Are You Pro Food Choice?

"It is a thousand times better to have common sense without education than to have education without common sense." Robert Green Ingersoll


Imagine that, by some quirk of societal evolution, food preparation and distribution has become an accepted responsibility of the government. Try to conceive of a society, take the United States, which, for the past hundred years or so, has controlled food preparation in the form of a governmental monopoly on restaurants. Privately owned farms and companies still grow and process the food, but they sell their products almost exclusively to the government. All eating establishments are government owned and operated and funded through property and other taxes. Most have historically been controlled and regulated at the state and local level. Citizens pay their taxes and are able to go to the restaurants “free of charge” with the caveat that they must eat only at the restaurants in their home district. You pay the same taxes whether you are a single diner or a family of four.

These government-run restaurants do not need to compete for customers, so there is little incentive to provide a decent product. Without competition, predictably, the food is not very good, but we eat it because it is all we have ever known. The chefs, cooks, and wait-staff are mostly unionized. Their union bosses have negotiated highly favorable contracts with the government that not only raise labor costs without a corresponding increase in quality, but also make it nearly impossible for restaurant staff to be fired. State and local governments go into massive debt to pay the unfunded pension obligations of the unionized food workers. Some people complain about the poor quality of food and service at government-run restaurants. The government’s solution is to raise taxes in order to give more money to the failing public restaurants. The federal government steps in and establishes the Department of Eating. The DOE uses tax dollars collected from the citizens of the various states, skims off its cut, and then sends money back to the states to spend on public restaurants. Interestingly, studies show that even with an increase in government spending on public eating, food quality continues to either decline or remain flat. Meals in the United States consistently rank among the lowest compared with meals in most industrialized nations. It is universally acknowledged that we have a “crisis in our restaurants.” A well-meaning Congress and President pass and sign into law the “No Diner Left Behind Act” which imposes more mandates, regulations, and accountability on public restaurants.

Like all monopolies, the governmental monopoly on restaurants and its unionized workers fear competition. The result is legislation and bureaucratic regulations that inhibit the growth of “private” restaurants. Some states even crack down on those who choose to “home dine” by insisting that home-diners be licensed certified chefs. Critics of “restaurant choice” and the privatization of the eating system scoff at any proposal that threatens the strength of the government and the unions to make decisions over what people eat. They claim that it has always been government’s role to feed the people and that there is no place for “profit” in the nutrition system of the United States. People are skeptical, too, even as they continue to attend failing government-run restaurants. They have always gone to public restaurants and are apprehensive of change that has been deemed “radical” by opponents. It is difficult for some people to conceive of a system of privately run restaurants. Who will pay for the meals? How will we know that the food is safe or nutritious? What will we do with the existing public restaurants? Will greedy restaurant owners put profit above the well-being of diners?

Now, imagine that, by some quirk of societal evolution, K-12 education has become an accepted responsibility of parents and families. Try to conceive of a society, take the United States, where, for the past hundred years or so, parents have been free to choose where and how their children are educated within a privately operated, free-market educational system . Property and other taxes stay dramatically low or are non-existent. Parents use the extra money saved by paying lower taxes to invest in their own children’s education, choosing from a multitude of schooling options. Educational institutions compete to provide the best quality at the most reasonable price. Some schools specialize in certain subject areas. Parents can choose to send their child to a school that puts a higher emphasis on languages, fine arts, sciences, or a particular trade skill. With the proliferation of online curriculum and home-schooling support, many parents choose to educate their children at home.

Yes, profit is part of the system, and that is a good thing. Mismanaged or inferior performing schools are unable to compete with schools of a higher quality and go out of business. Better schools attract more students, which increases profits, which allows schools to expand, which offers more opportunities for even more students. Low-interest education loans are available. Students from low-income families receive scholarships from private schools, religious and community organizations, and other charities. Businesses and individuals are encouraged, through tax deductions, to provide scholarships.

Parents have a greater direct investment in their children’s education and are therefore more actively involved in the process. Standardized test scores are high, and American students consistently rank near the top when compared with students from other industrialized countries.

If you are pro food choice when it comes to dining out, why would you not be pro school choice when it comes to educating your children?

From the Libertarian Party Platform:

2.8 Education
Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." Albert Einstein

Stop the spending, end the “wars,” cut taxes, and leave us alone!

What’s Wrong With Being Rich?

“What we have said is as part of a broader package we should have revenues, and the best place to get those revenues are from folks like me who have been extraordinarily fortunate, and that millionaires and billionaires can afford to pay a little bit more. . . And I do not want, and I will not accept, a deal in which I am asked to do nothing, in fact, I’m able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don’t need . . .”
- Pres. Barak Obama, press conference of July 11, 2011, attempting to sell a debt limit plan that includes tax increases on the “rich.”

“A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species.”
- James Madison, Essay on Property, March 29, 1792

"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
- Thomas Jefferson


(I must preface the following by stating that I am not rich, I have never been rich, and chances are I will never be rich. So, I am not writing this with thoughts of my own self-interest.)

During this summer’s heated, and intolerably prolonged, debt ceiling debate, President Obama has seldom missed an opportunity to engage in class warfare. Every speech and press conference is saturated with tried and true leftist gems like “shared sacrifices,” “millionaires and billionaires,” “corporate jet owners,” “everyone must do their part,” and “pay their fair share.” This should hardly be surprising. With the exception of the race card, class envy and resentment is the most devastating weapon in the liberal/progressive arsenal. What is most unsettling - actually it’s terrifying – is the underlying belief system revealed by statements such as the quote above from the President’s press conference. Please, take a moment to go back and read his quote again. I’ll wait.

What he is basically saying is that he wants to raise taxes, and the best place to go to increase revenues is the wealthy. As Willie Sutton famously replied when asked why he robbed banks, that’s where the money is. This may seem reasonable, but Obama continues by whining that it is not fair that people like him (i.e., multi-millionaires) should be “able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that [they] don’t need.” That’s the scary part. Whose life does he think it is anyway? Do we all own our own lives and the fruits of our labor, or are our lives and our earnings possessions of the United States government? Do we work for ourselves, or do we work for a federal government that tells us how much of our own hard-earned money we are “able to keep?” If Obama’s quote is any indication, clearly in response to both questions he seems inclined to agree with the latter supposition. Secondly, what does he mean by “additional income?” It seems to imply a certain predetermined upper threshold of personal income, above which any money is considered “additional.” Who exactly determines what constitutes “additional” income is unclear, however, presumably the President already has a pretty good idea. Finally, who is Obama to say what amount of income people need or don’t need? This is the classic statist mentality; the State will decide how much money each person “needs,” the State will judge how much income is too much, or “additional,” the State will determine if a private company has made excessive profits, and the State will select how confiscated income will be redistributed. I told you this was scary stuff.

Almost as disturbing is Obama saying he will not accept a deal in which he, as a multi-millionaire, is “asked to do nothing.” As a good Liberal, a proponent of the merits of Big Government solutions, and a champion of those less fortunate, must you be asked to pay your “fair share” or make a “shared sacrifice,” Mr. President? Have you no free will? If you have all that additional income that you don’t need, why don’t you just write out a check for a couple million dollars and send it to the Treasury Department? It’s right next door to the White House; you could run it over and save the postage. I am sure the Treasury will accept your check. Better yet, Mr. President, why don’t you give half your income to charity? The Obamas made over $1.7 million in 2010 and paid about $450,000 in federal taxes. That still nets them about $1.25 million. How much do they really “need”? Surely a family of four living in public housing and taking public transportation can live on $250,000 a year. He doesn’t need that “additional” $1 million. Give it to charity. No, in the Liberal mind, it is the government’s role to take from those who they deem to have too much money and give it to those in need. Oh, and by the way, in 2009 the Obamas made over $5.5 million. I have searched in vain for the news story reporting how they gave all that un-needed, additional income to the Treasury.

Why are Liberals so eager to demonize the rich? What exactly is wrong with being rich? I love rich people. I wish there were more rich people. I admire people who strive to become rich. Contrary to popular Liberal belief, rich people create more rich people, not more poor people. Wealthy venture capitalists risk money on individuals or fledgling companies with creative ideas, innovative products, or unique services. These entrepreneurs, if successful, create jobs, wealth, and a better standard of living. Microsoft and Apple did not just make Bill Gates and Steve Jobs billionaires; they made thousands of early investors into millionaires, created hundreds of thousands of middle-class jobs, and improved the standard of living for millions of people around the world.

The reason Liberals/Progressives demonize the rich and engage in class warfare is obvious. It is the same reason they continually employ divisive racial tactics. Liberalism views society as a collection of groups rather than individuals. Liberal policies are always touted as benefiting a particular subset of society such as the elderly, the poor, minorities, or labor unions, all for the "common good." In order to win elections and maintain power, Liberals must pit what may be considered their favored groups against the perceived groups of their opponents. They must play on fears, resentments, and prejudices in order to solidify support and motivate their voters. Libertarians, on the contrary, view the world as one group of individuals, as the preamble to the Libertarian Party Platform states so eloquently:

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.
We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.
Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.


“If we can but prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy."
- Thomas Jefferson

Stop the spending, end the “wars,” cut taxes, and leave us alone!

Think Libertarian.

How’s That Whole Republican/Democrat Thing Working Out For You?

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
- Albert Einstein

With the exception of the odd Independent, Socialist, or other third-party representative, mayor, or councilman, power at the federal, state, and local levels of this country for the past hundred-plus years has been in the hands of two political parties. Republicans have shown themselves time and again to be the party of Big government, and Democrats the party of BIGGER government.

Democrats view Americans as children whom they must nurture from cradle to grave. Republicans view the American people as children whom they must protect from dangers, real or imagined.

Republicans espouse an almost limitless expansion of America’s military presence around the world, and have never met a conflict they didn’t like and couldn’t justify under the banner of “national interest.” Democrats champion government regulation of almost every aspect of our lives in the name of the “common good,” and have never met a government entitlement program they didn’t hold sacrosanct.

Today, we find ourselves with high unemployment, rising inflation, sinking home prices, record home foreclosures, anemic GDP growth, at least three armed conflicts around the world, failing schools, a futile drug “war,” over-crowded prisons, and a $14.3 trillion debt. These are the consequences of de facto one-party rule for more than a century and a half.

Yet, Americans continue to vote for the same Big Government candidates, whether Republican or Democrat, over and over again expecting different results. Even the criminally insane eventually recognize the futility of banging their heads against the wall and stop. Sadly, we have not yet learned that lesson. But, there is a true choice.

The Libertarian Party is the party of less government and more personal freedom. Libertarians view individuals as adults who have been given free will by their Creator to make their own choices, take care of themselves and their families, and use their property any way they see fit as long as they do not interfere with other individuals making their own free choices. From the Libertarian Party platform:

1.0 Personal Liberty
Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.

2.0 Economic Liberty
Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.

3.0 Securing Liberty
The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments.

Stop the spending, end the “wars,” cut taxes, and leave us alone!

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
- James Madison

Think Libertarian.

The Shame of "Racial Politics"

This past Sunday, Democrat Florida congresswoman and chair of the DNC Debra Wasserman-Schultz accused Republicans of wanting to “drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws” when arguing against GOP proposed voter identification laws. You know, I already had my blog posting written for this week and was just going to let this ridiculous statement slide, but it got me thinking about the liberal (pun completely intended) use of the “race card” in politics today. Although not an exclusive tool of Liberals (see Willie Horton ad, 1988), in recent years the Left has mastered the art of divisive racial politics.

When politicians play the “race card” it usually ends up demonstrating more of a concern for their own political self-interests than any genuine concern for the particular race involved, and reveals a glaring lack of confidence in their own policy and ideological argument’s ability to stand on its own merits. I will not presume to know the congresswoman’s true intent, but reading her entire quote gives us a clue. "You have the Republicans, who want to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws and literally-and very transparently-block access to the polls to voters who are more likely to vote for Democratic candidates than Republican candidates." So, is she more concerned about possible black voter disenfranchisement or the potential for fewer black votes being cast for her party? Would she be just as vociferous, and shamefully demagogic, if blacks voted predominantly for Republicans? If Ms. Wasserman-Schultz had had confidence in the strength of her argument, surely she would not have had to resort to inflaming the racial passions of her listeners and potential voters. However, rather than being the fall-back position of a losing argument, the “race card” has increasingly become the default setting of far-left ideologues. If you oppose the President’s policies or the direction he is taking the country, you are a racist who resents the fact that a black man is in the White House. If you propose Medicaid, food stamp, or other welfare reforms you are anti-minority.

Libertarians feel no need to divide people, and likewise voters, by race, and then pit one group against the other for political advantage. The concepts of liberty, individual freedom, self-reliance, independence, and personal responsibility are universal and transcend race, gender, sexual preference, religion, or nationality. All people should beware of politicians, from whichever political party, who must tear others down and inflame passions and prejudices in order to win an argument or obtain some political advantage. The Libertarian Party “Statement of Principles” says in part:

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

Now, just a very brief history lesson for Congresswoman Wasserman-Schultz and anyone else who might be interested. Jim Crow laws were implemented in order to keep blacks and whites separated in public places. They were, just what their name says, LAWS. Laws passed by Democrat controlled state legislatures in the South. Laws signed by Democrat governors. Laws enforced by Democrat sheriffs. They were the very definition of state sponsored racism. Many laws are put in place to discourage people from acting in a certain way or to encourge them to behave in a particular manner. If people are naturally inclined to behave or not behave in the manner desired by those in authority, then there is no need for the law. If all motorist naturally drove at a “reasonable” speed, there would be no need for speed limit laws. Likewise, if people naturally separated themselves by race in public places there would be no need for laws mandating that they do so. Jim Crow laws were born out of a fear that if blacks and whites were left to their own (natural) inclinations they would commingle. They were laws mandated and enforced by an elected government to compel people to act in a certain way, which were later replaced by laws (Civil Rights Act of 1964) mandated and enforced by an elected government to compel people to act in an opposite manner. If government had not interfered in the first place, we likely would have achieved racial desegregation, if not earlier, at least much more peacefully.

Jim Crow laws are an extreme example of the State imposing laws inhibiting the individual’s natural right to free association, and a perfect demonstration of the consequences of an overly intrusive government – two things that would not happen with a Libertarian government.

Stop the spending, end the “wars,” cut taxes, and leave us alone!

Think Libertarian.

<==== Please, vote in the "Freedom?" poll if you have not already.

Freedom?

“If society fits you comfortably enough, you call it freedom.”
- Robert Frost

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously observed about pornography, “I know it when I see it.” The same might be said about freedom. There may not be a universally agreed upon definition of freedom, but most of us know it when we see it, or at least think we do. Each individual’s perception of their own freedom, or lack thereof, is highly subjective. Two people living in the same country, at the same time, at the same socio-economic level, of the same ethnicity, and of similar age may hold vastly disparate views as to their own, and their nation’s, freedom.

During our War for Independence, a majority of colonists were indifferent to dissolving America’s bonds with the motherland; in fact many were opposed to the move altogether. Surely, these “loyalists” thought, “What’s the big deal? Why ruin a good thing? We are free enough.” Only a small fraction of Chinese stared down the tanks in Tiananmen Square in 1989. Granted, these brave souls were most certainly morally supported by a great number of Chinese (those that were even aware of the event). Many more, I believe, thought, “Why are these kids making trouble? Things could be much worse.”

So, possibly, individual freedom is not only in the eye of the beholder, but is also a matter of degree. The American loyalists were indeed “free enough”; maybe not as free as their British cousins or the Dutch, but free nonetheless. A majority of Chinese in 1989 could, with some legitimacy, look back over their lifetimes and conclude that they enjoyed considerable freedom, compared to during the Cultural Revolution or the “Great Leap Forward.”

In many ways, Americans are freer than they have been in the past. Homosexuality and interracial marriage have become more accepted. African-Americans have experienced an unprecedented expansion of personal freedom over the past 60 years or so. Discussion of drug legalization has crept out of the fringes and into the mainstream, and marijuana decriminalization ballot initiatives have sprung up across the country. In many states, gun laws over the past 20 years have become increasingly less restrictive, and unlike 40 years ago, there is no longer an active military draft.

Unfortunately, in other areas we are considerably less free. Government regulations have made it more difficult for entrepreneurs to start new businesses. A perverted judicial interpretation of eminent domain has eroded property rights, allowing governments to confiscate land from one private owner and transfer it to another. Our natural right to travel, as well as the constitutionally guaranteed “right of the people to be secure in their persons,” have been abridged by an irrational and overzealous Department of Homeland Security and TSA. There are calls from both the Left and the Right for some form of national identification system. Will we soon, in the name of national security, be randomly asked to show our “papers,” as citizens of former Soviet bloc countries were once required?

Please, take a moment to contemplate your own personal freedom and how free you feel America has become. Then vote in the poll in the left-hand column. Thank you.

“There is no such thing as part freedom.”
- Nelson Mandela

Remembering America’s Future Fallen Heroes

“I think that people want peace so much that one of these days government had better get out of their way and let them have it.”
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

Before it became a holiday of car races, hotdogs, beer, and white sales, Memorial Day was designated as a day to commemorate U.S. citizens who had died in military service. It was a day set aside to reflect on, and honor the sacrifices made by servicemen and women to protect our freedom. Is it still that day? Cynics might say no, optimists yes, but I think deep in the hearts and minds of most Americans - whether they spend the day watching a race, grilling brats, chugging some beers, or shopping for sheets - lies a germ of a recollection of the true meaning of the holiday.

On this Memorial Day, if or when you reflect on those throughout history who have paid the ultimate price to secure liberty, I would ask that you also take a moment to think of those unknown and possibly yet unborn heroes who will someday fall on some distant battlefield in the name of freedom, democracy, humanitarianism, or regime change. Picture the eager young faces of future warriors as they loyally perform the duties and carry out the commands they are given by some future president who commits them to battle. A president who, if the recent past is any indication, will make this commitment without a congressional declaration of war as is mandated by the Constitution, or as in the case of our current engagement in Libya, without even abiding by the provisions of the War Powers Act (which, by the way, might itself be unconstitutional).

Sometime during the festive holiday, I hope you will contemplate how many of these future fallen heroes might be saved if presidents and congresses actually governed within the constraints outlined in the Constitution in which they have sworn to “preserve, protect, and defend.” The Constitution gives Congress, and only Congress, the power to declare war, raise and support an army and navy, and “provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repeal Invasions.” The only thing the Constitution says about the President regarding military action is, “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.” In short, Congress declares war, and the President commands the troops once they are called into “actual service.” Nowhere does the Constitution explicitly or implicitly grant the President the power to unilaterally commit armed forces for the purpose of spreading democracy, initiating regime change, preventing some perceived threat to national interests, or establishing a “no-fly zone” to preempt a possible humanitarian calamity (or oust the leader of another sovereign country).

The Libertarian Party platform states:

3.1 National Defense
We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression.The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act aspoliceman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service..

3.3 International Affairs
American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy shouldemphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoidingforeign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention,including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny anddefend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use ofterrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.

This Memorial Day, remember America’s fallen heroes, past, present, and future.

Next Election Day, protect America’s future military men and women.

Vote Libertarian.

“It has too often been too easy for rulers and governments to incite man to war.”
- Lester B. Pearson

You’re Gonna Have to Face It, You’re Addicted to Oil

(My apologies to the late Robert Palmer)


I was recently watching a political policy analysis program on the topic of rising fuel prices. One particularly astute “analyst” stated with such insightful authority that America is “addicted to oil.” She expressed whole-hearted agreement with President Obama’s proposal to eliminate federal subsidies to oil companies and redirect them to renewable energy research. This is just wrong on many levels.

The “addicted to oil” mantra springs up from the left every time oil rises above $100 per barrel as predictably as “radical,” “mean-spirited,” and “extreme” appear when serious entitlement reform is proposed. According to the American Heritage Science Dictionary © 2002, addiction is, “a physical or psychological need for a habit-forming substance, such as a drug or alcohol.” For the past hundred years, and for the foreseeable future, America’s and the World’s economy has been, and will be, dependent on fossil fuels, oil in particular. In its current form, the World’s economy cannot survive without these fuels. My apologies to the ultra-environmental left, but that is just an “inconvenient truth.” To say that Americans are addicted to oil is like saying we are addicted to oxygen. In our current physiological form we are as dependent on oxygen to survive as our economy, in its current form, is dependent on oil.

Therefore, can oil really be called a “habit-forming” substance? That would imply that the substance (oil) formed the habit (driving, manufacturing). Did the early pioneers of modern transportation and industry say, “Hey, what can we make that can run on all this oil we’ve got?” Of course not, they invented, developed, and improved upon devices and processes that could use a new, readily available and relatively inexpensive energy source. Clearly, the substance did not form the habit.

The habitual behavior associated with an addiction is generally viewed as negative, hence the desire to intervene on behalf of sufferers. Addicts become increasingly consumed with a desire to obtain ever greater amounts of the drug to the detriment of their health, relationships, jobs, and lives in general. Is our current “addiction” to the “habit-forming substance” of oil really negative? Many people might reflexively answer with a resounding yes. However, measuring the nation’s expanding productivity and higher standard of living enjoyed over the past hundred years clearly shows that the country and the people are far better off thanks to fossil fuels.

Granted, just as our economy transitioned from being fueled by wood and whale oil to coal, oil and nuclear, it may someday transition to alternative, renewable energy sources. Will we then be accused of being addicted to wind, solar, and bio-fuels? This transition, just as the transition from whale oil to fossil fuels, should be left to the free market not government intervention. I agree with the esteemed “analyst” in one respect, President Obama should eliminate the subsidies to oil companies (and all other subsidies, for that matter), but he should not then transfer those subsidies to “green” energy. While he’s at it, the President should also reduce regulations and other impediments to oil, natural gas, and nuclear development. Alternative energy sources should compete with fossil fuels and nuclear in a free and open market. When they become reliable, plentiful, and cost effective they will replace fossil fuels as naturally as coal replaced wood and oil replaced whale oil.

The Literal Literary Horror of Big Government

Constitutional Moment of the Day

If you don’t like what is in the Constitution, or want to grant more or fewer powers to any branch of the government or privileges to the citizenry, then this is what you have to do.

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

The Framers deliberately made the process difficult. They wanted the Constitution to be a rock for the ages not to be chipped away or re-sculpted based on the whims and fancies of the moment. But, that is exactly what has slowly happened over the years through the decisions of activist judges, executive orders, and unchallenged Congressional legislation.

Quote of the Day

"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates, but let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."
- George Washington, Farewell Address, September 17, 1796

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
- George Orwell, “Animal Farm”

The Literal Literary Horror of Big Government


The recent release of the motion picture adaptation of Ayn Rand’s masterpiece, “Atlas Shrugged” started me thinking about other literary depictions of the horrors of Big Government.

Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World”, “Anthem” by Ayn Rand, “1984” and “Animal Farm” by George Orwell, “Fahrenheit 451” by Ray Bradbury are all dystopian novels describing oppressive central governments that exert their will on the people, stifle the natural rights of citizens, and smother free will, independent thought, and individuality. In short, each is a warning against relinquishing too much control to the government. These are but a small sampling. I could list hundreds of novels, novellas, and short stories with similar themes.

Liberals - I’m sorry they like to be called Progressives now (it’s a bad sign when you have to change your name in order to sell your ideas) - for years have championed more government involvement in our lives through new entitlement programs, increased regulations in almost every area of human existence, and censorship under the guise of political correctness. Conservatives have sought to impose their morals on society by fiat, abridge constitutionally protected civil liberties in the name of national security, and entangle the nation in unconstitutional and seemingly limitless military adventures around the world. Libertarians believe in the supremacy of natural rights, strict adherence to the Constitution, limited government, low taxation, minimal regulations, free market principles, personal responsibility, and the power of the individual.

So, my question is this. If big intrusive government (espoused by Liberals/Progressives and Conservatives) is so great, why have scores of writers throughout history penned horrific tales prophesizing the inescapable outcome of such governments? Where are all the nightmarish stories and prophetic warnings of the evil things to come when limited, unobtrusive governments (advocated by Libertarians) run amuck? The message is clear; an ever expanding central government ultimately leads to deprivation, oppression, and despair. Small, limited government fosters prosperity, personal freedom, and self-fulfillment.

“Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficial. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greater dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”

- Justice Louis Brandeis

“Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” - James Madison

To combat these “gradual and silent encroachments,” be vigilant, stay informed, ask questions, and never fear speaking your mind.