Michigan awakens from a long slumber.

Michigan state legislature made two very important decisions over the past week:

1. They voted to nullify the NDAA.
2. They became a Right-To-Work state which means workers have the freedom to choose whether or not they want to join a union.

More freedom is always the best option. Well done, Michigan.

The fat lady has sung.

The 2012 election has finally come to an end, and with mixed results.

I'm disappointed that Gary Johnson didn't get 5% of the popular vote last night but happy that he did better than any Libertarian Party candidate before him. I hope he views it as enough of a success to give it another go in 2016.

I expected Obama to win, so no surprise there. Part of me wishes that Romney had won just so Democrats would go back to being anti-war.

Some good things did happen last night, though. The drug war had a bite taken out of it with a few states legalizing marijuana recreationally. The question is, will Obama keep Eric Holder on a leash or will he be setting up shop in Colorado and Washington for easy pickin's? Marriage equality was the big winner last night thanks to a few states that showed some courage. It's good to know that even though this issue doesn't get the support it deserves from the White House, it is making strides none-the-less.

So the big winners were vaginas, homosexuals, drone manufacturers, people who believe that marijuana should be legal, green companies looking to win the Federally funded lotto before crashing and burning, progressives who wear peace shirts but ignore their President's warmongering, and of course, Big Government and Big Business.

The losers were those of us who understand the meaning of freedom, anyone who currently pays for healthcare, anyone who currently only has a moderate wait to see their doctor, those of us that pay their taxes, soldiers who have been at war for eleven years and want to come home and get to know their families, the free market, and innocent women and children in third world countries who will perish by drone attack.

Lawrence O'Donnell (of all people!) encourages voting 3rd party!

Perhaps the world really is coming to an end. MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell and I agree on something.

Eight reasons to vote for Gary Johnson.

Nick Sloan at the Kansas City Kansan gives eight great reasons to vote for Gary Johnson:

1. Johnson has the most executive experience
2. He has the best business experience
3. He'll balance the budget in 2013
4. Johnson is not a spoiler but rather a threat to both candidates
5. A third-party threat would be good for our country
6. He has run an honorable campaign
7. Johnson will usher out the nastiness
8. Johnson has the best record on today's issues.

Read the entire highly recommended article here.

Waste your vote. Please!

People frequently tell me that voting for Gary Johnson is a waste of my vote because he has no chance of winning this election. Perhaps he doesn't, but I see this as a longer game than just the 2012 election. This is Johnson's first introduction to people outside of New Mexico. Remember that he has been out of office for over ten years and that, despite his stellar record, he was governor of a state that, as anyone who has ever seen the "One of Our 50 is Missing" column in New Mexico Magazine knows, some people don't even realize is part of our union. As if that weren't enough of a handicap, he is a third-party candidate in an election environment built specifically for two-parties. No Libertarian candidate has ever gotten more than 1% of the popular vote, so if he were to manage to grab 4 or 5% I'd call it a successful campaign. That is certainly possible, and he would surely get more if he were allowed in the debates.

I also see voting for Gary Johnson, or any third-party candidate for that matter, as a means of expressing our disappointment in the current system. If you half-heartedly cast your vote for Obama or Romney, whoever wins sees it only as gaining your vote. They look at the number of votes they receive and consider it a mandate from the people, like George Bush did in 2004. They have no idea that many people see them simply as the lesser of two evils, and begrudgingly gave them their vote. The great thing about Gary Johnson is that he appeals to both the Left and the Right for different reasons. Out of all of the people who I know who plan to vote for him, it's pretty equally split between those who voted for Obama and those who voted for McCain in 2008. If the disillusioned from the Left, Right, and Center come out and vote for Johnson, they are sending a clear message that neither of the two-party candidates are addressing their concerns. I think there are a record number of disillusioned voters out there right now. Romney has proven himself to be unknowable and untrustworthy. Obama has proven himself to be a very different President than he was a candidate, especially when it comes to issues like war and civil liberties (Patriot Act, NDAA, raids on state-sanctioned marijuana dispensaries, immigration, his pathetic stance on marriage equality, etc.). Voting for a third-party candidate like Johnson is a great way to say that you're not happy with the proposed direction of either of the two major candidates as opposed to giving one or the other a false mandate.

Gary Johnson has also become the poster boy for the "End the Political Duopoly" charge. People are beginning to see that our current system is rigged to promote the Democrats and Republicans and drown out any third-party candidates, and a growing number of people are upset about it. Regardless of which candidate or party one supports, we should all be angry about the fact that we have been lied to. We have been sold the idea that our elections are fair, but they are far from it. People from every political ideology should agree that we deserve to hear from all of the viable* candidates in an election. Even if Johnson never gets into the White House, he is playing an important role as a catalyst for change.

I've just illustrated two principle-based reasons for supporting Gary Johnson that many may not have considered. For me personally, in addition to those, I happen to live in the state where he was governor for eight years and I've seen that he is a man who governs the way he tells you he will. I've also had the opportunity to spend time with him one on one on a few different occasions and I can tell you that he is the genuine article. What you see is what you get. He isn't polished and perfect. He is a regular, honest guy with great ideas, a talent for problem solving, and he has the best record of any of the candidates running. What more could a voter ask for? If voting for a candidate that I truly believe in is wasting my vote, then I will proudly waste my vote on Gary Johnson.

*I define a viable candidate as one who is on the ballot in enough states to mathematically win the election. Getting on the ballot is another area that has become corrupt, but I'll save that for another time.

The blatant bias of the Commission on Presidential Debates.

I'm currently reading No Debate: How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates, by George Farah. The supposedly non-partisan Commission on Presidential Debates, which sets the rules for debate inclusion, is unbelievably blatant about their two-party bias. Their mission statement reads:

"The Commission on Presidential Debates was established in 1987 to ensure that debates, as a permanent part of every election, provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners."

But Director Alan Simpson said,

"You have a lot of thoughtful Democrats and Republicans on the commission that are interested in the American people finding out more about the two major candidates - not about independent candidates, who just mess things up."

A couple other choice quotes from CPD luminaries:

"You can argue about third parties all day, but I come down on the side that the stability of the country depends on the two party system."
- Newton Minow, vice-chairman of the CPD

"There's no question that having the two major parties in absolute control of the presidential debate process, and there's no question that they do, strengthens the two-party system. These are the most important events of an election, and if no other candidates are getting in the debates, the American people are just not going to hear about them, which means that the two parties basically have a monopoly."
- Congressman John Lewis (D-GA), former CPD Director.

Our election process is anything but fair. On the contrary, we are given the illusion of choice by people who control every aspect of the process.

The truth about freedom and choice.

Why is it that Republicans are always going on about the importance of freedom, yet they try to limit so many of them? They don't believe in the freedom to marry the person you love if that person happens to be the same sex as you. They don't believe in the freedom to do what you want with your body in the case of abortion or drugs. They don't believe that we should be free of rules dictated by a religion that we do not follow. Lately, as they've taken action to remove Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson from the ballot in several states, they've proven that they do not believe in our freedom to vote for the candidate that we support.

This hypocrisy is alive and well on both sides of the aisle. The Democrats love to talk about how they are pro-choice when it comes to abortion, but what about being pro-choice on other issues like what foods we eat, drugs you use, light bulbs we buy, whether or not we choose to join a union, or which school we send your children to? Surely the "liberal" party would be in favor of making those choices for ourselves, right? Absolutely not. The "liberals", just like the conservatives, want to force their views on us with all of those issues and many more.

The Republicans and Democrats both want to control everyone's behavior to fit their version of wrong or right. Either way, many of us will have to live in a way that we don't like. Is this really how people who vote Democrat and Republican want to live? I have a hard time believing that it is.

There is another option. Libertarians believe that people should be allowed to live in whatever way makes them happy as long as they don't hurt anyone else. Former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson is the Libertarian Party candidate this year. He was one of the most successful governors in the country turning a $1 billion deficit into a $1 billion surplus. He kept government small and manageable. He got out of the way so that the private sector could flourish, and it did - job growth went up by 11.4% during his tenure. We've had twelve years of the same kind of politics and it only put us in a big hole. I wonder what would happen if we tried something different?

The GOP is afraid of Gary Johnson.

The Republican Party has been involved in efforts to remove Gary Johnson from the ballot in Michigan, Pennsylvania, District of Columbia, Iowa, and Ohio. This shouldn't be too surprising seeing as how he was treated when he was a Republican candidate. Johnson's campaign advisor Ron Nielson released a statement which read, in part:

“In states across the nation, Republican operatives, lawyers, and in some cases, elected officials, are filing frivolous challenges to Governor Johnson’s ballot status. They know that even if their challenges fail, fending them off is a drain on our resources and a distraction from the real issues in this campaign. We don’t have hundreds of millions of dollars to throw around, nor do we have the Republicans’ endless supply of lawyers."

Read the statement in it's entirety here.

If you believe in Gary Johnson's message (which was also Ron Paul's message) or even if you just don't want to be bullied by a party that has the financial means to take your choices away, the best thing you can do is to donate money to Gary's campaign. Any amount will help, and they will need all they can get to fend off these legal attacks.

Wall Street Zoo

Dirty politics.

Two party flim flam.

What libertarianism is and is not #2.

A libertarian is: pro-free market.
The free market is a thing of wonder. No one person or group can plan or manage it (although that doesn't mean they won't try). It creates competition which delivers lower prices and better quality and service to consumers, and, if allowed to be, it is the single most effective ladder to help the poor out of poverty. The free market is what made America into the "Land of Opportunity". The free market was that opportunity. Immigrants came here from all over the world with absolutely nothing in their pockets, but if they were willing to work hard the possibilities were endless. It's not like that anymore. Our market is no longer free. It is burdened with regulation after regulation that makes it incredibly difficult for a would-be entrepreneur to get started. Burdens like "certificates of need" that require a new business to get permission to enter the market from others already in the industry before they can open their doors. How does that encourage competition? It doesn't. The only reason that some businesses are required to get a certificate of need, or meet some other absurd regulatory requirement is because other businesses have lobbied government officials who have sold favors. The same can often be said of licenses. Consumers often hold the false belief that a license is a guarantee of quality work or competency, but really all it means is that holder had enough money to purchase one.

A libertarian is not: pro-business.
Running a business means that you must look for advantages to help you succeed over your competition. This can be a good thing if these advantages come in the form of innovations in products or services, or innovations in production that allow you to lower your prices. The consumer benefits, the business benefits, and that pushes competitors to innovate their products, services, and/or production to gain the advantage next time. The cycle repeats over and over again to the benefit of all. Innovation is the best way to gain a competitive advantage but it isn't the only way. Unfortunately, another common way for businesses to gain an advantage is to curry the favor of government, and this doesn't benefit anyone except the business owner and the government official. Support is given to candidates and elected officials in an "I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine" manner in exchange for regulations that require the competition to behave in certain ways or meet certain requirements that put them at a disadvantage and make it hard to compete. This is called cronyism and it is as much an adversary to the free market system as socialism or communism.

The distinction between being pro-free market and pro-business is a very important one.

Style vs. substance in 2012.

3 candidates views on marriage equality.

Mitt names Ryan his choice for VP.

Mitt Romney chose Paul Ryan as his Vice President. Ryan is a young, very bright, likable guy. He seems like a real champion of fiscal conservatism until you look at his voting record.

Barry learns economics.

The Gary Johnson rules strike again.

With the first debate two months away, things are not looking good for Gary Johnson to get a podium. The debate commission set the rule that a candidate must garner at least 15% in a minimum of five polls to be invited on the stage. The problem is, Gary Johnson has been included in only three major polls. It would certainly appear that he is being purposefully kept out once again. In my opinion, the American citizens deserve to know their options. The fact is, Johnson will be on the ballot in enough states to win the election -likely all fifty states. It seems to me that that should earn him a place on the debate stage. If there was ever any question about whether our election system is free of corruption, I think we know the answer now.

Happy birthday, Milton!

Milton Friedman would have celebrated his 100th birthday today. He died in 2006 at the age of 94, but thankfully his brilliant ideas are still with us.

Stricter gun control - sanity or just more theater?

The horrific events in Aurora, Colorado ten days ago have once again brought the subject of gun control to the forefront with many calling for "sane" gun laws, whatever that means. I'm not a gun owner. I've never shot a real gun, and, despite being a libertarian, I'm not really much of a gun advocate. I guess I'd say that I'm ambivalent about guns. I believe in the second amendment, but I honestly can't think of a good use of an automatic rifle beyond killing another person. That being said, I don't see that as reason enough to legally ban them. Here are a couple of facts to keep in mind:

1. As tragic and pointless as killing sprees like the one in Aurora are, and despite the fact that our 24-hour news cycle makes sure we don't forget about them, they are extremely rare. Since 1975, only 207 people have been killed in mass murders in the United States. Now, that's not to trivialize those deaths as every one of them is a terrible, pointless waste, but compare that to the nearly 15,000 people that were murdered in the U.S. in 2010 alone.
2. Far more people are killed by murderers wielding knives than by assault rifles every year but no one is calling for a ban on knives.

The bottom line is, there will always be people who want to do terrible things to others, and there are an endless list of ways to do them. If James Holmes wasn't able to get his hands on an assault rifle (which, incidentally, reportedly jammed early on in the attack and didn't cause many, if any, deaths) what would have stopped him from just using the handguns and shotgun that he had in his possession (the handgun reportedly did most of the damage)? And if those were banned, what would have stopped him from simply driving his car through the line of people waiting for tickets? He was also apparently quite adept at bomb building, so he could have killed even more people with that method. There is no way to legislate our way out of these types of tragedies. Whether it's guns, or drugs, or food, etc. banning something that people want rarely stops them from getting it, but it is very effective at creating a black market that introduces violence and other problems that didn't exist when the items were legal and an attempt was made to regulate them, even if it was not always successful. I see that call for a ban on assault rifles as an over reaction to a tragedy, and that is never a good idea.

Crying fowl about marriage equality.

A lot of fuss has been made over Chick-Fil-A founder Dan Cathy's comments on marriage equality. If you missed it, he basically said that he believes that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Supporters of marriage equality are up in arms and mayors in at least two different cities have stated that they will do everything in their power to stop Chick-Fil-A from setting up shop in their towns.

I've been pretty clear that I support marriage equality. I even marched with Governor Gary Johnson and members of the Libertarian Party in a Pride Parade, so I doubt that I'll surprise anyone by saying that I find Dan Cathy's views archaic and intolerant, and I have personally made the conscious decision to stop patronizing his company based on his views. That being said, elected officials have absolutely no place in threatening to stop any company from doing business simply based on the fact that the company's world view does not fit squarely with a politician's world view. That is an abuse of government, and it should never be tolerated even if it is done in the name of something one considers righteous. It must be understood that if you give the government permission to abuse it's power for you, you also give it permission to abuse it's power against you.

Gary Johnson - extraordinarily ordinary.

I had the opportunity to speak to Former New Mexico Governor and current Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson one on one for about twenty minutes last week. First off, let me say that I can't imagine a more down-to-earth Presidential candidate. I've never met another candidate but in the footage I've seen of people like Obama and Romney they always come off as looking very glossy and fake as they tell the regular folks that they feel their pain, etc. Johnson was nothing like that. He listened, addressed me as an equal, and was sincere in his replies. We talked as though we were just two ordinary people with some ideas in common. One of the things that appeals to me about him is that he is just a "regular guy". As I've said many times, and I mean this in the best possible way, he is all substance and no style. In my opinion, that's exactly what we need after four years of Mr. Style and No Substance.

The definition of marriage.

President Obama made history last week by publicly stating that he believes same sex couples should be allowed to get married, but added the caveat that it should be a decision for each individual state to make. The day before that, North Carolina passed an amendment which outlawed same sex marriage. All this talk about SSM got me thinking about the word "marriage". The Oxford dictionary defines marriage as, "the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife." Seems pretty cut and dry. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

But have you ever stopped to wonder why that is the definition of marriage? The Bible is often cited as the source for the definition but, actually, the word doesn't appear in the Bible. The word "marriage" actually dates back to around the year 1297 and comes from the Latin word "maritaticum", which means "to enter into wedlock", but obviously the concept of marriage is much older than that, and much older than the Bible, even. In fact, every society ever recorded in the history of mankind has included some variation of the concept of marriage and it has always involved a man and a woman.

But why is that? Homosexuality is nothing new. Most societies in recorded history have mentioned it - some even encouraged it as a healthy addition to heterosexual relationships. We see it in species other than humans, too. So why is same sex marriage only now becoming a big issue? Well, I'm not an anthropologist or a sociologist, but I'd venture a guess that it's because, until relatively very recently, the main purpose of marital relationships was procreation. Without the benefit of even more recent science it is impossible for two men or two women to have a child, so homosexual relationships were discouraged because they were unproductive. That seems strange to say in our current society. Like most married people today, my wife and I got married because we loved one another and we wanted to build a life together. At the time we didn't even know whether we intended to have children. Societal views on marriage, children and family have changed dramatically over time, but perhaps the biggest change has taken place just in roughly the last two-hundred years. Prior to the 1800s, marriage was more like a business arrangement that a man and woman would enter into, if they were lucky, to their mutual benefit. Out of this arrangement, the man got someone to cook for him, keep his home, mend his clothing, gather food, bear his children, and fulfill his sexual needs. The woman got someone who would provide a safe, secure home, farm the land, hunt for food, give her children, and fulfill her sexual needs (although they'd have never admitted that back then!). This sounds misogynistic by today's standards, but remember that the feminist movement is a product of the twentieth century. Women have had the right to vote for fewer than one hundred years. Marriage wasn't about "love" - the couples often barely even knew each other. If they were lucky, they grew to love one another, otherwise, they merely tolerated one another. As much as things have changed for women, they've changed even more for children. Before the industrial revolution, children served two main purposes: 1. survival of one's lineage and, 2. productivity for the immediate family. At the beginning of the 19th century infant mortality rates in some parts of the world were as high as 50% - only one out of every two children saw their first birthday. Therefore, having lots of children was essential because the more children you had, the better the chance of the survival of your lineage, and, because most cultures centered around agriculture, the better the chance of your survival in general because there were more hands to work the land. It wasn't until the industrial age that life began to get easier and the focus shifted from hard physical labor to education, but again, that only happened over the last 200 years or so. For the previous approximately 199,800 years of human history, procreation, and thus heterosexual relationships, were extremely important.

There are historical exceptions, however, and, not surprisingly, the wealthier and more successful the society, the more homosexuality has been tolerated. In ancient Greek society wealthy men were often expected to take a male lover in addition to their female spouse. This makes perfect sense, though - the wealthier the society, the easier the living, the lower the rate of infant mortality, the less emphasis on procreation, and the more tolerant the people were of relationships that don't result in children.

Fast forward to the current day. Child mortality rates are below one percent, and very few people make their living off the land anymore. Science has given infertile couples a plethora of options to help them bear children, and global adoption is very common and relatively easy. The success of western civilization and the benefit granted by science removes the procreation issue from the equation. As I said, I'm not an anthropologist or a sociologist, but one thing I am certain of is that I have yet to hear a rational argument for why two consenting adults who love one another should not be allowed enter in wedlock, regardless of their sexual orientation. Perhaps it's time we redefine the word marriage to mean, "the formal union of two consenting adults, typically recognized by law, by which they enter into wedlock." That shouldn't be such a hard thing to do. Definitions of words change all the time. For example, "gay" used to mean "happy", but, thanks to attitudes in states like North Carolina, and timidity from politicians like President Obama, gay people don't have a lot of reason to be happy.

Go Gary!

Congratulations to former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, who won the Libertarian Party nomination for President on Saturday! Governor Johnson is America's best chance to get back on the road to prosperity. Johnson's, and the Libertarian Party's delegate's, pick for Vice President is former Orange County Superior Court Judge Jim Gray. Gray is currently a staunch advocate for reformation of the drug laws. For more information, visit garyjohnson2012.com.

May Day: Capitalism vs. Cronyism.

The Occupy movement has designated May 1, also known as International Workers' Day, as a day of global disruption to businesses, schools, banking, and anything else that they see as part of the evil corporate establishment. I have mixed feelings about the Occupy movement. I agree with them that there is plenty to be angry about in our society. There is injustice and inequality, and not everyone gets access to the same starting line. These are issues that need to be addressed. However, their anger is misplaced. They blame "business" for these inequities. "Business" is a pretty broad term. Our economy runs on the backs of businesses, large and small, and the majority of them offer good products and services at fair prices and they compete with one another based on those merits. What they should actually be referring to is companies that are politically connected and use those connections to gain an advantage over their competitors. That is often called crony-capitalism, crapitalism, or more accurately, cronyism. The problem is the Occupiers don't make (or perhaps understand?) the distinction between free market capitalism, which is good, and cronyism, which is bad. Free market capitalism allows economies to become strong and provides customers with the most choice, best quality, and lowest price. It is the best system developed so far to allow the poor to step out of poverty. Cronyism is where a business uses personal connections to government officials (e.g. Solyndra, or Serious Windows), lobbies government officials, and/or makes significant campaign contributions to government officials to gain some form of advantage over their competitors, often in the form of tax breaks or regulations. The operative term is "government official" as that is the essential ingredient for cronyism. Cronyism creates artificial markets that hurt consumers by limiting choices and eliminating competition which lowers quality and raises prices. It also wastes taxpayer money and removes productive equity from the economy. Cronyism is definitely something to be angry about, but the Occupiers don't think it all the way through. They rail against greedy businessmen but not the greedy government officials who make it possible. Think of it this way: say there is a massive fire caused by a gas leak. The Occupiers would only be attacking the flames, because that is what is visibly causing the damage, while leaving the gas leak unattended. They don't see that in order to put the fire out, the gas leak has to be repaired. Their solution is bigger government and more regulation which will only create more cronyism. Should we be angrier about greedy businessmen who are looking to gain any advantage over their competition or the greedy government officials who we elected, are supposed to be serving us, and who, to our detriment, grant favors to the greedy businessmen to further their own careers and line their pockets? In my mind, the greedy government officials are the bigger issue. Without them, the greedy businessmen will be forced to compete fairly for our money, and that will benefit us all.

Progressive consumption tax - a Keynesian nightmare.

A friend recently shared an article from Slate.com that outlined a progressive consumption tax - a sales tax where the rate would change depending on your level of wealth. Obviously, the more you are worth, the higher the rate that you paid. He asked me if this was similar to the Fair Tax proposal that Gary Johnson is promoting. They are similar only in that they are both consumption taxes, but this proposal sounds like some sort of Keynesian nightmare version of the Fair Tax.

I see some serious issues here. The author gave examples of charging a 100% tax on the wealthy for things like adding an addition to a mansion or staging a lavish wedding because he considers these a frivolous use of money. He missed an important point, however, which is that a tax like that would directly remove money from the middle class that the tax is supposed to benefit. He gave the example that a wealthy person looking to add a $2 million addition to his house would have to spend $4 million with this tax in place ($2 million for the addition and $2 million in taxes), so they might think better of it and opt to build a smaller addition at a total cost of $2 million ($1 million for the addition and $1 million in taxes). The thing is, if he spends the full $2 million on the addition and a nominal tax, who benefits? Likely a middle class architect, and a middle class contractor - small business owners who each may employ a few dozen middle class workers. If, because of a high consumption tax rate, he decides to build a smaller addition to his mansion for the same cost, the middle class architect and contractors are the ones who take the hit, and then the government gets $1 million to redistribute poorly. It introduces a middleman that doesn't need to be there, and will unnecessarily take a huge piece (half!) of the pie. The same goes with a lavish wedding or sweet sixteen party. I agree that these things can become rather absurd pretty quickly, but the money spent on them typically goes to small businesses who employ middle class workers.

Later in the article he wrote that he expects that people will take issue with social engineering by taxing "bad" behavior, and he's exactly right, I do. People should be free to spend their money however they choose without having the government push their will on us. If someone wants to put a $2 million addition on their mansion or throw an outrageously expensive party, and they can afford it, it's no business of mine. That money goes into the economy, which is exactly what we want and need.

A consumption tax like this does nothing to address the fact that we need to lower spending. The author argued that it would create more revenue to balance the budget, but we have never seen our government act responsibly in that regard. In the past more money has meant more spending, not more paying down our debt. Besides, if it really did change people's spending habits, an obvious goal, it may not end up bringing in more revenue after all, which would leave us with big problems still to solve.

4/20.

April 20th is the day when potheads around the world celebrate potheadedness. I'm not a pothead. I don't use marijuana and have no interest in it, personally, but I wholeheartedly believe that it should be legalized. Study after study has shown that it is less harmful than alcohol and tobacco - it is not addictive, the smoke doesn't appear to cause lung cancer, and no one has ever overdosed on it. If you read the history of how marijuana prohibition came about you will be shocked at the crony capitalism and favoritism shown to the lumber industry lobbyists. Our drug war has been an utter failure and it's time to put an end to it.

Koch vs. Cato.

The attempted takeover of the Cato Institute by the Koch's is very interesting. Corporate billionaires trying to take control of a respected, independent libertarian think tank to turn it into neocon ideological munitions factory for other neocon policy groups. If there was ever a fight for independence, this is it.

Cato Vice President for Defense and Policy Studies, Christopher Preble is the latest of the brave and honorable Cato employees to speak out against it. Read his essay here.

Barack Obama on drugs.

"When I was a teenager I experimented with drugs."
- Senatorial candidate Barack Obama in 2004

"In terms of the legalization of drugs, I think the war on drugs has been an utter failure, and I think we need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws."
- Senatorial candidate Barack Obama in 2004

"There's no difference between that [medial marijuana] and morphine when it comes to giving people relief from pain."
- Presidential candidate Barack Obama in 2008

"I would not have the Justice Department prosecuting medical marijuana dispensaries. It's not a good use of our resources."
- Presidential candidate Barack Obama in 2008

"What I'm not going to be doing is using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue [medical marijuana]."
- Presidential candidate Barack Obama in 2008

"What the president said during the campaign, you'll be surprised to know, will be consistent with what we'll be doing in law enforcement. What he said during the campaign is now American policy."
- Attorney General Eric Holder, March 2009

FACT: Under Barack Obama the Federal government has conducted more than 170 raids on legal, state sanctioned medical marijuana operations since 2009.

Van Jones says libertarians are bigots.

Ex-Obama administration green jobs czar Van Jones said that libertarians "hate the brown folk, and the gays and the lesbians, and the people with all the piercings and tattoos", and are "anti-immigrant bigots".

And it wasn't even April Fool's Day.

Has he perhaps confused libertarians with Nazis? Libertarians are individualists, meaning that we believe every person, regardless of skin color, sexual orientation, etc. should have the opportunity to create the life that they want, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. The leading Libertarian Party Presidential nominee, Gary Johnson, is the ONLY Presidential candidate who supports same sex marriage rights, and has an immigration reform policy that doesn't deport people, or build a wall, but rather allows people to come into the country, safely and legally, to work. Libertarians live by the creed of, "to each his own", so piercings and tattoos don't bother us in the least. Many libertarians actually have piercings and tattoos, as a matter of fact. Oh, and Van? Grover Norquist is not our "leader".

Van Jones is to libertarians what Naomi Klein is to Milton Friedman: an ignorant moron who spreads lies to sell books.

And to make matters worse, he was introduced by one of my favorite actors, Edward Norton, who claimed that at a recent panel discussion, he didn't know who was the wiser, Van Jones or the Dali Lama. It sucks when you discover that people you admire and respect are idiots. Thanks, Edward.

Full article and video here.

Gary Johnson on The Colbert Report.

Gary Johnson was the guest on the Colbert Report last night, and he did a great job. As he mentioned, the goal right now is to get up to 15% in the polls so that he can join Obama and the GOP nominee in the debates this fall (he is currently at 7%). This is really important considering the fact that Ron Paul is unlikely to win the Republican nomination, but Johnson and Paul have nearly identical views, so the message will continue. If you support Gary Johnson, or Ron Paul, or are just someone who believes that the stranglehold that the Democratic and Republican parties have on our system is wrong, please help support Governor Johnson. Make a donation of any size to his campaign, or even just post links to his website and media appearances to your Facebook and Twitter accounts to help get the word out.

Rupert Boneham wins LPIN nomination for Governor.

Two-time former Survivor contestant Rupert Boneham won the Libertarian Party nomination for Governor of Indiana last week. By all accounts, Rupert is exactly the type of person we need more of in government: a decent person who clearly cares about others (as is evident from Rupert's Kids, the charity he founded using some of his Survivor winnings) and recognizes the importance of personal freedom. We wish Rupert the best of luck.

Reason Rally.

I attended the Reason Rally in Washington DC on March 24. For those not familiar, it was a secular rally to show law makers that non-believers are growing in number and we demand that our voice be heard, and that they maintain separation of church and state. Speakers included author (and fellow libertarian) Dr. Michael Shermer, biologist PZ Myers, Adam Savage from the TV show "Mythbusters", author/biologist Richard Dawkins, and several other activists, comedians, and musicians of a humanist bent.

Over 20,000 people attended the event, standing in the rain for hours, along with a bevy of religious protesters who set up camp alongside the rally with signs and bullhorns. The people I encountered who were attending the rally were exceedingly nice, intelligent, and considerate. The same cannot be said of the protesters, but that's all part of the freedom of speech, I suppose, so I welcome it. Hopefully this will be the first major step in the return of the secular American government that our founding fathers intended.

The halo effect.

Businessmen are often unfairly pinned with adjectives like "greedy" and "selfish" because their foremost concern is making their business successful as opposed to "helping" people who are not as fortunate as they are. People like Steve Jobs are judged by how charitable they have been with their personal wealth. Their critics are focused on the micro-details of the individual and completely blind to the macro-details of the entrepreneur's halo effect.

I've had many discussions with people who could be described as egalitarians (people who believe that there should be limits on the amount of wealth one can accrue, and that wealth should be redistributed from the wealthy to the poor in an attempt to be "fair"). They conjure up the image of the billionaire CEO who has a Lear jet, six figure bonuses, and a golden parachute and they reflexively cry foul. What they fail to notice is the wealth that the business owner has created for others, usually completely unintentionally. It really doesn't matter, from the macro perspective, whether the entrepreneur has good intentions or not. He or she could have a heart of gold or the heart of the Grinch before it grew three sizes. Either way, they need help from others to achieve their goals and they create wealth for those people. This includes company employees, other companies that manufacture parts and materials for their products, and even other satellite industries that pop up to supply accessories for the products that the first industry created. Steve Jobs is a perfect example of this. In founding Apple, he created thousands of jobs directly for the company, many thousands more for suppliers whose parts were used in Apple products, and then spawned entirely new industries for app developers, and accessory manufacturers. Apple has paid billions of dollars out to software developers who sell apps on it's App Store just over the last five years. This is an economy that didn't even exist before 2007. In the end it doesn't matter whether Steve Jobs was a charitable man or not. The amount of wealth that he created for others is incalculable, and has done far more to benefit society than any charitable giving could have.

I thought I would call it "Atlas Sucked".

As a big fan of Ayn Rand's epic novel, "Atlas Shrugged", I was a bit worried when I read last year that a new film version was in the works. It could be done well, perhaps, as an HBO miniseries if the right people were attached, but that would be unlikely due to how liberal Hollywood is. As a feature-length film though, even a trilogy? I wasn't convinced. I was even less convinced when I saw that it had a very low budget and starred a bunch of actors who aspire to be D-list. Suffice it to say, I wasn't champing at the bit to see it, and had pretty much forgotten about it until I read today that part two of the trilogy had been green lighted. And then I noticed that it was available on Netflix Instant, so I decided to give it a try. Surprisingly, I didn't hate it. I'm not saying that it was good, but it wasn't anywhere near as bad as I expected it to be. It was good enough that I'll watch the other two parts, if for no other reason, just to see how they handle the eighty-some-odd page monologue by John Galt in the third movie.

Milton Friedman on the Robber Baron myth.

Milton Friedman makes the point that, while the free market is not perfect, it is by far the best system for keeping greed and corruption in check.

Why Gary Johnson should terrify the Democrats.

There's no uncertainty about where Gary Johnson stands on those issues [gay marriage rights, immigration reform, and the drug war]. On every one of them, his position is both clear and deeply offensive to the GOP base, which is why he never had a chance of winning the Party's nomination and has very little chance of winning the presidency. But it's exactly why he appeals to independents.

I couldn't agree more with Theo Anderson's assessment. Gary Johnson should appeal to disenfranchised Democrats just as much as disenfranchised Republicans - in other words, the center.

Gary Johnson online town hall on March 19.

The next in a series on online town hall meetings by Libertarian Candidate Gary Johnson will be held on Monday, March 19 at 6:30pm MST / 8:30 EST Online Town Hall with special guest, Grover Norquist. Go to garyjohnson2012.com at that time to join in and ask Gary or Grover anything you'd like.

Waste not, want not.

After dealing with an elderly family member's affairs during an illness, I'm disgusted (but not surprised) to see yet another way Medicare wastes our tax dollars. Between February 23 and March 5, Medicare has sent out no fewer than eight multi-page statements - that's eight in eleven days! Wouldn't it be more cost effective to send out one per month with a summary of all activity? Yes, which is likely why they don't do it. That's our government in action.

What libertarianism is and is not #1.

This is the first of a series that I'm working on called "What libertarianism is and is not". I meet people all the time who have, sometimes crazy, misconceptions of what a libertarian is. Hopefully this series will help clarify things a bit.

A libertarian is: pragmatic. While libertarians tend to be extremely idealistic, we are also equally pragmatic. The lowest common denominator in most libertarian views tends to be finding a solution that makes the most sense based on the reality of the situation. For instance, the drug war. I've met some libs who believe that we, as individuals who own our bodies, should have the right to put anything we want into them. Others don't necessarily agree with that and still think that at least the most addictive drugs should be controlled. But virtually all libertarians feel that the drug war should end, regardless of their views about individual rights, because it has proven to be a fruitless waste of tax payer dollars that hasn't achieved any of it's goals, and actually made things worse in many other ways. We know that we're never going to get to a point where no one wants to use drugs. We know that not all drugs that are currently illegal are addictive. We know that we have other substances which are addictive and legal (I 'm pretty sure I have a problem with coffee). A pragmatist looks at the reality of the situation and attempts to solve the problem from that perspective. With the drug issue, the pragmatic solution is to stop treating drugs as a criminal problem and start treating them as a medical problem.

The same could be said for immigration issue. We will never build a wall high enough to keep people out if they want to get in. The pragmatic solution is to change the way that we allow people access to work in our country. I wrote about this previously, here.

A libertarian is not: a Republican who likes to smoke pot. I'm not sure which of these comparisons I am more uncomfortable with. Libertarians are not Republicans, but more on that in a moment. While most libs think that marijuana should be legalized, that doesn't mean we all use it. Let's just put it this way: I know far more people who have smoked pot who are not libertarians, than I know libertarians total.

Back to the Republican reference. As I said, libertarians are not Republicans. The two groups typically have very similar views on economic issues, but very different views on social issues, like abortion and same sex marriage. I have had very interesting discussions with both conservatives and liberals where I will end up siding with one of them on one issue, one on another issue, and neither of a third. Libertarians, more often than not, get lumped with Republicans, but I feel I have just as much in common with Democrats. As Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson said, "The Libertarian Party takes the best [ideas] from Democrats, and takes the best [ideas] from Republicans." But we are a different beast than either of them.

Gary Johnson: The best of both worlds.

Political consultant Roger Stone on Libertarian Presidential candidate (and likely nominee) Gary Johnson:

The American people have never been offered a candidate who is a fiscal conservative and social liberal. If you voted for the Republican because you favored spending and tax cuts you also had to swallow a ban on abortion and opposition to gay marriage. If you voted for the Democrat because you were pro-choice, you also had to support fiscal policies that would bankrupt us.

I often say that if you voted for McCain in 2008 because you thought that his fiscal conservatism was the best way to handle our economic crisis, you'll like Gary Johnson. And if you voted for Obama in 2008 because he promised to end the wars, and you agreed with him on civil liberties issues, you'll like Gary Johnson.

In short, you'll like Gary Johnson.

Full article here.

Don't fear the reefer.

Pat Robertson recently said that he thinks marijuana should be legalized. I don't know how to feel about that. I agree with him 100%, but that is probably the only thing I have ever agreed with him about, so perhaps I should rethink my position?

No, he's absolutely right in this case. We have spent over a trillion (you have to see the zeroes to appreciate it: more than $1,000,000,000,000) over the last forty years trying to remove illegal drugs and addiction from our society, and what do we have to show for it? More drugs and higher rates of addition, and something else that we didn't count on (but should have): violence. We should have learned from alcohol prohibition in the 1920s (not to mention countless other examples) that prohibition creates black markets, and black markets create violence. I think that by any measure we have failed, and it's time to try something else.

But decriminalization, or worse, legalization? What on earth would make someone believe that that could help? Because we have a wonderful example of how doing so accomplished exactly what President Nixon wanted to accomplished when he started the "War on Drugs" in 1970. Portugal decriminalized all drugs back in 2001. Since then, they've seen a 50% rise in rehabilitation, a huge drop in HIV infections, drug use among teens, and crime, among many other benefits. The CATO Institute has some great coverage on Portugal's success.

I've had discussions about legalization/decriminalization with many people over the years, and the biggest fear that they have all had is that overnight our country will turn into a bunch of drug-addled zombies. But for that to be true, we would have to assume that the only thing stopping most of us from using drugs is the law. That's just not the case. The majority of people who want to use drugs do so in spite of the law. The rest of us simply don't want to use them because we wish to remain clear of mind, or we fear addiction. Neither of those will change with legalization or decriminalization.

The other issue I run into a lot is that people tend to think that advocating legalization and/or decriminalization means to advocate drug use. It doesn't. I don't use drugs, and a change in the law won't make me want to start. Favoring legalization does not mean that you advocate use, it simply means that you recognize that our current practices are creating more problems than they are solving, and that we should try something different. That is simply common sense. Common sense from Pat Robertson? Whodathunk?

The government needs a chastity belt.

John Stossel wrote a story for Reason.com about the benefits of creative destruction. He points out that Mitt Romney has taken a lot of grief for his role in Bain Capital when he was labeled by people like Rick Perry (who should know better) as a greedy "Vulture Capitalist" for buying and restructuring failing companies to make them more efficient and profitable, which sometimes meant that people lost their jobs.

"Intuition tells us that it would be better if no one ever lost a job and that capitalists who close businesses are evil. But America would not be better off today if elevator operators and factory workers who made typewriters had their jobs preserved by a 'compassionate' government."

He goes on to explain that "Vulture Capitalism" and creative destruction are not the evils they are sold as. In truth, the real evil is crony capitalism (also known as "crapitalism") where big business jumps in bed with big government to their mutual benefit, but the detriment of pretty much everyone else. The Occupy protesters, who, like the Tea Party, have legitimate reasons to be angry, have misdirected their outrage at capitalism and the free market, but these are actually the only solutions to our current problems. Their anger should be directed at practitioners of crony-capitalism. Businesses are always going to try to find ways to gain an advantage in the marketplace. No amount of protesting will ever change that, and, frankly, we shouldn't want to because that's also what drives innovation. Crony capitalism is the real problem here, and government is the entity who allows that to happen, not business. They are in bed together. Business is like the guy who is always trying to get laid, but for that to happen, the girl - government - has to give permission. We need to elect officials who agree that this is wrong, but for some reason, the majority of the OWS protesters seem to want bigger government, which will only make things worse. The bigger and more powerful the government gets, the more corruption and waste is created. The fix they want is the very thing that created the problem in the first place. A truly free market is a market unconstrained by excessive regulation, but also by corruption that government alone has the power to create.

Full article here.

Bonus quote of the day:

"The only difference between Republicans and Democrats is what they do with your money after they steal it."
- Author unknown

Quote of the day:

"By virtue of exchange, one man's prosperity is beneficial to all others."
- Frederic Bastiat

Where will Ron Paul go?

Ron Paul is not fairing too well in the Republican primaries. It's not too surprising. "Conservatives" have truly embraced the definition of conserving the status quo, so they like Mitt Romney. There has been some talk of the possibility of Ron Paul joining Romney's cabinet as VP. I don't see how Ron Paul could stay true to his ideals by teaming up with Romney. If he doesn't win the GOP nomination, the ONLY way he can stay true is to throw his support behind Gary Johnson, who is right in line with 95% of what Paul believes in.

Quote of the day:

"One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions and not their results."
- Milton Friedman

Artificial vs. authentic markets.

Will our government ever learn that creating artificial markets is a bad idea? Abound Solar is the latest solar energy company to be given government money and then fall apart. Like Solyndra, the poster-child of bad green government investments, Abound Solar is proving to be a complete waste of our tax dollars. President Obama sold the investment as a boon to green energy and a great permanent job creator, only to see the company lay off 280 workers last week. I have nothing against green energy, but these companies are failing because there isn't a viable market for the industry yet. They are artificially propped up by the government with taxpayer money, and when it runs out, they fall. Artificial markets are simply unsustainable.

More about the Abound Solar situation from Reason.com.

Quote of the day:

"Government is good at one thing: It knows how to break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, 'See, if it weren't for the government, you wouldn't be able to walk.'"
- Harry Browne

Highly Recommended: Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose" series.

After watching this series, I'm reminded of the saying, "the more things change, the more they stay the same". This series was filmed in 1980 and they were debating the very same issues that we're discussing today. Links to the entire ten-part series are available here.

Quote of the day:

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."
- Ayn Rand

In defense of the faithful - really?

Yes, really. In the current big brouhaha about whether or not Obamacare should be able to force Catholic institutions to provide contraception to their employees when it goes against their beliefs, I side with the Catholics. As an ardent non-believer, I'm shocked to fall on that side of the argument, believe me, but I feel that if we are to have freedom of (and from) religion in this country, it has to mean something. That will occasionally mean supporting something you find utterly ridiculous.

The bigger picture, in my mind, is that the government shouldn't be providing health care in the first place. A truly free market approach to health care would be better for everyone.

Quote of the day:

"There is but one special interest that we should be working for, and that would solve just about all of our problems, and that is our liberty."
- Ron Paul

Andrew Breitbart, 1969 - 2012.

I've followed Andrew Breitbart a bit over the last few years. He was, at times, a little too far to the Right for me, but I always respected him and his work. I used to hear him as an occasional guest on Dennis Miller's radio show (before Dennis got a little too "god-y" for my tastes) and he seemed like a very likeable guy; someone you'd want to get a beer with. Hearing that he died this morning was quite a shock, not just because he was only a few months older than me, but also because he was such a lively, and animated person. He was passionate and full of conviction, and he had absolutely no fear when it came to taking on whomever he thought needed taking on. To have his torch snuffed at his age is a real loss to, not only conservatives and lover's of liberty, but to everyone who is dissatisfied with the status quo. That should be all of us. He left the world with a wonderful set of tools for shining a light on corruption in the public sector, and for that, he deserves our thanks.

Raise (other people's) taxes, please!- or the hypocrisy of the Left.

I know just as many liberals who complain about taxes as I do conservatives or libertarians. The big difference is that the libs only complain about their high taxes while insisting that the government raise taxes on the other guys, while conservatives and libertarians seem to recognize the inherent problems with raising taxes on anyone. Here's a little wake up call for the progressives out there:

You are the "other guy" to everyone but you.

Quote of the day:

"The capitalist system of production is an economic democracy in which every penny gives a right to vote. The consumers are the sovereign people. The capitalists, the entrepreneurs, and the farmers are the people's mandatories. If they do not obey, if they fail to produce, at the lowest possible cost, what the consumers are asking for, they lose their office. Their task is service to the consumer. Profit and loss are the instruments by means of which the consumers keep a tight rein on all business activities."
- Ludwig von Mises

"Where Are All These Atheist Politicians?"

Patrick Caldwell, writing for The American Prospect:

"Out of 538 members of Congress, California Rep. Pete Stark is the only self-avowed atheist. For as much as Republicans opine about the secularist goals of Obama's presidency, he has stocked his cabinet with Catholics and other gentiles. The highest court of the land has six Catholics and three Jews."

Perhaps atheists can claim tax-free status because of this, a la "no taxation without representation"?

Full article here.

More freedom equals more prosperity for the poor.

A few days ago I posted the following quote from the late, great Milton Friedman:

"There is an enormous amount of poverty in the world, everywhere. There is no system in the world that is perfect. No system that is going to eliminate, completely, poverty, in whatever sense. The question is, which system has the greatest chance, which is the best arrangement for enabling poor people to improve their lives? And on that, the evidence of history speaks with a single voice. I do not know any exception to the proposition that if you compare like with like, the freer the system, the better off the ordinary poor people have been."

I've been reading The Morality of Capitalism: What Your Professors Won't Tell You , a collection of essays on, well, the morality of Capitalism and what your professors won't tell you, put together, and a couple written by Tom G. Palmer. One of the essays is by a Russian philosopher named Leonid Nikonov who talks about The Economic Freedom Report. This report measures the economic freedom of all countries and rates them based on a number of criteria. As might be expected, the freer the country, the more prosperous it's citizens. But even more interesting is the variation between the poor in free countries versus the poor in unfree countries.

Nikonov writes:

Considering the countries of the world by quartiles (each with 25% of the world's countries) the average share of national income going to the poorest 10% of the population in the least free quartile (including such countries as Zimbabwe, Myanmar, and Syria) in 2008 (the last year for which data are available) was 2.47%; in the next (third most-free) quartile, 2.19%; in the next (second most free) quartile, 2.27%; and in the freest quartile, 2.58%. The variation is hardly significant. That is to say, such inequality seems to be immune to being affected by the rules of economic policies. On the other hand, the amount of income the poorest 10% receive varies enormously, precisely because that variable is certainly not immune to economic policies. Being among the poorest 10% in the least-free countries means an average annual income of $910 per year, while being among the poorest 10% in the most-free market economies means an average of $8,474. For those who are poor, it seems far better to be poor in Switzerland than in Syria.

It's worth noting that the United States' rating has been sliding down since the year 2000.

Quote of the day:

"The mind is the attribute of man. When man is born, he comes into existence with only one weapon with him- The reasoning mind."
- Ayn Rand

Keynes vs. Hayek Round Two.

This video series is great. Spoiler alert: Hayek is the real winner. Here's the link to Round One.

Little big government - or the hypocrisy of the Right.

Social agendas have no role in small government. Everyone is entitled to their own personal view, but the fact that an issue is controversial doesn't mean it deserves to have a seat at the grown-ups table. What we need our politicians focusing on right now is the economy - not gay marriage, abortion or contraception. You can't complain about big intrusive government in one breath, and then complain that there aren't enough laws restricting other people's actions whom you don't approve of in another. It's simply hypocrisy.

Bob Barr likes everything about Gary Johnson, except his popularity.

"I know Gary. I like him very much. I think he was an outstanding Governor of New Mexico. I think he has some excellent ideas," he said. But, Barr added,"I would certainly hope that he would have a more organized and higher profile campaign than I've seen thus far, because he has some very, very good ideas and is a man of integrity."

That's a pretty good endorsement for Johnson from someone who isn't endorsing him. Interestingly enough, all of the reasons that Bob Barr, former congressman from Georgia, and Libertarian Presidential candidate in 2008, gives for endorsing Gingrich are applicable to Johnson as well, plus Johnson is already on the right side of the issues that Barr says he wishes Gingrich would come around on (Patriot Act, civil liberties, etc.). Sounds like Barr should have just endorsed Gary Johnson.

Full article here.

Quote of the day:

"Is there a greater tragedy imaginable than that, in our endeavour consciously to shape our future in accordance with high ideals, we should in fact unwittingly produce the very opposite of what we have been striving for?"
- Friedrich Hayek

"I'd vote for Gary Johnson if only he could win."

I can't tell you how often I read a statement like this. Gary Johnson is a very affable guy. When people read what he has to say they tend to like him. When they meet him in person they like him even more. He is very down-to-earth and comes across as a real non-politician which, to me, is a definite positive. He is the "anti-Obama" in that he is all substance, and no style (and I mean that as a compliment).

All that being said, most people I talk to say that they would never vote for him because there is no way he could win. Well, with that attitude, they're right. I realize that our election system has become very bloated and complicated - so much so that most ordinary people don't seem to know how it works anymore. Delegates, and primaries, and electoral colleges, oh my! It's gotten ridiculous, yes, but each one of us still has a vote, and if we collectively decide to force a change in this country, we can do it. I hear the chorus of citizens fed up with the status quo, sick and tired of the failures of the two party system. We just need to have the courage to demand that change by voting for a credible third party candidate. Gary Johnson is the best chance our country has for real change.

Rick Santorum's America: a theocracy, apparently.

"What kind of country do we live in that says only people of nonfaith can come into the public square and make their case?"

The better question, in my mind, is, why do the faithful feel the need to bring their beliefs into every discussion? I can kind of understand a religious perspective on issues like abortion, but what do one's beliefs about the creation of the universe and whether or not there is an afterlife have to do with topics like economics, or national defense? The answer should be "nothing" but true believers like Santorum seem to feel otherwise.

Quote of the day:

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
- George Washington

A fence is a barrier to prosperity.

From Gary Johnson's op-ed in the Daily Caller:

Far be it from me, a two-term governor of a border state, to lecture a Massachusetts governor and a Pennsylvania senator on immigration. Or to point out the insult inherent in President Obama having sought the Latino vote four years ago with promises to deal with immigration — and now asking to be re-elected because he will fulfill that promise when he gets around to it in a second term.

And a couple paragraphs later:

Replace the dysfunctional system we have now with one that allows immigrants to easily obtain a work visa, and illegal immigration will become an issue largely confined to dealing with a small number of criminals we can handle without deploying the National Guard and really expensive drones. For the otherwise law-abiding immigrants simply coming here to work, we can then reasonably expect them to pay taxes, pay for health care and otherwise be contributors to society rather than burdens.

Full article here.

Johnson's proposal would be a win-win for everyone. Back in the days before our immigration policies became so strict it was common for people from Central and South America to come to the U.S., work for awhile to earn what amounted to a small fortune in their country, and then return. When we created an environment where it was difficult and extremely dangerous to get into the country, we also created an environment where it was equally difficult and dangerous to get out, so it is more common for illegal immigrants to stay in the U.S. today. If Gary Johnson's proposal was put into play, they could come here and work jobs that there is little supply for from U.S. citizens, earn money, pay taxes, pay for health insurance, then take their earnings back to their country so they could be with their families again, and - here's the kicker - start businesses in their home countries that would create jobs and eventually improve their economies so that others could find work there instead of having to come here. The system we have now, and the one proposed by all the other candidates only maintains the black markets (and violence) that have been created to meet the demand, and they do nothing to help improve conditions in neighboring countries where people are coming from.

Quote of the day:

"There is an enormous amount of poverty in the world, everywhere. There is no system in the world that is perfect. No system that is going to eliminate, completely, poverty, in whatever sense. The question is, which system has the greatest chance, which is the best arrangement for enabling poor people to improve their lives? And on that, the evidence of history speaks with a single voice. I do not know any exception to the proposition that if you compare like with like, the freer the system, the better off the ordinary poor people have been."
- Milton Friedman

Michael Shermer speaking at the Reason Rally.

Quote of the day:

"The more the state 'plans' the more difficult planning becomes for the individual."
- Friedrich Hayek

Keeping greed at bay.

Milton Friedman once said:

"The problem of social organization is how to set up an arrangement under which greed will do the least harm. Capitalism is that kind of system."

Greed, fraud and dishonesty exist in Capitalism, yes, but to think that they get erased by more socialistic practices is simply naive. Socialism simply imposes greed and deception on a more substantial portion of the population and has it's spoils enjoyed to a greater extent by a smaller portion of the population. While not a perfect system, Capitalism will always be more beneficial to more people.

Quote of the day:

"If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action."
- Ludwig von Mises

Dictionary, please?

When did the definition of "liberal" come to mean not being allowed to do anything?

Headed to the Reason Rally.

The Reason Rally is an event sponsored by many of the country's largest and most influential secular organizations. It will be free to attend and will take place in Washington, D.C. on March 24th, 2012 from 10:00AM – 4:00PM at the National Mall. There will be music, comedy, speakers, and so much more

I'm really looking forward to this event. Speakers include Richard Dawkins, Adam Savage, James Randi, and many, many others. Here's more info.

Quote of the day:

"Only the private sector can create jobs. Not government. My priority was to get government out of the way and keep it out of the way."
- Gary Johnson

Gary Johnson for President.

FreedomBiscuit proudly endorses Gary Johnson for President. As the former two-term governor of New Mexico, Johnson has a proven record and believes in a fine balance between fiscal conservatism and social liberalism. Find out more about former Governor Johnson at garyjohnson2012.com.

Quote of the day:

"A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both."
- Milton Friedman

The Biscuits are ready.

Welcome to FreedomBiscuit.com, a website dedicated to promoting reason, pragmatism, and rational thought.