A LITTLE REBELLION

Deregulated Roads: The Netherlands Experience

 

Republican National Convention: LIVE! GOP Looks to Contend With Ron Paul Delegates

I will be liveblogging the RNC in Tampa for PolicyMic this week. It will be a continuously uploading page that will feature my commentary, notes, and other noteworthy pieces from around the web as I attempt to make some sense of the Fascist Convention, speakers, and most important to me and most of my readers, what happens with the Ron Paul delegates.

I have already updated the live blog with a few stories from over the weekend, including highlights from the P.A.U.L. Festival and why Paul rejected a speaking slot at the convention. Check it out!

Here is the link for the live blog.

Ron Paul at the RNC: Forget Hurricane Isaac, Hurricane Paul is the Real Storm That is Brewing

New article for PolicyMic.

Forget the horse race, constant polling, and the bickering over inconsequential issues that have consumed the 2012 presidential elections. The most interesting event by far of this political season will be this upcoming week in Tampa with the P.A.U.L. Festival over the weekend and the Republican National Convention next week (which PolicyMic will be live blogging and covering extensively).

While the 2012 election will likely be between two candidates who offer different styles of the same packaged message, the next week offers a true battle of ideas, countless examples of the success of grassroots organization, and the potential for chaos that is truly unique and will be the real entertainment.

While the media has already virtually crowned former Governor Mitt Romney the Republican nominee to face off against President Obama this November, things won't be so simple in Tampa. Although Ron Paul has stayed very quiet lately, the Republican establishment will have their hands full in the next week.

Since 2008, the Republican Party has sought to purge any of the growing Paulian influence within the party. They were largely successful in 2008 (and not coincidentally, lost the election). The GOP is still trying to "play defense" against anything other than a rubber-stamping of Romney at the convention, but after four years of more war and debt from Obama - combined with grassroots Paulian action at local and state Republican offices — the GOP will have to do deal with some uncomfortable realities.

First of all, as Laura Trice pointed out in a recent article for the Huffington Post, despite GOP fears and attempts to prevent it, Paul could theoretically be nominated at the convention (and props to Trice for detailing why Paul should be nominated). And while the big banks, corporations, and special interests are salivating at the thought of Romney being the nominee, principled conservatives are not happy with a candidate who wants to reappoint Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, constantly flip-flops, and whose only appeal is that he is, well, not Obama.

What if the hundreds of delegates Paul has accumulated, as well as uneasy Romney supporters, decide not to play ball and nominate Paul instead? Or short of something so drastic, raise hell at the convention when the laundry list of establishment and neocon Republicans are scheduled to speak?

This has got to keep the GOP bigwigs up at night. While their only concern is wresting the power to use force and aggression at home and abroad away from Obama, Paul's delegates, representing issues of substance that Paul has been talking about for decades, will be there to actually have a debate about the future of the party and the country. This potential battle of ideas, fought out over one of the biggest stages possible, might just be the most exciting political sight to see for years to come. And despite what Paul's horrible campaign managers may tell the press (I'm looking at you Jesse Benton), Paul's delegates are not making any "deals" with the Republicans. They are hungry, passionate, and only want to be heard.

And if the GOP responds with hostility like they have countless times before, then the Republicans deserve to lose. They dug their own grave by offering the American people a plastic and robotic empty suit despite the polls that have Paul beating Obama in a general election, drawing significant support from Democrats and independents.

Democrats, too, should be disheartened. At their convention, President Obama will address swooning crowds and warn them about the dangers of some non-existent caricature of conservatives and Republicans. But what about the honest progressives who value peace, civil liberties, and oppose corporate welfare? Well, they're stuck with Obama, just like conservatives are stuck with Romney. Maybe this will open more and more people's eyes to the phoniness of the two-party system and make them refuse to choose the lesser of two evils. A pox on both of their houses!

The fact that Hurricane Isaac is threatening to derail the Republican convention may just be a coincidence, but it is sure is representative of what the GOP should except next week. The Paulian delegates and the presence of the P.A.U.L. Festival right next door, who are armed with passion and principles, are not going away quietly. Their presence alone creates the real storm that the GOP does not know how to handle.

Free Energy for Everyone: The Dream and Unbridled Genius of Nikola Tesla

 

(via LRC)

Ron Paul Festival: 5 Libertarian Songs That Should Be Played Outside of the Stuffy RNC

New article for PolicyMic.

On August 24-26th, the weekend before the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida, supporters of Ron Paul have organized the P.A.U.L. Festival (People Awakening and Uniting for Liberty) to celebrate and honor Paul's campaign, legacy, and libertarian message.

The event will feature speeches from many heavyweights in the libertarian movement, like Thomas Woods, Lew Rockwell, Scott Horton, Walter Block, Adam Kokesh, Peter Schiff, Gary Johnson, and many more. There will also be beer and entertainment, including music from libertarian bands and those who support Paul's message.

In 2008, Paul held an alternative convention in Minneapolis, Minnesota just across town from the GOP convention in St. Paul. Paul invited the presidential candidates from nearly every third party to speak, have an honest debate, and Paul later rocked the crowd of almost 10,000 with his usual points stressing constitutional government, peace, and individual liberty.

The P.A.U.L. Festival in Tampa should be even louder and more crowded than the one in 2008. As I mentioned before, there will be many great bands performing at the event that will undoubtedly entertain and excite the crowd. In addition to these performances and speeches, here are five songs that should be played at the festival, the louder the better, that also help capture the spirit of Paul's campaign and remind the GOP that despite their open hostility, the Paulian movement represents the real future of the party and the country.

1. "Fortunate Son" by Creedence Clearwater Revival:

 

Perhaps the biggest reason that Paul has been ignored, booed, and smeared by the press and the mainstream members of both political persuasions is his firm defense of peace and a defensive foreign policy. More than anything, this is why he would never be let near the levers of power. It is also why, coincidentally, Paul has gained such a large following. Every time the U.S. was beating the drums for war against the current third-world country that posed "an existential threat" to our very existence, Paul eloquently and forcefully opposed it and has been proven right over and over again.

Before the Iraq War in 2003, Paul argued that the litmus test of any war should be the willingness of any politician voting in favor it to go and fight themselves or to send their sons and daughters. I think that's a pretty good standard and one that would change our foreign policy overnight. Paul's defense of the constitutional processes of declaring war, and of standing up for veterans in general, is why he received such huge support from the U.S. military. Creedence's classic antiwar protest song perfectly captures this.

2. "A Simple Song of Freedom" by Bobby Darin:

 

Paul would be the first one to tell you that he doesn't wow crowds with slick-tongued rhetoric, talking points, and audience flattery like most (all?) other politicians. He is "the imperfect messenger of a perfect message," and that is a huge part of his charm. He is the anti-politician, with suits that don't fit, no teleprompter, no notes, but armed solely with a knowledge of history, economics, and liberty that would make Thomas Jefferson blush. Many of the ideas behind libertarianism are complex, but the concept of individual liberty and why it should be expanded to the greatest extent possible is not.

3. "Dr. No" by Payday Monsanto:

 

Another of Paul's key issue is the drug war. Not only it is an issue that denies individual liberty, creates a vast and violent black market, is littered with government corruption, and has helped contributed to our growing police state, it is incredibly discriminatory to minorities.

Ron Paul's support is one of the most diverse and unique in modern political history. At a Ron Paul speech, one can find a businessman in a three-piece suit standing next to someone with dreadlocks. He says the same things in a stump speech at UC Berkeley that he does at Texas A&M University. So it's only fitting to put a fantastic rap song in the mix, with a great beat and sharp lyrics to annoy the stuffy GOP establishment.

4. "Stop Loss" by Marc Watercus:

 

On a similar musical theme, here is a great grassroots hip-hop song that would strike at the heart of warmongering Republicans. The song is by Marc Hall (AKA Marc Watercus), an Army Specialist and Iraq War veteran who was justifiably upset when he was "stop-lossed" after he had finished his Army tour. After he sent this song to the Pentagon in protest in 2009, he was jailed at (the ironically-named) Liberty County Jail in Georgia then sent to Kuwait to await a military trial.

Hall is just one of over 100,000 soldiers that the Pentagon has "stop-lossed" since 2001, and his passionate plea is a great example of Paul's spirit of dissent, civil disobedience, and the frustration of so many soldiers over three, four, and five tours in Iraq and/or Afghanistan.

5. "Bastards of Young" by The Replacements:

 

This song from one of the most underrated bands of all time perfectly captures the essence of Paul's support from those under 30. We are the ones that are asked to fight the Pentagon's aggressive wars, bear the burden of decades of inflation and debt, and face a weak employment field that isn't expanding anytime soon.

Although this song was written in 1985, the lyrics are still as relevant as ever. Front man Paul Westerberg sings about "the ladder of success" that is missing the first rung; a generation that feels like they are little more than "income-tax deductions;" and finally, in the strongest verse of the song, about how the state and its corporatist allies turn our priorities and relationships backwards: "...the ones that love us best, are the ones we'll lay to rest, and visit their graves on holidays at best. The ones that love us least, are the ones we'll die to please..." Combine this with pounding drums and loud guitars, and you have the perfect Paulian protest song.

Runners-Up:

"Universal Soldier" by Donovan

"The Anarcho-Capitalist Theme Song" Randy Goble

"What If? (Remix)" by Ron Paul

 

The 5 Principles of Austrian Economics

In other words, real economics. Via the Capitalism Institute:

What is the Austrian School of economics?  If you’re even slightly familiar with this school, you’ve probably heard of economists such as Hayek and Mises.  If you’ve done more than cursory research, you’ve also probably come across some thoughts by Murray Rothbard, Israel Kirzner, and Carl Menger.  You might be aware of some interesting insights into the Austrian theory of the business cycle, the study of human action, the concept of “deciding at the margin,” Austrian theories of banking, or the socialist calculation debate.

These names and ideas are great starting places for those who are interested in Austrian economics.  However, it’s always important to take a step back from the conglomeration of names and theories in order to better understand the comprehensive whole.  Whether you are in the middle of attempting to dissect Mises’ most famous treatise on economics, Human Action, or you have a copy of Economics in One Lesson by Hazlitt sitting on your bookshelf, it is always important to go back and remind ourselves to ask: what is the Austrian School of economics?

Defining the Austrian School of economics

The term “Austrian School” is a label that we use to categorize a certain type of economic methodology.  Now, I understand that labels are often criticized for oversimplifying issues and lumping complex beliefs into broad categorizations.  Leaving aside the fact that this accusation refutes itself (since it labels all labels as being overly broad), this contention also overlooks the reason that we make labels.  We make labels because it helps us to distinguish between different viewpoints, methods, and presuppositional biases.  This clarification is significant because it helps us look for the most compelling reasons to separate various schools of thought from each other.

In the case of the Austrian school, what are the unique distinctions that separate it from other economic schools?  Without getting too technical, let’s look at five of the most basic fundamentals of Austrian economic methodology:

1. Austrian economics is deductive

2. Austrian economics presupposes the axiom that humans act

3. Austrian economics derives methodological individualism from human action

4. Austrian economics rejects empiricism as the standard for proof

5. Austrians economics does not endorse a political ideology

Without further ado, let’s briefly unpack the theory behind each of these principles in order to develop a comprehensive understanding of what Austrian economics is.

1. Austrian economics is deductive

The Austrian School’s economic methodology is an exercise in deductive reasoning.  The big, fancy way to describe Austrian economics is to call it axiomatic deductivism. This means that Austrian economists study human decision-making by starting with a set of fundamental axioms and then reasoning from those axioms to truths about economic principles.  Now, remember, an axiom is a presupposition that cannot be deductively proven, but is nevertheless self-evident and irrefutable.

In this sense, Walter Block says that Austrian economics takes a geometric approach to scientific inquiry.  Much like Euclid’s system of geometry, which builds itself upon fundamental axioms and necessary postulates using abstract theory, Austrian economics systematizes its understanding of human action before diving into the specific circumstances.  Why does this matter?  Because Austrian economics is a thoroughly systematic approach that provides us with a rigorous and robust framework for understanding economic issues.

This does not mean that Austrian economists agree on everything!

Just like there were many debates among Greece’s students of geometry, there are disagreements between Austrian economists over certain issues, including some aspects of methodology.  However, the point is not that Austrians always agree, rather, the point is that they attempt to construct their economic system based upon a generally shared and accepted deductive methodology.  This brings us to the question: what is the starting point for the Austrian methodology?  The answer is found in the second principle of Austria economics:

2. Austrian economics presupposes the axiom that humans act

The fundamental axiom for the Austrian is that humans act.  This is irrefutable because if anyone tries to disprove it, they have to in some way think, read, write, and speak in order to make their argument.  In other words, they have to act in order to prove that humans do not act.

A necessary assumption that is derived from this outcome is that humans act purposefully, given their limited knowledge and means in any given circumstance.  This does not mean that Austrians argue that humans necessarily behave rationally or that they always have good reasons for acting.  It also does not mean that the result of the outcome will align with the individual’s perception of desired results.  It simply means that humans do things because they perceive either a non-negative outcome or a benefit as a result of the action, given the constraints placed upon them.

Murray Rothbard clarified that the Austrian concept of human action, “contrasts to purely reflexive, or knee-jerk, behavior, which is not directed toward goals.”  Austrian economics is not meant to provide us with the tools of studying purposeless and random behavior.  That is left to the domain of other fields of study.

However, the irrefutable fact that humans generally act toward perceived goals remains–and it’s quite evident in the world around us.  People act purposefully and rationally to improve their conditions around them given the state of affairs they find themselves in and the incentives they perceive.  If this wasn’t true, then we wouldn’t have all of the advances of modern civilization.

Therefore, properly speaking, Austrian economics goes beyond the study of exchanges involving money, goods, and services.  Instead, as Mises said, it is a subset of the study of all human decision-making that is purposefully conducted.  The fancy word for this study is praxeology.

3. Austrian economics derives methodological individualism from human action

After having proven human action as a reliable postulate, Austrians move on to the notion of methodological individualism, arguing that individual human actors are the most important factors in understanding  observable causation in this world.  The ultimate question of methodological individualism is: who acts?

Think about it this way: ideas are not people, thus, they cannot act.  Moreover, since a group of people can only exist because multiple individuals are acting within the group, then the notion of a group of people is a helpful description of the concept of multiple people acting—i.e. a group of people is just a descriptive idea.  Therefore, since a group of people is nothing more than an idea, then a group of people cannot act since ideas cannot act.

Thus, businesses, governments, society, neighborhoods, etc. do not act.  Individuals forming associations in such environments are the stimulants of all action that occur within such group frameworks.  This is why Mises argued in Human Action that, “a social collective has no existence and reality outside of the individual members’ actions.”

Again, a clarification point is needed: the concept of methodological individualism as a method of analysis does not carry with it the value implications of a moral or philosophical advocacy of individualism.  By saying that individuals, not groups, act, Austrians are not necessarily saying that the individual is the source of reality or that the individual is the highest form of a moral being.  Regardless of what they personally believe about theology, ethics, and metaphysics, Austrian economists do not claim to answer these questions within their economic methodology, arguing that these issues lie outside of the scope of economic inquiry.

Instead, Austrians are simply saying that if we are to understand purposeful human behavior, we must seek to understand it at its most basic level: the individual human actor.  From this, we can extrapolate to different levels of social cooperation and community behavior, but the Austrian never forgets that the individual is the reason for and the source of action in society.

4. Austrian economics rejects empiricism as the standard for proof

The deductive approach of Austrian methodological individualism starkly contrasts with the empirical and mathematical approaches of much of the rest of economics.  Although Austrians do not contest the notion that economics is a science, they recognize that it is not a quantifiable science in the way that chemistry is a quantifiable science.  Thus, they do not believe that the primary means of understanding economics should come through models, graphs, formulas, and equations.

Because of the plethora of variables involved with each individual action, it is mathematically impossible to understand each variable behind each human action on an aggregate level.  There are literally hundreds of variables acting upon one individual as he faces the decision to make one action.  Multiply this by millions of individuals facing hundreds of their own specialized variables, and you can see why developing mathematical formula to rule and predict human behavior is ultimately futile.  This is why Mises said, “All authors eager to construct an epistemological system of the sciences of human action according to the pattern of the natural sciences err lamentably.”

A few important clarifications are necessary at this point: although Austrians will not deny that there is a place for econometrics and mathematical modeling, the difference between Austrians and most other economists is one of emphasis.  Most mainstream economists place their emphasis on understanding human decision-making with statistics, graphs, GDP, indexes, etc.  Austrians believe that this is a hopeless endeavor and thus emphasize the discovery of economic principles through a deductive approach that incorporates the math, graphs, and statistics when it properly aligns with those economic principles that are established by logic.

The Austrian is not opposed to trying to measure and model economic phenomena; however, he does not believe we can learn the fundamental truths about economics through such empirical analysis.  While isolating variables in biology, physics, and chemistry can indeed tell us more about scientific truths, the inability to isolate variables in economics can potentially lead us to false knowledge if we continue to assume that we can hold “everything else equal.”  If policy and business decisions are enacted based on these false understandings, then there will likely be disruptions, inefficiencies, fraud, and cheating in the market system.

5. Austrians Economics does not endorse a political ideology

Ultimately, the goal of Austrian economics is to tell us both why and how humans act, make decisions, and conduct economic exchanges.  In other words, it’s a “nuts and bolts” explanation for economic transactions and human choice.

It is absolutely not meant to be a moral prescription for government policy.

Although the principles of Austrian economics help us to better understand the economic phenomena associated with modern circumstances and political realities, it cannot be emphasized enough that Austrian economists view their study as a science of inquiry, not necessarily a prescription for policy.

This distinguishes Austrian economics, which is an economic school of thought that attempts to describe the way things happen, from libertarianism, which is a political philosophy that tries to tell us what government and society should look like.  Now, often the two do seem to go together since most Austrian economists nowadays are libertarians.  Furthermore, most of the influential Austrian economists, such as Hayek, Mises, and Rothbard all held to varying degrees of libertarian political philosophy.  Much of the findings of Austrian economics, such as Hayek’s business cycle theory, do seem to mold very well with the ethical and policy prescriptions of libertarians.  Ultimately, however, applying Austrian economic methodology does not require an individual to be a libertarian and vice versa.

That said, many defenders of liberty have found the methodological analysis of Austrian economics to be an important tool in refuting advocates of big brother government.  Austrian economics helps bring the arguments back to reality, pointing statists to the facts that deficit spending creates inflation, that inflation creates unsustainable booms, that government stimulus programs cannot create employment, etc.  Yet, Austrian economic methodology never actually makes any statements about reality outside of what it deduces and observes in human behavior.  Prescriptions about what to do in light of the findings of Austrians are left to the area of political philosophy.

Lesson 1: Conclusion

There is a very deep and rich history behind Austrian economics, going all the way back to Carl Menger who pioneered the Austrian school with his elaboration of the principle of subjective value theory.  Although Austrian economics has unfortunately never been a mainstream viewpoint, its consistency and accuracy in helping us to understand the world around us is forcing scholars of the modern era to check their Keynesian premises and seriously consider the Austrian school.  It is these real-world considerations that will be considered in my next article in this guide to Austrian economics.

Additional Resources

Human Action by Ludwig von Mises (Online version accessible at: http://mises.org/resources.aspx?Id=3250&html=1)

“Praxeology: The Method of Austrian Economics,” by Murray Rothbard (PDF file accessible at: http://mises.org/rothbard/praxeology.pdf)

“Austrian Economics and Libertarianism” by Walter Block (Youtube video of lecture accessible at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn6TXqgyj_M)

Economics for Real People (2^nd ed.) by Gene Callahan (PDF file accessible at: http://mises.org/books/econforrealpeople.pdf)

 

A Beautiful Anarchy: Stefan Molyneux Interviews Jeffrey Tucker

 

Ecuador Grants Asylum to Julian Assange

Good for Ecuador for granting Wikileaks founder Julian Assange asylum and protection against threats of arrests by the British government (and most likely, the US as well). Via Antiwar.com:

Ecuador has granted asylum to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, citing genuine concerns that his human rights might be violated and that the sex offense accusations against him may be used as an opportunity for the US to prosecute him for published classified documents.

Assange began hiding out in Ecuador’s London embassy after UK courts denied his appeal for extradition to Sweden. Ecuador’s long-awaited decision comes after British authorities threatened to revoke the embassy’s diplomatic status in order to give them legal cover to forcibly enter the embassy and arrest Assange.

In response to this move, Ecuador’s foreign minister said, “We can’t allow spokespeople from the UK to gleefully say they have been honest when they have threatened us in such a way.”

But the British Foreign Office warned it would not respect the Ecuadoran government’s decision. ”Under our law,” the office said in a statement, “with Mr Assange having exhausted all options of appeal, the British authorities are under a binding obligation to extradite him to Sweden.

“We shall carry out that obligation. The Ecuadorean government’s decision this afternoon does not change that.”

Later, British Foreign Secretary William Hague said Britain would not grant Mr. Assange safe passage to Ecuador because “there is no legal basis for us to do so.”

He said the extradition they are legally obliged to carry out regards allegations of “serious sexual offenses,” and had nothing to do with the work of WikiLeaks or with a desire by US authorities to try him for publishing diplomatic secrets.

But according to leaked emails from the defense consulting group Stratfor, “a sealed indictment has been issued by a secret grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, for Julian Assange. The email is dated 26 January 2011. This means that there has likely been a sealed extradition order for over a year, which will be activated (unsealed) against Assange in Sweden, Australia and the UK when the US Government gives the order.”

Ron Paul on Paul Ryan

Ron Paul knows a forked-tongued neocon when he sees one. Here's Paul's statement on Paul Ryan's budget.

Mr. Speaker, listening to the claims of the opponents of this budget, one would think it represented a full-frontal assault on the welfare state and the entitlements system. However, in fact--with all respect to Shakespeare-- the sound and fury over this budget ultimately signifies nothing. Under this budget, the federal government will spend $3.5 trillion next year, while under President Obama's budget the federal government will spend $3.8 trillion. The small difference between the congressional budget and the President's hardly seem to justify the over-heated rhetoric we hear emanating from both sides of the aisle.

Even under the most optimistic scenario, this supposedly radical plan does not balance the federal budget until my one-year old great-granddaughter will be in college. Under less optimistic assumptions, my great granddaughter will be almost 30 before she sees a balanced federal budget. This assumes that Congress will adhere to this year's budget in future years, a dubious assumption since we cannot bind future Congresses to abide by our spending plans.

The only budget this Congress controls is this year's budget. So why aren't we making substantial spending cuts this year, instead of putting off the hard choices?

Critics of this budget do have a point when they criticize this budget for misplaced priorities, since this plan calls for the federal government to continue to waste trillions of dollars in a future attempt to police the world. Mr. Speaker, through my years in public life I have explained the folly of our hyper-interventionist foreign policy; I will not rehash those arguments here. Instead, I will simply point out to my colleagues that we can no longer afford to spend trillions overseas.

Also, many of those who share my goal of unwinding the federal welfare and entitlement system understand the need to do so without harming Americans currently reliant on the system. That task will be much easier if we begin by eliminating overseas militarism, foreign aid, and corporate welfare. Yet this so called radical budget treats the Pentagon as a sacred cow, as if closing one overseas base or canceling one contract for Lockheed-Martin will render America defenseless.

This budget bill not only fails to reduce spending by changing our foreign policy, it also fails to make any meaningful changes in domestic spending. While the bill does repeal the President's misguided national health care plan, and a few other federal programs, it leaves the vast majority of the federal welfare-regulatory leviathan intact. Despite the claims of both proponents and opponents that this budget dramatically downsizes the federal government, it does not repeal one unconstitutional cabinet department, not even the Department of Education, which has no constitutional authority and if anything has diminished the quality of American education.

Mr. Speaker, the problem facing the federal government is at root not a fiscal problem but a philosophical problem. Too many people in both parties have bought into the idea that the federal government should run the economy, run our lives, and run the world. Until that idea is repudiated and we once again embrace the principles of liberty and constitutional government we will not be able to address our fiscal problems. This budget does little to advance the goal of moving us toward a free society; therefore I urge my colleagues to reject it.

Paul Ryan as VP: Another Reason Not to Vote for Mitt Romney

New article for PolicyMic.

It has been a few days since former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney selected Congressman Paul Ryan to be his running mate. The dust has settled a bit, and the left and the right have predictably, and incorrectly, caricatured Ryan as a villain and a hero. Liberals see him as a radical right-wing extremist who wants to gut Medicare and the social welfare state, while conservatives have hailed him as a fiscally responsible, Ayn Rand-influenced champion of limited government.

A closer look at Ryan, however, proves that that he is little more than a political opportunist, a sheep in wolf's clothing eager to wrest  power and control away from the Democrats. He may, like any good politician, give a good speech and flatter his audience with talking points; his voting record and actions only enhance Romney's ticket as a carbon-copy of President Obama.

When it comes to the issue that a president has the most power over - foreign policy - Ryan believes in a virtually unlimited government. While somehow earning his reputation as some type of "deficit hawk," Ryan firmly supports the Pentagon's welfare programs. In his "Path to Prosperity" plan, Ryan calls for massive increases in the Pentagon's budget. According to the Daily Beast, Ryan has received briefings and immense praise from Elliot Abrams and Fred Kagan, two of the most infamous neocon holdovers of the Reagan and Bush Administrations. And in a June 2011 foreign policy speech, Ryan criticized "isolationism" and argued that America - while propping up dictators and enforcing police states throughout the globe - is "the greatest force for human freedom in the world."

In other words, Ryan fits right in with the bipartisan foreign policy that has dominated Washington for decades and sees no problem with borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars a year in order to maintain, and even expand the empire. Ryan is no "deficit hawk," just a hawk, screeching for more war, debt, and government growth.

Like Ryan, President Obama is a favorite of the neocon/interventionist cabal inside the Beltway. Obama has admitted that he was "enamored" by Fred Kagan's writing and foreign policy recommendations. Bill Kristol hailed Obama as a "born-again neocon" for his war in Libya. Since the day he was inaugurated, President Obama expanded current wars, started new ones, opened new bases in Africa, and thumped his chest over his extrajudicial assassinations, drone strikes, and kill list.

Obama and Ryan may temper their warmongering and overseas aggression with different rhetoric, but their foreign policies are indistinguishable.

When it comes to civil liberties and the restraints on government imposed by the Bill of Rights, again we see Ryan as an enemy of limited government. Ryan voted to extend the PATRIOT Act, for CISPA, for DOMA, and three times in favor of the NDAA. Ryan's affirmative votes reveal that the civil liberties enshrined in the Constitution - rights that have been fought for over 800 years and represent the pinnacle of Western political thought - take a backseat to the federal government's exercise of force over others.

President Obama would agree. He signed an extension of the PATRIOT Act and the NDAA. Ryan's claims of support for limited government and claims of love for Ayn Rand notwithstanding, one wonders whether Ryan believes any limits should be imposed on state power.

On domestic programs and spending, which conservatives have fallen over themselves to praise him for, Ryan has voted for nearly every expansion of government spending, especially when his party was in charge. In 2010, the Republican Liberty Caucus of Wisconsin published a detailed analysis of his voting record that would make President Obama proud. Ryan voted yes on TARP, the 2008 stimulus, the GM and Chrysler bailouts, Medicare Part D, Head Start, an extension of unemployment benefits, No Child Left Behind, and the raising of the debt ceiling. Combine this record with a rhetoric of dissent that conveniently began appearing when a Democrat was elected, and it's hard to take Ryan - or his conservative supporters - seriously.

There has, however, been a lot of attention dedicated to his supposed desire to "gut Medicare." First of all, Medicare is in some deep short-term and long-term trouble. Even if one isn't persuaded by the libertarian argument against state welfare, Medicare is currently funded by borrowed money that continues to lose its value every year, and the entire entitlement-welfare system will have over $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities by 2050. This is obviously unsustainable.

What Ryan wants to do is create a "voucher" system, where we will continue this debt-and-inflation model only with a corporatist twist. "Vouchers" are corporate welfare disguised as "free market solutions," where politically-connected industries rent-seek and lobby for the funds the state steals from your paycheck. Funneling borrowed and depreciating money into Wall Street and fractional-reserve banking instead of into the Treasury Department is just the Republicans' brand of socialism, not "right-wing social engineering" as Newt Gingrich once described it. Both Obama and Romney have accused each other of wanting to "gut Medicare," and they're both right.

And this somehow fires conservatives up and drives liberals mad? Paul Ryan, like his boss Mitt Romney, has a record and belief in virtually unlimited state power that mirrors President Obama's view of government, the Constitution, and presidential powers. Plenty of shady business deals too. A different delivery and tone, perhaps, but both want coercive power and the ability to use it frequently and expensively, at home and anywhere in the globe.

With this kind of "choice," I can't help but root for chaos in Tampa.

A Gang of Thieves, Writ Large

(via Combat Veterans for Ron Paul)

Obamney 2012!

A conservative Democrat vs. a liberal Republican, the Establishment's dream election. Although everyone in the media, politics, or anyone close to power will try desperately to differentiate the two plastic men and guilt you into voting for the supposed "lesser of two evils," they are identical monsters with identical donors. Both of them have no problem enforcing the American Gestapo against us and the rest of the world, pyramiding debt, and choking liberty and the market. Either way, the Empire wins, and we lose.

 

5 Issues That Prove Ron Paul is Ahead of His Time

This article originally appeared at PolicyMic.

A few weeks ago, a speech Congressman Ron Paul gave on the House floor in 2002 resurfaced on the web and went viral. At that time, the Bush Administration was planning for war in Iraq and a "global war on terror," the PATRIOT Act had been passed, and the Federal Reserve had lowered interest rates near zero. In the speech, Paul clearly and consisely articulates the dangers of what the U.S. was embarking on and the results that would likely occur.

Paul's predictions have come eerily true. The War on Terror has helped push the U.S. government even closer to bankruptcy, creates blowback, and costs countless lives. The PATRIOT Act twisted the 4th Amendment into a pretzel, and Paul's warnings about sacrificing liberty for security were only enhanced with the passing of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. The Federal Reserve's money printing, directed by Congress and Wall Street into housing, led to the predictable boom-and-bust cycle culminating in the crash of 2008.

Ten years after the speech, it is truly amazing how prophetic and right Paul was. All throughout his Congressional career, Paul has stood behind a podium on the House floor issuing similar warnings about the follies of unlimited government and foreign military interventionism. A look at Paul's more recent statements and speeches reveals that in ten more years, Paul will likely be proven right again and Americans will wonder why, when given two chances to elect him president, they didn't throw their support behind him.

Here are five  issues on which Ron Paul is simply ahead of his time:

1. The End of the Federal Reserve System

Paul entered politics in the 1970s after taking an interest in economics, schooled by Austrian greats like Hayek, Mises, and Rothbard. Paul knew that President Nixon's closing of the gold window in 1971 was a recipe for financial disaster, and ever since then, has argued the case for sound money and balanced budgets against fractional-reserve banking and deficits. Not since Andrew Jackson shut down a central bank almost 200 years ago has someone done so much to make people aware of the consequences of fiat money. Ten years ago, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan was the maestro, waving a magic wand of easy credit. Now Paul's speeches get interrupted to chants of "End the Fed!" and audits are being passed in the House.

With $15 trillion in debt and $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, Paul may have a point.

History is on his side. The average fiat currency only lasts a few decades before stumbling into a fit of hyperinflation and worthless paper. Given that this August 15 will make it exactly 41 years since the U.S. cut the dollar from all ties to gold, perhaps Paul will be proved correct in sooner than a decade. That's why Paul advocates legalizing alternative currencies and competition, like gold and silver, to help save people's purchasing power as the dollar continues to plummet in value.

2. NDAA

After the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 was passed by Congress and signed by President Obama on New Year's Eve with little attention, Paul took to the House floor and immediately denounced the legislation. It nullifies civil liberties that go back to Magna Carta, Paul noted, to give the President the authority to use the military to arrest and detain U.S. citizens without trial.

President Obama has said that he wouldn't use this power (and he would never lie, right?), but even if we take him at his word, this authority will be transferred to the next President. And given the frequency of legislation that has been passed in the last decade which essentially abolishes the Bill of Rights, the claimed power will either remain or grow. Just imagine a President Romney or President Hillary Clinton having the power to make people disappear.

Given that public protests and movements will likely grow as the effects of debt and inflation really kick in, it might be only a matter of time before enforcing "law and order" is the norm, not the exception. The Pentagon openly admits that it has prepared for war with the American people if they express their right to petition their government a little bit too emphatically.

Every campaign stump speech Paul gave during his 2012 presidential run included vehement opposition to the NDAA which will undoubtedly be seen as prophetic.

3. Obama, Democrats Are Not "Socialists"

Conservatives and Republicans like to call President Obama a socialist, and deride Obamacare as government-run medicine. Paul, on the other hand, saw the legislation for what it was: corportarism, welfare for politically-connected corporations and industries. Health care before Obama was a heavily socialized mess already, Paul argues, and it's hypocritical to oppose Obamacare so that you can replace it with Romneycare.

It is an injustice to the public that the mainstream debate is framed as "big government Democrats" and "free market Republicans." In reality, they are two parties devoted to the same basic philosophy and only quibble over what kind of socialism and corporatism we should have. Paul has used his principled understanding of economics to help peel away the myth that the American economic system even remotely resembles a free market and the contradictions of the left-right divide.

Because of Paul, millions have abandoned this false choice of Republican corporatism or Democrat corporatism, and with time, that can only increase.

4. The Follies of Empire

Paul has given so many House floor speeches and written so many articles about the terrible consequences of military interventionism overseas and non-defensive wars that there is an entire book dedicated to them.

Paul is still the only presidential candidate who openly opposes President Obama's incredibly aggressive and interventionist foreign policy, targeted assassinations, "kill lists," and secret drone warfare. America is supposed to be a commercial republic, Paul argues, a shining light and example of peace and economic prosperity to a world that desperately needs it. Lead by example, not by bombs and bribes.

Paul was laregly dismissed by conservatives for these views, even being booed in South Carolina during a Republican debate for espousing Christ's Golden Rule.

But Paul will be proven right even though the American people didn't want to hear it. Whether or not one is convinved by Paul's arguments in favor of a strong defense and diplomacy, there is simply no possible way that the U.S. Navy can continue to police every ocean, that the Army can support 1,000 foreign military bases, or that we can continue to wage multiple hot wars forever. The U.S. is borrowing almost half of every dollar from China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and South Korea to maintain this empire, and eventually the troops will have to come home.

A decade from now, many Americans will probably be wishing it was done in 2012 by President Paul out of choice and not out of financial collapse and necessity.

5. The Liberty Movement is Here to Stay

Paul's presidential campaign stump speeches, and his tone in general, tend to express a slight sense of despair and frustration. This mentality, however, is only out of legimitate concern and is always tempered by a long-term positive outlook about the future of liberty and the country. Paul, quoting Samuel Adams, knows that "It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds."

With the rise of the Internet and the spread of free and cheap information, Paul's shouts from the rooftops now have a megaphone and a printing press. Thomas Paine had pamphlets, the libertarian movement has the web and the power to circumvent the mainstream media narrative and poke holes in propaganda.

Combine that with the grassroots, decentralized organization of national delegates and Paul supporters inside state and local offices around the country, and the movement that he reluctantly led is just getting started.

No Traffic Lights vs. Traffic Lights

"Anarcho-Roads," via Karen De Coster at LRC:

This is an interesting video of an intersection (a) in Auckland during a power outage with no traffic lights and (b) the next day, after the traffic lights were restored. Note the smooth flow of traffic during a power outage and the resulting spontaneous order, as compared to the traffic backups with the lights working. No doubt that the government knows how to muck up and/or bring traffic to a halt.

This caught my eye because I experience this often going to/from work. I take one surface road from my home to downtown, and things being the way they are in Detroit, when storms knock out traffic lights, it is typically at least one week before they get fixed. In the spontaneous order that results, I blaze through the lights much quicker, and my commuting time is always shortened.

The same day I first watched this video, last week, the traffic lights went out at a major intersection in the 'burbs where a six-lane divided highway crosses another six-lane divided highway (giving us the famous "Michigan Left"). This might seem a bit tricky to maneuver, however, I noted how carefully folks approached the intersection, and how quickly they made decisions to go/not go. Traffic flowed beautifully and I zipped through the intersection during evening rush hour.

The closest we come to anarcho-roads in a government road system are the modern roundabouts. These first appeared in my part of the world less than ten years ago. They keep traffic flowing while a mostly polite self-organization emerges. Still, Michiganders who are not used to them (ullike the east coast folks) complain and whine about their complexity.

 

A Brief History of the American Empire

From the Screeching Kettle blog:

1846, Mexico: U.S. President Polk leads a national sentiment of "manifest destiny", designed to expand federal rule from the east to west coast, including territory already occupied by natives. 

He offers to buy land from Mexico, but Mexico refuses. Texas, owned by Mexico, seeks U.S. residents to "settle" there and "help grow the population". However, these "settlers" eventually grow dissatisfied with Mexican rule and form a rebellion, thus beginning the Mexican-American War.

As a result, the U.S. gains control of Colorado, Arizona, California, Utah, Nevada, Wyoming and New Mexico.

1853, Japan: Commodore Matthew Perry of the U.S. Navy sails into Tokyo Harbor aboard the frigate "Susquehanna", forcing Japan to sign a treaty permitting trade, and the opening of Japanese ports to U.S. merchant ships.

1893, Hawaii: Hawaii has a large population of American sugar cane planters, whalers, and missionaries. In 1887, a U.S. base at Pearl Harbor is constructed. When King David Kalakaua dies in 1891, his sister Lydia Paki Kamekeha Liliuokalani takes the throne and tries to restore Hawaii's monarchy to absolute power. However, Hawaii Supreme Court justice Sanford Dole stages a bloodless coup backed by the U.S. military on January 19, 1893 and dethrones the Queen, forcing her to plead with U.S. President Grover Cleveland for reinstatement. By 1895, she abdicates the throne. President William McKinley's administration then moves for Hawaii's annexation, giving the U.S. control over coaling stations in the Pacific. 

1898, Cuba: The U.S. blames Spain for destroying the USS Maine, despite evidence that the explosion which caused the sinking came from an internal - not external - source. As a result of the war, Cuba assumes independence, Puerto Rico becomes an American possession, and from Spain, the U.S. acquires Guam and the Philippines.

1899, Philippines: Through the Treaty of Paris (1898), Spain gives control of the Philippines to the United States for $20 million. The Filipino-American War begins shortly after.

Known in U.S. history books as the "Philippine Insurrection", it was America's first true overseas war, lasting from 1898 to 1902.

In those 3 years, as many as 70,000 Americans die, along with close to 2 million Filipinos. 

1899, Somoa: Rivalries between French, British, German, and American forces -- all of which valued Pago Pago Harbor as a refueling station for coal-fired shipping and whaling -- leads to the partitioning of Samoa. The last chief of Somoa before U.S. rule, the Tui Manu'a Elisala, is forced to sign a deed of cession following a series of U.S. naval trials. 

1903, Panama: Seeking a canal through Panama -- a province of Colombia -- the U.S. attempts negotiations and payments, all of which fail. President Roosevelt is outraged, stating that "we may have to give a lesson to these jack rabbits". Stockholders of the New Panama Canal Company arrange a "revolution" in Panama and fund the rebels, assisted by the U.S. Navy. Shortly after, Panama declares its independence from Colombia. 

1906, Cuba: The United States assumes temporary military control of Cuba under the Platt Amendment, following the reelection of an American puppet government which caused a nationalist uprising. Two years later, the U.S. builds a naval base at Guantanamo Bay and claims rights to it in perpetuity.

1910, Nicaragua: The U.S. seeks to establish a canal through Nicaragua, but instead chooses Panama. When Nicaraguan President José Santos Zelaya solicits funds to build a second inter-oceanic canal for Germany and Japan, Washington turns against him. After Zelaya's government executes two Americans for aiding anti-government rebels, Washington breaks diplomatic relations, threatens naval intervention, and forces Zelaya into exile. 

1914, Mexico: Mexican officials detain several drunken U.S. Marines from the U.S.S. Dolphin, which is docked in the port of Tampico, Mexico, after they accidentally enter a restricted area. The Mexican government quickly releases them, and issues an apology.

Regardless of the regret expressed by Mexican President Victor Huerta, U.S. Admiral Henry T. Mayo demands that Mexican troops salute an American flag as a sign of contrition. President Huerta refuses the salute; three days later, President Wilson orders American warships to Tampico Bay.

Wilson insists that his anger is not directed at the Mexican people, but at Huerta, "and those who adhere to him" because he refused to salute the American flag as an official apology.

By the end of 1914, U.S. Marines had seized Tampico, forced an apology from Huerta, and demanded his resignation from power.

Tampico, Mexico was considered the world's largest oil port in 1901. Some of the richest oil fields were discovered within a 100-mile radius of the port between 1914-1918.

1914, Europe: United States claims to be neutral as Germany, France, and Britain engage in conflict; however, U.S. banks and weapons manufacturers continue selling to France and Britain, leading to the German sinking of the ship, Lusitania, and eventual U.S. entry to World War 1. 

1917, Russia: Woodrow Wilson funds the "White" side of the Russian civil war. In the summer of 1918, he authorizes a naval blockade of the Soviet Union to help stop the Russian Revolution. American forces penetrate westward from Vladivostok to Lake Baikal, supporting Czech and White Russian forces.

The White Russian forces disintegrate by 1920, and this intervention helps fuel anti-western sentiments throughout Russia during the Cold War years. 

1924, Honduras: Civil war breaks out after liberal president Rafael Lopez Gutierrez establishes a dictatorship. The U.S. lands Marines in the country to "protect its interests". Gutierrez is killed in March, and the revolution ends in May. 

1925, Mexico: The U.S. and Mexico narrowly avoid war after Mexico threatens U.S. oil contracts.

1945, Japan: The United States becomes the first country to use atomic weapons in warfare, killing thousands of Japanese civilians in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Concluded the United States Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946, "air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that ... Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

1950, Korea: Without the approval of Congress, President Harry Truman sends troops to fight in Korea, asserting an inherent right to do so as Commander-in-Chief.

The Korean War ends three years later, leaving behind 33,600 American casualties, 16,000 UN-allied, 415,000 South Korean, 520,000 North Korean, and an estimated 900,000 Chinese.

1953, Iran: British intelligence agencies join with the C.I.A. to overthrow the Iranian government out of fears it will nationalize oil production.

1954, Guatemala: Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán, the democratically-elected President of Guatemala, issues land reforms which threaten the interests of U.S.-based United Fruit Company. C.I.A. Director Allen Dules, along with his brother, both have stakes in the company. It heavily lobbies the U.S. government to take action. Shortly after, the C.I.A. begins training rebels, and sets up a radio station across the border led by fake rebels to instigate a revolution. Eventually, the Guatemalan President is sent into exile. 

1961, Cuba: US mercenaries depart Nicaragua and invade Playa Girón, Cuba. They suffer a historical defeat known as the "Bay of Pigs." 

1961, Iraq: Abdel Karim Kassem, leader of Iraq, threatens western oil interests, causing the U.S. and Britain to begin arming Kurdish rebels in the country. In 1963, Kassem is forced out of power, put on trial, and eventually shot to death. By 1968, Saddam Hussein takes power in the country, backed by the C.I.A.

1964, Vietnam: The USS Maddox is gathering intelligence off the coast of North Vietnam when a group of North Vietnamese torpedo boats approach the ship. The Maddox opens fire, the North Vietnamese respond with torpedoes, but they are eventually driven away. The exchange prompts the US government and news media to report that North Vietnamese torpedo boats launched an "unprovoked attack" against the Maddox while it was on a "routine patrol".

Two days later, Captain John J. Herrick of the USS Maddox sees two "mysterious dots" on his radar screen, determines they are torpedo boats, and sends an emergency cable to headquarters in Honolulu reporting that the ship is under attack.

Shortly after, Herrick sends another cable: "Freak weather effects on radar and over eager sonar men ... No actual visual sightings by Maddox. Suggest complete evaluation before any further action taken."

Less than an hour later, Herrick sends a third cable, saying he is now uncertain of what had happened; however, by this time, President Johnson is already announcing a major military escalation in Vietnam.

By the end of the Vietnam War, millions of Vietnamese civilians have perished, along with more than 50,000 U.S. soldiers.

1970, Cambodia: President Richard Nixon announces that U.S. troops are invading Cambodia, the country west of Vietnam through which the North Vietnamese are allegedly supplying their troops. For more than a year prior to the announcement, the U.S. had been conducting bombing raids in the country. 

1982, Iraq: U.S. backs Iraq against Iran, supplying Saddam Hussein with intelligence, diplomatic aid, and chemical weapons (which would later be used to massacre innocent people).

1985, Nicaragua: . Congress authorizes $38 million over two years in "non-military" aid to Nicaragua's Contras. 

1986, Libya: Islamic militants bomb a Berlin discotheque, killing two American soldiers. The White House uses this opportunity to retaliate, and President Reagan authorizes the bombing of Libya without the authorization of Congress. At least 100 civilians are killed.

One year prior, the National Security Council had discussed a plan to overthrow Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi using exiles in a coup, although the idea was eventually abandoned. 

1990, Iraq: In August, U.S. fighter jets, aircraft carriers, battleships, and half a million American troops are deployed to Saudi Arabia to defend against a possible attack from Iraq. Between its own oil fields, and those of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, western governments allegedly fear Iraq could gain control over the majority of the world's oil reserves. Dick Cheney secures the U.S.-Saudi occupation agreement, ensuring there will be no set withdrawal date from Saudi Arabia, thereby allowing U.S. forces to remain.

In 1989, it was revealed in a leaked memo that C.I.A. officials were collaborating with Kuwaiti officials in an effort to take advantage of the "deteriorating" economic situation in Iraq.

Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein eventually annexes Kuwait, triggering the first Iraq War.

Kuwait had been part of the Ottoman Empire province of Basra, and included much of modern-day Iraq. Up until that point, Iraq had not recognized Kuwait's sovereignty, and the border between Iraq and Kuwait had never been clearly defined.

The US ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, claims that when she gave Iraq indications that the US would not oppose an invasion of Kuwait, she did not expect Iraq to take "all of Kuwait".

1999, Yugoslavia: U.S.-NATO bombs drop over the country allegedly to prevent a "massacre", though this claim is challenged. More than 2,000 civilians are killed.

There are indications that basic infrastructure is deliberately targeted during this campaign. For example, a statement by Lt. Gen. Michael Short, US Air Force, quoted in the Washington Post, May 1999, reads: "If you wake up in the morning and you have no power to your house and no gas to your stove and the bridge you take to work is down and will be lying in the Danube for the next 20 years, I think you begin to ask, ‘Hey, Slobo, what’s this all about? How much more of this do we have to withstand?’ And at some point, you make the transition from applauding Serb machismo against the world to thinking what your country is going to look like if this continues."

2001, Afghanistan: Over the summer, negotiations between western oil companies and the Afghan Taliban to build a pipeline across the country fall through. Niaz Naikm (former Foreign Secretary of Pakistan) reveals that senior American officials told him during this time that military action to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan is planned to occur "before the snows [starts] falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest". After 9/11, this objective is realized.

2003, Iraq: Following western propaganda about Iraq's alleged "weapons of mass destruction" program, President George W. Bush launches an invasion of the country. This comes after years of western-backed "no-fly zones", and crippling economic sanctions.

By 2011, most US forces leave the country; however, a noteworthy presence remains, including a $700 million dollar embassy in Baghdad, Iraq -- the largest U.S. embassy in the world, and a 46-aircraft air service for over 15,000 diplomats working for the State Department. 

2009, Yemen: U.S. aid, missiles -- and eventually, aerial Predator drones -- are deployed to the country to fight "al-Qaeda" affiliates. From a strategic perspective, Yemen is important because it allows access to a vital world-wide oil shipping chokepoint.

2010, Pakistan: U.S. Predator drones begin attacking targets along the Afghan-Pakistan border, killing dozens of civilians in the process.

2010, South Korea: On the evening of March 26, 2010, the Cheonan, a South Korean ship, is conducting a routine naval patrol when an explosion unexpectedly tears into it, splitting the vessel in half and killing 46 sailors. Shortly after, western powers blame North Korea for the attack, though North Korea denies responsibility. The attack gives the United States an opportunity to prolong its control over South Korean forces until 2015, and also extend its stay at nearby Japanese military bases.

2011, Libya: The U.S. claims Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi is 'massacring' demonstrators protesting his regime; however, these accusations are drastically overblown. Regardless, a US-backed, NATO-imposed "no-fly zone" is enabled, responsible for murdering hundreds of Libyan civilians. 

Many of the NATO attacks target Gaddafi, with one such strike taking the lives of his three grandchildren -- two toddlers, one infant. Gaddafi himself is eventually captured and killed.

Upcoming Independent Libertarian Movies!

The Bubble

 

Gray State

 

Abolish the TSA!

This article originally appeared at PolicyMic.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is once again in the news for refusing to obey a federal appeals court order from last year mandating that the agency hold public hearings over its "naked body scanners." They'll get around to it in 2013, says TSA spokeswoman Lorie Dankers. Despite the TSA's incredibly unpopular presence at U.S. (and even international) airports, Obama's 2011 budget proposal called for a significant increase in funding, including 1,000 additional body scanners.

This latest TSA scandal is just one more example of how the agency violates the Fourth Amendment and further increases government control over airports; TSA should be abolished.

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 assumption 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.  Perhaps most egregious of all, are the amount of convicted pedophiles and child molesters that have somehow earned a TSA badge.

The growth of TSA also exemplifies a point made by economist Robert Higgs. Higgs, in his classic work Crisis and Leviathan, describes what he calls a "ratchet effect" that perpetuates the costs and increases in government power. Whenever there is a crisis, real or imagined, the government claims news authority, creates agencies, and transfers wealth. After the crisis is over, the authority may shrink, but never to the extent that it was before.

Unfortunately, the "crisis" that is used to justify the TSA is an endeavour with goals -- defeating terrorism -- that by definition are open-ended and are perpetuated by a policy of empire and foreign military intervention. In the TSA's expanded budget, an extra $1 billion was added in response to the Christmas Day "underwear bomber" from Yemen. But for the previous year before the attempted bombing, President Obama had launched multiple drone strikes in Yemen, including a strike with cluster bombs.

In other words, the predictable boomeranging of an interventionist foreign policy abroad is somehow used to justify domestic interventionism in the form of TSA domestically. A self-licking ice cream cone in which the American taxpayer, and their liberty, loses.

If President Obama's political opponents were smart, they could hammer him on issues like this and the countless other Bill-of-Rights-shredding policies that take place on his watch. This issue is popular with Americans, the lawsuits keep piling up, and it would be an easy few billion to actually cut the federal government and save some money. The only problem Republicans have with the TSA, however, and America's creeping police state in general, is that they're not in charge of it.

Ron Paul, the only candidate in the Republican field who wants to abolish the TSA (and has defended civil liberties for decades), consistently polled even with President Obama, and actually defended the liberty the GOP only pays lip service to wasn't even asked to speak at the GOP convention in August despite his significant amount of delegates and support.

Americans are sick and tired of the TSA and our vanishing Bill of Rights. It's truly a shame that at the same time our distaste has been expressed with public outcries and lawsuits that its budget keeps growing while enjoying bipartisan support.

Gary Johnson's Support for Medical Marijuana Legalization Will Help, Not Hurt His Campaign

This article originally appeared at PolicyMic.

While campaigning in Seattle, Washington, last Thursday, Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson predicted that marijuana would be legalized in the U.S. by 2016 and reiterated his support for its legalization.

Dean Chambers, who covers the 2012 elections for the Examiner.com, argues that Johnson and libertarians in general are making a mistake by raising the issue of marijuana legalization. "The voters have never shown a willingness to elect a candidate to the presidency who makes legalizing pot the number one issue," writes Chambers. "Never at any time have the polls on issue priorities ever shown the American people viewing the legalization of marijuana as the highest national priority. The Libertarian Party nominee always goes to pot and marginalizes themselves for doing so."

I completely disagree. Johnson is absolutely right to make this an important issue for several reasons.

First of all, the increased attention now given to libertarian national politicians like Johnson and Ron Paul -- and the general growth of libertarianism in this country in general -- has occurred not because of attention to polls or supposed popularity of certain issues, but because of a firm defense of principles combined with political conditions that have proved libertarians right.

For example, even a decade ago, the Federal Reserve and Keynesian monetary policy was not loudly questioned. If the American people were polled, they would have likely put it near the bottom of their concerns. But Paul and libertarian economists, armed with a louder voice thanks to the internet, constantly argued the case for sound money and have been for over a century. When their predictions about the business cycle took center stage with the 2007-2008 financial crises and a bubble bursting, people were soon drawn to their answers. They didn't water down their message or put their fingers to the wind; they patiently stood tall, shouting from the rooftops for anyone with ears to listen.

Thanks to this, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke is forced to hold public press conferences for PR purposes, people are more aware of the dangers of central banking than ever before, and the House just passed Paul's bill to audit the Federal Reserve by an overwhelming margin.

Marijuana legalization, just like the economic case against central banking, is an issue fundamentally based on the ethics and morality of individual liberty, part of a consistent and coherent message. Marijuana prohibition, as part of the drug war, not only affects those who have committed no crime against anyone else (almost half of marijuana arrests are for possession alone) but has led to a systematic erosion of basic civil liberties, the highest prison population in the world, and has encouraged police militarization. With the success that a principled and articulate defense of sound money has, Johnson's forecast of marijuana being legalized by 2016 can't be far off.

Secondly, Johnson's opposition looks like cold-hearted authoritarians in comparison. Back in 2007 while campaigning for the Republican nomination, Romney was asked by a wheelchair-bound man with a rare case of muscular dystrophy whether or not Romney would arrest him and/or his doctors who prescribed him marijuana. Romney turned his back on him and robotically reiterated his stance against medical marijuana. This time around, Romney told supporters he would fight medical marijuana "tooth and nail" as president and repeated lies that it would "create a drug culture" and that weed is a "gateway drug" (sorry Mitt, but alcohol is the real gateway drug).

President Obama -- while trying to convince his gullible liberal supporters otherwise -- has been a ruthless drug warrior and in using the federal government to raid marijuana facilities even when they are legal under state law. A second Obama term would undoubtedly be more of the same.

And finally, even if one is frightened at the radical notion that individuals, not the government, own their bodies and how they use them, Johnson and the libertarians have science and compassion on their side. The use of marijuana can prevent, cure, or greatly reduce the pain from a multitude of crippling diseases, including cancer, Alzheimer’s, multiple sclerosis, osteoporosis, Lou Gehrig’s disease, and strokes. And unlike poisonous and legal prescription drugs, there are virtually no side effects. As Johnson pointed out in his Washington campaign stop, "The world will be a better place" when it is legal, because "police will go out and fight real crime, court dockets won't get as filled up, and maybe we can reduce the highest incarceration rate in the world."

Perhaps it is true that marijuana legalization isn't at the top of voters’ minds with problems like unemployment, little economic growth, and an unaccountable messy drone war in the forefront. But these issues are all intertwined and have a common cause: the rejection of individual liberty and private property, whether in the creation of wealth and capital in the marketplace or what substances we put into our bodies.

Johnson's support for marijuana legalization will help, not hinder his campaign. More and more people will be drawn to this issue and people who advocate for it in the same way that people are increasingly drawn to non-interventionist foreign policy and sound money. And who knows? With more support and coverage, Johnson could get the 15% needed to participate in the national presidential debates and help explain what monsters his opponents are. But that will only be because of principles and articulating them firmly and clearly, not by taking polls.

3D-Printed 'Magic Arms'

Thanks to amazing developments in science, a young girl with anthrogryposis - a rare disease preventing her from moving her arms - can now play with toys.

 

(thanks to Eric Duke)

Obama: Stop Sanctioning and Threatening Iran!

Ron Paul on the House floor denouncing Caesar's latest act of war - yet another round of sanctions on Iran - his assassination program, his torture dungeons, and his other lawless, criminal acts of mass murder and military interventions.

Just think, this man could have been President.