Americans Agree: No Tax Money to Bailout Failing Newspapers

Check out my latest post at The Humble Libertarian:

It is no secret that printed news sources have been struggling for years and are on their way out as cable and online news now take over the market. A new report from Rasmussen sheds a little light on the public's feelings regarding this reality and also points to the ridiculous measures being considered by our government.

Rasmussen notes:

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is considering several ways to help the struggling newspaper industry, but Americans strongly reject several proposed taxes to keep privately-owned newspapers going.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 84% oppose a three percent (3%) tax on monthly cell phone bills to help newspapers and traditional journalism.

Similarly, 76% oppose a proposed five percent tax on the purchase of consumer electronic items such as computers, iPads and Kindles to help support newspapers and traditional journalism. Seventy-four percent (74%) oppose the proposal to tax web sites like the Drudge Report to help the newspapers they draw their headlines from.

Each of these ideas was suggested for consideration in a recent FTC report. (my emphasis)

You read that right. We are not dealing with mere hypothetical speculation here. Rather, the FTC has really been suggesting taxing consumer goods to subsidize a failing news medium. That is such a violation of constitutional and free market principles that it seems unthinkable that it could even be considered.

What's even more alarming is the rationale given by proponents.(continue reading here.)

Lessons from the Dobson Endorsement Scandal

 My latest post at the Humble Libertarian.

Earlier this week THL reported that Focus on the Family founder Dr. James Dobson has officially taken his support away from Trey Grayson and endorsed Rand Paul in the Kentucky Senate race. The implications of this act are vast and reveal a great deal about Dobson, Paul, and the GOP establishment.

After listening to Dr. Dobson's change-of-heart explanation it is evident that he was lied to by Republican Party leadership. In a shameless act of political desperation, leadership within the GOP flat out lied to secure the Dobson endorsement for Grayson. In short, Dobson was falsely told that Rand Paul is, among other things, not pro-life. This led to an understandable opposition to Rand's campaign by the famed social-conservative. But this past week things changed.

Thankfully, after hearing Rand speak on the pro-life issue, an OB/GYN friend of Dobson alerted him to the truth. After looking further into the issue, Dobson uncovered the GOP deception and found Rand to be "my kind of man." He then dropped his support for Grayson, exposed the GOP establishment's lies, and endorsed Rand.

So what lessons can we take away from this? (Continue reading here.)

Policy Over Personality

Here is a great piece by Wes Messamore of The Humble Libertarian from Gary Johnson's Our America Initiative.

A lot has been said of “principle over party” by the tea party movement in the last year. They stuck to their guns so strongly as to support a third party candidate over the Republican candidate in New York’s special District 23 election, because they felt the Republican candidate didn’t align closely enough with the principles they held so dear.
 
Videos on YouTube abound of tea party protesters shouting down and booing Republican speakers who dared come to their events to speak after voting for 2008’s financial bailout package. Over and over again, tea party leaders stress that this is about principles, not partisan politics- they could care less who has what letter next to their name. They only want people who stand for the right principles: limited government, individual liberty, Constitutional rule of law.

But there’s an important aspect of “principle over party” that cannot be overlooked. If the tea party neglects this one important thing, it will be doomed to fail in its attempt to limit and reverse the relentless expansion of government into our lives. That one crucial factor in its success is for the tea party to remember policy over personality. (Continue reading here.)

What Is A Libertarian?

Checkout my latest at The Humble Libertarian.

Libertarians are those weird little guys who lurk in their parents’ basement—spouting out conspiracy theories, smoking funny things, and reading books many have never even heard of, right?

Well...some libertarians are those odd little guys and gals. But even more libertarians are average men and women, grandpas and grandmas, artists, business professionals, blue-collar workers, teachers, students, and people from all walks of life. Libertarians are everywhere you look. Some openly identify as such; others need to be alerted to the fact.

I am convinced that the average person on the street is open to libertarian principles. And many of them are libertarian to one degree or another. Perhaps it would take some explanation and flushing out of the issues for folks to identify as libertarian, but liberty is a popular idea. Most people want liberty and the government out of their business, however many do not realize that this is libertarianism. (Continue reading here.)

Principle, Not Preference Should Inform Policy

Please check out my newest post at The Humble Libertarian.

So often when arguing against statist programs and privacy violations I hear many of the same contentions: "It doesn't bother me, personally." "I don't mind it, so why should I care?" "I am too busy to do it myself, so I'm glad to let the government handle it for me." "I have nothing to hide." "As long as someone's not breaking the law, they have nothing to fear." The list goes on and on, but the gist of each is a lack of concern for liberty violations based on personal opinion.

However, one's personal feelings should never guide policy and never trump the protection of liberty. Yes, personal feelings are at play in any matter. They inform our decision making processes and are important in a number of ways. But in the ultimate scheme of things, principle--not preference--should be the deciding factor in all we do.

In order to flush out this idea, let us look to some examples. (Continue reading here.)

Fiscally Conservative and Socially Responsible

Please checkout my latest post at The Humble Libertarian.

It begins:

Often, libertarianism is defined as "fiscally conservative and socially liberal." I believe it is time to put a stop to this misnomer, and replace it with something that holds true all of the time.

There is no denying that many in the libertarian camp are both fiscally conservative and socially liberal. But that by no means insists that all libertarians are socially liberal. (Some even claim to be libertarians who are economically "liberal" -I just call them wrong.) In fact, many libertarians are both economically and socially conservative.*

For example, we find evidence of socially and fiscally conservative libertarians in folks like Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, and Mark Sanford. In fact, the Ron Paul Revolution is based around a movement heavily influenced by socially conservative free marketeers. I know many of those who ran Dr. Paul's presidential campaign and those who now run Campaign for Liberty and Young Americans for Liberty. They are not social liberals; far from it!

Sure, there is some tension between some "right" and "left" libertarians. I have blogged about the rift between beltway libertarians--who lean socially liberal--and the Austrian/paleo libertarians--who lean socially conservative, myself (here and here). But, for the most part, both camps get along well together and strive for the common goal of human freedom.

So how do we explain the compatibility of these socially liberal and socially conservative fiscal conservatives? How can two groups of individuals who differ widely on social issues reconcile their differences? The answer is that both are libertarians, and libertarianism is not about social liberalism or conservatism. Libertarianism is about social responsibility. (Continue reading here.)

Non-Interventionists ARE Pro National Defense and Do Support the Troops

Please check out my latest post at The Humble Libertarian on why non-interventionism is both pro-troops and pro-strong national defense.

Can you be opposed to our current wars as well as the influence of the military-industrial complex and still be pro-troops and strong on national defense? Of course, you can! But you wouldn't know it, listening to many of the talking heads who claim to carry the mantel of conservatism but are really just neocons or neocon-influenced.

Opposition to preventable, unconstitutional war is nothing new to libertarians and conservatives who made up the Old Right. In the past, adherence to a strict non-interventionist foreign policy was a distinguishing mark of the Old Right, and any self-respecting libertarian/conservative was quick to be weary of war and what Murray Rothbard labeled "the warfare state."

Moreover, war was only to be fought according to a strict set of principles. Just War Theory conditions, constitutional parameters, and true defensive needs had to be met in order for those past champions of human freedom to endorse the United States taking military action.

Needless to say, much has changed in recent decades. Neoconservative influence and a general lack of consistently applied principles have led so-called libertarians and conservatives to abandon their non-interventionist heritage and endorse unconstitutional and unnecessary wars.

To make things worse, those who hold to traditional principles as small government advocates are called unpatriotic, anti-military, and anti-strong national defense by many who claim to be on the side of liberty. This deception has gone on for far too long, and it is time to set the record straight. (Continue reading here.)

Underwater Mortgages

Please check out my latest post at The Humble Libertarian in regards to "underwater" mortgages and contractual obligation.

 It begins:

The “Great Recession” has hit almost every sector of the economy. Times are tough, people are out of work, and paying the bills is no easy task for most. Therefore, many are falling increasingly behind on their mortgages, paying for homes that are worth substantially less than when they were first purchased. In light of this, Washington Post columnist Brett Arends advises readers behind on their mortgages to stop making payments altogether in his recent article.

Mr. Arends contends that you should neglect your payments, offering that “No, you shouldn't feel bad about it, and you shouldn't feel guilty. The lenders would do the same to you—in a heartbeat.” Likewise, he claims that you should not worry about meeting your obligations because “the economy is fundamentally amoral.”

Needless-to-say, I am fundamentally opposed to Mr. Arends’ opinion. I understand the hardship, and I do not want people to suffer in order to make payments. Moreover, many of these people are victims of the government’s intervention into the economy, which makes the situation even worse. But the solution is not to shirk responsibility. Rather, if a contractual agreement was made, that needs to be honored. We should sympathize with those who have legitimately fallen on hard times, but we should not encourage bad behavior.

Contracts are an important part of a free society. They protect our relationships and property, while providing for commerce and employment. In fact, our Founders valued the right of contract so much that they inserted a safeguard against the government violating contractual obligations into Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution. That being said, a free society can only operate when contracts are honored—whether it be a contract between the government and the governed or between individuals conducting business. Therefore, when we refuse to uphold contractual obligations, there are always consequences.

(Read the rest here.)

Will libertarians Succeed?

Please check out my latest post at The Humble Libertarian. It begins:

Libertarians are often viewed as pie in the sky idealists, who sit around all day promoting ideas that could never take hold. There is some validity to this if one merely takes the musings of libertarians at face value, but that is not how they should be taken.

Just because we think that large parts of the government should be abolished or privatized, just because we want to do away with bloated entitlements, and just because our positions are principled and consistent, that doesn't mean that we are not realistic about how to achieve our goals. Most libertarians are both rational and realistic, realizing that incremental progress must be made toward our views of a free society, and that this progress will not come overnight...

But even if we aren't naive idealists, there is still a huge hurtle to the advancement of libertarianism. That hurtle is the unwillingness of the electorate to stand on principle and hold elected officials accountable; therefore, each election becomes one of "choosing the lesser of two evils" and each time the American people suffer.

Likewise, we see a flood of philosophical compromise flowing out of Washington on a daily basis as almost no one seems to stand for anything anymore. None of us are the better for it. So what is to be done when the system seems stacked against us? The simple answer is to act on the opportunities that present themselves.

Samuel Adams once noted, "It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." Adams was right. Libertarians would do well to remember his advice. We need to be "an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." 

(Read the rest here.)

Libertarians and Responsibility

Please check out my latest post at The Humble Libertarian on libertarians and responsibility.

It begins:

With its laissez-faire approach to economics and “get the government out of my business” attitude, libertarianism often gets a bad rap as an ideology of unconcerned and uninvolved citizens. This could be true of some libertarians, but no truer than it is for people of all ideological stripes.

For the most part, libertarians are responsible members of society. In fact, they must be, because libertarianism necessitates responsibility. A free people must have personal responsibility, while slaves to Leviathan have no desire or need to be responsible. (Continue reading here.)