"My Breakup Letter to Hobby Lobby" Refuted Line by Line

Huffington Post can always be counted on to publish illogical, illiterate, and erroneous pieces. Today I came across one that makes the case against the Hobby Lobby decision and liberty in general. Let's examine the whole thing and see how it falls apart. The indented portions make up the complete letter, followed by my commentary.

Since corporations are people now, I thought this corporation deserved a human breakup letter.

"Corporations are people" is not a phrase I use; I prefer "corporations are private property". It's a lot more accurate and gets to the root of the issue, and it avoids sparking silly comments like this writer made.

Dear Hobby Lobby, 

I think it's time I see other craft stores. I used to really like you despite some of your quirks (like not being open for business on Sundays). I thought, "Well, nobody's perfect." But after recent events, I'm afraid I just can't do it anymore. It's time for us to part ways, and I want you to know:

Aren't free markets great! You're not forced to associate with this company, unlike the government.

It's not me. It's you. 

It's that you believe your rights as a for-profit corporation are more important than mine.

Dear author, you write as if our rights are in conflict. They are not. Your wish that Hobby Lobby offers a particular kind of compensation package for it's employees is not something you have a right to. It's a wish. And your wishes do not trump other's rights.

It's that you and I have very different beliefs, and while I've always respected your right to have those beliefs, I don't respect you forcing those beliefs on me.

Hobby Lobby isn't forcing a thing upon you. It is offering a compensation package that does not include certain kinds of birth control. You are free to refuse it. No one is forcing you to work for Hobby Lobby, give them money, or anything, you're just making up fantasies.

It's that you're kind of controlling. I mean, I used to think it was kind of cute -- like you were being protective. Now, I just see that you want to make all my decisions for me (and my uterus) without any concern for how it will impact me.

Again, no. You're free to buy your own birth control, that's your decision. It's also your decision to write a letter like this, announcing that you're exercising your freedom to not associate with the company. Hobby Lobby isn't deciding any of this. It's only deciding how it wants to pay it's workers.

Ironically, it's you that is trying to force and make decisions for others. You want to force the company to pay for your birth control. What gives you that right to make their decision for them? Where is your concern about the impact this will have on the people who own the company?

It's that you think women take Plan B as a means to an abortion rather than as a means to prevent a pregnancy that has not yet occurred. 

It's that you're a corporation run by men making decisions for a constituency of women.

There it is again, making decision for others. That's you. They are making decisions for themselves (what they are willing to offer in trade for labor).

So, we're over. Done. Finished. I'm changing my relationship status. I'm not going to be one of those people who keeps doing something just because it's comfortable. I'll get my puff paint and poster boards somewhere else -- even if it's further away or more expensive. I need a corporation who will treat me right. You know, like a person... with rights.

Ok, you're free to do so. It's your property, do as you please. All we ask is the same respect in return, but your letter is a call to violate our rights. And you have the gall to say we're not treating you as a person with rights.

And I know the proper thing to say here is that I'll still be there for you no matter what happens, that we can stay friends. But I don't want to stay friends, Hobby Lobby. The fact is, I don't understand you, I don't respect you and I certainly don't like you anymore. I promise you, this is the last you'll be seeing of me.

Go away already. You're embarrassing yourself.

I know what you're probably thinking -- "I'm better off without you, anyway." But, the truth is, you're really not. A large percentage of your employees are women, and I'd bet an even higher percentage of your shoppers are. Sure, they won't all be turned off by what you've done -- some girls like a bad corporation. But a lot of them will be. And those who are will tell their friends (just like I have). Pretty soon, you might start to notice you have a certain reputation and that your "type" (crafters, scrapbookers and DIYers) isn't going to be interested anymore. They say you don't know what you've got until it's gone. By then, it will be too late.

Maybe, maybe not. It's a price the owners seem happy to pay, however small it ends up being. Remember Chick-fil-A?

I'd like to end by saying no hard feelings, but that would just be a lie. So, I'll just say that I'm sure you're going to make somebody very happy someday -- probably not any women who want control over their reproductive health, but somebody nonetheless. I'm sorry it had to end this way. I hope you understand.

I also have hard feelings for those who want to trample our liberty. You are sorry people. Shut up, go away, and stay away, until you are educated and decent enough to respect others.

Forever (not) yours, 

A former customer 

PS: I have some of your stuff. I'll be setting it out on the curb -- I don't have a use for it anymore.

LOL. Whatever makes you happy. I doubt you're actually going to take things that far- it's only going to cost you, not the rest of us.

Good riddance!

USA no more: Welcome to the United Provinces of America

It occurred to me recently that the left and right wing nationalists, which is pretty much everyone, whether they realize it or not (just ask who their favorite President is; Lincoln will come up quickly), cede too much ground to their Constitutionalist, historically enlightened foes. So I am going to help them out a bit: you need to give up on the name United States of America, and go with something like United Provinces of America.

Why? Because you deny the 50 states their statehood, which in case we forgot, means:

a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially :  one that is sovereign 

Meanwhile, province seems much more accurate for the nationalist's view of the Constitution:

any one of the large parts that some countries are divided into 

an administrative district or division of a country 

And that's exactly how nationalists view the states: the federal government is the only sovereign in their minds, with all 50 states making up one nation ruled by Washington D.C., which both retains the sole power of defining the Constitution and also forbids secession. That this came about illegally and through violence doesn't seem to bother them, but that's beside the point.

Nationalists are a bit late fixing this oversight, but better late than never, right? And you're welcome.

Is There Such a Thing as a Good Cop?

Perhaps relative to other cops, yes, but in general there are no "good cops", as Eric Peters explains. They all violate the non-aggression principle when they enforce unlibertarian laws, which is most of the time they are on the beat.

Some "Free Country": Why is it Illegal to Trade with an Employer?

One of the most basic components of liberty is freedom of trade. Yet in this "free country", it's illegal for me to make numerous trades with an employer. Back in the days when I was young and unskilled with no work history, I looked for months before I could find someone willing to hire me. There was plenty of work to be done at hundreds of businesses around me, but I wasn't allowed to do it and build the skills and reputation needed to start climbing the ladder. All because I wasn't productive enough, or at least could not prove that with a work history.

Why wasn't I productive "enough"? I was productive- just about anyone can do hundreds of basic jobs with no significant training costs. But I wasn't productive enough because there was a barrier that neither I nor my potential employers had any control over. I had to be worth a specific amount of money per hour- something north of $8 once all employer costs are counted. Sounds bizarre, arbitrary, and unjust, right? It is, and it is called the minimum wage. And it's still outlawing jobs today, and many people that want to raise this barrier even higher. Worse, they actually think they are being helpful and caring.

But the minimum wage doesn't increase anyone's productivity. It only outlaws the employment of anyone who doesn't have the ability to produce whatever arbitrary value is set by the state. As a result, those people, which I was one of, earn a wage of $0.00. They miss out on an income, the chance to build their skills, and establish a work record; and our economy loses out on their production and is that much poorer as a result.

Though I eventually made it past that barrier, I continue to face others just as arbitrary and unjust. Where I'm currently employed there is no shortage of work to be done, and by supervisors are very happy with my productivity. Meanwhile, my budget is tight and I'd be happy to trade additional hours of labor to increase my income. It's another trade that benefits both of us, but it's illegal.

The same federal legislation that started the minimum wage barrier is also outlawing other trades. I can't work more than 40 hours a week without my employer being forced to pay an "overtime" rate of 150%. They can't afford to do this right now, so I do not have the opportunity to easily increase my income and they do not have the opportunity to benefit from the extra labor of an experienced employee.

As a result, I and many others in my shoes are forced to look for a secondary job elsewhere to get the same number of hours per week (say, 60) without overtime pay rates. Overtime pay law does not actually give us extra pay, it only instead limits choices for workers like me. Choices I would certainly make- just consider the extra costs I face by working for two employers instead of one. Upfront, I'll have to hunt for the job, interview, deal with training; and then daily face an extra commute and uniform changes, all while balancing the schedules between the two. The math quickly becomes clear: I'd be much better off doing over 40 hours with just my current employer - but once again people that think they are helping workers are just making life a whole lot harder for them.

If you're the average reader, you're supportive of the web of regulations in place today, including minimum wage and overtime pay. Do you realize the harm you are causing with these policies you support, which limit choices for employees, reduces our productivity (and thus the whole economy's), and violates our most basic liberties such as freedom to trade? How can you possibly justify this? Let us make our own choices, and you make your own. Everyday issues like these is why I am a libertarian, the only ethically, economically, logically sound political philosophy I can find.

Libertarian Thoughts on the Government “Shutdown”

First off, it’s not really a shutdown. At best, it’s a slight shutdown. Only a small fraction of government workers are sent home and only a fraction of government activities are reduced or stopped. I am not aware of any regulations or taxes that will cease. Worse, it’s not clear that we will come through this paying less net taxes. Government workers may well be getting a paid vacation, depending on what Congress does.

In other words, this shutdown is hardly libertarian in the end- certainly nothing to get too excited about. We’ll have to see what happens. At the same time, it doesn't seem to be anti-libertarian. And the longer it lasts, the more ridiculous media and government hysteria will look. We frankly don’t miss what is shut down as much as they would like us to. And the only reason Americans will miss it at all is because the state has monopolized some services we want, not allowing them to be provided in the private sector.

Republicans, including Rand Paul, sadly want to fund all of the government except Obamacare. Anyone that wants even a small move towards libertarianism is foolish to put their hope in the GOP. The party is nowhere near ready to deliver anything except more government.

It is, however, not accurate to hold Obama and the Democrats blameless for the shutdown, as many try to do. The fact is, Republicans have offered to fund just about everything and the Democrats have taken up the role of obstructionists and absolutely refused any compromise. Republicans have even offered to reduce their demands but the Democrats won’t budge from my way or the highway. An objective look at this situation leaves the majority of responsibility for the shutdown on the shoulders of Democrats.

Every talking point offered by the Democrats crumbles easily, usually by flipping it around. The GOP is holding us “hostage”, they say. Yeah, just like Democrats are holding us “hostage”, by preferring shut down over giving up even part of Obamacare. But Obamcare is a “law”, they say. It’s also the law the House can fund what it wants. But funding the government is too important and should never be connected to other agendas. Cute opinion, but it can be, so deal with reality. If funding the government is so important you wouldn't prevent it over not getting everything you want on Obamacare.

Now that Republicans have gone this far, they had better go all the way and actually get something in return. If they cave now, they did the shutdown for nothing. The longer Democrats refuse negotiation, the worse they will look. If Republicans have any political smarts they will wait and get something out of this. Hopefully, they manage to get something libertarian, even if just a delay of Obamacare.

As for really shutting down the government, we will accomplish that one mind at a time. Ron Paul’s new curriculum and book is another exciting development in that process.

Matt Druge: It's Authoritarian vs. Libertarian, not Democrats vs. Republicans

It's now Authoritarian vs. Libertarian. Since Democrats vs. Republicans has been obliterated, no real difference between parties...
— MATT DRUDGE (@DRUDGE) September 3, 2013

This is the real divide in politics. Those who want to control your life and rule over you, and those who don't. The typical left vs. right, republican vs. democrat, etc. is just Authoritarian A vs. Authoritarian B. It's a distraction that enables authoritarianism.

Why would anyone vote Republican? Please give reason. Raised taxes; marching us off to war again; approved more NSA snooping. WHO ARE THEY?!
— MATT DRUDGE (@DRUDGE) September 3, 2013

Because they are caught up in the authoritarian A vs. B game, and because they are authoritarians (whether they realize it or not).

Authoritarianism is simply disgusting. People that espouse it and defend it are everywhere right now and it's not completely fair to be angry with them about it, because it's really all they know. Just like we typically 'forgive' famous past figures such as Jefferson or Lincoln for their views on slavery and race, the same could be said for many people today. However, there are many who don't have this excuse: they understand libertarianism but continue to advocate authoritarianism. Their philosophy is much worse than racism, one of the most discussed taboos in America. I look forward to the day when authoritarians are shunned as much as - and more than - racists.

John Stossel is Right and Wrong on NSA Spying: Can I Convince Him?

It made my day to get a direct response on Twitter from none other than John Stossel of Fox News:

Background: Stossel has stated his view many times, including in these two Reason articles (here, here). I think this summarizes his argument best:

“So it's invasive, probably illegal and maybe useless. I ought to be very angry. But I'm not. Why? 

I need to keep thinking about this issue, but for now, two reasons: 

1. Terrorists do want to murder us. If the NSA is halfway competent, Big Data should help detect plots.
2. My electronic privacy has already been utterly shredded by Google, Amazon, YouTube and so on. 

They know with whom I talk, what interests me and how much time I spend doing this or that. They creep me out with targeted ads. How did they know I want that?! Oh, right ... I spent an hour searching ... 

Then I go outside in New York City, where 16 cameras record me on my way to work.
Greedy lawyers can subpoena my private records. My employer has a right to read my emails. 

My privacy is already blown. 

I'm angrier about other things Big Government does in the name of keeping me safe: forcing me to wear safety gear, limiting where I may go, stripping me at airports, forcing me to pay $2,300 for more military than we need.”

For a libertarian, Stossel’s take on the NSA spying is mind-boggling at first glance, but he does have a point. There’s a hundred other things to be angry about, and more. Some which have been around a long time, unlike the news of NSA spying. Naturally we are focused on that topic while it’s hot, and for good reason, strategically: now is the time to nip it in the bud, before it becomes entrenched policy like the 100 other things in John Stossel’s list.

Stossel is not wrong to prefer certain freedoms over others. We all have our own preferences. For a famous media figure, privacy is largely "blown", in exchange for the other rewards that come with your work. That’s fine… but what about the rest of us? Not all of us make that choice. And it is our right to do so, as much as any other right.

Stossel argues that private companies have a lot of our data. But surely the difference is glaring. We gave these private companies our information. The NSA, on the other hand, takes it by force.

What about the terrorists? I say, what about the 4th amendment? We are not going to give that up, are we, John?

Stossel is a spokesman for the cause of liberty. We’re disappointed because he doesn't seem interested in defending a right he personally doesn't find important. We don't ask that he change his own preferences, but merely that he defend all of our freedoms. Likewise, there are freedoms I would not find personally important- such as the freedom to smoke marijuana- but I will vigorously oppose the drug war because it is right to do so and because it has negative consequences on me (e.g. higher tax and crime rates). There's also negative consequences from NSA spying: higher taxes, people refraining from exercising their rights because the government is watching their data, etc.

I hope you're on the way to being convinced, Mr. Stossel.  If not, what is wrong with our rebuttal? Now is the perfect time to defend privacy, while momentum is on our side. Please join us!

A "Progressive's" Anti-Progressive Argument Against Liberty

Michael Lind of Salon.com thinks he has us stumped. " If your approach is so great, why hasn’t any country anywhere in the world ever tried it?"

I really liked Tom Wood's response, as well as Bob Murphy's brief note. Here's what I have to add: this  attack is supposedly from a "progressive" author and website. The irony is palpable, then, to see them use such an anti-progressive line of argumentation: If x hasn't been tried, it must not be that great.

An Alternative to Politics: Agree to Disagree

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. ~Thomas Jefferson

In my last two posts, I asked 1). how Republicans, given their long record, are better than Democrats, and then 2). briefly explained why I consider Democrats to be completely delusional and destructive. I concluded with a proposal to solve our irreconcilable political differences:

“we should just agree to disagree. Don’t force your ideas on us through the government. Do what you want to yourselves, and leave the rest of us alone”

Opposing agendas cannot be forced on the same region at the same time, much as one cannot move in opposite directions simultaneously. When people compete via democracy to use the government to impose agendas on others, there will be some who are forced to live under an agenda they may largely or entirely oppose.

Our differences are irreconcilable and substantial- we’re talking about completely different rules for society, not a few small quibbles. And that’s why the only solution is agreeing to disagree. You do things your way, and I’ll do things my way. We’ll not try to force our agenda on each other. This is the civilized, moral way to deal with conflicts we cannot resolve.

Of course, this is not a solution in dealing with crime (e.g. theft). Force is required to deal with acts of aggression. But all other issues should be subject to agreeing to disagree when we can’t agree.

How can we begin doing this? Presently, most of us are trying to impose our agenda on others, through the government, on millions of people, rather than a more local area. Whenever a “national” agenda is legislated by the federal government, it’s being imposed on hundreds of millions of people over a vast area of millions of square miles.

Therefore, one way we can begin agreeing to disagree is to restore a federal system of government as the Constitution originally gave us. Issues that have been dealt with at the “national” level can go back to more local regions. Of course, we should not stop with our decentralization there. Further localization is surely desirable, right down to the individual level.

Take the New York “soda ban” for example. I believe this is extremely stupid policy, and a violation of the rights of anyone living there. I would advocate decentralization, allow individuals or restaurants to decide whether to ban sodas for themselves, i.e. repeal the soda ban. But look on the positive side; though it’s not much of one for New Yorkers: the soda ban is not being imposed on the rest of the state, let alone the whole country. So at least we have a partial case of agreeing to disagree.

Our differences are much greater than a soda ban. As I said, we envision completely different rules for society, because of our fundamentally different understandings of economics and individual rights. Ignoring this and attempting to bind everyone under centralized political control is a recipe for friction, irrationality, and mass injustice. Let’s work to take issues out of politics and deal with them between each other, agreeing to disagree when that isn’t possible.

Glenn Greenwald is Not a Libertarian (Yet)

On one of his side blogs, Glenn Greenwald writes an interesting post on “frequently told lies” about himself. One lie, he says, is that he is a libertarian, and he certainly is correct, as several public positions he documents are blatantly anti-libertarian.

Yet Greenwald is very much a “civil libertarian”; in fact, he is proud to be a “civil liberties extremist”. This is why libertarians so frequently applaud his work. It’s a bit confusing for us, though, why he supports liberty in some cases and not others. Is “economic liberty” or any kind of liberty less important? Why is my right to work for an employer on terms we agree to, for example, less of a right than free speech? If I want to take a job for $5 an hour, shouldn't that be just as much of a right as free speech?

This is where the non-aggression principle is so instructive. It is the foundation of libertarianism, and very difficult to reject. In short, it states that using force is unjustified except in self-defense. Any other use of force is a violation of someone’s ownership in their body and their other property. Therefore, just as it would be illegitimate for the government to outlaw my speech, it would be just as illegitimate for them to outlaw trade.

For another example, take Social Security, which Greenwald doesn't want to cut at all. Forcing me to participate in a retirement savings program is no more legitimate than, say, forcing me to participate in some religion. Civil liberties and economic liberties are really the same thing: it’s all liberty. As Ron Paul has correctly urged, we had best stop separating the two. It’s both inconsistent and unjust.

It’s my hope that Greenwald winds up becoming a consistent libertarian.  What he wrote further down in his post, is similar to the process all of us go through on the way to becoming libertarians, and thus may be reason for optimism (emphasis mine):

I had to rely back then on standard political and media venues to form my political impressions of the world. When I first began writing about politics, I had a whole slew of conventional political beliefs that came from lazy ingestion of the false and misleading claims of these conventional political and media sources. Having the time to examine political realities first-hand has led me to realize how many of those former beliefs I held were based on myth or worse, and I've radically changed how I think about a whole slew of issues as a result of that re-examination.

…When I still trusted and relied upon the claims of the political and media class - when I was basically apolitical and passive - I tacitly accepted all sorts of views which I've come to see are warped and misleading. I've talked often about this process and am proud of this evolution.

Glenn Beck: Newcomer Libertarian?

I haven’t been keeping up with Glenn Beck, but he has come to my attention again because of a recent video where he talked with Jack Hunter, Jacob Hornburger, and Zak Slayback on his The Blaze show. Apparently, Beck is becoming more of a libertarian these days. That’s welcome news, but he is not there yet.

Before we get to Beck, though, we need to step back and address a comment by Students for Liberty co-founder Alexander McCobin that probably prompted Beck’s video above:

“…if Glenn wants to call himself a libertarian, I am happy to accept him as one…on the condition…that he comes here to our community and proclaim ‘mea culpa’ for his past defenses of social and neo-conservatism…”

Here McCobin perpetuates a myth that libertarianism is in conflict with “social conservatism”. It’s absolutely not. One can hold “socially conservative” views on drugs, Israel, marriage, etc. and still be a libertarian, i.e. not forcing such views on others. (Abortion is the exception: depending on your stance it is an act of aggression). (Borowski video) McCobin is correct, though, that anyone, like Beck, who has taken very public, anti-liberty positions, is going to have to repudiate what he said in order to have any credibility.

Beck responded to McCobin’s comments on his radio show:

“This guy wrote, and said if Glenn Beck wants to join our club — meaning Libertarianism — then he has to come and atone for his past transgressions, and I thought, ‘Is that you grand inquisitor?’ What is this, the Spanish Inquisition? You’re more Fascist than some of the Fascists that I’ve seen. And the same thing with many of the hard core Ron Paul supporters. You are supposed to have a brain of your own, and you’re not supposed to be about an individual. I mean Libertarianism is about a set of ideas: maximum freedom. Not about a person.”

Of course, we accept newcomers, even if they don’t support liberty to the extent we do. But to claim the libertarian label, you have to actually be a libertarian. Beck may be moving in the right direction, but he isn't quite there. A few recent examples demonstrate this:

• Lincoln: Honoring Lincoln with a poster on your show’s set is honoring a man who rejected the central principle of the Declaration of Independence: the right of secession. It’s honoring a man who did more to destroy the Constitution’s federal government in favor of a national government than any other President. Lincoln’s agenda was anti-liberty: high tariffs and corporate welfare. If you like Lincoln, you’re probably not a libertarian.
• The Military: People who take a government job to participate in an aggressive, unconstitutional war are not heroes. They are participators in aggression, they are attacking our liberty, whether they know it or not. To call them all heroes is irrational and certainly not libertarian. If you think Chris Kyle was a hero because he was an effective sniper in Iraq for the military, you’re probably not a libertarian.
• War on Drugs: This is another stumbling block for social conservatives. They correctly recognize certain activities are bad, like drug abuse, but incorrectly assume that it’s acceptable to force this view on others by prohibiting them from doing what they want with their property. That’s not what liberty is. With liberty you are legally free to do whatever you want as long as you don’t violate other’s rights. If you don’t want to end the war on drugs, you’re probably not a libertarian.

If you don’t accept libertarian views on major issues, you’re probably not yet a libertarian. Until you do, it’s best that you don’t describe yourself as such, at least without qualifying it. People who take on a name but act inconsistent with it cause confusion and that requires others to correct their error. To call out those who misuse the name is not authoritarian, but an attempt to preserve the integrity of our language.

Incidentally, this is why we have to spend a lot of time on Rand Paul. The public perception is that he is a libertarian, when he usually is not.

Rolling Back the Propaganda

The human race is incredibly fortunate to have the state, an indispensable and usually benevolent institution also known as simply “the government”. Without its central planning, life would be miserable, if existing at all. Children would be working in mines for a dollar a day, consumer products would be exploding, there would be no science or art, and we would all be ignoramuses.

At least, that’s the story the state itself tells us. This is unsurprising- it is simply pursuing its own self-interest by perpetuating propaganda that leads the masses to ignore and be ignorant of other possible solutions to problems the government claims to solve.

Exploding some of these myths is the goal of Rollback, the most recent book by historian Thomas E. Woods. It didn’t come off the presses a minute too soon, either. Americans face a crisis, and with that comes the opportunity for change.

What crisis?

“The federal entitlement programs on which generations of Americans have been taught to rely and to base their expectations for retirement will go bust in our lifetimes. The aging of the population guarantees it. The resources do not and will not exist to make good on these promises.”

A rosy economic outlook, responsible management of the federal debt, and readiness to pay much higher interest on the debt will not avert the looming disaster. Woods meticulously documents the statistics to back up his claims. It was a pretty startling chapter- that’s coming from someone who was already somewhat aware of these problems.

As these problems were created by steady government growth, they will be solved by reversing the trend. “This is no calamity to be deplored. It is an opportunity to be seized,” Woods writes. Rahm Emanuel was right when he observed that a crisis presents the opportunity for change. That change can be good or bad, and Rollback attempts to demonstrate the inevitable cutting back of government is actually a boon for all of us.

To do that, the large middle portion of the book is devoted to addressing a myriad of issues ranging from recent items like health care, stimulus, the housing bubble, to major but oft-overlooked things such as the monetary system, military spending, and the war on drugs. He also wisely spends some time on relatively inexpensive programs and regulations that “form a significant part of the mythological edifice that gives rise to the public’s naïve confidence in government”. Woods rolls back the propaganda and makes some of the best cases for less government that I have read.

The final chapter discusses possible solutions but is prefaced with an important warning for those who are tempted to put their faith in today’s Republican party. The 2010 elections- and no doubt several more to come, will not put genuine friends of freedom in office who are prepared to responsibly address the crisis. No, the GOP’s history proves it buys into the Official Story, just like the Democrats.

The solutions Woods proposes are mostly unconventional, which seems appropriate given the severity of the crisis and the failure of traditional solutions. The chapter is concluded with a brief moral case for freedom; it’s not a strictly economic problem we face.

Rollback’s 232 pages are jam packed with fascinating information and over 400 footnotes. Despite the tea party appealing cover*, issues are dealt with in a fair, non-partisan manner. It is a book that makes you think. Both laypersons and sophisticated political junkies should read this timely work. In fact, if I were to add just one book to everyone’s reading list, Rollback would probably be it.

Read the first chapter for free here. Or listen free here.

*That was the publisher’s choice, not the author's.

Let's Campaign for Opting Out of Government

One thing the liberty movement should consider doing more of is campaigning on the idea that we should be able to opt of both the costs and benefits of government programs and services. Statists can have their statism if they leave us alone. In the meantime, we can build competing systems that can be there to replace the state when people are ready.

It’s important that we be able to opt out of the costs (taxes) associated with government programs that we opt out of; but even if that’s not possible, we should still be able to opt-out as much as possible. The homeschool movement stands as a spectacular example of what we can do even when only allowed to partially opt-out. I think the average American voter would be more sympathetic to opt-outs rather than abolishment/privatization options. This would at least get us closer to liberty and is consistent with Rothbard’s criteria for transition programs.

Ron Paul vs. RonPaul.com: Both Are in the Wrong

As you have probably heard by now, negotiations between Ron Paul and a fan site that owns the domain name ronpaul.com has took a surprising and unfortunate turn. Naturally, Ron Paul, now retired from Congress and ready to move on to new projects, wants ronpaul.com. But the owners of ronpaul.com have a long established website and demanded a steep price to give up their domain. Negotiations have apparently failed and now Ron Paul is taking legal action, by filing a complaint with the UN’s WIPO.

Several important points need to be made. Both sides are now in the wrong, for different reasons. Let’s walk through this step by step:

Domains Are (or Should be?) Private Property

As I understand it, domains are a scarce resource and thus should be private property. The ronpaul.com domain is legitimately owned by some Ron Paul fans, who have bought up many domain names, ostensibly to keep them out of enemy hands. Unfortunately for Ron Paul, he failed to purchase it years ago when it was worth much less. It’s all a matter of supply and demand. In the past 10 years, Ron Paul has went from obscurity to a household name, and that drives up the value and demand for a domain name such as ronpaul.com.

Domain names are limited to a supply of one, so there is no competition to drive down the price. Unless the owner can be convinced to sell, you’re out of luck. In this case, the owner offered to sell for a quarter of a million dollars. While this sounds outrageous, it’s important to keep in mind many domains are worth millions of dollars. There is nothing unusual about this case, but that doesn't mean the market price is really $250,000, and it doesn't mean that the owners are wise to charge that amount, even though it’s their right to do whatever they want since it’s their property.

RonPaul.com Owners Are Being Unreasonable

Just because they have a right to doesn't mean they should. The owners of ronpaul.com, if they really want to advance the liberty movement and support Mr. Paul, should make sure that the domain is in Ron Paul’s hands as soon as possible.

They made significant investments in their website and probably want to continue their activities, so it’s perfectly reasonable to ask a price that covers the expenses involved with moving to a new domain and business. They could do this by selling to Ron Paul, or by setting up a fundraiser, which would bring in the money so that the domain could be handed over to Ron Paul for free. They could also work in the deal, perhaps, a temporary free banner ad notifying visitors that the old site moved.

Any such deal would have been the classy thing to do, and would have earned them praise instead of the disdain they now are getting. Unfortunately, they stuck to their ridiculous $250,000 demand. While a five or six figure sum is probably the market price for this domain, as supporters of Ron Paul and the liberty movement they ought to prioritize getting the domain to Ron Paul above making the most money they can off him or the movement.

Ron Paul’s Anti-Libertarian Response

It may not be inconsistent with his past record, but Ron Paul’s actions are certainly inconsistent with the libertarian message. His problem is not in using a UN agency, anymore than it being a problem that he drives on government roads and uses Federal Reserve notes.

The real problem with Dr. Paul’s current actions is they are based on a claim to trademark, a.k.a. “intellectual property”, which is state granted monopoly over ideas. This is anti-libertarian; ideas are not scarce and therefore not private property. See Stephan Kinsella’s revolutionary work for further detail- either his book “Against Intellectual Property” or his other media, such as this speech.

Lew Rockwell, who appears to be closely involved in this situation, posted to his blog to deal with some of the disinformation over this issue; his points are all very good though he seems to concede the legitimacy of an IP argument against Ron Paul. Trademark is anti-free market, anti-private property, and anti-liberty, and that’s what’s wrong with Ron Paul’s side of the debate.

Conclusion

Both sides are wrong for different reasons. There is no reason for them to continue being wrong, and the sooner that is corrected the soon the liberty movement can get rid of this distraction and needless division and move forward.

How to Effectively Transition Towards Liberty

I consider "The Case for Radical Idealism" by Murray Rothbard to be one of his more important essays, as it deals with the crucial question of what strategies are needed to achieve genuine victories for liberty. Excerpted below is the portion where he discusses how we should judge the merits of a transitional or compromise proposal:

How, then, can we know whether any halfway measure or transitional demand should be hailed as a step forward or condemned as an opportunistic betrayal? There are two vitally important criteria for answering this crucial question: (1) that, whatever the transitional demands, the ultimate end of liberty be always held aloft as the desired goal; and (2) that no steps or means ever explicitly or implicitly contradict the ultimate goal. A short-run demand may not go as far as we would like, but it should always be consistent with the final end; if not, the short-run goal will work against the long-run purpose, and opportunistic liquidation of libertarian principle will have arrived. 

An example of such counterproductive and opportunistic strategy may be taken from the tax system. The libertarian looks forward to eventual abolition of taxes. It is perfectly legitimate for him, as a strategic measure in that desired direction, to push for a drastic reduction or repeal of the income tax. But the libertarian must never support any new tax or tax increase. For example, he must not, while advocating a large cut in income taxes, also call for its replacement by a sales or other form of tax. The reduction or, better, the abolition of a tax is always a noncontradictory reduction of State power and a significant step toward liberty; but its replacement by a new or increased tax elsewhere does just the opposite, for it signifies a new and additional imposition of the State on some other front. The imposition of a new or higher tax flatly contradicts and undercuts the libertarian goal itself.

It's important to keep these points in mind especially as we assess the new "Ron Paul Republicans" or "Liberty Republicans" that have been elected since 2010. Ron Paul was very good at upholding liberty as the ultimate goal and not taking steps to contradict those goals. In politics we should look for others that will do likewise, and be very careful of those who don't.

The Problem with Austerity

Should supporters of liberty favor Austerity? What is Austerity? Wikipedia says:

In economics, austerity refers to a policy of deficit-cutting by lowering spending via a reduction in the amount of benefits and public services provided... and are sometimes coupled with increases in taxes to demonstrate long-term fiscal solvency to creditors.

In other words, austerity is a policy of spending cuts and tax increases, which results in cutting government deficits/debts. Clearly, the tax raising half is not something libertarians support. Because good and bad are paired together in this word, I don't consider myself a supporter of "austerity", and neither should you.

Here are Robert Wenzel's comments on this subject:

From my perspective, an austerian is someone who wants to insure that sovereign debt is paid off by seeing to it that taxes are raised near the breaking point and that "social services" are cut. This is what is going on in eurozone countries, such as, Greece and Spain.

NYT reports on the Greek austerity steps taken in November 2012:

The measures — including sharp cuts to pensions, salaries and social services, as well as tax increases and increases in the retirement age to 67 from 65.

In July 2012, ABC News reported on austerity measures in Spain:

 Spain announced a 65 billion euro ($79.85 billion) austerity package that includes tax hikes and spending cuts on Wednesday...

Now, I am all for cutting government spending and the shrinking of government, but I am not in favor of increasing taxes---especially given the money goes into the Greek treasury to be then be immediately paid out to banksters in the form of payments on Greek debt. Thus, I would never call myself an austerian. In my view, governments that have over-spent should declare bankruptcy, which would result in the pain being placed on those who propped up the government by buying government debt---as opposed to the people of a country, who had little to do with these crony deals.

There you have it. Libertarians oppose austerity. Now we can move on to the real issue cutting government spending. This happens to solve the serious debt crisis we face, too. 

White House Responds to Secession Petitions

From the beginning I had mixed feelings on the secession petitions that followed Obama's reelection. On the one hand, they are an insult to our sovereignty; there's no need to ask. Did Thomas Jefferson beg George III for permission? Of course not. Additionally, the petitions appeared to be a mere outlet of frustration over the election rather than a serious desire to secede.

On the other hand, though, resurrecting this forbidden topic is a good thing, as it provides important educational opportunities. I was particularly looking forward to the White House's reaction, even though it was going to be entirely predictable and wrong. Let's examine their main arguments:

[A]s we value a healthy debate, we don't let that debate tear us apart.

Actually, it depends on the debate. Sometimes that is not necessary, other times it is. A husband and wife shouldn't let themselves be torn apart by some petty argument. But we can all agree there are times where divorce is appropriate. Same with secession.

Our founding fathers established the Constitution of the United States "in order to form a more perfect union" through the hard and frustrating but necessary work of self-government. They enshrined in that document the right to change our national government through the power of the ballot -- a right that generations of Americans have fought to secure for all. But they did not provide a right to walk away from it.

Here we have the White House getting one of the most basic aspects of the Constitution backwards. In reality, the federal government is the one whose powers are limited to what is expressly granted, while the people and their states retain all other powers. So, the absence of a provision to "walk away" is no argument against secession.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
~James Madison, The Federalist No. 45

Beyond this, there is yet another layer of defense for the right of secession. If you're going to accept the legitimacy of the Declaration of Independence, then it doesn't matter what the Constitution says in the first place.

Back to the White House response:

As President Abraham Lincoln explained in his first inaugural address in 1861, "in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual."

Lincoln made this up. He is wrong. The Constitution doesn't even claim to be perpetual. Perpetual, in 18th-century diplomatic language meant “lacking a built-in sunset provision”, not "lasting forever", as historian Tom Woods noted recently.

And if it did, so what? That doesn't mean such a claim is legitimate, that some people of one generation can forever bind future generations to a "social contract". I thought "progressives" believed in change, anyway. The "Union" should not be some object of religious veneration, it should be a means to an end rather than an end in of itself.

In the years that followed, more than 600,000 Americans died in a long and bloody civil war that vindicated the principle that the Constitution establishes a permanent union between the States. 

Translation: Might makes right.

And shortly after the Civil War ended, the Supreme Court confirmed that "[t]he Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States."

So, the federal government says, "You're stuck with me". Well, duh, what institution is not going to rule in it's own favor?

The remainder of the White House response is just some mumbo-jumbo praising democracy.

Conclusion

As expected, arguments against the right of secession crumble easily: they are always weak, false, or barbaric (e.g. the "might makes right" argument, a.k.a. "the Civil War settled it"). It doesn't matter if one thinks secession is prudent in one case or another. It is merely the right of secession that is being discussed here, and rejected by the Obama administration.

The right of secession is easy to defend. Simply point to the Declaration of Independence and your opponent will not be able to come up with a coherent rebuttal. Because there is none. That's why, with these ideas finally getting un-buried again, we should eventually see a collapse in the anti-secession mentality that has prevailed for 150 years. And that's good news for our liberty.