In Montgomery County’s (Mo Co) (MD) 2010 Election, I wrote in my friends for these positions:

• Sheriff: Tony Escobar
• County Councilmember At Large: Bill Gallagher
• Board of Education: Gary Coulter

I trust few others and not Councilmembers Phil Andrews or Nancy Floreen to protect our liberty, which the Founders understood in part as freedom and relaxation of re[s]traint (with “freedom” being exemption from [s]ervitude; independence).[i]

Unfortunately Mo Co government, one of America’s biggest local governments,[ii] opposes liberty.  If you’re in Rockville, the county’s seat, officials force you to live near metro stations or in the Town Center (there’s “a need for the Town Center to serve as the heart of the community”), fund art for public areas (“A community is judged by its appearance”), and subsidize bike riding by others.[iii]  Want to buy land in Mo Co?  Good luck: As of 2010, Mo Co government owns or has preserved 41% of county land. If you’re a home owner, would you like a new shed or fence?  Get a permit.  Want to sell hotdogs as a sidewalk vendor?  Get a license, and remember you can’t sell within 20 feet of sidewalk cafes and your signs’ font size can’t exceed two inches.  Please remember: Whatever you do in Mo Co, don’t open lemonade stands for charity!

To get a wee-taste of liberty, especially on a grander scale than the liberty violations I note above, I wish Mo Co officials would read Dr. Milton Friedman’s classic Capitalism and Freedom (1962).  To have “Government in a Free Society,” Milton called for abolishment of such government activities and laws as follows (Rated R for Mo Co officials):

1. Parity price support programs for agriculture
2. Tariffs on imports or restrictions on exports, such as oil imports quotas, sugar quotas, etc.
3. Control of output, such as through the farm program or portioning of oil
4. Rent control, such as is still practiced in New York, or more general price and wage controls as imposed during and just after World War II
5. Minimum wage rates or legal maximum prices
6. Detailed regulation of industries, such as the regulation of transportation
7. Control of radio and television [and the Internet] by the Federal Communications Commission (implicit censorship and violation of free speech)
8. Social Security programs
9. Licensure provisions that restrict particular enterprises, occupations, or professions to people who have a license
10.  So-called “public housing”
11.  Conscription to military service in peacetime
12.  Establishment and maintenance of parks
13.  Prohibition of mail carrying for profit
14.  Ownership and operation of roads
15.  This list is far from comprehensive

Many folks suggest that abolishment of such laws as minimum wages, rent control, and Social Security (SS)[iv] will hurt lower-income folks, but I assert the following realities, which make lower-income folks worse off:

1. In general, employers hire fewer workers with minimum wages than employers would otherwise (good luck getting a job) (As an employer, why pay more money per laborer than his/her labor is worth?)
2. Among other bad effects, lucky folks already living in rent-controlled apartments stay in their apartments (good luck finding a place)
3. SS doesn’t give taxpayers good returns on their money: As with other taxes, taxpayers’ SS taxes (for most folks, 6.2% of wages in 2011) could instead fund an array of retirement funds, goods, services, or charitable causes that taxpayers choose (good luck optimizing your investments, purchases, and donations)

Oh, Mo Co government! How could thou support liberty? Shrink, Leviathan!  There’re numerous starting points, but how about legalizing lemonade stands, privatizing your 41% of county land, and abolishing the Department of Permitting Services?  To continue thou shrink for liberty, shed the following departments:

• Economic Development
• Housing Opportunities Commission[v]
• Housing and Community Affairs
• Recreation
• Transportation

I’ll leave it there for now: Leviathan, you’ve enough shrinking pills to digest.  You want to grow—I hear your roar.  But “Easy, big fella!”  I’ll help you by voting for more Escobars, Gallaghers, and Coulters!

“Now you are Christ’s body, and individually parts of it” (1 Cor 12:27)

Liberal Catholics, ya’ll may’ve some disconnects with conservative or libertarian Catholics and vice versa.  As a conservative/libertarian Catholic, I hope to connect some wires but argue for small government by discussing spiritual and corporal works of mercy, our Church’s keys to loving our neighbors as ourselves (listed below).  Of course, works of mercy are only part of the Church’s teachings on love and social action but determine many Catholics’ political beliefs.

Our Church teaches us it’s individuals and not bureaucracies, political parties, or government-funded orgs who can enter Heaven or Purgatory.  The most important works of mercy are the seven spiritual works, three of which are counseling of the doubtful, bearing of wrongs patiently, and comforting of the afflicted.  After spiritual works in importance are the seven corporal works, such as feeding of the hungry, clothing of the naked, and visitation of the sick.  We must remember our souls are greater than our bodies, but help of the poor is very important as four of seven (60%) corporal works encourage help of the poor.[i]

The U.S. and other governments fund many corporal and few spiritual works, such as sheltering of the homeless, providing of meals on wheels, and comforting of assault victims.  However, legislatures pay bureaucrats for these works, zapping the works of meaning.  Also, votes for somebody else to do works of mercy aren’t works of mercy.

It’s interesting to contemplate what other actions besides votes aren’t works of mercy, such as providing of contraceptives or abortifacients to thy neighbor, providing of immoral “sex ed” to thy neighbor’s child(ren), conscription of thy neighbor into war, and rationing of thy neighbor’s medical care.  By having small government in general and paying fewer dollars in taxes than we do now, we individuals could spend more money and time doing such actual works of mercy, especially spiritual works, as the following:

• Reach-outs to those we’ve hurt or who’ve hurt us
• Discussions/hang-outs with atheist buddies (beer)
• Visitations of an elderly grandma(s)/grandpa(s)

We may also need more prayers, courage, and strength to do more works of mercy, but we seek Heaven!

-Dan Smyth

Recommended reading: MESSAGE OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI FOR LENT 2012

Last weekend in homilies across America, Catholic priests lambasted the new Health and Human Services (HHS) regulation mandating Catholic and other religious institutions fund insurance coverage of abortifacients, sterilizations, and contraceptives…

Click here to read my article published on American Thinker…

With 2012’s March for Life in DC approaching on January 23^rd, I ask: Will many of my libertarian friends be there?  A recent Cato Institute study says only 37% of libertarians are pro-life (versus 31% of Democrats, 45% of independents, and 68% of Republicans). I know many libertarians believe the impossible claim unborn babies are parts of their mothers’ bodies (from the moment of conception, unborn babies are genetically unique), and I share libertarians’ distaste for most government interventions in society. However, I believe two libertarian principles command that libertarians oppose all abortions.

For one, no unborn babies agree to abortion, violating libertarianism’s principle that individuals’ decisions about their lives should be voluntary. Of course, it’d be impossible for abortionists to ask eight- or nine-weekers to “Sign here,” but this absurdity’s the point. If unborn babies’ lives become unbearable after birth, these unborn babies could unfortunately commit suicide.  The U.S. Libertarian Party’s platform says, “People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives…for the benefit of others[,]” including mothers.

Also, abortions can adversely affect others besides the consenting mothers[1] and aborted babies, infringing “the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.”  Abortions often result in health problems for the mothers’ future children. As the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists’s The Care of Women Requesting Induced Abortion (2004) documents, relative to children of mothers who’ve never received an abortion, children of mothers who’ve received an abortion(s) are about twice as likely to die in utero and have low birth weights and up to three times as likely to have premature births. As another adverse effect to others, abortions (aside from rape cases) violate fathers’ natural right to be fathers.

While violating these libertarian principles dealing with voluntary decisions and adverse effects to others, abortions destroy unborn babies’ liberty: In the womb, unborn babies kick, yawn, play with their noses, smile, learn languages, recognize their mothers’ voices, and if twins, play pushing games. C’mon, libertarians! Ya’ll should be pro-life and are welcome at 2012’s March for Life.

What does “the press” mean in the First Amendment’s guarantee “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of…the press”? The Mainstream Media or collection of reputable Internet, print, TV, and radio journalists, right? Bloggers, too…

Click here to read my article published on American Thinker…

A Reflection on 2011:

In Spring 2011, liberals attacked Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) “Roadmap for America’s Future,” which would cut government spending by trillions of dollars over 10 years, as “a sick joke,” “dangerous to kids’ health,” and risking “the poor, sick, and elderly.”  Ryan’s plan would, among other reforms, repeal ObamaCare and cut billions from Medicare and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Conservatives and libertarians have correctly defended Ryan’s plan as more fiscally responsible than President Obama’s big budget proposal and necessary to balance the budget.  However, according to Gallup only 43% of U.S. adults between April 20-23, 2011, preferred Ryan’s plan to Obama’s big budget proposal.  Clearly, then, conservatives and libertarians must better defend Ryan’s plan and, in general, social spending cuts.  As economist Thomas Sowell has noted: “…Republicans are so painfully lacking…the ability and the willingness to articulate…positions clearly, forcefully[,] and in plain English.”

How could conservatives and libertarians better defend social spending cuts without seeming “dangerous to kids’ health”? If I was a politician, I’d start this defense saying I support the following charitable causes:

• The spreading of pro-life ideas
• My church’s activities
• The providing of relief to Sudanese

Then, I’d say I know each citizen has his or her own pet cause(s) among the world’s tens of thousands of worthy charitable causes. Perhaps one gives to American Red Cross or helps 9/11 victims or Bosnian orphans. Heck, maybe one just donates to his or her place of worship.

I’d go on: Through taxation and other methods, liberal officials want to force individuals to financially support, in social spending’s name, officials’ politically-advantageous pet causes, such as providing of health insurance to U.S. voters, prevention of U.S. voters’ home foreclosures, and handing of welfare checks to U.S voters. I would stress that many officials even sneer at regular Americans’ causes, such as Christian outreach, filling of church collection baskets, and support of private orgs that promote abstinence-only sex education.

I’d suggest it’s clear: The more government officials engage in social spending, the smaller are regular Americans’ financial donations to their causes and the fewer are the world’s tens of thousands of charitable causes that get financial support. For instance, according to scholar Arthur Brooks, individuals give up to 50 fewer cents to charitable causes per one dollar the government gives favored non-profit orgs.

I’d conclude: Are social spending cuts mean-spirited? Perhaps only to politicians’ politically-advantageous pet causes, which include Planned Parenthood and, in some circles, ACORN. By cutting social spending by government, I’m supporting all Americans’ pet causes. Keep choosing your causes!