Hurtling Down the Road to Serfdom by John Stossel

Government is taking us a long way down the Road to Serfdom. That doesn't just mean that more of us must work for the government. It means that we are changing from independent, self-responsible people into a submissive flock. The welfare state kills the creative spirit.

F.A. Hayek, an Austrian economist living in Britain, wrote "The Road to Serfdom" in 1944 as a warning that central economic planning would extinguish freedom (http://tinyurl.com/y9aelrn). The book was a hit. Reader's Digest produced a condensed version that sold 5 million copies.

Hayek meant that governments can't plan economies without planning people's lives. After all, an economy is just individuals engaging in exchanges. The scientific-sounding language of President Obama's economic planning hides the fact that people must shelve their own plans in favor of government's single plan.

At the beginning of "The Road to Serfdom," Hayek acknowledges that mere material wealth is not all that's at stake when the government controls our lives: "The most important change ... is a psychological change, an alteration in the character of the people."

This shouldn't be controversial. If government relieves us of the responsibility of living by bailing us out, character will atrophy. The welfare state, however good its intentions of creating material equality, can't help but make us dependent. That changes the psychology of society.

(Read the rest of Stossel's article here.)

Sarah Palin's Bad Tea by the Southern Avenger

Constitutionally illiterate - baltimoresun.com

Constitutionally illiterate - baltimoresun.com

Posted using ShareThis

Ron Ramsey Attacks Loose Monetary Policy

I am often disappointed with those running for governor in my state of Tennessee. I have spent a good amount with both Zach Wamp and Ron Ramsey over the years, and both are decent guys with whom to have a conversation. Ron is really personable and has been know to say some quite conservative things to people when not overtly politicin'. However, his voting record is a mixed bag, like all the "conservatives" in the TN legislature. Despite his flaws, he is quite conservative and appears to be a strong supporter of states' rights.

He has done some good things lately, like writing to assert state sovereignty. I just received the following short message in regard to his recent participation in a healthcare forum and was pleasantly surprised.

Last week, I was pleased to take part in a special forum on healthcare hosted by Steve Gill. It was a privilege to share my thoughts and concerns about the current reform efforts.

As our nation faces record deficits, Washington continues to print money as fast as they can. Now, with issues like healthcare, they're trying to pass the costs on to the states. We shouldn't be forced to pay for irresponsible legislation in Congress that will not produce the actual reforms we need. (My emphasis)

I find it so interesting to see Lt. Gov. Ramsey go out of his way to address our monetary woes. Could we have a hard currency man on our hands? Another FED fighter?

Tea Partiers Should Be Weary of the GOP

The Tea Party movement needs the Republican Party like one needs a shotgun blast to the head. It is that plain and simple.

I say this as someone who has interned for the state GOP and has served in a number of leadership positions in the local party for over 7 years (The entire time I refused to walk a party line--even voting Libertarian in 2008). Needless to say, the party system is geared toward compromise of principles and the creation of governance problems.

The Republican Party, in its current practice, is not committed to liberty, smaller government, or the Constitution. Rather, it is committed to electoral victory regardless of principle. Look no further than the election of Massachusetts liberal Scott Brown for proof. If the Tea Party is truly committed to limited constitutional government, they do not need a partner in the GOP that is not.

Sadly, the very GOP establishment that has forsaken the Constitution and got us into our current mess is now attempting to wed itself with the Tea Party movement--quite successfully I might add. Moreover, I believe that the Tea Party movement represents more than just Republicans; it is made up of a number of dissatisfied voters from a number of different backgrounds. But if there is not a concerted effort to fight this partisan influence and stand firm on principle, the Tea Party will fail.

Now is not the time for compromise in order to win elections. Electing more of the same will not reverse the tides; it'll merely provide us with a fresh set of actors.

Sarah Palin's speech at the Tea Party Convention showed that her concern is with furthering Republican politics and her own ambition, not with restoration of liberty in our republic. All this occured while thousands cheered on. Sadly, it appears the Tea Party movement is blind to this move toward co-optation. If the Tea Party wants to merely act as a midterm Republican Convention, then that avenue is open. But if it wants to bring back constitutional government, then it must distance itself from candidates and a party that will not advance liberty. Don't look to the parties as the power structure to be obeyed. Rather, force the parties to look to the grassroots as those with the power and listen to the voice of the people.

If the Tea Party movement refuses to stand on principle and instead caves into the GOP, the party structure will have the upper hand, knowing that they can continue to field neocons and other liberals while counting on the Tea Party's support. May it not be so.

I have seen these co-optation attempts with my own eyes, and I don't like it. This is one Tea Party that needs to keep a close eye on the guest list because to pick party over principle one would have to be as mad as a hatter.

Why I'm Libertarian and a Constitutionalist

Please head over to the Humble Libertarian and read my latest guest post on why I am both a libertarian and a constitutionalist.

It begins:

I am a libertarian, and I am a constitutionalist. But should I be? Not that I shouldn’t be a libertarian. I am sure most of the readers here at THL would maintain that we should all be libertarians. But should I- being a libertarian- also be a constitutionalist? I contend that I should for good reason.

First, let me note that I in no way want to give the impression that a libertarian must be a constitutionalist. Many true libertarians shun the Constitution (and sometimes the very existence of government altogether), and I can sympathize with their reasoning. However, I would like to explain why I personally feel comfortable as a libertarian and a lover of the Constitution.

Read the rest here.

Taking the "Neo" Out of "Conservative" by the Southern Avenger

I listen to each of the Southern Avenger's video posts on his youtube channel as they are released. It has been a wise investment of time. I rarely am in disagreement, find them quite thought provoking, and appreciate the detailed analysis.

Checkout his recent entry about my mortal enemies: the Neoconservatives.