Now If Only Politicians Would Think Like This..

A few quotes from Thomas Jefferson:

"I am for a government rigorously frugal and simple, applying all the possible savings of the public revenue to the discharge of the national debt; and not for a multiplication of officers and salaries merely to make partisans" --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:77

"Having seen the people of all other nations bowed down to the earth under the wars and prodigalities of their rulers, I have cherished their opposites: peace, economy, and riddance of public debt, believing that these were the high road to public as well as private prosperity and happiness." --Thomas Jefferson to Henry Middleton, 1813. ME 13:202

"I deem no government safe which is under the vassalage of any self-constituted authorities, or any other authority than that of the nation, or its regular functionaries." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1803. ME 10:438

"Freedom of the person under the protection of the habeas corpus I deem [one of the] essential principles of our government." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural Address, 1801. ME 3:322

"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural Address, 1801. ME 3:321

"I do not believe war the most certain means of enforcing principles. Those peaceable coercions which are in the power of every nation, if undertaken in concert and in time of peace, are more likely to produce the desired effect." --Thomas Jefferson to Robert Livingston, 1801.

"The exercise of a free trade with all parts of the world [is] possessed by [a people] as of natural right, and [only through a] law of their own [can it be] taken away or abridged." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. (*) ME 1:189, Papers 1:123

"We had better have no treaty than a bad one." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1807. ME 1:467

Slim Tyranny

I can't believe I'm actually writing this. I can't find words to describe a bill recently introduced into the Mississippi legislature. It was introduced by Republican Ted Mayhall Jr and it has got to be one of the most absurd things I've ever read. Its known as House Bill 282.

"AN ACT TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS FROM SERVING FOOD TO ANY PERSON WHO IS OBESE, BASED ON CRITERIA PRESCRIBED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH; TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT TO PREPARE WRITTEN MATERIALS THAT DESCRIBE AND EXPLAIN THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS OBESE AND TO PROVIDE THOSE MATERIALS TO THE FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS; TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT TO MONITOR THE FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES."

and

"A food establishment shall be entitled to rely on the criteria for obesity in those written materials when determining whether or not it is allowed to serve food to any person."

Am I just weird, or is this spooky? It is proposed to take effect in July 1, 2008 and establishments that would violate this could have their permit revoked. Probably it will be struck down, I hope!

This is a prime example of the INSANITY of having a government that thinks that it is our nanny.

The Libertarian Party's Response

U.S. Libertarian Party National Chairman William Redpath responded today to yesterday's State of the Union address by President Bush.

This is not an entire reproduction of the comments, but merely a few excerpts:

"Tonight's State of the Union address went much as expected. Instead of calling for a more limited role of the federal government in American society, the President laid out plans that would only increase the government's intervention into the realm of economics, health care, education and foreign policy. It is unfortunate to see that after seven years of increasing the size of government and increasing the government's presence in the day to day lives of all Americans, the President refuses to limit the scope of the federal government, a once championed virtue of the President's party."

"The President's economic stimulus plan is based on a flawed and outdated economic premise. The best solution to an economic slowdown is increasing the ability for businesses to grow and reinvest in the economy. Instead of increasing the federal deficit by $150 billion dollars, the federal government should focus its energy on eliminating taxes that restrain economic growth. "

"America will spend more than $1 trillion dollars in foreign wars started during the Bush administration. Because of such, the economy is in jeopardy and America's reputation abroad has suffered traumatic blows. On top of this, Americans have seen their civil liberties violated time after time. The Libertarian Party calls for a withdrawal from Iraq following the proper lines of withdrawal, executed by our commanders on the ground. We also call for an abandonment of the reckless policy of pre-emptive war, and a restoration of civil liberties lost under such laws as the Patriot Act and the amendments to FISA."

The entire text is here.

The State Of The Union: Things Left Out

I'm not anti-Bush and I don't have an axe to grind against him personally. I would gladly have him preside over the USA over and against John Kerry, Al Gore or Hillary Clinton. Of course, that isn't saying too much. And then again, I think the best option would be an emphatic: NONE OF THE ABOVE.

Since I'm an evangelical Christian and a capitalist, some may assume I've loved his presidency. But that is not the case, I have some very serious concerns about a number of things he's done in office. He's done SOME good things. However, his legacy has some serious problems and it turned out considerably worse than I originally thought it would be.

Here is a list of some areas of major concern, especially from my perspective as a libertarian. As a non-American, I concur that I may not have all my facts right. But I've done my best to ascertain these facts. If anything here is incorrect, I'd appreciate corrections, preferably with citations (so I can become more informed).

(I must at this point also note that various branches of government are also responsible for each of these problems, so the blame clearly doesn't merely fall on the President)

1. Bush's government attacked and took over two countries. In Afghanistan, the initial mission was to go after Bin Laden, but got sidelined in an exercise of nation building. Suddenly Bin Laden took the background. And in Iraq, Bin Laden was suddenly forgotten. The war in Iraq proceeded with a blatant disregard for the constitution. This is a foreign policy which is neither sustainable nor in America's best interests. Bush was elected on a humble foreign policy rejecting Clintonian interventionism, but that changed very quickly. And I believe that Bush has continued to maintain bad foreign policy in other places, such as Cuba and the ongoing rhetoric on Iran.

2. At the end of the day, the war on terror has been expanded to what is effectively a war on the liberties of U.S. citizens. The Patriot Act makes many Americans consider the following axim: "Osama Bin Laden is ostensibly a free man. But are you? ". Liberties long cherished by Americans are disintegrating. The act dramatically increases the shroud of secrecy revolving around government investigations. It dramatically expands the ability of states and the Federal Government to conduct surveillance of American citizens. The federal government becomes able to execute wiretaps without judicial oversight. And the violations of privacy filter down to the Internet and libraries. And it doesn't limit these powers for use on suspected terrorists. It is a dramatic plunge towards an Orwellian police state, and it was taken under the rhetorical banner of "the war on terror". How else would you get people to swallow this? And, in general, the ability to live free without government intrusion is declining. This leads some American citizens to wonder: Why are we trying to "export" freedom to other lands when we aren't doing a good job of keeping our own land and people free?

3. The Bush government in many ways was NOT fiscally conservative. I've seen different figures, but it seems clear that there is a HUGE deficit. Clearly, budget spending has been tremendously high. Clearly there is much "residual prosperity", but there is a clear decline and there are many factors to that. One thing is clear--the Bush government hasn't been very conservative in their economics. In the words of David Boaz from the Cato institute: "The Bush administration has delivered massive spending, centralization of education, expansion of entitlement". And in the words of Douglas Wilson: "The first round of compassionate conservatism under George II seems to have consisted of nothing more than widening the national rat hole so that we could throw more tax dollars down it:"

4. To go along with the last point, the Bush government has been steadily increasing the size of government in a way that would have Democrats drooling. This was one of the must un-Reagan Republican governments ever.

5. And really, besides all the rhetoric about "family values", what has the administration done for "family values"?

A Democratic party candidate would probably not do any better, and in many ways worse. Mainline Democrats and mainline Republicans have their disagreements: but they are agreed on authoritarianism and statism. Sometimes for devious reasons, perhaps, but often through good ol' fashioned neglect. In fact, former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry admitted to not even reading the Patriot Act. And he voted FOR it! And that's a 'civil liberties issue' which the Democrats CLAIM to be champions of.

It is common for Christians to get all defensive about the Bush government. I think we should evaluate it fairly (not pandering to overly-sympathetic rhetoric nor overly-critical rhetoric). Those who think it is an offense against Christianity to have second thoughts about the Bush legacy ought to consider the following: What would you think if a Democrat-party president did the following: observed Ramadan in the White House, conducted a polytheistic worship service in the National Cathedral, offered reverence in a Shinto shrine in Japan, etc.? Well, Bush did all those things (as noted by Douglas Wilson). Isn't it sort of a double-standard to hammer Democrats for doing the very things that Bush is doing?

Sorry, George, I'll take "sensible" libertarianism over "compassionate" conservatism any day. I think the surprising explosion of support within the Republican party for Ron Paul is just one small ruffle in the leaves that may suggest that many conservatives have had their dose of "compassionate conservatism" and are just about ready to go "cold turkey".

Presidential Candidates: Check Your Facts!

A few quick examples of false statements in the recent U.S. campaigns for the nomination of the Republican and Democratic parties:

1. Mitt Romney has apparently denied publicly what his advertising campaign has affirmed.

2. Mitt Romney seems to have made a false statement about Mitt Romney's foreign policy stance.

3. Barack Obama appears to have put some words in Hillary's mouth.

4. Fred Thompson seems to have some facts on the Iraq Study Group wrong.

5. Hillary Clinton seems to have falsely claimed that Bush has decreased funding for the National Institute of Health.

6. While it is a subjective statement, Rudy Giuliani's claim that he is among the 4-5 best-known American's in the world, appears to be false by any estimation.

7. Barack Obama seems to have falsely claimed that gas prices have never been higher than now.

8. Mike Huckabee seems to have greatly exaggerated the number of signers of the Declaration of Independance who were also clergymen.

If this is already going on, what will happen once these people get elected? It doesn't get any easier to be truthful and accurate once the complexities of being in office are in place.

Of course, when you say a lot, it is easy to say things that aren't accurate. But, it must also be noted that these sort of inevitable errors are usually multiplied when we try to be "wishy-washy" and dance around with the facts. To err is human, but by the same token when the same errors are repeated over and over, it should give us cause for concern.

You Can't Defeat Tyranny with Tyranny

"The march of communism or other forms of slavery can never be checked by suppression of freedom of speech." - J. Gresham Machen, The Christian View of Man, 1937

Now, if only this wise insight was digested by those who were carrying out the various forms of the "Red Scare" inquisitions back in the day, such as the HUAC-hearings, etc.

The true way to fight the Reds was to offer a viable alternative of genuine liberty for the people, NOT to use their tactics on local citizens.

To apply this to our modern day, Islamic terrorism can not be defeated by installing an alternate Westernized authoritarianism. Anyone who seriously suggests that we need accept tyranny to be safe from terrorism is simply asking us to exchange one tyranny for another. Its sort of like inviting a coyote into the pen to protect the sheep from wolves--when really the coyote will neither fend off the wolves nor leave the sheep alone. A wolf may theoretically be more of a threat than the coyote, but a coyote in the pen is more of a direct threat to the sheep than the news that a wolf is SOMEWHERE out there.

And Ben Franklin's words also ring true here: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety".

The Golden Rule Applied to Government Intervention

Special interest groups are constantly clamoring for government intervention. They are simply doing what is in their best interest, so I feel the government is more culpable for it. They repeatedly shown that they their will is easy to bend when confronted with a loud enough voice or when enough money is involved.

But taking things a bit further, the core problem is that most people only want the government to intervene in THEIR favor. Most people are decidedly authoritarian when a thing affects another's rights, but decidedly libertarian when it affects their own rights. This seems to be the "natural" way that we humans operate. What people don't often realize, though, is that the system is so interconnected that the violation of their neighbor's rights leads to the violation of their own rights.

When a person advocates intervention X, which may be favorable to him, he is also potentially laying the framework and precedence for intervention Y, which may not be so favorable to them. To use an image from the riots that occurred in the 1960's, they are throwing tear gas canisters, not realizing they will just be picked up and thrown back.

I believe we should apply a form of the Golden Rule to government intervention. "Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do To You" could be rephrased and applied to this by saying (in a long, run-on sentence): "Your advocacy of government intervention should be limited to cases where you'd be happy with roughly similar sorts of treatment on roughly similar types of issues that more directly restrict your life.". By applying this maxim, sometimes we will miss opportunities to act in what appears to be our best interest, but ultimately it will be for our own good because we will be consistently upholding the matter of individual liberty in politics.

If our society had more people who think like this, we would tend to have a freer, less polarized society. And a lot of money could be saved. It wouldn't be perfect, but most likely every segment of society would be more fulfilled that they are now, except of course the segment (whoever it may be) that takes a special delight in using legislation for the purpose denying the satisfaction of others.

To apply this to modern society.. You (or I) may not like having people in our society using pesticides, being selfish, smoking cigarettes, driving gas guzzling cars, growing questionable plants, having certain unpopular opinions, donating to questionable organizations, eating unhealthy foods, adhering to a false religion, drinking alcohol, being greedy, etc. But before we think about using government to try to intervene in those matters, we better think long and hard about how we might be empowering and encouraging the government in a way that will cause them to feel more free to restrict things that we treasure, enjoy and/or believe in. You can't just increase the power of the government to do good without also simultaneously increasing their power to do evil.

I think a great way to conclude this would be to paraphrase what a great statesman once said: I'd rather put up with the inconveniences of too much liberty rather than the inconveniences of not enough liberty.

A Libertarian View of Property Rights

"The officials of government, wishing to increase their power, and finding an increase of wealth an effective way to bring this about, seize some or all of what a person has earned--and since government has a monopoly of physical force within the geographical area of the nation, it has the power (but not the right) to do so. When this happens, of course, every citizen of that country is insecure: he knows that no matter how hard he works the government can swoop down on him at any time and confiscate his earnings and possessions. A person sees his life savings wiped out in a moment when the tax-collectors descend to deprive him of the fruits of his work; or, an industry which has been fifty years in the making and cost millions of dollars and millions of hours of time and planning, is nationalized overnight. Or the government, via inflation, cheapens the currency, so that hard-won dollars aren't worth anything any more. The effect of such actions, of course is that people lose hope and incentive: if no matter how hard they work the government agents can take it all away, why bother to work at all, for more than today's needs? Depriving people of property is depriving them of the means by which they live--the freedom of the individual to do what he wishes with his own life and to plan for the future. Indeed, only if property rights are respected is there any point to planning for the future and working to achieve one's goals." - John Hospers in "Libertarianism".

This quote does a pretty good job of showing one facet of the libertarian view of property rights. I think it makes a lot of sense. Property rights are an extremely basic foundational liberty. In a free society, the right to property even proceeds the right to free speech in importance. Without a proper emphasis on property rights, a society looses its vitality and ability to survive.

Fast Food and Big Brother

In a "letter to the editor" Don Watkins of The Ayn Rand Institute wrote about a proposed two-year moratorium in South L.A. that would restrict fast-food eateries with a form of "health zoning". Don speaks critically of this sort of proposed legislation, stating that "government has no business dictating where and what people eat, or what their waistlines should be. Those are decisions that properly belong to individuals. The L.A. City Council should reject this disgraceful ban."

I think that Don is right on. Conscientious limitations on the role of government seems to be a lost art these days. To some people it seems entirely obvious that government intervention should be the solution to health issues pertaining fast food. Well, for the record, I don't see it that way. I just don't envision government as the paternal or maternal force who is so wrapped up in the life of its citizenry that it needs to cut in and say: "no you can't have any cookies until you've finished your meal". As they try to legislate a good diet not only will they NOT succeed in protecting the health of people in L.A., but they will do that large pile of nothing for a rather hefty fee.

Please Read What You Approve

A common theme today is elected officials voting things in without reading them. Or even voting on things that aren't complete, like the Patriot Act--which had a clause that determines that further innovations to the act are to be pre-approved even though they aren't even written at the time of the review!!! Many questionable legislative items have passed through merely because way too many politicians are way too busy (or uncaring) to read what they are voting on.

A particular example I present here involves U.S. Politics and a Democrat in particular, but make no mistake..I don't suppose we can imagine that Republicans are much better on this. The two sides like to blame each other, but when it comes down to it, they basically have a similar mindset on these sort of things.

This particular quote comes from John Perry Barlow, recounting a conversation with John Kerry:

-- quote --

I had a conversation with [John] Kerry. It was pretty disheartening. I asked how he felt about civil liberties.

He said: 'I'm for 'em!'

That's great, but how do you feel about Section 215 of the Patriot Act?

He said 'What's that?'

I said, it basically says any privately generated database is available for public scrutiny with an administrative subpoena.

He says, 'It says that?'

I say, 'You voted for it!'

He says, 'Well, it was a long bill....'"

-- unquote --

New Government

It is official.. Canada now has a new government. The Conservatives, led by Stephen Harper, have ousted the Liberals and are forming a minority government. And yes, I'm just regurgitating old news now ;)

This is a big news due to the long standing reign of the Liberal party when it came to federal elections.

What is interesting to me is how well the Conservatives did in Quebec! Definately a suprise.