Against Left and Right

Is, in a word, government.

All the passionate talk about the personalities and potential crimes of the presidential candidates has obscured debate about what the federal government actually does. Both Trump and Clinton promise to spend us to oblivion taking care of various collectivist groups: vets, seniors, farmers, military contractors, teachers, etc.

But that spending (and inevitable taxing) serves one overriding purpose: to make the people in Washington D.C. ever richer and more powerful. Its a bipartisan bonanza. Yes, the money will trickle down to those constituents I listed above. But the politicians, lobbyists, regulators, and other government employees take their cut first. All that money requires programs and administration. Who does that? Why the people who work in government. And what is the result?

Kevin Williamson explains. I tease you with this: “But Washington builds no iPhones. It doesn’t really build much of anything, and it doesn’t create any wealth — it just takes it.


Pols and regulators should butt-the-hell out of corporate mergers and other actions that disrupt the status-quo. See Democrat primary loser and hypocrite for supporting corporate shill Hillary Clinton Bernie Sanders for example. Trump also said he opposes it.

Employees of the merging firms must figure out how best to serve their customers and shareholders.

Remember folks, firms have to work within the current regulatory and legal framework. If gov’t wants to do something useful it should deregulate telecom and scrap net neutrality. Those constrictions led the decision-makers in this deal to view a merger as a way to drive growth.

The interventionist fear is based on outdated definition of monopoly. Standard Oil’s so-called “monopoly” lowered kerosene prices “from 58 to 26 cents from 1865 to 1870. Competitors disliked the company’s business practices, but consumers liked the lower prices.”

Yet, some politicians and activists want to stop this merger because they are simply afraid of change.

You can let firms experiment and innovate to figure out how to serve customers and grow, or you can let politicians protect the status quo and continue with 1% GDP.


From AlternativePAC, a pro-Gary Johnson SuperPAC. Only two minutes, five seconds of your time. Some quotes:

“There’s been a fundamental paradigm shift. Power has been lifted from the elites and split between the people, through the internet. What do Uber, AirBnB, and Lyft all have in common? A way for the average user to maneuver around this top-down approach of rulers and rule-makers, legislators and regulators.”

“In the world of politics, mainstream media no longer controls the content. We use Twitter and blogs and Periscope to create context.”

“The internet has taught us the insider control the process”

“Liberty is real transpartisanship”

“Let’s unite liberty with community”


NBC journalist Matt Lauer interviewed Hillary Clinton (D) and Donald Trump (R) one after the other Wednesday night about being commander in chief.

Top NBC News brass were panicked after “Today” host Matt Lauer’s maligned performance quizzing presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump on the Intrepid Wednesday night. When critics widely panned his interviews, sources said NBC honchos were desperately spinning positive stories with little luck.

Both candidates tried to slither from Matt’s probing questions.


In the US, Libertarian party presidential candidate Gary Johnson and his running mate Bill Weld are hewing to a centrist message of socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Walter Olson has a piece here. Check this for the next section of this post.

In Europe liberal parties, often seen as the nearest analogue of libertarian, are often perceived in just this way as occupying centrist/middle positions between labor or revolutionary parties on the left and blood-and-soil or religious parties on the right. European liberal tendencies vary but often they’re secular, business oriented, pro-trade, modern, internationalist but not militarist, and interested in meliorist reform rather than street politics or national crusades. Sound familiar?


In France, Economy Minister Emmanuel Macron is described in the video towards the bottom of this piece as a social and economic liberal (in the classical meaning of the word, not the statist, corrupted meaning in the US.

French Economy Minister Emmanuel Macron has resigned from the government ahead of an expected centrist bid for the presidency in next year’s election.


Trying to decide who to vote for president? Here’s a guide.

This article is on the ethical dilemma faced by voters trying to decide whether to vote for the lesser of two evils: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. Here.

My take: if you decide to vote for one of the two lesser evils, you are perpetuating a major political problem and postponing the change the US needs. Come four years at the end of the first term of the new president, the country’s problems will be worse, or at best no better, because both parties and their candidates are committed to the status quo. Both parties will take the results as whew, dodged that one. Okay, where were we?

Flashback: voters gave Republicans unified control of the federal government in 2000 after the divided government of a Republican Congress and Democrat President Bill Clinton. Actually, that was not a bad combination. Both sides worked to control spending, and President Clinton privatized what become the internet, among other accomplishments. It wasn’t great but the US ranked #2 in economic freedom in 2000.

A united Republican government gave us oodles of more government and less freedom: wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as a response to 9-11; big bureaucracies in the Dept of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration as a response to 9-11; the Sarbanes/Oxley financial law that arguably chased promising IPOs overseas and diverted private resources to handle more regulations with no gain; a gusher of more spending (see “W. Bush” in red on this graph); a more complicated tax code; a Wall Street bailout; and more.

A unified Democrat government gave us oodles more government and less freedom: an economic stimulus program whose flaws were built into the very concept; a health care law that didn’t improve care and raised insurance premiums by as much as 60% and rising (here); voter intimidation and harassment by the IRS of President Obama’s opponents; the Fast and Furious Gunrunning scandal; and more.

Another way to look at whether to vote for the Libertarian party candidate Gary Johnson, or any other third party candidate is that maybe, just maybe, the election results will start the momentum to real change. That is not throwing away your vote; that is a starting point for real change.

It is time to vote for candidates, not simply against the lesser of two evils.

Here are articles for voting for Libertarian Gary John and William Weld herehere, and here.



Here’s the math algebra!

Dillary Clump = Hillary Clinton + Donald Trump

Next Page »