The Purpose of Government to a Free People

The purpose of any government is to get things done. Its existence may not be considered legitimate. The person(s) in power may not be you. The methods used may be to your detriment. The things done may not be to your liking. Regardless, it is there to get something done. Who, what, why and how? These are answered by the type of government you live under.

The purpose of government in an authoritarian society (monarchy or oligarchy) is to do things to the “people” (subjects) at the behest of and to the benefit of the ruler(s). There are innumerable examples of such governments throughout history. The prevailing characteristic is: Either you’re “in” or you’re “out”. These tend to be very static societies, with change only coming violently from either outside by invasion or inside by revolution. Any loss of control by those in power can lead, domino-like, to the complete collapse of civil authority.

The purpose of government in a “democratic” society is to perform “collective action” with the consent of the majority. However, just because decisions are made “democratically” doesn’t necessarily make the individual any freer. If you are in the minority, you have no say in what these actions may be or in how they are achieved. In a “pure democracy” you have no rights other than those agreed to, at any given moment, by those with the most votes. History shows these societies to be short-lived due to roiling factionalism, which leaves them vulnerable to invasion due to weakness or to takeover by authoritarians offering stability.

Luckily, the Framers of our current government were students of history. They understood that the only way to be truly free was for government to protect an individual’s Life, Liberty and Property, not just from others but also from the government itself. They knew there could be too much democracy. They also knew there should not be a permanent ruling-class. The only solution was to marry those who govern to those governed, within a framework which limited the intrusive power of government. The Men who created our government had deep wells of personal experience and historical perspective from which to draw, but first they had to contend with their contemporary situation.

A little history…

The Founders may have given us a country, a Constitutional, Federal Republic, but it had a weak and ineffective government under The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. The Founders cannot be blamed in any way for this compact. The Articles of Confederation was a necessarily hurried creation in a time of rebellion against their colonial Master. The authors didn’t see themselves as creators of a “nation”, but as writers of a treaty, an 18^th century American “NATO”. Their States were their countries, and to these States they gave their allegiance. The Articles were drafted to protect them from their mutual enemy… and, to a certain extent, to protect them from one another.

After the conclusion of hostilities with Britain, many found the Articles to be insufficient to the task of properly governing such a large nation at the federal level. Some called for amending the Articles to expand and enhance its meager powers. A convention was called and delegates were sent to Philadelphia to propose modifications to the Articles. Within short order, the delegates came to the agreement that the Articles should be set aside, and a new document created. This action being outside their assignment, the delegates agreed to continue in secret until they could present a completed document to the Congress and the States. To this end, they wrote a new contract between the States, replacing the existing federal government with an entity answerable to not only the States, which will have created it, but also to the People, from whom they believed all legitimate political authority is derived.

The new contract, our current Constitution, gave representation, in many and varied ways, to both the States and the People. Direct accountability to the People was the element absent from the Articles of Confederation. The Framers were able to justify the broadening and strengthening of federal government authority beyond those under the Articles based, in part, on direct accountability to the People. However, our Constitutional, Federal, Democratic Republic limits those areas of action within the purview of the Federal Government. All other areas are reserved to the States and to the People. To emphasize this last point the very first Congress passed an amendment, the Tenth Amendment, to the new constitution saying exactly that.

So, “collective action” is performed, as in a democracy, but this action is constrained and compartmentalized. Unlike a “pure” democracy, the political rights of the current minority are protected on par with the majority. Like an authoritarian government, a select few make law and administer the state; however, power is not absolute and position is legitimized by citizens. An individual or faction may not get always their way, but none shall be “punished” for being on the out of the current majority. Unlike in a national government such as Britain’s, our sovereignty is maintained by the People and exercised concurrently by multiple levels of government, each assigned its unique areas of responsibilities.

In the appropriate areas and at the proper levels, our governments perform those collective actions we want performed. The federal government was given great power, but its actions were to be limited in scope to primarily national defense, and commerce, both interstate and international. Within these areas it was given a wide field, but it was not to venture beyond its estate without trespassing upon the properties of another, the States. As well, the States’ governments have greater or lesser power, depending upon their own constitutions and the wishes of their Peoples, but have responsibilities separate and unique to them from the federal level of government.

[Oddly enough, it’s never commented upon that the federal Constitution establishes no qualifications as to the type of government required at the State level. Under the Constitution, no State is required to be a Constitutional, Democratic Republic. Theoretically, a State could possibly have been a Constitutional Monarchy, as long as they convened a legislative body, and sent representatives to Congress. According to the Constitution, the States set the rules by which representation is elected. So, theoretically any qualifications could have been created.]

Now, the very nature of what constitutes a legitimate government action is often debated. However, by its very definition a legitimate government action must take place, if at all, at the correct governmental level according to the divisions of powers. As well, the perceived need for an action, even in the case of an “emergency”, does not automatically legitimize it. Many argue that the proper level of government is that which is able to muster the resources needed to perform the desired action. They don’t know their history.

An observation…

At this juncture, it must be pointed out that a proper and lawful action by an American government is not that difficult to discern, if one can read the English language. The Constitution of the United States of America is written in plain language, as are each of its amendments. The delegates to the convention were learned men, but few had a formal education. So, it is not necessary to have a law degree, any post-secondary education, or a Ouija board to comprehend the meaning of the document. At most, the notes from the debates, kept by James Madison, are all one may need, though a copy of the Federalist Papers would be illuminating. Also, all State constitutions are written in English. So, I foresee no problems on that account.

If one bothered to read the writings of those involved in constructing the Constitution, one would find their plans for the federal government somewhat grander than that which preceded it. However, it was never meant to be an all-encompassing entity involved in the daily lives of its citizens. Unless one lived in the vicinity of the Capitol or a military installation, the US Postal Service (a constitutionally mandated institution) would be one’s only possible daily interaction with the federal government.

There was never to be a behemoth in DC being THE government. It was only to be a government. Your only directly elected federal official was to be your Representative. Senators were to be selected by States’ legislatures. You were not to be overly concerned with who was the President, as he was primarily the administrator of laws passed in Congress. Very few “life or death” decisions were to be made in Washington. Without direct taxation, only those involved in commerce beyond State borders were directly affected by the federal government. That is how it was supposed to be.

Your most important political interactions were to be with State officials living in your community and whose Capitol is closer to home. You would truly know those with the most direct impact on your life. They would not be some distant person seen only in TV ads or read about in the newspaper. If things functioned as constructed, one would not feel compelled to give to federal candidates or become fervently involved in federal elections. Time and energy would be spent on local and state candidates. State and local officials would be true governors and not primarily mere administrators of federal mandates and “largesse”.

There exists a fairly simple a process to determine whether a need is a legitimate government action. Answer these questions (in the exact order given): Can the “necessary” action be taken by the individual? Can the action be taken by the family? Can the action be taken by private associations (churches, public service organizations, businesses, etc.)? Can the action be taken by municipal or local governments? Can the action be taken by State government, within the constraints of its constitution? Finally, must the action be taken by the Federal government, within the constraints of its Constitution? At any point you are able to say “yes”, stop. That is the correct place for action to occur.

Some may say that is a harsh and restrictive test. They would be right. In a society where citizens are truly free, collective action must be taken only when absolutely necessary, and then only at the level closest to the individual. There are many arguable reasons for this, but the overriding rationale is Liberty. No person should make demands on another for what he is able to do for himself. Similarly, no family, locality, or State should demand of another anything it is able to provide for itself.

Once the appropriate level of government decides a lawful action requires being done, it must then determine how it will be taken and how it will be financed. All actions taken at any level of government come at a cost, and these costs are borne exclusively by the citizens. Whether taxed directly or not, no one is immune to the costs of government. Every dollar spent by a government is a dollar taken out of the private economy, whether it be borrowed or taxed. So, these actions must be performed as efficiently and economically as possible.

Practical suggestions for necessary government…

To minimize government overhead and long-term recurring costs, few government buildings and installations should be held permanently;

As government exists to perform tasks and not to provide jobs, permanent employment with its attached costs of non-salary benefits and retirement should be limited to only essential personnel;

For taxpayers to benefit from competition in costs and services, all non-essential functions should be outsourced to third-party contractors which must bid at regular intervals;

All government programs should include “sunset” provisions, which would require new, separate enabling legislation and a vote by politicians to remain in effect;

As all federal and state governments have Civil Service laws protecting employment, labor unions and collective bargaining should end for all government employees;

All federal and state lands which are not permanent parts of the parks services should be put up for sale to private entities, thereby paying down the debt, eliminating operating costs and generating tax revenues for States and localities;

To return intended powers to the States’ governments and to end the wasteful and coercive effects of the separation of tax revenue generation from government spending, the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution should be repealed;

To end the socially divisive and economically distorting effects of the generation of tax revenues based on the income of individuals, the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution should be repealed;

As federal taxes are meant to generate revenue for necessary spending and not to control behavior, it should be raised as efficiently and unobtrusively as possible which should be exclusively by a consumption tax by way of a Constitutional Amendment;

To prevent the constant growth of federal government, a Constitutional Amendment should be passed limiting spending to a fixed percent of Gross Domestic Product;

To recreate the citizen legislators envisioned by the Framers, and to end the near permanent ruling class with its focus on seniority, a Constitutional Amendment to limit the terms of Congressmen should be passed; and

To end the exchanging of blame for wasteful spending between the Executive and Legislative branches of federal government, a Constitutional Amendment giving the President a line-item veto should be passed.

The purpose of government to a free people is to secure our God-given rights to Life, Liberty and Property. Proper government does not encourage citizens to see one another as either host or parasite, as a means to further its own power. Men are only truly free when they live without fear of their government or their fellow citizens. The only way we, the American People, can regain the Liberties established, enjoyed, and fought and died for by the Founders and Framers of this nation, is to return to the original ideals they so heroically espoused. To do that we must look back to their original intent by wiping away the over two centuries of accumulated detritus that politicians and jurists have used to obscure that most beautiful document which begins “We the People of the United States of America…”

Regarding Ezra Klein’s Charge of Extremism Against Rand Paul

[Note: This is the third of three posts concerning Rand Paul and his post-victory foray into the land of the MSM. Let me tell you up front, I’m not a full-blown Libertarian. I do tend toward Libertarian thought, but I am most definitely very Conservative. I’m not necessarily a huge supporter of Rand Paul, and I don’t live in Kentucky. I say “Give the people what they want.” They seem to want him. Also, I am not a supporter of his father. He sometimes borders on “tin-foil hat” land (if you know what I mean?), and I don’t buy his argument about why he takes earmarks. However, I cannot stand the way Rand Paul has been attacked for taking a thoughtful and principled stand, and the way in which his views have twisted to mean something completely different from what they actually are. I felt that I had to say something.  So, here it goes…]

Ezra Klein jumped into the attack on Rand Paul last Thursday with his Washington Post article “Rand Paul may not be a Racist, but he is an Extremist” (http://tinyurl.com/28qhscb). In it Klein argued that Libertarian belief in minimal government interference in private matters is “extreme”; therefore, Paul is an extremist. But on a lighter note Klein says, “I take Paul at his word that he’s not a racist.” Well, that’s mighty big of you Mr. Klein. Hey, what say we do the same for Mr. Klein if someone makes a baseless charge against him, too?

I’ll start with Mr. Klein’s premise about Libertarian “extremism”. The part of Libertarian ideology which Mr. Klein can’t seem to wrap his mind around is the concept that “government cannot fix every problem.” So, if there are people behaving badly (but not criminally), as a good person, you act in personal ways to remedy the situation. If a business owner won’t trade with others for racist reasons, then a good person won’t trade with him. Yes, some may continue to do business with that person, but not everyone. His racism results in lost sales.

These lost sales create an opportunity for another to fill that part of the market left un-served by the racist’s self-defeating behavior. The good people and the discriminated against will frequent the new business, which will have a thankful and loyal client base. Other businesses will see the potential profits lost by this abhorrent behavior and may change their own behavior, if only to prevent another from entering their market. In either case, the market will provide the solution.

Yes, this takes some time, but nothing good happens overnight. That’s not the Statist philosophy, though. To the Statist, any problem can be rectified immediately by government fiat. To them government action is the quickest and most efficient way to achieve the desired results. Racist businesses – pass a law. “Unequal” housing – pass a law. Below national average wages – pass a law.

Instead of the “invisible hand” of the market, Mr. Klein and his ilk wish to use the “iron hand” of government to solve these problems. What they don’t seem to understand is that peoples’ attitudes don’t change with the pound of a gavel or the stroke of a pen. Mechanisms must be created and bureaucracies employed to police the government action created by that gavel or pen. People must fear their government for those actions to occur. Instead of the market having people make these decisions of their own accord, seeing them as a matter of self-interest, the government would have the people act as a matter of self-defense.

The scary part is that a person could be considered racist simply because he doesn’t believe the government should make stupidity a crime. Is it racism to believe in freedom of speech, even for racists? If it’s not, then explain how it’s racist to believe another may do as he wishes with his property. If a person chooses to make less money due to lost sales or taking a lower asking price because he is stupid enough to forgo a sale to another, for whatever reason, then it’s his life, his liberty and his property. He may do as he wishes with it.

Yes, some with racist or sectarian concerns have made use of Libertarian arguments to try to prevent any change in their circumstances. These same people were those who used the levers of State power to forward their racist agenda in the era of Jim Crow. Just as Hitler used government power to pursue a racist program, Southern Democrats (and the Klan) used government to repress minorities. Regardless of methodology used to achieve it, racism was the main purpose of their agenda.

The concern of Libertarians is that government power is coercive. Not only that, once unleashed the power is pervasive and difficult to control or retract. That power may then be used by the less good or evil to pursue their own ends. Those expanding the power forget they may not always be in charge. They might want to think of how it would be to be on the receiving end of government power before allowing its expansion.

Klein’s misunderstanding of human behavior is a symptom of his Statist mindset. His understanding of “civil rights” doesn’t take into account the differences between the public and private spheres. His default position is that government must act to “remedy” perceived “wrongs”. He fails to recognize that in a free society most interactions are within the private sphere and voluntary; therefore, outside the jurisdiction of government.

Only the government or those acting on behalf of the government may violate “civil” rights, as they have to do exclusively with the “public” sphere. An individual acting exclusively within the “private” sphere is incapable of violating another person’s “civil” rights. One individual may wrong another privately, but only in ways actionable under criminal and tort laws, if they were to violate another’s life, liberty or property.

Traditionally, government has only intervened in criminal matters, as part of its police powers. Matters of tort law have been left to the individuals, with the government acting as a “neutral” third-party. Once the government begins “prosecuting” individuals for non-criminal “offenses”, it loses its “neutral” status and becomes an advocate. Does anyone really want government dictating private behavior? Who makes those decisions, and where does it stop?

So, to answer Mr. Klein’s question: Yes, Woolworth could have a segregated lunch counter. Then you embarrass the hell out of them and go eat somewhere else. Just as you don’t counter disagreeable speech by censorship but by open debate, you don’t counter disagreeable actions by government force but by positive action.

Rand Paul, Libertarianism and the Civil Rights Act

[Note: This is the second of three posts concerning Rand Paul and his post-victory foray into the land of the MSM. Let me tell you up front, I’m not a full-blown Libertarian. I do tend toward Libertarian thought, but I am most definitely very Conservative. I’m not necessarily a huge supporter of Rand Paul, and I don’t live in Kentucky. I say “Give the people what they want.” They seem to want him. Also, I am not a supporter of his father. He sometimes borders on “tin-foil hat” land (if you know what I mean?), and I don’t buy his argument about why he takes earmarks. However, I cannot stand the way Rand Paul has been attacked for taking a thoughtful and principled stand, and the way in which his views have twisted to mean something completely different from what they actually are. I felt that I had to say something. So, here it is…]

Rand Paul raised quite a stir last Wednesday (May 19, 2010) with comments made in an interview with MSNBC’s Rachael Maddow, as reported by The Huffington Post (http://tinyurl.com/2bpfare). What people don’t take into consideration are five very important things. First, Ms. Maddow broached the subject, not Mr. Paul. Second, there is no movement to repeal any provisions of the CRA. Third, the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act (CRA) has been decided by the Supreme Court. Fourth, even if the CRA were repealed tomorrow, it would have no effective difference in our world. Fifth, Mr. Paul was absolutely correct.

Rachael Maddow brought up the subject of the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act (1964). Obviously, she did so knowing how he had responded previously when asked about the issue, which was in standard Libertarian fashion. Maddow decided to set Mr. Paul up for a “gotcha” moment, having negatively framed follow-up questions ready for however he answered. If he answers one way, he is leader of an evil cabal set upon returning Blacks to the cotton fields. If he answers the other, he is an ideologically inconsistent or lying leader of the evil cabal seeking the return of Blacks to the cotton fields. A word of advice to Mr. Paul, don’t go on shows where ideologues control the cameras and the mikes (but the weekend shows aren’t them).

There is no movement to repeal the Civil Rights Act. There are no groups holding rallies. No one’s chanting, “Hey, hey, hey. Gotta end the CRA”. Even in the hard-core, skin-headed, white supremacists’ wildest racist dreams, they know better than to believe it would ever happen (and I use racists in this example due to their very impure motives).

The Civil Rights Act will not be overturned in whole or part for the unforeseeable future. It has weathered multiple Court challenges to its many provisions. I don’t believe there are even any cases in the pipeline to bring it up before the Supreme Court for review. It’s here to stay, judicially.

If the public accommodations provision of the Civil Rights Act were rescinded, the world as we know it would change in no perceptible way. Customers of all races and creeds would continue to eat in restaurants throughout the country. Hotels would still take in all weary travelers who can afford to stay in them, turning none away if a bed was available. Hospitals would tend to the sick and wounded of every shape and color. We have actually reached the point where the good intentions of those who proposed this law have come to fruition. We have a law we no longer need, because the overwhelming majority of the people in this country now see the kind of behavior it sought to prevent as reprehensible. Brava!

However, Rand Paul and the Libertarians are 100% correct in saying that the “public accommodations” provision of the Civil Rights Act was and is unconstitutional. Another thing, the politicians who proposed, backed and, ultimately, voted for those provisions knew so as well. They knowingly passed an unconstitutional law because they believed in its good intentions and because they “must do something” (the three most dreaded words in a Republic).

I’m not saying the entire law was unconstitutional. The provisions of the Civil Rights Act concerning actions by State governments were exactly in line with the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment. Civil Rights Acts passed in the wake of the Civil War sought to do many of these palliative measures. Unfortunately, most of these laws were overturned by Democrat appointees to the Supreme Court. In the rush to complete Reconstruction, proper protections for former slaves were never permanently implemented. Those laws which did remain on the books eventually went unenforced as the Democratic Party and its landed (white, former slave-owning) interests quickly retook control of State legislatures.

It must be stated (unfortunately) that a “true” understanding of Libertarianism leads one to oppose government action favoring any one group over another. The ideal is to have the least possible government intrusion into one’s life. Whenever government picks winners and losers, we all actually lose due to the misuse and misdirection of power. So, you will find no one with a truly libertarian bent thinking “it’s just fine” for someone to be racist. However, you will find those using the libertarians’ arguments to forward their own sectarian concerns, but these same people would change their tune the moment Statist arguments worked more in their favor.

The “public accommodations” provisions of the Civil Rights Act extended the reach of the federal government well beyond the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment. It unleashed federal power on the private sector in ways we are dealing with to this day. Institutionalized race-based preferences, quota systems and other “affirmative actions” are still in use. No company of any size can operate without a Human Resources department which must document all points in the hiring process as a defense against possible charges of civil rights violations. All of these intrusions into the private sector can be traced back to the passage of these provisions. They were the nose under the tent of federal involvement.

If, as I’ve said, the “public accommodations” provisions have been “successful”, how can I argue that they were wrong to have been implemented in the first place? As long as the government (at whichever level) acts as a neutral referee, it’s in the best interest of liberty for people to live as they please, in accordance with minimal laws. The moment government dictates the non-criminal actions of its citizens (criminal actions being those which deprive another of their life, liberty or property) it ceases to be a truly free society. The racist who refuses to commercially associate with another does only himself harm, by his loss of a customer. The would-be customer is at most inconvenienced by the inaction of this idiot.

Yes, there are emotions involved, and they are a real concern. However, does government exist to police emotional grievances? Which grievances and of what size will government involve itself, and who will make that determination? Can’t grievances be created by addressing some grievances more than others? Once you’ve begun down this road, at what point does it end?

The problem with using extra-constitutional powers to combat perceived “wrongs” is that the powers are left in place long after the wrongs have been addressed. These powers become a permanent fixture from which the tentacles of power can reach ever further into areas unintended by even those who proposed the original “solution”. As a result, politics becomes about what “can” be done instead of being about what “must” be done. Seeking political office becomes about getting and maintaining control of government to have access to these “new” powers. How government affects our lives becomes a matter of who is in charge, not a matter of true Constitutional authority. We always hear “we are a nation of laws, not men.” How can that be so when the document fundamental to our laws, and liberty, is not even understood or paid heed to by our “leaders”?

“Frivolous”, Mr. Will?

[Note: This is the first of three posts concerning Rand Paul and his post-victory foray into the land of the MSM. Let me tell you up front, I’m not a full-blown Libertarian. I do tend toward Libertarian thought, but I am most definitely very Conservative. I’m not necessarily a huge supporter of Rand Paul, and I don’t live in Kentucky. I say “Give the people what they want.” They seem to want him. Also, I am not a supporter of his father. He sometimes borders on “tin-foil hat” land (if you know what I mean?), and I don’t buy his argument about why he takes earmarks. However, I cannot stand the way Rand Paul has been attacked for taking a thoughtful and principled stand, and the way in which his views have twisted to mean something completely different from what they actually are. I felt that I had to say something. So, here it is…]

Sunday, on ABC’s This Week, George Will made the following statement concerning Rand Paul, as reported by Jake Tapper (http://tinyurl.com/28c92y6). Mr. Paul is the GOP candidate for US Senate from Kentucky. The discussion of Mr. Rand came as the result of a stir caused by answers he gave to questions while being interviewed by MSNBC’s Rachael Maddow, as reported by The Huffington Post (http://tinyurl.com/2bpfare).

I must disagree with Mr. Will. How exactly is it “frivolous” to have a discussion concerning our understanding of the Constitution and its underlying principles? By which of the four definitions I could find (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/frivolous) is this discussion “frivolous”? I don’t find it one bit frivolous. As a matter of fact, I find it comforting to hear a politician speak candidly about and exhibit any understanding of foundational principles. Instead, I find most politicians are all too interested in learning to pull the levers of federal power in their own favor.

Mr. Will is very haughty in his description how “we” exchanged one “right” for another. By whose authority and by what mechanism was this exchange executed? Was there an amendment to the Constitution I missed granting the federal government the power to direct individuals as to the use of their personal property in private, intrastate commerce. If not, exactly what part of the Commerce Clause or the 14^th Amendment grants Washington this power?

Mr. Will argues that morality can be legislated. I don’t disagree with him on that. Our governments were instituted to protect life, liberty, property, and, at the state level, public morality. However, at exactly what point did bigotry become “immoral”? Sure it’s boorish, stupid, ignorant, irrational, and distasteful, not to mention a bad business practice, but is it immoral? Is Mr. Will going to argue next that “immoral” speech is not protected? Is he the new moral arbiter?

Mr. Will goes on to say that “white Americans” were given a new education. Hold on a second. Is “the peoples’” government supposed to be in the re-education business? I don’t see that anywhere in the Constitution either. The whole concept actually gives me the “heebie-jeebies”.

Which group is up next for this re-education, or is it only for “white Americans”? Which “white Americans” would that be, by the way? Is it just the white “white Americans”, or the Jewish “white Americans”, or the Irish “white Americans”, or maybe the mixed-race, mixed-ethnicity “white Americans” (like me)? What is the next re-education project for the feds? How to eat more “healthy foods” or stand in line for medical care (don’t take more than your “fair share”)?

Government telling people with whom they must do business is the same as telling them how to operate their business or what type of business they must run. In a truly free society one can make seriously stupid business decisions and go broke doing so. As long as one person does not deprive another of life, liberty or property the government has no say as to how or if they associate with one another.

I understand that Mr. Will sees himself as being very high-minded. He seems to have discovered an argument which makes him feel better for going against his purported “conservative” principles, for the express purpose of not being seen as “racist”. Now we know the price of his conscience. I’m sure the Framers would be as equally impressed as I am.

We Had Best Be Careful

An anti-leftist, anti-big government wave of popular opinion began rolling early last year. It has been growing steadily ever since. There seem to be no signs of it slowing down. Unless there is an abrupt change in the public mood sometime during the summer the Democrats in Congress are going to get thumped, big time come November. The Democrats are in for considerable losses in the House and the Senate. These predictions are assuming Republicans are able to block so-called “Health Care Reform.”

The Democrat leadership seems determined to get its health care plan passed. It doesn’t matter to these “leaders” that the people are opposed to it, with opinion growing only more against them. The way it is looking, they can only get their plan passed by going “all in” and forcing their members to vote in favor. If that happens, particularly if they use undemocratic tactics (i.e. faux reconciliation, the “Slaughter” rule), then all bets are off. We may see a change in control of one or even both Houses of Congress before this is all said and done.

So, using the most conservative predictions of the November elections, Republicans will winnow down the Democrat majorities in both Houses to a bare minimum. What contingencies are in place for being in a close-to-parity minority? The Democrat leaders may be completely unchastened by their losses and continue pushing forward with their present agenda. Most of these leaders are from unbelievably secure districts. They have used (or entertained using) undemocratic tactics in the past to pass legislation. What will we do? How will we forward our agenda?

If the most optimistic predictions for this fall’s results are realized, the GOP will gain narrow majorities in the House and the Senate. Sure, the majority can easily move measures through the House, but passage in both chambers is necessary to go to the President. Sixty votes are required in the Senate to get a floor vote on non-budgetary legislation, and reconciliation will have to be done. Assuming Republicans are able to get legislation passed, the President must still sign it. Do you think he will have any compunction against vetoing bills which repeal his agenda items?  What’s the plan? Is anybody even working on one?

The “mainstream” media has of course been less than “fair and accurate” in its coverage of the growth in conservative/ populist opinion, the self-described “Tea Party” movement. Just get ready for the barrage of media reporting about the “Do Nothing” Congress. Big media already has a built-in statist bias. Additionally, reporters in D.C. are there to cover the news which means “action.” If nothing is moving forward, then there is no action. Something has to be reported to justify their existence. The story then becomes about what isn’t being done. It’s already been written – Young, Idealistic Leader Opposes Reactionary Forces.

We’ve lived through this before in ’95 after the Republicans took control of Congress. The big difference this time is the man in the White House. There is no denying Bill Clinton’s left-of-center pedigree; however, he was a politician in the worst sense of the word, one who’s biggest worry was being re-elected to office. Clinton could read the political winds and saw his best course was best to tack to the right. He may have fought for certain of his programs and against some of the Republicans, but he always followed the polls when push came to shove, such as eventually signing welfare reform.

We’re dealing with a completely different political animal this time. President Obama may have run as a moderate, but he has shown no signs of moderation during his time in office. As examples, where Clinton dropped health care and compromised on gays in the military, Obama has pushed forward with both in the face of growing opposition. I don’t think we can expect Obama to accept a little thing like an election as a reason to change his priorities. He will go forward with his agenda and undermine Republican initiatives at every opportunity, and the “old” media will be with him every step of the way, singing his praises.

So, the right-of-center coalition, which represents the views of the majority of Americans, goes into November and beyond knowing how the story will be played. As usual, we will be portrayed as against the poor, minorities, children, women, aged, sick, et al. We will have a President and a media opposed to everything we propose. We will have a movement whose agenda will be stymied and efforts will be impotent. We will be in the worst of possible worlds, except we will have stopped the worst of his plans.

The media will try to take advantage of one of the American people’s strangest habits, the practice of tearing down those we’ve built up, and its converse. Obama’s acolytes will begin to rehabilitate his reputation by blaming all that went wrong during his first two years on the Democrats in Congress. His fingerprints are nowhere on any of the health care legislation or anything else done in Congress. If you’ve noticed, he has assiduously distanced himself from all the machinations of Reid and Pelosi. Like Carter, and unlike Clinton, he has stood back in the White House and let all of the legislative activity and horse-trading take place on Capitol Hill.

We need to be prepared for this eventuality. We need strategies in place to counter the full court press of the pro-Obama media. Every news story must carry our message. Every Obama press event must have its opposite from us. Our leaders must be everywhere. Our take on events must be publicized. We have to get our word out.

The moderates in the Party must be steeled against the seductive influences of the media to cooperate with the Administration. They must know that any sliding into the mushy middle will result in a primary challenge from their right. Many of them will have already been replaced (Lord willing), but some will have made it through. They have only survived thus far by pulling right. They have to know there is no going back.

Once the immediate danger of further socialization of the economy is past, we will begin to lose the feelings of fear and urgency which have motivated many of those newly active in the movement. Like all those new to politics they will begin to feel frustration and anger with the slow pace of change in the direction of government. They will feel used and tricked, as have many in the past, if those they have supported fall back into the old, comfortable habits of Washington. The mistakes made by Republicans during the Bush years, whether they see it that way or not, cannot be repeated without risking an additional four years, at least, of a Democrat running the Executive branch of government.

Some of you may think I’m getting a bit ahead of where we are. What am I doing raising these kind of concerns with the elections over six months away? Then you are the exact ones to whom I am speaking. How do you propose to keep a fractious movement of populists, libertarians, conservatives, and anti-socialists together beyond this fall? Don’t you realize Obama, the Left, and fellow travelers in the media are not about to roll over even in the face of defeat? Look at their behavior now? Think it’s going to be any better in six months?

These questions and others need to be considered. Plans must be made. For over a year now, we’ve been flying by the seats of our pants. Yeah, we’ve had protests, meetings and convocations. We’ve done polling, blogging and tweeting. Beyond just winning elections, how much thought has been given to actual governance? The future is almost here. Will we be ready?

On Government: Domination

Government is a state of human nature. Like family, it always exists in some form, whether we’ve chosen it or not.

Consider that for a moment.

At its most basic, government is a set of rules by which we deal with other humans. If you have two humans who know of each other’s existence and who are in proximity to one another, you have government. It can be nothing more than “I’ll not go into your area. You don’t come into mine.” Conversely, it can be “You’ll do as I say, and give me some of your stuff.” to which “I am afraid of you and will acquiesce.”

If men treated each other respectfully, taking only what was theirs to take, government, as an institution, would be negligible. Do you need police when nothing is stolen, lives are not taken nor property trespassed? How many courts are needed when people take responsibility for their own actions? What bureaucrats are necessary when income is not redistributed, but instead held by its earner? What need for taxation when the job of government is done by the governed?

We generally consider government to be a mutually beneficial, willful creation of man. It can be, but it hasn’t always been. For most of our existence it has been, for most people, something forced upon them. From earliest history, we know only of those who ruled over others. The clan leader, chieftain, or king was the strongman who imposed his will upon clan, tribe, or kingdom. All others bent to his rule. His word was law.

The propensity for man to dominate is innate. It is who we are. We try to control things, and often others. “Here’s some land. It looks good. I’ll take it.” How many times in history has this happened? How often was that same land already claimed by others? These encounters probably went one of three ways:

“Oops, my bad. No harm, no foul, right?”

“OK. I’ll fight you for it.”

“Please, don’t kill me! Do my children have to be slaves, too?”

Even those systems we look to as “enlightened” were in fact far from it. The demos of Ancient Greece was not the entire population. It was in practice an enlarged oligarchy or aristocracy, available only to some men. Only around ten percent of the Athenian population held citizenship. If you were not a citizen, you were little better than slaves, and were in no way represented. Women were seen only as extensions of their men, and had no rights of their own.

The publicus of Rome was a much larger body of people than was the Greek demos, but citizenship was held by only a minority of Romans. It too was largely controlled by an aristocracy, patricians. The common citizen, plebian, had to have fealty to a member of this group, a Pater familias, who ruled and represented his extended “family” and was either a Senator or loyal to one. The Roman Senate was “representative” only in a way similar to the English House of Lords before the advent of the Commons. The plebian ostensibly had a voice in direct democracy, the assemblies, but it was limited in scope and any true authority was eventually removed to the Senate.

Ultimately, these systems which allowed participation of the governed in government, limited as it might have been, crumbled under the seemingly inexorable effects of man and time in society. As witnessed repeatedly in history these men succumbed to the impulse to dominate. They were either overthrown from without, or they willingly gave up power to a leader, be it Tyrant or Caesar. Here is demonstrated the other side of domination in man: Given the right circumstances, all men may feel the need to be dominated.

The desire to be led, to be told what to do and how to do it, is evidenced in all societies. Some cultures, particularly traditionalist societies, have built entire systems around mores and rules which inculcate a belief in the necessity to be lead, to submit to the authority of others. Other societies, such as ours, have developed a culture where the individual is taught to find his own way and to bridle at the bit of authority. Regardless, every people have felt it necessary at some point to give control to an overarching power.

Throughout history, we have seen the people grant near absolute power to a One. What commonality has there been to these episodes? It has always been in times of perceived mortal danger. When we are in fear for our very existence, we want something to ease our worries and someone to take the reins from us. Caesar, Cromwell, Napoleon, Mussolini, Stalin, Churchill, Roosevelt. These men, their ideas, and their governments were allowed to take control because the people believed it was necessary for survival.

The ability for a “strongman” to dominate in times of trouble is oft touched upon in political history and theory. Less discussed is this phenomenon’s half-brother, the human preference for security over liberty. It is a tool used constantly to slowly strip away our freedoms in exchange for the perceived lessening of risk. Like the proverbial frog in a pot, we allow our liberties to slowly cook away in the nice, warm bath of government.

Those who seek to subjugate their fellow-man have seized upon our aversion to risk as the means to induce us toward our own imprisonment. By making us fearful, they can enact laws and regulations restricting our actions and liberties. They want us to believe that if we give up certain small freedoms, our lives will be safer, healthier and longer. “Just put on this straightjacket and your life will be better.” At no point are you reminded that even a life lived in a rubber room eventually comes to an end. What possible life have you traded for “safety?” Was it really worth the cost?

Most people only see today. The scope of history to them is no longer that the length of their own lives. Those of us fortunate to be born in a nation conceived with the ideals

that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

should most jealously guard these rights. We should honor the sacrifices made by those who came before us and guaranteed for us these God-given rights. We must not repeat the mistakes of history and allow fleeting, momentary needs to undermine the base upon which our mansion of liberty is based.

Law of Unintended Consequences: A Cautionary Tale

Politicians like to think they can make economic decisions on our behalf with no downside. As usual, the “smart people” can create the biggest mistakes when trying to “do good.”

Here’s one for you. Almost since the Louisiana Purchase, the federal government has had a system of tariffs and duties on the import of sugar to the US. Originally, it was to maintain sugar prices for growers in the new Louisiana Territory, thereby keeping slave prices high. In 1934, an import quota system was added to existing tariffs and direct farm subsidies. In one shape or form, these protections for domestic sugar growers have been in place to today.

These protections are deemed necessary because the American South is not the ideal growing environment for sugar cane. Cane much prefers the moisture, warmth and sun of the tropics to the short growing season of the semi-tropical regions of the Gulf Coast of Louisiana, Florida and Texas. The resulting plants are much smaller and less productive than those grown in the Caribbean, and Central and South America.  In addition, there are the higher labor costs of the US farmer and farm worker.

The result of political intervention in the sugar market is a US price triple the world price. A 1-cent increase in sugar prices costs US consumers in excess of $200 million in increased food costs. The vast majority of this extra profit goes to the growers all at the expense of US consumers. Food costs have a disproportionate effect on lower and middle class consumers, who have less elasticity in spending ability and less disposable income.

What is the rationale politicians and the industry give for higher than necessary food prices for Americans? Food security. All of our food must be grown domestically to ensure a safe and ready supply. Really. As if in time of national emergency, we couldn’t easily secure sources of sugar in our backyard. I can think of better uses for this argument, such as domestically producing a much greater share of our own hydrocarbons. (Drill here, drill now. But that’s for some other time.)

I’m a big believer in open markets. Why should we be giving aid (alms) to countries like Haiti? They could be producing a commodity product for sale to our market. We’re being hit three times for money: payments to farmers, higher prices and foreign aid. Why not skip the middle men, save money and create opportunities for our neighbors? Sounds good to me.

If artificially high food prices were where this tale ended, it would be bad enough. However, there are other issues as a result of this tinkering with our markets. They are the transformation of the US diet and its possible health effects.

Food processors, like every other enterprise, try to maximize profits and minimize costs. Well, if one of your major ingredients was kept artificially high, what might you try to do? Substitute it, possibly? That’s exactly what they started doing.

Processors began replacing sugar with an invention of US food scientists, high-fructose corn syrup. Look at the label of almost any processed food product from baked goods to bottled soda. You will see high-fructose corn syrup. You may also see sugar, but probably not. Unless it’s a dry, powdered product, sugar has all but been replaced with this sweet liquid.

Use of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) as a major sweetener began in the US as a response to high domestic sugar prices. HFCS is produced from corn, the largest crop in the US, and was created as one of a myriad of uses for the huge domestic corn crop. It was introduced as a secondary sweetener, and its use as the primary sweetener in the US food market was unforeseen.

HFCS is made in a three-step process. First, the corn is physically abraded to open up the starch molecules. Second, the starch molecules are treated with chemicals to break up the starch molecules until it is a liquid solution of mostly glucose, which is standard corn syrup (ex. Kayro) and is less sweet than cane sugar (sucrose).

Okay. Big deal. What’s this got to do with anything? Well, here’s the problem. We weren’t built to consume mass quantities of fructose. Fructose cannot be used by our bodies directly. It must go through an enzymatic process to change it to glucose, which is our “common carrier” of calories. Yeah, sucrose, cane sugar, is not strictly glucose either and must be converted for use. Big difference though, sucrose is a glucose molecule bonded to a fructose molecule. There is a 50:50 ratio of glucose to fructose in sucrose. We were built to metabolize this ratio and can do it, continually, to no ill effects (assuming no medical issues). What glucose / fructose ratio do you think is used to achieve the teeth-hurting sweetness of most bottled beverages?

Another thing, while fructose is sweeter on our tongues than is sucrose, it takes longer for it to be processed to glucose. This results in our uptake of glucose to lag behind our consumption of fructose. Our hunger, or “sweet tooth”, takes longer to be sated. We end up consuming larger amounts of the food stuff before our body tells us we’re done. Also, there’s been studies associating high fructose consumption to all kinds of negative health issues. I’m not going to get into all that. Look into it yourself, if interested.

Here’s the kicker, in November 1984, Coke and Pepsi announced their switch to HFCS from cane sugar. Pepsi had been using a blend for years, so no major issue. However, Coke for all its years had been using cane sugar, exclusively. Coincidentally, the following Spring, New Coke was introduced with HFCS, not sugar. Even after “Original Formula” Coke was reintroduced, HFCS was the sweetener. All remaining soft drink manufacturers soon switched to HFCS.

Today, unless you buy a soft, energy or sports drinks from a boutique bottler, you are consuming HFCS. Take a look at the time lines involved. When did we start hearing about our kids getting so “portly”? Seems to me it was after the HFCS takeover. Now, kids like sweet stuff. I did, and ate tons of it. “Kids don’t get any activity, right?” Hey, I had video games, TV and books. It’s not like we were out on some hamster wheel all day long.

What fundamentally changed for kids, and for all of us? Might it be our diet? I can’t think of anything more basic than that. You know of Occam’s Razor, right? It’s the principle that when given a selection of hypotheses, you choose the one that requires the least assumptions. How’s this: our diet affects our health.

Without any forethought or understanding of possible negative outcomes, politicians, lobbyists and entrenched interests have worked to change the way and what we eat. To what result? We shall see. Thanks guys.

GOP Is the Only Vehicle for Democrat Defeat

[Note: For full disclosure, this is a compilation of my side of a conversation with fellow blogger, Jen Penman (@jpenaz on Twitter) at her blog, “My Life as a Blog,” in May 2009. You can read her post, “Libertarian, yes, positive,” and our conversation at http://jpenaz.blogspot.com/ . I’ve resurrected it in light of the recent Tea Party Convention and continuing calls for a third-party movement. This compilation has been edited for clarity of thought.]

I completely understand dissatisfaction with the Republican Party. I began to feel this same dissatisfaction as I watched the Party squander the gains of the ’94 and the ’00 elections on petty power politics. The Party never effectively educated the public about its agenda. It never took advantage of its time in control of both Congress and the White House to introduce the systemic changes for which many of us worked so hard to bring it to power.

I have always been about principle over Party, but known that we must all work within a right of center coalition. The natural home for this coalition is the Republican Party. Splintering of this coalition leads to our defeat at the hands of our ideological nemeses residing in the Democratic Party. We all have to understand we must hang together, or we will hang alone.

Is there room for dissent against the leftward drift of the GOP we’ve seen since ’94? Absolutely, but dissent needs to be expressed within the party structure to pull it back to the right. The current status of the GOP should be unacceptable to conservatives, libertarians and other people of the right. However, the answer isn’t to abandon the GOP, but to change it.

The job of voters under a republican government is to elect persons who represent our opinions. The job of our representatives is to vote as they’ve pledged they would while seeking office. However, it appears many only seek ways to broaden their appeal for re-election. We need to hold them accountable, and show them they must faithfully represent us, if they wish to stay in office.

Politicians must realize that we are more than willing to replace them if they aren’t fulfilling their obligations. They must understand that we will not automatically vote for them just because they have the correct letter next to their name. Also, there must be primary contests to remove those politicians who do not represent those who have elected them. Even if they ultimately win re-election, it will act to pull them back into the proper direction.

The United States has, and has always had, a two party system. These two parties, which have gone by many different names over time, represent the overwhelming majority of U.S. voters. They do so because they represent the two larger ideological movements, center-left and center-right, in respect to the overall body politic of the time.

There is nothing wrong with being a member of the Libertarian Party or any other “alternative” party, in and of itself. “Alternative” parties are often ways for the dissatisfied to come together outside of the structure of the main parties to build coalitions, which then ultimately act as groups within the larger parties. However, party membership leads to party loyalty, and that’s the problem. It’s the same with all third, or “alternative,” political parties.

“Alternative” political parties are, almost exclusively, ideologically based in the strictest sense. Whether it is the Greens, Communist, Natural Rights, Conservative, Libertarian, et al, they are built around on a very tightly held set of beliefs, which inevitably leads them to be relatively small groups. People voting for these parties have only a marginal effect on elections, but the result can be to the detriment of the larger ideological movement to which each of these parties belongs.

We do not operate under a parliamentary system. It is winner takes all. If an “alternative” party wins ten percent of the vote across the entire electorate, it gets exactly nothing for this achievement. The most likely outcome will be defeat for the candidate which comes second closest to its members’ views. People with deeply held political convictions should bring that passion and drive back into the major parties. They should influence those parties in the direction they want them to go.

No third party will ever gain enough voters to have any positive outcome for its greater ideological movement. The moment it wins a majority of the movement’s voters, it would cease to be a third party, but would continue to split the movement’s votes. The movement would continue to be powerless until its members come together under one party.

Now, I want to clarify a point on which I’ve already touched. Historically, the two major parties have represented the vast majority of American voters. This is because each party is a coalition of voters on their respective sides of the American political spectrum. The political spectrum, as opposed to the ideological one, slides in relation to the political beliefs of the general population. The beliefs of the voters set the scale by which left and right are measured.

As an example, think of the political spectrum as the range of colors broken down from white light. In shorthand the spectrum of light is ROYGBIV (red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet). Just looking at it, the center color of light is G; however, the actual center, or average light color, of a star’s light depends upon the elements present in the star which are undergoing nuclear fusion. So, the “center” color of a star is the average of all the light colors emitted by the star.

In much the same way, the center of a population’s political beliefs depends upon the people being measured. America has historically had a political center which is to the right of Europe’s. As a people, we want less government than do Europeans. However, this is not an absolute and is not static. It bounces around from one election to the next.

Let’s say in one election all voters show up and vote for one of two parties. The party which attracts not only their half of the spectrum, but just one additional person wins. The next election the losing party is going to try to get back that one voter, and take another one to win. This back and forth would continue as each party tries to take a majority of all voters.

In reality, not all voters participate, and additional parties vie for votes. Both of these subtract from total votes of the two major parties. In the aftermath of recent elections, Republican Party leaders have looked at the numbers and seen only those votes garnered by the Democrats. These voters have become the focus for the next election, forgetting non-voters and alternative party voters. This leads Party officials and campaign advisors to pull the Party to the left seeking these votes.

If you are unhappy with the Republican Party as it exists, and you are unhappy with the direction the Democrats are taking the country, then you must become active in the Republican Party to bring it back to the Right. Growth in alternative parties only allows the apparatchiks within the Republican Party hierarchy to continue drifting left in search of “the center”. In reality the center remains where it was, but voters have been left behind on the Right. These voters must become active in the party machinery, and vote in primaries to remove candidates who undermine the party’s right of center ideological coalition.

Yes, there are ideological differences. We won’t agree all of the time. So, do we combine or divide our resources? No one tightly defined ideology is ever going to win an absolute majority. So, we must work together to move the country in our shared direction, the Right. Just remember what Reagan said, “Someone who agrees with me 80% of the time is my 80% friend, not my 20% enemy.”