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.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Sunday, June 17, 2012
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
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
Saturday, June 16, 2012
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
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
Friday, June 15, 2012
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.
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.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)