Given the Republican Party's failure of ideas under George W. Bush and the recent strides toward socialization of America's financial institutions, I now consider the Libertarian Party platform more seriously. I have supported John McCain until now, but I am less certain following the recent Bush socialization plan. They are causing me to re-think my heretofore solid support for John McCain.
According to the Libertarian Party's website, Bob Barr is at 8 to 11 percent in polls in late August in several states. These include Ohio, New Hampshire and Nevada. This is enough to make Barr a factor in the race. Voting for him is not throwing one's vote away as it would be if he were running at two or three percent across the board.
On September 17, the Libertarians passed a resolution supporting withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan. I do not agree with that. In fact, it seems frivolous because they do not discuss how it will impact our defense against further 9/11-style attacks. It is nice to say that you are for isolationism, but Thomas Jefferson sent the navy to secure the Mediterranean from the Barbary pirates, who were enslaving our sailors. The Barbary pirates were similar to the crew we're fighting in Afghanistan. This is a strategic question that the Libertarians treat as a moral question.
On September 11, Bob Barr stated that a "surge" for fiscal responsibility is needed. He says:
“On my first day as president I will freeze federal spending...On day two, I will establish the Commission On Wasteful Government to develop a list of programs with no constitutional basis, which belong at the state or local level, or which don’t work. And I will go to Congress with a long list of programs to eliminate.”
This is a good position. I think across-the-board 35% cuts are a better idea, with a list of programs coming second, but a list is fine.
Also:
"Only Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party are saying no more bailouts. Only Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party are talking about controlling entitlements spending. Only Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party are pushing the surge in fiscal responsibility that the country needs.”
Barr made a 9/11 statement about terrorism on 9/10:
"The U.S. government can best mark the anniversary by continuing to target groups which threaten Americans, but also by respecting the liberties upon which our nation is based.
“The Bush administration deserves credit for having done much to disable al Qaeda as an effective terrorist organization...However, early on, the administration took its eye off of the ball when it shifted troops from searching for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to use in the unnecessary war in Iraq. Now, the situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating badly.”
On the one hand the LP says that we should withdraw from Afghanistan, on the other Bob Barr says that we should focus on Afghanistan. This is amateurish at best.
As for Iraq, Barr writes,
"I will quickly withdraw U.S. troops, leaving Iraqis in control of their own dstinies.”
With respect to experience, Barr has more experience than Obama, with eight years in Congress. However, he has less than McCain and lacks executive experience, as do Biden, Obama and McCain. Only Sarah Palin has executive experience.
Barr, like Obama and McCain, strikes me as an imperfect candidate. Overall, I would rate them as follows. My rating depends heavily on how heavily I weight the Republicans' socialist strategy is:
I consider two different weighting schemes that reflect my personal preferences. In the first, I weight the economy 50%, defense and counter-terrorism 20% each and social issues 10%. In the second, I weight the economy 30%, defense and counter terrorism 30% each, and social issues 10%. If I weight the economy at 50% of my concern, then Bob Barr is preferable to me over John McCain. However, if I weight the economy at 30% of my concern, then John McCain is preferable. Barack Obama is not in the running.
However, there are several strategic and dynamic concerns. For instance, a McCain victory now would continue to give credence to the socialist/big business/ Progressive wing of the Republican Party, which has become dominant and has been successful at influencing conservatives. Four more years of drooling boobs on Fox touting claims of non-existent "emergencies" to facilitate socialism will be difficult for me to take.
Second, a strong showing for Bob Barr will give the Republicans pause about the socialist path that they have chosen. This will enable free market liberals and intelligent conservatives to regroup.
Third, laissez-faire conservatives can blame further steps toward socialism on Obama. This will create Republican antipathy against rather than support for socialism. This would be a good thing and would harm the Republican Progressives, who have become ever more dominant. (They were always dominant, but the Bush administration is a Progressive fantasy come to life).
The question of whether to support McCain or Barr hinges first on the importance of reduction in economic freedom due to the Republicans' socialist strategy versus the threat of terrorism and military attack. Second, it depends on electoral strategic factors, which militate in favor of Barr. A strong Libertarian showing will push the Republicans toward more laissez-faire policies. At the same time, a Republican loss will stall Republican Progressives. On the other hand, there are serious defense, counter-terrorism and social drawbacks to an Obama administration relative to McCain. However, it is possible that, given this week's events, an Obama administration will reflect an improvement over the Republicans with respect to laissez-faire and efficient government.
It has become a difficult call. I have previously contributed heavily to McCain (for someone on a professor's salary). I am not sure that I can continue to morally support him given the Republicans' choices at the national level. I have reached out to some friends for advice on this, and am interested in your thoughts.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Dr. Hai Van Ha's Letter to the Associated Press
I just received the following letter to the Associated Press from Dr. Hai Van Ha:
September 21st, 2008
Mr. Jon Petrovich
Vice President
AP Broadcast News Center
1100 13th Street, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005
Dear Mr. Petrovich,
On behalf of Southeast Asia Democracy Coalition, I am writing to express our appreciation to Associated Press for your excellent service in bringing news from Vietnam to the world.
We are deeply concerned about the fact that Ben Stocking, an Associated Press journalist working in Vietnam, was assaulted on September 19th, 2008 by the Vietnamese communist police, while he was covering a Catholic protest at Toa Kham Su, Hanoi.
We strenuously condemn the barbaric actions of the Vietnamese communist police, who brutally injured Mr. Stocking when he was being detained. It is a criminal offense to assault a journalist while he is in police custody.
Press members should be free to report facts, even facts about civil and social unrests. Hostile and violent treatments of journalists on duties are neither acceptable nor accusable, and are actions condoned only by governments either wanting to obstruct freedom of the press, or to cover up their questionable activities, or both.
Unfortunately, this is the sad state of affairs in Vietnam today!
For this reason, Southeast Asia Democracy Coalition is grateful of the fact that journalist Stocking has written many articles about the facts of life in Vietnam. His articles have helped the world to understand what's really happening in a country ruled by one of the most corrupted totalitarian governments.
Once again, we would like to congratulate the Associated Press for having a dedicated and courageous staff such as journalist Stocking, and wish him a expeditious recovery.
Lastly, as the crisis in Thai Ha is escalating quickly, with many parishioners being threatened and beaten, we hope that the Associated Press will continue to provide much needed coverage, so that the free world will know what is actually going on in Vietnam.
Sincerely,
Dr. Hai Van Ha
President
Southeast Asia Democracy Coalition
September 21st, 2008
Mr. Jon Petrovich
Vice President
AP Broadcast News Center
1100 13th Street, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005
Dear Mr. Petrovich,
On behalf of Southeast Asia Democracy Coalition, I am writing to express our appreciation to Associated Press for your excellent service in bringing news from Vietnam to the world.
We are deeply concerned about the fact that Ben Stocking, an Associated Press journalist working in Vietnam, was assaulted on September 19th, 2008 by the Vietnamese communist police, while he was covering a Catholic protest at Toa Kham Su, Hanoi.
We strenuously condemn the barbaric actions of the Vietnamese communist police, who brutally injured Mr. Stocking when he was being detained. It is a criminal offense to assault a journalist while he is in police custody.
Press members should be free to report facts, even facts about civil and social unrests. Hostile and violent treatments of journalists on duties are neither acceptable nor accusable, and are actions condoned only by governments either wanting to obstruct freedom of the press, or to cover up their questionable activities, or both.
Unfortunately, this is the sad state of affairs in Vietnam today!
For this reason, Southeast Asia Democracy Coalition is grateful of the fact that journalist Stocking has written many articles about the facts of life in Vietnam. His articles have helped the world to understand what's really happening in a country ruled by one of the most corrupted totalitarian governments.
Once again, we would like to congratulate the Associated Press for having a dedicated and courageous staff such as journalist Stocking, and wish him a expeditious recovery.
Lastly, as the crisis in Thai Ha is escalating quickly, with many parishioners being threatened and beaten, we hope that the Associated Press will continue to provide much needed coverage, so that the free world will know what is actually going on in Vietnam.
Sincerely,
Dr. Hai Van Ha
President
Southeast Asia Democracy Coalition
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Kathy Laments the Markets
I received the following e-mail from Kathy of the Lone Star State. My response follows:
> Hello Mitchell,
> I am consumed with news between the naked short selling and credit crisis as you are aware. I am effected by the economy in the construction industry, the real estate industry and my ARM.
> Now I am consumed with stocks since I play in the government's form of white-collar-gambling with small amounts of money I have in the stocks. Suddenly short-selling (more painful naked-shorting) is more and more put to the top of my attention. Here I go again, another portion of the dying economy that I hit!
> So, what I just listened to."the problems of Main Street are now affecting Wall Street". Oh, now it's an issue. Okay.
> I turn to your blog with my head spinning. I see (as if I didn't actually know) that news is not a good place to get my news. So, I am asking where (in your opinion) is the "safest" place to get as close to truthful information as possible? I seem to trust no one coming across the electrical waves.
> Additionally, I am lost. BO scares me for a variety of reasons then I am left with McCain, who supported deregulation but is now pushing regulation and blaming for lack of regulation without so much as an "oops, my thinking was incorrect then but now I see". What am I supposed to do now. I only have 5 weeks and 2 days to get my head right. That is not a lot of time with this. Much fuzz and cloud going on here.
My response:
Stocks may be good now. I wouldn't pull out or sell short at this point. We are heading toward the early stages of another inflation and that is usually good for stocks for at least a year.
One thing I can suggest is Howard S. Katz's newsletter and blog. The newsletter
costs $300 a year and I offered to help him market it because it is very good. I have gotten more than a few ideas from him.
He's at:
http://www.thegoldbugnet.blogspot.com
http://www.thegoldbug.net
I don't have much more than that to recommend. You might try the Wall Street Journal as a basic newspaper. I don't read it myself at this point but I'm thinking of starting. I have been subscribing to the NY Sun, but they are likely to close their doors at the end of this month. Howard and other friends read the Times and the Economist to see what the establishment is thinking, but I don't have the time to make a career of doing that, and they are not good news sources. Fox is a joke. I wish I had something more to suggest, but honestly I don't.
One approach is to assume the opposite of what your newspaper is saying. They say that there's a financial crisis, so assume that there is a bull market coming. If they start saying that the economy's going great, assume that there's high inflation and misallocation of resources, etc.
As far as the general election, I support McCain as the "lesser of two evils" but the time is nearing where I may decide to vote for the Libertarian Party as the "least of three evils".
> Hello Mitchell,
> I am consumed with news between the naked short selling and credit crisis as you are aware. I am effected by the economy in the construction industry, the real estate industry and my ARM.
> Now I am consumed with stocks since I play in the government's form of white-collar-gambling with small amounts of money I have in the stocks. Suddenly short-selling (more painful naked-shorting) is more and more put to the top of my attention. Here I go again, another portion of the dying economy that I hit!
> So, what I just listened to."the problems of Main Street are now affecting Wall Street". Oh, now it's an issue. Okay.
> I turn to your blog with my head spinning. I see (as if I didn't actually know) that news is not a good place to get my news. So, I am asking where (in your opinion) is the "safest" place to get as close to truthful information as possible? I seem to trust no one coming across the electrical waves.
> Additionally, I am lost. BO scares me for a variety of reasons then I am left with McCain, who supported deregulation but is now pushing regulation and blaming for lack of regulation without so much as an "oops, my thinking was incorrect then but now I see". What am I supposed to do now. I only have 5 weeks and 2 days to get my head right. That is not a lot of time with this. Much fuzz and cloud going on here.
My response:
Stocks may be good now. I wouldn't pull out or sell short at this point. We are heading toward the early stages of another inflation and that is usually good for stocks for at least a year.
One thing I can suggest is Howard S. Katz's newsletter and blog. The newsletter
costs $300 a year and I offered to help him market it because it is very good. I have gotten more than a few ideas from him.
He's at:
http://www.thegoldbugnet.blogspot.com
http://www.thegoldbug.net
I don't have much more than that to recommend. You might try the Wall Street Journal as a basic newspaper. I don't read it myself at this point but I'm thinking of starting. I have been subscribing to the NY Sun, but they are likely to close their doors at the end of this month. Howard and other friends read the Times and the Economist to see what the establishment is thinking, but I don't have the time to make a career of doing that, and they are not good news sources. Fox is a joke. I wish I had something more to suggest, but honestly I don't.
One approach is to assume the opposite of what your newspaper is saying. They say that there's a financial crisis, so assume that there is a bull market coming. If they start saying that the economy's going great, assume that there's high inflation and misallocation of resources, etc.
As far as the general election, I support McCain as the "lesser of two evils" but the time is nearing where I may decide to vote for the Libertarian Party as the "least of three evils".
United States Should Spin Off Into Three Republics
The time has come to decentralize the United States. I think that the alternative camps, the socialist progressives, the conservative progressives and the libertarians have little enough in common that separate economic policies would be more productive than continued association. This would also have the advantage of enabling Americans to see which system works best--Democratic Party socialism, big business/socialist conservatism or free market liberalism. Perhaps the three republics could be renamed
-the United Socialist States of America (Democratic Party socialism)
-the United States of America (libertarian)
-the Corporate States of America (big business conservatism)
Perhaps the southwest could spin off and become the libertarian federation, the northeast could become the big business federation, and the Midwest and could become the socialist federation
I suppose the ideologically affiliated states need not be contiguous.
Even if only one state becomes a free market society, that would eventually be the dominant power. The other two confederations would become like North Korea (socialist) and Europe (big business conservatism).
-the United Socialist States of America (Democratic Party socialism)
-the United States of America (libertarian)
-the Corporate States of America (big business conservatism)
Perhaps the southwest could spin off and become the libertarian federation, the northeast could become the big business federation, and the Midwest and could become the socialist federation
I suppose the ideologically affiliated states need not be contiguous.
Even if only one state becomes a free market society, that would eventually be the dominant power. The other two confederations would become like North Korea (socialist) and Europe (big business conservatism).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
