The Weekly Roundup

          In lieu of a weekly update this weekend, I wanted to post links to a couple specific articles with brief comments on each. The articles are a little older, but raise some interesting issues. I think they are good reads and the starting point for intelligent debate if we so choose.

The Economist - Lessons from California: The Perils of Extreme Democracy

          This is a stellar discussion about the failure or success of direct democracy in California. I think that direct democracy needs to be tempered by a Constitution or it becomes mob rule, but I don’t think that California has necessarily crossed that line. One of the early commenters, QEsPapa, wrote a great summary. Perhaps the best answer is to have all taxes be the result of direct democracy, with all expense originating from the legislature, with a Constitutional mandate to not run a deficit? The taxpayers would keep taxes small and legislators would be forced to spend within their means.

The Economist - Cuba's Communist Congress: The Start of a Long, Slow Goodbye

          This article discusses Cuba and showcases how they cannot sustain their communist government. They are being forced to open more private businesses, due in large part to the most common critique of communism—if everything is given, no one will work. The US policy of restricting citizens and not engaging the country is a separate issue that I hope to discuss later.

The Economist - Don't Bully Boeing, Barack

          In this article, the Economist argues for the NLRB to not have so much power (trying to tell business which states are available for expansion and which are not).  Not only is that a vast abuse of power, but the underlying reason, the Unions, is an important issue in itself.  Rather than the days when a Union helped protect Kentucky coal miners from being sent to their deaths, these days Unions are forcing members to join, exacting dues whether members are "willing" or not, exercising vast power over businesses, and becoming a force from which people need protection instead of a protecting force!  Of course in a libertarian society people should be allowed to Unionize, just as they should be allowed to not Unionize and businesses should be allowed to employ whomever they choose.  Propping up industries or workers has not done many favors for the economy in the long run before, and there is no reason to think government intervention will help this time, either.
          These articles showcase libertarian values playing out in the world, but libertarians are not using them to show people that our system works. Many people still are either ignorant enough to equate libertarianism with anarchism, or scared enough to think that people will not be able to flourish with a small government. Using examples of how libertarianism would be making life a little better should be a cornerstone of those trying to convince people of the philosophy.

Foundations 6: Arguing Politics

          In every argument between individuals, there is a disagreement. The disagreement on a given issue in politics is not necessarily the place to argue, however. A political stance is the result of a long line of logical steps that incrementally move from a base idea to the position in question. If one arrives at an idea after 20 steps from the base idea, and another uses 20 steps from a similar base idea to arrive at a different stance, then the chances are small that the true disagreement lies in the stance itself.
          In the example above, say the two individuals agree on the base idea and the first 10 steps of logic. If they are trying to convince each other by saying “America should do A because of step 19”or “America should do B because of my step 19,” then they will never be able to reach a consensus because they have no common ground.
          Instead they must trace back their arguments. For example, they realize they don’t agree on step 19, and so ask each other “why do believe that?” The answer is because of step 18. Once again they disagree and the process continues. Eventually they say “I believe step 11 because of step 10,” and “I also believe step 10, but it gives me this step 11.” Now they have found the point of divergence in their views and the true discussion may begin.
          In this true discussion they may say something like “you used this logical argument to move from step 10 to step 11, but that is in fact a fallacy, not a logical truth,” or “you brought in an outside idea to get from step 10 to step 11, and it is not a correct or proven idea.” In the first case, knowing and using mathematical logic will help, such as “if P, then Q.” Logic is a well-founded and accepted science. Were it to be employed more often, I think we may find ourselves with fewer disputes on our hands. The second case is more difficult to argue. The reason for the outside idea not meeting approval must itself be traced back to a point of disagreement, and the process revisited.
          In the end, every person should be able to trace each stance on every position back to a set of base ideas. If the base ideas of two people do not coincide, then reaching agreement is unlikely and the discussion itself must center on the base ideas and trying to convince your neighbor that his or her ideas are not the best set to use. If the base ideas coincide, then a rigorous examination of the logical arguments, or “proofs,” should yield some ground toward concurrence.
          I write this not because I think that these concepts are beyond understanding, but because I do not think that most people approach their political thoughts in this manner. This can be seen by examining a person’s stances and finding ones that seem contradictory. Did a person arrive at that conclusion after rigorous examination of their principles, or because a role model or trusted political figure proposed it? How much self-examination are most people willing to do on their own ideas? If people were to identify their principles, build logical stances from these, and routinely reexamine them in the light of new information, I think many would be surprised.
          My primary goal in this endeavor, in this blog, is not to promote libertarianism. That is only a secondary goal, as I realize that my arguments may have flaws. Libertarianism is only the best answer I have right now. My true goal is to create a dialog where we can talk to each other about contentious ideas without saying “you believe this so you are [extreme, hard-hearted, soft-hearted, weak, gay, nazi, ],” but rather “Ok, we disagree. Let’s find the root of that disagreement and dispassionately, with mutual respect for the integrity of an idea, discuss the discrepancies.” It is absolutely possible for two people to be completely opposed, but have the best interests of America and good intentions at heart. I will not necessarily agree with them, but I will never put down someone personally because of a difference of ideas. I hold ideas in reverence. They are too important and eternal to be tied to mortal flesh.

YGBSM 2: Government Shutdown! Run for the Hills!

         So the Federal Government is about to shut down—over a measly $28 billion dollars. According to this article from CNN, the issue is the size of the spending cuts for the rest of this year. The Republicans want $61 billion in cuts, while the Democrats want $33 billion in cuts. I am thinking we need more like $1.5 trillion in cuts, aka our deficit.
          The funny thing is the ferocity with which they are defending their cuts. In a deficit that has seen many approximations, all in the neighborhood of $1.5 trillion, the $61 or $33 billion are nothing. Talking about billions of dollars sounds like a lot, so when this comes up on the news most people are impressed that the government is working so hard to cut spending. But let’s look at the numbers written in a similar way: we are spending $1,500 billion more than we make EVERY YEAR. Congress is negotiating to cut about $50 billion of that. That is 50 out of 1500, sometimes known as 3.33%, and that is just of the deficit, not of total spending! Why even bother? I mean, if that is the biggest commitment we can make to responsible fiscal policy, then just don’t even cut anything. It won’t make a bit of difference.
          The funny thing about the government shutdown is that many “essential” personnel will still be working during this time, presumably to be paid later. This more than anything highlights what people truly believe to be the purpose of government. Workers such as FBI and DEA agents, US Marshals, prison guards, and military will still be working. What do these all have in common? They exist to protect people from force and are deemed essential. This “shutdown” shows us what is essential in government and what is not. By forcing people to pay taxes and support non-essential items regularly, the government is overstepping its role. The best way to begin paring back government is to watch this partial shutdown, see where the essential jobs are, maintain those, and cut the rest to be picked up by States or private businesses. I have a feeling there will still be much more “essential” than not, but it might at least be a start. Bring on the shutdown.

YGBSM 1: McDonald's in San Francisco

          I today I was inspired to start a new category of post that I believe will help further the cause of Liberty. The category is YGBSM, and is dedicated completely to governmental actions that make you think “do they even HAVE a thought process?”. I haven’t documented a lot of instances that I want to use, but from the history of times that I have done a /facepalm, I have no doubt that I will be able to keep this going. If you have an example that you would like me to use, just send it to me on Facebook.

          The first YGBSM post that I would like to present is not national, but rather city politics that really opens a window into how people think who “have humanity’s best interest at heart.” If you do not like the show or organization that is presenting it, I would ask that you still give the video a chance—it really is very good.

Foundations 5: THE Foundation

          To borrow a concept from mathematics, a system of theories and truths is built on a foundation of axioms, or basic ideas that are taken to be correct without proof. From these base ideas, the rest is built. The idea is that the fewer axioms that you use to completely build the base of your theory, the more sound it is.
         This applies equally to political philosophy, and I will use this post to show why I think libertarianism is the only correct form for government to take. Additionally, these axioms serve as the basis for all of the issues discussed in the blog, and are a point to which we can trace agreement or disagreement in an argument.
          I propose two axioms for formulating a system of government. The first is that one individual initiating force against another individual is the worst wrong a person can commit. Force is loosely defined as making a person do something that they have not agreed to do, whether that be physical, mental, fraud, or some other means. The second axiom is that no other wrongs can add up to be greater than or equal to the initiation of force.
          These two axioms together tell us that initiating force against an individual is inexcusable, because 1) it is the most wrong thing you can do and 2) there is no accumulation of other wrongs that a person could have done to “deserve” the initiated force. Note that this applies to initiated force, because force used in defense does not fit these definitions of wrong.
          These axioms and this immediate conclusion are philosophical, without direct application at this point. To apply them to government, we must examine the nature of government. Government is a system whereby a certain group of people, usually citizens and visitors, are held to a set of rules that contain penalties for breeching. This may take a concrete form of citizens paying taxes in return for governmental services used in enforcing the rules or providing services. Taxes are not optional, and so can be regarded as forced from a person by their government. In order to exist, a government uses force.
          So what makes this acceptable, if the initiation of force is the pinnacle of unjust activity? If the government uses this force to provide a service that is not related to force, it has violated the axioms by using force to combat a lesser evil.
          On the contrary, if a government uses the force of taxation in order to prevent force, this may be viewed as a fair exchange. For example, if a government uses taxation to fund a military that protects its citizens from outside force, or a police force that protects its citizens from force originating within, then it has induced force on its citizens for the purpose of preventing greater and more widespread and destructive force. This is a legitimate use of government force.
          Some may argue that the initiation of force by government in the first place is contrary to principles. These people would tend towards a lack of government, or anarchy. On the contrary, the cries of the victim are the most constant sound in human history. At the individual level, from Cain to the evening news, human nature has shown itself to tend toward force. This has translated into the international force of warfare since there have been nations. Force between people or groups of people has existed since time before government, and may be rightly considered the initiation, with government being considered one of the defenses.
          This is the basis for a libertarian government: the role of the government is only to prevent the initiation of force, and a government may be considered to legitimately serve the people if and only if that is its sole endeavor. So what would this libertarian government look like in America? It would surely involve a military and police force. Having the legislature create laws that govern what is force and what is not force is acceptable. The legislature should confine itself to these activities, to setting the missions for the organizations used to carry them out. The executive branch heads the military and police forces, and runs the various forces and organizations that accomplish these missions. A judiciary adjudicates all disputes to determine whether or not force was criminally applied. It also moderates between the other branches of government.
          The Constitution lays out all of this rather nicely. It provides some small extra powers that are not strictly in keeping with this idea, such as the ability of the legislature to create post offices. However, using the axioms to create this idea of how any government, especially that of America, should run lays a solid foundation for each issue that may arise from politics. Perhaps more importantly it provides the basis for a vision of the nature of government. Using this vision, a politician may make principled decisions guiding his nation toward a well-understood and accepted, predictable end. These axioms are my base. All of my ideas, principles, visions, and stances grow from them. If we agree on these axioms, then we should be able to come to similar conclusions as we discuss the nature of government and each individual issue.

Issues 15: Changes in the American Military

          As I mentioned in my last post, the military intervention that the US cannot seem to avoid is not just a political policy question, but one of systems.  When we talk about what the military policy of a free nation should be, the inevitable question arises of what that country’s military should look like.  This latter question will help to drive the answers to the first.
          The modern American military is a gargantuan unmatched in the world. Not only is the standing force large, but monetary expenditure far outpaces any other nation in the world. In return we have perhaps the most capable force with technological supremacy and the ability to deal with conflicts various in scope throughout the globe. But should we?
          According to a principle of non-initiation of force, the military exists solely to defend Americans from foreign militaries and foreign force. There are entire books dedicated to the subject of just and unjust wars, but on the base idea of protecting against force only, preemptive and preventive wars as well as wars over “national interests” are not in line with libertarian philosophy.
          The current philosophy directing the use of the military is in itself destructive to national interests (read previous article here). Besides the selfish morality of losing American lives for a cause that did not threaten America in the first place, there are other selfish principles such as the exorbitant military budget. Additionally, the American reputation is tarnished by military intervention throughout the world. Military presence creates a target for terrorism and an object by which enemies of America can rouse ire against us. While these all point to military non-intervention as self-interested, it is also for the good of those countries on whose behalf we may intervene. Just like on an individual level, if you do something for a person for a long time, they will become incapable of doing so themselves.
          So how does this affect our military itself? It is not just politics. The very size and structure of the military suggests political ends to which it may be used. In an ideal libertarian country, the Army branch of the military would consist almost entirely of a National Guard or Reserve force. Since the purpose of such a force would be defense of the homeland, not expeditionary conquest, it would not need to be largely standing. A much smaller standing Army would serve to be a first reaction and form the core of a professional organization that retains constant capability to defend the nation. The US Army should transition to a smaller standing Army while increasing the size of its National Guard and Reserve forces, maintaining the ability to defend the nation while making it more difficult to send the Army to foreign shores.
          The Navy and Air Force should be by far the largest standing branches of the military. Since most enemies must traverse a great space in order to threaten America in the first place, having a method to prevent attack by both sea and air serves to defend the country. As there are also “moving pieces of America” in our ships and planes, it is also important to be able to defend these as they roam the globe. The Air Force would not take trips around the world to bomb dictators into submission or strike politically opportune targets. Instead it would defend American skies and maintain the capability to travel the world only should the US be attacked. The Navy would largely keep doing as it is, without the intervention of planes launched from carriers except as national defense.

          A smaller standing Army with a more domestically based Navy and Air Force would serve to reduce the military footprint of the United Sates throughout the world, create less ire against America in other nations, and reduce the budget currently spent maintaining an arm of force that is all too often initiating rather than defending. A larger Reserve and Guard force would maintain the ability to secure the nation.

          These ideas seem far fetched on the surface, but only in light of how the military has been used recently. The Founding Fathers were scared to death of a standing Army for fear that it would be used to suppress political opposition in the United States. They built safeguards against this, which work wonderfully. However, they could not have envisioned that the same concern would centuries later apply to the military force at a global level. Reducing the military to a defensive structure is completely in line with the views that founded America, and more importantly, better serves the Constitution that governs us. The title Secretary of War has long ago given way to the title Secretary of Defense. Now we need to adjust policy to match.

Issues 13: Adult Budget Conversation

     In an article by The Wall Street Journal, they say that an adult conversation is finally getting under way about the deficit and that it happened faster than anyone expected, including me. I think this is wonderful, but the way the article is written brings to mind some issues that that I still have with the process.
     The article suggests that lawmakers are looking at it from both sides, reducing spending in the form of entitlements as well as raising taxes to increase revenue. I applaud this method, but as I mentioned in earlier posts about how to tackle the budget, those entitlements need to eventually disappear entirely. Any plan that does not do this only prolongs the issue and kicks the problem down the road to the next generation of politicians. I realize this is the more politically expedient method, but not by any means the most responsible one.
     Tax increases will almost certainly be a necessary pairing with this. However, I would not support one for an entitlement that is not planned to expire as it is paid off. For example, I would support a temporary tax increase tied to Social Security to help pay the debts we have incurred if and only if that is included with a plan for Social Security to phase out completely and the tax will do so in time with the program. This is the best way to begin a return to fiscal sanity.
     I found another post online comparing the difference between Maine and New Hampshire. One of the great things about our Federal system is that it allows comparison among the states to find a system that works. New Hampshire has lower taxes with similar or better results, but that is not my point. My point is the way that those freedom-loving people approach the issue of budgeting. Having never been blessed to live there, I will trust what the article says: citizens refuse to let their taxes be raised, believing that the money already sacrificed can cover necessary services. In turn, the politicians approach the budget by saying “This is the money we have, what is the best way to spend it?” This is far different from the attitude in Washington that says “This is the program that I want because I think it is good, if I can fund it, great, if not, oh well.” The latter is the foundation of the budget problem while the former is the attitude toward which all Americans should strive in order to have a sound fiscal policy that also delivers the services demanded of a government.

Issues 12: The Problem with Voters

     The third leg of this government tripod is the people themselves—the electorate that, through democratic process, is ultimately responsible for the actions of the elected official. The worst part about a democracy is that when the government is of the people and by the people, and it turns south, the people have no one to blame but themselves. For America, there are a number of factors that people must look at when trying to figure out where we went wrong.

     The most important attribute of fault in people is the lack of self-sacrifice. The Constitution gives no place where the Federal government may step in and give aid to the people. While charity is encouraged, America’s most respected politicians have long argued that it is outside the scope of Federal involvement. This issue is one of those that prompted the Founding Fathers to have a government decided by an Electoral College and not direct democracy. Federalist No. 10, which deals with how to prevent a group of people with an interest outside the bounds of the Constitution from pushing that interest through the government anyway, showcases how the Founding Fathers intended the Constitution to prevent the sort of Constitution-ignoring, special-interest-pandering government that we have today.
     The beginning of the end of this came during the Great Depression. Americans were understandably distraught about the economic situation, and rather than let it right itself, they relied on the American government to come to their aid. This was later reinforced during the “War on Poverty” by LBJ. Over time, numerous government programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and subsidies began a culture of giving Americans money that the Constitution grants the government no power to give. To stop these programs, many Americans would have to be willing to sacrifice the personal gain they are receiving for both the greater good of the nation and subservience once again to the Constitution. This has not happened, although polls suggest the crisis may be coming to enough of a culminating point that people are becoming willing to sacrifice again (this poll from the AES shows on page 8 that 49% of people would be willing to cut programs that help them in order bring our budget back under control).
     There are other factors beyond lack of self-sacrifice that hurt the American citizen. Part of it is just ignorance. The political landscape, not to mention complex economics, international relations, health, and domestic political science are all issues toward which collegiate-level education dedicates entire courses of study, and a voter is supposed to be able to decide who has better policy on all of these issues together. It is not feasible to be done well, which prompts a person to choose a couple of “key issues,” usually something that affects them.
     While the issue of self-sacrifice is the most important to turning the country around, the ignorance issue perhaps hurts most. As a citizen who wields electoral power, and hence decisive power, over elected offices of government, it is a responsibility to have a working knowledge of the Constitution, American history, and government to include structure, function, and current events. Americans must take it upon themselves to be educated.
     To solve these problems I propose that all American citizens must also qualify to vote or hold public office, rather than be born into it. Those born in the US would still be considered citizens, protected by the Constitution, but would not hold the power to vote or run for public office until they qualified. This would help to prevent the ignorant, selfish politics that dominate today’s landscape.
     To qualify as a voting-citizen, a person must do two things. The first would be to pass an American History and Government class, or something similar. This would be standardized across the country and could be modeled on the classes and exams that naturalized citizens have to take, but add more elements of logic, political philosophy, American political evolution focusing on the Founding Fathers, and other subjects that may be deemed necessary to running the nation.
     The second requirement for a person to qualify as a voting-citizen would be to successfully complete two (the number can vary, but any less would be useless) years of government service. This service could be military in nature, or be connected to fire, police, ambulance, or other protective services. There may be many others that could qualify, but a distinguishing characteristic must be that the position requires you to potentially sacrifice for your fellow man. The sacrifice need not be your life, but perhaps your sleep when you are called to an accident scene at 2 a.m.
     These two requirements for full voting and political-office-holding citizenship, while still allowing the current definition of citizen to apply in all other cases, create many benefits for American society. It ensures that anyone wanting to make a decision concerning the American future, concerning how to spend their fellow tax-payers’ money, or concerning where to send Soldiers to die has first confirmed that they are willing to sacrifice for the good of others and the country. It also removes any excuse for ignorance.
     This idea is not drastic, discriminatory, or radical. It is not drastic because it does not force anyone to do anything, it merely sets conditions as a prerequisite for voting and public office. If voter turnout tells us anything, anywhere from a third to half of the population would not even be affected. It is not discriminatory because it will apply equally to all Americans, no matter your individual characteristics. In fringe circumstances of a person being incapable of meeting the letter of the requirement but still wanting to earn voting rights, a judge would set an equal condition for the person to meet. Lastly, it is not radical because it does not violate the letter or the spirit of the Constitution. The Constitution has long sought to keep political decisions made by educated people of service to their nation through the Electoral College, an institution that has ceased to perform its intended purpose, leading to consequences the Founding Fathers rightly feared. This proposal remains true to Constitutional principles while ensuring that America’s future is born most heavily on the shoulders of those willing to support it.

Issues 11: Curbing the Influence of the Avaricious and Ambitious Politician

          As I mentioned before, one of my desires is not just to limit government, but to shrink it back to levels that are both more efficient and commensurate with the Constitution. I proposed procedural changes that will help make this possible, but the second leg of the tripod remains to be dealt with: political service itself.
          In times long past, times of war, sacrifice, and American courage, men called political office a service to their country. Men like George Washington bore the mantle of setting the precedent of what a United States President should do. When fans asked him to be something more, he declined. When he had served two terms, a sufficient time to make an impact but not so much as to be a careerist, he voluntarily stepped down. This act was emulated by Presidents for over a hundred years, until FDR decided that he was too important for the country to lose.
          Thereafter, it has been the job of the Constitution, in the form of the 22d Amendment, to limit the President to two terms of “service.” This has not translated to Congress, however, where men and women still seek to make their “career in politics.” The fact that a person may impact the country for a long period does not bother me so much as the fact that they are being elected and paid to do so. How many Americans think that they could make decisions better than some Congressmen? It is not a position that is short supply of applicants.
          The Founding Fathers envisioned political service to be exactly that—service that you rendered to your country for a short time apart from your “real” life. And it is toward that goal that I propose changes in the way Congressmen serve.
          Let’s face it, if a person is so magnanimous that they want to serve their country and make it a better place, they will overcome obstacles in their path in order to do so. No trophy, no exorbitant amounts of money, no preferential treatment would be necessary for the true patriot to stand up and serve his or her country. If you do not believe me, look at the members of today’s military. The Founding Fathers risked execution to create and serve this country; surely our Congressmen needn’t have elite-citizen status to be enticed to grace the country with their noble ideas.
          The first thing that I would change about Congress is the obvious term limits. The numbers themselves can be tweaked, but 12 years in Congress, divided any way between either of the chambers, seems best to me. This allows a person to serve at the Federal government for up to 20 years, if their service is so special and dedicated as to warrant two Presidential elections as well. The number 12 seems good because it fits easily with 6 terms in the House or 2 in the Senate, but as I said, the exact number doesn’t matter as much as the principle, to a point.
          The term limits give one major advantage to people that they don’t have now: eventually your Congressmen will be able to do what he thinks is right without worrying about straddling the fence to ensure reelection. As we see now in an example, there are some harsh and unpopular measures necessary to balance the budget. Either we must raise taxes or cut entitlements, either of which is likely to get a candidate a quick trip back home next election. With politicians not as worried about pandering to voters and special interest groups each election cycle, they will be able to make tough decisions that they think are for the benefit of the country, sans the current flowery language, veiled statements, and games. Your own research will unveil arguments not proposed here both for and against term limits, as this is an issue reaching national attention. I encourage you to add your thoughts to the comments on this blog.
          The second part of this solution is for politicians to not have a retirement system. If political position in the United States is viewed as political service, no retirement should be necessary. Retirement is associated with work, not service. Other job benefits should also be closely examined to determine which ones are strictly necessary.
          As for pay, Benjamin Franklin gave an amazing argument condemning the combination of power and money into one position where a person’s ambition and avarice may produce “most violent effects.”
          There are two sides to the argument that government service should have no pay. The first is that of Benjamin Franklin. The second is that a lack of pay would allow only the rich to participate, as they would be the only ones who could afford the associated expenses. I propose the solution of no pay, with the following stipulations. First, the government could procure adequate and optional housing to serving politicians. This would be procured housing, not money to pay for housing. Second, the government would cover all necessary and business-related expenses. These two provisions would remove the barrier of money in relation to serving, while still not paying political servants directly.
          An alternate answer may be to pay political servants at the DC rate for the lowest GS level. I don’t think this is as good as no pay, but it compromises between giving them income comparable to what the government expects people to live on and enforcing the view that they are the servants, not the elite.
          A third idea for holding Congress more accountable would be to increase its size. As counterintuitive as this sounds, the more Congressmen there are, the fewer constituents there are per Congressman. This allows for greater representation, greater accountability, and less power in each Congressman. That power that each wields is a large motivator to remain in office. An article by Jonah Goldberg details some of these benefits.
          I believe this three-part plan of term limits; retirement, pay, and benefit overhaul; and size increase will have the desired effect of making Congressmen once again servants of their country. The decrease in power and pay reduce the effects of avarice and ambition, as cautioned by Ben Franklin, while the term limits allow elected officials to stop making political service a career and focus on adherence to the Constitution rather than supporting the donors that will fund their next campaign.

Issues 10: Please, not more PROGRESS!

     As a libertarian, one of my large concerns is the size and involvement of government. I am not just concerned that it is so large and involved, but that these traits do not seem to ever lessen. Indeed, the system appears to be set up in such a way that makes it unlikely and difficult for this to happen. As Ronald Reagan told us, “No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth.” Our soaring deficit and inability to make enough program cuts to bring spending back in line with income is one proof of this statement’s veracity.

     Why is this? Part of it is the nature of the beast. Politicians are judged by constituents on what they do, what they vote for, what they accomplish. Unfortunately, making changes to make the government more efficient does not seem to count as an accomplishment. The two-party system makes it difficult for movements to remove programs to ever gain traction, too. A party steadfastly defends its actions for fear of being seen as weak, divided, or admitting a wrong.
     Another factor is the complexity of the government in the first place. With a budget well over $3 trillion, who will notice $3 million spent on pork? After all, that is only ONE MILLIONTH of the total budget. Think about that: our government is so large that $3 million is only 1/1,000,000 of the budget. Who cares? Numbers like that are easily forgotten.
     Take the example of wool and mohair subsidies in the National Wool Act of 1954. Paying for the production of these substances was deemed in the best interest of the government in WWII because they were used to make military uniforms. They were passed as part of another bill, and lingered even after the military stopped using them in uniforms. It wasn’t until 1995 that they were repealed. Whew, that was close. But we finally got it right, it only took time. Wait! They were reinstated you say? After we decided that they were no longer necessary (it being debatable in the first place) and went to the effort of ending the program, it was restarted just a few years later because people were not happy to lose their money? And therein lies the other side of the coin: people will generally put their own self-interest over that of the country or the Constitution.
     Although it may be politically difficult to reduce and make efficient a government, it is by no means impossible. I propose that this is a multi-step process that must address all levels of the issue, from selfish voters and politicians to procedural matters that make it more difficult. This post will only address procedures.
     The first procedure I propose to change is the act of piggy-backing many unrelated bills together. The language could say something to the effect of “only one proposition, with all of its necessary component parts, may be in any given bill.” Or maybe it needs to be “all bills may only be 2 pages long.” More articulate people than I can word it appropriately if there is ever a chance to do so. The benefits of this bill are that it forces each representative to vote for each initiative, giving voters more control over holding them accountable. If a representative votes for a separate bill that subsidizes wool, it would be very easy for opponents to paint them as irresponsible pork-supporters. On the other hand, if a representative tries to deny a major bill that has too much pork attached for that very reason, it is easy for the opposition to say “Rep. So-and-so has shown through repeated voting that he or she is against babies, apple pie, and American flags. How terrible.” Voting on each issue as a separate bill increases the transparency of the system, making it easier for voters to understand the full nature of a politician’s voting record and hold them accountable.
     The second issue is perhaps a better one for actually shrinking the government, not just slowing the wild growth: make it law that all legislation expires automatically after five years; at that point it must pass the legislative process again in order to stay in effect for five more years. This would have several benefits. First, it prevents programs from being forgotten and shelved, only to fester in the bureaucracy. Second, and perhaps most sadistically, it keeps the Federal government tied up enough with work that they will be forced to focus on only the most important issues. Those issues that are widely regarded as necessary and proper will pass votes easily, while those that are contentious will have to be prioritized for fight. The result should be smaller government that is more responsive to the people and focused on the most important issues.
     Don’t misunderstand me—this is a step, but a large part of the problem still lies at the feet of every American citizen and every politician. In lieu of systemic changes, personal sacrifice on many people’s part is necessary for positive (or negative, if you prefer the term) change. I will address those issues, most likely separately, in later posts. This is merely a suggestion of procedural changes that can make government more accountable, a prospect that should be popular enough with voters to have a chance at success.

Link: Rand Paul at CPAC

Senator Rand Paul spoke at the Conservative Politcal Action Conference today.  While the labels of Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, etc. mean next to nothing, the ideas hold paramount importance.  The Senator spoke on several issues, some of which touched on ideas expressed in this blog.  If you are concerned with Liberty, it is comforting to know that there is someone in a position to forward to the cause.  As far as I can tell so far, this would be a good man to watch and support.

Issues 4: Why Read the Constitution?

     Members of Congress have proposed that each bill on Capitol Hill include a reference to where the Constitution grants them the authority to create the bill. This is a wonderful idea, especially if one considers the implication that this concedes to the Founding Fathers’ idea that the Constitution is meant to be a document of limitation of government power.
     It seems that the way the Federal Government has gone about business lately (i.e. at least 80 years, probably longer) is to pass any legislation or executive order that is not specifically forbidden by the Constitution. The primary concern touted by politicians is that something is “for the good of the people,” and when this is at odds with the Constitution, it is attempted anyway in hopes that the courts may overlook it. Is the Constitution no longer good enough for the people?
     By citing the authority given to do something in the first place, politicians are ceding that their power lies in what the Constitution expressly tells them to do, and powers that are not articulated are reserved to the states and the people. Federalist No. 84 is a great example of this theory (Alexander Hamilton claims we do not even need a Bill of Rights because ALL rights are reserved to the people, except what the Constitution confers to government: “Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?”). In this instance, a major fear of the Founding Fathers has come true. Perhaps, if this effort is taken seriously and is not just lip service, America may find a better future a little closer to its roots. This would be a welcome change.

Issues 3: State of the Union Address

     Tonight President Obama delivered his second State of the Union Address. There are many things that I like about the President. Although we do not see eye-to-eye on the specifics of all policies, he is a man of charisma and good intentions. He has an infectious positive attitude that is essential to seeing the best in a situation and moving forward. His comment that others countries do not have the problem of endless bickering and how lucky we should feel to have the opportunity for all of this frustration and subsequent monologue make me even more proud to be a part of this great nation.

     To the meat and potatoes, so to speak, we must discuss the issues. I will summarize here with the promise for more in-depth discussion on nearly all of these topics at a later date.
     Every child deserves an opportunity to succeed, the President tells us. Education goes far beyond being able to succeed and into the territory of ensuring an educated electorate and a security that does not exist in other countries. He mentioned specifically the need for parents to turn off the TV, and this emphasis on personal responsibility and taking an active interest in your own future and that of your children cannot be overstated.
     The President mentioned that the winner of the science fair, not just the Super Bowl, needs to hailed as a success. I don’t know how the government can make this happen, but I support the idea. His proposal that success is a function of hard work and discipline is an idea espoused by libertarians the world over—the trick is in crafting policies that reward hard work.
     He mentioned also that bringing students to Universities and then sending them home makes no sense. While I see the point he was trying to make, that practice is a valuable tool in American foreign policy. If foreigners are brought into the country, shown its benefits and treated well before being sent home, they will return to their country with a positive view of America and the American system that will do more to spread our ideology than all of our military campaigns combined. His point, though was immigration, a contentious issue. How can a society be free and libertarian but still close its gates to anxious people who want to participate?
     Promoting American jobs is important to the President and to any politician who wants to receive votes from Americans who either work or do not work. I hope they also realize how important it is to avoid protectionist policies that will hurt in the long run, even if the alternative is short-term political difficulties.
     The fact that government is inefficient should no be a surprise to anyone. To libertarians especially, his discussion of redundant agencies and confused salmon is like a /facepalm. President Obama proposed counteracting this, but that is difficult with a body that has no competition. Perhaps some creative solutions could be find in business practices such as hiring analysts to see how the process can be streamlined and encouraging processes like Lean Sigma that can reduce redundancy and overhead without cutting into efficacy.
     Perhaps the biggest point of the night, however, was deficit spending. I hope to get into this in more detail shortly, but will make brief mentions here. The President highlighted his idea to freeze federal spending for 5 years, reducing the deficit $40 billion per year for ten years. Not only is that spitting in the ocean for a deficit that is already $1.21 trillion per year (reducing it to only $1.17 trillion per year), but when spending has already exploded to this point, we need reduction, not freeze. The simplified tax code has promise, especially if it is simplified out of existence.
     Let me end with this thought from the President’s speech: America’s moral example must shine for all. As I began to show in the Tunisia post and will continue to do so, this is a worthy goal that is best served through a fair application of Liberty.

Foundations 4: Not Anarchist

As I discuss politics with people, I sometimes have people say “how can you think that there shouldn’t be a government?  How can you think things like the FDA, protecting us from greedy drug companies, are not good?”  This shows how little some people understand about a libertarian or minimalist government.  I not only support, but think that a strong, ethical, limited government is essential to a nation’s well-being and even existence.  However, government has only certain purposes, which, like a good court decision, should be well-defined and narrowly applied.

In a nutshell, the purpose of government is to prevent one person or group from infringing on the liberty of another person or group.  This mostly happens through force or fraud, which government must be strong to prevent. 

Let me share some examples, starting with the obvious—police.  A police force fulfills this definition of government by preventing or punishing crimes such as robbery, murder, arson, etc.  A military does largely the same thing, but on an international rather than domestic level.  Government policies such as requiring warning labels on cigarettes prevent those companies from hiding the nature of their product and thus hurting people through fraud.  The government however, has no right to tell a person they are not allowed to hurt themselves by smoking the product anyway.  Another example of government fulfilling its purpose in a more subtle way is laws against unethical business practices such as price fixing.  A business cannot conspire with a competitor to set a price for a certain good, but must rather compete in a free market.  On the surface this may seem to some people like stifling an economic liberty, but it is one that hurts a customer’s ability to access a free market through force or fraud.

An issue that has come up in several discussions is the FDA.  Under the view of government I propose, the purpose of this body would be to ensure that food and drug companies properly disclose all information about their products that people may want to know prior to using it.  It should not in any way be used to tell people what they can or cannot eat or use.  As you can hopefully see, contrary to some misperceptions, this view of government does not mean “no government,” does not mean that “big corporations can just screw people over because they have the money and power,” and does not mean that “people will just be able to whatever they want without regards to others.” 

The purpose of this entry was to clarify the principles upon which this model of government is built.  The ideas of the proper roles for government have been debated since antiquity by some of the greatest philosophical minds in history.  I welcome discussion, especially about whether this form of government is practical in our world today, but I do not expect any great revelations.  In the next entry I will start discussing how to apply this philosophy to particular issues and how the libertarian idea is best for America.

Foundations 3: The Dissatisfaction

As I mentioned in my last entry, Americans who value liberty in all areas of life are underrepresented in political discourse, and many do not even accurately identify their belief platforms.  I would like to start this entry by comparing the standing political parties’ stances on the social and economic liberty that I mentioned before.

A quick tour of the website of the Democratic Party can show what they stand for.  It starts off saying “our country and our economy are strongest when they provide opportunity for all Americans.”  This is exactly right.  Provide people with equal opportunities and let them build their lives and their future.  American history and ingenuity, human desire to live and prosper—these things drive people to work hard to make their lives, and consequently the world, a better place. 

“Democrats believe that each of us has an obligation to each other.”  Whoa.  Really?  I agree that we all have an equality of opportunity and that the government is in place to protect that opportunity, but opportunity includes the opportunity to fail.  I believe in charity work to help those less fortunate, I believe in strong family cohesion to help people have a measure of security in the world, but I am absolutely opposed to the idea that I am governmentally “obligated” to any person in the country—morally or religiously through my own beliefs, yes; governmentally, no.  I especially dislike the idea that other people, through threat of governmental force, will tell me exactly how I am obligated, how I “need” to help, and how my opportunity should be sacrificed for that obligation. 

These two sentences taken from the Democrats’ stance begin to show the dual nature of their philosophy, how people are free but not free.  Let us look at where this stance leads.  Under the heading “Civil Rights” the Democratic website says that it stands for fighting employment discrimination and repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”  Both of these steps serve to increase Social liberty across the nation, letting people work, serve, or exist without reference to their beliefs, only to their performance.  This is a good news for supporters of social liberty.  It is disappointing that the particular page is so bare, lacking a clear definition of problems and solutions and instead using broad language and categories to make as inoffensive point as possible.

Under the heading of Retirement Security, Democrats begin to talk about their dearth of economic liberty.  They proudly tout the creation of social security, a program which creates a government-run “retirement plan,” basically taxing workers to pay retirees.  The website says that they “believe that all Americans have the right to a secure and healthy retirement.”  I have a lot of issue with this.  Americans certainly have the right to the opportunity of a secure retirement, through intelligent savings, risk-taking through investing, or a strong family structure that supports multi-generational families.  There are many ways for people to work within their opportunities to secure their own retirement.  Using government to force one group of people to support the lifestyle of another group is not economic freedom.

These are but two small examples of the idea of social freedom vs. economic freedom.  Democrats tend toward more social freedom and less economic liberty.  Now let us look at the Republican agenda and compare the two.

Starting with social liberty, the Republican Party tends to replace the word liberty with the word values.  Their website says “Republicans have been at the forefront of protecting traditional marriage laws, both in the states and in Congress.”  We know that this means that Republicans do not support gay or any other kind of marriage outside the traditional man and woman.  And why not?  Are nontraditional marriages hurting you personally in some way, some way that is worth taking a person’s social liberty?  By contrast the Republican party does favor more economic liberty in the form of lower income taxes for all people.  If a person honestly earns money (as opposed obtaining through force or fraud), then why should they not be allowed to keep and enjoy every penny that they earned?  Is that not a blessing of liberty or pursuit of happiness for them?  Or does the Constitution only apply to certain economic strata?

The divides between the ruling parties are evident and wide.  There is little room for compromise when your basic beliefs are at odds, leading to the stalemate of partisan uselessness that we are currently experiencing.  But the very fact that both parties have to qualify their liberties gives me cause for concern.  Why can’t any party support “Liberty”?  Why must political supporters have to decide between social or economic liberty?  Why can we not have both? 

Why can’t I use my opportunities to earn as much money as I can, then use it, keep it, and spend it in a way I see fit, without being governmentally forced to support others?  I would agree and be very happy in return to not have those others be governmentally forced to assist me.  Please do not confuse this with a lack of desire or willingness to help mankind.  I have and will continue to do so through monetary and time donations, but at my discretion, to causes I consider worthy, and with complete control over my actions.  I am also a big fan of the idea of family support.  My family has continued to support each other throughout my lifetime, from the old to the young.  Contrary to the perceptions of many whom I have discussed this with, a lack of government mandated monetary redistribution is not the equivalent of a cruel and unconcerned world.  It is simply a world where people can choose when and how and why to help each other rather than be forced into it.

Additionally, why can’t I profess my love for a man, men, woman, or women, as I choose, in a legal ceremony?  Does it prevent others from living their lives as they see fit?  Does it in any way hinder anyone’s opportunities in this world? 

The major political players in America create the impression that our biggest political decisions are which type of liberty to give up and how much of the other you get in return.  One party favors economic liberty at the cost of social, and the other is the opposite.  Where are the people who want liberty throughout their lives, in all aspects?  Where are the proponents who believe that less government intervention means in all areas, not just Republican ones?  Where are the Democrats who fight for equal opportunities, and also support people keeping the rewards of an opportunity well followed?  Hopefully as this blog progresses I will outline areas where liberty is suffering and what we can do to fix it.  Throughout the discussions that we will have, perhaps more people will realize that they really don’t identify as Republican or Democrat, but as something different. 

I almost decided not to post this idea in favor of a more issue-focused argument.  However, I think that at this point in the birth of Liberty’s Rest, it is important to paint a picture of how the ideas of liberty in all areas flow naturally from the dissatisfaction with the current American political system.  It is important to the philosophy of liberty and to America to include a discussion on personal responsibility, which will come shortly.  With luck, the arguments and discussions will focus on principles and logic while refraining from partisan ignorance.

Foundations 2: The Other People

In America’s political landscape, there is not a lot that separates the two major political parties.  Both generally follow the Constitutional mission of the Federal Government to “form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”  Establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, and providing for the common defense are all established in form and function and, while the specifics vary slightly, the courts, police, and military are all fundamental institutions in most people’s idea of government.  The rub comes on the other three precepts, and what it means to form a more perfect Union, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty, and this ambiguity creates the two major issues in American politics.

Most contested issues fall into one of two categories: economic liberty and social liberty.  These two concepts can each be individually supported or stymied, creating four different ways to look at life based on these concepts.  The four ways are to curtail liberty of both in favor of government control, eschew government control of both in favor of liberty, push economic liberty while guarding social behavior tightly, or allowing social liberty while working to control the economy.  The American left generally takes the last view of social freedom and economic control and redistribution while the American right general supports greater economic freedoms while intruding into people’s private lives.

The other two views are both largely trampled in the “compromises” that Democrats and Republicans craft in order to push the most important aspects of their agendas, trading certain liberties for others.  I in no way support the view that all liberties should be abandoned and government control be the norm.  I think most Americans also do not support this, and thus the communist or totalitarian movements that would support it are very weak. 

The view that Americans should be free in all aspects of their lives that do not hinder others, however, is severely underrepresented in American politics.  Through both personal interaction and media I see people every day who are disappointed in the American political system.  They consider themselves Republicans or Democrats, but more moderate than many of their more vocal party-members.  They may be happy with what their party is doing in regards to economic or social liberty, but disappointed in the other aspect.  They may even recognize the inconsistent policy that their party puts forward through a lack of axioms or principles that govern their thinking.  I have talked to several people who now claim to embrace libertarian ideas (ideas, not political party), but could not accurately identify these ideas when they were dissatisfied with the major political parties.  Many moderate Democrats and Republicans really align their true beliefs with neither party, but want the freedom and liberty guaranteed by the American Constitution, but don’t know where to turn.

This blog is dedicated to those people, who want to be left alone to live their lives and not hurt others.  I embrace this idea of liberty through minimal government, and know many others do as well.  What I would like to explore throughout the next entries is how this belief takes the shape of policy and follow it to its logical results.  If you are frustrated with politics in America, are losing or have lost faith in Republicans and Democrats to work for your interests, and have difficulty finding a place to honestly discuss your ideas without tie to party or threat of partisan anger, then work with me here in this forum to raise the standard of American political participation to the level it should be.

Foundations 1: Introduction

            The world sucks.  American Soldiers are getting killed around the world.  Terrorists attack countries from Pakistan to Sweden.  There is large unemployment in America; European countries are struggling to stay economically afloat.  Nations like North Korea threaten regional stability and kill innocent people.  There is even a woman in California who is suing McDonalds because her kids are fat.  Never mind that I doubt they go there very often without her consent. 

You know what else?  America’s youth are still volunteering to go stand in the gap between the homeland and terrorists.  The standard of living in America is still higher than just about anywhere else on earth, and events like the Ironman and New York City Marathon still draw thousands of people.  It is not that the world sucks, but it is incredibly frustrating sometimes.

I may be in the minority these days, but I still believe that America, the country that gave me every opportunity I have, is leading the world in liberty and freedom, things which I hold dear.  I do not agree with every political decision that is made, or with every person who, even though he or she may not see things as clearly as I do, still has an equal say in the affairs of the nation.  America is still great.

However, the country is run by our two main political parties, neither of which accurately represents my beliefs about government.  Unfortunately, it seems like the parts I dislike about each often take the lead.  Judging by the frustration of many Americans and the see-saw nature of the election cycle, I think that most people seem to agree with me.  So why is nothing happening?  Why are there still only two parties that get serious attention?  I think that there should be two more parties that vie for people’s votes, based on the general principles that seem to guide our politics.  Also, there are not consistent, coherent voices that represent what many of us think and believe.

Throughout this blog, I will begin to explore the policy gap between what politicians currently promote and my understanding of a truly free and liberty-loving society.  I will attempt to present new solutions to current problems and describe how they not only adhere to underlying libertarian principles, but also the Constitutional basis of how our government should behave.  I will also attempt to bring light to my biggest grievance against the People and the Government: a lack of personal responsibility.  This symptom is the cause of so many problems and is itself a result of an overbearing and overindulgent government.

Finally, I am incredibly disappointed with the level of argumentative discourse that I see.  As a mathematician, I am prone to breaking arguments down into their founding axioms, then examining the logic that builds each step to an eventual conclusion.  I have also studied a little bit of philosophy, to the point where I can recognize some logical fallacies, and have seen others use this intelligently and to great effect in debates.  I would like this blog to be a place of discussion, where patrons can examine new ideas, or perhaps old ideas in a new way with a new person sitting across from them to challenge their assumptions and conclusions.  My goal is to have a single place that explains what many Americans want and expect in a Constitutional-based political system, that presents new, outside-the-box ideas for solutions to current problems, and a relaxed atmosphere that fosters intelligent, respectful, and insightful discussion.