Decriminalize the Average Man

by Wendy McElroy

“Outright innocence is not sufficient to escape the brutality of detention.”

If you reside in America and it is dinnertime, you have almost certainly broken the law. In his book Three Felonies a Day, civil-liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate estimates that the average person unknowingly breaks at least three federal criminal laws every day. This toll does not count an avalanche of other laws — for example misdemeanors or civil violations such as disobeying a civil contempt order — all of which confront average people at every turn.

An article in the Economist (July 22, 2010) entitled “Too many laws, too many prisoners” states,

Between 2.3m and 2.4m Americans are behind bars, roughly one in every 100 adults. If those on parole or probation are included, one adult in 31 is under “correctional” supervision. As a proportion of its total population, America incarcerates five times more people than Britain, nine times more than Germany and 12 times more than Japan.

By contrast, in 1970, less than one in 400 Americans was incarcerated. Why has the prison population more than quadrupled over a few decades? Why are you, as an average person and daily felon, more vulnerable to arrest than at any other time?

There is a simple answer but no single explanation as to how the situation arose or why it continues to accelerate out of control. The answer: a constant flood of new and broadly interpreted laws are criminalizing entire categories of daily life while, at the same time, the standards required for arrest and conviction have been severely diluted. The result is that far too many people are arrested and imprisoned for acts that should not be viewed as criminal at all or should receive minimal punishment.

In some cases, the violated laws are so obscure, vague, or complicated in language that even the police are ignorant of them. In other cases, outright innocence is not sufficient to escape the brutality of detention.

Libertarian Party Nominates Gary Johnson for President

Governor Gary Johnson, 2012 Libertarian Candidate for President

LAS VEGAS – The Libertarian Party nominated former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson for President of the United States, expressing confidence he will be able to find effective small-government solutions to the country’s most pressing problems and mount a strong challenge to his major party rivals.

Mr. Johnson was declared the party’s Presidential nominee after he won 70% percent of the vote in the first round of balloting, receiving 419 of the 595 votes cast.

His closest challenger, R. Lee Wrights of Texas, finished second with 152 votes.

In his acceptance speech, Mr. Johnson promised to present a clear and viable alternative to major party candidates, saying his victory in November will offer Americans effective solutions to slow economic growth, high unemployment and endless foreign military commitments that sap the country’s financial strengths. America, for the first time in modern history, is poised to reject the tired two-party duopoly that has brought the nation to its knees economically.

“I am honored and I just want to pledge that no one will be disappointed. We’re going to grow the Libertarian Party.” said Mr. Johnson.

Libertarian Party Nominates Judge James P. Gray for Vice President

The Libertarian Party

LAS VEGAS – The Libertarian Party on Saturday nominated Judge James P. Gray of California for Vice President of the United States, giving him a chance to take his agenda of downsizing the federal government and marijuana decriminalization to Washington.

Jim Gray was declared the party’s Vice Presidential nominee after he won 59 percent of the vote in the first round of balloting. He received 357 votes from the 600 delegates of the National Libertarian Convention held at the Red Rock Resort in Las Vegas, Nev.

His closest challenger, Lee Wrights of Texas, finished second with 229 votes.

“I am proud. I am invigorated. I am excited. With Gov. Gary Johnson. I am determined to bring back prosperity and liberty to the United States of America.” Judge Gray said.

A successful jurist who lives in Newport Beach, Calif. and presided over the Superior Court of Orange County, Judge Gray has been active in the Libertarian Party for several decades.

He was the 2004 Libertarian Party candidate for the U.S. Senate in California challenging incumbent U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer. He is also the chief proponent of a California ballot initiative called “Regulate Marijuana Like Wine” that, if passed, would decriminalize cannabis consumption and production.

Judge Gray will form a Libertarian Party ticket with Gov. Gary Johnson, who won the party’s Presidential nomination earlier Saturday.

Legalize Currency Competition

by Ron Paul

Before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Financial Services, Hearing on HR 1098: the Free Competition in Currency Act

 

Congressman Ron Paul

I. The Problem

John Maynard Keynes once stated that “There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.” Such a situation is exactly what faces this country today, as the Federal Reserve seems hell-bent on destroying what little purchasing power remains of the U.S. Dollar.

Money is what allows civilization to flourish. Without money, consumers must barter their goods, hoping to exchange their products for those produced by others, and relying on a double coincidence of wants. Money enables man to rise above barter and makes exchange less burdensome. Once money comes into existence, businessmen can calculate profit and loss, homemakers can compare prices among different grocery stores, and individuals can begin to save and invest.

Money as a medium of exchange should always satisfy certain properties. It should be durable, not wearing out easily; it should be portable, easily carried; it should be divisible into units usable for everyday transactions; it should be recognizable and uniform, so that one unit of money has the same properties as every other unit; it should be scarce, in the economic sense, so that the extant supply does not satisfy the wants of everyone demanding it; it should be reproducible, so that enough units of money can be created to satisfy the needs of exchange; and most importantly, it should be stable, so that the value of its purchasing power does not fluctuate wildly.

CHANGE

by Jessica Contreras

RON PAUL 2012 END THE FED VIDEO

PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP; SALES OF FALSE ADVERTISEMENT

Written by Dante L. Balandra

 

The Preamble states, “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America” (p. A-1).

Seriously, what is the problem of America? What happened to “Land of the free and home of the brave”? Although it pains me to say that, as a once thriving country of agriculture, manufactured goods and services; a strong and powerful military; and a country of opportunity and economic growth, we are at a standstill. Yes, the United States cannot recover from a dire economical windfall, continued higher taxes, and yes, poverty. Why? Well, I believe that the problems are due to poor leadership and false sales. Hughes, Ginnett, and Curphy (2009) explain, “Leadership is a complex phenomenon involving the leader, the followers, and the situations” (p. 4). In other words, the President of the United States is the leader, “we the people” are the followers, and the economical down-fall, corporation control, poor credit, out-sourcing of manufactured goods and services, poverty, corruption, and Amendments amending Amendments achieving short-term objectives verse long-term objectives represent a small portion of the situations, which are problems that need to be addressed and dealt with.

With leadership defined and the attributes of regarding leadership, followers, and situations distinguished, the next focus will shift to sales. Yes, sales are vital, especially to the Presidential race and the Presidency itself. Mr. Obama was able to sell himself with his mission of “CHANGE”. My fellow Americans, I bought into this change and he did it. He succeeded in creating change. We must give the President congratulations on accomplishing huge debt, the continued increase of unemployment rates, the continual efforts to make corporate business a process of government, and a poor credit rating country. Of course we must also appraise his efforts to raise over a billion dollars to finance his re-election. Kudos, Mr. President… Although the United States is struggling to survive, I’m glad that you can eagerly support your re-election campaign.

As an American with a voice to be heard, I want to know…

“When are our leaders going to take strides to fulfill the continued fight for freedom? When are our leaders going to realize that ‘We the people’ have voices, ideas, strategies, opinions, needs and wants, and demand to become great once again? It is not a difficult task to be an effective and productive leader. One must be a person of character, have integrity, be honest, and do what he/she says they will do”…

Perhaps, if this achieved, then the United States will become great once again. President John F. Kennedy said it best, “Ask not what your country can do for you-but what you can do for your country”. The people have lived to that expectation, but our leaders have not. How does American’s feel about the leader, President of the United States, also have the title of Commander-in-Chief, without ever serving in the military?

To be fair, change is needed, but change begins at the leadership level. Yes, we need an individual who is going to stand by what he/she says. No exception. The United States needs to have a leader who will keep government separate from corporate business, stop out-sourcing services, and focus less on supporting the 130+ countries and focus on the dire economic ruins of the United States. Yes, it is necessary to take care of our own before we can take care of others. Leaders need to quit selling lies and begin focusing on the truths that exist. We need to make a stand, and that stand begins with change.

Mr. Obama once stated, “A true leader would have the tenacity to stand by their promise. Unfortunately, your needs come last and the needs, promises, and demands of the American people come first and foremost.”

To raise funds for re-election purposes should come second, Mr. Obama.

If Mr. Obama cannot take ownership, then why waste America’s time? Let someone else take the initiative, have the motivation, and actually make changes that all Americans can benefit from. However, I believe that Mr. Obama is making a push to create jobs, believing that by doing so, will secure a re-election. America is too smart for that. You had your shot, Mr. Obama, but now it’s time for someone new.

By Jessica Contreras Copyright 2011

Leave Me Alone

by Michael Calpino

Michael Calpino

The last two years have seen the battle for America’s future heat up exponentially.  With the election of Barack Obama we have seen the socialist agenda shoved forward at a pace unimaginable a few years ago and the negative consequences of big government intervention are becoming obvious to all but the most mindless kool-aid drinkers.  The TEA party movement, of which I have been a proud participant since the beginning, is a bold and wide reaching reaction of average Americans who have coalesced against big government intrusion and its consequences.

     One of the problems we face as we attack the destructive monster that is our government is that it is involved in so many things; it is like a hydra with a thousand heads.  As one attack on our liberty arises and we focus on it, ten more appear at the same time.  It is impossible to keep up with it all.  To know the minutia of all the legislation, the statistics and numbers involved in the arguments, the regulations and the people concerned is nearly impossible for the average America on even one issue, much less the hundreds that come at us at every level of government, all desiring to tear away a little more of our flesh.

     The battle for the future and soul of America will be concluded by the end of this decade.  We will either restore the vision of the founders and recapture the essence of liberty or we will complete our descent into the totalitarian nightmare, following Europe into chaos, violence, cultural and financial bankruptcy.  For those of us who want to see our children inherit a free country, we must do more than fight a defensive holding action.  We cannot be defined only by what we are against, we need to know and understand what we are for.  We need to know, and be able to articulate, why freedom is better than slavery, why government is the problem and not the solution, why liberty and prosperity are two sides of the same coin.  Instead of so many individuals swiping at a multitude of heads that only grow back, we need to develop a weapon of mass destruction, a set of core principles, that will be effective not only against the multitude of devouring heads but drive straight into the heart of the beast.

    

The Great IP Debate of 1983

I have discussed in previous posts to the Mises Economics Blog the historical background of the modern (and growing) libertarian IP abolitionist movement (“The Origins of Libertarian IP Abolitionism”; “The Four Historical Phases of IP Abolitionism”; see also “The Death Throes of Pro-IP Libertarianism”). We can divide the history into four phases:

1. The antipatent movement from 1850 to 1873
2. The debates among individualist anarchists in the late 1800s
3. Mounting libertarian IP skepticism in the pre-Internet age (1930s–1980s)
4. Austrolibertarian IP abolitionism in the digital/Internet age (1995–present)

The third phase can be broken into two subphases: first, opposition to IP by free-market (but not completely principled or libertarian) economists such as Arnold Plant and Fritz Machlup from the 1930s to the ’50s;[1] second, a period of strongly libertarian opposition to intellectual property roughly covering the ’60s to ’80s.

The primary libertarian thinkers of this latter period are Hayek, Rothbard, Wendy McElroy, Samuel Edward Konkin III (“SEK3”), and Tom Palmer. Hayek and Rothbard were good on this — especially Rothbard — but their analyses were not that extensive.[2]

Konkin was a significant early figure in the development of a systematic and libertarian opposition to IP, as explained in David Gordon’s article “Sam Konkin and Libertarian Theory”; see also Lew Rockwell’s post “Remembering Samuel Edward Konkin III,” both of which discuss Konkin’s pioneering article “Copywrongs.” After being influenced by Konkin, Wendy McElroy developed the argument further, resulting in the first extensive, full-fledged, fully libertarian, and principled modern case against IP, informed by principles of Austrian economics. Gordon is right in his assessment of Konkin’s significance:

Konkin’s work on IP deserves at least equal recognition as his better-known defense of counter-economics and agorism; and, to the extent that anti-IP views come to prevail among libertarians, I predict that Sam Konkin will be a name we shall often hear.

I believe the same is also true of McElroy. I would say the primary originators of the modern libertarian opposition to IP are Benjamin Tucker, Konkin, and finally McElroy, who built on their insights. McElroy’s analysis was more modern and Austrian and radically propertarian than that of Tucker (who, after all, was wobbly on property in land), and it was more extensive and systematic than that of Konkin. Tucker was a protolibertarian IP abolitionist, without the benefit of modern Austrian and radical propertarian insights; Konkin had pioneering, modern libertarian insights into IP, as can be seen in his “Copywrongs” article, but McElroy took it even further. (It was, in fact, McElroy’s work that was a major influence on my own thinking as I was searching for the right approach to IP in the early 1990s. Ideas do have consequences.)

A Libertarian Case for Monarchy

by Leland B. Yeager from Mises.org

[Is the Market a Test of Truth and Beauty? (2011). This article was originally published in Liberty, (2004).]

Clear thought and discussion suffer when all sorts of good things, like liberty, equality, fraternity, rights, majority rule, and general welfare — some in tension with others — are marketed together under the portmanteau label “democracy.”

Democracy’s core meaning is a particular method of choosing, replacing, and influencing government officials (Schumpeter 1950). It is not a doctrine of what government should and should not do. Nor is it the same thing as personal freedom or a free society or an egalitarian social ethos. True enough, some classical liberals, like Thomas Paine (1791) and Ludwig von Mises (1919), did scorn hereditary monarchy and did express touching faith that representative democracy would choose excellent leaders and adopt policies truly serving the common interest. Experience has taught us better, as the American founders already knew when constructing a government of separated and limited powers and of only filtered democracy.

As an exercise, and without claiming that my arguments are decisive, I’ll contend that constitutional monarchy can better preserve people’s freedom and opportunities than democracy as it has turned out in practice.[1]

My case holds only for countries where maintaining or restoring (or conceivably installing) monarchy is a live option.[2] We Americans have sounder hope of reviving respect for the philosophy of our Founders. Our traditions could serve some of the functions of monarchy in other countries.