Simple Rules for Government

The reason this freedom is referred to as “the” freedom of speech is to reflect the belief of the Framers that the right to speak freely is pre-political. Stated differently, the freedom of speech is an integral aspect of our humanity. The government does not grant the freedom of speech; it is prohibited from interfering with it.

This is known as a negative right, in the sense that government is negated from interfering with a personal natural right. A natural right is one whose exercise does not require a government permission slip. Speech is the classic example.

 

The first duty of government is to preserve life, liberty, and property. It is a strange and dangerous government that stifles freedom for some fleeting private purpose. It is equally strange that a freedom-loving people would tolerate this.

The whole purpose of the First Amendment and its underlying values is to encourage open, wide, robust, unbridled debate about the policies and the personnel of the government.

Source.

Advertisements

Dillary: Unacceptable to a Plurality of Americans

Last week’s convention was a wake for the GOP as we know it.

This week will be an explanation of why Hillary Clinton is

unacceptable not simply to libertarians but to that plurality of Americans who define themselves as independent, centrist, moderate, or anything other than a dyed-in-the-wool partisan.

On Federal Spending, Foreign Policy and State Surveillance, Free Speech, Social Issues, Immigration, Gun Rights, and Regulations, Trade, and the Sharing Economy, Hillary is just as much an authoritarian as The Donald.

Nick Gillespie.

A Reason Democrats Might Vote Libertarian This Year

Libertarian Party President/Vice President Ticket  Johnson/Weld pulls voters from both parties according to many polls.

Here’s a reason why J/W might pull from Democrats.

Thaya Brook Knight is associate director of financial regulation studies at the Cato institute. And she was profiled for a recent publication of Cato’s Letters. Ms. Knight was asked when she was first drawn to libertarian views. Her response:

I’ve always held libertarian views, although until recently I identified as a liberal Democrat. I believe in a strong First Amendment and strong protections for criminal defendants, I oppose the War on Drugs, and I support gay rights. In the wake of 9/11, I was horrified by the willingness to give up personal liberty in the name of safety. For a time, that meant my beliefs were aligned with the Democratic Party. But I’m also a feminist and it makes me angry when I’m told that, as a woman, I don’t know how to make my own choices or that I should be protected from their consequences, like a child. If we’re serious about equality, all adults must have the freedom and responsibility to order their lives as they see fit.

Highlights mine on what’s important to Ms. Knight. Hillary and many Democrats are attacking many of these issues or are recent converts. They’re also attacking our Due Process rights and Second Amendment rights.

 

Democrats Against Your Rights

So far, Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is on record fighting to restrict your:

first amendment rights: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/campaign-finance-reform/ and

second amendment rights: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/gun-violence-prevention/ .

Will she join Sen Joe Manchin (D, WV) in restricting your Due Process rights: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/joe-manchin-gun-control-224425 ?

Trump’s record is well documented elsewhere.

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX): The Non-establishment Candidate

Timothy P. Carney ponders why no one “rid the GOP” of Rep. Paul. He has proven to be correct in his prognostications of government policy, from housing subsidies, to wars, to cutting taxes while increasing spending.

One reason the bipartisan establishment finds Paul so obnoxious is how much the past four years have proven him correct — on the housing bubble, on the economy, on our foreign misadventures, and on our national debt.

Shunning Paul would be the equivalent of silencing critics through campaign finance “reform”, ie, infringing on First Amendment rights, or relying goons as Sen. Durbin (D-IL) did when he was recently confronted by a journalist from the Washington Times about him blaming the Tea Party for S&P’s downgrade.

It has taken me some time to understand Rep. Paul’s arguments about the Federal Reserve, government spending, and military. But now I do. I recommend you take the time also because he is the only presidential candidate, including President Obama, with the ideas to fix this economy.

The Federal Reserve allows politicians to spend wildly two ways. One, by keeping interest rates low the government can sell bonds at low interest rates thereby keeping financing costs low. That encourages politicians to spend and offer tax credits because they have a cheap source of financing for economically inefficient policies. Two, the Federal Reserve can buy those bonds directly in the open market as it has done with QE1 and QE2. None of this cannot happen with a gold-based currency.

Sean Bonner Reminder: Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) Wants Internet Off Switch

This is something Americans should be paying very close attention to. Think about your daily life and how big a role the internet plays in it. Now think about what it would be like if one person had the authority to turn that off completely. If you can’t imagine what that would be like you aren’t alone. A week ago this was a hypothetical scenario. Now, you can just ask an Egyptian citizen what that feels like. Pay close attention to what happens with this bill.

Here.

Tip: Jesse Walker.