Don Boudreax Trusts Parents

Don Boudreaux of Cafe Hayek wrote this letter to the New York Times:

While applauding government-imposed national standards for schooling, you give no credence to the argument that each set of parents – rather than government – is in the best position, and has the strongest incentives, to determine whether or not their children are being educated well (“National School Standards, at Last,” March 14).  Indeed, the only persons you mention as being parties interested in the successful education of children are school superintendents, state governors, and members of Congress!

Not a single mention of parents or families – an omission that’s more than passing strange.

With genuine school choice, procedures to determine if any school is performing well or poorly would be no more complicated, and every bit as effective, as is the procedure we use today to determine if, say, any particular supermarket is performing well or poorly.  That procedure is competition among private, unsubsidized suppliers for customer dollars.  If consumer choice and competition serve well to maintain the quality of supermarkets (and of restaurants, and churches, and hotels, and…), then why do you think that tweaking, with national “standards,” the subsidized and largely monopolistic government schools that haunt the land today is the best way to transform these dysfunctional institutions into effective ones?

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

I agree.

Many do not share mine and Professor Boudreaux’s trust in people to make their own decisions.  Yet, many parents already do.  While government fiddles to find an way to determine education success, and hold schools accountable, parents make choices about their kids’ education everyday.

For example, parents consider the quality of the school district and local school when choosing where to live.  My parents moved to change my school district.  Part of my decision of where I chose to settle was based on the quality of the schools.

These choices are also reflected by parents who choose to pay to send their kids to private schools or to home school.

Where there’s more choice and competition among schools, like middle and upper incomes, there’s generally better schools.

Where there’s less choice and competition education is worse.  Consider lower income neighborhoods where people do not the financial flexibility to move or send their kids to private schools.  They may not be able to readily afford more expensive housing in districts with better schools or they may not be able to afford the extra transportation costs that comes with living further from work.  Yet these parents have very limited options, often stuck in the middle of abysmal school districts.

I see no reason for limiting educational choices for parents with low income.

Nice letter Don.

[Via http://ourdinnertable.wordpress.com]

THERE WILL COME A TIME.

THERE WILL COME A TIME.

There will come a time when the hordes remember,

who bound our grand-parents to the yoke of oppression,

who sentenced our parents to deprivation,

who bid poverty sink its teeth into our heart,

who teach our children, greed is a noble art.

Who sent our sons through the gates of hell to a litany of cambist brawls,

crammed coffers with blood-stained gold while laughing in Ares’ halls.

Who does these terrible things to us?” they will ask,

and when they remember,

they’ll bring an energy that is endless to drive a fist that is fearless.

 Then this merciless market-driven world will crumble under an insurrection of integrity,

 the poor will emerge from the dark husk of capitalism to live in the light of social justice.

 There will come a time when the hordes remember.

ann arky’s home.

[Via http://annarky1.wordpress.com]

Strategies for Advancing Liberty

I just read an excellent article by Murray Rothbard (circa 1989) called, “Four Strategies for Libertarian Change“.  Strategies for social change have long fascinated me. (I ran a student colloquium on the topic when I was with the Mackinac Center’s Students for a Free Economy, reading packet for one of the events is here.)

In the article Rothbard describes four approaches with four historical examples and discusses the pros and cons of each.  The piece is entertaining and well worth a read on its own, but coupled with the response by my current colleague Steve Davies (starting on page 13 of the linked article) it is especially savory.  Davies largely finds Rothbard on point but happily advances the discussion further.  He corrects a few of Rothbard’s historical characterizations (Rothbard’s histories are always engaging, but often portray events and figures as more libertarian than they probably were), and adds a dose of Public Choice realism. Most interesting to me, however, is the addition of other potential strategies.

Davies mentions the seldom attempted but often fantasized strategy of letting things get so bad they eventually get better (which I briefly address in this Liberty Magazine Reflection, “Story Time“), and wisely warns against it.  He mentions the possibility of violent revolution and rightly dismisses it out of hand.  He mentions the libertopian approach of a mass defection from current societal arrangements but, Seasteaders not withstanding, considers this highly impractical if not fundamentally flawed.

The final strategy that Prof. Davies mentions is to me the most promising and intriguing, and probably has the best track-record historically, though it often goes unnoticed.  That is the idea that existing coercive institutions can be toppled not primarily by direct attack, but by subterfuge.  Rather than convincing people they should give up the status quo, which means convincing them to drop the perceived security of the known and embrace an unknowable future, or overturning it by force or via an elite cadre, instead create the alternative.  Convince the world that non-coercive institutions and solutions to social problems are preferable by showing them.  If this is done well the act of formally removing state institutions becomes almost a foregone conclusion or a mere formality.

This approach is very Hayekian, and therefore very unsatisfying to us as libertarian “elite” intellectuals.  It’s messy, slow, unpredictable, and nearly always lacks that single climactic moment when freedom defeats statism.

to illustrate how unsatisfying it can be, consider that we may be witnessing an example of this approach unfolding before our eyes in mail delivery.  Public Choice realities being what they are, the likelihood of toppling the state postal monopoly with any amount of education, policy paper publication, or direct civil disobedience is very slim.  (Ask Lysander Spooner.)  These efforts are not futile and, as Davies points out, work to compliment and aid the undermining process, but ultimately they cannot win the day alone.

We’ve seen the Post Office’s monopoly weaken with the advent of UPS, FedEx, DHL, etc.  We’ve seen it’s importance wane with new technologies like email.  Sure, policy battles have played a part in this process, but the real impetus has been self-interest; people wanted it quicker and cheaper, there were large profits stood to be made so innovation occurred.  It is likely that the Post Office will die a slow death – or maybe never even completely disappear on paper – but one day we will be so used to other methods of delivering goods and information we will forget it ever existed.  I would not be surprised to see the public education system undermined in the same way.

The beauty of this method is that it does not require the agents of change to themselves be libertarian, only self-interested entrepreneurs.  Libertarian ideas still play a key role, as do policy and legal efforts, activism and education, but the real change comes when the alternatives to state programs are implemented rather than just talked about as possibilities.

Now a little twist.  This strategy can be very powerful on an individual level when combined with Rothbard’s first strategy, a sort of Taoist retreatism.  In order to make society a happier, freer place it helps to make oneself happier and freer first.  (This is the nut of an argument I made against worrying about elections, and reading the news.)  We ought to focus less on what makes us unhappy and thwarts our freedom and focus more on how to be as free as possible as individuals.  Just like UPS undermines the Post Office, we can undermine our own oppressive mindsets and internal institutions by building up freer alternatives underneath them.  I do not mean to be cute or self-helpish.  I genuinely believe that a social movement led by unhappy or internally unfree people is doomed to failure.  Occasionally retreating from the things we wish to change in the world and realizing that true freedom is not contingent on other people not only improves our own quality of life, but makes us much more attractive to would-be converts to the freedom philosophy.

First free yourself.  Then work towards societal freedom by creating competing solutions to those offered by the state.  Simple, right?

[Via http://isaacmorehouse.wordpress.com]

Democrat Agenda.. Self Destructive LUNACY or INTENTIONAL TREASON ?

A NATION UNDER SEIGE FROM WITHIN..

Between the “Healthcare” Coup, EPA threats and gag orders, the daily Pelosi/Reid dog and pony show.. its gettin’ crazier every hour..

Since before Mr Obama was inaugurated his minions have been hell bent on driving this country into the dirt face first.. with his smiling willful approval. They blame our problems on Bush to placate the anarchist left they aligned with during the election, they blame our problems on capitalism to placate the communists they have sold us out to and they blame our problems over their actions on us for resisting their headlong race into marxism.. as if nobody is paying attention.

There are so many things going on at once that its almost impossible to keep track of them all and that’s not an accident or a miss step, its intentional and we haven’t heard yet from all the whacko leftist “czarist courtesans” Mr Obama appointed to his court. Make no mistake they are each on a mission of their own, their follies to be announced when its time for their next move at communizing our country. The confusion, the lies, the disinformation from the media allies.. its all preplanned, nothing incidental or accidental about any of it.

There are strange things going on in your country right now.. be aware. The govt is arming its federal agencies, not the FBI or ATF but the Dept of Education for one..SHOTGUNS of all things, not to mention the NPS, DOE, BIA, DOI.. and others.. why ? Sniper Rifles, Night Vision.. WHY ??? Surely your agency mooks cant be planning another Waco or Ruby Ridge anytime soon ? What are the embedded collectivists in these agencies expecting to happen.. are the grizzly’s gonna revolt or the Indian Nations gonna have an uprising ? ..how about students ??     WTF Barry ?

The quislings presently in congress pushing the Health Care Coup are right now prepping a rule to bypass a vote on the damn thing.. Who the hell do they think they are ? Close to 70% of the people DON’T WANT GOVT INVOLVED IN THEIR HEALTH BUSINESS yet we are told lie after lie that’s its for us. What is their agenda that is so critical other than a COUP ? Between the RINO’s and the other DOMESTIC’s out there  ITS GETTING HARD TO TELL WHICH ONES ARE STILL AMERICANS WITH ALL THIS COLLECTIVIST CRAP EMANATING FROM EVERY CORNER OF THE PEOPLE’S HOUSES.

Mr Obama acts as if he has a legitimate right to rule over us and his obvious anger and frustration at our refusal to be ruled is extremely annoying not to mention self explanatory about his concept of a free society even if he is trying to overthrow it with his CHANGE.. take a hint stupid. YOU WORK FOR US !

In fact all of you on the marxist side of the coin here need an object lesson in CONSTITUTIONALISM BECAUSE ITS OBVIOUS YOU DIDNT FORGET ABOUT YOUR OATH OF OFFICE, YOU NEVER INTENDED TO COMPLY WITH IT FROM THE START. And for you “Others”.. so called Republicans clamoring to come up with their own version of a power grab, annoyed only because they didn’t think of it first.. not because of any patriotic sense of duty to the citizens or the country. Some are RINO’s and are also TRAITORS. One thing is certain to the majority of the citizens from all parties is that all of you in CIVIL SERVICE, every damn branch of it from federal to local, are way out of control, overstepping your constitutional restrictions and interfering with the rights of your employers and we’re not happy about it at all. Its also obvious to your employers that you no longer consider this your “Home’ but rather a place you find uncomfortable and annoying, so much so that your penchant for apologizing for its presence has become a daily occurrence. You can ALWAYS leave.

Unlike many people in my country I know I no longer suffer from the delusion that you traitorous bastards are in any way my fellow countrymen. How much time will pass that, due to your actions against us, we will no longer give you the benefit of the doubt for your actions appearing to be contrary to our country’s interests because they are contrary on purpose… before we will no longer accept your illegal decisions as law because they are corrupt and as illegitimate as you have become ?

There are things that need to be done to right the wrongs you have committed with your unconstitutional actions and laws and the  illegal actions of your complicit agencies. Your treason needs to be addressed in a court, unfettered by your judicial activists,  your services need to be terminated as soon as humanly possible to restore the Republic to the people to which it belongs.

“Make NO mistake”, as Mr Obama is fond of saying, it matters not what deals you have made with foreign countries, we wont honor them, or what military options you have arranged or might choose to exercise or what political games you may attempt.. we know you all, After all, We the People hired you, and We the People will fire you. For the record.. you were NOT hired by any GLOBAL organization.That’s how Liberty functions. We the People Run the Show.. Not the Hired help.

Normally in the capitalist job market an individual who is going to be let go is given the option to leave before being embarrassed.. some of you collectivist cretins in congress, agency heads, appointees, traitors ad infinitum..  you know who you are.. you all should take a serious hint and LEAVE NOW, Resign, Quit, Vacate the Premises. The rest of you, the believers, the marxist ideologues, the closet Stalinist’s.. above all DON’T BE STUPID.

This is OUR HOME.

[Via http://spitnyri.wordpress.com]

The Dangers of “Wartime Powers”: Or Freedom is Slavery

 A few weeks ago at CPAC, a Friday panel was assembled to answer the question: “Does security trump freedom?” Among the panelists were Robert “Skip” Ash, who teaches a course on “national security law” at Regent University, and also serves at the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) as their Senior Litigation Counsel for National Security Law. The deck was stacked beforehand: The ACLJ claims to be “focused on National Security issues and waging an effective and constitutional war on terrorism” (Constitutional? What Constitution?), and the debate moderator was Jay Sekulow, who serves as the organization’s Chief Counsel.

In his opening statements to the audience, Ash commented: “[The troops] also wonder why the President of the United States cannot bring himself to admit that the United States is in a long-term war with enemy jihadists, who seek to destroy us.” Several panelists, including the chief architect of the Patriot Act, went on to defend the Patriot Act as a set of wartime powers necessary to protecting freedom; as former Attorney General John Ashcroft had explained earlier in the day, “the purpose of security is to reinforce and enhance freedom.” Or, as George Orwell famously listed as a slogan of “the Party:” Freedom is Slavery.

To this, the short response is: If these “wartime powers” are so essential to maintain America’s national security and the freedoms of its citizens, why not declare a war? The heart of the matter, of course, runs much deeper. As Glenn Greenwald wrote in his New York Times bestseller, How Would A Patriot Act?, the goal is not to uphold or defend the Constitution at all, but rather to utilize fear to undermine it:    

“We do not have a government where the president can break the law in secret and then tell us not to worry about it because it is being done to “protect” us. We have never had a system of government operate on such paternalistic and blindly loyal sentiments. And we have never before been a nation living in such fear that, in exchange for promises of protection and safety, we are told that we must allow the president to seize those very powers which the Constitution prohibits.”

The guise, initially sold to the American public by Republican Party leadership, was that these powers would only be temporary. In the CPAC panel, Rep. Dan Lundgren [R-CA] said as much, proudly touting the fact that he helped to implement the so-called “sunset clauses” in the original legislation. However, this reassurance by the leadership of both parties of the validity of things called temporary wartime powers falls short, both historically and by the literal definition.

As has been evidenced by the history of government – and even if we restrict our study only to the history of American government – the government is very hesitant to cede any of the powers it fought so hard for, or any of the money it looted from the taxpayers. Consider the despicable practice of military conscription and the associated Selective Service System in the United States. The original Selective Service Act of 1917 was implemented under a declared war, but set the dangerous precedent that the federal government had the authority to force American citizens into military service without their consent. The draft was discontinued in 1920 at the completion of World War I; however, Selective Service was established as a government entity.

By the time World War II had begun, Selective Service was used as a resource to conscript male citizens, even before war had been declared. Drafting continued until 1946, and the Act of 1917 was allowed to expire shortly thereafter; however, a new Selective Service Act was passed in 1948, not only with no declared war, but absent the threat of one. Although the draft is not active today, the Selective Service System is still with us, and has transformed itself from a temporary wartime power to conscript into a permanent registration of citizens in a time of peace, required of anyone who wants a government loan or job.

The examples are seemingly endless: The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was established in 1933 as a temporary government corporation, only necessary for recovery from the Great Depression, until it was made permanent in 1935. More than 500 dormant legal provisions are re-activated in every instance in which the President declares a state of emergency – most of which were created as temporary powers deemed necessary to deal with the crisis or threat of the day. More alarming, perhaps, is the fact that recent Presidents have utilized the “state of emergency” declaration for such imminent threats as swine flu.

Needless to say, the new powers conferred upon the President by the Patriot Act are unlikely to be documented by history as temporary powers, especially considering that it has now been reauthorized three times: in 2005 and 2006, and most recently this month, when Congress slipped the reauthorization inconspicuously into a bill called the “Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act.”

However, even if these gross atrocities against the Constitution and civil liberties were somehow necessary to defend the nation in a time of war, they would not be valid for the simple reason that we are not at war. Such a declaration would force the hands of government officials to either present these powers as the permanent injustices that they are, or to discontinue them at war’s end. As such, the endless “War on Terror” will continue undeclared: the current strategy affords the President the luxury of using the powers no Constitutional scholar knew he had, while shielding him from well-deserved ridicule and outrage for doing so. And, as both parties have demonstrated, neither is about to eliminate powers that “their President” might like to use once elected.

Unfortunately, members of the military are making the ultimate sacrifice, not for the national security of America, but for the job security of its politicians.

Source: Liberty Maven

[Via http://orwellsdreams.wordpress.com]

American People Should Force Federal Government To Sell Off The Land Its Owns To Payoff National Debt!

Pete Seeger and Bruce Springsteen – This Land is Your Land

 

 

Glenn Beck – Our Own Government Is Stopping Our Independence

Federal Lands and Indian Reservations

“…Go to map listto view and print Federal Lands and Indian Reservations maps The Federal Government owns nearly 650 million acres of land – almost 30 percent of the land area of the United States. Federally-owned and managed public lands include National Parks, National Forests, and National Wildlife Refuges. These are lands that are held for all Americans. The Federal agencies responsible for managing America’s natural resources must meet both the public desire to protect them and the public expectation of economic growth based on them. Within the Federal Government, a number of agencies contribute to the management of natural resources associated with public lands. All of these Federal agencies are partners in the production of nationalatlas.gov.

In the United States there are only two kinds of reserved lands that are well-known: military and Indian. An Indian Reservation is land reserved for a tribe when it relinquished its other land areas to the United States through treaties. More recently, Congressional acts, Executive Orders, and administrative acts have created Reservations. There are approximately 275 Indian land areas in the United States administered as Indian Reservations (reservations, pueblos, rancherias, communities, etc.). The largest is the Navajo Reservation of some 16 million acres of land in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. Many of the smaller Reservations are less than 1,000 acres with the smallest less than 100 acres. On each Reservation, the local governing authority is the tribal government. Military reservations are managed by the Department of Defense. Examples include army posts, marine bases, naval stations, and air force bases.

These maps were designed for use on the World Wide Web or for generating high quality color prints. Each map shows the Federal Lands and Indian Reservations overlaid on top of State boundaries, selected streams and waterbodies, and major cities for easy reference. In addition, there is a map showing Federal Lands and Indian Reservations for the entire United States.

The maps are available in the following formats. …”

 

 

http://www.nationalatlas.gov/printable/fedlands.html#list

[Via http://raymondpronk.wordpress.com]

Don't Let the Feds Take Away Your Right to Control the Health Care Industry

Okay, it’s a long title and it’s not very catchy, but let me blog a bit about what my title means.

There are so many arguments about the current Health Care Political Theater going on in the White House right now.

Should we have the public option?

Should we fund abortions?

What about gay marriages, will they get health care beni’s?

Who’s gonna pay for it? How much will it cost?

These are all great questions really and all of the issues are hot buttons as every person feels differently. Some people feel morally compelled to pay for those who can’t afford their own health care, others are so broke they can’t contemplate helping themselves, let alone thousands of the poor.

Others don’t mind universal health care but they don’t want to be fined for not joining the party, while some agree that everyone should be locked in and fined to help cover the costs, while still others are outraged that they would fine anyone to help cover costs and not because of an inherent need to force them to take better care of themselves.

There are still others who feel that everyone should just fend for themselves and deal with their problems without asking for a hand out.

Then you have me, and I’m not sure how many others agree with me, but I’m gonna blog about it anyways. For I find that my idea isn’t bad at all, it’s just that not that many people have thought about it.

My only question to those preforming in the political theater is:

Why does the Federal Government need to have anything to do with the Health Care industry?”

I could have sworn that per the American constitution, it says that they are only supposed to protect our freedoms, guard our shores and borders from attacker and to collect taxes to do those two things.

The constitution specifically says that everything else is to be covered by the people and their states. So why are we trying to get the federal government to give us a solution again?

The truth is, having federally mandated or universal health care will kill and ruin the health care industry. It will make the pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies ten times richer while we the people struggle to pay for our own health along with everyone else who can’t pay for theirs. On top of that, our freedom of choice in the medical scene will be completely shot, as the federal government will be entitled to regulate and run everything to do with Health Care.

They feel they can choose what you need better then you can. Don’t we already have enough problems with doctors who don’t really listen and laws that make it nearly impossible to seek alternative or outside help? How is having people that can hardly run the government, taking over the health care industry, going to help anyone other then the rich sob’s that are running the industry now?

IF instead we stopped the government from dealing with the Health insurance industry and instead used initiatives of the people in the states to rein in health care, we would see many glorious things happen.

Such As;

-The Federal Government can stop playing dramatic games and get back to work bringing our troops home.

-We can focus on the corrupt jobs system the federal gov is trying to set up and get people some real jobs and careers, instead of just temporary and wasteful jobs to pacify the masses for half a year or so.

-We can work on getting Cannabis legalized to create more jobs and a booming economy, as well as ending the trillions of dollars in taxes we pay to fight a useless drug war

-The states will be able to make customized regulations and mandates depending on the initiatives enacted by the voters and then voted on by the majority in each state. This will be so awesome, because if one state wants to mandate their health insurance to pay for everybody and give the greedy insurance companies more money, let them do it. But then the other 50 states aren’t bound to that method. If they choose to create a medicare type system with a tax and not mandate people, then let them go to it. If another state is happy with the way their insurance goes then let the people keep it with out any changes. There are millions of options and there is no reason that all 50 states and territories should be bound to one way and one way only.

-We will be prohibiting our federal government from getting more power that they neither deserve nor require

-We will be reining in the health care industry and regulating it without having to worry about tyranny.

-We the People will get to control just about everything about the health care and if someone doesn’t like the status of the industry in one state, they can move to another or enact an initiative to change things. This will enact changes faster and easier and they will be much easier to repeal if need be, then federal legislation.

Think about it. Do your home work in history. The States were supposed to be independent nations that were simply united by the common goals of freedom and liberty. The federal gov is not our boss, we are theirs. They are not authorities, they are public servants and we need to start acting our roles if we want to see true change that doesn’t drag our economy down even further.

Something to think about…. at least….

Comments Welcome

[Via http://fontistheperceiver.wordpress.com]