Libertarians Aren’t Politicians

Libertarian Ron Paul (R-Texas) won the Presidential straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) for the second year in a row. This development has social conservatives like nationally syndicated talk show host, Kevin McCullough, in a state of hyper disgust and loathing over what he laments as the rise of libertarianism in the Republican Party.   

Mr. McCullough sees Libertarians as “radically disrespectful… libertines,” the antitheses of real conservatives, because they “actually advocated for legalized pot and the redefinition of marriage to include homosexual unions.”

“The truth is Libertarians are the worst form of political affiliation in the nation,” McCullough claims; worse even than “liberals.” “Combining the desire of economic greed, with the amoral desire to promote any behavior regardless of its cost to our culture is a stark departure from the intent of the Founding Fathers… Libertarian elements, because of their strange combination of policies that add up to anarchy without moral limits, don't mix with conservative ideals,” he concludes.

The trouble with social conservatives is that they are not content with being social conservatives; they want everyone to be social conservatives. American culture belongs to them, they think. They are statists who want to dictate American culture by means of religious and political force. That is a major problem with the Republican Party in America and the main reason why they don’t win more elections. People are afraid of right-wing extremes, and they should be.

Libertarians are conservative too, but content to be libertarian, and to let social conservatives be social conservatives. We don’t care about your culture. We believe that free individuals choose their own culture. We don’t want to force personal values on others. We know that the founding fathers of the United States of America were libertarian.

Libertarian is the only political philosophy which seeks no advantage over others by force or deception. Social conservatives on the right, and progressives on the left are all seeking some sort of political advantage. They want to force their collective visions of how society should be on all of us. They don’t hesitate to use politics as a club to have their way.  

Libertarians; most of us just want to be left alone. Libertarians aren’t politicians. That’s why we don’t win elections as our own political party. There is no potential political advantage over others by being libertarian. We don’t believe in using politics as a club.

The Republican Party could use more of us; and so could the Democrats.

Thieves & Politicians

Assuming recent news accounts of his immense wealth are accurate, Hosni Mubarak, boss of Egypt, Bela Lugosi look-alike, and perhaps the richest man in the world, leaves political office after 30 years of looting as much as $70 billion from his countrymen.

That treasure is also probably the reason why it took him so long to leave; he needed some time to take care of his spoils while he still had power. Now he’ll probably go off to somewhere like Saudi Arabia or the South of France with glad tidings and good will from the U.S.A., and all the world’s governments, to live out the rest of his life as a respected former head of state in magnificent extravagant splendor.

How does a common soldier, without any particular money making talent, business acumen, or other real life value creation experience manage that?

Why, by stealing it of course; but not like your average burglar or thief steals things. Unchecked political power allows politicians to steal values legitimately; the law is on their side. The force is on their side. They see to that. History presents a long list of these political opportunist creeps, some from the right, some from the left, and many more in between -- Authority!

In Mubarak’s case, he came to power after the political assassination of his predecessor, suspended the nation’s constitution, and then ensconced himself at the top as a blood sucking parasite for the next 30 years. As boss, he took a cut in everything that was anything happening in Egypt, all the while answering essentially to no one. The biggest development projects, monopolies, and business deals, together with all manner of political corruption, kickbacks, bribery, and graft, rendered the economy of Egypt Mubarak’s private piggy bank – pure profit with no overhead.

Bernie Madoff got 155 years in stir for his multi-billion dollar thievery. Mubarak, equally guilty and twice as despicable, will probably keep most of his ill-gotten gains to enjoy in golden retirement.

That’s the difference between thieves and politicians.

High Speed Investments in Sacrifice

Vice President Joe Biden recently announced that $53 billion will be spent by the federal government over the next six years, on top of $10.5 billion already spent, to promote construction of a national high-speed, intercity passenger rail network. The president said in his State of the Union address that he wants to give 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail within 25 years. This, apparently is the Obama administration’s answer to cutting federal spending – Amtrak on steroids.

If $64.5 billion will be spent to promote it, we should wonder how many more billions will be spent to actually construct it, and how many billions beyond that to maintain it. It seems to me that the private sector would have picked up on this one if it were such a great idea. Private business wouldn’t touch this loser with a barge pole.

Will customers abandon their cars and flock in the billions to the new high speed rail system? I hardly think so; probably not even in the millions. Amtrak doesn’t have enough passengers now to keep it going without constant government bailouts and subsidies.  

“There are key places where we cannot afford to sacrifice as a nation, one of which is infrastructure," Biden declared. Only a conniving politician could try to make the case that we need to spend billions of taxpayer dollars we don’t have on new high speed rail infrastructure or we’ll sacrifice as a nation; it’s not lavish unnecessary spending; it’s a sacrifice if we don’t do this.

"We need to invest in a modern rail system that will help connect communities, reduce congestion and create quality, skilled manufacturing jobs that cannot be outsourced," he added. Only a slippery fork-tongued politician could say with a straight face that it is necessary to invest taxpayer money in this fashion to create outsource proof jobs; it’s not profligate spending; it’s an investment in jobs.

This new adventure is obviously not about necessary rail service for passengers in need; it’s about spending money for jobs, and Joe Biden wants to take credit for creating new American jobs where there were no jobs before with your money.

In a pitch to the TV cameras, Mr. Biden claimed that, since he came to Washington as a lawmaker, he’s taken 7,900 safe and convenient round trips on Amtrak to and from his home in Delaware. Let’s, see; that amounts to one round trip every day, seven days a week; 365 days a year for 21.64 years.

Do politicians exaggerate sometimes?

Pirate’s Paradise

A lucky group of Somali pirates were taken to a South Korean prison recently after they were captured in a commando raid on the high seas. Now it’s reported that they enjoy the quality of their lives substantially more than home in Somalia. “South Korean jail is better than decent hotels in Africa,” one pirate was quoted as saying. (Bangkok Post; 2/1/11)

The story doesn’t reveal all that much about South Korea, but it sure tells us a lot about politics in Somalia. If a decent hotel there is worse than jail in Korea, Somalia must be a very bad place to live indeed. Any wretch having the misfortune of being born in Somalia would likely be a pirate too. In a den of criminals one has little choice but to become a criminal.

Somalia is an example of a nation in which power politics has imploded the fabric of society into the lowest form of human association – right back to the savage law of the jungle. This is what can happen when politics goes too far and the parasitic thugs take too much. Terror, theft, graft, and corruption have rendered the value of the state of Somalia to its people near zero.

There isn’t much left to steal in Somalia. Those who might otherwise want to create values peacefully and honestly won’t even try because they know it would only be pillaged and plundered anyway. Few people if any live the good life in Somalia. Even pirates with all their millions in stolen loot can’t find decent accommodations. There are no longer any reasons to create decent accommodations in Somalia. There is no rule of law; no protection from criminals; only raw force.

The politicians and gangsters who gutted Somalia failed to learn a valuable lesson from their bretheren in South Korea, the United States, and the rest of the 1^st world. Had they simply resisted the temptation of taking too much, they and their subjects would probably be prosperous and thriving today instead of dissolute and desolate as they are.  

Our own politicians think they have mastered the art of taking as much as possible from the system without causing it to implode, and perhaps they have. Peaceful honest people will put up with a lot of political taking yet continue to produce. Everything has its limits, however, and there is no guarantee that this glorious state of equilibrium will continue indefinately, especially in light of our current government financial deficit spending and debt crises.

Politicians can learn something from pirates.

Sarah Palin: Who?

Sarah Palin has reportedly filed applications with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to trademark the names "Sarah Palin" and "Bristol Palin."  

Has this lady no shame? Apparently she thinks that just the sight and sound of her name has become a valuable money making device. Maybe she’s right. By all accounts she does make big money now on her name alone, as there’s not much substance beyond that and her all American good looks.

Now she needs a monopoly on “Sarah Palin” so she can remain first and only to cash in. And it’s working for her. Next, she’ll probably try to wrangle space for herself and daughter on Mt. Rushmore. Move over Abraham Lincoln. So far, there appear no limits to Sarah Palin’s arrogance.

Sarah Palin is the latest example of a politician in politics solely for the fame and money. To her everlasting credit, she doesn’t even try to disguise that fact. She’s clearly no diplomat, scholar, or stateswoman. If Sarah Palin has ever entertained an original political thought, the public record doesn’t disclose to us exactly what it is. She does a great job though as a magpie repeating endlessly the talking points of the social conservative religious right. She’s good at preaching to that choir.

Can you imagine George Washington quitting his important high profile job as general of the colonial army during the Revolutionary War so he could make more money with speaking engagements and starring in his own theatrical reality show? Would that have helped him become president?

Sarah Palin wasn’t making enough money as governor of Alaska, and the daily grind of work was way too hard on her. Then all of a sudden she was blessed by the political gods. After her losing stint as Republican vice presidential candidate in 2008, she couldn’t resist the opportunity to capitalize on her new found fame as a rising star in the Republican party. She quit the governor job and has since pursued fame and money to the max. It doesn’t take a genius, however, to figure out that game won’t get your pretty face carved on Mt. Rushmore, much less elected president.

As an ostensible proponent of free markets and limited government, I probably will agree with much of her political spiel, but somehow, in light of everything else about Sarah Palin, it all seems so empty and phony coming from such an unabashed political opportunist.

Sarah Palin might be a momma grizzly alright, but she sure ain’t no Maggie Thatcher.

Healthcare Insurance: Solution or Problem?

The Jury is still out, but it looks like Obamacare is going down the toilet. Good riddance. It’s a Frankenstein monster which would only make the administration of health care in America worse than it is now.

Collectivists won’t give up easily though. They want a universal health care law.  Had Obamacare been set up like Social Security in the first place, they might have had their way. They might still get their way. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, whether we like them or not, have been held constitutional. So we might end up with universal health care after all.

Universal health care, to a leftist, means that the cost of everyone’s medical care should be furnished essentially by everyone else. In other words, healthy people must be forced to pay for the health care of unhealthy people, and poor people must have the same quality of health care as rich people. Anyone knows, though, that there is not enough health care on the planet to satisfy that demand.

Leftist’s think that if they can just force everyone to buy health insurance their dreams for universal health care would come true. But why insurance? Insurance only exacerbates the problem. Insurance increases the demand for medical services. Insurance for every medical expense is the primary reason why heath care is so outrageously expensive today. If we got groceries the same way we now get health care, the cost of food would explode.

If everyone had full coverage health insurance for every ailment, including preexisting conditions, the cost of health care and health care insurance premiums would spiral totally out of control. No one who has health care insurance gives a damn about keeping costs low as long as an insurance company is paying the tab. If they’ve paid premiums, they what their money’s worth. That’s human nature.

On top of that, insurance companies have their own high costs of administration. They have to pay armies of employees to administer the insurance and still operate at a profit. They are essentially a middleman in the health care business. Why pay a middleman for every item of medical expense, plus a substantial amount more for profit? Insurance is the biggest drag on the administration and costs of health care.

If congress must pass a universal health care law, it should first eliminate health insurance all together, except for catastrophic coverage, (that’s the original logical purpose for insurance anyway), and in those situations the deductibles should be high enough to discourage people from trying to milk the system.

Since premiums for such catastrophic insurance are relatively low, the cost of medical insurance would be affordable. Government could even pay the premiums for poor folks. And if no insurance were available for routine medical care, the costs of routine medical care would, with the magical benefits of free market competition, fall to reasonable sustainable affordable levels once again.

We already have Medicaid and Medicare. Why make things worse?

Education: We Need Wal-Mart

According to a recent Fox News survey, most American public school biology teachers are equivocal in their teaching of evolution science because they want to avoid ideological conflicts with students and parents. Fewer than 30% of them teach evolution as a biological fact, and 13% personally reject the idea of evolution, even the scientific method, and explicitly advocate creationism in the public classroom.

It makes me wonder about how many other basic curriculum subjects are distorted or equivocated by public school teachers who fear ideological conflicts among culturally diverse student populations. It doesn’t matter. That’s the nature of public education.

This is just another perfect example of why the immense system of expensive public schools is failing in America, and why all education should be private.

Personally, I don’t care if people believe in creationism. It’s none of my business. Evolution should not be forced on them. The scientific method should not be forced on them. It’s their life.

If the state has an interest in educating it’s citizens -- I don’t think it does -- surely it doesn’t go beyond basic reading, writing, and figuring. Once  children have learned how to read, write, and figure proficiently, they are well equipped to engage in further ideological subjects of their choice and on their own in a free society. If we must have public schools, attendance should be voluntary, and graduation should follow the sixth grade.

But we know that the state’s interest is far greater than simply teaching kids the basics. The state wants to shape their attitudes and opinions as well. It wants to turn the kids into compliant supporters of government. It wants to teach kids collective “values.” That’s just fine with most parents because all they want is free babysitting services while they carry on their own productive lives.

So the state has a virtual monopoly business running inferior compulsory education factories in hugely expensive buildings, with all the finest facilities, and armies of staff, much like it runs its prison systems.

Since kids have to be there whether they like it or not to swallow up the prescribed pabulum, little incentive exists for critical thinking or pursuing interests more compatible with their individual attributes and abilities. Thirteen of their most formative years are appropriated by the state for “socialization.”

Education is not the business of government in a free nation.

Human beings no longer need ancient methods of formalized education to learn. Formal education is way overrated. Kids today know how to communicate, type, use computers, ipads, cell phones; they’ve mastered all manner of valuable subjects they didn’t learn in school.

We live in an Internet age in which the very best teacher could teach thousands of students at once instead of just a few at a time. Poor kids can have the benefits of learning from the best of teachers today. Like Wal-Mart, the private sector could cheaply and efficiently satisfy every educational need for those who actually want to learn. Those who want creationism can buy the perfect teacher.

They’ll get no objection from me.