...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Traditional conservatism is no more. It’s, for a lack of a better word, dead. Democratic leaders who criticize these so-called conservatives for being “right wing” are misunderstanding what true conservatism means. Listen to and read the likes of Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Robert Taft and Russell Kirk, and you’ll notice one clear objective – limit the size and scope of the federal government. These are no longer the goals of current conservative leaders. Sure, they talk a big game; but are they walking the walk?
You have conservatives talking about “fixing” government, i.e. not making it smaller, but more “effective.” Newt Gingrich wants a “modernized federal government” for the 21st century. Rick Santorum talks about the free market and freedom, but rarely voted that way as a Senator. Mitt Romney has the look, but his record is as firm as a slab of wet cardboard, it lacks any consistency of true conservative beliefs. These three candidates are supposed to represent conservatives? Polls following recent primaries show those voting for Romney or Santorum consider themselves “very conservative.” If this is the direction of conservatism, then you can kiss it goodbye.
Now, it’s clear Ron Paul isn’t going to win the nomination, but it’s crystal that he’s the only true conservative running for office. The best example of this is the study done by the Independent Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. The organization examined the 4 candidates economic plans. The results – if you had any idea what conservatism is – were not at all surprising. According to the study, 3 out of the 4 candidates would increase the debt within the next decade. The one who doesn’t? Dr. Ron Paul. His plan reduces the debt by over 2 trillion dollars over 10 years. It doesn’t fix government, it limits its size and scope. It brings the troops home and makes huge cuts to the military industrial complex. It eliminates 5 major federal departments, including the department of education and energy. The problem with conservatives is not that they’re too right wing, as many liberals like to say; it’s that they don’t represent the ideals of true conservatism. It’s not small government they want, it’s their big government they desire.
The two party system has failed us and has fooled the public into thinking they represent a real choice, when in fact the two governing styles are more alike than they are different.
Both parties – this includes Barak Obama – ignore our civil liberties, believe in war, are run by special interests, and support the suicidal monetary system run by central banks. But, by far, the most similar characteristic between the two parties, is their thirst for more power and control. They’re power hungry sociopaths, and it’s time they’re exposed as such.
What happened to the principles of limited government, the Constitution and free markets?
Tea anyone?
Ahhh, there’s nothing like getting your money taken away and then given back to you…
Yes, the title of this blog post is serious…and no I’m not some racist bigot that wants the poor – specifically the poor black community – to suffer and stagnate in poverty. My reasons for its opposition are quite the opposite: I want the poorest of the poor to be able to seek a job.
Here’s why.
To begin, I understand the common belief many people hold when it comes to the minimum wage. It’s noble; it provides a “living wage”; it prevents the crudest forms of exploitation; etc. These are all understandable, and I have sympathy to these points of view. But they’re wrong.
The thing that’s most interesting about the minimum wage is its history.
The minimum wage is most notably known for being implemented by white racist labor unions in South Africa and the US. The reason for this was because the average black laborer was willing to work at a lower wage than the average white worker. The result: because blacks became more attractive to employers, whites saw their jobs disappear. So, to retaliate against this competition in the labor force, the white unions lobbied for laws like the Davis-Bacon Act , which mandated a prevailing wage for all public works projects. This law, while making some people feel warm and fuzzy inside, actually discriminated heavily against the black population. After the passing of Davis-Bacon, soon followed the federal minimum wage, which now applies to all labor markets in the US. These laws, which are now revered today by academia and the media, were actually passed under racist intentions.
More to the point, employers have every incentive to pay their workers based on their perceived productivity level. Thus, a black man who possesses far fewer skills than the average white man, is not even considered for the same job, for the sole reason that the employer is forced to pay a mandated wage. As a result, the poorly educated black laborer had no chance to participate in the job market. The refs eject him from the game before the game even begins.
It’s also important to note that the history of black employment is not what most people think. Believe it or not, unemployment amongst blacks is higher now than it was during Jim Crow. It’s true. Look it up, or you can choose to read Walter E. Williams’, Race and Economics. (important note: Dr. Williams is a black man)
When the minimum wage is seriously examined, one finds that it can be understood through basic economics. The law of demand will tell you less is demanded when prices are higher, and this applies to food, cars, computers, etc. For example, less people own Ferrari’s and more own Toyota Camry’s, for one simple reason: the price. The Camry is listed at around $22,000. Some Ferrari’s are priced at around $225,000. The Camry is not as fast as the Ferrari, and it has less features, but more people own them because they are offered at a price that is suitable for most consumers.
Now, just imagine if the federal government mandated all car buyers purchase a car that is at least $225,000. Two things would happen. One, less people would own cars; two, no interested buyers would ever consider buying the Camry. Why buy the Camry when you can buy a better car – the Ferrari – for the same exact price? The Camry would be excluded from the market and Toyota would likely run out of business.
Similarly, poorly educated, less skilled blacks are excluded from the job market, because of the effects of a mandated minimum wage. If you’re an employer, why pay someone with a limited skill set $7.25/hr, when you know you can pay the same wage to someone with a more impressive set of skills? Raising someone’s wage does not consequently raise their level of productivity for an employer.
No one wants to think about the employer when it comes to the minimum wage, and no one really wants to think about economics, either. It’s always about intentions, and what our politicians try to do. Intentions mean nothing; they only make us feel better about ourselves.
The fact of the matter is, it’s the minimum wage’s effects that are discriminatory.
With a struggling economy, we are seeing teenagers – the group most likely to receive a minimum wage – with less and less opportunity. Unemployment amongst teenagers is around 25 percent. More specifically, black teenage unemployment is at a staggering 45 percent!
If we want more people to be employed, how about we create more opportunity for the poor? The mandated wage restricts opportunity and discriminates against the poorest of the poor. Instead of someone making $4.00/hr, that person is making nothing.
“The road to hell is paved with good intentions” … so, let’s start thinking about the results…
Recently, President Obama signed a law that, if interpreted a certain way, would allow the President of the United States to detain American citizens indefinitely, without due process.
This is not a conspiracy; it’s merely a concern many Americans have regarding the power the executive branch now has when it comes to fighting terrorism. It should be looked at cautiously, and with serious consideration, that this law could lead to greater tyranny down the road.
The controversial section, section 1021, authorizes the president of the United States to detain persons who “substantially supported” forces “associated” with al-Qaeda or the Taliban that “are engaged in hostilities” against the U.S. or its “coalition partners.” None of these terms are defined in the bill. Most important, the bill does not define “associated forces.”
Who does this cover? No one knows – which is the most frightening part about the law.
Make no mistake about it: this law is unprecedented. As Congressman Justin Amash writes, “To be clear: When the Senate passed the NDAA conference report on Thursday, for the first time in history, Congress approved the indefinite detention of persons who ‘substantially supported . . . associated forces.’”
In fact, the Senate had the opportunity to pass an amendment that would have cleared up the broad language and explicitly excluded American citizens from indefinite detention. The Senate shot it down, voting 45 yea – 55 nay.
So, let’s be straight forward about this: your representatives had the opportunity to clear up the controversy and exclude you from this law, and they went the other way. Think about that for a second. They gave not just this president, but future presidents, the potential authority to indefinitely detain you with out due process.
Your freedoms aren’t always appreciated…until you read something like this.
I ask: what if this was you?
I consider myself to be a Libertarian. Not an Ayn Rand Objectivst type, but a person who believes big government is bad – especially when its guise is good intentions. Most people, when you tell them you believe in freedom, will likely agree with you. Freedom is always good. But to what degree do people believe in freedom? How seriously do you appreciate freedom and interpret its meaning?
As a Libertarian I believe: All drugs should be legalized; prostitution should be legalized; people should be able to marry whoever they want; the 2nd Amendment should be strictly preserved; and the free market is better than the alternative of government intervention. I could go on and on.
Some might find these beliefs offensive, unrealistic, ideological, insane, irresponsible, etc.
To these critics, I ask: is freedom insane? Is freedom offensive?
The truest sense of freedom – as I and others see it – is that I have no right telling others how to live their life. Advice, support and criticism is not what I’m getting at; the philosophy focuses on the use of force in a society. I have no right forcing someone else to do something (or not do something) based on what I approve or disapprove of. This also means I cannot ask my government to do the same thing, because no matter how you look at it, government is force.
If someone wants to drug themselves up, go ahead, that’s fine with me, insofar as you don’t go to your neighbor or government and force them to help you. You can go to your neighbor and ask for help or advice, but you cannot literally and figuratively hold a gun to their head and make them do something you want. If you want to have sex with strangers, go ahead. If you want to marry a man/woman, go ahead. If you want to start up a business, go ahead. I am opposed to some of these things, personally, but what do I care? It’s not my life.
As famous founder, Thomas Paine, once said, “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.”
Freedom isn’t always easy. It’s hard…(which helps explain why, throughout the world’s history, it’s existence has been short lived. Most of world history has seen tyranny and genocide, ruled by kings and dictators.)
To believe in freedom is to believe everyone is the same. That everyone has certain inalienable rights. That people should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as they do not violate the rights of other individuals.
Probably the most important point to understand about the Libertarian belief, as Murray Rothbard explains, is that it “does not offer a way of life; it offers liberty.” It’s a philosophy based on how human beings interact with each another – that being freely, cooperatively and peacefully, and if violence were to take place, the state should intervene and bring justice to those responsible.
To believe in “some freedom” based on personal preference, is not really freedom at all.
The Constitution of the United States does not “grant” your freedoms, it merely lists them. They already exist. Freedom is pure. Just as freedom cannot be granted to any one person, it also cannot be taken away.
Freedom is not perfect, but it’s better than the alternative.
Let’s not waste it away.
An “earmark” is nothing more than Congressional control over spending, as opposed to Presidential control. By the time legislators “earmark” funds, the total budget has already been set. Any money that is not “earmarked” by the direct representatives of the people (Congress) is turned over to the President and his agencies to spend as he sees fit. In light of that, it is wholly irresponsible for Congress NOT to “earmark” funds and therefore to give the President free rein.
Ron Paul believes that if money has already been set-aside and is guaranteed to be spent by someone, then his constituents should not be left out. That doesn’t change the fact that the spending is a bad idea in the first place.
