My latest blog entry, to be straight-forward, is simply too long to actually post directly onto this Website. And that is because tackling U.S. foreign policy cannot be done in snippets. An honest dissemination of the most important issues related to it – defense spending, the Global War on Terror, and radical Islamic terrorism – requires discussion at length on all points.
Much of that is due to my desire for all who read it to understand the context of each statement. Typing this composition took some time but making sure I had given it as much thought as I could was important to me.
Some passages may stand in contradiction to each other, however that was bound to happen if for no other reason than so many U.S. policies over the past 18 years have worked in contradiction to each other.
Also important was making sure the points presented in this blog were consistent with the platform I have posted on my Issues page. A significant amount of research needed to be done on a lot of the information included in this blog. A lot of what is contained in it I have given consideration again and again while mulling it all over at length in the time since I decided to run for office. I just needed to make sure the details were accurate.
The biggest challenge involved in forming my elongated platform was carefully weighing what constitutes the true libertarianism approach to foreign policy and military spending against what are the undeniable truths about what the current and potential threats are to America’s national security.
The only guarantee is that everyone will find something to dislike in it. But, as I said at Tuesday’s debate, I’m not trying to go to Congress so I can start winning popularity contests. My goal is to represent you, the people of Ohio’s 4th congressional district, in a manner that is consistent both with my conscience and what you want to see done for America, Ohio, and our future generations.
For the convenience of the readers, the treatise advertised above is available as a downloadable pdf file. Open it in a new tab so you can refer back to it as you go about Web surfing from time to time when you need a break.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Sunday, October 10, 2010
The chicken or the ham
This morning at Mass, the priest shared with us during his homily a story whose message is not limited to either the Catholic Church or Christianity at large. Its moral has deep and important application to so many aspects of our society.
The tale is about a chicken and a pig who are walking along together. At one point in their stroll, they happen upon a church which was abuzz with activity. As it turned out, the parishioners were putting together a very large charitable event and the church grounds had become a scene of great joy and celebration as everyone was gearing-up for this enormous affair.
As the two stopped and observed all the bustle taking place, the pig was very moved by the joyous nature of how the parishioners labored to put together their charity event.
“There must be something we can do to help the members of this church,” said the pig. “It would be good of us to aid them.”
“I agree,” replied the chicken
“We should give in some way to this work of charity and make it that much more special,” the pig added.
And the chicken pondered, for a brief moment, before offering his suggestion, “I tell you what: you can give these people ham, while I can give them…
“…Eggs!”
After a few seconds of dismay, the pig responded, “Now, wait a minute! What you propose to offer is merely a contribution. Laying eggs is something you can do most days and it is of no injury to you what becomes of those eggs.
“For me to give ham is a commitment. In order for the people of this church to have ham from me, it means my life must become one that has been committed to this moment and this event.”
Therein lies the crucial difference that distinguishes a contribution from a commitment, whether it be to one’s place of worship, marriage, community, or even society as a whole.
It also applies to the fight to retain and fully restore America’s founding principles.
While contributing to this endeavor always is a good and worthy undertaking, in order to be truly successful, restoration of the Constitution of the United States of America is going to require a great many of us to make that commitment. For the ideal of Libertarianism to return to America’s forefront we must have those among us who will devote significant expanses of our time and energy (and on occasion sacrifice our dignity in the face of barbs and marginalization by those in opposition) toward that goal.
That difference between contributing and committing to Libertarianism may mean the difference between restoration or transformation in America.
The tale is about a chicken and a pig who are walking along together. At one point in their stroll, they happen upon a church which was abuzz with activity. As it turned out, the parishioners were putting together a very large charitable event and the church grounds had become a scene of great joy and celebration as everyone was gearing-up for this enormous affair.
As the two stopped and observed all the bustle taking place, the pig was very moved by the joyous nature of how the parishioners labored to put together their charity event.
“There must be something we can do to help the members of this church,” said the pig. “It would be good of us to aid them.”
“I agree,” replied the chicken
“We should give in some way to this work of charity and make it that much more special,” the pig added.
And the chicken pondered, for a brief moment, before offering his suggestion, “I tell you what: you can give these people ham, while I can give them…
“…Eggs!”
After a few seconds of dismay, the pig responded, “Now, wait a minute! What you propose to offer is merely a contribution. Laying eggs is something you can do most days and it is of no injury to you what becomes of those eggs.
“For me to give ham is a commitment. In order for the people of this church to have ham from me, it means my life must become one that has been committed to this moment and this event.”
Therein lies the crucial difference that distinguishes a contribution from a commitment, whether it be to one’s place of worship, marriage, community, or even society as a whole.
It also applies to the fight to retain and fully restore America’s founding principles.
While contributing to this endeavor always is a good and worthy undertaking, in order to be truly successful, restoration of the Constitution of the United States of America is going to require a great many of us to make that commitment. For the ideal of Libertarianism to return to America’s forefront we must have those among us who will devote significant expanses of our time and energy (and on occasion sacrifice our dignity in the face of barbs and marginalization by those in opposition) toward that goal.
That difference between contributing and committing to Libertarianism may mean the difference between restoration or transformation in America.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Why I became a Libertarian
My journey toward the Libertarian Party began roughly 10 years ago, almost nine years before it would dawn on me to formally register with this political party. Like more and more Americans in recent years, I found myself unable to identify with either major party.
Once I finally shed the mental blur – to which I like to refer as “partisan derangement syndrome” – that binds us to one party or the other and began taking that hard, critical look at the one with which I used to agree, politically I felt as though I was an island unto myself.
And then, the Tea Party movement arose in our country. I saw, lo-and-behold, that I am not alone.
What is funny from my perspective is when Libertarians discuss the Tea Party. The vast majority of the party’s membership here in Ohio are people who have been registered with it for years and their debates center on whether or not to reach out to the Tea Party and what would be the best approach. A number of longtime Libertarians have joined local Tea Party groups over the last year-and-a-half.
I, meanwhile, am the oddball in these discussions: I joined the party after identifying myself as a Tea Partier. Within a span of several months last year I went from fed-up voter to Tea Party activist to registered Libertarian to candidate for elected office.
Now, with a month to go before the general election, it is time to shed the last of my long-embraced comfort zones. In addition to the pair of debates coming around the corner on the calendar, the time to begin giving speeches is in high gear.
I can’t make any guarantees as to how interesting any of my speeches will be. I have not needed to stand before a crowd in that manner in over 12 years – in a persuasive speaking class in college.
Of course, if anyone reading this is willing to donate a teleprompter that’s a corner my campaign ought to be able to turn.
But speaking of my time in college, one of the lessons I still remember today best explains why I joined the Libertarian Party.
In 1998 I signed-up for Ferris State University’s Humanities 220 course – more simply titled “Intro to Logic.” In that class, we learned about what’s called the Either-Or Fallacy – where in a given discussion we are expected choose between agreeing with either Idea # 1 or Idea # 2; to solve a problem means adopting either Option A or Option B.
For most of the 223 years since our Constitution was ratified, this very notion has been applied to America’s election processes. We have been persuaded time-and-again to limit our focus as voters to either Candidate # 1 or Candidate # 2, to either Party A or Party B.
As we’ve witnessed over these past two years, the Either-Or approach to our political system brought forth sweeping winds of change to the balance of power in Washington – winds of change which have emboldened Party A to believe they can herd us all like cattle into accepting their legislative efforts – 2,000 pages at a time – regardless of how enormously unpopular they may be.
Of course, let us not forget that during the preceding eight years, Party B interpreted their position as King of the Hill as a mandate to run up discretionary spending by 50 percent and nearly double our national debt to $10.6 trillion.
A great many of us who are part of the Tea Party movement have come to understand the folly of the Either-Or method in politics – more commonly known as the Two Party system.
In recent years, the legislative majorities we’ve seen have left those who would serve as voices of reason ignored and disregarded, “We’re in control now. Let us do as we see fit.”
Introducing a third party to the political equation and splitting that power three ways both in Washington and our state capitals will force those career politicians who have taken to “nesting” on Capitol Hill to debate their policies more honestly as well as remind them to again pay attention to their constituents: We the People.
Electing Libertarians at all levels of government will send a clear message to everyone who has gotten comfortable in their various offices: “we are not pleased and – more importantly – we are paying attention.”
While the Libertarian Party is dedicated to reducing spending by shrinking the size of government, there is more to our philosophy on government than money and taxation.
Libertarians understand it is the individual who makes America great. It is the individual who creates prosperity through innovation. And, it is the individual who can best decide for themselves what path to take in life and how to raise their family.
A smaller government means a government that retains less authority to be able to intrude upon our lives and our industries.
Libertarians understand the most effective way to defend those values – true Christian values – which most of us here in America hold dear to our hearts is not by enacting new and potentially poorly-written laws – laws that serve mainly to expand the size of government and its role in our lives – but to begin eliminating old and failed legislation that has been proven to exacerbate society’s problems instead of solve them.
For nearly a century – and particularly these past five decades – those who have sought to represent We the People in Washington have steadily strayed – further and further – from the principles set forth by our Founding Fathers – those principles that guided them as they penned the Constitution of the united States of America.
Many times it’s been done under the guise of seeking “a new direction for America.” Either we try something new or stick to “the old way” of business.
I disagree with this mindset wholeheartedly.
The truth is America does not need another new direction. My goal in seeking the seat of U.S. House of Representatives, 4th District of Ohio, is quite the opposite.
It is not about finding a new direction for America but rediscovering the original direction – established by our Founding Fathers – that made this country great in the first place.
Once I finally shed the mental blur – to which I like to refer as “partisan derangement syndrome” – that binds us to one party or the other and began taking that hard, critical look at the one with which I used to agree, politically I felt as though I was an island unto myself.
And then, the Tea Party movement arose in our country. I saw, lo-and-behold, that I am not alone.
What is funny from my perspective is when Libertarians discuss the Tea Party. The vast majority of the party’s membership here in Ohio are people who have been registered with it for years and their debates center on whether or not to reach out to the Tea Party and what would be the best approach. A number of longtime Libertarians have joined local Tea Party groups over the last year-and-a-half.
I, meanwhile, am the oddball in these discussions: I joined the party after identifying myself as a Tea Partier. Within a span of several months last year I went from fed-up voter to Tea Party activist to registered Libertarian to candidate for elected office.
Now, with a month to go before the general election, it is time to shed the last of my long-embraced comfort zones. In addition to the pair of debates coming around the corner on the calendar, the time to begin giving speeches is in high gear.
I can’t make any guarantees as to how interesting any of my speeches will be. I have not needed to stand before a crowd in that manner in over 12 years – in a persuasive speaking class in college.
Of course, if anyone reading this is willing to donate a teleprompter that’s a corner my campaign ought to be able to turn.
But speaking of my time in college, one of the lessons I still remember today best explains why I joined the Libertarian Party.
In 1998 I signed-up for Ferris State University’s Humanities 220 course – more simply titled “Intro to Logic.” In that class, we learned about what’s called the Either-Or Fallacy – where in a given discussion we are expected choose between agreeing with either Idea # 1 or Idea # 2; to solve a problem means adopting either Option A or Option B.
For most of the 223 years since our Constitution was ratified, this very notion has been applied to America’s election processes. We have been persuaded time-and-again to limit our focus as voters to either Candidate # 1 or Candidate # 2, to either Party A or Party B.
As we’ve witnessed over these past two years, the Either-Or approach to our political system brought forth sweeping winds of change to the balance of power in Washington – winds of change which have emboldened Party A to believe they can herd us all like cattle into accepting their legislative efforts – 2,000 pages at a time – regardless of how enormously unpopular they may be.
Of course, let us not forget that during the preceding eight years, Party B interpreted their position as King of the Hill as a mandate to run up discretionary spending by 50 percent and nearly double our national debt to $10.6 trillion.
A great many of us who are part of the Tea Party movement have come to understand the folly of the Either-Or method in politics – more commonly known as the Two Party system.
In recent years, the legislative majorities we’ve seen have left those who would serve as voices of reason ignored and disregarded, “We’re in control now. Let us do as we see fit.”
Introducing a third party to the political equation and splitting that power three ways both in Washington and our state capitals will force those career politicians who have taken to “nesting” on Capitol Hill to debate their policies more honestly as well as remind them to again pay attention to their constituents: We the People.
Electing Libertarians at all levels of government will send a clear message to everyone who has gotten comfortable in their various offices: “we are not pleased and – more importantly – we are paying attention.”
While the Libertarian Party is dedicated to reducing spending by shrinking the size of government, there is more to our philosophy on government than money and taxation.
Libertarians understand it is the individual who makes America great. It is the individual who creates prosperity through innovation. And, it is the individual who can best decide for themselves what path to take in life and how to raise their family.
A smaller government means a government that retains less authority to be able to intrude upon our lives and our industries.
Libertarians understand the most effective way to defend those values – true Christian values – which most of us here in America hold dear to our hearts is not by enacting new and potentially poorly-written laws – laws that serve mainly to expand the size of government and its role in our lives – but to begin eliminating old and failed legislation that has been proven to exacerbate society’s problems instead of solve them.
For nearly a century – and particularly these past five decades – those who have sought to represent We the People in Washington have steadily strayed – further and further – from the principles set forth by our Founding Fathers – those principles that guided them as they penned the Constitution of the united States of America.
Many times it’s been done under the guise of seeking “a new direction for America.” Either we try something new or stick to “the old way” of business.
I disagree with this mindset wholeheartedly.
The truth is America does not need another new direction. My goal in seeking the seat of U.S. House of Representatives, 4th District of Ohio, is quite the opposite.
It is not about finding a new direction for America but rediscovering the original direction – established by our Founding Fathers – that made this country great in the first place.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
WVXU and equal time for candidates
Among the chatter I caught this morning while reading through the news feeds by fellow Ohio Libertarians was an item in The Cincinnati Beacon involving Ohio's 1st congressional district candidate Jim Berns and local National Public Radio affiliate station WVXU.
WVXU's Maryanne Zeleznik has coordinated and extensively promoted with advertising a debate to be held between Republican candidate Steve Chabot and Democratic incumbent Steve Driehaus. Conspicuously absent in this process are Berns and Green candidate Rich Stevenson.
Very simply, Berns contends that by not inviting him and Stevenson and then extensively promoting the presence of the major party candidates, WVXU violated the Federal Communication Commission law requiring broadcasters to afford equal air time to all candidates for a specific federal office.
What has been published by the Beacon's online edition is an exact copy of Berns' FCC complaint. Following below that on the Website are three comments on this story: two of which contend Berns has no case. One of those dissenters is a Beacon staffer who concludes, "I wonder why Berns doesn't get that?"
That is when I felt not just compelled but (at the risk of sounding like an ideological zealot) morally obligated to post a counterargument.
Since my two-cents-worth in the comments section is still "awaiting moderation," I have chosen to publish them independent of the paper's online forum.
**********
Donald quoted from the statute:
"No obligation is imposed under this subsection upon any licensee to allow the use of its station by any such candidate."
Your counter argument is based on a misinterpretation of this sentence.
Berns contends that in Section (a) of the law, "If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station..."
The clause stipulating "no obligation is imposed" means the broadcast station is not expected to give any candidate air time in the first place.
BUT, once they have allotted any broadcast time to a candidate THEN they are obligated by Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter III, Part I, § 315 to afford a reasonably similar length of coverage to the other candidates for that particular office.
Also, when a candidate appears on air under the premise of being a guest of the station, if that does not constitute "use" of the station (under any imaginable context) then I would very much like someone properly explain what the applicable definition(s) would be.
A debate is not an incidental news story (i.e., breaking news report). It is a planned event that is thoroughly coordinated between the respective candidates' campaigns and the host media outlet.
In all reality, Mr. Berns has a very solid argument going in his favor.
WVXU's Maryanne Zeleznik has coordinated and extensively promoted with advertising a debate to be held between Republican candidate Steve Chabot and Democratic incumbent Steve Driehaus. Conspicuously absent in this process are Berns and Green candidate Rich Stevenson.
Very simply, Berns contends that by not inviting him and Stevenson and then extensively promoting the presence of the major party candidates, WVXU violated the Federal Communication Commission law requiring broadcasters to afford equal air time to all candidates for a specific federal office.
What has been published by the Beacon's online edition is an exact copy of Berns' FCC complaint. Following below that on the Website are three comments on this story: two of which contend Berns has no case. One of those dissenters is a Beacon staffer who concludes, "I wonder why Berns doesn't get that?"
That is when I felt not just compelled but (at the risk of sounding like an ideological zealot) morally obligated to post a counterargument.
Since my two-cents-worth in the comments section is still "awaiting moderation," I have chosen to publish them independent of the paper's online forum.
**********
Donald quoted from the statute:
"No obligation is imposed under this subsection upon any licensee to allow the use of its station by any such candidate."
Your counter argument is based on a misinterpretation of this sentence.
Berns contends that in Section (a) of the law, "If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station..."
The clause stipulating "no obligation is imposed" means the broadcast station is not expected to give any candidate air time in the first place.
BUT, once they have allotted any broadcast time to a candidate THEN they are obligated by Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter III, Part I, § 315 to afford a reasonably similar length of coverage to the other candidates for that particular office.
Also, when a candidate appears on air under the premise of being a guest of the station, if that does not constitute "use" of the station (under any imaginable context) then I would very much like someone properly explain what the applicable definition(s) would be.
A debate is not an incidental news story (i.e., breaking news report). It is a planned event that is thoroughly coordinated between the respective candidates' campaigns and the host media outlet.
In all reality, Mr. Berns has a very solid argument going in his favor.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Another chapter in the spontaneous debates saga: federal regulation
Sometimes the most effective stimulation of one's intellect happens when you least expect it. Here is another one of those examples.
An old friend of mine from high school weighed-in on an article I posted on my Facebook wall. The story enters into speculation that proposed resale regulations to be wielded by the Consumer Product Safety Commission won't be limited to larger resale outlets but also can be directed at individual and family garage sales.
I contend (along with a pair of fellow Ohio Libertarians) that this is part of the overreaching nanny state mentality of Washington, D.C. My high school friend disagrees. Below is the full exchange as it has taken place at the time of this posting. It's pretty long already so I won't be making any additions to it. Also, I'm anticipating more than likely future offerings (especially mine) are likely to contain a significant degree of redundancy in the effort to impart our respective points of view.
Note: I've left out names due to the fact I'm publishing participants' comments. The idea is not to make anyone look good or bad but present the points offered on both sides of the topic.
**************
Fellow Libertarian A: It's just amazing; I'm in awe. How did we let it come to this?
My old friend: Really? The CPSC is too "nanny state" for you? People should have the right to buy and sell cribs that kill children?
Me: What's "nanny state" about this is the door being opened to holding individuals and families to the same standard as larger entities which have the cash reserves to absorb the costs of a fine. Scott Wolfson can claim all he wants that the new standards are limited to larger resale operations. But, invariably, every new law and its set of regulations -- regardless of the industry in question -- starts out the same way: the intent is to keep the largest operators in check without encroaching upon their smaller counterparts; but between 5 to 10 years after the new rules are in place someone in Washington decides (usually with a little nudge from lobby money supplied by the same companies that were targeted in the beginning) that ALL levels of businesses must fall into compliance.
At what point do we decide that people are no longer responsible for and have no need to exercise judgment for themselves? (Meaning, do the sensible thing and scrutinizing the product they are about to buy before they go ahead and buy it) Based on the logic of these regulations, every home in America would have to be mandated to have the CPSC's guide in the odd chance one of the occupants may decide to sell any used children's merchandise currently in their possession.
I understand most people feel the need to have rules and regulations for retail products out of the commonly held principle of an inherent public trust. But, resale by its very nature carries with it an inherent amount of risk that whatever the product may be it may well have flaws present if for no other reason than it is USED -- someone already has used it and as a result may be more well-worn than either the buyer or even the seller may be aware.
Fellow Libertarian B: First off, this is definitely not within the purview of the federal government. Any argument on that matter?
Second, should regulatory agencies at any level have the power to arbitrarily level fines and penalties without taking you to court first? Or, since it is a matter of enforcing the law, is it a criminal matter where you are cited, then the judge issues the fine?
My old friend: "Wes Benedict, executive director of the Libertarian National Committee, told FOXNews.com. 'Consumer product safety is best left to a free market where suppliers can compete based on reputation and track records.'"
That's the crux of my problem with this libertarian orthodoxy: Trust the corporations, not the government.
"At what point do we decide that people are no longer responsible for and have no need to exercise judgment for themselves?"
I would say, when kids are killed. What would you answer?
At what point do we decide that people can freely sell products known to be deadly to children?
The slippery slope works both ways. FOX News can speculate all they want about jack-booted thugs breaking up granny's yard sale. But nobody has to imagine kids getting killed by magnets and cribs.
If it's not in the purview of the federal government to protect children, in a global market, then whose purview is it? Sure, parents should be responsible, but are we as a society willing to let the children of irresponsible parents get killed?
"Should regulatory agencies at any level have the power to arbitrarily level fines and penalties without taking you to court first?" Who is "you" here? If it's a corporation, then yes. And when we start giving corporations the same rights as people, we're trading away our liberty as quickly as if we let the government take it.
Me: For the sake of not going into yet another of my miserably long treatises, I'm going to try to focus on three of those premises.
When [Fellow Libertarian B] uses (or any of the rest of us, for that matter) the word "you" he/we are talking about "all of the above" -- the individual, the family, small businesses, non-profits, and larger corporate operations. All five fall under the umbrella description of private interests.
Laws such as what puts the teeth into the CPSC are not written to differentiate between those five segments of the private sector. As I mentioned above, large corporations have the financial wherewithal to endure such fines where the individual, the family, small business, and some non-profits do not.
As a result, we are left to trust the government (essentially, politicians and their cronies) to employ common sense in enacting and enforcing these laws. Today's crew may promise not to be spectacularly stupid on that front. But, without a guarantee that voters won't elect a Bush or Obama clone in '12, '16, or even '20, trusting Big Government is an even dicier proposition than trusting Big Corporation.
Next, "Granny's" yard sale isn't what concerns me. Granny most likely depends on Social Security to get by: and last I knew Social Security can't be garnished. It's yard sales by younger families I'm thinking of as they typically live paycheck-to-paycheck -- which is why they're selling their old stuff in front of their homes instead of donating them to Goodwill or Salvation Army. These are the folks who are being subjected the greatest degree of liability exposure.
Finally, in a truly free-market environment -- not this Keynesian setup in motion today -- companies that put bad products into the market lose enough customers to fail as they rightly should (in addition to being fined) due to the abundance of viable competitors of all sizes who can meet consumers' needs. That cannot happen with the way things stand right now because the enormous expense of satisfying federal regulations before any company can even begin producing a consumer good makes starting a new company or expanding an existing small one too financially prohibitive.
By its very nature, that setup favors the largest of corporations -- which are supposedly the evil doers in the first place that inspired the need for those regulations. And that is because they enjoy the aforementioned financial wherewithal to endure costs incurred by compliance with federal regulations. Most of that financial security is achieved despite those costs due to their ability to lobby for the kind of equal application of those laws that Wolfson claimed in his lip service won't be coming down the pipe.
Oh well, so much for "No New Treatises".
An old friend of mine from high school weighed-in on an article I posted on my Facebook wall. The story enters into speculation that proposed resale regulations to be wielded by the Consumer Product Safety Commission won't be limited to larger resale outlets but also can be directed at individual and family garage sales.
I contend (along with a pair of fellow Ohio Libertarians) that this is part of the overreaching nanny state mentality of Washington, D.C. My high school friend disagrees. Below is the full exchange as it has taken place at the time of this posting. It's pretty long already so I won't be making any additions to it. Also, I'm anticipating more than likely future offerings (especially mine) are likely to contain a significant degree of redundancy in the effort to impart our respective points of view.
Note: I've left out names due to the fact I'm publishing participants' comments. The idea is not to make anyone look good or bad but present the points offered on both sides of the topic.
**************
Fellow Libertarian A: It's just amazing; I'm in awe. How did we let it come to this?
My old friend: Really? The CPSC is too "nanny state" for you? People should have the right to buy and sell cribs that kill children?
Me: What's "nanny state" about this is the door being opened to holding individuals and families to the same standard as larger entities which have the cash reserves to absorb the costs of a fine. Scott Wolfson can claim all he wants that the new standards are limited to larger resale operations. But, invariably, every new law and its set of regulations -- regardless of the industry in question -- starts out the same way: the intent is to keep the largest operators in check without encroaching upon their smaller counterparts; but between 5 to 10 years after the new rules are in place someone in Washington decides (usually with a little nudge from lobby money supplied by the same companies that were targeted in the beginning) that ALL levels of businesses must fall into compliance.
At what point do we decide that people are no longer responsible for and have no need to exercise judgment for themselves? (Meaning, do the sensible thing and scrutinizing the product they are about to buy before they go ahead and buy it) Based on the logic of these regulations, every home in America would have to be mandated to have the CPSC's guide in the odd chance one of the occupants may decide to sell any used children's merchandise currently in their possession.
I understand most people feel the need to have rules and regulations for retail products out of the commonly held principle of an inherent public trust. But, resale by its very nature carries with it an inherent amount of risk that whatever the product may be it may well have flaws present if for no other reason than it is USED -- someone already has used it and as a result may be more well-worn than either the buyer or even the seller may be aware.
Fellow Libertarian B: First off, this is definitely not within the purview of the federal government. Any argument on that matter?
Second, should regulatory agencies at any level have the power to arbitrarily level fines and penalties without taking you to court first? Or, since it is a matter of enforcing the law, is it a criminal matter where you are cited, then the judge issues the fine?
My old friend: "Wes Benedict, executive director of the Libertarian National Committee, told FOXNews.com. 'Consumer product safety is best left to a free market where suppliers can compete based on reputation and track records.'"
That's the crux of my problem with this libertarian orthodoxy: Trust the corporations, not the government.
"At what point do we decide that people are no longer responsible for and have no need to exercise judgment for themselves?"
I would say, when kids are killed. What would you answer?
At what point do we decide that people can freely sell products known to be deadly to children?
The slippery slope works both ways. FOX News can speculate all they want about jack-booted thugs breaking up granny's yard sale. But nobody has to imagine kids getting killed by magnets and cribs.
If it's not in the purview of the federal government to protect children, in a global market, then whose purview is it? Sure, parents should be responsible, but are we as a society willing to let the children of irresponsible parents get killed?
"Should regulatory agencies at any level have the power to arbitrarily level fines and penalties without taking you to court first?" Who is "you" here? If it's a corporation, then yes. And when we start giving corporations the same rights as people, we're trading away our liberty as quickly as if we let the government take it.
Me: For the sake of not going into yet another of my miserably long treatises, I'm going to try to focus on three of those premises.
When [Fellow Libertarian B] uses (or any of the rest of us, for that matter) the word "you" he/we are talking about "all of the above" -- the individual, the family, small businesses, non-profits, and larger corporate operations. All five fall under the umbrella description of private interests.
Laws such as what puts the teeth into the CPSC are not written to differentiate between those five segments of the private sector. As I mentioned above, large corporations have the financial wherewithal to endure such fines where the individual, the family, small business, and some non-profits do not.
As a result, we are left to trust the government (essentially, politicians and their cronies) to employ common sense in enacting and enforcing these laws. Today's crew may promise not to be spectacularly stupid on that front. But, without a guarantee that voters won't elect a Bush or Obama clone in '12, '16, or even '20, trusting Big Government is an even dicier proposition than trusting Big Corporation.
Next, "Granny's" yard sale isn't what concerns me. Granny most likely depends on Social Security to get by: and last I knew Social Security can't be garnished. It's yard sales by younger families I'm thinking of as they typically live paycheck-to-paycheck -- which is why they're selling their old stuff in front of their homes instead of donating them to Goodwill or Salvation Army. These are the folks who are being subjected the greatest degree of liability exposure.
Finally, in a truly free-market environment -- not this Keynesian setup in motion today -- companies that put bad products into the market lose enough customers to fail as they rightly should (in addition to being fined) due to the abundance of viable competitors of all sizes who can meet consumers' needs. That cannot happen with the way things stand right now because the enormous expense of satisfying federal regulations before any company can even begin producing a consumer good makes starting a new company or expanding an existing small one too financially prohibitive.
By its very nature, that setup favors the largest of corporations -- which are supposedly the evil doers in the first place that inspired the need for those regulations. And that is because they enjoy the aforementioned financial wherewithal to endure costs incurred by compliance with federal regulations. Most of that financial security is achieved despite those costs due to their ability to lobby for the kind of equal application of those laws that Wolfson claimed in his lip service won't be coming down the pipe.
Oh well, so much for "No New Treatises".
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Another survey reply: American Association of University Professors
I received my candidate questionnaire this week from the American Association of University Professors. This actually was meant for an Ohio General Assembly candidate but I played along anyhow. Here is how I responded to their questions (everything is verbatim).
******************
1. Do you believe that all graduates of Ohio high schools should have access to quality higher education?
My answer: Yes
2. Do you believe there is a positive return to the citizens of Ohio from dollars spent on our institutions of higher education?
My answer: No... Now, for the graduates, I do say, "Yes." But, with Ohio's economic situation in comparison to most other states, ultimately Ohio taxpayers are not seeing a positive return due to the oppressive business climate both major parties have created as a result of reckless and irresponsible taxation, spending, and regulatory policies over the decades and in particular the past 12 years: this has led to far too many of our university and college graduates leaving the state in search of better career opportunities elsewhere in the United States.
3. If elected, will you work to maintain current funding levels for higher education in the 2011-2012 state budget?
Although not really applicable to me, but my answer would be: Yes... At the same time, I would work to transition the higher education funding process toward more of a free market system to encourage greater efficiency in how funds are put to use.
4. Will you help keep Ohio's public universities and colleges competitive with those in other states by supporting the current retirement options offered by the State Teachers Retirement System.
My answer: The problem with the wording of this question is the false premise that without an expensive defined benefits retirement package Ohio's institutions of higher learning cannot be competitive. Ohio's colleges and universities boast of being among the most outstanding learning institutions in America. It is this reputation that makes them so competitive, not benefits packages that have been proven to be too great of a burden on taxpayers.
So, in the spirit of this questionnaire as it relates to the best interests of American Association of University Professors, the short answer would have to be: No.
5. Are you concerned about the trend in Ohio's institutions of higher education which has resulted in a majority of the faculty members being part-time, many without benefits?
My answer: Yes. If the AAUP does not begin making concessions in their collective bargaining efforts, under the current economic atmosphere in America and Ohio that percentage will continue to rise.
******************
1. Do you believe that all graduates of Ohio high schools should have access to quality higher education?
My answer: Yes
2. Do you believe there is a positive return to the citizens of Ohio from dollars spent on our institutions of higher education?
My answer: No... Now, for the graduates, I do say, "Yes." But, with Ohio's economic situation in comparison to most other states, ultimately Ohio taxpayers are not seeing a positive return due to the oppressive business climate both major parties have created as a result of reckless and irresponsible taxation, spending, and regulatory policies over the decades and in particular the past 12 years: this has led to far too many of our university and college graduates leaving the state in search of better career opportunities elsewhere in the United States.
3. If elected, will you work to maintain current funding levels for higher education in the 2011-2012 state budget?
Although not really applicable to me, but my answer would be: Yes... At the same time, I would work to transition the higher education funding process toward more of a free market system to encourage greater efficiency in how funds are put to use.
4. Will you help keep Ohio's public universities and colleges competitive with those in other states by supporting the current retirement options offered by the State Teachers Retirement System.
My answer: The problem with the wording of this question is the false premise that without an expensive defined benefits retirement package Ohio's institutions of higher learning cannot be competitive. Ohio's colleges and universities boast of being among the most outstanding learning institutions in America. It is this reputation that makes them so competitive, not benefits packages that have been proven to be too great of a burden on taxpayers.
So, in the spirit of this questionnaire as it relates to the best interests of American Association of University Professors, the short answer would have to be: No.
5. Are you concerned about the trend in Ohio's institutions of higher education which has resulted in a majority of the faculty members being part-time, many without benefits?
My answer: Yes. If the AAUP does not begin making concessions in their collective bargaining efforts, under the current economic atmosphere in America and Ohio that percentage will continue to rise.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
What will the NEA think of me?
Before I mail my congressional candidate questionnaire back to the National Education Association, I thought I would share with my interested supporters and readers a few of my replies to the teachers union’s questions.
1. a. NEA supports federal legislation that would close achievement gaps, including by requiring states to submit, as a condition for receiving Title I funds, plans describing the steps they will take to remedy identified disparities in educational tools, services, opportunities, and resources among districts and schools.
Do you support or oppose NEA’s position? Support ___ Oppose _x_
If you oppose NEA’s position, please explain
“I oppose No Child Left Behind because it has served to further mire state and local education systems with even more federal bureaucracy. Federal education mandates do not work.”
My replies for the next few so-called questions echoed the same message as my conclusion to answering question “1. a.” I used this same message so frequently that about halfway through the questionnaire I became thoroughly disgusted with the slanted nature of each interrogative, as evidenced in this response:
2. b. NEA supports mandatory full funding for special education (IDEA [Individuals with Disabilities Education Act]).
Do you support or oppose NEA’s position? Support ___ Oppose _x_
If you oppose NEA’s position, please explain
“Education is a state and local issue. You guessed it: no federal mandates.”
3. NEA supports restoring the purchasing power of the maximum Pell Grant so that it keeps pace with increases in tuition costs.
Do you support or oppose NEA’s position? Support _x_ Oppose ___
Although I did not mark “Oppose” for my answer, I felt inclined to add comments anyway: “The problem is the Department of Education has squandered so much on wasteful, failed policies that money will not be available for proper Pell funding until the U.S.D.O.E. is brought under control and eliminated.”
Then, Question 4 nonsensically meandered the questionnaire into health care reform. In case you hadn’t guessed, I checked “Oppose” to both questions presented on the issue, adding in the comment sections:
“The NEA ought to endorse repealing the so-called Health Care Reform Act, thus eliminating the perceived need for any form of tax exclusions;”
and,
“The public option is a gateway to socialized medicine.
“None of this has anything to do with education.”
I oppose the NEA’s position on charter schools, telling them, “This is a state and local issue. Federal standards and policies will only water-down the quality of education in the same manner as public schools.”
Additionally, my stance on private school vouchers and tuition tax subsidies differs from the NEA’s: “The parents’ money should follow where the students go.”
And then the NEA wanted to know my thoughts on Social Security and protecting pension plans. Although – to be fair – they do oppose mandatory Social Security coverage for public employees. I agreed with them on that point.
But, I followed that with this reply to their pensions question: “America can no longer afford defined pension plans for public employees. We need to transition to a contribution-based retirement plan.”
And then, things get really entertaining. Question 9 was titled, “Protect Workers’ Rights to Unionize”. The full policy statement reads as follows:
The National Education Association advances the education profession by advancing the economic interests, protecting the job security, improving the terms and conditions of employment, and securing the right to bargain collectively for all education employees. NEA believes that attaining and exercising collective bargaining rights are essential to the promotion of the needs of students and education employees.
NEA supports legislation making it significantly easier for private sector workers to unionize and providing protection against discrimination or intimidation for workers who exercise their right to organize.
Question
NEA supports legislation making it significantly easier for private sector workers to unionize.
Do you support or oppose NEA’s position? Support ___ Oppose _x_
By now I could not contain myself and unleashed the following statement in the comments section. “Private sector unionization has nothing to do with education. When America’s unions acknowledge and address violent intimidation tactics such as we’ve witnessed with SEIU, then we can have an honest conversation about intimidation.”
This was followed by a question stating the “NEA supports a $40,000 starting salary for pre-K-12 teachers” as well as a so-called living wage for education support professionals. I checked “Oppose” and added this: “Public employee wages and salaries are grossly outpacing the private sector. Taxpayers can not afford this anymore.”
After telling the NEA on more time, in Question 11, that education is a state issue, I was met with the questionnaire’s finale: “Please describe your top five priorities for public education and how they contribute to ensuring all students attend a great public school.”
So, in true Don Kissick fashion I gave the NEA my five priorities for public education.
1. Getting the federal government out of our schools.
2. Getting the federal government out of our schools.
3. Getting the federal government out of our schools.
4. Getting the federal government out of our schools.
5. Putting an end to the U.S. Dept. of Education once and for all.
So, what do you think the NEA will think of me?
1. a. NEA supports federal legislation that would close achievement gaps, including by requiring states to submit, as a condition for receiving Title I funds, plans describing the steps they will take to remedy identified disparities in educational tools, services, opportunities, and resources among districts and schools.
Do you support or oppose NEA’s position? Support ___ Oppose _x_
If you oppose NEA’s position, please explain
“I oppose No Child Left Behind because it has served to further mire state and local education systems with even more federal bureaucracy. Federal education mandates do not work.”
My replies for the next few so-called questions echoed the same message as my conclusion to answering question “1. a.” I used this same message so frequently that about halfway through the questionnaire I became thoroughly disgusted with the slanted nature of each interrogative, as evidenced in this response:
2. b. NEA supports mandatory full funding for special education (IDEA [Individuals with Disabilities Education Act]).
Do you support or oppose NEA’s position? Support ___ Oppose _x_
If you oppose NEA’s position, please explain
“Education is a state and local issue. You guessed it: no federal mandates.”
3. NEA supports restoring the purchasing power of the maximum Pell Grant so that it keeps pace with increases in tuition costs.
Do you support or oppose NEA’s position? Support _x_ Oppose ___
Although I did not mark “Oppose” for my answer, I felt inclined to add comments anyway: “The problem is the Department of Education has squandered so much on wasteful, failed policies that money will not be available for proper Pell funding until the U.S.D.O.E. is brought under control and eliminated.”
Then, Question 4 nonsensically meandered the questionnaire into health care reform. In case you hadn’t guessed, I checked “Oppose” to both questions presented on the issue, adding in the comment sections:
“The NEA ought to endorse repealing the so-called Health Care Reform Act, thus eliminating the perceived need for any form of tax exclusions;”
and,
“The public option is a gateway to socialized medicine.
“None of this has anything to do with education.”
I oppose the NEA’s position on charter schools, telling them, “This is a state and local issue. Federal standards and policies will only water-down the quality of education in the same manner as public schools.”
Additionally, my stance on private school vouchers and tuition tax subsidies differs from the NEA’s: “The parents’ money should follow where the students go.”
And then the NEA wanted to know my thoughts on Social Security and protecting pension plans. Although – to be fair – they do oppose mandatory Social Security coverage for public employees. I agreed with them on that point.
But, I followed that with this reply to their pensions question: “America can no longer afford defined pension plans for public employees. We need to transition to a contribution-based retirement plan.”
And then, things get really entertaining. Question 9 was titled, “Protect Workers’ Rights to Unionize”. The full policy statement reads as follows:
The National Education Association advances the education profession by advancing the economic interests, protecting the job security, improving the terms and conditions of employment, and securing the right to bargain collectively for all education employees. NEA believes that attaining and exercising collective bargaining rights are essential to the promotion of the needs of students and education employees.
NEA supports legislation making it significantly easier for private sector workers to unionize and providing protection against discrimination or intimidation for workers who exercise their right to organize.
Question
NEA supports legislation making it significantly easier for private sector workers to unionize.
Do you support or oppose NEA’s position? Support ___ Oppose _x_
By now I could not contain myself and unleashed the following statement in the comments section. “Private sector unionization has nothing to do with education. When America’s unions acknowledge and address violent intimidation tactics such as we’ve witnessed with SEIU, then we can have an honest conversation about intimidation.”
This was followed by a question stating the “NEA supports a $40,000 starting salary for pre-K-12 teachers” as well as a so-called living wage for education support professionals. I checked “Oppose” and added this: “Public employee wages and salaries are grossly outpacing the private sector. Taxpayers can not afford this anymore.”
After telling the NEA on more time, in Question 11, that education is a state issue, I was met with the questionnaire’s finale: “Please describe your top five priorities for public education and how they contribute to ensuring all students attend a great public school.”
So, in true Don Kissick fashion I gave the NEA my five priorities for public education.
1. Getting the federal government out of our schools.
2. Getting the federal government out of our schools.
3. Getting the federal government out of our schools.
4. Getting the federal government out of our schools.
5. Putting an end to the U.S. Dept. of Education once and for all.
So, what do you think the NEA will think of me?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
