Libertarian Political Thoughts

Well, the election has come to Indiana. Tomorrow's the big day for us. Me? I'll go down and vote for Ron Paul. Meanwhile, the rest of the candidates are making all kinds of noises about all kinds of ideas that, in reality, they either can't do or haven't admitted the consequences of.

For example, how, as a president, can they give us a gas tax rebate this summer when none of them could even BE president until well after the summer's over?

The ever present "Change this" and "Change that" promises are tossed about like leaves on the wind. Well, burning the house down is a change too. Just not a good one. Change, in and of itself, is not good or bad. Unfortunately too many of the proposals they're making are of the variety t

Fredrick Bastiat wrote a great essay titled "That Which is Seen and That Which is Unseen" that talks about the unintended and unacknowledged consequences of actions.

**************************

Have you ever been witness to the fury of that solid citizen, James Goodfellow, when his incorrigible son has happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at this spectacle, certainly you must also have observed that the onlookers, even if there are as many as thirty of them, seem with one accord to offer the unfortunate owner the selfsame consolation: "It's an ill wind that blows nobody some good. Such accidents keep industry going. Everybody has to make a living. What would become of the glaziers if no one ever broke a window?"

Now, this formula of condolence contains a whole theory that it is a good idea for us to expose, flagrante delicto, in this very simple case, since it is exactly the same as that which, unfortunately, underlies most of our economic institutions.

Suppose that it will cost six francs to repair the damage. If you mean that the accident gives six francs' worth of encouragement to the aforesaid industry, I agree. I do not contest it in any way; your reasoning is correct. The glazier will come, do his job, receive six francs, congratulate himself, and bless in his heart the careless child. That is what is seen.

But if, by way of deduction, you conclude, as happens only too often, that it is good to break windows, that it helps to circulate money, that it results in encouraging industry in general, I am obliged to cry out: That will never do! Your theory stops at what is seen. It does not take account of what is not seen.

It is not seen that, since our citizen has spent six francs for one thing, he will not be able to spend them for another. It is not seen that if he had not had a windowpane to replace, he would have replaced, for example, his worn-out shoes or added another book to his library. In brief, he would have put his six francs to some use or other for which he will not now have them.

Let us next consider industry in general. The window having been broken, the glass industry gets six francs' worth of encouragement; that is what is seen.

If the window had not been broken, the shoe industry (or some other) would have received six francs' worth of encouragement; that is what is not seen.

And if we were to take into consideration what is not seen, because it is a negative factor, as well as what is seen, because it is a positive factor, we should understand that there is no benefit to industry in general or to national employment as a whole, whether windows are broken or not broken.

**************************

Washington never seems to learn this lesson and most politicians do their best to keep anyone from thinking in this way. After all, their stock in trade is "giving" things to people with other people's money. A fair chunk of it stays in DC, pleasing the bureaucrats and other functionaries. All in

Think about it...

In a nutshell, government is that organization which is authorized to use force, deadly force if necessary, within given geographic boundaries, to make and enforce laws (the rules by which people must live) as well as to, when asked, enforce contractual agreements between its citizens. A federal or national government is also authorized to interact with the equivalent organizations outside of its boundaries for the purposes of international agreements or wars.

In an ideal world where all people are competent, rational, honest, and peaceful, no government would be needed. Unfortunately, such a dream world is not possible. As long as we are living in conjunction with people who don't or can't competently think about the consequences of their actions or who prefer faking or taking things of value to making them, we need such an organization to protect the lives and property of those who do.

When an outside group of looters or bullies tries to take what productive people have created, they are best able to defend themselves by working together. That cooperative effort works best when someone is in charge of how to use whatever the attacked group has to its best effect.

Within the community may also be individuals who would prey on others. Such people are a threat to everyone else. Even if they are not direct victims themselves of any particular offense, allowing such people to act unpunished means that everyone has to spend more time and efforts on defending themselves instead of producing goods and services which would add to their well being.

Even honest people sometimes have disagreements between themselves. If an agreement was not completely understood or understood differently by both parties or outside circumstances prevent the fulfillment of an agreement, some method of resolution must be used. Either the parties can fight it out among themselves, or they can turn to an outside arbiter of whom both parties have agreed to accept judgment.

When individuals act to get justice for and by themselves, too often mistakes are made. In the heat of emotion, the wrong person may be punished or the punishment may be much more than is needed to compensate the victim and act as a lesson to prevent future offenses. This only leads to further injustices.

For all of these purposes, a governmental organization is the best way we have found to deal with them. It provides the structure for the direction of any common purposes which benefit all of its citizens. It attempts to act as an impartial and just arbiter on matters of guilt, responsibility, and penalties.

Over the ages, government, and our understanding of it, have evolved from the idea of warlords with arbitrary powers based on their ability to use force to get obedience to the concepts of rights and universal procedures. As in every area of human knowledge and understanding, however, the ideas of what a proper government should be have not been universally accepted, nor has the progress been an uninterrupted increase.

By its nature, government MUST be a focus of power and therein lie the seeds of its own potential downfall. It is not so much that power corrupts, in and of itself, but that power attracts the corrupt and those who are corruptible. Criminals use fraud or force or the threat thereof to obtain that which they have not earned. When those who want what they haven't earned make their way into government, they proceed to twist the government from an organization which acts to defend all of its citizens into one which acts to benefit some of them at the expense of others. It becomes the very thing which it was created to oppose.

This is the point at which we find ourselves today. Fortunately, we have a method, that of voting, to change the downward trend. It is up to each of us as individuals to stop taking what we haven't earned from others via the government and to put in place elected officials who will stop the government from taking what is ours to give to others. Let us create a government which recognizes and defends the right of each of us to live as we see fit and to only intervene when our actions cause or threaten to cause actual harm to the person or property of others.

Diane Merriam

Vote - But Not for the Lesser of Two (or more) Evils
It seems that most people I talk to often base their vote not for a candidate they actually want, but against the one they fear most. Unfortunately, the winner gets to claim those votes as votes FOR him or her, calling them a mandate for whatever programs or beliefs they're want to act on. Other people don't vote at all because they don't like anyone enough to go to the polls for and there aren't any personal hot button issues for them on the ballot. It's generally looked at as voter apathy - too many people just don't care enough to bother deciding which crook (for so the candidates often seem) to vote against or seeing what other issues are on the ballot. When a candidate gets voted for by only a minority of a minority of the eligible voters it can get rather scary.

What I propose is as follows:
EVERYONE who CAN vote should go and do so. If none of the candidates in a given race are ones you could vote FOR, then don't vote for anyone for that position. Nothing says you have to vote on every position or issue on the ballot. Even if there's only one issue that you know and care about at all, GO AND VOTE FOR THAT ISSUE ONLY!!! When results of 1,000 people casting ballots at a given precinct while the winner of any particular race only gets 150 votes that sends a message loud and clear. NOTA (None Of The Above) doesn't have to be formally on the ballot to be the de facto winner.

If you're asked in an exit poll how you voted in a race you didn't vote in, tell it straight out just that way. There wasn't anyone in that race I wanted to vote for so no one got my vote.