Showing posts with label bob barr. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bob barr. Show all posts

2008-10-06

Quote of the Day

From the von Mises Institute
The most famous depression in modern times, of course, was the one that began in a typical financial panic in 1929 and lasted until the advent of World War II. After the disaster of 1929, economists and politicians resolved that this must never happen again. The easiest way of succeeding at this resolve was, simply to define "depressions" out of existence. From that point on, America was to suffer no further depressions. For when the next sharp depression came along, in 1937–38, the economists simply refused to use the dread name, and came up with a new, much softer-sounding word: "recession." From that point on, we have been through quite a few recessions, but not a single depression.

If only actual problems could be caused that easily. In order to prevent the reality of a depression (or recession, if you prefer), they only need to do two things:

  1. Get out of the way
  2. Better define and enforce property rights
But then again, if they came up with simple solutions, they wouldn't be able to hide their corruption. People would actually understand what they were doing!

And if they came up with solutions that worked, people would understand how little we really need them.

2008-09-13

Bush Attacks Market For Working

So now, the Confuser in Chief has decided to start a brand new war, this one is against the free market. Of course Republicans claim to want a free market, but few of them understand that having a free market involves things like not having corporate welfare, not having price and wage controls, and actually leaving people free to buy and sell based on what they believe to be best, not what some politician thinks best.

So now, Dubya the Decider has decided to crack down on anyone "taking advantage" of the changes in the oil market brought about by the hurricane by adjusting their prices to match reality.

Some who -- like Bush -- never studied economics, must be asking themselves "is this guy arguing for higher prices?" Yes, I am. Why? Because that's what reality requires.

For a time, there is less refining capactity in America. That means we are producing less gasoline. If we continue to attempt to consume the same amount of gasoline, we will have shortages. We cannot consume more than we produce. The free market has a solution to this problem. It's called a price. When the price goes up, people -- even people far away from the hurricaine -- will have incentive to consume less. Prices are always moving towards -- but never reaching -- the point where supply and demand are equal. Any change in production or in the value of consumption must be reflected in the price, or the market fails to work.

So what happens people are frightened by Bush's threat, and fail to adjust the price to match reality? Shortages, and lines. Waste, as people continue to use fuel which could serve more important needs for less important needs ... as long as they can get it. Then lines at the gas station as they try to replace the fuel they wasted, in order to meet their more important needs. We saw this in the 1970's, when the "free market" Republican in office imposed price and wage controls. Does anyone remember the lines at the pump, the "out of gas" signs appearing on gas stations? I do.

The lobotomized market Bush proposes is the road to disaster. A free market, as proposed by the Libertarian Party is the only cure.

2008-09-11

Pauls, and Baldwins, and Barrs ... Oh, My!

There has been much debate among Libertarian and libertarian leaning voters as to which way to vote in the coming election. I wanted to share the thinking which led me to my decision. Firstly, I should state my minimal criteria for considering a candidate:
  1. The candidate must argue for shrinking government significantly.
  2. The candidate must not argue for growing government in any area at the level at which he is running (e.g. a candidate who argued for State regulation of abortion would be acceptable as a candidate for Federal office, but not at the State leve.)
  3. The candidate must not have any clear mental incapacity, such as bigotry.
  4. The party platform must be acceptable.
  5. If the election of the leader in question is likely, he must have sufficient credibility to convince me that he is likely govern as he campaigned.
There have been three men suggested as potential candidates for libertarian voters:
  1. Ron Paul -- Write-In
  2. Chuck Baldwin. -- Constitution Party
  3. Bob Barr -- Libertarian Party

Clearly, neither Obama nor McCain deserve a second thought. Each has devoted his life to the growth of government, albeit in slightly different directions. If I'm on a jury considering their fate, I might vote for them -- to hang -- but that's the only way they'll get a vote from me without changing virtually every position they hold.

Paul is not a candidate, and although I would frankly prefer him to either of the others on the list, I will not write-in a candidate. It's cheaper and easier to simply stay home on election day. Write-ins are meaningless — they will not be counted, tabulated, recorded, or announced. Nobody will ever know how many people write in Paul's name, or anybody else's for that matter.

Baldwin fails #2, and #4. His party’s platform welcomes only Christians, which is unacceptable to me, both as a matter of policy and a matter of strategy. He also wants the Federal government to control abortion. This does not mean that I consider him a bad guy. I consider him to be a generally Liberty oriented candidate. None the less, I cannot support him.

Barr meets all my criteria. He is the only candidate who does, and therefore, I can elide the more subjective process of choosing between multiple acceptable candidates.


There have been some recent criticisms of Barr, which deserve consideration, so I'll address those briefly.
  1. Barr is a recent convert to Libertarian who may not be sincere
    This would be a serious issue, if it was likely that Barr would be elected. It is much less important in this election. It will be at least a couple more cycles before we have grown the party enough to have to worry about that. I'm looking forward to it!
  2. Barr is a recent convert to Libertarian who may not have the best interests of the party in mind.
    This is an important issue during the primary season. It does not much matter at this point. Barr's what we've got. Votes for Barr will not make him president, but they will make our party credible, if they arrive in sufficient number.
  3. Barr is a recent convert to Libertarian who may not have the best interests of the party in mind.
    This is an important issue during the primary season. It does not much matter at this point. Barr's what we've got. Votes for Barr will not make him president, but they will make our party credible, if they arrive in sufficient number.
  4. Barr's strategy has been poor when dealing with Ron Paul and/or the Campaign for Liberty.
    This is an important issue during the primary season. It does not much matter at this point. Barr's what we've got. Votes for Barr will not make him president, but they will make our party credible, if they arrive in sufficient number.

The bottom line, as I see it, is that we who value freedom must rally behind Barr, regardless of whether we supported his nomination, because he is the nominee we have. For this election cycle, he's the only nominee we have. It is what it is.
Never forget, as you consider your vote in the next election, the words of a wise Libertarian thinker, Ron Paul:
It's not about me, it's about the MESSAGE.

2008-09-05

Sarah Palin and Victory

I was somewhat encouraged by the selection of Sarah Palin as a running mate for John McCain. I even went so far as to say that the best likely outcome -- that is, the best outcome which does not involve breaking the stranglehold of the Republican and Democratic wings of the Big Government Party on the American government -- for America might be if McCain was elected and immediately dropped dead.

I still believe that, but Palin stands out because she is a Queen in a deck of Jokers. She stands out not because she understands what is best for America, but because she misunderstands our plight a little bit less than McSame and Biden.

On the subject of foreign policy, I am sad to say, she seems to be as dazed and confused as they. She opened her acceptance of the nomination with error. She accepts, in her words, "the call to help our nominee for president to protect and defend America". That is a fine job, but it is not the one for which she has applied. The job for which she has applied is commenced with an oath. Her oath, should she be elected, is not to protect and defend America, the American people, the American economy, American prestige, American power abroad, or American influence in foreign lands. Her oath, should she be elected, will be to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That is the first and most important responsibility of any American elected official.

She goes on to say that McCain was criticized for his unwillingness to "lose an election than to see his country lose a war". This statement is in error in many ways. Firstly, the war, had Congress declared war as the Constitution requires, would have been declared against the Government of Iraq. The Government of Iraq against which our Congress failed to declare war no longer exists, and therefore seems to be rather poorly positioned to win a war. The head of the state against which we did not declare war was a man named Saddam Hussein. An evil bastard, to be sure. He is, however, no better positioned to win a war than the Iraqi government. He has, you see, been hung by the neck until dead, dead, dead. This seems an inauspicious position from which to declare victory.

If the question in Iraq is not winning a war against a defunct enemy, or losing to the dead leader of a non-existent government, what is the question, today, in Iraq?

The question is "Is it worth spending more American treasure, atop the trillion dollars we have already spent, in order to defend a foreign nation against the ethnic and cultural divisions which have existed in it since the British decided that three disparate peoples should be forced to live as a single nation".

The answer is no.

The question is "Will America benefit by providing potential terrorists with the corpses of friends and relatives, dead at our hands, to avenge."

The answer is no.

The question is "Is it worth the life of one more American soldier to provide security and prosperity to a foreign people who have never posed a credible threat to America, but have never paid a single dollar in taxes to America, nor sworn to protect and defend her Constitution, nor thanked her for removing the Odious Hussein, nor supported her which she was in need, nor defended her values, nor offered her anything except animosity.

The answer is HELL NO.

As far as I am concerned, America entered a broken country, removed the worst of the impediments to it's reform, and spent far too much blood and treasure attempting to offer her security and prosperity. The results have been imperfect, but Iraqis are no worse off then they were when we came. It is within the power of the Iraqi people to reform their nation, or to descend into chaos. The time has come for them to choose, and to live with the consequences of their decision.


But let us, for a moment, return to Sarah Palin. There is another glaring error in her speech which must be addressed. It illustrates either her failure to understand the American system of justice, or her willingness to sacrifice American values for expediency. That error is her statement that "Al-Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America ... he's worried that someone won't read them their rights".

Ms. Palin, it is after, not before, the investigation that Americans determine the guilt or innocence of those accused of crimes. We do not base the tactics of the investigation on the guilt of the targets, nor on the severity of their crime, but on the bedrock of our immutable, written, Constitution. Americans -- true Americans -- choose to accept risk rather than to risk tyranny. They choose not to sacrifice their Liberty for temporary Security, knowing that a people who does so deserves -- and will receive -- neither Liberty nor Security. True Americans choose to risk their Lives, their Fortunes, and their Sacred Honors, not for absolute protection against every possible risk, but for protection of their Liberty against the ever looming danger of a government run amok. They know that a criminal freed due to a violation of his rights may kill them. They accept that danger because they heed the words of John Stark, the most famous New Hampshire soldier to serve in the Revolution:

Live Free or Die: Death is not the worst of evils.
I do not agree with Palin that Liberty must be sacrificed in order to achieve reasonable Security. But even were she to convince me that I must choose between them, I would choose dangerous Freedom over the illusory Security of Servitude.

In the final analysys, Palin is an unacceptable candididate because she, by her own words, is willing to sacrifice Liberty for Security, because she is willing to trade American blood for an illusary "victory" against the dead leader of a defunct government, and because she does not understand that no nation, no matter how powerful, and no matter how well intentioned, can impose it's will on other nations with impunity. For all these reasons, the selection of Palin does not change my choice. I'll be voting for Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate for President, and the best hope to restore Liberty to America.

2008-07-18

General Curtis claims Bob Barr is a traitor

This commentator claims that Bob Barr is "A Traitor" to the Republican Wing of the Big Government Party, because he is not supporting the McSame canidacy.

The problem is, that Bob Barr left the Republican Wing of the Big Government Party years ago, and was even a member of the Libertarian Party's board before becoming a candidate for the nomination and a candidate for president.

Wouldn't endorsing McBama be the error, given this fact?

As for the claim that Barr is "stealing votes" from the Republican Wing of the Big Government Party, the reality is that they have been defrauding Small Government advocates for decades, stealing their votes and their money, by saying "If only we get Congress, we'll shrink government".

This was a lie. It was so proved when they got congress, and did nothing to shrink government.

So then they cried "If only we get the presidency, we'll shrink government".

That was another lie. It was so proved when the got the presidency, and government grew even faster than it had under the Democratic Wing of the One Big Party.

So now they cry that small government advocates owe them their votes. They are entitled, they say, to the everlasting, unquestioning, unrewarded support of anyone who believes in small government, because they have, when it suited their purpose, spouted a little bit of free market rhetoric.

I say that what small government advocates owe the Republican Wing of the Big Government Party is a class action lawsuit, in order to recover the money out of which they were defrauded over the years. This, a knife in the back, and a kick in the head would put us about even with the Republican Wing of the Big Government Party.

Actually, now, if we want to get even, we'll need to do one more thing:

If -- and it's a big if -- we can find any evidence that the Republican Wing of the Big Government Party ever had any allegience to the Constitution, the Free Market, Limited Government, the Rule of Law, Capitalism, Freedom, or anything other than staying in power, we should call them traitors.

2008-07-15

A Good, Old Fashioned Bank Run!

An interesting story above! Looks like there was a good, old fashioned bank run at IndyMac! That's sad for the people who still have their money in the badly broken U.S. banking system, but at least people are starting to wake up! Hopefully, more people will start pulling their money out of the system and putting it on gold, silver, oil, or something else which is real. Normally, I would include real-estate on the list, but personally I think that market still has a long way to fall, and as long as Helicopter Ben keeps dumping money into the system, whether through Corporate Welfare Bailouts or through simple printing of counterfeit money backed by nothing but a politician's promise, the market cannot adjust to reality. I can hear Scotty, down in Engineering, screaming:
She canna take the strain, Captain! She's breaking up! I canna change the laws of Economics, Captain!
So stock up on something of real value, guys, 'cause either we're heading for trouble!