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.
A blog for the Libertarians in the Concho Valley.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
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.))
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Speaking of Bad Days
I was wrong. As was so eloquently pointed out by my predecessor, the current combined city/county/state sales tax is already at the maximum allowed by current state law. Mea Culpa.
I do wonder how the State is planning to handle their budget overrun, not to mention what will happen with all of the cities in Texas that are in budget crunches themselves due to promises of unsustainable salaries and pensions. I suppose the state will have to get a second job? It's not like they can legislate themselves more money through changes to the tax code and additional "fees," right?
Even in San Angelo, we are in the middle of a massive recession, but I'm not sure our town knows it. Our city council has just announced a brand-spanking new holiday for city workers, giving them one more holiday than even the bloated federal government. The small percentage of citizens that bothered to vote earlier this month passed permanence on the 1/2 cent sales tax so that we can pay to get another water source "for the future," even though we've already paid for this one once. Two or three years ago our water fees doubled to replace the water and sewer lines that were supposed to be being maintained by the extant water fees we had already been paying. While not directly city controlled, there was also the increase in property values (up as much as 500% in some areas) by the "non-city government" assessment district, so that we are now paying more in property taxes even though the tax rate officially "decreased."
Historically, the city council of San Angelo has a poor track record of keeping it's word on infrastructure issues. It also has a history of making ordinances that lessen individual freedoms (one example is the "garage sale" issue just weeks ago), but then don't bother to enforce existing ordinances that would probably preclude the new issues in the first place. In contrast, they will enforce obscure, ancient ordinances if it suits their purposes ("no tossing a ball to and fro on city streets", that is if you happen to be suspected of being a drug dealer).
Pardon me if I don't trust the city council and local government to be looking out for the best interests of the individual San Angeloan. The city is looking out for the city government's best interest. That's how bureaucracy works -- its purpose is to decentralize decision making (to cover bureaucratic butts) and to expand to fill available space. While everyone else is having to cut corners and spend less, it's business as usual for government.
That's why I "joined" the libertarian party. I was looking for like-minded individuals who would work for the REVERSAL of government spending and handouts, commercial or private; people who would stand up to the local governments to prevent them from stepping on the individuals of San Angelo, not just watch them do it.
Perhaps ConchoInfo was right. Maybe I shouldn't have been the one to take over this blog. I tend to say what's on my mind. But I was the only one who would step up, and I will keep it until directly asked to leave. Funny thing about libertarians: individuals tend to be, well, individual.
In the coming weeks, I'm going to try and get back to what I wanted to do in the first place, and explain in layman's terms what libertarianism really means, and how it can be used at the local level to improve citizen government of themselves. It's about protecting individual rights and the limitation of government intrusion on consensual human interaction.
We really can have that in San Angelo. If we try.
SnS
I do wonder how the State is planning to handle their budget overrun, not to mention what will happen with all of the cities in Texas that are in budget crunches themselves due to promises of unsustainable salaries and pensions. I suppose the state will have to get a second job? It's not like they can legislate themselves more money through changes to the tax code and additional "fees," right?
Even in San Angelo, we are in the middle of a massive recession, but I'm not sure our town knows it. Our city council has just announced a brand-spanking new holiday for city workers, giving them one more holiday than even the bloated federal government. The small percentage of citizens that bothered to vote earlier this month passed permanence on the 1/2 cent sales tax so that we can pay to get another water source "for the future," even though we've already paid for this one once. Two or three years ago our water fees doubled to replace the water and sewer lines that were supposed to be being maintained by the extant water fees we had already been paying. While not directly city controlled, there was also the increase in property values (up as much as 500% in some areas) by the "non-city government" assessment district, so that we are now paying more in property taxes even though the tax rate officially "decreased."
Historically, the city council of San Angelo has a poor track record of keeping it's word on infrastructure issues. It also has a history of making ordinances that lessen individual freedoms (one example is the "garage sale" issue just weeks ago), but then don't bother to enforce existing ordinances that would probably preclude the new issues in the first place. In contrast, they will enforce obscure, ancient ordinances if it suits their purposes ("no tossing a ball to and fro on city streets", that is if you happen to be suspected of being a drug dealer).
Pardon me if I don't trust the city council and local government to be looking out for the best interests of the individual San Angeloan. The city is looking out for the city government's best interest. That's how bureaucracy works -- its purpose is to decentralize decision making (to cover bureaucratic butts) and to expand to fill available space. While everyone else is having to cut corners and spend less, it's business as usual for government.
That's why I "joined" the libertarian party. I was looking for like-minded individuals who would work for the REVERSAL of government spending and handouts, commercial or private; people who would stand up to the local governments to prevent them from stepping on the individuals of San Angelo, not just watch them do it.
Perhaps ConchoInfo was right. Maybe I shouldn't have been the one to take over this blog. I tend to say what's on my mind. But I was the only one who would step up, and I will keep it until directly asked to leave. Funny thing about libertarians: individuals tend to be, well, individual.
In the coming weeks, I'm going to try and get back to what I wanted to do in the first place, and explain in layman's terms what libertarianism really means, and how it can be used at the local level to improve citizen government of themselves. It's about protecting individual rights and the limitation of government intrusion on consensual human interaction.
We really can have that in San Angelo. If we try.
SnS
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Good Days and Bad Days
Today is a good day to be a Republican. Republicans have taken over control of the House of Representatives. Hopefully, they have learned a lesson from the massacre of 2008. The "Tea Party" movement had a so-so night, but most of the Republicans took notice of them anyway. The most likely Speaker of the House mentioned smaller government, lower taxes, personal responsibility. Sounds like a good plan. I hope they stick to it.
Today is a good day to be a Democrat. They held onto the Senate (and the Presidency, which was not up for grabs). They don't have a filibuster proof majority any longer, but the Majority leader won his race, and the hard-core leftists are still with us. (It was mostly the moderates that got creamed last night.) So, we'll have to see if the Democrats in the Senate can work with the Republicans in the House to get work done in Washington D.C.
Today isn't a good day to be a Libertarian, at least not locally. The "majority" (actually about 1/6th of registered voters) in San Angelo decided that private property rights just aren't that important anymore. The most restrictive smoking ban in the state will begin on January 1st right here in Monterey East.
To make it worse, the 1/2 cent sales tax has now been made permanent. Looking into my crystal ball, I see a rise in the 1/2 cent tax to 3/4 cents in a couple of years, later to be replaced with the 1 cent sales tax. The only way they had a chance to raise the limit was to make it permanent first.
On the bright side, my children and grandchildren won't have to worry about paying the extra taxes. Neither one can find a decent job here in town, even with the economic slush fund (funded by the 1/2 cent sales tax, no?). They'll move on to greener pastures, where perhaps, just perhaps, they can open a business without "good ole boys" getting into their business.
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." -- Frederic Bastiat
SnS
Today is a good day to be a Democrat. They held onto the Senate (and the Presidency, which was not up for grabs). They don't have a filibuster proof majority any longer, but the Majority leader won his race, and the hard-core leftists are still with us. (It was mostly the moderates that got creamed last night.) So, we'll have to see if the Democrats in the Senate can work with the Republicans in the House to get work done in Washington D.C.
Today isn't a good day to be a Libertarian, at least not locally. The "majority" (actually about 1/6th of registered voters) in San Angelo decided that private property rights just aren't that important anymore. The most restrictive smoking ban in the state will begin on January 1st right here in Monterey East.
To make it worse, the 1/2 cent sales tax has now been made permanent. Looking into my crystal ball, I see a rise in the 1/2 cent tax to 3/4 cents in a couple of years, later to be replaced with the 1 cent sales tax. The only way they had a chance to raise the limit was to make it permanent first.
On the bright side, my children and grandchildren won't have to worry about paying the extra taxes. Neither one can find a decent job here in town, even with the economic slush fund (funded by the 1/2 cent sales tax, no?). They'll move on to greener pastures, where perhaps, just perhaps, they can open a business without "good ole boys" getting into their business.
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." -- Frederic Bastiat
SnS
Friday, October 29, 2010
THROW AWAY YOUR VOTE WITH ME
In the past month or so, as I have been reading the comments in the on-line version of the Standard Times, I have noticed an unusual amount of libertarian thought being expressed by people who are both Democrats and Republicans. Many have expressed a desire to vote for the Libertarian candidate Kathie Glass for Governor. Unfortunately, these expressions are usually followed by "but I would be wasting my vote," or "a vote for Kathie Glass is a vote for Bill White."
I feel that Texas needs a new governor. Unfortunately for us all, the Republicans would only put up two political class participants for the run, and then they held their noses and voted to run the Emperor again. While the ‘Tea Party’ force is strong in this state, even they were not able to put up a viable fight against Perry. The Democrats, having a prime opportunity to make hay by moving towards the center, picked a left-leaning, sanctuary city loving statist with Clinton baggage (endorsed by the Standard Times) to oppose Perry. Now, they expect us to choose between those two.
Kathie Glass is a better choice. We will not only be making a statement to the political class, we could be giving Texas a governor that does not want to rule Texas, but to lead Texas through these tough times. Kathie Glass will look not to massive government and regulation to “stimulate” us into bankruptcy, but will start to get government out of our way so we ourselves can stimulate the economy.
If you go to the polls, and hold your nose and vote for your "party," you are telling the political class in this state that it's "business as usual." We poor "chattering class" of people would be stating with our votes that we do not have the power to affect change in the political system.
I hope that the people who are as fed up as I am with BOTH political parties would join me in throwing away our votes for Kathie Glass for Governor.
I feel that Texas needs a new governor. Unfortunately for us all, the Republicans would only put up two political class participants for the run, and then they held their noses and voted to run the Emperor again. While the ‘Tea Party’ force is strong in this state, even they were not able to put up a viable fight against Perry. The Democrats, having a prime opportunity to make hay by moving towards the center, picked a left-leaning, sanctuary city loving statist with Clinton baggage (endorsed by the Standard Times) to oppose Perry. Now, they expect us to choose between those two.
Kathie Glass is a better choice. We will not only be making a statement to the political class, we could be giving Texas a governor that does not want to rule Texas, but to lead Texas through these tough times. Kathie Glass will look not to massive government and regulation to “stimulate” us into bankruptcy, but will start to get government out of our way so we ourselves can stimulate the economy.
If you go to the polls, and hold your nose and vote for your "party," you are telling the political class in this state that it's "business as usual." We poor "chattering class" of people would be stating with our votes that we do not have the power to affect change in the political system.
I hope that the people who are as fed up as I am with BOTH political parties would join me in throwing away our votes for Kathie Glass for Governor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)