I Got Better...

Only his brother calls him Rebecca.

Newt Gingrich is now the favorite in the Republican primary. Desperation, thy name is Newt. I'm just not sure that anyone in the Republican Party (including its constituents) is really thinking straight. They actually want to put a guy with both adultery and questionable ties to major organizations (including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) against one of the most charismatic Presidents in recent memory.  Jeez...I even think Mitt Romney is a better idea.

Look...there's no denying that Newt is probably the sharpest tool in the Republican shed. He always has been. But he's got some crawling skeletons in his closet, and the Republicans are nuts if they think that President Obama's team won't open those doors during the general election.  

Of course, for that matter, Mitt has his own skeletons, though they mostly surround his predisposition for trying to always choose the winning side of the issue.

Would You Be a Republican or Democrat if You Didn't Have to?

One of the criticisms I bear most often as a libertarian is the notion that I'm throwing away my vote, because my party (if I choose to vote with the Libertarian Party) or my candidates will rarely get elected.  My response is often shrill, because voting based on chances of winning does not, in my estimation, indicate one being guided by their own inner principles.  Rather, it seems like people are more interested in simply being on a winning team...for reasons that make little sense other than it gives one a social group or bragging rights.

However, between Tea Party and Occupy protests and a recent New York Times/CBS News poll that suggests a 9% approval rating for Congress, it appears that the majority of Americans do not favor their elected officials.  The problem is that many people likely don't think they have much in the way of choice.  The US system is a de facto two-party system, as much as it pains me to say so, and people fall into three camps as a result: people who agree with one party for the most part, people who choose the party they disagree with less, and people who refuse to vote because neither works.

So...why don't we try a multi-party system based on proportional representation instead?  People simply vote their consciences, and based upon the self-identification, seats are allocated to each party.  Overly-fractured government can be avoided using minimum quotas to qualify (no more than 3 or 4%, ideally more like 1%), and the only way that legislation proceeds is through coalitions between parties.  Many of our closest allies, such as Canada, Germany and France have used systems like these effectively.

Though such a system would temporarily cause governmental gridlock, eventually, parties would figure out that legislation would do well to appeal to as many people as possible, and would account for many minority interests.  Installing a slowdown on legislation is, in my opinion, a good thing because it would force legislation to be well-considered and fair in order to pass.  Gone would be the days of statements like "we have to pass this bill to see what's in it."  Besides, can we really say that a different system would produce more gridlock than the current one, particularly with two sides hellbent on zapping each other?

Republican Economic Debate Recap - Hey, Who Ordered This Pizza?

Was po' before he was poor.

Herman Cain won the debate tonight.

Wow.  Never thought I'd write that.

He was on fire.  He was like a different candidate.  No one is more surprised to me how well he handled the onslaught from almost every other candidate.  He came off strong, presidential, optimistic and revolutionary.  As hokey as 9-9-9 sounds, it's hard to argue with both the simplicity and transparency of the plan.  As byzantine as the tax code is, something like this plan might be a winner with the American people.  Watch out, America...this guy might actually get the nomination, and then we'll have the most interesting general election ever.

The silver medalist was Newt Gingrich, I thought.  He came off focused and sharp, at least when they were still asking him questions.  He can't win, of course, with his personal problems (adultery just doesn't work).  But...whoever gets the nod should make sure he's on the ticket somewhere, because he's very smart and seems like he sees every angle on all the issues.

Mitt Romney was probably the third on the podium, but really, he's on cruise control at this point.  It almost seems like he's slightly miffed that he has to keep showing up to these things, even though he's probably the most poised debater.  All his answers used ten words to say three, and he seems incredibly adept at never simply answering a question using "yes" or "no."

The rest, including Rick Perry and, sadly, Ron Paul, are fading into the background, and there doesn't seem to be any way to stop the fade.  Even the Anger of Rick Santorum bounces off the wall...but really, there needs to be a fade at this point.  Nine Eight candidates (hey, thanks for showing up, Gary Johnson) are too many to keep straight, and the Republican Party needs to winnow things down as quickly as possible.

At this point, I'm pretty tired of these things.  I love politics...I really do.  I feel like a citizen when I have spirited debates about how best to steward this country.  These debates are theater, not statesmanship.  Let's see two or three guys (or girls, I guess) argue for about an hour, then vote.  America needs a rest.

We're Not All Crazy

Good morning!

Welcome to The Friendly Libertarian!  I, your intrepid host, will guide you to a better understanding of the libertarian point-of-view.  Over the years, many people have levied numerous critiques of libertarianism at me.  Some of them were untrue.  Some of them were the product of others masquerading as libertarians.  This blog is intended to address some of those misconceptions and generate a stronger understanding about the whys behind our beliefs.

Part of the problem is simple ignorance of what libertarianism is.  Rather than a cold definition, I will provide a list of things that libertarians are not:

1) Communists
2) Socialists
3) Fascists
4) Racists
5) Republicans
6) Democrats
7) The Green Party
8) Anarchists
9) Irresponsible
10) Unreasonable

I have been a libertarian for seven years, and have heard all of these personally.  None of them are true.  The truth is that a libertarian simply believes that laws should allow people to act as they wish so long as they do not harm others.  That's it.  That's all we want.  Our entire platform flows from that belief.

The content of this blog is intended to be both a critique and commentary on the decidedly-unlibertarian leanings of most United States politics.  However, too often my libertarian brethren come off like we need medication and years of cognitive therapy.  So, I am going to make an honest effort to color between the lines and stay on the reservation, if I may horrifically combine two metaphors.  Feel free to keep me honest in the comments section.