Yesterday I participated in a panel discussion on the Citizen’s United v. Federal Election Commission decision by the Supreme Court.  Here is a statement following my experience there. 

My assigned task was to give a Libertarian impression on the decision concerning the “Constitutionality of Corporate Campaign Contributions”, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC).  I was the only person on the panel who was not an accomplished lawyer.  Therefore, I approached this from the point of view of a candidate subject to the incredibly complex FEC rules, and from the point of view of an average American citizen.

I also had to take a simplified approach as compared to the complex legal approach my fellow panelists were able to take.  I began with my personal, political rules-of-thumb:

   -       There is no perfect solution.

   -       There are no isolated or single issues.

   -       Complex laws get selectively enforced upon an unlucky few. 

   -       You must have both social AND economic freedom or you will find yourself with neither. 

   -       If you think it is expensive now, wait until government makes it free.

The Citizens United decision concerned freedom of speech, so here is the text of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

By applying my rules-of-thumb to this amendment, right away we see it is wonderful, but not perfect, or isolated.  For instance, freedom of speech is not meaningful if you don’t have 4^th Amendment rights to security in your person and property.

It is also interesting that the 1^st Amendment polls as the least popular amendment.  People want to be able to speak freely, but they don’t really like it when they hear someone saying something they disagree with. 

There are several components to this decision.  The first is freedom of speech, then campaign finance including corporations, foreign and domestic, and disclosure.  Implicit in the issue are the ideas of fairness, safety, accuracy, and trust.

Freedom of speech, and a movie about Hillary Clinton

Citizens United put together a politically charged, so-called “documentary” about Hillary Clinton in 2008.  “Hillary the Movie” was a movie about a nationally known person, running for national office during an election year.  From the beginning, we can easily agree this is an act of freedom of speech.  In the movie people such as Larry Kudlow, Dick Morris, and Ann Coulter, use words such as “liar”, “European Socialist”, “dangerous”, and “deceitful” to describe a candidate for the office of president.  No surprise so far, and no problem with the FEC yet.  When someone in the movie says that Hillary Clinton is, “not fit to hold office”, The FEC steps in.  In the opinion of the FEC, a faceless bureaucracy controlling what they decide is fit for our eyes and ears, some imaginary and arbitrary line gets crossed.  So, they take action.

At this point, the average person knows something it wrong.  Clearly the movie is an act of freedom of speech.  What could possibly be wrong with that phrase “not fit to hold office”, that wasn’t already wrong with the whole movie.  The conclusion Americans reach is that the law is not written for the average person, but instead for lawyers.

There is nothing in the Constitution about campaign finance.  We have gotten it involved with the First Amendment.  Was if free for the early Representatives to print campaign literature or to publish their writings?  Certainly they had some expense to their campaigns.  Yet, there is nothing in the Constitution about campaign finance.

From the Amicus brief by the Institute for Justice:

 “…the First Amendment has been an afterthought in campaign-finance cases, as the government and often this Court have placed concern for circumventing campaign-finance laws above the concern that those laws were circumventing the First Amendment.” – IJ 

Campaign finance

“The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax.” – Albert Einstein

Einstein might have been right about the income tax then, but he never contemplated FEC rules.  I have.  To define them as burdensome only begins to describe the complex limitations they put on a candidate and the candidates contributors. 

In 2008 Barak Obama gathered over $700 million in campaign donations, the vast majority of which was from individual contributors.  In the same campaign year, Bob Barr, Libertarian candidate for President, received about $1.3 million in donations.  The FEC found an accounting error in the Barr campaign.  According to one of his campaign staff, the error was less than $100.  Without alleging illegal or unethical intent, I think it is reasonable to ask, did the Obama campaign precisely account for every dollar of that $700 million?  This is a clear example of complex law being enforced selectively on an unlucky, unconnected few.

Running a third-party campaign, I am familiar with the impact a low cost structure can have.  In 1978, a Libertarian named L. Neil Smith ran for State Representative in Colorado.  He spent $44 dollars and got 15% percent of the vote.  (He is still proud he never put on a tie while campaigning.)  Last week, in a Rasmussen Poll, a generic, third-party candidate for Senator, polled at 3%.  That’s me, 3%, and I haven’t spent $1000 yet.  So far, the main part of my campaign has been me, a laptop, a website, and online social networking. 

Just as we are now dealing with technology the Framers never envisioned, there is a not distant future a technology that will a game changer in campaign costs.  We are getting wrapped around the axle in definitions and legalese that will be meaningless as business continues proactively at the speed of a thoroughbred racehorse, and government remains reactive at the speed of a plodding dinosaur.

Foreign money

We cannot control this any more than we can control the flow of money from any other source.  Legal “roadblocks” might redirect the flow, but not stop it.  Arbitrary US incorporation definitions and numbers, such as the 20% rule, will only cosmetically change some corporate structure, not the money inserted into the political process.  Controlling this directly is just not going to happen.

Foreign individual money is also limited.  If you were to donate at my website, which I hope you will generously, you could not get to the part where you type in your credit card without checking a box that among things will certify as true: 

I am a citizen or permanent resident in the United States.

I am not a foreign national who lacks permanent resident status.

If someone decides to lie on my website, do you think it they will be held responsible, or me?  Do you think another candidate will be held to an equal standard?

With a wife who is European, I have family in Europe, and friends here who are foreign nationals.  Most of them have asked if they may contribute to my campaign.  I declined saying it could cause me more problems than benefits.  It is silly that a candidate has to be so concerned with such minutia.

Foreign entities are defined by US law and within the FEC rules, but it is complex, controversial within the legal community, and nearly impossible for someone who is not schooled in law to understand.  Reading the code or listening to a legal professional describe what a foreign contribution is by definition, again gives the average American the impression that the law is not really written for them.  It leaves us feeling not only left out, but also frightened that the law could be easily turned on us. 

Setting up these barriers strikes me as a kind of legal Maginot Line.  Following WW I, the French nearly went broke setting up a military defense that would stop another invasion of their country.  What happened?  The next invading army flew over and drove around the Maginot Line.  Worse than that, they threw a feint against the line to hold the French defenders attention, and the attacking ground troops actually broke through. 

The FEC rules will not stop a determined foreign entity of any kind from attempting to influence our politics.  They will find their way around or through the rules.

Concern about the threat of foreign influence in campaigns strikes me as odd coming from a government that has sold so much of our debt to other governments.  Worse yet, is the threat to US security, sovereignty, and survival with so many of our so-called representatives who favor US coordination of banking and currency with other countries.  These are people sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, but who are willing to subject us economically to a “jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws”.  Nothing is a greater threat than that. 

The government makes us fearful of undue influence from foreigners in our elections, while subjecting us to far greater real dangers.

Disclosure

From the Amicus Brief by the Institute for Justice:

“It is fundamental that the government cannot regulate speech based on either its content or the identity of the speaker.”

“Fear of political reprisal is both real and reasonable.”

“The government should carry the burden to demonstrate the need for disclosure instead of speakers bearing the burden to prove the need to remain anonymous.”

Is there a cost to disclosure?  Justice Thomas agreed emphatically.  I see any disclosure requirement as a violation of the 1st amendment.  Adding more limitations will just raise the cost of political free speech.

The Federalist Papers were signed by Plubius, short for a Roman Emperor named Plubius Valerius Publicola, the last name meaning “of the people”.  In fact, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote them.  Do we reject the Federalist Papers today because they did not carry a disclaimer?  What is the difference in impact because they do not end with a statement such as, “My name is James Madison and I approved this message”?  They were expressions of freedom of speech, but even the Federalist Papers had spin.  The concept of federalism is one of decentralized government.  Yet Madison and especially Hamilton favored strengthened central government. 

Whether it is the Federalist Papers, “Hillary the Movie”, or anything in between, with or without disclosure of the source, the fundamental burden is on the voter to discern good information from bad.  The government insists on creating the illusion of perfect, pure, and sanitized information, safe for consumption by the voters.  Instead it lulls voters into not looking beyond the hype and marketing, and finding what the candidates actually stand for.

Fairness  

“If the proles ever realized how powerful they are, there would be no need for a revolution.” – George Orwell 

"A free people are never equal, and an equal people are never free." - unkown

As desirable as it may initially sound, Government cannot level the political playing field.  All actions the government takes in unconstitutional areas are political, not logical or fair.  The American people are going to have to understand that.  On the other hand, as long as they are free, they may publish statements such as “Hillary the Movie”, or whatever else they wish.  Individual action in politics still counts, especially if all 300 million of us would actually take action to restore our lost Constitution.

Fear and trust

“Government is a disaster masquerading as its own cure.” - L. Neil Smith

“Government is essentially the negation of liberty” – Ludwig Von Mises

Lew Rockwell, one of my heroes, talks about the package of fear being offered by the Left and the Right.  “The goal of both the Left and Right is that we make our political choices based on these fears. It doesn't matter so much which package of fear you choose; what matters is that you support a state that purports to keep your nightmare from becoming a reality.” 

Basically, Americans are being scared into giving up more and more of our liberty.  We are being told the government will protect us from evil entities, foreign and domestic, that would force bad people into the offices that are supposed to protect us.  Instead, all government does is expand and negate the very liberties they pretend to secure for us.

Worse yet, is the danger of the illusion of safe information the government promises us.  Americans are busy just trying to get by, so they accept a kind of easy, “drive-up window” approach to getting their political information.  People, confused by the issues and the law, but attempting to participate meaningfully, trust that the source of the information is being monitored and certified by the government, particularly when it comes to political issues.  I see so many people with a wide recognition of many issues, but very little depth to their knowledge.  Part of the reason is a failure on their part to investigate further.  But, why should they?  The FEC is on the job.

I think, as a people, we have forgotten what it looks and feels like to be free.  Lew Rockwell states, “…the more liberty we lose, the less people are able to imagine how liberty might work.  People can no longer imagine a world in which we could be secure without massive invasions of our privacy at every step…” We are busy just trying to survive, while our economy and lives are continuously set back by central government interference.  We understand the government has gotten complex and we don’t like it, but we have become used to government oppression. 

Do we get bad information? Of course we do!  How do I know?  I know because among other things, our government is deeply in debt, businesses have access to our national treasury, our troops are not home and whole, and our President and Congress are not Libertarian. 

What we really need to do is to tell people that all information is from biased sources.  All of the sources are from imperfect human beings who have a life experience, a point of view, and a vision of how things should be with and agenda for how to make it that way.  Once we all accept that, people will view political information with a more critical “eye”.  Maybe, they will listen to the actual words politicians say, and pay at least some attention to the actual results politicians deliver. 

My observations while on the panel

As I watched and listened to three very impressive lawyers discussing this decision I realized the high level of intellectual capital sitting next to me.  I thought of an analogy to the high level of technological advance in aviation, the profession I love.  At the peak is a new fighter/attack jet designated the F-35.  This is currently the pinnacle of aviation achievement.  I view the F-35 with the eye of a fighter pilot and wish I could have one for fun on weekends.  Yes, to me it is beautiful and fun looking, but I clearly see two other things.  First, it represents a huge amount of human intellectual and physical capital, and resource capital.  Secondly, it is among a much too long list of efficient, cutting edge machinery all designed to kill people.  Where could we be in aviation and other endeavors, had that kind of potential been allowed to advance the quality of human life?

On the legal and litigation side, where would we be, if the kinds of minds I witnessed in action, were not involved in trying to use complex legislation to stem the flow of campaign contributions, influence, and information good or bad.  What if they had also been directed towards a substantial advance to the quality of life?  The F-35 has damaged our peacetime technology, our lifestyles, and our economy.  The FEC and the government are doing the same thing to us.

What we see is the most visible cost.  Lew Rockwell also wrote,

“Frédéric Bastiat emphasized, the enormity of the costs of the state can only be discovered in considering its unseen costs: the inventions not brought to market, the businesses not opened, the people whose lives were cut short so that they could not enjoy their full potential, the wealth not used for productive purposes but rather taxed away, the capital accumulation through savings not undertaken because the currency was destroyed and the interest rate held near zero, among an infinitely expandable list of unknowns.”

Conclusion

"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators." - P.J. O'Rourke

From my Issues page on my campaign website: 

“Government always follows a similar pattern of reducing your freedoms and extending its tyranny.  It steps in to “help”, always with good intention.  However, because of its inherent limitations, government’s action always fails at some level. What should the government do then?  Should it stop interfering and remove itself from the situation, or should it expand to fix the new problem? Government sees itself as the necessary solution and rushes to fix the new problem.  More unintended consequences result that in turn require further interference.  Eventually, the government decides it “must” fully take over.  This is the pattern governments have followed again and again throughout history.  In the end, the only escape from such a situation is revolution.  History has no shortage of examples, and the United States is no exception to the rule.” – Chuck Donovan

From the Citizens United amicus brief by the Institute for Justice:

“Each new campaign-finance restriction has increased the value of the available alternatives for speech and political participation, resulting in efforts to close down those alternatives with additional restrictions.”

“In short, every incremental advance in campaign finance laws has laid the foundation for the next advance, with the result that today’s “alternative avenue of communication” inevitably becomes tomorrow’s loophole.”

“…political speech today is subjected to some of the most burdensome regulations imposed on any speech.”

As more and more legislation addresses the “unintended consequences”, we creep in every issue towards full government takeover.  In the end, a blockade against1^st amendment rights will fail and we will find ourselves right back where we began, with the inalienable freedom of speech, which I think might just be the real lesson of Citizens United.  More speech is never a bad thing no matter who funds it or how they disclose it.  Freedom of speech, you get David Dukes.  No freedom of speech, you get Adolph Hitler.  It is a lousy choice either way, but a world with an enforced Bill of Rights and David Dukes is far different from one with a Nationalist Socialist government. 

We have withstood all kinds of special interests voicing their opinions on political issues and candidates.  Some of them are named things like The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Fox News, and NPR.  If we can handle what they do to our political outcomes, we can certainly withstand an opinion offered by Exxon Mobil, the AFL/CIO, the big money of George Soros, or Citizens United. 

If you want to get upset about free speech, don't get upset about something that increases free speech, or about corporate influence in campaigns.  Don’t look at campaign contributions.  Look at the earmarks, lucrative contracts, protective legislation, corporate welfare, bailouts, and all the goodies that draw the lobbyists and big money contributions.  Turn your anger on a Washington D.C. that continuously and vastly grows, and helps or hinders corporations based on political lobbying rather than free enterprise and market based forces.  Worse yet, our government helps those businesses to help themselves to what is left of our national treasury.  Let’s stop that.

What is my Libertarian reaction to Citizens United?  I like it – almost.  It makes a move in the direction of free speech, but not as far as I would have gone.  In the State of the Union Address, the President said that this decision, “…opens the floodgates…” to campaign contributions.  I agree with Justice Alito who appeared to me to mouth the words, “That’s not true.”  I think it does not open the floodgates, but I would open them.  A good decision in my opinion would be to abolish the FEC.  Would we get more bad information?  Certainly we would, but we already do.  Would there be a corrupting influence from money?  Certainly there would, but there already is.  Would money come rushing through those floodgates?  Maybe it would, maybe not, but we can counter it by arming people with a sense of suspicion about all of the information presented to them.  Then we will have an imperfect, but healthy, prosperous, and peaceful representative republic.

…and a Libertarian Congress.

 

The mission is freedom.

The vision is now.

Last week, Preside Obama signed an executive order to "create" a budget deficit taskforce.  I thought we already had a "budget deficit taskforce".  The President and the Congress are our existing budget deficit taskforce.  Why do we need another?

The duty of this new taskforce is to report by the end of the year, what steps need to be taken to reduce the deficit. Why doesn't the taskforce get assigned the duty of reporting within the next week or two?  Isn't this an emergency?

The stated goal of the taskforce report is to give the government ways to lower the deficit down to 3% of GDP.  Of course you see right away that this is still a budget that will increase our debt.  Nowhere in the order or in the intent, is there action to reduce our debt.  Deficit spending still increases the balance we owe.  Where and how does the President expect to get loans to continue this fiscal insanity?

We don't need to reduce our deficit.  We need to eliminate it.  The United States cannot possibly continue with the dangerous debt level we now have.  Increasing the national debt will guarantee our economic collapse.  The President's action, or virtual lack of action, shows me that even the President of the United States agrees with me.  Congress and the President have failed their duty to exercise fiscal responsibility.  The President is looking for someone else to correct the fiscal mistakes our Federal government has made and continues to make, but he is unwilling to make the difficult, unpopular decisions himself.  He is looking for someone else to assign the duty to.

Look no further than the Libertarian Party.  We don't have to be told that difficult, unpopular decisions must be made very, very soon.  We don't have to be told that it is dangerous to ring up such gigantic debt.  We don't need an unconstitutional, executive order, to form a powerless committee that will cost the taxpayers even more money, to tell us what we already know.  We are ready to act, to lead, and to do the logical thing - to balance the budget without considering special interests, and to include a plan in the budget to begin the paying down of the national debt.

Then again, our mission is freedom.  Eliminating the deficit and paying down the debt will free the American people.  Eliminating the deficit and paying down the debt will begin a real economic recovery that will immediately improve all levels of Americans in a substantial and lasting way.

It doesn't take a "bipartisan commission" to figure that out, just plain common sense.

My mission is freedom.
My visions is now.

I keep hoping that Americans will realize the motivation the Main Stream Media has.  This video shows us how badly we are being "informed". 

It is not really about bias.  It is about a focus on a dream of centralized control.  Everything the MSM stands for supports that idea. They are convinced if only we could get the right person in charge, everything would be great for everyone all of the time.  This is completely counter to the American ideal of rights granted to each individual by the creator, and of limited, decentralized government.  Their faith and trust is in government.  My trust is in each and every one of my fellow human beings.

For me the answer is simple.  Vote Libertarian.

The mission is freedom.

The vision is now.

 

Since President Harry S. Truman’s first televised State of the Union Address, the opposing party’s refusal to clap for a President’s comment or initiative magnifies and cements party polarities.  However, during Wednesday’s State of the Union Address, the sheer disdain by the Republican Party for the President and his party was more than apparent.

Beyond that, I bring up only two observations on the speech.  First of all, the speech was clearly the product of people in love with government and government solutions.  There was no statement to eliminate a single failed government program.  Is every government program a success?  Every solution involved more spending, with a promise that fiscal responsibility will arrive in 2011.  This contradicts the Libertarian approach.

Included below, I have compiled a breakdown of key words spoken by Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush.  Libertarians are interested in freedom of choice.  Notice the difference in the number of times the words “freedom”, “liberty”, and “choice” are mentioned by the two presidents – 30 for W. Bush, and 4 for Obama.  It is interesting that the current administration mentioned the “debt” and the “deficit” much more often than former.  The Republican President used the word “democracy” more often, a word we Libertarians know is not included in the Constitution even one time.  However, the Democrat used the word “create” far more often.

 I’ll end on a pleasant note.  How would the State of the Union Address sound from a Libertarian president?

In liberty,

Chuck Donovan

 

	Obama    2010	Obama    2009	W. Bush    2008	W. Bush    2007
liberty	0	0	8	2
freedom	1	1	10	3
choice	1	1	5	2
taxpayer	2	4	1	0
hope / hopeful	4	4	13	10
change	11	2	5	2
national debt	3	5	0	0
deficit	14	8	1	3
democracy	2	0	4	4
create	18	5	4	2
I / me	86	67	40	32

 

The Cato Institute Fact Checks the State of the Union Address

I agree with the opinions expressed by the Cato Institute in this video. - CHUCK

 

Beautiful video ... except for one thing. It never mentions the Republican complicity in our debt, economic disasters, socialism, back room deals, and corruption. What is it that makes people think if we just got better Republicans and Democrats the whole problem is solved? Just how many times do these two groups of......... "representatives" have to show us who they are before we will believe them?

Reform the Democratic OR the Republican parties along the lines of the Declaration and the Constitution and you end up with the Libertarian Party. A "new" group of Republican candidates will be beholden to their party no matter what they say. The party is financed by corporate welfare seekers, corporate rent seekers, special interest deal seekers, and just plain special interests looking for easy access to your tax money, all of them struggling to maintain power, just like the Democrats. You are wasting your time, money and effort, unless you support the status quo.

You already know the real solution. Just vote Libertarian.

The mission is freedom.
The vision is now.

The Cato Institute presents author Jay Richards with his challenge to rethink business, economic, and political actions with rational and moral self-interest as the motivator.

 

Another Republican - pro war, pro torture, pro government medical care, pro clunker program.  This is what the Republicans are putting up for Ted Kennedy's old seat.  

There is a real choice. A Libertarian is running for that seat.  Support him and fire both the Republicans and the Democrats.  http://joekennedyforsenate.com/

The mission is liberty.
The vision is now.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/05/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6059557.shtml

 

 

by Chuck Donovan

21 December, 2009

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”

The Declaration of Independence

 

The word and the idea of rights is something everyone discusses, but what are the limits of rights?  Can an individual have a right that violates another individual’s rights?  If freedom of speech is a right, what does another individual have to do to give you that right?  How about freedom of worship?  What about the right to be secure in your papers and property?  What about the right to self-defense?  The answer is, that to give another individual any of these rights, all you have to do is nothing.  In short, all rights are “endowed by our creator”.  A human rights violation is when a human interferes with what your creator gave you. 

Is healthcare a right?  How can we say that a doctor must work for you, a pharmacy must give you something, or a hospital must provide you a service?  Isn’t that a violation of their rights?  Aren’t you making these providers “involuntary servants”?

 You say, the providers are not being forced to give care to an individual.  The providers are being paid.  Alright then, who is paying?  How are they paying?  Are they giving the money to pay for these services voluntarily or are they being forced to pay?  Isn't theft a human rights violation?

We must honestly face these questions if we are to maintain our system of rights, our Constitution, our USA, our dear freedom.

A vote is about to be taken on our Senate floor that will bring the force of our gigantic central government into these questions.  Here is what I wrote to my opponent, Johnny Isakson, today:

 

Mr. Isakson,

Health care is NOT a human right.  No human right comes at the expense of another individual's rights.  Government health care is unconstitutional.  You and I both know it. 

Prove to me that I am wrong about you.  Show some tough leadership and throw aside your career and political power for the sake of our country, our state, and our fellow citizens. 

Filibuster the vote on this disastrous legislation and I will support you.

CHUCK DONOVAN

Libertarian Candidate for US Senate, Georgia 2010

 

I sent a similar note to Senator Chambliss.

Why have these two Senators and their fellow Republican Party members in the Senate allowed the question of Health Care Rights to go so far?  What have they been doing in the years leading up to this confrontation?  Where has their leadership been?  Where has their oath to uphold and defend our Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic been?

 

My mission is freedom.

My vision is now.

U.S. and Japan Amend Air Transport Agreement

On Friday, December 11, the United States and Japan agreed on a deal to concerning route authority for commercial flights between the two countries.  As a Libertarian, that should set up an alarm in your head right away.  Why are two political organizations, the governments of Japan and the USA, negotiating flights for independent businesses?  The agreement also allows prices to be set freely, unless proposed prices are disapproved by both the U.S. and Japanese regulatory authorities.  So much for setting prices freely, and so much for the free market.  Again, governments are setting prices for independent air carriers.

The understanding provides that there will be four scheduled roundtrip opportunities for the airlines of each side from Haneda airport in Tokyo.  As an American who has been taught that we live in a free country with a free market system, how would you guess those four route opportunities will be assigned?  I would assume there would be a bidding process that would allow winning bidders full access to the route they win including transferable rights for that route.  In fact, in an often repeated process, those four routes will be assigned by your Federal Government, usually with the direct participation of the President of the United States.  Again, so much for the free market.

The discussions also included allocation of slots to U.S. airlines at Tokyo’s Narita airport.  The Japanese government is considering adding more slot access there.  Here again we see that governments call the shots for the airports which are not free market property either.

Imagine a railroad system where the government owns all of the stations, the tracks, controls the schedules, and has input to the size and frequency of the train service.  Further, the government inspects all of the railroad equipment and licenses all of the people who work in the railroad business.  "Independent" corporations own the trains and are "allowed" to compete freely in a free market railroad system.  By the way, if any company was caught either charging more than the competition, less than the competition, or the same as the competition, serious penalties and fines would be levied on them by the government.  

This is how our "deregulated", "free market" airline system works within the USA.  Internationally, governments from all countries "negotiate" to allow flights between their countries.  This is essentially nationalization of domestic and  international trade.

By the way, the railroad system I described above was meant to be hypothetical.  In fact, that is the exact model the Obama administration has put forth for the US high speed rail system they propose.  Do you think that will be a profitable enterprise, or another loss for all of us taxpayers?

I have some questions for you.  What is it about people who work in government that makes them free of all human frailty, human error, and gives them perfect foresight?  Secondly, what is the name of the system of government we are living in?  Would you call this a representative republic?

Yesterday this was published on Cato.org.

Since the government is planning to teach financial literacy, do you think they will be using materials available at the Foundation for Economic Education (www.fee.org), The Mises Institute (www.mises.org), or something that the Department of "Education" puts together?  What kind of literacy do you expect to come out of a program put together by the government, approved by the government, backed by people in the government, that was taken from publications approved by the government?

This really is yet another program we cannot afford.

Now you understand a little more why my mission is freedom, and my vision is now.

CHUCK

Don’t You Mean Financial Illiteracy?

Posted by Neal McCluskey

According to a story out yesterday, the federal government is starting a new campaign to promote financial literacy among high school students. That’s right, federal politicians, who have given us Fannie, Freddie, the Community Reinvestment Act, endless pork binges, and a national debt surpassing $12 trillion have the absolutely staggering hubris to think that they somehow have what it takes to teach your kids about sound financial practices!

This would actually be pretty funny (for instance, it reminds me of this classically trite PSA) were the complete unshackling of the federal leviathan of which it is a symptom not, potentially, utterly devastating. Unfortunately, we simply can’t afford, either literally or figuratively, to laugh at absurdities or patently unconstitutional overreaching like this anymore.

by Chuck Donovan

16 December, 2009

Yesterday I received an email from the Campaign for Liberty.  It said that despite Rand Paul's lead in the polls, the Republican Party is now giving open support to Rand’s Republican opponent.  Rand Paul, running for US Senate in Kentucky, is pushing the same message his father communicates.  Why would their own party attempt to undermine a successful, liberty oriented, Republican candidate?

People tell me they like that I am focused on smaller government, less government spending, and a lower national debt.  Then they ask why I am not running as a Republican.  I am aware of the established structure of an old political party as opposed to the undeveloped structure of the relatively new Libertarian Party.  I am also aware of the strings that come attached to the support of those established parties.  Mostly, I am aware of the results the Republicans and Democrats have delivered.  There is a reason why every Republican candidate since Goldwater has been talking about smaller government, less regulations, and more fiscal responsibility, but has consistently given us the opposite.

In my opinion the Republican Party cannot be reformed.  It has too many entrenched special interests stopping it from delivering on its advertised message of freedom.  In particular, there is the special interest of the party itself, its own interest in maintaining power.  It demonstrates this yet again with its active opposition to Rand Paul’s campaign.  The Republicans have proven to us again and again that they really do stand for big government, special interests, and fiscal insanity.  How many times do they have to show us who they are before we will believe them?

Americans are looking at what the two main parties have delivered and what they are seeing is failure.  It is time to send a real message to the two entrenched parties in Washington, D.C, and it goes like this:

You have failed.  You’re fired!

I can take that message to Washington, D.C. with your support of my campaign to unseat the Republican incumbent and beat the Democratic contender.  Please use the Donate link at the top of this page.  I am looking for a large number of small donations instead of selling my ideals and my political soul to a small number of big donations. 

We have a unique opportunity in 2010 to achieve a victory for our economy, our dollar, our Constitution and our freedom.  Let everyone know you are going to vote for and support the Libertarian Party and my campaign for US Senator.

My mission is freedom.

My vision is now.

by Chuck Donovan
8 December, 2009

 

"There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."

Noah Webster (1758-1843)

 

The question I am most often asked is why I am running for office as a Libertarian instead of focusing my energy on reforming one of the "established" parties.  Here is an excerpt from an email I received :

 

"... Please reconsider your decision to run on the Libertarian ticket.  The Republicrats have essentially locked out a third party candidate. If a Democrat runs many independents will vote for him just to be rid of Isakson and your third party vote could pull enough votes to assure his election.  Please consider the GOP as a means to the end for a greater good.  Our original Constitution was written on a great compromise but gave us a strong government for nearly 75 years.  You can compromise also, for the good of our country and the state of Georgia..."

 

While offering sincere concern and ultimate support, I think there are several incorrect assumptions this writer shares with other voters. The first mistake is to think that because the Libertarian Party has been an “also ran” for so long, it will not change now. We have a special opportunity in 2010 to make a real impression on Washington, D.C. For years, unhappy Democrats have voted for Republicans in order to send a message to the Democrats. Unhappy Republicans voted for Democrats to send a message to the Republicans. The only message the mainstream parties have received is that they own all of the power in Washington, D.C. We can send a far different message this election year.

 

Voters also assume that one party or another is the lesser of two evils.  There is only one comment to make on that idea. The lesser of two evils is still evil. 

 

Between the lines is the idea that people vote out of fear.  He is right.  I have done so myself.  I have looked at terrible candidates and given them a vote nonetheless because the other candidate was clearly more dangerous to our country.  I will never do that again.  I ask voters to also more seriously consider the use of their one very small vote.  Voting out of fear has never accomplished anything good.

 

I am asked to compromise.  I am sure it will not be the last time.  Americans have been given the incorrect idea that giving up a little freedom now will get you more later.  That is a bad idea too.  Don't give up one bit.  Fight for everything you think is right without compromise.  Then vote for what you know is right.  With that kind of attitude, the Libertarian Party will completely knock every incumbent Republican and Democrat out of office for good.

 

The biggest disagreement I have is that either of the mainstream parties can be changed in any significant way.  I believe they have shown us exactly what they intend to do.  Whether times have been good or bad, the Republicans and Democrats have consistently grown government, expanded regulations to benefit special interests, increased the national debt, and passed the difficult decisions off on someone else.  Whenever a choice had to be made, they have consistently told voters, working Americans, and working American businesses must tighten our belts while government continues to ride on our backs.

 

Here was my reply to him and to all of you who ask why I have accepted a request from the Libertarians to run for office:

 

"...I am well aware of the established structures the mainstream parties have.  I know as a third party candidate I am essentially blazing my own trail... That said, when talking about political parties I am focused only on their results.  Democrats and Republicans have been promising us for decades a smaller government, less regulations, and fiscal responsibility.  These are the things I want from government, but what I have seen delivered decade after decade is much bigger government, more regulations, and fiscal insanity.  I cannot put my name in line with the list of abject failures the Democrats and Republicans have sent into office.  How many times do these people have to demonstrate to us who they are before we will believe them?

 

Our country, particularly our dollar, is in crisis.  The poor leadership and misdirection delivered by the mainstream parties is the cause.  A true change is what we need.  I think the Libertarian Party is the only party in the world actually offering a valid way out.  We are the only ones actually focused on individual liberty with a confidence in our fellow citizens.  I share their belief and choice of direction.  I furthermore am confident that the weight of history, economics, and morality is on our side.

 

I assure you that we have a strategy that will not only unseat Johnny Isakson, but defeat the Democratic candidate as well.  I ask that Georgians not vote out of fear.  The only true concern we have is that the Status Quo remains in Washington, D.C.  The Status Quo will destroy our fragile economy, our dear Constitution and our precious liberty..."

 

My mission is freedom, and my vision is now.

 

 

by Chuck Donovan

November 9, 2009

 

While the US central government keeps Americans busy watching fake profits from government supported automobile manufacturers, the rise of their hand-picked puppet in Afghanistan, and the non-debate on health care, only a few Americans will note the significance of 20^th Anniversary of the tearing down of the Berlin Wall. On November 9, 1989, the border between a divided Germany was opened and an exuberant crowd took the destruction of the wall into their own capable hands.

For decades the Berlin Wall was a particularly repugnant symbol of the repression of people around the world in centralized government systems. Many sycophants and apologists for the communists, particularly Western "intellectuals", told us repeatedly of how wonderful life was in the Soviet paradise.  While their words of praise were in our newspapers, our movies, and our classrooms, the reality of the wall and the thousands of people who risked life and limb to get over that wall, stood in stark contrast to the propaganda. Millions tried to flee the Soviet state and other communist states that followed, but very few have tried to break into those countries.

Much has been said of the failure of the Soviet system and Communism in general, but on an anniversary such as today, especially with further expanded socialism looming in the USA, stronger words are more appropriate.  We must confront the immorality of the Communist ideal.  We must face the actual record of communist, communist-like, and Marxist inspired centralized government and what those governments have done to their people. We must not judge their intentions. We must judge their results.

In the mid 1800's, Karl Marx set loose on humanity the deadly virus that has today mutated into various "ism's" such as Marxism, Socialism, National Socialism, National Workers Socialism, Troyskism, Maoism, Ba'athist Socialism, and Communism. It inspired "intellectuals" and elected officials to expand socialist style programs and welfare states around the world. Marxist programs in the United States were camouflaged with names like Keynesian Economics, the New Deal, and the Great Society, but they still maintained the standard of government control over as much of the economy, business, banking, and the people as they could grab.  All of the programs forced the redistribution of wealth and the fruits of labor. Wherever the programs were instituted, the immoral acts of government were always justified in the name of "fairness". This continues even today.

There has been an endless march of leaders, intellectuals, and devoted personalities who add their own style and interpretation to Marxist ideals:  Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Hugo Chavez, Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Robert Mugabe, Thabo Mbeki, Jim Jones, Jawaharlal Nehru, Daniel Ortega, John Maynard Keynes, Saul Alinski, to name a prominent few. Although many devotees of Marx deny that some on that list were Marxists, all on this list were devoted to the ideal of forced equality, restrictions on or elimination of private property, and the idealized operation of a centralized system.

The dark side of Marxism becomes clear with a cursory but honest look at its results in the century that just passed.  More people died during the Twentieth Century at the hands of their own Marxist governments than from war, violent crime, and natural disasters combined.[1]  Hundreds of millions suffered misery and usually brutal deaths in countries that sincerely attempted to follow Marxist ideals.  Their freedoms of choice, speech, self-defense, contract, association, worship, travel, and their private property were all taken away from them. Under the leadership of Joseph Stalin alone, forty-two million people died.  In addition to the well known genocide of the Holocaust, Adolph Hitler's National Socialist German Workers' Party[2] murdered another estimated twelve to fourteen million people.[3]

The individual ownership of private property brings us prices. Prices and free exchange bring profits and losses. Profit and losses send signals to individuals and businesses as to what they should work on next with their limited time, labor and resources.  This is a moral system.  It is not neat and tidy.  It holds no guarantees for anyone.  Still, it is a free system, a condition all human beings strive to achieve.  It allows us to change the way we work or do business without having to stage a revolution.  It allows us to have something to show for the work we do, and if we work harder or smarter we can expect to end up with a little more. It is not perfect. No system is. However, a system of free action and exchange has proven to succeed again and again throughout history and around the world. This is how human beings prosper and live together peacefully.

Today is the day to listen to the souls of over 100 million dead crying out to us to not submit to our governments. They remind us to fight for our liberty and freedom of choice. Today is the day to remind ourselves not only of the logistical disaster that centralized government brings, but the moral disaster.  Today is the day to focus on the extent and the limits of our natural rights, endowed to us unalienably at birth by our creator, and to reject the grab bag of freebies held out to us by those still enthralled with the siren song of Marxism.

It is not enough to remember; we must realize the crimes, death, and misery that centralized government power has brought to hundreds of millions of our fellow humans.  The current, nearly religions fanaticism that keeps alive the ideas of Marx must be faced head on and abruptly put down for the sake of ourselves and future generations.

The ideas of Communism are immoral.  Freedom is always moral.

 

My mission is freedom.

My vision is now.

 

 

Sources:

"Socialism" by Ludwig Von Mises

"Economic Calculation In The Socialist Commonwealth" by Ludwig Von Mises, http://mises.org/econcalc.asp

"Inflation and the Bolsheviks", Yuri Maltsev, http://mises.org/media/2745, and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj4P1DH7o-Q

"Good to be King: The Foundation of Our Constitution Freedom" by Michael Badnarik

"Condeming Communism's Crimes", with Vladimir Bukovsky, Cato daily Podcast, October 15, 2009, http://cato.everyzing.com/m/audio/26927376/condemning-communism-s-crimes.htm

"The Fall of Communism and the Rise of 21st Century Socialism", Yuri Maltsev, http://mises.org/media/2781

 

---

[1] "20th Century Democide" by R.J. Rummel

[2] Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei translation, aka NAZI

[3] From Chapter 1 in R.J. Rummel, Democide: Nazi Genocide and Mass Murder, 1993

 

 

 

 

 

 

by Chuck Donovan

November 2, 2009

 

The answer is no, unless you think the government is getting out of the Health Care business.  Then in fact, Health Care would cost you less. Instead we are about to have forced upon us a far more expensive system, what the Wall Street Journal called,  "The Worst Bill Ever."

There are plenty of hints to help us guess how much the Democrats and Republican Health Care plans are going to cost us.  This is from The Wall Street Journal, November 1, 2009, "The Congressional Budget Office figures the House program will cost $1.055 trillion over a decade, which while far above the $829 billion net cost that Mrs. Pelosi fed to credulous reporters is still a low-ball estimate."

That is the hint.  Here is part of the lie it contains.  First of all, when was the last time you saw a government program actually cost us something close to the original estimate?  Secondly, budgets are computed on a ten year basis.  The Health Care plan is not going to begin for another 3 or 4 years, most of it timed to the reelection bid for President Obama. (That is another hint right there.) That means that the cost extimate is not for a ten year period, but for only six or seven years. The following ten years will cost far more than the number now being stated to us.

Why do we accept the continuous lies and distortions that come out of Washington D. C.?  How many times do they have to lie to us before we will believe what kind of "leaders" they actually are?

Our Health Care doesn't need more government, it needs less.  The Democrats and Republicans continuously use the phrase "market based solutions", then force programs on us that are nothing but government based solutions.  Democrats and Republicans want to run our Health Care and our lives.  Don't be fooled by the words they say,.  Watch the results they deliver.  Actions always speak louder than words.

Our country is based upon the idea of freedom and individual choice.  Government programs always reduce both freedom and choice.  Freedom does not deliver neat tidy packages.  It is sometimes a messy process, but the end result is a free people, always better off and always able to change their circumstances through freedom of choice and action.  Government programs stop that process, take power away from individual people, and empower government and the businesses connected directly to the government.   

 

My mission is freedom.

My vision is now.

 

Source: Editorial, "The Worst Bill Ever," Wall Street Journal, November 1, 2009.

            National Center for Policy Analysis, Daily Policy Digest, November 2, 2009  "The Worst Bill Ever"

. 

by Chuck Donovan

31 October, 2009

 

Johnny Isakson seems to think that all we have to do to fix our economy is to continue to prop up his buddies in the real estate business.  Here is the first paragraph from his latest newsletter:
 
"Over the last week I have worked with Senate leadership to craft a compromise amendment to extend and expand the current first-time home buyer tax credit, which is set to expire on November 30, 2009. This amendment would include buyers in the “trade-in” or “move-up” market, because I believe the real housing recession is in this market in which citizens are putting off purchasing their next home. The amendment would continue the $8,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers and would establish a new $6,500 tax credit for “move-up” buyers so long as the home they are leaving has been used as their principal residence for five years or more. "
 
Johnny is rushing to again shore up the real estate industry while the rest of the economy and the US dollar itself are in shambles.  Just how many Americans does Johnny think are capable of being first-time or move-up home buyers?  After this silly little tax trick puts a few extra dollars into the pockets of a lucky few, what will be Johnny’s next trick?  How many more tax credits can Johnny offer without making a penny’s worth of spending cuts?
 
What the soon-to-be ex-Senator does not seem to understand, is that he is not legislating from a seat next to the gods on Mount Olympus.  The real estate problems we face are just a symptom of the economic destruction Johnny Isakson, the Republicans, and the Democrats have brought down on the entire country.  Their failure to deliver on decades long promises of less government, less complex taxes, less debt, and better fiscal responsibility are the reason for all of our economic problems.
 
If Johnny really wanted to fulfill his oath to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States”, his primary efforts would not go to his friends and old business partners, he would instead work to give all Americans more freedom of choice.  One way to do that would be to make the tax system less complex, not more complex.  Johnny could work to lighten the heavy burden of regulations that crush the efforts of working Americans and American businesses.  He would work to make the difficult decisions necessary to bring back the power of the dollars Americans work hard to earn to buy things, yes even things like homes.  Such efforts would empower individual Americans who are suffering through this economic downturn, the same individual Americans who will do the work to make us recover.  Instead, our Senator works to empower those who hand over large "contributions" to Johnny.
 
It is now clear, after all of the years the Republicans have promised less government and fiscal responsibility, they have no intention of actually delivering on that promise.  How many times do Johnny Isakson and the Republicans have to show us who they truly are before we will believe them?