The Story of Stuff - Rebuffed!

A video entitled “The Story of Stuff” (http://www.thestoryofstuff.com/) found its way to my computer and I sat back with a cup of coffee to watch.

I found this video production extremely compelling. Given my libertarian convictions, the fact that I watched the entire 20 minutes is evidence. And there are some truths contained. But there are also a lot of mistaken assumptions and naive beliefs about human nature. I send this email out as a caution:

1. Government control of resources and citizens is not the answer. This "noble experiment" has already been tried in the Soviet Union 1919-1989. Pollution and exploitation of both the land and people led to tens of millions of deaths through starvation, political executions, and war. Rather than protecting the "people's" resources, communism destroys and wastes them on a far greater scale than capitalism.

Resources are conserved when an individual owns them. This is the concept of private property, and explains why in the Western world (where we respect private property), life expectancy continues to lengthen. And in "exploited" Africa, where there is no respect for property rights, it declines.

Annie seems to conclude that we'd all be better off moving back to the agrarian economy of the USA around the turn of the century, using oxen to till the soil, and hand labor to mill grain, make/wash clothes, etc. Too bad she never lived back then to see what life was really like.

2. Annie talks about health care as if it were a "given"; that somehow government should provide this (free?). Without capitalism there would be no modern medicine, no penicillin, no polio vaccine, so life saving surgery. Only witch doctors.

3. Humans don't live forever, and we know it. So while we are here on earth, we seek to maximize our personal comfort and maximize our enjoyment of life. Annie (who probably drives an SUV, uses electricity to light and heat her house, and yaks on a cell phone a lot) believes someone (i.e. government agent) should be put in charge of determining how others must live their lives to be healthy and happy. No doubt she thinks she's qualified for this job.

A friend of mine once told me he had two rules for living life:

1) Don't tell me what to do.
2) Don't tell me what to do.

I'd don't know if it's just me and him, but really I think the root of happiness is all about personal freedom. To make your own choices, good or bad, and to enjoy the rewards and learn from the consequences either way.

The reason the happiness has been decreasing since 1950 (and I do believe this), is because the role of government is increasing. Do-gooders like Annie aren't the solution; they are the problem. Don't buy it. (Pol Pot's reign of terror in Cambodia provides a chilling history of how a new social order emptied cities in favor of agrarianism.)

If we truly need to "save" the planet , we need to come up with a innovative solution where the "stewardship" of our natural resources is placed in private hands, not government. I'll admit this is difficult to do with large bodies of air and water (because staking boundaries or building fences is problematic). But we must look to the free market and property rights for answers first.

The alternative is ceding your liberty to government, and to those who wish to use power to dictate how you live.

Respectfully,
George Dick

Co-Chairman
Libertarian Party of Kentucky

(VOTE FOR RON PAUL!)

Pull the Plug on the new Downtown Arena

$665 million – the latest revised cost of the Downtown Arena. We’re getting close to $1,000 for every man, woman, and child in Louisville Metro. Waiting to see if interest rates will go down is Russian roulette. I’d venture a guess with a War in Iraq costing $300 million per day (hmm, call this off for a couple of days and we could have a new Arena), expansion of Medicare with free prescription medicine (unfunded, with a projected cost of $1.2 trillion between now and 2015), and a diving US dollar, odds are pretty good interest rates are going up. Way up.

Remember 1965? LBJ launched The Great Society, which brought us both Medicare and The War on Poverty. Coupled with Vietnam (one war is never enough for some Presidents), interest rates soared into double digits. Interestingly, the removal of silver from our coinage in 1965 foretold of the coming inflation. I’d say we’re pretty much on course for an instant replay given that pennies now cost more to produce than they are worth. (Since the government had to take most of the copper out of a penny in 1982 to prevent citizens from melting them, the next step is elimination of the penny altogether. Watch for it.) I find eerily coincidental a same day report about a man in Zimbabwe threatened with jail for using the 10-cent paper note as a business card with inflation there running at 100,000%.

In college economics, I was introduced to the dangers of government policy which promised both guns and butter. With the national debt over $9 trillion and climbing, every child born in the US enters this world over $30,000 in debt. While there’s little Louisvillians can do to change national policy, we were wise enough to vote down new libraries, as well as the new library tax. It’s time to summon the same courage, cancel plans for the new arena, and continue enjoying the Cards in Freedom Hall.

George Dick
Vice-Chairman
Libertarian Party of Kentucky

Universal Access to Broadband?

Political pressure mounts from educators, unions, and other lobbyists to require government to provide universal access to broadband though DSL or cable. Ostensibly, this is to "level the playing field", so that every American can surf the internet at equal rate of speed. The cost to do this is prohibitively expensive, as the buildout of this systems would cost billions but would only serve relatively few living scattered about in low-density population areas.

What is not mentioned in this debate is that high speed internet access is already available to nearly everyone in America. Satellite internet providers Skyway USA, Wildblue, and HughesNet provide this service at rate starting as low as $29.95/month. Other technologies that could economically reach rural Americans such as Wi-Max (wireless) and powerline transmission wait in the wings.

I resent the effort by the AFL-CIO/CWC to force any company or taxpayer to subsidize the employment of union workers to string cable or fiber optics across America. Many industrialized and developing nations will never be fully wired, nor should they. Copper wiring is a vestige of the past.

Living in the countryside relieves country folk from the headache of traffic jams and smog that city dwellers endure. But what right do we have to demand the same serenity, silence, and pristine air when we voluntarily choose to live in an urban area? Government cannot make everything equal for everyone everywhere -- nor is it their job to do so.

There are costs and benefits when choosing to live in rural areas of the country. Accepting slower speeds on country roads is equivalent to accepting slower speeds on the information superhighway.

High-speed internet access is not a right, and forcing others to provide this service through legislation and taxation is slavery. And as usual, the market has already provided a solution.

George Dick
Vice-chair LPKY

Islamofacism -- is the USA to blame for 9/11?

In response to the excellent post by my friend Greg Hertzch:

As a student of history, Greg is probably aware of the paralyzing embargo that FDR placed upon imperial Japan . As we starved the Japanese war machine of oil & rubber, we could hardly claim neutrality. Many believe, as do I, that FDR purposely forced Emperor Hirohito's hand. And while not knowing exactly WHEN or where the Japanese would attack, FDR knew (and secretly hoped) it would happen eventually.

For more detailed discussion about the Japanese embargo please navigate to:

http://www.jref.com/culture/Japan_WWII_Asian_hegemony.shtml

I say "hoped" because war gives a president the public support he needs to consolidate politcal support and enact all kinds of new legislation, which included the illegal internment of Japanese Americans (Guantanamo/Padillo/enemy combatants), the Draft (coming soon), and the illusion of economic prosperity through huge goverment military spending. The invoice for this 'jobs creation program' will be presented to the American public shortly, and mostly likely paid for through a severe currency inflation (as occurred after WWII and Vietnam). Savers, the backbone of any economy, will be crushed.

While one may dismiss Ron Paul's comments about 9/11 being "our fault", the similarities to 12/7 (Pearl Harbor) are strong. Certainly the continuing support of Israel, installation of the Shah of Iran, and other meddling in Middle Eastern affairs is going to have consequences. Do you see Arabs blowing up buildings in Switzerland?

So, what to do about Japanese, German, and Islamic Facism? Ignore it, along with the suffering and death imposed on millions of innocent citizens, or fight it and risk being drawn into battle on foreign soil at huge expense and cost of American lives? Will we have to face our enemies eventually, perhaps under worse odds when much of the entire world is under facist (communist) domination, or will foreign totalitarianism collapse under it's own weight before ever reaching American shores?

Our libertarian founders were non-interventionist: "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none", to quote Thomas Jefferson. But, nuclear missles and biological weapons of mass destruction, capable of annhilating millions in the hands of one insane facist, didn't exist back then. The Monroe Doctrine established our right to defend American interests outside of American soil, even at the risk of war. We do not have to wait till our enemies are fully armed and poised to attack before taking pre-emptive action to defend ourselves.

I submit that while our first choice in foreign affairs is non-intervention, we must never view war as a last resort.

Respectfully,
George C. Dick
Chairman LPKY

Ron Paul's FoxTV Presidential Debate

The Fox News Channel hosted a presidential debate among all eleven Republican candidates the other night. Former Libertarian Party presidential candidate and current Republican congressman Ron Paul participated in that debate.

Ron Paul was lambasted by Rudy Giuliani during the debate after his comments on the cause of the World Trade Center terrorist attacks. Ron Paul basically said that the terrorists did it because we were over there. I don't completely agree with Ron Paul personally, as I believe that Islamofascism does play a significant role in their motives. I think it is idiotic to believe that it was our fault that the USA was attacked, that we are to blame for the actions of the terrorist highjackers that day. That is akin to believing that it was our fault that Japan bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

Ron Paul has been lambasted by the conservative critics and talk show hosts about his "It Was Our Fault, Blame America First" stance. That being said, I do agree that Ron Paul is correct in that our interventionist foreign policy needs to go. Didn't George Washington warn us about "entangling alliances" with foreign governments in his farewell address?

That whole debate served as a reminder as to why we are here, "we" being libertarians both big "L" and small. All the other candidates were touting their support for bigger and more bloated government all around. Debate winner (pollwise) Mitt Romney has flip-flopped on many issues over the years for political expediency, and he proudly supports a renewed ban on assault weapons. In other words he has a deeply held hatred and contempt for our Second Amendment. I just bought an AK-47 assault rifle and 1000 rounds of ammunition a couple weeks ago, and I'll be goddamned if I'll vote for any presidential candidate who wishes to ban my purchase!

Rudy Giuliani? He has made no secret of his desire to ban guns. He is one of many Republicans who put safety and security on a higher level than liberty. Do we need to be reminded of Ben Franklin's words on that very subject? Yet neoconservative pundits and talk show hosts including Michael Medved and Sean Hannity support and love both Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. Medved remarked that Rudy's smackdown of Ron Paul during the debate was a demonstration of true leadership, "a true leader who displayed his skill after the WTC attacks versus a nutcase like Ron Paul" to paraphrase his words.

Medved and Hannity also believe that John McCain would make a worthy president. John McCain who strongly opposed the Bush tax cuts. Two words: McCain-Feingold. Remember that little thing he pushed through called "campaign finance reform?" It amounted to a chilling and vicious attack on the First Amendment as we all know. Bush signed it into law thinking that the US Supreme Court would bail him out and overturn this horrid piece of legislation. Instead they ignored the Bill of Rights and upheld this law. Yet these conservative pundits who call for limited and constitutional government on one hand say that John McCain would make a great president on the other. Pure hypocrisy.

Mike Huckabee? As governor of Arkansas, he claimed to have cut spending and lower taxes, yet he hiked that state's gasoline tax in order to build roads. The voters approved of those new gas taxes then. Do they now? With gasoline at $3.20 per gallon? Why didn't Huckabee further cut government spending and wasteful programs in order to fund these roads instead? Never trust a politician who claims to support lower taxes on one hand and higher taxes on the other. This sounds a bit like our own governor in Indiana who pushed for higher cigarette taxes.

Will former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich jump into the race? Let's hope not. He brought the Republicans to power in both houses of congress in 1994 based on his "Contract With America" outlining his plans to reduce the size and scope of government. He sounded libertarian back in those days. But we all know what happened. After the Republican congress gained power in 1995, they failed to cut even one single big government program.

Newt Gingrich showed lily-liveredness and limp-wristedness as House Speaker. He went into meetings with President Clinton to negotiate leglislation and spending and would come out proudly announcing that he worked out a great deal with Clinton giving him basically all the big spending and big government he wanted. One could say that he sucked up to Bill Clinton again and again during those meetings. In fact he sucked up to him so much that he would come out of those meetings with more of President Clinton's sticky white pungent DNA splattered all over his suit and tie than what Monica Lewinsky ever had on her dress. Keep this in mind whenever you see Newt Gingrich on television spouting about anything. Let's also not forget that Gingrich claimed last year that the US Constitution should not always apply to some people in certain situations. Scary stuff. This man has no business ever being our president.

While I may not completely agree with Ron Paul's weak-at-the-knees stance on dealing with diaperheaded Islamofascists, Ron Paul has it right on so many other issues. He is the only Republican candidate who truly believes in libertarian ideals about the role of government. Do they forget that the Ron Paul is still a Life Member of the Libertarian Party despite his being a Republican congressman?

The fact that all the other neocons are raking him over the coals shows that their commitment to smaller government is lip service. This whole scenario illustrates why we are here and why we do what we do. For too many Republicans, there is only one issue that matters to them, security. They value safety and security over liberty. They ignore Ron Paul's positions on every single other issue. For them, if a candidate is weak on terrorism, they are out of the game no matter what their positions are on every other issue. Ron Paul is right on so many other issues that it places him miles above the rest of the bunch. You are asking yourself "Is he saying that he will support Ron Paul instead of the Libertarian Party candidate next year?" A moot point.

I will predict here and now that Ron Paul will not win the Republican nomination next year. Republican voters by nature hate the idea of constitutional government. Sadly, they have a love, admiration, and support for bigger and more bloated government. Republican voters have a love affair with the Patriot Act. They cringed when the flag sacredization amendment failed to pass the US Senate last year. They love the concept of the Real ID bill being passed. They enjoy taking their shoes off at the airport if it means that Big-Daddy-Government will protect them from all those nasty terrorists carrying suitcase nukes.Republicans love their pork just as much as the Democrats, and it is why Ron Paul will not win the Republican nomination.

I predict that Mitt Romney will win the nomination on the Republican side, that Al Gore will jump in and win the Democrat nomination and ultimately the presidency. Too many people believe Al Gore's bullshit about global warming and the polar bears dying up north. But I digress. If Ron Paul does happen to win the Republican nomination, I predict that there will be a move at next year's Libertarian national convention to not put forth a Libertarian candidate at all. We shall see. Speaking of the 2008 Libertarian Party National Convention, it will take place from May 22-26, 2008 in Denver, Colorado. Mark your calendars now and be there a year from now.

Again, why are we here? Why are we Libertarians and not Republicrats? I think the foregoing analysis has answered that question. The recent presidential debate served as a reminder of the Republicans' and conservatives' love of big government. It sets them squarely apart from us. Their contempt for Ron Paul further illustrates that point beautifully for us, does it not?

Greg Hertzsch
LP Indiana

Courier Journal vs. The Bluegrass Institute

After reading the C-J's front page quasi-news article (which belongs on the political assassination page) about The Bluegrass Institute, what's glaringly obvious is the fear both the C-J and government institutions have for the libertarian ideas advanced by them. This makes sense given the monopoly positions enjoyed by both the CJ and government run entities like public schools. The free market is a powerful force when left unchecked -- look at the dwindling number of pages published by the CJ each day. People are voting with their wallets for a better news & entertainment delivery system.

Similarly, I'm sure bureaucrats managing the public school system are equally concerned about being voted out of a job. So rather than debate those with a fresh view as how to better public education, they've chosen to ignore and/or ridicule them. The recently departed Nobel laureate Milton Friedman advanced the same libertarian ideas as The Bluegrass Institute regarding school choice. Would such distinguished scholars as Brent McKim of the JCTA and Lisa Gross in the Ky. Dept. of Education be equally dismissive of him?

Union bosses and government bureaucrats try to mire the school choice debate in facts, figures, and statistics hoping to confuse the public into a state of paralysis. The matter is far more simple -- do we accept the fundamental truth that competition brings about the best in us all, or do we believe that certain persons (such as unionized teachers) and institutions (government schools) should be protected?

No doubt the initial effect on public policy produced by greatest economic treatise ever penned, The Wealth of Nations was limited too. Yet 200 years after publication, Adam Smith's libertarian ideas have delivered unimaginable riches and health to the entire western world. The C-J should congratulate, not condemn the tenacious efforts of those at The Bluegrass Institute for seeking to educate us in ways our government schools cannot.

George Dick
Chairman Libertarian Party of Kentucky

A Cup of Holiday Guilt?

A Cup of Holiday Guilt?

With the arrival of the movie Blood Diamond, a new awareness of what those less fortunate than ourselves must endure to earn a living has been brought into the American consciousness. On Dec. 15th, the Louisville Courier-Journal condemned all who enjoy cheap prices for clothes, food, electronics, and toys for "exploiting the natural resources of the world's poorest countries and their poorest people." Show more sophistication when buying, the CJ admonishes; don't just ask how big and how much. To this I say: "Humbug!"

Lest we forget the state of humankind just a few centuries ago, recall Hobbes's description of the life of man: "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Were it not for "exploitation" of the world's natural resources, humans would still be living as hunter gatherers, roaming the earth in constant search of their next meal. Man's ability to understand life and his environment on a conceptual level is what separates us from all other animals. Nature gave us brains to think and hands to dig and build.

Mining coal, drilling oil, cutting timber, plowing fields, husbanding animals, and fishing the seas serve as primary activities for man to feed, cloth, house, and warm himself. And while diamonds (and gold) have important industrial uses today, should we feel guilty about enjoying them as jewelry? If so, should we renounce all luxuries? Aren't toys and electronics luxuries? Electric lights, automobiles, and penicillin? Some remote cultures exist without any of these items; does that make these uneducated savages our moral superiors?

To portray diamond hunting by hungry Africans as an immoral pursuit because the monetary rewards are diverted towards the purchase of guns by warring tribes speciously connects two unrelated activities. Consider the work you do and the taxes you pay that allow the USA to wage war on Iraq. I aver the culprit is not the productive work you do to feed your family; rather it is government's desire to meddle in foreign affairs and its power to finance this aggression through forced taxation. Washington, DC acts no different than Sierra Leone in that regard.

Were it not for the diamonds, clothes, toys, electronics, and cars that we purchase overseas, those workers would be earning less money than they do now. Alternatives include starvation, military conscription, or back breaking subsistence farming in searing heat or pouring rain. Never forget the sacrifices our forebears (many of them immigrants) made when America industrialized. Initially the jobs in factories paid little, and hours were long.

"Exploitation" was a term favored by Karl Marx; interestingly we hear the same language from the Courier-Journal. Would the CJ advocate further support of the failed policies of socialism, Marxism, and communism as a solution to the miserable conditions in Africa? In fact, we know them to be the problem.

In contrast, behold the wealth that free trade and a market economy have brought to China and other Asian countries. Having just returned from a business trip to Guangzhou, I can report firsthand the magnificent bridges we dally with here have already been constructed there. Cranes crowd the sky; modern trains crisscross the landscape, and the beckoning hustle of neon chases away the night.

Some consider this growing economic superpower a threat to the USA, but this fear is misplaced. Recall the sage words of Thomas Jefferson: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none…these principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us, and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation."

So here's my cup of Holiday cheer: pray spend your money on goods of all nature and origins, both luxury and necessity. Take joy in the happiness these gifts bring, and know that in your purchases, you lift others from poverty. Worry not about free exchange with your neighbor, be he from Indiana or India. Yearn only for truth and knowledge.

George Conrad Dick
Chairman Libertarian Party of Kentucky

ILLEGAL DRUG TAX PROPOSAL VIOLATES CONSTITUTION

ILLEGAL DRUG TAX PROPOSAL VIOLATES CONSTITUTION    

Your Page 1 headline article on Saturday, “Illegal drug tax proposed”, concerned a bill before our legislature that would enable seizure of any property owned by an alleged “drug dealer” if he/she had not previously purchased a tax stamp from the Kentucky Department of Revenue.

This idea should be totally opposed by Kentuckians, and all Americans, for that matter, on constitutional grounds.

It violates the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution - an individual  shall not be deprived “of property without due process of law.”  There is no due process available if a suspect’s property is confiscated (stolen) by the government before a guilty verdict is handed down.

There is also a serious violation of the Eighth Amendment’s ban on “excessive fines” being imposed.  Losing all your assets because you failed to purchase a tax stamp is very excessive.

Keep in mind that a mass murderer in Kentucky will have no assets confiscated (except for the murder weapon) because it is not necessary for him to conduct business with the revenue department.

Why do we have a Constitution that is so ignored, both in spirit and in truth?

Melinda Albright  (alias for Marilyn Titschinger)
Bowling Green