To the Shores of Tripoli!

If we had listened to the interventionists, we would have been at war with Libya long ago.

by Matt Welch

It is reasonable to conclude that if John McCain had won the presidency, the United States military would be at this moment engaging in war with Libya, by enforcing a no-fly zone over the embattled country and probably arming the anti-Qadaffi rebels. After all, that's what the Arizona Senator has been advocating for the past two weeks.

But in fact an alternative-universe McCain presidency could have put us on war footing with Libya as early as January 2001, had he beaten George W. Bush in the Republican primaries back in the days of federal budget surpluses. After all, it was McCain during the 2000 campaign who was advocating pro-active regime change in Tripoli, asserting during one presidential debate that he would "revise our policies concerning these rogue states—Iraq, Libya, North Korea—those countries that continue to try to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them," and then "institute a policy that I call 'rogue state rollback.' I would arm, train, equip, both from without and from within, forces that would eventually overthrow the governments and install free and democratically-elected governments."

And as he made clear in his original speech unveiling this radical doctrine of pre-emptive pro-democracy war, President McCain would have backed these revolutionary operations with the full power of the U.S. military. "If you commit to supporting these forces, accept the seriousness of the obligation," he cautioned. "Don't abandon them to the mercies of tyrants whenever they meet with reversals as the administration did in the north of Iraq....The world's only superpower should never give its word insincerely. We should never make idle threats."

Read More Reason...

LP Chair: The problem in Wisconsin is not unions but government

For Immediate Release
Thursday, March 10, 2011

WASHINGTON - While Republicans and Democrats battle in Wisconsin over a bill to reduce the collective bargaining power of state employee unions as a means of balancing their budget, Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle points out that the problem lies with government control of activities it has no business running.

Hinkle comments, "Libertarians are neither pro-union nor anti-union. We believe that the right of association and freedom of contract allows any group of people to choose to bargain collectively rather than individually. Naturally, we oppose violence and threats of such, but unions per se can play a major role in a free society. The problem is that the battle between the Wisconsin state government and state employees isn't even remotely a free market.

"Government monopolizes many services that could and should be provided in the voluntary sector by profit-making and/or non-profit organizations. This also gives them a 'monopsony' as virtually the only potential employer for workers in these fields. Once someone has trained to be a teacher or prison guard, they are essentially at the mercy of government for their employment in that field. Blaming them for wanting collective bargaining representation would be comparable to siding with the Polish government against the union Solidarity headed by Lech Walesa that freed Poland in 1989 from Soviet rule. The problem is with the employer: the government."

Hinkle considers the education budget to be the best example of a solution only Libertarians have offered:

"Far and away the largest part of the budget of the State of Wisconsin, once aid to local governments is allocated to underlying expenditures, is in the category of education. This is true of virtually all state and local governments, so it is the best example of how freedom can provide a solution. Unfortunately, government expenditures for education are driven by political considerations rather than the needs of the students. The result is outrageous costs that are not primarily for the most important ingredient in education: the teacher.

So How Are Democrats and Republicans Different?

Just how is the way Wisconsin Republicans have handled the political confrontation over worker rights different than the way Washington, DC Democrats handled last year's health care vote?

With apologies in advance to Ezra for taking some liberties with his column yesterday evening in theWashington Post:

What happened in Wisconsin [Washington DC] tonight [last March]
By Ezra Klein [Bob Laszewski]

Here's what just happened [last March] in Wisconsin [Washington, DC]: The rules of the state's [U.S.]Senate require a quorum [60 votes] for any measures that do [don't] spend money. That's how the absence of the Senate's Democrats [the election loss in Massachusetts] could stymie Gov. Scott Walker's [the Democrat's efforts] to block [pass] the proposed budget law [the new health care bill] -- it spent [parts didn't spend] money, and thus it needed a quorum [60 votes].


Read the Rest.....

Classic O'Rourke

"One of the annoying things about believing in free will and individual responsibility is the difficulty of finding somebody to blame your problems on. And when you do find somebody, it's remarkable how often his picture turns up on your driver's license." 

P.J. O'Rourke

Great Libertarian Quotes

"The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community."  

David D. Boaz (1997)

Thoughts from Jefferson

"I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend."

Thomas Jefferson

Muir Boda's Weekly Campaign Message: Government and Real Estate

Muir Boda
Candidate for Salisbury City Council

I wanted to take a moment and share my positions on a couple of issues that have been before the City Council recently. These have been on my website, www.boda4salisbury.com under the section “How Would I Vote” and I wanted people to be clear on where I stand on some of these issues. 

Since both of these issues deal with acquiring and selling properties, it goes with my general philosophy that governments typically should not be actively involved in the Real Estate market and when it is, the approach should be with extreme caution.  I certainly understand that we need to have Fire Departments, Police Departments, Public Works and basic office space for the general operations of our government.  Governments should not be in the business of property management or for a better term a landlord, because the results are usually disastrous, such as all of the empty, boarded up homes owned by the Wicomico County Housing Authority in this city, that is another topic for another day.

So here are two recent situations that were very controversial and my position on them.

Linens of the Week

I oppose the City of Salisbury acquiring this property for several reasons.

First, the unknown costs that are potentially associated with the cleanup is not a risk worth taking.  The hopes that grants will be available to help offset the cleanup costs, is not a guarantee as the $14 Trillion National Debt should be a big warning sign.

Second, he who makes the mess should be the one to pay for the cleanup.  Sticking the taxpayer with the bill and responsibility is unfair. 

Third, is the issue of disposition after the property has been cleaned up.  The government just handing it over for free, no matter who the organization is, is not the right thing to do.  I do believe Habitat for Humanity is a great organization and if they want the property they should acquire it on their own, not as pass through from the government after taxpayers have cleaned it up.

Don’t get me wrong, I think charity is a great thing, I just don’t believe government should be in the business of forcing taxpayers to donate properties to non-profits and churches, especially after taxpayer funds have been used to fix a property up.

Bottom line:  government should have no role in this property other than ensuring the environmental cleanup is done, the property is safe and that the transaction between private parties is free of fraud.

The Old Firehouse

Despite the controversy surrounding this issue I would have voted for the sale.

I believe Palmer Gillis’ intentions are honorable and that he did not attempt to deceive anyone.  There are strict requirements in this deal and everyone must understand that an educational component is required.  Failure to adhere to the requirements will result in the building being forfeited back to the city.

The other aspect of this issue is that renovation costs could be between $500,000 to $1,000,000.  There are very few who have the resources available to pull that off and Palmer is one of those few.  He has a proven track record here in Salisbury and I hope we can all give him a chance to accomplish something that we all will benefit from.

Muir Boda

Candidate for Salisbury City Council