It's My Blog

Honeymoon

2010-03-14T20:03:00.002-04:00

I'm heading out on my honeymoon this week with my lovely wife, so I will not be posting for a while.

See y'all in a few days

Book Review: Capitalism Unbound - Andrew Bernstein

2010-03-11T20:47:00.002-05:00

I've just completed reading an excellent book about Capitalism, the economic system of laissez faire, individual rights, and freedom. The full title is: "Capitalism Unbound: The incontestable moral case for individual rights" and for such a short read I must say it does fulfill that promise. While I did find some errors with the historical aspects covered in the book, the overall argument made is fully accurate, and the message contained is of utmost importance to anyone who cherishes liberty and happiness.

Capitalism is a lost idea in the modern world thanks to statists who demonize it at every turn and self-proclaimed "conservatives" who refuse to defend it because of things like "focus groups" who deem the term unpopular. I fully believe that if we are to save ourselves and save our country we must turn all of our attention to the study of Capitalism as well as the failed systems of Socialism and Fascism. In Capitalism Unbound, Andrew Bernstein sets out to initiate such a study.

The book's stated purpose is to lightly cover the main ideas and the moral issues surrounding Capitalism, giving the reader enough knowledge to understand the subject and enough references to do deeper dive research on topics that they find are important to them. To that end, it is arranged in three parts:

The Historic Superiority of Capitalism
The Moral Superiority of Capitalism
The Economic Superiority of Capitalism

Personally I think this was a very effective method for presenting the author's thesis as it broke the subject into three easily discernible areas. I will proceed to review each subject as it was covered:

The Historic Superiority of Capitalism
Bernstein's first task in his discussion of Capitalism is to set out the historic record of economic systems and to compare them to the historic record of Capitalism. In a unique exercise, he lays out the economic conditions and systems of the pre-industrial world, from about 500 to 1500 A.D., and contrasts this with the rapid advancement and increase in the human condition seen during the industrial revolution. It's a fascinating dive into the economics of the dark ages, something that I have not seen before.

Unfortunately, in describing the economy of 19th century America, Bernstein takes the "official" objectivist stance on the issue: that while not perfect, America's government supported the free market and it was the lack of a philosophic base and the advent of the progressive movement that caused the government to shift toward fascism and thus create the disastrous mixed-economy that now burdens us. This is something that I've read several times in Ayn Rand's works, that is universally accepted by the organizations devoted to the study of objectivism, and that has recently gotten me kicked off of a list of bloggers covering objectivist topics. It is as if Bernstein and Objectivists reject every statist myth about the American economy post 1870, but accept every statist myth about America pre 1870. It saddens me that this author and such a distinguished group of intelligent people have taken the wrong position and maybe some day soon I'll do a post on this issue alone.

The reality of the situation is that the American government instituted by the Constitution is a Mercantilistic system modeled after that of Great Britain, where the government hands out favors and regulates free enterprise to accomplish the whims of politicians. This is clearly seen with the "Whiskey Rebellion" that occurred under our very first administration after the federal government decided to place a tax on alcohol - a move that was unjust, amoral, and totally the opposite of capitalism. The United States of America was never setup to protect individual rights and the degree of economic freedom and therefore prosperity that we have enjoyed is simply inversely proportional to the size and scope of the government.

America was founded by rugged individualists who fully believed in their rights to their own lives and their own freedoms. These are the men who carved out prosperous towns and cities from the uninhabited wilderness, the men who fought in the Revolution, and the men who were enslaved by the second handers in Philadelphia at the constitutional convention; only they did't know it. The only reason we had so much economic success as a country is that our people were forced by nature to live as rational egoists and our government was simply slow to catch up.

That being said, Bernstein argues correctly that it was capitalism in rudimentary forms in Britain and in America that dragged the entire world out of drudgery and backbreaking daily labor. This is the only section of the book that I don't think is fully accurate, but it is still very informative.

The Moral Superiority of Capitalism
The second section of Capitalism Unbound is devoted to laying out the moral justification for the system of freedom in practice, something that is not often accomplished by modern writers on the subjects of politics or economics. This justification is central to the entire debate though, for all arguments against Capitalism are made on moral grounds. Even the most staunch enemy of freedom will say that Capitalism does "work" (by increasing the standard of living for everyone) but that it is "flawed" in that it doesn't care for "those in need." They use this line of thinking to justify every single rule, regulation, or otherwise fascist imposition on the freedom of individuals. "Unrestricted Capitalism," they say, "can only lead to an oligarchy of the wealthy and the destruction of the common good." What is the common good? Whatever "they" say it is.

Bernstein absolutely shatters this flawed morality by setting forth the explanation of Rational Egoism and the side effects of defending the individual against the initiation of the use of force. He explains that only through self esteem and individual rights can we actually achieve goodwill towards others and honest, fulfilling charity. For example, is it "good will" that impels you to pay your taxes, which are then used for the "common good," or is it the barrel of a gun? I know I wouldn't pay them if I wasn't forced to. Is an act of charity actually charitable if it's not done voluntarily? Of course not. This chapter is very thorough and is extremely important if one is to understand just why the morality of the world is so backwards and why it is driving our economy in the same direction.

The Economic Superiority of Capitalism
In the third and final section of Capitalism Unbound, Bernstein performs a qualitative comparison of varying forms of economy, from socialism (or communism) to fascism to the modern calamity known as the mixed economy, where elements of freedom are arbitrarily mixed with elements of socialism and fascism.

He starts by studying socialism and its obvious and massive failures throughout history. He sheds light onto the inner workings of the Soviet economy and its slaughter of millions of innocents in the name of the "common good." Again I learned something I'd never heard before in this section, when Bernstein outlined all of the massive amounts of aid, assistance, and intellectual property the USSR received from the western world, and mainly from America. I never learned about this at school of course, but the fact of the matter is that Communism would have collapsed much earlier if FDR and other Americans hadn't worked so hard to prop it up. If you already had bad feelings toward the American Progressives of the early 1900s, take a few deep breaths before you read this part of the book, but do yourself a service and make sure you read it.

Next Bernstein moves into the failure of the mixed-economy, the current system of American government that has led to the never ending boom-bust cycle that creates wealth for second handers and destroys the businesses and the life savings of honest Americans. In a relatively small amount of space he manages to pull together a wealth of information from Austrian economists that explains the economic chaos we have all seen in recent history. If you've read books like "Meltdown" this section will be nothing new for you, but it is refreshing to see an Objectivist at least honor the works of such esteemed libertarians.

Finally, in the last section of Capitalism Unbound, Andrew Bernstein offers us a "modest proposal" on how to right this ship and save our economy and our freedom:

Let the United States move to full laissez-faire capitalism, assiduously protecting individual rights in all arenas of human life, including personal morality, as well as economics.
Let every other nation, without exception, if they so choose, move to partial socialism, to whatever degree each country's populace wishes.
Open the borders of all countries, so that every honest person - but not criminals or terrorists - can emigrate to the land he prefers.
Over a period of decades, even centuries, conduct a "Great Laboratory," honestly studying the progress of each nation, emigration patterns between nations, and levels of fulfillment/happiness among individual citizens of each nation.

To be honest, I was a little bit disappointed in this conclusion to an otherwise excellent book. The reason: it's just not rooted in reality. Step 2, for instance, has already happened and will continue to happen no matter what we do here in America. What we need to do is STOP sending foreign aid to countries who decide to do such things. Step 3 would be fine, but we can't control the border policies of other nations, so it's moot. Step 4 has already been done. All we need to do is look at history, as in the first part of the book, to learn what freedom will do for the prosperity of individuals.

Most importantly, Step 1 is simply out of the realm of possibilities for America. We are too far gone down the road to serfdom. Hell, we're already there. The government will never relinquish its power, no matter who we elect or what resolutions we pass.

The proposal that I would have hoped for is simple: peaceful secession of every state from the Union. Have the different states run their own governments as they please, and see which ones are the most prosperous and the most happy. Fight like hell to have your state be one of the few that establishes a truly Capitalist system, having the government perform only one strict role: to protect individuals from the initiation of the use of force, either foreign or domestic.

In summary, Capitalism Unbound is an excellent book and I recommend everyone read it. It's only about 130 pages and takes a couple of hours to read, and it is extremely informative and insightful. I learned a lot from reading this book and I think you will too.

Obama Condemns Washington over Healthcare

2010-03-08T18:51:00.001-05:00

Yes, that's right, you'd think he was a card-carrying TEA Party Patriot with the way President Barack Obama has been criticizing the culture of corruption in Washington, DC:

Obama got in a few digs at his new hometown. The people of Washington are “wonderful,” he said, “love the monuments and everything.” But in Washington, he added, people respond to every debate with the same question: What does this mean for the next election?

“They’re obsessed with the sport of politics,” he said, then drawing the distinction between Washington and the rest of the country. “You want the people in Washington to spend a little less time worrying about our jobs and a little more time worrying about your jobs,” he said.

link: President Obama brings health pitch to Pennsylvania - Carol E. Lee - POLITICO.com

I never thought I'd say this, but President Obama is exactly right: the problem with Washington and with politicians in general is that they are more worried about winning elections than they are about responsible government. Politicians spend all of their time worrying about their jobs, which would be a good thing if they were working in the free market, but is a terrible thing when you're talking about a government official. Why? Let me explain:

Politicians don't produce anything, they simply legislate, or in other words: make the rules for the government's ongoing actions. The government's actions involve two basic things: incomes and expenses. Government gets its income through theft, otherwise known as taxation. If the government were an Italian crime family, they would call this "protection money." The government then spends our money on its pet projects, otherwise known as vote buying. This process is muddied up by complex structures like lobbying firms, the federal reserve, political action groups, etc, but the end result is the same: politicians take money from certain people and give money to certain people, all the while without producing anything. Obviously if such a person is always worried about their job this means that they are going to focus on giving money to enough people so that they can get re-elected, while simultaneously degrading the "evil rich" who simply don't have enough votes to defend themselves.

On the other hand, "evil" businessmen who are always worried about their jobs don't have the luxury of printing up their own money or of stealing money from the "taxpayer" through the use of implied force (try not paying your taxes.) Businessmen have to actually produce something of value, like software or food or cars, and they have to get your money through a voluntary exchange of values. If they don't produce and they don't meet their goals, they get fired. Compare this to the career politician who simply gives out favors in exchange for votes and continues to put us further and further into debt. Which one is evil again?

Obama unfortunately continued on in his speech to decry the evil insurance companies and to reinforce the urgent need to "do something," which undoubtedly means he'll try to ram his fascist healthcare bill through. I wish he'd take his teleprompter's words about the sport of politics to heart and get the government out of the way, but I doubt it.

Totally Unplugged

2010-03-05T15:29:00.001-05:00

This week my company had a sales conference and for the large majority of the time I was totally and completely unplugged from the outside world. In the few short 5 minute breaks we did get between 7 AM and 12 PM each day, I was calling on customers and having impromptu meetings with colleagues.

It was a very productive week and I'm really excited about my job going forward. Things are looking up, as they say. Sorry for the lack of posts, but a man's gotta make a living!

Why I do not say "the Pledge"

2010-03-02T23:52:00.001-05:00

Every time you go to a sporting event or a political rally or a club meeting you're sure to come to the point in the program where they urge everyone to stand and say the pledge of allegiance. Usually everyone just stands up, puts their hand over their heart, and mindlessly recites the following words (the line breaks reflect the usual pauses):

I pledge allegiance
to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the republic
for which it stands,
one nation
under God,
indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all.

Now maybe I'm just too particular, or too much of a sandlapper, but I just can't bring myself to say these silly words. I used to get caught up in the nationalism, I used to think it was Amurrcan, but now I just can't bring myself to it.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag..."

What self respecting nation would have its people pledge "allegiance" to it? Shouldn't people enjoy and love living in their nation, voluntarily? Why should "allegiance" even be an issue? Any nation worth a damn shouldn't need any "allegiance," it should have people begging to be a part of it.

"and to the republic, for which it stands..."

Ha! Republic? Since when? We lost all semblance of a republic when the constitution was ratified, and we were transformed into an all out totalitarian empire during the war between the states.

"one nation, under God, indivisible..."

What? Even the King of England realized that America's strength was in its liberty, that we were a collection of self governing, free, sovereign nations. As DumpDC points out, so astutely as always:

Abraham Lincoln usually referred to America as “the Union” during his presidency. That is, until he wrote the Gettysburg Address in 1863. In his first line, he invented what had never existed before, and redefined the United States with the words, “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation…”. Poppycock! Even King George recognized each colony as free, sovereign and independent States in the Treaty of Paris of 1783, after the colonies defeated Great Britain in the Revolutionary War. A loose central government existed under the Articles of Confederation from 1776 to 1788. The American Federal Government did not exist under the Constitution until 1788.

The sovereign states of America created a servant in 1781 with the Articles of Confederation, which was called The United States of America. The Constitution superseded it in 1788. It was granted certain strictly defined powers, and tasked with carrying them out, as well as to protect the states from invasion and domestic violence (Article IV). It was also prevented from assuming powers not specifically granted to it (9th & 10th Amendment). But an association of states is not a state itself. Neither is an association of country clubs a country club, or an association of fire departments a fire department. Putting on the costume of nationhood does not make you a real nation any more than donning a red suit with horns and a bifurcated tail makes you the Devil.

link: One Nation? Under God? Indivisible? « DumpDC

"with liberty, and justice, for all"

This is the most shameful of all of the statements in this pledge. Liberty for all? Does anybody that says this pledge actually know what liberty is? Liberty is the freedom to take the actions which you deem necessary for the pursuit of your own happiness; to use your own mind to determine your own course of action and to be able to enjoy the fruits of your labor without confiscation or control of your property. Liberty is the freedom to do whatever it is that you think is right so long as it doesn't involve the initiation of the use of force against your fellow man. Can anyone say with a straight face that we enjoy anything close to liberty in this country? Only someone who is completely brainwashed. Without liberty, there is no justice, so we don't even need to cover that one.

So if you ever see me out at some social gathering where they are saying the pledge, don't be offended that I am seated and silent. I value my liberty too much to recite such a folly, and I hope you will join me.

Jefferson vs Lincoln: America Must Choose

2010-03-01T22:22:00.001-05:00

As you can tell by some of my other posts on the subject, given the choice between Lincoln and Jefferson, I choose Jefferson. Lincoln and his predecessor Hamilton are utterly evil in my eyes. This article is a great read on the fundamental choice we must make in how our government should work, and it really boils down to the vision of these two American figures:

Jefferson vs Lincoln: America Must Choose | Tenth Amendment Center

But, after decades spent trying to ignore or deny the irreconcilable disconnect between these two figures, the political class has succeeded only in perpetuating the contradictory and inherently dishonest character of modern American government. Though our system is ostensibly rooted in the rule of law and the ideals of liberty, its current nature is really embodied much more accurately by the lawless despotism of our 16th president.

We cannot continue to have it both ways. The preposterous dichotomy between America’s founding principles and the actions of her government, from the War Between the States to the War on Drugs, has predictably eroded that government’s moral standing at home, and its credibility around the world.

As a society, we cannot both revere a man whose fierce dedication to the right of political self-determination formed the philosophical foundations of our republic, and at the same time worship a dictator whose arrogant and bloody denial of that right transformed our republic into an empire.

It is time to choose. If Americans truly are heirs to the Jeffersonian legacy, than it has always been and must always be, not only our right, but our duty as citizens to withdraw consent from any government that becomes destructive of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.

Visa action update

2010-03-01T12:51:00.001-05:00

Well, there's been a delay on the Visa breakdown, and it appears we're nearing a breakout from a triangle pattern:

I had originally ignored the supporting upward trendline when I decided to go long on put options (betting that the price would break down.) However, I'm still convinced because of the extremely high volume day back in December that the price just isn't going to go above 88. So while I wasn't right about Visa tanking right away, I do think it will break out downward rather than upward. Because of the time nature of options, it just needs to happen within the next two weeks. We shall see!

Conservatism is Not the Answer

2010-02-28T10:37:00.001-05:00

Tom Mullen has written an excellent piece on conservatism and how the solution to all of our problems does not rest on simply reverting back to our "conservative" roots. The piece is full of valuable insights and hits on several key points in American History that are often ignored. This well worth the read.

Here is my favorite part, something that I wish more people would take the time to research and understand:

As soon as the Revolutionary War was won, the exact same debate erupted within the new American political system. Alexander Hamilton and his Federalists wished to replicate the British mercantilist system under an American government that would closely mirror the constitutional monarchy of Great Britain. The Federalists were the party of big government, national debt, corporate welfare, militarism, and central bank inflation.

They wished to preserve the status quo insofar as the role of government and the nature of civil society was concerned, which benefitted a privileged, wealthy elite. They were the conservatives.

Socially, this party was the less tolerant of dissenters and tended to promote religion as useful in informing public policy. During Adams’ presidency and with the Federalists in control of Congress, the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed, making it illegal to criticize the government. These also are core conservative principles.

Their opponents, Thomas Jefferson and his Democratic-Republicans, promoted exactly the opposite ideas. They wished to radically change the role of government in society to one that was strictly limited to enforcing the non-aggression principle of liberty, most importantly economic liberty. They were opposed to corporate welfare or any other government redistribution of wealth, railed against the dangers and injustice of standing armies and the national debt, and opposed the central bank. Over and over again when asked about the role of government, Jefferson consistently applied the non-aggression principle to arrive at an unambiguous answer. Always his answer supported each individual’s right to do as he pleased as long as he did not violate the rights of others, and to keep the fruits of his labor.

Jefferson and his followers insisted upon a “wall of separation” between church and state and denounced the Alien and Sedition Acts. They advocated free speech, civil liberties, and tolerance. These are core liberal principles.

While the conservatives gained the early lead due to George Washington’s election as president and subsequent appointment of Hamilton as treasury secretary, it was not a decisive victory. Washington, who along with Vice President John Adams was certainly a more moderate Federalist, also appointed Jefferson to his cabinet as secretary of state. This set the stage for an epic battle between the two ideologies after Washington departed from politics. Adams eventually broke with Hamilton and his party, costing him the 1800 election, and resulting in a decisive liberal victory by Jefferson and his Democratic-Republicans. For the next 60 years, it was the liberal ideology of individual liberty, limited government, and economic freedom that dominated federal politics.

link: Tom Mullen's Blog: Conservatism Is Not What We Need

Solving the Problem of Preexisting Conditions

2010-02-27T23:54:00.001-05:00

In any discussion about healthcare reform, whether in print, on TV, or on the internet, the argument is always made and assumed to be valid that we must do something so that people with preexisting conditions can have access to health insurance, and therefore health care. Unfortunately for people who love liberty and personal responsibility, both sides of the debate are consistent in their belief that the government must interject itself into the health insurance business to make sure these people can get help. To understand why this is wrong, I will illustrate how the argument of preexisting conditions is simply an excuse for government control (fascism) of healthcare.

First off, let's define the problem. There are in fact people out there who can't get health insurance because they have a medical condition that requires ongoing expensive treatment, or one that has a high probability of leading to more expensive treatment. Insurance companies, seeing as they don't have the luxury of printing their own money, have to make decisions on who they can cover and who they can't based on their potential incomes versus expenses. If someone already has a cost prohibitive condition, it would be suicide for the insurance company to cover them at the standard rate, so most either don't cover them or they charge them substantially higher rates.

Now if we want to solve this problem we have to first understand how this came to be. You see, we don't exist in a realm of timeless concretes; something that exists today exists for a reason, because of a sequence of events and decisions that led up to the present situation. Contrary to popular (and "progressive") belief, people don't just wake up one day and find themselves in a dire situation, desperately seeking the help of their fellow man. People get into those situations because of the decisions they make, the actions they take, and the forces of coercion they must face.

In that regard, let's take a look at the most common health coverage scenarios for people with serious conditions that require ongoing expensive healthcare:

1) They chose to decline coverage. Many young people decide that instead of wasting their money on expensive health insurance premiums each month, they'll simply opt against having any coverage and pocket the extra cash. This is a gamble and the odds are pretty good, most people save money this way and don't end up getting coverage until they feel like they need it.

2) They let their coverage expire. There are various reasons that a person may do this, the most common being that they had a job with health coverage as a benefit, lost that job (or quit) and didn't pick up their own insurance plan once the employee provided one expired, because it is very expensive for an individual to do so.

3) The insurance provider dropped them. While it may seem utterly evil, there are indeed low cost providers who will drop people from their coverage when it is determined that the costs of their future care will be too high. This is a risk you take when you purchase a particular insurance plan.

4) They have never been able to afford coverage. There are currently socialist programs in place to cover these folks, namely Medicaid.

5) They are covered by an employer plan. These people have medical coverage, and even though they have a serious condition, their insurer still covers them.

6) They are covered by a plan which they purchased. These people have taken their healthcare into their own hands and purchased and maintained their own insurance. They made sure that the plan wouldn't drop them if they developed a serious condition. They have "cadillac" coverage, so to speak.

In every case, the individual involved had a choice, and actually a series of choices. The people who find themselves ill and without coverage (1-4) have obviously made the wrong choices in life, and the person who is covered by their employer plan has arguably also gone down the wrong path. Unfortunately for our country, most people find themselves in one of these situations, and very few end up like number 6, with a "cadillac" plan that they purchased out of their own pocket.

Why is this? Is everyone just an idiot? I think not. The reason so many people make the wrong choices regarding health care coverage is that the government imposes unfavorable market conditions on us all through the use of force. Many states have sweetheart deals with insurance companies that enjoy monopolies or near monopolies through legislation and regulation. Forcefully eliminating competition will always drive prices higher. The FDA outlaws cheap treatments like Marijuana in order to keep their lobbyists from the drug companies happy, and the DEA imprisons millions of people each year for smoking a non-government approved substance. There is an obvious use of force there. Even more regulations don't allow for insurance companies to offer customized coverage plans, where people can opt to only insure themselves against the most disastrous things, but instead are forced to pay for coverage that insures against plastic surgery and other elective niceties. That is like forcing everyone to buy a BMW or better when all they need is a Civic.

Even worse is the cozy relationship corporations have with the IRS in that they get to write off employee health plans, and employees get to spend pre-tax dollars on corporate provided health plans. This might sound like a great idea, and I'm certainly no enemy to tax cuts, but in reality this is just another example of the evils of income taxation and behavior manipulation through the use of force (in this case, extortion.) You see, the end result of this brilliant tax scheme is that people don't purchase their own health insurance, but instead they are locked into the corporate plan. This means that when people lose or change their job, they lose their coverage (after a government enforced grace period.) The side effects of this are numerous and dangerous. People tend to go to the doctor more often, seeing as they aren't paying much for it. Companies work out sweetheart deals, seeing as it's just a big tax writeoff. Insurance companies slip nice little loopholes in the coverage plans, seeing as the employees don't actually read the contract, so they can just drop people from coverage at any time. Costs go up for everyone, especially individuals trying to independently purchase insurance, because all of the easy money has been made with corporate plans, and with the government preventing competition, there just isn't any easily affordable individual coverage out there.

So, how do we solve this conundrum? Well the answer is surprisingly simple: fully restore the individual's responsibility to buy his or her own health care. Get the government out of the way, let the people provide for themselves, and let charities pick up the slack. It is preposterous to propose that the government should "help" people with preexisting conditions, given that it is precisely the government interventions which have removed the control of healthcare from the individual's hands. Whether it is the Democrats saying we should have the government own or run the healthcare system, or it is the Republicans saying we should enact piecemeal "reforms" to fix our current "free market system," (which is actually code word for the crony capitalist, or fascist, system of government controls,) neither of these solutions addresses the core problem. The cure to our health care problems is to be found in the removal of the parasite known as government.

Practically, this means a few things:

1) Eliminate all taxes, including income, payroll, SS, Medicare, corporate, capital gains, estate, etc. and replace them with one simple consumption tax at the point of sale of finished goods or services. This will allow people to keep 100% of their paycheck and to spend it as they see fit, eliminating the cozy relationship between government and corporations and putting the power to purchase health coverage back in the hands of the people.

2) Eliminate any and all regulations and restrictions on health care. Allow the doctors to figure out which drugs are best for their patients. Allow patients to decide which insurance companies they want to purchase from, regardless of what state they live in. Allow insurance companies to offer the plans they want to offer, regardless of what some bureaucrat thinks. Allow personal responsibility and competition to work. Get out of the way.

3) Eliminate Medicare and Medicaid. Reimburse everyone that has ever paid into those systems using inflation adjusted dollars. This might sound like a lot of money, but it's nothing compared to the $60 Trillion in unfunded liabilities we have knocking on our door. Not only that, but every time you go to the doctor you pay a hidden Medicare tax, seeing that you're paying for your treatment plus the cost of the Medicare patients that the government doesn't cover.

4) Eliminate the Department of Health and Human Services, and any other agency full of political appointees that determines what we can and can't do with our own lives. Let the people decide how to pursue their own interests, so long as they don't infringe upon the rights of any other person. End Fascism and restore Freedom.

There. Done. All Settled. It really is that easy, but unfortunately my solution doesn't involve the accumulation of power through the use of force for any special group of people, so it likely will not ever happen through the political process, until our country collapses on itself and we get the chance to start over.

A Quick Thought on the SeaWorld Incident

2010-02-26T00:55:00.001-05:00

In case you haven't heard already:

ORLANDO, Fla. -- SeaWorld Orlando trainer Dawn Brancheau died Wednesday from "multiple traumatic injuries and drowning" after a killer whale pulled her underwater by her long ponytail near the theme park's Shamu Stadium, autopsy results released Thursday revealed.

link: Sea World trainer killed

Now, while I don't think the government should get involved here in any way, I do doubt the reasoning behind having a killer whale show in the first place. What's the point? What is the gain?

I guess people are willing to pay for it, so SeaWorld has offered it. The free market will work this out (if it is left alone to do so) and people will stop going to those shows because they don't want their kids to see people getting eaten, or in a less severe case because they don't think whales should be taught to do tricks and kept in pools.

To me, the matter seems simple:

Natural:

Unnatural:

Back on the Wagon Again

2010-02-24T16:49:00.001-05:00

So it's been a while, but I'm back on the Stock Option Trading bandwagon and I'm playing it slow and conservative this time. I'm buying out of the money options in small allotments and trying to hone my skills before I move up into more expensive positions.

This month I've taken two positions:

1) Long April Calls on SBUX - Starbucks has been a winner for me in the past and they have been a strong performer, even when the economy was in the tank. The stock is currently on a substantial trend and I think it will continue. However, there's a potential H&S Pattern developing so if the trendline is broken I will know to get out of the position ASAP, and then watch for the retracement.

2) Long March Puts on V - Visa has tested a resistance zone on an extremely high volume day where it was abrubtly stopped. Since then it has been hovering around at the same level but now it is showing signs of weakness and a price drop looks inevitable. I have taken a small put position on this one, gambling that it will not retest the resistance zone.

That's it for this month, we'll see how they turn out!

Government working to Eliminate GM's Competition

2010-02-24T12:07:00.001-05:00

Well it didn't take long for this to happen. Shortly after the government takeover of General Motors, we are now seeing an all-out assault on their largest competitor, Toyota.

Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) said yesterday: "Toyota failed its customers."

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said the Toyota problem "may be the most serious safety issue that we have faced here at DOT [during my tenure.]"

That’s a good thing. The scare-of-the-day is always used by politicians to grab power. But to put the Toyota problem in perspective, before all the media hype, 19 fatal accidents were linked to faulty gas pedals and floor mats over the last decade. That's fewer than 2 each year.
Compare that to America’s 40,000 annual fatal car crashes.

As David Champion, director of automobile testing for Consumer Reports, said to The Guardian:
"I find it a little odd that we're going to have a Congressional hearing to look at those two deaths out of 40,000... you have to look at death rates in safety terms rationally."

No one looks at safety “rationally” when the media and Big Government are stirred up.

link: The Parasite Circuit « John Stossel

This is not surprising. Governments always fail when they interfere with the economy. GM is a failed company, doomed by the UAW and the NLRB, and cannot compete on a level playing field with other, non-union controlled institutions. So what does the government do? Destroy the competition through the use of force. In this case, it is the force of slander (congressional hearings) and theft (lawsuits).

The really sad thing is that the Media have jumped fully on board and are helping the government along in this propaganda campaign. 2 out of 40,000 is nothing compared to the amount of deaths caused by poor road design, poor construction, high congestion due to lack of roads, moronic intersections, and the like. Those are all caused by... guess who... the government, but you don't see the media jumping on that crusade.

El Rushbo Goes on the Attack against Glenn Beck

2010-02-23T19:30:00.001-05:00

It looks like Rush Limbaugh is ticked off at Glenn Beck's CPAC speech. SLMNews first reported hearing this on the radio yesterday, but here is an excerpt from an article on the subject:

The point at this stage is to support the conservatives in and outside public office. I certainly would not have ignored the other team on the field, the Democrats. They're the only reason we're in this mess. The Democrat Party is the only reason we are threatened with the things we're threatened with. The Democrat Party. Solely. They own it. [...]

link: Rush Limbaugh vs. Glenn Beck! - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

Rush.... really? The Democrats alone are the reason we are in this mess? Tell me, what have the Republicans done lately, especially when they had the presidency and a majority in congress, about any of the following:

Annihilating terrorists but avoiding nationbuilding
Ending Medicare (socialized medicine)
Ending the federal reserve (socialized money)
Ending Social Security (socialized retirement)
Ending Welfare
Ending our global network of military installations
Ending property tax
Ending public schools (socialized education)
Ending abortion
Ending Fractional Reserve Banking (legalized counterfeiting)
Ending the Community Reinvestment Act
Ending Affirmative Action

... the list goes on

Even though he's wrong about Debra Medina and Abraham Lincoln, I'll side with this guy on this one:

Rush Limbaugh Piles on CPAC Straw Poll Debate

2010-02-22T20:43:00.001-05:00

From SLMNews:

I was just listening to the blow-hard Rush Limbaugh while waiting for my class to begin. I do this from time to time to see what the Neo-cons and Republican Establishment are up to these days. Rush commented that any organisation which gives Ron Paul a victory on who should be the GOP's nominee for president is not conservative. Rush said that it was 'haywire' that Paul won and that CPAC is supposed to be conservative, not libertarian. He said that Paul's CPAC victory 'put the brakes' on Republican progress. He said, 'The Democrat Party is solely the reason we are in this mess.'

link: SLMNews Blog: Rush Limbaugh critical of Ron Paul's CPAC victory

You know, I actually like Rush. He is extremely good at making fun of Democrats, and it is just nice to hear that since it is absolutely absent from any sort of mainstream outlet. However, Rush isn't the best at proposing his own ideas. He aggrandizes about Reagan and the good ol' days but he doesn't really articulate sound economics or the protection of freedom from the all powerful government.

Rush would do well to take a step back from this and look at what is actually going on with the people of this country. We're tired of the government and we're not going to take it any more, and yes that means Republicans too. So if Republicans want to bring us their own flavor of big government, they're going to get the same harsh treatment that Obama is now getting. If Rush doesn't realize this, he's going to alienate his viewers, and I'd hate to see that.

One "talking head" that I think has a pretty good grasp of what is going on is Judge Napolitano:

Scott Brown Illustrates GOP's Biggest Problem

2010-02-22T20:33:00.001-05:00

Remember how Republicans were so excited about Scott Brown winning the senate seat in Massachusetts?

UPDATE 1-New U.S. senator helps Democrats advance jobs bill | Reuters

Oops. This "big tent" Republican isn't in office a month and he's already starting to "reach across the aisle." Maybe he just feels more comfortable over there.

The GOP had better shape up and present the American people with some libertarian-leaning candidates for 2010. If not, we are headed for a serious collapse.

Then again, maybe that's not such a bad thing.

Romney, GOP Still Blind to Reality

2010-02-21T22:37:00.001-05:00

Mitt Romney lost the CPAC straw poll for the first time in 3 years this weekend, and guess who it was that dethroned him:

CPAC Straw Poll Results:
Ron Paul - 31%
Mitt Romney - 22%
Sarah Palin - 7%
Tim Pawlenty 6%

link: The Bastiat Society: And Now for Something Completely Different...

Now, for anybody that's been paying any attention to the vast number of protests and local activism that's been going on around the country, the reason for this change is simple and evident; American Conservatives, the silent majority, are tired of putting up with lackluster politicians on both sides of the aisle, especially Republicans who offer no defense of liberty and are simply the "lesser of two evils." They don't want to have to compromise any more, they're tired of Republicans who reach across the aisle so many times they forget what side they're on, they want somebody to stand up and fight for freedom, not just pay it lip service. That person is Ron Paul, and hopefully there will be others who step up to the plate and follow in Paul's footsteps. Gary Johnson is one such prospect.

For a little bit of perspective, take a look at Ron Paul's speech at CPAC:

Now, as a Conservative who values liberty, small government, individual rights, and freedom I can't find anything wrong with that speech and in fact it gets me fired up that we might actually have a chance of saving this country.

Unfortunately for the Republican Party, it seems like they feel the exact opposite. On Republican websites and message boards the commentary seems to be: "the Ron Paul cultists stuffed the ballot box, that loon ruined CPAC." Mike Huckabee even said: “CPAC has becoming increasingly more libertarian and less Republican over the last years, one of the reasons I didn’t go this year."

Well, I supposed if you're a big government statist who wants to use the Republican party to further the agenda of "socialism-lite" then I guess a libertarian influence at CPAC would ruin it for you. If you actually believe in freedom then you would stop and think for a second that maybe Mitt Romney and other GOP heavyweights aren't really all that great. It really disgusts me that the people who supposedly carry the torch of Republicanism are ignoring the facts of reality: Ron Paul represents what the masses of conservatives actually want, Mitt Romney represents the GOP of yester-year, promising to "reduce" the problems we have but not eliminate them.

Now, why is it that I have such a bad opinion of Romney? Well, first of all, Mitt Romney established Obamacare in Massachusetts before Barack Obama was even a candidate for president. During the campaign in 2008, Romney said the FairTax would "add 40% to the price of everything" (a blatantly false statement.) Everything in Romney's past shows that he is a big government Republican, and therefore no better than a Democrat.

You might think I'm being to harsh, that maybe Romney has been paying attention over the past year and he's learned what the people really want, maybe he's changed... I wish it were so. All it takes to see that Romney is still stuck in pre-Tea Party Republican mode is a quick read of his speech. Here are some excerpts to illustrate my point:

They won, we lost. But you know, you learn a lot about people when you see how they react to losing. We didn’t serve up excuses or blame our fellow citizens. Instead, we listened to the American people, we sharpened our thinking and our arguments, we spoke with greater persuasiveness, we took our message to more journals and airwaves, and in the American tradition, some even brought attention to our cause with rallies and Tea parties.

What? When has Romney been in the news since 2008, except for when he strangled a guy on an airplane? What has Romney done since losing to John McCain? Nothing that I can remember. Right away in the first part of his speech, he dismisses the Tea Parties as a small event, with just "some" people in attendance. Talk about denial.

He began by claiming that he had not failed at all. Remember the B+ grade he gave himself for his first year? Tell that to the 4 million Americans who lost their jobs last year, and to the millions more who stopped looking. Explain that to the world’s financial markets who gaped at trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. Square that with the absence of any meaningful sanctions against Iran even as it funds terror and races to become a nuclear nation. President Obama’s self-proclaimed B+ will go down in history as the biggest exaggeration since Al Gore’s invention of the internet!

Here we see a prevalent theme in Romney's speech: Obama basing. Now while I'm the first to criticize Obama because he has done a horrible job, Romney spends an inordinate amount of time taking shots as Obama. Here in this paragraph he manages to mention a specific thing he would have done differently: sanctions on Iran. Now I don't have time to fully explore this issue in this post, but sanctions are the morally worst thing America could possibly do to another country. They are a passive aggressive measure that simply turns more people into our enemies than anything else. When it comes to foreign policy, we need to get out of people's back yards and we need to trade, trade, and trade some more. When we identify a proper enemy, we need to annihilate them and move on, not participate in nationbuilding, and definitely not pass sanctions to starve the people of the country.

Of course, the President accuses us of being the party of “no.” It’s as if he thinks that saying “no” is by definition a bad thing. In fact, it is right and praiseworthy to say no to bad things. It is right to say no to cap and trade, no to card check, no to government healthcare, and no to higher taxes. My party should never be a rubber stamp for rubber check spending.

... "unless I'm in power."

America will not endure government run healthcare, a new and expansive entitlement, an inexplicable and surely vanishing cut in Medicare and an even greater burden of taxes. Americans said no because Obama-care is bad care for America!

Again, really? No mention of how Romneycare and Obamacare were basically identical? Wonder why?

Conservatism has had from its inception a vigorously positive, intellectually rigorous agenda. That agenda should have three pillars: strengthen the economy, strengthen our security, and strengthen our families.

That's funny, I thought our three pillars should be: Life, Liberty, and Property. Politicians can't strengthen the economy, they can only get out of the way, anything else leads to ruin. Politicians can't strengthen our security by waging wars all over the planet and building up nations for people who hate us. Politicians definitely can't strengthen our families, and they have no right at all to interfere in our homes.

Ours is the creed of the pioneers, the innovators, the strivers who expect no guarantee of success, but ask only to live and work in freedom. This creed is under assault in Washington today. Liberals are convinced that government knows better than the people how to run our businesses, how to choose winning technologies, how to manage healthcare, how to grow an economy, and how to order our very lives. They want to gain through government takeover what they could never achieve in the competitive economy—power and control over the people of America. If these liberal neo-monarchists succeed, they will kill the very spirit that has built the nation—the innovating, inventing, creating, independent current that runs from coast to coast.

That paragraph sounds really great, but where's the evidence that Romney actually wants to stand up to such things? Romney has taken actions in his time as Governor that would lead you to believe that he thinks the government knows best how to run healthcare, how to grow an economy, what you should be doing in your home, what you should be smoking or not smoking, what people in foreign countries should be doing, etc. Romney doesn't actually have a problem with government telling people what to do, he just wants to be the one doing the telling.

Fortunately for us, the hard work of grass roots activists in towns across this country is paying off and pro-liberty, freedom supporting politicians are getting more and more popular. Ron Paul's win of the straw poll was not some fluke, it was a mirror into the soul of the American People. The Tea Partiers and the rest of the conservative movement are out to restore this country not to 2004, but to 1776. It is critical at this time that we don't let the Republican party co-opt this movement, because if they'll do, they'll slap Mitt Romney's face on the Republican ticket and we'll be right back to George W Bush or worse, another term for Barack Obama.

John Stossel To Speak in Charleston

2010-02-20T20:15:00.001-05:00

Great news for anybody that likes John Stossel

March 25, 2010
John Stossel
Former Co-host of ABC's 20/20
Currently host of Fox Business News
"Freedom and its Enemies"
7:00 pm
Physicians Auditorium (CofC)

link: BB&T Free Market Process Speaker Series - College of Charleston

If I'm in town I'll definitely be hitting that up.

IRS Terrorist was not a Tea Partier

2010-02-19T22:04:00.001-05:00

Contrary to what you're hearing on the news outlets and the late night comedy shows, Joe Stack was not a tea partier:

Plane Crash Suspect's Online Diatribe - February 18, 2010

A key quote was the last line of his letter:

The capitalist creed: from each according to his gullability, to each according to his greed.

The letter is full of conflicting viewpoints and nonsense, but it also contains some good examples of the evils of government power. Joe unfortunately wrongly attributes these to capitalism, but in fact they are examples of fascism. Specifically, he talks about a special tax rule for computer programmers that penalizes employers heavily if they are contract employees, but rewards employers if they are hired, full time employees. This might sound trivial, but it had a very adverse impact on guys like Joe, reducing his salary dramatically and taking away the autonomy and freedom of being contract rather than full time.

This is fascism. This is the government telling people what they can and can't do with their property (money.) Joe was right, this is wrong and atrocious, but it's not capitalism. In a capitalist system, the government wouldn't have any involvement in such things.

For this and other reasons, it is clear that Joe was no tea partier. The Tea Party stands or free markets, individual liberty, less government, and low (or no) taxes. This is not what Joe was standing for. He was advocating a nihilistic anarchy which I can only assume he thought would end up in some sort of workers utopia. This is not at all a Tea Party stance, whatsoever.

YouTube to Broadcast Woods' Announcement

2010-02-19T00:24:00.001-05:00

Gossip mongers and sports fans alike are eagerly awaiting Tiger Woods’ press conference tomorrow morning, when he’ll confront the public and apologize for his string of affairs that tarnished both his image as a role model and his endorsement earnings. And, according to one source, you’ll be able to live stream it from the world’s most popular video portal: YouTube.

link: YouTube To Live Stream Tiger Woods Press Conference

The first thing that comes to my mind is: "really? is that the most important thing going on tomorrow?" I mean Greece, an advanced modern country, has just gone bankrupt, and the rest of the world is soon to follow, but the big event is that Tiger Woods is finally going to talk about his love affairs?

Either way, this is an interesting development in technology. Instead of using your cable company or your over-the-air receiver to watch this breaking news event, you will be able to log into a website and watch it online, live, as it happens.

Now, it will surely be average to low quality, and it might have a few hiccups while you're watching, but imagine this: imagine if your 55" Plasma HDTV had a youtube player in it and an ethernet cable sticking out of the back. All you would need at that point is an internet connection. No more cable company, or satellite, or whatever. You'd be able to watch the even directly from the source, completely cutting out the middle man.

This is not all that shocking, I mean the internet has been eliminating the middle man since its inception. The really cool thing about this possibility is that if all of the content providers jumped on board you could build your own TV "channel." Instead of having to tune to a particular broadcast or cable station, and watch whatever programming they had on, you could simply browse the online list of shows that are airing on a particular day, or a list of shows that are available on demand, and build your very own calendar of viewing.

"Let's see, at 8 I'm going to watch the latest Office, then at 8:30 I'll watch the latest Family Guy, then at 9 it'll be this week's Stossel, and at 10 I'll tune in and catch the last half of the basketball game..."

You will be able to watch what you want to watch, when you want to watch it. You'll only be paying for what you watch, not for 250 channels that you never use. I think that will be pretty darn cool. Well, assuming civilization hasn't collapsed by then.

The Southern Avenger is on a Roll

2010-02-17T19:35:00.000-05:00

Yesterday Jack Hunter - The Southern Avenger - had Thomas Woods and Debra Medina on his show and he's posted the interviews on YouTube for our enjoyment. Thomas Woods is an Austrian Economist and he discussed his book "Meltdown" as well as his upcoming book "Nullification." I've read "Meltdown" and it is excellent, so I can't wait for "Nullification." Debra Medina is a candidate for Governor of Texas and she has come out of nowhere with huge support form the Tea Party because of her views on individual rights and state nullification of federal abuses. Both are great interviews.

Woods Part 1:

Woods Part 2:

Medina:

Jack Hunter is one of my favorite radio personalities because of his Southern viewpoint and his libertarian tendencies. He also addresses issues with intelligent thought and rational discussion instead of emotionalist melodrama (Beck, Levin, Hannity, etc.) I hope Jack gets his own full time show and it goes national and if you'd like to help him do that, visit: Recruit Jack Hunter

My View of Objectivists

2010-02-16T23:45:00.001-05:00

Note: this is a joke. However after my recent experience with some objectivists, this is pretty accurate:

Ayn Rand would not have behaved in such a way*, but a lot of the people who follow her act in exactly the way her followers are depicted in this video. Disagree with anything Rand says, and face the wrath of irrational rationalists. It's just more evidence that Rand was extremely ahead of her time, and people still do not fully understand her ideas.

*Rand often responded to intellectually dishonest questions with what one might perceive as extreme answers. When someone was trying to misrepresent her ideas and debase her principles through dishonest tactics, as most in the mainstream did, she would rip out their brain and hand it to them on a plate. Metaphorically, of course. This is not at all the same as attacking someone who reaches a different conclusion through a process of honest rational thought, which is depicted in the video.

American Fascism - A Quick Thought

2010-02-16T19:09:00.001-05:00

After reading "Meltdown" by Tom Woods, I had a quick thought on statism in its various forms:

Stalinist Russia owned all the property, and distributed it as it saw fit.

Nazi Germany owned all the people, and controlled property through control of the people.

Fascist America owns all of the money, and therefore controls the people AND the property.

How could the Soviets not know they were doomed?

How could the Nazi's not know they were doomed?

How can we not realize we are doomed?

I'm Just not a Morning Person

2010-02-16T18:56:00.001-05:00

This week I am in Los Angeles on a business trip and I think I made a grave mistake in making my travel plans. In order to coincide with my coworker to arrive and leave at nearly the same time, I got up this morning at 3:30 AM EST and arrived at LAX at 10 AM PST. I will then leave on Friday morning and get home Friday night.

It's almost 4 PM here now and I am absolutely exhausted. I just am unable to function when I have to wake up early. I even tried going to sleep early last night, but of course that didn't work. I think next time I will shift my travel window, even thought it won't perfectly match up with my coworker, so that I arrive a day early and leave after our last meeting. That way I will take a later flight coming here, and I'll take the redeye going home.

Something that also doesn't help is that I can't sleep in the middle of the day. So waking up, going through the airport shuffle, then going to sleep on the plane is simply not an option. I'm wide awake at that point. The redeye might work better because I'll be tired from the day of work and potentially able to sleep. Who knows.

Anybody else out there have these problems?

Big Government Conspiracy

2010-02-15T16:28:00.001-05:00

Today, another Democrat announced retirement:

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) speaks at the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver, Aug. 27, 2008 (Reuters Pictures) INDIANA SENATOR ANNOUNCES RETIREMENT Indiana Democrat Sen.
Evan Bayh was once considered a serious presidential contender. Now, he’s just the latest high profile member of Congress to announce his retirement. Bayh, 54, on Monday said he would not seek re-election to a third term this year, a decision that shocked political observers and insiders across the country.

link: Bye bye, Bayh

Is it just me, or does it seem like this is happening a lot lately? Democrats are just dropping like flies these days. Two dead, a handful retiring, and whole bunch lagging far behind in the polls (even Senate leader Reid,) it looks like it's the Apocalypse for Democrats... but is it?

I have no evidence for this and I'm not even that serious about it, but what if this was all part of one big bipartisan plan, concocted between the good ol' boys of the Republican and Democrat parties in order to retain their power?

There's a whole lot of people who are really upset at this point: the tea parties, the socialists, the 9-12'ers, the anti-war crowd, the list goes on. These groups are seriously shaking up the power structure of the political elite in this country. In Texas, a no-name candidate Debra Medina has risen to challenge George Bush III (Rick Perry) and a long time Republican senator in the race for governor. Both parties are feeling the pains of neglecting the interests of the American voters for so long.

Just this past week we saw some drama unfold within the Republican party as the SCGOP announced it had worked out a coalition with several of the Upstate Conservative Groups, including the Tea Party. Then later in the week the Tea Party came out and said there was no such thing and that the Tea Party was a completely separate entity from the GOP. Last week in Nashville a convention calling itself the Tea Party hosted an event where Sarah Palin was the keynote speaker, delivering a GOP rah-rah speech blasting Obama but lacking in any substance.

Isn't it possible that the leaders of both parties are making a concerted effort to bring back the status quo? If the Republicans can bring the tea parties into their house, and the Democrats can hand over a few seats to the Republicans, to sort of "spread the wealth around" if you will (the wealth of blame, that is,) they think things may just go back to normal, and both parties can continue on their statist path to totalitarian rule over the people. Do you think that's their plan, and if so, will it work?

Thoughts on the Contract From America

2010-02-15T10:19:00.001-05:00

The Contract From America website has finally opened and voting is currently taking place on a platform of sorts for the movement known as the Tea Party. The format is simple: you vote for the top ten items you want the federal government to address out of a list of 22 possibilities. I've already gone and submitted my top ten and I would encourage everyone to do the same. From the opening paragraph of the website:

The Contract from America serves as a clarion call for those who recognize the importance of free market principles, limited government, and individual liberty. It is the natural extension of a movement that began in the local communities and quickly spread across America in response to unprecedented government expansion, reckless spending, and a blatant disregard by our leaders of the nation’s founding principles.

To that end, here are the items, and some of my comments on them:

DEMAND A BALANCE BUDGET - Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax hike.

A Balanced Budget sounds like a great idea but doesn't really address the fundamental problem: the government tramples our individual rights and has no business running the economy or education or most of the things it runs.

STOP THE TAX HIKES - Permanently repeal all tax hikes, including those to the income, capital gains, and death taxes, currently scheduled to begin in 2011.

Here again I wish this would go further. Yes it would be good to stop all tax hikes, but how about stopping all taxes? Or at least how about stopping all taxes and replacing them with the Fair Tax?

COMMIT TO REAL GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY - Every bill, in its final form, will be made public seven days before any vote can be taken and all government expenditures authorized by any bill will be easily accessible on the Internet before the money is spent. (Proposed by: Steve Kulik, Gonzales, Texas; and Steve Hollis, San Francisco, CA)

This could be a good idea because it would force politicians to be accountable for bills before the bills actually passed. As we saw with the healthcare bill, the more time it spent out in the open the less popular it got. However, I see this as kindof like a bandaid on a gunshot wound.

PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION - Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does. (Proposed by: Brooke Storrs, Midland, MI)

The Constitution is dead, and it died with Thomas Jefferson. Since then the federal government has been trampling all over the Constitution, which wasn't really that great of a defender of individual rights in the first place. Look for a definition of the rights of the individual in the Constitution - you won't find it. Nothing that the government has done in the last 150 years would pass this litmus test.

PASS REAL HEALTHCARE REFORM - Greatly improve affordability of health insurance by permitting all Americans access to all health insurance plans sold anywhere in the United States through the purchase of insurance across state lines and allow small businesses and associations to pool together across state lines to buy insurance.

This is definitely preferred to the government takeover of healthcare but again this doesn't address the fundamental problem. If we really want to reduce the cost of healthcare we need to end ALL regulation of healthcare including the FDA, certificates of need, lottery lawsuits, Medicare, etc. Cherry-picking regulations will slightly improve the process, but leaving the other ones in place will quickly erase any gains.

ENACT FUNDAMENTAL TAX REFORM - Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words—the length of the original Constitution.

Ah now this is starting to hit home. We need to scrap ALL taxes and start over. There are so many taxes in this country not any one person can list them all. We have to end that environment of confusion and theft. The FairTax would be a good start.

END RUNAWAY GOVERNMENT SPENDING - Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth.

Eh, I'll pass. How about END GOVERNMENT SPENDING? That I could get behind.

LET US SAVE - Allow all Americans to opt out of Social Security and Medicare and instead put those same payroll taxes in a personal account they own, control, and can leave to whomever they choose.

This is like saying "stop stealing from us." I think this is a good idea but Fundamental Tax Reform would include this.

PROTECT INTERNET FREEDOM - No regulation or tax on the Internet.

Here we go! This is a real principled stance! I wish we would see more of these on the list. It's funny how the internet is so obviously a great bastion of freedom, both political and economic, and so many people, no matter where they fall on the political spectrum, want to protect the internet from regulation. Well, the internet is so awesome because of its freedom, imagine how awesome the economy would be if it were free! How about PROTECT ECONOMIC FREEDOM - No regulation or tax on individuals or businesses. How about that?

GIVE PARENTS MORE CHOICES IN THE EDUCATION OF THEIR CHILDREN - Improve American education by reforming the broken federal role through eliminating ineffective and wasteful programs, giving parents more choices from pre-school to high school, and improving the affordability of higher education.

This is a good first step, but again what really needs to happen is to end public schools. What we need to have is a situation where private companies and individuals own and operate schools. As an intermediate step, the government could pay scholarships to the kids who couldn't afford school, but the end goal would be to have no government involvement at all.

PASS AN 'ALL OF THE ABOVE' ENERGY POLICY - Authorize the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation, lowering prices and creating competition.

This would really help out. We need to use all of the natural resources we can, and we need to get the government out of the way.

PROTECT FREEDOM OF THE PRESS - Prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from using funds to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine in any form, including requiring “localism” or “diversity” quotas. (Proposed by: Lori Roman, Annapolis, MD)

Again this is nice but not nearly forceful enough. We need to eliminate the FCC, it's only purpose is to limit free speech.

RESTORE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY & CONSTITUTIONALLY LIMITED GOVERNMENT - Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in a complete audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states.

Ah now this is a good goal to strive for, eliminating programs and spending. Although as we have seen with Supreme Court decisions since John Marshall, it's easy to twist and distort Constitutionality (which I believe was the intent of the writers.)

PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS - Block state and local governments that receive federal grants from exercising eminent domain over private property for the primary purpose of economic development or enhancement of tax revenues.

Eminent Domain is just one small part of private property rights. Property taxes, zoning regulations, the EPA, and many other monstrosities are gross violations of property rights.

REJECT CAP & TRADE - Prevent the EPA from implementing costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation’s global competititivess with virtually no impact on global temperatures.

I agree with this one. I'd like to see the EPA eliminated but we have to start by killing Cap and Trade.

STOP THE PORK - Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the process is fully transparent, including requiring a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark.

This procedural rule would definitely help keep tabs on the ethics of our politicians, but it wouldn't really save much money. Earmarks all sound bad (and they are terribly dishonest) but they don't account for that much spending.

NO CZAR REGULATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION - All “lawmaking” regulations must be affirmatively approved by Congress and signed into law by the president, as the Constitution requires for all laws. (Proposed by: Jim Armstrong, Morgantown, WV)

How about just "NO REGULATION?" Do we really even need this debate in America? Czars? Really?

AUDIT THE FED - Begin an audit of the Federal Reserve System. (Proposed by: Judy Pierorazio, Parkville, MD)

Yes, we must do this and do this now. Then we need to end the fed and get back to 100% banking and competing currencies (gold, silver, dollars, etc)

NO MORE BAILOUTS - The federal government should not bail out private companies and should immediately begin divesting itself of its stake in the private companies it owns from recent bailouts.

Check. Bailouts are simply welfare and therefore evil.

STOP CAREER POLITICIANS & CURB LOBBYIST POWER - Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require Congressional term limits. No person shall be elected to the Senate more than twice or to the House of Representatives more than 4 times. (Proposed by: Marylou Petriccione, Raleigh, NC)

Yes and the very first constitutional amendment should be to repeal the 17th Amendment, which places the elections of Senators in the hands of the populace. Senators are supposed to represent the state governments and are supposed to be subject to state recall when they aren't doing their duty. The 17th Amendment removed an essential check from the system of checks and balances.

SUNSET REGULATIONS - All regulations will be “sunset” after 10 years unless renewed by Congressional vote.

Well, getting warmer. Again, how about "END REGULATIONS?"

LET US WATCH - Broadcast all non-security meetings and votes on C-SPAN and the Internet. (Proposed by: Matthew Lewis, Alexandria, VA)

This is a crowd pleaser but pretty much unimportant. Who watches CSPAN anyway? Are people really going to sit through hours of parliamentary process? No. The problem isn't the "how," it is the "what" government is doing.

So, overall I think the list offers a little something for everyone and I hope a lot of people go and cast their votes. I found a few things that I could completely and enthusiastically support and a lot of things that I wish would have gone further for the cause of liberty. In the end, this is a good start, but we have to keep pushing for more freedom.