What Rand Paul's Endorsement Is and Isn't

Topher Morrison

PurpleSerf.com

Sen. Rand Paul’s endorsement of Mitt Romney as Republican candidate for President has formed a crack in the Paulista universe.  The vast majority of Ron Paul supporters, save an actual poll, are clearly rejecting the move as a sign that after all of their hard work, donations and success Rand has abandoned his base and sold out to the political establishment.  Just take a look at his Facebook page, yikes.

One example of the outrage: “NWO has a brand new tool in their toolbox.  How could you?”

Ron Paul by any measurement led the libertarian movement out of the political wilderness.  For decades he remained stalwart in his advocacy of the Constitution often being a lone voice of reason amidst calls for war, bank bailouts, undermining civil liberties and growth of national government.  Similarly his son has espoused these beliefs with the same vigor in his brief time in the Senate and has often been found willing to debate the finer points of libertarian philosophy while it may not often be popular.

The Pauls have been rock stars of a young, growing and vibrant liberty movement, which has proven capable of dismantling and remaking anachronistic state GOP leadership in their own image.  The Paulistas, while rancorous at times and buying wholesale into a very cynical view of their government, have displayed adept political maneuverability in securing more delegates than anyone thought possible.

The Ron Paul Revolution has tapped into a sustainable and vigorous movement while simultaneously creating a home replete with models of representation for moderates, disaffected liberals and disgruntled conservatives.  Why then would Rand endorse the personification of establishment politics?

First, lets make clear that what Rand Paul has not done, which is hurt the liberty movement.  The recent success of Ron Paul has shown the growing power of this faction of new politics.  The Ron Paul Republican is here to stay and that’s why you won’t see Ron Paul endorse Mitt Romney.  The brand is secure, however, there is some politics left to play – and this is all about politics.

The Paul strategy is quite clear - graft healthy philosophy onto a dying system.

Rand Paul's ideology might not be identical to his father's, however, the
movement of which he claims to still be apart may act like a life giving
philosophical graft.  The GOP is the dead vine blow, the liberty
movement is grafted above.

There is a reason why Rand chose Sean Hannity’s Fox News program to announce.  It is one of the most watched shows on television and the platform is directed right into the homes of moderates and the full breadth of the conservative establishment.  His intended audience was the GOP not his base, which looked at objectively is a small, but growing part Republican politics.

From Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post:

"In making clear that [Rand Paul] is publicly behind Romney, Rand Paul is sending a very clear signal: I’m a good soldier for the GOP.

Make no mistake: The Republican party establishment will never embrace Rand Paul as one of their own — nor would he want them to. But, it is possible that Paul playing the role of loyal Republican in the 2012 election could well neutralize some of the fears the party regulars have about the prospects of him carrying their standard at some point down the line."

His gamble has initially paid off as self proclaimed “neocon” commentators are already warming to a future Rand Paul run. As Matt Lewis of The Daily Caller crassly put it: “He’s everything you like about Ron Paul, without the crazy.”

This neutralizing effect would quell the anxiety over future attempts at interparty quibbling and reported outright fraud.  Even the firebrand Alex Jones, an advocate of libertarianism and paleoconservative ethos, on his radio program today wanted to believe that Rand and Ron Paul were more politically savvy than it would seem given the endorsement.  However, he argued that not only was this a bad move for Rand Paul, who has been on his show many times along with his father Ron Paul, but it was a move that the media elite and establishment agents may use to attempt to splinter the liberty movement.

Cynicism has its place, however, sometimes it gets in the way.  Jones does bring up a great point though, Ron and Rand most definitely coordinated the move, but to what end?  Cillizza points to something we’ve all suspected, but what about the Romney/Paul ticket?

We have speculated Ron Paul as a possible Vice President and gave the reasons why it would be a good idea.  We have also suggested Rand may be tapped for VP for the same reasons.  Daniel McCarthy of The American Conservative gives a few more:

"The symbolic power shift of putting an anti-statist, non-interventionist Republican in the number 2 slot — in contrast to Cheney in the last GOP administration — would have real-world consequences. That would keep Romney more interested than he would otherwise be in placating constitutionalists, for fear of an embarrassing split within his adminitration.

And a public official never just occupies a single office: the staff that Rand would put into executive-branch positions (even those associated with the institutionally weak vice presidency) would gain experience that would make them powerful rivals to the neoconservatives in staffing future GOP administrations."

Unfortunately none of these scenarios are likely to come to fruition.  The motivation against Barack Obama is demonstrably more widespread than the enthusiasm for Rand Paul and other than enthusiasm and fresh ideas Rand Paul doesn’t bring much to the table – as far as an establishment politician is concerned.  Marco Rubio on the other hand offers Latinos and Florida, Nikki Haley offers women and ostensibly some libertarianism, while Rob Portman is simply a reassuring water carrier.

To be sure, this was a political decision; therefore it should be judged on those grounds.  If Rand Paul doesn’t get anything for his endorsement, while pulling the chair out from under his supporters, it will be to his chagrin.  However, speaking slots at the GOP convention, cabinet appointments and other tangible influence will be a victory for the liberty wing of the GOP.  Revolutions don’t occur overnight, at least the organic ones.

Govern Locally, Not Globally

Is this not pro Earth?

Introducing: Lexicon of a Libertarian

If you want to replace an established system, be it religious, cultural, scientific or political an equally comprehensive system must be introduced to take its place.  Specifically, the new system must solve the failures and embrace the success and often the routines of the former.

Take Christianity for example.  Within 300 years it grew from an obscure Jewish cult to a multinational religion, larger than Judaism had ever been or wished to be.  Christmas and Easter take place on the Winter Solstice and Spring Equinox, not of mere coincidence, but of prudence.  By superimposing Christianity over the dominant pagan religion of Rome and by respecting the same holy days it was ensured a smooth transition.

This series begins without a predetermined end, as a musing on how the Lexicon of a Libertarian might provide our current national and geopolitical model with a similar thorough transition to an emphasis on individual liberty.

When God was Killed Technocrats Just Took His Place

The video below is of Michael Shermer, founder and publisher of Skeptic Magazine.  Beginning at 13:30 (I would highly suggest watching the entire video) he provides a deft analysis of modern religion after anamism, polytheism and monotheism proved insufficient to answer and solve mankind’s problems or its propensity to create new ones.

 

Shermer begins with a self-reliant hominid on the plains of Africa.  According to Shermer the hominid and successive generations of humans struggling to survive and therefore operating from a position of advanced insecurity saw patterns everywhere.

The attempt to explain and predict these patterns and the world around them gave way to the idea that there was something larger than oneself.  After the epiphany, mankind established dogma and superstition to cope with what we could not immediately understand.   This is the broad stroke that seems to paint much of our existence.

According to Shermer’s dialectic, after monotheism (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) proved an illusion big government became the new world order.  The idea that “government can rescue us” is pervasive and is based on the dogmatic belief that mankind, through scientific experts, can somehow provide all the answers.

This from Friedrich Nietzche’s The Gay Science (1882):

“God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?”

Understand that there is no fundamental change in the human condition when God is killed and the mantel of science is assumed.  If the science of psychology has taught us anything it is that we are still as insecure as our hominid forebears.  Because we are insecure we look to each other, but most importantly to our state and our leaders for answers.

Since the turn of the 20^th century we thought by rejecting the false gods of the supernatural realm for the real gods of secular and by embracing the redemptive qualities of democracy that people, through science and its technology, would bring us closer to utopia – a new stage in human existence, what Nietzche called the Übermensch or Superman.

The problem is that science, like democracy is essentially a utilitarian device.  While science may lead us to knowledge and democracy may safeguard internal peace and individual freedom, humans are behind both and therefore both are by no means infallible.   What happens when science or its Supermen are wrong?  I’ll put it this way; propaganda was not perfected by monarchs.

This intoxicating prospect of Übermensch wrought disastrous consequences in the 20^th century.  We found democracy and authoritarianism were not mutually exclusive as the state became superior and jealous of the individuals whom had built it.  Over and over again in Nazi Germany, Stalin’s Soviet Union, Mao’s China, Imperial Japan, Communist Cambodia, Islamic Indonesia, etc. there was avalanche after avalanche of tyranny.

Government in its last analysis is force, even when ostensibly governed by science or Nietzhe’s Overmen.  The methodology of science in its purest form may in time unlock a universe of puzzles, but its Supermen cannot as Nietzche and others wished, establish a new and comprehensive hierarchy of values for mankind.  Ironically, Nietzche and his progeny never understood that man as a being of nature operates under similar laws, which cannot simply be repealed and replaced by decree.  Equally ironic was that the Crown and the Church before them had already tried and failed.

F.A. Hayek from Road to Serfdom on Hitler’s attempt:

“Where the precise effects of government policy on particular people are known, where the government aims directly at such particular effects, it cannot help knowing these efforts, and therefore it cannot be impartial.  It must, of necessity, take sides, impose valuations upon people and instead of assisting them in the advancement of their own ends, choose the ends for them.  As soon as the particular effects are foreseen at the time a law is made, it ceases to be a mere instrument to be used by the people and becomes instead an instrument used by the lawgiver upon the people and for his ends.  

The state ceases to be a piece of utilitarian machinery intended to help individuals in their fullest development of their individual personality and becomes a “moral” institution – where “moral” is not used in contrast to immoral, but describes an institution which imposes on its members its views on all moral questions, whether these views be moral or highly immoral. In this sense the Nazi or any other collectivist state is “moral,” while the [classical] liberal state is not.”

“Govern Locally, Not Globally” – An Emphasis on You

While Shermer claims “the idea that government can rescue us is no longer the wave of the future” current trends do not favor this sentiment.  Big government has never been bigger and its technocrats have already overrun the planet, look no further than the European Union, the U.S., China, the African Union and ultimately the United Nations.  Only a few free and prosperous citadels remain.  The rest are struggling to tread water amidst a sea of debt and conflict while the U.N. and powerful internationalists try to consolidate and retool our entire global economy.

There are approximately 196 “independent” countries throughout the world (I use independent carefully because it most definitely is up to debate) all of which like businesses compete for the nearly 7 billion residents of this planet.  Seems like a pretty small number of competitors right?  That is why many including myself have advocated “Let a 1000 nations bloom!”  If we can’t decentralize power within our own countries lets just create new ones.

Nietzche was right about one thing, his emphasis on secular man.  We are the only ones, not angels or aliens, who can and should be held responsible for our fate.  “Either we died because of our religion or our religion dies because of us” Nietzche proclaimed.

We are understandably insecure beings and the natural inclination, the path of least resistance, has always been to rely on superstition, God, the state, empire, supermen and even skepticism itself for consolation.  But if we must kill anything it is the predilection of consistent deference to central government, organized religion, ephemeral movements or ethereal beings.  There have only been a few instances in human history when we have chosen the difficult path, to respect each other’s unalienable rights and liberties.  In this world of bigger is better it may be best to remind ourselves small is beautiful.

LEFT: Anglo Saxon Freemen RIGHT: Ancient Israelites guided by God's pillar of fire

The ancient Israelis and Anglo-Saxons respected the fundamental unit of society – the individual.  Both cultures retained a constitution of sorts whether oral or ensconced in the Arc of the Covenant and both favored a decentralized familial organization of governance.  In fact Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin originally proposed the seal for the United States to honor these two rare civilizations:

The culture of a society is dictated by the individuals that make it up.  In a free society we are individually empowered to seek our own value system and through free association may enter or exit relationships with those who share a similar disposition or freely confront and debate those who do not.  When this model is reversed and ever-larger groups try to impose by force arbitrary relationships and values upon us calamity has been sure to follow.

Although the world has become smaller due to science’s technology it does not follow that there should be a larger worldwide government.  Contrary to what is claimed a one world government regardless of design will assuredly result in despotism.  The infrastructure needed to maintain a world government will beckon for a leader strong enough to wield the vast array of public policy tools and charismatic enough to ameliorate its disparate parts.  Such a leader is no doubt to arrive, but as history has shown us he will most likely not offer us more power over our own lives.  We know this because, in the words James Michner:

“A man can read 10,000 pages of history and find only the corruption of power and the defeat of hope.”

It was said that all politics is local, but our politics today are plagued by foreign policy, national politics and very little about events in our hometown or district.  Actions like the Repeal of 1913 or Seasteading will return power to the local level where it serves more intimately and efficiently and where it will ultimately empower free humanity to resist this new world order.  Historically while countries may fall to tyrants and cataclysm exodus was still possible, in a one world government there is nowhere to run.

Rise of the Ron Paul Republican

The GOP doesn’t have a Ron Paul problem 

it has a libertarian problem.

Image Source: RonPaul.com

When the GOP lost Congress in 2006 and weren’t able to install a Republican as president in 2008, overshadowed by the “historic election,” it was back to the drawing board for the party of Lincoln.  But it was in March of 2007, just after the 110^th Congress was sworn in, that Ron Paul began to break ground on a permanent home for the libertarian ideals he had been espousing for over 30 years. 

            Libertarianism, while having been traditionally an esoteric subject, began to manifest as a movement in 1971 in response to Vietnam, its voracious appetite for blood and treasure and a burgeoning welfare state both of which contributed to the abandonment of the gold standard.  (It was President Nixon’s decision to rely wholly on the Federal Reserve for our nation’s monetary policy that spurred Ron Paul into office in the first place.)  

To proto-libertarians, drawn from conservatives, independents, blue dog democrats, the progressivism of the left and the conservativism of the right were merely two features of the same problem – big government happily placating, if not, openly catering to corporate interests.  Between the platforms of war and welfare libertarians established their political beachhead in the “Party of Principle” - the Libertarian Party.

In 1978 the libertarian Cato Institute was founded in Northern California and provided needed conceptual ammunition to the fledgling movement.  By that time the “free minds and free markets” of Reason Magazine was in its 8^th year of regular publication and busy popularizing economic superstars like F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, and Murray Rothbard.  If necessity is truly the mother of invention, the malaise of the 1970s was midwife to the birth of libertarianism. From then on the intellectual-political infrastructure necessary to broadcast and mobilize the ideas of individual liberty grew exponentially.

By 1975 even Ronald Reagan seemed to be equally enamored with the prospects of libertarianism.  This from Reason Magazine:

“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism [emphasis added].  I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals -- if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”

After reading this it should be no surprise why Ron Paul was one of the first to endorse Ronald Reagan for president.  A president who, contrary to revisionist conservatives, didn't always please the hard line neoconservatives.

By the time of Reagan’s rise, however, it wasn’t the libertarians who were to capitalize on the backlash against stagflation and the "new normal" Cater attempted to impose on America, but the Grand Old Party.  Albeit the corruption and tepidity under Nixon and Ford left the party beleaguered and exhausted it was still a dependable and well-financed machine by 1980. 

While Ronald Reagan assumed the ethos of libertarianism and attempted to graft it onto the Grand Old Party some of it stuck, but much of it didn’t.  Reagan too, while previously extolling libertarian virtue fell short of achieving a fundamental restoration of our republic.  The Reagan Revolution was, as many political movements are (think Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street) co-opted by the old guard - the establishment - whom shepherded new energies into old interests. 

From 1980 to 1992 and three Republican administrations the government still grew, foreign intervention persisted even after the demise of the Soviet Union, no departments were cut, and debt increased.  Some of the sound economic decisions bore fruit, which staved off disaster, spurred needed innovation and restored some of America’s confidence, but the course of government expansion was fundamentally unaltered.

The GOP received a second chance in 2000, but after Bush’s restrained foreign policy promises were abandoned and the ill-defined War on Terror began, much of the same occurred under his eight years as had occurred under Bill Clinton. Bush federalized more of the American education system, passed a colossal unfunded prescription drug entitlement program, endorsed massive militarism, sponsored the curtailment of civil liberties and oversaw the unprecedented bailouts of 2007.  All of these decisions echoed the encroachments and profligacy of former Democrats and Republicans alike, hence the Tea Party movement.

Conservativism is not a misnomer as Reagan put it, conservativism is legitimately its own brand and uses a similar tool to progressivism in order to impress its social goals here and abroad - the state.  But unlike progressivism, libertarianism is, as conservativism is, now and for the foreseeable future a part of the "right" and therefore part of the Republican Party.   

Many who call themselves conservatives or conservative independents are in fact libertarians they just don’t know it yet, but they will.  For years libertarians lived in the political backwaters and were never really taken seriously, but since 2008 and the ideological bankruptcy of the GOP they've been called in again as they were in the Reagan Revolution to breath new life into a failing ideology, but this time they're not going away.

Ron Paul has carved out a home for libertarians under the GOP’s famous Big Tent.  After years of proffering an austere voting record, sometimes referred to as academic or impractical, Ron Paul is a living breathing example of constitutional fortitude.  Dr. No, as he is often called will probably be known most for what he stood against than what he stood for, but amidst a government which has for the last 100 years, stood for too much, done too much and grown too large Ron Paul's brand of politics is welcomed.

             The year 2012 bears witness to the rise of the Ron Paul Republican.  From now on those who raise his once lonely banner will have a platform from which to run for office. The libertarian wing is now open for business and will continue to siphon off voters from the Democrats and return disgruntled independents to a still hemorrhaging GOP.  

             There is now a fundable and dependable political machine waiting to propel libertarians wherever they need to go.  Win or lose the nomination libertarians are here to stay – the Ron Paul revolution has just begun.

Not Libertarian? You're Probably a Socialist

Topher Morrison

PurpleSerf.com

PART I

pics on Sodahead 

We Are The Planners, not you.

          In March of 1944, amidst the crescendo of World WarII, F.A. Hayek dedicated his seminal work The Road to Serfdom to “The Socialists of All Parties.”  He recognized the carnal desire that spanned the entire political spectrum, which ultimately lead to so much bloodshed – the desire to plan for others.

          All political persuasions will agree government is really good at accomplishing one thing, monopolizing violence, in other words, coercion.  It follows therefore that the largerthe government, the larger its ability to coerce.  We have all leant tothe state this legitimate force except in matters of our own immediate self-defense and while we may have a gun for that purpose the government is designed to always have a bigger one. 

          We lend this power because government’s central role, first and foremost, is protection of life. Liberty thereafter is what our conscience demands and what our hearts desire.  Through liberty we mix our labor with property and create the world in which we live and hopefully thrive.  When government fails at anyone of these junctures tyrannies are invited and are allowed to grow.

          Our representatives, whom were honestly and appropriately called "public servants", are now unfortunately referred to as "officials", "leaders", etc.  They originally had few duties, all mutually boring and tedious, but nonetheless essential to our well being hence, they were in the public'sservice.  

          Life wasn't meant to be sexy as most of their time was to be spent establishing "weights andmeasures", deliberating monetary policy, growing the judiciaries, maintaining diplomacy, and providing for the common defense, in other words, to engage in the eye watering monotony that was public life.  

          It was nevermeant to be a career, but a way of giving back to a nation that afforded the liberty to establish themselves.  It was viewed as a truly philanthropic endeavor of the highest order.  Could anyone today, with little exception, claim that of their representative and do it with a straight face?

          Our servants were to simply guard the institutions charged with executing these fundamental duties from both ineptitude and undue growth.  God willing after a few terms they were then to return from whence they came hence, the citizen statesmen.  When they ceased to function as humble sentinels and begin to act as permanent managers was in our interest and our duty to remove them from office.  At least that was the plan.  Permanent managers is lamentably what they have now become, what we refer to as the "leadership class" or more appropriately the "establishment."

Government isn't a business either.

            You often hear, especially from the right, that government should be run like a business.  Republican candidates Mitt Romney and HermanCain have touted their private sector resume, but why?  Granted, achievements are necessary in defining leadership acumen, however, there is little to justify running government like a business.

          Businesses are meant to grow, set prices, innovate, hire, sell products and services - to compete.  Not many Americans want their government competing with them.  We already have enough of this already we need more of it on Main St. not on Capitol Hill.  This isn't confined to only the right, however.  

          How often does the left laud plans to increase "revenue?"  It is obvious both the left and right see government as some kind of legitimate business, I stress to you it is not.  One cannot simply purchase protective services for rights and liberties from another government.  There are roughly 190 governments throughout the world, and compared with the seemingly infinite number of businesses most of us are pretty much stuck with the government we've got.

          You might argue, however,that beyond the simple and achievable trio of mandates mentioned earlier it is also the role or duty of our leaders to plan for us so we may all enjoy the full expression of life, liberty and property equally.  Sounds reasonable, but there is a clear distinction between planning through coercion and planning to compel others, including government organs, to respect our rights and liberties.  

          It is only by accomplishing the latter do we enable each other to plan for ourselves and therefore enable everyone to enjoy freedom as such, equally.  We are theplanners.  When that role is usurped whether by dictators, our favorite actor, monarchies, technocrats or democracies - we become serfs.

NEXT: The Left & The Right as Socialists  

 

Libertarians are a Joke!

Topher Morrison

PurpleSerf.com

I tried to find another picture,
but this is Mr. Bitterface's best.

Today's Daily Drivel: in one of the most bizarre reads of the morning Dan Agin, we shall call him Mr. Bitterface, concocts a theoretical tragedy, which unfortunately takes place in a very real world.  I will attempt to refrain from the all too easy and hopefully obvious ad hominem attacks - eh never mind.

          There is a great joke in America and according to Dan Agin its "libertarian hypocrisy."  Might be a joke, but its not very popular.  Sorry Dan we libertarians don't get a lot of press, but we're getting more - thanks for the ink!  

          On Sunday, at the HuffingtonPost, Mr. Agin wrote "The Comedy of Libertarian Hypocrisy."  It's not exactly Shakespear, but it is fiction.  Apparently the libertarian movement is an ill defined "-ism", which covers a sordid spectrum of antigovernment individuals from "terrorist and bomb-thrower[s]" to "proto-fascists", my heart goes out to those poor libertarian souls in the middle!  

          While I tend to agree those who claim the libertarian banner do cover the gamut of political inclination in this country, doesn't every "-ism"?    It is an odd critique indeed for Mr. Agin to group together members of an ideology based on individualism and then indite the whole based on its range or extremities for that matter!    

          No doubt, those who capture libertarian ideas also graft on non-libertarian ideas, those who use:

“…libertarian buzzwords to achieve a political agenda that would actually involve more government intrusion and not less government intrusion - intrusion to foster business and protect wealth at the expense of the unwealthy.”

          This is a classic, but awkward attack against capitalism and libertarians and unfortunately for Mr. Bitterface (whoops I did it again) a bit of a straw man argument.  Using government to buttress corporations and private companies, by extension the "wealthy", from inefficiency, competition or recessions is called crony capitalism (or government, j/k) and is antithetical to libertarian and capitalistic ideals.  

          Moreover the institutions, funding and mechanisms with which to accomplish this task are not available to a libertarian government; government departments are few and their powers limited, taxes are low and enforcement methods are locally or regionally based.  Ron Paul, the ostensible leader of libertarianism in this country, is beyond reproach on this subject as he has time and time again excoriated the incessant intervention on behalf of banks, insurance, and the auto industry by special interests and their puppets in Congress and 1600 Penn.

          We turn to Mr. Agin's tragic comedy:

“Consider a "libertarian" named Self Reliant [love this name!] Mr. Reliant, fifty-five years old, suffers a sudden heart attack.  He calls 911, and when the paramedics arrive he directs them to the best hospital in town, which happens to be the university hospital attached to a state university.  Mr. Reliant is rushed to this hospital and receives treatment in the emergency room that essentially saves his life.”

          Brilliant, par for the course!  Yet another way of lambasting libertarianism, find the most innocuous government program, which has absolutely nothing to do with printing money, forced medical procedures, soaring debt, foreign wars or unpopular bailouts (you know the big stinking issues) and have a libertarian defend his position on limited government.  Gladly. 

          Self Reliant apparently commits a libertarian sin, according to Mr. Bitterface (dang it!), by "dialing 911 and asking for paramedics."  Let's begin with the telephone (1876) used by Mr. Reliant to call for help, incidentally not a government invention (albeit heavily regulated by the FCC), but due entirely to the ingenuity and gumption of many scientists, most notably Alexander Graham Bell.  The switchboard (1876), patented by a innovative Hungarian, Mr. Tividar Puskas, connected the call to the Emergency Medical Technician (EMT), which eventually saves Mr. Reliant.  

          The first EMTs were called emergency care technicians (ECT) in 1961 and worked in the emergency department at Alexandria Hospital, VA (now called Inova).  Inova recently celebrated the 50th anniversary of their private innovation known then as the "Alexandria Plan", which set the standard nationwide for 24-hour emergency room care.  It was only when these ECTs moved outside the ER and into their shiny life saving trucks (invented in the private sector, see "Puffing Devil") were they called paramedics or EMTs.  

          EMTs are often employed privately, but are predominantly employed by local government regularly as an adjunct of local fire department.  But is calling an EMT necessarily asking for "help from local government"?  Whether or not Mr. Reliant got a hold of a private or public EMT is based on his community not his ideology and in the end both public and private EMTs cost appropriately, an arm and a leg.  Who pays for that?  Oh yeah, Mr. Reliant.

          The chosen hospital in Mr. Agin's story was, especially in the case of a heart attack, based on proximity, availability and capability.  It is not always the case, as I have just shown, that the best hospital fits this description, nor are state sponsored hospitals the best as Mr Bitterface alludes.  Take a look at this comparison between three hospitals near where I live, whom deal with heart attacks, this took me 5 minutes to look up.  The Mayo Clinic received an 88% approval rate from its patients (19% higher than the national and state average) while Arizona Regional Medical Center ratings are below at 58%!  

          How Mr. Agin came to the conclusion "the federal government...funds nearly all the research and development in cardiac infarction (heart attack) emergency care" is anyone's guess, he provides no source.  But I did do a little research on who invented the first defibrillator used to resuscitate victims of serious heart attacks.  Guess what?  A private research university named Case Western Reserve University employed the first internal defibrillator!

          At the end of Mr. Agin's odd little story is his apparent view that libertarians subscribe to some kind of secular Christian Science wherefrom they refuse to use modern technology to save their lives, merely because government invariably meddles with it:

"Were Mr. Reliant a true libertarian, he would treat his heart attack himself (and most likely die), or at the least, when the paramedics arrive, he would direct the ambulance into the woods to die among the trees. (Actually, the woods may be off-limits also, since they may be maintained by a local, state, or federal forestry service.)"

          Mr. Bitterface you make my point for me!  Wherever we turn government is there regardless if we need it or not.  The aforementioned examples show whether it be telephones, cars, medical devices, new innovative service models or even privately managing public forrests that private industry can and will make society better by offering a myriad of options and greater efficiency, a trend which never ceases, but merely slows as government moves in.  Libertarians don't hate government, to the contrary we need government we simply just don't need it to be as big as it is.

FLASHBACK; Cicero: "Balance the Budget and Reduce the Debt"

Topher Morrison

PurpleSerf.com    

A Lion of Liberty once said...

Marcus Tullius Cicero, commonly known
as "Cicero" (106 BC - 43 BC).
Image Source: Wikipedia.com

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced. If the nation doesn't want to go bankrupt, people must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."

– Marcus Tullius Cicero, 55 BC