Meeting will come to order promptly at 7:00pm
Why are we here?
Old Business
Last Month's Minutes
Treasurer's Report
Gun Show Booth in October
New Business:
Texas Constitutional Amendments (November elections)
Pat Dixon to visit and speek at September meeting
State Executive Committee meeting in San Angelo in October
SB-100 Issues
What's on your mind?
Meeting adjourns
A blog for the Libertarians in the Concho Valley.
Friday, August 5, 2011
Sunday, July 10, 2011
July 11th Agenda
JULY 11, 2011 AGENDA
Call Meeting to Order
Prayer/Pledge: (Ken Barton)
Old Business: (Wes Heflin)
Meeting minutes
Treasurer’s Report
Committee Reports (N/A)
New Business
Growth: Ken Barton
· Libertarian Party “reactivation” (Ken Barton)
o Volunteers (door hangers, personal outreach)
o Letter Writers/Bloggers
o August/September Events
o October Gun Show (David Benton)
· Fundraising (Ken Barton)
o T-shirts/hats, brisket sale, etc.
o Other fundraising Ideas?
Barbara’s Visit with Texas Libertarian Party Leadership (Barbara Pratt)
Barbara’s Visit with the Tea Party (Barbara Pratt)
· When
· Where
· What
Speakers/Entertainment/Presentations: (Jim Turner)
· What areas of interest?
· Who would we like to hear (other than Ron Paul)
Introduce SB-100 Issues: (Jim Turner)
· City Council/School Board Decisions
· Convention Dates
· Deadlines
What’s on Your Mind?
Next Meeting: Aug 8th, Social hour at 6:00pm, Meeting at 7:00pm.
Adjourn
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
The Wisdom of the Constitution
There is a question on the table that strikes at the core of every American who cares about the future of this country. And left unresolved, this quandary may result in the failure of our nation to heal its chasmic ideological division. Is the Constitution of the United States of America a living document?
Does it possess the ability to evolve without regard to the self-imposed restrictions listed within its very text? Quite simply, and for the record, I say no.
Make no mistake, it is not my intention to imply I am a Constitutional expert or that anyone should take my word for it. But in my opinion no, it does not possess this aforementioned ability, it never has and it never will.
Furthermore, I think it is much easier to arrive at this conclusion than those who disagree would have us all believe. One need not spend years studying the Constitution, the complete written doctrine of each of the Founding Fathers, and every applicable ruling of the Supreme Court to intelligently discern for oneself this pleasantly simple truth.
It merely requires the acknowledgement of the fact that the Founding Fathers did not write the Constitution in an effort to create something new; they wrote it to prevent something old.
The Founding Fathers studied history and the abundant failures of nation after nation throughout, many of which came into existence under the guise of good intentions. Coupled with the experience of having been ruled by a selfish tyrant, they resultantly came to a simple and categorical conclusion; these countless governments had fallen because they failed to enact and enforce a set of strict limitations on their own power. They had declined to preclude man's fickle tendencies from overcoming the steady wisdom of logic and forethought.
One could easily surmise that the Founding Fathers were as versed in the inevitable tendencies of human nature as anyone in their day. Through this understanding they were able to bestow upon us a plan by which we could preempt these self-serving inevitable tendencies.
They understood that the irresistible allure of power was sure to invite malicious intent born of greed and disguised as false altruism. They knew man had been man for an immeasurable period of time and would remain so equally as long. Thus a clearly defined standard must be deliberately enacted, inexorably enforced and tirelessly defended as long as these inevitable tendencies of human nature persisted.
This standard is the Constitution of the United States of America. And nowhere in it will you find it written, implied or intimated that each generation of Americans is at liberty to reestablish its meaning or redefine its intentions.
The inimitable wisdom of the Founding Fathers did not end at their recognition of the potential for malice inherent in mankind. They foresaw the possibility for the birth of ideas and intentions which, appropriately adopted as part of this standard, could serve to further its sole intent of preserving Liberty and Freedom for all.
If you wish to term the application of Article V as the mechanism for evolution of the Constitution than I will enthusiastically join you. But if you try to tell me there is any way outside these strict guidelines by which the governance defined in this document can be altered, changed or otherwise reformed then you are not only on your own, but sadly mistaken.
Does it possess the ability to evolve without regard to the self-imposed restrictions listed within its very text? Quite simply, and for the record, I say no.
Make no mistake, it is not my intention to imply I am a Constitutional expert or that anyone should take my word for it. But in my opinion no, it does not possess this aforementioned ability, it never has and it never will.
Furthermore, I think it is much easier to arrive at this conclusion than those who disagree would have us all believe. One need not spend years studying the Constitution, the complete written doctrine of each of the Founding Fathers, and every applicable ruling of the Supreme Court to intelligently discern for oneself this pleasantly simple truth.
It merely requires the acknowledgement of the fact that the Founding Fathers did not write the Constitution in an effort to create something new; they wrote it to prevent something old.
The Founding Fathers studied history and the abundant failures of nation after nation throughout, many of which came into existence under the guise of good intentions. Coupled with the experience of having been ruled by a selfish tyrant, they resultantly came to a simple and categorical conclusion; these countless governments had fallen because they failed to enact and enforce a set of strict limitations on their own power. They had declined to preclude man's fickle tendencies from overcoming the steady wisdom of logic and forethought.
One could easily surmise that the Founding Fathers were as versed in the inevitable tendencies of human nature as anyone in their day. Through this understanding they were able to bestow upon us a plan by which we could preempt these self-serving inevitable tendencies.
They understood that the irresistible allure of power was sure to invite malicious intent born of greed and disguised as false altruism. They knew man had been man for an immeasurable period of time and would remain so equally as long. Thus a clearly defined standard must be deliberately enacted, inexorably enforced and tirelessly defended as long as these inevitable tendencies of human nature persisted.
This standard is the Constitution of the United States of America. And nowhere in it will you find it written, implied or intimated that each generation of Americans is at liberty to reestablish its meaning or redefine its intentions.
The inimitable wisdom of the Founding Fathers did not end at their recognition of the potential for malice inherent in mankind. They foresaw the possibility for the birth of ideas and intentions which, appropriately adopted as part of this standard, could serve to further its sole intent of preserving Liberty and Freedom for all.
If you wish to term the application of Article V as the mechanism for evolution of the Constitution than I will enthusiastically join you. But if you try to tell me there is any way outside these strict guidelines by which the governance defined in this document can be altered, changed or otherwise reformed then you are not only on your own, but sadly mistaken.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
The Problem with Taxes
In a free market economy, individual people get to choose winners and losers. We do this by purchasing goods and services at specific privately owned businesses that provide us a good product at a good price. Businesses that do not provide that aren't patronized, and eventually go out of business. Businesses that cater to their customers grow.
It is this free interaction between individual citizens that makes the system work -- through millions of individual interactions every day.
No private business can force individuals to purchase their product or service, nor can the business force anyone to work there. Their product must be something both affordable and desired. Likewise, employment at a private business is an individual contract between the employee and a representative of the business owner to perform specific tasks for a set fee.
The individual wanting the job must decide how much the portion of his/her life he is giving to the employer is worth, while the employer must decide what that person's experience, skills, and effort is worth to the business. If one or the other decides it is not worth it, they go their separate ways.
The individual holds all the cards under the free market.
Government businesses and services are different. Doing business with the government means you have no choices. They can force you to pay for a product or service regardless of whether or not you use it. It is able to seize a portion of your life in payment for services you don't even receive.
We are not forced to send our children to local schools. We are allowed to personally pay for our children's education at private schools or to teach our children ourselves.
However, home owners are forced to pay for the education of the masses, regardless of whether or not they use that government service.
Government holds a near monopoly on primary education in San Angelo. They don't have to turn a profit. They can charge whatever they believe they can get away with, as they can force people to pay for an inferior service. They can lavish employees with benefits not found in private businesses, such as free health care and defined benefit pensions. Their budgets never take into account economic fluctuations that private business has to consider.
When government competes directly with private business, private businesses generally lose. The government doesn't have to turn a profit. When government holds a monopoly on a product or service, they have all the power.
The worst part is that every dollar seized by government is a dollar that cannot be spent by the individual in the local economy. It is largely a "zero sum" game.
When the local government (or government school district) raises taxes, that money can no longer be spent in the local economy. Writ large, the federal $800 Billion "Stimulus Package" failed precisely because most of the money went to state and local governments. That provides very little impact on the economy, which depends on individuals, not government, having the money.
The government's role in the economy is the same as it should be in other aspects of one's life: to protect the individual from those who would infringe on their rights by force or fraud.
Nothing more. Nothing less.
It is this free interaction between individual citizens that makes the system work -- through millions of individual interactions every day.
No private business can force individuals to purchase their product or service, nor can the business force anyone to work there. Their product must be something both affordable and desired. Likewise, employment at a private business is an individual contract between the employee and a representative of the business owner to perform specific tasks for a set fee.
The individual wanting the job must decide how much the portion of his/her life he is giving to the employer is worth, while the employer must decide what that person's experience, skills, and effort is worth to the business. If one or the other decides it is not worth it, they go their separate ways.
The individual holds all the cards under the free market.
Government businesses and services are different. Doing business with the government means you have no choices. They can force you to pay for a product or service regardless of whether or not you use it. It is able to seize a portion of your life in payment for services you don't even receive.
We are not forced to send our children to local schools. We are allowed to personally pay for our children's education at private schools or to teach our children ourselves.
However, home owners are forced to pay for the education of the masses, regardless of whether or not they use that government service.
Government holds a near monopoly on primary education in San Angelo. They don't have to turn a profit. They can charge whatever they believe they can get away with, as they can force people to pay for an inferior service. They can lavish employees with benefits not found in private businesses, such as free health care and defined benefit pensions. Their budgets never take into account economic fluctuations that private business has to consider.
When government competes directly with private business, private businesses generally lose. The government doesn't have to turn a profit. When government holds a monopoly on a product or service, they have all the power.
The worst part is that every dollar seized by government is a dollar that cannot be spent by the individual in the local economy. It is largely a "zero sum" game.
When the local government (or government school district) raises taxes, that money can no longer be spent in the local economy. Writ large, the federal $800 Billion "Stimulus Package" failed precisely because most of the money went to state and local governments. That provides very little impact on the economy, which depends on individuals, not government, having the money.
The government's role in the economy is the same as it should be in other aspects of one's life: to protect the individual from those who would infringe on their rights by force or fraud.
Nothing more. Nothing less.
Friday, June 17, 2011
Agenda for the June 20th Meeting
The next regular meeting of the Libertarian Party of Tom Green County will be held June 20 th 2011 at Hidalgo's West on Sherwood Way.
The meeting room will be available at 6:00pm for dinner and socializing before the meeting and the meeting will start at 7:00pm.
- Future Meetings
- The July meeting will be held on July 11 th 7:00pm at Hidalgo's West. Future meetings will be tentatively scheduled for the 2 nd Monday of each month at Hidalgo's West.
- Introduction of the executive committee
- Each member of the executive committee will give information on their involvement with the party. Volunteers to fill a vacancy on the committee will be recruited.
- Preliminary goals for the local party will be discussed. These include
- Running for and winning local offices.
- Lobbying for City Council meeting times that are friendly to citizen work schedules. There should be evening and weekend meetings to encourage greater participation in the process.
- Engaging younger audience, especially at ASU.
- More letters to the editor by Libertarians and from a libertarian point of view.
- Volunteer Training
- If there is enough interest, we would like to conduct a short letter writing class with some simple reference materials.
- Let us know what other training our local Libertarians would find useful.
- Request for Ideas and input
- We plan on ending future meetings with ideas, input, and feedback from the people at that meeting. We especially need to update our statement of principles. Please let us know what you expect, what you hear, what you see, and what you need.
Hope to see you all there.
Friday, May 27, 2011
June Libertarian Party Meeting
The next meeting of the Libertarian Party of Tom Green County will be at Hidalgos West on Sherwood way on June 20th at 7:00pm. The room is reserved from 6:00 so come early, socialize, and enjoy a good meal before the meeting.
Hope to see you there.
Hope to see you there.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Next TGC LP Meeting
The Libertarian Party of Tom Green County will have another meeting on May 16th, 6:00 PM at Cheddar's. We will be discussing local issues, like the garage sale ordinance that will be on the agenda of the May 17th City Council meeting. After this meeting, we will try to settle down to monthly meetings.
Hope to see you there.
Hope to see you there.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Are Libertarians Anarchists?
Libertarians believe that a smaller, efficient government best serves our city, county, state and our nation.
Libertarians seek to reduce government to a size necessary to efficiently support its constitutional responsibility and get rid of unnecessary programs and agencies. Libertarians support balancing the budgets at all levels of government by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.
As government debt, unfunded obligations, and unnecessary spending are eliminated, the generated savings must be returned to the people of Texas in the form of lower taxes.
Libertarians want government limited to it's primary functions: to protect your freedom and your constitutional rights of Life, Liberty, and Property -- all crucial rights for building a free and prosperous society.
Libertarians seek to reduce government to a size necessary to efficiently support its constitutional responsibility and get rid of unnecessary programs and agencies. Libertarians support balancing the budgets at all levels of government by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.
As government debt, unfunded obligations, and unnecessary spending are eliminated, the generated savings must be returned to the people of Texas in the form of lower taxes.
Libertarians want government limited to it's primary functions: to protect your freedom and your constitutional rights of Life, Liberty, and Property -- all crucial rights for building a free and prosperous society.
Friday, April 29, 2011
Libertarian Party Meeting
You will have a chance to meet the new Libertarian Party of Tom Green Party Chairwoman at Cheddar's Casual Cafe on May 3rd at 6:00pm. We will probably be on the patio unless it rains. See you there.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Libertarian Party County Chair
We now have a new Libertarian Party of Tom Green County Chair: Barbara Pratt. She will be on facebook soon. Read here first article and make her feel welcome. She has a tough job ahead of here and she will need all of our support.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
The Proper Role of Government – Libertarian Style
Today marks a sad day in, as I like to call it now, San Franangelo. The Smoking Ban has gone into effect city wide, and marks the codification of a loss of property rights here. The ban basically tells private business owners that they can no longer allow a certain legal activity in their own private businesses. This not only affects private businesses that depend on public patronage, like bars and restaurants, but also to manufacturing and other service related businesses. If a business has more than one employee, smoking is banned at that business at all times. So, even after all the employees go home for the night, the owner is forbidden by law to light one up on his/her own private property.
Let’s see how a libertarian government would have handled the issue.
A small group of San Angelo citizens get together and decide to petition the local government to instill a ban on smoking in private businesses. They enlist the aid of other like-minded groups from across the state and nationally for financial, legal, and logistical support. They begin a publicity campaign, and have the support of the local media.
They finally follow established procedures, and the proposed ordinance is placed on the ballot. 10,000 of San Angelo’s 80,000 citizens vote in favor of the ordinance and it is approved by the voters. By procedure, it then goes to the city council for final approval and implementation.
The libertarian city council considers the ordinance in which a small number of citizens are asking to usurp the private property rights of private businesses owners to allow or disallow a legal behavior. As the petitioners have no fungible rights to the private businesses, enacting the overreaching ordinance would infringe on the private business owners rights by using the force of government. Further, the undue influence of monetary donations and other logistical support by non-citizens in the ordinance is also considered. The city council realizes it is bound to protect the rights of their constituents from this outside influence as well.
The council does not approve the ordinance, stating the proper role of government is to protect the individual property rights of citizens against those that would interfere with the rights of others by fraud or force.
Many business owners in town, noting the large voter turn-out and wishes of that portion of the population, choose to disallow smoking in their business while others continue to allow smoking. In this, the rights of business owners to allow legal activity in their businesses are not infringed. Both smoking and non-smoking establishments are allowed to continue business as desired by their owner, and flourish. Further, the city council gains the respect of all informed citizens, as the citizens are no longer worried about what individual or property rights will be taken away next.
Conclusion:
The proper role of government in a libertarian view is to protect the individual’s rights from others who would infringe on those rights by fraud or force. That includes government force.
That’s not what happened in this case. The San Franangelo city council decided that majority (mob) rule was more important (to their reelection efforts) than individual rights and the rule of law. They allowed a small group, supported by “carpetbaggers” from outside of San Angelo, to usurp the rights of San Franangelo citizens. Not the right to smoke, as there is no such thing. It is the right of a private business owner to control his/her private property.
Our council failed in their role as protectors of individual rights.
Let’s see how a libertarian government would have handled the issue.
A small group of San Angelo citizens get together and decide to petition the local government to instill a ban on smoking in private businesses. They enlist the aid of other like-minded groups from across the state and nationally for financial, legal, and logistical support. They begin a publicity campaign, and have the support of the local media.
They finally follow established procedures, and the proposed ordinance is placed on the ballot. 10,000 of San Angelo’s 80,000 citizens vote in favor of the ordinance and it is approved by the voters. By procedure, it then goes to the city council for final approval and implementation.
The libertarian city council considers the ordinance in which a small number of citizens are asking to usurp the private property rights of private businesses owners to allow or disallow a legal behavior. As the petitioners have no fungible rights to the private businesses, enacting the overreaching ordinance would infringe on the private business owners rights by using the force of government. Further, the undue influence of monetary donations and other logistical support by non-citizens in the ordinance is also considered. The city council realizes it is bound to protect the rights of their constituents from this outside influence as well.
The council does not approve the ordinance, stating the proper role of government is to protect the individual property rights of citizens against those that would interfere with the rights of others by fraud or force.
Many business owners in town, noting the large voter turn-out and wishes of that portion of the population, choose to disallow smoking in their business while others continue to allow smoking. In this, the rights of business owners to allow legal activity in their businesses are not infringed. Both smoking and non-smoking establishments are allowed to continue business as desired by their owner, and flourish. Further, the city council gains the respect of all informed citizens, as the citizens are no longer worried about what individual or property rights will be taken away next.
Conclusion:
The proper role of government in a libertarian view is to protect the individual’s rights from others who would infringe on those rights by fraud or force. That includes government force.
That’s not what happened in this case. The San Franangelo city council decided that majority (mob) rule was more important (to their reelection efforts) than individual rights and the rule of law. They allowed a small group, supported by “carpetbaggers” from outside of San Angelo, to usurp the rights of San Franangelo citizens. Not the right to smoke, as there is no such thing. It is the right of a private business owner to control his/her private property.
Our council failed in their role as protectors of individual rights.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
New Years thoughts from Face Book
We had an interesting little discussion on Face Book just after New Years. The discussion went something like this. Names have been replaced with nick names.
"I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women. When it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it. No constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there, it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it."
Judge Learned Hand in New York’s Central Park on May 21, 1944
"I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women. When it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it. No constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there, it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it."
Judge Learned Hand in New York’s Central Park on May 21, 1944
- Ed Your point is well-taken, but I'll respectfully disagree with at least part of this premise. Do you think liberty is NOT in the minds of people, in other countries, who DON'T have a Constitution to guarantee it? People who yearn for the 'freedom' that we enjoy (and have squandered)? Lately, I happen to have more faith in our Constitution than I have in my fellow citizens.
- Wes I've alway thought of the written Constitution as a forceful guideline to liberty limiting those who don't naturally understand the concept of liberty.
- Jim Put this up to get people thinking. Off to a good start.
Look at history. There are many constitutions that are patterned after ours. Guarantees of freedom of speech, due process, life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, etc.. Many of them in the old Soviet block. Their constitutions protected them from little.
Our constitution gives structure to the yearning for liberty that was in the hearts of our founders and is still in the hearts of many. It is a codification in compact form what they had fought a war for before it even existed. Even before the convention in 1787, we were setting new standards for liberty and freedom.
The constitution is a framework, a tool through which liberty can be protected. It can only be effective through the actions of those with liberty in their hearts who protect and defend it.
That should keep the thinking going.
- Jim Wes, the constitution can only be forceful if it is protected and defended forcefully. Doesn't have to be violent, but it has to be forceful. Has to be done by those who have read and understand it.
Also, need to be careful calling it a guide. It's not. A guide is a set of good ideas you can get away with ignoring now and again. Far too many of our lawmakers and bureaucrats call it just a guide. Think unfunded mandates, any big government program and infringements in the name of security.
The constitution is, among other things, a set of legal boundaries on what the governments can and, more importantly, can not do. Kind of like the boundary between 2 properties. The fence line if you will. For several decades, the Federal government has been moving the fence line and encroaching on liberty. By adverse possession they have slowly taken away many rights that our ancestors took for granted. Time to move the fence back to where it belongs.
- Ed Agreed, but placing less hope, faith, value and importance in/on our Constitution is exactly what its enemies wish for. It can only be beaten when we stop caring for it.
- Wes All government limits liberties; it's the very nature of government. If everyone had "liberty in their hearts" there would be no need for government. The trouble with "absolute law" is that it is inflexible. For example, the "no throwing balls to and fro" ordinance in the city charter. If law is "absolute", then the enforcers must choose to either enforce it or ignore it. There is no "middle ground."
I agree with your fence line analogy, and I don't believe the Constitution to be a "living document."
But, the 16th Amendment, for example, says it is constitutional for the government to seize 100% of earnings. But it also abosished slavery in the 13th Amendment. One could argue that forcing one to work without benifit of earnings is slavery. In that respect, the "absoute law" of the Constitution is at odds with itself. The 14th Amendment provides for equality under the law, but the income tax system discriminates based on income, with higher taxes for higher incomes. This is not equality under the law.
Which "absolute law" do we follow?
- Jim Don't stop caring for the Constitution. But don't rely on it's mere existence for your salvation. It's not magic.
People need to realize that the constitution is a lot like a gun. It's only effective if you're know how to use it and are ready and willing to do so when necessary. And you need to know how to use it effectively. You have to practice and train to use either one effectively. You can't wait until the doors are being broken down to learn how to lock and load and get a good sight picture.
Our enemies also win if we put so much faith in the mere existence of the Constitution that we forget the fundamental reasons of why it's there and how to use it. They will be happy to have us quote it on our way to the gulags.
- Jim Who said the constitution was absolute law? Don't confuse that with supreme law of the land. There is a difference. It may be the highest law in the land, but even the founders realized it would have flaws and relied on men so they put in the amendment process.
Also don't confuse the law with the punishment. We don't have, and wouldn't allow, firing squads for playing ball in the street. Punishment should rely on rational judgment as in by human judges. We have gotten so used to cookie cutter sentencing and mandatory minimums that we forget that the punishment should fit the crime.
The prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment is a starting point for sanity in punishment.
- Wes I was trying to reconcile your position that my use of guideline was inaccurate. I never went anywhere near punishment.
The Constitution puts limits on government. It specifically details the authorized activities of government. It provides for a specific method for changes. It's purpose was to foster liberty of the people within a framework of governace.
In my opinion, it is either absolute law, or it is not. It's akin to being pregnant. Either you are, or you are not. You can't be a "little bit" pregnant. For a more local example, if I am tossing a ball "to and fro" in the street in this town, I am breaking the law, whether or not I am arrested or punished for it.
It's when there are so many "laws" on the books that it is impossible for a citizen to know when he/she is in compliance that liberty is forfeit.
- Jim Guideline gets used so frequently when discussing the Constitution that I challenge it. Many so called constitutional scholars and experts when justifying their latest excess or infringement throw in something to the effect that the Constitution is only a guide. It's much more than "a guide." A recipe book is a guide. Rand McNally is a guide.
Law is not binary. Is freedom of speech absolute? Should you be able to yell fire in a crowded theater when there is none? Does freedom of speech trump laws against fraud?
This is not like being pregnant. This is more like being injured. There are differences between a paper cut and a sucking chest wound.
How do you handle the safety concerns of playing in the street? And where do you draw the line? Is flag football on loop 306 Ok? How about Bryant or Chadbourne?
I have to agree there are way to many laws. Don't you think that's on purpose? You have read Atlas Shrugged haven't you?
- Jim From Atlas Shrugged "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
That's why we have so many laws.
- Wes Point taken. My issue is where the lines are being drawn. And, while it is probably sacreligious to say so, I have not yet read "Atlas Shrugged". It's on my "to do" list.
If I have to have a law to keep myself from playing football on loop 306, I should be in a padded cell somewhere. The individual is no longer being held accountable for their actions, and we're teaching our young ones not to be responsible for them. Almighty government will tell you what's OK and what is not -- for your own good.
And some are OK with that. I am not.
It may seem like common sense to outlaw "fire" in a crowded theater. But the same principle is being used to outlaw other speech without the same obvious "safety" issues. Think "hate speech," which is the biggest load of crap ever to fall upon the American people. Once the principle that there is "some" speech that is not free, it means that NO speech is really free.
- Ed Jim, I'm all discussed out on this issue, so here's a little homework for you and anyone else who cares to give it a try. Find any law, or even an Amendment, past the Bill of Rights, that has given additional liberties to ALL citizens.
- Jim Hate speech and hate crime in general is just a new take on the 1984 thought crime.
We have managed to train a large segment of humanity that the only measure of right or wrong is the law. If it's not illegal, it must be right. If we think it's wrong, we must make it against the law. This misguided meme crosses all political boundaries.
- Jim Ed, common mistake. The Bill of rights gave no liberties to citizens. The liberties were pre-existing. The BOR was there to protect them. Closest might be 13th amendment which eliminated slavery and involuntary servitude.
We still have too many people that want to treat the BOR as an enumerated and exclusive list of the ONLY protected rights and liberties. That was never what was envisioned.
- Ed Jim, not a mistake. Given/guaranteed are thought of, by me, anyway, to be one in the same, with regard to legality.
- Jim Your legal meaning of give is not the same as the meaning and usage of give in other situations and that causes confusion. That leads to the proposition that if the Constitution can give us the right to free speech and religion why can't it give us the right to employment and health care? More clearly stated, the Constitution protects and guarantees freedom of speech and religion. It is not able to provide health care or employment.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
More Basic Principles of Libertarianism
So, what are the basic principles of libertarianism (quotes from the Texas Libertarian Party website)?
"The Libertarian Party of Texas, following the footsteps of our nation’s founding fathers, seeks full respect for the constitutional rights of all people without hindrance from any person or entity."
"Every human being is inherently free to live and act as he or she sees fit, pursuing his or her happiness as long as they respect other’s rights to do the same."
Current political thought is that the citizen is just one part of a larger group. In the progressive perspective, you are to act for the "common good," even if that short changes you. The conservative movement, while certainly more individualistic than the progressive movement, want to control your actions as part of a "societal norm," generally towards a classical moral norm.
Personally, I am a Christian, and I try to live my life by Judeo-Christian values. However libertarianism is individualistic - no one has the right to force their values on another. It is one important aspect of our Constitutional government that seems to have been lost.
Now, I'm no anarchist. There is a specific and limited purpose to government.
"Government’s principal role is to protect your freedom and your constitutional rights of Life, Liberty, and Property, all crucial rights for building a free and prosperous society. Government should be the necessary size to efficiently support this constitutional duty and effectively maintain the rule of law."
The United States is not a democracy. Democracy is mob rule. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. The U.S. is a Representative Republic under the Rule of Law (Constitution). This is the only way to guarantee the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority.
Against my own better judgement, let me give you a local example. Smoke Free San Angelo recently got an ordinance passed that takes away property rights of private business owners. The election approved the ordinance by about a 60-40 margin of voters. It has been approved by the City Council, and is now to be implemented in about a month.
Many people, even those who voted against the ordinance, feel that since the voters approved the ordinance the city council was duty bound to enact it. I argue that the city council, nor the "majority", have the right to tell an individual what that individual can allow in their private business. In my opinion, the city council, in their duty to protect the rights of ALL CITIZENS, should not have enacted the ordinance as written. It enacted an ordinance that took away rights from one group of citizens with a vested interest in their business in favor of another group of citizens without.
Whether or not you agree with the smoking ban, the principle that a small group of people can use government to make others give up their own rights is plain wrong. Just because a majority decides "x", doesn't mean that it should be enforced.
So, what is government supposed to be doing?
"The protective force of government must only be used in response to attack, fraud, or other initiation of force against an individual, group or government by another individual, group or government."
"Government was not conceived as an intermediary for voluntary and contractual relations among individuals; it should only be concerned with the prevention or rectification of acts of fraud. Nor was one of its purposes to redistribute wealth or provide special privilege to any group. All people are equal under the law, free to deal with one another in a free market system, respectful of individual rights."
Our current form of government has veered so far away from the initial intent of the Constitution that many people may not even believe the above statement. It certainly doesn't resemble the current state of affairs.
Government's job is to keep us from screwing with other people. It's job is to ensure a fraud and force free arena for individuals to consensually interact with others for our own mutual benefit. It is there to protect us from external threat and from fraud. That's pretty much it. In Article I, Section 8, the Constitution lists the enumerated powers of the federal government. There are about 19 specific powers listed. Section 9 defines specific limits on the powers of the federal government.
Homework assignment: Lets all take a little time over the next two weeks an rediscover the Constitution of the United States as amended.
((Next time, we'll get more in depth into the platform issues of the Libertarian Party.))
"The Libertarian Party of Texas, following the footsteps of our nation’s founding fathers, seeks full respect for the constitutional rights of all people without hindrance from any person or entity."
"Every human being is inherently free to live and act as he or she sees fit, pursuing his or her happiness as long as they respect other’s rights to do the same."
Current political thought is that the citizen is just one part of a larger group. In the progressive perspective, you are to act for the "common good," even if that short changes you. The conservative movement, while certainly more individualistic than the progressive movement, want to control your actions as part of a "societal norm," generally towards a classical moral norm.
Personally, I am a Christian, and I try to live my life by Judeo-Christian values. However libertarianism is individualistic - no one has the right to force their values on another. It is one important aspect of our Constitutional government that seems to have been lost.
Now, I'm no anarchist. There is a specific and limited purpose to government.
"Government’s principal role is to protect your freedom and your constitutional rights of Life, Liberty, and Property, all crucial rights for building a free and prosperous society. Government should be the necessary size to efficiently support this constitutional duty and effectively maintain the rule of law."
The United States is not a democracy. Democracy is mob rule. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. The U.S. is a Representative Republic under the Rule of Law (Constitution). This is the only way to guarantee the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority.
Against my own better judgement, let me give you a local example. Smoke Free San Angelo recently got an ordinance passed that takes away property rights of private business owners. The election approved the ordinance by about a 60-40 margin of voters. It has been approved by the City Council, and is now to be implemented in about a month.
Many people, even those who voted against the ordinance, feel that since the voters approved the ordinance the city council was duty bound to enact it. I argue that the city council, nor the "majority", have the right to tell an individual what that individual can allow in their private business. In my opinion, the city council, in their duty to protect the rights of ALL CITIZENS, should not have enacted the ordinance as written. It enacted an ordinance that took away rights from one group of citizens with a vested interest in their business in favor of another group of citizens without.
Whether or not you agree with the smoking ban, the principle that a small group of people can use government to make others give up their own rights is plain wrong. Just because a majority decides "x", doesn't mean that it should be enforced.
So, what is government supposed to be doing?
"The protective force of government must only be used in response to attack, fraud, or other initiation of force against an individual, group or government by another individual, group or government."
"Government was not conceived as an intermediary for voluntary and contractual relations among individuals; it should only be concerned with the prevention or rectification of acts of fraud. Nor was one of its purposes to redistribute wealth or provide special privilege to any group. All people are equal under the law, free to deal with one another in a free market system, respectful of individual rights."
Our current form of government has veered so far away from the initial intent of the Constitution that many people may not even believe the above statement. It certainly doesn't resemble the current state of affairs.
Government's job is to keep us from screwing with other people. It's job is to ensure a fraud and force free arena for individuals to consensually interact with others for our own mutual benefit. It is there to protect us from external threat and from fraud. That's pretty much it. In Article I, Section 8, the Constitution lists the enumerated powers of the federal government. There are about 19 specific powers listed. Section 9 defines specific limits on the powers of the federal government.
Homework assignment: Lets all take a little time over the next two weeks an rediscover the Constitution of the United States as amended.
((Next time, we'll get more in depth into the platform issues of the Libertarian Party.))
Monday, January 3, 2011
The Basic Libertarian Principle
Happy New Year!
In an effort to educate interested persons about the Libertarian party and their principles, I'm going to try and tackle the positions of the Libertarian party in pieces. It's my hope to find local applications to these principles, and perhaps get some discussions on how they may apply to local issues, and how we can use libertarian principles to guide our elected leaders into a more libertarian style of government in the Concho Valley.
The Libertarian Party of Texas 2010 Platform begins with a preamble that sets those principles in motion:
"As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their lives and no individuals are forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others."
"We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be eliminated from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized. Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest."
We clearly have our work cut out for us, as the current use of government in the United States, and to an extent locally, is far from a libertarian ideal. Individual rights, small government, and personal responsibility are the key ideals of libertarian thought. Group rights, large nanny-state government, and no responsibility are the marks of our current governmental situation, both liberal and conservative. The only difference between the two national parties is who gets the largess of federal funds: individual moochers or corporate moochers.
How do we, as individuals or even as a group, affect change to our government to more align towards libertarianism? I would suggest the following as a starting point:
Get Informed - keep up with local politics and council activities; read the local paper and article comments; check local political-leaning blog sites and social media; go to a council meeting.
Get Involved - register; vote; step up and speak your mind at council meetings; contact your city/county/state/federal representatives and tell them what you think.
What other ideas do you have? Please leave a comment if you have more to offer.
2011 is the year of "tilting windmills" for me. On the national level, politicians are on notice -- and our local politicians should be as well. They work for us, not the other way around, and it's time they get the message.
((Next week, we'll look more into the basic principles of the Libertarian Party.))
In an effort to educate interested persons about the Libertarian party and their principles, I'm going to try and tackle the positions of the Libertarian party in pieces. It's my hope to find local applications to these principles, and perhaps get some discussions on how they may apply to local issues, and how we can use libertarian principles to guide our elected leaders into a more libertarian style of government in the Concho Valley.
The Libertarian Party of Texas 2010 Platform begins with a preamble that sets those principles in motion:
"As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their lives and no individuals are forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others."
"We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be eliminated from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized. Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest."
We clearly have our work cut out for us, as the current use of government in the United States, and to an extent locally, is far from a libertarian ideal. Individual rights, small government, and personal responsibility are the key ideals of libertarian thought. Group rights, large nanny-state government, and no responsibility are the marks of our current governmental situation, both liberal and conservative. The only difference between the two national parties is who gets the largess of federal funds: individual moochers or corporate moochers.
How do we, as individuals or even as a group, affect change to our government to more align towards libertarianism? I would suggest the following as a starting point:
Get Informed - keep up with local politics and council activities; read the local paper and article comments; check local political-leaning blog sites and social media; go to a council meeting.
Get Involved - register; vote; step up and speak your mind at council meetings; contact your city/county/state/federal representatives and tell them what you think.
What other ideas do you have? Please leave a comment if you have more to offer.
2011 is the year of "tilting windmills" for me. On the national level, politicians are on notice -- and our local politicians should be as well. They work for us, not the other way around, and it's time they get the message.
((Next week, we'll look more into the basic principles of the Libertarian Party.))
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)