Inevitably, as the election draws nearer and some of the less-than-libertarian positions of both Mitt Romney and the GOP platform gain attention and, deservedly, criticism many libertarians have already begun trotting out the “he’s just the lessor of two evils” argument. They would argue that you should only vote for the purest libertarian candidate without regard for the chances that he or she can actually win anything.

So allow me to take this time to explain not only why I’m voting for Romney (and I’m an extremist libertarian) but how you can vote for him, too, without feeling like you need to take a shower afterward.

Side note: Hopefully you’ve picked up on this by now, but I to be clear that this is directed at my fellow libertarians and those who generally agree that government is too big, too broad and largely unbound by our constitution. If you’re from a viewpoint that the government isn’t big enough, by all means skip the rest of this post and just vote Green.

THE GOOD VS. EVIL PERCEPTION

First, let’s tackle this “lessor of two evils” argument. Neither major candidate is perfect, but neither candidate is evil, either. The real question should be which candidate, even including the various third party candidates, is the closest to a strong libertarian that can actually win or at least come close. You might be disappointed that Romney doesn’t want to cut as much as you’d like but at least he agrees with you that government is too big. He doesn’t think there’s as much to cut as you likely do, certainly not as much as I do, but at this point the government is so enormous that we’d have to cut a third of the budget before we get to a point where it really matters.

Those who support a third party might speak well of the European multi-party system. There’s one big problem here, in order to participate in government in those systems and have any impact you have to be part of a coalition. Sure you might get a handful of seats, but you’re still largely irrelevant unless you  compromise by joining a coalition. Which means that even if there were a viable Libertarian Party, it would have to form a coalition with other, more centrist parties. In other words, they’d have to settle for a leadership that is more moderate than they are. A lot more moderate.

Libertarian Party Logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The truly Libertarian candidate is, of course, Gary Johnson. I love Gary Johnson, you should read about him. He’s done multiple AMA (“Ask Me Anything”) posts on Reddit, the latest one is here and he’s planning another one on September 26th. I wish he were in a position to actually win something. He’s for a Fair Tax, against the war on drugs and actually wants to cut entitlement spending. Those are very libertarian positions. So why won’t I vote for him? Because he’s got 6% of the electorate behind him. That’s actually a pretty strong showing for a third party, but he still has no chance.

So why doesn’t he stand a chance? Why can’t we have a real libertarian as president? Because we are not a libertarian nation. As much as I wish it were so our country has not been co-opted by a conspiracy or a small group of influencers who pull the strings of our future in secret against the will of a deeply freedom-loving people. Instead, it’s the people themselves who’ve created this monstrosity of a bureaucratic nightmare, oppressive taxation and eroding freedoms. The people want it this way, that’s the “moderate” viewpoint now. If Thomas Jefferson were alive and running for president today he could never be elected, and he would probably never even win either party’s primary. He’s far too “extreme”. George Washington? He’s a pacifist who hate America, of course he couldn’t win.

Think about it. Do you honestly think we’d elect any of the framers of a document that we’ve utterly shredded every time it gets in our way?

The point is, we can’t win on our own. We have to be part of a coalition wrapped around the broadest idea we can agree on: government is too big. Exactly how much smaller it should be is a fight for another day. Right now, we have to get going in the right direction and the best way to do that is through the election of a government that will do less.

Summary of results of the 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008 presidential elections. All the states carried by the Libertarian Party candidate are in… oh. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“IF OBAMA WINS THE GOVERNMENT WILL BE SPLIT, THE PARTIES WILL SPEND SO MUCH TIME FIGHTING EACH OTHER THEY WON’T DO ANY DAMAGE”

This is one argument I wish I could believe. Obama is likely to win the White House, the GOP is likely to retain the House and they might just take the Senate. So, what’s the the worst that could happen? We end up with a split government that’s fights all the time and nothing happens. That’s good, right? The government’s not growing, there are no new wars and the deficit should begin to shrink.

But that’s not what will happen. How do I know that? Because it’s exactly what we have now. And what’s happened since Republicans took control of the House in the 2010 mid-term elections and created the utopian split government we currently enjoy?

• The deficit has gone up, projected to increase by $27 billion over last year.
• We’re still in Iraq and more resources are being poured into Afghanistan.
• Wars have been started or expanded in Yemen, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia and who knows how many other proxy wars.
• Wars may begin in Syria and Iran.
• Marines have been deployed to South America to expand the drug war.
• The NDAA has been passed into law, allowing the indefinite detention of Americans at the whim of the President.
• The TSA has been expanded to include bus terminals, campaign stops and train stations. We didn’t need that 4th amendment, anyway.
• The Patriot Act was extended.
• The Federal Government continues to raid marijuana dispensaries in states where it’s legal.

The list goes on and on but the point is simple: the government continues to grow in size and scope. If we hand Obama another four years it will continue to grow.

THE END GAME

This isn’t the end. This is one step to getting back to the ideas of liberty that our nation was forged with. But we didn’t get to this awful place overnight, it took many decades (most debate exactly when it started), and it will take decades to get back. But we’re never going to get back by losing elections.

Go on, vote for Romney. You know you want to.

Seriously? Chalk this up to another explanation for why the economy continues to struggle under a government with this philosophy.

The ridiculous quote came from a larger point the President was trying to make during what was essentially a campaign speech in Roanoke, Virginia. Here’s the quote with some more context (the video is at the link above).

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.  Somebody invested in roads and bridges.  If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.  The Internet didn’t get invented on its own.  Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The broader point makes sense, that people don’t succeed in a vacuum. But his statement about entrepreneurs reveals a stunning contempt for those who work hard and take huge personal risks to create the businesses that provide jobs.

I’d also take issue with his statement that “[g]overnement research created the Internet” but that’s a different story.

16 years ago congress passed and President Clinton signed a law creating Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), also known as welfare reform. This bi-partisan effort was arguably one of the most beneficial accomplishments of the entire Clinton presidency. The reform changed the focus of welfare from a system which sustains poverty to one which encourages adults who are able to seek employment to do so, and made sure that the government wouldn’t be taking care of them forever.

We Didn’t Need That Reform, Anyway

But the Obama administration doesn’t think the reform was such a good idea, which today gutted the reform via a “policy directive” issued through HHS (H/T to Big Government). The directed eliminates work requirements that states must implement in order to receive federal welfare funding. Why does this gut the reform? Heritage sums up the problem:

In the past, state bureaucrats have attempted to define activities such as hula dancing, attending Weight Watchers, and bed rest as “work.” These dodges were blocked by the federal work standards. Now that the Obama Administration has abolished those standards, we can expect “work” in the TANF program to mean anything but work.

As states become more flexible in their definitions of “work” more people will be added to the roles for longer periods of time. At a time of exploding budget deficits the administration seems hell-bent on spending more money at all costs, even if that money is used to discourage people from seeking employment. I will admit I find some sweet irony that one of Clinton’s most widely acknowledged, fiscally responsible achievements is being torn apart by his fellow Democrat.

In any case I do fear for the impact of actions like this on the long term economic recovery. With policies like these it should come as no surprise that unemployment remains above 8% for another month and employment participation is at historic lows.

Constitution of the United States, page 1 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Constitutional Crisis

Not so much a crisis since it’s been happening for a very long time now, but the administration continues to test the ways it can completely ignore the constitution by bypassing congress in order to enact its agenda. It’s a strategy that makes sense if Obama is concerned about losing in November or winding up in a deeply divided government even if he wins.

The President knows that even if managed to win reelection his party may not hold the Senate, let alone retake the already Republican controlled House. So his entire second term would be either very moderate as he would be forced to promote more bipartisan initiatives, or a completely dead in the water as neither side budges. The only way to head this off (apart from, you know, actually promoting better policies to win more seats in November) is to shred the constitution and legislate from the Executive Branch.

It could be a very interesting time if and when these actions ever come to a head.

In perhaps a subtle sign of the government’s concern for its own stability it apparently cannot trust its own soldiers with weapons.

That’s the message around 200 American soldiers got when they lined up at Camp Leatherneck in Afghanistan to listen to Leon Panneta, US Secretary of Defense, deliver a speech. From the Telegraph:

Around 200 troops who had gathered in a tent at Camp Leatherneck were told “something had come to light” and asked abruptly to file outside and lay down their automatic rifles and 9mm pistols.

The government claims this was done so that American soldiers would be equally unarmed as their Afghan counter-parts, which is difficult to believe since it hasn’t been an issue before and this seems to have been a list minute decision. More likely is the disturbing possibility that the government believes it has run our troops so ragged that they are likely to break, so volatile that they could start shooting at any moment.

Moreover, no surprise here, this seems to be a first:

However, US troops often remain armed even when their Afghan colleagues have been asked to lay down their weapons and the incident is believed to be the first time they were stripped of guns during an address by their own secretary of defence.

Of course another theory is that the government is so corrupt and out of touch that it’s starting to experience a paranoid fear, not only of its citizens, but even its own soldiers.

From Reuters:

With just three days remaining before Florida’s Republican primary, Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, led Gingrich, a former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, by 43 percent to 32 percent among likely voters in Florida’s January 31 primary, the online poll said.

It’s unclear whether this will translate into momentum going forward, but Florida’s 50 delegates will determine the new front runner.

In any case the police work for us, ostensibly to establish domestic tranquility, and we have the right to keep them honest.

(Props to Carlos Miller for bringing this to my attention).

Mike Haege, of Hastings, owns a tree cutting service which operates in several cities. When he saw the news of devastation in the town he decided to put his business to use for free, volunteering to remove trees and debris from peoples’ homes, many of whom did not have insurance and were otherwise stuck without his help.

The city requires a license to conduct a tree cutting business within the city, which Haege did not have. Of course, that shouldn’t have mattered since he was not running a business that day – all the work he was doing was being done for free.

Have no fear, local government had its priorities strait and somehow managed to spare the resources to harass and threaten a local volunteer in their own devastated city.

A city inspector arrived at the scene. She told Haege he had to leave. Immediately.

“You have to leave right now,” the inspector told Haege. “You’re not licensed to be here.”

“I said, ‘I’m just a volunteer,’ and she didn’t believe me.”

Haege went back to his truck and got his volunteer paperwork. Still, that did little to get the inspector off his back.

“I don’t want to see you up here,” she told him.

“She just didn’t believe me,” he said.

And it gets even better. The charity he was helping and the citizens whom he had just helped all came to his defense, but to no avail. Soon he was forced to leave, chased out of a city he was trying to help, for free, by a government that apparently cares more about its own pathetic bureaucracy than the suffering of their own people.

Even that wasn’t good enough for these, apparently, vindictive bureaucrats. As Mr. Haege was driving home local police were following him in order to ensure his departure. He was unaware of this, however, when his help was requested again.

As they were on their way back to the volunteer area, residents waved down Haege, pleading for help. He pulled over and helped get a tree out of the way for them.

Haege had no idea police officers were behind him in a sort of unofficial escort out of town. He said they stopped traffic for about two hours while they figured out what to do with him. At one point, officers threatened to throw him in jail, he said.

Ultimately he went home and received a $275 fine in the mail.

A lot of words come to mind to describe the city’s actions that day, but I like Haege’s the best:

“I happened to have a day off, and I happened to get run out of the city for no reason,” he said. “It was really kind of disturbing. Going up there, thinking you’ll be welcomed. The residents welcomed me. They were very grateful, but the Gestapo wasn’t. ”[emphasis mine]

On a related note, why should one need a license to remove trees and debris even if they are charging? What’s wrong with enriching yourself by providing a service to your fellow man?

  by  abraham.williams 

The economic news just keeps piling on.

A new poll released by The Hill says a full one-third of Americans expect to be worse off by November of 2012.

More than one in three likely voters expect to be worse off when they go to the polls a year from this November, a somber fact for President Obama’s reelection campaign, while just 25 percent believe they will be better off, according to this week’s The Hill poll.

Even more directly:

Thirty-nine percent said they expect to be in the same economic position they are now, but 65 percent also said they believe the country is on the wrong track.

That, it seems to me, is a direct indictment of the President’s policies. The country is still evenly split on whether this is still Bush’s recession or Obama’s. Of course many of those who blame Bush for the current economic situation forget (or neglect to mention) that the Democrats took control of Congress in January of 2007 – it was less than a year of Democratic congressional policy before the recession began to trample the economy, and less then two years before the stock market imploded.

I’m not offering much of a defense of Bush because the fact is he continued a policy of government expansion at the cost of debt and cheap money. However, Obama has taken those ills and magnified them 500% with massive deficits and no end in sight to dramatic expansion of the federal government.

Democratic group Third Way has a handy chart indicating just what happens to presidents running for reelection during times of high unemployment (credit: Hot Air).

In other economic dread news CBS is running the headline, “Chronic unemployment worse than Great Depression” and the article is about as warm and fuzzy as you might guess.

About 6.2 million Americans, 45.1 percent of all unemployed workers in this country, have been jobless for more than six months – a higher percentage than during the Great Depression.

Long term unemployment is hard for lots of obvious reasons. Savings run out, unemployment assistance runs out, the gap on your resume actually makes it harder for you to find employment. It’s a serious problem.

The question is whether voters will respond to that problem by voting for the candidate more likely to create jobs, or the one more likely to make it “easier” to remain unemployed.

What would happen to you if you nearly ran a pedestrian over with your car then, when the pedestrian slaps your car and yells at you, you jump out and beat the man in the face with a bat? Jail? Not if you have a get-away-with-crime-free pass issued by the police department.

Officer Marc Rios plead guilty to beating a man in the face with his baton after the NYPD Officer nearly ran victim, John Roperto, over with his cruiser. Mr. Roperto slapped the car and swore at the Officer which prompted Mr. Rios to jump out of his cruiser and beat the man in the face with his baton. He then drove off and made no report of the incident.

Officer Marc Rios admitted to the March 30, 2009, assault that left victim John Roperto, 34, with broken bones in his cheek and nose.

There is one bright spot in this mess: because he plead guilty he was actually terminated from his employment which, with union and political protection, is all too rare in cases like this.

After a woman refused to go through a full body scanner she was pulled aside and made to undergo the pat down procedure. When the TSA agent touched the woman’s breasts, she broke down into tears and screamed for a police officer.

Of course the officers only threatened the woman, rather than help the assault victim. Then agents threatened to arrest her son for recording the incident. If we’ve learned that there’s anything the government hates it people that assert their rights, especially the 1st and 4th amendment rights.

That story makes these next two all the more satisfying.

The bill to ban the TSA’s molestation in Texas was scuttled recently after the TSA threatened to ground all Texas air traffic. (A move similar to the Stalinist threats used by the feds to revoke highway funds or otherwise cripple state economies of any states who oppose them.)

However, Rep. David Simpson (R) suddenly found renewed backbone after reconsidering the measure and deciding to try to move forward again.

“Gentlemen, we find ourselves at such a watershed moment today,” Simpson continued. “The federal government is attempting to deprive the citizens of Texas of their constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 9 of the Texas Constitution. If we do not stand for our citizens in the face of this deprivation of their personal rights and dignity, who will?”

And it looks like Utah’s joining the club:

“Opened a bill file today which will prohibit TSA pat downs in Utah without reasonable suspicion,” [Rep. Carl] Wimmer [(R)] wrote on his Facebook page this week. “Texas needs us to stand with them.”

The TSA makes the laughable argument that the bills are nullified by the supremacy clause of the Constitution, the very document they ignore in performing the “freedom groping” to begin with.