Contrary to popular belief, the free market (aka capitalism) has done a lot of good for our world. I get very frustrated when people misrepresent the truth.
FACT: Our global economy has brought millions of people THROUGHOUT the world out of poverty.
"Of the 7 billion people alive on the planet, 1.1 billion subsist below the internationally accepted extreme-poverty line of $1.25 a day.... Most of the credit, however, must go to capitalism and free trade, for they enable economies to grow—and it was growth, principally, that has eased destitution."
FACT: Thanks to free markets, people have more free time than they did before division of labor. Therefore, allowing people to develop their strengths and contribute to the world in a positive manner. For example, we have more technology and medical advancements because people don't have to make their own clothes, grow their own food, etc. In addition, data has shown that the wealth and health of ALL individuals in the world has risen in the past 200 years alone. Everyone is basically better off today with regards to wealth and health than our ancestors were 200 years ago.
This is not a bad thing, and don't tell me that overpopulation is threatening our world because overpopulation is a myth.
Our global economy is a good thing, not only because it allows countries to trade with one another and reduce the likelihood of war, but for the first time in world history, humans can cooperate to produce a product as simple as a pencil. That's so cool.
Now, just like anything, humans can turn something good into something bad (e.g., crony capitalism).
Finally, saying that a system like capitalism is the cause of all our problems is just wrong.
Please, before believing everything you see on the internet, like The Story of Stuff Project, double check the facts. Lee Doren did a great job with his critique.
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Thursday, September 26, 2013
The Applied Theory of Price by Donald N. McCloskey
I am about to start reading a book called, The Applied Theory of Price by Donald N. McCloskey. I’ll summarize my thoughts on each section. I think it’ll be valuable for me to be able to reference this book without having to re-read it. Also, anyone who is curious about prices can use it as a way to better understand prices.
Monday, February 25, 2013
Libertarianism, Women, and Respecting Unique Individuals
My Journey and What It Means for Liberty Advocates
[Originally published at The Stateless Man website]
The relatively low number of women who self-identify as libertarian is no secret. I was at the 2013 International Students for Liberty Conference (ISFLC) this month and was pleased to see a good number of women in attendance. However, the majority of attendees and speakers were overwhelmingly men.
There are many theories for why this is the case, and if you are interested in some, take a look at the “Girls! Girls! Girls! Marketing Libertarianism to Women” panel sponsored by Young Americans for Liberty at ISFLC 2013. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1yonojibt4&feature=share).
Right now, though, I would like to provide some of my own experiences and insights on the matter.
Back before I self-identified as libertarian, I considered myself a conservative. Even though I did not agree across the board with conservativism, I could not support Barack Obama in the 2008 election. His stance on abortion was firmly pro-choice, which was the most important issue for me. So I will admit it right now, I voted for John McCain back in 2008 because, though I was familiar with Ron Paul, I did not care enough to do more research.
It was not until 2011 that I was curious enough to dig a little more regarding Ron Paul, which is when I first heard the word "libertarian." Although Ron Paul believes abortion is within state and not federal jurisdiction, he is personally pro-life. (It is. See the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.) That was very appealing to me.
Another attribute I really liked about Ron Paul was his zero desire for power. He does not claim to know what is best for everyone, nor does he want to change the law of the land to impose his personal views. Rather, he looks to a higher authority, the U.S. Constitution. Further, he doesn’t pick and choose when it is convenient to him; he is consistent about it!
Needless to say, I had never been so impressed by a politician. Ron Paul was able to gain my respect and admiration, which led me to trust him on other issues—for example, the Federal Reserve and economic freedom in general. My curiosity perked, I began to read various related books, such as The Morality of Capitalism and Defending the Free Market. These books then led me to become the economic freedom advocate I am today—a reversal from only a year and a half ago.
My journey did not stop there, though. Thanks to the Internet and organizations like YAL, I found a plethora of reading materials and libertarian Think Tanks. These sources helped refine my opinions on several issues, and now I can say that I am basically as libertarian as one can be on every issue.
The most recent issue I feel passionate about is immigration. Open the borders up, baby! Seriously, though, if you care to hear thoughts on this subject, here is the podcast Fergus Hodgson and I recorded at the ISFLC 2013 this past weekend (http://www.blogtalkradio.com/befirstinmedia/2013/02/17/immigration-part). Embed.
Anyway, the broader point I would like to make is that coming up with a "marketing strategy" geared toward women is probably not what liberty-advocates should focus on. After all, given a respect for unique and varied individuals, we do not like to box people into categories. Focusing on individual concerns, men or women, will take time, but it will also create a community of individuals who feel more strongly about the message.
Take me, a pro-life woman. Some would argue that my pro-life stance is not congruent with libertarianism. In fact, some would say, incorrectly, that I am not a "real" libertarian. Not that I care, because I am starting to endorse what Soren Keirkegaard said, “Once you label me you negate me.” Regardless, the pro-life stance was what I had in common with Ron Paul, and that drew me in and caused me to investigate libertarianism more broadly. Then, through my own curiosity and choices, I discovered the beauty and consistency of liberty.
This respect for individuals as distinct also conveys the fact you care about them. People who sense that will in return care about what you have to say to them. I acknowledge this personalized approach is time consuming, but I guarantee it will be effective.
Usually, you will find that individuals are libertarian on at least one issue, so your job is to pinpoint that issue and hook them on it. From that point on, lasting friendships should come naturally. Then you can get into debating nuances, which can be fun.
Finally, this has been said so many times before, but I will say it again. Liberty sells itself. All we really need to do is be likable people. Remember folks, be the person you would like to meet!
[Originally published at The Stateless Man website]
The relatively low number of women who self-identify as libertarian is no secret. I was at the 2013 International Students for Liberty Conference (ISFLC) this month and was pleased to see a good number of women in attendance. However, the majority of attendees and speakers were overwhelmingly men.
There are many theories for why this is the case, and if you are interested in some, take a look at the “Girls! Girls! Girls! Marketing Libertarianism to Women” panel sponsored by Young Americans for Liberty at ISFLC 2013. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1yonojibt4&feature=share).
Right now, though, I would like to provide some of my own experiences and insights on the matter.
Back before I self-identified as libertarian, I considered myself a conservative. Even though I did not agree across the board with conservativism, I could not support Barack Obama in the 2008 election. His stance on abortion was firmly pro-choice, which was the most important issue for me. So I will admit it right now, I voted for John McCain back in 2008 because, though I was familiar with Ron Paul, I did not care enough to do more research.
It was not until 2011 that I was curious enough to dig a little more regarding Ron Paul, which is when I first heard the word "libertarian." Although Ron Paul believes abortion is within state and not federal jurisdiction, he is personally pro-life. (It is. See the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.) That was very appealing to me.
Another attribute I really liked about Ron Paul was his zero desire for power. He does not claim to know what is best for everyone, nor does he want to change the law of the land to impose his personal views. Rather, he looks to a higher authority, the U.S. Constitution. Further, he doesn’t pick and choose when it is convenient to him; he is consistent about it!
Needless to say, I had never been so impressed by a politician. Ron Paul was able to gain my respect and admiration, which led me to trust him on other issues—for example, the Federal Reserve and economic freedom in general. My curiosity perked, I began to read various related books, such as The Morality of Capitalism and Defending the Free Market. These books then led me to become the economic freedom advocate I am today—a reversal from only a year and a half ago.
My journey did not stop there, though. Thanks to the Internet and organizations like YAL, I found a plethora of reading materials and libertarian Think Tanks. These sources helped refine my opinions on several issues, and now I can say that I am basically as libertarian as one can be on every issue.
The most recent issue I feel passionate about is immigration. Open the borders up, baby! Seriously, though, if you care to hear thoughts on this subject, here is the podcast Fergus Hodgson and I recorded at the ISFLC 2013 this past weekend (http://www.blogtalkradio.com/befirstinmedia/2013/02/17/immigration-part). Embed.
Anyway, the broader point I would like to make is that coming up with a "marketing strategy" geared toward women is probably not what liberty-advocates should focus on. After all, given a respect for unique and varied individuals, we do not like to box people into categories. Focusing on individual concerns, men or women, will take time, but it will also create a community of individuals who feel more strongly about the message.
Take me, a pro-life woman. Some would argue that my pro-life stance is not congruent with libertarianism. In fact, some would say, incorrectly, that I am not a "real" libertarian. Not that I care, because I am starting to endorse what Soren Keirkegaard said, “Once you label me you negate me.” Regardless, the pro-life stance was what I had in common with Ron Paul, and that drew me in and caused me to investigate libertarianism more broadly. Then, through my own curiosity and choices, I discovered the beauty and consistency of liberty.
This respect for individuals as distinct also conveys the fact you care about them. People who sense that will in return care about what you have to say to them. I acknowledge this personalized approach is time consuming, but I guarantee it will be effective.
Usually, you will find that individuals are libertarian on at least one issue, so your job is to pinpoint that issue and hook them on it. From that point on, lasting friendships should come naturally. Then you can get into debating nuances, which can be fun.
Finally, this has been said so many times before, but I will say it again. Liberty sells itself. All we really need to do is be likable people. Remember folks, be the person you would like to meet!
Friday, February 1, 2013
Better Than Being a Libertarian: Networking With Them
Gaining Value from Conferences Beyond Education
[Originally published at The Stateless Man website]
This weekend, approximately 650 people flocked to the Mises Institute "Circle" in Houston, Texas. 1,200 also watched online, to better understand the “Current Crisis" from an "Austrian Perspective.”
The event included big names in Austrian economics, such as Joseph Salerno, Robert Murphy, Thomas Woods, Lew Rockwell, and Ron Paul—and I am willing to bet that Ron Paul drew a large portion of the audience. They focused on economic issues, often comparing and contrasting the Austrian and Keynesian perspectives.
Embed video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INvKPYdTs3E.
Without doubt, most people at the event were already familiar with the case for free markets and had read books from the Austrian school. The people at the conference also have access to YouTube and can watch Ron Paul speeches and interviews. So, why did my friends and I drive 11 hours from El Paso, Texas, to attend the Mises Circle? What is the appeal of such an event?
I cannot speak for all the people at the conference, but I can share my own reasons for attending the event and those of the people traveling with me.
Ever since I attended the Young Americans for Liberty National Convention in Washington, D.C., in July of 2012, I have become an enthusiastic liberty networker. Libertarianism is on its way to becoming a mainstream ideology, but in the meantime there is nothing more exciting than meeting other libertarians. Who wouldn’t enjoy traveling miles and miles to be surrounded with like-minded individuals?
Okay, maybe that’s just me—but let me attempt to persuade you. Imagine a scenario where you do not have to spend a large amount of time explaining how smaller government is ideal. Instead, you can spend time conversing the nuances of liberty face to face. It is a sobering experience. For instance, do public universities have the authority to ban co-ed dorms? Honestly, who cares?
But that’s the beauty of libertarian gatherings. You can care. You can discuss things you would never have the time or opportunity to discuss elsewhere, because you do not have to spend time explaining the basics. It may seem trivial but sometimes talking about the details helps us better understand the bigger picture. Anyway, it is this intellectual environment that draws me to travels miles and miles.
Many friendships were made at the YAL National Convention, which opened up the possibility for future networking, as well as internship and job opportunities. Two of my new friends, Noelle Mandell and Caitlyn Bates (both Texas State Chairs and SFL Campus Coordinators), also strongly encouraged me to attend the Students for Liberty Austin Regional Conference. They provided me with the details of the event and offered free student lodging, making it very inexpensive for YAL at the University of Texas at El Paso to drive out there. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the size of Texas, it takes approximately 8 hours and 13 minutes to drive from El Paso, Texas to Austin, Texas, so it’s not that simple to just get up and go. The goal, though, was to provide the YAL UTEP Chapter with an intellectual environment worthy of replenishing them with enthusiasm (the presidential election was disheartening for many). A bonus, even though it was not planned, was witnessing and experiencing the bonding that took place amongst my chapter members. This happened as a result of driving for 9 hours together, obviously. Once we were back home, enthusiasm and commitment towards our chapter’s goals was greatly enhanced.
Soon afterwards, our chapter was invited to the Mises Circle in Houston. I did not have to ask twice for this event since Ron Paul (a hero to most 20-something libertarians) would be speaking at the event. The weekend in Houston proved to be a great time. There was not too much networking during the formal Mises Circle, since the format lent itself to listening and partaking in the Q-and-A with the speakers. However, I did get my books signed by Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods, and Peter Klein. I also got to take a picture with Ron Paul, Tom Woods, and Bob Murphy.
The networking took place later, during the Freedom Forum, put together by Noelle Mandell (nominated for SFL Student of the Year). This event was aimed at getting students across Texas to share experiences in advancing liberty and proposed projects. Afterward, there was a social gathering hosted by Houston’s Liberty on the Rocks, which involved playing pool, enthusiastic karaoke singing, and conversations.
The best part about this particular trip was reconnecting with friends. I found that my first libertarian convention was a bit nerve wrecking because I did not know anyone that would be there. However, I made the decision to fly out and make new friends, which was probably one of the best decisions I have ever made. It may be difficult to start a conversation with a complete stranger, but the advantage of attending a libertarian gathering is that at least you know you agree about the scope of the federal government (with the exception of anarcho-capitalists).
[Originally published at The Stateless Man website]
This weekend, approximately 650 people flocked to the Mises Institute "Circle" in Houston, Texas. 1,200 also watched online, to better understand the “Current Crisis" from an "Austrian Perspective.”
The event included big names in Austrian economics, such as Joseph Salerno, Robert Murphy, Thomas Woods, Lew Rockwell, and Ron Paul—and I am willing to bet that Ron Paul drew a large portion of the audience. They focused on economic issues, often comparing and contrasting the Austrian and Keynesian perspectives.
Embed video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INvKPYdTs3E.
Without doubt, most people at the event were already familiar with the case for free markets and had read books from the Austrian school. The people at the conference also have access to YouTube and can watch Ron Paul speeches and interviews. So, why did my friends and I drive 11 hours from El Paso, Texas, to attend the Mises Circle? What is the appeal of such an event?
I cannot speak for all the people at the conference, but I can share my own reasons for attending the event and those of the people traveling with me.
Ever since I attended the Young Americans for Liberty National Convention in Washington, D.C., in July of 2012, I have become an enthusiastic liberty networker. Libertarianism is on its way to becoming a mainstream ideology, but in the meantime there is nothing more exciting than meeting other libertarians. Who wouldn’t enjoy traveling miles and miles to be surrounded with like-minded individuals?
Okay, maybe that’s just me—but let me attempt to persuade you. Imagine a scenario where you do not have to spend a large amount of time explaining how smaller government is ideal. Instead, you can spend time conversing the nuances of liberty face to face. It is a sobering experience. For instance, do public universities have the authority to ban co-ed dorms? Honestly, who cares?
But that’s the beauty of libertarian gatherings. You can care. You can discuss things you would never have the time or opportunity to discuss elsewhere, because you do not have to spend time explaining the basics. It may seem trivial but sometimes talking about the details helps us better understand the bigger picture. Anyway, it is this intellectual environment that draws me to travels miles and miles.
Many friendships were made at the YAL National Convention, which opened up the possibility for future networking, as well as internship and job opportunities. Two of my new friends, Noelle Mandell and Caitlyn Bates (both Texas State Chairs and SFL Campus Coordinators), also strongly encouraged me to attend the Students for Liberty Austin Regional Conference. They provided me with the details of the event and offered free student lodging, making it very inexpensive for YAL at the University of Texas at El Paso to drive out there. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the size of Texas, it takes approximately 8 hours and 13 minutes to drive from El Paso, Texas to Austin, Texas, so it’s not that simple to just get up and go. The goal, though, was to provide the YAL UTEP Chapter with an intellectual environment worthy of replenishing them with enthusiasm (the presidential election was disheartening for many). A bonus, even though it was not planned, was witnessing and experiencing the bonding that took place amongst my chapter members. This happened as a result of driving for 9 hours together, obviously. Once we were back home, enthusiasm and commitment towards our chapter’s goals was greatly enhanced.
Soon afterwards, our chapter was invited to the Mises Circle in Houston. I did not have to ask twice for this event since Ron Paul (a hero to most 20-something libertarians) would be speaking at the event. The weekend in Houston proved to be a great time. There was not too much networking during the formal Mises Circle, since the format lent itself to listening and partaking in the Q-and-A with the speakers. However, I did get my books signed by Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods, and Peter Klein. I also got to take a picture with Ron Paul, Tom Woods, and Bob Murphy.
The networking took place later, during the Freedom Forum, put together by Noelle Mandell (nominated for SFL Student of the Year). This event was aimed at getting students across Texas to share experiences in advancing liberty and proposed projects. Afterward, there was a social gathering hosted by Houston’s Liberty on the Rocks, which involved playing pool, enthusiastic karaoke singing, and conversations.
The best part about this particular trip was reconnecting with friends. I found that my first libertarian convention was a bit nerve wrecking because I did not know anyone that would be there. However, I made the decision to fly out and make new friends, which was probably one of the best decisions I have ever made. It may be difficult to start a conversation with a complete stranger, but the advantage of attending a libertarian gathering is that at least you know you agree about the scope of the federal government (with the exception of anarcho-capitalists).
Monday, November 26, 2012
Should government legislate morality?
I want to address something that has been on my mind lately.
Is it the government’s job to legislate morality? In my opinion, absolutely not.
In case you do not know, I am a very religious and spiritual person. What does that mean? Well, I was born into a Roman Catholic family. Both my mom and dad are extremely religious, so I have attended mass every Sunday of my life since I was born (except on vacation because the Church pardons it). I really do enjoy being Catholic and accept its teachings whole-heartedly. I admit I am not perfect but I do think of myself as a moral and principled individual.
Getting back to the question, I believe that the federal government should protect life, liberty and property. The state and city governments should take care of the rest. The closer the laws are made to home, the greater likelihood that they will represent the constituents (note: the federal government should step in if the state and city governments undermine life, liberty and property). So, even though I do not personally believe it is the role of the government to legislate morality, states and city governments should have the option to. It is not my goal to impose my views (I’m a libertarian not a liberal, haha), but rather to persuade others that legislating morality does not work.
Getting back to the question, I believe that the federal government should protect life, liberty and property. The state and city governments should take care of the rest. The closer the laws are made to home, the greater likelihood that they will represent the constituents (note: the federal government should step in if the state and city governments undermine life, liberty and property). So, even though I do not personally believe it is the role of the government to legislate morality, states and city governments should have the option to. It is not my goal to impose my views (I’m a libertarian not a liberal, haha), but rather to persuade others that legislating morality does not work.
Individuals are moral because humans are innately good. Laws that legislate morality (e.g. Thou shall not kill) work well because most people are already moral. If the government chose not to punish murder crimes, would that change the morality of individuals? How many would go out and murder someone just because they would not get punished for it? I’m willing to bet not many. My point is that people are moral because they choose to be, not because the government implements a law. Those who commit murder do it regardless of whether they will be faced with punishment or not. This applies to other crimes as well. Individuals who use drugs illegally do it despite facing criminal charges. The fact that it’s illegal does not stop them. If hard drugs were legalized, I do not believe individuals would start using them just because they can. Perhaps, some would... but that is freedom. Freedom harbors an environment where people can make choices. Sure, individuals will make bad choices some of the time but they will also face the consequences. You cannot successfully protect people from themselves. Fortunately, most individuals learn from mistakes. Despite the fact that bad choices will be made, I think individuals are prone to make more good choices than bad choices.
Aside from everything I mentioned, I think legislating morality takes responsibility away from the individual. I believe that placing the choice on the individual makes them subject to their own character. Maximum individual freedom allows individuals to choose the type of person the or she wants to be. There is more virtue in choosing to do the right thing than there is in following a law out of fear of punishment. I have noticed that religious people are adamant about legislating morality, but as a religious person, I would argue this is not the stance we should take. Morality should be a choice. In my personal experience, it is difficult to be moral even when highly motivated. What makes us think that people who do not share our religious views are going to embrace our views on morality because it's the law? It won’t work. If anything, it will only be counterproductive because it will create resentment and backlash towards religious folks. No one likes to be imposed upon. I will always stand firmly behind freedom of religion. But I also will respect an individual's choice to not practice a religion or to be atheist. Faith in God comes from the heart and soul, not the government.
“I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
“I’d become a Christian if I ever met one.”
Gandhi's constructive criticism should be a reminder that our actions speak louder than our words. Sure, you can quote the Bible all day long but at the end of the day your actions are what matter most. In my opinion, my religion is beautiful. It inspires me to be a better person. But I realize that not all people share this view. That is fine. My faith is not diminished because others refuse to embrace it. Religion is not something that can be forced upon someone. The Catholic Church teaches free will. Individuals should have the freedom to be good. The beauty of freedom is allowing individuals choose to be virtuous. I am in no way saying that you have to be religious to be virtuous because I know plenty of individuals who are not religious and extremely virtuous (this supports my argument that individuals are inherently good and do not need an entity, such as government, dictating morality).
Perhaps my views come off as naive and idealistic. But I think that maximum freedom for an individual is still the best way to go about living a fulfilling life. Worst case scenario, individuals will not go out of their way to help others (as libertarians assume) but they also won’t go out of their way to hurt others.
Anyway, those are my thoughts. I will try to shorten and organize them better.
Monday, November 12, 2012
Secession?
In case you haven’t heard, several states are petitioning the Obama Administration for a “peaceful withdrawal” from the United States.
I browsed the White House petition page (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitions) to take a look for myself. At approximately 10:30 p.m. MST on 11/12/12, there were a total of 83 active petitions and 32 were petitions for secession. In order for the Obama Administration to review and provide an official response, the petitions need to acquire at least 25,000 signatures within a month.
Here are the totals thus far (Yes, I took the time to write them all down):
- Oklahoma - 647
- Utah - 1,430
- Wyoming - 1,601
- California - 2,613
- Ohio - 2,618
- New York - 2,081
- Delaware - 2,866
- Nevada - 4,039
- Pennsylvania - 5,346
- Arizona - 8,379
- Oklahoma - 8,578
- Arkansas - 11,382
- S.C. - 11,815 (repeat)
- Georgia - 15,083 (repeat)
- Missouri - 9,586 (repeat)
- Missouri - 8,599
- Tennessee - 14,830
- Michigan - 10,506
- South Carolina - 9,319
- New York - 9,697
- Colorado - 11,461
- Oregon - 8,494
- New Jersey - 8,069
- North Dakota - 7,399
- Montana - 8,247
- Indiana - 10,361
- Mississippi - 10,205
- Georgia - 8,163
- North Carolina - 14,428
- Alabama - 15,588
- Texas - 56,630
- Louisiana - 25,040
The first petition was put forth by Louisiana on Wednesday, November 7, 2012. Currently, the state that has an overwhelming number of signatures is Texas with a total of 54,725 (and counting). That is more than plenty. But we must not forget that Texas has a population of approximately 25,674,681. That means that the petition only reflects about 0.002% of Texas’ population. Further complicating the matter is the fact that non-Texans are signing the petition.
I have joked about being in favor of Texas seceding from the United States because it’s fun to act annoyingly prideful to be Texan. However, now that there is an actual petition to secede, I feel obligated to take this serious.
The Texas petition reads as follows:
The US continues to suffer economic difficulties stemming from the federal government's neglect to reform domestic and foreign spending. The citizens of the US suffer from blatant abuses of their rights such as the NDAA, the TSA, etc. Given that the state of Texas maintains a balanced budget and is the 15th largest economy in the world, it is practically feasible for Texas to withdraw from the union, and to do so would protect it's citizens' standard of living and re-secure their rights and liberties in accordance with the original ideas and beliefs of our founding fathers which are no longer being reflected by the federal government.
I share the same dissatisfaction as a result of the aforementioned abuses cited in the Texas petition but I do not think that secession is the route we should pursue. Perhaps this petition is not going to actually lead to a secession but we are definitely making history. When was the last time 30 plus states asked to secede from the United States?
It is also important to note that the Declaration of Independence states:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
In sum, when the people feel that their government is acting beyond its power, which is to secure unalienable rights, the people have the right to abolish the existing government and form a new government. So, when people refer to secession as “treasonous,” I would have to disagree. Secession from the British Empire was how our country was born. Ron Paul has an interesting take on secession, so watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jvliy8rEJDQ.
Moreover, I disagree with those who are calling petitioners “crazies” and “racists” because that is not entirely accurate. I am not disregarding the likelihood that some people who have signed the petition are doing it because they dislike Obama. But I am saying that a good number of those people are doing it because they are unhappy about the direction the U.S. has been heading for quite sometime. I think Obama getting reelected was the final straw for a lot of people. I can relate to that frustration because Obama has done a lot to undermine our freedom and has not received one-fourth (arbitrary number that popped in my head) of the outcry Bush received. So, yes, there are many individuals who are concerned Obama was reelected despite his horrible record on foreign policy, civil liberties, states rights and the economy. Moreover, this secession talk is nothing new in Texas, hence websites like Texas Secede http://www.texassecede.com/faq.htm and the Texas Nationalist Movement (http://www.texasnationalist.com/index.php/about-us/what-we-believe).
I have chosen not to sign the petition because I think the best way to fix a problem is from within. If Texas secedes, how will we positively influence politics in the U.S.? I am extremely motivated to promote economic freedom, international trade, diplomacy and humane treatment of immigrants. I cannot turn a blind eye. I think nullification is a better route and something I can fully support.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Election 2012
My thoughts on election 2012 are mixed.
For one, I am happy that it’s over. I'm not a fan of either Obama or Romney, so I don't feel elated or miserable (as indicated by many fb pots). I disagree with both of them on a lot of issues.
First of all, Obama and Romney both support the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)! I sound like a broken record bringing this up in most of my blog posts but it is sort of a big deal. I am still shocked that many people do not know about it or simply feel apathetic about indefinite detention of American citizens without due process of law.
Moreover, neither of them address the unsustainable student loan debt. They both want to provide more ‘aid’ for college students. Taking out student loans to pay for a college education in a horrible economy is a bad idea (but I won't go into that here). If Romney and Obama actually care about college students, they would say something smart. For example, talk about how student loan debt is unsustainable. Financial aid has driven up the cost of college tuition because there is no incentive to keep tuition low when the government is subsidizing the cost (for the meantime). This makes college less affordable.
Also, neither Obama or Romney care to end the War on Drugs regardless of the fact that it is a complete failure. Not to mention, citizens are beginning to realize that marijuana is actually a good plant that can be utilized for medical purposes. Colorado and Washington stood up to the Feds and legalized marijuana for recreational use! Yet, both Obama and Romney refuse to address this cultural shift in thinking. Not that popular culture dictates what is right or wrong, but you'd think politicians (especially these two) would support popular stances. Popularity aside, marijuana is not even that bad of a substance. Obviously, there are powerful machines lobbying to keep marijuana illegal at the federal level.
I also disagree with both of them on foreign policy. So, even though Romney is more of a war hawk than Obama, I am certain the wars will continue under the Obama Administration. FYI, his administration expanded war and has used more drones than any other president. Not to mention, Obama also has a kill list that includes American citizens. Obama is only marginally better than Romney on foreign policy (that’s not saying much).
But an issue that really upsets me is immigration. Romney takes a backward stance on immigration. He actually spoke of ‘self-deportation,’ as if that were actually doable. But at least Romney impractical 'solution' is obvious. Obama pretends to be a friend to immigrants. So annoying. In reality, his administration has deported a record number of illegal immigrants (i.e., he has deported more illegal immigrants in his 4 years than Bush did in his 8 years). So, when he talks about the Dream Act, I can't help but hear a hypocrite. The Dream Act is temporary and hardly addresses the problem at hand. Sure, it's 'nice' (liberals like nice things) but not even close to what he should be doing. Especially, considering how many Hispanics look up to and admire him because they think he's pro-immigration. How about a practical immigration policy? In a free society, such as in the U.S., business owners should be able to hire anyone he/she wants to regardless of age, sex, or immigration status. I bring this up because that is the primary reason immigrants cross over illegally. They need to find work and are willing to work at anything to accomplish that. The role of government should be to ensure that the immigrants who are coming over are not criminals (yes, that includes terrorists). Also, this is the humanitarian way to approach immigration because it will stop unnecessary deaths in the Sonoran and Chihuahuan deserts. Allowing immigrants to come over with a work visa will help minimize worker exploitation because the process would be transparent. This includes workers that come over here to do the jobs most Americans refuse to touch. It will also attract professionals from around the world and create healthy competition in the workforce. When there is competition, prices go down and quality goes up. The consumers win.
Anyway, the good thing about Obama winning reelection is that I can look forward to a liberty ticket in four years, such as Rand Paul & Justin Amash. There is a fiscal cliff nearing and if Romney had won, people would have further reason to blame free markets for the horrible economy (even though Romney is not a true free market advocate because he believes free markets require regulations). If the economy is still subpar (to say it nicely) and unemployment remains high, I doubt people will still believe it was because of Bush. God help us if they do.
I do hope the best for President Obama and I hope our economy does get better. I would obviously like a healthy economy and strong workforce since I will graduate with my master’s this coming spring. Ahem, I want a job so I can stop being a ‘pretend adult’ and so I can begin paying off my student loan debt.
So, liberals, conservatives and libertarians may have their differences but I know that we all want what is best for our country. We just have different solutions for achieving our shared goal. Obviously, I think my way is the right way or I wouldn't promote it so intensely. The bickering can get intense but humans will be humans... and that involves emotions.
Anyway, our country because it was founded on maximum individual freedom. I love that notion and continue to promote it. Even though we have lost a lot of our freedoms, we are still amongst the freest societies on the planet. Hence, the reason I am not in jail for constantly criticizing Obama and Romney, amongst other politicians (though, I am convinced I am on some sort of list).
I will stop here because I do not like long blog posts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)