I shredded my Libertarian Party membership card today. I'll be calling the national office tomorrow to formally rescind my membership. (Thank you Ian for the great example.)
Power corrupts. This is even true when it comes to so-called libertarians when they feel that they can champion the cause of liberty from within the political juggernaut. Instead, they let the power consume them and they forget the very reason they fight at all. Case in point: last Friday the Libertarian party issued a press release "calling for increased coordination and communication between federal and state law enforcement agencies in order to help to apprehend and convict child predators and those who engage in child pornography."
It's not the going after child predators part that bothers me. It's the complete reversal of the party's principal of individual voluntaryism in favor of authoritarian statism that bothers me. It used to be that the LP wanted to get RID OF the FBI and the CIA etc (completely! It was actually listed in the party platform.) Now they want to expand the relationship between federal and state agencies. Tell me, how exactly does giving the federal government control over yet another area of our lives constitute anything but an "initiation of force"? Not only has the LP platform been utterly compromised by this act; what they are suggesting is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
Article 1, section 8 and Article 3 section 3 of the US constitution clearly lays out three crimes that are under the jurisdiction of the federal government:
- Piracy in international waters.
- Counterfeiting US coins
- Treason against the US
(Source: Harry Browne)
All other crimes are within the jurisdiction of the states by virtue of the 9th and 10th amendments. (And the states are more than well equipped to handle the cases at hand.)
I cannot, in good conscience, give one more dime to an organization that claims to want to reduce the size and scope of government and then does the exact opposite whenever it suits them.
What's worse is that this seems all to just be a power play to get rid of Mary Ruwart as a candidate for president. Shameful! Mary Ruwart is about as libertarian as they get when it comes to people directly involved with the LP. She alone has brought more people to the ideas of liberty (through her numerous books and essays) than all the officers of the LP combined. I would vote for Mary Ruwart with a clear conscience. I would never, ever, vote for what has become of the status quo LP candidates today -- The likes of Bob Barr, George Phillies, Mike Gravel (!!?!?). They are all phonies. They are infiltrators. They care nothing at all for the principals of freedom and the the ideals of non initiation of force. If they ever had any desire at all to advance liberty, they must have grown tired of being all alone with their "unpopular" ideas and are willing to pervert their principles so as to gain acceptance by the mediocre majority. For all purposes, the LP is dead.
I'm afraid the days of the Ron Pauls, the Harry Browns, and even the Michael Badnariks leading the LP are long gone. To take their place : unprincipled, power hungry, cronyistic, hypocritical fakes. I'm outta here.
Everyone that drives a car knows that gasoline has gotten a lot more expensive over the last few years. But very few people seem to correctly understand why this is. Ron Paul, in his latest debate appearance, laid it out quite plainly, but it takes keen and willing ears to fully appreciate it:
The value of oil hasn't changed at all -- instead, the value of our dollar has tanked. The value of oil, relative to gold, has sat unchanged since 2000 (and even well before that). This means that if you got your paycheck in gold instead of dollars you'd still be paying the same price for gas as you were a decade ago.
The gas prices are not the fault of greedy capitalists. No gas company is "gouging" you. On the contrary, seemingly high gas prices are not due to any free market force at all, but rather due to the fascist cooperation of a complacent, apathetic, congress and the Federal Reserve. Our government has an insatiable appetite to print money out of thin air to support a massive military industrial complex as well as a socialist, redistributionist, welfare state. This monstrously inflates the money supply -- robbing the value of your dollar.
I decided to prove this for myself, that the golden price of oil is relatively stable. I downloaded historical gold spot prices, as well as historical crude oil prices. Using a bit of Python and matplotlib, I produced the following graph:
I'm not an economist, so I was fairly pleased when I saw that what I came up with correlated fairly well with the graph that the Wall Street Journal published. This graph shows that oil costs 3.5 times as many dollars as it did in 2000, and yet the oil price in gold has barely changed at all in the past eight years.
Everyone should be putting their money into an account with interest of some kind, and not just letting their money sit around uninvested. But at the rate that the dollar is losing its value, even "high" interest investments aren't paying out faster than the current rate of inflation (and as the above graph shows, that inflation is a lot more than the 3% the government would tell you). If we simply legalized alternative, market based currencies (as opposed to raiding and plundering them), we could have much larger gains on our investments as well as not losing any value on any money left uninvested.
This issue has been the core of Dr. Paul's career since the 1960's. It has taken the American people a very long time to wake up to this issue, and so it is an immense credit to his character that he has shown an undying vigilance, these many years, to the pursuit of liberty. I too, have hope for America.
(If anyone is interested, here is the python code (as well as the data files) used for the graph. )
The most important questions usually have remarkably simple answers. I was listening to Michael Badnarik's radio show from last Friday, and being the great iconoclast that he is, he asks one of these important, yet simple questions:
Who owns your body?
Here's the simple (and complete) answer: I own my body!
I disagree with a great number of people on a great number of things, and yet I still get along with them. We can reach a modus vivendi -- we can agree to disagree. The interesting thing about the question at hand is that it is more powerful than most other political questions; it even makes others look mundane in comparison. If I were to meet someone who believed that they did not own their body I can honestly say that I would never be able to relate with this person, nor truly understand anything that they personally believed.
In fact, I cannot think of any possible way any rational person could disagree with the statement that you own your own body. And yet, the relatively mundane political disagreements I have with other people are antithetical to the concept that we (supposedly) both agree with: I own my own body.If I own my own body, it would follow that:
- I cannot rightfully be enslaved.
- I can eat, drink, smoke, inject, or osmose anything I want into my own body.
- I own the products that I produce with my own hands. No one can rightfully steal them from me.
- I can freely contract with other people (who also own their own bodies) and agree to exchange my products for theirs.
- I can kill myself or contract with someone to do it for me.
Consequently, if you live in a world where these rights are not respected, and you allow them to be disrespected, you are not free, and you do not own your own body. Here is an example of such a world:
- A constitution is drafted on the principle that the government would protect the sovereign rights of individuals. And yet there is disagreement. . . and compromises. The final draft of this constitution disregards its founding principles and implicitly supports slavery. It would take another 80 years for this constitution to reverse this indiscretion.
- Even though such a promise to never enslave was made, the practice would continue through the enforced conscription of men to fight in foreign wars.
- Laws of taxation are modified to allow the government to steal from the wealth of individuals, as much as they cared to, for whatever reason.
- Money is created by this government, "out of thin air". Laws are enacted to compel businesses to accept it. Numerous law enforcement agencies ensure that no one uses any competing (or more valuable) form of money.
- Certain beverages are disallowed through legal means.
- Certain herbs are disallowed through less than legal means.
- The writ of habeas corpus, the law that literally protects the right to protest the detention of your own body, though protected by 327 years of precedence, is utterly abolished and left only to the ruler's discretion as to who receives this "privilege".
Does this world sound familiar? I hope so. The trend of these united States is to not respect your body. If you believe that you own your body, you should never allow your government, let alone anyone else, to take away the rights of your body.
Think about this, not only when you vote, but every single day, in everything that you do. Do you have the self respect to assert your rights? Do you have the respect to assert MY rights? If you do, I sincerely hope that you will approach any political decision through this concept: I own my own body. You own your body. I have no right to take away your rights, nor you to me.
The time to choose how this country will behave on a federal level is fast approaching. Once you come to the realization -- that you own your own body -- you will realize that there is only one person running for president who believes that very same thing: Ron Paul.
I hate to stay on the topic of Mitt Romney, there are plenty of bad things about most of the other presidential candidates too.
But... Mitt makes it so damn easy for me to pick on him: the official Romney contribution page now offers you a tiered selection of Christmas
gifts bribes in exchange for your donation:
Obviously Romney doesn't need the money; he has plenty of his own to do with as he pleases. Ever wonder why he has so many supporters at all the rallies he goes to? Because they are the same supporters at every rally. He buses them from place to place at his own cost.
To win though, Romney needs more than just his own money. He needs individual contributions so he doesn't get slaughtered by you know who when it comes time to report real donations to the FEC.
Instead of getting random SWAG for my donation, I'd rather give my money to Ron Paul and get a much greater gift: a president who will restore the constitutional boundaries of this great, but fallen country.
What does Mitt Romney really believe in? Does he support the sovereignty of We the People of this constitutional republic? On at least a few occasions he has. When asked about abortion, Romney has recently said that he wants individual states to decide for themselves. Despite Romney's floundering on the issue in the past, he has come to the correct and constitutional stance on the issue. Kudos, Mitt. The federal government has strict constitutional duties, and legislating on abortion is not one of them.
But does Romney actually believe that the federal government should generally be held accountable to these restrictions, or only when it's convenient for him?
Here are five examples that I was able to quickly find that show that he definitely will not protect the limitations that we have imposed on our federal government:
He supports ALL of Mass. gun laws
Sure, Massachusetts is not held accountable to the second amendment, but they have some of the most oppressive gun laws around. Romney also says that he supports all of these laws personally. Does Romney think critically enough to not support these same laws on the federal level? It's a scary prospect, at best.
He doesn't believe in a States' authority to enact drug laws
Nowhere in the constitution do We the People grant the federal government the privilege to regulate "drugs". The states have implicit authority in this regard by virtue of the 10th amendment. Now listen carefully to this guy's question:
He didn't ask Mitt for his opinion on marijuana. He didn't ask Mitt whether or not marijuana should be illegal. He asked Mitt what he would do if a state were to exert its sovereignty and to democratically decide that marijuana will not be illegal in said state. Romney clearly shows in his response that he would disregard the state's clear right to do just that. He believes that marijuana should be made illegal in every state of this country. Period.
He would put someone in jail for prescribed medical marijuana use
No, he doesn't say so. Instead, he decides to run away like a kid that just got punched in the face... by a guy in a wheelchair... with muscular dystrophy. By default, this says to me that Romney would indeed put someone in jail for using medical marijuana. If he would not, then why is he not sure enough of himself to say so?
Ron Paul is sure of himself. He tells the same guy that he will never use federal power to put ANYONE in jail for marijuana use. Ron Paul understands his strict constitutional duties as president and is not afraid to declare them:
He wants to federally require VChips in all new computers
There are literally hundreds of existing methods to block pornography on computers. These are cheap and highly available to parents. There is simply no need for the federal government to step in and save the day. Even if this were not the case, there is no federal authority to control private companies in this way.
And yet Romney feels he can legislate his own morals on everyone else:
He supports legally defining Marriage.
You want a definition of marriage? I have one. Marriage is a voluntary contract between people defining whatever relationship responsibilities and privileges they desire. The government is neither a party to this contract, nor do they get to dictate or "define" any of its terms. Romney says that he believes that 1-Man, 1-Woman and one (silent) government together form a marriage and that this definition should be reflected in our laws. Sorry, but We the People have not explicitly given you that authority.
He thinks Obama is Osama
This is #6 of 5. #6 because this one doesn't have to do with the constitution at all, but really shows how blatantly stupid Romney can be.
I mean come on, you can here him say "Osa.." right before he corrects himself and says "Barack Obama" instead .... twice. It's almost as if Romney is concentrating so hard on reciting something rather than actually critically thinking about his statements.
By all means, vote for Romney if you sincerely like him, but have no delusions that he supports your own or your fellow humans' sovereign rights.
« Previous Page -- Next Page »