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.