Friday, December 29, 2006
Before our very eyes lie all the incentives man needs to set himself on the road of striving for “Smaller government, Lower taxes, More Freedom, because, ladies and gentlemen, the effective opposite of that choice is less freedom, higher taxes and more government. Making those incentives understood, and giving contemporary man goals other than the ones offered by Ds Rs and Gs that of signing on to an organization the goals of which are to tell others how they should live their lives. If we are to see the curve that measures individual liberty turn upward, we must make Ls the standard. The liberty that we so cherish can only be obtained by a willingness to have all share in it.
After the 2006 National Convention where the Libertarian Party Platform was greatly reduced, (some would say hijacked) the National Party started promoting a simple slogan: “Smaller government Lower taxes More freedom.” I applaud this simplification. However, it does not seem to have the promotion necessary to embed it into the minds and “mouths” of Libertarians.
Please note that if we had smaller government it would mean lower taxes and more freedom. If we had lower taxes, it would precipitate smaller government and more freedom. Lastly, smaller government and lower taxes would precede more freedom. I am not suggesting we change the slogan. I think it will serve us well if we apply it.
That brings me to my resolutions. I see the Libertarian Party as the foot soldiers of the Libertarian movement. It is the party’s job to take the messages of the Libertarian Movement to non-libertarians. This brings me to Resolution #1) Spend more time talking to non-Libertarians. We have the most sellable product in the world, "more liberty". Take our message to non-libertarians.
In order to take our message to non-libertarians effectively requirs STUDY, yes study and then more study. This brings me to the Resolution #2) READ, read more, then read what you read, then read it again, then reread what you read. Let me remind you here that sloganeering is not enough, no matter how clever the slogan. I believe that Party members need to be actively engage in advocacy. An advocacy possible only by being better prepared. Party members can be effective only if and when they present their position cogently.
A subset of this resolution is to pick a subject, any subject and prepare yourself so that you can speak persuasively in a discussion about that subject with 90% of the people with whom you come into contact. This will make talk-show hosts easy to handle. However, if we try to be all things to all people, we will get our heads handed to us in discussions with others. Nothing will silence a Libertarian more quickly than to be out done by someone who is better prepared. READ READ READ being informed requires real work, osmosis will not do it. Let me paraphrase Dale Carnegie, in a public speaking lesson. He said you should have 10 times the information that you plan to present, and then the 10% that you do present will be more convincing because of your visible confidence.
Some good choices of subjects are the 10 covered on the “World’s Smallest Political Quiz”. There are dozens of others from which to choose. Pick one, two or even three. Study them thoroughly. Keep your eyes open for news and commentaries about your chosen subjects so you can stay current with your knowledge base.
Resolution #3) once you have chosen a few subjects and you have developed your basic knowledge in those subjects, let other libertarians know of your interest. Invite them to send you news and commentary articles on your subjects of choice. Let them know you would be willing to help them if they have questions about your subjects. Find out what their subjects are so you can send them news and commentaries on their subjects. If this program gathers any momentum, the LPOC Webpage could be an important clearinghouse, for info.
Resolution #4) Some of the more knowledgeable Libertarians could do some reading in the area of Media Relations, writing news releases, putting together Media Packets, establishing some Media contacts and compiling a list of media outlets.
Resolution #5) Two or three members could get together for the purpose of activating dormant members, getting e-mail addresses, discovering areas of interest ETC.
Resolution #6) A few members with just the right temperament (this right temperament might be discovered during Resolution #5 activity.) might get together to make fund raising calls and and putting together fund raising campaigns.
Resolution #7) there needs to be some recruiting efforts among College and High School students. One only need look around at a local meeting to realize that we are youth member challenged.
Resolution #8) with all the time you save by not talking your time away with other libertarians could be spent developing some speaking skills. We could begin to provide speakers, not only for our own educational meetings, but for surrounding areas as well.
Resolution #9) we need to activate a group of Libertarians in every City in Orange County to gather In Lieu of Signatures for our candidates, so they do not have to buy their way onto the ballot.
Resolution #10) this one will take care of itself, if any of the other Resolutions are adopted the resulting activity will identify leadership skills. Then elections to the Exec Committee will be a hotly contested event, instead of most officers running unopposed.
A standard joke that can be applied to many organizations goes like this, “If you were to line up all of the, (organization) end-to-end they would point in every direction”. That quote is not nearly severe enough to describe the Libertarian Movement. That same joke applied to the Libertarian movement would go more like, “If you line up all the Libertarians end-to-end no two would point in the same direction”. It seems impossible to get even two Libertarians to see the same thing the same way.
What makes this truth so strange is that we are supposed to be a movement of tolerance. However, if your thinking is one tenth of one degree off what another considers the “true course to liberty”, you become the enemy. The accusation that, “you are not a Libertarian” is commonplace among Libertarians. The problem with all this, is while we are fighting among ourselves, we leave the important job of defining the Libertarian Movement to others.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
At the last two meetings of the Libertarian Party of Orange County Dr. Randell Young has spoken on ending the Personal, Corporate, Social Security and other taxes with a Federal Reserve “Transaction Fee”. Discussions were very lively, and member interests piqued. Dr. Young, while very informative, left some questions of details unanswered.
It turns out that U.S. Congressman Chaka Fattah (D) PA http://www.house.gov/fattah/ http://www.house.gov/fattah/bio/bio.htm has proposed the “Comprehensive Transform America Transaction Fee Act” or H.R. 1601. It would eliminate a list of taxes. Revenue would be generated through Federal Reserve transaction fees. The transaction fee is triggered by a transaction that uses any kind of payment using a Federal Reserve instrument: check, cash, credit card, or anything else. The fee would be collected on retail and wholesale sales, business to business purchases of goods, and financial or other intangibles’ transactions. Not a sales taxes or a Value Added Tax.
With estimated annual transactions of $750 trillion, a 0.4% fee would produce a “revenue neutral” $2.6 trillion. Chairman Bill Thomas of the House Ways and Means Committee said, “The transaction fee concept could potentially simplify tax collections while capturing underground economic activity that currently evades taxation.” In addition, transactions made by foreign investors and corporations will also be captured for the first time.
This bring us to the “Vote Buying” aspects of the proposal through Exemptions, deductions, credits and exclusions, Distribution of the tax burden, Treatment of charitable giving, Treatment of homeownership, Collection method(s), Treatment of businesses ETC. Read the Congerssman's FULL PROPOSAL at. http://www.house.gov/fattah/issues/FinalFattahFeeLegSeal.pdf
Monday, December 18, 2006
The Left/Right spectrum is an invaluable tool in the struggle for liberty. It shortens the learning curve for newly recruited advocates. It enables the newbie to evaluate all candidates and/or issues by the simple question: “Does it bring about more or less governmental power?”.
Even though there is a huge amount of anecdotal evidence, my research has not been able to establish a definitive historical origin of left wing and right wing as opposite ends of a spectrum measuring the power and extensiveness of government.
Most researchers say it has to do with the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly (pre French Revolution). I can say without contradiction that the Clergy (the First Estate) and the landed nobility (the Second Estate) sat on the right side of the French National Assembly (circa 1789) That positioning arose from the respect the king showed for these two groups. It had nothing to do with their support or opposition to Louie the XVI. The left side of the French National Assembly, were the “cheap seats”, occupied by the Third Estate (the middle class the working class and if you will the begging class), again not because of any support or opposition to the King. All three Estates were their seeking favor. To either protect what they had, and/or to improve their position.
Exponents of “Left” Favoring Big Government
History is replete with outright conjecture as to the motives and goals of these three groups. Our level of knowledge does not cut through all of this conjecture.
We do know that by the mid 1830s Karl Marx had identified his enemies. They were the occupants of the right side of the room, the landed nobility (exploiters of the worker), and the clergy (“Religion is the opiate of the proletariat.”) Marx, opposing the Right Wing called his movement, “a movement of the Left”. This is perhaps the only direct connection to the “Left Wing-Right Wing political spectrum.
Who are some notables, on the left, that provide additional validation that the left wing favors more government, or more accurately that government is the best source for solutions to social and economic problems. Let us start with the Populist Party in the US. Formed in 1892 in St Louis, calling itself the “Party of the people”. The Populist Party’s Platform was straight out of the Communist Manifesto, calling for a nationally collected graduated income tax, the national government take over of the US Banks, the US railroads, and the US telegraph. See (the Populist Party Platform 1886).
The Progressive Party was even more aggressive in its call for expanding governmental power swallowed up the Populist Party. Their goals included a continuation of the left wing Populist Party Platform. Progressives supported the continual advancement of workers' rights and social justice. They were also among the first advocates of government-funded environmentalism. Centralization of decision-making process, regulation of large corporations, and some progressives believed that privately owned companies would never serve the public interest. Therefore, the federal government should acquire ownership of large corporations and operate them for the public interest. Furthermore, in the social realm they advocated that government provide housing, schooling and day care. On the labor front, they favored workers compensation laws, minimum wage laws, and mandated unionization.
On the International scene, Vladimir Illich Ulyanov, later known as Vladimir Lenin, the head of the Bolsheviks that successfully over through Czarist Russia and established the USSR. We know that Lenin was a disciple of Karl Marx. We know that with the over through of Czarist Russia Lenin established a socialist state. Socialism is an economic system where the State owns the “major means of production” (land, labor and capital). That is the State owns the “Land” that is the country, the “labor”, that is you and me and the “capital”, that is the money and all the elements necessary for making more money. And finally Lenin’s last major work… was entitled “Left-Wing” Communism…” see the Encyclopedia of Marxism.
Then there was Lev Davidovich Bronstein, known to us as Leon Trotsky. So there is no confusion Trotsky was second in command to Lenin in the Soviet Union. See,
http://www.fbuch.com/leon.htm. “Trotsky criticized the Soviet Union in some cases for being too far left” when they “initiated forced collectivization of all farms.” Encyclopedia of Marxism)
Exponents of “Right” Favoring Small Government
Murray Rothbard, correctly observed, “The modern American Right began, in the 1930's and 1940's, as a reaction against the New Deal and the Roosevelt Revolution, and specifically as an opposition to the critical increase of statism and state intervention…” (Emphasis added) In 1946, Rothbard “was a right-wing activist”. Rothbard wrote in 1964 in “The Transformation of the American Right” “I joined the Old Right in 1946.” Among its most vocal adherents were John T. Flynn, Albert Jay Nock, Rose Wilder Lane, and Garet Garret, Frank Chodorov. In “Confessions of a Right-Wing Liberal” published in 1969, Rothbard observed, “TWENTY YEARS AGO I was an extreme right-wing Republican”. Rothbard wrote, soon after WWII ended, “I joined the right-wing movement.”
The most telling statement Rothbard expressed in the same article was.
"All of our political positions, from the free market in economics to opposing war and militarism, stemmed from our root belief in individual liberty and our opposition to the state. Simplistically, we adopted the standard view (Emphasis added) of the political spectrum: "left," meant socialism, or total power of the state; the further "right" one went the less government one favored. Hence, we called ourselves extreme rightists."
Who are some notables, on the right, that provide additional validation that the right wing favors less government, or more accurately that government is the worst source for solutions to social and economic problems. Let us start with John T. Flynn. In “As We Go Marching” published in 1944, Flynn said referring to Italy of 1884, “From the beginning of united Italy the country had been ruled by the Right, some of them able statesmen and patriots inspired by the principles of liberty…” Conversely, Depretis… allied himself with the Left…He promised to increase public works… [and] greater social security…” Depretis, with fellow liberals [note the connection with left and liberal] in key positions of his cabinet…He increased indirect taxation, dodged the solution of the problems he had promised to attack by naming commissions (Emphasis added). When he entered office, the budget was balanced. However, the inevitable depression arrived and Depretis…the promiser of the better life, turned to the oldest and most reactionary device…government borrowing.” P. 12
“Speaking of Mous, a leader of the Left, he made an alliance with the socialists…” “the economy-minded conservatives began to object to wasting the public money on schools and roads and subsidies to farmers." P. 33 [note the connection with conservative and right wing. Remember Flynn is writing in 1943 of things taking place in the 18th century]
If anyone needs more proof do a Google search of other Old Right activist: Albert Jay Nock, Rose Wilder Lane, Garet Garret and Frank Chodorov. You will find things like: Albert Jay Nock, Forgotten Man of the Right by Jeffrey A. Tucker 08/22/2002. or you will read Murray Rothbard say, “Right-wing theorist Frank Chodorov devoted an entire issue of his monthly, Analysis, to an appreciation of Thoreau.”
Let me end this with a quote from Rothbard. Rothbard labeled himself “as a right wing extremist”. He then says of himself and others like him, “Originally, our historical heroes were such men as Jefferson, Paine, Cobden, Bright and Spencer. As our views became purer [more right wing] and more consistent, we eagerly embraced such near-anarchists as the voluntarist, Auberon Herbert, and the American individualist-anarchists, Lysander Spooner and Benjamin R. Tucker. One of our great intellectual heroes was Henry David Thoreau, and his essay, "Civil Disobedience," was one of our guiding stars. [those closer to the 0% government of the right end of the spectrum]
To summarize, let groups call themselves liberal or conservative. Lets groups brand other groups as liberal of conservative. The truth of what these groups are and what contributions they may make to the cause of liberty will surface in time. However, do not let anyone get away with calling a move toward more governmental power anything but leftist or left wing, and be proud, very proud when you are called a right winger if what you seek is less government.
Saturday, December 16, 2006
It seems to me that a lot of time is wasted by libertarians who argue whether it's possible to have a society without any government at all.
What's the point?
Right now, we're $2.3 trillion away from no government, and about $2.2 trillion away from limited government.
That means that until we trim $2.2 trillion from the federal budget, the issue of limited government vs. anarchy is moot. I can only presume that both sides would be pleased as punch (and then some) to reduce the federal government by $2.2 trillion. So that's what we all should be working toward as the first goal.
If we can get the federal government down to $100 billion, I'll lead a drive to raise the money necessary to rent the New Orleans SuperDome for three months — so we can all get together and argue over how much further the federal government should be reduced.
Those who want no government at all can continue working to reduce the size of government. Those who want limited government can fight to keep the federal government at $100 billion — or work to reduce it slightly more — or even work to increase it slightly.
But none of it is relevant until we reduce the government dramatically from where it is now.
As to the question of whether a society without government is possible, today we try to answer it with limited knowledge. If we can ever make government very small, we will undoubtedly find that plenty of people — people with more creativity and imagination than we have — will find it profitable to devise ways to do things privately and voluntarily that today seem possible only through government. Until those creative people have an incentive to put their minds to the question, we're contemplating the issue without knowing all the possibilities.
But so what? The question is moot.
In the meantime, there are two things we know for sure:
• Government is force, and we want to reduce the use of force to the absolute minimum.
• Government doesn't work, and so we want to remove as many activities as possible from government.
And no matter which side of the limited government vs. anarchy you're on, when someone asks you what size libertarians think the government should be, you can answer:
"Libertarians want to reduce government to the absolute minimum possible, and we can't really know what size that is until we get there.
"In the meantime, don't you agree that government is way too big, way too powerful, way too intrusive, and way too expensive?
"If so, please help us reduce it to the absolute minimum possible."
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Wars are raging in Iraq and Afghanistan. The powder keg in the Middle East is threatening to set the world aflame. One cannot deny that US citizen security is at an all-time low. This might be the perfect time to consider, just what is the primary function of the federal government?
Let us go to one of our basic documents. To paraphrase the Declaration of Independence, (which was the Mission Statement for the soon to be ratified US Constitution) humankind, has the right (natural rights) to LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS. To secure (that is to protect) those rights governments are created, and government gets it power to protect those rights from the governed.
Our Government has failed us big time. The attack on the World Trade Center was clear proof of that. While our military is off to far-away-places with strange sounding names, involved in regime change, spreading democracy, taking on the job of policemen of the world (or school-yard bully, I really cannot tell which). The job they are supposed to be doing goes unfilled.
In the last fifty years, the US Government has spent trillions of dollars developing an offensive military force. Most of which became obsolete before it got used. Any fifth grader, with a proper education could tell you that our government is only empowered to develop a defensive military force.
Bring our troops home, not only from Iraq and Afghanistan, but also from the over 100 nations we now occupy. Muster-out all the troops except enough for an invincible defensive force. Half of the money required to house our troops abroad returned to the taxpayer. The tax credit would exceed 75 Billion dollars, and would trigger a spending frenzy that would launch an economic upturn unprecedented in America’s history. The resulting increased Federal tax revenues returned to the taxpayers, would further fuel the skyrocketing expansion of our economy.
All of this growth would create a shortage of labor. US businesses would be running full-page ads in Mexico and other Central American nations for willing laborers.
Some (just some) of the increased tax revenues accruing to State and City governments could fund State and City Police Intelligence Agencies. These agencies could develop defensive plans that fit the geographic area where the increased tax revenues occur. States would no longer be dependant on the one-size-fits-all defense measures planned by the Federal Government. The rest of the tax revenues could be returned to taxpayers.
Oh, and the other half of the money being spent to house US troops abroad could be put out to private bid on National defensive weapons systems weapon systems so diverse, so cutting edge and so state of the art that another 9/11 style attack would be hugely reduced. Then, a national policy that no longer had its nose stuck into every nations business, and citizen security would be at an all time high.
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Peer pressure sets the standards
For how we should be and act
And how we should live our lives
It’s some secret and unwritten pact
I want to know the author
That dictates how I should be
What color’s the sky in his world
And why should he control me?
My early life I lived that plan
To please those people who "care"
But it didn’t make me happy
With just ME giving’s not fair
I am living MY own life now
And I won’t always hide how I feel
I’ll likely say things offensive
But at least you’ll know I am real.
I may not like your hair or music
Or the clothes you wear sometime
But I’ll let you make your choices
So please let me make mine
I won’t march with you in lock-step
Or hitch to YOUR shooting star
But one thing I can promise
I’ll accept you just as you are.
Society sets our standards
Of how we’re supposed to be
Well I’ll be living my own life
Try accepting me as me
Tuesday, December 5, 2006
I believe that less government and more responsibility is the surest road toward peace and prosperity. I believe in America's traditions of personal liberty, individual responsibility, respect for private property and tolerance of others. These are the traditions that have made these United States the greatest nation on earth. These are the traditions that have made these United States the envy of the world, and the example to be followed by peace loving peoples of any nation desiring to live free. These traditions had us well along on the road to becoming "one people".
Then something went wrong. We have become a nation contending against itself. Today we see all manner of divisions. Instead of coming together, we see black pitted against white, poor against rich, and youth against age. We even see women somehow contending against men. We see wage earners contending with welfare recipients. We now see citizens contending against immigrants and almost everyone against the Moslems. Moreover, we find the Federal Government contending against US Citizens, and vice-versa.
We seem to have lost control. "Government of the people, for the people and by the people" has, vanished from our beloved Nation. No matter how we vote, government gets bigger---more intrusive. No matter how strongly worded the candidates promised to reduce taxes, they continue to rise---and we tax more things? No matter how much more we spend education, test scores continue to drop.
I believe you deserve a life of your own choosing. A life that is not micromanaged by a collection of government bureaucrats that see you as lab rats in one social experiment after another. I believe this should no longer be true. I believe it is time to set our nation back on the road to its once recognized goals of a better life and a better world for everyone.
I believe in a society that respects you as a competent individual. I believe you deserve more than the “one-size-fits-all” lawmaking that now prevails in the halls of Congress. Please deliver us from those government agencies that feel they can run our lives for us better than we can ourselves.
I believe in your freedom, a freedom to live and love in your own way, I believe in your freedom to work and play in your own way. Most importantly, I believe in your freedom to dream in your own way with the full expectation that your dreams can become reality without government interference. All these, and much more were our clearly recognized goals just a few decades ago.
I believe in a society that offers freedom and opportunity. I believe in sending a resounding message to all elected officials that we will not settle for anything less than a governmental system that will unleash the teachers to teach and preachers to preach, but most importantly, a system that will unleash the reachers to reach.
Sunday, December 3, 2006
Let me pose a hypothetical. Let’s say you are involved in a movement, call it, say Libertarian. The goal of your movement is to reduce the size and reach of government. You know that all governmental powers were at one time individual rights. Read the following
The United States of America came into being on July 4th 1776. At that time, the only power granted to the federal government was the power to protect the “lives, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” of its citizens. The individuals and the States held all other powers. Since 1776 much power has been transferred from individuals and the States to the federal government. Here are just a few examples:
Until Feb. 3, 1913, individuals had the right to keep 100%, of the money they earned, and the government did not have the power to take any of the money individuals earned. On that date, the 16th amendment to the US Constitution was ratified. Thereafter the government had the power to take some portion of an individual’s income, and the individual no longer had the right to spend 100% of his/her income.
Until Jan. 16, 1920, individuals and companies had the right to manufacture, sell and transport intoxicating liquors. And the government did not have the power to stop individuals and companies from manufacturing, selling and transporting intoxicating liquors. The ratification of the 18th amendment converted the individuals and companies right to manufacture, sell and transport intoxicating liquors into a governmental power to prohibit individuals and companies from manufacturing, selling and transporting intoxicating liquors. The 20th amendment reversed the 18th amendment.
Until Jan.1, 1971 cigarette companies had the right to advertise cigarettes on television and radio, and government didn’t have the power to prevent cigarette companies from advertising on TV and radio. After Jan.1971, by simple legislative action cigarette companies’ right to advertise on TV and radio was converted into a governmental power to dictate cigarette companies advertising privileges. Please note, the first two examples required a Constitutional Amendment to convert the rights of the individuals or companies into powers of the government. However, by 1971 the American people were so conditioned to the concept that it was government’s job to solve problems the amendment to the Constitution process was no longer necessary.
My question is how you represent incremental changes in governmental power and individual liberties graphically.
What are some of your choices? We could have a pie chart, with the black wedge representing governmental power and the white slice representing our liberties. As government increased its power, the black wedge expands and the white slice representing liberty shrinks.
What are some of your choices? We could have a pie chart, with the black wedge representing governmental power and the white slice representing our liberties. As government increased its power, the black wedge expands and the white slice representing liberty shrinks.
Another choice; we could have a thermometer where the red liquid could represent governmental power and the empty tube would represent liberty. As governmental power increases, the red liquid rises reducing the amount of liberty represented by the empty tube.
Let’s check with history. We can start with what we know. We know for instance that a dictatorship is an example of 100% governmental power. We also know that Karl Marx called for the dictatorship of the proletariat. We also know that Lenin established a Socialist system. Under socialism, government owns the major means of production. That is they own the land (that is the country), the labor, (that is you and me) the capital (that is the money and all the tools for making more money). Additionally, we know that Marx referred to his movement as a movement of the “left” We also know that Lenin was of the “left”. The Encyclopedia of Marxism reports “Lenin’s last major work… was entitled “Left-Wing” Communism…” The Encyclopedia of Marxism also reports, “Trotsky criticized the Soviet Union in some cases for being too far left” when they “initiated forced collectivization of all farms.”
If dictators are 100% government and communism is 100% government, and leftist Marx calls for the dictatorship of the proletariat, and Lenin established a totalitarian Socialist system, and Marx, Lenin and Trotsky all called themselves “leftist”. Additionally, the landowners and the Clergy occupied the right side of the French National Assembly, and it was the landowners and the clergy of the right that Marx of the left opposed.
We also know that the movement that opposed the expansion of government by President Roosevelt in the 1930s came to be known as the Old Right. We also know the major players in that group included early Libertarians like John T. Flynn, H.L. Mencken, Albert Jay Nock, Rose Wilder Lane, and Garet Garret, Frank Chodorov and yes Murray Rothbard himself. We also know that the exact opposite of 100% government is 0% government; the name for 0% government is Anarchy. We also know that some segments of the Libertarian Movement refer to themselves a mini-archest, those who favor minimal government. Other libertarians refer to them-selves as anarcho-capatilist, a belief that government should have no say in the capitalist or free enterprise system. Lastly, some Libertarians advocate outright Anarchy, which is the complete dismantling of government altogether. Therefore, we can say that all Libertarians are in opposition to the 100% government of all totalitarian forms. Furthermore, they are in opposition all increases in government.
Therefore, it would seem that history dictates that we create some kind of left right spectrum, not so much to chart where we or other countries are located along the spectrum but to know in which direction we and other countries are moving.
Now with all this information clearly in mind, a President comes along that doubles the spending on public education, and then dictates that state governments follow a federal plan that is supposed to improve test scores. He also increases federal spending on a scale not seen since FDR. Calls for and gets the power to search your bank records without your knowledge. Moreover, makes it a federal crime for the bank employees to notify you that a search is going to take place. (See the Patriot Act) Calls for and gets the right to enter your home or business and copy information from your computer and not tell you for 90 days. (See the Patriot Act) Repeals the Bill of Rights for any citizen accused of terrorist type activities, invades a country that was no threat to US security. Would you say this President moved the country to the right or to the left?
How about actions of the private sector, we have a group calling for Federal laws to prevent stem cell research and abortion. They want the Federal government to define marriage as between one man and one woman. They want government to block adult web sites. They want the President to use (executive power) the Federal Registry to prevent partial birth abortion. Additionally, they call for Federal Laws that make adultery and homosexuality a crime. Why would we call this group the “Religious Right” They are not calling for less government. Let’s call them what they are, the Religious Left.
What would you call a group that wants more government troupes on the Mexican border, and are calling for the Federal government to build a fence between the US and Mexico? What would you call a group that wants to increase the penalties for drug possession and sales? What would you call a group that would reinstate the draft to carry out a non-defensive war in Iraq? I know what you would not call them; you would not call them the “Conservative Right”. Let’s call them what they are, the “Conservative Left”.
Can you see how this “Left/Right” chart would serve as an important aid to less informed voters? Can you see how in time every candidate and every issue would be evaluated using this chart? Can you also see how it would be important to the “government growers” to discredit this very powerful tool?
Saturday, November 25, 2006
Everyone knows that a key to the Democrats' big electoral win was their opposition to the Iraq war. But also, as the Wall Street Journal reported recently, 'Democrats' stances against free trade helped build the party's success at the polls and could tip the balance on trade matters. The new dynamic could put a definitive end to the already troubled effort to reach a global agreement to reduce tariffs and open markets.' Protectionists (of whatever party) believe that consumers who buy goods and services from foreigners cause domestic employment -- and wages -- to fall. Economists since before Adam Smith have shown that this belief is mistaken, largely because foreigners sell things to us only because they either want to buy things from us or invest in our economy
Everyone knows that a key to the Democrats' big electoral win was their opposition to the Iraq war. But also, as the Wall Street Journal reported recently, "Democrats' stances against free trade helped build the party's success at the polls and could tip the balance on trade matters. The new dynamic could put a definitive end to the already troubled effort to reach a global agreement to reduce tariffs and open markets...."
Protectionists (of whatever party) believe that consumers who buy goods and services from foreigners cause domestic employment - and wages - to fall. Economists since before Adam Smith have shown that this belief is mistaken, largely because foreigners sell things to us only because they either want to buy things from us or invest in our economy.
Technorati tags: Donald Boudreaux, Free Trade, Economics, LPOC