June 10

cheatsheet for World’s Smallest Political Quiz

The short answer: “Agree” to all! Take the quiz, and post your results and comments below.

Government should not censor speech, press, media or Internet:

ANY government encroachment is always a slippery slope. The state has proven time and again that once they get their foot in the door, they will only open it wider. The First Amendment guarantees recognition of the right to absolute freedom of these mediums, period.

Military service should be voluntary. There should be no draft:

Compulsory military service is an infringement of the individual’s right to freedom. Anything the government enforces involuntarily must be done either directly or indirectly at the point of a gun, with the threat of violence, which is not only immoral but against the spirit of liberty. Besides, anyone forced to do something against their will lacks motivation to perform – and if the people of a country lack the motivation to defend themselves from an impending attack, that country is destined to fail either way.

There should be no laws regarding sex between consenting adults:

There should be no laws regarding ANYTHING between consenting adults. Sex falls into that category. What people choose to do with their own bodies is up to them only – period.

Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs:

Possession and use of drugs harms nobody except possibly the user. As established previously, what people choose to do with their own bodies is their business only. Objectors will point out various crimes and hazards stemming from drug use – these issues only exist because of black markets and would be significantly reduced or eliminated altogether with decriminalization. Personally, I have never once used a single illegal drug, but I will defend anyone else’s right to do so of their own volition.

There should be no National ID card:

The powers that be want to put the means in place to eventually be able to track and control our every move – would never happen on my watch. If it were up to me, I would eliminate the Social Security card too, and go back to the original means of identification which worked just fine: by name.

End “corporate welfare”. No government handouts to business:

I would not give another corporation a single taxpayer dime if my life depended on it. Modern governments seems to be primarily run “by the corporations, for the corporations”. This is called fascism, or corporatism. Governments should not have a single finger in business; if a business is failing, the invisible hand of the market will do its work. A new business or entrepreneur will come in, buy up the assets, and restructure them in a more useful way. This holds true even for “critical” sectors, such as banking (though there are issues there with the FDIC, but that’s a whole new issue).

End government barriers to international free trade:

Absolutely. What products the government restricts in order to “save jobs” for businesses, it restricts the citizen (generally, the “little guy”) from obtaining at better prices. Protectionism helps only the corporations by allowing them to artificially inflate prices, creating monopolies. Market competition, even with other countries, is what equalizes costs and spurs innovation. If an entrepreneur can undercut a foreign industry at a profit, he will do so; otherwise, the citizens are obtaining the product at market price, and the entrepreneur’s attention is best suited elsewhere.

Let people control their own retirement: privatize Social Security:

Government control of the individual’s affairs in any way, including finances, should be called what it is: the Nanny State. Most people can manage their own retirement on a custom basis and much more efficiently than the state as a collective, and if they choose to let it sit in a bank, that is their own prerogative. Besides, Social Security is a complete failure and is nothing more than a tax-and-spend slush fund.

Replace government welfare with private charity:

The government has no business forcing one citizen to pay for another against his will. Objectors will claim that without government welfare, the needy will go unhelped; however, they fail to recognize that everything the government does, it is said to do with the will of the people. This means that if it is the will of the people to give to the needy, they will do so whether or not they are forced, and if it is not their will, the government should not be doing it in the first place.

Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more:

My ideal solution would be to cut government by 90% or more, but unfortunately this is probably impractical. I would like to go to a “Fair Tax” of 10% (if 10% is good enough for God, it’s good enough for me), end the wars and bring all troops around the world home, defund most executive departments/Cabinets, eliminate basically all unelected bureaucracies, repeal the majority of government regulations and legislation, and eventually privatize all welfare/charity. That is, return to Constitutional government – just for starters.

October 27

splitting the vote

With the November midterm elections right around the corner, the political discourse – as much as ever – is rampant. One timeless phrase heard and concern held in a perhaps higher-than-usual frequency this election is “splitting the vote” – with the growth of libertarianism and the onset of a new political movement, the Tea Party, one can see why. But, frustratingly, the concern in the conservative movement remains, as it has for years; if I vote for the libertarian or the independent more closely aligned with “my” views, surely my guy AND the “lesser-of-two-evils” Republican will split the vote, and the evil Democrat will win!

As a member of the libertarian (or the “true” conservative) movement, I must posit the question: what’s the difference? That is, what’s the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats anyways, especially in this new millennium? What good has either party done in the last 20 years to make them worthy of your recurring vote?

The Republicans claim they will put an end to the spending and return to limited government. Why now? Why, when they had the majority under Bush, did they expand the size of the federal government the most since the socialist FDR and his cronies at the beginning of last century?

Many conservatives claim they are tired of the pragmatism, the compromise, and yearn for a man of principle to represent them in Congress. How can they then, in the same breath, abandon their own principles and claim that the possibility of splitting the vote is too dangerous, and that they must therefore compromise?

As for the possibility of splitting the vote: does it really matter? Most Republicans in DC voted for legislation that most real conservatives are against: TARP bailouts, Medicare, the Patriot Act, and a myriad of other spending bills. In their “Pledge to America”, they admit they don’t even want to repeal Obamacare; they simply want to replace it with their own version. The Democrats and the majority of the Republicans in Washington are going down the same road – the road towards big government. Whether or not you split the vote, if you get a Democrat or an establishment Republican, there is one thing you are sure to get: more of the same.

As for me, as a resident of VA-7 district, I will be voting for Floyd Bayne (floydbayne.com). Cantor, his establishment Republican minority whip opponent, has shown his true colors by casting his vote in favor of the aforementioned big-government bills. I urge you to cast off your paradigm, cast off your ingrained party affiliation, and vote for the independent, the libertarian, the challenger – ANYONE but the incumbent – because the time is long past due for REAL change.
Find your candidates here.

Category: politics | Comments Off on splitting the vote