Thursday, September 15, 2011

Libertarians and Conservatives, Who Understands the US?


Topher Morrison




A friend of mine asked me a couple of days ago: what is the difference between a libertarian and a Republican (or conservative).  I offered him a simple critique: while Republicans may deride big government at home, at least publicly, they applaud military adventurism abroad and reinforcing traditional values at home.  Libertarians on the other hand are consistent in their advocacy of liberty from government intervention in all arenas.

           We were talking about Ron Paul (R-TX) at the time and my friend was very confused (as is Rush Limbaugh) about why Ron Paul would run as a Republican, "He's not going to win" he assured me.  I reminded my friend that I had heard that more than once, but also reminded him that, albeit Ron Paul hasn't come close to winning the presidency, he has greatly influenced American politics.  

          Additionally, Congressman Paul has infused the GOP with a viral dose of libertarianism, which has set brush fires in the minds of millions of young conservatives (and popular progressives) which will no doubt spread in the coming years.  Ron Paul sparked the modern day Tea Party movement (which he receives little credit for) a fact some conservatives would love to bury.  

          He has shattered campaign fundraising records with spontaneously ordered (how wildly appropriate!) moneybombs, the most famous of which occurred on the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party with 58,407 individual donations in one day, which undeniably anticipated the popular movement.  Since 2008 Ron Paul has doubled his political visibility, almost won the '10 Iowa Straw Poll, brought two sons into politics and launched one, Rand Paul (an ostensible libertarian), into a higher office than Ron Paul ever attained!

          While there has been much written on the difference between conservatives and libertarians Ron Paul has exemplified those differences.  He has shown libertarians labor towards a fixed set of philosophical principles while Republicans tend to favor pragmatic principles informed by charismatic leaders and the varying political winds.   

          My friend reminded me of as much: "[Republicans] don't want to hear some of that stuff", referring to Dr. Paul's more controversial positions.  This is because unlike libertarians, Republicans (very much like Democrats) are often swayed by demagoguery, according to Ron Paul in his recent book Liberty Defined:

"...[these] demagogues seek influence and political power by appealing to the prejudices, emotions, fears, and expectations of the public.  They do not enlighten; they browbeat and play rhetorical games." 

          Paul showed in Monday's CNN/Tea Party debate he wasn't afraid to offend the prejudices of neo-conized Tea Partiers when he claimed 9/11 was in part a likely result of over 900 bases (that we know of) in 130 countries around the world.  He argued that 9/11 was arguably blowback from clandestine operations and overt intervention throughout the Middle East over the last 60+ years not merely because our culture is antithetical to fundamentalist Islam as Rick Santorum suggested - something conservatives in the audience expected to hear.  Dr. Paul even went further, admonishing the crowd, "...if your not annoyed by this there is something wrong!" 

          Libertarians are an international bread, whereas Republicans are found only within the United States.  They believe the Constitution was meant to extend beyond our borders as it defends "persons" not merely "citizens."  Not only can one find libertarian strains within left wing and right wing circles here in the US they are found internationally, albeit mostly in English speaking countries like Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.


          A Gallup poll (above) shows to me the most important synthesizing characteristic of the libertarian ideology.  Whereas Republicans and Democrats believe respectively that "big government" or "big business" are the biggest threats to the United States it is the libertarian who understands how the collusion of both these vested interests including, to a much smaller degree "big labor", threatens to our country.  Big government enables big business to buy political favor and cut down competition through regulation, barriers to entry and subsidies, which collectively raise prices, unemployment, profits and impoverishes the middle and lower classes. 

          Similarly, libertarians like Ron Paul understand like political winds the value of goods and services extend from the human mind alone!  Prices aren't set in some ivory tower at Harvard or Stanford and planes, trains, gold, bottled water and iPods don't have an inherent value besides what social needs and circumstance dictate.  Money is (or should be) the viewed the same way.  Why do we allow a few people like Ben Bernanke and a dark consortium of private member mega-banks whom run the Federal Reserve to dictate the worth of the dollars we hold in our hand?  For the same reason we don't allow them to decree what the tomatoes in our garden are worth.  

          It would seem in a democratic society, one that professes to have a free market, that the people should dictate the price of our currency transparently through Congress in accordance with the Constitution!  Never mind the standard on which the money is based (gold, silver, toenail clippings, etc.) libertarians want abolish this financial dictatorship, Republicans are coming around (a little) and 74% of Americans want it audited.  All signs the libertarian drum beat is being heard and felt.   

Image Source: Kevin Middleton at
RedBubble.com
          Lastly, there is something very special about libertarians and Ron Paul that America doesn't fully understand.  Ron Paul wants to put the "States" back into the United States of America!  Ask yourself an honest question: who is my state legislator?  Who is my state senator?  Who cares is probably the next question!  With so many decisions going on in Washington DC all eyes are now refocused on that humid swamp passed on long ago for greener more temperate pastures.  

          Many refer with derision to our 50 states enacting their own laws as a patchwork, a hodgepodge or a mishmash of different laws, but that was the original beauty of America.  In a phrase coined by Lord Bryce and popularized by Justice Louis Brandeis the separate states are seen as "laboratories of democracy" giving the United States a competition not only in the free market, but also in the market of governments, which generated fresh new ideas for public problems and therefore competed for citizens!  After 1913 when states legislators no longer elected Senators to serve as their ambassadors to Washington DC "senators became substantially less responsive to the policy interests of the state legislature."

          Besides the controversial legalization of drugs, dismantling of the FDA, EPA, CIA, FAA, etc. which bog down most debates over the libertarian ideology and Ron Paul's campaign there lies the magic we have lost in this country, respect for reason, life, liberty, property and most all limited government. 
          

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Good News: The Real Power of the People Lies in Individual Citizens

Topher Morrison
PurpleSerf.com


Unfortunately the police officer wasn't able to find a place to push.  Little did the rescuers know that dragging an injured man isn't recommended by public safety officials. 





The Serf Report

Monday, September 12, 2011

US Ground Troops on the Ground in Libya, Pentagon Confirms

Topher Morrison
PurpleSerf.com

Link to the FoxNews article, here.


Definitely "not war" though most likely just "kinetic advisors."


BIZARRE: Former Congressman: ‘I Saw NATO Troops Behead Libyans’

Paul Joseph Watson
InfoWars.com
September 12th, 2011


Source: InfoWars.com
Former US Congressman Walter Fauntroy claims he saw NATO troops behead Libyans as part of the siege to overthrow Gaddafi’s regime, a conflict Fauntroy attributes to the geopolitical agenda to re-colonize Africa.


Fauntroy was a Congressman representing District of Columbia for a period of 20 years between 1971 and 1991.


Read the rest of Paul Joseph Watson's report at InfoWars.com

Friday, September 9, 2011

Soaking the Rich Makes Us Happier

Topher Morrison
PurpleSerf.com

Image: P.A.P Blog
Not really.  Many people love the progressive income tax system.  It's understandable, it is one of the only forms of discrimination in which nobody feels bad for the target minority.  It is difficult, however, to conclude this system is what contributes to the happiness of nations. 


          According to a recent study the more a country taxes its richest citizens the happier everyone in that country will be.  The recent study covered in Science Daily, Huffington Post, and Health Canal are to varying degrees in agreement that there is, if not a causal relationship, a correlation between a progressive income tax and the happiness of its citizens.  Additionally, citizens are happier than their flat tax counterparts.


          There is a problem here, however.  Readers are perceiving this study as establishing a causal relationship: if x (pick a country) implements y (progressive income tax) it produces z (happiness),  it unfortunately does not work like that (wish it did).   


          Indeed, America evidently doesn't have a very progressive income tax relative to other such tax systems, a fact Warren Buffet admitted in his recent op-ed "Stop Coddling the Rich".  Apparently the richest of us, those who don't "work" rather "invest" to make a living, are enjoying significantly lower tax rates (15% vs. 35-41% for other upper incomes) because of tax loopholes and incongruencies in our "progressive" tax code.  A flat tax by definition would eliminate these loopholes and force the richest among us to pay more in absolute numbers, however, that is not what Mr. Buffet advocates.


          Yet even in a nation where our progressive tax system evidently favors the mega-investor and the super rich, members of the tax-exempt-ocracy, the study, compiled by psychologist Shigehiro Oishi of University of Virginia, claims the US ranked fairly high among nations for happiness, this aside from its mildly progressive tax policy.  Moreover, according to Gallup's recent poll, which measures "thriving" nations it concluded "High Well Being Eludes the Masses" despite progressive tax structures being the worldwide norm.


          So what then actually makes citizens happy?  Ah the age old question...  According to Dr. Oishi "[E]ven if a society does not adopt a progressive tax, as long as it can afford good public transportation, education system, health care, and so forth, citizens are likely to be happy."  According to a recent 24/7 Wall St. analysis of an OECD survey it isn't necessarily public services per se, but natural resources, economic stability, a strong services sector and "a good balance of work and leisure time" which all correlate with "life satisfaction."  However the most notable characteristic was low levels of debt within the top 10 countries listed by the OECD.  Who would have thought?


          Perhaps the best indicator of happiness and satisfaction would be the Global Competitiveness rankings recently released by the World Economic Forum, which when compared with Gallup's data shows that of the top 25 competitive nations almost all of these top competitors find themselves "thriving" and therefore happy.  Better questions might be, what makes a nation more competitive and how do nations best balance budgets?