Rescind Emergency Powers!
August 21, 2005 at 03:26 PM | categories: liberty rants | View CommentsIn my last post I spoke of very current legislation. Today I wish to bring to attention something of a much more historical nature. In this country we have a terrible habit of introducing legislation that benefits us now and forgetting about it later once we took care of whatever it was that peice of legislation was about. In the most benign sense this is why we have so many so called "blue laws" still in effect which no one seems to care about, and in the most serious instance we have emergency powers. It is this latter part that I wish to bring to light.
- March 1933: Franklin D. Roosevelt declares a national state of emergency.
- So does Harry Trueman on December 16, 1950
- So does President Nixon on March 23, 1970 and again on August 15, 1971
Here is a Microsoft Word formatted version
Update Aug 22: I have sent off my letter to Senators Bennett and Hatch, Congressmen Mathesen, and George Bush himself. I will let you know as soon as I recieve any response from them.
To find out your representatives you can find out on the GovTrack website (the easiest way is to enter your nine digit zip code)
Summer of Woe and Indolence
August 19, 2005 at 09:00 PM | categories: liberty rants | View CommentsThis Summer, more legislation and statutes have disgraced this republic we call the United States of America then in all of my 24 years, and possibly in all of it's history. The worst part of it all though is this: I have been reading it after the fact. I am greatly disturbed that these decisions have been made by our political leaders, but even more so by my indolence towards finding out and my lack of doing anything to prevent it. These are but a few of the things that I have felt remorse for not doing a better job of forseeing and doing anything about:
- H.R. 1268 - The Emergency spending bill and 'REAL' ID act.
- Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA)
- The Patriot Act version 2.0
- Energy Tax Incentives Act of 2005
- The Supreme Court decision of Kelo v. City of New London
- H.R. 1268: See my blog entry.
- CAFTA: This bill was passed in Congress during a late night session in late July. The proponents of the bill broke the house rules and extended the voting period which had alread expired (with the bill voted down). They proceeded to bribe and steal as many votes as they could by promissing subsidies and benefits for the other representative's states. One estimate by a friend of Representative Ron Paul stated that these promises equate to over $50 billion in completely unrelated promises. These promises just get tacked onto our, the taxpayers bill. I'm all for free trade, but do we really need over one hundred pages to mention that we should have free trade? It must be a lot more than it is purpoted to be.
- Patriot Act 2.0: I hope you know about this one. This was passed briefly after the attacks on the east coast on September 11th, 2001. It was passed very quickly and without much thought about anyone's personal liberties. It was designed to combat 'terrorism.' The only good thing about the act was that it had sunset clauses. That the provisions it specified would end. Well here we are, in the middle of an ongoing war with Iraq, London get's bombed, twice. On the very day of the second London bombings, the Patriot Act's provisions are made permanent. That is, all but two of them. Those two are renewed for another 10 years. So, Those things that were passed in October of 2001 were thought so incredibly necessary to fight terrorism that that they would suspend most of the personal protections guaranteed by our constitution, are now found to be even more important now than they were before to make them permanent? It sounds to me more like the Patriot act is no longer so controversial in the minds of most. People have forgotten, people have thought to themselves, well it hasn't affected me at all, so it must be working. Even after we are are through with Iraq, even after the 'War on terrorism' is long forgotten, those provisions will still be in effect. By that time, probably most people will assume that that's the way it's always been, that 'Government knows best'.
- Energy tax incentives: The energy industry is probably one of the most profitable industries in the world. Everyone uses it, and very few provide it (what some would call a government sanctioned monopoly, some would call a cartel.) However, George Bush sees them differently. He sees them struggling to make ends meet. Among some of the more extravegant subsidies of this bill are:
- Over $2.9 billion alone is set aside in subsidies for the coal industry.
- A traffic light in Canoga Park, CA receives $100,000 in funding.
- A bridge to be built in Alaska, spanning from the mainland to an island with a population of fifty: $223 million.
- Kelo v. City of New London: Of all of these, this is probably the most blatant overriding of people's rights. The Supreme Court decided in June that it's OK for someone to take your house away from you as long as it's within the economic best interest of the community. Yes, the 5th ammendment does say that "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation", but do you really think that this is what they meant? If my house can be taken away at any moment, do I really own it? Unfortunately, no.
Government gas cartel enforced... After taxes!
June 03, 2005 at 03:34 AM | categories: liberty rants | View Comments
As if government taxes weren't enough, Maryland has decided (circa 2001) that they can tell a gas station what price they can and can't sell their gas for.
Apparently Maryland has legislated that a gas station can not sell gas for lower than what they pay for it. While maybe that's general good business sense, what right does the government have to mandate a price in the first place? The way I see it, they already taxed it. They already got their say (regardless if the tax was right in the first place). As long as the gas station could afford to do it, it sounds like a solid competitive business strategy. I honestly don't care if it pisses off the other gas stations in town, I'll buy from whoever has the cheapest gas prices this week.
Maryland is not only allowing price fixing, this time they are actively involved in a cartel by any reasonable definition of the word. Non-government affiliated organizations would be held accountable to anti-trust laws, but when the government does it themselves... who's to keep them accountable?
I like bumper stickers...
May 27, 2005 at 05:06 PM | categories: enigma curry, liberty rants | View Comments
... they express so much in so little space:
How I live my (libertarian) life
May 25, 2005 at 01:14 AM | categories: liberty rants | View Comments
A lot of people I know, know me as a libertarian. I have realized recently, that many people have no idea what that means.
Occasionally it is because they have never even heard the term libertarian before, however more often it is because of the limitations a single word description carries.
So let me clarify.
I would classify myself as an anarcho-capitalist libertarian. The reasons for this are:
- I have sole dominion over my own life.
- I have no right to forcibly interfere with the life of another, without them first doing so to me.
- No one gets to take my money unless I give them permission. This includes the government.
- I have no right to the money of anyone else unless they wish to give it to me or they are contracted to give it to me. This is also true even if the government steals it for me through "taxes" and gives it to me through "welfare" or "grants" (That last part I have failed to refuse in the past. That is something I hope never to fail again.)
- No one gets to take my time or services unless I draw up a contract with them. This includes a government draft. If I don't give them permission, it is slavery.
- As long as I don't violate #2, I can do anything I want to in my own home. This means the government can't tell me what I can and can't take into my own body. I didn't give them permission to tell me I can't smoke marijuana, but if they do anyway, then the power they have is not valid and not binding.
- I have the right to defend myself by any means necessary (again without violating #2). This means I can buy a gun. Any type of gun. I don't have to get some permission slip from someone to get one either, because I didn't give them permission to require one of me in the first place.
- I can live with whomever I want to. I can marry anyone I choose. Again, I don't need a permission slip. To put it another way: I and the person I love can contract together on any terms we see fit. The government has no authority to grant me a "marriage license".
All libertarians believe at least some of what I just wrote, but an anarcho-capitalist one should believe in all of it, for an anarcho-capitalist libertarian believes the following:
- Because governments are force over individuals, individuals would be better off if no government existed at all.
- If no government existed, individuals would be free to exercise sole dominion over their own lives. This essentially means they would be able to hold allodial title to land and other forms of property. If you have allodial title, you own it, and no one has any other claim to it. No taxes, no rent.
- If the above two were the state of things, then and only then, would a true free market emerge. With liberty from government regulation, and complete title to property, all transfers of wealth would be voluntary. No coercion (or outright theft) would be possible (and gotten away with that is).
Many I have talked to are put off with the anarcho part of anarcho-capitalist. Yes, it does mean anarchy. Anarchy does not mean chaos, nor does it mean disorder. Governments are chaos. Governments are disorder. Anarchy is the absence of both. Many people see anarchy as a world where the Mafia and rival gangs take control of the world. While there is always the risk of someone to take over a people by force, anarchy means the complete absence of all forceful agencies, whether they are traditional governments or rouge gangs. If a society is terrorized, then the society is not in a state of anarchy.
Even if multiple organizations were all fighting for control and not one group ultimately controlled, this would be a polyarchy and not an anarchy.
Another objection I receive is something like this: "You must believe in a utopian society where everyone is nice to each other and believes everything you believe in. If not, it wouldn't work."
I believe that if such a society did exist, one without government that is, we would not see a vast change from day to day life. The free-market would take control of all the roles that people demand of government now. People that did not follow rule #2 would again be dealt with by the free market. Someone stole from you? A free market version of justice would emerge, a collection agency would extract retribution on your behalf for a profit (Either by an insurance policy taken out prior to the theft, or even afterward for a percentage of the losses recouped.) For a good example of how this would work take a look at this page on Justice in Anarchy.
Not all libertarians go this far. About half are so-called Minarchist Libertarians. The society that they would propose I am a full supporter of. What I have written here are things that I have realized must be the rational and ultimate outcome of pure libertarian thought.
In an attempt to define libertarianism, albeit a bit generally and humorously, Dr Kenneth Bisson wrote: Libertarianism is what your mom taught you: behave yourself and don't hit your sister.
I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, "That government is best which governs not at all" - Civil Disobedience, Henry David Thoreau;
Further reading:
- The Anarchist Alternative
- The National Libertarian party
- Wikipedia: Anarcho-Capitalism
- 'On the Other Hand' - A collection of excellent Libertarian based essays by Jim Davies
- The world's smallest political quiz. Find out in 5 minutes where you stand.
- The "Libertarian Purity" quiz. A much more advanced libertarian exam (64 questions).
« Previous Page -- Next Page »