Loopy Libertarians and Tea Partiers v. Reality

There are still a lot of points of contention between Libertarians and 'Common Sense Conservatives.' See what a Libertarian has to say:

Tea Party Fave Looks Increasingly Loopy

This Libertarian blogger takes issue with the platform of Nevada 'tea party' Republican, Sharron Angle. This shows some interesting riffs. How to compromise? Republican and tea partiers might modify views on marijuana legalization: there are good free market arguments for allowing people to screw up their lives if they so desire. Republicans need Libertarian support to oust the current regime this November and in the 2012 presidential election.

Also, the war in Afghanistan presents some tough technical problems. Libertarians just want out of this and any war other that in defense against an immediate, direct threat to this country. It would be nice to have a democratic, pro-American government in Kabul. However, without the 'democratic' requirement, this is all the Russians, British, and many others (including Alexander the Great) wanted. Over the centuries, this has proved elusive. Less ambitious, possibly achievable goals might be found. These goals would have to incorporate a lot of compromise reached through private negotiations with diverse factions. The deals would eventually fall apart. About all that could be reasonably hoped for would be a little influence with factions with the power to make life difficult for violent anti-West factions. Such a strategy could give us a little time, at least until the next violent fanatics come on the scene. It would also probably help if our government did not offer encouragement to the fanatics.

Tacoma Ethnic Fest

I had a very pleasant day at the Tacoma 'Ethnic Fest.' This is an annual event held in our large, near to downtown, Wright Park. There are always many booths selling items from around the world and 'ethnic' food. I am not exactly sure what ethnic means and am not comfortable with the concept. Once my own ethnicity was represented at the event. There was a French Canadian booth selling hot dogs with Frenches mustard.

Today there were also many political and semi-political booths. I had long discussions at the Republican booth. Jesse Young, candidate for US Congressional Sixth District, was there. He is an excellent conservative candidate running for the nomination to face Representative Norm Dicks in the general election. Is web cite is at:

http://www.jesseyoungforcongress.com/issues.html

Mr. Young's primary concern is to try to bring some sanity to the budget, that is less spending. He also favors repeal of the Health Care law. Outright repeal and redoing health care legislation from scratch is a position that separates the conservatives from the RINO's. He says all the right things about free market economics. That also is something the RINO's give only lip service to. Mr. Young seems to have a real understanding of the terrible results of government intervention in economic affairs.

Other people working at the Republican booth were interesting and informative. I emphasised that I was wholly in favor of the Tea Party principles and would support candidates similarly inclined. For the most part, I believe that they were sympathetic. Dick Muri is an excellent candidate for the 9th Congressional District. There are three candidates for the Republican nomination in the Senate race. At this point, I am uncertain who is best.

Claire Sussman is a very nice lady and well qualified by experience to be on the bench. She is running for County District Court. When asked about her philosophy, she stated that she does not believe in legislating from the bench. Unfortunately, they all say that, even Sotamayor and Kagan. Her campaign brochure emphasises that she is a working mother, former deputy prosecutor, handled over 20,000 cases as a pro temp judge, and worked as a private attorney. She certainly sounds good. As the first judge candidate I have met or asked a question, it occurs to me that the most that can be expected of a judge is an extensive knowledge of the law and respect for it. She seemed to have those qualities based upon my limited discussion with her.

I also spoke to the Democrats, who were cordial. As I was wearing a couple of Republican buttons, I felt somewhat protected against attempts to win my vote. I bought an artistically done BHO button for my collection. The ACLU people were pleasant and I even signed up for their emails. Their sign-up sheet asked for areas of interest so I put 'freedom.' They claim to support that. I talked to people at the Centro Latino, The Washington Health Plan, and the Islam booth. I told the very polite young lady at the Islam booth that I certainly supported her right to wear the Hijab (veil) and would like to wear a burka myself. We also talked about the Qaran. I talked to the Theosophical Society people. Their motto is 'There is no higher religion that truth.' That sounds good to me.

The teamsters were about the only standoffish people. I picked up 'The Guardian' newsletter and a flyer opposing I-1082. This initiative would end the state run monopoly on workers compensation insurance. Of course, their argument is something along the lines of big corporations: bad, insurance companies: bad. That is, the same old anti-business claims they have made for decades to take over or destroy industry. I was not so anxious to talk to them either. Of course conservatives support the people, we are the people. We do not support the oppressive policies toward business that make us less prosperous and makes life harder for anyone just trying to support themselves and their family. Unions can only help a select few at the expense of everyone else. How can anyone but the select few favor that? If all workers were in a union, as they claim to want, no one would be helped. Higher wages would only cause higher prices. The only ones to benefit from that would be the union bigwigs through dues. The goals and methods of labor are deceptive and illogical. Ultimate success of the labor movement could bring only complete socialism and should be opposed because socialism is destructive. (Progressives and Unions go hand in hand and are equally dishonest and destructive.)

Elena Kagan, Just a Gigolette?

Is Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan’s primary qualification that she is an Obama sycophant zombie drone clone? Appears that way. Here's what she had to say about her silver tongued, rock-star, wizard hero:

An intense Elena discussing her 'hero' BHO when he was a senator. She heaps it on quite deeply about his 'truly rock star qualities.' You can imagine the thrill running down her leg. Unfortunately the utube link may not be functioning anymore, it appears. The link may be reestablished but I also add an entertaining video on the topic of Elana K that I just found:





Not that she is bought and paid for; she is just on the same wave length as BHO. Just as Judge Bork was sympathetic toward the constitutional philosophy of Ronald Reagan, Kagan is in accord with the anticonstitutional philosophy of BHO. Is that sufficient reason for conservative senators to oppose her nomination? Political differences alone have been good enough reasons for liberals to oppose Judge Bork and other nominees for the supreme court and courts of appeal. With Kagan, Obama is pulling no punches. She is a blatant rubber stamper for his policies, which conservatives believe to be often at odds with the constitution. If Republicans on the judicial committee are not going to make a stand here then where? Nowhere, I guess.

Republican Lindsey (Goober) Grahm has nothing but praise for the lady. (Goober is the epithet supplied by Mark Levin.) This seems to defy reason. What are conservative voters to think of someone who claims to oppose the socialist policies of the current administration, does not vehemently voice that opposition, and now will not turn that opposition into action with his vote?

Economics of Unemployment Benefits

It is a truism of economics that unemployment is caused by wages being too high. How can that be? Simple: government intervention. Unemployment benefits are only one form of government intervention that prop up wages. Government hiring for work projects is another. We are doing both of these now. Most attempts at regulation in that area distort the market for labor. Labor laws that make it difficult and costly to dismiss workers once hired is a disincentive for business to hire. Uneven labor laws often give business only the option to cave in to union demands or go out of business -- negotiating at the point of a gun as they say. These laws are enacted to support union workers but actually hurt them and other workers. Due to higher labor costs, the level of production is decreased. Therefore, not only are fewer union workers hired, but nonunion hiring is diminished due to lower overall production.

Adjustments of price is the mechanism that allows markets to clear. In order for markets for labor or anything to clear, prices must adjust downward until a buyer comes forward. Labor prices, i. e. wages, are notoriously sticky downward. This is because of reasons outlined above and because of similar government intervention policies.

These are simple and basic economics principles. Even socialist economist, for the most part, agree. The difference is that champions of the free market want market principles to prevail so that we can have sustainable economic functioning and growth. Socialists want to intervene to 'correct' the market. They also favor certain groups to enhance their political power so they can implement more intervention policies. The progressive believes that policies of more and more government intervention will lead to continuing improvement in people's lives. The actual outcome of their policies is increasingly depressed levels of employment and production. Progressives' only remedy is to increase government intervention. This has always led to still worsening conditions. There seems to be no limit to their interventionist economic ideas. They have all proved to be destructive. Ultimately complete or nearly complete loss of liberty can be the only outcome. We have Cuba and North Korea as leading examples.

Unemployment benefits lasting over two years are currently a major impediment to lower wages. (This is obvious, but to state the obvious, many will not want employment if they are paid benefits, which in addition to the value they put on their free time, exceed the amount being offered. Therefore, employers have to offer more to purchase labor.) Employment benefits should be limited and the amounts paid should gradually diminish. Now is the time for choosing freedom and prosperity, not slavery and impoverishment.

Obma and Immigration: Yes We Can't

Arizona's recent immigration law creates some interesting dilemmas for the current administration, and for conservatives also. The fact that it brings into question some of the Obama administration's policies, especially its alleged unwillingness to secure the US and Mexican boarder, forces Obama to focus on an area where he is on thin political ice. Furthermore, the immigration debate also impinges upon the foundation of the welfare state. Can we simultaneously grant increasingly large welfare benefits while encouraging the immigration of those who will be given those benefits? Does, "yes we can" apply in these areas? The political nature of the human beast dictates that no government or policy will survive without popular backing. This is the fundamental theorem of politics.

Conservatives back the Arizona law because it attempts to remedy weak enforcement by the federal officials. This (I believe) puts conservatives on the opposite side of the preemption question that usual. Justice Thomas, for instance, believes that federal statutes should not be read with a presumption against preemption. (see Cipollone v. Liggett Group,(1992)). Preemption is the doctrine that states federal law invalidates state and local law on the same subject.

Preemption is a complicated topic. Most conservatives believe that the federal government should be silent on most questions traditionally addressed by our common law. That covers almost everything, but probably not immigration. Courts have not only looked at the state and federal statutes to determine if conflicts exist, but they have also looked at the factual background to determine if there is a state interest that is not being addressed by the federal law, or federal enforcement there of.

That is why lack of federal enforcement is an issue in the present case. That is why BHO recently stated that the boarders are more secure that ever. What that opinion is based upon,or whether that is good enough, he did not say. The U.S. Supreme Court in Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 US 497 (1956), stated that there was no state interest to be protected and that the federal government was dealing appropriately with the problem that the laws in question were enacted to address. (In that case the court held that the Federal Alien Sedition act preempted the Pennsylvanian statute.)

Two factors that obviously distinguishing the Pennsylvania and Arizona cases: 1) Arizona is indeed being harmed by illegal aliens who must be provided services at state expense, and 2) in spite of its expenditures, the federal enforcement effort has been ineffective as demonstrated by the number of illegal aliens in Arizona and elsewhere. There are of course other distinguishing factors and other legal arguments in favor of (and against) the Arizona enactment, which time prevents me from discussing here.

Regarding the propaganda surrounding this matter, why did the BHO functionaries and lackeys and their lap dog press proclaim loudly and ad infinatum that the Arizona law was racist then not include civil rights violations claims in their legal arguments ???? Inquiring minds and the junior Senator from Minnesota want to know why they were lying.

Political Riddle

Q: Why is Barack Husein Obama like a newspaper?


A: They are both black and white and red (read) all over.

Peurto Rican Statehood Favored by Rep. Dicks

I sent an email to the Hon. Norman Dicks (D), my elected representative in the US House. (I posted it to this blog.) His reply was thoughtful and factually correct but I still disagreed with his vote and position.


"Thank you for contacting me with regard to recent legislation that seeks to allow Puerto Ricans to have a clear voice on the political future of the island. I appreciate your comments regarding this important issue.

Congress in 1917 granted U.S. citizenship to Puerto Ricans, and in 1952, the islands became a U.S. commonwealth ?" a status that has raised legal questions about whether Puerto Ricans have full constitutional rights. Additionally, its residents do not vote for the U.S. president or pay federal income tax on income earned on the islands.

Over the past several years, plebiscites have been conducted to determine the political future of the island. The most recent, conducted in 1993 and 1998, resulted in confusion and frustration as voters were directed to decide between several poorly defined options on a single ballot, with a majority vote necessary to spur any action.

To address past problems with the earlier plebiscites, the elected leadership of Puerto Rico developed a plan that would allow for a possible two votes. First, Puerto Ricans would be asked to decide if they want to remain a commonwealth or to seek a new political designation. Should the first vote result in a decision to change, a second vote would be taken to determine what change Puerto Ricans would prefer - to become an independent nation, to become independent in association with the United States, which would establish legal, economic and defense ties between the two nations, or to petition the U.S. Congress for statehood. Puerto Rico's elected representative to Congress, Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi, submitted this plan to Congress for its consideration.

In late April, with my support the House voted to approve the plan. The right of self-determination is a core principle of the United States, and I believe that the American citizens that live in Puerto Rico should be given the ability to make their voices heard by their fellow citizens and the Congress.

Some of my constituents have expressed concern that the plebiscites would bind Congress to specific action based on the outcome. Although the outcome of the plebiscites would certainly be an important factor in determining the future of Puerto Rico, it is advisory only. The Constitution grants Congress the sole authority to make decisions regarding the disposition of U.S. territories, including the admission of new states.

This legislation is now under consideration by the Senate. Should it return to the House for any reason, please be assured I will recall your comments."


My response:

"It seems to me that the ballot options that you outline for the Puero Rican voters are confusing and limit their options. This is what you said was wrong with previous proposals. It seems to me that the voters in Puerto Rica should be given the option of petitioning for statehood or not so petitioning. If the vote is no, as it has been in the past, then a new vote could decide if a majority prefers some other option over the status quo. In this way the majority would prevail and any other option to be considered could have a fair hearing. The schema that you describe, which was my understanding as well, forces a decision among three options (if the second ballot is reached) with no option for returning to the status quo. Before abandoning the status quo, the consequences of the other options should be clearly explained. Would a majority vote be required for any option to prevail, and would the status quo be the default?

Except to deceive the people and confound their will, I see no reason for the proposed schema. Perhaps political interests had designed the previous plebiscites to be biased toward maintaining independence. The real problem with the past plebiscites was that the vote did not go the way certain US political interests desired. Now they have redesign one with the opposite bias. Such plebiscites are a corruption of the democratic process that are well known in the history of tyranny. Our own constitutional system is not immune and a free press along with eternal vigilance are our only defenses.

The schema proposed by the Puerto Rican leadership and the US Senate is reminiscent of the underhanded method used for Hawaiian statehood, in which the queen conspired with strong US interests to surrender sovereignty. This was not in keeping with the will of the Hawaiian people but statehood had US political and industrial backing. Therefore the plan was hatched and executed before there could be affective objection.

Thank you for your attention and for your response to my original message."

My message to the Representative did not address an important issue. This vote by the house was taken with nearly no public notice. There was no public debate in the press and in fact nearly no debate in the House. Ron Paul abstained because even he didn't know what it was about. He was angry when he was told that the Democrats, in collusion with Peurto Rican factions, were conspiring to sneak this through because they could be assured of buying the majority of P.R. votes with promised largess from public funds(such as they are).

Elena Kagen and the Primacy of the Law

The title of this post does not refer to a book or law review article written by the Supreme Court nominee. It refers to something that she does not understand.

There are two books that the nominee should read:

Bureaucracy , by Ludvig von Mises (the full text is on line at von Mises Institute.), and

The Law, by Frederic Bastiat. (a very short book written in 1850 in France. See other references to Bastiat on this blog).

Since I do not have time to give justice to this topic, I will give only two quotes. Please refer to the two short books, which say it all far better that this writer ever could.


"Primacy of the law means that no judge or officeholder has the right to interfere with any individual’s affairs or conditions unless a valid law requires or empowers him to do so. Nulla poena sine lege. No punishment unless ordered by a law. It is precisely the inability of the Nazis to understand the importance of this fundamental principle that qualifies them as antidemocratic. In the totalitarian system of Hitler Germany the judge has to come to his decision according to das gesunde Volksempfinden, i.e., in accordance with the sound feelings of the people. As the judge himself has to decide what the sound feelings of the people are, he is sovereign on his bench like the chieftain of a primitive tribe." von Mises, Op. Cite

"Justice Means Equal Rights." Bastiat, this is the title of a section of The Law.

The point is that the law is not decided with reference to personal goals for society. Otherwise, why aren't my own goals based upon my own ideology as good as anyone's? BHO's and presumably his nominee, Elena Kagen's ideology is Hegelian Dialectic Materialism. Mine is free enterprise and freedom in general. Theirs leads to forced redistribution to makes everyone equal. My leads to everyone, rich or poor, being treated equally under the law. Now is the time for choosing which direction to go.