by Mike Calpino
On of the things that irritates people about the political process is that so few of the men or women who are part of it are principled, and even fewer are willing to consistently stand on their principles. First, allow me to define a principle. Webster’s defines it as a “fundamental truth or law, a moral rule.” I will also quote Ayn Rand’s definition, because I find it highly instructive.
“A principle is “a fundamental, primary, or general truth, on which other truths depend.” Thus a principle is an abstraction which subsumes a great number of concretes. It is only by means of principles that one can set one’s long-range goals and evaluate the concrete alternatives of any given moment. It is only principles that enable a man to plan his future and achieve it.” (Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal, p143.)
It is the lack of principles that have led, politically, fiscally and morally, to the situation in which we find ourselves. We have politicians we assume are corrupt and self-serving, debt we cannot repay, citizens who are content to be slaves whining for their basic bread from the hand of the state. Our political discourse consists of petty arguments over how to properly allocate billions or trillions of dollars to special interest groups in order for the politicians to secure their power and re-election. The only principle involved is that of power, gaining it and expanding it. The fiscal and moral health of the country, any consistency of program or policy, is all sacrificed on the altar of power. Power over the individual, the collective, over you and I. The power to determine every decision, the power to mold and shape minds, the power to control everything in society, for their own egomania. They happily sacrifice the freedom and rights of the individual on the altar of “the public good” or the “greater good” or “social justice.” The merrily go about confiscating the wealth of those who produce it for their own aggrandizement and the perpetuation of the perverse system that supports them. They speak the language of “compromise,” “fairness,” and “bi-partisanship,” but they are all lies to hide their true motives and the consistent advancement of their cause at the expense of our liberty.
There can be no compromise with evil. Strong word, you say? Any man or system that proposes to reduce or eliminate my God-given rights to life, liberty and property is evil. Any man who believes it is in his power to grant or abrogate natural rights is evil. Any system that believes it has first rights to the labor of our bodies and minds, that thinks it owns our production and our property, that it has the right to dictate every decision and action, that our liberty is inconsequential to their desire for control is evil. I state that unapologetically. Therefore the struggle of liberty and tyranny, freedom and state control is one of good and evil, the free state of man as God intended versus man as a slave of the state. To “give up essential liberty...for a little temporary security,” as Franklin said, is a false choice for a free people. To give up a natural right, or any portion thereof, reduces our humanity. Any compromise of our freedom is only a green light to the statists to take more.
In “the Anatomy of a Compromise”, Ayn Rand lists three rules about the application of principles.
1. In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.
2. In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.
3. When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden and evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side.
Let us briefly look at each one of these in turn. In the first, the men involved purport to hold the same principles. However, if they disagree, one of them is inconsistent. For example, if two politicians hold the principle that job creation is important yet one supports government policies that have historically been demonstrated to drag the economy down, he betrays his true motivations and priorities. One of the reasons the Democrat party has been successful in moving the country ever closer to statism is because while both major parties believe in wielding the power of government, the Democrat party has been more consistent in its advancement and application while the Republicans have attempted to give lip service to limited government, while their actions demonstrate their inconsistency. The problem we have in America is that both the political powers hold the same principles-those that support government expansion-and the only way to reverse our progress toward totalitarianism is to change the principles upon which our politicians govern and the principles by which we the citizens expect our politicians to govern.
The second one states that in any collaboration between two different principles, the evil one wins. This is simply articulated by this quote from Atlas Shrugged. “In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.” The Bible says the same thing, “A little leaven works its way through the whole batch of dough.” Any compromise which betrays a basic principle, any policy that infringes on basic rights, no matter what the supposed “emergency” or “crisis”, is a victory for statism. We cannot save freedom by abandoning freedom. A little poison or a lot of it will still bring about the same result.
Finally, as we enter the debates in what could be the most important election in America’s history, an election that will put people in office who will be in a position to guide us through the most difficult times since our inception as a nation, who may determine the very survival of our nation and our way of life, we need to clearly define the issues. Platitudes, bumper stickers, sound bites and flashy smiles are not going to lead to the restoration of our liberty and the stability of our country. The statists will win if their true motives and the principles by which they govern remain hidden or they are allowed to evade answers to the crucial questions. Only the irrational would willingly vote for someone who said that their goal was to control every aspect of our lives, to confiscate all our wealth, that they believed the state owns our property and our very bodies, that it was only their desire for control that led them into politics in the first place. Yet those who support the status quo of our current government operation govern according to those principles. We need people to run for office who have the courage and the ability to articulate and apply the principles of liberty at all levels of our government. People who will consistently and unapologetically make the argument for the founder’s vision of America, a vision of limited government, individual freedom, God-given rights and laissez-faire economic policy that made us the “shining city on a hill” for so much of our history.
“The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. Whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles.” Ayn Rand
Or, put another way, the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
Mike Calpino
Candidate for Wicomico County Council
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
Census workers can enter your apartment in your absence
6:00 am May 26, 2010, by Bob Barr
Thousands of census workers, including many temporary employees, are fanning out across America to gather information on the citizenry. This is a process that takes place not only every decade in order to complete the constitutionally-mandated census; but also as part of the continuing “American Community Survey” conducted by the Census Bureau on a regular basis year in and year out.
What many Americans don’t realize, is that census workers — from the head of the Bureau and the Secretary of Commerce (its parent agency) down to the lowliest and newest Census employee — are empowered under federal law to actually demand access to any apartment or any other type of home or room that is rented out, in order to count persons in the abode and for “the collection of statistics.” If the landlord of such apartment or other leased premises refuses to grant the government worker access to your living quarters, whether you are present or not, the landlord can be fined $500.00.
That’s right — not only can citizens be fined if they fail to answer the increasingly intrusive questions asked of them by the federal government under the guise of simply counting the number of people in the country; but a landlord must give them access to your apartment whether you’re there or not, in order to gather whatever “statistics” the law permits.
In fact, some census workers apparently are going even further and demanding — and receiving — private cell phone numbers from landlords in order to call tenants and obtain information from them. Isn’t it great to live in a “free” country?
ShareThis Print
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Susan Gaztanaga On The Mark Steiner Show
Maryland LP candidate for Governor Susan Gaztanaga appeared on the Mark Steiner show on WEAA-FM, 88.9. Below is the link to the audio from that segment.
http://www.steinershow.org/files/steinershow_052510_seg2.mp3
http://www.steinershow.org/files/steinershow_052510_seg2.mp3
Lorenzo Gaztañaga Answers the Questions Part 4
One of the toughest decisions Congress must make is whether or not to authorize the President to go to war. The two current military operations, Iraq and Afghanistan, are obviously two different situations. Would you have authorized the President on either of those situations? And why or why not?
I would never have authorized the war in Iraq under any circumstances. All the reasons for going in there were false. Anyone who has followed the history of Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein would have known that the executed tyrant was a secular Muslim with little more than speaking Arabic in common with Osama Bin Laden, and the fact that they both engaged at the time in killing innocent people to fulfill their agendas.
I would have authorized Afghanistan along the lines of a letter of mark with the specific purpose of routing out Al Qaeda, which was clearly based there at the time, and any Taliban that might get in the way. No nation building. All of the rhetoric in the world regarding the niceness of bringing democracy and representative government to people who don’t even see themselves as a nation is ludicrous, however well meant those words might be. The cost in life and treasure, the so-called “collateral damage” of civilians in-country is, simply put, unaffordable by any decent measure.
I would never have authorized the war in Iraq under any circumstances. All the reasons for going in there were false. Anyone who has followed the history of Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein would have known that the executed tyrant was a secular Muslim with little more than speaking Arabic in common with Osama Bin Laden, and the fact that they both engaged at the time in killing innocent people to fulfill their agendas.
I would have authorized Afghanistan along the lines of a letter of mark with the specific purpose of routing out Al Qaeda, which was clearly based there at the time, and any Taliban that might get in the way. No nation building. All of the rhetoric in the world regarding the niceness of bringing democracy and representative government to people who don’t even see themselves as a nation is ludicrous, however well meant those words might be. The cost in life and treasure, the so-called “collateral damage” of civilians in-country is, simply put, unaffordable by any decent measure.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Lorenzo Gaztañaga Answers the Questions.
Becoming a congressman is a position where great trust is placed in you. What changes in ethics rules that govern Congress would you work to change?
First of all, when we’re talking about ethics rules, let’s focus on the fact that rules and regulations that Congress makes regarding itself are aimed at the privilege that they give themselves at the expense of ordinary citizens. When it comes to this question, the first order of the day for Congressman Gaztañaga would be to strike down via legislation or jawboning anything that gives privilege to a member of Congress, whether it is a special gymnasium in the Capitol, a special health care plan, the outrageous pensions and salaries, or the ability to simply retire and go make a gazillion dollars as lobbyists—this particular one should have a twelve year moratorium. If you want to advise anyone; do it on your own dime.
I remember well, during the 1970’s when the gasoline shortage hit the nation, people had to schedule gassing up according to odd or even numbers on their license plates, etc. I was living in Washington, DC and I saw with my own eyes how the regular citizens of all social strata had to put up with the enormous inconvenience, but not Congress. They had an ample supply of gasoline that could be pumped at will, right in the garages of congressional buildings.
When it comes to campaign financing, I favor donations by individuals only—people who live and talk and eat. In other words, the likes of GE, UAW, etc. need not apply here. Any campaign donation by an individual over $100 needs to be reported. As long as it’s reported, there’s no limit. Is this a perfect system? No, but it would be a vast improvement over all the systems we’ve had over the years.
First of all, when we’re talking about ethics rules, let’s focus on the fact that rules and regulations that Congress makes regarding itself are aimed at the privilege that they give themselves at the expense of ordinary citizens. When it comes to this question, the first order of the day for Congressman Gaztañaga would be to strike down via legislation or jawboning anything that gives privilege to a member of Congress, whether it is a special gymnasium in the Capitol, a special health care plan, the outrageous pensions and salaries, or the ability to simply retire and go make a gazillion dollars as lobbyists—this particular one should have a twelve year moratorium. If you want to advise anyone; do it on your own dime.
I remember well, during the 1970’s when the gasoline shortage hit the nation, people had to schedule gassing up according to odd or even numbers on their license plates, etc. I was living in Washington, DC and I saw with my own eyes how the regular citizens of all social strata had to put up with the enormous inconvenience, but not Congress. They had an ample supply of gasoline that could be pumped at will, right in the garages of congressional buildings.
When it comes to campaign financing, I favor donations by individuals only—people who live and talk and eat. In other words, the likes of GE, UAW, etc. need not apply here. Any campaign donation by an individual over $100 needs to be reported. As long as it’s reported, there’s no limit. Is this a perfect system? No, but it would be a vast improvement over all the systems we’ve had over the years.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Susan Gaztanaga On The Mark Steiner Show
Maryland LP candidate for Governor Susan Gaztanaga will be appearing on the Mark Steiner show on WEAA-FM, 88.9, this afternoon.
She will be in-studio, and her segment will begin around 5:20 pm. I think it will go until 6 pm.
If you're interested in listening live, the program streams on www.weaa.org.
It will be posted as a podcast at the website, www.steinershow.org, after the show.
Bob Johnston
She will be in-studio, and her segment will begin around 5:20 pm. I think it will go until 6 pm.
If you're interested in listening live, the program streams on www.weaa.org.
It will be posted as a podcast at the website, www.steinershow.org, after the show.
Bob Johnston
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Wicomico County's Council Districts
Often mysterious and hard to find, here is Wicomico County's Council Districts.
Dodd's Do-Nothing Financial 'Reform'
by Mark A. Calabria
This article appeared in the New York Post on May 21, 2010.
Dodd's Do-Nothing Financial 'Reform'
by Mark A. Calabria
This article appeared in the New York Post on May 21, 2010.
Wall Street is heaving a quiet sigh of relief: All Washington is going to give us for "financial reform" in the wake of the collapse of 2008 is a law based on Sen. Chris Dodd's bill.
That thin semblance of reform will let Congress and the Obama administration claim they brought Wall Street to heel. But by dodging all the hard issues, this "reform" makes it likely that the next crisis will put the last one to shame.
Start with ending "too big to fail": Despite Dodd's floor statements (and improvements made at the request of Sen. Richard Shelby, the top Republican on Dodd's committee), the bill actually further enshrines the special and privileged status of our largest financial institutions. It squashes whatever hope there was of bringing back market discipline to our largest financial institutions — and guarantees ever-increasing concentration in our financial markets.
Going forward, we are left with relying on only the discretionary wisdom of the same regulators who were asleep at the wheel last time. And though that crisis cost millions their jobs, the Dodd bill won't see even one incompetent bureaucrat lose his.
Yes, the Dodd bill eliminates the Office of Thrift Supervision — but it guarantees that all OTS employees will have jobs at the new bank regulator. How exactly is moving around boxes on the organizational chart going to prevent the next financial crisis? (Ironically, OTS was itself created in the "crackdown" after another Washington-sparked meltdown, the savings-and-loan crisis of the late '80s.)
Indeed, the real theme of the Dodd bill is: Give the bureaucrats more power and discretion, without any accountability. Its main achievement is to set up a new agency that will largely determine who, what and how it will regulate.
But the bill itself doesn't touch even blatant problems.
For example, with almost universal recognition that banks lacked sufficient capital going into the financial crisis, it should be a "no-brainer" to fix our flawed regulation of bank capital — in other words, to prevent banks from borrowing 40 times as much as their assets, as Lehman Bros. was doing shortly before its collapse.
Sorry, no: The Dodd bill simply proposes that its new "council of regulators" may recommend that the Federal Reserve impose more stringent standards. Yes, that's may. The bill doesn't even require regulators to change the current levels or framework for bank capital.
Even where Dodd claims to be the toughest, on issues of consumer protection, he simply punts to the regulators and the trial bar. That is, he orders bureaucrats to do better — and makes it easier for lawyers to sue.
The bill doesn't even eliminate zero-down mortgages — or any of the irresponsible lending products that plainly contributed to the crisis. Indeed, Dodd twice fought off floor amendments to require modest down payments.
Perhaps most insulting is Dodd's pretense that ordering up a "study" should count as addressing an issue. By my count, the bill requires the Government Accountability Office or the financial regulators to conduct no less than 28 separate studies.
What's Dodd's solution to the failings of the credit-rating agencies? A study.
His answer to the crisis in the auction-rate-securities and municipal-debt markets? A study. What to do about proprietary trading? A study. How about the flawed home-appraisal process that contributed to inflated housing prices? You got it, another study.
The worst of all; How do we protect the taxpayer from further losses from Fannie and Freddie? One more study, of course — although Dodd has assured us that this one will be a "tough study."
Our system of financial regulation is an embarrassing mess. But rather than restructure it, the Senate bill doubles down on the flaws and weakness of that mess.
It would be nice, just once, to see Congress make some hard choices and legislate — especially when the long term health of America's financial system is at issue.
This article appeared in the New York Post on May 21, 2010.
Dodd's Do-Nothing Financial 'Reform'
by Mark A. Calabria
This article appeared in the New York Post on May 21, 2010.
Wall Street is heaving a quiet sigh of relief: All Washington is going to give us for "financial reform" in the wake of the collapse of 2008 is a law based on Sen. Chris Dodd's bill.
That thin semblance of reform will let Congress and the Obama administration claim they brought Wall Street to heel. But by dodging all the hard issues, this "reform" makes it likely that the next crisis will put the last one to shame.
Start with ending "too big to fail": Despite Dodd's floor statements (and improvements made at the request of Sen. Richard Shelby, the top Republican on Dodd's committee), the bill actually further enshrines the special and privileged status of our largest financial institutions. It squashes whatever hope there was of bringing back market discipline to our largest financial institutions — and guarantees ever-increasing concentration in our financial markets.
Going forward, we are left with relying on only the discretionary wisdom of the same regulators who were asleep at the wheel last time. And though that crisis cost millions their jobs, the Dodd bill won't see even one incompetent bureaucrat lose his.
Yes, the Dodd bill eliminates the Office of Thrift Supervision — but it guarantees that all OTS employees will have jobs at the new bank regulator. How exactly is moving around boxes on the organizational chart going to prevent the next financial crisis? (Ironically, OTS was itself created in the "crackdown" after another Washington-sparked meltdown, the savings-and-loan crisis of the late '80s.)
Indeed, the real theme of the Dodd bill is: Give the bureaucrats more power and discretion, without any accountability. Its main achievement is to set up a new agency that will largely determine who, what and how it will regulate.
But the bill itself doesn't touch even blatant problems.
For example, with almost universal recognition that banks lacked sufficient capital going into the financial crisis, it should be a "no-brainer" to fix our flawed regulation of bank capital — in other words, to prevent banks from borrowing 40 times as much as their assets, as Lehman Bros. was doing shortly before its collapse.
Sorry, no: The Dodd bill simply proposes that its new "council of regulators" may recommend that the Federal Reserve impose more stringent standards. Yes, that's may. The bill doesn't even require regulators to change the current levels or framework for bank capital.
Even where Dodd claims to be the toughest, on issues of consumer protection, he simply punts to the regulators and the trial bar. That is, he orders bureaucrats to do better — and makes it easier for lawyers to sue.
The bill doesn't even eliminate zero-down mortgages — or any of the irresponsible lending products that plainly contributed to the crisis. Indeed, Dodd twice fought off floor amendments to require modest down payments.
Perhaps most insulting is Dodd's pretense that ordering up a "study" should count as addressing an issue. By my count, the bill requires the Government Accountability Office or the financial regulators to conduct no less than 28 separate studies.
What's Dodd's solution to the failings of the credit-rating agencies? A study.
His answer to the crisis in the auction-rate-securities and municipal-debt markets? A study. What to do about proprietary trading? A study. How about the flawed home-appraisal process that contributed to inflated housing prices? You got it, another study.
The worst of all; How do we protect the taxpayer from further losses from Fannie and Freddie? One more study, of course — although Dodd has assured us that this one will be a "tough study."
Our system of financial regulation is an embarrassing mess. But rather than restructure it, the Senate bill doubles down on the flaws and weakness of that mess.
It would be nice, just once, to see Congress make some hard choices and legislate — especially when the long term health of America's financial system is at issue.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Less We Can!
Please visit his website and get a
good picture of what the Libertarian Party stands for on the issues.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
A Libertarian Rebel
What Ridley Scott's new film gets right about the legend of Robin Hood
Cathy Young | May 18, 2010
The new Ridley Scott film Robin Hood, which has opened to mixed reviews on its merits as entertainment, is also drawing some critics' political ire. In New York's leftist weekly, The Village Voice, Karina Longworth laments that "instead of robbing from the rich to give to the poor, this Robin Hood preaches about 'liberty' and the rights of the individual" and battles against "government greed"; the film, she scoffs, is "a rousing love letter to the tea party movement." On a similar note, the New York Times' A.O. Scott mocks Robin Hood as "one big medieval tea party":
"You may have heard that Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor, but that was just liberal media propaganda. This Robin is ... a manly libertarian rebel striking out against high taxes and a big government scheme to trample the ancient liberties of property owners and provincial nobles."
Whatever one may think of Scott's newest incarnation of the Robin Hood legend, it is more than a little troubling to see alleged liberals speak of liberty and individual rights in a tone of sarcastic dismissal. This is especially ironic since the Robin Hood of myth and folklore probably has much more in common with the "libertarian rebel" played by Russell Crowe than with the medieval socialist of the "rob from the rich, give to the poor" cliché. At heart, the noble-outlaw legend that has captured the human imagination for centuries is about freedom, not wealth redistribution—and this is reflected in many previous screen versions of the Robin Hood story.
As scholars have noted, the earliest Robin Hood ballads, which date back to the 13th or 14th century, contain no mention of robbing the rich to give to the poor. The one person Robin assists financially is a knight who is about to lose his lands to the machinations of greedy and unscrupulous monks at an abbey. (Corrupt clerics using the political power of the Church are among Robin Hood's frequent targets in the ballads.) The Sheriff of Nottingham is Robin's chief opponent; at the time, it was the sheriffs' role as tax collectors in particular that made them objects of loathing by peasants and commoners. Robin Hood is also frequently shown helping men who face barbaric punishments for hunting in the royal forests, a pursuit permitted to nobles and strictly forbidden to the lower classes in medieval England; in other words, he is opposing privilege bestowed by political power, not earned wealth.
Later, the legend evolved and was adapted to more aristocratic tastes; by the 17th century, Robin Hood turned from an outlawed farmer into a dispossessed aristocrat and, eventually, a patron of the poor. Yet the fight for liberty and against tyrannical authority remained central to the story, particularly since Robin is often portrayed as a man fighting to reclaim his unjustly confiscated lands—and against high taxes. Indeed, even the hilarious Mel Brooks parody Men in Tights (1993), a send-up of Robin Hood movie conventions, has the hero (Cary Elwes) telling Prince John, "If you don't stop levying these evil taxes, I will lead the people of England in a revolt against you!" Tea, anyone?
Perhaps the most libertarian version of the Robin Hood story comes from an unlikely source for libertarianism—the BBC, in its 2006-2009 Robin Hood series, starring Jonas Armstrong. (This smartly written, excellently acted show that gave the medieval legend a quirky modern edge, unfortunately failed to find a large audience in the United States, where it aired on the obscure BBC America cable channel.) The series took thinly veiled digs at the idea that freedom should be abridged in the name of national security: the villainous Sheriff cited King Richard's war in the Holy Land as a justification for unusually harsh punishments to enforce law and order in wartime, and sometimes referred to the outlaws as "terrorists."
However, this Robin Hood's libertarian streak was not limited to civil liberties. Robin, a local noble back from the Crusades, first runs afoul of the Sheriff by suggesting that all taxes in Nottinghamshire be temporarily abolished so that the region's faltering industry and trade can be revived. His peasant followers are on the wrong side of the law because exorbitant taxes prevent them from making an honest living: "Taxes, we do not like," declares Little John. This Robin's robberies are directed primarily at tax collections and other ill-gotten gains; he also strives to stop a conspiracy by the Sheriff and Prince John to seize power in the King's absence and establish a tyranny that would trample "the rights of the free man." The Sheriff, meanwhile, is a miniature Stalin who revels in brute power: when a confederate says that England should be purged of "the weak and the dirty and the parasites," the Sheriff replies, "My dear boy, those are the ones who do exactly what I tell them to. We need those."
Of course, the idea of Robin Hood as an early socialist has had a lot of currency as well. Ayn Rand declared the fabled outlaw a symbol of evil—taking from the productive and giving to the parasites—in her novel Atlas Shrugged; on the other side of the political spectrum, a coalition of international aid groups in England recently made him their mascot when they proposed a "Robin Hood tax" on high-profit industries to help the poor in developing nations. But the original Robin Hood, while he has many different faces, is above all a fighter for freedom from tyranny—and that's what made him a legend.
Cathy Young writes a weekly column for RealClearPolitics and is also a contributing editor at Reason magazine. She blogs at cathyyoung.wordpress.com/. This article originally appeared at RealClearPolitics.
-- Post From My iPad
Cathy Young | May 18, 2010
The new Ridley Scott film Robin Hood, which has opened to mixed reviews on its merits as entertainment, is also drawing some critics' political ire. In New York's leftist weekly, The Village Voice, Karina Longworth laments that "instead of robbing from the rich to give to the poor, this Robin Hood preaches about 'liberty' and the rights of the individual" and battles against "government greed"; the film, she scoffs, is "a rousing love letter to the tea party movement." On a similar note, the New York Times' A.O. Scott mocks Robin Hood as "one big medieval tea party":
"You may have heard that Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor, but that was just liberal media propaganda. This Robin is ... a manly libertarian rebel striking out against high taxes and a big government scheme to trample the ancient liberties of property owners and provincial nobles."
Whatever one may think of Scott's newest incarnation of the Robin Hood legend, it is more than a little troubling to see alleged liberals speak of liberty and individual rights in a tone of sarcastic dismissal. This is especially ironic since the Robin Hood of myth and folklore probably has much more in common with the "libertarian rebel" played by Russell Crowe than with the medieval socialist of the "rob from the rich, give to the poor" cliché. At heart, the noble-outlaw legend that has captured the human imagination for centuries is about freedom, not wealth redistribution—and this is reflected in many previous screen versions of the Robin Hood story.
As scholars have noted, the earliest Robin Hood ballads, which date back to the 13th or 14th century, contain no mention of robbing the rich to give to the poor. The one person Robin assists financially is a knight who is about to lose his lands to the machinations of greedy and unscrupulous monks at an abbey. (Corrupt clerics using the political power of the Church are among Robin Hood's frequent targets in the ballads.) The Sheriff of Nottingham is Robin's chief opponent; at the time, it was the sheriffs' role as tax collectors in particular that made them objects of loathing by peasants and commoners. Robin Hood is also frequently shown helping men who face barbaric punishments for hunting in the royal forests, a pursuit permitted to nobles and strictly forbidden to the lower classes in medieval England; in other words, he is opposing privilege bestowed by political power, not earned wealth.
Later, the legend evolved and was adapted to more aristocratic tastes; by the 17th century, Robin Hood turned from an outlawed farmer into a dispossessed aristocrat and, eventually, a patron of the poor. Yet the fight for liberty and against tyrannical authority remained central to the story, particularly since Robin is often portrayed as a man fighting to reclaim his unjustly confiscated lands—and against high taxes. Indeed, even the hilarious Mel Brooks parody Men in Tights (1993), a send-up of Robin Hood movie conventions, has the hero (Cary Elwes) telling Prince John, "If you don't stop levying these evil taxes, I will lead the people of England in a revolt against you!" Tea, anyone?
Perhaps the most libertarian version of the Robin Hood story comes from an unlikely source for libertarianism—the BBC, in its 2006-2009 Robin Hood series, starring Jonas Armstrong. (This smartly written, excellently acted show that gave the medieval legend a quirky modern edge, unfortunately failed to find a large audience in the United States, where it aired on the obscure BBC America cable channel.) The series took thinly veiled digs at the idea that freedom should be abridged in the name of national security: the villainous Sheriff cited King Richard's war in the Holy Land as a justification for unusually harsh punishments to enforce law and order in wartime, and sometimes referred to the outlaws as "terrorists."
However, this Robin Hood's libertarian streak was not limited to civil liberties. Robin, a local noble back from the Crusades, first runs afoul of the Sheriff by suggesting that all taxes in Nottinghamshire be temporarily abolished so that the region's faltering industry and trade can be revived. His peasant followers are on the wrong side of the law because exorbitant taxes prevent them from making an honest living: "Taxes, we do not like," declares Little John. This Robin's robberies are directed primarily at tax collections and other ill-gotten gains; he also strives to stop a conspiracy by the Sheriff and Prince John to seize power in the King's absence and establish a tyranny that would trample "the rights of the free man." The Sheriff, meanwhile, is a miniature Stalin who revels in brute power: when a confederate says that England should be purged of "the weak and the dirty and the parasites," the Sheriff replies, "My dear boy, those are the ones who do exactly what I tell them to. We need those."
Of course, the idea of Robin Hood as an early socialist has had a lot of currency as well. Ayn Rand declared the fabled outlaw a symbol of evil—taking from the productive and giving to the parasites—in her novel Atlas Shrugged; on the other side of the political spectrum, a coalition of international aid groups in England recently made him their mascot when they proposed a "Robin Hood tax" on high-profit industries to help the poor in developing nations. But the original Robin Hood, while he has many different faces, is above all a fighter for freedom from tyranny—and that's what made him a legend.
Cathy Young writes a weekly column for RealClearPolitics and is also a contributing editor at Reason magazine. She blogs at cathyyoung.wordpress.com/. This article originally appeared at RealClearPolitics.
-- Post From My iPad
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Candidate Spotlight - Lorenzo Gaztañaga
The work habits and rare appearances of congressmen and congresswomen in their districts seem to peak near election but the rest of the time you rarely hear a peep. What type of session schedule for Congress would you like to see? How would you schedule your appearances in your district and what would you focus on?
First of all, it seems that members of Congress spend too much of their time courting the special interests of the military industrial complex and the unions, both public and private, for funds, which pour in in the tens of thousands, if not the millions.
Recently, the incumbent, Ruppersberger, has been dodging, for weeks, a citizens’ group that has asked to meet with him by offering times and places that were ultimately canceled, insisting on a list of the people who were going to attend the meeting, indicating that questions regarding the recent so-called health care bill were not an agenda item—and these are all concerned constituents of Congressman Ruppersberger with legitimate questions regarding the direction that our country is going in.
That is a most objectionable work habit, which is clearly aimed at preserving his position in Congress by currying favor with those of outsized wealth as well as power and who are, in my opinion, co-dependents with our federal government in the unconstitutional and reckless behavior of those who decide what happens to our country.
I would try to schedule any appearance of mine at times when most working people can attend. I would take time to walk through the neighborhoods of the district, as disparate as they are because of the gerrymandering that caused the district to have its current bizarre geography. I would focus on telling people the same thing that I tell now—you’re not going to like everything that I have to say, but it is what I honestly believe.
One of the worst working habits of our current congress is the habit of creating legislation that no one can truly read and understand and that, at its core, reflects favoritism as well as a game of “gotcha.” I would never vote for a bill that exceeds 50 pages, and, as it is, I think 50 pages is way too long, but I’m willing to compromise on that.
Lorenzo Gaztañaga is the Maryland Libertarian Party's Candidate for U.S. House of Representatives, District 2.
First of all, it seems that members of Congress spend too much of their time courting the special interests of the military industrial complex and the unions, both public and private, for funds, which pour in in the tens of thousands, if not the millions.
Recently, the incumbent, Ruppersberger, has been dodging, for weeks, a citizens’ group that has asked to meet with him by offering times and places that were ultimately canceled, insisting on a list of the people who were going to attend the meeting, indicating that questions regarding the recent so-called health care bill were not an agenda item—and these are all concerned constituents of Congressman Ruppersberger with legitimate questions regarding the direction that our country is going in.
That is a most objectionable work habit, which is clearly aimed at preserving his position in Congress by currying favor with those of outsized wealth as well as power and who are, in my opinion, co-dependents with our federal government in the unconstitutional and reckless behavior of those who decide what happens to our country.
I would try to schedule any appearance of mine at times when most working people can attend. I would take time to walk through the neighborhoods of the district, as disparate as they are because of the gerrymandering that caused the district to have its current bizarre geography. I would focus on telling people the same thing that I tell now—you’re not going to like everything that I have to say, but it is what I honestly believe.
One of the worst working habits of our current congress is the habit of creating legislation that no one can truly read and understand and that, at its core, reflects favoritism as well as a game of “gotcha.” I would never vote for a bill that exceeds 50 pages, and, as it is, I think 50 pages is way too long, but I’m willing to compromise on that.
Lorenzo Gaztañaga is the Maryland Libertarian Party's Candidate for U.S. House of Representatives, District 2.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Candidate Spotlight - Lorenzo Gaztañaga
Lorenzo Gaztañaga is the Maryland Libertarian Party's District 2 Congressional candidate. In a series of 10 questions we have asked Mr. Gaztañaga he expresses some of hose views and where he stands on the issues. This is the first in that series.
Question: To be elected by the citizens of your district is a great honor. What is the reason that caused you to decide to run for Congress?
Answer: In close analysis, congressional office, if one follows the Constitution, is even more important than that of President. For one, Congress contains the direct representatives of the people of the United States. Congress is the body that can approve or disapprove the most serious act that any nation can carry out, and that is war. With the two current wars, that are illegal, and the Patriot Act a violation of the Bill of Rights, Congress has both abdicated its responsibilities and also circumvented its reason for being, in the process betraying the American people, specifically with the Patriot Act which potentially makes anyone a target as an enemy of the country and the state. After everything is said and done, whether taxes, commerce, free markets or the lack thereof, these three things—that is, the two wars and the Patriot Act—could potentially destroy the country and its very reason for being. We need an individual representing the Second District in Maryland who will address this cancer without mincing words or falling prey to the accusations that such an attitude will imperil our national security, someone who will reverse the path taken by the incumbent, Dutch Ruppersberger. Front and center, that’s why I’m running for Congress.
Question: To be elected by the citizens of your district is a great honor. What is the reason that caused you to decide to run for Congress?
Answer: In close analysis, congressional office, if one follows the Constitution, is even more important than that of President. For one, Congress contains the direct representatives of the people of the United States. Congress is the body that can approve or disapprove the most serious act that any nation can carry out, and that is war. With the two current wars, that are illegal, and the Patriot Act a violation of the Bill of Rights, Congress has both abdicated its responsibilities and also circumvented its reason for being, in the process betraying the American people, specifically with the Patriot Act which potentially makes anyone a target as an enemy of the country and the state. After everything is said and done, whether taxes, commerce, free markets or the lack thereof, these three things—that is, the two wars and the Patriot Act—could potentially destroy the country and its very reason for being. We need an individual representing the Second District in Maryland who will address this cancer without mincing words or falling prey to the accusations that such an attitude will imperil our national security, someone who will reverse the path taken by the incumbent, Dutch Ruppersberger. Front and center, that’s why I’m running for Congress.
LP Monday Message: Liability limits make oil spills worse
posted by Staff on May 10, 2010
May 10, 2010
Dear Friend of Liberty,
You've probably seen a lot about the big BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Libertarians are sometimes attacked for not having good answers to environmental questions. In this case, I think there are problems that Republicans and Democrats in Congress have created, and Libertarians would have handled things differently.
(If you're not particularly interested in detailed policy studies or arguments, it's always good to remember that Libertarians try to base our positions on fundamental principles of freedom and personal responsibility.)
I think a big problem here is the fact that federal law limits the liability of BP (and Transocean, the company that actually owned the rig.)
The New York Times has reported that federal law limits BP's liability to $75 million, and Transocean's liability to $65 million.
These kinds of artificial liability limits distort the markets, and basically create "moral hazard" by encouraging companies to act in riskier ways than they would otherwise. If BP's well causes damage to property, then BP should be fully liable for all of the damage. It is BP's reponsibility to "make whole" whoever gets damaged.
If Congress hadn't limited BP's liability, it's likely that BP would have acted differently. Knowing that a spill could cost them billions, BP might have demanded additional safeguards for their well, or tested their safeguards more thoroughly. These choices would have been expensive, but they might have prevented the huge costs that the spill area is now facing.
BP has said that it will pay all "legitimate claims," even if they go past the liability limit. The problem is that when it comes to property damage, a court should decide what "legitimate claims" are, not the offending company!
Of course, now we're likely to see a flurry of reactive legislation, as members of Congress try to pile on BP for political reasons. And, Congress will probably use the spill as an excuse to increase its market interference and shovel more subsidies into uneconomical "alternative energy."
(It's possible that if energy companies did not have the benefits of artificial liability limits, the market might decide that some alternative energy would be cost effective. But that's for the free market to decide, not Congress using taxpayer subsidies.)
As the Libertarian Party platform says, "Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems."
Congress should take this opportunity to get out of the market, but instead they'll probably create new subsidies, special commissions and government agencies. It's just one more good reason to support Libertarian candidates in the elections this November.
Finally, be wary of politicians who make it sound like government can lead us to a utopia free of accidents. Even if a world with no man-made disasters were possible, natural disasters such as volcanoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, and epidemics would still happen.
Sincerely,
Wes Benedict
Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee
May 10, 2010
Dear Friend of Liberty,
You've probably seen a lot about the big BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Libertarians are sometimes attacked for not having good answers to environmental questions. In this case, I think there are problems that Republicans and Democrats in Congress have created, and Libertarians would have handled things differently.
(If you're not particularly interested in detailed policy studies or arguments, it's always good to remember that Libertarians try to base our positions on fundamental principles of freedom and personal responsibility.)
I think a big problem here is the fact that federal law limits the liability of BP (and Transocean, the company that actually owned the rig.)
The New York Times has reported that federal law limits BP's liability to $75 million, and Transocean's liability to $65 million.
These kinds of artificial liability limits distort the markets, and basically create "moral hazard" by encouraging companies to act in riskier ways than they would otherwise. If BP's well causes damage to property, then BP should be fully liable for all of the damage. It is BP's reponsibility to "make whole" whoever gets damaged.
If Congress hadn't limited BP's liability, it's likely that BP would have acted differently. Knowing that a spill could cost them billions, BP might have demanded additional safeguards for their well, or tested their safeguards more thoroughly. These choices would have been expensive, but they might have prevented the huge costs that the spill area is now facing.
BP has said that it will pay all "legitimate claims," even if they go past the liability limit. The problem is that when it comes to property damage, a court should decide what "legitimate claims" are, not the offending company!
Of course, now we're likely to see a flurry of reactive legislation, as members of Congress try to pile on BP for political reasons. And, Congress will probably use the spill as an excuse to increase its market interference and shovel more subsidies into uneconomical "alternative energy."
(It's possible that if energy companies did not have the benefits of artificial liability limits, the market might decide that some alternative energy would be cost effective. But that's for the free market to decide, not Congress using taxpayer subsidies.)
As the Libertarian Party platform says, "Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems."
Congress should take this opportunity to get out of the market, but instead they'll probably create new subsidies, special commissions and government agencies. It's just one more good reason to support Libertarian candidates in the elections this November.
Finally, be wary of politicians who make it sound like government can lead us to a utopia free of accidents. Even if a world with no man-made disasters were possible, natural disasters such as volcanoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, and epidemics would still happen.
Sincerely,
Wes Benedict
Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee
Thursday, May 6, 2010
LP Monday Message: Don't Blame Immigrants
posted by Staff on Apr 26, 2010
April 26, 2010
Dear Friend of Liberty,
The recent legislation in Arizona has put immigration back in the news.
The Libertarian Party has a long history of defending immigration. Our website has an article discussing immigration. I think that if there's a problem with massive illegal immigration, then one of the best solutions is to make legal immigration easier.
From an economic point of view, immigrants are an asset, not a liability. Business owners usually understand that, but politicians often either don't understand or don't care. In an environment of fear, which is where many politicians seem to want to keep us, they use immigrants (both legal and illegal) as scapegoats so they can duck blame for problems caused by too much government. Republican George W. Bush gave us the enormously expensive Medicare prescription entitlement. Republican Senator John McCain famously put his 2008 presidential campaign on hold to rush back to Washington to bail out failed banks and businesses. When times are tough, focusing on immigrants helps distract from these homegrown threats to our economy.
Perhaps I have a soft spot in my heart for immigrants and foreigners. I've traveled extensively and lived overseas. I worked for six months in South Africa and was welcomed by blacks and whites into their communities. I've spent over six months of my life traveling throughout Mexico. Recently having lived in Texas, I've met and worked with a lot of Mexican nationals who were in Texas working hard in the construction industry. I can imagine that if I'd been born in Mexico or Central America, and the American immigration laws were so convoluted, I'd have found my way around them one way or another.
I realize immigration, legal and illegal, is a controversial issue both for Americans in general and for Libertarians. Obviously, some immigrants take advantage of our welfare system. (That's one more reason to get rid of government welfare.) And some immigrants commit violent crimes. (That's one more reason to get rid of victimless crime laws that waste police effort and fill up our prisons with people who haven't hurt anyone.) However, those aren't good reasons to stop people from coming to America. America was founded by immigrants, many of whom were escaping economic and religious oppression. I think support for immigrants, many of whom are poor and honest, shows our humanitarian side to those who want to characterize Libertarians as uncaring individualists.
I'm also very concerned that the immigration debate will be used as an excuse to impose a National ID card. (Let me see your papers!)
Now is the time to stand up for liberty. We must not let the federal government use immigration restrictions as a sneaky way to crack down on all Americans and take away our freedoms.
See this Cato study on the economic effects of immigration reform.
Sincerely,
Wes Benedict
Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee
-- Post From My iPad
April 26, 2010
Dear Friend of Liberty,
The recent legislation in Arizona has put immigration back in the news.
The Libertarian Party has a long history of defending immigration. Our website has an article discussing immigration. I think that if there's a problem with massive illegal immigration, then one of the best solutions is to make legal immigration easier.
From an economic point of view, immigrants are an asset, not a liability. Business owners usually understand that, but politicians often either don't understand or don't care. In an environment of fear, which is where many politicians seem to want to keep us, they use immigrants (both legal and illegal) as scapegoats so they can duck blame for problems caused by too much government. Republican George W. Bush gave us the enormously expensive Medicare prescription entitlement. Republican Senator John McCain famously put his 2008 presidential campaign on hold to rush back to Washington to bail out failed banks and businesses. When times are tough, focusing on immigrants helps distract from these homegrown threats to our economy.
Perhaps I have a soft spot in my heart for immigrants and foreigners. I've traveled extensively and lived overseas. I worked for six months in South Africa and was welcomed by blacks and whites into their communities. I've spent over six months of my life traveling throughout Mexico. Recently having lived in Texas, I've met and worked with a lot of Mexican nationals who were in Texas working hard in the construction industry. I can imagine that if I'd been born in Mexico or Central America, and the American immigration laws were so convoluted, I'd have found my way around them one way or another.
I realize immigration, legal and illegal, is a controversial issue both for Americans in general and for Libertarians. Obviously, some immigrants take advantage of our welfare system. (That's one more reason to get rid of government welfare.) And some immigrants commit violent crimes. (That's one more reason to get rid of victimless crime laws that waste police effort and fill up our prisons with people who haven't hurt anyone.) However, those aren't good reasons to stop people from coming to America. America was founded by immigrants, many of whom were escaping economic and religious oppression. I think support for immigrants, many of whom are poor and honest, shows our humanitarian side to those who want to characterize Libertarians as uncaring individualists.
I'm also very concerned that the immigration debate will be used as an excuse to impose a National ID card. (Let me see your papers!)
Now is the time to stand up for liberty. We must not let the federal government use immigration restrictions as a sneaky way to crack down on all Americans and take away our freedoms.
See this Cato study on the economic effects of immigration reform.
Sincerely,
Wes Benedict
Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee
-- Post From My iPad
Libertarians call for more finance industry freedom
Press Release
For Immediate Release
Friday, April 30, 2010
WASHINGTON - Libertarian Party Executive Director Wes Benedict issued the following statement today, regarding the financial regulation legislation in Congress:
"The Libertarian Party opposes the legislation currently in Congress. Instead of removing harmful regulations that reduce competition, create winners and losers, and stifle the choices of consumers and financial firms, this legislation merely adds to that heap of regulations.
"It is remarkable that so many people have blamed the banking and financial company failures on the 'free market.' The American finance industry is probably the most regulated industry in human history. It doesn't remotely resemble a free market, and that's been true for many decades. It would be much more accurate to blame the failures on government interference.
"The 2008 TARP bailouts were strongly supported by both Republicans and Democrats. Presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain both supported them--Senator McCain even 'suspended his campaign' to rush back to Washington and help push through the massive bailouts. On the other hand, Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr firmly opposed those bailouts, and the Libertarian Party has continued to express our opposition since then.
"We're seeing the typical cycle of government regulation:
1. Add more regulations.
2. Watch the new regulations create new problems.
3. Blame the free market.
4. Go to step 1.
"The 2008 TARP bailouts were rationalized with the 'too big to fail' phantom -- the notion that if a big company goes bankrupt, then all financial activity will cease, and the world will basically end. It was one more example of government creating a 'fear of catastrophe' to get people to knuckle under to big government payouts.
"Another major problem with protective government regulation is that it gives consumers the false impression that 'everything's OK, the government will make sure you can't be hurt.' That causes consumers to stop doing their homework, and stop keeping an eye on the businesses they depend on. Then, when the government regulators fail in their job (as the SEC has repeatedly, for example), consumers get hurt much worse than they would if they had never been told the government was taking care of them.
"The problem isn't too little regulation, but too much. Banks, insurance companies, and other financial companies must be allowed to operate freely in a free market, and they must be allowed to fail. No other system will work. Heaping more regulations on top of the already enormous financial regulation pile will only lead to new problems."
Mark A. Calabria of the Cato Institute, writing in the New York Post, commented, "Far from protecting the little guy and sticking it to the fat cats, this bill keeps good, old-fashioned political patronage alive and well."
The Libertarian Party's Platform states: "We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types."
For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP Executive Director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222.
The LP is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets and civil liberties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at our website.
###
-- Post From My iPad
For Immediate Release
Friday, April 30, 2010
WASHINGTON - Libertarian Party Executive Director Wes Benedict issued the following statement today, regarding the financial regulation legislation in Congress:
"The Libertarian Party opposes the legislation currently in Congress. Instead of removing harmful regulations that reduce competition, create winners and losers, and stifle the choices of consumers and financial firms, this legislation merely adds to that heap of regulations.
"It is remarkable that so many people have blamed the banking and financial company failures on the 'free market.' The American finance industry is probably the most regulated industry in human history. It doesn't remotely resemble a free market, and that's been true for many decades. It would be much more accurate to blame the failures on government interference.
"The 2008 TARP bailouts were strongly supported by both Republicans and Democrats. Presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain both supported them--Senator McCain even 'suspended his campaign' to rush back to Washington and help push through the massive bailouts. On the other hand, Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr firmly opposed those bailouts, and the Libertarian Party has continued to express our opposition since then.
"We're seeing the typical cycle of government regulation:
1. Add more regulations.
2. Watch the new regulations create new problems.
3. Blame the free market.
4. Go to step 1.
"The 2008 TARP bailouts were rationalized with the 'too big to fail' phantom -- the notion that if a big company goes bankrupt, then all financial activity will cease, and the world will basically end. It was one more example of government creating a 'fear of catastrophe' to get people to knuckle under to big government payouts.
"Another major problem with protective government regulation is that it gives consumers the false impression that 'everything's OK, the government will make sure you can't be hurt.' That causes consumers to stop doing their homework, and stop keeping an eye on the businesses they depend on. Then, when the government regulators fail in their job (as the SEC has repeatedly, for example), consumers get hurt much worse than they would if they had never been told the government was taking care of them.
"The problem isn't too little regulation, but too much. Banks, insurance companies, and other financial companies must be allowed to operate freely in a free market, and they must be allowed to fail. No other system will work. Heaping more regulations on top of the already enormous financial regulation pile will only lead to new problems."
Mark A. Calabria of the Cato Institute, writing in the New York Post, commented, "Far from protecting the little guy and sticking it to the fat cats, this bill keeps good, old-fashioned political patronage alive and well."
The Libertarian Party's Platform states: "We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types."
For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP Executive Director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222.
The LP is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets and civil liberties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at our website.
###
-- Post From My iPad
Friday, April 30, 2010
Libertarians call for more finance industry freedom
WASHINGTON - Libertarian Party Executive Director Wes Benedict issued the following statement today, regarding the financial regulation legislation in Congress:
"The Libertarian Party opposes the legislation currently in Congress. Instead of removing harmful regulations that reduce competition, create winners and losers, and stifle the choices of consumers and financial firms, this legislation merely adds to that heap of regulations.
"It is remarkable that so many people have blamed the banking and financial company failures on the 'free market.' The American finance industry is probably the most regulated industry in human history. It doesn't remotely resemble a free market, and that's been true for many decades. It would be much more accurate to blame the failures on government interference.
"The 2008 TARP bailouts were strongly supported by both Republicans and Democrats. Presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain both supported them--Senator McCain even 'suspended his campaign' to rush back to Washington and help push through the massive bailouts. On the other hand, Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr firmly opposed those bailouts, and the Libertarian Party has continued to express our opposition since then.
"We're seeing the typical cycle of government regulation:
1. Add more regulations.
2. Watch the new regulations create new problems.
3. Blame the free market.
4. Go to step 1.
"The 2008 TARP bailouts were rationalized with the 'too big to fail' phantom -- the notion that if a big company goes bankrupt, then all financial activity will cease, and the world will basically end. It was one more example of government creating a 'fear of catastrophe' to get people to knuckle under to big government payouts.
"Another major problem with protective government regulation is that it gives consumers the false impression that 'everything's OK, the government will make sure you can't be hurt.' That causes consumers to stop doing their homework, and stop keeping an eye on the businesses they depend on. Then, when the government regulators fail in their job (as the SEC has repeatedly, for example), consumers get hurt much worse than they would if they had never been told the government was taking care of them.
"The problem isn't too little regulation, but too much. Banks, insurance companies, and other financial companies must be allowed to operate freely in a free market, and they must be allowed to fail. No other system will work. Heaping more regulations on top of the already enormous financial regulation pile will only lead to new problems."
Mark A. Calabria of the Cato Institute, writing in the New York Post, commented, "Far from protecting the little guy and sticking it to the fat cats, this bill keeps good, old-fashioned political patronage alive and well."
The Libertarian Party's Platform states: "We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types."
For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP Executive Director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222.
The LP is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets and civil liberties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at our website.
-- Post From My iPad
"The Libertarian Party opposes the legislation currently in Congress. Instead of removing harmful regulations that reduce competition, create winners and losers, and stifle the choices of consumers and financial firms, this legislation merely adds to that heap of regulations.
"It is remarkable that so many people have blamed the banking and financial company failures on the 'free market.' The American finance industry is probably the most regulated industry in human history. It doesn't remotely resemble a free market, and that's been true for many decades. It would be much more accurate to blame the failures on government interference.
"The 2008 TARP bailouts were strongly supported by both Republicans and Democrats. Presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain both supported them--Senator McCain even 'suspended his campaign' to rush back to Washington and help push through the massive bailouts. On the other hand, Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr firmly opposed those bailouts, and the Libertarian Party has continued to express our opposition since then.
"We're seeing the typical cycle of government regulation:
1. Add more regulations.
2. Watch the new regulations create new problems.
3. Blame the free market.
4. Go to step 1.
"The 2008 TARP bailouts were rationalized with the 'too big to fail' phantom -- the notion that if a big company goes bankrupt, then all financial activity will cease, and the world will basically end. It was one more example of government creating a 'fear of catastrophe' to get people to knuckle under to big government payouts.
"Another major problem with protective government regulation is that it gives consumers the false impression that 'everything's OK, the government will make sure you can't be hurt.' That causes consumers to stop doing their homework, and stop keeping an eye on the businesses they depend on. Then, when the government regulators fail in their job (as the SEC has repeatedly, for example), consumers get hurt much worse than they would if they had never been told the government was taking care of them.
"The problem isn't too little regulation, but too much. Banks, insurance companies, and other financial companies must be allowed to operate freely in a free market, and they must be allowed to fail. No other system will work. Heaping more regulations on top of the already enormous financial regulation pile will only lead to new problems."
Mark A. Calabria of the Cato Institute, writing in the New York Post, commented, "Far from protecting the little guy and sticking it to the fat cats, this bill keeps good, old-fashioned political patronage alive and well."
The Libertarian Party's Platform states: "We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types."
For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP Executive Director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222.
The LP is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets and civil liberties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at our website.
-- Post From My iPad
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Two Weeks With the iPad....
Two weeks with the iPad and I must say it has surpassed my own expectations. As with any new technology product, I was a little skeptical if it would actually work consistently and if I would experience a bunch of crashes. I have been surprised because I have not experienced any major issues, or really any issues at all.
The iPad is the missing link between the iPhone/PDA category and the laptop category. Now I will not give up my iPhone for anything and I used the Palm Treo for years, yet the size of the iPad allows for efficiency when work with spreadsheets, documents, and presentations. The iWorks suite is much more efficient and simpler to use that Microsoft Office.
Here is list of items that make the iPad:
1. Battery Life. Apple's battery technology is light years ahead of anybody else.
2. Speed. A clean operating system with an impressive processor minimizes, or eliminates lag time. Web surfing is much faster than my laptop or desktop.
3. Touch, Touch, Touch. Eliminating the cumbersome use of the mouse and keyboard increase efficiency. Save clicks and moving the mouse around. It is complete freedom!
4. Free Apps! Anything free is great but when they are great quality and provide valuable use, well you can only recommend them.
5. Screenshots. Being able to press the home button and the sleep button to create a snapshot of the screen is very nice. One action and it save it on your photos. Great for training or sharing information.
6. The iWorks Suite - Numbers, Pages, and Keynote. Three great programs before they created the iPad versions. This is what sold me on the iPad.
7. The VGA connector. I purchased a VGA Connector which gives the ability to hook your iPad up to a monitor or projector.
8. Compatible cables. The same cable that connects your iPod and iPhone connects to your iPad. However, the iPad require a 10W power adapter. As with all Apple power adapters, they are rated 110-240V.
9. The iBooks App. Great selection of books and more added weekly. The App reads well in the dark.
10. The Calendar. I never could quite find a Calendar for the iPhone that I liked. However, the one with iPad is exactly what I have been looking for since switching to the iPhone.
There are few items I would like to see aded to the iPad. Such as the ability to copy and paste text from websites, a USB Cable that can connect to a flash drive, better integration between apps and their ability to access files on the iPad.
Overall for me the iPad gets 9.8 stars out of 10. It simply does everything I need it to do and it has replaced my laptop.
Muir Boda
-- Post From My iPad
The iPad is the missing link between the iPhone/PDA category and the laptop category. Now I will not give up my iPhone for anything and I used the Palm Treo for years, yet the size of the iPad allows for efficiency when work with spreadsheets, documents, and presentations. The iWorks suite is much more efficient and simpler to use that Microsoft Office.
Here is list of items that make the iPad:
1. Battery Life. Apple's battery technology is light years ahead of anybody else.
2. Speed. A clean operating system with an impressive processor minimizes, or eliminates lag time. Web surfing is much faster than my laptop or desktop.
3. Touch, Touch, Touch. Eliminating the cumbersome use of the mouse and keyboard increase efficiency. Save clicks and moving the mouse around. It is complete freedom!
4. Free Apps! Anything free is great but when they are great quality and provide valuable use, well you can only recommend them.
5. Screenshots. Being able to press the home button and the sleep button to create a snapshot of the screen is very nice. One action and it save it on your photos. Great for training or sharing information.
6. The iWorks Suite - Numbers, Pages, and Keynote. Three great programs before they created the iPad versions. This is what sold me on the iPad.
7. The VGA connector. I purchased a VGA Connector which gives the ability to hook your iPad up to a monitor or projector.
8. Compatible cables. The same cable that connects your iPod and iPhone connects to your iPad. However, the iPad require a 10W power adapter. As with all Apple power adapters, they are rated 110-240V.
9. The iBooks App. Great selection of books and more added weekly. The App reads well in the dark.
10. The Calendar. I never could quite find a Calendar for the iPhone that I liked. However, the one with iPad is exactly what I have been looking for since switching to the iPhone.
There are few items I would like to see aded to the iPad. Such as the ability to copy and paste text from websites, a USB Cable that can connect to a flash drive, better integration between apps and their ability to access files on the iPad.
Overall for me the iPad gets 9.8 stars out of 10. It simply does everything I need it to do and it has replaced my laptop.
Muir Boda
-- Post From My iPad
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
GOA's Pratt to Speak at Mid-Shore Tea Party
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
GOA Executive Director Larry Pratt will be a featured speaker at the Mid-Shore Tea Party on Saturday, April 17. The event kicks off at 10:00 and will wrap up at noon.
The venue will be the Talbot County side of the Coptank River Fishing Piers. This is located adjacent to MD Route 50 near Cambridge.
In addition to the speakers, there will be a flag ceremony, patriotic music and "Tossing of the Crates."
For more information, go to http://marylandtaxdayteaparty.com. You can e-mail midshoreteaparty@gmail.com or call 410.858.3687 or 410.476.3207.
-- Post From My iPad
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
GOA Executive Director Larry Pratt will be a featured speaker at the Mid-Shore Tea Party on Saturday, April 17. The event kicks off at 10:00 and will wrap up at noon.
The venue will be the Talbot County side of the Coptank River Fishing Piers. This is located adjacent to MD Route 50 near Cambridge.
In addition to the speakers, there will be a flag ceremony, patriotic music and "Tossing of the Crates."
For more information, go to http://marylandtaxdayteaparty.com. You can e-mail midshoreteaparty@gmail.com or call 410.858.3687 or 410.476.3207.
-- Post From My iPad
Location:Larry Pratt to Speak at Mid Shore Tea Party in Cambridge
Saturday, April 3, 2010
The Free Market and Technology Innovation
Yesterday I received the new iPad from Apple. It is a truly impressive piece of technology. It is entirely a product of the free market. Apple's achievement of developing the iPad is a testament to the company's ingenuity and creativity.
I am not suggesting everyone go out and buy one, I am saying as Americans we should be proud of a company such as Apple. We should celebrate the achievements of the free market.
We should continually fight for less regulation on businesses so that they can continue to develop and create new technologies. We should continue to fight for lower taxes on businesses so they can create more jobs. We should keep on fighting for lower taxes on our citizens to keep these businesses viable.
So I salute those businesses that continue to bring us new technologies despite having to jump through all the hoops our government makes them jump through.
Muir Boda
-- Post From My iPad
I am not suggesting everyone go out and buy one, I am saying as Americans we should be proud of a company such as Apple. We should celebrate the achievements of the free market.
We should continually fight for less regulation on businesses so that they can continue to develop and create new technologies. We should continue to fight for lower taxes on businesses so they can create more jobs. We should keep on fighting for lower taxes on our citizens to keep these businesses viable.
So I salute those businesses that continue to bring us new technologies despite having to jump through all the hoops our government makes them jump through.
Muir Boda
-- Post From My iPad
Friday, April 2, 2010
Today Counts: Census Encourages Participation With Fanfare
Below is the article that appeared in the Daily Times and Circulated by Capital News Service to other local newspaper and online news services in Maryland.
Posted onMarch 31, 2010
By DIANA NGUYEN
WASHINGTON (March 31, 2010) -- National Census Day is Thursday -- the federal government's reminder to get those census forms in post haste and save money.
To promote the day and its message, the U.S Census Bureau and its community partners will sponsor a slew of events across the nation to "empower communities" and remind residents that $400 billion in federal assistance is at stake.
"This is the push," said Census Bureau spokeswoman Sylvia Ballinger. "We use this day to rally people, encourage and remind them to fill out the 2010 census form" so that someone won't have to show up and knock on their doors after May 1.
Those census takers will cost a pretty penny.
To send back a completed form takes 10 minutes and costs a mere 42 cents. But it costs taxpayers $25 per person to send a census taker door-to-door to collect the same information, according to the Census Bureau.
Every 1 percentage point increase in mail-back rates saves taxpayers $85 million in follow-up costs.
To follow up on those who fail to respond costs an estimated $2.74 billion, which is the largest portion of the projected $14.7 billion needed to operate the 2010 census.
To keep follow-up costs down and spread census awareness to "Hard to Count" areas, the Census Bureau spent $62.7 million on television, $18.1 million on radio, and $21.1 million on print ads.
But critics say census publicity is unnecessary.
"The census happens every 10 years," said Muir Boda, communications director of the Libertarian Party of Maryland. "It's another extreme waste of taxpayer money to promote something we know is already going to happen."
Although Maryland continues to surpass the national participation rate, about half the state still needs to answer the 10-question survey as of Wednesday.
Census Bureau and Maryland officials expect a wave of forms to return after April 1 because there is usually an uptick from residents waiting until Census Day to send back their forms, said Jane Traynham, manager of the Maryland State Data Center.
Traynham predicted there will be a big effort from the counties to encourage communities with low response rates after the first week of April.
That's because the count counts: A community's population count will determine the area's legislative and congressional representation and serves as a major factor in the allocation of federal funds to jurisdictions.
Census numbers are also used in other ways.
For example, the Census Bureau produces about 100 surveys a year based on census data; companies use housing and income figures to locate ideal consumers; and non-profit organizations look at the data to determine important statistics in their communities when applying for grants.
While census takers battle low response rates in rural and urban communities, they will also have to deal with suspicious residents who consider census questions intrusive and unconstitutional.
"They are asking questions that are private. And oftentimes (the government) uses the information for purposes that it's not intended for," Boda said. "Race and ethnicity are irrelevant and information the government doesn't need."
The only necessary question, Boda said, is the one that pertains to how many people are living in the household.
The Census Bureau said it plans to follow up several times if questions are left unanswered or an occupied household fails to respond. It's important that every person living in your household is counted as of April 1, said Ballinger. "It's not too late."
Capital News Service contributed to this report.
Posted on
By DIANA NGUYEN
WASHINGTON (March 31, 2010) -- National Census Day is Thursday -- the federal government's reminder to get those census forms in post haste and save money.
To promote the day and its message, the U.S Census Bureau and its community partners will sponsor a slew of events across the nation to "empower communities" and remind residents that $400 billion in federal assistance is at stake.
"This is the push," said Census Bureau spokeswoman Sylvia Ballinger. "We use this day to rally people, encourage and remind them to fill out the 2010 census form" so that someone won't have to show up and knock on their doors after May 1.
Those census takers will cost a pretty penny.
To send back a completed form takes 10 minutes and costs a mere 42 cents. But it costs taxpayers $25 per person to send a census taker door-to-door to collect the same information, according to the Census Bureau.
Every 1 percentage point increase in mail-back rates saves taxpayers $85 million in follow-up costs.
To follow up on those who fail to respond costs an estimated $2.74 billion, which is the largest portion of the projected $14.7 billion needed to operate the 2010 census.
To keep follow-up costs down and spread census awareness to "Hard to Count" areas, the Census Bureau spent $62.7 million on television, $18.1 million on radio, and $21.1 million on print ads.
But critics say census publicity is unnecessary.
"The census happens every 10 years," said Muir Boda, communications director of the Libertarian Party of Maryland. "It's another extreme waste of taxpayer money to promote something we know is already going to happen."
Although Maryland continues to surpass the national participation rate, about half the state still needs to answer the 10-question survey as of Wednesday.
Census Bureau and Maryland officials expect a wave of forms to return after April 1 because there is usually an uptick from residents waiting until Census Day to send back their forms, said Jane Traynham, manager of the Maryland State Data Center.
Traynham predicted there will be a big effort from the counties to encourage communities with low response rates after the first week of April.
That's because the count counts: A community's population count will determine the area's legislative and congressional representation and serves as a major factor in the allocation of federal funds to jurisdictions.
Census numbers are also used in other ways.
For example, the Census Bureau produces about 100 surveys a year based on census data; companies use housing and income figures to locate ideal consumers; and non-profit organizations look at the data to determine important statistics in their communities when applying for grants.
While census takers battle low response rates in rural and urban communities, they will also have to deal with suspicious residents who consider census questions intrusive and unconstitutional.
"They are asking questions that are private. And oftentimes (the government) uses the information for purposes that it's not intended for," Boda said. "Race and ethnicity are irrelevant and information the government doesn't need."
The only necessary question, Boda said, is the one that pertains to how many people are living in the household.
The Census Bureau said it plans to follow up several times if questions are left unanswered or an occupied household fails to respond. It's important that every person living in your household is counted as of April 1, said Ballinger. "It's not too late."
Capital News Service contributed to this report.
Executive Board Member Interviewed About the Census
I received a phone call from a reporter at Capitol News Service. It got picked up by the Daily Times in Salisbury. Check it out and share it.
Monday, March 29, 2010
How to Oppose ObamaCare
What critics of the president's health care plan can learn from Gandhi's methods of nonviolent resistance
First, there were the budgetary magic tricks that he and his Congressional enablers got the highly respected Congressional Budget Office to perform. The last CBO assessment—that pushed the bill through—showed that the Obama plan would reduce the federal deficit by $138 billion over 10 years. The reality, once all the double counting and fantasy savings are eliminated, is that it will add $562 billion.But the CBO is not the only entity whose honor Democrats have violated—perhaps beyond repair. Federal taxpayers will also get royally screwed when they have to pay for all the sweetheart deals that Obama's Cogressional minions cut behind closed doors and whose true scope will only become apparent in the coming months. (Bart Stupak is rumored to have gotten $700,000 for airport repairs as his sell-out price.)
Worst of all were the shameless parliamentary tactics that Democrats deployed. The Founders deliberately constructed many roadblocks for new laws to prevent elected officials from straying too far from the will of the people. But Democrats could care less about parliamentary niceties.
They are poised to use the so-called nuclear option or "reconciliation" to square the House and the Senate bills. This option will allow the Senate to circumvent the normal committee process to make fixes to the House bill through a simple majority without risking a filibuster. But reconciliation is meant exclusively for budgetary matters—not ramrodding sweeping social legislation on a party-line vote. This is why the Senate parliamentarian—a completely nonpartisan figure—has to approve its use for every fix. But Democrats are poised to have Vice President Joe Biden overrule him should he dare to stand in their way. In short, instead of bending the cost curve, President Obama is bending the rules of accountable government.
READ MORE REASON
The Entitlement Rip-Off
How unfunded liabilities drain the treasury
Those days are gone. The huge group of baby boomers has started to retire, and that means trouble. In 2008, for the first time, Medicare paid out more than it took in.
So instead of filling the government's coffers and hiding the real size of the budget deficit, the entitlement programs have now begun to drain the treasury. Part of the "problem" is that we live longer. When Social Security started, most people didn't live to 65. Now we average 78.
READ MORE REASON
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Reason Saves Cleveland With Drew Carey
Reason Saves Cleveland With Drew Carey is an original Reason.tv documentary series airing the week of March 15-19, 2010.
Reason Saves Cleveland With Drew Carey is an original Reason.tv documentary series airing the week of March 15-19, 2010.
Reason Saves Cleveland With Drew Carey is an original Reason.tv documentary series airing the week of March 15-19, 2010.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Healthcare Reform Passes
by Ron Paul
Following months of heated public debate and aggressive closed-door negotiations, Congress finally cast a historic vote on healthcare late Sunday evening. It was truly a sad weekend on the House floor as we witnessed further dismantling of the Constitution, disregard of the will of the people, explosive expansion of the reach of government, unprecedented corporate favoritism, and the impending end of quality healthcare as we know it.
Those in favor of this bill touted their good intentions of ensuring quality healthcare for all Americans, as if those of us against the bill are against good medical care. They cite fanciful statistics of deficit reduction, while simultaneously planning to expand the already struggling medical welfare programs we currently have.
They somehow think that healthcare in this country will be improved by swelling our welfare rolls and cutting reimbursement payments to doctors who are already losing money. It is estimated that thousands of doctors will be economically forced out of the profession should this government fuzzy math actually try to become healthcare reality. No one has thought to ask what good mandatory health insurance will be if people can’t find a doctor.
Legislative hopes and dreams don’t always stand up well against economic realities.
Frustratingly, this legislation does not deal at all with the real reasons access to healthcare is a struggle for so many – the astronomical costs. If tort reform was seriously discussed, if the massive regulatory burden on healthcare was reduced and reformed, if the free market was allowed to function and apply downward pressure on healthcare costs as it does with everything else, perhaps people wouldn’t be so beholden to insurance companies in the first place.
If costs were lowered, more people could simply pay for what they need out of pocket, as they were able to do before government got so involved. Instead, in the name of going after greedy insurance companies, the federal government is going to make people even more beholden to them by mandating that everyone buy their product!
Hefty fines are due from anyone found to have committed the heinous crime of not being a customer of a health insurance company. We will need to hire some 16,500 new IRS agents to police compliance with all these new mandates and administer various fines. So in government terms, this is also a jobs bill. Never mind that this program is also likely to cost the private sector some 5 million jobs.
Of course, the most troubling aspect of this bill is that it is so blatantly unconstitutional and contrary to the ideals of liberty. Nowhere in the constitution is there anything approaching authority for the Federal government to do any of this.
The founders would have been horrified at the idea of government forcing citizens to become consumers of a particular product from certain government approved companies. 38 states are said to already be preparing legal and constitutional challenges to this legislation, and if the courts stand by their oaths, they will win. Protecting the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, should be the court’s responsibility.
Citizens have a responsibility over their own life, but they also have the liberty to choose how they will live and protect their lives. Healthcare choices are a part of liberty, another part that is being stripped away. Government interference in healthcare has already infringed on choices available to people, but rather than getting out of the way, it is entrenching itself, and its corporatist cronies, even more deeply.
Another Senseless Drug War Death
Stunning developments in the 2009 police shooting of Georgia pastor Jonathan Ayers
Ayers then pulled into a nearby gas station to withdraw money from an ATM. Shortly after he got back into his car, a black Escalade tore into the parking lot. Three officers, all undercover, got out of the vehicle and pointed their guns at Ayers. The pastor, understandably, attempted to escape. As he pulled out of the station, Ayers grazed Officer Oxner with his car. Officer Billy Shane Harrison then opened fire, shooting Ayers in the stomach. (You can watch surveillance video of the altercationhere.) Ayers continued to drive, fleeing the parking lot for about a thousand yards before eventually crashing his car. He died at the hospital.
Ayers’ last words to his family and medical staff were that he thought he was being robbed. The police found no illicit drugs in his car, and there was no trace of any illegal substance in his body.
If the story ended there, it would merely be enough to boil your blood. These officers jumped from an SUV waving their guns commando-style over a possible $50 drug transaction. Worse, the man they pounced upon wasn't the target of their investigation.
The police claimed they announced themselves, but it isn't difficult to see how Ayers—or anyone else—might have been confused in the commotion. It was a hot, late summer Georgia afternoon. Ayers likely had his windows up and his air conditioning on. The officers were undercover, dressed in shabby clothes and ski-mask caps. The badges they had hanging from their necks, seen in this photo, were far from conspicuous.
Let’s say that you (which would include 99 percent of the people reading this) aren't a drug dealer, or a mobster, or some other sort of career criminal. You've just returned to your car after getting cash from an ATM. An unmarked Escalade pulls up and three men jump out in masks and guns. Confusion and self-preservation is not only understandable, it ought to be predictable, even expected.
This would have been a grossly disproportionate way for these cops to have approached Barrett, their arctual suspect, much less a guy they sought to question only about the 10 minutes he'd just spent in the car with her.
The Stephens County, Georgia Sheriff's Department initially said Ayers was a drug suspect, but later had to retract. In her September interview with the North Georgian, Barrett told the paper that Ayers had been trying to help kick her drug habit, but later, while facing charges related to both the Ayers case and another incident, she told investigators that Ayers had in previous years paid her for sex. This testimony persuaded the grand jury not to indict the officers who killed Ayers. The pastor may have fled the police, the grand jury concluded, because he feared his reputation would be ruined if his relationship with Barrett were exposed.
District Attorney Brian Rickman praised the Georgia Bureau of Investigation for going to "very extraordinary lengths" to insure the investigation into the shooting was fair. But Abigail Ayers' civil suit (PDF) calls that assessment into question. The complaint alleges that Officer Harrison, the cop who shot Ayers, wasn't even authorized to arrest him. On the day Ayers was killed, Harrison had yet to take a series of firearms training classes required for his certification as a police officer. More astonishing, Harrison apparently had no training at all in the use of lethal force.
These allegations have since been confirmed by local TV station WSBTV and, after the fact, by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. Despite the fact that Harrison had killed a man suspected of no crime months earlier without having undergone lethal-force training and certification, the officer was still carrying his badge and gun up until the time of the WSBTV report. Once the publicity hit, Harrison was suspended. Abigail Ayers' civil suit also alleges prior disciplinary problems with both officers Oxner and Harrison, including alleged drug use.
The wasteful use of public resources to pursue a petty drug offender and the aggressive and short-sighted apprehension of Jonathan Ayers that led to his death are bad enough. That a police officer untrained in the use of lethal force and unqualified to be holding a badge and gun was put on a narcotics task force, and then placed in a position where he was able to shoot and kill a non-suspect is worse. But the kicker has to be that the subsequent police-led investigations of this high-profile casefailed to turn up such a critical piece of information. It ought to cast more doubt on the already dubious notion that police shootings should only be investigated by other police officers.
At the heart of this outrage, though, once again, is our increasingly demented, hysterical, all-too-literal drug war. Until we're ready to dispense with the notion that gun-toting cops in ski masks going commando at a public gas station is an appropriate response to an alleged $50 drug transaction, we're going to see a lot more Jonathan Ayerses.
Radley Balko is a senior editor at Reason magazine.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
The Biggest Obstacle to the Liberty Movement is .....
.... the Republican Party. It is the continuos promises that the Republican Party makes, such as Limited Government, Lower Taxes, Fiscal Responsibility, Family Values, Privacy, Focusing on Our Hemisphere, Property Rights, etc., etc., etc.
Yet, when the Republican Party actually gained control of both the Presidency and both houses of Congress, their actions were completely opposite of their platform and avowed principles.
The Republican Party is poised to present itself as the only alternative to Barack Obama and a Democratic Party that is bent on turning America into a socialistic, government depending nation. The problem with this thought process is the fact is the Republican Party runs a government just as bad if not worse than the Democrats. The traditional Tax and Spend policy of the Democratic Party is just as bad the Republican's traditional of Deficit Spending policy.
Many voters are just as dissatisfied with the Republicans as they are the Democrats. A bad taste from the Bush years seems to linger and not go away as Obama, Pelosi, and their goons run roughshod on America. Let's hope that voters do not develop another case of amnesia.
Yet, when the Republican Party actually gained control of both the Presidency and both houses of Congress, their actions were completely opposite of their platform and avowed principles.
Here is there list accomplishments:
- The Largest Expansion of Government Power since, well, Richard Nixon
- Passage of the Patriot Act
- Historic Increases in Deficit Spending
- 2 Invasions and Occupation Sovereign Nations
- Failure to Pass Their Family Values through Legislation
- Subsidized Tax Refunds to People Who Do Not Pay Taxes
- Failure to Make Tax Cuts Permanent
The Republican Party is poised to present itself as the only alternative to Barack Obama and a Democratic Party that is bent on turning America into a socialistic, government depending nation. The problem with this thought process is the fact is the Republican Party runs a government just as bad if not worse than the Democrats. The traditional Tax and Spend policy of the Democratic Party is just as bad the Republican's traditional of Deficit Spending policy.
Many voters are just as dissatisfied with the Republicans as they are the Democrats. A bad taste from the Bush years seems to linger and not go away as Obama, Pelosi, and their goons run roughshod on America. Let's hope that voters do not develop another case of amnesia.
Muir Boda
Is Health-Care Reform Constitutional?
by Randy Barnett
This article appeared in the Washington Post on March 21, 2010.
ith the House set to vote on health-care legislation, the congressional debate on the issue seems to be nearing its conclusion. But if the bill does become law, the battle over federal control of health care will inevitably shift to the courts. Virginia's attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli II, has said he will file a legal challenge to the bill, arguing in a column this month that reform legislation "violate[s] the plain text of both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments." On Friday, South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster and Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum announced that they will file a federal lawsuit if health-care reform legislation passes.
Will these cases get anywhere? Here is a guide to the possible legal challenges to a comprehensive health-care bill.
The individual mandate.
Can Congress really require that every person purchase health insurance from a private company or face a penalty? The answer lies in the commerce clause of the Constitution, which grants Congress the power "to regulate commerce . . . among the several states." Historically, insurance contracts were not considered commerce, which referred to trade and carriage of merchandise. That's why insurance has traditionally been regulated by states. But the Supreme Court has long allowed Congress to regulate and prohibit all sorts of "economic" activities that are not, strictly speaking, commerce. The key is that those activities substantially affect interstate commerce, and that's how the court would probably view the regulation of health insurance.
But the individual mandate extends the commerce clause's power beyond economic activity, to economic inactivity. That is unprecedented. While Congress has used its taxing power to fund Social Security and Medicare, never before has it used its commerce power to mandate that an individual person engage in an economic transaction with a private company. Regulating the auto industry or paying "cash for clunkers" is one thing; making everyone buy a Chevy is quite another. Even during World War II, the federal government did not mandate that individual citizens purchase war bonds.
If you choose to drive a car, then maybe you can be made to buy insurance against the possibility of inflicting harm on others. But making you buy insurance merely because you are alive is a claim of power from which many Americans instinctively shrink. Senate Republicans made this objection, and it was defeated on a party-line vote, but it will return.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)