Liberty Maven

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Quote of the Day: “Quality questions create a quality life. Successful people ask better questions, and as a result, they get better answers.” — Anthony Robbins

Now that the concept of requiring Congress to read the bills has caught on, it’s being seriously debated.

Some are pretending that they have THE objection that demonstrates how “silly” it is to require members of Congress to pause and read their bills. They write things like,

“Would you also require the legislator to understand the bill? Or is mere reading, with no comprehension, enough? And if comprehension is required, how much comprehension is required, and how would you test that?”

This clever questioner is asking a question to which he already knows the answer. But it has nothing to do with a well-designed law to Read the Bills.

Would this questioner oppose the Constitution because…

* Politicians don’t like to be constrained by it?
* Incumbents have too much important work to do and that document gets in the way?

Sometimes people try to sound clever, and manage to do so, by half. But we should instead ask a better question.

Can we rely on the good nature and intelligence of persons handed the immense power to legislate the lives of others?

No, we can’t. This is not an attack against politicians. No human being can understand all the details they’re called upon to understand. Others will have to help them with details. So let’s ask an even better question:

“Should well-informed citizens be able to help Congress understand the bills, or should Congress only listen to lobbyists?”

Members of the media, watchdog groups, and YOU should be able to view the bill and see what they’re up to — before they get to vote.

DownsizeDC.org’s Read the Bills Act (RTBA) allows citizens to express not only their opinion on how Congress should vote on a bill, but why. RTBA requires . . .

1. A seven day waiting period before a bill is voted on
2. Posting the bill online for every Internet user to read

Read More »

If America was one big classroom the teacher should be admonishing students, making them stay after school and repeatedly write “Ron Paul is right” on the blackboard until their fingers cramp up. Of course, that would never happen. We’d never allow political indoctrination into our schools, right? America’s decreasing influence in the world and ultimately its downfall can be attributed to our “failure is not an option” culture which fools you into believing you are winning when in reality you have already lost.

This culture is being thrust upon our nation’s young people at an early age. Young children are constantly being reassured that they are doing a “good job” for the most mundane accomplishments. Those who play sports are presented participation trophies. No, we wouldn’t want any of them to actually excel beyond just “showing up”, do we? While playing games it’s always important to make sure each child gets a turn at winning or at least the game ends in a tie where “everyone wins!” We are beginning to see the effects of this mentality.

At some point these children grow up and the realities of life smack them square in their glass jaws. Everyone can never be equal. Life is not fair. Hate will always exist. Yet they were always taught the opposite so they get “active” and try to fulfill the promise of their youth. Their activity naturally progresses toward the one entity they believe has de facto power to fulfill this promise: government.

Yes, everyone wants to take the government drug to be pain free, but everyone remains ignorant of that particular drug’s evil side effects and addictive nature.

Everyone has become “too big to fail”.

I was once asked in a job interview, “Do you think you learn more from your successes or your failures?” I answered “failures, of course.” Failure forces you to reexamine your premises, think outside the box, and try again. In order for failure to “work” it must not be rewarded. Yet this is precisely what our government is doing and has done for quite some time.

In our increasingly more overt politically-correct society, is it perhaps time to reexamine our premises? If someone is born without limbs it doesn’t mean we should go out and round up all of the “limb-full” and amputate their arms and legs in the interests of equality. Sure it’s an extreme metaphor but this is precisely what we are trying to do when we support plans that attempt to make life “more fair” for the underprivileged at the expense of those who worked to make their own lives better. It is class warfare and all classes lose in the end.

The opposite is true too. We should not be funneling taxpayer money to private banks and auto companies. A bad business is a bad business and we’d know it was bad if it were left alone to fail or thrive. Executives and employees will learn from the failure and move on to try again. Once the crying stops, innovation is a by-product of failure.

Rewarding failure makes it a goal rather than a consequence of poor decisions. Failure should not be shunned. It should not be embraced. It should be accepted as a lesson learned. Trying and failing is what makes trying again and succeeding so satisfying.

We need to channel the Founder’s cavalier spirit, end government mollycoddling, and realize if we fall down we can pick ourselves back up again. Sure we may make a mess of things at times but the most important thing is persistence.

FDR famously said, “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself!” If he had instead said, “the only thing we have to fear is fear of failure”, we might be in a much better place today.

Originally published October 7, 2009 at http://towneforcongress.com/economy/preparation-time-is-running-out-1

This morning in London the gold price hit an all-time high in non-inflation-adjusted dollars of $1047.

While some who hold gold might be rejoicing, I do not view this as good news at all.  The campaign still has plenty of people to reach in this district, and may run out of time since we certainly do not have the funds to launch a major ad campaign.

The all-time high in the gold price is a warning of dire times to come as it merely indicates that the dollar’s purchasing power is at an all-time low.  The next phase of the dollar crisis may be on the doorstep.

For those of you who would shout “au contraire!!” and are excited about the stock markets gains since the spring, please take a look at the following chart.  Note that maximums in the P/E (price-to-earnings) ratio often precede market crashes, as the stock is overvalued as compared to its dividends/earnings.  This S&P 500 chart is from 1935-present.

Notice anything strange?  We are way out of historical means.  I do not believe that such absurdly high P/E ratios are possible to maintain over the long-term.

And note that the Dow Jones Industrial Average would be far worse if AIG, Citicorp, and General Motors were not removed from this index in the past year.

The campaign is extremely busy and continuing to pick up steam, but we need your help to spread the word.  The above should not be taken as investment advice, merely facts.

Read More »

As mentioned previously, the founders of Liberty Maven attended the FFF-sponsored Robert Higgs talk at George Mason University earlier this week.  I agree that this was one of the most intriguing and entertaining speeches I’ve been to. Watch it here:

Robert Higgs from The Future of Freedom Foundation on Vimeo.

by John Browne – Senior Market Strategist, Euro Pacific Capital

On October 6th, The Independent newspaper of London set off shock-waves around the world with a report that secret meetings were held between the OPEC states, China, Russia, and others, in which the participants charted a course toward a new world reserve currency. Not surprisingly, the U.S. dollar nosedived on the news. The rout was only stemmed by Saudi and Chinese officials publicly denying the story.

Whether or not this particular reporter got all his facts straight is largely immaterial. If such meetings have not been occurring, they soon will be. All the ingredients to stir financial discontent in these nations are present. It’s not a question of if we will move to a post-dollar world, but when.

Read More »

I saw a bumper sticker today that said, “I Love Sarah”. I assumed it meant Sarah Palin and not Sarah Jessica Parker, but I can’t be sure. Last month Palin was echoing Ron Paul on the role of the Federal Reserve in America’s economic crisis. I encouraged her (not that she gives one moose about what I think) to echo Ron Paul on foreign policy as well.

Yesterday it became quite clear that she was never in danger of becoming a foreign policy non-interventionist like Paul.

From CNN:

Palin published a note on her Facebook page Tuesday that encourages President Barack Obama to grant a request for the tens of thousands of additional troops reportedly requested by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in the country.

“Now is not the time for cold feet, second thoughts, or indecision,” Palin wrote on the site. “It is the time to act as commander-in-chief and approve the troops so clearly needed in Afghanistan.”

Noting the possible consequences of not helping to build up Afghanistan’s institutions, the former Alaska governor also wholeheartedly endorsed McChrystal’s counterinsurgency approach to continued U.S. military presence in the country.

“We can win in Afghanistan by helping the Afghans build a stable representative state able to defend itself. And we must do what it takes to prevail. The stakes are very high. The 9/11 attacks were planned in Afghanistan, and if we are not successful there, al Qaeda will once again find a safe haven, the Taliban will impose its cruelty on the Afghan people, and Pakistan will be less stable.”

She is just confirming that she never was and never will be a libertarian, especially when it comes to foreign policy. Don’t let the new designation (or Eric Dondero) fool you. The Palin-Cons are the same old Neo-Cons.

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

We’re all exhausted by the healthcare debate, but our exhaustion is dangerous. Congress may exploit our fatigue to pass a bill that will change your life forever! Do not relent . . .

Send Congress another letter opposing the boondoggle healthcare bill.

Here’s what I said in my letter . . .

The Senate Finance Committee finalized a healthcare bill without knowing what it will cost. That’s irresponsible.

Even worse, you guys are hiding the true costs of your proposals by pushing their full implementation beyond the 10-year accounting window used by the Congressional Budget Office. That’s fraudulent.

If corporate CEOs behaved this way you’d use Sarbanes-Oxley to put them in jail.

Madoff defrauded in the billions. You guys commit fraud in the trillions. DO NOT PASS THE HEALTHCARE BILL!

Send your own letter to Congress here.

Perry Willis
Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

Sources:

A Michael Tanner op-ed in The New York Post

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

& Downsize DC Foundation

Jacob Hornberger has appeared on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s Freedom Watch (and FoxNews.com/freedomwatch) twice. Today, The Future of Freedom Foundation President gives his ringing endorsement of bringing the show to Fox television.

Fox News legal commentator Judge Andrew Napolitano’s Internet program Freedom Watch is one of the most fascinating phenomena in the history of the libertarian movement. There’s never been anything like it and if it were to break out to the Fox News television channel, it would constitute nothing less than a revolutionary development in American politics.

Take a look at the guests that Napolitano has been having on his show: Lew Rockwell, Bob Higgs, James Bovard, Paul Armentano, Ron Paul, Roger Pilon, Tom Woods, Pete Eyre, Nick Gillespie, David Boaz, Peter Schiff, Walter Block, and many more. Every one of them is a major figure in the libertarian movement. I myself have been on Napolitano’s show twice.

How many times have you seen any of these guests on the mainstream television talk shows or even on the cable television talk shows? My hunch is that your answer is “Rarely, if ever.”

For years, conservatives and liberals have played their little games of pretending to have debates over policy, acting as if there were fundamental philosophical differences between the two. In actuality, the debates have always been over which form of statism is preferable — conservative statism or liberal statism.

Read the rest here.

I attended a FFF sponsored event at George Mason University last night. Robert Higgs delivered one of the best speeches I’ve heard yet. He compared and contrasted the Great Depression with our current economic woes. Look for the video later this week. You don’t want to miss it.

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Quote of the Day: “I want a government small enough to fit inside the Constitution.” — DownsizeDC.org co-founder Harry Browne (1933-2006)

You can read our response here.

What we didn’t mention in the previous Dispatch was the Constitutional problem of the War on Drugs. That’s because . . .

Many people seem not to care what the Constitution requires. Today’s message is for those who do care.

Drug control is NOT a Constitutional power of the federal government. At the very most the federal government could, perhaps, ban the importation of drugs, and prohibit their sale across state lines under the Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8.

But nowhere in the Constitution is Congress empowered to prohibit the sale or possession of any item within state boundaries. The Tenth Amendment dictates that whatever Congress is not empowered to do must be left to the States, or to the people. This means Congress cannot . . .

* forbid the personal possession or use of drugs
* prohibit drug sales within the same state
* intervene in other countries with money or troops to fight undeclared drug wars

This means that drug prohibition laws can only exist at the state level. Imagine what could happen if some states had no prohibition laws, while other states had prohibition laws of differing severity. Competing claims about drug prohibition could be tested, in the real world. As it is . . .

Federal prohibition laws not only prohibit the sale and use of drugs, they also prohibit us from learning what would work best.

The 10th Amendment’s Constitutional restrictions on federal power used to be well-known and understood. For instance, those who wanted to prohibit alcohol in the 1910′s knew that the Constitution didn’t give Congress the power to do this. So they had to pass the 18th Amendment, ratified in 1919.

Alcohol prohibition was a failure, so in 1933 the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment.

If prohibiting alcohol required a Constitutional Amendment, how does prohibiting other drugs NOT require a Constitutional Amendment?

Read More »

Sever the strings-turned-chains between the free market puppet and it’s government master and this heartwarming yet bittersweet story could happen many times over. It could become the norm rather than the exception.

Because of caring people and a caring company, a terminally ill little Green Forest girl was flown home Friday by air ambulance from M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, so she can spend her last days surrounded by the people who love her most.

Jada Harper, who turned seven on Sept. 1, has an inoperable malignant tumor in her brain and is in a coma with a ventilator doing her breathing for her. She has been at the famous cancer center in Houston since July, but her situation is now at the point not much else can be done to help her.

I emphasized the first phrase above to emphasize what is absent: government. It doesn’t say because of some government program. No company was forced to help this poor child and her family. A company made up of individuals with the ability to make a decision to do what is right was responsible for this “random act of kindness”. Perhaps what makes this story more interesting is the company that helped is a direct competitor to a government entity.

Friday afternoon, Jada was flown home to the Ozarks — on a gurney, attached to the machine that breathes for her. FedEx Freight paid the $11,000 bill for the special medical flight her family was unable to afford.

FedEx who competes with the government sponsored United States Postal Service (USPS) acted when others failed. Sure, they may have been acting in their own self-interest to garner “free” advertising and customer goodwill, but how can they be criticized for performing this mutually beneficial act?

$11,000 is chump change for a company like FedEx, but apparently this isn’t an isolated occurrence.

“One thing that impresses me about this company is that the company has a heart,” Reeves said. “Our company does a lot of things like this. It’s been recognized as one of the most admired companies in the world, and this is why.”

It is this phenomenon that represents the best argument for a true free market. If companies weren’t over-regulated and over-taxed perhaps these random acts of kindness would multiply until they become the general rule rather than the exception. Imagine a world where companies all realize that helping people also helps the bottom line. Anyone can make a buck, but not everyone can make a devoted customer.

In a free market the customer acts as regulator. Companies would be trampling over themselves and each other to find the next person (potential customer) to help. When a third party, in this case the government, forces companies (and individuals) to fork over 40-50% of their profit (or income) and then uses it on projects that rarely achieve their intended purpose the result is widespread resentment. In this case companies and individuals become less charitable. The tax and regulatory burden hinders their ability to participate in benevolent actions like FedEx.

Imagine companies that have 50% more profit competing to be number one on the list of most charitable companies. There is no doubt that the result would be a monumental increase in assistance for people and organizations who need it.

We don’t need government to lead, nor follow. We just need government to get out of the way. It’s time to break the government chains of taxes and regulation. This would not only foster economic prosperity but it would also spawn a renaissance of benevolence. This benevolence would come voluntarily and resentment-free from private companies and individuals. It’s good for business, good for the poor, and good for America.