Coming Out of the Closet

I’ve got to get something off my chest. I haven’t always been this way. It’s happened slowly over a number of years. The stark reality is that my feelings have changed. So I can no longer keep my deepest feelings a secret. I’m coming out of the closet. I’m a libertarian!

Libertarianism

For all of my life, I’ve voted mostly Republican, but the party is currently in a state of disarray and it no longer represents my conservative beliefs. I believe that mankind has a God-given right to be free to do as we choose as long as we don’t harm others. That freedom allows us to enjoy the fruits of our labors and to share it with whomever we choose, if and whenever we choose. The dictionary defines “libertarian” as: 1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state. 2. One who believes in free will. ¹ That’s what I believe because it fits with my understanding of freedom as God intended it.

Abram of Canaan was perhaps the first libertarian, at least he lived as a libertarian. He and his family were self-sufficient and bound by no laws other than those given by God. He was free to bear arms and defend his family, unfettered by weapons bans. He bore the personal responsibility and moral right to feed his family and educate his children. He paid tribute to no king; taxes to no government. And God was happy with mankind’s freedom and the rule of His moral law. Freedom from government intrusion into our inalienable rights was God’s original intent. God was the creator-leader, and man interacted directly with Him. It is only because of mortal, sinful man that God stopped being so involved in mankind’s daily lives and thereby necessitating a worldly, and therefore corrupt, government.

Thomas Paine eloquently wrote in his pamphlet Common Sense that government is a necessary evil: “Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; … For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least.” ²

So given that mankind in general has rejected God as its direct leader and law-giver, what form of man-made government best follows God’s original plan, adheres to the principals of free will and allows man to worship unfettered by laws?

Thomas Paine continued: “Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.” ²

The true, and only, purpose of government should be to provide for the security of the society to which it answers. Society is the end; government is a means. This security takes two forms: 1) internal, protecting the innocent from their less-righteous neighbors, and 2) external, protecting the people from oppression and attack by other nations. In providing for a nation’s overall security, a government should appropriate from the citizens only the resources necessary to support the security infrastructure, including a justice system to deal with the criminal element, and a minimal revenue collection system to fund it.

The best government is a minimal government. An ideal federal government upholds the constitution, provides for a stable currency, national security, internal law enforcement, courts to judge criminals and to resolve civil disputes (although some would argue that civil matters could be better handled by private means), prisons to house the bad guys, and not much else. The ideal federal government doesn’t dictate where our children go to school, or even if they go to school. The ideal federal government allows us to fail. We should live by the choices we make. The ideal federal government doesn’t tell us who we should be charitable to. The ideal federal government doesn’t redistribute our wealth. The ideal federal government doesn’t tell us what is moral and what is not, as long as our beliefs and actions don’t harm others. And the ideal federal government doesn’t tell us we can’t defend our lives and those of our families. But unfortunately, government is inherently interested in only two things: 1) power and 2) retaining power.

We have strayed absurdly far from the ideals of our founding fathers. If alive today, they would be astonished at how far we’ve gone astray. Our founding fathers such as Jefferson, Franklin and Madison were clearly of the libertarian persuasion. The “…unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” stated in their Declaration of Independence is an excellent summary of the core beliefs of the libertarian. Also from their many writings, it is obvious that many of our founders were libertarians. For example, on the subject of income redistribution and regarding the “general welfare” clause of the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson wrote this: “To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." ³

Our founding fathers created an elegant and beautiful document in the U.S Constitution, creating perhaps the most perfect and just government which has ever been. And major omissions in the original document they soon corrected with the Bill of Rights. However, nothing made by man is perfect. I see it in my work. As hard as I may strive for perfection in the creation of a piece of woodwork, I never achieve it. And even though minor imperfections may escape the casual glance of the viewer, I know they are there. Such it was with the Constitution. The founders made one mistake which left a hole big enough to drive a Mack truck through; they used the vague little phrase “general Welfare” in a couple of places in the U.S. Constitution, including in the Preamble. Section 8 of Article I gives congress the power to levy taxes for, among other purposes, “to provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” ⁴ Their intent has been debated ever since, and has resulted in several Supreme Court cases. I suspect that they intentionally left this clause vague because they couldn’t anticipate future security needs, and there is no evidence that they ever expected it to lead to social welfare or massive Federal spending programs. It is my opinion, as well as that of several of the creators as evidenced by their other writings, that the term “general” limits Federal expenditures to only those causes which benefit every citizen, but nevertheless the uncertain meaning has caused us much grief. Under this (intended) interpretation, much of the currently-proposed economic stimulus bill would be unconstitutional, as would much of the Federal spending going back decades. Unfortunately, our courts and congress have diverged significantly from the limited interpretation of “general”. For a very good article on the original intent, see: “Connor’s Conundrums, General Welfare” blog. ⁵

The state of Alabama recognized the “general welfare” pitfall and corrected it, at least as far as the state constitution goes. Since I was born in Alabama, I’m happy to be able to quote from the Alabama Constitution: “That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression.” ⁶ Right on! The framers of the Alabama Constitution perhaps had the hindsight into the vagueness and opportunity for misinterpretation of the general welfare clause in the U.S. Constitution. Note also the use of “property” in place of “pursuit of happiness” which was used in the Declaration of Independence. Including that simple clause from the Alabama Constitution in the U.S. Constitution would have eliminated much if not all of the liberal confusion about and the appropriation of “general welfare” for the unlawful plunder of private property by our Federal government to the express benefit of politicians. As a result of Alabama’s clear constitutional prohibition on government confiscation of private property, Alabama’s Department of Human Resources simply administers certain Federally funded child welfare programs. ⁷

But for all the debate and obfuscation it has caused, the “general welfare” clause has been a smoke screen hiding the real constitutional issue. Thomas Jefferson in his first inaugural address said: “…with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.” ⁸ I suspect that if President Jefferson could be resurrected and read the tax code and the current Federal stimulus bill, he’d tear his hair out! From this and his other prolific writing, it is clear that Jefferson respected the natural right of a man to keep that which he earns.

Perhaps none of my contemporaries understood and have articulated the proper role of government better than the Honorable Ezra Taft Benson, former Secretary of Agriculture under the Eisenhower administration. “No one has the authority to grant such powers, as welfare programs, schemes for re-distributing the wealth, and activities which coerce people into acting in accordance with a prescribed code of social planning. There is one simple test. Do I as an individual have a right to use force upon my neighbor to accomplish this goal? If I do have such a right, then I may delegate that power to my government to exercise on my behalf. If I do not have that right as an individual, then I cannot delegate it to government, and I cannot ask my government to perform the act for me.” ⁹ The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution bestows on government only the power delegated to it by the people, and that power is ultimately bestowed upon us by our creator. Article X of the Bill of Rights states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” ¹⁰

To better understand the premise of mankind’s right to not have his property confiscated by government, let’s look at a couple of illustrations. Let’s say you lived in early America and migrated to the mostly unoccupied Midwest as it was being settled. Initially, there was no one living for miles around, and so personal security was not a particular concern. But then as more and more settlers arrived, some of them decided that what was yours could be theirs. Since you didn’t have time to defend your property 24x7 because you’re working the crops, you and some of your other nearest neighbors decide to elect and pay a “sheriff” to protect your property. You delegate to the sheriff your natural right to protect your property, and he acts for you and in return is justly compensated. Thus the first government is formed in your local community. Now a key point: under natural law, you can only delegate to the sheriff powers that you possess. You cannot give the sheriff powers that you don’t have, such as the power to take some corn from farmer Jones five miles to the south, because he had a good crop, and yours was lost to insects. This is a fundamental principle upon which states came together to form a federation and thereby to delegate to the new Federal government some of the powers of the state, which the states had formerly, naturally been delegated by its citizens.

For further clarity, let’s take another example. Let’s say I go to my neighbor’s house under cover of darkness, break into his storage building and take his lawn mower because mine is broken. Do I have the right to do that? Of course not! That goes against God’s moral law and man’s civil law, which ultimately derives from God-given rights anyway. So I as an individual, and therefore the aggregate of all citizens, have no power to grant to government the right to confiscate the property of some for the benefit of others. Therefore the Constitution may only possess the power naturally belonging to the country’s individual citizens. Our Federal government today has simply usurped our fundamental, natural rights to the detriment of those it chooses for the benefit of others it chooses, under the guise of providing “general welfare”. We walk a fine line between promoting the general welfare and tromping on natural liberties.

If you read no other documents or books I reference, I suggest that you take the time to browse Mr. Benson’s paper. It’s short and very intriguing reading. There is a link to an online copy in the Reference section below.⁹

The tendency, and in fact action, by our government leaders to subvert the Constitution for their own selfish means and ideology is fraught with peril. In his classical work, “The Law”, Frederic Bastiat wrote: “But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper function. And when it has exceeded its proper function, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.” ¹¹ I first read this book in the late ‘60’s as required reading in one of the “fluff” electives I took towards attaining my engineering degree. That was when some college professors were still conservatives, especially in the heart of Bible-belt Alabama. The book made a lasting impression on me. The book was written in 1850 while France was rapidly turning to socialism. I re-read the book a couple of months ago, and it is chilling how much the situation we the citizens of the United States of America find ourselves in today mirrors that of 19th century France. Mr. Bastiat, an economist and Deputy to the Legislative Assembly of France, went on in the book to explain the natural degeneration of socialism into communism. But most of his countrymen chose to ignore his logic. His words of warning are equally valid in our country today. We should rename the IRS the Internal Plunder Service, or IPS.

Bloated Federal government

There are many disturbing developments occurring in our Federal government, and we the citizens need to retake control of it. Among other actions, all the following departments should be largely abolished: Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Health & Human Services, Housing & Urban Development, Labor and Interior. This would leave: Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, State, Transportation, Treasury and Veteran’s Affairs. But even within each of these departments, there are certainly agencies and services which should be abolished. Also, within each department which should be abolished, there are agencies which should be retained and moved to other departments. This single act of abolishment and reorganization would simultaneously balance our Federal budget and significantly reduce taxes. This is a vague oversimplification, but you should get the idea.

Now there are several areas of opinion held by libertarians which get the most criticism by its opponents, namely charity, education and morality. I’ll spend some time on each of these.

Charity

Abolish the H&HS Department? !!! Don’t they have the responsibility to take care of the less fortunate? Yes, but don’t get me wrong. I’m not a scrooge who has no sympathy for the needy. My wife and I have always tithed. In addition to our church, we have several favorite charities, one of which is the Texas Baptist Children’s Home. Our hearts go out to abused and abandoned children, who through no fault of their own, find their lives very miserable. I just don’t think it is the roll of government to force me to be charitable by confiscating my earnings and giving it to those they deem as worthy. Maybe I’m crazy, but I think I can do a better job of deciding who is worthy of my charity, and with much more efficiency, than a massive, corrupt Federal bureaucracy. The system of neighbors taking care of neighbors worked pretty well when our republic was in its infancy. Churches also have a role to play. Other than violating the natural right of citizens to keep that which they earn, perhaps the worst part of public welfare is that it cruelly enslaves its beneficiaries to poverty, actually subverting that which it intends. Benjamin Franklin stated the problem well from his experience as a world traveler: "I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. -- I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ¹²

There’s also the hypocrisy factor, for you see, many liberal politicians who claim to want to provide for the less-fortunate are only using that as an excuse to gain power over the electorate. Liberals historically give significantly less of their incomes to charity than conservatives. The following chart shows how voting patterns closely match charitable giving. ¹³

And take Joe Biden for example, since he’s the second highest-ranking officer in the land and he recently said that paying taxes is patriotic. From the decade of 1998 through 2007, he listed contributions on his and his wife’s tax returns of $3,690 out of total Adjusted Gross Incomes of $2,450,042, or 0.15%. In contrast, George W. and Laura Bush gave 17.8% to charity in 2007. ¹⁴ This is a matter of public record.

Leave charity to the private sector where it works.

Education

Public education is a ball that once you kick it down the hill, there’s no stopping it. The objective of giving all children an equal opportunity at success against the backdrop of many ignorant, uncaring or incapable parents is admirable. However, the logical progression is to eventually try to legislate protection of children from any adversity their parents' bad decisions might inflict upon them. One can see evidence today of creeping intrusion of governments into the natural, God-given right of parents to raise their children. An example is the attempt in some areas of the country to make it a crime to spank our children, even at home. ¹⁵ Our girls got more than one whack on the behind in the grocery store. But I would be afraid of getting charged with child abuse if I did that today, even though it’s still legal in all 50 states. I don’t even want to think about the environment in which our grandkids will be raising their kids 20 – 30 years from now. The eventual result could be the total appropriation of our children at birth or soon thereafter by the government so that no child is harmed, all their needs are met, and all are given an “equal” opportunity to succeed in life.

Not only is it a slippery slope into social engineering, mandatory public education doesn’t work. Public education having been in effect in this country for over 200 years, the dropout rate in the U.S. in 2008 was around 30% nationally. Seventeen of the nation’s largest cities have dropout rates above 50%. ¹⁶ And according to A History of Public Education in the United States, “the pitiful standard of high school education today has left many educators wondering how to improve the system…” So how well has that worked out for us?

The failure of the public education system is not a new phenomenon. One evidence of its failure is my personal experience with it. I graduated from a rural high school in North Alabama in 1963. I was ill prepared to enter college. My school didn’t even offer the basic sciences I needed to get into engineering school. I had to pay to take trigonometry and geometry classes during the summer between Junior and Senior years at a nearby urban school to have the necessary course work. I could barely write a grammatically-correct sentence and my vocabulary was very limited. (Some would argue that both are still true.) My acceptance for enrollment in Auburn University was conditioned on my taking Remedial English during my first semester. It wasn’t until I entered an educational system primarily funded by tuition and more responsible to its customer base, the students, that my education improved. Now I’m not saying that all public education is bad. It isn’t. Our daughter is one of the best high school teachers in the country in one of the best school districts in Texas. (No, I’m not biased.) I just believe that the biggest problem with primary education in this country is that we’ve relegated the responsibility to government, and thereby in general stopped paying attention to the quality of the service. I suspect that many parents pay less attention to selecting the source of their kids’ primary education than they do in selecting their next big-screen, HD TV or new SUV. After all, isn’t the government ensuring that everyone gets an equal opportunity in primary education so why should parents have to worry about that?

On the international level, it is very clear that the public education system in America is a failure. At the age of 10, students from 25 countries take the same test and American kids place eighth, well above the international average. But by age fifteen, when students from forty countries are tested, American’s place twenty-fifth, well below the international average, and below countries such as Hungary and the Slovak Republic. And Americans do worse than kids from much poorer, less-developed countries, like Korea and Poland, which spend much less on education than the United States. Belgium, which ranked eleventh, also spends less per student than the United States, and their students get to choose their schools. Government monopolies routinely fail their customers. ¹⁷

Public education funding is also unfair in its implementation. I’m sure there were many single property owners and couples who will never have children who lived in our school district and helped pay for our daughters’ education. And parents who have one kid in school help pay for the education of those who have four. The earnings and resources of one are plundered by the many for the benefit of another.

So how do we fix education? We’ve tried letting the government run it and that doesn’t work. We’ve tried throwing more money at the problem and that has failed. We’ve tried standardized testing, and that has had mixed results, and no real breakthroughs. Teachers unions in New York City and other urban areas have tied the hands of educators and promoted mediocrity in the classroom. As the preponderance of the evidence shows, the very simple and obvious solution is a competitive market. We should sell all our K-12 resources to private companies, abolish school districts and their tax structures, and let the free market work. Consumers would have choices. They would pick the best schools they could afford, and the accountability chain between administrators and parents would be very short indeed. People would leave bad schools and the bad schools would go out of business. People would flock to good schools and more good schools would open. The good schools in order to remain competitive would have to fire bad teachers, something that is rare in public schools. For an example of how well this would work, just research the success of charter schools.

But I can imagine the protests. “What about the poor people who can’t afford to pay for an education!?” Well I have three generations of personal experience to refute that argument. Our dad was the only one of four siblings to decide to get a college education. He grew up poor on a farm, and his parents couldn’t afford to send him to college. So he borrowed the money from his uncle and paid it back after college. Even with a college degree in agriculture, life was hard for my dad. He worked 2 jobs much of his life to scrape by and provide for 3 children, but I never heard him complain about hard work. One of those jobs was owning and managing a chicken farm. While my brother, sister and I were in elementary and high school he lost a whole flock of chickens to disease, which almost bankrupted us. We almost lost our home, but my dad worked with the bank to re-financed the loan, and was able to eventually recover. However, due to the financial hard times, my family was not able to pay much on my college education. My dad took me to the bank and co-signed a college loan note with me. He did this 3 more times before I graduated. I got my engineering degree and paid back the loans with summer jobs and with my permanent job after graduation. The final example is our daughters. We helped them all we could through college, but they still had to borrow to help with expenses. As my dad had done for me, I co-signed notes with them. In the interest of full disclosure, some of the loans were government-subsidized student loans, but if that had not been available, we’d have borrowed the money from private lenders.

I believe that, with the return of school taxes to the electorate and sufficient desire and priority, it would be possible for anyone to get a decent education without government involvement. And if borrowing were required, that is almost always a good lifetime investment. But the public education Genie escaped the bottle in 1791, and unfortunately I fear there ain’t no putting her back. Sorry, my North Alabama-acquired vocabulary and grammar sometimes slips out.

Legislation of morality

I need to preface this section with the following: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and through his unimaginably painful death on the cross, his atonement for our sins, and my public profession of him as my Lord and Savior, I will someday pass from this life to be with Him forever. So for those readers who are fellow believers, please don’t be offended by the following tongue-in-cheek statement. There exist possibly well-intentioned Christians who would even outlaw food to protect us from our tendency to yield to the vice of gluttony if they could figure out how to survive without food. But God did not imbue me or anyone else with the right to make moral decisions for others. God created Adam and Eve, and bestowed upon them the right to make individual moral decisions. God therefore chose not to force His expectations of behavior upon any individual. It’s called free will, and it’s according to God’s divine plan. Then how much less do I have the right to force my moral judgments on others if God himself chooses not to do so? It then follows that, just as we can’t delegate to our governments the right to steal from our neighbor for our personal benefit, we can’t delegate to our governments the right to judge and/or control the moral decisions of our neighbors - a right we don’t naturally have. Therefore, we should stop trying to legislate morality. (Of course, this natural truth doesn’t deny society the right to protect the innocent from moral choices others might make which would endanger it.)

Economics and Federal intrusion into the private business sector

As another action, the Federal income tax should be replaced with a consumption tax, and the massive income tax code should be burned in celebration in front of the Washington Monument. For those who may think this an absurd suggestion, it is not without precedent. The Federal income tax was actually abolished for a time by Congress in 1872 in deference to other forms of taxation. ³ My tax code would fit on one page or less. Basically water, food, clothing, one home, heating and cooling costs for that home, medicine and medical care would be exempt. Everything else would have a fixed Federal sales tax applied, no exceptions. And by constitutional amendment, Congress would be prohibited from approving any exceptions. Clean and simple; abolish most of the IRS behemoth. Find new jobs for tax preparers. The greatest evil of a graduated income tax is that it necessarily establishes a class system. A consumption tax system would establish a level playing field for all. It would be extremely fair to the poor, as it would not tax life’s basic needs. By design it would tax all discretionary spending. I’m not naïve enough to think it’d be easy or simple, but that’s where I’d start.

Relating to current events, those who rail against insurance giant AIG for giving out over $400 million in bonuses after accepting a tax-payer-funded bailout are understandably upset. But, while I don’t agree with rewarding poor performance, or more correctly, because I don’t agree with rewarding poor performance, I think the main mistake was bailing AIG out to start with. Mixing government with business gets to be a very messy, untenable prospect. But the first and most egregious mistake was made by congress and that was their requiring by law that home loan institutions make loans with risky collateral to those with bad credit ratings. Here is the graphic evidence that this happened:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCTxZa9kpSI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&NR=1

Federal government is to blame for much of our current financial crisis. President Reagan got it right in his first inaugural address: “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” And this: “It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the federal government and those reserved to the states or to the people. All of us need to be reminded that the federal government did not create the states; the states created the federal government.” ¹⁸ As I write this, members of congress, both Democrats and Republicans, are trotting before the cameras and microphones promising to undo the AIG bonus contracts by retroactively taxing the bonuses at 90%. Against the backdrop of their predictable, political, hypocritical outrage, there would be two problems with congress doing this: 1) it would effectively void legal contracts, which is unconstitutional, and 2) it is unconstitutional for congress to pass laws that apply retribution to specific individuals or groups. This reflects the utter ignorance of our elected representatives, but more chillingly reflects their socialistic mindset and their need to show sympathy to the outraged of the electorate in order to retain their offices, Democrats and Republicans alike. (To be fair, there is debate among constitutional scholars as to the constitutionality of the proposed 90% tax, but even some congressmen agree that if the bill passes, the Supreme Court will likely overturn it. Which means the action is just a waste of congress’s time and our money.)

The Federal government has been tinkering with economic and social engineering since the first dollar was collected by the Treasury Department under the 16th Amendment,³ and it has been largely a failure. For example, there are intelligent people on both sides of the argument over whether the feds monetary policy helped end the great depression. I’m on the side of those who make the very strong case that government messing with the economy actually prolonged the depression, and it was WW II which actually brought it to an end. Centralized economic planning doesn’t work. A free market economy is the most efficient economy.

We should return to gold and silver-backed currency. I remember thinking during the Nixon administration what a stupid, frightening idea it was to have currency backed only by the faith of the Federal government. I think time, especially current events, have shown my concern to be warranted. John Locke, the empiricist and critical thinker whose ideas came to have a profound effect on the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution believed that silver and gold, as opposed to paper money, were the appropriate currency for international transactions. “Silver and gold”, he said, “are treated to have equal value by all of humanity and can thus be treated as a pledge by anyone, while the value of paper money is only valid under the government which issues it.” ¹⁹

Corruption and “legal” plunder

Another serious problem with our government is quid pro quo. Here’s a recent example. The following senators, representatives, president and presidential candidates’ campaigns accepted the following amounts from AIG, the company they are charged with regulating.

• Charles Schumer, Senate Banking Committee, $38,000
• Spencer Bachus, House Financial Services Committee, $47,750
• John McCain, Senator and former presidential candidate, $85,749
• Barack Obama, presidential candidate and President, $101,332
• Chris Dodd, Chairman - Senate Banking Committee, $226,478 ²⁰

In my 38 year career with IBM, we were required to read annually a manual on business ethics. IBM policy strictly forbids accepting gifts from suppliers or customers, and to avoid even the appearance of collusion with same. Made sense to me. Why do we allow a system of government that promotes the egregious conflicts of interest like the above example? And we wonder why there’s corruption in Washington! There are those who would argue that restricting the electorate from contributing to reelection campaigns would violate the 1st amendment. I disagree. I would allow any member of the electorate, whether an individual or a business, to do unlimited advertising for the candidate of their choice. But I would institute a clear line of demarcation between the electorate’s funds and the elected’s campaign coffers. Politicians should have no control, directly or indirectly, over campaign funding donations, and such control should be illegal. We should be allowed to speak on behalf of our candidates, but just not give anything tangible to them.

Summary

In conclusion, as I see so much wrong with our country and our government, two feelings come to mind:

1. Disenfranchisement
2. Outrage

As I said in the opening paragraph, my conversion to libertarianism has happened gradually. But perhaps the most significant event to speed my transformation has been the left turn our country started taking with President George W. Bush’s last term and the sudden escalation of that turn under the current administration. Our government has degenerated from one based on principals to one of plunder. Government control of our lives far exceeds that desired by God and envisioned by our founding fathers. That control increases with each successful yea vote in Congress. Our personal liberties are under attack as they’ve never been in the history of this country. Corruption abounds. As a nation, we have turned our collective back on our Creator in whose name our country was founded. We have no absolutes anymore. No principals. Anything goes. No country so possessed by moral depravity and tyrannical government can long stand. Thomas Jefferson gave us a sober warning while Governor of Virginia: “And can the liberties of a nation be thought to be secure when we have removed their firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest” ²¹ Jefferson’s concern was over slavery, but I think it could apply equally well to today’s national degeneracy. I genuinely fear for our country. I pray that for the sake of the saints and our children and future descendents God will have mercy on us a while longer.

If you’re still reading, thank you. I’ve taken the time to write this report because I love our country and am concerned about the disturbing trends toward increasing Federal power and corruption. I realize that only a small percentage of the country embraces libertarianism. Even if you don’t subscribe to libertarian views, if you believe our government is off the rails, that it is perverting the Constitution or that you’ve been disenfranchised, let our president and your senators and representatives know how you feel. It’s as easy as taking the links below, typing in a few words, and hitting the “send” button.

Federal government contacts:
http://www.house.gov/
http://www.senate.gov/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/

John Stossel, Glenn Beck and Ron Paul, move over, make room for me!

Epilog

Thomas Jefferson could be called the father of libertarianism in America. The following summary of his views of the relationship between government and liberty embodies the sum total of libertarianism.

Jefferson believed that each individual has "certain inalienable rights." That is, these rights exist with or without government; man cannot create, take, or give them away. It is the right of "liberty" on which Jefferson is most notable for expounding. He defines it by saying "rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." Hence, for Jefferson, though government cannot create a right to liberty, it can indeed violate it. And the limit of an individual's rightful liberty is not what law says it is but is simply a matter of stopping short of prohibiting other individuals from having the same liberty. A proper government, for Jefferson, is one that not only prohibits individuals in society from infringing on the liberty of other individuals, but also restrains itself from diminishing individual liberty. ²²

Postscript

I took the online “Libertarian Purity Test” and it told me: “You are a medium-core libertarian, probably self-consciously so. Your friends probably encourage you to quit talking about your views so much.” Confession complete.

If you’d like to take the test, here’s the link:

http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi-bin/purity.cgi

References:

1. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

2. Thomas Paine, Common Sense, Philadelphia, Feb. 14, 1776:
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/commonsense/text.html

3. U.S Department of the Treasury, History of the U.S. Tax System: http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml

4. U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8:
http://constitutionus.com/#x10

5. Connor’s Conundrums, General Welfare:
http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/general-welfare

6. Constitution of Alabama, 1901:
http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeOfAlabama/Constitution/1901/Constitution1901_toc.htm

7. Alabama Department of Human Resources website:
http://www.dhr.state.al.us/page.asp?pageid=775

8. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, 3/4/1801
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres16.html

9. Ezra Taft Benson, The Proper Role of Government, 1968
http://www.zionsbest.com/proper_role.html

10. U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, Article X
http://constitutionus.com/#x10

11. Frederic Bastiat, The Law, 1850

12. Benjamin Franklin, 1776
http://www.historycarper.com/resources/twobf3/price.htm

13. Arthur C. Brooks, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism, 11/27/2006

14. USA Today, Biden gave average of $369 to charity a year, : http://www.notoriouslyconservative.com/2008/09/joe-bidens-charitable-contributions.html

15. Proposed Massachusetts Law Would Ban Parents From Spanking Their Kids, Even at Home:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3924024

16. High School Graduation Rates Plummet Below 50 Percent in Some U.S. Cities:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,344190,00.html

17. John Stossel, Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity, 2006

18. Ronald Reagan, Inaugural Address, West Front of the U.S. Capitol, January 20, 1981:
http://www.reaganlibrary.com/reagan/speeches/first.asp

19. John Locke, from Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke

20. Fox News Channel, Glenn Beck show, 3/18/2009

21. Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia:
http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefVirg.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=18&division=div1

22. Thomas Jefferson – Wikipedia online:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson