As I have alluded to in previous articles, I am first and foremost a Libertarian.
I believe the State should be as far removed from private and commercial life as is possible.
I believe in a person's right to self-determination, regardless of whether I agree with their decision and insofar as it does not adversely impact my life, liberty or property and conversely my right to theirs.
However, we do not live in a Utopian, stateless society that some of my more radical ilk would like, for which I am grateful.
Perhaps I subscribe to a more Socratean understanding of the government and shall, myself, ingest the hemlock, as I have enjoyed the benefits and fruits from my country even while disagreeing with many of its outputs.
It is easy, as a Libertarian, to poke fun and argue with both Republicans and Democrats.
Many are so bent and completely immersed in ideology as to make many of their arguments specious and ultimately flaccid upon fact finding and/or equally stubborn argumentation from another side.
Nonetheless, our more strident critics, in an unsuccessful feign to stop the argument, ask, 'in what country can you see the affects of such a libertarian and/or Austrian economic theory of governance?' Conversely, I could easily ask, 'in what country has your model succeeded?' However, if I were to stoop to such an inane and inherently insipid argument, I would lambast myself for paucity of belief.
In fact, yes, it is hard to show true Libertarian societies especially in regards to the past 100+ years which has given birth to the Rise of the State.
Perhaps libertarian's most salient features can be seen in certain businesses or among certain communities and in other more various facets of life.
In man's ever growing quest for certainty, I believe, is the true source and ultimate midwife to over legislation.
However, from our government's inception to now, the properties, powers and traditions have far expanded from, I dare say, what our founder's envisaged.
Fredic Bastiat's solemn book 'The Law' describes the descent of a nation who turns the law into a weapon of confiscation, greed and inequity the likes of which the law was created to protect against.
We can see these legal usurpations of individual property/economic rights and confiscation of wealth in the new TARP and bailout era of American politics.
Politicians cheer the demise of greedy Wall Street bankers whilst socializing their losses and privatizing their profits.
The answer, some of our friends on the left would say, is more laws and bureaucracy to fend off the hoarding, itinerant bankers from stealing our 401k's and savings accounts.
Our friends on the right, decry TARP and bailouts, yet continue to vote for ongoing measures which give billions in tax subsidies to farmers, businesses and expansions of foreign wars.
What are we to do? The answer can be partly found in the reason we, as a nation, are here in the first place, namely, the moral hazard of Federal Government intervention.
As Jefferson lamented (and I paraphrase) people prefer the quiet and security of despotism, as opposed, to the rough seas of liberty.
Once we invite the Federal Government in to solve individual, State, and business problems we are no longer the arbiters of our economic security.
In fact, both sides are seemingly correct in their assertions that 'x' money should be spent here or that 'y' money should be spent there.
Both beliefs can be wildly popular, on either side, and yet both are fundamentally wrong.
Government allocation of resources (money or otherwise) outside of its legally prescribed limits under the Constitution, is an affront on both individual and communal liberty.
Calvin Coolidge, when faced with the most devastating drought in Texas and surrounding area history, chose against sending federal aid to the region.
Although he was lambasted by the public for being uncaring, Coolidge implored the people themselves, their neighbors, including neighboring States, that it was their duty to help their fellow man.
The Federal Government, in its constitutionally limited capacities of common defense and general welfare, could not take monies from all states and designate, by Federal fiat, certain states should be the beneficiary of those funds.
Coolidge, as we all should be aware, was worried, not so much in helping, rather if he were to set that precedent, what great governmental evils would be spawned from its use.
It is easy for anyone to make a scathing retort to a proposed Federal Government cut on the grounds that it will impact this or that particular group.
I will assert that YES, on its face, it will impact that particular group.
However, what is the greater harm; an unconstitutionally grounded confiscation of one's property (money, land, ideas or otherwise) for the benefit of another or the suffering of a particular group, which only suffers, because government intervened in the first place? I believe that we may have finally hit a point in American government and politics, where we can begin to tear asunder these sophomoric beliefs of a beneficent government and recognize the government as our founders did, a necessary evil that when left unchecked shall confiscate everything.
I believe the State should be as far removed from private and commercial life as is possible.
I believe in a person's right to self-determination, regardless of whether I agree with their decision and insofar as it does not adversely impact my life, liberty or property and conversely my right to theirs.
However, we do not live in a Utopian, stateless society that some of my more radical ilk would like, for which I am grateful.
Perhaps I subscribe to a more Socratean understanding of the government and shall, myself, ingest the hemlock, as I have enjoyed the benefits and fruits from my country even while disagreeing with many of its outputs.
It is easy, as a Libertarian, to poke fun and argue with both Republicans and Democrats.
Many are so bent and completely immersed in ideology as to make many of their arguments specious and ultimately flaccid upon fact finding and/or equally stubborn argumentation from another side.
Nonetheless, our more strident critics, in an unsuccessful feign to stop the argument, ask, 'in what country can you see the affects of such a libertarian and/or Austrian economic theory of governance?' Conversely, I could easily ask, 'in what country has your model succeeded?' However, if I were to stoop to such an inane and inherently insipid argument, I would lambast myself for paucity of belief.
In fact, yes, it is hard to show true Libertarian societies especially in regards to the past 100+ years which has given birth to the Rise of the State.
Perhaps libertarian's most salient features can be seen in certain businesses or among certain communities and in other more various facets of life.
In man's ever growing quest for certainty, I believe, is the true source and ultimate midwife to over legislation.
However, from our government's inception to now, the properties, powers and traditions have far expanded from, I dare say, what our founder's envisaged.
Fredic Bastiat's solemn book 'The Law' describes the descent of a nation who turns the law into a weapon of confiscation, greed and inequity the likes of which the law was created to protect against.
We can see these legal usurpations of individual property/economic rights and confiscation of wealth in the new TARP and bailout era of American politics.
Politicians cheer the demise of greedy Wall Street bankers whilst socializing their losses and privatizing their profits.
The answer, some of our friends on the left would say, is more laws and bureaucracy to fend off the hoarding, itinerant bankers from stealing our 401k's and savings accounts.
Our friends on the right, decry TARP and bailouts, yet continue to vote for ongoing measures which give billions in tax subsidies to farmers, businesses and expansions of foreign wars.
What are we to do? The answer can be partly found in the reason we, as a nation, are here in the first place, namely, the moral hazard of Federal Government intervention.
As Jefferson lamented (and I paraphrase) people prefer the quiet and security of despotism, as opposed, to the rough seas of liberty.
Once we invite the Federal Government in to solve individual, State, and business problems we are no longer the arbiters of our economic security.
In fact, both sides are seemingly correct in their assertions that 'x' money should be spent here or that 'y' money should be spent there.
Both beliefs can be wildly popular, on either side, and yet both are fundamentally wrong.
Government allocation of resources (money or otherwise) outside of its legally prescribed limits under the Constitution, is an affront on both individual and communal liberty.
Calvin Coolidge, when faced with the most devastating drought in Texas and surrounding area history, chose against sending federal aid to the region.
Although he was lambasted by the public for being uncaring, Coolidge implored the people themselves, their neighbors, including neighboring States, that it was their duty to help their fellow man.
The Federal Government, in its constitutionally limited capacities of common defense and general welfare, could not take monies from all states and designate, by Federal fiat, certain states should be the beneficiary of those funds.
Coolidge, as we all should be aware, was worried, not so much in helping, rather if he were to set that precedent, what great governmental evils would be spawned from its use.
It is easy for anyone to make a scathing retort to a proposed Federal Government cut on the grounds that it will impact this or that particular group.
I will assert that YES, on its face, it will impact that particular group.
However, what is the greater harm; an unconstitutionally grounded confiscation of one's property (money, land, ideas or otherwise) for the benefit of another or the suffering of a particular group, which only suffers, because government intervened in the first place? I believe that we may have finally hit a point in American government and politics, where we can begin to tear asunder these sophomoric beliefs of a beneficent government and recognize the government as our founders did, a necessary evil that when left unchecked shall confiscate everything.
Source...