WLO banner ad

Friday, October 31, 2008

A response to The Volokh Conspiracy's "Why the LP is bad for libertarianism"

I was asked by a friend to comment on The Volokh Conspiracy's 2006 article "Why the Libertarian Party is bad for libertarianism." You can read the article here.

My response:

His premises are wrong and his conclusions nonsense. To wit:


1. He claims that "people like Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, and the Cato Institute" were libertarian and advanced libertarian ideals outside of the LP.


Rand certainly was not libertarian. Just ask her.


She said that "Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose. They are lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They’d like to have an amoral political program."


Rand agreed with his premise that Libertarians did more harm than good, but his assertion that she was a libertarian is false. When an article begins with blatantly false statements, its conclusions are in danger.


In addition, just because the Cato Institute and Friedman advance the libertarian cause, it does not follow that the Libertarian Party does not or can not do so effectively. It is a non sequitur.


2. "The mainstream media and academic world are not going to pay much attention to ideas emanating from a tiny third party that has no chance of winning any elections."


This argument makes no sense. The media is interested in ratings, not who is going to win elections. Academia is interested in getting published and getting tenure, not who is going to win elections.


In any event, LP presidential candidate Bob Barr has gotten ample national media attention, and even the LP of Colorado gets asked to appear in local media. With the advent of the multiple cable channels, the internet, YouTube and blogs, media attention is not as big of an issue as it was when there were only three commercial networks.


His statement that libertarian ideas "emanate[] from a tiny third party" is flattering, but incorrect. As he himself notes, libertarian ideas exist outside the party. Libertarianism does not and never has emanated from the organized political party.


Perhaps he is guilty of some hyperbole, but his contention that the LP “has no chance of winning any elections” is also wrong. The LP has won many local elections.


3. He is correct that a proportional system of representation would benefit the LP. But because there is a better system doesn’t mean the current one is hopeless, as he concludes.


4. He states that “a libertarian party might also make sense if one of the major political parties were on the brink of collapses and the libertarian party stood a chance of taking its place (as the Republican Party displaced the Whig Party in the 1850s).”


The Libertarian Party of Colorado has had its membership increase about 25% in the past year, largely in response to the continued failure of the Republican Party to advocate limited government and free markets. Most of that growth has occurred since the Republicans went along with the massive socialist bailout of failed private companies.


The Republicans may well be on the brink of collapse, and it will take a serious effort to prevent it.


Far from being bad for libertarianism, the Libertarian Party is poised to make tremendous strides as it picks up the pieces of the failed Republican Party.

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Gordon Gekko and Barack Obama

Gordon Gekko, Oliver Stone's evil corporate raider in the 1987 movie Wall Street, said "Greed is good."

Stone, with his usual subtleness, let us know that, in fact, greed is not good. And Stone is correct.

Greed is bad.

However, somehow the condemnation of greed has morphed into a hatred of profit.

It is as if the upcoming New Great Society promulgated by our next president is an all out attack on profit.

The "windfall" profit made by greedy oil companies must be taxed so that the wealth can be "spread around a little."

The existence of profit does not equate with the existence of greed. Greed is evil.

But profits keep children fed. Profits pay wages. Profits buy medicine. Profits create jobs.

The government, contrary to the overwhelming belief of our next president and his army of well-intentioned supporters, does not do any of these things.

Government, by itself, does not feed children. It does not pay wages. It does not buy medicine. It does not create jobs.

People confuse the government confiscation of someone else's profit with government money. The government does not earn its money. The government confiscates money earned by people and uses it to political ends. In some instances, like funding police and national defense, this confiscation is necessary. In most, it is not.

It is easy for the government to dole out largesse when it is doling out money it did not earn.

A faith in the inherent benevolence in the government is as misplaced as Gordon Gekko's belief in greed.

No, greed is not good. But neither is government largesse.

Any belief otherwise is misplaced.

And we are looking straight ahead at four years of government benevolence. When Obama's term is up, we will not be nearly as worried about "windfall" profits. There will not be any.

And we will learn, yet again, what happens when there is no profit for the government to confiscate.

Birthday Greetings from Joe Cocker

Just because it's funny.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Senators telling the NFL how to run its business.

Now that the feds have nationalized banks, mortgage companies and insurance companies, it looks like they want to take over the NFL, too. 

Twelve Senators, led by Arlen Specter, sent a letter to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell expressing their displeasure with how the NFL puts its games on television.

And it's good to know that Colorado's two Senators, Wayne Allard (R) and Ken Salazar (D), joined in this frivolous, time-wasting letter.

Go Broncos.

My Votes and Predictions

My ballot is in the mail. How I voted and what I predict will actually happen:

President of the United States
My vote: Bob Barr (L)
My prediction: Barack Obama (D)

United States Senator
My vote: Bob Schaffer (R)
My prediction: Mark Udall (D)

United States Congress - District 1
My vote: Martin Buchanan (L)
My prediction: Diana DeGette (D)

State Board of Education - District 1
Only one person on ballot - I do not vote when there is no option. This ain't Cuba.

State Representative - District 9
My vote: James Landauer (R)
My prediction: Joe Miklosi (D)

District Attorney - 2nd Judicial District
Only one option - No vote.

District E Regional Transportation District Director
Only one option - No vote.

All Judicial Retention Votes
Since the judicial retention process is a rubber stamp in favor of retention, I voted against retention of every judge on the ballot.
My prediction: All judges will be retained.

Amendment 46
To end all racial and gender based preferences granted by the State of Colorado.
My vote: Yes.
My prediction: Yes.

Amendment 47
To make Colorado a "Right to Work" state thereby making closed union shops illegal.
My vote: Yes.
My prediction: No.

Amendment 48
To define "person" in the state constitution to include "any human being from the moment of fertilization."
My vote: No.
My prediction: No.

Amendment 49
To bar automatic dues deductions for private entities from state employees' paychecks. 
My vote: Yes.
My prediction: Yes.

Amendment 50
To allow Cripple Creek, Black Hawk and Central City to raise the betting limits from $5 to $100 and offer additional casino games and extended hours.
My vote: Yes.
My prediction: No.

Amendment 51
To raise sales taxes for the benefit of the developmentally disabled.
My vote: No.
My prediction: No.

Amendment 52
To change the allocation of existing oil and gas severance taxes away from the state "Department of Natural Resources" to fund state highway improvements.
My vote: Yes.
My prediction: Yes.

Amendment 54
To prohibit recipients of no-bid government contracts from making political donations during the term of the contract plus two years.
My vote: Yes.
My prediction: Yes.

Amendment 58
To raise taxes for the benefit of state college scholarships.
My vote: No.
My prediction: No.

Amendment 59
To amend TABOR to allow for tax increases to benefit public education.
My vote: No.
My prediction: No.

Referendum L
To lower the age requirement to serve in the Colorado General Assembly from 25 to 21.
My vote: Yes.
My prediction: Yes.

Referendum M
To repeal obselete constitutional provisions.
My vote: Yes.
My prediction: Yes.

Referendum N
To repeal different obsolete constitutional provisions.
My vote: Yes.
My prediction: Yes.

Referendum O
To make it more difficult for citizens to use the initiative process to change the state constitution and easier to change statutes.
My vote: No.
My prediction: No.

Denver Public Schools Ballot Question
To issue bonds for the benefit of the public schools.
My vote: No.
My prediction: Yes.

Will the Republicans learn anything from the massive defeat looming ahead?

From the Associated Press:

Barack Obama, gunning for a national landslide, now leads in four states won by President Bush in 2004 and is essentially tied with John McCain in two other Republican red states, according to new AP-GfK battleground polling.

The results help explain why the Democrat is pressing his money and manpower advantages in a slew of traditionally GOP states, hoping not just for a win but a transcendent victory that remakes the nation's political map. McCain is scrambling to defend states where he wouldn't even be campaigning if the race were closer.


This is what happens when the Republicans nominate a liberal.

They get their collective ass kicked. The Democrats are the liberal party. By nominating a liberal, the Republicans have made themselves irrelevant.

The only small government party in this country is the Libertarian Party.

If small government Republicans can not retake their party, the Republicans are going to join the Whigs in the historical dustbin.

An Obama presidency, combined with Democratic control of congress, is going to result in a tremendous economic setback for this country.

And it's largely the Republicans' fault for letting it happen. They failed to provide any real alternative. The only defense of McCain from even hardcore Republicans is that he's' "not as bad as Obama." That is insufficient.

The Libertarian Party is in a position to make massive gains in the aftermath of the impending economic debacle ahead.

The question is whether or not small government Republicans try to rebuild the rotting infrastructure within their crumbling party, or join the party that actually supports their limited government philosophy.

It is the same choice faced by those on a sinking ship with plenty of lifeboats. Go down with it, or jump the hell off a ship that no longer serves its intended purpose.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

It ain't kosher

"Small government Republicans" voting for McCain are akin to orthodox Jews ordering pork sausage for breakfast.

Hey, sausage ain't as bad as chitlins, so it's okay.

Monday, October 27, 2008

Boulder liberal Mark Udall kicking Bob Schaffer's ass in the polls.

This poll has Democratic senate candidate Udall with a 13 point lead. The national Republican party has pulled its money out of the state. They have given up and conceded the Senate seat to Udall.

Why is Schaffer doing so poorly? One reason is the direction taken by the Republican party.

The Republican presidential candidate does not help Schaffer. Usually, the presidential candidate can provide coat tails to fellow party members in state and local races.

Since McCain is almost as liberal as Obama (but not quite), all the coat tails go to the Democrats.

If you want to vote for a candidate that actual believes in smaller government, vote Bob Barr.

McCain is going to lose by 10% anyway. Send a message to the Republicans that unless they return to free market, small government policy, there is no need for them to exist. The Democrats have the market cornered on big government and market regulation.

Vote for liberty. Vote and join the Libertarian Party, or accept the mediocrity of McCain and tell the Republicans that it's okay to try a Socialist-lite strategy.

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Unholy Alliance: Labor Unions and the Denver Chamber of Commerce

Amendment 54 is a Colorado ballot initiative that would keep any organization and its principals that receive no-bid government contracts from donating to political campaigns. The complete text is here.

It makes it harder to get rich via government corruption. It prohibits a company that receives a no-bid government contract from paying off the politicans that gave the contract in the first place. One might think this kind of quid pro quo would already be illegal. It is not.

Why do the unions oppose it?

Tom Lucero explains:

Amendment 54 does define EXCLUSIVE collective bargaining agreements as a NO-BID government contract. What does that mean for the unions? It means that union PACs are prohibited from giving to candidates and political parties. Individual union
members can still contribute to the campaigns of their choice. The unions can still sit
at the table with governmental agencies to negotiate their contracts.

Why is the Denver Chamber against it?

Well, the Denver Chamber sold its proverbial soul. The Denver Chamber worked out a deal with the unions. The unions agreed to pull four anti-business inititiatives from the ballot in exchange for a $3 million payoff from the Chamber and an agreement to help defeat, among other initiatives, Amendment 54.

Quid pro quo, in deed.

The Chamber is having trouble raising the money it promised. An excerpt from an email sent to "Colorado Concern" members explains:

Many of you have already made a contribution to support Colorado Businesses for Sensible Solutions (CBSS), the newly formed coalition that was instrumental in removing the four labor-sponsored ballot initiatives (Amendments 53, 55, 56 and 57).  We appreciate your support, and collectively, we have come a long way in a short amount of time on the fundraising commitment of $3 million - but we urgently need your financial support to ensure we meet our obligation. 
 
Accordingly, we are asking every one of you to make a minimum contribution of $10,000 or as much as $100,000 – corporate or individual funds – by noon on Friday, October 24.  Funds can be wired to the CBSS account (details attached) or checks can be couriered to Janice Sinden at the Colorado Concern office (140 East 19th Avenue, Suite 400, Denver, CO  80203 – Phone:  303.241.6607).
 
The campaign has refocused its attention and is now solely working to defeat Amendment 54.
Amendment 54 would prohibit entities that have a no-bid contract with any public entity from making a campaign contribution has a slight advantage in the polls.  This amendment would have devastating impacts on both the business community as well as the nonprofit sector and therefore your financial support is urgently needed.  For more information on Amendment 54 please read the information below which is followed by an editorial from The Denver Post advocating the defeat of this poorly crafted and potentially devastating amendment.
 
BACKGROUND:
 
Amendment 54 - Constitutional
Campaign Contributions for Certain Government Contractors
Amendment 54 is focused on stopping entities that have a no-bid contract with any public entity from making campaign contributions to political parties, candidates and ballot campaigns.
 
Why oppose Amendment 54?
The proposal has First Amendment ramifications by politically silencing businesses that have a sole-source contract with a public entity.  Additionally, the nonprofit sector is adversely affected as they may have sole-source contracts, such as the provisions for health care and social services.  Rural Colorado is also impacted, as in some our state's smaller communities there are limited numbers of businesses that are able/equipped to bid on public contracts, making a sole-source award more common.


Lucero sent a follow up message to the same recipients. It says, in part:

Bottom line, we find it ironic that these same organizations that supported
Amendment 27, the Fair Campaign Finance Act in 2004, which prohibited corporate
contributions, are unwilling to support Amendment 54. Is it fair to restrict
corporate giving but not give those same restrictions to unions? We think not!

The fact is, we can pinpoint close to $1 billion in no-bid contracts in Colorado. If the
University of Colorado, with it’s $2.4 billion enterprise can competitively bid all its
contracts then so too can all governmental agencies. We believe the actual number
is much higher than $1 billion. And we also believe that in this day and age when
Coloradans are worried about making mortgage payments, the least government
can do is competitively bid state contracts and receive the best price for services
rendered.

Regarding public utilities, they are excluded because of their Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity (CPCN). Amendment 54 does not affect them at all!
The bottom line: when government competitively bids contracts taxpayers AND the
business community are the real winners.

Final thoughts:

1. The fundraising calls you are receiving are coming from the labor
organization, SEIU – someone has shared your membership list with the
unions.

2. We believe that donating to a 501(c)3 for the stated purpose of
electioneering is illegal and may put you and your organization in jeopardy of
running afoul with the IRS.

3. We have been battling the lies and distortions from the unions for the last
four months, if you have any questions about Amendment 54, please pick-up
the phone and call me at (303) 403-2529.

Respectfully yours,

Tom Lucero

P.S. Please use the link below to watch a recent CSPAN debate. This debate features
the arguments presented by our union opponents and me – click on the flash player
to the right of the screen to watch the debate.






Friday, October 24, 2008

Hard to argue with Reason

Reason senior editor Radley Balko wrote a column titled

Why the Republicans Must Lose

Nothing short of defeat will put the GOP back on its limited government track


He notes

The Republican Party has exiled its Goldwater-Reagan wing and given up all pretense of any allegiance to limited government. In the last eight years, the GOP has given us a monstrous new federal bureaucracy in the Department of Homeland Security. In the prescription drug benefit, it's given us the largest new federal entitlement since the Johnson administration. Federal spending—even on items not related to war or national security—has soared. And we now get to watch as the party that's supposed to be "free market" nationalizes huge chunks of the economy's financial sector.

Read the whole thing here.

Calling a shovel a shovel.

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly.
-Wikipedia.

Sounds like Obama and McCain.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

A Real Choice

Don't support the idiocy of the two party system.

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Howard Roark and Barack Obama

My friend Wesley Dickinson, over at Peoples Press Collective, has an excellent comparison between the words of Ayn Rand in The Fountainhead and Barack Obama.

Check it out.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Bob Barr back in Denver this Friday.

Bob will speak and take questions at the South Metro Denver Chamber of Commerce at 1:00.

At 3:00, he'll do the same at Denver University's Lindsey Auditorium, in Sturm Hall. This event is open to the public.

Then he'll mingle with one and all in the Rox Room at Lodo's Bar and Grill at 1946 Market Street from 6-8. Grab a beer and some wings with the only presidential candidate that actually believes in smaller government, free markets and personal liberty.
An action shot of Bob at work against the socialization of failed private businesses. Unlike Obama and McCain who are in favor of such government action.

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

LIberty Alert: Election Edition.

For a better formatted version of this post, go here.

Libertarians are running for office throughout the state, and, of course, for President. 

Some updates and information:

*PRESIDENTIAL RACE*

Bob Barr is back in town this Friday, October 17.  

First, Bob will be speaking and taking questions at the South Metro Denver Chamber of Commerce from 1:00-2:00 p.m. The Chamber is located at 6840 S University BlvdCentennial, CO. RSVP to BSayyah@bestchamber.com 

Second, Bob will speak and take questions at Denver University from 3:00-4:00
p.m. The event will take place at Lindsey Auditorium in Sturm Hall, 2000 E Asbury Ave, Denver, CO. No RSVP necessary.

All party members and liberty lovers are invited to attend both events. We hope to see you there.

Third, ANOTHER CHANCE TO MEET BOB IN PERSON.

Come out and shake hands with Bob!

Location: Lodos Bar and Grill, 1946 Market Street, Denver, CO

In the Rox Room

From 6:00- 8:00 p.m.

This is an informal event. Grab a beer, have some wings, and talk with the only presidential candidate that actually believes in things called liberty, freedom and small government. No RSVP necessary.

Also note: The Colorado for Bob Barr meetup group is at Lodos every Thursday night at 6:30 until election day. Look for us on the roof top patio, unless its snowing or something.

*U.S. CONGRESSIONAL RACE*

Martin Buchanan is running for the 1st Congressional seat. His website is here: http://www.buchananforcongress.org/


*STATEWIDE RACES*

Jim Frye is running for State House in the 42nd district. His website: http://fryefor42.com/

Jack Woer is running for State House in the 25th district. http://www.well.com/~jax/2008/

Ken Wyble is on the ballot for State Senate in the 28th district. http://kenwyble.com/

*COUNTY OFFICES*

We have three Libertarians running for Commissioner in Boulder.

They are:

Commissioner - District 1   Ralph Shnelvar Candidate Website

Commissioner - District 2   Bo Shafer        Candidate Website

Commissioner - District 3   Randy Luallen     Candidate Website

 

*STATEWIDE BALLOT INITIATIVES and REFERENDA* 

There are currently 14 on the ballot. The LP Colorado Board of Directors makes the following recommendations on each. (Four of the initiatives – 53, 55, 56 and 57 -  have
recently been removed from the ballot and are not listed here.) The BoD also recently changed recommendations on 47 and 54. The current recommendations are listed here.


TITLE

SUBJECT

SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION

LPCO
SAYS

EXPLANATION

Referendum


L 

Candidate age limits

If
passed, this would lower the age of a candidate for the
Colorado House and Senate from 25 to 21.

YES

If you can get the votes,
age is
irrelevant.

Referendum


M

Obsolete
constitutional provisions

If passed, this
would eliminate obsolete provisions in the
state constitution about land value increases.

YES

Nothing substantive changed by eliminating these obsolete
provisions.

Referendum


N

Obsolete
constitutional provisions

If passed, this
would eliminate obsolete provisions in the
constitution about intoxicating liquor.

YES

Nothing substantive changed by eliminating these obsolete
provisions.

Referendum


O

Initiative process

If
passed, this would make it harder for citizens to place
constitutional amendments on the ballot for voter approval, but make it
easier for citizens to place state statutes on the ballot. It also
provides
protection against the state legislature from amending statutes passed
through the initiative process.

NO

The LPCO fully supports the citizen initiative process.
Since this Referendum makes it harder for citizens to place Constitutional
Amendments on the ballot we oppose it.

Amendment


46

Affirmative
action

If passed, this would prohibit the
state from
discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to any
individual
or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin
in
the operation of public employment, public education, or public
contracting.

YES

The government should not give preferential treatment to
any group.

Amendment


47

Right
to work

If passed, this would prohibit
unions and employers from
negotiating "union shop" contracts under which employees would be
required to pay union membership or "agency" fees as a condition of
continued employment.

NO

The LPCO apposes this Ammendment, in order to be in
accord
with the State Platform.

Amendment


48

Definition of
"person" and abortion

If passed, this
would change the definition of 'person' in
the Colorado Constitution to include any fertilized egg, embryo or
fetus.

NO

While the LPCO takes no official position on
abortion,
this proposed constitutional amendment would have far reaching
implications
and unintended consequences throughout the entire state
constitution.

Amendment


49

Public
payroll deductions

If passed, this would
bar automatic dues deductions for
private enterprises, including unions, from public employee
payrolls.

YES

The government (at taxpayer expense) should not act as
collector, bundler and distributor of dues for any private
organization.

Amendment


50

Casino
gambling

If passed, this would allow the
general assembly or voters
in the cities that permit limited gaming to extend the hours of limited
gaming operations; to add roulette, craps, or both to the allowed games;
and
to increase the maximum bet up to $100.

YES

The government has no business telling people what they
can do with their own money. If people want to gamble, it is not the
government's business.

Amendment


51

Sales tax for
the development-tally disabled

If passed,
this would increase the sales tax, in July 2009
and again in July 2010, to fund services for the developmentally
disabled.

NO

While this is an admirable cause, it is best
addressed via
private charity and not taxation.

Amendment


52

Severance tax
and transportation

If passed, this would
create the Colorado Transportation
Trust Fund, to be funded by that portion of the severance tax that exceeds
the amount deposited to the state severance tax fund in the previous year,
adjusted for inflation via the Consumer Price Index

NONE

Since this
amendment does not raise taxes, it only changes
how existing taxes are spent, the LPCO takes no position.

Amendment


54

Government
contracting reform

If passed, this would
prohibit those benefitting from
no-bid government contracts valued at more than $100,000 a year from
contributing to political causes for the duration of the contract plus two
years.

YES

This amendment would limit Government overreach by
banning
the practice of "Pay to Play", and help to limit Government
spending, insist on Government accountability &
transparency.

Amendment



58

Taxes

If passed, this
would eliminate a tax credit for property
taxes paid for payers of the severance tax, using the revenue primarily to
fund college scholarships.

NO

This amendment unnecessarily raises taxes for a cause
better suited for private charitable contributions.

Amendment



59

Education
funding

If passed, this would create a
state education fund
savings account within the state education fund, to be funded from 10% of
the
monies deposited into the state education fund, including revenue that
would
otherwise be rebated under the TABOR rules,
would also require that state educational spending increase by rate of
inflation plus 1% through fiscal year 2010-2011; and restricts spending of
the state education fund to specific education expenses.

NO

This amendment would eviscerate
TABOR.

 *ELECTION NIGHT FESTIVITIES*

Watch the returns come in Tuesday night, November 4, at Woody's Wood-Fired Tavern, with fellow liberty lovers.

Woody's is at 7095 East Evans Ave, Denver, CO 80224.

The Libertarian Party of Arapahoe County and the Frye for 42 campaign will pay for a pizza buffet, so don't miss it!

The festivities will start about 6:30. See you there.

*And one to grow on AFTER the election:*

Save the Date!

Marijuana Reform Seminar

& Activist Boot
Camp

Presented by

SAFER &
Sensible Colorado

November 15, 2008 at Regis University from 9am-5pm

 Plans are now
underway for a historic statewide Marijuana Reform Seminar and Activist
Boot Camp that will provide participants with detailed training
sessions and the materials they will need to get active in their areas and
start working toward changing marijuana laws in Colorado. The event
will address a variety of subjects, including:

• The state of marijuana laws and policies in Colorado

• Messaging, framing the debate, and
spreading the word

• Building support in your area and among
specific communities

• Lobbying and relationship-building with
local and state officials

Libertarians and others against the drug war are invited.

Wednesday, October 08, 2008

Without apology.

I believe in freedom. Without apology.

Taxes encroach on freedom.

State power encroaches on freedom.

I am not an absolutist. I am not an ideologue. I am not an anarchist.

I believe that taxes and the state are necessary.

Yet so is water. Too much of it, and you drown. You die.

Taxation and state power have grown far beyond any legitimate usefulness they might have. Our society is drowning in both. We have given ourselves a fire hose when all we need is a Dixie Cup.

The United States government is the single largest employer in the country. This is obscene.

The government produces nothing of value. Nothing. Why are so many people necessary to produce nothing of value? They are not.

They are wasteful. Would that it were that was all. But they are worse than wasteful. They prevent actual production of value. The government makes it harder for people that wish to produce to do so.

Unreasonable licenses, fees, regulation, red tape and bureaucracy make it so.

Without the production of value, there are no jobs. There is no food. There is no shelter. People produce these things. Government does not.

Indeed, oftentimes people form corporations to produce things. Yet corporations are nothing. They are legal fiction. Corporations are nothing but the individuals that comprise them.

True, government is nothing but people that comprise it. The difference is that people are free to purchase things from the people in a corporation or not, yet people are forcibly coerced into giving money to the government.

To some, this government coercion is fine. To me, it is not.

I make no apology for being anti-government.

I am tired of being criticized for lacking compassion because I am against the government and against the forcible confiscation of people’s money. It is not the government’s job to provide compassion.

It is mine. It is yours.

By sloughing off the responsibility of “compassion” over to the government, some are relieved of the moral burden of being compassionate themselves.

If they vote in favor of government force to take other people’s money to help the needy, they are compassionate. They care. At least that is the fiction under which these misguided people operate. It is so much easier to believe in fiction than reality.

It is not compassionate to take someone else’s money for a cause, no matter how worthy. It is compassionate to voluntarily give money to a cause in which one believes.

Some say charity will never be sufficient to provide for all the worthy causes. That government taxation is necessary to provide for all of these worthy causes. I say these people’s definition of “worthy cause” is overly broad.

If people do not wish to give money to a cause, the cause is not worthy to that person. It is immoral to force that person to give anyway, because government deems it necessary.

It is so much easier to force others to donate than to ask nicely. If one has to ask, then the answer might be “no.”

The faux-compassionate, pro-government faction can not stand for that. They deem themselves too compassionate to give others that freedom.

I am anti-government. I am anti-tax. I am pro-freedom. I am pro-liberty.

And I make no apologies.

The McCain nightmare gets worse and worse




via My Way News - McCain would buy bad homeowner mortgages.




Just when you think McCain's socialist economic policies have found their limit, he proposes additional nationalization of the economy. To wit:



WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican presidential candidate John McCain is proposing a $300 billion program for the federal government to buy up bad home mortgages and allow homeowners to keep their houses.


McCain said: "Until we stabilize home values in America, we're never going to start turning around and creating jobs and fixing our economy and we've got to get some trust and confidence back to America."


In an unusual step, McCain announced the plan during Tuesday's debate. He said that as president he would direct the federal government to purchase mortgages directly from homeowners and mortgage providers. The loans would be replaced with fixed-rate mortgages, ostensibly at a loss to the government.


"Is it expensive? Yes," McCain said.


It's also a joke.


How Republicans can even pretend they believe in free markets without bursting out laughing takes a tremendous amount of self-control.


Reject the systemic idiocy of the two party system.


If you really want socialization, vote for Nader or McKinney.


If you really want free markets and liberty, vote Barr.


But don't buy the load of crap McCain is selling. If Barry Goldwater were alive, he'd personally be kicking McCain's ass out of that Senate seat Barry held for so long.


A vote for Obama/McCain is jus a vote for the continued socialization of America.


And I'm tired of hearing that McCain is "better" than Obama. A broken nose is better than a broken jaw, and I refuse to accept either one without a fight.

Monday, October 06, 2008

The credit crisis was not due to lax regulation

People's willingness to believe in the power of regulation over the free market is amazing. Perusing a listserv, I came across this snippet of economic illiteracy:

"Much of this was the result of lax regulations on financial insitutions which allowed them to make these risky loans in the first place, thus encouraging the overspending and under savings, encouraging individuals to purchases houses that are well beyond their means and thus drving up the housing costs, which of course in turn encouraged more investment in the housing."

I see this position advocated all over the media, and it is demonstrably incorrect.

Lax regulations were not the problem. The government actively encouraged loose credit to home buyers via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, leading to bad loans, defaults and the current situation.

If the free market had been left alone, the ridiculous number of bad loans would not have been made. Bad loans result in losing money. The free market hates that. Government doesn't. Fannie and Freddie, and their investors, knew that any losses they incurred would be backed by the federal government.

And voila, they were right.

The free market doesn't nationalize losses of private businesses, and it doesn't encourage bad loans.

The federal government does both.


Colbert vs. South Park Change



Hillary says she is "running on 35 years of change." If it's taken you that long and you are still trying to effectuate change, I think you have failed.

Libertarian Party Bailout Ad

Friday, October 03, 2008

Bailout? More like a buffet.


The New York Post points out some of the pork in the bailout bill passed by the Senate.

The special provisions include tax breaks for:

* Manufacturers of kids' wooden arrows - $6 million.

* Puerto Rican and Virgin Islands rum producers - $192 million.

* Wool research.

* Auto-racing tracks - $128 million.

* Corporations operating in American Samoa - $33 million.

* Small- to medium-budget film and television productions - $10 million.


It's not the politicans' fault.

It's our fault, the people that vote. We not not only allow this, but we insist upon it.

We reward politicians that bring home the bacon. Don't point the finger at Capitol Hill. Point it at yourself.

Republicans and Democrats give us what we ask for: Other people's money. If anyone thinks McCain is going to curtail the freebies at taxpayer expense, you are kidding yourself. The only defense Republicans have for McCain is that he isn't as bad as Obama.

And a broken nose isn't as bad as a broken jaw.

We have to get over the idea that we are only given two choices. The Constitution does not mandate a two party system. If you accept two bad choices, you facilitate the problem.

You are the problem.

Enjoy your free lunch.

Thursday, October 02, 2008

The Debates

I have read about a mythical time when the Republicans believed in limited government and free markets.

Listening to Obama/Biden debate McCain/Palin is like listening to Lenin debate Trotsky.

It's like each camp is trying to one-up the other on who will regulate the "greed and corruption" of Wall Street and oil companies the most.

I think Ralph Nader is concerned the Republicans are going to start taking votes from him.

My brother Walter is brilliant

Renowned economist and all around smart guy, Walter E. Williams, recently wrote:

Americans demand that Congress spend trillions of dollars on farm subsidies, business bailouts, education subsidies, Social Security, Medicare and prescription drugs and other elements of a welfare state. The problem is that Congress produces nothing. Whatever Congress wishes to give, it has to first take other people's money. Thus, at the root of the welfare state is the immorality of intimidation, threats and coercion backed up with the threat of violence by the agents of the U.S. Congress. In order for Congress to do what some Americans deem as good, it must first do evil. It must do that which if done privately would mean a jail sentence; namely, take the property of one American to give to another.


Read the entire article.

Leaked Democratic memo calls democratic voters "idiots"

Face the Sate broke this story.

Here is the link to the document. Look on page two, in the first column, fifth row. The democrats seek to "Educate the Idiots" by targeting "minorities, GED's, drop-outs..."

I think this says all you need to know about how the Dems feel about "the people." "The people" are "idiots" that need to be told what to do by their intellectual superiors.

Of course, the Republicans feel the same way, but are too smart to put it in a memo.

Wednesday, October 01, 2008

More on the proposed federal bailout

Check out this Republican Senator's comments in a Bloomberg.com article:

``Over $1 trillion worth of market value was wiped off the books by the stock market drop,'' said Senator Robert Bennett, a Utah Republican. ``It is ordinary people looking at ordinary pensions, with their ordinary Main Street kind of 401(k) plans, who lost that $1 trillion. And they lost it in a matter of minutes.''


That "$1 trillion worth of market value was wiped off the books" because the assets were overpriced, by say, about $1 trillion.

Of course, a lot of that "market value" has bounced back since Bennett's hysterical pronouncement.

Bennett would have long term economic policy based on "a matter of minutes" on the stock market. That is exactly the kind of over-reaction that politicians are famous for.

Calm down, Senator Bennett. Take a deep breath. We are in this for the long term. And the government buying valueless assets to prop up the market value of private companies that bought them in the first place will only prolong the agony.