Maryland Libertarians

Libertarians to Bernanke: You're wrong

2011-10-20T08:00:00.000-04:00

WASHINGTON - Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle issued the following statement today:
"Associated Press reports today that Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke is telling Congress they must not cut federal spending sharply. Chairman Bernanke, you're wrong.

"The federal government is currently spending somewhere around 24% of America's total economic output -- even more if you ignore the government's accounting gimmick of 'offsetting receipts.'

"That's far, far too high. 24% of our economy has been displaced out of the productive private sector into the unproductive government sector. The best thing Congress could do right now is to cut spending sharply. That would be good for both our short-term and long-term economic health.

"Chairman Bernanke does not have a fantastic track record. Under his watch, unemployment has increased dramatically, the Fed has more than tripled the money supply, and inflation is rising.

"Chairman Bernanke, I suggest that you read Frederic Bastiat's excellent essay 'What is seen and what is not seen.' I think it would help you reconsider your devotion to Keynesian economics and broken-window fallacies. Government doesn't create economic activity. The American people do."
For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP Executive Director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222.

The LP is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets, civil liberties, and peace. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at our website.

###

ROOT: Raising Cain 9-9-9 was good ante. Let’s try 0-15-0.

2011-10-19T19:53:00.000-04:00

Wayne Allen Root takes Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan to the next level in his editorial to the Washington Times.

The Looting of America

2011-10-07T08:00:00.000-04:00

Throughout her history, the political discussion in America has encompassed a very wide range of issues. In the last two or three years, however, the discussion has focused on one thing-money. Whether its the economy, taxes, debt, spending, waste or corruption, it all comes back to money. One of the primary reasons for this is the unheard of scale of the spending and on what that money is being spent. Waste measured in millions was bad enough. Now the graft, corruption, kickbacks and favors are measured in hundreds of billions or even trillions. We have allowed government to grow so large that the accompanying corruption has become too big to ignore.

There are two seemingly unrelated stories that illustrate not only the corruption but the reasons for it. The first is the case of Solyndra. The basics of this case are as follows. Solyndra was a solar panel manufacturer hyped by the President as part of his “green energy” initiative that declared bankruptcy earlier this month. Normally, this wouldn’t have attracted attention beyond Wall Street but in this case, there was half a billion dollars of taxpayer money involved. Money that is now gone. Your money. Five hundred million dollars doesn’t sound like much when we are accustomed to a government in which only amounts over one hundred billion count as real money. However, what if you, personally, were on the hook for it? How long would it take you to come up with half a billion dollars? For the vast, vast majority of us-never. For an individual in America, a worth of half a billion dollars puts one in the rarefied atmosphere of the “super-rich”. In most cases, we would have to confiscate the money from all the citizens of whole towns to come up with that kind of money. Howerver, because it is spread out among all of us, it “only” amounts to about $1.65 for every man, woman and child in America. $1.65 of your money up in smoke. Take a dollar out of your wallet and burn it, throw the change down the sewer. Gone. (In case that doesn’t get your dander up, “what’s a buck sixty and change?” your personal share of the first stimulus slush fund is over $2300. Still want to stand there with your wallet and a lighter burning hundred dollar bills?)

Where did it go? Ahh, that is the real rub. The whole thing was a scam to begin with. No businessman worthy of the name (unless they graduated from Harvard with the president) would look at a business model that manufactured an item for $6 and sold it for $3 as viable. It is, however, just the sort of thing those brainwashed in government ideology would consider brilliant. So a bunch of con men went to the administration, contributed the “pay to play” fee, capitalized on their fanatic ideological adherence to Al Gore’s hoax, and walked away with half a billion dollars of our hard earned money. They looted the treasury. Just like GE, GM, the unions, ACORN, Planned Parenthood, and thousands of other businesses and organizations with personal or ideological connections. Political contributions that ensure reelection paid back with taxpayer dollars.

What makes Solyndra today’s poster child for corruption is the amount and the way it was publicized personally by the president. That has people screaming for blood but I can practically guarantee that nothing is going to come of it. The FBI raided the offices, carted away all the evidence and Eric Holder will make sure it is never seen again. The executives called to testify but will say nothing. No one’s going to jail, the money will never be recovered and soon there will be other things to worry about. That is the way it works.

The second story is the “Fast and Furious” or “Gun Walker” scandal. In a nutshell, this was supposedly a “sting” run by ATF in which gun dealers in border states were pressured to allow the purchase of guns by criminals who would take them back to Mexico for the purpose of catching the gun dealers. This proceeded over the objections of the dealers and ATF enforcement personnel until the guns started showing up at the murder scenes of border patrol agents and others.

The real reason for this was to create the illusion that lax American gun laws were responsible for the violence along the border. It is an ideological outcome pushed by a president and administration that is rabidly anti-gun. What does this have to do with money? There is only one thing government looters fear and that is insurrection and insurrection is only effective with an armed populace, for an unarmed populace can be looted and enslaved with impunity. The administration has already imposed greater restrictions on border state gun dealers as a result of this episode even though it was their policies that caused the violence. The whole scandal was an attempt to justify greater restrictions on our right to “keep and bear arms.” The looters know that when the exercise of our first amendment rights to protest the theft of our hard earned money is routinely ignored, the exercise of our second amendment rights to “throw off such Government, and provide new Guards for their future security” remains our last resort, fallback position.

So what can we do? .We need to change our attitude about the purpose of government. Most Americans now believe the purpose of government is to meet individual needs and it does this by taking from one citizen and giving to another. For the vast majority of Americas this means they receive a pittance in welfare, health benefits, pensions, FHA loans or educational assistance. These benefits are measured in the tens of thousands of dollars at most. For a select few, the benefits of this redistribution are measured in millions or billions. That may anger those who receive little but the inequitable redistribution of stolen property is incidental to the fact that it is the redistribution of stolen property! But the game will continue to be played as long as class warfare is effective as a political tactic and the looters can throw out enough pennies to keep us happy while they are getting rich from the treasury.

Not only does our attitude toward redistribution and the purpose of government need to change but our attitude toward government itself must change. Government is not a beneficent entity populated by do-gooders with our best interests in mind. It is, at best, a “necessary evil” with a monopoly on physical coercion and staffed by thieves and con men. There are two reasons corruption is so rampant in government; endemic, in fact. Number one is the obvious. Government has a monopoly on the use of force to uphold the law. It is the politicians and, too often, bureaucrats, who decide what the laws are and how to apply them. They can, and often do, exempt themselves from laws that apply to the rest of us. They have inside information we are not privy to that enables them to make fortunes or protect themselves from loss. They are left to police themselves. Congress, for example, has its own ethics committee staffed by its own members who are loathe to punish one of their own because so many of them are guilty of similar offences. The congress is tasked with policing the presidency but regardless of how many laws he may break, how he endangers national security, how many people are killed, or if he impoverishes the nation while driving it into bankruptcy, if congress lacks the courage or political will to remove him, he can continue to do what may be irreparable harm to the country they are all supposed to be serving.

What makes it even worse is the very size of the government; federal, state and increasingly, local. As the

Solyndra scandal is proving, finding someone on whom to affix blame is nearly impossible. If everyone engages in CYA it is rare to find an exposed butt to nail. And on the off chance there is, it is usually some low level bureaucrat with no seniority or friends and they are rarely fired because they may blow the whistle. No, they are simply moved, and often promoted. This has been the case in the “Fast and Furious” gun walker case. Finally, if the machinery of law enforcement and the courts become part of the corruption, those who engage in criminal activities will never be prosecuted. The current justice department failed to prosecute the Black Panthers for obvious voter intimidation but will nail Gibson Guitar to the wall for its failure to donate to the right political campaign. Put in the most simple terms, the reason corruption is so pervasive in our government is because its so easy to get away with. Politicians and multitudes of bureaucrats make the rules, cover for each other, corrupt law enforcement and buy judges. The higher you go, the more insulated from negative consequences you are.

The second reason corruption is so rampant in government is because of the people that inhabit the corridors of power. Americans seem to have a schizophrenic belief about politicians. On the one hand we distrust them, expect them to lie in their campaigns and in office and hold them in low esteem in general. On the other hand, we think the person we specifically vote for is the exception to the rule of general stupidity, greed and corruption so we re-elect most of these people to office. We have this mistaken belief that our politicians are just like us, basically good, decent people trying to do their best. This is not the case and once upon a time we understood this.

“There is a danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with the power to endanger the public liberty.” John Adams.

“If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and the Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions.” Thomas Jefferson.

“I do not believe...that fourteen out of fifteen men are rogues. I believe the great abatement from that proportion may be made in favor of general honesty. But I have always found that rogues would be uppermost, and I do not know that the proportion is too strong for the higher orders for those, who rising above the swinish multitude, always contrive to nestle themselves into the place of power and profit. These rogues set out with stealing the people’s good opinion, and then steal from them the right of withdrawing it, contriving laws and associations against the power of the people themselves.” Thomas Jefferson.

The founders were smart and oracular men, were they not?! In “Leave Me Alone: A Patriot’s Plan for Restoring Pride and Prosperity in America” ( www.leavemealonenow.webs.com ) I stated the following about the people in government.

“One, the people in government, be they elected representatives or absolute monarchs, thirst for power and other people’s money, they are no more than thieves or bullies. Or, they believe that they posses exceptional knowledge and wisdom that enable them to know what is best for their fellow man and that it is acceptable to use force to get people to do what is in their best interest according to these “superior” beings.”

People in government are wolves, rogues, thieves and bullies for the simple reason that they want to take your wealth and freedom for the benefit of others. They may want it for themselves or their friends. They may profess lofty motives about helping the poor or disadvantaged. The reason doesn’t matter because if they desire to do anything other than protect our rights to life, liberty and private property, they are thieves and bullies. If they refuse to change the system of looting and plundering we have now, protecting the sacred cows of larceny like Social Security, food stamps or Medicare/Medicaid and refuse to hold the pillagers accountable, they are cowards and accessories to the crime. I know it is hard to wrap your mind around the idea that not only are the politicians, their “contributors” and the friends they appoint to assist them robbers and thieves but all the low level bureaucrats who live off of and distribute these ill gotten gains and the beneficiaries who receive a pittance of the plunder are all guilty of receiving and distributing stolen goods.

It used to be that this corruption in attitude and action were of a small scale and relatively hidden. But as government has exploded in size, so has the scale of the corruption. Millions in waste, fraud, abuse and graft have become billions, hundreds of billions and now trillions. Contracts worth billions, regulations or subsidies that can make or break businesses, tax policy than can mean the difference between profit and loss and legislation which can literally mean life and death have turned our government into a high stakes game in which the only way to survive is to appease the gods of government.

President Obama and his administration have boldly laid bare all the ugliness of government. He and his cronies are brazen in their contempt for those he desires to punish and rob, he does not hide his racism, he attacks his perceived enemies with explicit and dangerous language and he continually pushes policies and an ideology that are culturally, economically and physically detrimental to our nation. It is now obvious that we have a group of vindictive thugs running our government. They are a super aggressive parasite that is sucking the blood out of its national host and destroying anyone or anything that tries to get in their way. Our salvation will not come through half measures, parsed language or compromise with a system of piracy. Only when we the people develop a “zero tolerance” policy for theft and corruption, stop electing the same rogues and wolves and no longer accept the ill gotten gains of these bandits will we save our country for ourselves and our children.

Mike Calpino

www.leavemealonenow.webs.com

The Misunderstanding of opposing Subsidizing Extreme Home Makeover

2011-10-05T16:15:00.001-04:00

Muir Boda

I think many people misunderstand why there is opposition from many of us who oppose Wicomico County subsidizing the project by Extreme Home Makeover by waving fees, paying overtime to law enforcement and other expenses of the project they requested for no cost by local businesses. I think baseless arguments and finger pointing at the Tea Party and those who oppose Obama has nothing to do with this issue. Saying we are not “Christian” or are heartless because we do not wish our tax dollars to be used in this manner, again are baseless statements and comments and hold no merit.

First, Extreme Home Makeover is a for profit business. They sell advertising to fund their production and to pay their talent. What they do, I think is a great concept and it has been a very successful show which has led to the indirect success of HGTV.

I also wish to commend all of the people who donated their time by helping uplift that neighborhood, San Domingo. I do believe this created a sense of volunteerism and tapped into one the greatest assets we have here on the Eastern Shore and that is our willingness to step up to the plate and serve our neighbors and friends when they need it. We saw this with the search for Sarah Foxwell and the outpouring of love to the family of Alice Davis.

The heart of the matter is waving the fees associated with permits and inspections, the waiver of tipping fees and paying law enforcement to work traffic and crowd control around the project. Some say it is worth the price to help the family in need and many on the County Council and in the County Government were quick to waive the fees and get things approved as quickly as possible. Government officials were very quick to cut through red tape so that the project could get underway.

Yet this is the same County Government that has cut its budget the past couple of years because of decreased revenues. Our board of education is talking of making drastic cuts and changes in our schools because of budget shortfalls. This affects all of our children and families.

This is the hypocrisy many of us are seeing from our elected officials. They nickel and dime everything and then when Hollywood comes calling, they say, “It’s whatever you need.”

Many have no objection to our tax dollars being used this way because “it’s for a good cause.” They point the finger at many of us who oppose this for not being “Christian” and being heartless. I take exception to that. The Christian thing would have been for all the Churches in the area to help with love offerings to help cover the fees and costs associated with this, not force taxpayers to burden the cost. I did not vote for my elected officials to use my tax dollars or waive fees in this manner.

Charity should be given freely and managed by organizations who do charitable work. For profit businesses should all be treated the same whether they are businesses that provide jobs and sell products or businesses that come into to do “charitable work” but are still businesses for profit.

If someone wants to donate their time, energy and money, I encourage and applaud those people because it is their money that they earned. Tax dollars are everyone’s money and should be used for the basic operations of our government not to grant special favors for pet projects no matter how noble.

Muir Boda

Vice-Chair Maryland Libertarian Party

LP Monday Message: A new year of government spending

2011-10-05T09:51:00.000-04:00

October 3, 2011

Dear Friend of Liberty,

The U.S. government's fiscal year ended last Friday. (That was FY 2011.)

Republicans took over the U.S. House last November, and as a result, government spending finally dropped.

Whoops! I have that wrong. Government spending actually increased!

They haven't reported the final numbers yet, but FY 2010 spending was $3.456 trillion, and FY 2011 spending was most recently projected to come in at $3.597 trillion. That's a 4% increase.

Remember, there was no budget passed last year. That means that most of the FY 2011 spending occurred with the approval of the newly elected Republicans. (Remember all those "continuing resolutions"?)

I know, I know. Wait till next year, right?

Even though the press loves to howl about "deep cuts" from Republicans, you and I know there are no such things. Republicans love big government, just like Democrats.

Actually, you could make a case that Democrats are more willing to cut government than Republicans, crazy as that sounds. Many Democrats want to cut military spending -- that's big. But Republicans aren't willing to cut any big-ticket items.

Of course I'm not saying we should trust Democrats to cut government. My point is, Republicans and Democrats are going to keep leapfrogging each other.

Here's how compromise works in Washington: The Democrat says "I want to spend more on program A." The Republican says "I want to spend more on program B." So they compromise, and spend more on both!

The Libertarian Party, on the other hand, will keep fighting to cut government across the board.

Sincerely,

Wes Benedict
Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee

P.S. If you have not already done so, please join the Libertarian Party. We are the only political party dedicated to free markets, civil liberties, and peace. You can also renew your membership. Or, you can make a contribution separate from membership.

Government intervention never produces prosperity

2011-08-16T22:35:00.000-04:00

Mike Calpino

The results of the statist's dream are reaching fruition in the nightmare we are currently experiencing.
Make no mistake, we are in the early stages of a worldwide financial collapse that is gaining steam. Government's attempt to give everything to everyone has resulted in moral and fiscal bankruptcy from Greece to America.

Democrats and Republicans in this country have spent and borrowed us into this mess. Last week's deal was a Band-aid on a cancer patient; it did nothing. We know it, the market knows it and the world knows it.

We cannot trust the two parties, whose only interest is the maintenance of their power, to solve these problems. More spending, debt and dollar printing are only going to make things worse, much worse.
The fault, however, lies with us. We have allowed politicians to buy us with our own money and that of our great-grandchildren. With it, they have purchased a nation of dependents and slaves, bankrupting us all.

We have traded our liberty for the immoral and inefficient redistribution of our wealth to pay for a pitiful retirement, a bankrupt health system, generational poverty, a stagnant economy and high unemployment.

Anytime government acts beyond the defense of natural rights, it distorts and destroys. Prosperity is the result of freedom, not government intervention. That should now be obvious to all.
When we stop asking government to "do" and to "give," America will return to the peace and prosperity we all desire.

Michael Calpino
Nanticoke

Muir Boda's Comments to the Salisbury City Council

2011-07-25T21:43:00.000-04:00

Every government, from the federal level to the municipal level must actively have a balance of power. The executive, legislative and judicial branches are necessary for proper checks and balance on each other. Authority is given to each branch so that it may execute its duties properly and in accordance with its own specific role. This is government 101.

The current situation that we have with talks of reducing the role, discretion and authority of the Housing Board of Adjustments and Appeals is one of great concern. There is even talk of eliminating the board as a whole.

The HBAA provides a vital role as it acts as part of the judicial branch of government. Every branch of enforcement and executive authority must have an equal branch of the judiciary. In this case, the HBAA acts as the judiciary to Neighborhood Services and Code Compliance which is an extension of the executive branch and enforces the housing code. The role fits perfectly in the system we have as it provides an independent entity to settle disputes between NSCC and those they issue citations to.

Removing the HBAA’s authority or eliminating the board would be a blow to due process when dealing with disputes that arise from alleged housing code violations. Every individual who is accused of a housing code violation or murder must be given the opportunity through due process to defend him or herself.

The great misconception is that landlords are the only ones that benefit from the HBAA. This is not true. Every property owner, whether a landlord or homeowner, property manager or a commercial business owner, has a right to appeal their cases to the HBAA.

So the question becomes what happens if we remove the authority or eliminate the HBAA? Several things will happen.

· We remove an effective step in the course of due process where issues get resolved quickly and fairly.
· We will increase the cost for the city and for those accused of housing infractions. The current board consists of volunteers. If this board is eliminated then the Circuit Court of Wicomico County is where all appeals will go. This will create a greater burden on a court system that is already overloaded. It will also create a greater burden on taxpayers as Circuit Court costs money to run to pay the judges, clerks and bailiffs.
· The other cost is the City Attorney or Solicitor will be required to act as a prosecutor and will require additional funds to account for his time prosecuting housing code violations in Circuit Court.

o This then puts citizens at a legal disadvantage and they may need to hire attorneys to defend themselves. Certainly great for the legal business but many things will cascade from here such as fines being increased to account for added costs or the other extreme where enforcement is reduced to a point where issues are never addressed.

The HBAA provides a perfect low cost solution to fulfilling our need for a balance of power when certain and specific types of laws or codes, such as housing codes, are being enforced. The HBAA keeps the executive and the legislative branch’s powers in check and they keep the board’s powers in check through appointments and legislation.

Are we this pathetic?

2011-07-17T10:00:00.000-04:00

by Michael Calpino

Michael Calpino

President Obama has now tried to jump start negotiations over the debt ceiling by stating that he could not guarantee government checks for Social Security, veterans benefits, and military pay, to name a few, will go out on time in August if the debt ceiling is not raised. Obviously, this is a scare tactic to get all those government dependents across the land, a majority of us unfortunately, to pressure their congressmen to agree to something. Raising current taxes or reducing future benefits, it doesn’t matter to most people, as long as that government money is in the account on the first of the month. Whether the threat is real or not, the fact is there are a lot of people across the land for whom even the threat of not receiving their government benefits on time raises the specter of real privation.

How sad. How absolutely pathetic. How did the wealthiest nation in the history of mankind fall to the point where the majority of its citizens depend on a pitiful allowance consisting of money stolen from others or borrowed from future generations? How did we come to the point where the ineptitude of our national leaders can impact whether or not we can buy groceries next week? How did we allow ourselves to become so dependent on our masters in Washington that when they so mismanage their financial affairs as to bring us to bankruptcy, the serfs on the land will be reduced to absolute poverty?

Liberty, that antiquated idea that this country was founded upon, is the idea that each man will make choices about his life and he will either benefit from the results or suffer for them. He and he alone. His prosperity or poverty is based only on his decisions and hard work. Your prosperity or poverty should be based only on your decisions and hard work. It should not be based on what happens in Washington, things you have no control over. Our destiny, our ability to meet our basic needs, and our ability to secure our future, should reside within ourselves, our hearts and minds.

Oh, how far the mighty have fallen. Strong, independent American men and women who once viewed obstacles as challenges and whose hard work and persistence built a nation out of the wilderness have been reduced to sniveling beggars who grovel before their masters in Washington, begging them to continue their idiocy just a little longer so they can have their bowls filled with poisonous gruel.

Where are you standing? If the checks stop coming in August will you quickly slide into homelessness and hunger? Does your entire life depend on receiving stolen and borrowed money from the government? It doesn’t matter if the president was lying about the ability to pay benefits or not. The question is whether or not your survival depends on the goodwill of Washington and its ability to continue its financial insanity. We will all suffer when that insanity comes to its logical conclusion whether in August or the next month or year. However, the more independent and better prepared you are, the better position you will be not only to weather the storm but provide a beacon of liberty to show your neighbors the way forward.

“They are obscure, unorganized, inarticulate, each one rubbing along as best they can. They need to be encouraged and braced up, because when everything has gone completely to the dogs, they are the ones who will come back and build a new society, and meanwhile your preaching will reassure them and keep them hanging on. Your job is to take care of the Remnant.”

Albert Jay Nock

Barack Obama Suicide Bomber

2011-07-15T12:00:00.001-04:00

by Mike Calpino

As the debate over the debt ceiling heats up, each side is looking for an advantage. Except for a few principled holdouts, it would appear that both sides want to raise the ceiling, again, and are using it as a huge bargaining chip. The Republicans are trying to hold the line on taxes, or “revenue enhancements”, and get major spending cuts. We shall see whether they hold fast, the last several months of capitulation don’t hold much promise. The Democrats want to keep every program and increase spending and taxes, particularly on the “rich.” It is clear that President Obama wants to tax and spend, his recent speeches have made that abundantly clear. The question is, what is the end game?

Several years ago I postulated that the Democrats would use economic crisis to remove the Republicans from contention in politics for another generation. Their ability to demonize Republicans, particularly “conservative” Republicans, has been very successful over the years. If a “compromise” is reached, which is the most likely outcome, we will borrow even more and demonstrate to the world that we have no intention of reigning in our spending and balancing our budget. The compromise will probably take the following form. The Democrats will agree to a few trillion in cuts over the next ten years, meaning we’ll only borrow an additional twelve trillion dollars instead of sixteen trillion from our children and grandchildren. The Republicans will agree to some revenue enhancements like closing loopholes. Remember, a “loophole” is a legal way to keep more of your money so read that “tax increase”. This will anger the TEA party, conservatives and libertarians among the Republican party who will either actively abandon them and go elsewhere or simply give up and stop supporting them. This will ensure Democrat victory in the near term and as the economy continues to falter under the greater debt and tax load, more dependents will be created-read “Democrat voters.”

That is one possibility. What if a deal is not reached? What if on August 3rd we find ourselves unable to borrow the forty cents on every dollar we are currently spending? All of a sudden our government will be forced to live on the two hundred billion dollars that come in every month in taxes and no more. In the face of the fact that we have taken on obligations we cannot pay for, we will suddenly find ourselves in the position of having to choose priorities. If it were your household, you would be choosing between car and house payments, food, the cable and cell phone bills, the utilities. It is assumed that our first priority will be to pay the interest on our outstanding debt and redeeming bonds that come due in order to maintain our fiscal health and credit rating. Beyond that President Obama will have the discretion to choose which bills get paid. If the end game is to put the Republicans far in the back of the bus, as the President puts it, he will spend or not spend to his and the Democrat’s political advantage. He will slow or reduce welfare and social security payments, reduce Medicare reimbursements and panic the largest constituencies while blaming the Republicans and the rich who won’t contribute their fair share. The pressure won’t have to be applied long before the debt ceiling will be raised and the Democrats will get everything they want. More spending, more taxes and a new tactic for fear mongering. If you elect those mean Republicans, they won’t raise the debt ceiling next time and your benefits will go away. If the accumulation of power is the end, this is certainly an effective means.

However, what if the accumulation of power is not the goal? As I have been listening to all the talk from both sides, a crazy and very frightening thought hit me. What if the Democrats, and specifically the president, refuse to compromise specifically so the president can wield the discretionary power over what is funded and what is not. Not so they can use it for political advantage but to bring about the total collapse of the United States economy and with it, the United States itself. I know, it sounds crazy and I only suggest it as the remotest of possibilities. But think about this. Since President Obama has been elected he has done everything he can to make our financial position untenable. He has doubled the national debt, an amazing feat all by itself. He has hamstrung the economy through taxes and regulation. He has put through massive entitlements we can’t pay for. In the face of overwhelming evidence that nothing he has done works and has, in fact, made our economic situation worse, he wants to do more of the same. He wants to spend more, regulate more and borrow more.

That is not all, however. Consider all the evidence that he despises this country, its ideals and our republican system of government. He has placed socialists and outright communists in his cabinet or the ambiguous “czar” positions. He coddles and befriends brutal dictators and alienates our staunch allies. He apologizes for American exceptionalism at every opportunity. He bullies congress, the supreme court and major corporations to get his way. He is more than sympathetic to Muslim terrorists. He has demonstrated vindictiveness to those who don’t support him. His ideas are out of touch with reality and every time he tries to support them in a speech, he lies and lies and lies about everything. He was brought up by people who hated America, found a pastor in Chicago that hates America, married a woman that hates America. It is obvious he holds in contempt everything that made this country great. His words and deeds demonstrate his desire to see America lose its unique status as the leading force for liberty and good in the world because he doesn’t value liberty or believe America has done anything good.

What if, for Barack Obama and some other radical members of the Democrat party, the accumulation of political power is secondary to the destruction of the United States? If the debt ceiling is not raised and the President instructs the Treasury not to make interest payments on August 4th, our credit rating immediately falls below Greece’s. We will no longer have the option of borrowing because few will buy our junk bonds. The dollar will collapse. Our economy will be destroyed, we will no longer be able to afford much of our military or our social programs. In one fell swoop, we will go from the first first world nation to a third world nation. Such a crisis will give him the greatest opportunity of them all to seize even more power.

That is ridiculous, why would the President do that? It would be political suicide. Yes, it would. But what if Barack Obama is the most successful suicide bomber of them all? A political suicide bomber. A man who reached the highest office in the world for the sole purpose of ensuring our demise as a nation. A man who reached this office out of nowhere with no qualifications and no experience. A man who easily defeated the Clinton machine, the most effective political machine in recent history. A man who has demonstrated total incompetence in office while at the same time attempting to force an unrealistic ideology upon us all. He spends most of his time on vacation or on the golf course, swooping into the office at opportune times to cause more havoc. On top of all that he has professed adherence to, and demonstrated sympathy for, a religious ideology that desires our annihilation. As president of the United States, the keeper of the American legacy, and leader of the free world he is an abject failure. As a destructive agent of our enemies, he has had much success. If he finds himself wielding this kind of power, he could do more damage than any bomb ever could.

Is Barack Obama waiting for the opportunity to completely destroy our nation? I don’t know. It seems like fantastic speculation, the stuff of conspiratorial fiction. But be honest, would it surprise you if it was true? The circumstantial evidence is rather compelling. Is it outside the realm of possibility that Marxist ideologues who plan for generations have manipulated this man into office and steered us into this financial corner for this very purpose? Is going into the oval office like going into the bombmaker’s lair? It looks that way. President Obama does not use C4, wires and cell phones to destroy things, he uses taxes, regulations and the Fed. While I don’t think we should borrow another dime as a country, we are placing the detonator in Barack Obama’s hands on August 2nd if no agreement or stipulations for dealing with our finances under the current cap are in place before hand. That is a power no man should have but our slide into collectivism and away from our founding principles has made it possible. That slide ends in disaster one way or another. Whether that end comes in the first week of August depends on whether President Obama is after power for himself and the Democrat party or if he is the most dangerous suicide bomber in history.

A libertarian view: Neither party is serious about debt reduction (The Baltimore Sun Version)

2011-07-15T10:37:00.001-04:00

Originally published in the Baltimore Sun

Muir Boda - Vice Chair Maryland Libertarian Party

President James Madison said each generation should bear the burden of its own wars, not foist their expense off on future generations. Since Barack Obama became president, he and the Congress have been responsible for one-third of the current national debt. Record spending for entitlements, war, bailouts to banks, businesses and states have paved the way for future unfunded liabilities of up to $100 trillion.

Obama and the Democrats, who hold to the Keynesian theory of economics, spout the class warfare argument that we need to tax corporate jet owners and raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires to preserve the sacred cows of big government.

Meanwhile, the clueless leadership of the Republican Party demands spending cuts that are only symbolic. Even if both parties got their way — by closing tax loopholes and cutting spending — the savings wouldn't be enough to reduce our national debt, which is the greatest threat to our nation's security.

Essentially, we are borrowing on the earnings of future generations, our children and grandchildren who have not joined the workforce or even been born yet.

Madison warned us of the need for each generation to pay its own way. If he could have envisioned the burden we are heaping on the backs of future generations, he would be appalled by the corrupt and morally decrepit actions of elected leaders at all levels of government. I know I am.

Muir Boda
The writer is vice chair of the Maryland Libertarian Party and managing editor of IndependentWord.com.

A Libertarian Case for Monarchy

2011-07-14T08:00:00.002-04:00

by Leland B. Yeager from Mises.org
[Is the Market a Test of Truth and Beauty? (2011). This article was originally published in Liberty, (2004).]

Clear thought and discussion suffer when all sorts of good things, like liberty, equality, fraternity, rights, majority rule, and general welfare — some in tension with others — are marketed together under the portmanteau label “democracy.” Democracy’s core meaning is a particular method of choosing, replacing, and influencing government officials (Schumpeter 1950). It is not a doctrine of what government should and should not do. Nor is it the same thing as personal freedom or a free society or an egalitarian social ethos. True enough, some classical liberals, like Thomas Paine (1791) and Ludwig von Mises (1919), did scorn hereditary monarchy and did express touching faith that representative democracy would choose excellent leaders and adopt policies truly serving the common interest. Experience has taught us better, as the American founders already knew when constructing a government of separated and limited powers and of only filtered democracy.
As an exercise, and without claiming that my arguments are decisive, I’ll contend that constitutional monarchy can better preserve people’s freedom and opportunities than democracy as it has turned out in practice.[1]
My case holds only for countries where maintaining or restoring (or conceivably installing) monarchy is a live option.[2] We Americans have sounder hope of reviving respect for the philosophy of our Founders. Our traditions could serve some of the functions of monarchy in other countries.
An unelected absolute ruler could conceivably be a thoroughgoing classical liberal. Although a wise, benevolent, and liberal-minded dictatorship would not be a contradiction in terms, no way is actually available to assure such a regime and its continuity, including frictionless succession.
Some element of democracy is therefore necessary; totally replacing it would be dangerous. Democracy allows people some influence on who their rulers are and what policies they pursue. Elections, if not subverted, can oust bad rulers peacefully. Citizens who care about such things can enjoy a sense of participation in public affairs.
Anyone who believes in limiting government power for the sake of personal freedom should value also having some nondemocratic element of government besides courts respectful of their own narrow authority. While some monarchists are reactionaries or mystics, others (like Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn and Sean Gabb, cited below) do come across as genuine classical liberals.

Shortcomings of Democracy

Democracy has glaring defects.[3] As various paradoxes of voting illustrate, there is no such thing as any coherent “will of the people.” Government itself is more likely to supply the content of any supposed general will (Constant 1814, p. 179). Winston Churchill reputedly said, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” The ordinary voter knows that his vote will not be decisive and has little reason to waste time and effort becoming well informed anyway.
This “rational ignorance,” so called in the public-choice literature, leaves corresponding influence to other-than-ordinary voters (Campbell 1999). Politics becomes a squabble among rival special interests. Coalitions form to gain special privileges. Legislators engage in logrolling and enact omnibus spending bills. Politics itself becomes the chief weapon in a Hobbesian war of all against all (Gray 1993, pp. 211–12). The diffusion of costs, while benefits are concentrated, reinforces apathy among ordinary voters.
Politicians themselves count among the special-interest groups. People who drift into politics tend to have relatively slighter qualifications for other work. They are entrepreneurs pursuing the advantages of office. These are not material advantages alone, for some politicians seek power to do good as they understand it. Gratifying their need to act and to feel important, legislators multiply laws to deal with discovered or contrived problems — and fears. Being able to raise vast sums by taxes and borrowing enhances their sense of power, and moral responsibility wanes (as Constant 1814, pp. 194–96, 271–72, already recognized almost two centuries ago).
Democratic politicians have notoriously short time horizons. (Hoppe 2001 blames not just politicians in particular but democracy in general for high time preference — indifference to the long run — which contributes to crime, wasted lives, and a general decline of morality and culture.) Why worry if popular policies will cause crises only when one is no longer running for reelection?
Evidence of fiscal irresponsibility in the United States includes chronic budget deficits, the explicit national debt, and the still huger excesses of future liabilities over future revenues on account of Medicare and Social Security. Yet politicians continue offering new plums. Conflict of interest like this far overshadows the petty kinds that nevertheless arouse more outrage.
Responsibility is diffused in democracy not only over time but also among participants. Voters can think that they are only exercising their right to mark their ballots, politicians that they are only responding to the wishes of their constituents. The individual legislator bears only a small share of responsibility fragmented among his colleagues and other government officials.
Democracy and liberty coexist in tension. Nowadays the US government restricts political speech. The professed purpose of campaign-finance reform is to limit the power of interest groups and of money in politics, but increased influence of the mass media and increased security of incumbent politicians are likelier results.
A broader kind of tension is that popular majorities can lend an air of legitimacy to highly illiberal measures. “By the sheer weight of numbers and by its ubiquity the rule of 99 per cent is more ‘hermetic’ and more oppressive than the rule of 1 per cent” (Kuehnelt-Leddihn 1952, p. 88). When majority rule is thought good in its own right and the fiction prevails that “we” ordinary citizens are the government, an elected legislature and executive can get away with impositions that monarchs of the past would scarcely have ventured. Louis XIV of France, autocrat though he was, would hardly have dared prohibit alcoholic beverages, conscript soldiers, and levy an income tax (pp. 28081) — or, we might add, wage war on drugs. Not only constitutional limitations on a king’s powers, but also his [4] not having an electoral mandate, is a restraint.
At its worst, the democratic dogma can abet totalitarianism. History records totalitarian democracies or democratically supported dictatorships. Countries oppressed by communist regimes included words like “democratic” or “popular” in their official names. Totalitarian parties have portrayed their leaders as personifying the common man and the whole nation. German National Socialism, as Kuehnelt-Leddihn reminds us, was neither a conservative nor a reactionary movement but a synthesis of revolutionary ideas tracing to before 1789 (Kuehnelt-Leddihn 1952, pp. 131, 246–47, 268).
He suggests that antimonarchical sentiments in the background of the French Revolution, the Spanish Republic of 1931, and Germany’s Weimar Republic paved the way for Robespierre and Napoleon, for Negrín and Franco, and for Hitler (p. 90). Winston Churchill reportedly judged that had the Kaiser remained German head of state, Hitler could not have gained power, or at least not have kept it (International Monarchist League). “Monarchists, conservatives, clerics and other ‘reactionaries’ were always in bad grace with the Nazis” (p. 248).

Separation of Powers

A nonelected part of government contributes to the separation of powers. By retaining certain constitutional powers or denying them to others, it can be a safeguard against abuses.[5] This is perhaps the main modern justification of hereditary monarchy — to put some restraint on politicians rather than let them pursue their own special interests complacent in the thought that their winning elections demonstrates popular approval.
When former president Theodore Roosevelt visited Emperor Franz Joseph in 1910 and asked him what he thought the role of monarchy was in the 20th century, the emperor reportedly replied, “To protect my peoples from their governments” (quoted in both “Thesen pro Monarchie” and Purcell 2003). Similarly, Lord Bernard Weatherill, former speaker of the House of Commons, said that the British monarchy exists not to exercise power but to keep other people from having the power; it is a great protection for British democracy (interview with Brian Lamb on C-SPAN, 26 November 1999).
The history of England shows progressive limitation of royal power in favor of parliament; but, in my view, a welcome trend went too far. Almost all power, limited only by traditions fortunately continuing as an unwritten constitution, came to be concentrated not only in parliament but even in the leader of the parliamentary majority. Democratization went rather too far, in my opinion, in the Continental monarchies also.

Continuity

A monarch, not dependent on being elected and reelected, embodies continuity, as do the dynasty and the biological process.

Constitutional monarchy offers us … that neutral power so indispensable for all regular liberty. In a free country the king is a being apart, superior to differences of opinion, having no other interest than the maintenance of order and liberty. He can never return to the common condition, and is consequently inaccessible to all the passions that such a condition generates, and to all those that the perspective of finding oneself once again within it, necessarily creates in those agents who are invested with temporary power.

It is a masterstroke to create a neutral power that can terminate some political danger by constitutional means (Constant 1814, pp. 186–87). In a settled monarchy — but no regime whatever can be guaranteed perpetual existence — the king need not worry about clinging to power. In a republic, “The very head of the state, having no title to his office save that which lies in the popular will, is forced to haggle and bargain like the lowliest office-seeker” (Mencken 1926, p. 181).
Dynastic continuity parallels the rule of law. The king symbolizes a state of affairs in which profound political change, though eventually possible, cannot occur without ample time for considering it. The king stands in contrast with legislators and bureaucrats, who are inclined to think, by the very nature of their jobs, that diligent performance means multiplying laws and regulations. Continuity in the constitutional and legal regime provides a stable framework favorable to personal and business planning and investment and to innovation in science, technology, enterprise, and culture. Continuity is neither rigidity nor conservatism.
The heir to the throne typically has many years of preparation and is not dazzled by personal advancement when he finally inherits the office. Before and while holding office he accumulates a fund of experience both different from and greater than what politicians, who come and go, can ordinarily acquire. Even when the king comes to the throne as a youth or, at the other extreme, as an old man with only a few active years remaining, he has the counsel of experienced family members and advisers. If the king is very young (Louis XV, Alfonso XIII) or insane (the elderly George III, Otto of Bavaria), a close relative serves as regent.[6] The regent will have had some of the opportunities to perform ceremonial functions and to accumulate experience that an heir or reigning monarch has.

Objections and Rebuttals

Some arguments occasionally employed for monarchy are questionable. If the monarch or his heir may marry only a member of a princely family (as Kuehnelt-Leddihn seems to recommend), chances are that he or she will marry a foreigner, providing international connections and a cosmopolitan way of thinking. Another dubious argument (also used by Kuehnelt-Leddihn) is that the monarch will have the blessing of and perhaps be the head of the state religion. Some arguments are downright absurd, for example: “Monarchy fosters art and culture. Austria was culturally much richer around 1780 than today! Just think of Mozart!” (“Thesen pro Monarchie.”)
But neither all arguments for nor all objections to monarchy are fallacious. The same is true of democracy. In the choice of political institutions, as in many decisions of life, all one can do is weigh the pros and cons of the options and choose what seems best or least bad on balance.

Some objections to monarchy apply to democracy also or otherwise invite comments that, while not actual refutations, do strengthen the case in its favor. Monarchy is charged with being government-from-above (Kuehnelt-Leddihn 1952, p. 276). But all governments, even popularly elected ones, except perhaps small direct democracies like ancient Athens, are ruled by a minority. (Robert Michels and others recognized an “iron law of oligarchy”; Jenkin 1968, p. 282.) Although democracy allows the people some influence over the government, they do not and cannot actually run it. Constitutional monarchy combines some strengths of democracy and authoritarian monarchy while partially neutralizing the defects of those polar options.

Another objection condemns monarchy as a divisive symbol of inequality; it bars “an ideal society in which everyone will be equal in status, and in which everyone will have the right, if not the ability, to rise to the highest position” (Gabb 2002, who replies that attempts to create such a society have usually ended in attacks on the wealthy and even the well-off).
Michael Prowse (2001), calling for periodic referenda on whether to keep the British monarchy, invokes what he considers the core idea of democracy: all persons equally deserve respect and consideration, and no one deserves to dominate others. The royal family and the aristocracy, with their titles, demeanor, and self-perpetuation, violate this democratic spirit. In a republican Britain, every child might aspire to every public position, even head of state.
So arguing, Prowse stretches the meaning of democracy from a particular method of choosing and influencing rulers to include an egalitarian social ethos. But monarchy need not obstruct easy relations among persons of different occupations and backgrounds; a suspicious egalitarianism is likelier to do that. In no society can all persons have the same status.
A more realistic goal is that everyone have a chance to achieve distinction in some narrow niche important to him. Even in a republic, most people by far cannot realistically aspire to the highest position. No one need feel humbled or ashamed at not ascending to an office that simply was not available. A hereditary monarch can be like the Alps (“Thesen pro Monarchie“), something just “there.” Perhaps it is the king’s good luck, perhaps his bad luck, to have inherited the privileges but also the limitations of his office; but any question of unfairness pales in comparison with advantages for the country.
Prowse complains of divisiveness. But what about an election? It produces losers as well as winners, disappointed voters as well as happy ones. A king, however, cannot symbolize defeat to supporters of other candidates, for there were none. “A monarch mounting the throne of his ancestors follows a path on which he has not embarked of his own will.” Unlike a usurper, he need not justify his elevation (Constant 1814, p. 88). He has no further political opportunities or ambitions except to do his job well and maintain the good name of his dynasty. Standing neutral above party politics, he has a better chance than an elected leader of becoming the personified symbol of his country, a focus of patriotism and even of affection.
The monarch and his family can assume ceremonial functions that elected rulers would otherwise perform as time permitted. Separating ceremonial functions from campaigning and policy making siphons off glamour or adulation that would otherwise accrue to politicians and especially to demagogues. The occasional Hitler does arouse popular enthusiasm, and his opponents must prudently keep a low profile. A monarch, whose power is preservative rather than active (pp. 191–92), is safer for people’s freedom.
Prowse is irritated rather than impressed by the pomp and opulence surrounding the queen. Clinging to outmoded forms and ascribing importance to unimportant things reeks of “collective bad faith” and “corrosive hypocrisy.” Yet a monarchy need not rest on pretense.
On the contrary, my case for monarchy is a utilitarian one, not appealing to divine right or any such fiction. Not all ritual is to be scorned. Even republics have Fourth of July parades and their counterparts. Ceremonial trappings that may have become functionless or comical can evolve or be reformed. Not all monarchies, as Prowse recognizes, share with the British the particular trappings that irritate him.
A case, admittedly inconclusive, can be made for titles of nobility (especially for close royal relatives) and for an upper house of parliament of limited powers whose members, or some of them, hold their seats by inheritance or royal appointment (e.g., Constant 1814, pp. 198–200). “The glory of a legitimate monarch is enhanced by the glory of those around him…. He has no competition to fear…. But where the monarch sees supporters, the usurper sees enemies” (p. 91; on the precarious position of a nonhereditary autocrat, compare Tullock 1987).
As long as the nobles are not exempt from the laws, they can serve as a kind of framework of the monarchy. They can be a further element of diversity in the social structure. They can provide an alternative to sheer wealth or notoriety as a source of distinction and so dilute the fawning over celebrities characteristic of modern democracies. Ordinary persons need no more feel humiliated by not being born into the nobility than by not being born heir to the throne. On balance, though, I am ambivalent about a nobility.

A King’s Powers

Michael Prowse’s complaint about the pretended importance of unimportant things suggests a further reason why the monarch’s role should go beyond the purely symbolic and ceremonial. The king should not be required (as the queen of England is required at the opening of Parliament) merely to read words written by the cabinet. At least he should have the three rights that Walter Bagehot identified in the British monarchy: “the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn. And a king of great sense and sagacity would want no others. He would find that his having no others would enable him to use these with singular effect” (Bagehot 1867, p. iii).
When Bagehot wrote, the prime minister was bound to keep the queen well informed about the passing politics of the nation. “She has by rigid usage a right to complain if she does not know of every great act of her Ministry, not only before it is done, but while there is yet time to consider it — while it is still possible that it may not be done.”
A sagacious king could warn his prime minister with possibly great effect. “He might not always turn his course, but he would always trouble his mind.” During a long reign he would acquire experience that few of his ministers could match. He could remind the prime minister of bad results some years earlier of a policy like one currently proposed.

The king would indeed have the advantage which a permanent under-secretary has over his superior the Parliamentary secretary — that of having shared in the proceedings of the previous Parliamentary secretaries…. A pompous man easily sweeps away the suggestions of those beneath him. But though a minister may so deal with his subordinate, he cannot so deal with his king. (Bagehot 1867, pp. 111–12)

A prime minister would be disciplined, in short, by having to explain the objective (not merely the political) merits of his policies to a neutral authority.
The three rights that Bagehot listed should be interpreted broadly, in my view, or extended. Constant (1814, p. 301) recommends the right to grant pardons as a final protection of the innocent. The king should also have power: to make some appointments, especially of his own staff, not subject to veto by politicians; to consult with politicians of all parties to resolve an impasse over who might obtain the support or acquiescence of a parliamentary majority; and to dismiss and temporarily replace the cabinet or prime minister in extreme cases. (I assume a parliamentary system, which usually does accompany modern monarchy; but the executive could be elected separately from the legislators and even subject to recall by special election.)
Even dissolving parliament and calling new elections in an exceptional case is no insult to the rights of the people. “On the contrary, when elections are free, it is an appeal made to their rights in favor of their interests” (p. 197). The king should try to rally national support in a constitutional crisis (as when King Juan Carlos intervened to foil an attempted military coup in 1981).

Kings and Politicians

What if the hereditary monarch is a child or is incompetent? Then, as already mentioned, a regency is available. What if the royal family, like some of the Windsors, flaunts unedifying personal behavior? Both dangers are just as real in a modern republic. Politicians have a systematic tendency to be incompetent or worse.[7] For a democratic politician, understanding economics is a handicap.[8] He either must take unpopular (because misunderstood) stands on issues or else speak and act dishonestly. The economically ignorant politician has the advantage of being able to take vote-catching stands with a more nearly clear conscience.
Particularly in these days of television and of fascination with celebrities, the personal characteristics necessary to win elections are quite different from those of a public-spirited statesman. History does record great statesmen in less democratized parliamentary regimes of the past. Nowadays a Gresham’s Law operates: “the inferior human currency drives the better one out of circulation” (Kuehnelt-Leddihn, pp. 115, 120). Ideal democratic government simply is not an available option. Our best hope is to limit the activities of government, a purpose to which monarchy can contribute.
Although some contemporary politicians are honorable and economically literate, even simple honesty can worsens one’s electoral chances. H.L. Mencken wrote acidly and with characteristic exaggeration,

No educated man, stating plainly the elementary notions that every educated man holds about the matters that principally concern government, could be elected to office in a democratic state, save perhaps by a miracle. … It has become a psychic impossibility for a gentleman to hold office under the Federal Union, save by a combination of miracles that must tax the resourcefulness even of God. — the man of native integrity is either barred from the public service altogether, or subjected to almost irresistible temptations after he gets in.” (Mencken 1926, pp. 103, 106, 110)

Under monarchy, the courtier need not “abase himself before swine,” “pretend that he is a worse man than he really is.” His sovereign has a certain respect for honor. “The courtier’s sovereign … is apt to be a man of honour himself” (Mencken 1926, p. 118, mentioning that the king of Prussia refused the German imperial crown offered him in 1849 by a mere popular parliament rather than by his fellow sovereign princes).
Mencken conceded that democracy has its charms: “The fraud of democracy … is more amusing than any other — more amusing even, and by miles, than the fraud of religion…. [The farce] greatly delights me. I enjoy democracy immensely. It is incomparably idiotic, and hence incomparably amusing” (pp. 209, 211).

Conclusion

One argument against institutions with a venerable history is a mindless slogan betraying temporal provincialism, as if newer necessarily meant better: “Don’t turn back the clock.” Sounder advice is not to overthrow what exists because of abstract notions of what might seem logically or ideologically neater. In the vernacular, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
It is progress to learn from experience, including experience with inadequately filtered democracy. Where a monarchical element in government works well enough, the burden of proof lies against the republicans (cf. Gabb 2002). Kuehnelt-Leddihn, writing in 1952 (p. 104), noted that “the royal, non-democratic alloy” has supported the relative success of several representative governments in Europe. Only a few nontotalitarian republics there and overseas have exhibited a record of stability, notably Switzerland, Finland, and the United States.[9]
Constitutional monarchy cannot solve all problems of government; nothing can. But it can help. Besides lesser arguments, two main ones recommend it. First, its very existence is a reminder that democracy is not the sort of thing of which more is necessarily better; it can help promote balanced thinking.
Second, by contributing continuity, diluting democracy while supporting a healthy element of it, and furthering the separation of government powers, monarchy can help protect personal liberty.

***********************************

Leland Yeager is Ludwig von Mises Professor of Economics, Emeritus, at Auburn University. See Leland B. Yeager’s article archives.
This article is excerpted from Is the Market a Test of Truth and Beauty?, chapter 21, “A Libertarian Case for Monarchy” (2011). Originally published in Liberty 18 (January 2004): pp. 37–42, this article was titled “Monarchy: Friend of Liberty.”
You can subscribe to future articles by Leland B. Yeager via this RSS feed.

Notes

[1] I do not know how to test my case econometrically. The control variables to be included in equations regressing a measure of liberty or stability or prosperity or whatever on presence or absence of monarchy of some type or other are too ineffable and too many. We would have to devise variables for such conditions as history and traditions, geography, climate, natural resources, type of economic system, past forms of government, ethnicity and ethnic homogeneity or diversity, education, religion, and so on. Plausible historical data points are too few. Someone cleverer than I might devise some sort of econometric test after all. Meanwhile, we must weigh the pros and cons of monarchy and democracy against one another qualitatively as best we can.
[2] Monarchist organizations exist in surprisingly many countries; a few of their Web sites appear in the references. Even Argentina has a small monarchist movement, described in the September 1994 issue of Monarchy at the site of the International Monarchist League.
[3] Barry (2003) partially summarizes them. Hayek (1979) describes the defects at length and proposes an elaborate reform of the system of representation, not discussing monarchy. James Buchanan and the public-choice school analyze democracy in many writings.
[4] I hope that readers will allow me the stylistic convenience of using “king” to designate a reigning queen also, as the word koning does in the Dutch constitution, and also of using “he” or “him” or “his” to cover “she” or “her” as context requires.
[5] “The first and indispensable condition for the exercise of responsibility is to separate executive power from supreme power. Constitutional monarchy attains this great aim. But this advantage would be lost if the two powers were confused” (Constant 1814, p. 191).
[6] Otto von Habsburg blames the risk that an incompetent might occupy the throne on an inflexible legitimism — preoccupation with a particular dynasty — that displaced safeguards found in most classical monarchies. He recommends that the king be assisted by a body representing the highest judicial authority, a body that could if necessary replace the heir presumptive by the next in line of succession (1958, pp. 262, 264, 266–67).
[7] Consider the one Republican and nine Democrats currently (October 2003) competing for the US presidency. The day after the televised debate among the Democrats in Detroit, Roger Hitchcock, substitute host on a radio talk show, asked, “Would you like to have dinner with any of those people? Would you hire any of them to manage your convenience store?”
[8] “The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics” (Sowell 1994).
[9] Compare Lewis and Woolsey (2003): “Of the nations that have been democracies for a very long time and show every sign that they will remain so, a substantial majority are constitutional monarchies (the U.S. and Switzerland being the principal exceptions).”

References

Bagehot, Walter. The English Constitution. 1867, 1872. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Paperbacks, 1966.
Barry, Norman. “What’s So Good About Democracy?” Ideas on Liberty 53 (May 2003): pp. 448.
Campbell, Colin M. “Large Electorates and Decisive Minorities.” Journal of Political Economy 107 (December 1999): pp. 1199–1217.
Constant, Benjamin. Political Writings. 1814–1815. Translated and edited by Biancamaria Fontana. Cambridge, UK, and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Gabb, Sean. “In Defence of the Monarchy.” Free Life Commentary, no. 83 (9 December 2002).
Gray, John. Post-Liberalism: Studies in Political Thought. London and New York: Routledge, 1993.
Habsburg, Otto von. “Monarchy or Republic.” 1958. In The Conservative Tradition in European Thought, edited by Robert Schuettinger, pp. 258–67. New York: Putnam, 1970.
Hayek, F.A. The Political Order of a Free People. Vol. 3 of Law, Legislation and Liberty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.
Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. Democracy: The God That Failed. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 2001.
International Monarchist League. “The Case for Monarchy.”
Jenkin, Thomas P. “Oligarchy.” In International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, edited by David L. Sills, vol. 11: pp. 281–283. New York: Macmillan and Free Press, 1968.
Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Erik von. Liberty or Equality. Edited by John P. Hughes. London: Hollis & Carter, 1952.
Lewis, Bernard, and R. James Woolsey. “King and Country.” Wall Street Journal, 29 October 2003.
Mencken, H.L. Notes on Democracy. New York: Knopf, 1926.
von Mises, Ludwig. Nation, State, and Economy. 1919. New York: New York University Press, 1983.
Paine, Thomas. The Rights of Man. Part First, 1791, and Part Second, 1792. In Two Classics of the French Revolution: Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France and Paine’s The Rights of Man, pp. 267–515. New York: Doubleday, Anchor Books, 1973, 1989.
Prowse, Michael. “Why Britain Should Hold ‘Royal Referendums’.” Financial Times, 21–2. April 2001.
Purcell, Frank. “All Hail the House of Habsburg!” 18 August 2003.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. 1950. 3rd ed. New York: Harper and Row, 1962.
Sowell, Thomas. Quoted (without indication of source) in “Endnotes.” CEI UpDate 7 (July 1994): p. 8.
“Thesen pro Monarchie.”
Tullock, Gordon. Autocracy. Dordrecht and Boston: Kluwer, 1987.

Madison on War Powers

2011-07-13T17:39:00.000-04:00

“The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.”

U.S. President James Madison

Independentword.com is Officially Launched

2011-07-04T16:10:00.000-04:00

Tilghman Media is proud to announce the debut of the political news website, IndependentWord.com.

Salisbury, MD (PRWEB) July 04, 2011

Independent Word will function as an “overt operation” website, intending to debate controversial issues while bridging an alliance with news writers, reporters and commentators whose various political ideologies share the common pursuit of truth and liberty in America.

Independent Word invites conservative, liberal, libertarian and independent writers to contribute to the website and encourage participation in the discussion of the issues of today.

The website is to be headed by three individuals: John Blythe, an entertainment media entrepreneur and founder of FRI, Jonathan Boda, a writer/researcher, and Muir Boda, Vice Chairman of the Maryland Libertarian Party.

About Tilghman Media: Muir Boda is the owner of Tilghman Media, a company that operates http://www.sby4rent.com and the forthcoming magazine “Lower Shore Rentals and More”. Mr. Boda is currently the Vice-Chair of the Maryland Libertarian Party.

About FRI: Mr. Blythe is president of Film Regions International, Inc. (FRI), a start-up production company that aims to produce high quality independent films to be marketed to festivals and worldwide distributors. Since 2005, FRI has produced and/or co-produced several low-budget feature films from various countries including the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and South East Asia. Some of the upcoming feature films on the company’s slate include My Amityville Horror, Operation Mongoose, A Reckoning, Wretched and Someday when the Rain Falls.

Visit us at: http://www.independentword.com.
###

The Declaration of Independence

2011-07-04T08:00:00.002-04:00

Action of Second Continental Congress, July 4, 1776

The Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.

HE has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good.

HE 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, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

HE 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.

HE 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.

HE has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People.

HE 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 mean time exposed to all the Dangers of Invasion from without, and Convulsions within.

HE has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

HE has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

HE has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries.

HE has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance.

HE has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures.

HE has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

HE has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

FOR quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us:

FOR protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

FOR cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:

FOR imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

FOR depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury:

FOR transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences:

FOR abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring 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 into these Colonies:

FOR taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

FOR suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever.

HE has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

HE has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People.

HE is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat 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.

HE 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.

HE has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes and Conditions.

IN every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury. A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.

NOR have we been wanting in Attentions to our British Brethren. We have warned them from Time to Time of Attempts by their Legislature to extend an unwarrantable Jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here. We have appealed to their native Justice and Magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our Connections and Correspondence. They too have been deaf to the Voice of Justice and of Consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. —And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

John Hancock. Frans. Lewis.

Samuel Chase. Lewis Morris.

Wm. Paca. Richd. Stockton.

Thos. Stone. Jno Witherspoon.

Charles Carroll of Carrollton. Fras. Hopkinson.

George Wythe. John Hart.

Richard Henry Lee. Abra Clark.

Th Jefferson. Josiah Bartlett.

Benja Harrison. Wm. Whipple.

Thos. Nelson jr. Saml Adams.

Francis Lightfoot Lee. John Adams.

Carter Braxton. Robt Treat Paine.

Robt Morris. Elbridge Gerry.

Benjamin Rush. Step Hopkins.

Benja. Franklin. William Ellery.

John Morton. Roger Sherman.

Geo Clymer. Saml Huntington.

Jas Smith. WmWilliams.

Geo. Taylor. Oliver Wolcott.

James Wilson. Matthew Thornton.

Geo. Ross. Wm Hooper.

Caesar Rodney. Joseph Hewes.

Geo Read. John Penn.

Tho M: Kean. Edward Rutledge.

Wm Floyd. Thos Heyward Junr.

Phil. Livingston. Thomas Lynch Junr.

Arthur Middleton. Lyman Hall.

Button Gwinnett. Geo Walton.

Why Legalize Now?

2011-07-03T22:19:00.000-04:00

by Mark Thornton

Originally Posted on mises.org

Suddenly the world is abuzz with talk about legalizing marijuana and other drugs. Political candidates, politicians, former presidents, interest groups, and even the Global Commission on Drug Policy are all calling for drug-policy reform. Given that we are in a worldwide economic and fiscal crisis, why is everyone interested in drug policy? Have we all suddenly regained our senses and realized that prohibition is irrational?

No, the more important reason for the interest in this issue is economic sense. Drug prohibition is a burden on taxpayers. It is a burden on government budgets. It is a burden on the criminal-justice system. It is a burden on the healthcare system. The economic crisis has intensified the pain from all these burdens. Legalization reduces or eliminates all of these burdens. It should be no surprise that alcohol prohibition was repealed at the deepest depths of the Great Depression.

Two Republican presidential candidates, former governor Gary Johnson and Congressman Ron Paul, support legalization. Ron Paul and Barney Frank have introduced legislation that would allow the states to legalize marijuana without federal interference. Former president Jimmy Carter recently published an editorial in the New York Times calling for an end of the global war on drugs, a position he has held since he was president.

The organization LEAP, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, has recently released a report entitled “Ending the Drug War: A Dream Deferred” on the 40th anniversary of the War on Drugs. They are critical of the war and point out that President Obama is actually making things worse. Finally, and maybe most importantly, the Global Commission on Drug Policy has issued a report that declares the war on drugs a failure and provides recommendations for reform.

The economic crisis is speeding up the realization that the war on drugs has failed and cannot be won. Taxpayers have long been slow to recognize the economic burden of drug prohibition. They have been told for decades that we only need to spend a little more and remove a few more constitutional protections of our rights to win the war against drugs. With decades of broken promises, busted budgets with trillion-dollar holes, and a teetering economy in crisis, more and more people are saying no to the war on drugs.

Drug prohibition is the single biggest burden on the criminal-justice budget. It is also a large burden for more than a dozen budgets within the federal government, and it is a growing burden on state and local budgets. The incarceration of hundreds of thousands of nonviolent drug offenders often leads to the breakup of families and the loss of breadwinners, placing additional burdens on social services.
The criminal-justice system is overwhelmed, and the prisons are filled far beyond capacity. As a result, violent criminals are receiving early release from their sentences. Other measures of crime and violence are also disturbing. Street gangs use the illegal-drug business to finance and expand their activities. It has been estimated that the United States now has nearly 800,000 gang members. Organized crime continues to grow in numbers and sophistication — as well as the level of violence. The Mexican Army has replaced local police along the border in order to restore order and reduce the more than 10,000 prohibition-related murders last year. From Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, the war on drugs is undermining civilization.

People are also realizing that fighting the war on drugs (i.e., prohibition) only makes social problems worse. The number of drug-related emergency-room visits in the United States now exceeds 2 million per year for illegal drugs and nonmedical use of prescription drugs. The progression of drug use from marijuana to cocaine, heroin, and crystal meth is clearly negative for health; and that progression is increasingly and correctly seen to be the result of prohibition, not addiction.

As I demonstrated, the failure of California’s Proposition 19 legalizing marijuana should not be seen as a discouraging sign. Rather, it should be seen as a sign of things to come. All over the world, drug prohibition and its repeal or reform is now a matter of debate. In many areas of the world, the drug war has been rolled back.

Portugal is a good case in point. They were not winning the war; they were losing it. They were also losing the more general war for prosperity. In desperation, they de facto legalized all drugs. The result was not rampant, widespread drug abuse. Drug use and addiction actually declined, as did violence and disease.

Five years later, the number of deaths from street drug overdoses dropped from around 400 to 290 annually, and the number of new HIV cases caused by using dirty needles to inject heroin, cocaine and other illegal substances plummeted from nearly 1,400 in 2000 to about 400 in 2006, according to a report released recently by the Cato Institute, a Washington, DC, libertarian think tank.

Most Americans have been told that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a great president and one of the most popular presidents of all time. However, most people — even most historians — do not know that the reason for his popularity was the repeal of Prohibition. He won the Democratic nomination for president at the 1932 convention by switching from being a Dry to a Wet (that is, by siding with repeal). The repeal of Prohibition was the most popular plank in the Democratic Party platform, and it was FDR’s number-one issue and campaign promise. He made it his number-one priority when he was in office. (He also cut federal worker pay by 25 percent).

The results from repeal were both immediate and amazing. Taverns, restaurants, breweries, distilleries, and wineries reopened for business. Jobs were suddenly and noticeably available for the first time in years. The unemployment rate plunged from its historic high level of 25 percent. Crime and corruption sank, with the murder rate falling to its pre-Prohibition level in a manner of a few years. For politicians and government employees, repeal meant a new source of tax revenue and an end to budget cuts. Tax revolts, which had sprung up all across the country in opposition to government, sadly faded away. The people rejoiced that “Happy Days Are Here Again.”

A similar opportunity lies in our future as the economic crisis continues to widen and worsen. We need to continue to learn and teach the real lessons of prohibition, some of which can be found in this free book. To unmask the true nature of government control and to demonstrate the superiority of individualism within a classical-liberal environment, we must make ending the war on drugs a priority.

************

Mark Thornton is a senior resident fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, and is the book review editor for the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. He is the author of The Economics of Prohibition, coauthor of Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation: The Economics of the Civil War, and the editor of The Quotable Mises, The Bastiat Collection, and An Essay on Economic Theory. Send him mail.

Ballot Access Case: WE WON!!!!

2011-07-01T23:05:00.000-04:00

A huge thanks on behalf of and from the Maryland Libertarian Party to Mark Grannis and his firm for representing us in our fight to stay on the ballot in Maryland. Mark's firm, Wiltshire & Grannis released a statement that I posted here on Independent Word with the pdf versions of the complaint, motion and ruling attached to the post.

There are many other people we need to thank for this victory including Doug McNeil who has worked tirelessly and is our own official Ballot Access "Guru". This is not only a great victory for the MdLP and the Green Party it is a victory for those who desire more than the typical two choices at the polls and a victory for ballot initiatives in our state.

Now it is back to work to continue our never ending battle at defending Liberty.

Libertarian Party: 40 years is enough - end the Drug War

2011-06-29T09:00:00.003-04:00

WASHINGTON - June 17, 2011 is the 40th anniversary of America's War on Drugs. Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle issued the following statement today:
"On June 17, 1971, President Richard Nixon declared a 'War on Drugs,' which has become a relentless violation of the lives and property of Americans, including many who have never taken illegal drugs. These violations continue under President Barack Obama, an admitted former cocaine user who has shown no hesitation in throwing people into prison -- a punishment he might have suffered had he been caught. Moreover, although promising to respect medical marijuana use in states where voters have approved it, the Obama administration has already conducted close to 100 raids on patients, growers, and compassion centers in those states.

"America's first experiment in prohibition involved alcohol, and is widely recognized as a failure. Approved in 1919, Prohibition I led to a steady rise in both alcohol usage and violent crime. The murder rate rose 50% between 1919 and 1933, peaking at 9.7 murders per 100,000 population in 1933, when the country finally decided enough was enough. Immediately after the repeal of Prohibition I, gangsterism went into a swift decline, with all of the major gangs disappearing within 18 months, and the murder rate dropping every single year for more than a decade.

"Prohibition II -- the War on Drugs -- has been another tragedy. We applaud the efforts of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), an organization of current and former police, prosecutors, judges, DEA agents, and others, which issued a 20-page report this month detailing the tragic results of this misguided crusade, entitled 'Ending the Drug War: a Dream Deferred.'

"In their report, LEAP documented some of the measurable costs: over a million people arrested each year, a trillion dollars spent, and drug gangsterism at a level that dwarfs its alcohol equivalent and which has led to a bloodbath in Mexico that is spilling over into the United States. Not because of drugs, but because of drug laws. And over 120 million Americans have used illicit drugs: only the most deluded observer believes the laws have curbed drug abuse, and only the cruelest believes that 40% of the American population belongs in prison. No wonder 67% of police chiefs say the War on Drugs is a failure.

"Ultimately, of course, this tragedy is the result of our government's refusal to allow people to engage in peaceful choices as to what they consume. Even if drug use were to rise upon a return to the American tradition of tolerance that existed before the 1914 Harrison Narcotics Act, our streets would be safer, innocent people would not have their homes raided and pets killed by narcotics agents entering the wrong house, victims of asset forfeiture laws wouldn't have their houses and other assets seized without due process, and resources would be freed to spend on improving peoples' lives instead of destroying them.

"Ten years ago, Portugal decriminalized all drug use, including substances classified as hard drugs. As a Cato Report entitled 'Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies' showed, drug use dropped over the next several years and the Portuguese now use marijuana at lower levels than Americans use cocaine.

"It only took Americans 14 years to realize the insanity of Prohibition I. Both practical considerations and simple human decency demand that our government end Prohibition II now."
The Libertarian Party platform includes the following:

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.
1.2 Personal Privacy
Libertarians support the rights recognized by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure should include records held by third parties, such as email, medical, and library records. 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.

For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP Executive Director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222.

The LP is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets, civil liberties, and peace. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at our website.

Libertarians say Obama's Afghanistan policy is a failure

2011-06-28T17:43:00.000-04:00

WASHINGTON - Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle responded to President Obama's June 22 speech with the following comments today:
"President Obama's speech was disappointing, but not surprising. The withdrawals he announced are painfully inadequate. Obama's withdrawals, even if they are carried out as he described, will still leave about 70,000 American troops in Afghanistan, probably for years to come. The president is commander-in-chief of the military. He has the power to end the war now, and withdraw all American troops, and that's what he should do.

"The U.S. has no business fighting a war in Afghanistan. Nearly three years ago, our Libertarian National Committee adopted a resolution calling for the withdrawal of our armed forces from Afghanistan. We are saddened and angry that there are now more troops there than ever.
"Obama talked about 'ending the war responsibly.' I think the word 'responsibly' is a weaselly escape hatch in case Obama doesn't want to withdraw more troops later. He will just say, 'That would be irresponsible -- I need to keep the war going strong.'

"This war causes the Afghan people to justifiably feel a greater hatred toward America. It makes American taxpayers poorer. And it emboldens other would-be aggressors, who can point to American intervention in Afghanistan whenever they feel like doing the same elsewhere.

"There are two big winners from the continuation of this war: Our military-industrial complex, which seems to have the president in its back pocket, and the Afghan government, which continues to enjoy tremendous benefits at the expense of the American taxpayer.

"If anything, Republican reactions to the president's speech were even more ridiculous than the speech itself. Republican Senator John McCain fretted that this withdrawal was not 'modest' enough.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, feeling the need to criticize Obama despite the fact that they basically agree on everything, complained of an 'arbitrary timetable.' Republican House Speaker John Boehner worried about losing our 'gains' in Afghanistan. All these comments show an inability to comprehend an intelligent, modest foreign policy, as well as a serious lack of respect for American taxpayers."

The Libertarian Party platform includes the following:

3.3 International Affairs
American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. 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.

9% Approval Rating for Congress: The Reasons?

2011-06-11T23:50:00.000-04:00

by John Blythe

Originally Posted on Independent Word

Well you gotta love it! A recent Rasmussen poll shows that Congress’ approval rating is tied at an all time low of just 9%. It’s pretty pathetic.

One must ask why our Congressional leaders, the people we elect to represent us and to establish policy and law, are universally hated by almost everyone in America.

Certainly, Congressman Anthony Weiner’s little fraternity act exposing X-rated pictures of himself doesn’t help the reputation of the now irrelevent Congress. It also doesn’t help that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who is calling for an ethics investigation for Weiner, still won’t force him to resign, even though the pressure is mounting. This is the same Nancy Pelosi who vowed to “drain the swamp” in Washington and the same Nancy Pelosi, when she was elected as Speaker of the House in 2006, wanted to have “the most honest, ethical and transparent Congress in our nation’s history.”

I suppose the American people are remembering some of this bull crap and realize that Mrs. Pelosi plays the game of double standards. Interestingly, the same Rasmussen poll showed that 42% of Americans believe members of Congress are simply corrupt. Indeed they appear to be.

Additionally, Speaker John Boehner, who voters sent a very clear message to back in November, is seemingly doing nothing about improving the way Congress conducts business.

It seems that both the House and the Senate simply don’t care about the Constitution anymore, nor do they care about promoting basic American values. So while Congressman Weiner and Congressman Chris Lee before him, put photos of themselves exposed on the internet, we have a President that is acting like a mini-dictator, a crippled economy, tens of millions of Americans out of work, the housing market at an all time low, a Federal Reserve rapidly inflating our currency, $14 trillion in national debt, a war in Libya that nobody even knows why we’re there in the first place and Obama Care which was shoved down the country’s throat last year.

Interestingly, Congress has authority over all of these issues. When the framers of the Constitution established a legislature, it was Congress who is supposed to be the dominate force of government in America with authority over the President. Unfortunately, what has happened over time is that Presidents have largely rubberstamped their own party in Congress to set an agenda, rather than for the fundamental good of the American people. If any of our current members of Congress read the Constitution, they would understand this, but apparently they’re too busy taking lewd pictures of themselves.

If Congress sincerely wants to achieve a better approval rating, then maybe they should start exercising the authority granted to them in the Constitution. First of all, start supporting business and capitalism in America instead of outsourcing jobs to China or anywhere else. Congress should re-stablish good regulation on commerce and Wall Street to prevent another meltdown of the economy and the scapegoating of millionaire banking executives. Allow an internal audit of the Federal Reserve to see where money has trickled down to over the last 90 plus years, in addition to the bailout and TARP program. As to the War in Libya, if a President authorizes air strikes on any sovereign nation that is not a threat to national security and done so without Congressional approval, it is simply a violation of the U.S. Constitution, regardless of the War Powers Act. Why is the President not undergoing impeachment proceedings? And Obama Care? More than two thousand pages long? Here’s an idea: Read the damn bill!

Quite frankly, I am disgusted with Speaker Boehner, the Republican controlled House and the Democratic controlled Senate. When Boehner said that America had sent a clear message to Congress in November and things would change, we all believed him. As usual, nothing changes. And the members of Congress talk about these ridiculous ideas of submitting proposals to solve our country’s problems with a straight face and we believe them. Are we morons?

Maybe we are morons. After all, we keep re-electing the same ineffective, non-productive people to Washington that have been destroying our country. In some regard, I would say that Congress is responsible for generating a 9% approval rating, because they don’t listen to the people that elect them to office. On the otherhand, why do we keep re-electing them, if they’re not doing anything?

The United States of America, once the largest economy in the world, has now diminished so rapidly, because these jackasses in Washington refuse to do anything. It is an absolute pathetic disgrace.

News Media ignoring important stories

2011-06-08T17:00:00.000-04:00

By John Blythe

Originally Posted on Independent Word

John Blythe

I have to sincerely apologize to any readers for wasting time yesterday reporting on the now-disgraced Congressman Anthony Weiner. From the looks of it, I doubt he’ll even survive this scandal, now that Radar Online has released the explicit tweets and X-Rated photographs of himself.

But this is exactly the problem in today’s society. We have a news media that is largely controlled by liberals and when it comes to one of their own being slaughtered, they will give as much attention as possible to the story. If anyone paid attention in the last week, a majority of the news media has been focusing its attention on the Weiner/freakshow scandal, instead of giving time to stories that should be shocking the living hell out of every single American.

Here is a short list of stories that have materialized in the last week, that should have been on the front cover of every single newspaper, but as usual, these stories have simply been ignored because the Weiner controversy generates ratings.

- China has been divesting its holdings in U.S. Treasury Bills and as of last Friday, had divested 97% of them. This means China, like other nations holding U.S. debt are realizing we can’t pay it back and our Federal Reserve holding artificial borrowing rates at an all time low of 1.5% is not sufficient enough for China to hold our bills in the short term. If the Federal Reserve raises rates, our economy tanks. Makes sense right, why would China want to hold our currency that is devalued.

- After the China story was released, stocks rebounded and now the Federal Reserve is going to attempt to devalue the dollar to enhance better trade. The issue here is that the Federal Reserve prints money, while our money looses unit value due to inflation.

- Another interesting story that came out earlier this week centered around U.S. home prices for 2011 are at an all time low since the Great Depression. How is Obama’s “new deal” plan working out for all of his voters that wanted to buy a home with a low interest mortgage?

- Here is another story involving money… while he was running the Federal Reserve Branch in New York back in 2008, the little weasel of a Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner gave out loans to his banking executive buddies, including Goldman Sacs, Royal Bank of Scotland and Deutsche Bank for low interest at 0.01%. This is a man that should resign in disgrace.

- Our nation’s long term unemployment is worse than the Great Depression and the number of unemployed people in America is in reality much larger than 9%, because this is only the pertcentage of people actually receiving unemployment benefits.

- And my favorite story ignored by the mainstream news media this week: WikiLeaks verified that the creation of a North American Union betweeen the U.S., Canada and Mexico was true, and was not a conspiracy theory after all.

I think this is the reason why we have blogs and websites today thanks to the emergence of technology. Because the stories that need to be reported are picked up by normal every day people browsing the internet who actually want the public to become aware of what is going on in this world. Since the news media doesn’t want to do its job anymore when it comes to news reporting and journalism, I guess WE have to become the news reporters and journalists.

Personal Secession – The Way to Freedom

2011-06-07T11:00:00.002-04:00

by Michael S. Rozeff

Certain people and groups in California want to ban male circumcision, and they are getting measures placed on local ballots for voting.

In Louisiana, there is some sort of law about the teaching of the creation of man in the public schools that has people who dislike that law all riled up and seeking repeal.

Women in Egypt are bitterly divided between those who favor sharia law for Egypt and those who favor secular law.

The State of Arizona has a law that legalizes medical marijuana. The Governor is suing the State of Arizona against this law because it conflicts with federal law.

President Bush "launched missiles and bombs at targets in Iraq" in March of 2003, an action of which 25 percent of Americans disapproved at the time. That figure rose to 53 percent within 8 months.

What do the above items have in common?

They all involve laws approved of by some and disapproved of by others. In all cases, there are winners and losers. The winners get their favorite laws passed. The losers have to obey.

In all cases, the losers have no choice.

You can’t smoke in a bar. You must use a bicycle helmet. You cannot use an incandescent light bulb. You cannot place phosphates in soap. You must use a front-loading washing machine. Your shower cannot pump at above a specified rate. Your toilet cannot go above a specified number of gallons. You must pay taxes for government programs. You must accept Federal Reserve Notes in payments. A bank must report cash transactions over a specified size. You cannot buy marijuana. You cannot simply buy a gun.

If circumcision is banned in San Francisco, those who want to circumcise their babies will have to go elsewhere. In Louisiana, the public schools, and maybe even private schools who can’t find an exemption on some grounds, will teach what the legislature tells them to teach. In Egypt, either sharia law will be in or it will be out, for everyone. In the individual states, either they will be allowed to pass medical marijuana laws or else the federal law will be the rule. Clinton, Bush, and Obama and the Congress will launch their missiles wherever they please even if large numbers of Americans disapprove, and they will extract the resources to do this in the form of taxes whether you like it or not.

These examples all involve voting and democracies, but the same division between winners and losers occurs in other forms of government such as monarchies and dictatorships.

They all have in common that there are always groups of people who want to impose their views on everyone. They all have in common that every such group aims to use government as the instrument to fulfill their ardent desires.

I feel sorry for the human race. The thinking and emotional makeup of most people are so impoverished that they cannot find a way to live without imposing their views on as many other people as they can. It is not enough for them to preach their views. They feel they hav

e to pass a law or somehow use the government to make everyone else conform to their wishes.

I felt sadness when I read about the woman pushing for a circumcision law. It doesn’t matter what her reasons are. Everyone always comes up with reasons. Bush had his reasons. Obama has his reasons. The Louisiana legislators had their reasons. I’m not debating the reasons or the substance of any of these many debates. I’m not interested in choosing up sides.

I feel sad because the desire to pass a law and impose one’s own views on everyone else is, to my way of thinking, so stupid, so ignorant, so limited in vision, so immoral, so anti-human, so devoid of understanding, so unloving, so distorted, so anti-freedom, so anti-voluntaristic, so anti-individual, so unreasonable, so intolerant, and so against the person.

Government in its present condition is a factory that constantly manufactures new kinds of ropes, manacles, gags, and handcuffs with which it binds everyone. This is what most people accept.

I am amazed, totally amazed, that people do not see or admit the contradiction between the American rhetoric of freedom and what actually goes down, and between that rhetoric and their own attempts to vote in the candidates of their choice and impose their programs on everyone else!

Through the instrument of government, there are countless groups and political parties organized with the sole purpose of making slaves out of everyone. Is this not a self-evident truth? No, it is not, because every such group and party attempts to provide reasons why its program is a good thing. They would bitterly dispute my contention that their aim is to impose slavery on everyone.

One government for all cannot coexist with freedom. They are mutually exclusive.

Let those who wish to build missiles and shoot them into Tripoli do so at their own cost and risk and for themselves only. Let those who wish to form and pay for a military that trains every nation on earth how to interdict drugs do so at their own cost and risk and for themselves only. Let those who wish to form a legislature that enacts their version of religion do so at their own cost and risk and for themselves only. Let those who wish to pass a law that forbids drug use do so for themselves only. Let those who wish to pass a law that forbids circumcision do so for themselves only. Let those who wish to tax themselves and give the proceeds away to those in need do so for themselves only. Let those who wish to guarantee medical care for all those in their group do so at their own cost and risk and for themselves only.

If we actually want freedom and not slavery, we cannot have one government for all. Freedom and one government for all are inconsistent with one another. They contradict one another. To have one government and simultaneously to have freedom is an impossibility.

To arrive at greater freedom, one has to have the freedom to remove the manacles imposed by a government that presumes to be the government for all. One has to be able to opt out of government laws. One has to be able to secede personally from a government.

Personal secession manifests one’s personal freedom to choose a government (or no government) of one’s desires, by oneself or in association with other people.

For further reading on personal secession and secession by groups, one can use a search engine. After writing the above, I searched on secession movements. One site that came up was secession.net. Their statement of principles is well worth reading. They advocate something close to personal secession, namely, community-based secession. The difference between them is trivial.

For example, this site writes

PRIMACY OF THE RIGHT TO SECEDE
The primary political right of the individual and of political communities must be to secede from any larger political entity, whether they were born into it, were forced to join it, or voluntarily joined it. If one denies or relinquishes that right, one is little more than a slave--and no agreement to become a slave can be legally or morally binding.
Secession of individuals and communities does not have to mean war and violence. It should be a natural evolutionary feature of all political entities. Communities can form networks or confederations, since secession is accepted by both in principle. However, communities will not form "federations" which by definition do not allow secession. We will suggest practical and nonviolent means by which such separation can occur and the kinds of networks and confederations that could be created to replace oppressive nation states.

COMMUNITY-BASED SECESSION:
In the name of nationalism, religion, ideology, tradition or "the common good," the governments of the world suppress individual liberty and individuals' control of their own communities. Special interest- corporate- state- bureaucratic- military elites worldwide tax, regulate, bully, beat, prosecute, jail and execute citizens into submission. They discriminate against, rob, ethnically cleanse and genocide members of oppressed racial/ethnic/religious/regional groups. Without government control, these elites would have little real power over individuals and communities.
The concept of individual liberty is simple: individuals should be free to do whatever they please as long as they don't harm others by using force or fraud. This is the basic ethical tenet or "golden rule" of all religions, one corrupted by layers of theology and ritual and centuries of kowtowing to political authority. Individual consent–not some nationalist, racial, religious, tribal or, ideological construct or "social contract"–is the only legitimate basis of any social, economic and political organization. However, supporting the idea and value of individual liberty is not enough to obtain liberty. We must support institutional structures that make it impossible for public or private entities to crush individual liberty.

Contrast personal secession with the U.S. government’s notions of "security" and "democracy" and "welfare" for all of America. The U.S. vision is actually a highly limited vision that pretends to be a universal vision. Its thrust is to the common and general. It is certainly a monopolistic vision. Ultimately, it is a static and one-sided totalitarian vision. A totalitarian vision within the United States is continually being enacted and made real. It is not that of Orwell or Huxley although some of their elements are present. At present it is a suffocating and deadening vision in which political correctness holds sway and in which government makes countless rules that control many aspects of life, while allowing outlets in certain directions that vent the pressures. The government’s vision is of oneness, sameness, monotony, regularity, perfect safety and security, regimentation, and boredom. It crushes the personal and the individual.

The U.S. government is even making strenuous efforts to promote this vision in foreign governments.

Democracy is not freedom. It is the suppression of freedom. This takes different forms in different countries. In America, the current obsession is with security and safety in every aspect of life. The government intrudes everywhere with these as its rationales. This is the American totalitarianism.

Personal secession allows for multiple visions of life and living. It allows for dynamism, creativity, personal development along new lines, invention, discovery, and adventure. It allows for variation and newness. It allows for development along unexpected lines. It allows for mistakes and learning from mistakes, new and untried ventures, new ways, new customs, and new ideas. It allows for personal risk-taking. It emphasizes the personal and individual. It is pluralistic. It is voluntaristic.

Personal secession means freedom and all that freedom entails.

June 6, 2011

Michael S. Rozeff [send him mail] is a retired Professor of Finance living in East Amherst, New York. He is the author of the free e-book Essays on American Empire: Liberty vs. Domination and the free e-book The U.S. Constitution and Money: Corruption and Decline.

We Are All Libertarians Now

2011-06-07T08:00:00.001-04:00

by Susan Westfall

Originally posted on Lew Rockwell.com

Recently, I was asked to explain whether or not it was "a common libertarian belief that any government is bad." This sticking point was one that in the questioners' own words caused them to "lose interest," and despite being "in agreement with a lot of libertarian thinking...talking about deregulating everything," turned them off. I was asked this because of my support for and recent article about Ron Paul, who despite decades of serving as a Republican Congressman, is still consistently labeled as a libertarian in almost every media interview with him or discussion about him. The subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, implication by the media is that either the word libertarian in and of itself (or perhaps just the idea of being a libertarian) is somehow not quite right, maybe even unacceptable, and most certainly not electable.

At this point I would like to make it clear that the people posing their questions seemed genuinely concerned with simply understanding better the issue of greatly reducing the size of government and not with deriding libertarianism. In fact, they assured me that they "like a lot of libertarian principles," but deregulation and "pursuing an idealized notion of a free market," is not an answer they understand and this, I assume, could affect their vote in 2012. However, their wording of the overarching question first asked shows how successful the media campaign against libertarian ideals over the years has been. The application of the label "libertarian" to someone's political character these days insinuates that said person is not only promoting an absence of any government whatsoever, but is almost eagerly awaiting the advent of anarchy and its chaotic and bloody results. Somalia is often used to demonstrate how such kooky libertarian ideals will end.

Libertarians, as with any other group, have beliefs that are wide and varied. I won't pretend to know them all, or purport to having done a deep or intensive study of the matter. "Libertarian ideas are like stones dropping into a body of water, making waves in so many directions that no one is sure where they come from," says Lew Rockwell in The Case for Libertarian Hope. An exact list of what libertarians believe in, stand for, or wish to attain might theoretically be compiled, but in reality would not be applicable to all its advocates. That said, there are at least two basic concepts that appear to be foundational to libertarianism: individual liberty and doing no harm. Everything else, in my opinion, is just extrapolation and lends to a general confusion that inevitably dilutes their strength.

Individual liberty is based on two concepts: life and property. Your life and your property are yours, and yours alone. You are free to do with them what you will, as long as you don't harm another with your doings. We exercise the choices we make regarding life and property through an ideal held dear by ALL people, no matter the political or religious label attached to them: that of free will. We choose what to eat and drink, where to live and how, what to think and believe, who to befriend or not, whether to be honest or lie, if we will act morally or immorally...the list could fill tomes. All individuals, regardless of race or gender, are born with this gift by which, at the very least, they are able to think, rationalize, and create. It is an accepted fact that free will is dictated by no person other than the one exercising it. If people are religious, they exercise their free will to adhere to God's laws. However, I doubt any of them seriously believe that a bolt of lightening will shoot out of the Walmart ceiling tiles to strike them dead should they decide to shoplift. God does not compel mankind through force to follow His laws regarding morality, the treatment of fellow man, or any other of His dictates. God gifts mankind with individual liberty and extolls us to use it to exercise our free will, follow His guidance, and choose wisely in all things. If we choose unwisely, we and we alone will suffer the consequences – not our parents, not our neighbors, and not the rich people who have more than us. Does government then deem itself more powerful, more all-knowing than God? It must. Through legislation written by Congress the federal government: denies us the liberty to exercise our free will and dictates our choices for us; takes our wealth through taxation and redistributes it to others; and forces us to comply with its dictates through threats of imprisonment and/or fines. Pretty presumptuous, not to mention overbearing. As Ron Paul is fond of saying, "It makes no sense whatsoever." It makes even less sense to label people who believe in the right of individual liberty to exercise free will as kooks, anarchists, or extremists.

So since government is most assuredly not God, what is the role and purpose of government? Thankfully, we have a document that lays out just exactly those things. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates specifically the 21 duties the federal government is authorized to perform. Unfortunately, the legislative branch ignores it, the executive branch appends it, the judicial branch undermines it, the States are remiss in their duty to guard against all of the latter, and the people have forgotten that they ARE the government. So instead of a Constitutional Republic that would restrain bureaucracy, protect liberty, and enforce laws, we now have a 'democracy' that is so gargantuan in size that it is unsustainable. One grows dizzy trying to count the number of departments, programs, bureaus, divisions, sub-departments, and offices instituted to enact all the unconstitutional legislation written over the last one hundred years to regulate and restrain the people. But will Congress cut it back? Not unless the people insist, and too many still don't understand that most of what government does is not really beneficial, but in actuality detrimental to the peoples' well-being and in direct opposition to the general welfare of their Republic.

The mere mention of cutting government back to a Constitutional, and thus affordable size, gives rise to immediate cries of doom, gloom, and destruction. Without the benign munificence of whatever sacred department or program targeted for removal it is intimated that: old people will be dropping like flies in the streets; no one will have a home; all our children will starve; the country will be overcome with unbearable pollution; everyone will die from poisoned food and bad medicine; and so on till the cows come home. Used to fuel the peoples' fears and maintain the status-quo, reporters seldom question whether any of these programs or departments are efficient or even worthy of expending scarce tax dollars on. Take for example the Environmental Protection Agency. This hallowed body purports to protect us from polluting corporations through tough regulations without which, supposedly, America would be wallowing in untold amounts of toxic pollution and all life would perish. In reality, its very policies often encourage corporations to continue polluting. If it costs less to pay a fine for polluting than it does to make renovations needed to meet regulation standards, then corporations will pay the fines and continue polluting. The government collects the fine money, no reform occurs, and the pollution continues on for years. What marvelous protection! If the EPA really wanted to protect the environment by enforcing tough regulations, there would be no optional fine payments or the fines would exceed renovation costs. And why do we need an agency for this anyway? Constitutionally, that's what the court system is for...to protect property from pollution or any other damage and to fairly decide compensation and punishment. Strictly and properly enforced court decisions would soon force corporations to curtail bad habits they are now actually encouraged to continue, by the very same agency supposedly protecting us.

Another fine example of government proficiency is the Food and Drug Administration. It ensures that we have safe medicines and food. Right? Surely it's worth the expended dollars to keep us safe from death and injury. Economist Randall Holcombe begs to differ. "The policy experts who have evaluated the costs and benefits of drug regulation have almost uniformly concluded that the costs of the regulations are not worth their benefits,"quotes Thomas Woods in his book Rollback. Shouldn't we at least listen to these experts on FDA policy? It's not like, as Mr. Woods says, "a free people would...stand around scratching their heads...[wondering] what to do about [food and] drug safety." He proposes, and rightly so, that private firms such as Underwriters Laboratories could easily take over the job of informing customers of safe products, and at no cost to the taxpayer. In addition, at recent hearings on the Hill arguments were heard regarding the FDA's over-regulation of medical devices and an approval process that stifles innovation. Once again we find government is not always efficient. Why expend tax dollars on something private companies and the market could probably do better?

Even if people don't always agree why, in light of the fact that there is simply no money to continue funding them, the need to cut many of these regulating bodies is fast becoming an accepted norm. However, since the answer to the question "But, but how would we protect everyone?" is often the free market, another hurdle is quickly rolled out by the media for people to stumble upon. Horrors! The free market is the harbinger of all disasters that have befallen us, both old and new. As such we certainly can't trust it to regulate anything. Hogwash! "The free market" hasnot been free since 1913, when the FED began centrally planning our economy and intervening in the market. Any intervention in the market disrupts the natural balance maintained by demand and production. The market, if left to operate free of restrictions, reflects real consumer demands for goods and services. This in turn is used to set the price of goods based on ease and speed of production. If we understand that economic value can only be placed on an object based on whether consumers need or want it enough to pay for it, and that needs and wants change arbitrarily with social circumstances and can't be predicted accurately, then the idea that any regulating body could possibly out-perform the natural balance the market achieves is ludicrous. As soon as any restrictions are placed on the market, either through legislative regulations or central planning controls, the balance shifts away from the consumer towards the producer. This imbalance quickly leads to big businesses and corporations rapidly beating a path to Congress to purchase special favors that will benefit them, but never their consumers. No wonder government jumped so quickly into the Keynesian fueled vehicle for intervention provided by his scientific rational for central economic planning. It placed them firmly in the driver's seat, big producers in the back seat paying the fare, and consumers in the trunk...if they were lucky. More often than not the consumers find themselves choking on dust at the road side. "The free market protects consumers and restrains government and big business," Ron Paul articulates when asked how free markets could protect us. Big government advocates were more than happy to throw off those restraints and invite their cronies along for the ride.

The federal government's role in the market is to ensure that trade in goods produced remains regular and unrestricted between whatever parties want to have commerce, and to enforce and uphold contracts between those parties. It is not to control through legislation what can be produced in the name of regulating commerce. Nor is it, or has it ever been, to legislate into being an entity to plan the economy for the general welfare of the people. Intervention in the free markets by government created bodies based on Keynes's theory for central planning is the actual harbinger, and true culprit, of all our present woes. This understanding is becoming clearer to people, and is evidenced by a growing resurgence of belief in the idea that more government seldom translates to better government. One need not believe in any particular political theory to find the idea of smaller government attractive. In fact conservatives, republicans, constitutionalists, independents, and tea party people, as well as many dreaded libertarians, easily find common ground inadvocating for smaller government. When asked about the size of government recently on the Diane Rehm show, Ron Paul commented, "[It should be] as small as possible." During that interview he further explained, "There is nothing wrong with describing conservatism as protecting the Constitution, protecting all things that limit government. Government is the enemy of liberty. Government should be very restrained." Growing support at the polls for Dr. Paul demonstrates that people are not finding his defense of liberty and small government such unacceptable ideas, despite his being labeled a libertarian by the media. In fact, judging by how frequently we now hear similar platitudes pass the lips of many a politician who previously derided Ron Paul for his stance, I would say his ideas are very acceptable to a majority of people. So much so that it seems quite sensible to proclaim that, "If we believe in having the liberty to exercise our free will and if we believe in smaller government, then perhaps we are all libertarians now."

June 6, 2011

Susan Westfall [send her mail] is a mother, a libertarian, and an educator.

Down With the Dictator

2011-06-06T23:00:00.001-04:00

by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Originally posted on Lew Rockwell.com

Governments and their intellectual front men believe that nothing unites a population like a war. Actually, that’s not quite true. What happens is that during war, governments strike fear into their domestic opponents and silence them through intimidation. The appearance of unity is wholly illusory.
If you truly want to unite a population, here is a key: drive the dictator out of the country. The fleeing of a despot always leads to unparalleled and authentic celebration because the people perceive a new-found freedom. In the street celebrations, dancing, enthusiasm, and optimism, we gain a glimpse of what freedom is all about. It is about removing the boot from the neck.

This is precisely what we see in Yemen today, as President Ali Abdullah Saleh was escorted out of the country by henchmen hired by his protector state of Saudi Arabia. There he is undergoing medical treatment for wounds suffered in a successful hit on his presidential compound. There is no way that this guy can come back and rule his country again.
This deeply ignorant thug, who grabbed and held power in the same way they did in the old days of the Soviet thugocracy – murder, mayhem, slavish loyalty to powerful sponsors – has been a persistent violator of individual liberties since 1978. All these years he held power through sheer brutality and lies, though the people themselves never believed a word of it.

This year's uprising throughout the Arab world swept through Yemen as in many other countries, and he held on through violence, bloodshed, and by promising reforms, elections, and departure – though he failed to carry out any of his promises.
His departure leaves the vice president in charge, but he is seriously weakened because in Yemen, as in so many other Arab states, the people have a new sense of their own empowerment. Aided by technology and motivated by Enlightenment-style ideals, the people are telling thugs of all types to take a hike.

The Yemen case is the closest we've come to seeing an effective use of direct, defensive force by the people against a government leader. Of course it is always better for the tyrant to leave once popular consent is withdrawn. This preserves the peace. But if regimes refuse to relent and begin "a long train of abuses" against the rights and liberties of the people, they have every right to fight back, as Thomas Jefferson argued in the Declaration of Independence. (The prudence of such action is always a separate question, of course.)

What a tragedy, then, that it is Jefferson's own country that ends up being the main imposer and backer of tyrants in the Arab world. Saleh has been an on-again-off-again US puppet, just like Saddam Hussein and Colonel Gaddafi – permitted to rule on the condition that US foreign policy priorities are wholly embraced, and US enemies are jailed, tortured, and killed.
In this case, Saleh was an ally in the "war on terror" – which is something of a joke given that terrorism means nothing if not the willingness to inflict massive violence on the innocent. That pretty much sums up his 33 years in power.

But the United States doesn't see it that way, and already the US is working to shore up the power of Saleh's temporary replacement. And why? In order to prevent the great bugaboo: the ascendence of….(ominous music, please)…al Qaeda.
When will our elites grant the obvious reality? These uprisings, despite the involvement of the CIA, are not about Islamic fundamentalism. They are, for most people, about freedom, opportunity, and the desperate desire to embrace the modern world and stop being used as pawns by an alien superpower.

To know this, you need only look at the pictures and see the joy. This is the joy that the prospect of freedom inspires.

June 6, 2011

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail], former editorial assistant to Ludwig von Mises and congressional aide to Ron Paul, is founder and chairman of the Mises Institute, executor for the estate of Murray N. Rothbard, and editor of LewRockwell.com. See his books.

Why Libertarian? - Mark Grannis

2011-06-06T17:04:00.004-04:00

LP Monday Message: Edwards, Weiner & Schwarzenegger

2011-06-06T16:51:00.000-04:00

posted by Staff on Jun 06, 2011

June 6, 2011

Dear Friend of Liberty,

John Edwards was the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2004, and he was a leading contender for the presidential nomination in 2008. We all now know he cheated on his wife and lied to America about it throughout much of that time. Now he's facing potential jail time if convicted of using campaign funds for a cover-up.

Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner has put on quite a show lately.

The soap operas aren't confined to Democrats. Republican California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger recently confessed to cheating for decades and had a child he hid from the public for years.

Not that long ago, Newt Gingrich was cheating on one of his ex-wives while haranguing Bill Clinton over Monica Lewinsky.

A few other names come to mind: Al Gore, Mark Foley, Jesse Jackson Sr., Jesse Jackson Jr., and Mark Sanford.

Some people argue that these people's private lives should not be of concern to the public.

A counter-argument is that people who lie about their private lives are also likely to lie about official business as well. Could they also lie about weapons of mass destruction, or global warming, or the necessity of a trillion-dollar bailout?

So what's my point? That Libertarians are more honest than Republicans and Democrats?

Actually, no. My point is, human beings are fallible, and many of us are dishonest and easily corrupted.

That's one of the reasons why government should have as little power as possible. When human beings have the power to control others' lives, our natural fallibility makes us very dangerous.

What's worse, power tends to corrupt us and make us even more dishonest, conniving, and cruel.

We Libertarians understand that humans are fundamentally imperfect, and we will always be imperfect.

Libertarians aren't simply looking for honest politicians. We are looking for politicians who understand this problem, and who will stand on principle to take power away from government, and return it to the individual.

Sincerely,
Wes Benedict
Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee