Archives For Politics

We Need a Libertarian Contract with America for 2010

July 2, 2008 — 14 Comments

Lady Liberty and a Boat at Sunset

Given the choices we face this year for President, it’s likely we will get another tax-and-spend, civil-liberties-eroding, foreign-adventuring head of state. And even if we don’t, and Bob Barr is elected, he will still need a Libertarian Congress if he’s to get much done.

If it Works…

The Republican Contract with America is generally believed to have not only helped the Republicans take over the House in 1994, but also put President Clinton on the defensive.

In these times of the so-called “unitary” executive, putting His Royal Highness the President on the defensive is a must if we liberty-lovers are to reverse the totalitarian trend of late.

The Concept of Accountability was the only Revolutionary Aspect

But it was a real softball. The only revolutionary aspect to it was the implication that politicians might be accountable to their constituents.

Significant Pledges to Shrink Government

So, I propose a Libertarian contract with America, and one with real teeth – significant pledges to take action that will directly shrink government and increase freedom for people in these United States.

I have tentative plans to run for an Eastern Pennsylvanian Congressional seat in 2010, so this is not an academic exercise.

The Pledges

Our contract would not be a stack of limp-wristed procedural nonsense no one cares about, but instead actions that, if successful, would bring America back from the precipice it currently finds itself hanging over.

  1. Introduce a balanced budget amendment.
  2. Fix Medicare and Social Security, the out-of-control entitlements that we will never be able to pay for.
  3. Introduce a plan to pay down our national debt.
  4. Introduce the repeal of the 16th amendment and eliminate the IRS, thereby eliminating the federal income tax – and replace it with nothing.
  5. Close US military bases and bring home the troops.
  6. Restore lost civil liberties, including habeas corpus and an end to warrantless wiretapping.
  7. End the use of torture as an intelligence-gathering tool, give the Guantanamo inmates fair trials and close down the prison.
  8. Eliminate all welfare, subsidies and the like, for corporations, individuals, political parties – everyone.
  9. Eliminate the Department of Education. Education is a local, not federal, concern.
  10. Eliminate the Federal Reserve and let alternative currencies flourish.
  11. Stop the War on Drugs, and free non-violent drug offenders currently incarcerated in federal prisons.
  12. Restore a strong national defense.
  13. Reign in Homeland Security and the TSA

Research and vigorous discussion are undoubtedly required to determine (1) what 10 pledges should be selected (2) the best way to go about implementing the selected pledges. Congress may not even have direct authority to implement some of these proposals. I’m certain there are a lot of good plans already out there, as well. We need to find them.

What to Call it

Here are some possible names I have come up with.

  • Declaration of Independence II
  • Liberty Compact
  • The Free Deal
  • Freedom Pledge
  • A New Deal for Congress
  • Contract for the People
  • Articles of Liberation
  • Libertarian Bond(s)
  • The Free Society
  • We the Taxpayers
  • The No Deal
  • Charter for Liberty
  • Reclaim Congress
  • The Un-Deal
  • A New Freedom
  • We Pledge to America

I don’t much like any of these names so far.

Let’s Discuss

I’d love to discuss this with anyone else considering running for Congress in 2010. I would expect mostly Libertarians to be interested in this kind of platform, but I don’t think we need to limit this effort to just LPers. I can see a certain kind of Republican or Constitution Party member signing on, perhaps even a rare Democrat or two. The more the merrier.

I know some of my target audience is busy running for Congress right now, but let’s not put this off till the last minute, either.

Want A Libertarian Congress NOW?

I doubt enough candidates are running to secure a Libertarian majority in the next Congress but here are some interesting links:

Photo by Bob Jagendorf. Some rights reserved.

In Politics , , ,
 permalink

PA Sen. Fumo Wants to Dictate Look of Philly Skyline. LOL!

June 24, 2008 — Leave a comment

Why do politicians think they get to decide what a skyline will “look like”? The arrogance is amazing.

Continue Reading...
In Politics , ,
 permalink

Bob Barr on the FISA Bill: It’s All about Power

June 24, 2008 — Leave a comment

“People simply do not realize the extent to which government is surveilling them.”

This is the police-surveillance state you’ve been waiting for!

In Politics , ,
 permalink

Telecom Immunity and Warrantless Spying can be Stopped in the Senate

June 24, 2008 — Leave a comment

DownsizeDC reports that victory may yet be won on the FISA bill. All that’s needed is a Senator to filibuster and 41 votes.

Remember, we were in a similar position with this issue back in Fall 2006, and again in February this year — defeat seemed certain — but we ended up pulling out a victory. Now, in the space of just 24 hours, we’ve gone from expecting an immediate vote to having the Senate leadership contemplate splitting the bill into two parts.

In Politics
 permalink

Why Not to Designate Oil a Public Utility

May 6, 2008 — 1 Comment

In a missive straight out of Atlas Shrugged, Judge Ed Ludwig wants us to “designate oil companies as public utilities”. Don’t let the semantics confuse you. What he really advocates is price controls, blackmail and fascism.

What’s Reasonable?

A public utility regulated by the state or federal government, or the two working together, is entitled to charge reasonable rates for its products and services. It also is entitled to earn a reasonable profit. But that’s far less than what Big Oil is making.

How do you define reasonable? And what gives you the right to define what’s reasonable for someone else? A reasonable rate is whatever a free market will bear. A reasonable profit is whatever you are capable of earning, without initiating force against others.

Slipperly Slope Sighted!

Oil energy fits squarely into the criteria for a public utility. How can it be distinguished from electricity and natural gas? It can’t be.

The slippery slope has arrived. If you’re accustomed to poo-pooing slippery slope arguments, poo-poo no more. This is why any step towards fascism creates momentum for the next step – and why it needs to be stopped now.

The Consumer, Sniff

The consumer’s only recourse is to reduce consumption. But consumption most often is an economic necessity — the most harmful effects falling on those who may be the neediest and who can least afford the price increases. What is a less-than-wealthy person who must drive to work or pay for home heating oil to do?

No one is obligating the consumer to purchase oil products, or the vehicles that require them. The consumer’s perceived necessity does not constitute an obligation on the oil companies. Just because I need an X-Box doesn’t give me the right to nationalize Microsoft to pay for it!

Blackmail

If the industry were confronted with even the mere possibility of becoming a government-regulated utility, gasoline and heating oil prices would come tumbling down in a hurry.

In other words, use the power of government’s monopoly on the initiation of force to blackmail the oil companies. Despicable.

The Four-Step Solution

  1. Cease all subsidies, favorable treatments and tax breaks – for all industries.
  2. Remove all government obstacles to free enterprise so alternative energy products can freely compete with oil products.
  3. Something special happens here. (Also known as ????)
  4. Profit!!!

Via CommonDreams.

In Politics , , , , ,
 permalink

Why the Libertarian and Constitution Parties Could Never Merge

May 2, 2008 — 1 Comment

The Partial Observer thinks the Libertarian and Constitution parties should merge, since either party could have nominated Ron Paul. “If both parties would have backed the same guy,” the author asks, “why have two parties?”

The Non-Aggression Principle

He succinctly answers his own question in the next paragraph.

LP members tends to favor open immigration, the CP opposes it. The LP favors free, open trade, the CP is open to protectionist policies. The LP focuses on individual rights, whereas the CP is more concerned with moral issues and states’ rights. … The LP tends to favor abortion rights, the CP is pro-life.

Constitution Party members supporting their party’s platform do NOT accept the non-aggression principle (the idea that you may not use the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals). And you can not join the LP without accepting the non-aggression principle. Principles are more important than the expediency of the moment. End of story

Without Principles, How do you Identify Ends?

The author wants the Libertarian Party to abandon its principles but he wants the Libertarians and the Constitutional Party to work together on common ends.

What ends could you possibly identify and rigorously pursue if you have no guiding principles? That is the situation we face today, where unscrupulous politicians, lacking in guiding principles, trade favors for terms in office and make laws that are diametrically opposed to the values of our republic.

Principles, to remain principles, must be untarnished, whereas politics works through compromise, which means tarnishing principles. In any case, the Internet has made the dissemination of libertarian principles, and education in the libertarian philosophy, much easier than it used to be. If the Libertarian Party exists to educate, I don’t know if that is necessary anymore.

But if the purpose of the party is to win elections and govern, it would do well to disband or change its name to something more generic and non-philosophical. If the immediate and primary goal is to downsize the federal government, the various groups that support this goal can no longer be divided against themselves.

Constitution Party: a Misnomer

The bottom line is that the Constitution Party is a misnomer. It should be called the Conservative Christian Party. Take a look at the Constitution Party’s platform if you don’t believe me.

The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

Via Third Party Watch, Independent Country.

In Politics , , ,
 permalink

Guatemalan Rain Forest Latest Casualty of War on Drugs and “Public” Property

April 17, 2008 — Leave a comment

The Daily Green reports on fires in Guatemala’s Mayan Biosphere Reserve set by “narcoranchers” in order to open arable land for coca crops.

While writer Dan Shapley would like to blame this problem on American drug habits he overlooks a couple of salient facts.

  1. This practice would not be necessary if coca and cocaine were legal.
  2. Public property is dependent on the bribe-able government bureaucrats for protection. Private property is not.

In the case of Guatemala, the state of the wild is defined by the state of our drug habits.

Forests are burned to make way for coca fields and air strips to ferry the illegal crop for processing or sale. Some 30 air strips have been carved into the forest in just the last couple years.

“This is my forest on drugs,” McNab said, waving his arm at an image of smoke emanating from the forest.

In Green, Politics , , , , , ,
 permalink

Way to Go Montana!

April 9, 2008 — Leave a comment

Montana weighs in on the DC vs Heller gun control case.

[Montana Secretary of State Brad] Johnson’s letter argued that Montana’s agreement with the United States to enter the union included Montana’s constitution at the time, which guaranteed the right of “any person” to bear arms. He urged the Supreme Court to uphold an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, rather than a collective interpretation, as best in keeping with Montana’s Compact with the United States.

In Politics , , ,
 permalink

Use of Illegal Narcotics OK but not Production?

April 9, 2008 — Leave a comment

There’s a good discussion going on over at Objectivist Living about the regulation of illegal drugs. Here’s what the OP has to say.

I propose that individuals who use dangerous drugs in violation of the law not be penalized, but that it remain illegal to produce and sell dangerous, addictive drugs.

I believe that allowing dangerous, addictive drugs to be sold freely to adults would create severe social and medical problems that should be minimized. You cannot totally prevent the production, importation, and sale of narcotics, for example, but legal sanctions can greatly reduce these activities.

What a load of crap! Let’s set this guy straight. :)

In Politics , ,
 permalink

THIS is How you Wipe out Crony Capitalism

March 21, 2008 — 2 Comments

notch-ear

In Wired’s Stanford Law Professor Larry Lessig Bets ‘Wikipedia’ Approach Will Transform Congress, I found this interesting statement:

“The problem we face is … the problem of crony capitalism using money to capture government,” … “The challenge is whether in fact we can change this. The political experts tell you that it can’t be done …”

Well, that’s EASY. I can tell you RIGHT NOW how to radically reduce the impact of cronyism in our government.

how to radically reduce the impact of cronyism

In a system of full capitalism, there should be … a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church. — Ayn Rand

Little to buy when state and economy are separate

Crony capitalism is ONLY possible when politicians have trillions of dollars to spend and the power to decide which companies and industries win – and which will lose.

There would be little of economic value to buy from a government that does NOT spend trillions on defense systems, wars, health care, single-bidder contracts, schools, bridges and toll roads. A government that does NOT decide which companies will be allowed to merge or whom you may trade with offers precious little for politicians to sell. A government that can NOT ban the production or import of certain products is likewise not up for sale. A politician that does NOT have sweetheart defense contracts to hand out is suddenly a lot less attractive.

Lessig’s Promises for Legislators

Prof. Lessig wants lawmakers to make four promises he hopes will reduce the power of money in Congress.

To promise not to accept money from lobbyists and PACs

We already know how much politician’s promises are worth: < 0. That's right, less than zero. Enough said.

To support public financing of elections

So, in order to get them to make more worthless promises, we pledge to give them more taxes power so they can fund their campaigns without having to worry about earning donations from citizens. No thanks.

To ban earmarks

As long as Congress has trillions to spend, congress-critters will fight tooth and nail to get as much of it as possible spent in their districts and states.

And they SHOULD!

As long as the IRS has a gun to our head demanding our wallets, taxpayers will DEMAND that. And renouncing earmarks means the executive branch decides where to spend the money. Do we really want more power for the executive branch?

To compel transparency in the functioning of congress

This is a great idea and Prof. Lessig posts more details about this at change-congress.org

Get the state out of the economy

Let’s not kid ourselves with half-measures. As long as Congress has our money they will spend it in ways that serve their interests and priorities, which you should know by now often conflicts with ours. If you really want to end crony capitalism get the state out of the economy. And, while you’re at it, bring our troops home and reel in the military-industrial complex.

Photo by Benimoto. Some rights reserved.

In Politics , , , ,
 permalink