Shared Sacrifice?

Have you heard? We're all supposed to sacrifice for the good of the nation, at least that's what some politicians say. The reason for their saying we need to share in the sacrifice is the state of our ailing economy. There are some major problems with those that say we need to share in the sacrifice.

The first problem is what type of sacrifice is not always clear. The individual usually explains its because of the economy and never really gets into specifics. This lack of detail enables the politicians to make the claim that they are sacrificing as well.

The second problem is that politicians are passing laws throughout the country prohibiting Americans from helping the needy. One such city is New York, which has banned food donations because the city can't monitor salt levels. This then forces people who would be helped by various charities to become dependent on government. This has a direct effect on debt in that it makes the city to need even more money. They have also passed laws prohibiting vegetable gardens which creates more demand for commercial farm products.

The third problem is that these same politicians expect us to do the sacrificing and not them. While Americans continue to deal with an economy that isn't producing enough jobs and falling incomes, the political elite continue to profit at the expense of the people. With an average income of $174,000, our house and senate members don't seem to mind telling us to sacrifice. 

How do we get them to help in this 'shared sacrifice'? For starters we could make it so every year the budget is not balanced, they do not receive pay. Another way is we could make it that the only way they get pay raises is if they can get us to vote yes by putting it on the ballot.  The third way is to limit their pay to that of the average American salary.

These problems can be fixed. By allowing liberty to flourish, our nations prosperity will come back. The individualist is what has always made this country great, not these collectivism ideas. Remember, forced charity is not real charity.

A Libertarian Government

What might a libertarian run country look like? After two centuries of two party rule, we know for certain what the republican and democratic parties have in store for our nation. Many argue that one or the other is wrong but few seem to ask what if both are wrong and disastrous for our nation? Both parties claim to follow the Constitution and yet each year we have even more laws and more regulations.

What would happen if a libertarian became president and the libertarians got control of congress? Would liberty really flourish? I would argue that Thomas Jefferson gave us an example of what a libertarian government would be like in 1801 when he became president. When Jefferson ran for President, the Federalist party claimed that there would be nothing but chaos in the streets and foreign armies would invade. The same has been said about two libertarians currently running for president, Gary Johnson and Ron Paul. Jefferson's presidency however, showed that this was not the case.

What could we expect from a Ron Paul or Gary Johnson presidency? We could expect certain government agencies being deleted from the federal budget as well as our troops being brought home. We could also expect an end to the 40 year failed drug war. We could also be certain that the surplus money from ending the drug war and eliminating various departments would go towards paying our national debt down. But what about our national security you may ask or wonder. The Republican establishment claims that these two men would destroy our nations ability to defend itself.This is a falsehood promoted by corporate media. Ron Paul's plan would indeed shrink the defense budget, but only by eliminating the wasteful use of our resources by bringing our troops home, and securing our own borders. Gary Johnson's plan would end the war in Afghanistan and bring our troops home. He would also stop the nation building that's going on.

The most important issue to most Americans this election is the economy. With Romney and Obama both saying that the economic recovery has started, millions of Americans are still unemployed or underemployed today. Both Romney and Obama have their own ideas, but both receive huge campaign donations from big banks and corporations. Why one must ask did these companies who claimed they were broke were able then to make these huge contributions? The answer is pretty easy, its because these two men are willing to sell their allegiance to the highest bidder.

What would Paul and Johnson do for our economic mess that we are still in? Both would lower taxes and try to keep the government out of our lives as much as possible.  By doing so they acknowledge that we do in fact own ourselves. By deregulating many sectors, it will in turn enable more competition and force these big corporations to not depend on bribed politicians. It would make starting business' easier and thus create more jobs. We could then compete once again in the global economy.

What if libertarians controlled congress?  If libertarians controlled congress,  I could see many laws and acts being repealed.  For example,  the NDAA and the Patriot Act. Corporations would no longer be subsidized or receive bailouts. States that overspend their budgets might finally make some real improvement by knowing they won't get those bailouts either and we the people would have more income to use as we need as a result of little or no income tax on individuals. This extra income would further boost our economy and raise our standard of living.

Does this sound like a situation you would enjoy? Could this even be possible with how entrenched the two party system is? One thing is for sure, we are individuals who can make a difference through our actions and dedication. May our nation once again be the land of the free.

The Case for Limited Government : Part 3

Our current system is set up so that the continued enslavement of our people will not be noticeable. Enslavement you ask? Slavery was ended over 100 years ago! I would say incorrect. We have become slaves for the corrupt government that should be bound by the chains of the Constitution. We have a government that ignores and brutalizes the very people they claim to serve. They pay lip service to the Constitution while shredding the Bill of Rights with laws like the Patriot Act and NDAA. While claiming to regulate Wall Street and their banks, congress ignores the Federal Reserve's creating money out of thin air, thus devaluing our currency and creating inflation that makes the poor poorer. With domestic enemies like these, who needs foreign enemies? Must we continue on this path of national suicide?

The Case for Limited Government : Part 2

The anti-federalists (who supported the Constitution but wanted a Bill of Rights added to it) asked just that question.  They argued that nothing would stop the government from violating our Rights and that the government is only there to enforce contracts that are entered into voluntarily. By keeping the government limited only to that and defense, could our nation retain liberty and be prosperous. They warned that without a Bill of Rights, than the people would have no legal written contract ensuring their Rights. They fought against a national bank by saying the bank could just print money to fund everything which would in the end destroy our economy. They also argued for the States to have the final say, so as to ensure those liberties granted by our Creator. Now we fast forward to 2012. Who was right? Was the federalists or the anti-federalists proven correct? Do we need to rethink our current ideologies?

The Case for Limited Government : Part 1

What is limited government?  Can the government actually be limited?  If yes, how so? What is the result if government is limited? These questions regarding the role of government have been debated for over 200 years. It all started in 1787 in Philadelphia during the Federal Convention.  The federalists (who wanted our republic to be modeled after the British)  argued in favor of abolishing the States and creating a national bank. They also argued that the Constitution would prevent this new government from becoming intrusive and overbearing.  They claimed it would also prevent it from violating our Rights. These arguments are hard to understand when put into the context of the time. After fighting a 7 year long war for independence, why would we replace a known tyrannical system with a replica of it?

A third war?

Dear Congressional representatives,

I understand that you are currently looking at H.R. 4310 also known as the National defense authorization act of 2013. May I remind you that you represent the people of your district. You should ask yourselves a few questions regarding this bill:
1) what was the original intent of the common defence clause in Section 8 article 1 of the Constitution?
2) what would this war cost us in terms of resources?
3) how will this affect our national debt?
4) are we able to take care of even more wounded soldiers?
5) will the federal reserve have to print more money to pay for other budgetary shortfalls?
6) will any other unconstitutional bills get passed for 'security' reasons?
7) how will this make We the People more prosperous and free?

The founding fathers agreed that standing armies and national banks were both dangerous and would cause our nation to lose its liberties. This has been proven true throughout history.  I urge you to give some serious thought to these questions. The unintended consequence of your next foreign adventure could be violent demonstrations and even revolution.

Sincerely,

A very concerned citizen

What if...

What if the Constitution was enforced? What if agencies like the TSA and DHS didn't exist? What if the government understood the notion that we own ourselves? What if the government respected the market? What if the US dollar was worth something? What if the federal reserve was regulated as a normal bank? What if the united States was once again the beacon of liberty? What if the united States could return to its former splendor? What if people started waking up to the cronyism running rampant? What if people started defending the Constitution?

Some thoughts for decriminalizing drugs

The federal and state governments could easily save billions of dollars by ending the unconstitutional drug war. The federal government alone spends about $50 billion a year fighting this war without end. This does not include the cost of locking up these individuals. The states spend millions more and still no end in sight. There are costs that are ignored when fighting this war. They are: corruption charges against police and judges who get involved for some extra money, imprisonment of nonviolent members of society. The imprisonment of these nonviolent individuals also causes our national GDP to shrink as they are no longer able to be productive while at the same.time increases the welfare costs that burden the taxpayers. By decriminalizing these substances, we can put some of that money to treatment centers while increasing our GDP and reducing the need to dole out billions of foreign aid to those nations that supply the substances.