Saturday, August 18, 2007
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Why Libertarianism is a Superior Political System
I believe libertarianism, of all political systems, allows for the highest level of efficiency in a society. I define a libertarian government as one that outlaws acts of fraud and initiated coercion against individuals and their property and taxes people to fund a police force and courts to enforce the law, a military force for self-defense against foreign aggression, and little else.
A good example of a libertarian government is the United States government circa the 19th century, when it strongly adhered to the principle of Laissez Faire, and when the United States saw itself become the world's industrial super-power. Instead of wading into more historical examples to try to prove my case about libertarianism and efficiency, I want to explain my theoretical reasoning.
The underlying reason why a libertarian econo-political system is the most efficient one is that conflict is expensive. Conflict drains and diverts resources from productive uses and disrupts productive systems through acts of destruction. We humans seek to attain and accumulate resources in the most efficient possible manner for our individual self. When the most efficient manner available is attaining the resources from other individuals through coercion or theft (including fraud), it tends to reduce the overall efficiency of society because those individuals who lost their resources to the coercion and/or theft will divert their resources to attempting to prevent future losses of resources by such means.
One example of this dynamic in effect is taxes. Tax receipts are coerced from the population at the threat of imprisonment/fines. People spend considerable amounts of time and resources trying to find ways to minimize the taxes they are forced pay. For example, they may hire an accountant to file their taxes in a way that minimizes their taxable income, or they may look for ways to move their money offshore outside the reach and sight of government agents.
None of these activities aimed at reducing how much they are taxed increases the overall efficiency of society. This type of mis-allocation of resources manifests itself whenever there is conflict amongst the participants of a society (in this case between state and citizen), so obviously, as this line of reasoning goes, the less conflict a society has, the better it is for its level of efficiency.
So the next question we face is how to reduce conflict. One option is simply putting everyone into bondage, deny them their right to privacy, and ensure that they have no choice but to obey the government. This could conceivably reduce the incentive of the citizen to resist the state's dictums to the point that conflict is reduced, but this would also give awesome powers to the government over the people, and therefore make the potential rewards of attaining the position of political leader of such a state enormous, which itself could create conditions that increase the likelihood of conflict.
It therefore seems likely that an all powerful state would create a cold war like environment where each political faction is focused on increasing their political/military strength in order to increase the probability of seizing power.
All of this political jockeying uses up resources of course, diverting them from productive purposes, and therefore mitigating whatever efficiency advantage that an all powerful state would confer from reducing citizen vs state conflict.
Furthermore, the resources required to maintain a bureaucracy that keeps the population under absolute control and surveillance would be enormous. For these reasons, I conclude that a society with an all powerful government that pervades every facet of that society cannot be economically efficient.
So the question now is, if we go to the opposite extreme, and have a society that has a small libertarian government in place rather than an all powerful pervasive one, will coercion from other, non-state, facets of society replace government coercion? Wouldn't mafias and other non-state actors simply take the place of the government?
I argue no, because there's a distinct advantage that a government has when trying to prosecute and outlaw acts of initiated coercion and fraud, over trying to prosecute other types of crime (e.g. narcotics consumption, tax evasion, etc), and that is that they have the victim on their side.
It is not just Government vs Law-breaker, in the case of a libertarian government, it is always Government + Victim vs Law Breaker. A libertarian government need only be more powerful than the next most powerful center of power in the country, in order to guarantee that no citizen is above the law. The citizens will do the bulk of the job of surveilling and reporting crime, as a natural consequence of the fact that the only crime in a libertarian society is one where a citizen is a victim and therefore has a strong incentive to report it, requiring of the government only to administer justice.
I believe this advantage of libertarianism in efficiently reducing conflict in society makes it the best form of government for maximizing efficiency in a society.
A good example of a libertarian government is the United States government circa the 19th century, when it strongly adhered to the principle of Laissez Faire, and when the United States saw itself become the world's industrial super-power. Instead of wading into more historical examples to try to prove my case about libertarianism and efficiency, I want to explain my theoretical reasoning.
The underlying reason why a libertarian econo-political system is the most efficient one is that conflict is expensive. Conflict drains and diverts resources from productive uses and disrupts productive systems through acts of destruction. We humans seek to attain and accumulate resources in the most efficient possible manner for our individual self. When the most efficient manner available is attaining the resources from other individuals through coercion or theft (including fraud), it tends to reduce the overall efficiency of society because those individuals who lost their resources to the coercion and/or theft will divert their resources to attempting to prevent future losses of resources by such means.
One example of this dynamic in effect is taxes. Tax receipts are coerced from the population at the threat of imprisonment/fines. People spend considerable amounts of time and resources trying to find ways to minimize the taxes they are forced pay. For example, they may hire an accountant to file their taxes in a way that minimizes their taxable income, or they may look for ways to move their money offshore outside the reach and sight of government agents.
None of these activities aimed at reducing how much they are taxed increases the overall efficiency of society. This type of mis-allocation of resources manifests itself whenever there is conflict amongst the participants of a society (in this case between state and citizen), so obviously, as this line of reasoning goes, the less conflict a society has, the better it is for its level of efficiency.
So the next question we face is how to reduce conflict. One option is simply putting everyone into bondage, deny them their right to privacy, and ensure that they have no choice but to obey the government. This could conceivably reduce the incentive of the citizen to resist the state's dictums to the point that conflict is reduced, but this would also give awesome powers to the government over the people, and therefore make the potential rewards of attaining the position of political leader of such a state enormous, which itself could create conditions that increase the likelihood of conflict.
It therefore seems likely that an all powerful state would create a cold war like environment where each political faction is focused on increasing their political/military strength in order to increase the probability of seizing power.
All of this political jockeying uses up resources of course, diverting them from productive purposes, and therefore mitigating whatever efficiency advantage that an all powerful state would confer from reducing citizen vs state conflict.
Furthermore, the resources required to maintain a bureaucracy that keeps the population under absolute control and surveillance would be enormous. For these reasons, I conclude that a society with an all powerful government that pervades every facet of that society cannot be economically efficient.
So the question now is, if we go to the opposite extreme, and have a society that has a small libertarian government in place rather than an all powerful pervasive one, will coercion from other, non-state, facets of society replace government coercion? Wouldn't mafias and other non-state actors simply take the place of the government?
I argue no, because there's a distinct advantage that a government has when trying to prosecute and outlaw acts of initiated coercion and fraud, over trying to prosecute other types of crime (e.g. narcotics consumption, tax evasion, etc), and that is that they have the victim on their side.
It is not just Government vs Law-breaker, in the case of a libertarian government, it is always Government + Victim vs Law Breaker. A libertarian government need only be more powerful than the next most powerful center of power in the country, in order to guarantee that no citizen is above the law. The citizens will do the bulk of the job of surveilling and reporting crime, as a natural consequence of the fact that the only crime in a libertarian society is one where a citizen is a victim and therefore has a strong incentive to report it, requiring of the government only to administer justice.
I believe this advantage of libertarianism in efficiently reducing conflict in society makes it the best form of government for maximizing efficiency in a society.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
The Ron Paul movement is bigger than Ron Paul
The Ron Paul movement is not just about the 72 year old doctor from Texas. He merely serves as an example, perhaps the best example, of a patriotic American doing what he can to serve his nation. The movement is about patriotism. There is no special interest money greasing the movement: no pot of gold waiting at the end of the rainbow for long term supporters like that waiting for Bush-Cheney supporters (think cushy jobs at Halliburton or other defense contractors). There is no prospect of tapping easy money through appeals to voter emotions like there is for Democrats with their promises of fixing everything for the people with a wave of the government wand. The Ron Paul movement is about educating people about the real long term interests of America and constantly having to deconstruct the mistruths being sold by political opportunists to the general population. This is a movement of patriotism, and it takes heart and courage to be a part of it.
What inspires the movement is love. We in the Ron Paul movement, in fighting for an ever more prosperous America, do so for our eternal destiny, as our fate is inextricably tied to that of our civilization.
What inspires the movement is love. We in the Ron Paul movement, in fighting for an ever more prosperous America, do so for our eternal destiny, as our fate is inextricably tied to that of our civilization.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Renaming Conservatism and its Mission
The word conservative has come to connote elitism, bigotry, selfishness and hatred, while the words liberal and democrat (as in the Democratic party) have come to connote compromise, selflessness, cooperation and peace. Nothing could be more dangerous to the West than this pervading notion. For the sake of our destiny as a people, this falsehood must be challenged and defeated in the court of public opinion. I propose using a new word to describe the political ideology 'conservatism' and a new term to describe its mission of 'cutting the size of government'.
Traditional conservatives (as opposed to the big-government AIPAC-Lockheed Martin-Evangelical neo-conservatives) have defined themselves as, above all else, proponents of small government. Many people do not know the underlying reason why conservatives have a religious-like devotion to cutting the size of government. The perception in the public is that these small-government type conservatives are either:
1) xenophobic rednecks. They are typically white males who belong to a militia, and believe there is a conspiracy by the government to control them. They fear this government control because it would mean being forced to accept the 21st century progressive values of human rights, equality and tolerance: values which have still not spread to the backwards rural areas of America.
2) greedy rich bean counters. These people are trying to loosen the rules that protect the poor from the big rich corporations. They are also typically white, and are trying to protect the elite from the roving bands of mostly dark-skinned poor by enacting tougher laws against crime and cutting social programs that allow the inner city poor to survive. Above all else, they are trying to reduce the taxes the rich must pay so that they can hoard even more money.
I believe this has become the perception of conservatives, because conservatives have not done enough to explain their message and have allowed big-government leftists to succeed in associating the conservative mission with immorality.
For the values of limited government to take hold, it must be seen as the morally superior position. I also believe the morality of limited government needs to be stressed over the economic advantages of limited government. Proponents of small government must challenge the position of proponents of big government social programs as the retainers of the moral high ground.
Those who advocate big government do not have the moral high ground, because they advocate coercion against innocent individuals. Too many people do not understand this. They do not understand that government has nothing. For a government to provide something, it must take it from someone else using coercion. Government is coercion. This is the equation that must be imprinted into the collective mind of the public. The mission of conservatives is not 'cutting the size of government', but 'reducing coercion'.
Jesus or Buddha would never advocate force to acquire resources to help the poor, yet that is exactly what the so-called compassionate leftists advocate. They advocate using government agents to force people to hand over their wealth, in order to provide for the poor. Nothing, absolutely nothing, justifies using coercion against an innocent individual.
This point must be stressed above all else, because leftists do everything they can to justify the coercion that is required to fund government programs, and then turn around and call the right immoral for not wanting government programs that help the poor. Leftists do everything they can to be perceived as the moral ones because that is where they get their political strength, and that is where they must be attacked relentlessly.
From now on, we conservatives do not want to 'cut the size of government', but 'reduce coercion'. Whether it's coercion against a small child, coercion against a rich greedy son of a bitch, it matters not, it is immoral and cannot be justified. Once this is made clear, the big government leftist will be exposed as an advocate of theft against innocent people, a cheater who rather than using his own hard-earned money to help the poor, wants to take the shortcut and take other people's money.
The term conservative itself is also misleading. At one time one would need to be a conservative to be an advocate of reduced coercion, because coercion (government) was minimal, and therefore to be a proponent of reduced coercion you would need to conserve the type of government the nation had. It was the progressives, those who wanted to change the system, that wanted to increase coercion (increase the size of government).
Now, the situation is reversed. We have an established system for coercing innocent individuals, that is widely accepted by a population who has lost its pride, and its belief in human dignity and morality. It is those who want to reduce coercion that want change- that are the progressives, and it is those who want to continue the widespread coercion of innocent individuals who want to conserve the system- it is the leftists who are the conservatives.
Ron Paul has enjoyed success primarily because he has focused on the moral aspect of reducing the size of government. He stresses again and again that government is coercion and therefore immoral. We must all try to do the same. We must never compromise on our principles and give into dehumanizing our fellow man and allowing coercion against him to be justified.
-August 12th addendum-
Upon a re-read of this article, I realized I never proposed a new term to describe the political ideology 'conservatism' as I stated I would in the introduction, so I would like to attempt to do so now.
In the article I mention that I believe in our modern age, traditional conservatives are the real progressives, and the leftists are the real conservatives, but despite this, 'progressive' isn't the term that I would support to describe the political ideology that we now call 'conservatism'.
I thought a lot about what value one who tries to reduce coercion believes in, and I concluded that that value is liberty. Upon thinking on this, I further concluded that the term 'liberal' has been grotesquely misappropriated by the left. The group that advocates greater coercion via government regulations and taxes should not be called the 'liberals'. It is advocates of limited government that are the champions of liberty.
So is 'liberal' the term conservatives should demand they be called? No because I think that the belief in personal liberty does not fully encompass the traditional conservative movement. There is also an element of promoting family values, national solidarity, and personal responsibility that defines the traditional conservative.
I think therefore that a term that could properly describe the traditional conservative is "responsible liberal". The "responsible" part describes the factor of believing in personal responsibility, rather than believing that the state should take care of each individual.
A responsible person takes care of his family and is charitable to his neighbors, not because the government forces him to, but because that is the right thing to do. A responsible liberal believes that government should give people maximum liberty and that people should use that liberty responsibly, meaning not indulging in pre-marital sex, financial carelessness, drug-use, etc just because they can.
I am in no way certain that this term, 'responsible liberal', is the best term out there to describe the political ideology of conservatism, but in the interest of advancing the public discussion, I've put it forth here. Oh and leftists, they should be called socialists, because that is the term that most accurately describes them.
Traditional conservatives (as opposed to the big-government AIPAC-Lockheed Martin-Evangelical neo-conservatives) have defined themselves as, above all else, proponents of small government. Many people do not know the underlying reason why conservatives have a religious-like devotion to cutting the size of government. The perception in the public is that these small-government type conservatives are either:
1) xenophobic rednecks. They are typically white males who belong to a militia, and believe there is a conspiracy by the government to control them. They fear this government control because it would mean being forced to accept the 21st century progressive values of human rights, equality and tolerance: values which have still not spread to the backwards rural areas of America.
2) greedy rich bean counters. These people are trying to loosen the rules that protect the poor from the big rich corporations. They are also typically white, and are trying to protect the elite from the roving bands of mostly dark-skinned poor by enacting tougher laws against crime and cutting social programs that allow the inner city poor to survive. Above all else, they are trying to reduce the taxes the rich must pay so that they can hoard even more money.
I believe this has become the perception of conservatives, because conservatives have not done enough to explain their message and have allowed big-government leftists to succeed in associating the conservative mission with immorality.
For the values of limited government to take hold, it must be seen as the morally superior position. I also believe the morality of limited government needs to be stressed over the economic advantages of limited government. Proponents of small government must challenge the position of proponents of big government social programs as the retainers of the moral high ground.
Those who advocate big government do not have the moral high ground, because they advocate coercion against innocent individuals. Too many people do not understand this. They do not understand that government has nothing. For a government to provide something, it must take it from someone else using coercion. Government is coercion. This is the equation that must be imprinted into the collective mind of the public. The mission of conservatives is not 'cutting the size of government', but 'reducing coercion'.
Jesus or Buddha would never advocate force to acquire resources to help the poor, yet that is exactly what the so-called compassionate leftists advocate. They advocate using government agents to force people to hand over their wealth, in order to provide for the poor. Nothing, absolutely nothing, justifies using coercion against an innocent individual.
This point must be stressed above all else, because leftists do everything they can to justify the coercion that is required to fund government programs, and then turn around and call the right immoral for not wanting government programs that help the poor. Leftists do everything they can to be perceived as the moral ones because that is where they get their political strength, and that is where they must be attacked relentlessly.
From now on, we conservatives do not want to 'cut the size of government', but 'reduce coercion'. Whether it's coercion against a small child, coercion against a rich greedy son of a bitch, it matters not, it is immoral and cannot be justified. Once this is made clear, the big government leftist will be exposed as an advocate of theft against innocent people, a cheater who rather than using his own hard-earned money to help the poor, wants to take the shortcut and take other people's money.
The term conservative itself is also misleading. At one time one would need to be a conservative to be an advocate of reduced coercion, because coercion (government) was minimal, and therefore to be a proponent of reduced coercion you would need to conserve the type of government the nation had. It was the progressives, those who wanted to change the system, that wanted to increase coercion (increase the size of government).
Now, the situation is reversed. We have an established system for coercing innocent individuals, that is widely accepted by a population who has lost its pride, and its belief in human dignity and morality. It is those who want to reduce coercion that want change- that are the progressives, and it is those who want to continue the widespread coercion of innocent individuals who want to conserve the system- it is the leftists who are the conservatives.
Ron Paul has enjoyed success primarily because he has focused on the moral aspect of reducing the size of government. He stresses again and again that government is coercion and therefore immoral. We must all try to do the same. We must never compromise on our principles and give into dehumanizing our fellow man and allowing coercion against him to be justified.
-August 12th addendum-
Upon a re-read of this article, I realized I never proposed a new term to describe the political ideology 'conservatism' as I stated I would in the introduction, so I would like to attempt to do so now.
In the article I mention that I believe in our modern age, traditional conservatives are the real progressives, and the leftists are the real conservatives, but despite this, 'progressive' isn't the term that I would support to describe the political ideology that we now call 'conservatism'.
I thought a lot about what value one who tries to reduce coercion believes in, and I concluded that that value is liberty. Upon thinking on this, I further concluded that the term 'liberal' has been grotesquely misappropriated by the left. The group that advocates greater coercion via government regulations and taxes should not be called the 'liberals'. It is advocates of limited government that are the champions of liberty.
So is 'liberal' the term conservatives should demand they be called? No because I think that the belief in personal liberty does not fully encompass the traditional conservative movement. There is also an element of promoting family values, national solidarity, and personal responsibility that defines the traditional conservative.
I think therefore that a term that could properly describe the traditional conservative is "responsible liberal". The "responsible" part describes the factor of believing in personal responsibility, rather than believing that the state should take care of each individual.
A responsible person takes care of his family and is charitable to his neighbors, not because the government forces him to, but because that is the right thing to do. A responsible liberal believes that government should give people maximum liberty and that people should use that liberty responsibly, meaning not indulging in pre-marital sex, financial carelessness, drug-use, etc just because they can.
I am in no way certain that this term, 'responsible liberal', is the best term out there to describe the political ideology of conservatism, but in the interest of advancing the public discussion, I've put it forth here. Oh and leftists, they should be called socialists, because that is the term that most accurately describes them.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Vote Online for Ron Paul!
The National Republican Senatorial Committee (202 675-6000) has snail mailed a Presidential Preference Poll to get your feedback, and Ron Paul is not included in the list of candidates.
read more
read more
Thursday, July 12, 2007
How to convince older people to vote for Ron Paul
I think in order for Ron Paul to win, the mostly young, internet savvy Ron Paul supporters needs to find a way to convert the older more traditional crowd. Older people need to realize that younger people are ready to take the reigns of leadership and bring about a better future. Getting them to understand the merits of a Ron Paul presidency is vital to our goal of winning the elections. The following is my thoughts on how this can be done.
Make them understand the long term implications of staying the course (in a broad sense, not just in reference to Iraq which is the context one recently hears the term in) with the 'mainstream' Republican/Democrat candidates. They must understand the economic trouble America is in, and they must understand that America WILL lose its position as the world's most prosperous nation if this continues. Economic data needs to be pointed to. For example:
America's social security obligations are staggering and far outpace the estimates of what America will be able to afford. This article explains that in 2025, there will be 2 workers paying for the benefits of each retiree, in opposed to the 3.3 workers per retiree now and the 16 workers per retiree in 1950, when social security started: Social Security's Inevitable Future
Americans' personal savings rates are in the negative and declining. This article from the federal reserve (I don't support the federal reserve setup on economic principle but I do think there are various useful articles that are published by it) shows this: Questions and Reflections on the Personal Saving Rate
American median wages, that is the wage that the largest number of Americans earn, has decreased in the last 35 years. Here are some figures to demonstrate this: wage data
Please let me know your thoughts, I can improve this if you give recommendations.
Make them understand the long term implications of staying the course (in a broad sense, not just in reference to Iraq which is the context one recently hears the term in) with the 'mainstream' Republican/Democrat candidates. They must understand the economic trouble America is in, and they must understand that America WILL lose its position as the world's most prosperous nation if this continues. Economic data needs to be pointed to. For example:
America's social security obligations are staggering and far outpace the estimates of what America will be able to afford. This article explains that in 2025, there will be 2 workers paying for the benefits of each retiree, in opposed to the 3.3 workers per retiree now and the 16 workers per retiree in 1950, when social security started: Social Security's Inevitable Future
Americans' personal savings rates are in the negative and declining. This article from the federal reserve (I don't support the federal reserve setup on economic principle but I do think there are various useful articles that are published by it) shows this: Questions and Reflections on the Personal Saving Rate
American median wages, that is the wage that the largest number of Americans earn, has decreased in the last 35 years. Here are some figures to demonstrate this: wage data
Please let me know your thoughts, I can improve this if you give recommendations.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Ron Paul's meteoric rise to top candidate
When Ron Paul entered the presidential race in March of this year, he was considered a fringe candidate who had no serious chance of winning but added a fresh infusion of constitutional ideals and libertarian ideas into the republican race. After the first Republican debate in May, he became the Kucinich of the Republican party: the dissenting voice that spoke to the conscience of the base, deriding the failed policy of foreign intervention, and reminding the party that the Republican party was ignoring the coming bankruptcy of the American economy.
This all changed after the second Republican debates. Ron Paul's challenge to Rudy Guliani on the root causes of muslim terrorism against America- by blaming interventionist policies for formenting Islamic terrorism- and his subsequent defiance in the face of Guliani's applause-accompanied request that he apologize for his statement, awoke something in America that has shocked and sidelined all of the mainstream presidential candidates since then, Democrat and Republican. Suddenly Ron Paul became the lone voice of reason and integrity in a sea of politic correctness and political expedience. He became the only person who had the courage to speak out about America's real problems while all of the others spoke like politicians. In the era of Youtube and instant information exchange, the truth of this state became apparent to millions of disillusioned Americans who saw in Ron Paul a chance to get their nation back on track.
Despite having zero mainstream support, and lacking the tens of millions that the large special interest groups give to the frontrunner candidates that represent their agendas, Ron Paul has become the candidate to beat in poll after poll. He consistently beats the mainstream candidates like Rudy Guliani and Mitt Romney in straw polls, and gets up to 90% of the votes in internet polls. Ron Paul's following is far and away the most enthusiastic and the fastest growing of any presidential candidate. He represents the core ideals of America, ideals that have been ignored by political campaign managers for the last few decades who have been more focused on 30 second sound bites and 'get-tough-on-crime' type appeals to voter emotions. Ron Paul represents a change in America, a change brought about by the free flow of information that the internet has permitted. Ron Paul is America's future, and the future is bright.
This all changed after the second Republican debates. Ron Paul's challenge to Rudy Guliani on the root causes of muslim terrorism against America- by blaming interventionist policies for formenting Islamic terrorism- and his subsequent defiance in the face of Guliani's applause-accompanied request that he apologize for his statement, awoke something in America that has shocked and sidelined all of the mainstream presidential candidates since then, Democrat and Republican. Suddenly Ron Paul became the lone voice of reason and integrity in a sea of politic correctness and political expedience. He became the only person who had the courage to speak out about America's real problems while all of the others spoke like politicians. In the era of Youtube and instant information exchange, the truth of this state became apparent to millions of disillusioned Americans who saw in Ron Paul a chance to get their nation back on track.
Despite having zero mainstream support, and lacking the tens of millions that the large special interest groups give to the frontrunner candidates that represent their agendas, Ron Paul has become the candidate to beat in poll after poll. He consistently beats the mainstream candidates like Rudy Guliani and Mitt Romney in straw polls, and gets up to 90% of the votes in internet polls. Ron Paul's following is far and away the most enthusiastic and the fastest growing of any presidential candidate. He represents the core ideals of America, ideals that have been ignored by political campaign managers for the last few decades who have been more focused on 30 second sound bites and 'get-tough-on-crime' type appeals to voter emotions. Ron Paul represents a change in America, a change brought about by the free flow of information that the internet has permitted. Ron Paul is America's future, and the future is bright.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)