A LITTLE REBELLION

rEVOLution in Poland

Mussolini Mitt had quite the surprise waiting for him as his imperialist-in-waiting motorcade drove through Gdsank, Poland: a "photobomb" from Polish Ron Paul supporters.

As you can see, Romney volunteers tried to block the sign with their umbrellas but most of the picture still got through. The sign reads "Polish Choice - Ron Paul Kongres Nowej Prawicy," which stands for a libertarian-conservative political party in Poland.

Also, here is a short interview with a Polish Paul supporter.

  

The libertarian revolution truly is global and will only keep growing and spreading across the world.

Separating the Olympics From Governments

This article originally appeared at PolicyMic.

I have to admit that I have rarely taken much interest in the Olympic Games. It has nothing to do with the athletes or the events; they work, scrape, and toil for four years (the amateurs at least) for a chance to compete against the best in the world. The Olympics have become increasingly politicized, morphing it into a hyper-nationalist bread-and-circus media event that ignores and overlooks the heart of what the Olympics are supposed to be about. Just like the state should be separated from religion, our personal habits, and our economic decisions, the Olympics would be a far better event without government involvement.

In order to host and put on such a massive event, there are huge costs born by taxpayers that unsurprisingly run massively over budget. Despite being sold as a way to stimulate a city or a country's economy and as eventual sites for schools and other public services, hosting the Olympics usually leaves local governments even more broke than they were before and the remnants turned into ghost towns.

French economist Frederic Bastiat's famous broken window fallacy helps explain why. Wealth that is taken by the government is spent without the benefit of a price/loss mechanism and thus that money is terribly misallocated while ignoring how that money could have been spent voluntarily in the marketplace. As Barry Lyndon explains in a recent PolicyMic article, the top-heavy structure of the Olympics can only exist with a government backstop. It is a giant exercise in crony capitalism. The Olympics as they are constructed now wouldn't exist in a market; there is just too much liability.

State subsidies provide a backstop and a distortion of how insurance and security are supposed to work. Because of this, cities that host the Olympics churn out a security theatre that George Orwell could have never dreamed of. Fortress London is "the biggest peacetime security operation in Britain's history, " with over 20,000 U.K. troops, police, and civilian contractors policed the opening ceremonies alone. Over 4 million CCTV cameras are used to monitor the public at the games. The CIA and the FBI have provided advanced spying software, and even the TSA is going international as it feels up passengers at Heathrow Airport in London. Fear mongering over possible terrorist attacks, like using poison mini-drones hid in backpacks and "blended attacks" are claimed to justify the security. It's enough to make the skin crawl.

And besides all of the security, there is the flag-waving nationalism, tooth-combed analysis of what politicians and pundits have to say about the event, and accusations hurled back-and-forth across the world about why this or that country's domestic and/or foreign politics are supposedly unsuitable for the games.

So just like any government subsidized "service" or event, the Olympics should be privatized. Not in the corporatist way in which a government's monopoly control is transferred to or contracted out to a private agency, but an event funded and supported voluntarily. Private and public benefits with private liability, insurance, and security.

It is impossible to tell exactly what a non-subsidized, free market Olympics would like, there are few things the International Olympic Committee (IOC) could do, as well as historical examples, that suggest it would be a far better event without government intervention. First of all, the IOC could end the silly practice of athletes "representing" certain countries. In the early days of the Olympics, there existed "mixed teams" of athletes from many different countries organizing to compete. When the U.S. boycotted the 1980 Olympics and prevented hundreds of athletes from competing in an event they trained years for, athletes from Australia, Denmark, Puerto Rico, and Andorra flew the neutral Olympic, not a government, flag. Besides, many athletes don't even live and train in the countries they are supposed to represent anyway.

This would do a lot to combat the current hyper-nationalism of the Olympics where governments politicize and nudge their way into the event in order to make sure their arbitrary tax jurisdiction is honored with flags, songs, interviews with heads of state, and media coverage. It's gotten so bad, even Mitt Romney's visit to London and a Greek triple jumper's tweets get more attention than say, a blind South Korean archer who just broke a world record.

Whether it's creating bubbles and stifling economic freedom to violating our basic civil liberties while waging costly wars, governments have a knack for politicizing, waste, and self-aggrandizement at the expense of private citizens (or athletes). For the sake of the integrity of the Olympics, amateur athletes, and genuine athletic competition, governments should just mind their own business.

The Cost of Being Batman

Awesome graphic via Silver Underground:

Mussolini Mitt on Medical Marijuana

Caesar Obamaus is an absolute monster on the drug war, medical marijuana, and basic human freedom.

Mussolini Mitt - the perfect example of a cold and authoritarian fascist mindset - is, no surprise, just as bad on this issue.

 

 

10 Reasons Why the RNC Must Let Ron Paul Speak at the Convention

This article originally appeared at PolicyMic.

With the Republican National Committee finally conceding the fact that Congressman Ron Paul's name will indeed be on the ballot at the GOP convention in Tampa this August, the RNC is beginning to warm up to the Paul campaign.

There is no word yet on whether they will offer Paul a speaking slot at the convention, but if the last few days are any sign, chances may be high that Paul will be invited to the convention.

According to a recent USA Today story, the RNC and the Paul campaign "have been working closely over the past few months to work out logistics in order to include the Texas congressman and his supporters in the August convention in Tampa. 'They've just treated us like a friend and like a coalition,' said Jesse Benton, a spokesman for the Paul campaign. 'They have been honest brokers in working with us and treated us with respect.'"

This fair treatment of the Paul campaign — and by extension, his supporters — is a welcome change from the treatment that the RNC as well as state and local GOP parties have treated them since the 2012 Iowa Caucus (and even back to 2008). It is by now well known that Paul supporters, obeying the GOP's own rules at the delegate selection process, have been shunned, ignored, and even strongarmed for their refusal to rubber-stamp Mitt Romney.

Are the RNC and the GOP finally waking up to the significant sized dissent that is their own party? Inviting Paul to speak at the convention will likely answer that question. Only time will tell. 

Here are 10 reasons why the Republicans would be foolish not to let Paul speak.

1) Delegates, Delegates, Delegates

From the media's lack of good reporting to the sometimes confusing rules governing the delegation process, it is nearly impossible to tell exactly how many delegates Ron Paul has that will be headed to Tampa. The campaign admits that they have at least 500, though with alternates and delegates that are technically unbound, Paul could have significantly more than is reported. Even with the most conservative estimates, Paul's delegates will play a major role at the convention.

Additionally, the Paul delegates could actually select the vice presidential pick if Romney indeed gets selected as the nominee. Much political coverage has been dedicated to the yawning "Veepstakes," but if the RNC were to actually follow their own rules, Paul could easily be nominated VP.

With this much power, enthusiasm, and grassroots organization, a Paul-less GOP convention might cause some interesting chaos at the convention thanks to the amount of delegates Paul has. The Republicans can't win without the support and votes of the growing libertarian wing of the party. Without proper respect shown to Paul, they will likely stay home or vote for Libertarian Governor Gary Johnson.

2) Ron Paul Will Not Endorse Mitt Romney

At nearly every debate and mainstream media interview, Paul was asked if he would endorse the eventual Republican nominee. Paul, principled and patiently, always answered in the negative. As of yesterday, he again reiterated that he would not endorse Romney, just like he didn't endorse or vote for Senator John McCain in 2008. After all, Paul reasons, Romney agrees with little to any that Paul believes in, and an endorsement would be properly seen as a sellout to the GOP that scorns him and to the delegates and organizers that have worked so hard to push Paul this far.

Given that Paul won't endorse Romney, a speaking nod helps mend that bridge with him and his supporters.

3) A Platform to Ignite the Party

Paul is the intellectual heart of the Tea Party and the libertarian/conservative movement that has ascended in this country in the last few years. Although the Tea Party has unfortunately been co-opted by mainstream Republicans, talking heads, and right-wing radio, Paul's 2008 presidential run laid the groundwork for a real grassroots movement and puts actual teeth behind the rhetoric many Republicans give only lip service to.

If Paul's eventual speech at the convention is anything like the hundreds of speeches he gave across the country in the last year, then the GOP won't know what hit them. In the debates, Paul tended to be interrupted, asked "gotcha" questions, and at one foreign policy debate, was given 89 seconds to speak.

Without rude interruptions and all eyes on him, Paul will finally be able to address a (likely hostile) GOP crowd. And whenever he is given more than 2 minutes to speak, heads start nodding. Fellow PolicyMic columnist Allan Stevo reported that "After Ron Paul spoke in Sparks, Nevada ... observers took note of Mitt Romney supporters crumpling up their Romney signs and vowing to vote for Paul. It was the first time many Republican activists had ever heard Paul speak outside of the several minutes of sound bites allotted to him during televised debates."

Paul is the heart and soul of the grassroots and frustrated GOP, addressing the issue the party refuses to discuss, like ....

4) Actual Cuts in Spending

While the mantra of conservatives and the Republican Party has been "cutting spending" and balancing the budget, their actions haven't exactly matched their words. Every other GOP candidates' spendial proposals besides Paul promises to significantly increase spending, deficits, and the national debt. Romney, while uncomfortably posing as some type of fiscal conservative, promises to increase federal spending by trillions.

Paul has been warning about excessive government spending for decades, warning about billion dollar deficits in the 1980s. Now that the deficits are in the trillions, Paul's message — and budget proposal that would cut $1 trillion and eliminate five cabinet departments — is something that needs to rub off on the Republican Party soon.

5) War and Peace

This is a crucial issue not just for the Republicans to pounce on, but for a broader appeal to the rest of the country as well. A majority of Americans want the U.S. out of Afghanistan and a reduction in foreign military intervention in general. With the Persian Gulf heating up, war in Syria a serious possibility, and President Obama waging war on an unprecedented scale, Paul's message of peace and non-intervention helps make the GOP an actual alternative to Obama. Unfortunately, Romney doesn't think Obama is being aggressive enough overseas, and with the possibility Obama and Romney arguing over who is the bigger warmonger, the Republicans miss a key opportunity to appeal to the growing anti-war sentiment in the country as well as cut spending and save American lives.

6) Civil Liberties

Romney has talked so little about civil liberties, I doubt he could even define what they are if asked, let alone why they are important. A Paul speech at the convention would no doubt include a firm defense of the Bill of Rights, opposition to NDAA, Bradley Manning, the PATRIOT Act, opposition to the drug war, and articulate why Republicans should value civil liberties just as much as economic liberties. This would also again be an effective strategy for the GOP to circumvent President Obama's draconian record on civil liberties.

7) The Fed

With Paul's "Audit the Fed" bill moving forward, now would be the most opportune time to make this a huge part of the convention. Paul's speeches and rallies are infamous for their "End the Fed!" chants, and an understanding of the follies of central banking go hand in hand with a grasp of real, free market economics. With Paul's help, the GOP could adopt a strong position on auditing the Federal Reserve and reversing course on decades of terrible monetary policy.

8) The Party Platform

Many libertarians and Paul supporters will scoff with cynicism at the influence that the party platform will have. Perhaps there is an element of truth to that, but in a time where it is becoming easier and easier to hound and hassle elected officials, maybe this method isn't as hopeless as some might believe. Paul has said he wants to see the GOP adopt as part of the platform moves to audit the Federal Reserve, abolishing the Sixteenth Amendment, protection of civil liberties, etc. If the GOP does let Paul speak and addresses his very valid concerns, this forces the GOP to maybe be a little bit better on these issues than they have been in the past. Or maybe it doesn't, and more and more people get fed up with party politics as a means for change. Either way, it's a win-win.

9) Re-thinking Romney

While President Obama and Governor Romney bicker back and forth over tax returns and desperately trying to differentiate themselves from each other, Paul represents a synthesis of what many people already understand: that Romney and Obama are identical on any and every key issue facing America (literally 100 of them). In a similar way to what Allan Stevo reported in the article above, a chance to hear Paul speak may change the minds of people and make them actually vote for him at the convention. Seeing an authentic conservative — interested in conserving classical liberalism — and Paul's bipartisan appeal could offer Republican voters the real thing and the GOP a political realignment for years to come.

10) Paul Deserves It

And lastly, Ron Paul deserves it. Since 1976, he has been an advocate of limited government, peace, free markets, a sound currency, and civil liberties in every step of his career as congressman, author, and even in his private practice as a doctor. He has given countless speeches on the House floor warning about the economic bubbles caused the Federal Reserve's inflationary monetary policy and predicting the chaos and bloodshed that would result from whatever country is the fashionable target of the Administration at the time. The least the GOP — who have ignored him for decades — could do is give him 15-20 minutes to help light the last brushfires of the liberty revolution he has been instrumental in starting with a speech that would tear the roof off of the convention.

Here's hoping the GOP lets him speak! For the sake of the party, and more importantly, the future of the country, Paul needs to be heard loud and clear.

Warmakers Love Obama

Via the Screeching Kettle blog:

Mitt Romney certainly talks a lot about invading other countries and expanding the US military presence around the world, yet that hasn't stopped warmakers from backing his opponent. While Republican candidates in general still hold the support of the defense sector, in terms of the 2012 Presidential election, they've placed their bets on Barack.

This shouldn't be surprising, especially considering what TIME Magazine reported on back in October 2008, when Obama was running for President the first time. In an article titled "Obama Beats McCain in Defense Contributions", TIME quoted the Center for Responsible Politics, revealing how "Barack Obama's campaign pocketed $870,165 from defense-contractor sources, 34% more than the $647,313 in contributions McCain's campaign received from the same sector".

Indeed, since becoming President, Obama has paid back all of his corporate supporters, including his buddies in the military-industrial complex.

Shortly after coming to office in January 2009, for example, Obama nominated the Vice President of Raytheon (defense company) as his deputy Secretary of Defense. Predator drones, widely used in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Libya, are built with weaponry from Raytheon.

In July of 2010, First Lady Michelle Obama "christened" a ship built for the U.S. coast guard in Pascagoula, Mississippi, at the Northrop Grumman (defense company) shipbuilding facility with Mike Petters, President of Northrop Grumman.

On November 6, 2010, during his trip to India, Obama announced a series of commercial deals, including "the purchase of 33 Boeing (defense company) 737s by India's SpiceJet Airlines", and a "preliminary agreement between Boeing and the Indian Air Force to buy 10 C17 cargo jets". According to Komo News, the deal is worth between $1.7 billion to $2.9 billion.

The following year, in February 22, 2011, Boeing praised Obama for helping the company score a contract worth $35 million. "Presidents make a difference, and we all know that," Boeing General Vice President, Rich Michalski, told reporters. "It's his Cabinet. … He sets the tone."

On May 31, 2011, Obama nominated John E. Bryson, a director at Boeing, to the position of Commerce Secretary, as reported by the Washington Post.

By the end of 2011, it is reported by Forbes that the Obama Administration plans to put Raytheon-built missiles in Poland by 2018.

In January of 2012, Frank Kendall, a former executive with Raytheon, is nominated to become Deputy Secretary of Defense, replacing the former Deputy Secretary of Defense nominated in 2009, who, as mentioned previously, once worked for Raytheon.

Also in January, Robert J. Stevens, CEO of Lockheed Martin (defense company), is nominated to Obama's Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations.

As for those "defense cuts" Obama has been talking about:

"Lockheed Martin appears to be the biggest winner in the Pentagon's new spending priorities, despite a slowing in the rate at which its signature F-35 fighter programs will ramp up," said Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, quoted by USNews.com. "The Pentagon has confirmed its plan to buy all 2,443 F-35s … rather than slashing production goals or eliminating one of the three variants."

And, also according to USNews:

"Morgan Stanley is projecting Raytheon's stock will perform "in line" with projections. The firm "suffered only minimal damage" in the 2013 Pentagon budget, largely because it has positioned itself well through its electronics business, Thompson said. As the military relies more and more on upgrading existing platforms, Raytheon will be in line to do that work."

So, while Mitt Romney runs around appealing to Bush-era Republicans, droning on about how he wants to bomb Iran and make the United States a mighty global empire, it seems the military-industrial complex isn't buying it. Instead, they've chosen to back the guy who has truly backed them over the last four years.

Batman Shooter James Holmes Fallout: Movie Theaters Should Not Become Police Checkpoints

This article originally appeared at PolicyMic.

The much-anticipated release of The Dark Knight Rises on Friday was dampened immensely by the news of James Holmes shooting and killing 12, and injuring over 70 others in an Aurora, Colorado, movie theatre.

Due to the unfortunate nature of mainstream American news coverage, tragedies of this nature tend to quickly become politicized and the Friday event was no different. By the morning after the crime, Holmes was accused of being a Tea Party member, debates over gun control were re-ignited, and President Obama released a statement.

Witnesses said Holmes was standing there like target practice, indiscriminately firing at the already tear-gassed crowd. How could this have been prevented? Is security at movie theatres, where crowds of people are funnelled in and out, not tight enough? Should movie theatres resemble airports or many professional sports stadiums with searches?

There are so many factors that go into decisions over what is the proper amount of security. Is it placing a security guard or two in every theatre? Frisking and searching everyone who buys a ticket? Allowing private, concealed firearms or banning all weapons from the location?

And while I don't know exactly what the best solution should be, the responsibility ultimately lies with the owners of a theater. In my experience, the mega-theatres I have been to in San Francisco tend to have light, but adequate, security. Private security guards roam throughout the building and look prepared to handle any possible conflict or disaster scenarios. And keep in mind that just a few months ago, a possible massacre in Aurora was prevented by a brave and armed citizen.

This is how security should be run, by private property owners who are liable both for the benefits and costs associated with their property and can and should be held liable for damages that may occur. In the same way that prices of consumer goods give economic signals, this cost-benefit factor in property ownership help find a proper balance on how much, or little, security is needed. Private firearm ownership

Undoubtedly, there will be calls to have government play a larger role as it has in airports. But what is interesting to note is that the police arrived after the carnage had already been inflicted. This is not a direct shot at police, but simply a reality of the incentive structures of government services, in this case security. Government police lack the feedback that market prices give, tend to escalate rather than diffuse situations, and according to multiple Supreme Court rulings, have absolutely no legal obligation to protect you.

Aside from questions of security and how something like this can be prevented in the future, there are two things that immediately came to mind upon hearing about the tragedy in Aurora that the news media will likely not discuss.

First is the issue of heavily-prescribed psychiatric drugs and the terrible anti-social and violent side effects that they can have. When one researches any of the mass shootings that have occurred in recent history, in nearly every single one, psychiatric drugs (or symptoms of withdrawal) were involved. There is no word yet on whether Holmes was on them as well, but given the political interests that are involved with the pharmaceutical industry and the frequency at which they are prescribed, the chances are high that he was and that it would be under-reported or ignored.

Secondly, Eric Harris, who along with Dylan Klebold committed the Columbine massacre, was inspired by President Clinton's bombing of Serbia. "I hope we do go to war...[I want to] shoot every one," he told a friend. He even tried to join the Marines, but the recruiter was hesitant because Harris was taking anti-depressants.

Was Holmes inspired, directly or indirectly, by the incredible amount of violence and carnage that President Obama inflicts around the world? This is not hyperbole, it's an honest question. If a president is supposed to be the leader of a people, what example is set when that president brags and gloats about his "kill lists," drone strikes, and extrajudicial assassinations?

Because of Holmes' heinous crimes, security may well be upgraded in theaters and other places with large crowds of people. No amount of additional government powers or enhanced security, however, can mask the institutionalized factors that have led to public shooting sprees in the past and that were likely behind Holmes's as well. The only thing worse than these acts of mass violence would be failing to recognize these multitude of determinants involved and ignoring them.

Obamacare Will Be Overturned By Free Market, Consumer-Driven Health Care Plans

This article originally appeared at PolicyMic.

With the Affordable Care Act (ACA) dominating the 2012 presidential campaign, those who are justifiably worried about the future of health care in America may appear to have little recourse when the bill is completely implemented in 2014.

Thankfully, however, freedom and the market always find ways to address demand and the desires of individuals. Consumer-driven health care plans (CDHPs) have increased by 18% in the past year and offer a viable alternative to corporatized medicine and increasing government control over health care.

Libertarians like myself are often accused of dabbling too much in theory and not enough in the practicality and implementation of our principles. And while I believe philosophy and ethics are absolutely vital — after all, all political ideologies rest on some set of axioms and principles — people desire answers. There are so many reasons to oppose the ACA, and government medicine in general, but short of a completely free market in health care, the growth of CDHPs offers a look at what short-term alternatives there are.

CDHPs are health insurance policies that unlike most health care plans, have high deductibles and lower co-pays from insurance companies. This not only incentivizes individuals to be more careful consumers, but brings the health care market closer to, well, an actual market. 

When one goes to a doctor or hospital, the most obvious thing that is missing are prices. After all, why should there be any? With third-parties covering the vast majority of the cost, whether it be insurance companies, HMOs, or Medicare transfer payments, there is little to no discrimination or calculation based on the actual cost and an incentive to charge the maximum amount, the opposite of how markets function.

CDHPs are a great way to avoid this problem, allowing health care decisions to be made closer to the individual where they belong as well as having the effect of lowering costs. Prices are market signals that allow society to cooperate, exchange, and coordinate, something the health care industry (and industries that government intervenes in the most, like education and security protection) desperately needs.

A great example of this is Dr. G. Keith Smith's Surgery Center of Oklahoma. With or without insurance, for over a decade Smith's hospital offers fantastic care with transparent, direct, and package pricing, allowing consumers to know what they are receving as well as keeping costs and overhead low (see Smith's interview with Lew Rockwell). People from across the country, as well as Canada and Europe, travel to the Center for the type of medical care that resembles a grocery store or Best Buy rather than a DMV or TSA-filled airport.

Health Savings Accounts (HSA) are also a great way to take control of your own health care. Although currently limited, millions of Americans use them, and with the proper reform would allow individuals to bypass government control and insurance companies. And I'm not talking about the forced HSAs that President George W. Bush advocated, which simply funnelled tax money into politically favored corporations and investment firms on Wall Street. I mean something like what Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) has advocated for years, HSAs that get the government out of the way with 100% tax-credits, no restrictions based on what type of insurance you have, using HSAs to pay for premiums on high-deductible plans, on abolishing controls on how people use their HSAs.

Plus, as a libertarian and an opponent of artificial credit and debt, incentivizing individuals to save money for any reason is always a good thing, especially in this current economy where slow economic growth and the declining value of the dollar leave many people trapped.

Although it is virtually unlikely that a President Romney, would actually repeal the ACA (even if the GOP had the votes in Congress) or do anything other than go in a corporatist direction, the power of the market is finding ways, against heavy odds, to provide alternatives. Avoiding the mess that government intervention has done, and will continue to do, to the deliverance of health care will hopefully become easier as more and more people "opt-out" by circumventing their way around it.

I have a heavy distate for electoral politics and little faith in legislation, which is why withdrawing from it as much as possible remains and will continue to be the best way to create change and practical libertarian alternatives. The market is truly the most humane, peaceful, and efficient system in the world, and even under immense tax and regulatory burden, CDHPs, HSAs, and Dr. Smith's Surgery Center of Oklahoma are great examples of what the future of medicine will look like.

Obama Administration Sued Over Assassinating US Citizens

The ACLU is trying to hold the Murderer-in-Chief accountable for his secret, lawless, and unconstitutional extrajudicial killings.

The American Civil Liberties Union failed in late-2010 to push a lawsuit challenging the Obama Administration’s claimed power to assassinate American citizens without charging them with any crimes, but is hoping for a consolation prize today, filing another suit challenging the killings after the fact.

“It’s an effort to get accountability,” noted ACLU deputy director Jameel Jaffer, saying that even though the Justice Department successfully argued that the killings couldn’t be challenged beforehand, they could now press the administration to “explain to a court why it did what it did.”

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit include the family members of three American citizens assassinated in the program, including US-born Sunni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, 16-year-old Abdulrahim Awlaki, and alleged al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) member Samir Khan. The defendants include Leon Panetta, David Petraeus, and other top officials.

So far officials have refused to comment on the new lawsuit, but will likely claim that information related to the program is classified, and cannot be challenged in open court. Similar claims about the “secret” nature of the drone program have been pushed in the past, despite the administration’s willingness to openly brag about the assassinations that have resulted from them.

Ron Paul Rips Romney and Obama For Wasting Time Arguing About Tax Returns

This article originally appeared at PolicyMic.

Texas Congressman Ron Paul is urging GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney to release more of his tax returns, claiming it is what the American people want.

Paul told Politico in a candid interview that he isn’t sure why Romney hasn’t released his tax returns yet but says that it would be good for Romney if he did so, peppering in his usual lamenting about the bipartisan nature of both parties.

“It’s a shame. The important issue is [what] the two candidates seem to agree on,” Paul said. “They don’t really disagree with militarism overseas, they don’t disagree with the Federal Reserve system and the bailouts, and they don’t disagree on basically whether the role of federal government is wealth redistribution through welfare. So instead, they’re talking about tax returns and that to me is so disappointing.”

“It’s all a charade, I think it’s all contrived to not have a debate,” Paul said. 

It is a shame that out of all the vital issues that America faces, this is what the Romney vs. Obama campaign is currently occupied with. And Paul is absolutely right. Romney is someone that is vying for perhaps the most powerful political position in world history and the head of a government that has absolutely no problems violating the privacy and liberties of the American people, especially when it comes to filing taxes. The least Romney could do is do the same that is asked of us.

But while I agree that Romney, and all politicians, should be put under the deepest of magnifying glasses, President Obama’s attacks on Romney as some vulture-capitalist outsourcer are an absolute disgrace. It shouldn’t be surprising, however, that Obama is attacking Romney in this way. On every substantive issue of importance, they are in complete agreement. Although their rhetoric may be different, they both favor heavy interventionism at home and abroad. It is much easier for Obama to appeal to his left-wing base and invoke phony populism than discuss his disastrous record on war, civil liberties, and the economy.

Because Romney knows little about free market economics, it appears that for now, Obama’s attacks on him, his tax records, and his time at Bain Capital are working. If Romney knew a fraction of what, say, libertarian Congressman Paul knows about economics, Romney would respond concisely and clearly on how venture capital firms like Bain risk money when banks are afraid to and have developed ways for smaller companies to acquire capital, grow, and create jobs. Outsourcing, too, is part of a sound economy in certain industries, freeing up individuals and capital for more productive uses, spreading peaceful trade between countries, and providing cheaper goods.

But all Romney manages to say are empty platitudes about “free enterprise” and basically appealing to voters as the guy with the nice suit and slick hair who isn’t Obama.

Obama’s attacks on Romney are to be expected and will likely only grow and continue. Romney should take Paul’s advice and release his tax returns, especially at a time when millions of Americans are unemployed, underemployed, and struggling. Then Romney should call up Paul and get a lesson on free market economics and a sane foreign policy, but I’m not holding my breath.

Ron Paul Prophetic Warnings from 2002

It's only fitting that when faced with a man who has been right on nearly every issue, that conservatives, liberals, and a majority of Americans would boo, hiss, and smear.

 

(h/t to Paul Mulshine)

The Future of Libertarianism

This article originally appeared at PolicyMic.

With the retirement of Ron Paul from Congress at the end of this term, the libertarian movement Paul helped ignite is likely at a crossroads. Paul was the unreluctant leader and voice for so many frustrated Americans who possibly didn't even know they were libertarians, using his platform in Congress to denounce unconstitutional government action on the House floor, write articles, and author bestsellers on libertarian philosophy and principles. 

Although he likely will not be the Republican nominee or president (though keep your eyes on Nebraska this weekend) and will retire from public life, Paul can rest well knowing that the libertarian movement in this country will only grow and progress, thanks in no small part to his legacy.

It is fairly commonplace for many in the media and the blogosphere to label Ron Paul supporters as "cult-like," and even from my biased perspective, there might be an element of truth to that. But the only reason his supporters have been labeled in this manner is because of Paul himself and what he represents: the ultimate un-politician who tells you the truth, doesn't sugarcoat or change his message to fit the crowd, and has a voting record that would make Madison and Jefferson blush.

Paul is the exception to the rule that governs politicians — that is, lies, lies, and more lies — and if Paul ever steered from his principles or compromised, most of his supporters would abandon him in a heartbeat (just ask his son, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul). Paul effectively introduced millions of people to a philosophy that they had never heard before, a practical and moral radicalism tempered by Paul's soft demeanor and consistency.

Paul avoids the Beltway-esque "low-tax liberalism" and "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" watered-down rhetoric that is much too prevalent in those calling themselves libertarians, arguing instead the moral, historical, and philosophical case for individual liberty, strictly limited government, a free economy, sound money, and peace.

Without him travelling across the country giving a libertarian speaking tour, predicting economic crises, and the follies of interventionism abroad, it might be easy for libertarians and classical liberals to hang their heads. But thanks to the grassroots organization, the ease of spreading information, and seeds he's left behind, there is nothing to worry about.

For nearly every movement in history, there have been multiple strategies to effect change. The most tempting seems to be the political method. There are now dozens and dozens of libertarian-leaning candidates running for state and national office within the GOP, and Paul has endorsed many of them. Thousands of brave people have witnessed intimidation, hostility, and outright violence becoming GOP delegates the last two presidential elections. Their activism and dedication has been admirable, and watching them throw wrenches in the primary circus has been so much fun.

But politics is a dirty game. I would be the first one to cheer any principled libertarian winning an election, and no disrespect to the liberty candidates, but which is more likely: that they will change Washington or that Washington will change them? The temptation of unprincipled compromise, bribes,  and lobbyists in order to get anything done (or more appropriately, undone) is so enticing. Power and politics corrupt.

This is why the future of libertarianism will not come from the political arena, but from circumventing it. It is fitting that the internet — the greatest example of the free market and ordered anarchy ever — will undoubtedly be the safe haven for libertarianism that it has been for the last decade. When Paul and other libertarian greats were young, literature and connections were nearly impossible to come by. Now, all one has to do is go to Mises.org and find hundreds of free pdfs, articles, and books at their disposal.

Knowledge and an understanding of economics and history will be the greatest strength for the future of libertarianism. It isn't easy at first saying goodbye to right-wing or left-wing statism; there are many objections to such a radical idea as a free society when all one knows are government schools, income taxes, central banking, a police state, and perpetual war. But every day, brilliant minds are beginning to change this, standing on the shoulders of giants in order to synthesize a moral defense of liberty with its practical applications.

I have only been a libertarian for about seven years, and even I can see the power the internet has had since then. Professor Thomas Woods offers a low-cost "Liberty Classroom" that teaches libertarianism. Bitcoin has revolutionized alternative currencies. Forums, blogs, and websites help us find light from the darkness of government power. As the world becomes flat and horizontal, communication of ideas becomes easier.

This is the real key behind the future of libertarianism, and the fact that the internet is only growing in accessibility means libertarianism will too.

A comprehension of libertarian principles opens up a myriad of ways to effect the type of change that the political process will likely deny. Jury nullification, agorism, spreading alternative currencies, and peaceful resistance and defiance will be the future of libertarian activism. Whatever decentralizes authority and delivers power as close to the individual as possible should be the goal of libertarians, and thanks to the web, these solutions become more and more practical.

Maybe I'm wrong and a wave of libertarians become senators and start repealing federal laws; I'm young, and perhaps a little wild-eyed and naive. I am not discouraging anybody from using whatever medium of change they see fit, only seeking to offer society one improved unit. Remember that Paul, however, laid down the groundwork not from any legislation, but because he encouraged people to read and study the works of Frederic Bastiat, Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, and Murray Rothbard as well as the Western liberalism of our ancestors.

The battle for the future of the country, international peace, and economic prosperity is and will continue to be a battle of ideas. Violent revolutions tend to leave power vaccuums that create Napoleons and Hitlers. The spread of libertarian ideas which strike at the heart of the building blocks of societal cooperation and civilization, combined with a peaceful resistance to the state, is the future of libertarianism and how it will effect real, concrete change.

Whistleblower Exposes the NSA Surveillance State

 

Lance Armstrong vs. the Feds

This article originally appeared at PolicyMic.

After years of facing accusations for supposed steroid use, seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong filed a lawsuit on Monday seeking to block the United States Anti-Doping Agency from punishing him for the violations they have charged him with. The suit, however, was quickly dismissed by a district court, and the judge in the case even took the time to chastise Armstrong. Although unsuccessful in his attempt to get the feds off his back, Armstrong's case helps highlight the "anti-doping" hypocrisy and why the U.S. government has no business policing professional sports.

In winning an unprecedented, and no doubt unrepeatable, seven grueling Tour de Frances in a row  after beating cancer, Armstrong soon began to be the recipient of massive media attention, praise, and eventually suspicion over such a feat. After fellow American bicyclist Floyd Landis admitted to using steroids, his teammate Armstrong was soon the most high-profile target in a crusade against doping and "performance enhancing drugs."

The U.S. was exceptionally relentless in pursuing Armstrong, committing multiple felonies in the process (including leaking classified grand jury material) in order to damage Armstrong's reputation and garner public support for their case against him.

Did Lance Armstrong use steroids in order to achieve his success? Maybe, maybe not. There is no doubt that if he didn't take them, he would've been the exception. But whatever the answer to that question, which is more dangerous: An athlete who takes "performance-enhancing drugs" or a government that breaks its own laws and lies in order to smear and punish someone who possibly ingested a politically unapproved substance?

I can sincerely sympathize with both sides of the issues concerning steroids and other drugs in sports.

On one hand, they can have very damaging effects on a body, it can set bad examples towards younger athletes, and what to do with hallowed records, like Armstrong's and many others.

On the other hand, the American obsession and paranoia over "drugs" can be incredibly irrational. Many activities and substances "enhance performance." Before we had the knowledge of today, athletes didn't lift weights, many of them drank and partied heavily, and cigarettes werecommonplace at the Tour de France. If they understood modern diet and nutrition, then there is no doubt they would adopt these habits and ingest these "performance enhancing" substances. Even Dock Ellis threw a no-hitter while on LSD.

Whatever side one falls on on this issue, the harassment received by Armstrong and the criminality of the federal agents entrusted with enforcing "anti-doping activities" is evidence that the policing of sports should be a private, not a political, one. Codes of conduct, rules, and regulations — like what athletes can or can't put into their bodies — should be between their employers or the private sports associations involved, subject to a market tests of profitability, fan interest, and public opinion (or ostracism).

For example, although I believe gambling should be legal, the MLB has strict rules against gambling, which they have the right to do. Pete Rose, who gambled as a manager, has been banned from baseball for life and is not allowed into the Hall of Fame. "Spit balls" were banned and racial integration was achieved by basic market forces.

The MLB has done a decent job at clamping down on steroids, and although there have been many ways around it, the cartoon-like numbers (and bodies) are gone. Fan attendance and interest has even risen as of late. 

The NFL is constantly tinkering with rules and increased player safety measures, while the NBA is a completely different league than it was decades ago. Yes, professional sports tend to be highly corporatist enterprises, but this should only strengthen the case against government involvement.

It's not perfect, and there are undoubtedly many problems that still exist in sports that have not been properly addressed. But the U.S. government has no authority — constitutionally or morally — to stand on. At the same time Armstrong, Barry Bonds, and Roger Clemens are being prosecuted and chastised for supposedly breaking federal law, the Justice Department goes to great lengths to exonerate federal agents who knowingly broke federal law when they tortured detainees, and aggressively prosecute those who blow the whistle on them. 

In other words, the people in charge of regulating the content of blood in professional athletes commit actual crimes on a massive scale. Why any athlete takes a congressman badgering them seriously is just baffling.

Good for Lance Armstrong for sticking up for himself against the feds. With the way they have been targeting for the last few years, it seems they are looking to make an example out of him. Armstrong is someone who, unlike them, created value and provided entertainment in the private sector and whose pushbacks are a reminder that the real criminals are not athletes ingesting substances but federal agents who don't mind their own business.

The Myth of Wartime Prosperity

The great Austrian economist Bob Murphy destroys one of the biggest myths that help justify the warfare state:

When pressed for a “success story” of their policies, Keynesians point with pride to World War II. They claim that it is the perfect illustration of the ability of massive government spending to lift an economy out of the doldrums.

In the effort to battle this myth, Steve Horwitz and Michael J. McPhillips offer an interesting new article that analyzes diaries, newspapers, and other primary source documents from the wartime era. They show that average Americans on the home front certainly did not think they were living amidst a great economic recovery. Yet as I’ll show in this article—relying on the pioneering efforts of Robert Higgs—we can use even the official statistics to turn the conventional Keynesian account on its head.

Before diving into the data, let me make a quick observation. I have heard many conservatives say, “FDR’s New Deal had nothing to do with fixing the economy. It was World War II that got us out of the Depression!” Yet when they say this, they give away the whole game. They are admitting that government spending can cure an economic downturn, and are just quibbling over whether it was FDR’s spending on schools and bridges, versus his spending on tanks and aircraft carriers.

Now let’s get hip-deep in the actual numbers. Here are the official data for “Real Gross Domestic Product,” i.e. total economic output adjusting for changes in the purchasing power of the dollar. These are the government’s official estimates for how much “total stuff” the U.S. economy produced from 1929 through 1950:

Private and Government Components of Real GDP, 1929-1950

It is easy enough to see why the Keynesians think they have a slam-dunk case. Real GDP collapsed from 1929-1933. Then, with the start of FDR’s New Deal, output began a rapid recovery. However, the recovery faltered in 1938 (which the Keynesians blame on a foolishly early withdrawal of stimulus), meaning the country didn’t really escape the Great Depression until the massive wartime expenditures starting in the early 1940s.

As I mentioned earlier, the economic historian Robert Higgs has peer-reviewed articles and book-length treatments of these issues. Higgs has pointed out several problems with using the official GDP statistics as a gauge of actual economic prosperity.

For example, one major problem is that the government statistics count $1 million of military spending as the same amount of “real output” as $1 million of consumer spending on (say) automobiles. Yet this is wrong, because of the different institutional settings. When consumers voluntarily spend their money on automobiles, they are choosing to buy those particular goods rather than other ones, or rather than saving the money for the future. Thus, it is prima facie evidence that the “$1 million in vehicles” really do constitute a stock of output that confers genuine services to the new owners.

In contrast, when government officials steer $1 million to military contractors to purchase some new tanks, we have much less reason to believe that this is the same amount of “real output.” The money was obtained involuntarily through taxation (or through deferred taxation in the form of government deficits), so we don’t know that the citizens value the tanks as much as they’d value new cars with the same price tag.

Moreover, the government officials in charge of defense procurement can’t simply pocketthe money if they choose not to spend it; their budgets are probably of the “use it or lose it” form, and in any event it would be very illegal for them to personally skim from tax funds. Rather, the way these officials can personally profit from their powerful positions is to steer sweetheart deals to particular companies, which then give plush “consultant” or “advisory” roles to these officials once they return to the private sector. So we can’t even say that the defense procurement officers value the new tanks as much as they would value $1 million of new cars if they had had that much money to personally spend.

Thus we see that there is no reason to suppose that the large military spending (which was the lion’s share of the “Government” purchases in the early 1940s) of World War II was comparable to the same amount of “Private” output. Therefore, the total GDP figures—as represented by the cumulative height in the figure above—are very misleading.

Yet the Keynesian case is weaker still. Suppose we accept, for the sake of argument, that $1 million of government spending is just as economically significant as $1 million of private investment or private consumer spending. Even so, the World War II era stilldoesn’t present a model for dealing with an economic depression.

Look again at the figure above. Even on the Keynesians’ own terms, private GDP—the share of the economy devoted to civilian purposes—was lower during the height of the war than during 1933, the very worst year of the Great Depression. When we take into account the increase in population during the decade in between, the impact on the homefront is even more astounding.

Let us suppose, then, that the government today did exactly what Paul Krugman recommends, and engaged in massive government purchases comparable to those during World War II. Yet rather than build tanks and bombers, instead the government today buys socially useful things (in Krugman’s vision) such as roads, bridges, parks, the services of additional police and firefighters, etc. If things turned out today the way they did during the war years, would Americans be happy with the result?

I suggest they would not; they would reject the bargain, even on Krugman’s own terms. Suppose people took today as equivalent to 1941, and then the country proceeded to have similar government spending and economic performance as the official statistics show happened during World War II. That means private economic output would fall a total of 55 percent between now and 2015, or at an annualized rate of about 24 percent per year. Does the average American household right now want to suffer a 24 percent annual drop in their private standard of living, for three years in a row? This would put their standard of living back to around 1984 levels (and again, I’m not even accounting for population changes). Would the average household’s answer be affected if we told them about how many potholes would be filled, and how many new schools would be built during those three years?

But wait, it gets worse. It’s not merely that there would be a 3-year period of extreme penury (in terms of private goods and services), in exchange for those things the government provides. After this burst of Keynesianism—again using World War II as the model, now by comparing 1941 to 1946—the federal government’s gross debt held by the public would have grown by a factor of five. Since the federal debt held by the public right now is about $10 trillion, that means mimicking the World War II experience would yield a federal debt of $50 trillion by 2017. This new fact is on top of the reversion to 1984 levels of private GDP. Again I ask: Is there any amount of new schoolteachers and bridges that would compensate for these two trends?

In conclusion, let me be fair and point out that Paul Krugman et al. think that private living standards dropped during World War II because of rationing, not because of a bug in Keynesian pump-priming. Maybe, maybe not. My modest point in this article is thattaking the government’s own statistics at face value, the vast majority of Americans would not want a Keynesian “solution” to our current economic depression, the way World War II allegedly “solved” the last Depression.

As with the Obama stimulus package, so too with wartime “prosperity”: Keynesians can’t point to what actually happened as evidence of their policies’ effectiveness, but instead contrast what happened with what their models show would have been the alternative. In any absolute sense, Americans during the war years experienced a serious drop in living standards, as both the official statistics and the new research by Horwitz and McPhillips show.

US Apache Helicopter Kills Afghan Farmers While Pilot Sings

Dehumanize "the enemy" (AKA real human beings, with lives and familes), and killing becomes casual. And frequent. Via Antiwar.com:

A new video from LiveLeaks shows an AH64 Apache attack helicopter targeting farmers in the Wardak Province, Afghanistan while they were planting poppy seeds. The pilot cheerfully sings a little tune after firing a Hellfire missile at them.

It’s unclear where the new video came from, but it will draw inevitable comparisons to another video leaked in 2010, which showed Apache helicopters massacring civilians in metro Baghdad.

 

Obama's Accomplishments

Oh, and don't forget about corporate welfare for the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, NDAA, and the start of new wars in Libya, Yemen, Africa, and funnelling weapons to Syria. And bragging about what a warmongering murderer he is to the NY Times.

Ron Paul Liberty Movement Will Outlast the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street

This article originally appeared at PolicyMic.

In the last few years, we have witnessed the rise of several protest groups and organizations that have made their voices heard in the public and in the media. On the left, there is the Occupy Movement, on the right, there is the Tea Party.

There is also a self-described "liberty movement," with strong libertarian convictions and influenced by the presidential candidacy and ideas of Ron Paul. Although both the Occupy Movement and the Tea Party highlight legitimate grievances, both groups have obvious inconsistencies and shortcomings. The more principled and focused liberty movement will undoubtedly have the biggest effect on public debate and long-term political trends.

The Tea (Taxed Enough Already) Party was officially started on November 5, 2007, when then presidential candidate Ron Paul held his first "money bomb," raising of over $4 million (which, at the time, was the most money ever raised by a political candidate in one day). The Tea Party began as a grassroots group of frustrated libertarians and paleo-conservatives, angry at the Republicans for their spending, deficits, and debts, the loss of civil liberties, and military interventionism overseas. As it grew, however, the movement soon began to be co-opted by mainstream Republican politicians and pundits, and combined with the election of President Obama, took a much more partisan turn.

While still clinging to the rhetoric of slamming "big government" and too much taxation, the Tea Party evolved into right-wing resistance against Obama and the Democrats. Libertarian populism was replaced with shouts of "Hands off my Medicare!", conspiracy theories about Obama's religion and national origin, and elected many of the same politicians that just a few years ago were the target of their protests.

The Occupy Movement as well began as a grassroots, decentralized movement against Wall Street corruption and big banks. Famous for popularizing the "99%" versus the "1%" narrative, the Occupiers saw an excess of capitalism, Wall Street corruption, and "deregulation" as the causes of U.S.'s economics woes, urging higher taxes on the rich and left-leaning economic policies. Although much less co-opted by the Democrats - President Obama has only given minor hints of solidarity with them - the Occupy Movement correctly recognized a problem, but an ignorance of economics prevented (and still prevents) them from throwing darts at the right target. 

The liberty movement, on the other hand, is much different. Although more of an offshoot of the Tea Party, it blends many of the justified complaints of the Occupy crowd into a clearer comprehension of the causes of our economic mess and what to do about it. Boosted by Ron Paul's presidential run -- which in reality was an unbelievably successful libertarian speaking tour -- the liberty movement, formed mostly by people under the age of 35, synthesized the anger of the left and right thanks to an understanding of economics, history, and the nature of government power. To blame either big government or big banks is only half of the equation, and any proposed solution absent this synthesis will only empower the other (or both).

The liberty movement has stroked the root; as opposed to the Tea Party and Occupy, which have largely been trimming the branches. It is not just "big government" that is a threat to liberty, but all forms of initiated coercion. And there is a "1%" out there, alright; it's the predictable result of money-printing and fiat money, funnelling wealth upwards. It's not the rich, per se, only those that have acquired their wealth through the political process, like bailouts, subsidies, artificial monopolies, regulatory snag, fractional-reserve banking, and government contracts.

The liberty movement understands that this process is brought about by the Federal Reserve and the business cycle, the nature of states to always grow, the terrible costs of military empire, and that the Bill of Rights, a market economy, and a sound currency -- not soaking the rich or electing Republicans -- are the paths to prosperity and ending the corporatism that dominates America.

And fundamentally, as a principled opponent of state power, the liberty movement is an anti-war movement, knowing that war is the biggest enabler of the growth of government, infringes on speech and civil liberties, and destroys life, wealth, and private property both at home and abroad. It opposes Obama's warmongering just as much, if not more, than his corporate welfarism at home. Peace and the Bill of Rights first, the rest comes second.

This is why I believe the liberty movement will have the biggest influence in the future. It is undeniably growing by leaps and bounds, and will only continue to spread. And because it rejects partisan politics, the false left-right spectrum, and a synthesis of sound economics and civil liberties, its message will draw in those who might be turned off by either the Tea Party or the Occupiers.

Although I disagree with much of what the Tea party and the Occupy Movement stand for, I will always defend those who wish to protest against injustice, even if their solutions would likely enable the beasts they are attempting to slay. Republicans and Democrats, comfy in their thrones of power, obviously see all of these protest movements as threats to their back-and-forth rule. This is what scares me about the passing of the NDAA, the legislation banning protests near government buildings, and a DHS report that list "liberty lovers" as domestic threats. They are obviously scared of any resistance to their monopoly on power.

And while the Tea Party and the Occupy Movement both bring important issues to the forefront, they tend to be highly partisan and will likely ebb and flow depending on which party is in power. This is why the liberty movement, and their principled, philosophical consistency, will continue to grow, offer a real alternative, and create radical change in the direction of peace and human liberty.

UPDATE: Thanks to Barry Lyndon for posting this article on his blog!

Schools Kill Creativity

 

TSA Restrictions for Traveling Americans are a Reminder of Independence Day Contradictions

This article originally appeared at PolicyMic.

This Independence Day, over 40 million Americans will be travelling in celebration to be with friends and family to barbeque, light fireworks, and enjoy the warmer weather. A huge number of them plan to travel lengthy distances which means that they will likely be flying and thus, unfortunately, face the notorious Transportation Security Administration (TSA) screenings and security procedures at the airport. And while they may ponder the significance of the 4th of July, the presence of the TSA - one of the most corrupt institutions in the country - represents a microcosm for the state of American freedom and pokes holes in the patriotic reverence that accompanies the celebration of Independence Day.

Created by the Bush administration after 9/11 as part of the new Department of Homeland Security, the TSA is one of the most visible signs of a continuous erosion of civil liberties, the lengths the state will go to expand power, and the backwards incentive structure of government programs. After perhaps the biggest intelligence and defense failure in American history, the federal government was not only given an increased budget but a new department as well. The TSA was ushered in and soon began violating the rights and privacy of all Americans who were once under the assumptiton that they had a natural right to the freedom of movement, and despite many lawsuits, the TSA has only grown and expanded to cover train and bus stations as well.

One could easily write an entire book detailing the outrages and crimes perpetrated by the TSA, and many Americans are no doubt well aware of them or have experienced them directly themselves. There are cases of toddlers and 85-year-old women being searched and humiliated, private property confiscated from passengers, millions scanned with radiation and photographs taken and stored in a database, and perhaps most egregious of all, are the amount of convicted pedophiles and child molesters that have somehow earned a TSA badge.

These invasions of basic privacy and decency aside, Americans flying on Independence Day (and any time throughout the year) will come face to face with what the TSA is really all about. It represents a gradual acceptance of a police state, more and more control of our lives and property, and most importantly, the illusion of security. It might be easier, perhaps, to accept the TSA's abuses if they were at least preventing attacks or crimes, but the TSA is laughably incompetent. But as long as there are costumed government agents patrolling, watching, and ordering us around, there is a false assumption of safety.

At a time when Americans are supposed to celebrate their freedoms and honor those who fought to earn our independence, the TSA is an upfront reminder of how rhetorical these platitudes have become. While offering lip service to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, we find that the 4th Amendment apparently does not apply once we step inside of an airport, and we slowly but surely have become inundated and accepting of it as normal and necessary.

Once we land at our destination after a cattle-like herding, what do we find? Presidents that wage war on their own with no accountability and brag about it in the nation's most esteemed newspaper. Hundreds of thousands of pages of federal regulations that govern nearly every aspect of our lives of which ignorance is no excuse, enforced by police that have grown increasingly militarized. A Bill of Rights that is legislated away or simply ignored as quaint and archaic. A government that claims the right to the fruits of your labor and then decides how much they will allow you to keep. A monetary system that inflates away the purchasing power of your wealth in order to pay off the debt accrued by previous politicians. Liberty? Freedom? The rule of law? Forgive me if I am less than eager to wave the flag.

But like a spouse or a loved one, I criticize only out of love for this country. The idea of it, at least. When I think of Independence Day, I think of the American revolutionaries who seceded from the British Empire in order to govern themselves, take lessons and insights from the fallen republics and Western liberal thinkers of the past, concluding that government exists solely to protect individual liberty. But over two centuries later, America is the Founding Fathers' nightmare, complete with a standing army, central banking, direct taxation, and centralized federal power.

More than abstract concepts like civil liberties and natural rights, the beauty of the Declaration of Independence is that it is fundamentally a secessionist document, urging the duty of people to alter or abolish their governments when they become destructive of the limited ends of protecting the equal rights of all to life, liberty, and property. Withdraw your consent, Jefferson urged, to anyone seeking liberty and independence. And as Lysander Spooner argued decades later, this applies all the way down to the individual as well.

This is what July 4th should represent, and perhaps the TSA presence as Americans travel this holiday (and the endless array of government abuses) might actually cause some contemplation and reflection about the rhetoric and oft-repeated slogans. It might cause more Americans to, similar to the revolutionaries before us, peacefully and confidentally withdraw their consent from an empire.