The Statue Is Becoming A Lie

I feel sad for the US today.

At one time, at least the story is told here, our country was a shining example of "freedom" to the world. But now, the word "liberty" (which means the same thing, forms the root of the term "libertarian," and is used prominently in our Declaration of Independence) is treated as a "bad" or "uncaring" thing. Instead of us having the freedom to give, or not give, to the charitable causes we deem worthy, we're supposed to trust that supposedly-selfless elected officials (does anybody really believe in the altruism of politicians?) should be given as much power as they demand to deliver benefits to "worthy" causes, with little or no control by us regarding how our money is distributed. This is the lamp of freedom we hold up to the world?

Of course, distribution of our earnings to government-controlled social programs is only one power grab. Not only are we not free to give to charity as we see fit, but we are not free to choose how we take care of ourselves, or to not do so. This lack of control is imposed on us along with an imposed social "responsibility" to take care of those in need, without regard for what those in need may have done to put themselves in that situation. You rode your motorcycle drunk without a helmet, crashed, and need medical assistance? The current story is that your society is "responsible" to take care of you anyway; and, that fabricated "responsibility" is the key to a whole host of liberty-destroying mandates, ranging from helmet laws, to laws against smoking in public, to required participation in health insurance.

Even more power is demanded by elected officials and their myriad appointees for the will-o'-wisp purpose of "security." I do not believe the nonsense about the 9/11 terrorist attacks being an "inside job," but I do see that statist opportunists have used that awful day in our national history, at every possible opportunity, to strip away freedom and impose government control.

What underscored for me, today, that the world does not look to the US as an example of freedom was a comment on the federated social networking service Diaspora about not hosting data in the US because of a distrust of how that data might be seized by the US government. If we were a free country, no such concern would exist, and no such comment would be made. Instead we have lazily chosen poor leaders (politically and otherwise) and allowed them to drag our nation down to where it is mocked, instead of respected, for its treatment of personal liberty.

These are sad times for the US, indeed.

Republicans vs. Conservatives

When I said previously that Libertarians should support Ron Paul's campaign for US President in 2012, I guess I should have been directing my comments to a different audience: Congressman Paul's own party members, i.e., Republicans. Their ongoing dismissal of him, which dovetails nicely with liberals' dismissal of him, highlights what seems to me a basic fact: The so-called Republicans of today are not really conservative. The main problem they have with Ron Paul is that he's too conservative — he actually believes and works toward the ideas that they just pantomime.

I disagree with the popular term "neo-con" to describe those who claim to be Republicans but whose actions, compared to true conservatism, don't match up. "Neo" just means new, but there's no such thing as "new conservatism." You're either conservative, or you're not. And if you're not, and you claim to be, you're not a "new" conservative, you're a fake conservative. The word for that is pseudo-con, not neo-con.

It should be obvious to impartial observers that the anti-conservative views espoused by so many "Republicans" today show that the party is largely tainted by the presence of statist pseudo-cons. It makes me wonder why they supposedly oppose President Obama so much, other than on race and religion grounds. His statist policies are no more egregious than theirs.

An illustrative example is Republican support for Herman Cain. Here's a person who can barely maintain even a vaguely-Republican-sounding story. He can't seem to make up his mind on what he believes or what he would do — but he's convinced he's the right person to become our next President. Arrogance alone doesn't cut it, no matter what precedent has been set by recent administrations. He talks about not having political experience and relying on advisors, which basically means he will be a puppet to those with more political savvy. And now he is treating the controversy over allegations of sexual harassment with the very same short-sighted "I'm not going to answer that" and "that's been answered already" unfulfilling comments that President Obama consistently used in answer to questions about his place of birth and, by extension, the Constitutional validity of his eligibility for the office he now holds.

(As an aside, anybody who thinks it is inappropriate to ensure that the person holding the highest office in the land and controlling a vast nuclear arsenal is at least in the position legally deserves whatever Hell their willful ignorance creates. I'm glad that some people have the backbone to ask difficult questions in the face of brainless "political correctness.")

This is not to say that Ron Paul is the only conservative Republican candidate for the 2012 Presidential election. However, the media-anointed "front-runners" are pseudo-cons that the other pseudo-cons infecting the Republican party find palatable, while those who have shown consistently over the years that they are true conservatives (and for that, I can think of no better example than Ron Paul) are dismissed as being "not able to be elected" (despite polls showing that Ron Paul would seriously challenge Obama, unlike others who have the pseudo-cons' blessing).

Apparently the Libertarian Party has welcomed Ron Paul to run on their ticket, so that audience already understands that Ron Paul is the one to support. Dr. Paul needs to find a way to expose the pseudo-cons for what they are and reclaim the Republican party for what it should be: Conservative!

Ron Paul and the 2012 Election

Here's a quick political exercise for you:  To find the person who has the perfect political ideals, that one person whose views match yours to the utmost degree, go look in the mirror.  Come back here when you're done.

Got that out of the way?  Good.  Now that you know where to find the perfect candidate for any given office, we can talk about other options, the less-than-perfect candidates.

If you're a card-carrying, dues-paying Libertarian (or a little-l libertarian like me), you have to understand that there is no such thing as a perfect libertarian.  Well, other than that person you saw in the mirror.  When it comes to promoting and defending liberty, we all have our own nuances that we put on the word "liberty" and so we all have different ideas of what a libertarian should believe in.  Now, obviously, there's a limit to that.  You can't think that the government should make every decision for you and still consider yourself a libertarian.  But on the opposite end of the spectrum from "statist" there's still wiggle room.  If you want "perfect" look in the mirror; otherwise, accept that you have to make compromises.  Acceptable compromises, but compromises nonetheless.

With all that said, let me say that I consider myself the perfect Libertarian candidate for US President for the 2012 elections.

And no amount of wishful thinking will get my perfect candidate in office.  So I'm not going to spend one thin dime on a "Whitmore in 2012" campaign, nor am I going to write in my name on the ballot.  Instead, I will make acceptable compromises and support a candidate that I believe is the best option (not "perfect" but "best from the available choices").

Unfortunately, thanks to the de facto two-party system we're currently stuck with, no amount of wishful thinking will get a candidate for US President elected on a Libertarian ticket.  Not in 2012.  So I'm also not going to spend one thin dime on any presidential campaign for a Libertarian candidate, nor do I expect to select such a candidate on my ballot (although, given the electoral college and how presidents are actually selected, I might do that anyway, just to help with post-election statistics).

The "best from available choices" candidate, for someone like me (and probably you) who wants a libertarian president, seems pretty clear to me: Ron Paul. Undoubtedly, some libertarians will point out "flaws" in his views, and say Congressman Paul is "not libertarian enough."  Yep, I'm sure he has his flaws.  I'm sure there are things about his views that are "not libertarian enough" for you.  Remember what I said about acceptable compromises?  You're going to be making them anyway (unless you're running for the office yourself), so why not be realistic and make them in a way that supports a candidate who could possibly be elected?

Some people will say that no amount of wishful thinking, or campaign support, will lead us to a 2013 inauguration of President Ron Paul.  I understand the odds are low, really low.  But, I do not think the odds are zero, unlike a candidate who has neither "(D)" nor "(R)" after their name.  Low odds can be discouraging, or they can be motivating.  I can't see giving up, however, when the rest of the candidates are so unacceptable.

If you want a libertarian US President, support the Ron Paul 2012 campaign.  It's really that simple.

It's up to the Republican party to make the final nomination of a candidate to represent them, and it's pretty obvious from their support of other candidates (and former President Bush when he was in office) that they're not too interested in non-statist answers to many issues.  For that matter, they're not particularly interested in conservative, traditionally Republican answers to many issues.  However, with enough long-term, persistent pressure, the low odds facing Ron Paul can be improved.

There's a lot of time left before the final decision is made about which Republican candidate will go up against President Obama. If you squander that time and your support on a candidate who will not get elected because they are a "better libertarian" than Ron Paul, you will throw away your chance to help improve the odds for someone who might be "less libertarian" in your eyes, but is a lot more libertarian than other Republican candidates currently campaigning.

As a side note, I sent a complimentary copy of my novel, Lesson One: Revolution!, to Congressman Paul last year, shortly after it was published. I also sent copies to some other influential people, and I mentioned the book to various other libertarian individuals and organizations.  I did so, because the book presents libertarian concepts within a story that has been called "a real page turner."  While the other people who received copies or information about the book did not respond, I was pleased to receive a personal note from Congressman Paul.  I'm not sure if he ever got around to reading the book, but it was nice to hear back from him about it.  If you would like to read Lesson One: Revolution! yourself, you can order the paperback or (for a much lower price) get it as an e-book for the Kindle. (It's also available from Barnes & Noble for the Nook.)

July Sale: Special Offer on Lesson One: Revolution!

I should clarify up front that Lesson One: Revolution! is not strictly a libertarian novel. It does present some libertarian viewpoints, but the main character is, as he repeatedly tells people, "not a Libertarian." No, he's more like a libertarian (or maybe a so-called Tea Party activist) gone awry — somebody who doesn't trust his fellow citizens to comprehend the desire/need to make use of existing political processes to restore liberty in the face of ever-growing government encroachment.

Anyway, with that said, I think libertarians (small 'l' and big 'L') might find the book to be an interesting read. (Obviously I'm biased, since I'm the author!) To give you an easy chance to find out for yourself, I'm "celebrating my July birthday" by putting the electronic editions on sale for the whole month. Previously sold for $7.99, the Kindle edition is just 99 cents for the rest of July. (It's also available for the Nook, for the same price.) If you don't have a Kindle, you can download free Kindle software for the PC, Mac, iPad, and other platforms. (Similar software is available for the Nook, also free, from Barnes & Noble.)

If you read it, please consider posting your thoughts as a comment here. Or, of course, you can always post a review on Amazon or Barnes & Noble's site. In any event, I hope you consider taking advantage of this super low price, and I hope you enjoy the book!

Defining Essays

Liberty advocate, author, Congressman, and 2008 Presidential candidate Ron Paul has a new book out: Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom. It is described as "a comprehensive guide to... fifty of the most important issues of our times, from Abortion to Zionism. Accessible, easy to digest, and fearless in its discussion of controversial topics, [it] sheds new light on a word that is losing its shape." I have not read it yet, so this is not a recommendation. Not exactly.... However, as mentioned previously, I have read his earlier book, The Revolution: A Manifesto. I would definitely recommend that, so I anticipate that Liberty Defined will also be worthwhile, and I look forward to getting a copy of it to add to my personal library. If you have read it, please feel free to leave a comment here with your reactions to it.

Local Public Transit Ballot: Honesty Too Difficult?

It's a standard refrain from government and its various agencies at various levels: Give us more tax funds or we'll face disaster! Of course this message glosses over all kinds of important details, like how current funds are being used, alternative sources of revenue, and the actual necessity of "disaster." On the latter point, though, it's also "the norm" for government agencies to enhance the sense of disaster by making funding cuts first where it hurts the most, to "encourage" (fool) the public into agreeing to more taxation later.

The public transit in my area, Pierce Transit, has apparently learned this lesson well -- and is willing to take it to a new level by simply lying to (or, shall we say to be more generous, "grossly misleading") voters by making a false claim about the impact of a new tax hike they want us to vote on. In Special Election Proposition 1, they want us to agree to adding 0.3% to our sales and use tax. By itself, 0.3% doesn't sound like much -- not enough to warrant discussion, right? And so that's how they presented it on the ballot. But they took it further by making a false claim about the total sales and use tax. Take a look:

Their so-called "total" sure ignores a lot of our current tax cost!

Of course, there's more to this than the dishonesty of claiming that the total tax will be a fraction of a percent when in reality it is basically 10%. Another of those glossed-over points is alternative sources of revenue. Pierce Transit did let slip one interesting fact, that a mere 1% of their revenue comes from advertising. However, they don't explain why advertising is such a tiny portion of their revenue. Is it because they aren't charging enough? Is it because advertisers don't like advertising on transit? Or... Is it because they can't be bothered to try to sell advertising? After all, it's easier to just... yes, you guessed it, Raise Taxes!

I don't pose the "why is ad revenue so low" question lightly. In fact, I researched it. After all, I'm a small business owner, and I might like to have my company advertised on a bus. (Maybe. Depends on costs, etc.) So I went to the Pierce Transit site, as you can do via the link above, and went looking. And looking. And looking. What I found was that they make virtually no effort at all to sell ad space. You have one chance of finding a relevant link on the site — there is just one link to the company they've contracted to handle ads. No prominent "buy an ad on a bus" banners. No section of the site to discuss ad opportunities. Nope, just one obscure link.

The ad-revenue tale doesn't end there. I apologize to your tired eyes and over-busy schedule. The tale continues, on the site of the company that handles ads for Pierce Transit. Guess how easy it is to find out how to buy ads on a bus? Yeah, not very. First, you have to look under a classification for a different geographic area because Pierce Transit is treated as being part of a "market" that, geographically, does not include Pierce County. {sigh} Then, when you finally find the right area on the site, you find out that of the many ad options the company can handle, only three are available for Pierce Transit. And, of the three links to those, two lead to 404 (Not Found) errors.

Is Pierce Transit trying to sell ad space on their vehicles? Apparently not. Apparently it's easier to... Just Raise Taxes! Even if that means lying to (ahem, "misleading") voters. At the voter's expense, of course, since the money for their promotion of their tax-raising scheme doesn't come from thin air.

What should you think when you are told that disaster is looming, and that raising taxes is the only way to fend it off, even though other sources of revenue are not being actively pursued? What should you think when you're told that your total tax burden will be less than one percent when, in fact, it's nearly ten percent? I know what I'm thinking...

TSA = Tyrannical States of America?

Will the TSA's excessive "security" measures (which are about obedience, and not about security — because they are not effective security measures, and there are better, more effective security measures that could be taken) finally wake people up to how overbearing our federal government has become? Nah, probably not -- it's easier to keep accepting the federal handouts and dismissing references to tyranny in the US with the ignorant, history-denying phrase "it can't happen here."

I doubt many libertarians are surprised that the government would be so blatant in its intrusiveness, all under the flimsy "we're here to protect you" guise. Perhaps the only real surprise is that the average Joe and Jane seem to be noticing this time. It's certainly no surprise, however, that there are plenty of voices scorning those who are upset, saying, in essence, that "we must do what the government says, otherwise we won't be safe." Fear is such a powerful political tool, isn't it?

As those closest to me know, I'm all for security. I take information and physical security very seriously, to the point where I think my family members get annoyed at times that I'm being so picky. But security measures need to be effective and appropriate to the circumstances. Groping airline passengers is neither.