Carnival Of The Libertarians - Resurrected

I'm the proprietor of the "Carnival Of The Libertarians" franchise. 

I tried to keep it going for a year or so, but got so much non-Libertarian blogspam that I gave up on the project. 

Here's an attempted resurrection of Carnival Of The Libertarians.  If this gets any significant traffic, every few weeks I'll repost what I think are the best liberty-minded blogs, articles, essays and rants. 

*************

Brian Micklethewaite of Samizdata has an excellent idea about how to ensure that our governments have read the constitution. 

Guess who is the nation's largest drug smuggler?  The DEA.  

An investigation conducted in Mexico found the American government allowed that country’s largest drug cartel, Sinaloa, to operate without fear of persecution. That groups is estimated to be responsible for 80 percent of the cocaine coming into the country through Chicago. In exchange, the leaders of Sinaloa provided the DEA information on rival gangs.

 "But in a Libertarian society, who would decide which cartel gets to be the favorite?"

The Verge has a great piece on the irony of one Nobel Peace Prize winner hunting down another Nobel Peace Price nominee. 

If you've ever wondered about the ratio of legitimate constitutional legislation vs. bureaucratic "guidance" that you can be fined or jailed for not following, just go here. 

If you are a Libertarian, you are probably tired of hearing about the greatness of Sweden's healthcare system.  Well, Sweden's healthcare system is now moving toward what the U.S. system just abandoned, while the U.S. is moving towards what Sweden has given up on trying to make work.  Or something.

The main problem is naturally due to the central planning of health care, whether or not it is planned by regional “competing” governments. While access and quality are guaranteed by national law, Swedes usually have to line up for care. As noted above, wait times may be days or weeks for appointments with GPs while several (or many, and increasing) hours for ER care, but the real problem is apparent in specialist care such as surgery where wait times are not uncommonly several months, or even years.

Reason Magazine displays Hillary Clinton's abysmal ignorance on The Drug Trade, The Drug War, and therefore, just about everything else. 

Holy Nullification, Batman !!!  The New Hampshire Legislature is considering a bill that would mandate that juries be instructed that they could vote to acquit if they disagreed with a law. 

What's the difference in a Statist and a Libertarian?  Just 30 days of reading. 

I love me some NFL, and I look forward to the day when I can legally bet on some NFL.  But according to Reason Magazine, no city should ever do anything to attract the NFL. 

Sports stadiums not only appear to be a bad deal for tax payers, but having a franchise could also hurt loyal fans by making it difficult to watch their hometown team play thanks to the expansion of sports broadcasts and the complexities of NFL blackout rules. 

“If you have a team in Los Angeles and it doesn’t sell out, they can blackout the game in Los Angeles which means you often lose games…and as a fan there’s no payback in that,” says Daniel Durbin, Director of the University of Southern California’s Institute of Sports Media and Society. 

Though local boosters like LaBonge may continue to dream of having the NFL in the city, it’s becoming increasingly clear that not having a team may be the best deal for tax payers and fans alike. 

Go here and you'll learn that our government has spent $3,000 per American (i.e. $6,000 per taxpayer) to rebuild Afghanistan.  The article doesn't mention how much we spent to tear it down prior to the rebuilding. 

Here's something else on the NFL Cronyism Trifecta - tax exemptions on earnings, free stadiums, and to put some icing on the cake, the city and state provide them with free security guards. 

My father used to tell me that "even a blind hog can find an acorn every now and then".  That bit of wisdom even applies to Paul Krugman, the New York Times Obama apologist.  Go here to see him actually get something right. 

Colbert nails it on U.S. foreign policy. 

A professional drug warrior goes batshit crazy over the mere idea that he might no longer be paid to interfere in the lives of other people. 

Here's Barack Obama's best debate performance.  Ever.  He's debating some dude named Barack Obama. 

Finally (and yes, this is bait for an Instalanche) here's Glenn Reynolds comparing marijuana legalization and the dismal failure of Obamacare. 

That's all, folks !!






 

Thanksgiving - It didn't have to be this way

I've had one hell of a Thanksgiving with family, friends and co-workers. 

It didn't have to be this way.  There is little or no difference, in terms of geography, between the USA and Venezuela. 

Venezuela is now controlled by socialist idiots.  The USA, while under nominal control of a socialist idiot, has some protections in place that protect us from his worst totalitarian impulses.  We're doing ok, while Venezuela has run out of oil and coffee, despite being a major exporter of both. 

Here's why. 

In 1775, the great Thomas Paine wrote a pamphlet called "Common Sense".  In this little tract, Paine advocated complete independence from Britain.  I've probably posted the first paragraph on Facebook 50 times.  We are not the state.  The state is not society.  Enjoy. 

SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

I'm also a fan of the second paragraph.  Please indulge me.  I'm going somewhere with all this....

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.

Yeah.  A necessary evil at best.  You get Barack/Bush/Boehner at worst. 
These are the words that started the American Revolution.  Government is NOT society, and government is a necessary evil.  That's the difference between the USA and, say, Ecuador. 

Please stay with me.  Words (and mission statements) are important. 

Here's the preliminary throat-clearing from our Declaration Of Independence, the document where we told George III that we didn't need his help to survive and prosper.  Most of what follows was written by Thomas Jefferson, with editorial help by John Adams and Benjamin Franklin.  It would be another 100 years or so before these sentiments were applied to 1) black males and 2) women.  These guys were doing the best they could with the light they had to see by:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Ok, that's all good.  We're going to set up a government with the idea that Life, Liberty (freedom) and the Pursuit of Happiness (alcohol, the ability to make lotsa money, sex, rock and roll, and ridiculing Al Gore) are important.  We're still missing something.....

Here's the U.S. Constitution. 

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I'm not a fan of that little flourish about promoting the "general welfare".  It's been the source of a lot of mischief on the part of our government.  Hell, Stalin, Chairman Mao and the Nazis all thought they were promoting the "general welfare". 

But let's move on....  the main point is that our organizational by-laws state that the purpose of our government is to secure "the blessings of liberty". 
End of f***ing story. 

I like it. 
I like it here in Texas. 
Every other nation is in 2nd place. 
Hell yes. 

1) Leave me the hell alone as much as possible. 
2) Leave everyone else alone as much as possible.  I really don't know what's best for you, and vice-versa. 
 
Put those two rules in place, and even though you might occasionally elect a Rooselvelt, Johnson, or Obama, you will probably prosper. 
Nothing else matters for the prosperity of a nation. 

I've had an awesome Thanksgiving weekend so far. 
No matter where you live, I hope you have also.  (Yeah, I hope you've been able to celebrate an American holiday.)   You have a right to it. 

6 Things Ron Paul Has To Explain

Here are 6 things that various ConservaPundits think that Ron Paul has to explain before getting any more traction in the (snicker) Party Of Small Government. 

•The “disaster” of Ronald Reagan’s conservative agenda


•Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are unconstitutional

•American drug laws are designed to fund rogue governments, CIA programs

•U.S. foreign policy “significantly contributed” to 9/11 attacks

•Returning white supremacist donation is “pandering”

•The Civil Rights Act “violated the Constitution”

Only one of them should be difficult. 

Rod Blagovich - a symptom, not a disease

Rod Blagovich, former Illinois governor, was convicted of trying to sell the former senate seat of The Teleprompter Jesus to the highest bidder.  There was plenty of other stuff involved, but that was my favorite of the indictments. 

He's the 4th Illinois governor (see: Otto Kerner, Dan Walker, and George Ryan) to be sent down the river in about 35 years. 

So why do people want to keep giving more money and power and responsibility to politicians? 

It costs far, far more to win the election than the job pays.  In return for their contributions, most supporters of a candidate are going to be wanting far more than they've contributed. 

What results are we expecting?  Who are these angels that we apparently believe are going to flap down into these roles and govern honestly after spending millions to get a job that pays in thousands? 

The only solution to this problem, IMAO, is based on libertarian principles:

1) Institute a Flat Tax, with no exceptions for saving the environment, employing more people, growing wheat for ethanol, or saving the whales.  Anyone granting a tax break to a constituent can be assumed to be corrupt, and gets to go live with the Illinois governors. 

2) Shrink the size of government to the size of an infant dachshund.  They're going to spend about two billion on the next presidential election campaign.  Why?  Because it's worth it. 
If the government were to be involved in roads, infrastructure, the court system, defending the borders, and nothing else, (see: U.S. Constitution) the opportunities for graft would shrink exponentially.
Any politician wanting to get the government involved in activities in which government sucks (education, energy, housing, literacy, nutrition, changing the weather, etc.) can be assumed to be corrupt, and gets to go live with the Illinois governors.   

3) There is no #3. 

Barack Obama and Libya and Superman and The Justice League and The Beatles

We are supposed to be a nation of laws. 

One of those laws states that Congress alone has the power to declare war.  If there's an emergency, the President can use the troops and planes and boats and bombs and nukes all he wants, but he has to get Congressional approval for anything lasting longer than 60 days. 

We've been bombing the crap out of Libya for longer than 60 days.  If this had been done by anyone but a Nobel Peace Prize-winning, warm and fuzzy, anti-militaristic Democrat, the calls for impeachment would be on the front page of every newspaper.   

John Boehner, under some pressure from people who wonder why we're getting involved in war number 4 or 5, depending on how you count, finally sent The Teleprompter Jesus a letter demanding to know why we were still involved without Congressional approval.  Here's what he got back:

The initial phase of U.S. military involvement in Libya was conducted under the command of the U.S. Africa Command. By April 4, however, the United States had transferred responsibility for the military operations in Libya to NATO and the U.S. involvement has assumed a supporting role in the coalition's efforts. Since April 4, U.S. participation has consisted of: (1) non-kinetic support to the NATO-led operation, including intelligence, logistical support, and search and rescue assistance; (2) aircraft that have assisted in the suppression and destruction of air defenses in support of the no-fly zone; and (3) since April 23, precision strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles against a limited set of clearly defined targets in support of the NATO-led coalition's efforts.

Where to begin, where to begin.....

Let's start with this:  We are NATO.  Just like we were with The Allies in the war against The Axis.  Just like Superman is a member of the Justice League.  If the Justice League fights together as a team, Superman is still fighting.  Having Aquaman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash, and Captain Marvel by his side doesn't negate the fact that he's still fighting. 

Whenever Allen Patterson pounds something really stupid into the internet, he can't blame it on The Whited Sepulchre when he sobers up.  In the words of the Beatles....

"I am he as you are he as you are me as we are all together."

The United States is 75% of NATO.  It wouldn't exist without us.   

Moving on, let's get to the business about providing "non-kinetic" support.  If Mexico were to invade Texas, and Cuba was supplying the Mexican navy with "non-kinetic" support, we would sink the Cuban supply ships that were providing Mexico with "non-kinetic" support.  We wouldn't think twice about it.

If we shot down a Mexican Air Force plane over San Antonio, and Cubans were aiding the Mexicans in search and rescue, we would try to stop the Cubans.  We would consider them as hostile combatants. 

Okay, about that "no-fly zone"....  If Mexico declared Texas to be a "no-fly zone", and Cuba helped "suppress and destroy" our air defenses, we would see it as an act of war on the part of Cuba, not the incident result of a non-kinetic military action. 

Regarding Obama's last point about "unmanned aerial vehicles"....  If you're getting bombs dropped on your head, I don't think you care if it's being done by the pilot in the plane, or an Air Force kid with a joystick at a base somewhere in Wisconsin.  The result is the same.  We're dropping bombs on Libya. 

Barack Obama needs to ask Congress for a declaration of war against Libya, because we're at war with Libya. 

Congress needs to man up and demand it.  Then vote it up or down.  That's how it is supposed to work. 

Speaking of  "I am he as you are he as you are me as we are all together", here are The Beatles doing "I Am The Walrus". 

Yes, Ms. Pelosi, We Were Serious

Go here.

Jan Schakowsky defends the constitutionality of ObamaCare. Kinda. Sorta.

In which Ron Paul says that which must be said....

Libertarian Party positions on proposed amendments to Texas Constitution

Here are the Texas Libertarian Party positions on the proposed amendments to the Texas Constitution. One thing to remember.... even if some of these pro-tax amendments fail, you can still give the state more of your money. Hit the link, and read away.


One brief word on #11, the Eminent Domain amendment....

The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: "The constitutional amendment to prohibit the taking, damaging, or destroying of private property for public use unless the action is for the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property by the State, a political subdivision of the State, the public at large, or entities granted the power of eminent domain under law or for the elimination of urban blight on a particular parcel of property, but not for certain economic development or enhancement of tax revenue purposes, and to limit the legislature's authority to grant the power of eminent domain to an entity."

This one is so poorly worded that it defies logic. On the one hand, it claims to prohibit the taking of private property. On the other hand it allows "a political subdivision of the State", meaning "damn near anybody" to take away your house and give you less than you want for it. Or it allows them to take land because of "Urban Blight". They would call The Bass Hall in downtown Fort Worth "Urban Blight" if doing so would help them get their grubby little hands on the land beneath it. What a horribly worded piece of junk. If this bill passes, we'll think we have an anti-Eminent Domain bill, and that whatever the State steals in the future is justified. If it doesn't pass, it gives the impression that Texas voters support land theft by the State. What a horribly worded piece of junk.

Please vote. Flip a coin on #11. You're damned if it passes, and damned if it doesn't.