Laissez-faire

“Another undeclared failed foreign war endorsed by the peace candidate,” writes Jim Ostrowski.

Barack Obama, in a speech last week, expressed his desire to continue US involvement in the failed war on drugs in South America. As with other wars, there is a cost in human lives and American tax money (over $20 Billion this year so far alone). And in this case, as well as with other illegitimate wars, all of this is exchanged for little, if not counterproductive results — the end certainly not justifying the means. A true peace candidate would not support an unjust war such as this.

More on why the war on drugs is a failure and an atrocity from:
Cato - Rethinking the International Drug War
Milton Friedman - The Drug War as a Socialist Enterprise
William F. Buckley - The War on Drugs is Lost
Reason - The Drug War’s Souther Front

You’ve probably seen the commercials, reminding you that the government is starting its annual campaign against individual liberty know as “click It or ticket.” Every year local law enforcement agencies — under a much broader (allegedly $500 million per year) campaign — take a week to aggressively crack down on motorists who choose not to wear their seat belt. Yes, adults who make the conscious decision that affects only them.

I find it extremely hypocritical that a police officer, riding a motorcycle (which is nearly 40 times as deadly as a car according to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration statistics) officer can pull you over and fine you for not decreasing your likelihood of death or serious injury as much as bureaucrats deem sufficient.

Evidence supporting claims that seat belt usage prevents serious injuries or fatalities is completely irrelevant to this issue. The government has no moral authority, no Constitutional authority, and no practical means to intervene in the lives of individuals who are not violating the rights of others.

Federal and local governments spend millions of dollars running TV and radio ads, and putting up ugly signs like the one in the image above, being updated to remind us to that the law applies regardless of what time it is. During these week long events, a significant portion of the police force is diverted, in order to set up “check points” where they visually inspect every car that passes to ensure the driver and passengers are wearing seat belts. Failure to do so results in a $65 citation. This is especially troubling in cities such as Detroit where the police can’t keep up with real crime.

If they already have the power to do this, it’s only a matter of time before they control every aspect of our personal lives in order to “protect” us from ourselves.

You’d think, being that the country is facing economic hardship, people would pay closer attention to a presidential candidate with an understanding of economics, unheard of for someone running for that position. That is apparently not the case, but that doesn’t stop Dr. Paul from spreading his important message.

Notice how David Asman points out technological advancements that have allegedly resulted from our fractional reserve banking system and unearned dollars merely printed by the Federal Reserve. He fails to make the connection to that policy and the current economic crisis, and he also erroneously assumes that advancements like these could not occur in a free market with an honest monetary policy.

Assuming the flawed policy touted by Asman (and many others) was truly a benefit to society without any consequences, why then shouldn’t the Fed pump MORE money into the system, or directly fund — with freshly printed dollars — extravagant public works that would otherwise not be feasible?

Imagine the government printing $20 trillion to build an ultrafast, high capacity, underground transportation network throughout the country — or whatever enormous, and possibly desirable project you can imagine. It could be done, but that doesn’t mean that it should be done in that manner. The companies involved with the project would reap the benefits of the newly created money, but the value of the dollar would be destroyed by the time it trickled down to the less affluent. In other words, the money pulled out of thin air must come at some cost. And that cost is usually borne by the middle class and the poor.

That is an extreme example, but the even the much subtler methods employed by the Fed in which rates are artificially lowered or raised by tinkering with the money supply have a significant impact on the overall economy. Look, for instance, at the damage done by the bursting housing bubble which was encouraged by the government through credit expansion and a variety of government programs aimed at getting as many Americans as possible to purchase homes.

The creation of money can never be a substitute for true production, and the temporary prosperity that may results from it must eventually come to end, setting us further back from where we began. The credit is not available for large projects when we don’t have the productivity level to accommodate such undertakings. This is not to say that these projects will never come to fruition. On the contrary, if government regulation and interference is removed from the process, there would be much less trouble getting these things off the ground in the first place. But even if it means waiting for the market to provide services that theoretically could be provided now, it’s still better than creating an economic disaster that is surely to result from the artificial (government induced) stimulation of such ventures.

The Michigan Senate passed a bill banning smoking in “all workplaces including bars, restaurants and even casinos.” This takes Michigan residents one step closer to a huge loss in private property rights. It’s even closer, knowing that Granholm has stated her willingness to sign any bill aimed at banning smoking.

Even for someone who dislikes smoke in any type of establishment, I see this as a blatant violation of the rights of business owners. Any legislation that allows the state to restrict a voluntary action within the confines of a private establishment, opens the doors for further encroachments on our liberty.

Health concerns are completely irrelevant to this issue. Patrons of bars and restaurants are not obligated to enter any of these establishments, and they have no right to impose their will on the owners or the other patrons. No one has a right to a smoke-free restaurant or bar as a consumer. That would place an illegitimate obligation on business owners to provide such a service. Legitimate rights never impose positive obligations (requiring a smoke-free establishment) on anyone; instead they impose a negative obligation (ex. one cannot deprive another of free speech).

An owner absolutely has the right to ban smoking within their establishment, which has been done successfully in many cases. In doing so, the owner imposes no positive obligation on anyone else. Business owners are offering us something, not forcing anything on us. We can choose to do business with them or not; and our health decisions are much better left in our own hands.

It probably doesn’t come as a surprise to most, that some congressmen use taxpayer funds to treat themselves to expensive cars. It was Charles Rangel’s (D-New York) pathetic defense of his $774/mo lease that struck me. “The car isn’t just a vehicle for getting around; it’s an important part of doing my job, and my constituents appreciate it.” The actual cost to individual taxpayers may amount to nothing more than a few pennies, but it’s statements like that, that highlight the attitude that many of these arrogant politicians have. It’s the principle, and Rangel has none. What gives these politicians the idea that they are entitled to use money taken from the people, and use it to fund their excesses?

Detroit residents are all too familiar with this abuse of power. I bet if people looked close enough, they’d discover that it occurs more often than not within the political class. The founders of this country never intended for elected representatives to be held higher than the average citizen. Yet we turn a blind eye and keep electing them.

We tend to be outraged when we hear reports of record profits earned by oil companies. How can they be making so much money and still have the nerve to raise gas prices to near $4 per gallon? The outrage stems mostly from the media and politicians, who typically only give one side of the story, leaving people with a skewed perception of reality. They rarely report the profit margin which is a better gauge of the profitability of a company.

In order to sustain any company, a portion of the profits must be invested back into the company and used to cover the cost of production. In the case of Shell, they use much of their profit for oil exploration, general maintenance, marketing, taxes, developing cleaner, more efficient blends, etc. If you look at the profit margins of Shell you’ll notice that they are near the average for companies of that size.

As Glenn Beck points out in the following video, the profits of grain companies have gone through the roof despite rising prices, and food shortages throughout the world (mainly due to government meddling and the biofuels boondoggle). Why aren’t people expressing their outrage with grain companies?

John McCain recently provided more evidence to support my claim that oil has played a significant role in the decision to send young men and women overseas to fight.

The sentence of concern:

My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will - that will then prevent us - that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.

Of course he quickly derailed his “straight talk” express and claimed that he was referring to the first Gulf War — as though that somehow legitimizes starting a war over a commodity. Strangely though — or maybe not so strangely — his response when asked by a reporter, whether or not he was “thinking about the first Gulf War,” was “No.”

To suggest that he, or any other politician, seeks personal gain from securing Middle East oil, is probably off base. But, regardless of their intentions, the result of that policy is disastrous. I can’t find a way to justify sending Americans to kill and be killed for something that doesn’t even belong to us.

Watch as an articulate eighth grader puts disgraceful Detroit City Councilwoman, Monica Conyers, in her place:

Ron Paul’s new book, The Revolution: A Manifesto, was officially released yesterday and it was instantly the #1 bestseller on Amazon.

You can read some of the reviews written by Amazon.com customers, to get an idea of how remarkable this book is. It’s extremely well written; clearly demonstrating Dr. Paul’s thorough knowledge of economics, foreign policy, monetary policy, the Constitution, and many other topics that are key components of our government. Just like Ron Paul’s presence in this year’s presidential election, his book is going to have a significant impact on the course this country takes in the coming years.