On ABC’s 20/20 Friday night John Stossel fired a cannon for liberty. He put together an hour long report using the current political climate to promote the philosophy of liberty and libertarianism. I can’t not recommend this enough. I also recommend you spread it to everyone you know.
This should be required viewing for all voters. It is in 6 parts.
On Chris Martenson’s blog (free registration required), Chris picks apart the Joint Statement by the Treasury, Federal Reserve and FDIC published today. He manages to cut through the blah blah blah and point out the Orwellian events taking place: further maniplation of interest rates, and changes in regulation that expand the FDIC and further distort the marketplace:
This is another gross marketplace distortion of the highest order. It means that sharp investors will now scramble for the highest yielding junk debt of the most troubled institutions so as to grab all that extra free yield. Suffice it to say that moral hazard has just been kicked up a notch. Instead of poorly performing banks being shunned, as they should be, they are now advanced to the front of the pack by virtue of offering a higher “risk free” yield than their more cautious competitors.
But the real kicker was that tag line of “and their holding companies”. *Gulp*. Unless there’s some hidden details saying otherwise, this means that the senior debt of any holding company of an insured bank is now covered by the FDIC. Look for crappy banks to suddenly be highly desirable acquisition targets of non-related companies seeking a government subsidy for their own senior debt offerings.
As mentioned previously, Chris Martenson’s Crash Course is an excellent way to get a much deeper understand of how our monetary system works in about three hours. Broken up into twenty short videos, Martenson explains things in easy-to-understand terms. We cannot recommend it enough.
Ron Paul’s Campaign For Liberty has put together countless resources for learning about the philosophy of liberty. There are recommended videos, essays, articles, and books all organized by subject matter. The high level subjects are: Economics, Sound Money, Foreign Policy, Constitution, and Civil Liberties.
The materials complement the recommended reading list included at the end of Ron Paul’s best selling book, “The Revolution: A Manifesto“. Many of the reading and viewing assignments are available online for free. Unless you consume books as quickly and easily as “my friends” rolls off of John McCain’s tongue it will take you a lifetime to read everything.
Additionally, I cannot recommend enough Chris Martenson’s “Crash Course” series of videos on his website also available for free. While Ron Paul is never mentioned in the “Crash Course” the material is directly related to Ron Paul’s teachings. If you do nothing else, then watch Martenson’s videos. He outlines in very easily digestible pieces how money is created, why we are in the economic situation we are in, and what may be coming in the not too distant future. It is a must for any liberty loving Ron Paul supporter.
When I heard William “BJ” Lawson speak for the first time in person I said to myself, “This is the Ron Paul Republican who can win”. Then I checked out his opponent David Price and immediately thought, “I know Lawson can win.” At first glance, the problem is the heavily Democratic North Carolina district he is in, but if you dig a bit deeper, Lawson is the perfect candidate for a district of this kind. He is not your normal present day Republican. Lawson has the ability to attract those on all sides of the political spectrum much like Ron Paul did during his own campaign.
Below you will discover the Liberty Maven rankings for BJ Lawson on the Paul-O-Meter, where candidates and current lawmakers can be rated on how closely they are in line with Dr. Ron Paul on the issues. To learn about the Paul-O-Meter methodology please see this article. You may also assign your own rankings or request a candidate be added to the system.
Continue reading to see if BJ Lawson truly deserves the moniker “Ron Paul Jr.”
Over and over and over again I see headlines using the words “Sarah Palin” and “libertarian” in the same sentence. Sometimes I think it’s due to ignorance, but other times it’s clearly a crafted agenda to redefine the term “libertarian” to mean something closer to “neocon”. For some blogging enthusiasts, this article could be considered an Eric Dondero hit piece, since I will be focusing largely on headlines written by him.
In a recent blogger post discussing Sarah Palin, Dondero wrote back to one commenter who didn’t quite agree with him: “You’re a purist libertarian. You don’t give a f*** about such things. Perfectly understandable….Now go back to your Ivory Tower, and take those books off those dusty shelves, and start studying Objectivist/Austrian economics theory, like you do every day. You’ll be much happier than living in the real world like the rest of us do.“ For Dondero, if you don’t subscribe to his warped concept of libertarianism (i.e. neoconservatism) then you must be a “purist”, and not worthy of contributing to the discussion. Eric, there’s only so far you can stretch the definition of a libertarian, and you’ve gone way off the deep end.
I like to say that Harry Browne made me a libertarian and Ron Paul made me an economist. Ron Paul lead me to Peter Schiff’s doomy and gloomy words of truth, but now I’ve found a new true professor of economics. He can take complicated economics topics and make them simple to understand. His name is Chris Martenson and if you truly want to understand the inner workings of the U.S. economy his “Crash Course” is indispensable.
Martenson’s “Crash Course” is a series of freely available short (longest is around 17 minutes) online videos walking you through the daunting task of where we’ve been, where we are now, and where we are headed as it relates to America’s economy. He clearly explains how money is created, how inflation is a necessary function of our flawed system, and how the government’s numbers are more than fuzzy. They are downright hairy.
To put it bluntly, if you are reading this article right now stop what you are doing, go over to ChrisMartenson.com and start learning. You will thank us later.
The final question that was posed to Bob Barr during the live debate event at Reason Magazine’s headquarters in Washington DC was regarding the snub of Ron Paul and Paul’s endorsement of Chuck Baldwin.
10:48- Bob Barr: [Responding to, "Final question: You had a very public falling out with Ron Paul. What went wrong? And what would you say to Paul supporters?"] They ought to be disappointed in Ron Paul. Endorsing a theocratic candidate makes little sense whatsoever. What we’re trying to do is what we hoped Ron Paul would have done, which is to provide true focused leadership.
As hard it is for me to admit, I think Bob Barr is right here to a certain extent. I think there were many who were disappointed in Ron Paul. Of course there were also many who were disappointed in Bob Barr as well. As I’ve written before, I am disappointed in both.
While I don’t believe Baldwin wants a theocracy as Barr accuses, Baldwin’s historical statements on policy backed by religion worry me greatly. So it matters little to me that Ron Paul is endorsing Chuck Baldwin now. I will not vote for him.
Bob Barr’s type of “true focused leadership” is likely different than Ron Paul’s type of leadership. Paul is focusing on education and activism. Barr is all about furthering his own standing in the election and propping up the Libertarian Party as legitimate.
Now after the Barr snub, Paul chooses to endorse Baldwin, more or less. This comes off as a bit like a couple of stubborn kids arguing over toys when what we lovers of liberty need is a bit of unity. Unity is no longer in the cards when it comes to voting for liberty this year.
I’m disappointed in both Barr and Paul, but the real travesty is the wasted potential for spreading the freedom message to the masses. Paul blew it when he originally chose to help his own party’s nominee by endorsing no individual candidate. Barr blew it by over-reacting to Paul’s decision.
They are equally culpable, but because Barr will be the one on the ballot in my state he will get my vote and Ron Paul will get my support for his educational and activist efforts.
If they won’t show unity themselves, I will bridge their differences with my own advocacy.
It is now time to rate the vice presidential candidates on the Paul-O-Meter. We start with John McCain’s VP pick Sarah Palin. The perfect strategic pick for McCain, Palin has little history. She’s been Governor of Alaska for less than two years, but now that McCain’s handlers are pulling Palin’s puppet strings it is difficult to see a difference between the two.
Here we examine Palin on 20 issues to see how she stacks up to Ron Paul. Hopefully this will help some see the lips through the lipstick.
Bob Barr is interviewed at length by Chip Wood in The New American. It is probably the best interview that I’ve read with the Libertarian candidate. Many topics are covered and as usual Barr answers the questions in a direct fashion. His answer regarding changing positions is probably the most sincere I’ve heard him speak on the subject. Below is the section I enjoyed the most, but the entire interview is truly a great read.
TNA: Let’s shift from international issues to a major domestic topic, taxation. Many conservatives are in favor of a flat tax or a national sales tax, the so-called “fair tax.” Meanwhile, Senator Obama wants to increase taxes on the oil companies and wealthy investors. What is the Libertarian Party’s position on the federal income tax?
Barr: Simple. We believe it is an inappropriate, overly oppressive, way-too-complex way to provide necessary funds for the government to carry out its appropriate and necessary activities. We want to abolish the income tax and repeal the 16th Amendment.
As president, the first thing I would do is to dramatically reduce federal spending. That’s first and foremost. If we don’t start reducing spending, then whatever system of taxation we have is going to require too much of the people’s money.
Once we’ve begun to cut spending, I would move dramatically to reform our system of taxation. I would call for the repeal of the 16th Amendment, which allows the federal government to have a progressive income tax. Then we can move toward a much fairer system of taxation. That might be a national sales tax, a version of the fair tax, or something else. But first we must cut spending.
TNA: Earlier you mentioned abolishing the Department of Education. Are there any other federal departments that you want to get rid of? Not reduce. Not streamline. Not make more efficient. But eliminate entirely?
Barr: There are any number of them. As president, I would institute a commission to examine every agency, office, and department of the federal government and to ask, “What is the constitutional justification of that activity — that is, where in the Constitution is it authorized?”
Next, I would require a very clear description of the necessary function that it is carrying out. In other words, what is it doing that cannot better be performed by state or local government, even if there is a constitutional justification for that agency, office, or department?
And thirdly, I would demand to see a cost-benefit study done for each and every such activity, to make certain that the benefits we are getting outweigh the cost.
Such a study would provide the blueprint for a prioritization of those agencies, departments, and offices that could be dramatically scaled back, and in many instances eliminated entirely. For example, I think that the Department of Education would be at the top of that list. I suspect the Department of Commerce would be way up there. I’d be surprised if we couldn’t eliminate the Department of Energy and the Department of Homeland Security as well. Whatever legitimate and necessary functions those two Cabinet offices perform could be handled much better (and much cheaper) by smaller agencies and offices.
The final Presidential candidate we will be rating on the Paul-O-Meter is the Green Party’s nominee, Cynthia McKinney. For a description of the Paul-O-Meter see this article. We have previously completed ratings for John McCain, Barack Obama, Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, and Ralph Nader.
Liberty Maven
“. Many of the reading and viewing assignments are available online for free. Unless you consume books as quickly and easily as “my friends” rolls off of John McCain’s tongue it will take you a lifetime to read everything.
Loading ...
