US Constitution


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.

Here.

Geez. The lies, the foul language, ignoring of unsustainable entitlement programs, Clinton’s failed record as Secretary of State, Trump’s belligerence, the diversions from policy debates. The list of embarassments continues.

There is another choice: Gary Johnson and Bill Weld. Both former governors — that means actual executive experience in government. Clinton has executive experience as a Secretary but her accomplishments suck, as in Syria.

Johnson and Weld are thoughtful, moderately tempered, with experience and accomplishments as executives in the public sector. Trump has executive experience in the private sector, which is very different from the public sector. The president — the chief executive in the public sector — is bound by constitutional limitations.

Further, on the economy, both Clinton and Trump think interacting with the world outside the US is harmful to the citizenry. Free trade may be unpopular — through rhetoric — but in fact has stood the test of time for over 200 years as an engine of economic growth. I’ve worked for American, British, and Canadian firms in my career — all based in the US. US policy needs to let more foreign investment in the US, after all, they let US firms invest in their countries.

Clinton’s tax increases and spending, and Trump’s grandiose spending plans drain resources away from the productive private sector and let politicians direct those resources to their cronies to help them get elected.

No, the economic problem is that too much of the country’s resources are directed by the public sector, and they are wasted getting politicians elected rather than productive, job-creating, wealth-creating activities.

We don’t need another law to prevent a free people from pursuing our own happiness as long as we do not aggress against another.

As Thomas Jefferson said: “Peace and friendship with all mankind is our wisest policy, and I wish we may be permitted to pursue it.”

Society and the economy are too complex to be centrally managed and planned. The people who demand to govern us tell us nobody is able to government him- or herself. Well if that’s the case, that includes them. And how do they expect to govern someone else?

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.

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.

Daniel Oliver says Hillary is more deserving of the authoritarianism label than Trump. Regardless of that argument, progressivism has other issues and should be avoided:

Running out of other people’s money is certainly one problem with socialism, but not the only one. Socialism is inherently authoritarian, which is why it is the younger brother of Communism and a first cousin of the authoritarian progressivism of Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and Barack Obama. And Bernie and Hillary. After all, how do the socialists get other people’s money? They take it. That means people will hide their money, which means the state must employ spies and guys, and guys with guns. And crooked agents like Lois Lerner to run crooked agencies like the Internal Revenue Service.

Both parties practice progressivism. The Democrats embrace the label, Republicans shun it but using the government to force your choices on others is a hallmark.

An alternative philosophy has the government only protecting our constitutional and natural rights, preventing others from harming others, treating citizens equal before the law, protecting commons, but otherwise leaving us to our own pursuits.

Note how marriage equality, drug legalization, lower taxes, fewer war fit in.

Note also this philosophy lets people make most of the choices in their lives. After all, who is supposed to make those choices in your life if you are a functioning human; you or someone else?

It doesn’t demonize one group for exploitation which is what Democrats do with people who work in some industries, and Republicans do with people of other races. Democrats over the years have demonized people who work for health insurers, tobacco companies, banks, Uber and the sharing economy. They still do.

Here.

The mark of authoritarian regimes is the suspension of constitutional and natural rights.

The promoters of these restrictions use a temporary emergency and circumstance as a starting point, to get the proverbial camel’s nose under the tent, then find reasons to extend the restriction. That can also become a template to use elsewhere.

So, no.

Here.

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.

 

Next Page »