Posted tagged ‘Individual Liberty’

I Hate Politics

February 10, 2017

Puzzle pieces with word Politics

Politics has nothing to do with “public service”. Politics is about using verbal sleight of hand to gain political power. The idea that being a “public servant” some how makes politicians and bureaucrats place the people’s interests ahead of their political self interest is laughable.

The fact that the constitution is now being embraced by the progressive Democrats, when they used it for toilet paper during the Obama administration is evidence that politics is about power.

The Republicans aren’t much better. How can a republican support Trumps idea of tariffs regarding trade? Trumps executive orders that get rid of Obama’s executive orders are fine. But have Republicans questioned any of the other executive orders made by Trump?

The progressive left main stream media is fact checking everything Trump says, after not fact checking anything Obama said for 8 years. (“If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor”, “The Benghazi attack started because of an internet video.”)  There is no progressive left agenda in the media, is there?


-Chuck Schumer talks about Refugees in 2015 and again in 2017. What a difference two years makes.

Do you think Schumer’s tears are real or fake????


-In 2006 Senators Obama, Biden, and Clinton voted for (click here to see vote), The Secure Fence Act of 2006 (click here to read bill). Now they are against any border wall, fence or other structure.

-Bill Clinton wanted to build a wall to keep illegal immigrants way back in the 90’s when he was President.

Listen to this and tell me if this doesn’t sound like Trump 2017.


Liz ‘Fauxcahontas’ Warren Accuses Trump Nominees of ‘Lying’ During Job Applications,. Elizabeth Warren lied about being part Indian when she applied for a professorship at Harvard. She knew how to use the system for personal gain before she became a politician.

-Last year the Republicans passed a bill to repeal Obamacare and sent it to Obama knowing he would veto it. Why don’t they have a bill repealing Obamacare on Trumps desk right now? Maybe they know he will sign it. Establishment Republicans really don’t want Obamacare repealed do they?


The grass roots in both parties should agree that the Federal Government has too much power. The Republicans complained about the Federal Gov. having too much power during the 8 years of Obama. The Democrats are complaining that the Federal Government has too much power in the first month of Trumps Presidency. Their both right about the Federal Government having too much power.

The Federal Government has too much power over the States and the people. It just seems more tolerable to the people whose party is in power. Can’t both sides unite to put the chains of the constitution back on the real enemy of individual freedom, the Federal Government?

Unfortunately each side wants to use the position of power when they get voted in. It is only fair they do this  since the other party used the position of power for the previous 8 years to get what they wanted. It is like the Hatfields and McCoys. Neither side knows who started the escalation of power. And neither side wants to be the one who rolls back Federal power. Until grass roots members in each party agree to roll back Federal power, nothing will get done. Because we know politicians want to expand and wield the power of Government.


Related ArticleIndividual Liberty Is The Least Contentious Way Of Settling Differences, at

Related ArticleWalter E. Williams: The Free Market Is Not Allowed To Work, at

Related ArticleWalter E. Williams Talks About Individual Liberty, at

Related ArticleAbuses Of Poser By Individuals In Government, at


Prager University: How Big Should Government Be?

December 15, 2015


Government should not be bigger than the individual. This means that politicians and bureaucrats in government should not usurp the decision making power that is the purview of the individual. The US Constitution lists and limits the power of the Federal Government. There can be no question that Government power has expanded beyond what the Constitution mandates. Can the power of the individual be restored? The only way this can happen is if Government power is cut back.

How Big Should Government Be? Video from Prager University.

Excerpts from the video.

“When Government grows in size and power these things will happen.”

1)”There will be ever increasing amounts of corruption. (People in government will well government influence for personal and political gain. People outside of government will seek to buy influence and favors.)”

2)”Individual liberty will decline. (The more control government has over peoples lives, the less liberty people will have.)”

3)”Countries with ever-expanding government will either reduce the size of their government or eventually collapse economically. (Every welfare state ultimately becomes a ponzi scheme.)”

4)”In order to pay for an ever-expanding government taxes are continually increased. (At a given level of taxation, the countries wealth producers 1) stop working, 2) work less, 3) hire fewer people, 4) move their business out of state or the country.)”

5)”Big government produces big deficits and ever increasing and ultimately unsustainable debt.”

6)”The bigger the government, the greater the opportunities for doing great evil. (The 20th century was the most murderous century in recorded history and who did the killing? Big government.)”

7)”Big government eats away at the moral character of a nation. (People no longer take care of other people. They know the government will do that.)

Related ArticleAbuses Of Power By Individuals In Government, at

Related ArticleAs The Number Of Laws Increase, Individual Freedom Decreases, at

Related ArticleIndividual Liberty Is The Least Contentious Way Of Settling Differences, at

Abuses Of Power By Individuals In Government

April 23, 2015



This quote is from George Washington, who was uniquely qualified to state the truth about what Government truly is at its core. He fought for the British in the French and Indian War. He signed the Declaration of Independence which spelled out abuses of power that the founders were declaring their independence from. He was the commander of the Colonial army during the Revolutionary War. He was at the Constitutional Convention that set up our Constitutional Republic which the founders thought would give individuals, freedom from government force. He was the first President of the United States, a position he could have held for life. But he walked away from power after two terms, setting a precedent followed by all Presidents, until FDR thought he was more important than “the indispensable man”.

The wisdom of our founders in general, and George Washington in particular, when it came to understanding what government was and what it could and would become unless individuals remained “eternally vigilant”, can’t be questioned. There life experiences gave them a deeper understanding about this subject than any individual could glean from reading and studying their writings. As great as their writing skills were, they probably couldn’t completely communicate in writing their total understanding on the subject of government force.


This is another quote from George Washington which reveals a keen insight into the nature of man. This insight goes hand in hand with his knowledge of what Government truly is. Few if any man can be trusted with the reigns of power. And many times the highest bidder is not an outsider, but the person himself.


Our founders not only understood that virtuous men would be tempted by the highest bidder, they knew that the worst could and would get to the top. This is why they wanted a limit on the power of government so that there would be a limit on the damage government “criminals” could do to individuals while in a position of power.


We are responsible for our present state of big abusive Government. We haven’t been eternally vigilant in keeping the chains of the constitution firmly tied around its neck. Trying to get the chain back around the neck of government is going to take a lot of time and effort. Are we willing to do this now, or are most of us still to comfortable and ignorant to act. The longer we put this off the more costly it will be.



YOU MUST READ this article titled, Wisconsin’s Shame: “I Thought It Was A Home Invasion”, at It is about the abuse of power by Milwaukee County district attorney John Chisholm. He used what are called John Doe investigations, in a clear abuse of power, to harass people who were supporters of Governor Scott Walker. Chisholm was on the side of the unions and government employees. His wife was a teachers union shop steward and wasn’t happy about the union reforms passed under Walker. Chisholm felt it “was his duty to stop them”. He illegally used the power of Government to fight political fights. Here is an excerpt from the article.

“For dozens of conservatives, the years since Scott Walker’s first election as governor of Wisconsin transformed the state – known for pro-football championships, good cheese, and a population with a reputation for being unfailingly polite – into a place where conservatives have faced early morning raids, multi-year secretive criminal investigations, slanderous and selective leaks to sympathetic media, and intrusive electronic snooping. Yes, Wisconsin, the cradle of the progressive movement and home of the “Wisconsin idea” – the marriage of state governments and state universities to govern through technocratic reform – was giving birth to a new progressive idea, the use of law enforcement as a political instrument, as a weapon to attempt to undo election results, shame opponents and ruin lives.


This is what the IRS targeting to tea party and liberty minded groups was all about. Using the force of Government to intimidate political opposition into ceding ground. Going through the legal process when falsely charged, or going through the process of complying with government regulations, is too high of a price for most people. The entrenched government status quo will use all their power, legally or illegally, to win. And we reach a point where the process itself becomes a punishment for getting involved.


Power is being abused at every level of government. We have shown many videos on this sight showing this abuse. Watch the video from this article, Caught On Tape: Cop Grabs, Smashes, Phone Of Women Recording Him, at You are allowed to film the police when they are on the job with this stipulation, you can’t interfere with their work. Some cops try to intimidate people from recording their activity by stating , “you are interfering with our work”, but they can’t take away your phone or delete your recording. I know it doesn’t say anything about smashing the phone, but isn’t that a violent attempt to delete the recording, or is it the destruction of property, or both.

This short video from Learn Liberty, gives us a humorous insight into how a persons thought process changes when he gets a chance to wield power.


In one of my recent articles titles, As The Number Of Laws Increase, Individual Freedom Decreases, we talk about how the increase in the amount of laws gives Government officials the ability to prosecute literally anyone for violating some obscure law. The process of defending yourself is your punishment, but the government official usually pays no cost for abusing his power. We have to roll back big abusive government because, as I’ve written previously, Individual Liberty Is The Least Contentious Way Of Settling Differences.


Related ArticleThe Break Down Of The Rule Of Law, at

Related ArticleThe Result Of The Break Down Of The Rule Of Law, at







Individual Liberty Is The Least Contentious Way Of Settling Differences.

April 2, 2015

Is there a perfect system in which human beings interact with no conflict? Since nothing human is perfect the answer is obviously no. But politicians and demagogues have for decades held up the standard of perfection as the straw man to compare any perceived flaw produced by our free market capitalist economic system and our constitutional republic. When results created by individuals voluntarily cooperating don’t meet what our betters deem acceptable, they want to pass laws correcting this perceived injustice, or “fundamentally change” the system.

They are never asked: 1) Why is what they value, better than what results from decisions made by individuals cooperating voluntarily? 2) Does the decision-making process they desire (usually some form central planning) produce more satisfaction for more people than the process of voluntary cooperation by individuals under the rule of law? 3) Who decides what is the better outcome?


It is not possible to come up with a single decision that satisfies everyone. It is sometimes difficult for me to decide what flavor of ice cream I want. Many times I am not happy with my decision the second I take the first bite. If picking just one flavor for myself is difficult, how much more difficult would it be for two people to choose one flavor? As more people become involved in deciding one flavor, it becomes exponentially more difficult for people to be pleased with the choice. How many people would be satisfied if one person was chosen to pick a flavor for everybody? What would be the difference if everybody voted, and people had to eat the flavor receiving that most votes?

One person choosing between many flavors for himself is voluntary cooperation in a market between him and the person producing the ice cream. If no one produced the flavor he liked, he could produce it for himself if he thought it was worth his time.

One individual choosing a flavor that everyone is forced to eat is a dictatorship. Even if this person is democratically elected by a majority.

Every person voting on a single flavor, and the flavor receiving the majority of the votes has to be eaten is democracy in action.

Are any of these systems perfect? No. But that’s not the question that should be asked. The question should be: which system would produce the most satisfied individuals, and which system would produce the most contention among individuals? It is obvious that the system that produces the most satisfaction is voluntary cooperation under the rule of law. Unfortunately over the last century we have elected leaders, in both parties, who are taking incremental decisions away from individuals, and making categorical decisions for all of us. They are acting like tyrants, but unfortunately they just reflect the tyrannical attitudes of the people who vote them into power.

We lose more freedom as more laws get passed. When people say “there should be a law for…” they are really saying I want to force what I value on people who don’t agree. Even a law against murder forces a particular value on certain individuals who don’t share that value. Fortunately most people agree that murder is not acceptable behaviour. But what happens when there isn’t an overwhelming majority of people who agree. How do you reconcile each persons values?


Our system was founded on property rights and voluntary exchange (contract). Each person owns himself and what he produces, and no one is allowed to take another persons life, take what he produces, or take what he receives in exchange for what he has produced. If he doesn’t want to make an exchange with another person, that person doesn’t have a right to force him into making the exchange.

This all seems very simple, and it is, until petty tyrants in the form of politicians, bureaucrats, thieves, do gooders, thought police, political correctness advocates, or the average citizen try to steal from, or force their values on, other individuals. The more laws that are passed, the more contention there is between people who would otherwise have no reason to be contentious.


The recent conflict in Indiana between a State version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was signed into law by President Clinton in 1993, and gay rights activists who say this is legalizing discrimination, is an example of what happens when people won’t follow the simple rules of property rights and voluntary exchange.

Under our simple rules, if a gay couple went to a bakery and ask the baker to bake a cake for their gay wedding, and the baker said no, the couple would go to another bakery. Just as a gay person could go to a bakery and ask the baker if he was a christian, and if the baker said yes, he could walk out without purchasing anything. These are simply different sides of the same transaction. In the first the baker refuses to exchange what he produces (his property), with the other person. In the second case the gay person refuses to exchange money (which represents what he produces, aka his property) with the baker. Does it really matter why each person refused the exchange? It only matters when force, especially the monopoly of Government force, is introduced into the equation.

The first amendment of our constitution protects an individual’s freedom of religion, and the supreme court has previously ruled that, racial discrimination in the operation of public accommodations, such as restaurants and lodgings, affects interstate commerce by impeding interstate travel and is prohibited….”  at

How do you reconcile these competing rules, rights, or laws. The problem with having growing numbers of rules and laws, is that each person, or group, tries to use the force of government to impose their values on other people. It’s a never-ending battle of court cases that creates competing factions that continue to fight because nothing really gets solved. This was the result of the Roe vs. Wade decision. Instead of allowing each State to have its own abortion law, no matter how restrictive or permissive it was, five justices on the court imposed their view of abortion on the whole country. Actually the pro abortion activists brought the Roe case to court because they wanted to impose their view of abortion on the rest of the country. That decision has made the abortion issue more contentious over the years, not less.

If decisions are allowed to be made at the point of decision-making, there is less contention and conflict. Most laws take the decision away from the point where the decision should actually be made. Petty tyrants in or out of government, want to use government force to impose their values on others. Gay activists have come a long way from just wanting people and government out of their bedrooms, or was that just a straw man to get government to force people to accept their values. I don’t care what a person does, as long as they don’t “pick my pocket, break my arm“, or have government do it for them.


In a free society you have a right to associate with whom ever you want. When you choose your friends, you are discriminating against those who aren’t your friends. When you choose a wife, you are discriminating against other woman. When you make any choice, you are discriminating.

Since every decision is discriminatory, should government be more involved in individual decision making? Many people think it should. Why are individuals and groups seemingly in constant conflict with each other? Because over the last fifty years, government has taken over many of the decisions that individuals used to be free to make. I hope we are at the point where most of us can agree that Government encroachment into every aspect of our lives has to be rolled back, if our civil society is to survive.

If you want to know my thoughts on gay marriage read, Marriage Laws Don’t Expand Rights They Limit Rights.

Related ArticleMeet 10 Americans Helped By Religious Freedom Bills Like Indiana’s, by Mollie Hemingway, at the

Related ArticleGay Marriage Isn’t About Justice, It’s About Selma Envy, by Hans Fiene, at the




How Close To Your Position Is An Acceptable Distance.

May 8, 2014

Here is a video of Milton Friedman talking about Ludwig von Mises calling a group of free market economists “socialists”. I can relate to Mises stubbornness because I am also of German heritage.


The three most well-known economists of the Austrian school are Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard. I have read enough by these giants to know they had differnt views on how much power Government should have. Rothbard wanted very little Government, if any at all.  Hayek accepted a bigger role for Government than Rothbard. And Mises was closer to Rothbard than Hayek. All I have to say about the positions of these three men on Governments role in society is this: If they were forced to compromise their three positions and come up with how much power their system of Government should have, we would accept the compromise before we knew what it was. Why? Because it would be the freest society that has existed since our constitution was ratified, and probably more free than the original Government set up by our founders.


We have to be very careful about condemning people who we feel are not close enough to our position. You were probably not close enough to your current position, at some point in your past. In 2007 I was nowhere near where I was in 2010, let alone where I am today. We have to keep people moving toward sound economics, and individual liberty. If they are already open to these ideas don’t blow them out of the water because they aren’t  where you are. Keep in mind the intellectual road you’ve traveled, and are still traveling. Look in the rear view mirror to see who is behind you traveling in the same direction on the same road, and realize there are people ahead of you looking at you in their rear view mirror.

Related ArticleAre You a Democrat, a Republican, or a Libertarian? at

Rand Paul and Mike Lee Respond To The State Of The Union Address

January 30, 2014

Senators Rand Paul and Mike Lee gave responses to the President’s state of the union address. These two are speaking a completely different language than the President is speaking. They are speaking the language of individual liberty, and the President is speaking the language of collective central planning. Unfortunately tens of millions of people in this country don’t understand the language of individual liberty, because they were taught the language of collective central planning. It is our job to educate them that liberty is superior to central planning. I think the tide is turning because these two responses would never have been given just a few years ago.

These responses show the fundamental differences between liberty and central planning that is summed up so well in my favorite quote by F. A. Hayek, “The coordination of men’s activities through central planning or through voluntary cooperation are roads going in very different directions. The first to serfdom and poverty the second to freedom and plenty.”

We have been slowly going down the road to serfdom for too long, it is time to change direction.

Here is Senator Rand Paul’s response.

Here is Senator Mike Lee’s response.

Related ArticleLet The Counterfeiting Continue! The Fed Is Stuck In Their Feedback Loop, by

Related ArticleTom Woods Explains The Austrian Business Cycle, by

Walker’s State Of The State Address vs. Obama’s State Of The Union Address

January 29, 2014

These two videos show the difference between a Governor who trusts the wisdom of individuals, and a President who trusts the special wisdom of Government bureaucrats.

In Governor Walker’s state of the state address, he is able to talk about the actual results of policies that have rolled back Government intervention in the free market, although not as much of a rollback for my taste. In the President’s state of the union address, he is painting a vision about a fantasy world that can be created by expanding the decision-making of Government, while shrinking market based decisions by individuals.

Walker’s policies have brought $900 million more in tax receipts than the state spends. Obama’s exponential expansion of Bushes policies, read here,  has increased the Federal debt by $7 trillion.

Walker is going to refund the tax surplus to the individuals who produced it, allowing them to use the dollars as they see fit. Obama is talking about expanding government even farther than he already has, which means taking more from producers. The Federal Government can’t spend anything that it first doesn’t confiscate from you, therefore, all Government spending is simply the substitution of politician’s decisions on how to spend the money taken in taxes, for your decision on how you would have used those confiscated dollars.

Walker understands that real jobs are created by individuals making decisions in the market. Obama thinks jobs are created from top down decrees by Government bureaucrats and politicians.

In this video Walker seems to understand the importance of producers. He understands that you get less economic activity if you burden producers with taxes and regulation.

Contrast what Walker said with what the President says in the video below, if you can get through it. The Presidents speech is more of a theatrical production with soaring rhetoric, appealing to your emotions instead of your brain.

The fact that the Peoples Republic of Wisconsin can change course and slowly start heading in the direction of individual liberty gives me hope for the country as a whole. We may be at a point in history where liberty is on the rise and the state is on the decline. It may not seem that way if you look at the present political situation, but just remember it is dark in the middle of a tunnel. I think more individuals are changing their thinking about the role and scope of Government in their lives. Politics will follow this sea change, it won’t lead it. In Rand Paul’s response to the state of the union show, he talked about how Federal Reserve policies caused our economic problem in the first place. This is an example of the sea change, because the Federal Reserve would never have been talked about, let alone been accused of causing the problem, just five years ago.

Related ArticleWalter E. Williams: “Are We Moving Toward More Personal Liberty, Or More Government Control Over Our Lives”, by

Ted Cruz Is A Thorn In The Side Of Big Government Democrats and Republicans

October 17, 2013
Dawn at the Alamo: Crockett

Dawn at the Alamo: Crockett (Photo credit: Travis S.)


You know you are doing something right when guys like Harry Reid and John McCain hate you. For a guy who has been a senator for not even a year, Ted Cruz has sure ruffled a lot of senior senators feathers and has become the most despised man inside the D.C. beltway. I get the impression he wears it as a badge of honor. He has put himself in this position because he is standing up for the right of the individual to be free to make his own decisions about his healthcare. This position automatically puts him against the status quo big Government power structure that wants to make healthcare decisions for each individual. The fact that Senator Cruz is being scolded by members of his own party tells us more about them than it tells us about Senator Cruz. They want to maintain and grow their power, and this new insider isn’t suppose to upset the status quo. Doesn’t he understand what a sweet gig it is to be a senator. He probably thinks he’s here to serve the people, doesn’t he know we’re the ruling aristocracy. The people serve us.


All of us were born into a world where the battle lines had already been drawn between the Democrat and Republican positions relating to politics, government power, and economic theory. This D and R reality has been so ingrained in us, if anyone takes a position different from the two parties, he is considered kooky.  If you blindly follow the D’s or the R’s without any analysis of the actual party positions concerning government power and economic theory, you will be susceptible to the political sleight of hand that politicians are known for. Politics is a “method an individual uses to exercise or seek power in the governmental or public affairs of the state”. Lying, or telling the truth, are tactics used in the political process, although lying is preferred. Being clever with words is another important skill, because it gives the politician the ability to paint a verbal picture of a utopian world that could exist if lead by the right person. It doesn’t matter that a utopian world can’t actually be achieved, what matters is, if the public can be fooled into thinking it can.


Progressives in both parties don’t like Cruz because he is one of the few who is starting to tell the truth about how the machinery of government really works. Just as sleight of hand artists don’t want the secret of the trick to be revealed, so to politicians don’t want anyone, especially an insider, giving away secrets concerning the inner workings of politics and government. Senator Cruz is an example of bottom up change that top down insiders don’t like because it isn’t under their control. He wasn’t supposed to beat the republican insider in the primary, but he did because of grass-roots efforts to effect change. The liberty and tea party movements are slowly moving the political battle away from the R and D model, and toward those who believe in individual liberty vs. those who believe in government planning for individuals. This is the same fight that brought about the American Revolution. It was tyrannical government, resting in the crown of England, vs. the sovereignty of the individual to order his life as he saw fit. This is summed up in a quote by F. A. Hayek, “The battle for freedom must be won over and over again, the socialists of all parties must be persuaded or defeated if they and we are to remain free men.”


Here is a video of a speech by Ted Cruz’s father, Rafael. Watching his father’s speech gives me hope that Senator Cruz may be the real deal. Ted’s father Rafael is an immigrant from Cuba who understands the road to tyranny when he sees is. Here is some excerpts from the video.

Talking about growing up in Cuba he said,  “….I remember that time, he mandated that public schools had to teach Marxist ideology. My Mother was a 6th grade elementary teacher. She refused to do so and she was fired for it. She said I would rather suffer the consequences, than poison the minds of children with communist indoctrination……..”

Talking about his son Ted he said, “I remember when my son was still in Jr. high I introduced him to an organization called the Free Enterprise Institute. He began reading Milton Friedman, von Mises, Hayek, Adam Smith, Frederic Bastiate, the federalist papers, the anti federalist papers…….”

When I heard this reading list, I knew he had a solid back ground in economic theory and individual freedom. How many politicians in D. C. have read any of these authors writings? Not many (probably none). The thing I worry about is if he gets corrupted by the system; but having seen his father in the video above, he’s probably more afraid of his father than he is of progressive Democrats and Republicans. The grass-roots have to send more people like this to Washington to clean up the cesspool.

Related ArticleSenator Ted Cruz Stirs Up A Hornets Nest, at

Thoughts After Attending A Liberty Workshop

October 9, 2013

I was able to attend a liberty workshop hosted by Liberty On The Rocks and Libertas Found this past weekend, with the keynote speaker being Libertarian Girl. What stands out about going to a liberty event as opposed to a tea party event is the age of the crowd. The liberty groups are a generation, or more, younger than the tea party groups. Because they grew up with modern technology, the younger liberty groups  understand how to utilize computers the internet and social media, way better than the older people in the tea party. The R and D paradigm has no meaning to liberty groups, where as the tea party people have a hard time seeing anything outside of the R and D model which they grew up under. The liberty groups have a degree of confidence about what they know concerning individual liberty, where as the tea party groups years of real world experience brings a kind of knowledge that the younger groups can’t know. The knowledge and human capital of both groups combined is enormous. I wish they could work together more on defeating the real enemy, which is progressive democrats and progressive republicans. The battle against the progressives is going to take decades and both groups will play their part, but the younger liberty groups are the ones who are going to have to teach the next generation that individual liberty, not Government promised security, is the way to a better life for them and a better world for us.

Here is a repost of an article I wrote on 4/24/13.

Are You a Democrat, a Republican, or a Libertarian?

I do firmly believe in the Party

I do firmly believe in the Party (Photo credit: Alex Panoiu)

It’s difficult to discuss issues calmly and logically because all of us plant our ideological flag on one of these three hills [ D,R, or L, or liberal, conservative, or libertarian]. If we see the other person’s flag, we automatically place them under that banner, and think there is no chance to reach common ground on any issue. The fact that each group has painted themselves into an ideological corner, because they demand a degree of  ideological purity, is what makes it easier to place the other person under a particular banner. This post titled, “You Are Not A REAL Libertarian”, by Mungowitz at Kids Prefer Cheese, poking fun at  libertarians for not accepting anyone who isn’t 100% pure in thought. But I have seen the same thing from liberals and conservatives, so no one is immune from this disease.

What we have to understand about party politics is, the rank and file have different incentives for identifying with a party, then the incentives of the establishment for being members of the party. The establishment’s sole purpose is to maintain the power of the party at all cost. It’s easier to keep and grow power if you have an enemy to demonize, and therefore party propaganda tries to get the rank and file to think of the other side as evil, misguided, or stupid. The rank and file are willing to think this way for two reasons. 1) They don’t have enough time to read about, and understand, the complex economic ramifications of their parties policies. Which leads to. 2) They trust  the establishment of their party is telling the truth, because it costs less in time to trust than it does to verify.

Another reason people are attracted to certain parties is because of the benefits promised by that particular party once it gets into power. There is no shortage of politicians who will promise anything to anybody in order to get their vote. Politicians are always trying to talk about group interests; black white, rich poor, male female, old young, etc, because it is more cost-effective for politicians to convince people that they are a part of a special interest group, rather than to have each voter think of himself as an individual. This is the reason politics always seems to be “a strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principle“.

If each person thought of himself as an individual, he would understand that individual freedom is in his best interest. When Government power grows, individual freedom shrinks, so the only way to have more individual freedom, is to shrink Government. The establishment elite’s only interest, is in growing Government power, so they can sit in the driver seat when their party is given the keys by the voters. The vast majority of the rank and file, whether D’s, R’s, or L’s, have to understand that their enemy is not the rank and file of the other parties, it is the establishment elite of the parties. The party machine has swallowed up many a young politician who was elected because of his promise to shrink Government. If all the rank and file who understand that Government is an impediment to their individual freedom got together, not to form another party; but to persuade politicians in their party that freedom is in their best interest, or defeat them if they can’t be persuaded, we could begin to shrink this enemy of the individual.

I try to think of everything that is political, through the lens of Austrian economics. These principles clear up every issue, and they will for you if you invest some time to learn. If you already understand economic principles form the Austrian perspective, then you have an obligation to persuade others. Remember, you don’t persuade people by beating them over the head, and you don’t give a child a rare steak when they are on baby formula. You have to start where they are, lead them to the door and let them walk through. This costs more in time then hitting them with a club, but if you truly believe in individual freedom, you will be willing to pay the price. Remember, hitting them over the head is about you, leading them to the door is about them.

Related VideoWalter E. Williams. “Are We Moving Toward More Personal Liberty, Or More Government Control Over Our lives.” at

Bitcoin = The Unstoppable Ingenuity Of Individuals

July 30, 2013

Bitcoin Accepted Here [by freeborn]

Bitcoin Accepted Here [by freeborn] (Photo credit: Adam Crowe)

We have talked about the Bitcoin phenomenon a couple of times here. I have said in this post, Let’s Take A Look At Bit Coin, “The reason I like the discussion about bitcoin: it is an opportunity to get people to think about what money is, how it evolved through the barter system, what is a gold standard, what is paper money, why the Federal Reserve’s monopoly on printing money is a bad thing, and could bitcoin (or some other not yet thought of idea) evolve into the medium of exchange not controlled by Government?” I would like to add that another reason I like bitcoin is because it represents the spirit of 1776. It’s the unstoppable dynamism that occurs when individuals use their inventiveness, curiosity, and thirst for freedom to get around Government planners plans. The free market is an unstoppable force (more…)