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.