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!!!"