Liberty Maven

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.

It is certainly true that Glenn Beck has been a rather vocal “warmonger” when it comes to America’s interventionism overseas. I made a comment during Ron Paul’s Presidential campaign that Beck and Paul are in 100% agreement when it comes to economics, but Beck had some work to do in order to “come around” to Ron Paul’s non-interventionist foreign policy views.

While Beck may not be there yet, there is a noticeable difference in his rhetoric when it comes to foreign policy and war. This could certainly be attributed to the fact that Obama is now in the White House instead of George W. Bush who used to get endless praise from Beck on foreign policy. Or is this evidence of a core transformation in Beck toward a more non-interventionist approach?

I shamefully admit that I once supported an interventionist foreign policy but that has changed over time as I investigated and became more informed on the issue. It took months, not days. Could Beck be going through a similar transformation? Only time, and maybe another Republican President will tell.

Does it really matter what Glenn Beck thinks? I argue that it does. He has some of the highest ratings of all the political talk shows. Like it or not many people care what he says and thinks. If Beck can make the transition to non-intervention then any formerly devout neo-conservative can too. Don’t shun them with charges of distrust. Welcome them and help them along their path.

For evidence of the Beck transformation-in-process I submit the video below.

This is very good news for gun rights fighters. The Supreme Court has accepted the case to answer the question on whether the 2nd Amendment applies, or is “incorporated”, to the states.

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to decide whether strict local and state gun control laws violate the Second Amendment, ensuring another high-profile battle over the rights of gun owners.

The court said it will review a lower court ruling that upheld a handgun ban in Chicago. Gun rights supporters challenged gun laws in Chicago and some suburbs immediately following the high court’s decision in June 2008 that struck down a handgun ban in the District of Columbia, a federal enclave.

The new case tests whether last year’s ruling applies as well to local and state laws.

While this is good news for hopeful gun rights activists it raises questions for die hard Constitutionalists. The dirty details of “incorporation” reveals some divisions among us. I’ve previously discussed my own thoughts on “incorporation”, but I can certainly understand the opposing viewpoint. The question came up earlier this year when the states rights argument was utilized by the anti-gun rights Senators in reference to the Thune amendment that would have permitted concealed carry reciprocity between the states.

The conventional wisdom is that the Supreme Court has a very good chance of voting in favor of 2nd Amendment incorporation. Perhaps, the more interesting thing, similar to Heller, will be what the majority opinion says at the conclusion of the case.

Ron Paul’s bill to audit the Federal Reserve, HR.1207, was the topic of a hearing of the full House Financial Services Committee chaired by Barney Frank today on capitol hill. The hearing was quite revealing.

Glancing at the cosponsor list one would get the impression that this is truly a bipartisan bill. No congress person wants to let anyone get the idea that he/she doesn’t support transparency. However, the devil is in the details.

It was quite obvious that Chairman Frank and Congressman Watt are not in total agreement with HR.1207 as it is written. Also, both attacked Tom Woods quite ferociously during the hearing. You can watch Frank’s attack in clip #4 in the embedded playlist below (it is right after Ron Paul questions Woods). Their attacks didn’t have much to do with the actual scope of auditing the Fed, but rather some disagreement with Woods rhetoric.

It is pretty clear that the leading Democrats on the committee would like an audit, but want it to be part of a larger regulatory reform bill. No one, except for perhaps Tom Woods argued that the bill not be part of a larger bill, not even Dr. Paul. It is fairly clear to me from this hearing that HR1207 will not be passed as a stand alone bill. The big question is whether or not the bill will be modified so much so that it fails in its original intent. We’ll find out fairly soon I suppose.

I selected a few highlights from todays hearing and made them available on Youtube. I’ve included all of the times Dr. Paul spoke and added a few others. You can watch these clips below. Also, not included below, but posted earlier, don’t miss Alan Grayson grilling the Fed lawyer like an overdone salmon.

Michael Moore utilizes  a word in the title of his new movie to elicit praise and respect from his Left-leaning fans and derision from his Right-leaning critics. Unfortunately for all of us, he uses the wrong word to describe his movie’s subject matter. It’s not capitalism, silly man; it’s corporatism. Therefore, I refuse to call his movie anything but what its true title should be: “Corporatism, A Love Story“.

Let’s head to Merriam-Webster to clear this up. Which one of the following best describes America today?

capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

corporatism: the organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction.

The correct answer is, of course, corporatism. A  key phrase in the definition of capitalism is “by investments that are determined by private decision“. How do government bailouts of private industry reconcile with this definition? They don’t. And if you think this is a recent phenomenon then I urge you to consider the Savings and Loan bailouts back in the 80’s and 90’s.

Another assertion in the definition of capitalism that does not compute in America today is that the prices, production, and distribution of goods are supposed to be determined by a free market.

Read More »

During the general election Presidential campaign of 2008 I had no love for the decidedly non-libertarian views expressed by Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate. Prior to McCain selecting her I kept reading about how she could be considered a great libertarian leaning Republican. Then McCain chose her and the truth came out. Or did it?

Is she now going to try to undo the neo-conservative views she expressed while campaigning as McCain’s running mate? It would certainly be a good political move for her, but can she be successful doing it? I’ll be reserving judgment until she makes another statement on foreign policy and interventionism, but at least she’s joining the chorus of critics against the Federal Reserve.

During her Hong Kong speech today she took aim at the Fed for playing a role in causing the economic crisis. The Wall Street Journal blog reports:

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin fired a shot at the Federal Reserve in her coming-out speech in Hong Kong today, blaming the central bank for the current crisis and disagreeing with the idea that the Fed should have a greater role in preventing the next crisis. It was an echo of fellow Republican and Texas congressman Ron Paul, who has led the charge in Congress to perform an audit of the Federal Reserve with an eye to eventually eliminating it.

“How can we discuss reform without addressing the government policies at the root of the problems? The root of the collapse? And how can we think that setting up the Fed as the monitor of systemic risk in the financial sector will result in meaningful reform?” she said. “The words ‘fox’ and ‘henhouse’ come to mind. The Fed’s decisions helped create the bubble. Look at the root cause of most asset bubbles, and you’ll see the Fed somewhere in the background.”

More generally, Mrs. Palin took the tack that the financial crisis occurred because government got in the way of free enterprise.

So, thanks for jumping on the anti-Fed bandwagon Sarah, now do liberty-loving Americans another solid and start preaching non-interventionism and a strong focus on national defense rather than preemptive national offense. Do that, then continue it and over time some of us may start believing you.

In one corner we have a man that has lived his life inside politics. He has been campaigning for his chance at a Senate seat for several years. The stodgy big government Republicans have anointed him the chosen one. In the other corner is the energetic and principled outsider who is standing up to fight because he can’t take it anymore. The downward spiral of today’s America pried him away from his “normal” life to serve the cause of liberty and limited government.

It is Trey Grayson vs. Rand Paul in the event known as the KentuckyFight. It’s not a battle of fists, but a battle of funds. Sure, Rand is Ron Paul’s son, but when was the last time Ron Paul was labeled an insider by anyone?

The event was spawned due to the anger many felt toward Grayson for allowing his fellow Republican insiders to hold a $500/person fund raiser in Washington DC. The act of fund raising isn’t the problem. The problem is that Rand Paul is a Republican too and many of the incumbent Senators attending the Grayson fund raiser voted for last fall’s bailout. This reinforces the notion that Grayson has no intention of being fiscally conservative with our tax money.

So, the grassroots supporters of Paul decided to hold a brilliant fund raiser of their own. It’s another money bomb in an effort to raise more money than Grayson raises at his “i’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine” fund raiser. Ron Paul’s supporters are fully backing his son. Given this it is not a question of if the money bomb will raise more than Grayson, but by how much.

Beginning at midnight tonight and ending at midnight tomorrow night, September 23rd, please donate to Rand Paul and send a message to Grayson and his political elitist friends. Let them know that small government is not just rhetoric. It is a philosophy that we demand of our elected officials.

The morons who are adding the “N word” to the end of “You Lie!” need to simmer down. Yes, that means you Jimmy Carter.

Following Joe Wilson’s outburst during Obama’s address to a joint session of Congress I suggested he was merely representing his constituents. I also suggested that he’s probably a liar too, but not many picked up on that. They were too interested in discussing how disrespectful it was for a man to yell two words at the President during his address, two words that probably should have been three words: “We all lie!”

But what I’m most miffed about is all these charges of racism going around. There’s nothing about what Joe Wilson said that was racist.  Those jumping to conclusions about race are instigating racism instead of helping prevent it. Now Jimmy Carter says he believes that Wilson’s comment was “based on racism.” Well I suppose that settles it.

The bottom line is that it is not in any way racist to disagree with the President on health care or any number of issues. Why does having a black President turn so many into race-card-playing Al Sharptons? If this is the way it is 9 months into Obama’s Presidency I’m really starting to worry how this country will be 2-3 years from now.

Here’s a tip. Unless the person disagreeing with Obama is wearing a white hood, is burning a cross, or actually says or writes something that is racist, put your race card back in your pocket where it belongs. If you don’t, you are perpetuating racism by “crying wolf” when there is no “wolf” to be found.

The most recent Rasmussen approval rating for Obama is at 50%. That means that 50% disagree in some way with Obama. Do you seriously believe that in 2009 half of America is racist? I’d suggest seeing a therapist if you do.

Instead of  straw-man-jumping directly to racism in your counter-arguments why not argue the actual issue? If you don’t then you are only reinforcing that you have no counter-argument.

Jimmy Carter is setting a very bad example. Do the opposite.

Oh dear, now look what Rep. Joe Wilson got himself into.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic leaders are planning a House vote early next week to admonish Republican Rep. Joe Wilson if he does not apologize on the House floor for yelling “You lie!” during President Barack Obama’s health care address to Congress.

What is the point of this other than more political gamesmanship? The “Democratic leaders” should be paying attention to more important things than Joe Wilson’s outburst. I don’t know about you but I don’t vote so my lawmakers can stand up in the House wielding a verbal paddle for someone who happens to disagree with the President.

Meanwhile, the Constitution is “shat” upon almost daily by these same lawmakers who apparently have the authority to “admonish”. I bet Joe Wilson is shaking in his shoes. The last thing he wants is to get spanked (verbally) by his peers for speaking his mind in an attempt to lower the pedestal a bit that Obama stands upon.

How nice that the above linked article includes a demand from South Carolina’s beloved James Clyburn to do more than merely “admonish”:

But many Democrats remain angry and have pressed for further action. They say Wilson clearly violated House rules.

“This is about how elected officials should be conducting themselves in the well of the U.S. House of Representatives,” Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, the third-ranking House Democrat, said in an interview Friday.

No, Jim. Elected officials like yourself should be following the supreme law of the land also known as the U.S. Constitution. Of course we know exactly how much you value that oath you took from your interview the other day with Judge Andrew Napolitano.

Jim, go ahead and admonish Joe Wilson. The American people should be admonishing you and many of your colleagues (including Joe Wilson) for pulling down your pants and pissing all over the Constitution on the House floor with just about every single vote you make.

That is at least a million times more disrespectful than the Joe Wilson outburst.

Let’s make a deal. How about the American people stop charging our elected officials with lying when they actually, oh I don’t know, STOP LYING?

Joe Wilson is no hero for shouting out “You Lie!” during Obama’s address to a joint session of Congress last night. He was just being a good representative, for a change.

The words are constantly echoed “We must respect the office of the President”. But why? It’s not like the President is a King or a God. The “office” should be ridiculed constantly with what it has become.

George W. Bush had a shoe thrown at him by a foreign journalist. America’s shoe closets should be empty right now between what Bush did and Obama is now doing.

The office of the President deserves disrespect. The entire government deserves disrespect. Joe Wilson’s anger last night was quite representative of many of his constituents own feelings. That is part of his job description.

In fact, that type of dissent is every single American’s job description. WE THE PEOPLE are supposed to enforce the Constitution.

I don’t care if you are on the Left, Right, up, or down the essence of American patriotism is to denounce the State when it goes out of control with power.

There is a certain element of the pot calling the kettle black with what Joe Wilson did last night. Those on the Left and many on the Right are denouncing him. I think it’s quite amusing that America is talking about Joe Wilson today rather than Obama’s most recent effort to hypnotize America into accepting health care reform proposals that will hurt us more than heal us.

Yes, we’ll probably get some kind of health reform and both sides will claim victory. And once again Americans will get what they deserve and they’ll get it good and hard.

NOTE: Please note in the video link of the “You Lie” incident at 0:47 Obama accuses his detractors of lying saying, “It is a LIE, pure and simple”. Then at 1:27 Joe Wilson returns the charge back on Obama. I hereby declare this event as the “Health Care Liar Liar Pants on Fire Debate”.