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!