Economy

The official stance of the Libertarian Party on the economy is as follows:

Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society. 

I must say, it is hard to disagree with that statement.  But just for fun, I will review some economic concepts and play devil's advocate for opposing points of view, if for no good reason other than to get our neurons fired up.  Without paining too many of you, here is a brief summary of Econ 101. (and yes I know how cliche that sounds)

Economics is all based on the interaction between producers and consumers in a market.  Consumer want is defined as Demand and producer offering is defined as Supply.  Demand is inversely related to Price, and Supply is directly related.  Higher prices mean that Supply is high (more producers want to sell) and Demand is low (less consumers want to buy).  Lower prices mean that Supply is low (less producers want to sell) and Demand is high (more consumers want to buy).  Equilibrium is the point at which Supply and Demand are maximized with the most consumers and producers willing to participate in the market.  Please consult the economic models below for a visual aid.
.

Pictured: Economic models

It is important to understand that the economy is affected by many things, including public optimism/pessimism, government policy, natural disasters, wars, and many other factors.  A government that extends its reach beyond that of Constitutional guidelines inherently costs more to taxpayers.  Taxation acts as a distortion to the market, though some argue that government spending supports the economy via contracts, public sector jobs, and improving infrastructure.

The only problem is that for every well-intentioned government program, the layers of bureaucracy and inefficiency are added to the cost, which is almost always a really bad return on investment.  Instead of an efficient market where people are allowed to vote with their dollars on the most competitive and best option, a politician or appointed official picks and chooses which contractors to hire and where to direct public funds, often for the benefit of special interests, not the country as a whole.  Do you think politicians know how to spend your money better than you?  I didn't think so.

Crime

While I could go down the rabbit hole analyzing the US Department of Justice, I find local crime to be more worthwhile to write/read about.  Most people care about crime in their communities and how to best deal with it.  I'd like to take this opportunity to distinguish a common criticism of Libertarianism from that of anarchy.  Libertarians favor local government duties that uphold the freedoms and will of the people.  We very much appreciate local public services like police and firefighters.  The only reason I mention that is because I have corrected many critics of this philosophy that mistakenly assume that the desire for small, principled government equates to the desire for no government at all, and that simply isn't true.

In order to preserve our freedoms we must prevent those in our society who would do harm to others.  That concept is the basis for most laws against crime in our country, states, counties, and municipalities; with some exceptions.  Clearly, a local government must serve its citizens by protecting them with a police force, but what steps can be taken to maximize the safety of the people while preserving their freedoms?  What practical prison solutions can we establish for those who commit crimes, once convicted?

Stealing our hearts will get you 10 years.

In an effort to answer those questions, I propose a few general suggestions.  Obviously, a one-size-fits-all solution is not possible, but these guidelines would arguably improve your local law enforcement and justice systems:

• Effectively and efficiently train local law enforcement officers in both weapons and local/federal statutes.  Make sure that all officers are informed to properly protect citizens and their rights with the proper knowledge and tools at their disposal.
• Make criminals pay full restitution to their victims.  If offenders knew that they were fully financially liable for their crimes, they might reconsider committing them in the first place, particularly if they were unable to afford restitution.
• Allow citizens to protect themselves.  Even the shortest law enforcement response time can be the difference between a life and death situation.  As a matter of fact, Gun control laws often yield increased crime and are unconstitutional.
• Punish violent crime more severely.  Assault, rape, and murder ought to be dealt with severely without potential for bail or early parole.  While state enforcement varies, federal sentences mostly enforce 80% of time served before early release is allowed and that should be eliminated.
• Abandon illogical statutes.  Without getting too much into it here, the war on drugs has failed.  It is time to stop turning casual users into hardened criminals in the prison system, and time to stop telling adults what they can or cannot do to their own bodies.
• Allow jailed criminals to work or earn college credit while incarcerated.  This will reinforce a life of rehabilitation and make the transition to a productive life after jail more possible, reducing the likelihood of repeat offenders.  If restitution is required, earnings can go towards victim repayment.
• Independently audit both law enforcement and local courts on a regular basis to ensure the utmost protection of civil liberties in the criminal justice system.  While the failure to convict a guilty person is a tragedy, the false conviction on an innocent person is a travesty.

Think these suggestions are too tough or don't go far enough?  Leave a comment with how you would do things differently below.

Homeland Security

Security is a funny thing.
Benjamin Franklin famously stated "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."  Security in general only makes sense if what you spend to provide security is worth less than what you are protecting.  Exceeding that is pointless.

That brings me to the Department of Homeland Security.  The DHS was created as a presidential cabinet department in response to the 9/11 terror attacks.  It has been expanded to protect Americans from terrorism, man-made accidents, and natural disasters.  Like most programs implemented by the Federal Government, it fails.  A lot.  The DHS employs around 200,000 people, including agencies like INS, Secret Service, Coast Guard, FEMA, and TSA.

DHS Motto: Preserving our Freedoms, Protecting America  (squeeze, squeeze)

While each agency has its flaws, the one most people seem to be concerned about these days is the Transportation Security Administration.  While their task is to screen passengers for safety and security in airports, we already have a solution to airport security.  It's called the 2nd amendment.  Why does that right somehow magically disappear when we fly?  It would be more than enough to dissuade potential terrorists, knowing they would be at the mercy of armed law-abiding citizens if they tried anything.

Additionally, I see no reason why our foreign-deployed military cannot perform the exact same role as the Department of Homeland Security.  Instead of wasting lives and money in the Middle East, I'm sure our servicemen and women would prefer deployment here in the states, have much more discipline and respect for our freedoms, and would eliminate $55 billion annually in extraneous government expenditures.  I wonder how today's politicians would react to a suggestion like that?

Education

Pop quiz:
Where in the Constitution is the Department of Education created or justified?
A)   Bill of Rights
B)   Article III - The Judicial Branch
C)   Preamble
D)   Article 1, Section 8 - The Powers of Congress
E)   None of the Above

I'll just wait right here while you Google it.



The answer is of course, E.  President Jimmy Carter created the department by elevating the obscure and powerless Office of Education to the current Cabinet level it now enjoys.  The official functions of the department are to "establish policy for, administer and coordinate most federal assistance to education, collect data on US schools, and to enforce federal educational laws regarding privacy and civil rights."

Where do I begin?  Administering policy for education assistance?  Collecting data on US schools?  Enforcing educational laws?

I think we can all agree that education is on the decline.  What might end that agreement is why.  Education spending is up more than 100% in the last 10 years while international rankings list us between 22nd and 33rd in the world in student performance.

(psst)... How do you spell government failure, Bro?

So despite throwing money at the problem, what we end up with is pathetic results.  Some say we don't spend enough, but I disagree and you should too for the following reasons;
1)  We cannot afford it.  Our nation is in a severe debt crisis right now and spending money we don't have only fuels the fire.
2)  Market-based competition breeds the best results.  Schools with a history of failure are allowed to continue to push under-performing students though apathetic school districts, resulting in rampant cheating, fraud, and wasted opportunities for the students.
3)  It is unconstitutional!  No where in Article 1, Section 8 is the Federal government granted the power to educate the citizens of this country.  That was omitted for good reason.  Local governments are much more responsible to their constituents and education works best with parental involvement. 

Back to the Department of Education, none of their official functions do anything to alleviate poor student performance, or make efficient use of scare tax dollars.  From what I can tell, that department only exists to pay bureaucrats and restrict competition.  Sorry, but I will take performance and freedom any day of government overreach and inefficiency.  And I managed to consider all this, despite my years of public education.  Maybe there is hope after all.

July 4th

Happy Independence Day, America!

Budget

In order to have a balanced budget, one has to ensure that dollars in is greater than or equal to dollars out.  Seems simple enough and yet the US government finds itself $14,300,000,000,000 in debt at the time of writing.  (Source: http://www.usdebtclock.org/).  That is an awful lot of money to owe.  In fact, that is around $46,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States!

So how did we get here?  Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution has everything to do with it:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
 .....
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
.......
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Most of the subsections deal with the reality that in order to operate, the government needs to spend money on certain things, and in order to have that money they would need the power to tax their citizens.  Given the fact that we just fought a war essentially against taxation without representation, it is safe to assume that the founders wanted to ensure that no similar situations would arise here, while still allowing for a government to accomplish the duties of running the country and protecting our freedoms.  But then there is the one I highlighted, regarding borrowing money.  Sure, at the time the US was a fledgling nation and needed to rely heavily on borrowed money, but look at where we are now.  To make matters worse, we face what's known as the debt ceiling, or the most amount that the government can legally borrow, this August.

Depending on which side of the aisle you fall, you probably have one of the following opinions:

Our current debt and deficit is a result of our government not taking in enough revenue and taxes should be raised, ideally on the rich since the middle class needs to be protected; or
Our current debt and deficit is a result of our government spending too much money and raising already high tax levels on anyone during an economic recovery period would be a disaster.

So which side is right?

Pictured: spending less vs. taxing more

 Common sense would dictate that either way, spending over $4 billion a day totaling to a $1.5 trillion annual deficit might not be the best tactic, especially as we near the debt ceiling.  Unless the average American is comfortable with a larger individual obligation, raising the debt ceiling is not an option.  So lets take a closer look at each argument.

Raising Revenue (taxes):
Many on the left blame the budget shortfall on the tax cuts enacted by President Bush and continued last December by President Obama.  What many people fail to realize is that the tax cuts were enacted for all Americans, and discussion of continuing them for people making less than $200 thousand annually while allowing them to expire for those who make more is ridiculously inequitable and gets back to the duties being uniform issue.  Either way, lets take a look at the breakdown of the US government's revenue sources.  Income tax is already 45%, broken down by a questionable bracket system of income, where people who make more money not only pay more in taxes but pay a higher percentage of their income.  How is it fair to charge some Americans over $100,000 a year in taxes and give refund money back to others?  Both receive the same access to public services and enjoy the protection of living in this country, and both have the responsibility to follow the law.  Pointing to the tangible indicators of success for one as justification for confiscation does not fly with me.  If anything, everyone should be paying the same percentage of income or replace our complicated and inequitable income tax system with a consumption tax like FairTax.

Reducing Spending:
Republicans like to promote cutting welfare programs and redundant government agencies while Democrats like to promote cutting military spending, and yet both sides get angry when you suggest cutting government spending in all areas across the board by some percentage that would not only balance the budget, but also allow the repayment of debt.  Let's take a look at the breakdown of spending by category.  As you can see, Social Security, the Department of Defense, Welfare, and Medicare/Medicaid comprised approximately 75% of our 2010 budget.  Where ever your politics lie, if you think we couldn't trim 30% of waste and inefficiency out of the big 5 in order to remain solvent, then you might be part of the problem.

The Keynesians in the crowd will dislike this, but I support the recent public outcry for a Balanced Budget Amendment.  This proposed legislation would stipulate that our government would be bound to not spend any more than anticipated tax revenues in any given budget cycle.  That way, no matter how the left and right squabble over high taxes versus smaller government, their compromises would never again be able to put the American taxpayers on the hook for trillions of dollars worth of debt.  What do you think?

Gun Control

Gun control is a topic that adds the controversial layer of mortality to the discussion.  No matter how much logic or historical evidence you have on either side, if a person knows someone who passed away as a result of gun violence or misuse, their emotions often preclude an intelligent discussion.  I would like to preemptively apologize to anyone who has lost a friend, relative, or acquaintance to either the presence of firearms or the lack thereof.  I do not intend to reopen old wounds with this discussion, but I do wish to address the controversy surrounding the topic and do so with the care and honesty it deserves.

The right to own guns is rooted in the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution:

Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 The 2nd Amendment grants the citizens of this country the inalienable right to gun ownership as a measure of balance to protect their freedoms.  That has powerful implications.  The government cannot infringe upon the rights of the individual to use firearms to protect themselves or their freedom.  So why would the Founders guarantee the ability for anyone to wield dangerous weapons?  We have all seen the consequences of violent crime.  We have also heard the heart-retching stories of people who have survived home invasions or attempted robberies by the virtue of being gun owners.  So where do you draw the line between public safety and personal protection?

This might be that line.

If you believe that the defense of public safety exceeds the rights of the individual to own a gun, reasoning that no loss of life is justifiable to uphold the Constitution, that is understandable at first glance.  You might reason that without guns, the world would be a safer place.  Following that logic, if people are not allowed to own weapons, they would not have the ability to harm or threaten others in either criminal or accidental scenarios and no one would die or get injured from guns (or bullets if you want to be literal).  This type of thought process has led to many laws surrounding regulation, restriction, and even prohibition of gun ownership over the years.

You might be asking yourself why states and cities are allowed to pass laws that restrict gun ownership in attempts to curb violence, despite the fact that doing so is a clear case of residents' rights being "infringed".  If you are, congratulations!  You might already be a Libertarian!  As it turns out, the Supreme Court tends to agree you.  In two recent rulings, citizens in Washington D.C. and Chicago successfully invoked the 2nd Amendment to protect their rights in cities that had contradictory anti-gun laws.

What does this mean for the average American?  This may be cliche but the logic that always made sense to me was the fact that if you outlaw guns in a society, only the people who break laws will have them, which in turn would embolden them to commit more crimes with the knowledge that the general public would not have the ability to defend themselves.  Not to mention, if our government ever decided to systematically remove our Constitutionally guaranteed rights (no Obama jokes, I promise), we would have no way to prevent the military from being used against us if we were to protest.  To me, the tradeoff is worth it.  I'll take the freedom, you can have the illusion of security.

Foreign Policy

What a large and complicated issue to tackle for this first installment of the issues!  I wanted to take the effort to do as much research as possible upon which to base my statements and claims, and I think this process will pay off in terms of providing a quality platform of discussion.  Before I dive right into current debates and opinion, it makes sense to get a historical context for foreign policy in the US.  Here are some excerpts from the last 230+ years:

The formative years of the government in the late 1700s were mostly occupied with wrestling independence away from Great Brittan and establishing ourselves as a legitimate sovereign nation, ironically concerned with repaying our debts accrued during the revolutionary war.  Then there was the matter of indigenous Native Americans occupying the land west of the colonies, during which policy was a pretty solid case of get out of the way or be killed.  Other issues with expansion were eased with the Louisiana purchase from France to help them finance their own war with the British, and despite trying to make a deal for Florida, the US simply cedes most of it from Spain with no retaliation.  The conclusion of the war of 1812 with Brittan left our young country in a prime position to not only have respect in the world, but also to keep pressing westward.
After that, piracy provided a constant threat to international trade and travel.  The US responded with naval forces to the Northern coast of Africa, where much of the piracy was not only based, but also sponsored by the region's governments!  As the country progressed through the 1800s, hostilities continued against various tribes and in 1835, Texas began the war for independence from Mexico.  Though not officially part of the USA yet, many Americans joined the fight since there were several American settlers living there, and was concluded after the decisive win at the Battle of San Jacinto in 1836, admitted as a US state after a decade of existence as its own republic. 

Clearly my favorite part of US history and foreign policy

Unfortunately the Civil war broke out in 1861, devastating the country with various European countries ready to begin siding with the different factions, ultimately leading to the reunification under Lincoln.  International trade began to expand following the Civil War and a huge wave of immigrants arrived from Europe and Asia, along with increased foreign production competition.  By this time, the number of admitted US states was in the mid 40s.  The early 1900s saw America's true rise to prominence in the world with our involvement in World War 1, a result of the beginning of the industrial era and utilization of our vast natural resources, despite the fact that we tried to remain neutral on what we considered to be foreign affairs.  The 20s and 30s were a return to the desired neutrality, only for us to become once more involved in World War 2 after being attacked at Pearl Harbor by Japan.  The decades following the Allied victory became a worldwide campaign to battle communism in Russia, China, Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba; culminating in the tearing down of the Berlin Wall in 1989.  Modern conflicts since have been fought in the Middle East, largely in the name of defending oil-producing countries from unstable leadership.  That, along with a rise of the internet and the easy spreading of ideas has generated the terrorist threat we see in today's headlines.  Non-combat foreign policy has been one of preservation of balance and encouragement of trade in an increasingly globalized world.

TL;DNR version of the above is that in America's history we have displayed an inconsistent foreign policy depending on the situation and what was best for us at the time, not necessarily what was right.



The first statement I would like to address is why the federal government should be responsible for foreign policy at all, a question to be raised prior to any discussion.  Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution is the source of this power granted to Congress.  It can be interpreted (in my mind) by the following clauses:

3:  To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

4:  To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

5:  To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

10:  To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

11:  To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

15:  To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 3 (the infamous Commerce Clause) seems basic enough, Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, between states, and because the framers for some reason did not consider Native American tribes as foreign nations, also included them.  Regulating commerce with foreign nations seems to grant Congress broad powers to dictate international exchange rates, economic embargos (Cuba), and maintaining healthy trade relations; which are almost always good for peace and stability.
Clause 4 establishes the power (and responsibility) for the federal government to regulate immigration into this country.  This is relevant to foreign policy in my mind, because we have granted asylum to political refugees in the past and can (theoretically) prevent immigrants from coming here from a country if we have reason to do so.  That power could certainly be wielded during diplomatic negotiations.
I included Clause 5 because establishment of the US Dollar and the Fed's oversight has extremely important implications to the rest of the world due to global exchange and the fact that many consider the Dollar to be the international currency.
Clause 10 matters because by definition, the oceans of the world are considered international territory, and enforcing a set of laws not only protects trade, but also helps secure travelers.  (sensing a theme here, yet?)
Clause 11, declaration of war is a give away.
And last but not least, I included Clause 15 for the power to repel invasions.  To me, that goes hand in hand with declaring war, but I wanted to be thorough.

Okay, now that the groundwork has been laid for a proper discussion, what does all of this mean?  Can powers granted to our own government really be applied in the face of other sovereign nations?  How long must we act as the world's police?  Why do we continue to engage in wars or occupations in foreign countries when we are $14 trillion+ in debt?  I think a simple pragmatic approach to these questions is one of free trade policy, offering nations who want it a model of our republic, and refusal to be involved in foreign conflict unless we actually declare war.  This would help keep us from appearing imperialistic to nations who are unwilling to accept our help, keep our budgets balanced, and keep our focus on fighting terrorism here in our country instead of waging expensive foreign non-wars.

The Issues

The problem with many electoral contests is that a vast number of people, who actually vote, do so without any idea of the voting records, experience, or personal values of the candidates.  They only take the time to read the letter following the names on the ballot.  (R), (D), (L), or (I) don't reveal a lot about how your selection will turn out, just a vague description of how a party says they will vote.  (Obviously past actions and/or statements are not guarantees of future performance).

I favor a more rigorous test of candidates, one where they must define their beliefs, present it to the public, and stand by their words.  Can you imagine a country in which politicians must not only publicly claim their viewpoints on specific issues, but do so in a uniform manner that would allow voters to easily compare them?  After some research and thought, I have compiled a list of political issues germane to American politics, separated by topics.  If I have omitted anything, please feel free to leave it in the comments section.

International Issues
Foreign Policy
Homeland Security
War (Rules of Engagement)
War (Declaration)
Treaties
Trade
Immigration (Legal)
Energy
Environment (Worldwide)
Human Rights

Domestic Issues
Gun Control
Crime
Narcotics
Civil Rights
Jobs
Border Control
Environment (Local)
Constitutionality of Existing Laws

Economic Issues
Budget
Economy
Taxation
Social Programs
Welfare
Poverty
Infrastructure
Technology & Science

Social Issues
Education
Health Care
Abortion
Families and Marriage
Corporate Rights
Culture
Immigration (Illegal)

Each of these topics represent immense room for expansion, discussion, and articulation.  Some topics, such as Gay Rights, fall under other categories (Families and Marriage in this case) and will be covered in that discussion.  It is my hope for readers of this blog to keep issues in mind in the future and care about more than a few words on a bumper sticker when selecting politicians who use our own money to serve us.

I will do my best to analyze these as thoroughly as possible, and welcome feedback from my readers.  We are not all going to agree with one another so please keep discussions civil and respectful.

New Blog

Greetings to my future followers! 

I created this blog for you:
The thoughtful independent thinker.  The person who realizes that the brain in their skull is capable of more than just consumption and regurgitation, but also the creation of ideas.  The person who rolls their eyes when they hear pundits rant but listen to them anyway because you care about your country.  The reader who does not mind shameless flattery to encourage them to come back for more!

I believe in freedom.  It is a simple concept with incredibly powerful implications.  It is agreed as good by the vast majority of society but conflicted in an assortment of ways with individual application.  It is my wish to articulate these differences of opinion, not to boil them down to simple sound bytes, but to truly understand the voices of my fellow Americans.

I have no illusions of grandeur.  I begin this blog with zero followers and do not compare myself to professional political commentators, radio hosts, politicians, or any of our beloved historical figures.  I am just a Texan with a voice of my own.