The go-to guide on understanding Ron Paul and a Paul presidency.

For a summary of most topics in this piece via video format, please scroll to the bottom.

Ron Paul is a very unique politician that sharply stands out from others. Having served 24 years in the U.S. House of Representatives he has a record of being an outsider in congress; having never voted for a budget that would increase U.S. debt, choosing to opt out of the congressional pension plan, returning unspent money from his congressional office each year, and sponsoring bills where other politicians dare not tread, he is a rare breed that stands on principle. When he talks to people he doesn’t flop around in order to get votes, he means what he says and doesn’t try to mislead people. His goal is a constitutionally restricted federal government that promotes liberty for all and he has demonstrated his seriousness of this issue time and time again.

With all of that being said, there’s still quite the misunderstanding of who Ron Paul is and why he thinks the way he does. Many still know very little about the man, which is common in our drive-by, sound bite driven media. It is my hope to present to you here a full summary of who Ron Paul is, what his political stances are and where they are derived from, as well as tackle many of the questions surrounding Paul and what his presidency might look like.

For a little background on who Ron Paul is, this comes directly from his website.

The Role of Federal Government

Ron Paul is primarily concerned with limiting the Federal government to its proper roles as outlined by the constitution. In many cases he doesn’t necessarily want to not have government do many things he doesn’t want the federal government involved in, but to merely keep things in their proper role and allow local communities and states to address their issues. The way our political system is designed most things are taken care of on a state and local level and this is good because it creates an atmosphere of experimentation so that we can find out which approaches are good and which are bad more easily. This also allows for people in a given area to tailor a system that is best for their unique needs. Imposing a one size fits all federal model does not work and can even cause a lot of unintended damage. Imagine the outrage of people in California if open carry Arizona-style gun laws where just about anyone can carry just about any type of loaded gun at just about any time were implemented by a one size fits all federal policy. Or Chicago’s gun laws were implemented in Texas through a federal policy. Needless to say, it wouldn’t go over well at all.

The main point that needs to be emphasized from the last paragraph is that Ron Paul’s positions on federal policy are strictly derived from keeping the federal government consistent with what the constitution provides for as its roles. This is a reoccurring theme throughout all of his stances and must be kept in mind when considering where he is coming from.

Newsletters and Racism

Let’s start with what seems to be at the forefront of everyone’s minds and seems to be the worst people can come up with against Paul, that some newsletters written under his name feature what appears to be racist content. Most people have not read these newsletters and have only gotten pieces and parts which may or may not have been taken out of context, so without reading them in their entirety there is no way to see the context. He has stated that he did not write them and does not endorse them and it is very plausible that someone in his position does not read every single piece written under his organization. However this is all largely irrelevant. Let’s get to the real question at hand here.

Is he racist? I don’t know, possibly, however if he is he hasn’t let it affect his legislating. In fact, considering the generation he’s from, the great majority of them harbor racist tendencies so to find someone of his generation that is not racist would be quite challenging. I’m not trying to say being a racist is ok, but let’s put all of this in perspective.

There are reasons to suspect that the man is not racist, this video of him helping a young black couple in their time of great need is evidence of him not being a racist, however a much stronger case for him not being a racist is made by his position to end the drug war, a war that which harms minorities the most, particularly young black men. Studies have shown that drug usage among blacks is lower than whites even though blacks make up the majority of drug offenders in prison. To end the drug war would be a boon for minorities who take the brunt of its consequences whether it be through going to jail or having to endure in neighborhoods ravaged by gangs who profit from the drug war.

We’ll likely never know for sure, though I suspect the evidence is compelling enough to say no, he is not racist, and even a leader of the NAACP has said he is not racist. Considering the newsletters are the best people can come up with considering the baggage of the majority of other politicians, Paul is in a better position than most.

The War on Drugs

Speaking of his opposition to the drug war, let’s cover that controversial subject. The international war on drugs has been a complete failure as many studies have shown. However we don’t need studies to tell us it has been a failure as this is easy enough to see on its own. Drug cartels have essentially taken over Mexico and are a powerful force all over South America prompting leaders to call for legalization. In their wake we have seen record amounts of violence and bloodshed with one person being killed every 30 minutes on average. Drug prohibition has served to inflate drug prices which has padded the pockets of cartels and terrorists to the tune of $39 billion and has increased the dangerousness of drugs while proving that demand cannot be curbed by prohibition, as we already learned once before from the time of alcohol prohibition. Prohibition has given rise to not only cartels and terrorists in other countries, but organized crime in our own country as well, creating turf wars where we see gangs that are better equipped than the police could ever hope to be, gunning down innocent by-standers. We have seen over-zealous police kick in doors to the wrong homes in search of drugs, killing innocent people and their pets, and essentially terrorizing people who did absolutely nothing to warrant it. All of this however is not something Ron Paul can really fix.

Only congress has the power to repeal drug laws and even then there will still be state laws against drugs. The constitution does not give the federal government the power to regulate drugs and if you’ll recall, prohibition of alcohol required a constitutional amendment, yet this prohibition did not seek out an amendment. This is part of the reason why Ron Paul advocates for this issue to be dealt with at the state level. Just about all of the positions Paul takes is in keeping consistent with limiting the Federal government to its proper roles as prescribed by the constitution. Paul has stated that upon entering office he would direct the DEA to stop going after states that have decided to enact marijuana laws and pardon all non-violent drug offenders. Beyond using his position to advocate for legalization, there is little more he can do in this area.

Dr. No

Ron Paul has been nicknamed Dr. No during his time in congress due to the sheer amount of his “nay” votes on congressional legislation, often times standing alone or in very small company. To name just a few pieces of legislation he has opposed, they include the Patriot Act, the legislation that recently failed to regulate the internet SOPA, the legislation recently signed by President Obama allowing for the indefinite detention of people NDAA, the authorization of war with Iraq, and many others that were not consistent with the constitution. There were even several ceremonial pieces of legislation that he personally agreed with but found to not be something the Federal government should be involved in, so he voted no on those as well. The thing to keep in mind here is that his no votes stem from a constitutional standpoint in keeping consistent in federal constitutional roles.

Foreign Policy

Some say that they like Ron Paul but cannot vote for him because of his foreign policy, believing that he would be an isolationist and let our enemies roll right over us. This stems from a misunderstanding of what isolationism is, which is the severing of all relationships with other countries in the world, no economic trade, no alliances, and little to no communication. This is also due to a lack of understanding of his foreign policy ideas, which actually originate from the non-interventionist views of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson; that is we should have peaceful relations and economic trade with any country that will have them and not involve ourselves with the internal affairs of others, as we would not like it if other countries involved themselves with our internal affairs. This means spreading our values through leading by example and not through brute force, a tactic that has only served to make more enemies.

He would withdraw most troops from around the world, especially in Europe where we have been subsidizing their defense costs since WWII. We have over 700 military bases around the world which is costing us a fortune to maintain and has promoted the armament of other countries as a response to our ever growing military presence. He will maintain a strong standing army that has the readiness and capability of responding to any threats and has stated that he will only go to war if congress votes to do so; and will then prosecute the war quickly and efficiently. If war with Iran or any other nation becomes necessary and congress authorizes the war, Paul will make quick work of them.

In order to have a strong military and a strong economy, cuts must be made to military waste and Paul intends to cut this waste while making the lives of our soldiers better by providing more care and stability. He would know better what military personnel needs than other candidates, having been the only one out of all of them to have served in the military. The Department of Defense would see $832 billion disappear from its budget during his first term, most of which would stem from the end of all foreign wars and foreign aid, aid which tends to end up in the hands of corrupt politicians in the countries receiving the aid and ultimately does not help those most needful of it.

As far as Israel is concerned, he wants to get out of their business and let them manage their own affairs, and Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu agrees with him. Currently those surrounding Israel get more foreign aid from the U.S. than Israel gets, so cutting all foreign aid would be a net benefit for Israel.

Spending Budgets and Economy

One of his biggest issues is balancing the budget and he has vowed to veto any unbalanced budgets that congress sends him. In his Plan to Restore America he seeks one trillion dollars in budget reduction the first year and plans to completely balance the budget after three years. This may not be realistic though since only congress can make the budgets. It is unlikely that we will see the proposed cuts made by Paul, however his vetoing power will force congress to work together to either pass a budget that won’t be vetoed or overcome the 2/3’s majority needed to bypass the veto. Either way we will see significant, meaningful reductions in government waste. In keeping with his promises of budget reductions he has stated that he will also cut the salary of president to $39,336 which is the median income of the American worker. Further information can be found here.

Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid

For those concerned about their benefits from Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, he recognizes these contracts made with U.S. taxpayers and has stated that he will not touch these programs that people have become heavily dependent upon, though at some point down the road he will seek to reform them so that they can become sustainable without reducing the benefits of those that have paid into them.

Cutting Federal Agencies

Paul has stated that he will abolish five federal agencies: Energy, Education, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, and Interior would cease to exist. Their elimination would reduce the budget by about $179 billion. All of these agencies will be cut because they are not authorized by the constitution and because state control of these matters would be more preferable, as stated earlier in this piece local communities have different needs and require custom made plans for their own unique situations. All employees cut from these agencies would be transferred to other sectors of the government.

*note: We have since learned that we incorrectly stated Paul’s stance on the EPA. For those wondering about incident like the BP oil spill and what the elimination of the EPA in this situation would result in, you can have a look at this piece.

The Federal Reserve and Monetary Policy

Another centerpiece of Paul’s policy is to audit, reform, and ultimately abolish the Federal Reserve and return the U.S. to the gold standard. Auditing the Federal Reserve is a must in order to gain transparency into this secretive banking system. A limited audit last year revealed that the Fed had made trillions of dollars in secret loans interest free all over the world in order to prop up businesses that had made bad decisions and screwed their customers over. Reform is direly needed as the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy since it was established in 1913 has fueled enormous bubbles that have led to many boom/bust recessions, the most recent due to loose credit policies through the expansion of the money supply. This subject of the Federal Reserve is too vast to discuss here, for further reading on the subject you can go here. As for the abolishment of the Federal Reserve and return to the gold standard, this will take a long time and will likely not happen during a Paul presidency both because of the necessary time it would take to do so and because this power ultimately lies with congress. The only immediate effects of a Paul presidency here would be more transparency in the banking system and the appointment of a Federal Reserve chairman that will work to straighten out monetary policy and punish bad lending practices.

The Civil Rights Act

There has been controversy surrounding Paul’s remarks on the Civil Rights Act in saying that he believes it is too far reaching. While he believes that government should never discriminate against anyone his beliefs on this subject are derived from a very deep understanding of what property rights are and how far reaching they are. There’s a split between people on this issue, some people believe that property owners have the right to exercise their freedom of association and choose not to provide service from their business to anyone they choose for any reason they choose. Others believe that property owners have the right to set the rules for those on their property, but do not have the right to discriminate against groups. Paul has said however that he has no desire to get rid of the Civil Rights Act and agrees with the spirit of it. To get a deeper understanding of this issue, this article will help clarify his stance.

Abortion

Abortion has been a largely debated issue in this country for a while now and as an OB/GYN Ron Paul has ample experience in this subject. He believes that life begins at conception and will at some point later in his presidency seek a constitutional amendment to define it as such. Until then he would like to see this become solely a state issue as currently he believes there is no constitutional basis for the Federal government to be involved in this matter. All of this is very unlikely to happen though. Every president has limited political capital and his priorities will take up all of his time before he gets to this issue.

Putting this into perspective, if this issue were ever to be addressed it would have been during the Bush administration while Republicans controlled both houses of congress. If it didn’t happen during that time, it surely will not happen during a Paul presidency so the issue at this point is largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things since there is really nothing he can do about it.

Gay Rights

Paul has been dinged over his positions on gay rights. While he did support the end of DADT so that gay soldiers could serve openly in the military, he also supported, though did not vote for, the Defense of Marriage Act. This legislation defined marriage as between a man and a woman at the federal level and gave protection to states by not requiring them to recognize same sex marriages from other states. Paul has stated that his support of this legislation stems from wanting to prevent federal courts from imposing same sex marriage on states that have not voted to recognize them.

The issue is that if the Federal government is going to recognize a marriage status for whatever reason, mainly taxation, then it needs to either recognize both types of marriage or not recognize either one of them. Paul takes the position that government should not be in the business of recognizing marriage.

Under the U.S. system of government marriage is not a federal issue, but a state issue. Without a constitutional amendment either making it a federal issue, or leaving the matter solely to the people and not the states, we will continue to have a system that allows for each state to choose whether or not they want to recognize same sex marriage or any marriage at all. It could also be argued that under the 14th amendment providing for equal treatment before the law that states must either recognize both forms of marriage or none at all.

It would seem that Ron Paul is a hypocrite on this matter though. While it is understandable of what he was trying to do in limiting federal power on this issue he went about it the wrong way and has ended up signaling support for a law that does not treat everyone equally.

Unions and Worker’s Rights

There is this perception that Paul wants to eliminate unions and worker’s rights and get rid of the minimum wage. The first charge is untrue as Ron Paul wholeheartedly supports the voluntary association of workers to collectively bargain with their employer, and while he believes that the minimum wage is a bad idea and not a matter the Federal government has constitutional authority over, there’s absolutely nothing he can do as president about that since only congress has the ability to decide this matter.

Deregulation and Corruption

Another perception of Paul is that with his presidency he would bring about corruption and massive fraud. As many understand it, Paul would completely deregulate all businesses, which is not the case. He would seek to get rid of many regulations, those that were written by lobbyists and only serve to empower the wealthy by providing them protection from prosecution while preventing smaller businesses from competing. Paul would seek regulations that prevent fraud, theft, and damage to others in order to ensure that compliance costs are low and accountability is high.

If the elite have their own people in the form of lobbyists writing the laws and regulations, who do you think is benefiting from them?

A point to consider: If claims that his presidency would promote corruption and fraud were true, why aren’t the corporations following in lockstep behind him, promoting him every step of the way? Why is the media ignoring him so much? He presents a genuine challenge to the status quo and those in positions of power right now are very afraid of what a Ron Paul presidency would mean for them. The gravy train of corruption and corporate handouts would come to a standstill, and that doesn’t sit well with them.

When choosing a candidate to support for president this year, we should try to base our choices on what the president will do on the issues that they do have the power to impact, rather than on issues the president has no control over.

For more information, please visit his campaign website. For more videos on Ron Paul please visit http://ronpaulflix.com/

Any stripe of libertarian believes that it is wrong for the government to give handouts, that this practice is unfair and leads to problems. Certainly no true libertarian would accept a handout from the government that grants them a special privilege or right over others. This is the key issue with corporate handouts and something that libertarians fight ferociously against. When the government grants this sort of privilege through legislation and regulation it ultimately leads to wealth and power pooling in the hands of a small group of people and making it so that others either barely or can’t get by and that there is very little wealth mobility. It also severely stifles innovation. This is the problem we are experiencing in our society today.

Is this the same thing as accepting money from the government though? It is true that subsidies are the accepting of money from the government, however this is essentially the same as the other corporate handouts as noted in the previous paragraph. A subsidy is a special privilege that gives an upper hand to a select group of people, which serves to only harm consumers, workers, competing businesses, and innovation. So we can conclude that no self-respecting libertarian would advocate for or accept a subsidy.

So what else is left? The individual welfare system. Programs such as Social Security and Medicare are not essentially entitlement programs, though they do ultimately end up becoming entitlements. There is no doubt that people ought to get back what they paid in to these programs, they are a social contract and even libertarians are entitled to their own share. The problem with these programs though is that due to the federal government’s policy of inflation, the cost of living always increases every year, making it inevitable that these programs must pay out more than they take in. If natural deflation were allowed to take its course, this would not be an issue since the programs could be maintained by paying back to people exactly what they payed in, only the money coming back would have more purchasing power due to lower prices from deflation. So on these two points, it would not be hypocritical for a libertarian to accept money from government.

What about programs such as food stamps, unemployment, and general welfare? It is all too true that these programs are entitlements. Often people get more out of these programs than they pay into them, and it comes at the expense of those who are successful enough to either not need them, or not qualify for them. Sure these programs have their benefits to the truly needy, however they also create problems of generational welfare and serve as motivation for people to stay on the public dole rather than attempt to lift themselves economically. Regardless of whether or not a libertarian wants to reform these programs to be more efficient, or if they want to get rid of them altogether, a topic of discussion that we will not touch on here, the grand question remains.

Since everyone is required to pay to support these programs, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with trying to get some of that money back, no matter where you stand on the subject. Those that say they stand on principle and refuse to take a “handout” from the government are perfectly well within their right to hold that stance, however you’d be crazy to not try and recoup some of your losses. We’re not just talking about money taken to help pay for these programs either, but the cumulative losses that exist due to all of the burdens people must bear because of government favoritism. All of the taxes taken, induced inflation, job prevention, loss of liberties, the transferring of wealth to the already wealthy, they’re all heavy burdens largely induced by government intervention. If you can recoup some of those losses through the use of welfare programs, go for it. If you choose not to do so on principle, that’s fine too.

It may go against ideology, but there’s nothing wrong with getting some of your money back.

Sometimes I need to work more than forty hours a week, sometimes I want to work more than forty hours a week, either way it’s to get ahead and be a little more financially stable. Often though, I’m unable to do so.

People need more money for any number of reasons and there’s nothing wrong with that if they’re willing to work for it. Say my child broke her arm, that’s at least $500 or the transmission went out in my car, and that’s at least $1000, if you’re like me, that’s a big chunk of change. In order to overcome that burden I either need to reduce my expenses somewhere else, or increase my income, which would be a lot easier than cutting expenses.

So the next day I go up to my boss and tell her that I need some extra hours this week in order to help cover some extra expenses that unexpectedly came up. She sympathizes but says that she can’t help me out. Company policy states that overtime is only allowed in certain cases where the business really needs extra help. This policy is in place because they don’t want to or can’t afford to pay the extra time and a half for overtime.

What am I to do? Since the business I work for is unwilling or unable to pay me the extra money due to overtime laws, I am unable to obtain more than my standard forty hours. If I want to make extra money I now have to go through the process of finding another job that will be compatible with the schedule of my main job, which I will have to waste time and gas getting to, and will likely be paid less than what my other job pays.

I do appreciate what the overtime wage laws are trying to do for me, but as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. If I could make an agreement with my company on a week to week basis to work more than forty hours for my standard pay, I’d be a lot better off and the business wouldn’t be able to exploit me. Instead of having to find a second compatible job that I’d have to spend time and gas driving to and make less money at, I could simply stay where I’m already at and just work a few extra hours each day until I reach the desired hours I need.

The overtime wage laws are really hurting those that they’re intended to help the most. The laws don’t necessarily need to be repealed, but we do need more choice in how we sell our labor to businesses so that we can be more financially stable during rough times.

People discriminate every day. What instantly comes to mind with something like this is color of skin and gender. Discrimination can be any range of areas though, from looks, to speech, quality of clothes, pitch of voice, physical strength, etc. There are many things here that are discriminated against that people cannot control. Should we employ a bad singer over a good singer in order to avoid discrimination? Should we employ a weaker person over a very strong person to do a job that requires a lot of physical strength, just to avoid discrimination? How about the modeling business, isn’t that entire industry built on discrimination against ugly people? What of all female book clubs, doesn’t this discriminate against males? Scholarships that go to only black people? Businesses that will not hire people with visible tattoos or those who cannot pass a drug test but never show up to work inebriated?

What are we to do about all of this discrimination? We can’t simply pick and choose which discrimination to make illegal and which to not make illegal. Any time someone doesn’t get hired because they have a visible tattoo, should that business should be sued and fined for discrimination? Any time an all-woman book club doesn’t allow men in, they should be sued and fined? Any time there is a scholarship fund that is given solely to blacks but not other groups of people, they should be sued and fined? Seems like a lot of trouble to go through in order to prevent people from dealing with the people they choose. Also this opens the door for businesses and people to be sued all the time over false allegations of discrimination.

If someone opens a business, or even allows people to come in off the street into their private residence, there is no difference between the two, the owner has every right to deny entry of other people to their property, be selective about what people get which services, which people get what jobs, etc. The reasons for denying people entry to your property are vast and all of them are forms of discrimination. There’s no infringement of rights though since no one has a right to a business’ services or products.

To quote a woman’s perspective on this subject:

I believe that the entire human race, including both men and women, have the equal right to their lives, liberty, and property. But there is a difference between rights and legal privilege. Legal privileges are often granted by the state to one group at the expense of the genuine rights of another group. In my opinion, this act is immoral.

For example, what if a man owns a business and he prefers the company of other men and wishes only to hire men to work for him. Does he not have the right to make this decision? It is his business, after all. And is the state not violating his right to be the sole decision maker in regard to his property by requiring him to hire a woman against his will? The feminist would argue that she has a “right” to have a job at that location. But does she? I do not think so. I believe that she has the right to seek employment anywhere, and I believe that any potential employer has the right to turn her down for any reason including gender bias. It may be an ugly attitude, but his attitude does not violate her rights to her life, liberty, or property.

Now, for anyone who is at this very moment grinding their teeth over my remarks I will ask you to turn the situation around and consider if it were your business in question. For example, I have been to see female OBGYN’s who only hired women. Their offices cater to women who wish to deal only with women for their female medical needs. Now suppose that the law required the doctor, who ostensibly owns the clinic, to hire a certain number of men. First, the Doctor who runs the clinic has had her property rights violated by a legal privilege granted to men that requires her to hire men to work for her against her will. Second, her customers, who prefer to have their feminine medical needs taken care of by only women, have been harmed as they now must subject themselves to the presence of men when they are at the Doctor’s office having their needs met.

So why should women be granted a legal privilege that are denied to men? Should not the purpose of the law be to protect the rights of all? I do not believe that modern feminism seeks to promote equal protection under the law, but in fact seeks to promote legal privilege for women, which often comes at the expense of the rights of men. This is wrong. True equality protects the rights of life, liberty, and property of all and does not grant legal privilege to some at the expense of the rights of others.

When people take a question like this into consideration they tend to get some things confused, especially when they reflect on history in order to decide their answer. Many are getting confused about discrimination in the past and the effects it had.

Take for example this. When someone says, well if purple people are discriminated against by a majority rendering them unable to do business with a majority of the people in an area due to the discrimination, and they aren’t allowed to transport themselves to somewhere else, and others aren’t allowed to come to the area and do business with them, this is an infringement of rights because they have no recourse. In making this argument they fail to realize though that anytime something like this has happened, it has always been coupled with institutionalized force, that being government backed laws that actively discriminate against a certain group of people.

It’s not a free market and it has nothing to do with private businesses being selective of their customers and employees when there is use of government force to discriminate. During the Jim Crow era, blacks could have built a counter economy and began accumulating wealth had they been treated equally under the law, however the use of government to implement discriminate laws largely prevented this from happening. So people look back on history and say well this is what happens when we allow people to discriminate, so we need to go 100% the other way. They think all of this without taking into consideration that the government laws were the problem, not people being discriminatory. If you think the blacks could not have built such a counter economy due to the sheer amount of discrimination, think back to all of the people who had to start with nothing and build up. The early settlers of America were one such group, and they prospered so long as they were not prevented from going about their business to make a living for themselves.

Someone is always willing to do business with those who are being discriminated against so long as there are no laws preventing them from doing business with them. This is why discrimination ultimately fails because it isn’t lock-tight and cannot prevent the people that are being discriminated against from doing business with others who will trade with them. As long as people are not prevented from going elsewhere for employment and trade by those doing the discrimination, then that is liberty since no one is preventing anyone from doing business with the people they choose. It all comes down to whether or not the law discriminates, which should never happen. Everyone is equal before the law. Think of it this way as well, if there are enough people to make it illegal to discriminate, there are enough people to build a private sector friendly to those who are discriminated against. Businesses who want your money and know they can get you to buy from them by catering to your needs where others won’t will do so without having to be forced by law.

Now I know this doesn’t take into consideration valuable resources such as water, as it could be argued that someone could buy up all the rights to the water in an area and then discriminate against others. However natural resources are an entirely different subject and I differ in my view on these natural resources a bit from other libertarians. That is a discussion for another time, as this focuses primarily on groups, services, and products that are created by people.

What it comes down to is that people should have the ability to discriminate and it should be noted that opposition to a law does not equate to support for an action. It makes it easier for the rest of us to identify the discriminators and punish them accordingly with boycotts and bad PR. Besides, would you want to know if you work for or do business with a bigot so that you can change what you’re doing? Maybe it’s my pride, but anyone who wanted to discriminate against me due to a disability, I don’t want them getting anything from me and I want to know who they are so I can bring them down. We just don’t need laws that require people to participate in discrimination, as that is the real problem.

It just doesn’t seem like you get much justice when it comes to dealing with the government, especially when you’re defending yourself from it.

Most have experienced this before, whether they realized it at the time or not, and it is remarkable that we have not conceived of something better, at the very least cried out against the injustice. When the government gets you in its sights, often the easiest thing to do at the time is comply and hope it goes away. What exactly are we talking about here you ask?

Let’s start with a basic example. As many have either heard of, or have seen them set up in their own local area, red light cameras have become all the rave with local governments. They collect ticket money without having to deploy an officer to do the job, the camera company gets a nice slice of the profits, and the average citizen gets the shaft on the deal.

There are times when going through the light is necessary to avoid other problems, something that an officer would take into consideration. Sometimes someone else was driving your car and ran a light. There are other times when people have simply rolled too close to the intersection. Even cases where legal right-hand turns were made at an intersection. Others have done absolutely nothing at all to warrant a red light ticket being mailed to them but it happens anyways.

When these things happen, people have a choice to make. They can either pay the unjust ticket, or take it to traffic court. Many will simply pay the ticket to avoid wasting more time. Others will opt for traffic court, which doesn’t guarantee that they will win their case, which will result in losing even more money through additional court fees. Even if you do manage to win your case and get the ticket dismissed, what about the lost time and lost revenue because you had to miss work? Potentially, you could lose more if you go to court and win your case than if you had just payed the ticket in the first place. Where is the justice in that?

The red light tickets could be substituted with any number of other tickets and the argument is the same, and depending on what kind of ticket it is, it could be even more costly. Let’s move on from tickets though.

Take for example that you have been detained by the police in some manner and they end up arresting you on a warrant for something that was taken care of a long time ago. Yes, this happens, and it happens quite frequently. Some government bureaucrat fails to do their job properly and you end up paying for their mistake. If you’re lucky they realize the mistake and just let you out of jail, sometimes after a day, sometimes after a week or two. Other times you must pay a bond to get out and possibly a lawyer. You have missed income from not being at work, and could have possibly even lost your job due to this mistake. Then when the government realizes that they have made a mistake they simply say “oops” and tell you that you’re free to go. No apology, no compensation, tough luck.

What’s worse than being arrested for a warrant that shouldn’t exist though? Being arrested for a crime you did not commit, which happens pretty often as well. Sometimes you sit in jail for a day, sometimes you sit in jail for up to two years. Never-mind the loss of income, your job, and your social dignity; what about your loss of freedom? To lose all of this and then simply have charges dismissed or found not-guilty, you’re just expected to move on and suck it up. No compensation of any kind. You’re expected to just be grateful that you’re free. How is there ANY justice in this? There isn’t.

None of this even touches on when the government commits a crime and fails to compensate adequately, if at all for it; or when you’ve been wronged by some corporation and these courts make them pay pennies on the dollars they made. Also, every time you have to tangle with the government over something like this, it not only affects you, but your family and friends, and the economy itself as the productivity is sucked right out of it as resources are diverted to dealing with the government.

The way government operates must be reformed for the better. When it has to start ponying up money and other compensation for their mistakes, we’ll begin to see a lot less mistakes made. We’ll especially see this when those employed by the government pay personally for their mistakes that wreak havoc on the lives of others. Without accountability, there is no justice.

Your Account may consist of two sub-accounts. One sub-account is a demand deposit account (the “Checking Sub-Account”) and the other sub-account is a savings deposit account (the “Savings Sub-Account”). These accounts are treated as a single account for purposes of certain record keeping, fees, and paying items presented against your account. The periodic statement of activity on your Account and any record of your Account at any automated teller machine, will reflect this Account as a single account, and will not select the sub-accounts in any way. Neither sub-account pays interest on account balances. Although we have no intentions of exercising this right, federal regulations require us to reserve the right to require at least seven (7) days written notice prior to withdrawal or transfer of any funds in the savings sub-account. You may only access your savings sub-account through transactions on your checking sub-account.

At various times during each statement cycle, should your checking sub-account balance exceed a threshold amount, all funds in the checking sub-account in excess of that amount may be transferred into the savings sub-account. As funds in the savings sub-account are needed to pay items presented against your checking sub-account, they will be transferred back into the checking sub-account. Transfers into the checking sub-account will be made up to five times per statement cycle. If a sixth transfer is needed in any statement cycle, the entire balance of the savings sub-account will be transferred into the checking sub-account. The threshold balance is set by us and may be changed at any time at our discretion.

So I’m wondering, does this now mean that they can make loans against the money I have in my account and make interest off of those loans? If so, that means they’re using my money to make money for themselves, without paying me for the use of my money. I suppose this also means that if I want to use my money, I may have to obtain permission to do so seven days prior. Why should I have to obtain permission to use money that is mine?

I honestly believe us college students are getting the shaft. We have to jump through so many hoops to go to school, can only drop six classes during our entire time in college, we are paying insanely high tuition rates, we’re getting sub-par education, the federal government has fed us to private lenders, and now we’re being restricted in how we use our money, and on top of that, these people who we are forced to go through in order to obtain our money are charging substantial fees and making loans against our money so that they can make money.

I really hope college students make it a point to bring these issues to the political conversation this coming year, and that they don’t let up until positive change is made.

When there is an abundance in the supply of a resource, typically more of that resource is consumed. With an increase in supply, there is a decrease in costs. If the pace of demand outstrips the pace of supply, costs increase even if supply is increasing. If demand stays the same and supply is reduced, costs increase. This is the basic function of supply and demand.

Costs are an important factor when it comes to supply and demand. They essentially dictate to us how much we consume of a given resource, and it also tells us when something else needs to be used in place of another resource due to it being more efficient. Higher costs typically mean lower consumption, and lower costs mean higher consumption.

A few examples of supply and demand can be easily demonstrated with the products and services we use every day. Say you were to win a free year’s supply of soda. While it isn’t true of everyone, most would end up consuming more soda that year than they otherwise would have since the cost of consumption is free. Say the local amusement park gave out tickets for half price, you’d end up going to the park more than you normally would. Say a local sporting event decided to sell tickets to a game all for the same price no matter where you sit. Naturally everyone would try to get the best seats since the price is basically irrelevant. Have stronger muscles? You’ll end up lifting more weight than if you had weaker muscles. These are all cases where resources were decreased in cost even though supply didn’t expand and natural demand didn’t increase, prompting an increase in the usage of the resources.

On the other hand, say you are getting less hours at work, you’ll end up going out less. The price of bowling goes up due to a lack of bowling alleys, so you go bowling less. Fewer people go to the movies, so the amount of showings decrease due to a reduction in demand. Golf courses close down around the area, so the cost of playing a round of golf increases. These are all cases of supply being reduced, so costs are increased.

To use a more focused example, let’s use the resource of gasoline. When prices are higher, we tend to drive less, when they are low, we feel better about driving more since we can now drive further for the same amount of money. Naturally the price of gas depends on several factors such as how much it costs to extract oil in any given location, how much oil is being produced in the world, how much it costs to refine it, and what the various demands for oil-related products are.

If gas were free, we would be driving very extensively since the cost of doing so is no longer a concern. On the other extreme, if gas were $20 per gallon, people would drastically cut back on their driving and only the most essential driving would be done. The only way these extremes could be achieved is through artificial fluctuations in prices, most likely by the use of government incentives and disincentives. Supply and demand is a very delicate, self sufficient system that is superior in determining how resources are used. It can easily be thrown off though by the imposition of various incentives and disincentives that distort the costs of resources, ultimately prompting the over-consumption and inefficient use of resources, whether it be natural resources, products, or services.

All other government action affecting the price of gas aside, if it were to subsidize gas so that consumers can purchase it for say 50 cents per gallon, we would see a lot of over-consumption of gas. This resource would be misused because the proper cost of using it is no longer factored in. This would also delay advances in efficiency and the substitution of more efficient resources in its place. This ultimately means the delayed development of cost saving technology and alternative sustainable energy.

On the flip-side of this, artificially increasing the cost of gas in hopes of slowing consumption in order to stimulate the development of alternative energy would also have negative effects. By not allowing the natural cost of the resource to prevail, higher prices result in a decrease in efficiency of sectors that are connected to oil and gas. As this ripple spreads through the economy it increases costs and decreases production and the well being of people, which further spreads to other parts of the economy, even though those sectors are not directly connected to oil and gas. This effect on the other parts of the economy slows development and production, which further slows advancements in efficiency, all leading to a net loss that started in one sector and ended indirectly affecting others.

Take gas and substitute it with any other resource, product, or service and you will get the same effects.

To add a touch of personalization to this, I’d like to talk about my own experience with artificial distortions in supply and demand.

Earlier this year I obtained an associate’s degree from a technical college in Computer Networking and System’s Administration. Once out of high school, I had no idea about what I wanted to do in life, so I went straight into the workforce. After a couple of years I was tired of working in a tire shop and family members were prodding me to go to school. At this point I still had no idea of what I wanted to do.

Since I came from a poor family with a disabled parent, one of which never finished high school, and that no one in my family had gone to college, I qualified for full financial aid.

Knowing that school would be cheap and with persuasion from my family, I went ahead and enrolled for a degree in which I already had some skills, even though I had little interest in it. After beginning the program I was convinced by teachers there to enroll in two related degrees, again persuaded by the fact that they would be relatively cheap since the financial aid I was getting would cover most of the costs. So I focused on my main degree while taking classes towards the other two as well.

About half-way through the program I realized what I really wanted to do as a career, and it had nothing to do with the degree I was currently pursuing. Economically it made sense to finish that degree since I had already committed a lot of time to it and it would be cheap to complete it. I ended up finishing up and didn’t bother with the other two degrees. I am now pursuing a bachelor’s in what I really want to do.

It is safe to say that had the cost of education not been artificially lowered, I would not have wasted resources on taking classes I didn’t need and a degree I didn’t truly want. With the natural cost for education factored in for consideration, I would have waited to make a better decision about how I would expend my money and consume educational resources. Had I not wasted these resources, they could have been put to use towards more productive ends. This is a case of supply and demand being distorted by an incentive to consume resources when I otherwise would not have done so.

Distortion in supply and demand also causes bad business moves. When people are buying more of something than they otherwise would due to a distortion in the price, businesses rush in to get a piece of this fake action, which can only end in failure. This is because the reality is that the market was distorted and the demand wasn’t actually there. This also happens when there is an artificial expansion in credit for the Federal Reserve. This fake expansion in the supply of savings stimulates demand for credit, which in turn increases consumption.

Since everything is connected directly and indirectly, this causes distortions in prices everywhere as people buy things they wouldn’t normally buy, which causes efficiency to decrease and resources to be miss-allocated. Once the distortions have run their course, supplies have either been over extended or over-used and demand falls back to a natural level, causing all of the inefficient uses of resources to collapse as demand is no longer there to support it. This is essentially what happened in 2008.

To have more efficiency, productivity, and prosperity in the world, we need to allow the natural cost of resources to prevail by having the least amount of distortions in the market as possible.

Below is a story given by a friend of mine concerning his thoughts on what happened, and how he was involved in a somewhat similar situation. It is a very telling story and I felt the need to share it with everyone.

—-

I found it interesting of all the people that could have stopped and try to help this helpless innocent, that is was a person society would classify as a ‘bum’. The Samaritan in this case was a street scavenger. Interesting that a ‘bum’ would be the ONLY one to actually notice, and care enough to do something for another human plainly in need.

I had a similar situation, though not as extreme. I was walking in Seattle’s Pioneer Square, and I saw a homeless man in a wheelchair, the chair up against a light pole, and he was slumped over. There were literally dozens of people in the square at the time, but I ended up being the ONLY person to go over and try to query the man, or willing to touch him to see if he was alive (and yes I did NOT stand right in front of him in case he was drunk and threw up on me). Anyway, I checked for a pulse, found a strong one, and determined he was breathing ok, so called 911 and let them know where the guy was and the situation. While I was doing this, people kept walking right on by, some glancing at me and him, nobody said a word, kept right on walking. (I guess my presence allowed them to comfortably file it all away as ‘Somebody Else’s Problem).

At any rate, I saw a huge amount of “don’t care” going on among others in the square. This in the heart of one of the most liberal, bleeding-heart areas of the nation. Nobody was willing to risk touching a homeless person, even if the act might have meant the diff between the man’s life and death. I was standing there wondering where all this supposed liberal compassion was, why it was the Libertarian in the square that was taking a moment from his busy day to give a damn.

It was the sort of incident to make one feel very alone in the world, but fortunately I know from having grownup in smaller towns, that there are more people who will jump in and help w/o being asked. Imho, apathy seems to be more an urban condition. The higher the population, the less the residents will care about random individuals, especially if they do not look a certain way.

I find that revelation to be a bit disturbing as urban centers are the centerpiece of leftist visions of utopia, places where everyone can be cared for by the state more efficiently due not having to cover as much physical space, and places where resources can be more easily shared.

Or is that it? The apathy is generated by a latent knowledge that the State will make it all better, so why do I, as a mere individual need to do anything? One can walk away knowing that sooner or later, some government employee will be by and deal with it. Sure the man may be dead by then, having choked on his own vomit or something, but one can sleep at night knowing its not their problem, it was the State’s problem.

Me, well I knew damn well it would dog me for a long time if I just left the guy there, not knowing his condition. (conscience can be such a bitch), but I am NOT a drone in a hive, and that was the distinct impression I got from watching all the others ignoring the situation, it was like watching the procession of an ant colony, one ant gets hurt, the other ants don’t do a thing, they just go around.

Small wonder this situation reached this extreme in China. Its literally a drone society, an its been deliberately engineered that way, and in the end it was an individual, not the State who took charge and did something about it. (hopefully the scavenger does not end up in a ‘retraining’ camp as a result of this display of individuality.)

The result of a society that no longer values the individual, that has reduced people to the status of parts in a machine, something that Communism was supposed to correct, I mean that is what some accuse the Capitalist ‘pigs’ of doing, treating workers like objects? I suppose whats the life of one toddler when you have a billion more where that came from in a system that places the state above all else.

I do NOT think this is a ‘morals’ issue per-say, its the product of decades of state-driven group think, and devaluing human beings as individuals combined with suppression of personal initiative.

After the previous article covering the situation received around 90,0000 views, and elicited over 1,000 responses to the Austin City council, we have results!

The council has approved a pilot program for the electric cabs. Though the downside is that after over 300 tickets and 3 arrests, fines and other costs will not be recouped by the cab company, it seems that battle is over. It is with hope that future monopolies will be broken down by enterprising individuals who have the courage and will to slug it out with their governments in order to better improve the lives of the people around them.

Many thanks to those who also ran the story, those who shared the story with their friends, and those who took the time to contact the city council. Activism is alive and well!

As a former member of the Libertarian Party, I offer these suggestions on how to improve, attract old members, and bring in new ones.

• Donations

I want to be able to have some control over how my donation money is spent and I’m sure this would ability would please many others as well. The party should provide areas in which people can donate specifically to rather than donations being used just any way the party wants them to be used. For instance, donation categories could be broken up into sections of staffing, advertising, maintenance, functions, etc. To go even further, many would like to have even more control over how their money donated to each category is spent, more specifically, advertising. Some prefer TV ads, others prefer radio, still others want newspaper ads, magazines, billboards, internet advertising, etc. Confidence in knowing how a particular donation will be spent will cause people to be more likely to donate. Libertarians often talk about how much better society would be if people had more control over their money, put this theory into practice.

• Embrace the Youth, the Student

We all saw how embracing the youth, particularly the students, turned out for Obama. The LP should pursue this strategy as well, the main difference is that libertarians will deliver on their promises whereas Obama won’t. The party needs to focus on younger crowds, especially at college campuses no matter how big or small the school is. As it is right now there is very little libertarian presence at many campuses throughout the nation and there haven’t been any attempts from the party to change this. The only reason any sort of libertarian presence arises on a campus is due to a student who is willing to gamble their time, energy, and money on trying to raise and support such an organization. People like this need resources to draw from, educationally, financially, and logistically in order to promote and support such efforts. This is where the party needs to step in, and if not the party, then its leaders through an outside organization if such measures cannot be accomplished within the party. The most prominent members of the party should be leading the effort to bring younger people into the fold. Without the youth, the party is going nowhere.

• Don’t Embrace the Conspiracy Theorist

A muzzle needs to be put on people at Libertarian meetings and functions who are not there to discuss national, state, and local issues but to solely push conspiracy theories. This doesn’t sound very libertarian at all, stifling discussion, that is definitely granted. However, the LP is a private organization and as such they can set the agenda for what will and will not rule the discussions at these official functions. The national LP already does this with its Facebook page by prohibiting the posting of various links and discussions, it would be hypocritical to condone this censorship on the page but not at a meeting. The LP is well within their right to censor, and it is in their best interest to do so, as they have already realized due to their current stance on the FB page. When people like this rule the discussion, people don’t come back to libertarian events with these sort of people hanging around, dominating the talking. To many people, perception is greater than reality, and this really damages the party’s image, making it look as if it is dominated by a bunch of kooks.

*Note: I personally stopped going to my local LP meetings because of people like this.

• Add Substance to Rhetoric

When it comes to the party speaking out on issues, all we ever hear is rhetoric rather than any sort of plan. People ask all the time, “so what do the Libertarians plans consist of besides smaller government and more freedom?” People want concrete plans on how to implement libertarian policy and what the steps are to achieve this, and they want this before they’re even willing to consider voting for a LP candidate. It’s not enough to push out statement after statement that amounts to little more than the party slogan. People want a plan, and they at least feel like they’re getting some sort of plan from the Democrats and Republicans. There is a need more details is what it amounts to, whether it comes from the party itself, or an authentic libertarian think-tank. There needs to be a plan and substantial working theory to point to. A lot of it already exists, but is highly inaccessible.

• Improve the Workshops

The various parties at different levels put on workshops for candidates, and this is a great thing. However, it seems they either don’t cover etiquette or people are forgetting this part soon after they leave the workshop. Many candidates come off as rude or insincere, and some of them have even gotten into shouting matches with other people at public events. This makes libertarians look extremely bad. The party direly needs to address how candidates act in public. Libertarian candidates don’t have the luxuries that the other parties have and must be on extra good behavior in order to make an impact. The sad fact though is that many candidates have no business being candidates in the first place because they act in ways that poorly represent the Party.

• Quality over Quantity

The LP has thus far embraced a quantity over quality mentality when it comes to candidates, and this has been disastrous. Pushing for anyone and everyone to run for office produces many bad candidates and takes credibility away from the good ones. It also takes away valuable resources that could be better focused on high quality candidates. Also, many people are startled that the LP randomly approaches and asks them if they want to run for office. People aren’t used to the average joe just up and running for office and when people are approached like this, they automatically think the party is full of people running around not really knowing what they’re doing. This is a perception problem. The party needs to look a lot more professional and to do this it needs to push to have only candidates that will take their candidacy seriously, otherwise the party doesn’t look serious at all. This is not to say that people should be discouraged from running for office.

• More Transparency

It couldn’t hurt to be more transparent with party finances, not that it is secretive about it. As libertarians always say, more transparency in government is a good thing.  So why not the political party as well? An easy and open way of making this possible is have the financial books accessible on each branch’s respective website. Every branch of the LP, national, state, and local could do this and update the information quarterly. This will give people a more in depth look at the goings on behind the scenes and can do nothing but foster good will.

• Repair Your Image

The party for the most part has an image problem, and until this image is repaired, there is no more traction to be gained. Only by reaching out to new people, keeping the conspiracy theorists at bay, having substance to plans of action and easier to access education, and running quality candidates will the party have any chance of becoming a significant player in the American political system.