spending Our Way to Prosperity

2009-01-08T01:17:00.002-05:00

I've been avoiding this topic because it seems so over done, and almost an irresistible fate.

The current economic issues are not and cannot be addressed by any "bail out", "rescue" or "stimulus package", no matter how well intentioned or how well executed. The reason is because these things violate fundamental laws of economics, and everyone knows it.

Why have them then?

One word: Politics.

But it's really worse than politics, it's dirty politics. It's time to call these beasts what they are, payoffs. Who do you think will be receiving all these billions (now trillions) of dollars? You? Your neighbor?

Don't be silly. The first people who will get them are the big time money people on Wall Street, and who will pay for them, the tax payers. While there is a bit of satisfying justice in recognizing that the rich people, who pay most of the taxes, will, in fact, be bailing out themselves, it will not be so simple. The government doesn't have this money just sitting around. It has to raise it, with taxes, or create it, with monetary policy. (Monetary policy is a euphemism for "out of thin air", in case you're not sure.)

But will "the rich" really pay for it?

Actually, yes and no. They will pay for it in the same way that we will all pay for it, via inflation. If it not possible to pump billions upon billions of new dollars into the system and not devalue the currency already in circulation. Economics 101 tells us about supply and demand, and the governments plans call for an increase in the supply that will cause a decrease in price (or in this case value). This is an irrevocable law no less potent than gravity. Good intentions cannot over come it.

The problem is that not enough people in Washington D.C. want to face the hard reality. We've been spending ourselves into oblivion for a very long time, and that you cannot continue to distort the market forever. Just as you can overcome gravity for a while by expending energy, eventually it pulls you back down, so you can overcome the forces of economics, for a while. We're headed back down, and I believe nothing on this earth can stop it.

Inflation is coming at us like a rushing train. Take actions now to survive, and even thrive, in such an environment if you can. The only question is, will the economic train of our destruction take with it "only" our standard of living, or will it stamp out our liberties as well?

Keep track of the names of those who put us on this track. Their parties are the old parties, the parties that have been bought and paid for by special interest groups. The GOP abandoned its conservative core, the DNC never had one. Only the party of principle holds any hope for us now. Cast off the elephant and the jackass, and stand tall with the lady holding the torch.

Why I don't Care

2009-01-06T22:13:00.002-05:00

Looks like Al Franken may become a US Senator.
Looks like Roland Burris may not become a US senator.
Looks like lots of interesting things.

But it doesn't look like we Libertarians should give a damn!

None of it involves our party. It is a side show distraction.

The issues, terrorism, government wire taps, drugs, abortion, gay rights, and health care are all real, but the show is a circus put on to distract us from the work we should be doing. Contacting voters and getting registrations.

Let them have their media moments. It does not matter because our game is man to man. Each of us needs to be finding those disenchanted voters and reaching out to them and showing them the better way.

Let the elephant and jackass dance, I'm following the lady with a torch.

Christianity and Libertarian Thought

2009-01-01T22:56:00.003-05:00

I have received more than a few comments to the effect that somehow Libertarian thought and Christian beliefs are in conflict. This is, thankfully, both untrue and easy to demonstrate as untrue.

The first thing that must be understood is the limits that Libertarian thought places on itself. Libertarian thought only addresses the interactions of two living, corporeal people. Libertarian thought is a minimalist morality in that it defines only the minimal requirements, and leaves up to the individual the right to take upon themselves higher codes of behavior.

Libertarian morality is the absence of force or fraud in human relationships.

To help you understand better, we Christians must look at the Libertarian philosophy through the lens of the Holy Scriptures. I draw your attention to ten commandments:

1: “You shall have no other gods before Me”
This is between man and God, not addressed by the Libertarian philosophy.

2: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image–any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.”
Again, this is between creator and creation, not between men.

3: “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.”
Same here

4: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.”
More of the same.

5: “Honor your father and your mother.”
The Libertarian philosophy is not in conflict here. One could not be honorable to his parents by wielding either force or fraud being used against his parents.

6: “You shall not murder.”
No conflict here.

7: “You shall not commit adultery.”
Adultery is, ultimately, a lie, and thus fraud. No conflict here.

8: “You shall not steal.”
No conflict here.

9: “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.”
No conflict here.

10: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”
No conflict here. This addresses what is in your heart, and the Libertarian philosophy does not speak to those issues, only to issues between people, not inside an individual.

Of course, we no longer live in the age of law, but in the age of Grace. Thus our highest arbiter must be the Lord Jesus Christ. Even He gives us no commandment with which the Libertarian philosophy is in conflict. This is precisely because the philosophy stops at actions, physical or spoken, between people.

Libertarians hold that you cannot hit someone else, nor can you lie to them for personal gain. These things are not counter to Christian values, nor could practicing them lead to conflict for the Christian, for Libertarianism demands respect of others, and control of your own behavior.

Reflection on 2008, Forecast for 2009

2008-12-31T22:45:00.005-05:00

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

2008-12-26T07:38:00.003-05:00

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

2008-12-23T16:35:00.002-05:00

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

2008-12-22T07:56:00.000-05:00

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]?

2008-12-19T20:51:00.004-05:00

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

2008-12-18T23:52:00.002-05:00

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

2008-12-17T00:20:00.001-05:00

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

2008-12-16T01:05:00.001-05:00

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

2008-12-15T22:29:00.002-05:00

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

2008-12-13T20:02:00.004-05:00

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!

2008-12-11T10:37:00.005-05:00

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

2008-12-09T09:45:00.002-05:00

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

2008-12-08T11:40:00.004-05:00

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

2008-12-07T23:05:00.002-05:00

"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!

2008-12-06T23:53:00.001-05:00

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?

2008-12-05T10:44:00.002-05:00

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

2008-12-04T09:12:00.002-05:00

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...

2008-12-03T00:54:00.001-05:00

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..."

2008-12-01T21:42:00.003-05:00

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.

Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder.

2008-11-25T06:22:00.002-05:00

"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.

The lies of Socialism

2008-11-23T20:20:00.004-05:00

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.

3.7 Self-Determination

2008-11-20T08:57:00.002-05:00

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.

3.6 Representative Government

2008-11-19T07:15:00.002-05:00

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.

3.5 Rights and Discrimination

2008-11-18T10:13:00.002-05:00

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.

3.4 Free Trade and Migration

2008-11-17T07:24:00.002-05:00

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.

3.3 International Affairs

2008-11-16T08:25:00.002-05:00

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.

3.2 Internal Security and Individual Rights

2008-11-14T19:33:00.002-05:00

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.

3.1 National Defense

2008-11-13T15:55:00.002-05:00

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.

3.0 Securing Liberty

2008-11-12T11:55:00.002-05:00

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.

2.10 Retirement and Income Security

2008-11-11T22:22:00.002-05:00

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?

2.9 Health Care

2008-11-09T17:16:00.002-05:00

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.

2.8 Education

2008-11-08T17:32:00.002-05:00

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.

2.7 Labor Markets

2008-11-07T10:13:00.003-05:00

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.

2.6 Monopolies and Corporations

2008-11-06T13:38:00.002-05:00

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.

2.5 Money and Financial Markets

2008-11-05T09:55:00.002-05:00

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.

2.4 Government Finance and Spending

2008-11-04T15:30:00.002-05:00

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.

2.3 Energy and Resources

2008-11-03T11:55:00.002-05:00

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.

2.2 Environment

2008-11-02T19:14:00.002-05:00

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.

2.1 Property and Contract

2008-11-01T09:39:00.002-04:00

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.

2.0 Economic Liberty

2008-10-31T15:19:00.002-04:00

2.0 Economic Liberty

A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.

Well, that lays it out! Viva Capitalism! I'm again in full support of freedom. This is a road map all by itself to economic prosperity for as many people as possible. Anything short of the free market results in injustice, and a lowering of the general standard of living.

Not only does the party support economic rights, it upholds them as a plank in their platform. The drivel I've seen on the other parties is just that, drivel. There can be no compromises with freedom.

If I am not free to dispose of the fruits of my labor as I so choose, then those fruits, in fact, are not mine. I have heard many claims to the fruits of my labor, but none that do not, eventually boil down to simple theft. If I earn something, create something or discover something, without fraud or force, then by what right would the government take it from me? there is no moral right, only might.

The state has placed many claims on my labor in the form of taxes, and gives me precious little in return. It would be one thing if the state used my taxes to provide for services such as fire, police, court and military, but it does much more than that. The state now provided partial sustenance for a very large portion of the population. That portion has become dependent upon the state to continue to confiscate my money. This has turned the state into a criminal organization that buys off one set of voters with the labors of another. Hiding the theft behind a legal construct does not turn the crime into a virtue.

When one person is forced to work to support another, that is called slavery. The modern US Government is still in the slavery business, and it needs to be put out of business.

1.6 Self-Defense

2008-10-30T10:35:00.002-04:00

1.6 Self-Defense

The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the right to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.

The very first thing I like about this plank is that it exists at all. The other parties don't expressly acknowledge, let alone support, your right to self defense.

The second thing I like is how it begins, describing the only legitimate use of force. Notice that it talks about individual rights. Not collective rights, individual rights. This is not a trivial point. Collective rights are an aggregation, a social construct.

Collective rights are important, but they should always be subordinate to individual rights. That is, the group does not have a higher right than the individual. This may strike someone as "unfair", after all, shouldn't actions that benefit twp people outweigh actions that benefit only one? The answer is no. As soon as you allow the group to override the individual then mob rule is established. This is the road to tragedy. Collective rights exist as extensions of individual rights. "We the People..." affirmed the bill of [individual] rights.

The third thing is that it is crystal clear. Government keep your hands off! The government has continued to encrouch on the second amendment in every way it can imagine. The Libertarian party stands steadfast against such encroachment, and puts it in writing. No wishy-washing compromising. You have the right to defend yourself, and the government doesn't have any right to stop you.

This does present at least one issue, some people have, by virtue of their past violent behavior, been stripped of their right to own a firearm. This has long been held up by the gun rights deniers as a reason for registration and background checks. It would be a good argument if the government happened to be present at each transfer. The reality is that criminals will obtain firearms with or without the blessing of the government. History has yet to demonstrate that any registration or background checks have, even incidentally, reduced the number of firearms in the hands of those legally barred from having them. Background checks only serve to hinder the law abiding citizen from obtaining firearms. Registration only serves to make the task of confiscation easier.

1.5 Crime and Justice

2008-10-29T09:33:00.002-04:00

1.5 Crime and Justice

Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.

There is so much to like about this plank that it is hard to determine where to begin. This single paragraph encapsulates the entire legal foundation of the nation, and the ideal under which I would like to see the government operate. The governments purpose is stated unambiguously "Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property." There is nothing in here of the socialist bent which is currently polluting both parties.

From this base it naturally flows what government should regard as a crime. It should be noted that all crimes are by legal definition. While we have an emotional understanding of what a crime is, for purposes of law we need objective definitions. "Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm." Says it all. If your behavior does not harm someone else, or at significant risk of harm, then there should be no crime.

You can see how this makes the determination of behavior as acceptable (legal) or unacceptable (criminal) very easy.

If you mash someone with a stick, you have used force, and are guilty.
If you steal their credit card, you have used fraud, and are guilty.
If you drive while under the influence of alcohol, you have involuntarily placed the other drivers or your passengers, at significant risk of harm.

Everyone in law enforcement should be standing up and applauding this sort of thinking. Many of todays laws are exceptionally difficult to determine if, in fact, it has been violated. That is always the sign of a bad law.

If we seek "... a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives ...", as the preamble asserts, then it naturally follows that "Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves." Thus you have the right to be careless with your own body. You should be able to smoke, drink, ride a motorcycle without a helmet and even do other things which are now currently illegal.

The platform continues to go on in the vein of personal responsibility. If you crash your car into someones house, you are responsible for paying for damages. All parties seem to agree on this point, so it does not stand out as much, but it is proper to include it.

Finally the platform ends with a direct expression of one of the fundamental truths the founding fathers supported. The jury has the right to judge the law as well as the facts of the case. This is a required protection for all of us. Thomas Jefferson said it perfectly with:

I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion.

This is essential for the judicial system to not become either an unwitting pawn of a tyrant, or an active collaborator. From time to time unjust laws may be passed, or just laws may be perverted such that the only hope for a defendant is the jury itself. The jury is, of course, peers from the community. The people must have the right to judge their own if the concept of self governance is to be upheld.

1.4 Abortion

2008-10-28T17:43:00.003-04:00

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

It had to happen. Eventually I would arrive at a plank in the platform that I cannot support. This is part of the compromise we make with party politics. Not every member of the party agrees with every plank. The best party for an individual is the one that holds the most planks, provided none are so odious as to invalidate all the others.

Normally this platform would be such that I could not abide it. But, as the GOP has been completely ineffective at stemming the tide of abortion. The DNC is doing its level best to put an abortion in every womb. So then I lose nothing by holding my nose and accepting this platform.

However, the Libertarian Party should not take my practical approach as an indication that I have abandoned this issue. Should the party present two candidates, and one be pro-life, I shall weigh that heavily in my calculations.

This platform likely presents one of the biggest obstacles to real progress for the party. This platform is built on bad science, and bad reasoning, and abdicates the responsibility of its candidates. It rests on the false premise that the government has no standing in this issue, which in turn rests on the faulty science and reasoning that needs no more explanation.

The reversal of this plank shall be a lesser goal of mine.

1.3 Personal Relationships

2008-10-28T08:00:00.002-04:00

1.3 Personal Relationships

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.

This is another area where we really need to understand that the Libertarian party is not condoning any ones actions, nor condemning them either. The platform simply, and accurately (in most cases), states that the law is silent on this issue and it goes on to say the government has no legitimate reason to interfere with people personal choices.

This is clear and easy to understand. I think that's sometimes the problem. I believe people have become so used to double talk, called nuance, that they now expect it. When they see a simple answer they are suspicious. I understand this urge to think that big problems often have complex solutions. A simple solution, more often than not, overlooks the details.

The failure here is to believe that the ability to express the party's principles so succinctly implies it is incomplete. In fact, the exact opposite is true. The Libertarian Platform is highly distilled thought. The crafters have expertly peeled away the chaff that clutters the platforms, and the minds, of the other parties.

It is a fallacy to think that every issue should be addressed in a platform, that would be a policy. The platform exists to give the party a stable mental foundation from which to reach out to new voters as well as to project power in the form of legislation, candidates and votes. By keeping the platform planks clear and understandable the party better enables itself to remain consistent and to explain itself to prospective members.

This is the key, we must explain it! Politics is a man to man sport. We have to take care when discussing our ideas with others that they get the full measure of it. The Libertarian planks fit together in a tongue and grove fashion such that while each stands on its own, they are much stronger taken as a whole. It is not enough to say to someone "The Libertarian party believes the government has no place in the bedroom", to put a fairly common modern spin on the argument regarding same sex marriages, ect.

We need to be able to stand and say things like "I don't condone homosexuality, indeed, I believe it is disgusting. But I refuse to use the power of the state to impose my feelings on someone else with the actions taken by those other people do not impact others." I have yet to see a non-traditional relationship pose any sort of violent or fraudulent threat to those outside the relationship. It does pose a moral or aesthetic one, depending on your views of those things, but those things are outside the preview of the government.

To be successful we need to be able to express our platform with all the flourish of the other parties, without losing the essence of it. Thankfully, the clarify of thought that the platform gives us enables us to apply it in the widest variety of situations, unlike the opposing platforms that, by virtue of their wordy excesses, make them unwieldable in situations other than those explicitly concieved.

1.2 Personal Privacy

2008-10-26T15:35:00.004-04:00

1.2 Personal Privacy
We support the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating "crimes" without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.

This plank is a bit muddled. While I agree with all of it, the message should be clarified. The first part addresses the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment, shown below for reference, is about property rights. It defines the process for searches and seizures. But it does not address, directly, behavioral crimes or de jure crimes which the platform does. I understand that the bridge between these two parts is held in the title "Personal Privacy" for many of the de jure crimes are only prosecutable with the violation of privacy and the fourth amendment protects that without naming it. None the less, I would break it into two, thusly:

1.2a
We support the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property.

1.2b
Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating "crimes" without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.

The first would show steadfast property rights protections. This is something the neither major party, or more properly, the bicameral uniparty, is willing to do.

The second would show the rejection of de jure crimes, that is, those that are only crimes because the government says they are.

I know there are many people who see this and, erroneously, think that the Libertarian party condones drug use. It does not. You have but to review the first platform "Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices."

There is a large mental conflict raging in the Bicameral Uniparty, on the one hand they try to tell you that you have the right to choose what you wish to do with your body, and then on many other cases they deny that same right. Which is it?

They attempt to apply reason in the cases when they deny your right to choose how to use your own body, but all of their arguments eventually rest on a single principle. The government believes it knows what is best for you, and it has the power to punish you if you challenge it. That is a "might makes right" argument, and I reject it.

Unfortunately for myself and all freedom loving people, while might does not make right, it does make possible usurpation of liberty. Fortunately for myself and all freedom loving people the evaporation of their argument lies easily with calm discussion.

There is no such thing as a "victimless crime". The victims are those who must hide their actions from the government for fear of reprisals. We must reverse this rising tide of de jure crimes, and we can do it by crystal clear communication for principle is on our side.

* Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

1.1 Expression and Communication

2008-10-25T22:03:00.005-04:00

1.1 Expression and Communication

We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others.
We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.

At first glance this might seem like the first amendment all over again, but it's not.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Clearly I support this. But the party platform goes farther. It also encompases control of media and technology. The US Constitution is brilliant in its foresight and flexibility, to be sure. But the language has drifted as has technology, and this platform brings it up to date seemlessly.

It also meshes perfectly with the previous plank, where, once again, the key is that you're free to do whatever you desire so long as you do not violate the rights of others. This is something I would like to focus on a bit.

Why is it that so many people feel the need to control others when the actions of those others do not adversely affect themselves? This question has never been satisfactorally answered for me. I have had answers offered, but none seem to fit the bill. It could be, and I suppose likely is, that there is no one answer, and perhaps each of the answers offered covers a portion of the guilty such that all answers together cover most of the perpitrators.

No matter how you slice it, it comes down to power. One person telling another what they must or cannot do. That is the central theme of the Libertarian Platform as best I understand it, the proper use of power.

Our country has gotten off the track and started to misuse power in some very dangerous ways. Power is neither good nor evil, but those wielding it are. The government has accumulated far too much power, and has begun to wield it against her own citizens. At this writing we still, nominally at least, own the government and can turn it around. There is no place in a civilized society for the misapplication of force, either by the government, or citizens.

In this we the people act as a counterbalance to the government. We deligate our power to the government, and control how those powers may be used. We must not forget that it is being used in our name and that we are therefore responsible for it because if we do divorce ourselves form this responsibility then something else will fill the void and once lost the cost of regaining such control may be horrific indeed. The government keeps us safe from our fellow citizens (when it's working properly) and we the people keep ourselves safe from the government. It is a balance, and at the moment we are tipping dangerously out of balance in favor of the government.

You need look no farther than the renewed interest in the "fairness doctrine" which is nothing more than censorship. It is the negation of the free will of media outlets to publish whatever they choose with it being replaced by what the government mandates they must publish. As an owner of the government I cannot, in clear conscience, tell a media outlet what it must publish for to do so would be to enforce my will upon them by the government proxy.

As a Libertarian I will stand against this at all costs.

1.0 Personal Liberty

2008-10-24T10:41:00.004-04:00

1.0 Personal Liberty

Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.

This is the first plank of the Libertarian platform. It speaks volumes in very few words. I might change it slightly in the first sentence to read "Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and [must] accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make." People are not free to accept responsibility because consequences always manage to assert themselves. It's a minor, perhaps semantic, point.

The Libertarian party puts right at the top of its platform what I believe to be its most sacred guiding principle. That is, do whatever you want so long as it does not involve force (or fraud) against another.

The party sets an exceptionally high bar for itself with this platform. It makes no excuses for poor behavior. It also makes no guarantees for poor choices. Your choices are yours and yours alone, and you have to live with the results of those choices.

At first this may seem harsh, but in fact it is very compassionate because it is honest. All of us, regardless of our philosophy, are fated to reap the rewards of our choices. No amount of mental trickery can avert the laws of existence. Just as in the natural world, if you jump out of an airplane you will fall, if you spend your money on only foolish things you will soon be parted from it. By being honest it forces itself to look at problems objectively and without the mental trickery that clouds the other parties thinking.

It ends with an almost humorous disclaimer where the party reserves the right to not approve of your choices. You might choose to spend your money on foolish things, and the party recognizes your right to be foolish.

This would seem to be a very key difference between the GOP/DNC* platforms and the Libertarian party. Those parties have passed a bevy of laws attempting to rule out foolishness, such as requiring one to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle. Why does the state presume to have the power to keep one from being foolish with their own bodies? They make arguments about "financial responsibility" and so on, but in truth they are just asserting their power to negate your freedom of choice.

* I think I'll start calling the GOP/DNC the "bicameral uniparty"

Reviewing the Statement of Principles

2008-10-23T21:47:00.002-04:00

In my continued quest to better crystalize the Libertarian party in my own mind, and juxtapose it against the GOP and DNC (as well as all other parties) I shall continue examining the platform.

After the Preamble comes the Statement of Principles.

Sadly, I could find no parallel with either the GOP or DNC. It should scare you a little that neither major party has the ability to succinctly express their principles. However, I don't fault them completely because they likely presume their platform expresses them indirectly. Still, it seems like a good idea.

I shall now examine the document as before with an interlinear method alternating platform and my comments.

We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

I don't like the word "cult". While it is technically proper, it is unduly emotional. This is likely due to the rather adolescent nature of the Libertarian party. Not to say that it is childish, but against the other parties it is clearly younger and less refined. Still, the sentiment is correct. There does seem to be a religious zealotry with respect to the powers of the government. That somehow if we just find the right powers for the government it can cure our ills and ease our suffering. I stand in lockstep with my rejection of this notion.

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

This is really a restatement of the declaration of independence. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is also excellently mingled with the foundational concept that the government exists to remove force and fraud from human relationships. Talk about inclusive! No other party that I know of is so clear. They surely make similar statements, and then begin to make exclusionary statements later. This party says "live and let live and play by the rules". Who could want more?

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

I have not exhaustively checked all other parties, so I'll just let that slide, but the principle is true. The State presumes to have the right by virtue of its might, and the parties condone this behavior. The State can and will dispose of you and your fruits without so much as a batting an eye if it determines it should do so. This is no way for a civilized society to operate. The only reasonable response is to limit the powers and actions of government.

We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

This is again a restatement of the Declaration of Independence, with some details thrown in. It is surprising to me that the other parties cannot grasp the importance of such clear thinking. The major parties today support the government in its rejection of these notions. They betray the right to freedom of speech with acts such as McCain-Fiengold. They betray the right to private property with the wholesale expansion of eminent domain to mean anything the state wishes it to mean. Lasty, the government clearly rejects the right to life for some of its citizens.

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.

Here is a stake in the ground that says "We uphold the principle of the free market". I'm always a bit shocked when I hear someone argue against the free market. But here is the heart of the matter laid bare for all to see. "People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others" There is one word that sums up this whole concept, and that word is slavery. I have explained this to more than one person, and often they don't get it. They are stuck on seeing slavery as requiring whips and fields of cotton, but this form of velvet covered slavery is no less egregious. Just because someone steals your production with smooth words and due process makes them no less a thief.

I find nothing in this statement of principle that I cannot support.

Public education - Preamble

2008-10-22T11:23:00.005-04:00

Friends,

Now that I have set my course, I need to make a road map. I could just walk down to the registrars office and change my party of course, but that's not what I mean. I can articulate the DNC and GOP platforms fairly well, and if I'm going to be an effective Libertarian then I need to dig into the platform and understand it as well.

I could just dig into the platform planks, but it seems I should start from the very beginning and that's what I'm going to do. The platforms of all three parties start with a preamble, so then shall I.

All of the preambles should, of course, square against the US constitutions preamble, so I'll start with that as a reference.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This is almost poetry. Call it a mission statement. It tells who is acting (We the people) what they are doing (establishing a constitution) and why (everything else), and in only 52 words.

Now to look at the Republican platform preamble. I'm shall comment on it line by line for all 605 words. This can lead to a somewhat stilted reading experience. If you wish to read it directly I suggest this source: http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Preamble.htm

I shall grade each statement with how much it resonates with my values by granting a +1, -1 or 0. The platform shall be in bold, and my grades in normal type.

This is a platform of enduring principle, not passing convenience – the product of the most open and transparent process in American political history.

I do not know the process used so I'll grade this a 0.

We offer it to our fellow Americans in the assurance that our Republican ideals are those that unify our country:

I like this statement because it codifies the ideals, but it is structure, not content. 0

Courage in the face of foreign foes.

Sounds right. +1

An optimistic patriotism, driven by a passion for freedom.

Sounds right, although I'm not sure what the GOP means by "freedom". Hopefully this document will tell me. 0

Devotion to the inherent dignity and rights of every person.

Good news this. +1

Faith in the virtues of self-reliance, civic commitment, and concern for one another.

Sounds like feel-good stuffing. 0

Distrust of government’s interference in people’s lives.

I believe this. I am not convinced the GOP does. +1

Dedication to a rule of law that both protects and preserves liberty.

I believe this. I am not convinced the GOP does. +1

We present this platform at an uncertain point in time.

When ever was there a certain point in time? Fear mongering. True, but still fear mongering. How is this optimistic. Losing points for internal contradiction. -1

Our country remains at war and committed to victory, but reckless political forces would imperil that goal and endanger our nation.

True. It also annoys me because this is not a principle, but a commercial. 0

In the economy and in society at large, it is a time of transformation.

Political rhetoric. 0

But the American people will meet these challenges.

Here is some real optimism, but still rhetoric. 0

Even with its uncertainties, they embrace the future, but they are also too wise to rush headlong into it.

Rhetoric. 0

We are an adventurous, risk-taking people, but we are not gamblers.

Optimistic. Honest. Rehtoric. 0

A sound democracy trusts new leadership but insists that it demonstrate the old virtues: the character and the command that, in times of conflict and crisis, have led the Republic through its trials.

This is crap. "A sound democracy trusts new leadership..." No. A sound democracy chooses proper new leadership and doesn't just trust it. This is also in conflict with the earlier statement of values "Distrust of government’s interference in people’s lives." -1

This platform likewise rests on proven truths and tested wisdom as it looks ahead, both to deal with present challenges and to explore possibilities that may sometimes seem beyond our grasp.

Commercial. Might be over reaching. 0

It shows what the American people can accomplish when government respects their rights, conserves their resources, and calls upon their love of country.

This platform does only one of these three things. The GOP has hardly been the party of respecting people's rights, nor conserving their resources. But the platform does call upon love of country. -1

It is not a tribute to bigger government.

Rhetoric. 0

Our platform is presented with enthusiasm and confidence in a vision for the future, but also with genuine humility – humility before God and before a nation of free and independent thinkers.

Humility before God and the nation. Perhaps. But it is as I believe. +1

As the party of ideas, rather than a mere coalition of interests, we consider vigorous debate a strength, not a weakness.

This is a comparison between the GOP and the DNC. But as a platform for a party I would be part of this would be on the right track. Vigorous debate is a value of mine. +1

Indeed, we are a party – as we are a nation – of mavericks.

Election buzzword rhetoric. 0

Yet we stand united today because we are the one party that speaks to all Americans – conservatives, moderates, libertarians, independents, and even liberals.

Sure it does. 0

We welcome all to our deliberations in the firm belief that the principles embodied in this platform will prove to be as compelling and persuasive as they are vital and enduring.

I don't know the history. An open process is good. I'm unsure of the final output being vital and enduring. Many collaborative efforts utterly fail. 0

We do not fear disagreement, and we do not demand conformity, but we do fight for our principles with confidence that the best ideas will prevail in the end.

I actually don't have the same faith. I believe that often the better idea may fail. Poor ideal well present often prevail, at least in the short term. 0

Our party embodies a uniquely American spirit.

Perhaps true. Not enough to earn points. Other parties can probably say this, and their platforms are awful. 0

It is the spirit of independent minds, the conviction that open and honest debate is essential to the freedom we enjoy as Americans.

True. But from the party that pushed and passed McCain-Fiengold? +1

This platform is a testament to that freedom and stands as our promise to future generations that we will do whatever it takes to preserve it.

I like the sound, but I don't believe it from the same people that brought us McCain-Fiengold. +1

It is grounded on our heartfelt belief that our principles, our policies, and our vision will lead our American family, not just through present dangers, but to a horizon of prosperity and liberty mankind has only begun to explore.

Commercial. 0

With gratitude for eight years of honorable service from President George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, the Republican Party now stands united behind new leadership, an American patriot, John McCain.

Commercial. 0

In support of his candidacy and those of our fellow Republicans across the nation – and ever grateful to Almighty God for the political, religious, and civil liberties we enjoy -- we, the representatives of the Republican Party in the states and territories of the United States, offer this platform to the American people.

Commercial. 0

Zeros: 19
Pluses: 8
Minuses: 3
FINAL TOTAL: 5

Time to look at the DNC preamble now, all 1512 words. http://www.democrats.org/page/-/pdf/dem-platform.pdf

We come together at a defining moment in the history of our nation – the nation that led the 20th century, built a thriving middle class, defeated fascism and communism, and provided bountiful opportunity to many.

True. 0

We Democrats have a special commitment to this promise of America.

Perhaps true. 0

We believe that every American, whatever their background or station in life, should have the chance to get a good education, to work at a good job with good wages, to raise and provide for a family, to live in safe surroundings, and to retire with dignity and security.

I agree with this, but I strongly believe the DNC and my idea of "have the chance" are different. +1

We believe that quality and affordable health care is a basic right.

Socialist tripe. -1

We believe that each succeeding generation should have the opportunity, through hard work, service and sacrifice, to enjoy a brighter future than the last.

True, but it says nothing about how this would be accomplished. 0

But today, we are at a crossroads.

When are we not? 0

As we meet, we are in the sixth year of a two-front war.

So? 0

Our economy is struggling.

Lie. -1

Our planet is in peril.

Big lie. -1

A great nation now demands that its leaders abandon the politics of partisan division and find creative solutions to promote the common good.

Agree with this. I have seen no such behavior from the DNC. +1

A people that prizes candor, accountability, and fairness insists that a government of the people must level with them and champion the interests of all American families.

Agreed. Again, how? 0

A land of historic resourcefulness has lost its patience with elected officials who have failed to lead.

No. -1

It is time for a change.

Yes. +1

We can do better.

Yes. +1

And so, Democrats – through the most open platform process in history – are reaching out today to Republicans, Independents, and all Americans who hunger for a new direction a reason to hope.

The GOP claimed the same thing. Same grade. 0

Today, at a defining moment in our history, the Democratic Party resolves to renew America’s promise.

Rehtoric. 0

Over the past eight years, our nation’s leaders have failed us.

Lie. -1

Sometimes they invited calamity, rushing us into an ill-considered war in Iraq.

Lie. -1

But other times, when calamity arrived in the form of hurricanes or financial storms, they sat back, doing too little too late, and too poorly.

Big lie. -1

The list of failures of this Administration is historic.

Rhetoric. 0

The American Dream is at risk.

From Obama, yes. 0

Incomes are down and foreclosures are up.

True, but not a principle. 0

Millions of our fellow citizens have no health insurance while families working longer hours are pressed for time to care for their children and aging parents.

Not a principle. 0

Gas and home heating costs are squeezing seniors and working families alike.

Might have been true when written, but still not a principle. 0

We are less secure and less respected in the world.

Sort of depends on how you define "respect". As for security, when was the last time you heard of an embasy being bombed? 0

After September 11, we could have built the foundation for a new American century, but instead we instigated an unnecessary war in Iraq before finishing a necessary war in Afghanistan.

Sort of true. We had perfectly good reasons to attack Iraq, but the war on terror wasn't one of them. 0

Careless policies, inept stewardship and the broken politics of this Administration have taken their toll on our economy, our security and our reputation.

What would those be? Rhetoric. 0

But even worse than the conditions we find ourselves in are the false promises that brought us here.

Rhetoric. 0

The Republican leadership said they would keep us safe, but they overextended our military and failed to respond to new challenges.

Lie and Rhetoric. 0

They said they would be compassionate conservatives, but they failed to rescue our citizens from the rooftops of New Orleans, neglected our veterans, and denied health insurance to children.

Lies about New Orleans and veterans. The government is not in the business of providing health insurance to children. -1

They promised fiscal responsibility but instead gave tax cuts to the wealthy few and squandered almost a trillion dollars in Iraq.

I'm not rich. I got a tax cut. Lie. -1

They promised reform but allowed the oil companies to write our energy agenda and the credit card companies to write the bankruptcy rules.

Might be true. 0

These are not just policy failures.

Rhetoric. 0

They are failures of a broken politics –a politics that rewards self-interest over the common interest and the short-term over the long-term, that puts our government at the service of the powerful.

I believe in long term self interest. This is a +1 and a -1, so 0.

A politics that creates a state-of-the-art system for doling out favors and shuts out the voice of the American people.

This is EXACTLY what the DNC wants. And it's also rhetoric. 0

So, we come together not only to replace this President and his party –and not only to offer policies that will undo the damage they have wrought.

Commercial. 0

Today, we pledge a return to core moral principles like stewardship, service to others, personal responsibility, shared sacrifice and a fair shot for all –values that emanate from the integrity and optimism of our Founders and generations of Americans since.

Agree on the core values. +1

Today, we Democrats offer leaders – from the White House to the State House – worthy of this country’s trust.

Lie. 0

We will start by renewing the American Dream for a new era – with the same new hope and new ideas that propelled Franklin Delano Roosevelt towards the New Deal and John F. Kennedy to the New Frontier.

Commercial. 0

We will provide immediate relief to working people who have lost their jobs, families who are in danger of losing their homes, and those who – no matter how hard they work – are seeing prices go up more than their income.

Relief how? Sounds suspicious. 0

We will invest in America again –in world-class public education, in our infrastructure, and in green technology –so that our economy can generate the good, high-paying jobs of the future.

Can you say "tax and spend" any louder? -1

We will end the outrage of unaffordable, unavailable health care, protect Social Security, and help Americans save for retirement.

Rhetoric. None of this is attainable. 0

And we will harness American ingenuity to free this nation from the tyranny of oil.

Should have said "tyeranny of foreign oil". This from the same people that prohibit every bit of oil drilling they can? Lie. But I agree with the idea. +1

The Democratic Party believes that there is no more important priority than renewing American leadership on the world stage.

Whoa. This is the most important thing? How about just following the constitution and let the world think what it will? -1

This will require diplomatic skill as capable as our military might.

Obama is not up to this challenge. Still, rhetoric. 0

Instead of refusing to confront our most pressing threats, we will use all elements of American power to keep us safe, prosperous, and free.

What mystery "most pressing threats" are these? Rhetoric. 0

Instead of alienating our nation from the world, we will enable America –once again –to lead.

Feelgood rhetoric. 0

For decades, Americans have been told to act for ourselves, by ourselves, on our own. Democrats reject this recipe for division and failure.

I embrace it. -1

Today, we commit to renewing our American community by recognizing that solutions to our greatest challenges can only be rooted in common ground and the strength of our civic life.

Rhetoric. 0

The American people do not want government to solve all our problems; we know that personal responsibility, character, imagination, diligence, hard work and faith ultimately determine individual achievement.

True! I don't think they believe it, but I agree. +1

But we also know that at every turning point in our nation’s history, we have demonstrated our love of country by uniting to overcome our challenges—whether ending slavery, fighting two world wars for the cause of freedom or sending a man to the moon.

(Has anyone told them that the DNC opposed the end of slavery?) Rhetoric. 0

Today, America must unite again –to help our most vulnerable residents get back on their feet and to restore the vitality of both urban centers and family farms –because the success of each depends on the success of the other.

Double talk rhetoric. 0

And America must challenge us again –to serve our country and to meet our responsibilities –whether in our families or local governments; our civic organizations or places of worship.

Rhetoric. 0

Americans have been promised change before.

True. 0

And too often we have been disappointed.

True. 0

We believe we must change not just our policies, but our politics as well.

True. +1

We cannot keep doing the same things and expect to get different results.

True (but effectively a repeat.) 0

That is why today we come together not only to prevent a third Bush term.

Stupid rhetoric. 0

Today, we pledge to renew American democracy by promoting the use of new technologies to make it easier for Americans to participate in their government.

Interesting. I don't believe the DNC will do this. But I generally support the ideal. +1

We will shine a light on government spending and Washington lobbying –so that every American is empowered to be a watchdog and a whistle blower.

Sure you will. Corrolary from above. 0

We are the party of inclusion and respect differences of perspective and belief.

Major lie. They don't include right to life people. 0

And so, even when we disagree, we will work together to move this country forward.

Rhetoric. 0

There can be no Republican or Democratic ideas, only policies that are smart and right and fair and good for America –and those that aren’t.

True. Basic claim to non-partisan. Repeat. 0

We will form a government as decent, candid, purposeful and compassionate as the American people themselves.

Lie. 0

This is the essence of what it means to be a patriot: not only to declare our love of this nation, but to show it –by our deeds, our priorities, and the commitments we keep.

What in the hell is this definition doing in a preamble? It can only be here to counter the view of some that the DNC is not patriotic. 0

If we choose to change, just imagine what we can do.

Commercial. 0

What makes America great has never been its perfection, but the belief that it can be made better.

Interesting. Doesn't sound true. But it's not a principle either. 0

And that people who love this country can change it.

Rhetoric. 0

This is the country of Abraham Lincoln, Susan B. Anthony, Martin Luther King Jr., Cesar Chavez, and Rosa Parks – people who had the audacity to believe that their country could be a better place, and the courage to work to make it so.

Rhetoric. 0

And this Party has always made the biggest difference in the lives of the American people when we summoned the entire nation to a common purpose.

Commercial. 0

We have a choice to make.

True. 0

We can choose to stay the current failed course.

What's failed about it? 0

Or we can choose a path that builds upon the best of who and what we are, that reflects our highest values.

Rhetoric. 0

We can have more of the last eight years, or we can rise together and create a new kind of government.

(By "new" they mean "Socialist") Rhetoric: 0

The time for change has come, and America must seize it.

Rhetoric. 0

Zeros: 54
Pluses: 9
Minuses: 12
FINAL TOTAL: -3

And now, the Libertarian Party Preamble. All 180 words of it. http://www.lp.org/platform

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty;

Rhetoric. 0

... a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives...

Good. +1

... and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

Good. +1

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, ...

Good. +1

... that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships,

Good. +1

... and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

True. +1

Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings.

Good. +1

The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

Great. +1

In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles.

Structure. 0

These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.

commercial. 0

Zeros: 3
Pluses: 7
Minuses: 0
FINAL TOTAL: 7

This might seem to be the end of it, and clearly on an absolute scale this is correct. But what about the "word value" of the preambles? After all, the DNC is much larger than either of the others.

I will compute word value by diving the words by the absolute agreement rating. Then sort them on that scale.

LP: 7 / 180 = 25 = .03888
GOP: 5 / 605= .00826
DNC: -3 / 1512 = -.00198

It is obviously clear that the Libertarian party much more strongly resonates with my personal values.

The Road to my Conversion

2008-10-21T10:16:00.005-04:00

Friends,

For a long time I have been a party faithful soldiering on when the GOP wandered all over the political map. No longer. The nation wants steadfast leadership, not wobbly polls driven drivel.

Politics is not a sporting event. The team you are on is not a matter of personal preference, but an expression of your core values. The GOP has abandoned her core values, and myself, and many like me.

The GOP was formed to rid the US of Slavery (or more precisely, to elect Abraham Lincoln who rid the US of Slavery) and it accomplished its mission. It's time to retire the party and form a new one (or join an existing one) that will safe guard the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

When Vern Buchanan, a "conservative" and my congressional representative, cast his vote to spend 850 Billion dollars to shore up a failing system in a way that systematically rewards the careless I knew the light had vanished from the GOP.

My grandfather was a life long proud Democrat, right up until Jimmy Carter appeared on the national stage. Then he voted for Ronald Reagan and set forth an example that I have not forgotten. Politics is not a team sport. It is an ideological discussion. Values over mascots. Principles over tradition. Integrity in the face of opposition.

The question facing America today is "Will we return to slavery?" The Democrats wish to hold people of color in bondage via the debilitating effects of government largess. The GOP wishes to join them in the race. That leaves the rest of us to hold the line.

It is up to us to hold the line on government encroachment and government spending. Neither major party is willing to do it. With this in mind I must depart the party and start fresh.

Char-Lez Braden