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.

No Debate Recap This Time

I'm done with the debate recaps.

Seriously, what more is there to be said?  I understand that Rick Perry threw up on himself again.  Whatever.  I don't care.  Enough is enough.

Look...after, what, ten debates or something (and we're not even to election year yet), what more do we need to know?  I mean...yes, I'd like an informed opinion about who I'm not voting for this year, but I don't have to have a deep personal relationship with any candidate.  I know some of these guys better than I know some of my own friends.

Anyway...I've had it.  No more debate recaps.  To do so would be enabling to them.  Maybe if nobody pays attention, they'll call off the rest.

Remember, Remember

Remember, remember the Fifth of November,

The Gunpowder Treason and Plot.

I know of no Reason the Gunpowder Treason

Should Ever Be Forgot.

 - traditional English poem

Roundup of Occupy Protests

The last week has seen the Occupy protests becoming less and less civilized.  Arrests in several places, blockades of shipping ports and other disruptive activities have generated much media attention, if not actual change. The protesters continue, as did the Tea Party, to lack a fully-coherent belief set, but are more than compensating with sheer tenacity.  But...given the general unrest and the fact that today is Guy Fawkes Day, commemorating the man who tried to blow up Parliament and has been immortalized in the masks worn by many protesters (yes, I know about V for Vendetta), it is important to realize what is and is not effective for change in this country.

I am a libertarian, and many believe that as such, I am an anarchist.  Not remotely.  I absolutely believe in government.  I even support government oversight.  I simply don't believe that the humans in government will behave more nobly than others, and that yielding to them unrestrained power will necessarily lead to corruption, waste and misery.  Despite maintaining solid purity of principle, I cannot say with 100% truthfulness that I would do any better.

I believe similar situations exist on Wall Street. I don't believe that the "1%" is evil in the slightest...just human. Humans are selfish and self-interested, and generally speaking, do not act altruistically.  Given this assertion, is it so surprising that presented with gobs of largely other peoples' money, the bankers acted irresponsibly?

The solution is not to blow up Parliament, nor is it to link arms, get arrested and swallow tear gas.  We must simply realize that people, absent of supervision, are going to act like people...no matter what their title is.  Many say that libertarianism requires undue trust in others.  Well, I say that libertarians want a system that expects people to act like people.  Does massive government intervention aid people in their quest to be themselves, or hinder them?  I leave it to you to decide.  But leave the mask at home...because pushing the reset button ends the conversation.

Stand Up and Be Counted

I do this blog for my own edification.  It allows me to express my opinions on things as freely as I want.  However, one of the most gratifying things for me is to see that people are stopping by on a regular basis.  I'd like to recognize those of you who find my work intriguing.  So...if you find yourself checking this little corner of the internet pretty regularly, leave me a comment so I can extend my gratitude.

Thanks,
TFL

Where the Occupy Protests and the Tea Party Meet

With the Occupy Protests perhaps reaching their tipping point in Oakland last week, it seems as though two disparate groups are active in American politics and discourse today.  The Occupiers blame Wall Street and the so-called "1%," the uppermost group of wealthy people, for the ills of our economy.  The Tea Party, though growing more mainstream and accepted by the minute, blames the government for the same.  Though both groups want very different things, they are very similar to each other, and in my opinion, simply form the complete picture of the true problem with the economy.

Capitalism's PR image has taken a beating in the last few years because of the declining economy.  Most people argue that the problems of our economy are due to a market failure or an intrinsic problem in capitalism.  Here the thing, though: we do not live in a capitalist system right now.

What both the Occupiers and Tea Party have danced around is the notion that we actually live in a corporatist society, where business and government have elected to become bedfellows.  The so-called "crony capitalism" is exactly this.  The 1% thrives upon its ability to wield influence in Congress and with the White House.  The government has extrapolated the Commerce clause to obscene lengths.  Both are guilty of establishing a definite system of winners and losers.  The only problem is that, at last, the losers figured out the game.

All of this is to say that the Occupiers and the Tea Party, along with any other Americans tired of the 1% and of the notion of companies being "too big to fail," can come together pretty easily.  Supporting one and bashing the other is likely evidence of someone not seeing the big picture.  Whether this nearsightedness is deliberate or accidental is a far more telling question to answer.

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?

Withdrawal from Iraq Indicates Obama Is a Broken Clock

President Obama Announces All Troops to Leave Iraq by End of 2011

On Friday, President Obama announced that all U.S. troops would evacuate Iraq by the end of 2011.  Citing the end of an eight-year war that has cost 4,400 American lives, the president stated, "our troops will definitely be home for the holidays."

As a libertarian, I support a well-maintained defense.  One of the few governmental expenditures I think correct is the protection of our national sovereignty.  However, I draw the line between what constitutes defense and what becomes interventionism.

When we thought that 9/11 originated in Afghanistan, I supported reacting.  When it became clear that the Taliban had given safe harbor to Osama Bin Laden in the years prior to the attack, I was in favor of their overthrow.  However, the nation-building that has since occurred there and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, though both noble in intention and action, have never been anything but an overstepping of our responsibility to the world.

We absolutely have the right to defend ourselves...I'm not arguing that.  But the Roosevelt Corollary, which initiated the notion of the United States as the policeman to the world, is simply not our job.  I propose my own corollary, which is to say that much like my rights end at my property line, so should a country's rights end at its borders.

Now...to be clear...I mean ALL countries...so that doesn't mean I support Iran being able to launch a nuclear missile at us.  But...part of being a libertarian is that you have to grant people the ability to behave in ways of which you don't approve.  If Iran (or North Korea or Pakistan or the Mexican drug cartels) did launch an attack on us, then I would say we pull no punches.

This notion that we have to rebuild what we destroy, however, is both paternalistic and nonsensical.  From my point of view, if we're attacked, and we fight back, and we leave destruction in our wake, then that serves as an example of the price you pay for attacking us.  If you break someone's nose in a fight, you don't immediately set it and splint it, usually...so why must we do so on a macro-level, spending trillions of dollars that we clearly do not have?

Lastly, do not construe this argument as a way of me saying I don't support our troops or military.  Choosing to serve one's country at the risk of life is one of the grandest acts a person can do.  The fact that we have a completely volunteer army heightens the nobility of this act.  All I'm saying is that the people in charge need to stop using them like pawns on the international stage, and more like the nation's shield.