Antitrust Laws

There are several issues in which libertarians disagree. One of the most noticeable of these is the issue of antitrust laws. Anarcho-capitalists believe in absolutely no government intervention in the economy. They believe that 100% free markets always function well. Other groups of libertarian thought would agree that minimal intervention is necessary, such as a social safety net, and many believe in some sort of antitrust laws as well.

Anarcho-capitalists, including many prominent libertarians such as Peter Schiff and Walter Block, say that the monopoly issue is not a problem in free markets. Walter Block argued in a speech in Auburn, AL, that companies who are under performing will die out naturally, leaving the best companies to take the market. He said that it is possible for one company to take the market, which is actually fine if they are maintaining good products and decent prices. If they are not producing a good product or charging a fair price, people are free to start new companies that charge less and produce more, an therefore the consumer will choose that company, forcing the other company to drop prices and increase production. Peter Schiff echoes Block's sentiment, saying that if a monopoly drives out competitors by lowering prices and then jacks up prices, the market will one again be flooded with competitors.

The majority of libertarians seem to agree that antitrust laws could be abolished. However, there is a sizable amount that say that antitrust laws should be maintained to some degree. Libertarians that say this can range from moderate libertarians, all the way to minarchists who believe that government's only role in economics is antitrust. Jeffery Miron of CATO has stated on his blog that "reasonable people can make a case for some degree of antitrust enforcement." The argument here is generally that once a monopoly is formed, it is much more difficult to build competing businesses once the monopoly does increase prices. This is in part due to the size. The monopoly is obviously quite large, and a competitor would likely have to build from the ground up. This takes long amounts of time and requires large amounts of work. The argument is that it is nearly impossible to introduce competitors once a monopoly is born.

There has been much in-depth research done on monopolies since they were abolished in the United States by Theodore Roosevelt. According to Thomas DiLorenzo of Mises, there is no evidence that a "natural monopoly," or one that is not aided by the government, ever existed. He notes that economist and Dean of Undergraduate Students at my University of Illinois, Horace Gray, said that "the public interest would be best promoted by grants of special privilege to private persons and to corporations." Indeed, when utility companies were monopolized in the United States, he notes that the companies were subsidized, thereby giving certain companies an edge. It is important to note this favoritism to certain companies. Had the government not subsidized companies, would that not have increased competition? It is important to ask if those monopolies would not have occurred had the playing field been level.

Competition is, however, a key attribute in Austrian Economics. Competition helps drive down prices and produce better products. Competition is touted by free market-activists as a reason to have free markets, so wouldn't taking away competition with a monopoly take away a reason to have free markets at all? This is what may lead some libertarians to argue that government's only role in the economy should be antitrust laws. This was, the theory of competition can be upheld and therefore the free market can be validated. This is why even those who are as small government as minarchists will sometimes express support for antitrust laws.

Antitrust laws are a key argument among libertarians. While the majority of well-known libertarians fall on the side of abolishment of antitrust, there still remains a sizable group in favor of the laws. It is up to you to decide which side you fall on. In the end, however, let me reiterate that we are all on the same side right now as libertarians. If we ever get to the point where our two-party system is between one party who favors antitrust and another that does not, then we may split, but at this point we are all committed to spreading libertarianism.

The Grassroots Are Gone

It has been awhile since I published anything here at Liberty Glasses. That is due mostly to the fact that I moved down to school and I am just finished getting all settled in. A lot has gone on since I last posted, mostly having to do with the conventions. The Republicans hosted their convention at the end of August, and the Democrats just finished up theirs' here at the beginning of September.

Republicans Shun Maine Delegates

Starting at the RNC, the Ron Paul campaign failed to bring enough delegates to force a second vote. That did not occur without some fireworks, though. The Maine delegation was not seated, and instead the RNC chose to seat its' own delegation, which they felt better represented the state of Maine. I am not sure exactly how this was permitted. Since when is the RNC in the position of determining how a state feels? Isn't that what elections and then state conventions are for? As the Maine delegation was denied participation, they chose to walk out of the convention. Many of the delegates stated to the media as they walked out that they would have lent their support to Romney had the RNC played fair, but since they were being silenced, they have decided to not vote for Romney. Here is video of the delegation walking out:

RNC Changes Rules To Limit Grassroots Activity

In addition to the silencing of Maine delegates, the RNC proposed a change to the way that the delegations were elected at the state level. The new rule proposed would force state parties to nominate delegates that were supportive of the victor in that state. This rule is detrimental to grassroots activism. We live in a Republic, not a Democracy, and that must be preserved. The majority is not always correct, and true republicanism allows for an end to the tyranny of a majority, as well as the rule of law being written by a minority if it is "tireless" and "irate," in the words of Doctor Paul. This rule changed is now in the RNC books. But how could such a thing pass? Well, it didn't. Here is video from the RNC:

The 'ayes' have it? Really? To me, it sounded like it was at the very least unclear, although I would go as far to say that not only was it a tie, but it sounded to me like the 'nays' had it. Why would Boehner assume that the 'ayes' had it? Well, for several reasons, actually. First of all, it was an RNC-written rule. There was no way that the RNC was prepared to let their rule get struck down. Second of all, that is what he was told to say before hand. Look at this evidence captured at the RNC of the teleprompter that Boehner was reading from. Guess what it says.

There was no vote. He had his role scripted from the very start, which goes back to my point that there was no way that the RNC would let this get struck down. Thirdly, you may ask why it sounded so much like the 'nays' had it when the Ron Paul delegates were in the minority there. The answer to this is twofold. First of all, many of the Romney delegates were actually Ron Paul supporters who had been elected to delegate positions, but forced to vote for Romney by their states. They would vote 'nay.' The group that made it a majority, however, was the other grassroots supporters in the room. The RNC has convinced many grassroots activists from the Tea Party to support the candidate that is nominated. However, they would still vote against this rule, because it hurts them in the future. This is evidenced by an outrage of grassroots neo-conservative bloggers, who I don't always agree with, but I did this time. Here is Michelle Malkin via Twitter:

These grassroots conservatives put the Ron Paul crowd over the top and clearly made the 'nays' the winner, but Boehner was not expecting that. He was expecting them to fall in line, and when they didn't, he preceded anyway, like it didn't phase him. After all, he has shown in the House that he is not willing to listen to grassroots activists.

DNC Imitates RNC's Bullying

A vote came up to a vote at the DNC as well. This vote was on whether or not the DNC platform should treat Jerusalem as the fair capital of Israel. This is a very controversial issue in the world and in politics, seeing as though the Palestinians and Israelis have been fighting over that territory for thousands of years. The rule came up to a vote, and look what happened (watch all the way through):

Now, Villaraigosa is not as experienced at this kind of stuff as Boehner is, so, as you can see, he hesitated quite a bit. His gut told him that the 'ayes' indeed did not have it, but, guess what his teleprompter was telling him:

It's getting out of control, folks. Our leaders used to try and hide that they didn't care what we thought, but now they are just flat out ignoring the people that make up their party. It really is telling that the same horrendous act was committed at each of the convention. It really illustrates that the two "major" parties are on the same page, and both are full of elitists who do not care what you think.

Conclusion

Now, you probably noticed that I did not mention any of the big speeches or other anticipated events of the conventions. All of those speeches are meaningless. They are full of lies, deception, and propaganda. Many fact-checking websites proved that Paul Ryan an Michelle Obama delivered speeches that were some of the most dishonest speeches given on such a high level in a while. The real issue, though, is the issues discussed throughout this article. The real issues are that the people's voice in their government is no longer being slowly eroded - it is disappearing at a remarkably fast rate. Until we awaken more of the idea of a small government that is accountable to the people, the big government elite will continue to ignore the people that elected them.

Capitalism Could Suffer Most Under Romney (Bear With Me)

Bear with me here. I am not here to tell you that Mitt Romney is more anti-capitalist than Barack Obama. They are both anti-capitalism, but that is beside the point. The bottom line is that nothing will change over the next four years regardless of which guy wins. Mitt Romney is a crony-capitalist. This means that he advocates for government subsidies and bailouts to certain corporations. Barack Obama borders on a socialist, which means that he would like the government to posses most of your money and distribute it how they see fit. Both of these philosophies are anti-free market. Neither is worse than the next. However, I am here today to show you why a Mitt Romney presidency would be worse for the free market. I am not telling you to vote for Obama. I suggest you vote neither. Like I said, bear with me, and I will show you.

I was listening to the most recent episode of the Peter Schiff Show on iTunes yesterday. Peter, whom I consider the second most intelligent man on economics, right behind Doctor Paul, was talking about the differences between the two candidates. He was talking about how each candidate brands their economic theory differently, but in practice they are both anti-free market. Of course, Romney repeats the term "free markets" over and over again. Then, it dawned on me (and Peter as well) that a Romney presidency is the worst case scenario.

You see, a President Romney would be similar to a President Bush. Bush expanded the size and scope of government. He increased regulations, bailed out the banks, an increased the deficit. This is all under the name of conservative economic theory. However, it isn't conservative economic theory, as I have pointed out. It is a progressive economic theory that is similar to President Obama's. In 2008, Obama ran for President calling for more government intervention in the economy. His reason for this: capitalism caused the collapse. Capitalism didn't cause the collapse. Crony-capitalist socialism caused the collapse. 2008 was a bad year for capitalism because it was wrongly blamed for the collapse.

Now, fast forward to 2012. Our economy is sure to continue to slouch. Everyone knows that the next four years are going to be a rough time for the economy. If Obama wins re-election, this will happen under his watch. This will prove that socialism does not work in fixing the economy. If Romney is President, it will happen under his watch. It will happen because he, too, is a crony-capitalist socialist. However, what did he promise in the debates? Capitalism. So in 2016 everyone will once again blame the situation on capitalism, despite the situation being caused by the attack on free markets. Do you see it now?

This is a hazardous scenario that we are in. We have the two main parties, neither practicing free markets, destroying the economy. It's almost like a Broadway show. One guy comes in, screws everything up under a guise, and then the guy who admits he is a bad guy (as opposed to the disguised guy) is able to triumph the screwing as the solution.

Now, imagine a different scenario. Imagine a scenario in which everyone is honest. Imagine a scenario in which you have two parties: Austrians vs. Keynesians. The Keynesians come in and wreck everything, and then people turn to capitalism, like they are now. This time, though, the Austrians, real capitalists, come in and fix everything. Now, the country is prosperous and capitalism can no longer be blamed as a bad thing. This is why an Obama victory would be better. If the collapse is coming, which we all know it is, wouldn't it be better to have people blaming it on what it really is?

Thank you for sticking with me. If you read this far, you listened to my "bear with me" message. I hope you can see this idea. Indeed, this year is a "critical election," as the media calls it. But, this is not a critical choice between Obama and Romney or socialism and capitalism. It is a critical choice between our course and a different course. It is a choice between what we have now, two crony-capitalist socialists, or a new day. A day in which our two choices represent real differences. Join with me this year, regardless of your political affiliation, in condemning the lack of choice. Again, thank you for bearing with me.

The "Wipe Israel Off The Map" Hoax

Today, I am not writing about a recent event, but rather an issue that is plaguing our great nation. I am choosing to write about this because it involves some of the most horrendous misreporting that I have seen in awhile. Let's start with the basics. Iran is currently under sanctions and threats from around the world for two reasons: 1) they do not like Israel, and 2) they are developing nuclear weapons. Several politicians are rallying the American people for a war with Iran, and the people are agreeing chiefly because of one phrase, "Iran has stated that they will wipe Israel off the map." This makes sense to the American people, seeing that they do not like Israel and could be developing nuclear weapons. However, this is not true and the American people need to know that to avoid submitting to another major war.

First of all, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's Prime Minister, never even said it. Professors and Arabic translators have agreed that the proper translation is not, "wipe Israel off the map," but rather, "the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." Now, while this is not exactly "friendly" language, it is starkly different from what has been presented. First of all, they are saying that they are opposed to the Israeli regime rather than the Israeli people. They would like the Israeli regime removed from power, not the Jews removed from Israel.

When asked to clarify these comments, Ahmadinejad said that he has no plans to violently remove the regime or kill any Israeli people. Rather, he has said that the regime, he believes, will collapse on its' own. What this boils down to is that Iran is simply choosing not to recognize the Israeli government as legitimate. While that is not a good thing, it is not new. In fact, 27 countries do not recognize Israel as legitimate. So why are we treating Iran differently? It has nothing to do with Ahmadinejad statements, actually. We have been targeting Iran for years. Ahmadinejad only took power in 2005, yet we have had a trade embargo on Iran since 1995. The reason that we are targeting Iran is the same reason that we targeted Iraq: they questioned our legality in interfering with Middle Eastern politics and they have access to a lot of oil.

So, what do I suggest we do about this? First, we must reevaluate our position. While I agree that Iran is a shady regime, they do have a right to uranium enrichment. They are a part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which allows them to enrich uranium in small amounts. We must accept this, or we are breaking one of the most significant treaties in our history. We must address the issue diplomatically. Regardless of the Santorum talking points, we must sit down with Iran and discuss this. We must make it clear to them that we are willing to allow them to enrich as long as they let the world know exactly what they are doing and why. The only way that we can fix this problem is through this kind of diplomatic action. Hostile sanctions and eventually another war will do nothing but make the situation much worse.

Cruz Defeats Dewhurst In Texas Runoff

Liberty will be on the Lone Star ballot in November. This is thanks to a huge victory in the Texas Senate run-off election by Tea Party-backed Ted Cruz. Cruz is a Cuban-American and is originally from Canada, but he is as American as they come. He was backed by members from all coroners of the Republican Party, including our very own Ron Paul, as well as Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, Sean Hannity, and even anti-Paul leader of Red State, Eric Erickson. But do not worry. Cruz's beliefs align more with Doctor Paul's than any of the other endorsements that he received. Cruz is pro-free markets, pro-Audit the Fed, anti-NDAA, and has called for an exit strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan. Cruz took down his Republican opponent David Dewhurst, Texas' Lt. Governor backed by the big government Texas Republican establishment, including Rick Perry. Cruz's campaign came mostly from the grassroots, while Dewhurst spent millions of his own money and outspent Cruz 3:1.

There is some concern over Cruz within the Ron Paul and liberty movement. This concern stems from Cruz's refusal to endorse Ron Paul despite many of their similar beliefs. This could mean that Cruz may pander to the establishment for political gain despite his principals opposing them. Or, it could simply mean that he was in the midst of election season and wanted to focus on his own election instead of doing anything to isolate any of his supporters. His non-endorsement did not concern me, but I do have some concerns going forward. My main concern moving forward is the pressure he will be under. The Republican establishment in Texas is large and influential, and he will be under pressure to vote their way even if he doesn't want to.

Nonetheless, I am optimistic about Cruz. If elected to the Senate, which he most likely will be, he would be a close ally of Senator Rand Paul in fighting things like NDAA and the Patriot Act, issues which members of both sides have isolated Rand on. He will lead the charge for fiscal responsibility and an auditing of the Federal Reserve, issues Dewhurst would have rolled over on. This article is not a Cruz endorsement, but as we move forward and I start endorsing the many liberty candidates we have this year, I plan on including Cruz on my list.

H.R. 459, Audit The Fed, Passes House

Today, July 25, 2012, years of hard work by Doctor Ron Paul and his liberty colleagues paid off. The House of Representatives voted today to pass H.R. 459, Ron Paul's Audit The Fed bill. The bill passed with 327 Yea votes to 98 Nays. The bill requires a full audit of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, who is responsible for controlling the monetary supply of the country. I have a lot of business to address today.


1) Why it is good: I could write a several page paper on why an audit of the Federal Reserve is a good thing, but let me briefly highlight several reasons. First of all, the Federal Reserve prevents competition in the markets. They are able to hand out bailouts to companies, and they sometimes do that under the radar. Bailouts choose winners and losers among companies in the market, which is not capitalism, but rather government intervention. Second of all, there is a possibility that the Federal Reserve is giving freshly printed money never in use to friends, which is cronyism. We wouldn't know about this because the Fed doesn't need to disclose things like this, which is the point of an audit. A third reason is that it devalues the currency of the United States. The more money that is printed, the less each dollar is worth. We have seen this through skyrocketing prices, financial bubbles, and a slow collapse of the dollar. Finally, the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional. The Constitution gives monetary policy to the Congress, not a separate institution.


2) Who to call: 98 Congressmen voted against this bill. It is important that you know who these individuals are so that you can voice your disappointment in them and vote them out if they are your representative. Here is a list of the 98 Congressmen that voted against H.R. 459: http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1935079/pg1.


3) Where we go: So, where do we go from here? Although today's vote is a landmark for the movement, there is a lot of work from here. The House voted with 75% at "Yea," which means it is veto proof as of now and we don't have to worry about the President. It also means that it cannot be amended, so we don't have to worry about that. The big battle, however, is in the Senate. House Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has vowed not to bring the bill up for a vote in that chamber, despite his support for the bill in the past (he is very partisan). This is obviously a major obstacle. The Senate version of the bill, S. 202, is currently in committee, which is an additional obstacle. It is stuck in the Senate Banking Committee. The head of this committee is Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD). These two people need to hear the Ron Paul r3VOLution loudly and clearly over the next few weeks. We need to let them know that the "People's House" wants this passed, polls show that the people want this passed, and the Senate owes it to the Constitution and the people to at least put this up for a vote. Here is the contact info for these two leaders. Contact them politely and frequently. You can also contact your Senators and let them know that you support this bill.


Senator Harry Reid
(202) 224-3542
@SenatorReid
http://www.reid.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm


Senator Tim Johnson
(202) 224-5842
@SenJohnsonSD
http://www.johnson.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=ContactForm


4) A "Thank You" note: I want to give a shout out to the people who made this happen. The first person is obviously Representative Ron Paul. He has worked hard on this issue for many years. He has put this bill in front of the Congress and seen it fail, and he deserves so much credit for this. Despite being ignored for years, he pressed on and now he has finally convinced a majority of the House that an audit of the Fed is needed. I am so grateful that he has worked so hard. Others that deserve credit for this success are Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who have been leaders in Washington in support of this bill. I also want to thank Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-TX), Rep. Lacy Clay (D-MO), Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT), Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS), Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), and others for their support through speeches on the house floor. I also would like to thank each and every one of the representatives that voted in favor of this legislation. I will not list all of them by name, but each and every one of them has helped this bill on it's way to becoming a law.


5) In conclusion: This bill is absolutely necessary for our nation. I don't care what party you are, what your social class is, or what occupation you hold. This bill is necessary. If you are a liberal, it helps your cause to even out the playing field and take away money from corporations. If you are a conservative, it helps your cause to get the government out of the economy. And regardless of your political beliefs, you can agree that every branch of government is to be held accountable by the people, and you can agree that the devaluation of your money is a very bad thing. Join me in continuing to fight for this bill.

Ron Paul's Final Clash With Bernanke, Bill Up For Vote Soon

On Wednesday, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke visited Congress to once again give an update on the status of the bank and fulfill Congress's oversight function. This, of course, means once again that he clashed with Ron Paul over the role of the Fed in our system as well as the very existence of such a bank. Since Ron Paul is retiring this year, it is likely the final time that the respected, liberty-minded, leader of a r3VOLution will meet with Bernanke in a public, formal setting.

In the video above, Ron Paul once again explained to the chairman that the destruction of the currency is very harmful to our nation. He explained that printing more money is not a cure to our problems and that the devaluation of the currency is hurting the already-disappearing middle class. Bernanke responded by saying that Congressman Paul's sentiments should not be directed at the chairman's policies, but rather at the Congress for setting up the system in the first place. Doctor Paul replied that he is focusing anger at Congress and has proposed bills to so something about the system, but that does not take away from the fact that Bernanke's policies when it comes to printing money have been awful.

All of this comes just days before Paul's H.R. 459, the Audit The Fed bill, is up for a vote. This bill would call for a total auditing of Federal Reserve activities, which would expose corruption in the bank and could expose funneling of money to foreign banks, thereby making foreign countries richer while making our country, and most  notably our middle class, poorer by the devaluation of our currency. This bill has garnered a lot of support from both sides in the house. Doctor Paul has been saying for awhile now that the issue that he has changed the highest number of minds on is the issue of the Federal Reserve. Mitt Romney, establishment candidate for the GOP in 2012, even Tweeted his support for the bill.

Nonetheless, it is still important that we work hard to get this passed in both chambers. I strongly suggest that you join me in contacting your representatives in the House and Senate and you may even go beyond that and contact other representatives. Go to http://www.opencongress.org/ and enter your zip code in the spot allotted (scroll down) to find out who represents you in Congress and to get their contact information. I recommend you call them (e-mail usually gets no response/automated response) and politely inform them that you are a constituent and you would like to see them vote for H.R. 459, the Audit The Fed bill. This can have an impact on their vote, especially for representatives that give special emphasis to constituent needs. 


It is vital that we get this bill passed, and it would be a fantastic way to end Doctor Paul's tenure in Congress. 

My First Endorsement: Justin Amash (R-MI)

Over the next couple of months, I will be making endorsements for the 2012 General Election. As I have already stated, Ron Paul was my pick for the 2012 primary, but I will not be publishing an endorsement for President in the General. I am not going to endorse a write-in, and I am not going to endorse a splinter party. All I will say is do not vote for Mitt Romney or Barack Obama. My endorsements will be primarily for the House and Senate. There is a record number of liberty candidates and Ron Paul Republicans running this year and I want to let everyone know about them.

For my first endorsement, I picked a bit of an easy one to get it out of the way (and for practice). I am endorsing incumbent Representative Justin Amash, a Republican from Michigan's 3rd District. Most of you probably know of Justin already. He is, in most libertarian and paleo-conservative circles, considered to be the most liberty-oriented representative in the House other than Ron Paul. He ran two years ago on the tide of the Tea Party and won in his moderately conservative Grand Rapids district. He was endorsed by Ron Paul in his first campaign for U.S. Congress and returned an endorsement of Ron for President in 2012.

Justin is perhaps known best for leading the resistance to NDAA in the House. He is also known for almost never missing a vote in Congress and for explaining every one of his votes on his Facebook page. He has been a crusader for accountability in the Fast and Furious case without showing the hypocrisy of other Republicans. He has been called "the next Ron Paul" by several Ron Paul and non-Ron Paul organizations. He and Rand Paul have been looked toward to carry on the revolution, and Rand is beginning to lose much of that.

In conclusion, I endorse Rep. Justin Amash for Congress this November of the year 2012. He is a principled libertarian conservative with a now proven record of liberty-oriented voting. If re-elected, he will continue the fight against NDAA and take over Ron Paul's libertarian leadership in that chamber. I highly recommend that MI-3 re-elects Justin Amash.

Could Gary Johnson Debate?

I've been getting a lot of updates from the Johnson campaign recently about getting Gary on the debates this election season. For those who do not know, Gary Johnson is the Presidential nominee for the Libertarian Party in 2012. He served as Governor of New Mexico as a Republican and governed successfully under a libertarian philosophy. He is currently polling very high for a third party, showing around 6% nationally and as high as 12% in his home state of New Mexico. The reason that he is talking about participating in debates is because the debate rules show that a candidate must be polling at 15% nationally to be able to participate. Now, while it is unlikely that Governor Johnson will get to 15%, it is an interesting possibility. Imagine a third option on the stage in the months before the General Election. The chances of a third party winning the election are near none, but having a libertarian voice on stage is key. This is why I am encouraging all of you to answer "Gary Johnson" to any poll that you participate in, even if they don't offer him as an option and even if you are not planning on voting for him. It will be enough of a victory to simply get him on stage this fall.


Now, let me assure you, this is not an endorsement. I do not plan on making a Presidential endorsement this November. This is because there is not a candidate on the ballot that identifies with my goals, being to make libertarianism part of mainstream political thought. This is not possible through Mitt Romney because he is not a libertarian, and it is not possible through Gary Johnson because he is splintering off, which will not make the philosophy mainstream. I will also not endorse a write-in choice unless that individual starts a formal write-in campaign. However, my purpose for this post is clear. I do not agree with Gary Johnson's route of going after the presidency, but it is absolutely essential that we have a libertarian voice on stage at the debates this year. That is why I am bringing this to your attention and that is why I encourage you to tell pollsters that you support Gary Johnson for President of the United States.

The Jobs Numbers And Why They Will Remain

Last week, the unemployment numbers were released for the month of June. They included a very meek 80,000 jobs created in the month of June and unemployment percentages at 8.2%, which is not a change from the previous month. This is one of the most dismal reports we have seen in several months, prompting both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama to come out firing at the other candidate, saying that it will change if they are elected in November. Romney said we have to invest in manufacturing, Obama said we have to invest in the public sector. In the end, though, these numbers will not change regardless of whether our next President is Obama or Romney, and I'll tell you why.

I will start with our President. Obama will often tout his stimulus as a job creator, saying that he saved hundreds of thousands of jobs. Then he will say that we are no longer in a recession because of his policies. Indeed, the economy has improved greatly since he entered office. The stock market has recovered and unemployment has decreased (somewhat). This is true, and that is why Americans are ready to get the vote out for him in November. However, only intelligent Americans can see through this and understand that this is not a reason to vote for him. You see, if you pump enough money into the economy, it will improve. It will be used toward infrastructure, creating thousands of jobs. However, eventually that money is going to run out, and the huge bubble that has been created (and touted as an economic success) is going to burst and we will fall back into recession. This is basic economic thought that anyone could understand, but too many Americans this November will not look past the state of our economy right now. So if Obama is re-elected this November, expect his policies to continue to create gigantic bubbles, only to burst a few years later, and that is why jobs numbers will remain under him.

So, Mitt Romney must have the answer, right? Not so much. For years, the Republican Party has talked a good game when it comes to Austrian Economics. Mitt Romney goes around the country talking about how he will roll back taxes and encourage growth. In reality, his campaign promise is only to roll the income tax back by an average of 10%. That is pretty small considering the big changes that need to be made to improve the economy. In terms of encouraging growth, he is talking about government investment. He wants to "invest in manufacturing," which means more bailouts and government subsidies. So basically, Romney isn't talking as conservative of a game as George W. Bush did before his elections, and Republicans always move left of center when elected. If Bush was considered a strong conservative and he wound up paying millions to bail out companies, how far left will Romney move if he is elected? The answer is right around where Barack Obama is. There really won't be much of a difference between an Obama second term and a Romney Presidency, and that is why jobs numbers will remain under him.

In conclusion, the bubbles are raging. Our politicians love the idea that they can throw money into the economies to get part-time growth so that they can use it to get elected. This will not change in November because we have a one-party system posed as two parties, and the one party is a Keynesian one. It's time that Obama supporters study economics, and Romney supporters envision a Romney Presidency. If both sides did this, they would see that both "choices" are a bad choice. They would see that the jobs numbers are awful, and they aren't going anywhere soon.

Taxation Is The New Regulation

The strategy used by Congress and the rest of the Federal Government is changing, but not for the better. The Supreme Court ruled last week that the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, was Constitutional under the taxation clause, which allows Congress to tax American citizens. Originally, many thought that the law would be found Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, which allows Congress to regulate any interstate commerce. This clause has been long abused by Congress, justifying nearly any bill, no matter what the content, as dealing with commerce between the states. Thankfully, the Supreme Court struck down that notion, but there was a much more hazardous precedent put into place.

The Court justified the law under the taxation clause, saying that the penalty that is applied if one chooses not to purchase healthcare is a tax. The main reason that this ruling is incorrect is that the penalty is not a tax. As Peter Schiff explained, "Just because money flows from [a citizen] to the Federal Government doesn't make it a tax." The reason it isn't a tax is because it isn't applied to everyone, nor is it applied to a purchase. It is applied only to people who have decided not to comply with the mandate. That is not what a tax is. In fact, the Constitution clearly says that Congress is not allowed to use taxation to legislate, which is exactly what this is doing. They are taxing someone into buying something because they would not be able to simply mandate it. Call it "legislating by the tax."

The worst part of this ruling is the precedent that it sets. The Court has now set a precedent that Congress can make any law, no matter the Constitutionality, as long as it applies a tax. You see, it used to be that Congress could force Americans to do anything it wanted by saying that the law affects interstate commerce. That precedent has changed now, but for the worse. Now, Congress can still make any law it wants, but now they are required to raise taxes to pass it. So now we have the same laws forcing Americans to comply, but now our taxes are going up along with the force.

This was a very dissapointing ruling in my eyes. The founders would be ashamed of the state that the Court is at, both because of the political lines that have been drawn and because of the Constitution-stretching that has taken place. Now, in this upcoming election, the American electorate is being shown two options: the author of the ACA, and the author of the structure that was used in writing the ACA. Mitt Romney has come out strong in saying that he will "repeal and replace" Obamacare, but what does that mean? Replace it with Romneycare? Unfortunately, I think that is so. It is time that the American people wake up and realize what is going on, or the overreach of the Federal Government will continue.

Fast and Furious and the Hypocrisy On Both Sides

Yesterday afternoon, the first hearings were held on possible contempt charges against Attorney General Eric Holder over Operation Fast and Furious. Fast and Furious was alledgedly a program that went on inside the Department of Justice in which weapons were sold to Mexican Drug Cartels. This resulted in the death of many Mexicans and soured relations with the Mexican government. As a result of yesterday's hearings, Eric Holder is going to be charged with contempt of court, and rightly so. I have no doubt that he will be convicted. There is more to it, however. Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Darrell Issa revealed yesterday that they have evidence that the President used Executive Privilege to cover up this operation. For those of you that do not know, Executive Privilege is a tool used by the President to withhold information from the public. It is only used to maintain the privacy of the President's converstations, however. It was intended to be used very scarcely and justly, but it is used for much worse.

So what does this mean? As Judge Andrew Napolitano outlined on Fox News yesterday, it means one of two things. Either the President is incorrectly using the Executive Privilege to cover up these documents because he was not involved, or he is using it correctly because he was involved, which would go against the Attorney General's previous testimony. Either way, it is very likely that more charges will come in the future, either additional charges against the Attorney General, or charges against the President.

More than the evidence that our Presidents are going way beyond their power is an underlying theme that I have noticed. Accross the internet yesterday, liberals were hammering Darrell Issa for going against American interests, telling him he should instead be "doing his job." Meanwhile, conservatives were clamoring for justice, calling President Obama secretive and insider. Take a moment to remember back to the Bush Presidency, however, when it was the liberals calling for transparency in WMD research in Iraq and interrogation techniques used against terrorists, and the conservatives who were calling it a "witch hunt."

The underlying theme is clear and sad: hypocrisy in American politics. Most of America no longer stands on principals or even their beliefs. Instead, they sway with the wind of a party, taking whichever side that will protect the leader of their side, even if goes against their past activism. One of the reasons that I am so proud to be a libertarian is that liberty-minded individuals stick to their principals. We are always opposed to government abuse, meaning we are willing to take on any Republican, Democrat, or even a fellow libertarian/Libertarian if they have abused their power. If only the sheeple Obama-ites and Bush/Romney-ites could learn these lessons.

Adam Smith vs. Ayn Rand

Since it is Adam Smith's birthday week, I wanted to take the time to address a very interesting comparison. Libertarian heroes Adam Smith and Ayn Rand had a very similar approach to fiscal governance: the government needs to stay out of the way. However, I want to use this post to highlight a major difference between these two great figures and display why Adam Smith had a better driving mechanism behind this philosophy of government.

Let me start by highlighting the basics of each of these thinkers. Adam Smith, often credited as the founder of the free market idea, is known most for his "invisible hand" theory. This says that government regulation was disfunctional and that the economy, if left alone, would regulate itself. In other words, the power of the consumers and natural regulations would provide proper oversight. Influential libertarian thinker Ludwig Von Mises also shared many of these thoughts.

Ayn Rand was one of the great objectivist thinkers. Her idea was basically that no one should do anything for the sake of anyone else, but rather that you are your own person. Her reasoning for less government regulation was that the regulations made it so that the person was looking out for the good of everyone and was therefore owned by society and not theirself. She did not however, provide any of her own rationality of how this philosophy would affect the population.

Both of these philosophies are, in my eyes, valid. I agree with Adam Smith that the markets regulate themselves if left alone. I also agree with Ayn Rand that each person should reject the idea of giving up their liberty or rights for the sake of the "greater good." However, when applied to economics, Ayn Rand did not dive deep enough into her theory. She explained why government regulations were wrong and immoral, but she did not give a real explanation as to what happens to the market once regulations are lifted. If you do not believe that government keeps companies running, and you do not believe that the market keeps companies running, then what happens?

Von Mises comes back into play now, as well. He wrote in his book that the companies are kept running because the market communicates with them through buying goods that they like (very similar to Adam Smith's theory). While I am cautious to criticize her private notes (of which she never intended to be published), she did write of the book that those ideas lended themselves too heavily to collectivism. Instead, she said that companies did not have to cater to customers because that would be giving yourself to the hands of consumers. The gap in this arguement is that companies must follow consumer advice or they would not stay in buisness.

Where I see Rand's difficulty here is that she gets too caught up in philosophical principals. She sees anything that has to do with the general population as handing yourself over to the "greater good." While I believe in the objectivist theory, I believe that one can still have relations with other people. As a buisness person, you can run a buisness free of regulation and independent of societal rule while still adjusting products to increase revenue. I would also argue that the adjustment of a product due to the market's will is still voluntary, while regulations are not.

In conclusion, I endorse both Adam Smith and Ayn Rand's philosophies of government. They both have strong positions on little government regulation and markets that are very free. However, digging deeper into their vision of an economy without regulations, Adam Smith has a more practical view of a successful free market system.

In liberty, Jared

Ron Paul's Address and Convention Strategy

Yesterday, Dr. Ron Paul put out a video to his supporters concerning the strategy going forward as well as looking back on the primary season. Here is the video:



I will take this opportunity to give my thoughts as well. This primary season has been, in my eyes, a success. While I must admit that it was dissapointing that we did not get to see an electoral victory, the message has grown beyond anyone's expectations. Throughout the campaign, millions of Americans, from all political opinions, have woken up to the message of liberty. According to the campaign's Illinois website, Congressman Paul's vote totals doubled in Iowa, tripled in New Hampshire, and quadrupled in South Carolina. Those numbers show that the liberty movement is growing significantly and most importantly, it is happening within a major party.

Next up is the convention. For those of you who will be going, I urge you to heed Congressman Paul's advice. Please do not be disrespectful, that only motivates those running the show to ignore you more. That does not mean that you should give up, however. Do not give in to the Romney people's request. Politefully disagree with them and try to make significant changes. Changing the party platform and convincing Romney supporters to hop the fence on a few issues will do a lot more good than screaming "RON PAUL!" and getting ejected from the building. Also, make sure to attend Paul Festival, which is taking place August 24-26 at the Florida State Fairgrounds in Tampa and will feature music from bands who support Ron Paul as well as big names in the liberty movement.

After that, Congressman Paul will be retiring this January as he is not seeking re-election in November. This discourages many supporters, but do not let it do so. Ron Paul is no doubt the champion of liberty, but he and many others have worked very hard over the years to establish a movement strong enough to exist without them. Many Ron Paul supporters have been inspired to follow in Ron's footsteps and get involved in the political system. . We now have several libertarians in Congress that can take over leadership of the movement. These include Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI). There are also many liberty candidates running this November, including Kurt Bills (Sen. candidate in MN), Ted Cruz (Sen. candidate in TX), Rick Williams (Sen. candidate in CA), and many others.  We now have a significant number of liberty-oriented officials in local offices throughout the country as well.

Finally, I would like to thank all of you who were a part of this campaign. Whether you were a campaign leader or you just voted, this was a great experience. Thank you for realizing that government is more destructive than helpful, and remember that this is far from the end. There is a lot of work to be done as we move forward, and I hope that everyone will remain as involved in the movement throughout the next year and beyond as they have been in the past.

In liberty, Jared

Why I Will Be Voting This November

This election cycle, many Ron Paul supporters are dissapointed, and rightly so. The man that they love and voted for is not on the ballot. I have heard many say that they will not vote, either because they don't believe that there is a candidate worthy of their vote or because they are protesting by voting. Let me address these two reasons.

For those of you who are considering staying home this November because you do not believe that anyone deserves your vote, I urge you to reconsider. Your favorite candidate is not on the ballot, but you have other possible routes. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, is very similar to Ron Paul. You could also write-in Ron Paul. He got over 40,000 write-in votes last time around, and that number will surely increase. Or, you could vote for one of the two major parties, which I don't expect you to do since this is the reason you are considering staying home. Regardless of your course of action, showing up to vote is necessary. Staying home because no candidate is perfect takes yourself out of political activity in America and allows those with different opinions from yours to take over.

On the other hand is those who are protesting by staying home. Please know that that is no form of protest. According to George Mason University, only 62% of eligible Americans voted in the 2008 Presidential election, and that was one of the highest turnouts in recent memory (compare to 2000, which was 55%). Adding yourself to the percentage that does not vote does not signal to the country that you are frustrated with American politics. If it sends any message, it sends the message that more Americans are not paying attention to the direction of the country. The greatest form of protest is voting for who you most closely align with.

In the end, voting is a very important activity. We sometimes forget how great of a privelege it is. The founders, whom we hail as the greatest libertarians, came from a country that was overrun with dictatorship with the thought in mind that there should be a society where the people can peacefully throw their leaders out of power. Now, so many years later, there are still many countries around the world where people are denied a say in their government. So as November approaches, remember that you have the special opportunity to vote, and make sure you take it wisely.

Welcome

Welcome to Liberty Glasses. This is a blog started on June 14, 2012. My name is Jared and I reside in Chicago, Illinois (the land of big government). I am a registered independent, Ron Paul supporter since last year, and follower of politics for many years. I created this blog to offer opinions from a libertarian perspective with two goals: 1) to provide libertarians with a place to read and discuss issues affecting the liberty movement and 2) to provide non-libertarians with a good idea of what the average libertarian thinks about certain issues.

Now onto more speciffic information. I am what many might consider a conservative libertarian, or constitutional libertarian. This means that I am not an anarchist, but rather I support a limited government much like the one envisioned by the founders. This also means that I am pro-life. The Constitution says that the government is here to protect "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Some libertarians believe that abortion is an issue of protecting liberty, others life. I believe that it is protecting life.

I am also not a "big-L" Libertarian. That means that I am not active in the Libertarian Party. While you may see me supporting a few Libertarian Party candidates, I align with the goals of Ron Paul: integrate libertarianism into a major party instead of splintering off. My ideal candidate to endorse (you will see me endorse several candidates through this blog) is a libertarian thinker active in the Republican Party. It will be much easier for us to turn a major party into a "libertarian party" rather than turning the Libertarain Party into a major party.

I want to thank you for visiting my blog and I hope that you will be back often in the future. The liberty movement is rapidly expanding, and I am glad to be a part of it.

In liberty, Jared