I hold many beliefs which differ from most--or a significant minority--of Americans. Without apology, here they are:
* Diversity is highly overrated; it should never be encouraged or forced by government. There was little or no diversity in all of history's great civilizations.
* I don't understand the emotional objection to Racial Profiling. When 98 out of 100 terrorists are radical Islamists, why waste time strip-searching little old ladies? It's a similar story with latinos illegally crossing our southern border, carrying drugs and robbing and killing Americans.
* The Drug War should be ended by legalizing all illegal drugs. Then we would deal with users as we do with alcoholics. Drug crimes would end immediately because the drug lords' profits would disappear, prisons would empty, and law enforcement officers could concentrate on real crimes. The Arizona problem of illegal immigrants carrying drugs and committing crimes would stop.
* Troops abroad should all be recalled--from every nation--immediately.
* Only when threatened with imminent attack should Congress declare war, and we should never initiate hostilities without such declaration.
* No element of government should censor spoken or written speech--so says the First Amendment. End all bleeping!
* Democracy is not the best form of government, because it allows the tyranny of the majority over minorities. God save the Republic!
* Political Correctness is cowardice.
* Moderation is highly overrated, is rarely the most desirable goal. I agree with Goldwater, who said, "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!
* Public Schools need competition to become successful. End teachers' unions and tenure, which stifle the quality of education.
* CO2 is good (ask any plant). Human influence on weather is negligible compared to natural events. Google "Testimony of Richard S. Lindzen before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on 2 May 2001".
* Medicare and Medicaid are unconstitutional socialist programs that threaten to bankrupt our nation--privatize or eliminate them. Those who deserve help will get it from private individuals and organizations, who will freely donate the money the government would otherwise take from them in taxes. Do you honestly believe that the government politicians and bureaucrats who administrate these programs are more compassionate or wiser than the rest of us?
* Privatize Social Security. We individuals deserve a chance to manage our own retirement accounts. This would be true even if the federal government hadn't demonstrated so often and so convincingly that they can't manage money. They have irresponsibly spent all the money in the Social Security "lock box" on failing programs, even here on the eve of the day when the system goes bankrupt.
* Trust the free market, not government, to decide which businesses and industries will succeed. Where there seems to be a problem with the market, it's usually due to government interference. You can always trust the vigilant entrepreneur to provide a product or solution where there is genuine demand.
* The Constitution should be amended to limit elected politicians to a single term. This would ensure that no incumbent would ever waste time in office working for his reelection. The corruption-prone career politician would pass away.
* Abortion, generally speaking, should be legal (although I would make it difficult during the third trimester). Pro-lifers who would allow abortions after rape or incest, yet proclaim the sanctity of human life, are hypocrites. The merging of sperm and egg does not make a human being.
* Ron Paul is my favorite politician. He is the American most qualified for the presidency.
* President Roosevelt was bad. Churchill was great.
* President Wilson was bad.
* Microsoft has always been bad. (Mac is good.)
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Friday, August 6, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Letter to prospective Libertarians
The Libertarian Party is the third-largest party in the USA--by any measurement. This fact is not well known, because the liberal media hide it, preferring to mention other parties like the Green. The fundamental belief is that government should be as small as possible, that people know best how to spend their own money. The alternative is for bureaucrats in Washington to determine a one-size-fits-all solution for every problem, and of course, demand high taxes to pay for the resulting programs.
Individual liberty is the essence of the Libertarian philosophy. We believe that one should be allowed to do anything, as long as that action neither harms nor imperils others. It's for this reason most of us believe that narcotics and prostitution should be legal. Before making any law to prevent people from doing something, legislators should always ask, "Who is harmed?" No law should ever be written to protect us from ourselves.
The pioneers exemplified self-reliance and never dreamed that some remote "benevolent" government might levy high taxes on the successful and redistribute the money to failures. Remember the story of "The Grasshopper and the Ant?
On taxes, we believe that the people know best how to spend their own money. Big government politicians believe that they know better. They use the incredibly complicated tax code to force people and businesses to finance expensive programs which they claim will solve all kinds of problems, but actually are designed to benefit those who will help them get reelected. Two groups in this category are labor unions and trial lawyers. Business taxes may be a little different. I'm not sure what the majority of Libertarians believe about them. I myself believe there should be NO TAXES on American businesses. Like any other expense, these taxes are passed on to consumers.
In the case of welfare, we believe that ordinary citizens, not government, can best identify and help the needy, because they understand the situations. Therefore, any forthcoming help should begin with family, followed by people in the neighborhood, then municipality, county, and finally state--never the federal government. Furthermore, relieved of the tax burden imposed to finance government welfare programs, the people could and would be at least as generous as politicians.
The constitution is quite clear on the responsibilities of the federal government, but our Democrat and Republican career politicians ignore the constitution at the same time they're paying lip service to it. (I suggest you read the 10th amendment, which states that all power not specifically delegated to the federal government is left to the lower-level governments "and to the people".) Government at all levels has been growing at an incredible rate since FDR. I have read that we were taxed at about 2% before the second world war. It's amazing to me that people not only accept expensive government solutions, but that they also grant the government virtually universal control. This thinking is opposite to that held by the founding fathers, who feared a strong government and documented their ideas in our Constitution.
On the Iraq war: The Libertarian Party is opposed to attacking any nation for any reason other than as a response to BEING ATTACKED, as we were by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor, or in the rare case of an immediate and grave threat to our national security. It's a dangerous precedent to feel justified in attacking simply because they MIGHT attack you some day. Many nations could attack us for that reason. Also we feel that Congress should declare war before any attack.
Walter Williams, a nationally syndicated columnist, author, teacher, speaker, and social critic, said, "What's *just* has been debated for centuries but let me offer you my definition of social justice: I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn. Do you disagree? Well then tell me how much of what I earn *belongs* to you—-and why?"
On abortion, I was surprised to learn at the state convention in 2004 that the delegates were split equally. I had believed they would favor the liberty in Pro-Choice. We do, however, favor Pro-Choice in schools.
I hope I've been able to give you a good description of our party. I'll be happy to try to answer any questions you may have.
Sincerely,
Peter Hefner
Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania contact for Lycoming County
Individual liberty is the essence of the Libertarian philosophy. We believe that one should be allowed to do anything, as long as that action neither harms nor imperils others. It's for this reason most of us believe that narcotics and prostitution should be legal. Before making any law to prevent people from doing something, legislators should always ask, "Who is harmed?" No law should ever be written to protect us from ourselves.
The pioneers exemplified self-reliance and never dreamed that some remote "benevolent" government might levy high taxes on the successful and redistribute the money to failures. Remember the story of "The Grasshopper and the Ant?
On taxes, we believe that the people know best how to spend their own money. Big government politicians believe that they know better. They use the incredibly complicated tax code to force people and businesses to finance expensive programs which they claim will solve all kinds of problems, but actually are designed to benefit those who will help them get reelected. Two groups in this category are labor unions and trial lawyers. Business taxes may be a little different. I'm not sure what the majority of Libertarians believe about them. I myself believe there should be NO TAXES on American businesses. Like any other expense, these taxes are passed on to consumers.
In the case of welfare, we believe that ordinary citizens, not government, can best identify and help the needy, because they understand the situations. Therefore, any forthcoming help should begin with family, followed by people in the neighborhood, then municipality, county, and finally state--never the federal government. Furthermore, relieved of the tax burden imposed to finance government welfare programs, the people could and would be at least as generous as politicians.
The constitution is quite clear on the responsibilities of the federal government, but our Democrat and Republican career politicians ignore the constitution at the same time they're paying lip service to it. (I suggest you read the 10th amendment, which states that all power not specifically delegated to the federal government is left to the lower-level governments "and to the people".) Government at all levels has been growing at an incredible rate since FDR. I have read that we were taxed at about 2% before the second world war. It's amazing to me that people not only accept expensive government solutions, but that they also grant the government virtually universal control. This thinking is opposite to that held by the founding fathers, who feared a strong government and documented their ideas in our Constitution.
On the Iraq war: The Libertarian Party is opposed to attacking any nation for any reason other than as a response to BEING ATTACKED, as we were by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor, or in the rare case of an immediate and grave threat to our national security. It's a dangerous precedent to feel justified in attacking simply because they MIGHT attack you some day. Many nations could attack us for that reason. Also we feel that Congress should declare war before any attack.
Walter Williams, a nationally syndicated columnist, author, teacher, speaker, and social critic, said, "What's *just* has been debated for centuries but let me offer you my definition of social justice: I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn. Do you disagree? Well then tell me how much of what I earn *belongs* to you—-and why?"
On abortion, I was surprised to learn at the state convention in 2004 that the delegates were split equally. I had believed they would favor the liberty in Pro-Choice. We do, however, favor Pro-Choice in schools.
I hope I've been able to give you a good description of our party. I'll be happy to try to answer any questions you may have.
Sincerely,
Peter Hefner
Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania contact for Lycoming County
The One-Term Limit
I believe that career politicians are bad because they spend most of their time and a lot of money from contributors working to get reelected again and again instead of working for the benefit of their constituents. Presidential term limits have served us well, but they're not enough. If limited to a ONE term, no U.S. Senator or Representative (or President or judge) will ever spend a minute campaigning while in office.
Our founding fathers assumed that every elected official would spend a few years in office and then return to his “real" job, so term limits were left out of the Constitution. Now, virtually everyone elected to public office tries to hold that office as long as possible. If he doesn’'t have such intentions at first, the Washington mindset soon poisons him, and today we have a Congress with a 17% favorable rating.
You may believe that members of Congress become more valuable as they gain experience. If so, you might oppose term limits, period. I contend that experience leads to a greater probability that the office holder will become less proficient, and as Lord Acton rightly observed, corrupted by power.” In spite of incompetence due to age or corruption, incumbents gain unfair advantage over their challengers partly by delivering “pork.”
The Constitution grants control over elections to the states. This means that One-Term Limit laws could be passed by the individual states without a Constitutional amendment. If this occurred, we could by comparison discover the best process, both for other states and eventually, for the republic.
In summary, the advantages of the one-term limit are these:
1. Force elected officials not to spend so much time and energy on getting reelected, and therefore contribute more to benefiting their constituents.
2. Eliminate vote-buying attempts to get reelected, including “bringing home the pork."
3. Eliminate the significant advantage to the incumbent over his rival in all elections.
4. Drastically reduce voting fraud and other election corruption, which normally occur when an incumbent has established support from politically-oriented institutions.
5. Make better laws by exploiting the advantage of real-world experience.
6. Save incredible amounts of money by eliminating campaign expenses.
7. Give more weight to a candidate's ideas and proposals than to his party affiliation.
Our founding fathers assumed that every elected official would spend a few years in office and then return to his “real" job, so term limits were left out of the Constitution. Now, virtually everyone elected to public office tries to hold that office as long as possible. If he doesn’'t have such intentions at first, the Washington mindset soon poisons him, and today we have a Congress with a 17% favorable rating.
You may believe that members of Congress become more valuable as they gain experience. If so, you might oppose term limits, period. I contend that experience leads to a greater probability that the office holder will become less proficient, and as Lord Acton rightly observed, corrupted by power.” In spite of incompetence due to age or corruption, incumbents gain unfair advantage over their challengers partly by delivering “pork.”
The Constitution grants control over elections to the states. This means that One-Term Limit laws could be passed by the individual states without a Constitutional amendment. If this occurred, we could by comparison discover the best process, both for other states and eventually, for the republic.
In summary, the advantages of the one-term limit are these:
1. Force elected officials not to spend so much time and energy on getting reelected, and therefore contribute more to benefiting their constituents.
2. Eliminate vote-buying attempts to get reelected, including “bringing home the pork."
3. Eliminate the significant advantage to the incumbent over his rival in all elections.
4. Drastically reduce voting fraud and other election corruption, which normally occur when an incumbent has established support from politically-oriented institutions.
5. Make better laws by exploiting the advantage of real-world experience.
6. Save incredible amounts of money by eliminating campaign expenses.
7. Give more weight to a candidate's ideas and proposals than to his party affiliation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
