Isabel Paterson: The Goddess of Amazing

She is so cool. Born and raised in the developing Western regions of the United States in the early 20th century, she learned the value of independence. She practiced as she preached, and despite her modest means created a successful career as a fiction writer and literary critic.

Her magnum opus was her only work of nonfiction, and it quickly became the beacon of the infectious ideology of freedom, ultimately earning a spot among the touchstones of Libertarian literature.

"The God of the Machine" venerates the creative capacities of humanity, and proves through logic and historical evidence how the limitation of government creates the political environment most conducive to its growth and expression.

She rocks! She uses phrases like "the age of energy" and "the human dynamo" to illustrate an elaborate and stunningly accurate metaphor comparing the release of human energy to a long-circuit energy system.

Just when you get acclimated to her comparison, she throws a curveball claiming, "This is not a figure of speech or an analogy, but a physical description of what happens." Whoa. That is what I call confidence!

Although the odd title of the book is the subject of much debate, I believe it is a reference to her uncompromising anti-fatalism. She sees collectivists as believers in a mechanistic universe propelled by a perpetual motion machine, which need not be sustained by action once the initial force has been activated.

I believe the "God of the Machine" is the human dynamo, commonly apotheosized througout the book, which she sees not as this initial force, but as the action which does sustain the survival and improvement of the human race.

I haven't actually read this entire book, but when I do I will review it on this site. Isabel is my hero.

Super Leaders Assessment Series: Wiliam Howard Taft

William Howard Taft was born on September 15, 1857 in a small town near Cincinnati, Ohio. After eating it, he moved on to Yale College to pursue higher education.

Much like his predecessor, Taft's political career was largely a product of the progressive climate that dominated the national legislative trends of his time. Taft's primary presidential legacy may in fact be his remarkable lack of political acumen, and an unfailing ability to alienate all interest groups involved in a given issue. This has to be a plus. If the American public is continuously incensed at whichever individual holds the office of President, it logically follows that the position will be abolished eventually.

Taft teased Libertarians throughout his presidency, favoring some policies which furthered, and many which greatly hindered the cause. Most fans of freedom are probably most familiar with Taft's support of the bane of Libertarians. I mean, the Sixteenth Amendment which allowed for the creation of a federal progressive income tax structure.

With our knowledge of this perversion of public policy practically, it would be practically impossible that Taft will pass our Super Leader's Final Score, assuming he was not secretly responsible for consuming dozens of unnecessary government offices while dining at the White House. Altough progressive income tax structures represent the antithesis of Libertarian thought, Taft made a number of more subtle advancements of freedom during his presidency, undoubtedly in order to eschew an unrestrained verbal pummeling in this very assessment.

The primary example of this is his support of the Payne-Aldritch Tariff Act of 1909 which liberated constricted global markets and sparked industrial growth worldwide. Also, Taft restructured Roosevelt's ghastly foreing policy, specifically in Latin America, by pioneering the concept of Dollar Diplomacy, which invested American dollars in the infrastructure of developing economies. Don't get me wrong here. I am absolutely of the opinion that wealth should be invested by those who created it, and not by the government. But if I'm financing foreign operations, I would rather they be profitable and peaceful investments than violent and cost inefficient military conflicts.

Despite these improvements on the previous administration, Taft was known as a liscentious "Trust-Buster", and infamous for the indescretion he used when selecting American corporations to dissolve. Such blatant meddling in the private sector in unacceptable, and negates any positive influence on his score which other policies may have generated.

Super Summary: Although Taft displayed a modicum of public policy preferences favorable to the Libertarian struggle such as tariff reduction and improvements in foreign policy, his key part in overseeing the passage of the constitutional amendment most detrimental to freedom and his disregard for free markets renders him nearly as politically hyperactive as his predecessor.

Super Score: 5 (one fore every meal of the day...)

Super Leaders Assessment Series: Wiliam Howard Taft

William Howard Taft was born on September 15, 1857 in a small town near Cincinnati, Ohio. After eating it, he moved on to Yale College to pursue higher education.

Much like his predecessor, Taft's political career was largely a product of the progressive climate that dominated the national legislative trends of his time. Taft's primary presidential legacy may in fact be his remarkable lack of political acumen, and an unfailing ability to alienate all interest groups involved in a given issue. This has to be a plus. If the American public is continuously incensed at whichever individual holds the office of President, it logically follows that the position will be abolished eventually.

Taft teased Libertarians throughout his presidency, favoring some policies which furthered, and many which greatly hindered the cause. Most fans of freedom are probably most familiar with Taft's support of the bane of Libertarians. I mean, the Sixteenth Amendment which allowed for the creation of a federal progressive income tax structure.

With our knowledge of this perversion of public policy practically, it would be practically impossible that Taft will pass our Super Leader's Final Score, assuming he was not secretly responsible for consuming dozens of unnecessary government offices while dining at the White House. Altough progressive income tax structures represent the antithesis of Libertarian thought, Taft made a number of more subtle advancements of freedom during his presidency, undoubtedly in order to eschew an unrestrained verbal pummeling in this very assessment.

The primary example of this is his support of the Payne-Aldritch Tariff Act of 1909 which liberated constricted global markets and sparked industrial growth worldwide. Also, Taft restructured Roosevelt's ghastly foreing policy, specifically in Latin America, by pioneering the concept of Dollar Diplomacy, which invested American dollars in the infrastructure of developing economies. Don't get me wrong here. I am absolutely of the opinion that wealth should be invested by those who created it, and not by the government. But if I'm financing foreign operations, I would rather they be profitable and peaceful investments than violent and cost inefficient military conflicts.

Despite these improvements on the previous administration, Taft was known as a liscentious "Trust-Buster", and infamous for the indescretion he used when selecting American corporations to dissolve. Such blatant meddling in the private sector in unacceptable, and negates any positive influence on his score which other policies may have generated.

Super Summary: Although Taft displayed a modicum of public policy preferences favorable to the Libertarian struggle such as tariff reduction and improvements in foreign policy, his key part in overseeing the passage of the constitutional amendment most detrimental to freedom and his disregard for free markets renders him nearly as politically hyperactive as his predecessor.

Super Score: 5 (one fore every meal of the day...)

Super Leaders Assessment Series: Theodore Roosevelt

American historians engage in constant discussion and evaluation of past presidencies, essentially grading them on their achievements and failures. Notably absent in these debates, however, (in my experience) is the Libertarian perspective. Although each American President of the past century has been responsible for grievous breaches of justice deservedly condemned by fans of freedom, Super Libertarian has endeavored to review and assess each presidency of the last 100 years so that we can all distinguish the bad from the worse, and also reflect on the occasional pro-liberty policies which provide those elusive glimmers of political hope. All of this will be encapsulated in one bolded number at the bottom of the article so readers can more effectively find a shortcut to actually reading the entire article. while the rest of the text is ignored. So without further delay, allow me to introduce you to Theodore D. Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States, and more importantly, the unwitting inaugural subject of the Super Leaders Assessment Series.




If the dashing gentleman pictured above looks as though he has just returned from leading a famously capable Cavalry Regiment that was duped into fighting an extraneous and unjust war, it's because he probably has. Indeed, the older Roosevelt has difficulty overcoming his rise to national prominence in the eyes of Libertarians. He was elevated to iconic status due to his leadership role in the Spanish-American war, one of intervention (upon which Libertarians frown) motivated by nationalistic expansionist insatiability (upon which most concerned citizens with the IQ of a reasonably intelligent pekingese frown).

Although the Spanish- American war freed Cuba from the oppression of Spanish rule, its liberation was mitigated in effect by the manipulative motives of its liberators. More critical to our purposes, however, are the foreign policy developments of TR's presidency. The cleverness of a poet I was unable to identify account quite accurately the nature of Teddy's "Big Stick" diplomacy,

"The Constitution rides behind
And the Big Stick rides before,
(Which is the rule of precedent
in the reign of Theodore.)"

Indeed, Roosevelt circumvented Constitution and Congress on many occasions, often leading to foreign relations disasters. The creation of the Panama Canal, an egregious resource expenditure, was attained only by the notorious "rape of Panama" which evinced his interventionist proclivities, alienating the suddenly "Big Brother" like America to Latin America and Europe alike.

Additionally, Roosevelt is responsible for the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine (as you may have guessed by his surname). This policy bore no actual relation to the original and, if anything, was a perversion to it. Monroe had issued his famous doctrine to prevent interventionism in Latin America. Roosevelt's addendum actually promoted interventionism, clearly an effect antithetical to the doctrine's purpose.

Domestically, TR fared little better. Remembered best as the prototypical "Trust Buster," Roosevelt considered it his responsibility (or individual privilege) to break up large corporations. Although the big 2-6 used far more discretion in identifying and destroying monopolies than his successor by targeting only the corrupt, his efforts effectuated many market distortions which had palpable negative effects on the economy. For instance, his imposition of rate limits on railroads sent the industry's stock into free-fall, a precipitant factor to the Panic of 1907, which saw the New York Stock Exchange fall by almost 50% in one year.

Aside from his financial follies, the namesake of the Teddy Bear oversaw a period of the centralization of power in American government. Abusing or ignoring the constitution, Roosevelt liscentiously ceated land conservations, oppressed the food and drug industies with stringent regulation, and increased the powers of the Interstate Commerce Commission. Although each of these efforts is equally deplorable, they had previously been executed in the anonymity of state and local governments. Roosevelt usurped these powers and applied them unscrupulously on a national scale.

Super Summary: Roosevelt ushered in the age of Progressivism, in which government assumed a newly (and more broadly) defined role. He established the precedents of food and drug regulation and foreign interventionism, both of which violate the core principles of Libertariansim. His atrocities are mitigated by his comparative discretion in "Trust Busting" and that his "Big Stick" diplomacy generally succeeded in protecting the nation from harm

Super Score: 3 (and that's with extra credit)

Russian Government Responsible for Cyber Warfare, Theft

Sunday's 60 Minutes featured a segment on computer worms and their shocking prevalence. The piece provided a glimpse of the evils of theft and destruction, but also informed its viewers of the unacceptable inaction of the Russian government.

Don Jackson, director of threat intelligence at computer-defender Secure Works, shared his expertise on the subject by identifying a group of of Russian youth notorious for their computer hacking escapades. This particular "Cyber gang" was arrested at one point, but then subsequently released, and is still practicing their despicable craft.

The problem goes beyond this example. Hacking has become an outlet for anti-Western sentiment in Russia, as evidenced a newspaper article which venerated the aforementioned offenders as national heroes. I am appalled that the same government which invades the lives of many citizens, has essentially nationalized the entire media, and centralized its structure to the point that regional executives (equivalent to American Governors) are appointed by the federal government cannot perform its primary function by preventing crime.

Then again, the Russian state has a history of similar actions. In 2007, following the relocation of an Estonian war memorial, Russia blitzed public and private Estonian domains, creating chaos and damage in the process.

It is quite clear through Russia's omissions in regards to its computer hackers and its unprecedented, irresponsible reaction to Estonia that a prioritization should be in order

Betrayed Employee Tells AIG to Stick It (a bit more politely)

Let's be honest for a moment. AIG has essentially become a U.S. Government asset (the term used very loosely here). Washington owns 80% of the former insurance behemoth, and the company bears little similarity to a privately owned and operated corporation.

So, naturally, Libertarians ought to be irate over the issuance of bonuses to employees of a company funded by taxpayers. However, this situation is a touch more complex. As explained by Jake Desantis, former financial products specialist at AIG, in his resignation letter earlier this week, the bonuses were promised to AIG employees, most of whom abstained from the much maligned credit default swap practice, as an incentive to stay on and help the company remain (or become again?) solvent.

Without the bonus, why else would these professionals turn down profitable job offers from other companies for their $1 annual salary at AIG? Indeed, most of the intended beneficiaries had not only anticipated these bonuses but depended on them as well.

Unfortunately, the AIG bonus debacle is just another example of the trickeration and showmanship of American politics. Attorneys general in New York and Connecticut condemned the bonuses out of ignorance, or, far more likely, desperation for political rabble rousing. The CEO of AIG, more "public servant" than businessman, showed his true colors by matching the politcians' enthusiasm for the repeal (or opressive taxation of) the bonuses.

Mr. Desantis' letter (linked to above) is passionate and remarkably, and I encourage all to read it. Sooner or later it would inevitably become apparent that government and business cannot productively coexist.

This Just in: Barack Obama can Never be Blamed for Anything.

It's just not his fault, honestly. George W. Bush puts this country through hell for eight years and you all want to blame his successor? Let's settle this once and for all,

Even if President Obama oversees the complete and total destruction of the United States of America, it would be totally unfair to blame him for it.

I mean, after what Bush did, we can't really expect anything more than that, right?

Some foolish Libertarian-types complain that Obama's $3.6 Trillion budget proposal will create an unsustainable federal deficit that will plague future generations through no fault of there own and ultimately generate a precarious national security picture due to inevitable defaults on Chinese loans, coupled with Sky-high, investment-discouraging interest rates which the Fed will be forced to enact in futile attempts to attract foreign investors to the once powerful U.S. dollar.

Picky, picky, picky, I say. Obama should spend at least a few trillion more dollars just to illustrate what an incompetent leader Bush was.

This same misguided faction of professed "freedom lovers" continues to urge Obama to withdraw troops from Iraq and Afghanistan without further, unnecessary delay. They think just becuase the war has already cost the United States an estimated $3 Trillion and 4,000 lives, we should stop the bleeding now, rather than prolong the hemorraging of dollars and soldiers.

What? Are these people obsessed with numbers? I mean the whole purpose of having a government is so it can print unlimited amounts of money and dilute the currency's value, right? I mean pretending spending is actually an issue is just so gold standard. And as far as deaths go, that's obviously Bush's fault again.

I mean he invaded the country to begin with. And he left Obama so many other problems, how can the new President be expected to focus on the one that directly results in the loss of American lives and the country's global alienation due to a hyperagressive foreign policy? Why would we want to be friends with the Middle East anyway? I mean, it's not like they control the natural resources necessary to operate the overwhelming majority of the world's transit apparatus. Wait, no. Bad example.

But the point is that it doesn't matter anyway because they'll never be made nuclear capable by a powerful, anti-Western authoritarian state. Actually, let's change the subject.

Obama has taken a lot of heat for bailouts such as that of the U.S. auto industry and the essentail nationalization of insurance behemoth AIG. Debbie Downers such as, perhpas, the folks at that "Super Libertarian" blog would contend that the activity of the government in terms of bailouts is inversely related to the ease of lending, as banks will hesitate to invest, waiting to see if the seemingly random selection process will benefit them as well.

So? Nobody really knows what those wierdos on Wall St. are doing anyway. And this whole thing is their fault anyway. Bush is the worst. He's trading on Wall St. right now, driving down as many stocks as he can get his hands on.

So Barack Obama's legacy will be looked upon favorably by historians if there is any justice in this world. He was the first black president, and will likely be the United States' last president. Two distinctions for which he sould be venerated eternally.

Legalize it: A Sober Argument for Marijuana

Government's decision to restrict the possession, use and sale of marijuana is an obvious breach of personal liberties, and as do all regulative commercial policies, effects a market distortion which Adam Smith's invisible hand of capitalism would inevitably bitch-slap across the face.

Beyond the apparent libertarian arguments, however, lies another set of equally compelling reasons why cannabis laws are just another example of extraneous, and ultimately adverse, government interference.


1. Thugs Profit From Pot's Illicit Status. Again, this is an argument that would make Adam Smith proud. Demand for weed is high enough that many consumers are willing to risk the legal consequences of smoking. Because of this, laws restricting marijuana use have no deterrent effect, they merely alter the specifics of the production and sales processes. Market corruptions like these always inflict unsavory results. In this case, every genre of scumbag from the drug lord to the local gangster is allowed to prosper at the expense of qualified and competent individuals who could easily reinvent the market as a profitable industry (if it weren't for that whole legalization thing...) This transaction venue is ridiculous as well as unnecessary and leads to our second truth...

2. Marijuana's Illegality Inspires the Use of More Harmful Drugs. We've all heard that marijuana is a gateway drug. Although this trite statement is accurate, the details of its accuracy would shock most of those who deploy it as an argument for maintaining the current laws. In fact, it is the drug's status as illegal that encourages one to step further into the abyss of habitual recreational drug use.

Inherently, marijuana does not serve as a "gateway drug". For every 100 pot smokers in the United States, only one does cocaine. Additionally, labeling the drug as such confuses causality for correlation. Obviously an individual with a worldview/belief system/penchant for risky behavior or other unlisted impetus for smoking pot would be more likely to manifest these operative characteristics than a non-smoker.

Therefore, the only factor encouraging marijuana users to... um... expand their horizons is the shady marketplace environment created by the oppressive laws against the substance as the dealers are far more likely than most non-dealers to encourage additional mind-altering excursions.

3. Legalizing Weed Will Reduce Crime. Opponents of legalization will claim that marijuana leads to crime, but that crime is directly related the substance's ill advised prohibition. Legalizing 4.20 would make the drug far more accessible thus lowering the price and scarcity, and erasing the necessity of criminal activity for its acquisition.

Additionally, a police force burdened with unsolved murders and rapes has absolutely no business expending resources in attempts to address illegal activity which can only be classified by such via the existence of unjustly restrictive laws, especially when the sale and use of marijuana is a personal choice which per se inflicts no harm on others.

Finally, the thugs who profit from the drug's illegality would be unable to finance their gangster operations, and would obviously see the error of their ways and become healthy, productive member of society. Most, in fact, would employ their expertise of the drug by working at pharmacies or other venues which specialize in the legal sale of marijuana.

A final argument will address the preposterous assertion that weed use decreases motivation and erodes ability. I wrote this high. Just Kidding. But I really don't think it does.

Happy Anniversary! Six Years in Iraq

On the sixth anniversary of the United States invasion of Iraq, after the loss of over 4,000
American soldiers since the war's ill-advised inception and over 44,000 Iraqi civilians and security forces in just over the past two years, I feel compelled to reflect on the war's (negligible) accomplishments and the devastating losses it has inflicted upon our country.

In 2003, George W. Bush convinced gullible Washington legislators and a trusting but unrealistic American public into believing that military force against Iraq was necessary following their refusal to admit UN weapons inspectors.

We now know that Bush's motive in requesting the deployment of these inspectors was to draw disturbed leader Sadaam Hussein into a state of ostensibly secretive, and perhaps implicitly belligerent, noncompliance, providing a legitimate excuse for an invasion clearly driven by ulterior motives, be they filial vengeance, petroleum prospects, or a new clientele for VP Dick Cheney's oilfield service corporation, Haliburton.

In fact, the Downing Street Memo serves as proof to the machinistic nature of this plot. Anyway, for the sake of argument, lets assume (with an unreasonable generosity) that our former president's intentions were honorable at the time of the invasion- in short that he believed Sadaam and company truly posessed Weapon of Mass Destruction and intended to use them to the detriment of the United States.

In this case, perhaps the best possible scenario for Mr. Bush, he still fails completely. His war would have been waged on a false premise, and the aforementioned casualty totals would have been the result of a trigger-happy foreign policy gaffe.

More likely, however, the ostenisble impetus for invasion (or liberation for those of you still peddling Press Secretary propoganda speech) was considerably less than honest. As the document from Downing Street attests, Bush was looking for an excuse to start this war from the beginning, and was unconcerned with the collossal impact it would have on numerous American and Iraqi families.

From a broader perspective, the war has helped villify America in the eyes of much of the Muslim Middle East, who see America as a tireless crusader attempting to extinguish their faith and culture. As peak oil approaches and markets continue to flail for feasible energy replacements for our petro-dependent society, comity with the few suppliers of what has become our most precious resource appears to be a long shot.

And what has been gained? Hopefully Iraq flourishes under a less oppressive government (it would be difficult not to improve upon the previous system), but democracies are inherently flawed, and what business or interest does the United States really have in establishing one ineffective, fundamentally fallible government for one with more obvious deficiencies?

President Obama has purported plans to withrdraw all troops from our Desert Occupation by 2011. Excellent. Too bad the damage has already been done- on many fronts.

A Bit of Second Amendment Debate

I was cruising Yahoo! Answers today, as I tend to do when I get even I understand that my fantasy baseball obsession is bordering on unhealthy, and stumbled across the following question.

Why do gun control advocates always bring up hunting and/or "sport" when talking about gun rights?

I keep looking through the 2nd amendment, and I don't see anything about "hunting" or "sport" mentioned.

Maybe by "sport" they mean "violent overthrow of a tyrannical government"?

Where do they get the idea that the 2nd amendment is there to protect our right to hunt, or for "sport"?

This is a valid question. The text of the second amendment is quite amu ous (ambiguous, lol) when one insists on confining its intention to a narrow specificity. When interpreting the amendment, one must take into account the circumstances of the founding fathers.

We must bear in mind (as well as arms) that the framers of the constitution were the leaders of a violent revolution, unprecedented in its era. Therefore, the foremost goal of each word written by our initial leaders was to ensure that government remain limited at all costs.

In this sense the question is spot on. The primary purpose of the amendment is to prevent, or in the case of its establishment, reverse tyranny. The 2nd Amendment is crucial as a guarantee that government would be held accountable if it were ever to overstep its logical boundaries by declaring illegal, unadvisable wars, essentially nationalizing the financial and automotive industries by privatizing profit and socializing loss, instituting ludicrous restrictions on substance use among other personal choices, and using national security as an excuse to pulverize all reasonable conceptions of privacy. This is all purely hypothetical, of course. ;)

Regardless, the amendment's diction suggests that providing the public with a means to check the government was its intent.

Today, however, conservatives and bumper stickers insist that the amendment should hold an entirely different meaning. Instead of seeing the ownership of guns as the assurance of a capable militia, most ardent supporters of the provision believe that they are meant for personal protection, or as the question states, recreation.

Here's the reality. I'd love to say that the second amendment was written to grant every individual the right to bear arms for whatever reason they choose. But it wasn't.

Wait! NRA cardholders, don't delete us from your blogroll just yet! The rest of the reality is that any government which abridges the right of its citizenry to own or operate arms in a peaceful manner is excessively authoritarian. Yes. Exactly, that makes them tyrannical. What did we learn earlier about tyrannical governments?

That's right. The statists can't win this one. Either the government allows all citizens to bear arms via the second amendment, or, by its own decree, it has declared itself fit to be overthrown. So a technicality invalidates the most popular interpretation of the second amendment, but, by an entirely different premise, that interpretation's conclusion is correct.

ous (ambiguous, lol) when one insists on confining its intention to a narrow specificity. When interpreting the amendment, one must take into account the circumstances of the founding fathers.

An Examination of Libertarian Values

In a political climate seemingly monopolized by specialized punditry and highly technical policy arguments, the values which drive these debates are often overlooked. A loyal reader commented on last Thursday's post that she had never considered my comment that "non-aggression is the cornerstone of Libertarian thought".

Many, if not most of us, develop in a household or community which espouses a particular system of values and promotes the corresponding social, religious, and political institutions. Once these preferences have been inculcated in our minds, we make judgments easier on ourselves by relating new ideas and phenomena not to our value systems, but to the institutional inclinations we have based on those values.

Shortcuts are excellent. They save us time and increase our productivity as a result. But eventually these mental shortcuts begin to impede our reasoning processes by attempting to substitute an incomplete and finite part of the whole for the whole itself. I am frequently guilty of this myself. Because I agree so totally with the moral motivations of Libertarianism, I sometimes defer to their specific policy positions and agendas, assuming that they satisfy my values.

As tempting and facile as this chronologically conservative (in the sense of "conservation") device is, free minded individuals must eschew the blind and dogmatic deference to institutions that is necessarily effectuates.

Perhaps a delineation of what I believe to be the operative principles of Libertarianism will help some readers both recognize the motivations of the movement and inspire a politically, or even morally, oriented introspection.

1. Freedom. This should be no shock to anyone politically knowledgeable enough to know that Roe v. Wade was not a boxing match, but this value's importance to the ideology cannot be understated. In fact, any particular political position of the Libertarian movement can ultimately be traced back to the concept of liberty (hence the name). Although few of the politically conscious would claim to be anti-freedom, the controversy here lies in prioritization. For example, statists might claim that liberty is granted once one's social obligations have been fulfilled.

So paramount is the Libertarian emphasis on liberty, that the other values identified here will be defined in its context- as applications of the philosophy's eminent principle.

2. Social Liberty. I cannot speak for all Libertarians here, but the fundamental premise which leads me to the political conclusion of Libertarianism is that no human holds any inherent authority over any other. This premise also yields the inference that authority can be obtained only via contractual agreement. To me, the only acceptable reaction to the recognition of this premise as truth is to oppose laws prohibiting or limiting marriage, abortion, and drug use or ownership among others. E.g. since a homosexual couple seeking marriage obviously does not grant the government the power to restrict that option, the aforementioned premise rejects the legitimacy of the government statute which restricts the action.

3. Financial Liberty. I could argue all day about the merits of a state in which the only collected tax was one on the unimproved value of land, but in this post I would like to focus on why I, along with other Libertarians, have selected this as a governing body's best option. Following the previously presented line of thought, I believe no individual or institution has the authority to expropriate another's posession barring contractual permission. If any economic participant does not support a government operation, therefore, the wealth they create should have no part in its financing.

4. Personal Liberty. The use of force is condemend, just as usurpation, expropriation, and unjustified restriction have been by my rejection of compulsory obedience to authority. Unlike the other applications of liberty to political values, however, this one generates a need for the presence of the state. The defense of personal safety and property cannot always be conducted by the individual, and a society which ignores the rights to life, liberty, and property is indistinguashable from primitive barbarism. Thus the state is required to defend these liberties and establish justice in the event of their violation.

Hopefully this summary has helped explain what the most basic of Libertarian perspectives include, and perhaps why they are held.

The False Stigma of Libertarian Radicalism

Political factions incessantly accuse the media of a liberal or conservative bias, creating an excuse for a lack of popular support. When one considers the entire realm of political thought, however, it becomes clear that media and society are overwhelmingly dominated by centrism and compromise. Frequently the more reservedly concerned describe their political preferences as "moderate", but one rarely advertises them self as "immoderate".

Radical divergence from mainstream thought carries an inflated and incontrovertibly unjustified stigma similar to those of atheism or illicit activity. Anarchy, perhaps the terminus of Libertarian thought, is frequently associated with the violent revolts and utopian-socialist intentions of its late 19th century campaign. However, the absence of government neccessarily implies no such methodology or ideaology.

Although I have found no satisfactory answer for the media's poor or nonexistant portrayal of third party (including Libertarian) beliefs, the most realistic explanation is that news media corporations operate for profits which are maximized by the creation and distribution of content which favors the opinions of its consumer base. Despite the proclivity of many stations and programs to eschew subjective coverage, all news is unavoidably subjective based on the inclusion or exclusion of content. Choosing to do or not to do a story alone implies the subjectivity of commission/ommission.

Perhaps this is a reflection of the fatuous satisfaction of the American public- one which clearly prefers the acedia of ignorance, conformity and mental shortcuts to the thought required of political participation. It is this same ignorance that misinforms many and ultimately unfairly and innaccurately depicts the politcal viewpoints and and underlying values of radical movements.

Libertarianism in particular is victimized by this pattern. The irrational yet prevalent stigma of radicalism carries connotations of violence, destruction, and chaos. Libertarianism directly reduces violence and destruction through policy agendas, and entails no policies which should induce chaos.

Non-agression is the cornerstone of Libertarian thought, in fact. The only difference between the peaceful priorities of Libertarians and more mainstream peaceniks is that Libertarians hold government to the same standards of civility and ethical behavior as they do individuals.

Ultimately, the Libertarian political philosophy is a casuality of a lackluster PR campaign and a series of unfortunate associations. When considering the movement's actual political agenda, however, one has no choice but to recognize the error of these stigmas and define Libertarianism independent of its fellow radical ideaologies.

Just Admit it: President Obama's Policy Imitates Free Markets

President Barack Obama has been quite vocal of late in support for a system of merit pay for teachers. The obvious operative principle here is one of incentive- a monetary bonus encourages teachers to excel, resulting in a higher quality of education across the board.

Funny, but this is exactly how free markets would construct an educational system. Schools would compete for elite teachers, offering higher salaries for the most competent, and lower pay for those less capable.

The President's potential policy attempts to emulate this almost precisely, as teachers would similarly be motivated to maximize their performance through the promise of monetary gain.

So what's different about Obama's policy as opposed to the free market system? The fundamental difference lies within the firms that would, in a pure environment, be bidding for the instructors' labor. A system of public education unjustly forces uninvolved parties to finance the service of teachers at certain school, and vice versa.

Secondly, although the incentive concept is successfully replicated through the merit pay proposal, an additional burden is levied upon taxpayers through the publicized system. Where private schools nation wide would be of cost to the families of participants, the funding of public school employees is of cost to every taxpayer, and since the federal government has already decided to undertake an unprecedented, unjustified spending spree, the money will be borrowed from abroad.

Not only can we see that the "merit pay" is collected unfairly from sources which may not recieve the benefits of the funding (as they would according to free market principles), but we also see that holistically the country is disadvantaged as the funds will eventually have to be paid back with interest- ultimately costing taxpayers even more, unequally expropriated cash.

Imitation may be the most sincere form of flattery, but if President Obama could swallow his pride and implement a true market-based educational system instead of attempting to benefit from its emulation, all parties would clearly benefit.

FY 2009: Hard Evidence of Federal Falsehood via Fiscal Foolishness

Double check those Chinese calendars. 2009 was supposed to be The Year of the Ox, but all indications show that Washington is still partying like it's 2007: The Year of the Pig.

CNN reports that the House has recently passed a $410 Billion dollar spending bill. As with any "spending bill," each Congressional district helps themselves to the Pork Buffet supplied and stocked by American taxpayers.

Egregious sums of swine consumption are nothing new from the Capitol, but this particular bill- one that features a "Tatoo Removal Violence Prevention Outreach Project" (I mean that's how most fights I know of have started) and funding for "Maine lobster" (an ambiguous project, but one of dubious neccessity) among other superfluous expenses- casts an ominous cloud of suspicion over nascent executive Barack Obama. Obama, who signed a petition during the heat of his presidential bid vowing abstinence from pork related propositions, has turned a blind eye to continued abuse of taxpayer money.

Obama's presidential campaign expressed the sentiment that "Washington [must take] responsibility for every dime that it spends". Is it just me, or is anyone else wondering if Washington (which includes the President) has indeed taken responsibility for spending on a deep-sea voyaging fund for native Hawaiian youth?

This line of thought leaves Washington with three options:

1. Eliminate Pork, thus eliminating hypocrisy and proving the responsibility required of public servants.

2. Consider Pork Acceptable, this proves legislators' responsibility, but also their incompetence, as previously listed projects are indisputably unacceptable.

3. Disregard Pork's Unnacceptability, this is, unfortunately, the apparent modus operandi of our legislators. Assuming (generously) that they retain a modicum of intelligence, those responsible for this outrageous load of earmarks recognize the atrocity of their spending habits, and are unconcerned with the implications this has on the tremendous moral trust bestowed on them by their constituencies.

Regardless, such obviously unneccesary pork projects are abusive and abbhorent. Although the Senate will surely pass this unsavory legislation, Super Libertarian urges you to point out the discrepency between the Chinese Zodiac and Washington's spending habits by pushing hard for a Philibuster!

Intellectual Property: A Schism Among Libertarians

This is one's a toughie. Libertarianism is all about the protection of personal property. But its also all about the minimization of government. Is the free market solution (devoid of copyrights and patents) preferable to government intervention (made in defense of property rights)?

This is a question that has plagued Libertarians for some time. Separating followers of Ayn Rand from those of Murray Rothbard is no small task, but IP arguments are just irritating and divisive enough to do exactly that.

Most intellectual property laws were enacted near the beginning of the 20th Century. Obviously inventions and the arts flourished before this time, so protective laws are not necessary for their innovation or creation.

However, a world entirely devoid of intellectual property laws could admiss people duplicating books, music, and fine arts creations and passing them off as their own. Surely it would seem odd if a stranger brought a copy of Canterbury Tales to a publishing house, and legally passed it off as his own.

Although most of us would consider this an extreme case, that is exactly Rothbard's argument against IP laws. He claims that government's involvement necessitates arbitrary judgments in application saying,

"By what standard do you judge that research expenditures are 'too much,' 'too little,' or just about enough?" By what standard do you judge that research expenditures are 'too much,' 'too little,' or just about enough?"

On the other hand, products made in imitation of successful models could potentially corrupt the reputation of the original, an offense that could be considered fraud and, as such, indisputably denounced by libertarians.

This subject remains perplexing to me, and I would love to hear any additional arguments via the comments thread.

Politician Profile: The Savvy and Salacious Yulia Tymoshenko

Although most of Superlibertarian's news and commentary relates to American issues, we recognize that the fight for liberty is a global one. In this light, it is our responsibility to remain journalistically objective to nationality.

That was the best excuse I could think of to talk about Yulia Tymoshenko. She a Ukranian politician, currently serving as Prime Minister. In fact, she brings new meaning to the title "Prime" Minister.

By emphasizing (via quotation marks) the word "Prime", I am of course referring to her anti-socialist political reputation. The Wikipedia article is very clear on this. If you made it past the picture, you may have read that the Ukranian parliamentary election of 2007 proved victorious for the remarkable subject of this post. Apparently her main opposition was a perfectly respectable (or so we were led to believe) Ukranian gent named Yanukovych. The articles then continues,

"... one of [Yanukovych's] coalition allies, the SOCIALIST PARTY of UKRAINE... "

Clearly, Tymoskenko's fortunate election saved the Ukranian's from the nefarious throes of a socialist state. Not only that, but rumor has it that she owned Miss Teen South Carlolina 2007 in the talent portion.

The least we can do to (for lack of a better phrase) show our appreciation to Mrs. (Ms.???) Tymoshenko is salute her with a classic Seinfeld reference,

"THE UKRAINE IS NOT WEAK!!!"

The Nolan Chart: An Illustration of Libertarianism

Although the Nolan Chart has a bit of utility in illustrating political spectra in general, it was originally designed by David Nolan, founder of the United States Libertarian Party, to demonstrate the third dimension that libertarianism added to traditional left wing/ right wing political classifications. Take a look:

obtained from freedomdemocrats.org

Ignoing the colored dots for the moment, we see that in addition to a left/right axis, Nolan added an Up/Down axis. So Dennis Kucinich could be considered a leftist, Ronald Reagan a rightist, (the venerable) Milton Friedman an uptist, and Adolf Hitler a downist. Libertarianism is located at the convergence of personal and economic freedom. Authoritarianism is the absence of both.

The dots displayed on this Nolan Chart represent the voting records of Congressinal members as of 2006. A blue dot indicates a Democrat, a red dot indicates a Republican, and a green dot indicates Bernie Sanders, an Independent Senator who describes his politics as democratic socialism. A dark blue dot marks the average Democrat, and a dark red dot does the same for GOP members.

Although both parties have a contingent which adheres to either personal or economic freedom, inhabitants of the authoritarian (anti-libertarian) quadrant are overwhelmingly Republican. Traditional thought associates the common thread of limited government with both the Republican and Libertarian parties, the Nolan Chart illustrates that a greater commonality actually exists between Democrats and Libertarians, despite Ron Paul's best efforts (yes, he is noticeably elevated towards the Libertarian pinnacle).

Hopefully this helps dispell the myth that Libertarians glorified extremist Republicans, because the party truly adds a third dimension to traditional political spectra, and requires request for both personal and economic liberties.

Superfluous Pain and Dollar Drain: The Perversion of Capital Punishment

Firmer Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor once observed that,

" If statistics are any indication, the [death penalty] system may well be allowing some innocent defendants to be executed."

Indeed, since the national moratorium on the death penalty effectuated by Furman vs. Georgia expired in 1976, 130 convicted murderers, previously condemned to death, have been exonerated from death row, exposing the glaring fallibility of our justice system.

Supporters of our new "peculiar institution" claim that a high number of exonerees evinces the efficacy of the system- that innocent prisoners are eventually released and not executed. However, many of these judicial miscues have been reversed by external forces.

Juan Melendez was saved by an attorney who unwittingly stumbled across the confession tape of the actual killer for whom judge and jury had mistaken him. The tape had been given to and ignored by his attorney, illustrating the unacceptable performance by many legal actors in cases which pend the possibilities of life and death. In the words of Melendez, "I was not saved by the system, but in spite of the system."

Similarly, Anthony Porter came within two days of his scheduled execution in Illinois before his innocence was discovered by a journalism class at Northwestern University. The class also discovered that police had pressured a witness to testify against Porter, an innocent man.

Although no definitive evidence exists of an execution of an innocent in the modern era, investigation ceases following execution, making the discovery of any such incident virtually impossible.

In addition to the unacceptable risk of human error with life and death at stake, libertarians ought to be particularly concerned with an inefficient and illegitimate system. Various studies have been conducted in states across the country to measure the economic costs of capital punishment. Each reveals a staggering burden to taxpayers- highlighted by California's estimate that the death penalty system is $137 million a year more expensive than life without the possibility of parole would be.

As our country's recession continues to deepen, legislators are becoming increasingly desperate to mitigate budget shortfalls due to decreased tax revenue. In a bizarre but logical turn, many states are now considering death penalty abolition to cut costs. Such a move would both enhance justice and ease an outrageous and unnecessary onus of taxation.

Limiting government is about restricting the damage that can be inflicted by inadvisable policies. Life, the most precious of human gifts, cannot justifiably be taken by the arbitration of a third party. Clearly it makes libertarian sense, and just good policy sense, to abolish the death penalty.

Politician Profile: The Brave and Beautiful Ronald Ernest Paul

Ronald Ernest "Ron" Paul was born on August 20, 1935. The landscape of American liberty would never be the same again. He is a conservative that opposes the Patriot Act, a liberal that opposes the Federal Reserve. When the United States withdraws from NATO, abolishes the federal income tax, abstains from eminent domain, exults the first amendment, supports jury nullification, takes Real IDs and shreds them up as today's government shreds the Constitution, and taxes become as scarce as Social Security funds, we will know that our country is privileged to be under the guidance of the inimitable "Dr. No"

Two of Ron Paul's many distinguishing characteristics inspire this sobriquet:

1. He is a medical doctor

2. His answer is "No"

That is, Ron Paul has earned a reputation for voting against any legislation which affords Congress a power that was not specifically enumerated in Article I Section VIII of the Constitution. Is anyone else concerned that politicians who adhere to the Constitution are rare enough that their existence merits a nickname??

Regardless, Dr. Paul is a beacon of hope for the Libertarian Party and fans of freedom in America. His political influence (however negligible) assures that at least one reasonable voice debates on the House floor, and his success despite the unconventionality of his political persuasions is a testament to the virtues of rationality and determination.

To honor Washington's finest (Except, perhaps, for George Will) , I will count down the five greatest moments of Ron Paul's political career.

5. 1984, Paul Loses Bid for U.S. Senate. Sounds like a downer, right? But the young idealist responded to defeat with one of the greatest Libertarian quotes in history,

"Special interests have replaced the concern that the Founders had for general welfare. Vote trading is seen as good politics. The errand-boy mentality is ordinary, the defender of liberty is seen as bizarre. It's difficult for one who loves true liberty and utterly detests the power of the state to come to Washington for a period of time and not leave a true cynic."

Indeed, Washington is in an abysmal state, and the institutions have clearly superseded the values they were created to protect. But Dr. Paul's adroit recognition and unintimidated honesty provide a glimmer of hope, and perhaps a spark for change.

4. 1976, Ron Paul's Political Career Takes Flight. Five years after his initial motivation to become politically active (inspired by Richard Milhouse Nixon's complete departure from the Gold Standard) and in his beloved country's 200th birth year, Dr. Paul won a special election to fill Texas' 22nd Congressional district. Boo-ya!

Paul's honesty and sensible politics triumphed over the opposition's political savvy, and despite the unparalleled political onus of the Watergate scandal's aftermath. The younger (reverse chronology humor) idealist went on to a successful term, leading Texas' Reagan Coalition in Washington.

3. 2008 The Revolution: A Manifesto Tops New York Times Nonfiction Best Sellers List. An integral component of the underappreciated genre of modern libertarian literature, The Revolution represented the tremendous enthusiasm Paul's 2008 Presidential campaign generated for advocates of liberty, free markets, and peace (please excuse any copyright infingements, Cato).

2008 was America's most wide open election in 56 years, featuring a ballot free of an incumbent President or Vice President. Consequently, the libertarian ideaology was disadvantaged by America's two party system far less than previous elections have rendered it. Paul's message hit home with a small but dedicated faction of the American electorate, and made noise as a legitimate contender for the Presidency.

2. 1988 Presidential Election. Ron Paul crosses party lines and receives nomination as Libertarian nominee. Running on a campaign platform of ending the Congressional War on Drugs, Second Amendment protection, and fiscal conservatism. Paul placed third in the popular vote garnering .5% (putting him just a few shy of Michael Dukakis). This campaign helped legitimized America's most responsible national politician and its largest third party.

1. 2008 Moneybomb. Paul's supporters are among the most passionate and dedicated in American politics. Phenomenal fundraising tactics such as the "moneybomb" which set the record for largest single day donation earned headlines and exposure for a brave and beautiful Libertarian candidate and a growing, and increasingly attractive political movement.

Stiglitz vs. Greenspan: A Fundamental Lesson on Markets

Whenever I hear someone cursing the selfishness and capitalist elements of our economy/society, I feel a bit of resentment. Even the most impecunious of Americans today benefit from the selfishness and industrialism of past generations, as the standard of living has improved across the board for all people, though not always in a degree proportionate to their contribution.

So in a society which ranks altruism among the most noble of human virtues, why is it that opportunities for selflessness are only made possible by the behavioral patterns diametrically opposed to it? Indeed, if not for the agricultural innovations which promoted mankind from a hunter-gatherer species into one capable of systematic farming, self preservation would be the only option. Efficiency vs. equity would be one of many debates whose discussion would be precluded by a perpetual survivalist struggle.

Perhaps logic negates the possibility of altruism's superiority to productivity. Causes are generally regarded as more consequential than their effects, as the former can exist without the latter, but the reverse is impossible. If you don't buy this, however, there are other reasons to believe that current economic markets are driven by self-interest, and that this is the only acceptable motivation for economic activity.

Natural markets are inherently constructed to maximize efficiency through the sum of a multitude of competing entities. As long as external entities (i.e. governments) enforce personal safety and property rights while refraining from policies which restrict or alter the incentives of economic activity, goods and services are produced efficiently, and awarded to the consumers who value them most highly, generating greater wealth and distributing it in the only logical fashion: according to ability.

Adam Smith illuminated these truths in his revolutionary Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, saying,

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our necessities but of their advantages."

Love it or hate it, this is the fundamental law of capitalism. So When Columbia University professor Joseph E. Stiglitz (Who coincidentally has done terrific work in criticizing the excessive costliness of the Iraq War) identifies the precipitant factors of the sub prime mortgage crisis with the following statement,

"First, key regulators like Alan Greenspan didn't really believe in regulation; when the excesses of financial regulation were noted, they called for self-regulation -- an oxymoron"

it is clear that he is biting the hand that feeds him. Firstly, let Greenspan castigate himself personally for his act of high treason to free markets- that's not your job. Secondly, it is only because ill-advised infusions of liquidity were advanced BY THE GOVERNMENT that the bubble was created in the first place.

When the honorable incentives of the free market are replaced by those which encourage poor lending practices, how is "self-regulation" possible? In short, the main difference between Stiglitz and Greenspan (for most of his life) is that Greenspan understands that free markets bring out the best in humanity: self-improvenment, diligence, productivity etc. Stiglitz would have these virtues replaced by a less desirable system (as has been done).

Then he would have the audacity to blame the remnants goodness for the abominable results.

The Libertarian Response to a Super Stimulus Solecism

One unfortunate effect of a hyperactive, omnipresent federal government is that when things go wrong, (e.g. a nearly unprecedented economic debacle) the public turns to Washington, assuming a nifty little piece of congressional legislation will right the ship (ignoring the fact that the waves of the stormy sea are an artificially inflated housing bubble effected by government institutions, incentivized irresponsibility via government bailouts and two unnecessary, resource consumptive wars).



Don't get me wrong, an appropriate congressional response to the economic crisis would provide short term stimulus, strengthen the country's long term market structure, and preclude similar downturns in the future. However, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act proposes a messy response that will ultimately impede the emergence of our economic vessel from such unprofitable undulations. As is frequently the case, the only acceptable solution is less government, not more.



The media certainly shares part of the blame for this dependent mindset. Continuously asking questions like: "Can President Obama fix the economy?" inculcates a perception that it is President Obama's responsibility to "fix the economy" although the framers of the Constitution would hardly have supported the desperate efforts of the Office which have become exactly what is expected.



With this in mind, let's look at the Stimulus Package and Identify a few Major Problems.



1. There is no stimulus. Proponents of the bill would have you think the following: "A thief steals the money of an individual, and then spends it. This stimulates the economy." Obviously, this statement is false. The money being released by the package was produced elsewhere and is merely being redistributed, not created.



So let's look at the option of creating money. "A con artist prints perfect artificial money that is never recognized as illegitimate." Again, there is no positive effect. Money is an inherently valueless representation of the prosperity generated by productivity. Thus, printing additional money causes only inflation, and actual stimulus must adress productivity.



2. Spending will not increase. Tax cuts only stimulate spending when accompanied by spending cuts. Ricardian Equivalence explains that an unsustainable budget decreases potential consumers' willingness to spend, as a tax break only delays an inevitable tax increase. A tax cut unvalidated by a commensurate decrease in federal spending is like an Indian gift: caveat emptor.



3. "Buy American" clause recrudesces primitive protectionism. The Smoot-Hawley Tarriff Act of 1930 was passed despite the pleas of 1,028 U.S. economists, and propelled the U.S. into the Great Depression full force, reducing imports and exports by more than half. Ignoring the empirical failures of economic protectionism, the stimulus package vows to support only American manufacturers with its purchases. This will hurt the economy not only through the indubitable retaliative measures that will be taken by foreign nations, but also by restricting the growth of otherwise burgeoning industries which ought to employ future generations for the sake of sustaining inefficient productive systems and companies.





Now just for funsies, let's look at how a rational stimulus package would eliminate these problems, and elevate economic activity.



1. Lubricate the economy by repealing the Corporate Income and Payroll Taxes. The Corporate Income Tax discourages investment and obfuscates corporate accounting practices, effecting a loss of oversight. Increased investment levels would decrease unemployment and ultimately increase government revenue through other taxes in the ensuing eonomic growth.



The Payroll Tax just doesn't make any sense. Altough government intends for both employers and workers to bear the incidence of the payroll tax, companies eschew their portion of the burden by lowering wages and benefits for workers. As is always the case with taxation, market actors are able to circumvent the regulations as Washington envisioned them (e.g. luxury tax). Those concerned with our country's disparity of wealth should promote more equitable taxation policies (e.g. flat tax, fair tax etc.) rather than the inefficiencies of a welfare state.


2. Cut Federal Spending. Every election I can remember has featured several candidates, all of whom claim to be the most fiscally responsible. As political participants, taxpayers drool over proposed spending cuts- at least before a hypocritical case of reverse NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) syndrome kicks in. But the federal government can do a great deal to enact retrenchments that don't disadvantage any geographical collection of constituents over another. This can and should be done by:

A) Withdrawing all combat troops from Iraq. Although a phased withdrawal is underway, Iraq's recent election lends timeliness to this campaign. For the optimization of liberty, the Iraqi people must be allowed to govern themselves.

B) Raising the age minimum for social security benefits. Social Security was implemented in 1935 to help supplement the income of retirees. Its misuse and irresponsible appropriation since then has resulted in egregious withdrawal errors, the rate of which are clearly unsustainable. Additionally, American life expectancy has risen from 61.7 years at the time of the program's creation to more than 78 years now, but the age requirements have never been adjusted to reflect the increase.

C) Repealing NCLB. The 2001 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (one of the more intrusive of LBJ's "Great Society" experiments, not to mention one in violation of the 10th amendment to the Constitution) has demonstrated exactly why such powers were reserved to the states- the provisions are highly controversial and the decision making process should be decentralized for the maximization of effective education. The revelation of the whopping $13 billion dollar price tag shows that this perversion of government is not only ill-advised, but unneccessarily expensive.

These spending cuts will convince consumers that their tax cuts are permanent rather than ephemeral, and send them back to the retail stores in droves.

3. Remove the "Buy American" clause so that our country gets the best deal on the products it purchases, and doesn't get waxed by the inevitable protectionist retaliation of foreign trading partners.

President Obama tells us, "Yes, we can. He also tells us to, "hope". Perhaps mixing dogmatic certainty with a bewildered appeal for faith is the formula our country must employ to mitigate the effects of this recession. But in many, myself included, it elicits a skepticism worthy of the misguided and harmful policies it advocates.

Stimulus Package Perpetuates Irresponsibility of Bailouts

Such mismanaged financial behemoths as AIG, Bear Stearns, and Goldman Sachs were deemed "too big to fail" by the combination of a licentious Federal Reserve Board and an acquiescent Congress. It appears that this perplexing doctrine, one that contradicts the natural laws of incentive, has been applied to state and local governments- only this time without the guidance of the Fed's economic "experts".



The State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, perhaps the most abominable in a panoply of nefarious provisions found in the Economic Stimulus Act, has reserved $79 Billion to implement an unabashedly socialist system to help the 46 states which were unable to balance their 2010 budgets.

So let's give Wyoming, West Virginia, Montana and North Dakota a hand for conducting their government "business" as it should be conducted: at a feasible level considering available resources. Or we could skip the applause. Together the four might be able to lobby a pat on the back out of Washington before their surplus is vouchsafed (along with a harsh verbal reprimand) to less responsible states via the Economic Stimulus Act.

Proponents of the redistributive fund argue that the 46 fiscal failures will be forced to cut spending from "vital programs", primarily public education. My response? Awesome. Soon to be a product of an inefficient and oppressive public school system whose primary function seems to be to stifle the creative expression, utilization of ability, and philosophical development of its unfortunate students, I shed no tears over more prudent investments than those which enable the perpetuation of such a counterproductive institution.

In fact, with economic decline threatening the productive capacities of the country, appropriate and personalized methods of learning are now more important than ever- and vastly preferable to the impersonal routine of standardized learning. School districts attempting to send 100% of students to college should realize that each individual must forge a niche in the economic machinery of their country, not all of which are facilitated by courses in English literature and advanced calculus. Eliminating public education would enhance the efficiency of vocational training and education, while maximizing the efficacy of traditional class room oriented systems through invariably more capable private institutions.

Since the federal government has justified the maintenance of large, inefficient companies through compulsory charity with the "too big to fail line", they seem to have bit of a bit more than they can chew, as contended by Fortune Magazine with the following corporate/cinematic metaphor

"In a scenario reminiscent of an old Hollywood classic, a deeply distressed insurance giant [AIG] is turning into a guest the federal government can't get rid of"

We've accepted that the federal government can't keep their hands off the free market, but following our decision to choose "hope over fear," why does Congress ignore the negative results of bailout policies, and apply them to another arena, decreasing the incentives of responsibility their as well?

Although AIG may remain a larger presence at Washinton's banquet table, Montana had better get cooking, becuase California looks pretty hungry.

Irresponsibility of D.C. Representation lies in Partisanship, Constitutionality

Unfortunately, the United States Constitution can occasionally be ambiguous. Fortunately, The first line of Article 1 Section 2 is not one of these occasions. Unfortunately, legislators don't seem to care.

Timothy Warren of the Washington Times reports that the D.C. House Voting Rights Act "will return with new optimism [last] Tuesday to Capitol Hill". This optimism, for legislation that would give one House vote to the District and a fourth to the state of Utah, is the result of an unfair political bargain and shows an unacceptable ignorance towards, or blatant disregard for the Constitution.

A savvy albeit unsavory deal struck by Democrats has all but guaranteed the legislation's passage of the Senate, as two of just 41 Senate Republicans represent Utah, an undeserving beneficiary of the bill. Additionally, arguments that claim the addition of a seat to historically red Utah counterbalances the addition of a seat to the overwhelming Democratic district are clearly false, as the facts indicate that a Democratic bias remains. In the last six presidential elections, D.C. has, on average, cast 87.5% of the vote for the Democratic candidate, while only 60.8% of Utah's voters have supported the Republican candidate in the same elections. The difference here is one of almost 17%, or about three times the margin of President Obama's November victory.

However, the deepest perversion of this bill is the threat it poses to a Constitution which is increasingly under attack, or worse, ignored (see Hillary Clinton's cabinet appointment). The aforementioned Constitutional clause stipulates that members of the House be chosen "by the people of the several states"- not of the Districts. Therefore, the only acceptable route to the enfranchisement of Washington D.C. is Constitutional amendment. George Will writes that Congress believes they can,

"amend the Constitution by nullifying Article I, Section 2's requirement that House members come from "the several states." This argument, that Congress's legislative power trumps the Constitution, means that Congress could establish religion, abridge freedom of speech and of the press, and abolish the right of peaceful assembly in the District."

Indeed, this offensive misinterpretation of the legal processes established for changing and passing laws creates a dangerous precedent, one that considers overt violations of the Constitution acceptable when supported by Congress.

Some claim further that the seating of Senators from Washington D.C. will follow, but there are several reasons why the District should not be considered a state.

1. Washington State is in the Northwest, not the Chesapeake.
2. To avoid the confusion illustrated by #1, it could be called Columbia State, but that sounds way too much like a community college.
3. (Courtesy of George Will) The stars on the U.S. flag are meticulously and symmetrically aligned. The Addition of D.C. would call for a wholesale reconfiguration.
4. Placing the Capitol in a U.S. state creates an unfair political advantage.
5. Maryland might get pissed (originally Maryland and Virginia both ceded land to create the District. Virginia has since reclaimed theirs, and there is subtle speculation that Maryland may do the same.)

Super Libertarian Ideals at Work in Super Bowl

I was listening to a post Super Bowl program on a sports talk radio station this morning, and was struck by a comment made by a caller. Jim from (insert name of rural town in middle Tennessee here) informed the show's listeners that "In America, success is spelled N-F-L." Indeed, the National Football League is perhaps the paragon of a successful American institution, now rivaling church as Sunday's most important event. Maybe this tremendous success can be attributed to an exemption from oppressive antitrust laws, but more likely it is the simple allure of the spectacle of capitalism, pure competition untainted by external interventions, that draws Americans to the television. Because, unfortunately, a glance out the window exposes one to the horrors of these interventions.

Most viewers would identify Steelers' linebacker James Harrison's record setting 100 yard interception return TD as the games most exhilarating play. Harrison, a 242 pound Hulk intercepted a pass from Cardinals quarterback Kurt Warner in the end zone, and then chugged the entire length of the field before collapsing breathless in the opposite end zone as the first half expired. Clearly the free market was at work in this Herculean effort. Would Harrison have the incentive to perform with such tenacity if the six points awarded the Steelers for the touchdown had been distributed evenly between the two teams? What if a few of the 100 yards on his stat sheet were awarded to bench warmers who, through lack of ability or work ethic, had not earned playing time?

However, the presence of competent referees ensured that the release of the players' energy be only productive, and that its application to negative ends be punished. Following his epic return, Harrison pinned down Arizona defensive back Aaron Fransisco and repeatedly punched him in the back. When Fransisco attempted to rise to his knees, well after the two had ceased to be relevant to the play's action, Harrison flattened him like a pancake with an abundance of strawberry syrup. This blatant use of excessive personal force earned Harrison and the Steelers a personal foul and the corresponding penalization.

Through the rules of the NFL, and the roles of the referees in the game's action, we can see the proper function of government. Isabel Paterson correctly identifies the institution as "an instrument or mechanism of appropriation, prohibition, compulsion, and extinction." And how right she is. The NFL abstains from attempts to redirect the energy of the game, and only uses its power to inhibit the inappropriate use of energy. Consequently, it has captivated the country and now offers a three letter abbreviation for "success".

Introduction to Super Libertarian

It is the purpose of Super Libertarian to advocate the political ideaology of classical liberalism and modern libertarianism. Becuase logic and empirical evidence both indicate that free markets, limited government and the omission of excessive authority not only allow for the optimization of human creation, but also constitute the only morally acceptable political structures, we intend to proliferate the philosohpy behind the modern libertarian movement and present truthfully and objectively the ongoing evidence of the efficacy and virtue of the concepts of freedom and peace upon which the party is based.

Perhaps the only greater threat to American freedom today than a continously expanding government is the ignorance and indifference of the constituency that passively allows the voilation of their constitutional rights. Because, unfortunately, Goethe's insight, "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free" is applicable to the majority of our country, it is also our goal to educate a conscientious but largely mislead public of the abuses of power for which our government is responsible, and galvanize an idealogical revolution which revivifies and extolls the ideals of a younger, more innocent America. Thank you and enjoy.