Kern for Congress

A Libertarian Foreign Policy

2012-01-30T14:20:00.000-08:00

At one point or another, everyone in the liberty movement has had to discuss foreign policy with other people. I'm always amazed at how much the theme of bringing the troops home and withdrawing from the political/military affairs of other countries is such a hard sell. Ron Paul supporters in particular take a lot of heat for this. We're labeled largely as naive isolationists who have a simplified view of world politics. The prevailing wisdom is that there's no world problem so big or small that it doesn't deserve some sort of active response from the United States government.

I've come to realize that our government's foreign policy is a carbon copy of its domestic policy- the policy of threatening to do what they say, or face state violence (the guns in the hands of the cops who will take you to jail for committing any number victimless crimes are the same weapons our president threatens to use against foreigners for not giving in to his demands- only scaled down). As such, it will achieve no more of its objectives abroad than its domestic policies do here at home.

What strikes me as simplified is the idea that people (and governments) in other countries will do what our government wants, provided they're threatened with enough violence. Naive is believing that threatening Americans with jail time for smoking marijuana will keep people from smoking it. It's at least as naive to believe that, say, the Iranian government will abandon its nuclear program (or roll over in some other way) just because they're threatened with sanctions, or that bringing democracy to the Middle East is just a few military invasions away, or that we can kill terrorists without innocent casualties. Perhaps it's not naive at all. Perhaps it's lunacy.

Still, there are many ready-made excuses for our ever-growing military presence around the world, one of which I will address here. I'm unsure of the details, but it goes a little something like this: There are radical suicidal Muslim fanatics who will stop at nothing until we're all dead or the world has been turned into an Islamic theocracy. Therefore, we must continue to send troops around the world to contain this threat (details omitted).

Let's take it for granted that there are people on the other side of the world whose sole purpose in life is to destroy the United States. Let's assume further that they cannot be reasoned with or paid off or appeased in any. If there are such people (and I do believe there are), I don't think there's any practical thing we can do about it. Really. It's simple to say we should just hunt them down and kill them, but I've seen one too many SWAT raids at the wrong address to believe that that's in the cards. The precision with which such an operation would need to be carried out is FAR too great for government to handle. The mightiest military the world has ever seen is utterly powerless to do what I just described. They can throw all the money they want at the situation and wait as long as they like, but the truth is that government will not solve this problem (if a solution even exists). It's naive to expect that it can, let alone will.

Which brings us to the libertarian policy- free, unlimited trade and diplomacy with all nations, military and political alliances with none (including the European countries), coupled with an absolutely limited domestic government. It's not perfect, but far and away the best weapon we have against terror is, like so much else, liberty.

Why? Because everybody who hasn't already had his mind poisoned does want to live in freedom. The appeal of living under the oppression of a dictatorship is no match for the appeal of living in a free nation where people can work, trade, and behave as they wish. To live free is a natural, instinctive desire of all human beings- even the children of suicidal terrorists. Giving that instinct a place to develop is the only effective way to combat terrorism. We won't be able to to change the minds of jihadists, but by restoring strictly limited government, by seeking ways to minimize the use of force in society, and by adopting and showcasing the philosophy of liberty to the world, we can prevent new ones from appearing. The bad news is that there's no hope of penetrating the minds of the younger generations on the other side of the world unless we lead by example. Indeed, it will take far more than merely closing a few military posts in foreign countries. In short, it will take a revolution in the way we view government's role not only regarding foreigners, but ourselves.

That is the rationale behind the libertarian foreign policy. Call it simplistic, slander it as isolationist, tell me how naive I am, pretend that men like Obama and Gingrich and Romney and Santorum have the slightest clue as to what they're talking about, do whatever you have to do to condemn it, but it's still the only shot we have at a return to normalcy. It is also the only policy befitting to a nation that's referred to as the Land of the Free. The alternative is to just let government run with it- which will leave many people dead and property destroyed, sacrifice long-term goals for fleeting short term victories, and guarantee a more violent world for ourselves and our children.

On SOPA, PIPA

2012-01-17T16:58:00.000-08:00

You may have heard about two internet-related bills floating around Congress. One is the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the other is the Protect IP Act (PIPA). Proponents of the bills say that they're supposed to give the government the power to better guard against copyright infringement on websites with media content and file sharing capabilities. Those who oppose the bills, which include many internet users as well as Google, Wikipedia and Reddit, claim that the proposed legislation would allow the government to completely shut down websites for the most benign copyright infringements, acting more like hired muscle for the entertainment industry than the policemen for property rights.

If you want to learn more about the bills, you can watch a few videos about it here, here and, if you can take it, here. Or if you've got some Advil handy, you can check out the text of the bills themselves. But I wouldn't bother with any of that if I were you. All I needed to hear were the words 'Congress', 'bill', and 'internet' in the same context, and I was already an opponent of whatever it was- for it doesn't matter what the bills are called, how many people of whatever group favor them, or what they're supposed to do. They could both be called the Make the Internet a Lot Faster act (or simply MILF), and I'd still oppose them- because they would still be government programs, and government programs never deliver what they promise.

The outrage over SOPA and PIPA intrigue me though, because they're ostensibly supposed to do something that's good...right? I mean it's not like they're the Shut Down YouTube bills or the Harass Facebook Users bills or the Destroy Online Media bills. So what's the worst that could happen?

After all, don't forget how the government has done such a wonderful job with other noble undertakings as housing and feeding and employing the poor, promoting racial harmony, keeping the banking industry from scamming us, spreading democracy around the world, managing the economy, balancing its own budget, educating our children, providing affordable healthcare, keeping elections clean, protecting our rights, maintaining our infrastructure, stopping drug abuse, taking care of our veterans, making sure food is safe, keeping us out of war, curbing inflation, delivering the mail, cleaning up crime, protecting the environment and stopping terrorism. All things considered, it only makes sense to give it a freer hand in policing the internet.

From watching videos of people who oppose the legislation, I get the impression that they only oppose it because it could potentially take down sites like YouTube and internet radio. I don't want YouTube taken down any more than the next guy, but that's not the best reason to oppose the legislation. It should be opposed because once any such legislation is passed, eventually there will be more. Endlessly more. When the internet becomes the federal government's plaything just like everything else I listed in the previous paragraph, you can kiss it goodbye. It'll become a fable you can tell your grandkids about, like when my grandparents tell me how doctors used to make house calls.

Why will it be bad? John Bain explains:

"You want to explain to me why we have a bunch of 50- to 70-somethings debating a bill that would affect the internet world wide- perhaps the greatest technological innovation that we've had for a very very long time? You want to tell me that these guys, who can barely use a keyboard, should be debating this and passing legislation of this magnitude? I'm gonna go with 'No'. It's like putting toddlers at the controls of a 747- but not just a 747; every 747, 777, Airbus A320, every aircraft in the world. Do you think that's a good idea?"

He goes on to point out the obvious (I paraphrase): if SOPA or PIPA pass, it won't only eventually destroy the internet as we currently know it, but it will ruin the chances of future innovations taking place. While passage of the bills might not completely take down YouTube (which would cause a massive backlash), they will censor it heavily, and possibly preclude the "next YouTube" from ever materializing.

He's absolutely right- and the same reasoning applies to almost everything the government touches.

The reason that ideas like this are even considered by Congress is because we've turned so much over to the government as it is. And thanks to that, we should be aware that while we might be able to beat back SOPA and PIPA today, they, or something like them, will be back eventually. I promise.

Hopefully, this is one area that will resonate with people enough to get them to question the wisdom of asking the government to try to solve any kind of problem. Not only should we seek to stop SOPA and PIPA by participating in blackouts, spreading the message on social media and writing our elected officials, but we should also give similar scrutiny to the many other economic, medical, social, moral, etc., problems that Congress tries to solve with politics and guns. Hasn't it done enough already?

The 2012 Liberty Victory

2012-01-02T14:58:00.000-08:00

If I could put money on it, I would bet that Barack Obama will be a two-term president. When he takes to the podium at his victory speech, no matter what the numbers are, he will interpret his win as the American people's unwavering stamp of approval of everything he signed into law during his first term. And he will look forward to another four years of expanding government in ways he sees fit. When all is said and done, conservatives will probably blame it on Ron Paul's supporters for not coming around.

"I hope you're happy," they'll spit. "Because you Ron Paulians were too stubborn to vote for Newt Romney, you cost us the election. Thanks to you, we're stuck with Obama for another four years." Of course, this will come on the heels of months of angry muttering about how a vote for a 3rd party (be it Ron Paul or Gary Johnson or whomever) is a vote for Obama.

Boo hoo. You can blame us if that's what makes you feel better. Personally I'd put most of the blame on the people who actually voted for Obama (even though, as an aside, I don't understand how anybody could still support him a since he did a 180 on basically all the important things he campaigned on), but I'd also say that the Republican establishment deserves a little blame, too. Because for all the conservative media, for all the millions of dollars at its disposal, for all its advantages over third parties in the electoral process, and the upper hand that come merely by having incumbents all over the country to trumpet its case, it still couldn't come up with a candidate who could successfully sell his story to enough Americans eligible to vote. In 2008, Obama won with less than a third of all voters casting their vote for him- more people than that chose to stay home.

In truth, we're against Obama just as much as any republican. The difference is that we understand that electing Romney isn't going to be any better. Whether or not you believe it's true doesn't matter to us. Save your crying and your whining about the Constitution and your Don't Tread On Me flags and pretending to want limited government and all the rest of it. If you're going to elect an establishment politician like Mitt Romney, you know you're not going to get any of that, so why even bother showing up?

So long as your primary goal is just to get the democrats out of office, we, the people who want real liberty, are not going to play ball. This, I believe, will be the bittersweet victory for liberty in 2012. It will be the year that those of us who want personal and economic freedom for all people; who want an end to war; who rail against centralized power; who hate politics and politicians; who want to keep every cent of what we earn, to give away, invest or spend as we please- will make ourselves known. And we're here to stay.

To be sure, the liberty movement is still in its infancy, but it's undeniably more popular right now than it ever was. Now, we actually have libertarian TV shows (Stossel and Freedom Watch), which virtually unheard of just five years ago. More to the point- we now have the numbers to hold one of the major political parties hostage. Dare I say, we would rather see the next 50 elections go to the democrats than vote for an establishment republican candidate in whom we do not believe. Because (and this is important) if we don't get the option of voting for a liberty candidate, then we honestly don't care who wins. Gone are the days of us settling for the lesser of two evils. We're over it. We've lived through enough elections to know that it doesn't even matter. If voting Republican means turning our backs on our principles, we won't do it. We know we have nothing to gain by it, we've already accepted that you'll blame us, and we just don't care.

Thus, I have two messages to deliver. The message to the republican establishment is this: you will lose elections unless you start putting candidates out there who have a genuine interest in reducing government. So long as you keep alienating us and calling us unelectable, we're going to see to it that your cookie cutter one-dimensional paid-for yes-man candidates are also unelectable. We'll cast our votes against them and we'll do it with a smile.

The message to the American public is this: Elections are not contests to see who's most popular. They've become contests to see who's less unpopular. So long as you agree to hold your nose to vote for incompetent lying people whom you don't actually want to win, those are the only kinds of candidates the establishments are going to put in front of you. This is true no matter your political affiliation. Know in advance that it's going to take more than one election cycle to properly communicate this. Hell, it might take a dozen. But if you don't take a stand at some point and start withhold your support from these parties that care nothing about your welfare, you may as well stay home and accept your fate- that your country will be governed by the worst among us and you didn't have the strength to try to stop it.

Passing Thoughts on The Debt Ceiling

2011-07-31T13:14:00.000-07:00

Every time a school year draws to a close and I send another class away from the relative safety of a high school environment, I start to despair. I look at those kids with their graduation day smiles and their unending optimism, and I wonder how the hell they're going to survive in the world that they're going to inherit.

The hysteria over the debt ceiling is starting to disgust me. All I see on TV is finger-pointing and political theater as democrats and republicans try to paper over the government's financial problems, stick some future generation with paying for it, and look like heroes doing it. They will succeed on all three counts.

What burns me up the most is the talk about defaulting. The government will default on its debts if the ceiling isn't raised! Something must be done! I have news, folks. The government defaults on its obligations every day. It has defaulted on its centuries-old obligation to maintain our freedom. Freedoms promised us in the Bill of Rights; freedom to make a living how we want; freedom to travel; freedom to make our own choices in what to buy or sell, freedom to plan our own retirements; and freedom from crime, endless war, and rules that regulate nearly every human behavior.

Of course I understand that liberty doesn't mean squat to the average American. But the government does default on its pecuniary obligations as well. It defaults every time it devalues its currency, but it also assures default by making impossible promises which other people are expected to pay for. The tab for these promises grows by the minute, and at some point, that bag will be too big for some generation to be left holding.

Think this will never happen? Do you really believe we can continue like this for another fifty years? Whose problem do you think it will be when our government's creditors stop lending it money? It sure as hell won't matter to guys like Boehner and Obama; they'll be long gone when this happens. No, the rug's coming out from under our children in the form of either crushing taxation, runaway inflation, or promises that will never be kept. And then things are going to get ugly.

We're still at a stage where things can be fixed with a minimum of pain. They could refuse to raise the debt limit, forego their own paychecks, admit that most of the promises government has made are illegitimate, and start having a real transparent discussion about how to renege on those phony untenable promises in the least painful way possible. But that will never happen. Ever.

Instead, all I hear about is some vague talk about debt limit increases, tax cuts over ten years, and bipartisan compromise. It's the compromise that scares me, because all it means is that both political parties get what they want, and government continues to grow. The only thing that will be compromised will be our posterity's standard of living if we continue to elect the same people who've been squandering our resources and labor for decades.

Maybe the lesson to take away from this is that the importance of independence can't be overstated. Turn off the TV, stop taking every political promise at face value, and start looking for ways to be more independent. Let this and future debt ceiling "debates" remind you that the less your fate is in the hands of politicians, the better; and pass this message on to your children as I try to pass it to my students.

Casey Anthony Walks

2011-07-05T14:27:00.000-07:00

Where this trial came from or how it turned into some cult news sensation, I have no idea. It's especially peculiar because while some people have been obsessing over it, others haven't even heard of Casey Anthony.

It was usually on TV where I live, so I caught bits and pieces of the trial over the last few weeks. It seemed to be a little ponzi scheme of hype- it was big news because HLN insisted it was big news. Evidently, a lot of people bit.

I don't think there was anything particularly spectacular about the trial itself, aside from the media frenzy (breaking into other programs for updates on this or that) and the media's pronouncing the defendant guilty of murder from the outset. If you watched the trial during one of its breaks or when they cut to the anchors, it was like a nonstop cheerleading session for the prosecution.

I started to wonder how many people even noticed it. I also wondered how much being constantly told someone is guilty might potentially sway someone's opinion. Some say the media has liberal slant, some say it has a conservative slant- I say the media has a pro-government slant, and the Casey Anthony trial is a good example.

The overwhelming consensus of the TV audience is that she was guilty. If you noticed that all of your friends suddenly turned into armchair lawyers in the hour or so following the verdict, it's because in the end, Mrs. Anthony was acquitted on all counts of murder.

I keep my eyes open, and I see more injustice than the average person ever gets to see (anyone who reads Reason Magazine generally does). I've read stories of men serving time for crimes they didn't commit. I've seen men serve out sentences that were exponentially harsher than what their crime warranted. I've read stories of people getting exonerated while sitting on death row (having rotted there for years, and sometimes decades)- and with no compensation after the fact. Name anything about the American justice system, and I guarantee it has its disgraceful elements- from how juries are selected to how laws are written to how evidence is gathered to how due process is afforded the accused, all the way up through how sentences are carried out- and beyond. I could go on for some time. The deck is clearly stacked against defendants when the plaintiff is government.

I don't know the details of the Casey Anthony trial, and I certainly can't say beyond a reasonable doubt whether she did what they said she did (I'm glad I didn't have to). For whatever reason, neither did her jury, and that's why they let her skate. The defense convinced them that the government hadn't met its burden of proof and the verdict made many people unhappy. I'll say this: If the only price we have to pay for sparing innocent people from the jaws of a prison/death sentence is saddling the government with a stiff burden of proof- even if it's the same burden which, this time, let a guilty woman go free- we're getting a bargain. I'd let Casey Anthony walk ten times over if I knew the same judicial process afforded ironclad protections for the innocent.

Note that I do hate the idea of letting the truly guilty go free. But I despise the notion that people could be convicted on a mere probability of guilt, because I understand that the Probable Guilt Standard would inevitably apply to the innocent as well. Better the system be imperfect in favor of the guilty than against the innocent. Let this one slide. Can't win em all, folks.

Gay Marriage: A Special Interest Victory

2011-06-25T12:09:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, New York became the largest state to recognize marriages of gay and lesbian couples. Many people haven't thought the same-sex marriage issue through much further than "The government should let any couple get married." But same-sex couples aren't lobbying simply to be granted a marriage certificate or to be allowed to love- they're fighting for special treatment from the government.

Wanting to see what that special treatment was, I came across a New York Times article that summed it up (appropriately in the Business section). It begins:

Couples may marry for love, but the partnership is also an economic one. And now that New York has become the sixth state to perform same-sex marriage, couples who tie the knot here will gain a variety of financial benefits and legal rights.

Note: what same-sex couples are gaining are privileges granted by the state; not rights. I guess without the financial benefits and the extra "rights", same-sex marriage wouldn't even be an issue. I find it pretty funny that what's usually held up as some kind of issue of civil equality is really in large part about tax breaks to the special interest group known as married couples.

The article mentions benefits in the realms of: income taxes, estate and gift taxes, health insurance, inheritance rights, state employee benefits, and parentage. These probably aren't the first words that leap to mind when you think of what constitutes a marriage. But they're what count, and it really goes to show how much presence government has in our personal lives.

Of course, I would say that allowing same-sex couples to marry only makes this situation worse. Why? Because instead of questioning the role of government in these matters and having a debate over what gives it the right to dole out such benefits in the first place, we went ahead and gave it more legitimacy in sticking its hand into our private lives. It should treat all its employees the same, and has no business conferring special legal/financial status on couples. And while creating new rules for a specific class of people seems like a step forward, in some respects it is a step back.

But then again, I'm of those crazy people who think the government should treat us as individuals, no matter what the circumstances. If you disagree, not to worry! Mine is a vanishing minority.

The CNN Republican Primary Debate

2011-06-14T09:15:00.000-07:00

If you missed the Republican primary debate last night, you didn't much. It was basically a gameshow where everybody lost- including the audience. Some of the questions were very stupid (Elvis or Johnny Cash?), and the moderator did little to cut off the candidates' rambling answers.

The establishment candidates (Santorum, Bachmann, Romney, Pawlenty, Gingrich) used the platform to substitute boilerplate for specific answers, regale the crowd with their past legislative achievements, and to take cheap shots at the President. Everything about them screamed 'politician'. They embodied all the things the average person doesn't like about politicians by coming off as disingenuous self-seeking replicas of their political ancestors.

The non-establishment had their own problems. I've heard some people talking favorably about Herman Cain, but he lost my interest when he spoke of himself as a man who solves problems. The last thing I want to hear about is a politician who wants to solve problems. Indeed, the state of the nation is the result of politicians trying to save us with their solutions.

Ron Paul was the main reason I tuned in to the debate. I do like Ron Paul, and I wonder whether that's the reason I'm so quick to distinguish him from the other candidates. While people might disagree with him, he at least doesn't come off like a slimy politician who's only trying to aggrandize his own power. What sets Ron Paul apart from the pack is that he sounds sincere and comes with a touch of humility- two qualities rare among people running for office.

I wish Dr. Paul had a better way of making his platform palatable to the average Joe Nobody who just wants a job and to make sure the financial rug's not ripped out from under him when he goes to retire. While I agree with his message, talking about Keynes and fiat currency isn't going to resonate with anyone but the people who already strongly support him. He also needs to keep his answers concise. That alone would be enough.

I would have a comment here about Gary Johnson (the only other guy in the whole bunch with his head screwed on straight), but he wasn't even invited to the debate. I guess CNN thought their lineup was already diverse enough- even with five basically interchangeable candidates making the list.

So on the whole, the debate was an embarrassment. It was a reminder of why people don't trust politicians and a lot of people don't trust the Republican party. It's anybody's guess as to whom will ultimately be selected to run against Obama, but I don't think anyone has a chance to beat him except Ron Paul (from last night's group, anyway). In short, last night was a showcase of why the Republican party is a self destructive combination of hubris and incompetence. It looks like Obama has his second term in the bag.

What a Real President Sounds Like

2011-06-02T17:04:00.000-07:00

I read a book once by a man who was running for president. The following is an excerpt from that book:

The President of the U.S. is the most powerful person in the world. He can personally make your life miserable or he can make it much freer. And when he can't do something personally, he can lead.

On my first day in office, by Executive Order I will:
Pardon everyone who has been convicted on a federal, non-violent drug charge, order the immediate release of those in prison, reunite them with their families, and restore all their civil rights.
Pardon everyone who has been convicted on any federal gun-control charge, order the immediate release of those in prison, and restore all their civil rights.
Pardon everyone who has been convicted of a federal tax evasion charge, order the immediate release of those in prison, and restore all their civil rights.
Pardon everyone else who has been convicted of a victimless federal crime, order the immediate release of those in prison, and restore all their civil rights.
I will make it clear to federal law enforcement agents and prosecutors that we want the violent criminals off the streets. No U.S. Attorney should waste his time or the taxpayers' money prosecuting people who haven't intruded on anyone's person or property. Every member of the federal criminal justice system should understand that prison space is only for criminals who have hurt someone.
I will announce a policy to penalize, dismiss, or even prosecute any federal employee who violates the Bill of Rights by treating you as guilty until proven innocent, by searching or seizing your property without due process of law, by treating you as a servant, or in any other way violating your rights as a sovereign American citizen.
I will immediately order that no federal asset forfeiture can occur if the property's owner hasn't been convicted by full due process- and I will initiate steps to make restitution to anyone whose property has been impounded, frozen, or seized by the federal government without being convicted by dur process. Over 80% of such seizures occur when no one has even been charged with a crime.
As Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, I will immediately remove all American troops from foreign soil. Europe and Asia can pay for their own defense, and they can risk their own lives in their eternal squabbles. This will save billions of dollars a year in taxes, but - more important- it will make sure your sons and daughters will never fight in someone else's war.
As Commander in Chief I will remove all American troops from under the command of the UN or any other foreign organization.
As President I will make sure the executive branch stops harrassing smokers, tobacco companies, successful computer companies, gun owners, gun manufacturers, alternative medicine suppliers, religious groups (whether respected or labeled as "cults"), investment companies, healthcare providers, businessmen, and anyone else who is conducting his affairs peaceably.
I will end federal affirmative action, federal quotas, set-asides, preferential treatments, and other discriminatory practices of the federal government. [...]

And then I will break for lunch.

After lunch, I will begin removing from the Federal Register thousands and thousands of regulations and executive orders inserted there by previous presidents. [...]

He goes on like this for a few pages. It's one of the most memorable passages from anything I've ever read. The man's name was Harry Browne, and the book is The Great Libertarian Offer. If you notice, it doesn't read like it was written by a politician. There are no platitudes, no clichés, no uncertain terms, and no grandstanding or partisanship. It was clearly written by a man who had a specific plan and who intended on following through with it. It's a prescription for actual change that would affect real Americans immediately- none of that "I'll get to it in six months" or "Within ten years, we'll have X Y Z" garbage we hear from every other politician who rides a wave of empty promises into office. I believe such a platform would be very popular among the American people, but I guess I'll never know for sure; candidates with such views (when they exist) are barred from taking part in national debates. And that's a real shame, because any candidate who doesn't specifically address (and plan to make good on) at least five of those points isn't worthy of the office.

The reason I bring this up is to illustrate how much of a disgrace our current president actually is. He is truly an empty suit who is content to walk in the footsteps of his predecessors and who has absolutely no genuine interest in changing the United States back into the free nation everyone pretends it is. Any of the above bullet points could be executed with the stroke of the President's pen. Why do you think he refrains from doing so?

The Case Against Drug Prohibition

2011-05-22T09:24:00.000-07:00

I read a Facebook post recently that criticized Ron Paul's stance on ending the (federal) war on drugs. The quote that stuck out to me was (fairly paraphrased):

"People don't have the right to use drugs. Drugs is a social problem, not a freedom issue. They hurt everyone around those using them, destroys societies, etc. This is about the destruction and the aftereffects on society."

He went on to cite an incident where a kid from his neighborhood got himself all coked out and killed a couple of people with his car.

Touché on the anecdote. People on drugs do commit criminal acts and do cause innocent people to suffer. But prohibition causes innocent people to suffer as well- and in similar ways. So, this is my case against drug prohibition. I'll ignore the huge economic benefits of legalization, the unconstitutionality of prohibition, the relative destructiveness of legal alcohol, and the philosophical arguments for letting adults make their own choices in our supposedly free society.

I disagree that legalization is not a freedom issue. We have this terrible habit of criminalizing whatever we find distasteful (smoking, certain foods, certain speech, firearms, etc.) and it's got to stop. All of those things used in the extreme can have negative effects. But in most instances, when these things do affect someone, they might merely be a nuisance or visually offensive- but not so much as to make victims out of the offended parties.

What's more, things that are potentially dangerous can, in fact, be used responsibly. This is where drug use becomes an issue of freedom. Even though drugs are abused by many, they can be used responsibly without injuring anyone, the user included. Such users do not deserve to be treated as criminals. But even though they haven't committed any crime against anyone, they will invariably be casualties of drug criminalization. The penalties can be harsh. If caught, they will be treated as felons and can potentially have their lives destroyed. They're ruined by the law, not the drugs. So I ask: who speaks up in defense of the responsible users, whose crime has no victim?

Almost no one loses sleep over punishing people for victimless crimes, though. Their case for prohibition usually rests on how drugs can harm totally innocent people. People can be dangerous and reckless in any number of ways when they're high, and that recklessness can end up hurting or even killing people. Examples might include a family torn apart by a son's drug abuse, or a child killed by someone who's high and behind the wheel. These certainly do happen, and nobody likes it. But there are innocent similarly people harmed by prohibition, too.

The family affected by drug abuse might just as easily be ruined when the son gets a mandatory minimum prison sentence for a minor drug infraction. Or when some innocent party's property is seized by the government because of trumped up charges from a prosecutor trying to make a name for himself. Or when the SWAT team comes on an anonymous tip and accidentally kills someone because they raided the wrong house (or otherwise acted recklessly, like shooting first and asking questions later, or killing people with flashbang grenades). Prohibition brings the unforgiving hand of the state into the situation, onto the heads of the innocent as well as the guilty. Who speaks up in defense of the innocents harmed by the government as a result of prohibition?

One doesn't need to have a relative killed or property stolen by the government to be an innocent victim, however. One could simply have a legitimate medicine denied or withheld from him because of political hysteria over drug abuse. Got a condition where you need marijuana and a vaporizer to relieve pain or regulate your appetite? Tough break. Your options are to lobby your legislature, quietly suffer, or find a black market. Which do you think is most effective? Innocent people go through this every day. They're in need of medication, but have little choice but to wait it out while politicians dither over the most politically acceptable way of distributing drugs they find appropriate. By means of red tape, greater expense, outright denial, and the threat of punishment for ignoring the law, drug prohibition continues to make victims out of those who want to use drugs for genuine medicinal purposes. That these people are relatively few in number makes no difference.

Who speaks up in defense of these and other victims of prohibition? If you ask the victims themselves, you'll find plenty of people. But those people, myself included, don't matter. We're ignored because we don't have enough political pull. And if there's one thing that trumps reason, liberty and justice, it's political pull. Clearly, there will be victims with or without prohibition. The difference is merely that the victims of prohibition are more politically acceptable.

It bothers me very much to know that some of the money I pay in taxes is used to prosecute people for victimless crimes; to buy the weapons and armor for local police who execute no-knock raids on my neighbors; to pay politicians to keep medicine out of reach of people who need it. But there's nothing I can do about that. It is the reality that has evolved from way back when people thought passing laws to control people's behavior was a good idea.

For those who still think that, I would like to recommend a "good prohibition"- a system that facilitates safe recreational drug use, helps people who have abuse problems, permits everyone access to the medicine they want, and exclusively punishes those who commit crimes against others....but there is no governing body that will punish only the guilty and spare the innocent. Government doesn't work that way, and our current drug war exhibits all the proof you could want. There can never be any such "good prohibition" as I just described; prohibition on the whole needs to end. For we only have two choices: Either we have a free society with some irresponsible people who are hard to control, or we have an unfree society with irresponsible people who are hard to control, plus an irresponsible government which nobody controls.

Which scenario scares you more?

On bin Laden's Death

2011-05-02T17:08:00.000-07:00

After I heard of Osama bin Laden's death this morning, my first reaction was to shrug and ask, "So?" I was extremely surprised to find that overnight there were massive gatherings in the streets outside the White House and on college campuses to cheer about it. It was an embarrassing display of what passes for patriotism.

This, of course, changes nothing. Osama bin Laden is dead, but Americans still have to live with his legacy.

We still need to be patted down at airports by government agents. The government still tracks our every financial transaction. We still have security checkpoints inside our borders. Warrantless wiretaps still exist in the United States. Our government still detains people without trial or charge. And worst of all, we're still caught up in expensive open-ended wars which guarantee that our list of enemies will continue to grow. These things have become a permanent part of our lives as Americans- supposedly the most free people on earth.

In short, I don't have time for symbolic victories, no matter what the magnitude. Give me a call when something happens that's worth celebrating. In the meantime, it's the beginning of May, which means we're officially one third into 2011. Since about a third of my income goes straight out the door in taxes, I figure that the four months out of the year I have to spend working to fund the government is behind me now. Perhaps this is a day worth celebrating after all.

The Madison Standoff: A Lose-Lose

2011-02-22T11:44:00.000-08:00

I've read several articles on the Madison standoff. The general idea is that Republican Governor Scott Walker is demanding wage and benefit cuts and an end to the union's collective bargaining rights. As of this writing, the union bosses have given in to the cuts, but are holding out on the right to bargain collectively. Pro-union legislators have fled Madison in order to block a quorum of votes in the Senate. Schools have been closed, and there are physicians on the streets writing sick notes to excuse the absences of any teachers who might otherwise face disciplinary action. It is absolute lunacy.

Admittedly, my instinct is to side with Governor Walker, only because his propositions would supposedly translate to lower taxes for people who have no dealings with the public schools. But if I'm to be honest, the only groups I can sympathize with are the kids who are missing school and their parents. Everyone else is looking out for himself, and is using some sort of political mechanism to get what he wants. When government is embedded into the fabric of people's jobs and lives like this, clashes like those in Madison become inevitable. But take away the fiery rhetoric of both sides, and the only thing left is an embarrassing public political battle like any other.

The solution is not to curtail benefits or preserve collective bargaining, or anything else that either side in Madison (or Columbus or Trenton any other state capital) is fighting for. The solution is the privatization of education. By that, I do not mean setting up a voucher system or instituting charter schools with permission of the state or any other solution typically offered by politicians and pundits. I mean the total separation of school and state, where the government has no control over anything from salaries to certifications to curricula. This should done from preschool through the highest levels of post-graduate education.

Why? Because teaching is basically a government job, and everything about a public school is, at some level, regulated by government- including what is taught, who's allowed to teach, and how the workers are compensated. It's all funded by taxpayers, and the people calling the shots need only cater to enough voters to win the next election to stay in power. The only way to combat this type of political machinery is either to have it legally dismantled or to unionize against it. Unfortunately, we've taken the latter path, and so have transformed American education into a struggle between governments and organized labor. It is now a game of force against force, of strikes and budget crises, demands and concessions, protests, propaganda, and all other manner of poison fruit that hangs from the tree of politics.

Taking sides in a Wrong Versus Wrong battle is a waste of time. If we're to make any progress as a nation, we need markets in education. We need things like pay, faculty, staff, and curricula determined not by politicians, but by what people want. We do not need government dictates or corporate sponsorship to unions or taxpayer funds to create good schools. What we do need is a radical departure from the status quo; the liberty to experiment with education how we please in an environment unfettered to the greatest extent possible by government red tape. To talk of anything else is to ignore the root of the problem and as such will guarantee repeats of the Madison spectacle in the future.

The ideal transition from government control to private control would likely take decades, but it would be worth it to the generations of children that can be free of today's educational paradigms. Even though it's far beyond today's horizon, it's worthy of public debate- much more so than who should blink first in the contest between state governments and teacher unions. Our children deserve better.

An Open Letter to Governor Christie Concerning Brian Aitken

2010-11-26T11:21:00.000-08:00

Governor Christie,

Several days ago, I read about the case of Brian Aitken in Reason Magazine. He was arrested and convicted of violating one of New Jersey’s draconian gun laws. I am writing this to request Brian Aitken be granted an executive pardon.

The details surrounding Mr. Aiken’s tour through our justice system would horrify anyone with a sense of justice. The law of which he accidentally ran afoul is a leftover from the irrationally anti-gun Corzine administration, and the way information was withheld from the jury by Judge Morely is simply unacceptable.

What’s worse is the sentence. A seven-year prison sentence is grossly disproportionate to the nature of his infraction; it is seven years of living in a nightmare. It is the destruction of seven years of an honest man’s life- and then comes the epilogue: living the rest of his life as a convicted felon, making earning a living in any professional capacity impossible. And all this is because of what amounts to overaggressive law enforcement preying on someone’s innocent mistake.

I do not know Brian Aitken personally, but I was nonetheless deeply moved by the story of his conviction. His case is a clear indication that we do not live in a nation with liberty and justice for all. It chokes me up with anger to know that something like this could take place in the land of the free.

I am certain that this case is not unusual, and that similar instances occur every day in the United States- so often, in fact, that they go unnoticed. It doesn’t make the news every time some anonymous nobody with no political pull gets railroaded by our justice system. Thankfully, your executive power to grant clemency is a last chance to correct this situation. It falls on your shoulders to use your legal authority to remedy the failures of the system and to take back the unjust hand dealt to Mr. Aitken.

The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world, and the list of people who have been victimized by the system which is supposed to protect them is very long. Brian Aitken’s name is on that list, but thanks to Radley Balko at Reason, his name has been highlighted. Mr. Governor, don’t squander the opportunity to change this man’s life by doing what it just. Save Brian Aitken from a seven year prison sentence and reunite him with his family.

In Liberty,

William Kern

On Jon Runyan

2010-08-19T19:54:00.000-07:00

I saw a TV spot for for Jon Runyan today. It was cute in a generic sort of way, so went to his website to look at his issues. Surely a rookie candidate with over 3300 Facebook fans has a platform that's really going to turn Washington around...

Or will it? A cursory glance looks pretty good, but if you're paying attention, Jon Runyan's platform is actually pretty cookie-cutter. Here is the review of his Issues (not in order).

1. Cutting Taxes and Creating Jobs

Mr. Runyan has eight tax-cutting recommendations. They all sound pretty good in a better-than-nothing sort of way (like increasing the child tax credit from $1000 to $1250). I'm especially a fan of permanently repealing the grave injustice that is the Death Tax. But while I'm always in favor of cutting taxes for whatever reason, lowering taxes is a plank in every politician's platform. They're just words- especially without corresponding cuts in spending. Which brings us to...

2. Balancing the Federal Budget

Runyan talks about the debt, and wants a balanced budget. Everyone wants a balanced budget. The problem is that there are many things currently that are not counted in the official federal budget, such as advance appropriation (which "spends" in the future), delayed payments (putting off costs until the following fiscal year), and emergency and supplemental spending. There's no cap on these things, and none appear on official budgets. Oh, and neither does funding for Social Security, Medicare, the Post Office, or mortgage lending by Freddie and Fannie.

So talk of a balanced budget is largely meaningless so long as there are loopholes. The problem is the power to spend, not the spending itself. But in any case, to balance the budget (even to fake-balance a budget), some things need to be cut. In Runyan's Issues section, I can't find any specific cuts he wants to make. He does mention things he wants to spend on, though. Things like...

3. Beach Replenishment & Shore Tourism

What?

Federal legislators, as a rule, should stay out of state business. But this is why they don't: it's a classic ploy to buy votes. "Vote for me and I'll give you federal money." This is where corruption comes from. It's why people get elected and stay in office. I'm not saying Mr. Runyan is corrupt, but he should use his power to work towards ending this this practice.

4. Military & Veterans Affairs

A sentence in this section reads: "I will ensure that our active military fighting to defend freedom around the world have all the tools necessary to defeat our enemies and return home safely to their family and friends."

This one is straight out of the Republican handbook. The United States has little legitimate business "defending freedom around the world." I want my own freedoms defended and the troops brought home. There are many people who believe war is necessary, and that the same government which has failed to secure the freedoms of its own citizens can effectively police the world. I just happen to disagree, and would rather the troops be brought home immediately. The government's job is to keep us out of war.

5. Seniors, Social Security & Medicare

Here, Runyan talks about keeping Social Security and Medicare solvent (impossible), as well as steering money towards (buying votes from) Burlington and Ocean counties (not federal business), and funding medical research he wants to fund. With our money. Whether we like it or not. We do need to honor the commitments made to the seniors who are helpless without their promised government handouts, but work needs to be done to free future generations as quickly as possible from these corrupt and wasteful programs. We need them gone, not done differently.

6. Energy

Runyan is rightfully critical of the Cap-and-Trade scam, and is in favor of letting states deal with their offshore energy production. These are both positives, but then he goes on about promoting both nuclear energy and the green agenda. And then there's the classic bit about the energy independence fairytale at the end.

I don't believe Congress can write respectable laws, much less determine energy policy. The federal government already subsidizes everything under the sun, which only politicizes the economy. The mere 535 people in congress need to back off of doing what they think is right, and let the other some 300 million people determine our energy policy.

7. Affordable, High Quality Healthcare

While rightly opposing Obamacare, Runyan wants to "start over with a more incremental approach." Wrong answer. There are at least half a dozen things that could be done to legitimately lower the cost of insurance and improve the quality of care, none of which involve the federal government calling the shots. Keep the incremental approach and stay out of it, please. Even among conservatives, this one should be a letdown.

8. Israel

The webpage says it best: As a member of Congress, I will strongly support continued foreign aid to Israel to ensure they have the tools necessary to stand strong in the face of hostilities by their enemies.

Just because it's called Foreign Aid doesn't mean it's not destructive and wasteful. If you want to help Israel or any other foreign country, send your own money and your own children. Our taking sides in foreign conflicts is a cause of our problems, not a solution.

9. Immigration

Taxes, war, education, and our welfare state are much bigger issues than immigration, so Runyan's conservative stance on immigration doesn't bother me as much as it probably should. Rather than go on the offensive, I'd like to see an easing of the path to citizenship (whatever that means exactly), but I'm willing to pick my battles on this one.

10. Congressional Term Limits

The real problem is political power, not the person who wields it. So I have serious doubts as to whether term limits are a real solution to anything. But until Congress gets under control, I do support Jon Runyan's call for term limits.

11. 2nd Amendment

His 2nd Amendment stance is out of the Republican playbook. I'd like to know what he means by "cracking down in illegal guns," but aside from that, this one's a keeper.

12. Marriage

When asked about marriage, all federal legislators should say, "No comment." Marriage should be totally done by contract- it shouldn't be a government issue at all, let alone a federal one.

* * * *

This is pretty typical political fluff that you're likely to hear from any Republican. It's great if you agree with all of it, but this isn't someone who strikes me as a candidate that people who want limited government would rally around. I see Jon Runyan as a guy who wants to go to Washington on his name recognition in order to do what he wants to do. Isn't that why most people run for office? To do what they want to do?

I like that his tax cut ideas are specific, but where are the others? What about the drug war? The spending? Education? The current overseas occupations? Trade? The welfare state? Whether he has Tea Party support or not, I can't get behind a guy who is so generic with his platform. When the best slogan you have is "The other guy is worse," what's that really say about you?

It says to get ready for the continuation of politics as usual. While Jon Runyan's election probably won't kill us, it doesn't look like it will significantly change the course we're on, either.

Last Night's Education Payoff

2010-08-05T19:54:00.000-07:00

When the recession hit, the administration where I work (private school) confronted the whole staff and warned that we may be getting pay cuts- either those, or layoffs. It wasn't because someone messed up and ran the school into the ground financially, and it wasn't a result of mismanagement on our part. It was the result of forces beyond our control, and it was very simple: We're in trouble and if the money's not there, this is what will happen. No running to the government for favors. It's called living in reality.

Last night, a bankrupt Senate that can't balance a checkbook gave $26 billion to state governments that also can't balance a checkbook, $10 billion of which went for "teacher retention." Where did the money come from? They did what they always do; they kicked the can down the road. The money is supposedly coming from closing some corporate tax loophole and will, it is said, be paid back over ten years. This is called living in a fantasy, and it should bother a whole lot of people.

It is true that the money will prevent teacher layoffs, but that's only because public school wages do not operate in a market. They're mandated by contract between unions and government. This is where the corruption starts. The politicians join the unions in maintaining the Three Great Fictions: that American education is the best in the world, that student performance is a function of how much money is thrown at it, and that we would all be doomed without a government monopoly over the school system.

The Politicians

The primary skill of a politician is to get elected, and the primary skill of an incumbent is to get reelected. They like to have blocs of people they can count on for votes, so they steer money towards schools. It's a nice exchange; votes for money. Last night's bill was nothing more than a political bribe.

The Unions

The primary goal of the unions is their own survival. They get politicians votes in exchange for tax money, which they use to lavish teachers with good pay and unbelievable benefits. If the money stops coming, however, the house of cards collapses. To make sure that doesn't happen, they can get always get more funding in one of two ways: 1) Threatening politicians to withdraw their support for upcoming elections, and 2) selling the public their fake sob story about how, without wage hikes, the kids will suffer. Union bosses also get to look like the heroes when they distribute the cash to the teachers.

The Teachers

The teachers are the pawns in the unions' political game, and many of them know it. The ones who don't, however, seem to be under the impression that the union looks out for their best interests, and are happy to sell their vote for pay hikes. Those same teachers are the ones who believe their compensation is unfair. But the politics of union negotiations keeps teacher compensation above market (whether they recognize it or not), and many teachers will raise hell at the slightest hint of their earnings possibly getting pared back to something more in touch with fiscal reality.

The Public

In spite of how increased spending has produced little more than higher taxes and test scores that have been flatlining for the last forty years, somehow the public still believes The Three Fictions. There's probably nothing for which the average taxpayer is willing to open his wallet than education. There's almost no recognition of the fact that teaching is a highly political job and the fact that the public school system is little more than a perpetual motion machine of politics. The students graduate knowing exactly what the government wants them to know.

So what happens when the federal government, which has no idea whatsoever about how to deal with its own problems, showers the states with billions of dollars? If history is any indication, test scores will remain unaffected, the political grip on the system will be once more tightened, and taxes will go up (that bit about getting the money by closing a corporate tax loophole is an illusion- when taxes on businesses go up, the businesses simply raise their prices accordingly and we pay for it anyway). But the money will come from somewhere- if not from the municipalities, then from the state. If not from the state, then from the feds. If not from from the feds, then people start losing reelection. And nobody wants that.

Much of this sickens me. I'm angry at the democrats for passing the bill, I'm angry at the republicans for faking their outrage over something they would have favored if Bush were in the White House, and I'm angry that the people being taken advantage of have no idea what's going on and probably wouldn't believe it no matter how clearly it were spelled out to them. It bothers me when the bad guys win.

The solution is to dispel The Three Fictions and shake our faith in the government's ability to serve our interests through education. Hopefully, at least some of us will remember the true cost of last night's bill/payoff come November.

Fire Rob Andrews

2010-07-31T19:47:00.000-07:00

I wonder if the people who send Congressman Andrews back to Washington every two years can name any decent legislation that attests to his ability as a lawmaker. In the past two years alone, he's voted for such things as raising the debt limit, the Cap and Trade energy scam, the Cash for Clunkers scam, the stimulus-package-turned-government-slush-fund scam, and a healthcare scam that will all but destroy the surviving pieces of our medical industry that Congress has been butchering for decades. Over the last ten years, he has also voted to send over $100 billion in taxpayer money outside the country in aid to foreign governments.

In the same period, you will also find that Mr. Andrews was one of those who abdicated his duty to uphold the Constitution both by giving George Bush the power to initiate military action against Iraq without a declaration of war, and by voting for (and continually extending) the USA PATRIOT act, which sends the Bill of Rights up in flames. For these reasons alone he should have been ejected from office in disgrace.

But he wasn't. No, this is the kind of career to which Mr. Andrews has committed himself- so much so that he hedged his bet against losing the 2008 Senate primary by running his wife as a placeholder for his House seat. Instead of taking his lumps and retiring after his failed power grab (as he repeatedly insisted he would), he pulled the old switcheroo with his wife and retook the seat anyway because, he said, his "public service was more meaningful" than whatever job awaited him in the private sector. I'll bet.

After a disrespectful stunt like that, one would think the voters would have had the sense to kick him to the curb. Instead, they curbed their integrity by giving him another landslide victory. It is time his constituents recognize that they've been patsies for Rob Andrews for almost two decades. See how his elections are financed at opensecrets.org to find whose interests his career has really been serving. The truth is that no matter what little political favors he may have done for people during his cushy tenure, it hasn't been worth giving the man a free pass to Washington. Because of career politicians like Mr. Andrews, future generations have been guaranteed an America that will be less free and more dependent on government. What's more, that America will come with a high pricetag, and they'll be expected to pay it.

I don't know what the solution is, but I know that sending Mr. Andrews back through Washington's revolving door isn't it. It pains me to wonder how much different everything would have turned out if, instead of blindly putting the same charlatan back into office every two years, we elected someone who didn't think government was the answer to everyone's problems; who wanted Americans to keep their whole paychecks; who didn't unapologetically use public money for federal programs that never deliver what they promise; and who didn't see a House seat as a prize to be won, but rather as an opportunity to maintain the liberties of her neighbors.

Will we get the opportunity to vote for such a candidate this year? Not from what I gather. Almost no one from the mainstream political parties stands out as worth having in office, and I can't find any information on the independents in this district. So broken is this system that I honestly wish there were a None of the Above option. But since there isn't and we're all going to have to hold our nose again to vote this year, let's assert our belief in term limits and send Rob Andrews packing. Nothing is worse than a smug career politician who is way past his prime and doesn't know when to hang it up. Besides, we really can't do much worse, and at least then we might have someone in office with a shred of humility who's not a Washington insider.

Christie and the Schools

2010-04-13T18:14:00.000-07:00

Ask a hundred people how they think a school should be run, and you’re likely to get a hundred different answers. Some parents want more counselors, some want a greater nursing staff, some want particular sports, some want co-curricular activities, some want salary cuts. Everyone assigns a different priority to all these things. Whatever gets cut, no matter how much, people are going to complain.

Parents pay taxes; they want what’s best for their kids; and (so far as I know) they’re more or less forced to send their kids to their local school. They want to milk it, and I don’t blame them. As long as they’re only paying a fraction of the cost involved in putting their kids through school, it’s understandable. I’m sure every parent would like to see her child’s school stuffed with well-educated and well-paid staff, and activities of every kind. Don’t we all?

Well, maybe not all of us. A taxpaying non-parent’s priorities are probably more like “getting my taxes lowered” than “paying for other people’s kids’ government schooling.” I know I’d rather keep the 40% of my property tax than fork it over to the government to be disposed of politically in the school system. Maybe it’s harsh, but it’s true. Public-educated kids are caught in a political crossfire between government, taxpayers, and unions. Everyone has a stake in getting what they want (everyone wants lower taxes; politicians want reelection; unions want power) and we all have to use political means to get it. It’s an unending political tug of war, and the primary casualties are the very people the system is supposed to work for: parents, students, and teachers.

The other week, I attended a board of education meeting. The board announced budget cuts and cutbacks on nursing staff and counseling staff. Many parents were angry over these things, and called for administrative cuts. There was a lot of yelling, finger-pointing, a few speeches, and little good news. It was like a highlight reel of everything that’s wrong with public education.

Since parents believe their children are entitled to an education the government believes it is its job to provide it (two very flawed premises, by the way), any mention of privatizing/deregulating education isn’t even on the table. But the governor wants to address a budget deficit. Wonderful. Since market solutions are unimaginable to most people, the popular alternatives are to [continue to] tax the rich or to cut funding to schools. For anyone who wants less government, the answer is obvious.

I don’t have any faith in the education bureaucracy being able to redistribute their remaining funding in a way that pleases everybody (as I said, everyone involved has her own idea of how it should be), so there will definitely be many losers after it’s all said and done, and the schools will suffer for it. All the more reason to remove the government from education completely. As a parent, do you really want your kid’s education to be so vulnerable to political waves like this? Should every public teacher in the state have to quake in her boots every time some politician sneezes?

No, but that’s the way it is. The problem here is not that Chris Christie is cutting school funding, it’s that some politician has the power to cut the funds to begin with. Put any special interest group in place of parents and the NJEA, and that group would vilify the governor and decry the cuts just as much (or to whatever extent its political power permitted). Wouldn’t you?

Even though I’m tacitly in Christie’s corner on this one, I recognize that that’s only because his position (so far) leans in the direction of less government, and that’s all I’m interested in. That's an important point. See, though I don’t think I should even have to be bothered with any of it, I still feel I have a stake in the outcome. Politics has a way of doing just that- taking people who ordinarily wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) give a damn and roping them in, forcing them to fight for the least offensive political exploitation of their money, time, and labor; things that shouldn’t be anyone else's to begin with. In fact, the more I hear about this battle, the more I think that neither Chris Christie nor the NJEA are any worse than the other. Maybe the budget cuts are neither good nor bad. Maybe they’re just political maneuvers like anything else, no matter how they’re portrayed to the public by the two warring sides.

The point is that this whole seemingly unsolvable mess is a natural and predictable consequence of the government’s presence in the field. Private school teachers (and parents, and students), on the other hand, are totally insulated from all this political warring. They look upon this and shake their heads, wondering why anyone would want to put up with that kind of garbage.

Then, they turn around and quietly return to work. The rest of the education establishment should be so lucky.

A Quick Look at the Latest News

2010-04-01T08:06:00.000-07:00

Today, the President signed an executive order to abolish the DEA and end the federal Drug War. Asset forfeiture laws have been repealed, and all persons imprisoned on account of nonviolent drug offenses have received a presidential pardon. The states are up to their eyeballs in paperwork because of this, but that’s okay.

Hillary Clinton rolled out a new foreign policy, ceasing all military and economic aid to governments around the world. United States troops are now in the process of packing it all up and heading home. Dubbed No Soldier Left Behind, its purpose is to see to it that never again will an American soldier die on foreign soil fighting wars for the UN or toppling governments around the world. They will have to work their own problems out without the assistance of Washington or the American taxpayer. Resources previously spent on national offense will now be spent on national defense. We’ll finally have that missile defense shield.

Now that the American government has stopped taking sides in foreign conflicts, the Terrorist Threat color has reduced been downgraded to green, and there is talk about disregarding it altogether. The world took notice that if liberty somehow caused terrorism, there would have been many other more easily accessible countries available to attack. It has been admitted that terror and intervention, not freedom, is what caused the War on Terror. Finally, we struck at the root of the problem, and we won.

Congress has proposed a budget of less than a trillion dollars, with massive cuts in all federal agencies. Work has started on a plan to free everyone from Social Security and Medicare- with the War on Terror coming to a halt, an enormous reduction in the size of the federal government, and the wholesale liquidation of government assets across the country, the national debt is now somewhat under control and people will be free to save for their own retirements and pay their own medical bills. There’s now hope on the horizon that the babies of today will not owe as much of their lifetime’s labor to the government as previously thought. Federal taxes of all sorts no longer impose a crushing burden on everybody, and the repeal of the 16th amendment is also in sight.

The FDA has been abolished and the Healthcare bill has been repealed. Health insurance is no longer tied to the tax code, and federal regulations no longer apply to its price or availability. Insurance will finally be insurance again, rather than a program to pay every nickel and dime of everyone’s medical needs. The states have agreed to do away with mandated coverage, community rating laws and licensing laws. Almost all drugs are available OTC. Prices have fallen through the floor, as Americans now enjoy medical access unheard of in generations.

With the department of Education now defunct, state governments have voted for a plan to release the cost of education from the taxpayer and put it in the hands of the customer. Teachers will no longer need to unionize since being an educator will no longer be a government job. Your kids will get the education you want them to get, rather than what the state legislature says they should get. The demand for this newly tailored education from business will be enormous, as it will be flexible enough to adapt to what they want. As such, the cost will be controlled (not only by a decrease in regulation, but because federal taxes will soon fall), and the market will make sure only the best teachers will remain in the field in a way that no union or government ever could.

Best of all, Congress has assembled a commission to end the Federal Reserve’s monopoly control over the money supply. Tomorrow, the United States will begin the transition away from fiat paper currency backed by nothing to a commodity system to be determined by the market. No longer will people have to live with the reality that the government can simply confiscate their savings through inflation any time it wishes, for whatever purpose, and then laying the burden of debt on the nation’s young.

Soon the dollar, taxpayers, and businesses will be liberated from big government; trade barriers with the United States will be torn down; American-imposed embargoes and economic sanctions will be lifted, and the economy is about to bounce back with a vengeance.

These are just a few of the more important changes scheduled to take place either today or in the near future. In short, the United States is about to be a free country again.

April fools!

Kyleigh's Law

2010-03-28T10:34:00.000-07:00

Beginning in May, drivers in New Jersey who are younger than 21 and have a provisional license must attach a red sticker on their license plates to identify them as such. The intent of the law (dubbed Kyleigh’s Law) is to help the police identify drivers with the provisional license who may be driving with too many passengers (more than one, unless a parent is present) or who may be driving past the curfew (11pm to 5am). A peripheral intent is to make such drivers think twice about their behavior on the road, knowing they’ll stand out more.

Now, I could talk about the stickers possibly drawing unnecessary attention to young drivers (or any drivers) from police. I go on about how it’s stressful enough being followed by a cop without having a special decal attached to one’s license plate. I could go on about how families owning multiple vehicles might occasionally frustrate the law’s intent when people with full licenses get behind the wheel of cars with the stickers. Or, I could point out the many instances where provisional drivers driving late at night or with more than one passenger might actually be completely reasonable and not warrant a ticket. But I won’t, because these are the obvious objections, and there's more to this story.

Will the law be effective in preventing incidents like the story of Kyleigh D’Alessio? Sure, in theory. But the cost won’t only be measured in more ticketing, fines, and decal sales (which won’t break your bank at $4 a pop, but I’ll bet the markup is hefty), but in your freedom. Whatever the intent of the law, it’s really not much more than a way to control people and make money doing it, all under the false pretense of protecting people. What legislator can resist posturing to some law-demanding voting bloc while pretending to save lives? If the state can manage to make a buck while doing it, so much the better. It’s for your own good (particularly the $100 fine for removing the decal). It drives me crazy to think of someone saying, "What's the big deal with a little sticker?" The big deal is that it's a needless regulation whose approval paves the way for more needless regulations. Even if this law doesn't affect you personally, it still legitimizes the role of the state in having this type of power, and so this power can be exercised over you- unless there's some clear objective limitation on the government's authority to regulate driving of which I’m not aware.

However, there is more still.

Before long, the adolescent outrage over Kyleigh’s law will pass and it will simply be accepted as something that always was- as routine as anything else that comes with getting one’s license. In a few decades, the idea of provisional drivers (or whatever it’s called then, at whatever age range it’s changed to) driving without an identifying sticker will horrify people, and many would battle any attempts to repeal it. Why? Because, they would say, chaos would ensue; teenagers just aren’t responsible enough to drive on their own; they always had to drive with a decal; the police need a way to keep an eye on them.

But the real reason people would say that is because they couldn’t remember a time without it. They will have no memory of the fact that there was a time when provisional drivers didn’t need to have a decal. They won’t remember that just a few decades ago, provisional licenses didn’t even exist. They won’t remember that the driving age was once just...17. And they won’t understand that in spite of all this, it was no big deal. The sky wasn’t falling, there was no state of emergency, and getting a license wasn’t a Byzantine ordeal. Life went on despite that much less of the government’s authoritative presence. Imagine that.

It’s important to note that this condition is in no way exclusive to the Motor Vehicles Commission. While Kyleigh’s Law isn’t the end of the world (I can think of other recent legislation that’s sure to have a heavier impact), it’s a good example of the relatively quiet way government can grow and come to be accepted (if not demanded) as the norm. Since recklessness is the exception and not the rule, we should always favor liberty and responsibility over being forced to accept government "protection" in all matters big and small. Keep this in mind even though a particular law may seem benign because once freedom is lost, it is very difficult to get back.

Politics Inaction

2010-02-25T18:39:00.000-08:00

If you tuned in to today's healthcare summit in the hopes of watching anything constructive, I'm betting you were disappointed.

After work, even I gave it a shot just for laughs. Within two minutes, I heard partisan bickering over the semantics about trusting the judgment of the CBO for cost projections. It was like watching a political commercial.

The one thing I know I can count on when watching big government operate is the remarkable display of hubris. What I saw today was a bunch of politicians sitting around in a room and arguing over the best way to manage the medical industry- something they're clearly unqualified to do. If I wasn't already so used to the absurdity of it all, I'd be blown away by it.

Nothing happened today that hasn't been planned in advance, and so the whole thing was a waste of time- like all political games. The President may have started it, but both parties, I'm sure, welcomed the opportunity to try to posture a little harder about their feelings on healthcare reform.

When I say it was a waste of time, it's not because nothing got accomplished. On the contrary, considering how nobody at that summit had any intention of seriously reducing the presence of the federal government in the medical and insurance industries, I'd say ending in a stalemate was the best possible outcome. It was a waste because we already knew what was going to happen.

The only thing I do like about this "debate" is that it showcases the inefficiencies built into the lawmaking process. I'm thankful for a Congress so divided because it limits the damage it can do to the nation. When a single party dominates both the executive and the legislative branches, it's like open season on our freedom.

The White House and Capitol Hill should take a hint from the fact that big government healthcare reform has been difficult to pass. Perhaps it's a sign. Maybe the reason it's been so tough to get what they want is because it was never meant to happen. Maybe the Founders made it that way because they knew that government could barely be trusted with protecting people's rights, much less with managing a major portion of their economy.

But I doubt our legislators will see it that way. More likely, they see themselves as leaders and decision makers. They know what the people want, and it's their duty to provide it. I guess it will take more than a six-hour televised stalemate to convince them they're not the answer the country is seeking.

Pay Them What They're Worth

2010-02-22T20:30:00.000-08:00

Background Information: I am a teacher at a relatively affluent private high school. I am not tenured (tenure isn’t offered to us), and I don’t belong to a union. I have a private retirement account. I do not hold an education degree, nor do I hold any state certification. This is my seventh year as a teacher, and my seventh at my current school. My pay is immaterial, because every dollar I get has been paid to me along a chain of people who gave it up willingly (as opposed to through taxation).

I take the position that the government should not be in the business of education. Everyone who works in the federal Department of Education should lose his job, and any real estate currently held by the federal DOE should be sold off to the public. I don’t think many people would even notice the change. Then, the people can begin to reclaim their power over education from the state government, just as the states reclaimed it from the federal government. I can see this taking a long time to accomplish, but it’s a goal worth pursuing.

Teacher Pay
Many people claim teachers are grossly overpaid, and many teachers believe that they’re grossly underpaid. Teaching has many more variables than the average job: teacher ability, years of experience, education level, number of classes, number of courses, types of courses, number of students, types of students, etc.. A teacher’s salary should depend on all of these things, some of which are pretty subjective. It is impossible for any political institution to give it this kind of tailored approach. Teachers are paid closest to what they’re worth in the private sector- where salaries are determined by a market, rather than politics.

Every single thing about our public schools is politicized, A to Z. Be it teacher salaries, when to get tenure, how many hours to work, issues with merit-based pay, pensions, shutting down “failing schools”, the curriculum, what courses to include, who gets the best parking spot, you name it. This is because public education is a government job (I once had a public school teacher brag about this to me). Because everybody’s taxes are on the line, everybody wants things their way. Frustrated by trying to cater to everyone, it should be no surprise that only a few people involved really have their needs met.

With regards to how much a teacher should make, I have a better question: who should decide how much they make? Should it be the relatively small group of people who own and operate the school on their own terms (whose customers are willing to pay for)? Or should it be the government? Teachers throwing a coup over a pay freeze is a natural consequence of government-run education. The politics of education necessitates having a teacher’s union as a way to mitigate political maltreatment and favoritism. They’re combating the force of government with their own force. Now, the government is again trying to respond with force. This is the way politics and power games work. Who knows what the next move will be?

Of course, that’s not how it works in the real world. In the real world, when the boss tells you your pay is getting frozen, you either accept it or you quit and find a better position. You can’t get together with your buddies to force everybody to play the game the way you want it played. It’s sad to see educators reduced to just another special interest group fighting for its piece of the government’s power. They’re likely to say (and truly believe) they’re fighting for what’s fair, but the truth is that without some sort of reference point, nobody in this situation can say what is and isn’t fair. If all that stood in the way of a pay hike for me was threatening a strike or a little lobbying, I could probably fool myself into thinking I was fighting for fairness, too. But being outside the system, I know better.

Unfortunately, I don’t see any of this leading to a discussion of the real problem: how to release American education from an endless political tug-of-war. This soap opera will continue and all we’ll have to show for it in the end will be higher taxes. The argument for less government in education should be championed by every teacher who knows she's worth her compensation (and more). It is the only way to ensure that good teachers get paid what they're worth. Is is also the only way to destroy the black hole for taxpayer money that is a bad teacher's tenure and pension.

The Ambiguous Unemployment Statistic

2010-02-19T20:20:00.000-08:00

The job market is a shambles. Companies are laying off, people are out of work, and it’s just a bad situation.

Or is it?

Even though it makes good press, unemployment by itself isn’t a good measure of how the economic health of the nation. The focus shouldn’t be on keeping people employed. Here’s an example.

When self-checkout machines were first introduced in the supermarket, I heard a woman remark to someone else that she refused to use it because it caused someone to lose his job. While she was correct in that the introduction of such a machine will indeed lower the demand for cashiers (and thus lead to the hiring of fewer cashiers) and some cashiers may lose their hours because of it, she was grossly incorrect in thinking this was a bad thing.

What the machine does is make it easier for people do get work done. It’s a device that saves time and labor. Imagine what life would be like if we thumbed our noses at every device that saved labor and caused job loss. Farmland would still be plowed by hand. People would still deliver ice to your door. All our clothes would still be sewn by hand. We would be living in a very different world. On the whole, the self-checkout machines are a good thing. Temporarily bad for the individual cashier, but a boon to everybody who goes to the supermarket- not to mention the new productive jobs created at the factory where the checkout machines are assembled and the ones created by when the machines need repairing.

The key is production, not employment. It’s much better to have low employment and high production than the other way around. That way, people’s efforts go further. What if 10% of the world’s population could do all the work to satisfy the needs of everybody? We would have 90% unemployment, but it would be an economic miracle.

Government can create jobs, but it generally cannot create productivity- especially on a national scale. What it gives to B it must first take from A. So the result is usually theft, waste, political favoritism, and a greater dependence on the state.

For these reasons, we should not look to the government to "fix unemployment." The best we can expect from government is to either create more government jobs (almost never a good), or to create another bubble in some industry it decides to favor ("green jobs" comes to mind). This is little more than a complicated form of welfare.

That the government bears the responsibility of being the job-maker is a myth that needs to be dispelled. If the government should focus on anything, it should be production, rather than employment. With an unlimited power to tax and spend, creating employment should be easy. But productivity is harder to come by. The only thing government produces well is more government. If government wants to do something positive, the best thing it can do is remove barriers that inhibit private sector activity.

If we want to set ourselves on a solid economic footing for the long term, we need a reduction in government. Less government means lower taxes, which puts capital back in the hands of the private sector- the only place we will ever see any innovation and productivity.

Just don’t get too optimistic when they say the job market is on the rebound and unemployment is dropping. It may just be a disingenuous way of telling us that growth of government is continuing unabated.

Two Lines in the Sand

2010-02-16T20:05:00.000-08:00

I confess it is with some amount of personal shame that I filled out my 1040 this year. Every year during tax season, I have to sit and wonder what exactly would happen if I didn’t pay. When do the letters start? When is action taken through my employer? When do they knock on my door?

Even though I’m sure many people think paying federal tax is patriotic, without a doubt millions more file their taxes out of fear. I certainly fall into the latter category. Wasn’t that Jefferson’s definition of tyranny?

Moreover, it begs the question of where people will draw the line. What would it take for people to openly defy their government and adopt the ‘Come and take it’ attitude? What would it take for you to refuse to comply? With anything. This is an interesting question. I offer you the personal challenge of answering it.

As for me, there are two clear answers. One is the draft. I remember in 2003 when the war started. “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” it was delightfully termed. Remember that? Ah, those were the good old days, back when Saddam not only was minutes away from pressing the button to wipe out the United States’ eastern seaboard, but was somehow responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Remember Bush and the 107th Congress? That madcap bunch of rascals!

I had heard the word “draft” thrown around on TV from time to time. I was 23 and within the drafting age. A lot of people opposed the war, so I was curious as to whether the draft was even politically feasible. But I told myself at the time that if the bugle called, I would resist. You’d see me on YouTube burning my draft card- hopefully, joined by my senior students. I would never let myself be drafted off to war on the government’s word. I opposed it so much that I was hoping they would try it, just so I could see what would happen. I’d rather rot in an American prison than come back in a casket with a flag draped over it. The people are not a tool for the government’s use. As I understand it, the government is a tool for the use of the people.

I find it absolutely horrifying that any parent would willingly submit to having her son sent off to fight a war in which they didn’t believe. It’s almost inconceivable that so many people would just lay down for something like that and let it happen. I guess it was different in the early 70s. But I just can’t imagine people buying into it now. Then again, most people I meet are pretty content to accept things the way they are. Most are happier complaining than taking action.

The other line I decided to draw was with Obamacare. There was a part of me that wanted Coakley to win in Massachusetts. It’s been a blue state and many people expected it to go that way anyway. But if Coakley won and Obamacare passed, I would drop my insurance and refuse to pay whatever fee they arbitrarily decided on. I resolved to join the ranks of the uninsured. And I’d hope that all those picketing tea party people would step up and do the same- along with anybody else who opposed the bill. Come to think of it, it kinds of saddens me to know that everybody really thought so much was actually riding on that election. They can only take from you what you’re willing to give. Was I the only one in the country who was determined to not go along with the healthcare scheme regardless of the election’s outcome? Guess we’ll never know.

Yet, I pay the federal tax. Though it pains me to think of it as an excuse, I suppose it’s not as much of a violation to me because I was born into it. It’s the way things always just…were. Maybe the key to passing legislation like that is to scare everyone into compliance just long enough so that it survives the current generation without revolt. Then they flick the sweat from their brow secure in the fact that the seed has been planted. Your grandkids will be born into it and won’t even think to ask questions until the big bill of their time tumbles down from Capitol Hill. How will they handle it when it’s their turn? Hopefully, better than our ancestry handled the 16th amendment.

But, the question remains. How far could the government push the envelope before you drew a line in the sand and took a personal stand against such tyranny? In light of the American revolution, this is something everybody should think about. What’s your tipping point? When would you put your foot down?

What would you risk to be free?

Citizens United v. FEC

2010-01-27T18:13:00.000-08:00

A brief summary:

How it used to be: Corporations and unions were barred from broadcasting ads designed to affect an election outcomes. It was illegal for such an entity to run an ad that saying, "Defeat Candidate X." These regulations were in place under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (or the McCain-Feingold Act).

How it is: Now, it’s legal. Companies, unions, and independent organizations can legally advertise for or against a federal candidate during election season, including the final days before an election.

Notes: There are still limits on what such institutions are permitted to contribute to a candidate directly. Also, all contributions (and presumably expenditures) must be documented and donors identified. There is still a universe of rules and mandates that regulate every aspect political activity (Take it from someone who has run for office; if you want to spend or accept any appreciable amount of money for campaigning, there are enough rules to follow, backed up by the threat of fines and imprisonment, to make your head spin. Ultimately, such laws do restrict the little guy more than they restrict the people whose behavior they're intended to regulate, but that's an argument for a different post).

Now there’s this outcry about how corporate interests are going to decide elections and unions are going to appoint who gets into office because of all their newly granted influence, etc. I won’t deny that this does give more power to groups of organized individuals, so there’s truth to that allegation. But I’m not blown away by it. Maybe I’m not alarmed as much because I honestly never knew electioneering regulations were really that restricted to begin with. I had just assumed that politicians were elected in large part by the special interests they serve, regardless of how they’re legally allowed to advertise. Is there anyone out there who seriously believes the whole election process isn’t pretty much a complete sham anyway? Is it really substantially any more corrupt now than it was before Citizens United v. FEC?

Love it or hate it, the "speech" of a corporation or a union (which are groups of individuals) is just as guaranteed under the first amendment as is the speech of any individual. Whether it’s going to flood the airwaves with more ads or tip an election in favor of someone is irrelevant. That very behavior, in fact, is a completely predictable consequence of freedom of expression. People with money will use it how they want. For whatever reason, you may not like the fact that an organized group can pool its resources and campaign against someone. But you should at least be happy that the same protection afforded them is afforded to you. Technically.

The worst part of this decision is that it distracts from the real problem, which is the immense power politicians have to abuse in the first place. This is the heart of the issue that nobody ever mentions and seemingly nobody puts their finger on. There is nothing inherently wrong with organized groups of people getting together, pooling their resources, and using them to campaign for or against a candidate as hard as they can. Nothing. Whether it’s you, me, your local teamsters, NJEA, SEIU, Exxon, or Walmart. Go ahead, this is America. What’s wrong is the fact that the politicians, once elected, are able to wield the power of the law to politically help their donors/friends and punish their enemies.

That is the real problem, and the only solution is to bar the government of the power to make or break people or industries in such a manner. So long as we have a government that is in a position to hand out favors to begin with, we will always have people down here in the trenches like you and me getting together and fighting for their piece of the pie with all the resources at their disposal. Really, it’s no different from anything else. No set of mere campaign finance laws, no matter how restrictive, will ever effectively stop organizations from getting what they want out of the people in government who call the shots. The best that strict campaign finance laws really offer us is the illusion of honesty and fairness in politics. Don’t fall for it.

Free speech is constitutional, and federal abuse of power is unconstitutional. Disregarding the former does not put us on the path to fixing the latter. Whenever we ignore our founding documents, we do so at our own peril.

Conservative or Liberal?

2010-01-26T18:38:00.000-08:00

There are many issues that face voters and politicians. If we consider the whole gamut deeply enough, relatively few issues are 100% black and white. For example, even something seemingly as simple as abortion can have degrees. You’re either pro-life or you’re pro-choice. Or maybe you’re pro-life, except in certain cases. Then the issue branches out in other directions- maybe healthcare plans should pay for abortions. Then again, maybe they shouldn’t. Maybe it’s okay sometimes.

There are different degrees of attitudes towards many things, in spite of the fact that people like to attach labels to things to portray them as good or evil. But two terms I hear thrown around the most are conservative and liberal. Which one are you? Maybe there are varying degrees of conservative and liberal, but basically you fall into one of two camps, right? The good guys, and the bad. Us, and Them.

I have a confession: I have little more than a vague notion of what either of these words really mean. They seem to mean different things to different people. When words begin to lack their descriptive power, is it really wise to use them? The thing that bothers me is that there doesn’t seem to be any rhyme or reason to what people consider conservative or liberal. To me, "conservative" is a synonym for Republican, and liberal is a synonym for Democrat. That’s the meaning I generally come away with.

According to the dictionary, neither word adequately describes any political philosophy that I’ve ever heard of. It sounds more to me that someone’s personal opinions were just collected and simply branded "conservative," with the implication that its opposite would be "liberal." Silly as they might be, they’re catchy. Just another tool designed to divide people politically and distract them from what really matters- people thinking for themselves.

Another funny thing is that people who identify with one camp usually claim I’m from the other. I hate war and I’m very socially tolerant, so I must be a pinheaded liberal. Then again, I don’t believe in the state redistributing wealth, and I’m in favor of the people arming themselves for self-defense, so I must get all my news from Fox. Right? Well, which is it?

I’ll tell you which it is. It’s neither. When I look at an issue, I’m not thinking, "What would a conservative think about this?" I’m not asking myself where a conservative would stand on issue X, or what a liberal would probably think about issue Y. I don’t file my perspectives under conservative and liberal, but rather government involvement or not. To me, that is a much better metric to use to decide where to stand on something. Moreover, it’s actually descriptive. Is this a job for the government, or not? Is this something best left in the hands of politicians, or not? Do you want government, or do you want freedom?

That is the real issue, but no political party will cop to that. Either someone thinks it proper to use government in a certain situation, or he does not. That’s the litmus test. In a political context, the words conservative and liberal have turned into catchy titles used to deceive people into identifying with a political party’s platform. Unless so many people just so happen to have all the exact same viewpoints in common with no coaching.

I mean no disrespect to the millions who label themselves as conservatives or liberals. Everyone’s entitled to her opinion. But if I have to be labeled as anything, I prefer not to be branded as conservative or liberal, but pro-freedom.

Brown Wins!

2010-01-20T17:42:00.000-08:00

So, last night a Republican took the Senate seat from the Democrats in Massachusetts. A Republican hasn't held that seat in thirty years. Facebook is abuzz with celebrations, and I'm constantly reading messages about the victory and how the "tide is turning." There are two positives I'm hearing about. One is that Brown's vote is enough to derail Obamacare, and the other is that the Republicans are making a comeback. I know this will rub a lot of people the wrong way, but I honestly don't see what all the fuss is about. To me, the Obamacare issue notwithstanding, Scott Brown is just another big government person who has been elected to office. His victory is a signal that change is possible, not that it has arrived. Forgive my skepticism, but referring to this as some sort of new sunrise for the nation is a stretch.

First, I'm not that hyped about the Republican comeback or the fact that this is a sign the Democrats are probably going to lose the majority in November. Really. I've lived through a time when the Republican party controlled the legislative and the executive, and it wasn't exactly the rebirth of the Jeffersonian era. Government still grew. Unless our new lawmakers are going to be faithful to their commitment to smaller government and their sworn oath as federal legislators, it makes little difference to me who's running the show. I don't want a Republican comeback; I want a Constitutional comeback. That is when I will start celebrating.

Second, while it is true that Brown may well be the final nail in the coffin for Obamacare (for which I am grateful), that is where the victory parade stops. Blocking an unconstitutional federal mandate is the least I expect of any senator elected to office. Yes, it's a major issue. But the Fed and the income tax (and some might argue the War on Terror) are both at least as serious. Healthcare wouldn't even be on the table if the government weren't in a position to loot us through the power to tax and inflate.

Third, the tea party movement backing Brown was a disappointment. I don't know the situation completely, but I was always under the impression that the tea party people wanted real limited government- not merely "better than the worst" government. Hearing the tea parties were behind Brown opened my eyes to the fact that maybe it's all just the same old political BS dressed up as a revolutionary grassroots movement. I hope I'm wrong and that they supported Brown because of the un-electability of Joe Kennedy. Don't get me wrong, I had no illusions about Kennedy winning. But there's a difference between truly endorsing someone and endorsing someone because there's no viable alternative. I wasn't there, so I don't know, but I'm hoping this time it was the latter (sick of the latter as I've become).

Come November, I hope freedom-loving Americans recognize yesterday's election's outcome for what it was, and don't take their eyes off the ball because of it. I hope they realize that less government, not different government is the answer, and that they're not somehow hijacked and led astray because of some political organization's self-serving agenda. I hope they maintain a healthy distrust of politicians and power, and that they don't mistake mere bumps in the road to liberty for the leaders they're seeking. Most of all, I hope they have the wisdom to recognize and outright reject their own party's plan for big government when it comes down the pike.

Still, having said that, it was nice to see another pillar of the Democrat structure crumble.

On the foiled terror plot and airport security

2010-01-03T20:02:00.000-08:00

After the news of the latest foiled airline terror plot, everybody has been up in arms over how lax security is and how much more we need. Now, I hear about full body scanners across the board, patdowns of all passengers, mandatory racial profiling, air marshals on every flight, and wait times on the order of hours. This sounds less like a free country every time I turn on the news.

People have been quick to criticize the government about its failure to detect the threat- and rightly so. Warning signs were ignored, and the existing regulations didn't catch the bomber before he boarded the plane. This much is true. The irony is that the solutions everybody is looking for all involve calls for more government security. People don't realize they're demanding better results from the very entities whose failure is still fresh in their minds. They don't realize they're demanding the impossible.

I understand how fears are renewed when something like this happens. But even in light of all the uproar about how much more needs to be done to step up security, I disagree. I argue that less needs to be done- not more.

The people on board the flight were the ones who foiled the terror plot. This happened not because of safety regulations, but in spite of them. If similar plots are going to be foiled, it will be the people acting to defend themselves from terrorism who will get the job done, not any government stepping up airport screening. To those on flight 253, the fear of being blown up turned out to be more useful than the TSA.

There is a lesson in this. Everybody (not just Americans) needs to understand the best we can do to counter terrorism (among other things) is to recognize that our safety is ultimately our own responsibility. It's not an exaggeration to say that when we rely on the TSA to keep us safe, we put our lives in the hands of the same people who run the motor vehicle inspection stations.

Whoever said eternal vigilance is the price we pay for freedom knew what he was talking about. The greatest deterrent to a possible terrorist will be knowing that, upon boarding a plane, there will be a hundred wide-eyed people all too ready to get up and put a stop to any suspicious activity that might jeopardize their lives. After all, as a terrorist, which cabin would you rather attempt to blow up? The one where everyone takes his safety for granted after getting through airport screening, or the one filled with people alert enough to be on the lookout for guys like you?

The demands for tighter airline security from the government is a symptom of a much deeper issue. That issue is the attitude towards the role of government and, moreover, its duty and capacity to protect us. The best the government can do to curb terrorism is to strike at the root of the problem, namely to dramatically reduce its role in foreign affairs. Such is not only a legitimate function of government, but also something we as citizens haven't the power to do for ourselves. Notice once again that the solution is less government, not more.

I would even go so far as to say that if there were an airline that actually boasted it "lacked security" beyond the basics like metal detectors and sober pilots (which I expect from any airline), it would be more safe to fly than the airlines with the tightest of TSA security regulations (not to mention cheaper and more convenient). What kind of people would ever fly such an airline? Not the foolhardy and the suicidal so much as the watchful and the free. Knowing what kinds of people are really out there and being mindful of the risks involved when getting on an airplane are much more effective than having to remove our shoes.

I want safety as much as anyone else. The difference is that I know what it means to truly be safe. An ongoing tragedy that still goes largely unnoticed is our failure to understand that like so much else, safety without responsibility is an illusion. It's a reckless mistake to give the government carte blanche to "do whatever it takes" with any issue at all (our safety included). Because it doesn't have what it takes. The truth is that only a free society has what it takes- something our founding generation knew, but which we have perilously forgotten. All the government has is a growing list of responsibilities we are learning to surrender to it. And with each one it gets, we march one more step in the direction of not only a less free, but a less safe, America.

$5 for Liberty

2009-12-12T15:58:00.000-08:00

For the past two weeks, I ran a Facebook ad that targeted people I supposed to be patriots all over the Unites States. The ad led to a video of a sales pitch: $5 for liberty. If thousands of people nationwide saw the video and agreed to donate five dollars to my campaign, I have little doubt that I would be the winner of the next congressional election. If those same people did the same thing for a few of their candidates in surrounding states, those candidates, too, would win their elections. I told myself I would give the ad about two weeks to run, curious to see how many people viewed it and how many people would put up the money. I offered a refund if only a small handful of people donated.

Today I checked the PO box, and it was utterly stuffed. With junk mail. And two checks. There were some people who donated online, but I got word of those donations throughout the two weeks as they came in. There was an air of suspense surrounding what might have been waiting at the post office.

I said in the video that I would post the names of the donors along with how much they donated. Here they are, along with some statistics:

Barry Broome: $5

John Clarke: $16

Bill Collum: $5

Lawrence Fine: $25

Corey Gilmore: $5

William Henggeler: $20

Rory McTear: $25

Darnell Parnass: $5

Trudy Roland: $10

Patricia Schroeder: $5

Joette Springer: $10

Michael Wright: $25

There were 12 donors, whose total contributions added up to $156. The ad cost some $500 and garnered 1092 clicks (with at least 1150 unique views). All but two of those who contributed were complete strangers (one I know personally, and the other I know from online).

Considering what's at stake and the potential gain, I'm a little bothered by some of the results. This was a venture with zero risk for anyone who liked the liberty message- I said in the video that if this thing didn't take off, the money would be refunded. Today, refund checks were mailed to the ten people who donated online, and I will shred the checks of those who donated by mail. Since the money was given on the premise that this was an experiment, I cannot rightfully keep it (though if those checks aren't cashed before the new year, I'll assume they won't be cashed, and I'll put the money toward paying the expense of the ad).

I also said in the video that I would withdraw my candidacy if the ad flopped. That part was a lie. There's going to be a liberty candidate on the ballot in my district one way or another. People need to know there is at least someone who will come forward and be a small government representative.

Though it does feel funny saying that coming off the tail end of a failed campaign strategy. The way I saw it, I was a preacher advertising to the choir. The ad was directed only towards people whom were already fans of the liberty message. We're on the same team. So now I'm here thinking....if I can't get support from people who are already on board, where will the support come from? I know these people are out there. I see droves of them picketing the Capitol Building. What happened?

I have two questions.

What was it about the video that made people decide $5 wasn't worth the effort?

What was it about the video that did get some people to donate?

My guess is that some people went to my website and found too many of my planks with which they disagreed. I also got several messages about PayPal (to which YouTube wouldn't let me respond), but it seems that the credit card donation option was just as convenient. I know sitting down and writing a check is something not that not a lot of people want to be bothered with.

And as far as the people who donated go, you have my utmost thanks, and the implicit thanks of anyone who wishes to live in a free country. Understand that I am not a professional politician; I'm a man with a job and bills and problems just like anybody else. You don't know how gratifying it is to get a donation, even if it is $5, from a total stranger just because she wants to make a difference in the same way. If people like us aren't going to make the change, then the change isn't coming.

I do have one last favor to ask of the people who gave. If you came across my ad from Facebook, please drop me an email to let me know which key word of yours the ad detected. It was set up to target people with Glenn Beck, Ron Paul, Campaign for Liberty, Libertarian, 9/12, Judge Napolitano, etc. somewhere in their profile. I want to know if all those who decided to give had the same key word, so I can narrow my focus in the future.

Thanks again to everybody. I hope you also gave donations to some other candidates around the country who so desperately need it. In the face of seemingly insurmountable opposition, liberty dies hard. Keep it up.

End the Fed Speech

2009-11-25T19:53:00.000-08:00

On Sunday, November 22, I participated in an End the Fed rally in Philadelphia. It was organized by the Truth, Freedom and Prosperity movement. We marched with a police escort from Independence Hall to the Federal Reserve building, and then to the Independence Visitor Center a few blocks away, where there was an indoor event at which I, along with Jake Towne, Dr. Liberty, Larken Rose, and Jacob Hornberger gave speeches. It was a fun event. I wish there were more people there (maybe some 200 people attended), but it's still great that things like this even exist. It's refreshing to find so many people in one place who are actually champions of liberty and limited government. It's such a change of pace from the norm. I am grateful for the chance to attend, and for everyone else who attended.

As the event was breaking up, a young man approached me and asked me if I had a transcript of the speech. I told him I'd post it online when I got the chance. What I said while at the podium is pretty much exactly what I have written down (plus minimal ad libbing), and so is testament to my not being used to writing and reading speeches. But, in any case, here it is:

Recently I had the chance to ask an economics teacher about why we need the Fed. He told me it wasn’t a good thing, but was "absolutely necessary", and the banks needs a lot more oversight. He says we need the Fed to oversee the banks. So then I asked, who oversees the Fed? I guess you know how he responded to that one. No one. I thought....well isn’t that nice. I’m sure whoever is running that show is a great bunch of guys looking out for my best interests.

No mention of the fact that our fractional reserve banking system is one big web of corruption as it stands.

If you ask me, this whole issue is about the power and the purpose of government. The same government that can’t keep crime off the streets or drugs out of its prisons, can’t educate our children, can’t keep our roads paved...the government that has torpedoed the housing market and the medical industry, the government that can’t balance a budget or even protect our basic rights....is going to somehow undertake the Herculean task of managing our national economy? You mean they’re going to spend money in such a precise way so as to create prosperity for millions of people? I’m not an economist, but I understand that spending money in and of itself does not somehow create prosperity. And given the track record of government in so many arenas, I find these arguments laughable. And all we’re going to have to show for all this is a guaranteed lowered standard of living for all Americans for generations to come through a monstrous debt.

A little over a week ago, our the national debt clock topped 12 trillion dollars. It’s so easy to say that with a straight face, as many people do, without really understanding how much it is. If you started repaying a debt at the rate of one dollar per second, it would take a little over sixteen minutes to pay a thousand dollars. It would take about eleven and a half days to pay a million.

But the numbers aside, I can’t believe there are actually people out there who think it’s a good thing that the government has access to an unlimited supply of credit. I don’t care what kind of up-side there might be; any American patriot knows that giving the government that kind of power is a terrible idea. If you’re new to this movement and you’re watching this on YouTube or hearing this message for the first time, believe me, the Federal Reserve affects you. Individually.

If there is any issue that transcends all party politics and impacts every one of us, this is it. Because unless you’re a Wall Street Banker or you were well-connected enough to get any of that bailout money firsthand, then, brother, you’re getting hosed. This should be the number one issue on everyone’s list, because the Federal Reserve is the ultimate source of power for the government. Who needs any kind of financial discipline when they have an infinite supply of credit? And the people handing it out aren’t the ones paying it back. It’s you, me, and our children. And their children.

It is the Federal Reserve that has enabled the government to fund all the agencies (of which there are literally hundreds) that regulate every aspect our daily lives.

It is the Federal Reserve that has allowed the government to steal our wealth by robbing the dollar of over 95% of its purchasing power since 1913. Just think, every time you see those hundred dollar bills rolling out on the evening news, it’s like they’re laughing at you. If you or I tried that, we would be thrown in prison.

It is the Federal Reserve that has allowed our government to wage wars for political purposes, to send money overseas in foreign aid, and to create a permanent underclass of people who depend on the state for their basic needs.

The only thing making all this possible is the Fed with its fiat money. No citizens of a free country would ever put up with the kind of direct taxes necessary to finance these kinds of activities. No, the money has to be extracted from us indirectly. And with a currency backed by nothing but politics, they can do exactly that. But it can’t last forever, and it’s bound to collapse sooner or later. There’s got to be some kind of check. And if that check isn’t us, I worry about what that might be. But slowly people are starting to catch on. The only defense against the tyranny of government is our education. And our guns, of course. And that’s what makes events like this so great. It shows that we’re out here, we’re paying attention. We have the chance to fix this.

Do everyone a favor and talk about money. Ask people What is it? Where does it come from? What gives it its value? Educate one another. Point out to people that our money is tied directly to the government. Without the government artificially setting the value of what we know as money, it would be truly be worthless. All the paper we have is just that. And so, to that extent, we’re all living in poverty. It’s a staggering fact—a great system of control, and it’s happening right out in the open. And if we’re ever going to be able to claim we live in a free country, it’s got to be stopped, and sound currency-commodity currency-needs to be restored.

Think about what would happen with sound money. You’d have your property back. Your wealth would be yours, it would retain its value. It couldn’t be stolen by any politician, and, hopefully, you’d never turn it over to Uncle Sam because of some unconstitutional executive order. You’d be more free than you are now by an order of magnitude. Such freedom is hard to imagine because our generation has never known it.

Remember what I said earlier: the Federal Reserve answers to no one. Our own members of Congress (the highest lawmakers of the land with all their powers to tax and spend and wage war) not even they know what’s going on with the Fed’s books. A good first step is with Ron Paul’s Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009, HR 1207. It will throw back the curtains on the operations of the Fed- where the money goes, who gets what, how much there is, etc. Far from being the typical Washington bill, it’s only three pages long. And I have a feeling that once that ball starts rolling, it’s going to set off a deluge of information that We The People will find very interesting.

If you’re like me, when you say End the Fed, you mean End the Fed. An audit’s nice, and it’s a good first step, but I want to see the Fed abolished. And by abolished, I mean demolished. I want to see the D.C. temple torn down. I personally want to operate the wrecking ball that reduces it to rubble. And then we can hand out the pieces as souvenirs, like they did with the Berlin Wall twenty years ago this month, so we can tell stories to our grandchildren about something that was once called "The Fed". "Oh yeah, it was this independent institution that used to print money."

How much money? A lot of money. It took eleven and a half days to count out a million seconds. Twelve trillion would take over 380,000 years.

As you may have gathered, I am a person of great pessimism, but about this, I remain optimistic. As long as we stay vigilant and stay angry, I think this thing will spread and we’ll be in good shape. In 1913 we opened Pandora’s box by creating the Fed, and have since been struggling with all its ill effects: rising prices, war, poverty, loss of independence, loss of freedom, higher taxes, imperialism, and an unbelievable growth of the state. The situation seems dire. But still, in spite of all that, after all was said and done, after all the evils were unleashed from Pandora’s box, do you remember what was lying at the bottom?

Hope.

Abuse of Language

2009-11-25T15:50:00.000-08:00

A few months ago, I was visiting Project Vote Smart. If you’ve never been there, I suggest taking a look and bookmarking it. It lists candidates for state and federal elections, along with their issue positions and their voting and financial records. It’s an excellent website for non-partisan information on candidates for office.

A few months ago, there was a banner on the site that read, “Save Democracy from Politics.” I contacted them to point out that the banner should probably say, “Save the Republic from Politics”, since a republic and a democracy are not the same thing, and we’re supposedly living in the former.

Democracy used to mean rule by the majority, where anything could be made law so long as enough people (or enough representatives) approved of it. Democracy used to mean a government of men, not of laws. In a democracy, the only rights people had were the rights the majority hadn’t taken away. It was more about power, privilege and control than freedom and lawful equality.

Contrast that with a republic, where the role of government was to serve, not rule. A republic used to mean a government of laws, not men. In a republic, people had rights that were impervious to the will of the many. Power was deliberately checked and diffuse, and the law applied to all men.

Several weeks after contacting PVS, I received an email reply about my comment. It faintly admonished me that over the years, the President, members of Congress, newscasters, librarians, etc., have all begun to use the two words interchangeably. The dictionaries have been changed. These days, therefore, both words now refer to any system of government where people elect representatives. Isn’t that nice?

A hundred years ago, I doubt that anybody would ever make such an absurd statement. It bothers me that the meaning of words can change because enough politicians misuse them. But I don’t care about the semantics so much as about how now there’s a vacuum in our language. There used to be two words with different meanings. Now they both mean the same thing, and not what either of them used to mean.

Is it by mere coincidence that our actual system of government has degenerated into more of a democracy than a republic over the last few generations? There doesn’t seem to be any limit to what our government can do. Our law books are a blizzard of mandates and restrictions on every sort of human activity- and all because enough people gave enough bureaucrats enough power.

No, I don’t think it’s a coincidence. It’s a testament to the insidious power of the manipulation of language, information, and the way people think. It is an almost imperceptible indication that something’s not right in the United States. In Politics and the English Language, Orwell wrote:

"...it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer. But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely. A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts."

Agreed.

In Defense of Ron Paul

2009-11-25T11:00:00.000-08:00

It has been said that Ron Paul is crazy, a racist, and a truther. First of all, I don't believe the first two to be true, and I have suspicions about the latter. But for the sake of argument, assume all three are true. So what? His opinions don’t affect you if they don’t affect his behavior in office. How Dr. Paul is esteemed personally should be of far less concern than how he does his job. In that regard, he has established himself as a champion of the Constitution and limited government. He took the oath of office, and he sticks to it. What more should you really care about?

I know of no other member of Congress who opposes new unconstitutional federal programs and wants to see the existing ones abolished. I doubt you can say the same of your own representative. I know I can’t. I figure that even if I had a robot as a representative that was programmed to vote No on every bill that came up, I would be far better off than I am now in terms of having a representative who obeyed the Constitution. And even if Ron Paul were on some conspiracy theorist adventure, how could that possibly be any more costly to us than the lawless crusades on which our current representatives regularly take us now?

Unless you’ve been brainwashed into parroting the platform of your political party, you will probably never agree 100% with any politician. Whatever difference of opinion one might have with a politician should take a back seat to how that politician conducts himself in office. Anybody who claims to want freedom and limited constitutional government should be supporting Ron Paul because of his dedication to liberty, rather than dismissing him because of (what might not even be) his personal opinions.

Lest I be misunderstood, I will point out that I'm not defending racism, trutherism, or anything in particular the man has ever said; I'm defending what he's done. I try to see politicians as more of a collection of Yes and No votes than personalities in mere popularity contests. While this is impossible when a person is running for office for the first time, Dr. Paul is well established in this regard. Look at the substance, not the style.

The Upside Down Flag

2009-11-11T19:31:00.000-08:00

I've been getting some questions about the upside down flag as of recent. I used it in an ad for this campaign site and I have one showing on my computer at work. When people ask about it, they're sometimes upset. They think I'm trying to be offensive, and my patriotism gets called into question. I probably shouldn't be surprised at the fact that many people don't know what it means; many people don't know the cops can't legally search your car without your permission or a warrant, either.

If you don't know, flying the flag upside down is a signal of distress. When I explain that, people go from thinking I'm a anti-American to thinking I'm just being dramatic. I respectfully disagree. I truly do believe America is in a state of emergency, and has been so long before the Obama administration. People don't know their rights. The government pretty much owns GM, and is making yet more inroads on the entire practice of medicine. We're using fiat currency. Our Constitution has been disregarded for many decades. We're bailing out banks. We expect to be taken care of by the government. "Emergency" is an understatement.

I use the upside down flag for three reasons: One, it gets people's attention regardless of whether they know what it means. Two, if they don't know what it means, it gives me the opportunity to teach them. And three, considering the meaning, it's an excellent symbol of my beliefs.

I started using the upside down flag when I happened across an excellent series of videos on the Constitution by Michael Badnarik. The videos are an eight hour course he goes around the country teaching, and it's available on Youtube in 43 parts (he explains the meaning of the upside down flag about two minutes into the first video). I cannot recommend this series of videos enough. It is a treasure trove of information on the Constitution, history, rights, and the state, almost none of which I remember from high school. It should be the cornerstone of every American history/civics course- something all Americans need to watch and understand.

An open letter to the members of Congress

2009-11-09T14:17:00.000-08:00

Recently on CSPAN, I watched you tell the world that the projected cost of the Affordable Health Care for America Act will be, after ten years, better than free. You said it will actually save us $100 billion and give everyone in the nation affordable health care. I’m not concerned with what kind of analysis was used to arrive at these conclusions. If you can cite a statistic from a government office and call it proof, I can just as easily point out the discrepancy between the projected cost and the staggering actual cost of Medicare and Social Security (which, even by optimistic forecasts, will drag us all into economic ruin) as being proof that the federal government’s further involvement in the medical industry is, to put it lightly, a terrible mistake.

I have some predictions. In ten years, the H.R. 3962 for which some people cheered in 2009 will be but a memory, having since mutated into even more of a hulking legislative mass. It will do this because it will need to be amended to fix things that weren’t taken into account when the bill was written. It will need to be amended because it will have to clamp down on problems that it created, the likes of which no one could predict. Even if one now assumes the Affordable Health Care for America Act is the holy grail of legislative perfection, it will certainly not be ten years before powerful lawmakers of a different stripe have it at their disposal. By 2030, this bill will be unrecognizable. Ultimately, there will be a call for more government. And members of Congress, whose failed policies of the past hundred years have caused the problems in the first place, will once again fall over themselves rushing to the rescue.

The advertised solutions will be to either put up with things being as bad as they are (“doing nothing”), or to fix the situation by passing more “sweeping reform” from sea to shining sea. Those will be the only options. Again, the idea of getting the government out of the medical industry altogether won’t even be up for discussion. Why? For the same reasons it’s not up for discussion now–because decades of slowly getting everybody used to depending on the government have fundamentally altered the way Americans think and behave. Who knows how many people will be on the federal dole in ten or twenty years? Even now, people have grown used to the idea that it’s not only proper for Washington to take care of us, but necessary. They beg politicians to save them with their power to use force on other people. Disregard the fact that the federal government has produced nothing but bloated wasteful bureaucracies whose hidden (as well as up-front) costs borne by all Americans have been incalculable. We’ve learned to accept that this is how it always just…was. There is no other choice. Right?

In twenty years, the people might not remember the names of the representatives who voted for the original juggernaut medical mandate (President Obama will likely bear that blame), but they will certainly feel the effects of its handiwork. No one can say for certain what these effects will be, which is precisely the point. It is for this very reason that no such attempt should be made to draft legislation the likes of the Affordable Health Care for America Act (it even sounds un-American). It will fly out of your control just as the federal government has flown out of the control of the states that created it.

Let me put it this way: to fulfill its purpose in making our lives change for the better, the 1990 pages of H.R. 3962 will have to be almost perfect as they stand. The bill must somehow be crafted so as to be almost immune to future attempts to modify, misinterpret, or otherwise override it. It will need to be unique, the first of its kind, and adhered to without compromise. In short, this bill will have to mean to healthcare what the United States Constitution meant to American government in the late eighteenth century–and even then, there are no guarantees it will remain what it is.

After all, look at what has happened to our Constitution. The document, so ironclad and specific in purpose, still manages to be disregarded and twisted into justifying whatever any politician wishes, including the very government actions it was clearly designed to guard against. That the Constitution is a document which the members of Congress have taken an oath to uphold (often many times) makes the reality all the more alarming. Once the decision is made to step over the boundaries of law, those boundaries no longer exist.

I believe you are intelligent and well-meaning men and women, but I reject your terrible ideas even if they’re proposed with the best of intentions. Americans will take no consolation in the fact that their representatives merely meant well when they passed the bill that brought the medical industry further into ruin. Surely we’ve both been witnessing the same version of American history. Surely you’ve seen what happens when powerful legislation falls “into the wrong hands.” And surely you know that you won’t be in Congress forever, nor will the rest of your colleagues who crafted this bill. So my question is this: if it becomes law, when the Affordable Health Care for America Act does fail to achieve its stated objective, when it does fail to control costs, and when it does turn into just another plaything for future politicians to use to get re-elected, how will you, knowing that it was brought into existence with the help of your vote, make it up to the American people?

Sincerely In Liberty,
William Kern

The Health Care Bill

2009-11-08T11:00:00.000-08:00

Last night, the House passed H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act. When I saw the vote, I was astonished. Among the 220 representatives who voted for it, I wondered if there was even one who, as the announcement of the bill’s passage came, thought, “What have I done?”

All over the news, the bill is being hailed as a victory for the president and the Democrats in Congress. A victory for them, perhaps. But it is a crushing blow to the nation as a whole. Now, in addition to holding you hostage with threats of unfunded retirement, terrorism, food poisoning, plane crashes, lack of shelter, unemployment, education, etc., you’re going to be held hostage with health insurance. This bill is yet another nail in the coffin of limited government, and anyone who believes it will deliver on its promises is either too young to know better, already dependent on the government for his basic necessities, or unwilling to come to terms with the an axiom that history has shown us time and time again: government programs don’t work.

I, as a candidate for Congress, have had to ask myself if this is really the purpose of government. Does this bill really fit the description of “governance”? Is this why our government was instituted? Is this really the outcome of the great American experiment? Would the Founding generation approve of this behavior from the federal government? Can we save the world with politics and legislation? Is it really that simple? On all counts, no. For if this is what American government was designed to do, we would not have needed a Constitution or a division of power. A ruling aristocracy would have done just fine.

While I appreciate most House Republicans who voted against the bill, I am unappreciative of the fact that they had their own plan waiting in the wings. They deserve credit for trying to stop the Democrat plan, but it needs to be recognized that many of them were ready to vote for their own particular version as an alternative. That is not what I want. I don’t want a federal bill at all. I want to see federal legislation in the medical industry repealed. It is hypocritical of anyone to vote against a bill on the grounds of limited government, only to turn around and present a bill of his own.

It is my hope that any Congressman who voted in favor of H.R. 3962 has committed political suicide by doing so. I see "Repeal Pelosicare!" as being a powerful plank in next year’s midterm elections. They’ve handed us a 1990-page manifesto of their own incompetence, and are unfit to be federal lawmakers. How much more clear can they make it?

Term Limits

2009-11-07T16:05:00.000-08:00

I hear a lot about term limits. People of all stripes are vehement about the subject whenever it comes up. I know of a few organizations that won't endorse a candidate unless she signs an oath swearing to introduce term limit legislation in whatever office she's running for. It's a very attractive idea, and I'm not necessarily opposed to it. I understand what it's like to have an incumbent virtually own the rights to a seat. My own representative, Rob Andrews (D-NJ), is in his tenth consecutive term.

For anyone who doesn't know: in 2008, Mr. Andrews ran for the Senate primary and vowed not to seek re-election in the House if he lost. Meanwhile, just in case, he put his wife up for the primary as a placeholder for his House seat. When Andrews was beaten by the then-four-term incumbent Senator Frank Lautenberg in the Senate primary, his wife miraculously withdrew her candidacy and he took her place. Welcome to the world of politics.

It’s easy to see how that kind of thing could drive people to put their foot down about term limits. But those who champion that cause have to realize that it is a double-edged sword. After all, Jim DeMint is in his 10th term, and Ron Paul is in his 11th. These are the kinds of men you want to get in office and stay in.

It has also been said that we do, in fact, have term limits; they're called "elections". I don't know if that's a very fair assessment, though. Chances of re-election are extremely slanted in favor of incumbents: they have the name recognition and other government resources at their disposal. So long as they don't step on too many of the wrong toes, re-election isn't really that big of an issue. House re-election percentages have averaged in the low 90s for a few decades now. What's that tell you?

Imposing hard term limits sounds like a good idea, and may well be in the short run, but it's definitely not a permanent answer to all of our problems. A better solution would be to hold our elected officials accountable for their actions, and to demand from them a government that is truly dedicated to protecting freedom. If our officials upheld their oath of office and actually did their job, rotating seats in government wouldn't seem like such a high priority. Until that happens, though, we'll be stuck with trying to cure a symptom of a problem that needs our real attention: the election of big government candidates to office. That’s where our reform efforts should be directed.

Cuban cigar, anyone?

2009-10-25T17:58:00.000-07:00

Issues: Trade

I am an unapologetic advocate of free trade, and so do not subscribe to the "us versus them" attitude towards trade/manufacturing/jobs. Americans should have unrestricted access to any good or service from anybody anywhere. Import/export quotas and trade "agreements" are not free trade; they're managed trade, and they can be political weapons that distort the market for the benefit of special interests.

Simply put, the government should not be in the business of bestowing "protective" benefits on certain industries, nor should it be erecting barriers to trade with other nations for political reasons. The power to selectively meddle with trade policy is the power to play more political games with the economy. Only the politically connected benefit from these policies- the rest of us pay for it in real ways that are hard to detect: higher prices, fewer options, and lower quality goods than we would otherwise have. This automatically puts a squeeze on consumers and frustrates economic activity.

Rather than play games with protectionist policy, I support a uniform tariff on all imports across the board. This will remove power from politicians and put it back in the hands of the American consumer. Moreover, I will push for unfettered free trade with all nations. I will vote against any legislation that imposes a barrier to free trade with any nation, including sanctions, quotas, and embargoes.

Contact Form Issues

2009-10-21T03:15:00.000-07:00

Just a note: I’ve been receiving some blank messages from my contact form lately. If anybody has tried to write me through the interface in the Contact section and I haven’t replied, it is because I have been receiving blank messages.
For now, you’re much better off getting in touch with me by just sending me an email at

kernforcongress@live.com

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Income Tax Video

2009-10-20T16:53:00.001-07:00

I recorded a new video on Sunday. I was in the middle of writing a one-minute mission statement about myself and the site, and it evolved (devolved?) into a rant about how angry I was over the income tax. I felt it was worth being committed to video. In addition to being a little primer on how I feel about the income tax, it’s a little plug for other liberty candidates in there toward the end. Filming those things is a hassle, but I’m pretty happy with the way it turned out. Enjoy.

Income Tax

2009-09-20T11:14:00.000-07:00

To be blunt, I want to see the income tax abolished and the 16th Amendment repealed. I want to see everybody at the IRS get a real job that produces something other than thousand-page rulebooks, suffering, and headaches for Americans.
Think it's impossible? Then take a minute to ask yourself what your favorite federal programs are. I've asked many people, and the best answers I've gotten are social security, unemployment, and the 401k program. But then I ask, are these programs (which are a few among many hundreds that I'm sure you could do without) worth the income tax you will pay over your whole lifetime? The answer to that question also answers whether the country could function without the federal income tax. It most certainly could, as it did for over a century of its existence- and so could you, if you were permitted to keep your money instead of forfeiting it to Washington.
The reason the American government wouldn't crumble without the income tax is because it would be so small- small enough to fit within the confines delineated by the Constitution. It could easily be funded by a flat tax on all imports, because its job would be dramatically reduced from its current levels.
Any proposed alternative to the current tax system (besides a flat 0% tax) is doomed to eventually mutate out of control, just like every other new government proposal. Anything less than dramatic cuts in funding, accompanied by dramatic cuts in government is not worth our time. So long as we have an income tax, you and I will never be free.

War

2009-09-16T20:42:00.001-07:00

In 2002, Congress authorized President Bush to invade Iraq without declaring war. Any representative who voted in favor of this measure should have been ejected from office immediately. To attack a nation without just cause has to be among the highest atrocities that can be committed by a government. Thousands upon thousands of human lives have been stamped out because of this obscene abuse of power.

I am vehemently opposed to risking the lives of our soldiers in any military conflict where the United States is not directly threatened. If I had my way, we'd be bringing the troops home tomorrow. No phased withdrawal, no timetable, no nothing. We would just pick up and go- no amount of foreign nation-building, no matter how positive it sounds, is worth the life of any American soldier. We have problems on our own shores more deserving of our attention.

William Kern talks Politics

2009-09-16T20:36:00.001-07:00

Politics hasn't been more than a passing interest since I watched Bush debate Gore in 2000. After watching those debates and televised discussions between subsequent presidential candidates, I decided that registering with a third party was the only sensible thing for me to do.

Until recently, I haven't considered running for office- it's something the average person believes is reserved for another class of people altogether. But I've looked around, talked to people, and have read enough to know that America has serious problems. I do not see real leadership qualities nor a devotion to the Constitution in the typical candidates who run for office. I see promise-makers towing the line for their own party's agenda. Many people feel the same way and are tired of waiting for the change to come to them. If it's real change we desire, we need look no further than ourselves to make it happen. That is why I have decided to give up a large portion of my time and money to this endeavor.