Below are seven musts for the devout statist:

1.       Be Afraid. Fear is the essential ingredient for every government program. Understand that if we don’t pass [insert name of any bill] then our society will surely crumble by lunch. It doesn’t much matter if you are more afraid of the rich, the poor, the people that live in different geographic regions, the uncertainty of retirement planning, or the folks that want to grow their own vegetables. The important thing is that you are really afraid of something and look to the government as the solution. Mother America is the only thing keeping you safe and warm. 

2.       Don’t think for yourself. Blind obedience and strict loyalty to groupthink is essential for any well-ordered society. Free thinking is dangerous. We must have elected officials, bureaucrats in government schools, ivory tower academics, and a handful of elites in the media inform us of the acceptable talking points to use during our narrowly-bounded social discussions. It helps to be especially ignorant of history, economics, and philosophy. 

3.       Deny the Antecedent (1). You want to make sure to commit this logical fallacy every chance you get. It is a waste of time to try to imagine how something might work in the absence of state intervention (or might have actually worked in the absence of state intervention in the past). Any service that is currently provided by government can only be provided by government. There is no possible way that education services, unemployment insurance, or the provision of money could ever exist if not for the state. Obviously, it would be absurd to believe that the humans who currently construct the roads or deliver the mail would be able to do so if not for the direction of some central planner.

4.       Compromise on principle for the sake of expedience. There is no absolute truth. There is no black and white. Since all morals are relative, it does no harm to compromise your values for any perceived short-term gain. We must be practical if we want to make progress. Everyone knows that you must give to get in politics. This is why the two major political parties in the U.S. are such a model example. “You give us our welfare, and we will give you your warfare. You give us our warfare, and we will give you your welfare.” Obstructionists who rigidly cling to principles merely impeded the glorious growth of the state.   

5.       Make Utopian promises. If only we had more government, we could eliminate [insert any problem], and we could have [insert any benefit]. The state, and only the state, has the unique ability to transcend the economic law of scarcity and deliver an infinite abundance of goods and services at no cost. Every problem in the world is the result of some market failure. If a government program “fails” it is because there were not enough resources dedicated to its success. If any government solution “fails” to fix a problem it is just evidence that the problem was much worse than we thought. Things most certainly would have been all the more disastrous without the government stepping in to save us from the abyss. Our progressive march to utopia on earth is impeded by extremists and ideologues who want to limit the size and scope of the state.

6.       Grab it before someone else does. The world is like a giant piñata with a set amount of candy inside. When that papier-mâché donkey spills its contents out to the ravenous public, you better use both hands to get yours. Statists understand that economics is a zero-sum game. For every winner there is always a loser. Since there is only a set amount of goods, if one person has something, it must mean that they took it from another. If one person is wealthy, it must mean they exploited the weak. The state helps to make sure everyone gets their fair share of candy, but while we are waiting for true equality it is ok to use the state to get as much from the system as possible. Politics is an excellent way to internalize benefits to yourself while externalizing costs to someone else.

7.       Use violence to get what you want. Ultimately it is violence or the threat of violence that is backing every government program.  There are great lessons we can learn from young toddlers who don’t waste their time with rational persuasion. Like an unruly child, you should hit, scream, kick, bite, and take what you want. If you are too weak or too cowardly to use physical violence on your family and neighbors, you can always look to employing the blunt force of government to make people bend to your preferences.

(1) Denying the antecedent is a formal logical fallacy pertaining to the form or structure of an argument.  For example, let’s consider the following:  “If it rains, then the grass is wet. It is not raining. Therefore, the grass is not wet.” We would say this argument is invalid. The grass could be wet from the sprinklers not rain. Similarly, a statist argument is frequently “If the government delivers the mail, then we get our mail. In a free society, the government doesn't deliver the mail, therefore we don’t get our mail.” Of course we could still get our mail. Just because government employees wouldn't deliver mail doesn't mean that private companies wouldn't deliver mail.      


If you do not think you want to dutifully follow the 7 Essential Statist Maxims, maybe you would like some of the resources we have in the Liberty Library.

Here is an excerpt from a recent presentation by Robert Higgs at Mises University:

“States are clumsy and inept in many ways. Thank god. But, they are exceptionally good at reeking death and destruction. Indeed, if they were not, they could not sustain themselves as states. In a functional sense we may define the state as the organization with comparative advantage i_n deliberately, violently killing people and appropriating and destroying wealth. The debate between statists and anti-statists is in my judgment not evenly matched. Defending the continued existence of the state, despite having absolute certainty of a corresponding continuation of its intrinsic engagement in extortion, robbery, willful destruction of wealth, assault, kidnapping, murder, and countless other crimes, requires that one imagine non-state chaos, disorder, and death on a scale that non-state actors seem completely incapable of causing. In general, with regard to large-scale death and destruction, no person, group, or private organization can even begin to compare to the state, which is easily the greatest instrument of destruction known to man. Almost all non-state threats to life, liberty, and property appear to be relatively petty and therefore can be dealt with. In general, only states can pose truly massive threats and sooner or later the horrors with which they menace mankind inevitably come to pass…The state, which holds by far the greatest potential for harm and tends to be captured by the worst of the worst, is much too risky for anyone to justify its continued existence. To tolerate it is not simply to play with fire but to chance the destruction of the entire human race.” 

You can watch this compelling presentation in its entirety here:

On March 1, about $85 billion in automatic, across-the-board federal spending cuts are scheduled to go into effect. For the last several weeks, members of the federal government and the media have touted the sequestration cuts as yet another looming fiscal crisis of doomsday proportions. Entire government departments will be brought to their knees. Layoffs will rip through the public sector. The members of Congress and their families will starve. Or, so we are told.

Interestingly enough, even after the “draconian” sequestration cuts, the government would still spend more this fiscal year than they did last fiscal year. Only in Washington D.C. could proposed decreases to the rate of future spending increases be twisted into meaning real, painful spending cuts. But, real spending cuts are exactly what we need. Below is a graph of federal spending since 1947.

Annual federal spending has more than doubled since 2000. The looming automatic cuts to future increases total about 2% of current spending levels. However, these cuts will not all happen at once on March 1st. The sequestration cuts will be phased in over a period of several months.  In fact, only about $44 billion in cuts will take place this year. The remaining balance applies to spending obligations that extend over multiple years. Without question the sequestration cuts represent less than a drop in the bucket and fail to substantively address the issue of the massive fiscal leviathan that is the US government.

All of this political posturing is nothing new. The sequestration debacle is politics as usual in Washington DC. Politicians package events like the Debt Ceiling Crisis, the Fiscal Cliff, and the Sequestration Crisis as individual crises to causelessly appear and then be miraculous adverted at the eleventh hour. The fact is that these are not separate issues but rather are symptoms of the same much larger problem. The government spends too much because it does too much. The government has grown to be involved in countless areas beyond its legitimate function. We need to fundamentally rethink the role of government.

However, the range of acceptable public discourse is confined to arguments about marginally raising taxes on particular groups or splitting hairs over benefits to other groups. Anyone who suggests meaningful reductions to the size and scope of government is deemed impractical. What is impractical is thinking we can continue down the current course that Republican and Democrat leadership insist on traveling. There is simply not enough wealth on planet Earth to pay for the obligations and promises that Uncle Sam has made.

Last week Nancy Pelosi, the House Minority Leader (D-CA), publicly spoke out against the prospect of forced cuts to congressional pay because it would undermine the dignity of her job. In my next post I will share some thoughts I have about “dignity” and what it entails regarding Ms. Pelosi.

In Liberty,

Jason Riddle

Much has been made about the pending ‘fiscal cliff’ facing the US economy. Automatic spending cuts and tax hikes will go into effect on the first of the new year if our wise leaders in Washington don’t come together and save us (from the problem they themselves created). Here are ten quick thoughts I have about the whole fiscal cliff fiasco:

1. The US government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

The government is not $16 trillion dollars in debt because it has failed to raise enough revenue. The total amount of money the US government takes in each year has increased nearly 20% since Obama took office in 2009. I know many households that would love to have seen their annual income increase by 20% over the last four years. The problem is that government spending continues to skyrocket. For the government to balance the budget at current revenue levels, they would have to cut spending back to....wait for it.....2002 levels!  Wasn't the government already spending plenty in 2002! 

2. Tax increases tend to lead to more spending, not lower deficits.

The income tax originally only taxed the wealthiest one half of one percent. There was a time in our history when federal government spending only consumed a few percentage points of our total economic output. As tax revenues have grown over the past century and the federal government has gotten their hands on more of our money, they have increased spending as well. Politicians tend to do more and promise more as long as they can keep getting away with it. If history is any guide, we know the government tends to look at additional revenue as an excuse to spend more, not pay down their existing bills. And once a new government program is in place, it rarely goes away.   

3. Increasing tax rates is not the same thing as increasing tax revenue.

Obama keeps making comment after comment implying that if we could just raise rates on the wealthy then we would be able to fix the government’s fiscal disaster. While this may sound like music to the ears of the class-warfare zealots, it is no more than a rhetorical distraction. Since World War II, regardless of tax rates, the US government has confiscated roughly the same percentage of GDP in the form of tax revenues. When tax rates are high, the government takes about 17.7% of GDP. When tax rates are low, the government takes about 17.7% of GDP. However, raising tax rates, as Obama proposes to do, tends to do a couple of things. Patterns of behavior do not remain constant before and after tax rate increases. Human beings respond to incentives. Just think, would you have the same incentive to work if 90% of your income was taken from you as opposed to only 10%? Higher tax rates discourage saving and investing. They discourage production. They divert scarce resources away from productive activities and drive people to spend more time and effort looking for tax shelters and loop holes. In short, tax rate increases discourage the very types of behaviors that grow an economy. If the government raises rates, they may very well actually take in less revenue than they otherwise would have in a period of higher GDP growth absent of the tax rate increases. Besides, even if they took 100% of the earnings from everyone making over $250,000 then they would have enough money to fund the US government until about Easter. It's a spending problem folks.

4. Any “tax cuts” that come out of the fiscal cliff negotiations are smoke and mirrors.

The government is not Santa Claus. You and I have to pay for everything the government does, whether we like it or not. People pay for all of Uncle Sam’s welfare, warfare, and out of control spending through either taxation, government debt (future taxation), or inflation (hidden taxation). Inflation is the cruelest tax of all. It hurts the people that can least afford it, such as the poor and elderly on fixed income. Inflation is a deceptive way for the government to slowly transfer wealth from the population to the political class. That wealth transfer is very real. The Federal Reserve is responsible for monetizing U.S. government debt. This tricks people into thinking politicians are Santa Claus when in reality they are systematically stealing from the poor and middle class. So long as the government continues to spend, the people will continue to pay (whether they realize it or not).       

5. The fiscal cliff negotiations are not about fixing the problem. It is about avoiding the blame.

The Republicans and Democrats both want you to think the fiscal disaster facing the U.S. is the other party’s fault. In fact, they are both right. The current situation is the result of decades of bi-partisan malfeasance.  The best either party can hope for right now is for you to believe them when they point the finger across the aisle and say, “It’s their fault.” Don’t pay attention to these tired political games. Both parties are to blame. 

6. Washington D.C. cannot and will not fix the problem because Washington D.C. is the problem.

I wish people would just stop and consider why we are in this mess in the first place. The fiscal cliff is the result of Congressional legislation and “bi-partisan summits” and “super-committees”. The fiscal cliff is a product of Washington D.C. The politicians created all of these programs they can’t pay for. Neither side has any intention of actually cutting spending. The most “draconian” cuts are merely reductions to the rate of future spending increases. The current unfunded obligations promised by the U.S. government over the next 70 years far exceeds the total economic output on planet Earth, yet the politicians continue to turn a blind eye to the reality of the fiscal abyss. Arguments over a billion here or a billion there don't make any material difference. The solution will not come from Washington D.C. The solution will have to come from the states and from the people. Our government spends too much because it does too much. It is time that we fundamentally rethink the role of government.      

7. The current debate is not Republicans vs Democrats….It’s political parasites vs. peaceful and productive human beings.

The term “political parasite” may sound harsh, but it is more than appropriate. Government does not have any resources of its own. It produces nothing. All that it has and all that it distributes it must first take. Washington D.C. is fat and happy. The D.C. area is one of the richest in the country and has grown considerably ever since the onset of the Great Recession. While the rest of the country has struggled to make ends meet, the political class has continued living well. The corporate stooges in Congress and the White House exchange political favor for campaign funding. The banksters, the cronies, and the military industrial complex continue to grow. Debates like the current one regarding the fiscal cliff are designed to get the people fighting with one another over the scraps rather than realizing the presences of a massive red & blue colored tick sucking dry our wealth and resources.   

8. The status quo will be extended.

There will be a compromise pushed through at that last minute.  It is likely we will see some tax increases and and possible decreases in the rate of future spending increases (not any real spending cuts). Chances are good we will see some kind of bridge deal this month and then more of a grand bargain in 2013. The politicians will celebrate it as a bi-partisan solution. It will not be a solution. Nothing changes.  

9. This isn’t a new problem.  The politicians have had years to address the problem. Waiting to the last minute is a deliberate, conscious choice.

Why do they always let it come down to the last minute? Answer: So they generate panic and then ram through their terrible plan as time expires. This is exactly what always happens with these political negotiations. This time will be no different. They have known about the fiscal cliff for over a year. Why wait until December?

10. The bottom line is that the “fiscal cliff” doesn't matter nearly as much as the fiscal abyss. 

The US government passed the point of no return a long time ago. It is fiscally insolvent. There is no possible way it will be able to honor the promises it has made. It will default. The only question remains whether the default will be honest - meaning they come clean now, level with the people, and begin to restructure. Or, the more likely scenario -  they default in a dishonest manner by destroying the currency and making life very difficult for the massive of people now dependent on government for their livelihood.

Isn't it sickening to think that a few hundred incompetent, power-lusting buffoons so strongly control the fates of hundreds of millions of people. Who thought that would be a good idea? 

In Liberty,

Jason Riddle

I understand that elections are often more a referendum about what people are against than what people support. I understand and sympathize with those breathing a sigh of relief that Mitt Romney will not be the next president. I am also relieved. That does not mean I am excited that Obama is president for four more years. Quite the contrary. An honest look at Obama’s record shows that he has extended and augmented most all of the horrendous policies of his predecessor and added many new boondoggles of his own. Despite promises to increase transparency, this president has made the executive branch even more authoritarian and intrusive than the last guy. That is no small feat!

[Note: I actually wrote this article last week, but wanted to wait a few days to share so folks didn’t just think I was part of the “sore loser” crowd. I knew going into this election that a blow to individual liberty would be dealt either way. I suppose that’s what we get when the majority of people still think the only choice is the lesser of two evils. I also have an "Open Letter to Romney supporters" I will share soon.]

 An Open Letter to the Obama Enthusiasts

As Tuesday’s election results rolled in, it was fascinating to witness the social media flurry from all the various perspectives.  The folks that continue to perplex me the most are those that express genuine excitement in celebrating Obama’s victory. I understand the power of the rhetoric he uses to reach his constituents. I realize some people are excited about the promise of more goodies. I get that. I realize that most of the population is incredibly ignorant when it comes to politics, but how it is that anyone can be moderately informed and still be an enthusiastic Obama supporter is an enigma to me.

I am not being condescending. I am genuinely interested: What do you stand for and what exactly has Obama done to win your enthusiastic support?

Do you celebrate Obama because you think he is a champion of civil liberties?

Are you excited that Obama signed the NDAA into law? Do you support the indefinite detention of American citizens without charge or trial? Obama went even further than Bush by claiming the power not merely to detain citizens without judicial review but to assassinate them.

Are you pleased that he renewed the Patriot Act? Obama continues to grow the power of the surveillance state. According to Jack Balkin, Law professor at Yale, “We are witnessing the bipartisan normalization and legitimization of a national security state.” Perhaps you take pleasure in being groped by the TSA or subjected to warrantless invasions of your privacy?

Do you like that he has maintained the detention camp at Gitmo? Do you celebrate Obama’s opposition to lawsuits by victims of government torture? 

Obama has suppressed whistleblowers at an unprecedented rate, prosecuting more than double the number of whistleblowers of all previous presidents combined. Do you support the grotesquely inhumane treatment of Bradley Manning, accused of revealing evidence of U.S. war crimes to WikiLeaks?

Do you rejoice over Obama’s immigration policy? An immigration policy that, as Nick Gillespie at Reason points out, has deported record numbers of immigrants.

Do you like that Obama has stepped up the war on drugs and increased the number of raids on medicinal marijuana dispensaries? Do you remember that he promised to end DEA raids on medical marijuana but instead engaged in the biggest war against medical marijuana of any president to date? He has only further extended the domestic stronghold of the US prison-industrial complex.

“But, Obama stands for the equality of all people,” you say. Well, I guess whether you are rich, poor, black, white, gay, or straight…this president’s record is clear. It is possible for any one of us to end up on his ever-expanding targeted kill/capture list.

Maybe you celebrate Obama because you think he is anti-war?

Did you really think Obama was the anti-war candidate? Was it because he appears to be less of a war-monger than Romney? Perhaps, but that doesn’t make him anti-war.

Maybe you actually liked how Obama bragged about increasing military spending, imposing sanctions, and expanding the reach of the imperialistic US military-industrial complex during the foreign policy debate? Or, maybe you are not anti-war, but anti “Republican war”?

Obama expanded our theaters of war as president and further destabilized the Middle East. He is still bombing Pakistan and Yemen. He carried out military intervention in a civil war in Libya, which was not a national security threat to the US. He claimed immunity from having to get Congressional approval for Libya, blatantly ignoring the War Powers Act.

We still have 68,000 troops in harm’s way in Afghanistan. On Tuesday night were you celebrating our continuing occupation of Afghanistan?

Do you enthusiastically celebrate the man who has significantly increased the use of unmanned predator drones to murder innocent civilians overseas? Obama authorized nearly 300 drone strikes in Pakistan during his first four years in office. That is well over six times the number during the administration of George W. Bush. Obama fully supports “murder by drone without due process”; even if it happens to be a 16 year old, Denver-born American living overseas.

If you voted for Obama because you think he is going to keep us out of Iran, I think you will be sorely disappointed.  During the week of the election the Obama administration put new sanctions on Iran, and we saw two Iranian jets fire on an unarmed U.S. predator drone over international waters. Today we got word of the first death of an Iranian child from the U.S. sanctions on Iran. Jacob G. Hornberger writes, “The death of 15-year-old Iranian Manoucherhr Esmaili-Liousi brings to mind the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children from the 11 years of sanctions that the Empire enforced against Iraq during the 1990s." Is that what you celebrate?

I predict an Iranian conflict within the next six months. This would have happened with Romney as president too, but this is still no reason to be excited about Obama. When it comes to war, there is not a substantive difference between the positions of Bush, Obama, and Romney.

Now that the election is over, where is the outrage from the Anti-War Left?

Do you celebrate Obama because you think he fights for the little guy?

It’s like the old saying goes:  “With friends like that, who needs enemies?”

Obama, the champion of divisive class warfare rhetoric, has led the little guy through the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression. Obama inherited a mess, but he cannot continue to blame the current stagnation on everybody but himself. The number of Americans living below the official poverty line is the highest number in the 52 years the Census Bureau has been publishing figures on it. 15% of America is still on food stamps after four years of Obama’s policies. Inflation-adjusted median household income has fallen the second year in a row, well after the official end of the Great Recession.

I think Arthur Silber said it well: “[S]o many people who are not members of the ruling class think that Obama is on their side. Even after Obama has systematically betrayed all those ‘ordinary’ people for the last four years, they still think he’s really on their side. He just couldn’t do what he wanted to do — which happens to be exactly what all those good liberals and progressives wanted him to do — because: a) evil Republicans; b) evil Republicans left a really, really, huge mess; c) evil Republicans kept messing with him; d) evil Republicans kept stealing his toys; and e) evil Republicans.”

The consequences of Obama’s economic policies were quite predictable even before the ink dried on his massive stimulus bill. These ideas are not new and have been tried and failed many times in the past. Obama’s every move has been toward central planning of the economy and increased federal regulation and taxation of the job creators. Uncertainty and fear are not good ingredients for a healthy economy. On top of that, Obama has already signed into law at least 21 new taxes.  

Back in 2009 President Obama predicted his stimulus bill would help push the unemployment rate down to 5.6 percent by July 2012. After wasting $800 billion on his cronies, the headline unemployment number was still around 8 percent on Election Day.  However, a more meaningful measure of the job market is the participation. The labor force participation rate, which measures how many people actually have jobs, has declined steadily under President Obama and currently sits at 63.8% - the lowest level since 1980.

Deficits do matter. The 6 trillion dollars in new debt under Obama crowds out private investment, skews the economy, and creates a gigantic burden on the present and future taxpayer. 

The poor are unquestionably worse off today, and I have not even discussed the issue of monetary debasement. Obama’s deficits are enabled by the Federal Reserve. The Fed buys US debt with newly created money. More money tends to increase prices. Price increases are much harder on the poor and those living on fixed income. That is why many call inflation the cruelest tax of all.

And of course there is Obamacare. That’s reason enough to celebrate, right? Well, I don’t want to rehash a debate that has already taken place at length, but I will go ahead and say that we already know that Obamacare will fail at accomplishing what you think it will and we know why Obamacare will fail. Here’s a reading list if you are interested.

 So, for all of you who are excited about Obama, you can be proud that (like the Romney voters) you merely voted for the banksters, the corporate cronies, the military-industrial complex, and all the other special interests that live off political loot. 

The Question for 'Candidate' Obama Supporters

Now that the election is over, I can only hope that supporters of liberty and decency across the political spectrum will not turn a blind eye as Obama continues to abuse the power of the office he was elected to serve. It is time for the intellectually honest among us to look past the cult of personality and hold this president accountable for his record.

My purpose in writing this article is summed up nicely by sentiments expressed by Kevin Carson over at C4SS.org: "These monstrous things demand justice, regardless of the culprits’ party affiliations. If you feel the rule of this Democratic war criminal and corporate stooge weighs less heavily on your neck than a Republican, I don’t begrudge you your momentary celebration. The question is, what are you going to do now that the election’s over?”

In Liberty,

Jason Riddle

p.s. You will have to forgive me if I left any of President Obama’s first-term “accomplishments” off the list. I know he had many more. I was just working from memory.

A post-election analysis and thoughts on where we go from here.

The best thing about this week is that the political circus we know as election season is finally over! I’m not sure the election itself provides us with very much new information. There was plenty to be concerned about long before this election, and there is still plenty to be concerned about now.

Obama’s reelection is not the end of the world. I do not think Romney would have been the savior (or the end of the world either, depending on how you feel about Romney). The federal government went over the fiscal cliff a long time ago. The debates in Washington DC right now are political theater. The major parties will compromise at the last minute, and the American people will be all the worse off for it.

The economy will continue to stagnate because of the failed, bi-partisan supported, Keynesian economic policies of the federal government. There is no way that the US government can make good on all of its future promises. The current obligations of the US government exceed the amount of wealth in the entire world, and Washington DC will not cut spending until they are forced to do so.

The US government will continue to police the world. They will continue to bomb innocent civilians overseas. They will continue to impose sanctions. They will continue to start new wars.

Our domestic liberties (or at least what’s left of them) will continue to be trampled under the bi-partisan boots of the increasingly nationalized police-state.

We will survive four more years of Barack Obama. We would have survived four years of Romney. I think economic life will be more difficult now that Obamacare becomes permanently entrenched in the economy. The costs of these programs will soar just like the costs of Medicare and Medicaid have done over the years. Health care will become more expense and harder to access. Everyone’s taxes will be increased. Unemployment will remain high. I am worried about who Obama might appoint to the Supreme Court during his term. I'd also be worried about who Romney would have appointed. I am worried that Obama’s divisive class-warfare rhetoric will continue to distract from the real issues.

All that said, the American people have survived much worse in our brief history. We will survive this.

After really thinking about it, I’m not so much worried about the damage that these policies or these politicians will do. The politicians themselves are a symptom of a much greater problem. I am much more worried about the sustainability of a society of people that would elect these politicians and support these policies. We will have a difficult time surviving as even moderately free people if the prevailing ideological climate is one that is conducive to electing a Barack Obama and (maybe even worse) thinking that a Mitt Romney is actually an alternative to a Barack Obama.

As Monica Perez points out, “Regardless of the labels, from top to bottom, the right now merely offers a different flavor of statism from the left’s, not an alternative to statism itself. What’s worse is that while not providing an alternative to statism, the New Right purposely displaces those who would.”

The Republican establishment has been a failure because they try to secure the power of government to push their own agenda instead of offering a principled alternative to big-government. The Republican establishment today is essentially the right side of the left when it comes to economic policy. They support the same welfare-state policies of the left. They support the economic central planning of the left. This is a strategic mistake because they will never be able to sell socialism better than the socialists. Furthermore, the Republican establishment loses even more support with their constant desire to “morally legislate” people’s private behavior. Across the board the Republican establishment has failed to offer an alternative to the big-government statism of the Democrat establishment. They have actually been extremely hostile to anyone advocating a consistent message of liberty.

I do think this election cycle has helped to more clearly draw the line in the sand. On one side we have people who want individual liberty. On the other side, we have the big-government establishment of the Republican and Democrat parties. It is a battle between "the makers" and "the takers". This battle transcends party affiliation, it transcends income, it transcends race, and it transcends age.

The ideological battle is between the peaceful, productive members of society and those that want to live by looting the people who produce. It is a battle between people who believe in freedom of association when it comes to business dealings and romantic involvements against those big-government statists who want to control who we can interact with and how.

The battle is educational. Government reflects the will of the people. As long as people demand or even merely acquiesce to bigger government, they are going to get it. It is the tendency of the state to grow to the maximum size tolerated by the oppressed.

This battle is not won or lost in the voting booth. The leg work has to be done 365 days a year. We need to make sure people understand what we are fighting for and what we are fighting against. We need to educate people about the principles of liberty and sound economics. Our solutions will not come through politics. The solutions will come by helping people to wake up and realize that politics is the problem.

I share the sentiments of economist Robert Murphy when he says, “Whatever you think the best strategy is for gaining liberty, a necessary ingredient is an educated population. So that’s why I focus my efforts on writing articles, rather than pulling a lever in a symbolic ritual setup by the government to fool people into thinking they are free.”

If Romney and Obama were our only two options, we'd be toast.  However, those are not our only two options. My job is to help pull the curtain back so you can see that the wizard isn't really a wizard at all. We have the ability to choose freedom.

"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else."  - Frederic Bastiat

In Liberty,

Jason Riddle
                                                                                             

p.s.  If it makes you feel any better, your vote did not have any impact on determining the winner of the presidential election. See my article last week for more detail, but the crux of the argument is essentially the following:

• My vote will matter in determining the winner if, and only if, it is the tie-breaking vote.
• My vote will not be the tie-breaking vote.
• Therefore, my vote will not matter in determining the winner*.

*Unless you can show that it is reasonably possible that my vote will be the tie-breaker, the conclusion seems to hold that my vote did not matter in determining the winner.  

We have all heard the gospel from the preachers of civic religion: “It’s your duty to vote!” “People died for your right to vote!” “If you don’t vote you can’t complain!” From an early age we are taught that one of the fundamental responsibilities of a good citizen is to vote. Every vote counts. Your vote matters. According to TrueTheVote.org, “You could be the difference between a winner and a loser for your party, your ideology, even your pocketbook on tax levies. Go register and go vote. Don’t let this important duty escape your attention.”

Many have even gone so far as to say this is the most important election in our nation’s history. Well, since the predominant view in our society is that voting is a sacrosanct responsibility not to be taken lightly, I figured that the least we could all do is go into Election Day 2012 as informed voters.

A fair warning: The following ideas may be regarded by some as heresy. However, for the open minded, I expect this will serve well as an engaging exercise in critical thinking. My purpose here is not to tell you how to vote. I am merely explaining the facts of reality and letting you choose your own adventure from there.

Understand Your Reason for Voting

More often than not, the reasons people give for why they vote (and why everyone should vote) are based on factual errors and flawed logic. Perhaps there are good reasons for voting. We will get to those momentarily, but first I want to rip the proverbial “Band-Aid” right off and explain why one popular reason for voting is mistaken. If you think your vote has any influence on who will win the 2012 presidential election, you are wrong. Your vote will have absolutely, positively zero impact on the outcome of the 2012 presidential election.

I do not mean that your vote counts only a very small amount, like a grain of sand on the beach. I do not mean that the election is rigged. I do not even mean that the voting machines will malfunction. I mean that your vote will be counted, and it will literally not have ANY impact in determining who wins the election. None.

Here’s why: For your vote to “make a difference” in the 2012 presidential election results, you would have to be voting in the one and only state that had enough electoral votes to swing the election to either Romney or Obama. Additionally, the popular vote in your state would have to be decided by a single vote. If, and only if, your state is decided by a single vote and your vote is the tie-breaker will your vote have any impact on the election outcome. We can safely say the odds of that happening are statistically close enough to zero to be called zero for all practical purposes. No presidential election has ever been decided by one vote, nor will it ever be.

Some might argue that the example of Florida in 2000 highlights the importance of your single vote. In fact, it shows the opposite. Not only are the odds infinitesimally small that there will ever be an exact tie, but even when elections get remotely close like they did in the 2000, the decision was quickly taken out of the hands of the voters and put into the government courts.

Again, there may be reasons for voting, but thinking that your vote will have any influence on the outcome of this presidential election should not be one of them. It doesn't. Zero. Zip. Your vote will not make a difference in determining the presidential election outcome. Not in this election, not ever.

“But I have to vote for Romney because we can’t survive another four years of Obama.” – Your vote will not matter in determining who will win.

“I have to vote for Obama because Romney is just terrible.” – Your vote will not matter in determining who will win.

“I can’t waste my vote on a third party.” – Guess what? Your vote will not matter in determining who will win.

Hopefully you are starting to get the idea.

Whether or not you vote for Romney or Obama or anyone else for that matter has absolutely zero impact on who will win the 2012 presidential election. Your thinking there is a chance you will have even the smallest fraction of an impact on the results is a mistake.

However, just because your vote will have zero impact on determining who will win the election, it does not follow that your vote is meaningless. It just means you need to have a better reason for voting than naively thinking your vote will make a difference as to who will win.

Take a moment to think of a few reasons why think you should or shouldn’t vote. Remember, don’t include anything like “because I want candidate X to win”. We just illustrated why that is not good reasoning.

Understand the Costs and Benefits of Voting

As Bryan Caplan notes, voting is a lot like watching your favorite sports team on the television from your basement. Your participation doesn’t have any influence on the winner of the game, but one of the main payoffs for voting, besides any entertainment value you derive from the process, is that you get to tell everybody that you did it. Voting is probably best understood as an expressive act. By selecting your candidate's name at the ballot box and then telling everyone about it, you get to communicate to others who you are and what you stand for. You get to feel like you are a part of the process, a part of something bigger than yourself.

Of course, since your vote will have zero impact on who wins the 2012 presidential election, you should not include any expected costs or benefits of the next administration's policies in your own personal cost/benefit analysis of deciding whether or not to vote.

For example, you would never watch the 49ers game expecting that your act of watching will have any impact on whether or not they win. However, you may watch because you are emotionally invested in the outcome, for whatever reason. Similarly, you might get real psychological benefits from voting. You might enjoy the entertainment value of educating yourself about the issues and candidates. Maybe voting provides you with an opportunity to express yourself emotionally.

You just have to decide for yourself if those benefits are worth the costs associated with voting. While you don’t have to pay money at the voting booth, the cost of voting includes the time and resources it takes to become informed, register to vote, travel to the polls, and stand in line, etc… as measured by the loss other productive activities you could have been doing with your time and energy.

For Whom Should I Vote?

Now that you’ve taken time to think about whether or not voting is worth your time and energy relative to the other productive activities you could be doing, let’s explore the four options available to you in the 2012 presidential election:

1)     Vote for Obama
2)     Vote for Romney
3)     Vote for Other
4)     Vote by Not Voting

It is already a foregone conclusion that either Obama or Romney will win. Regardless of who secures the crown on November 6th, it is certain that we will get four more years of wars, several trillion in additional debt, a continuously devalued currency, and more egregious violations of basic civil liberties. It will be this way whether you vote for Romney, Obama, Other, or None of the Above. Remember, your vote will have absolutely, positively no impact on determining the winner. Not even a little bit.

However, your vote on Election Day may be important as an expressive act. It communicates what you stand for. You should vote for your principles. It will be counted as part of the aggregate to communicate a message. A vote for either 1) Obama or 2) Romney says that you support the ever-expansive leviathan we call the federal government. It signals that you support the status quo that is this corrupt and illegitimate political system.

If you actually stand with Romney or Obama on principle, then by all means, express your values accordingly. We are going to get Romney or Obama either way, and your vote will not impact who wins. But you have to decide if you really want to say that you were one of the ones who voted for four more years of bad government? Is that what you want to celebrate?

For anyone who cares about individual liberty, and thinks they are supporting liberty by voting for the lesser of two evils, a vote for either Obama or Romney is worse than a wasted vote.  As I have shown in detail, your vote will only impact who wins in the case of a tie, and a tie will never occur. However, a vote for Obama or Romney, even if it is a vote for the lesser of two evils, is still a vote for evil in the aggregate. You won’t impact who will win, but you will send the signal that you support this broken, exploitative system as is. Your voting decision in the presidential election should not come down to voting for the lesser of two evils. You have the very real option not to support evil.

For anyone concerned about advancing liberty, we are left with only two options in the 2012 presidential election: 3) Vote for Other or 4) Vote by Not Voting.

Not voting in the presidential election is a perfectly reasonable position for most people to take. Perhaps you are concerned about the legitimacy of the political system and wish to withhold your consent. Maybe, you correctly understand that even when you vote for a particular candidate, there is no way to be sure that you get what you voted for, so why bother. It may be you find it strange that elections always come down to the “choice” between establishment candidates Big Government A or Big Government B. Perhaps, like many advocates for liberty who take seriously the idea that we should not initiate force against other people, you have a fundamental problem voting for someone to rule over others. There are plenty of strong practical and moral arguments that it is wrong to vote.

If you really want to go to the polls and vote, consider voting for a 3rd party or write-in. The game is different. These candidates have no chance of winning. You can go in knowing, correctly, that your vote will not matter in determining the outcome of the winner. But, in aggregate, if a 3rd party can get 5% of the popular vote, that does make a real difference for funding and ballot access. It can change the public discussion. Furthermore, if the winners of the presidential election start winning with less and less support, it may draw appropriate attention to the corrupt structure of our inherentlypolitical system.

In closing, although your individual vote is completely and totally meaningless in terms of having any impact on who will win the presidential election, it may very well count for other reasons. I do not write all of this to imply we should do nothing and give up. Quite the opposite! I suggest that potential voters merely understand their reasons for voting or not voting. We should better understand the costs and benefits of voting, and we should at least question how much we really think we are “participating” in this political system.

How should an informed voter vote? After reading this, you are now more informed than most. The decision is up to you.

Next week, I will talk about how we can use our resources to influence change in ways that are more productive than simply casting a ballot every couple of years.

In Liberty,

Jason Riddle

To better understand and situate the current state of the American politics, we must first appreciate the origins and evolution of the liberal and conservative ideologies.

In the 1965 essay titled "Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty," Murray Rothbard explains that the origins of these two dominant political ideologies had their beginnings in Western Europe nearly 200 years ago. Liberalism (remember we are talking 19th century definition of the term) was the party “of hope, of radicalism, of liberty, of the Industrial Revolution, of progress, of humanity.”

The opposition to 18th and 19th century liberalism was embodied by the Tories; the party of “...hierarchy, statism, theocracy, serfdom, and class exploitation of the Old Order.”  The Tories were conservatives in the original sense of the word. They were the party of reaction whose goal was to preserve the traditional order of society. Roderick Long summarizes that the Tories “…had traditionally been the advocates of hierarchy and compulsion, while the Liberals had traditionally championed voluntary association and free exchange.”

Liberals on the “left” originally advocated for free markets, voluntary exchange, freedom of association, and tolerance. Roderick Long points out that these free-market radicals embraced and promoted “many of the causes we now think of as paradigmatically left-wing - feminism, antiracism, antimilitarism, the defense of laborers and consumers against big business” while the Tories, or traditional conservatives, on the “right” advocated the hierarchy and compulsion of the Old Order.

During the end of the 18th and well into the 19th century, these two ideologies started to shift and change. We saw rapid economic and social progress due to increasing adoption of the radically liberal idea of individual human rights. The American colonies asserted their independence from the established order claiming the right to life, liberty, and property. It can be argued that America was the first nation in the history of the world founded on genuine liberal principles and within a few short decades, the world witnessed the end of chattel slavery, increased rights for women, and an economic revolution.

Unfortunately, the idea of liberalism began to transform in the later part of the 19th century. During this time we saw a rise of nationalism in Prussia – the model for the central, powerful modern nation-state. Both the Left and the Right were tempted to use the apparatus of government to achieve their ends. Roderick Long, drawing from a 1884 essay by Herbert Spencer titled The New Toryism, explains that, “…liberals came to conceptualize liberalism in terms of its easily identifiable effects (benefits for the masses) rather than in terms of its essential nature (laissez-faire), and so began to think that any measure aimed at the end of benefits for the masses must count as liberal, whether pursued by the traditional liberal means of laissez-faire or by its opposite, the traditional Tory means of governmental compulsion.”

Furthermore, on the heels of great scientific advancement, intellectuals came to believe they could order and plan society to reach the liberal goals of human flourishing faster than the incremental gains achieved through the voluntary market process. Instead of continuing to be the radical champions of freedom, which had led to steady improvements, the liberals presumed they could eliminate all the ills of society and create utopia if only they could use the existing power of the State to engineer and force their design for the benefit of humanity. In short, the liberals thought they could use the Tory means to achieve their liberal ends.  Remember, the Tories on the Right traditionally instituted big-government solutions to address what they considered to be the problems in society.

Instead of focusing on the freedom of the individual to pursue happiness, the liberals believed they could arrange society in such a way that man could be free from want – that government could engineer happiness and prosperity. Because the liberals thought their end goal to be a noble one, they had great intellectual backing and what we identify as today’s version of liberalism grew rapidly. We saw the rise of socialism and Marxism across much of the globe and by 1884, Spencer observed that "[m]ost of those who now pass as Liberals, are Tories of a new type."

Remember that at the time of Spencer’s writing in 1884, the concentration of political and economic power was considered a cornerstone of the Tory ideology. In fact, historically speaking, most people in most times have considered a concentration of power as being a right-wing ideology.  Spencer went on to issue a warning that turned out to be all too true. In 1884 he said, “So that if the present drift of things continues, it may by and by really happen that the Tories will be defenders of liberties which the Liberals, in pursuit of what they think popular welfare, trample under foot.”

Murray Rothbard offers further detail about this impact on the ideological transformation of the Left and the Right. The Liberals on the Left  “with an orientation toward activism were led to abandon the old libertarian form of liberalism for the more energetic and proactive state-socialist version, while those liberals who resisted the slide toward state-socialism found themselves drifting toward the pessimistic and reactionary outlook of traditionalist conservatism.”

As a response to these new radical developments, the reactionary wing of the Left (weary of growing collectivism) and the traditional Tories on the Right (concerned with preserving the Old Order) evolved into what we would today recognize as the conservative movement. Their mission became to slow the rapid growth of the new socialist and progressive governments. However, the focus of these conservatives, still deeply rooted in maintaining the old traditional order and traditional values, was not principally concerned with the defense of individual rights and laissez-faire, as that was the original position of the radical liberals!

So what does this mean for us today?

Now, with an understanding of the history of the American liberal and conservative ideologies, it should not be difficult to identify and explain the origins of their present internal contradictions.

The folks that would today be considered libertarians and the present-day liberals had common origins, but they went their separate ways in the 19th century. While the libertarians are characterized as fighting oppression in all forms, the modern-day liberals rail against non-governmental forms of tyranny (like the big bad corporations) while simultaneously championing institutionalized oppression in the form of government. Liberals today seem especially concerned about the concentration of power by the wealthy businessmen but ignore the concentration of power by the political elite.  They pay lip service to civil liberties while systematically destroying economic liberties. They have long since forgotten the lessons of their laissez-faire roots and now believe the economy can be ordered by wise central planners. They look at government as the great equalizer instead of recognizing the fact that government is quite instrumental in ensuring in the oppressive Old Order of the Tories.

As for the conservatives, their policies become intelligible if we remember that the conservative movement has its roots in the Tory ideology of maintaining traditional order by force. Ironically, after the perversion of classical liberalism into socialism, conservatism evolved as a reaction to the progressive, socialist agenda. The original advocate of centralized power is now our only safeguard against ever expanding government? At times, conservatives have successfully retarded the agenda of the modern-day liberal, but haven’t been able to offer any real alternative. Conservatives today accept the idea of progressive government solutions and only offer us with the alternative of implementing them more efficiently or at less cost than the liberal. The conservative message of liberty is impotent. Conservatism has never stood for laissez-faire or the principled respect for individual human rights. Furthermore, arguments for economic freedom from the conservatives carry little weight when they advocate using the blunt force of big government to secure their vision of traditional social values. The conservative pays lip service to economic liberty while destroying our personal liberty.

We have good reason to be frustrated with both of the major political parties. In American politics today, liberalism and conservatism are not fundamentally different. They merely fight over the application of government power. Both have origins rooted in authoritarian power structures designed to centrally order society according to their respective visions.

If you stand for liberty, human rights, and freed markets….you are not a conservative or a liberal in today’s terms. You are a libertarian. If you still consider yourself a conservative or a liberal after having full disclosure of what these terms mean, then you are a bully.

In Liberty,

Jason Riddle

Opponents of Obamacare rightfully argue that this egregious piece of legislation does not address the root cause of the healthcare problem and will likely only make our nation's precarious economic situation all the more dismal. That being said, the Republican Party has neither addressed the healthcare issues at the root nor provided any real alternative either. In principle, the Republican alternative is a merely a water-downed version of the bad medicine prescribed by the Democrats. Throughout the last half century the Republicans have served as no more than a speed bump slowing the progress of socialized medicine.

Instead of the offering a principled alternative, the focus of the GOP has been merely to fight against the Democrats' baleful plan while accepting their premise.

In 1994, Republicans successfully fended off Clinton's healthcare proposal. After taking back control of Congress, for a decade and a half Republicans did nothing to fix the tangled regulatory mess caused by government bedevilment in healthcare. Instead of unwinding the crippling interventionist programs and regulations, Republicans complacently let the costly errors of an inherently flawed government-orchestrated system compound. Republicans had their chance and stood idle.

In the game of politics it might make sense for the minority party to steer clear from rallying around an alternative that has no chance of passing, but it is not enough for the Republicans to simply oppose bad policy when they've had years to address the root of the problem.

For the last three years we've witnessed a furious debate around healthcare reform in America. In typical fashion, the media and politicians (both Republicans and Democrats) directed our attention to arguing over detached, surface-level issues instead of the real problems. The bottom line is that the Republicans and Democrats have both shown they support socialized, government solutions to healthcare – only varying by degree. Democrats are just a more consistent and explicit in their message, but there is really not a material difference when it comes to basic principles.

Advocates for liberty should argue that Obamacare, and for that matter any government intervention in the market of providing health care, is a blatant violation of human rights. We, as human beings, may have certain responsibilities to help men and women in need, but using the force of government to coerce people into providing a service is not benevolence. It is immoral laziness.

I understand that access to medical care is, in many cases, a matter of life and death. The debate around this subject carries correspondingly weighty emotional arguments. The public is bombarded with anecdotal talking points from the popular media that confound a myriad of surface-level, consequential concretes without any reference to a consistent system of ideas. Typically, the arguments around health care are framed in a manner which presupposes that it is a human right to secure some entitlement to special privilege: "Everyone has a right to affordable care. We are a rich country. We should provide health care to people who need health care."

The astute reader may ask the question: “Who is the ‘we’ that must provide that care?” Perhaps the question one should consider is: “Can an entitlement to a good or service produced by another really be considered a human right. Can something be a right if it necessarily implies the obligation on the part of another?”

To assert that medical care must be provided as a human right is a contradiction. This necessarily implies that one person has a positive obligation to provide a product or service to another. The forced surrender of labor and property (whether it is forced medical care or mandatory insurance) for the benefit of another is a stark violation of human rights. Even with best intentions, central planners cannot magically create human rights by abrogating the human rights of another.

Moreover, it is misleading to think of healthcare as a “system” that can be controlled and distributed to the needy by a central authority. ‘Healthcare’ is a generalized term for a very specific combination of goods and service of a scarce quantity offered by and consumed by individual humans. Health care does not just appear automatically in nature. It must be produced by someone through intense physical and mental effort.

The claim that it is the role of government to ensure everyone is provided with health care or health insurance is analogous to claiming that it is the government’s role to ensure everyone has access to a car, cell phone, and color tv.  Should everyone enjoy the right to these goods as well? Unfortunately, self-described Progressives today answer “yes”.

Many people have come to view modern conveniences as necessities without considering what has made the increased standard of living possible.  Human advancement for centuries was gradual or flat.  It was a social system built on the principles of freedom and individual rights that catapulted mankind into realizing achievements past generations could not even conceptualize.

Advocates of using the centralized, monopolistic instrument of government coercion to force a group to work for the special privilege of another attempt to constrict the very engine that makes this debate even possible – a political/economic system that respects individual human rights.

Perhaps our vision of history and human rights has been skewed by our crystal-clear 21st century LASIK eyesight….

In Liberty,

Jason Riddle

I was recently asked: “What are the foundations of a free society?”

Here is my brief answer:

The foundation of a free society is a reason-based philosophy of liberty. By applying the concepts of an objectively determined morality, using the individual’s life as the ultimate standard of value, we are able to understand the concept of individual rights. Every person has a right to his or her own life. A right is freedom to act, not freedom to have any object unearned. Moreover, a right is a freedom from coercion, not a positive obligation or a claim upon the life of another. The right to life is the fundamental right from which all other rights are derived.

Since individual effort is required to sustain life, a right to life necessitates individuals are free to voluntarily act based on their own judgment and choices and to keep and dispose of the products of their individual physical and mental labor. From this we are able to deduce the right to justly-acquired property and the right to engage in voluntary exchange.

The right to self-defense is a necessary corollary to the right to life and the right to property. Every person has the right to defend his or her life, liberty, and justly-earned property. Just as the individual has the right to defend his or her own life, people have the right to voluntarily organize in order to protect their rights. The protection of individuals against the initiation of force by aggressors is the only role of any ‘protective institution’ in a free society.

The rational means by which to determine if an action should or should not be deterred by lawful force is to assess the action in terms of whether or not the action violates the individual rights of another. A society must operate under the rule of law if it is to remain free. Objective laws compatible with human rights are the only just laws, and the defense of individual rights is the fundamental principle of a proper legal system.

Finally, it must be noted that the conditions necessary to create and maintain a free society do not come about automatically. If a reason-based philosophy of liberty is the foundation of a free society, the concepts of individual rights briefly discussed above may be thought of as the pillars. However, neither the foundation nor the pillars of a free society can be constructed without individual members taking the initiative to educate themselves about the requirements of liberty. The mortar that holds the structure of a free society together must necessarily include the virtues of individual responsibility, honesty, integrity, and self-esteem.

A society well-educated in these fundamental principles will not be easily shaken by the seductive temptation of using political, coercive means to obtain short-term gain at the expense of others. Ultimately, a free society rests on the shoulders of individuals of exceptional character who take on the responsibility to understand the philosophy of liberty, share this message with others, and lead by example.

And isn't freedom what makes life worth living?

In Liberty,

Jason Riddle