Welcome to The Aisle, where we report from
both sides of the Political Spectrum! Here we will take an issue, whether it be
gay marriage, or free trade policy, and give our perspectives. Feel free to
leave a comment or two! However, I thought it would be appropriate if we outlined
our basic political beliefs before we go any further. I have a tendency to lean
to the right, and below I have taken a post from my other blog, to which you
can find links in my profile, I find fitting.
THEM.
Most people don't want to be one of them, some do. Maybe you are one of
them, but most likely you're not. Regardless of whom we regard as them, we
usually strive to either shun or support the group in question. Scientologists
are referred to as them. Democrats refer to Republicans as them. Republicans
refer to Democrats are them. The cool kids are known as them. I am often a part
of groups people dub them. Whether it be in regards to being one of those
cynical, smartass teens, or my being one of those nerds who has won a few
college scholarships before turning sixteen. But I'm not here to talk about any
of that...I'm here to talk about being the them in politics...that is, I am a
Libertarian. The first person who comes to mind when the Libertarian party is
mentioned is Texas Rep. Ron Paul. While he is the most popular and well known
member of the party, at least in philosophy, not necessarily registration, many
people do not actually know what being Libertarian actually means. We believe
government was created to ensure liberty and protect people and property from
violence initiated by others. To me and
to most, Libertarianism is the unwavering belief in the validity of the
Constitution, the right to live without pointless government restriction, and
the right to enjoy freedom undefiled. In short, it’s not “Yes we can,” as in,
“Yes, we can run our economy into the ground”
but “Less we can,” as in, “With less
government, we can solve most, if not all, of our problems.”
Many people may also question my and the
party's beliefs, so I will pen a few paragraphs below...I encourage you to
leave a few comments with issues or questions you would like me to add to the
post in an edit. Again, I look forward to your comments and thoughts, but
please, am respectful. So without further ado, I will address the most
important, at least in my opinion, issue for all of my American readers- the
economy.
The economy has been in the dumpster since
the mid-2000s, though it has recovered slightly. The Obama administration
responded by drafting two "stimulus" plans, one for $800 billion, the
other for $400 billion. Besides mortgaging my, and the rest of my generation’s
future, on a mountain a debt, yet another thing President Obama has promised
not to do but ultimately has, the aftermath of the stimulus, according to the
CATO Institute, could be catastrophic. The situation we were in at the time of
the "stimulus" was not unlike the times in the years 1946 to 1947. At
the time, after many years of enormous government spending, the economy was
resuscitated, albeit mostly by World War II, the restrictions on labor were
being lifted. Newspapers predicted unemployment would skyrocket, one going as
high as 35%, and guess what? Unemployment went down to 4.5% because the markets
were able to dictate wages and enable the private sector to create jobs,
similar to 1923, in which a recession caused 10% of the population lost his
job, causing firms to cut wages, saving jobs, and hire even more workers with
the money saved, most importantly without government intervention. As a result
the economy rebounded quickly. The economy grew in spite of spending, not because
of it. Private Investment and consumption went up, and prices of materials went
down, prompting business owners to make more products and later export them, and
therefore found it necessary to hire more workers to meet the growing demand.
Productivity was increasing, and wages were rising at a slower rate than the
rate of inflation, leading to EVEN MORE private sector jobs. The opportunity to
reach the heights of the 1946-1947 years is here, wages aren't inflating, and
productivity is increasing, and now we just need to hope to God that the
government realizes it cannot actually create jobs and get the hell out of the
way.
Restriction of business and entitlement
programs are another issues I have with the administration. I view spending as
bad, probably because it is....but that's not what I'm going to address in this
sub-paragraph. The minimum wage is fundamentally good, but we all (hopefully)
know that nothing is ideal or fundamental in politics. In 1923, the Supreme
Court rejected the minimum wage as it directly infringed upon the right of the
individual, something we all should love very much in any case, to contract
with his employer, in short, the minimum wage helps those who earn it, but the
inflexibility of the wages also prevented companies from hiring additional
workers. Nowhere in the Constitution do our Founding Fathers (the original,
unmolested Constitution) give the government the right to mandate wages in any
way, shape, or form. Entitlements also frustrate me, for I honestly believe
that private charity works better than any government intervention. History
teaches us that those with abundance will most likely share it, not because of
a silly government tax program, but because people are fundamentally good and
willing to help each other. Do you think a government program would be able to
do as much good or be as successful Alcoholics Anonymous has? Let me put it this
way, If I gave you $10,000,000, to donate to anyone, you may consider private
charities the Red Cross or the Gates Foundation....I can guarantee you didn't
think of the Department of Health and Human Services... that little simulation
is actually what our tax system does...from you right to the Department of
Wasted Tax Dollars rather going to the people who need the money the most.
Balancing a budget is also an issue
Congress seems to have...in all honesty; it's not that hard to do. You don't
spend money when you don't have any. Congressional candidate Mark Grannis and
colleagues actually devised a plan to create a balanced budget in ONE YEAR
without cutting Medicare and Medicaid or raising taxes. We have to shrink government and cut
spending, whether we like it or not. We all have pet programs that pursue
worthy goals, but ultimately, like most government programs, they fall short in
achieving them, so therefore many government programs can be eliminated without
actually affecting everyday life, for example, NASA, as private companies, such
as SpaceX, show much more promise. Amtrak is unprofitable, cut it or privatize
it. The Postal Service is on its way out-cut it, we don't have much time. The Federal
Highway Administration could be cut as well, as a private company could
arguably do a better job, while creating jobs. Federal regulation of Education
should be eliminated as well, as I believe, along with many others, that the
states could and would do a better job than the Fed. A 5% cut across the board
would be the cherry on top of a balanced-budget sundae.
Another area Libertarians differ from the
norm is social liberties. The basic doctrine of Libertarianism is, as mentioned
above, is the belief in prosperity from protecting the lives of others, as we
are all created equal, and undefiled freedom. Case in point with abortion. As
stated above, government was created to protect the person, regardless of
location or level of ability. Abortion by its very definition is the deliberate
killing of one person for the benefit of another. Many Pro-Choicers say a fetus
is simply a bundle of a mother's tissues, not a human, but if that were true,
the unborn child would have identical DNA to her mother, which we know it does
not, establishing it as a different, independent, form of life. With that argument, we are all a bag of
cells, every one of us. Some say that a fetus isn't human, yet we know from the
moment of conception, that the new life is not a puppy, it is unquestionably a
human life, so therefore, it must be protected by the government.
Another issue is whether or not the
government has the right to control what we put in our bodies. We should be
able to choose between a more expensive natural product instead of a less
healthy, cheaper alternative, not have the government force us to buy something
that, while good for us, may be out of our price range. We should be able to
choose between a less healthy alternative and donate the money we save to the
poor, or buy something for us and not donate at all...seems a little selfish to
buy the natural stuff now, right? Drugs and controlled substances are also hot
topics. To support the legalization of marijuana or any other drug does not
mean you support the use of them, and to be clear I do not, it means you
support the right to choose what you believe is best for you, and a similar
mindset applies to pretty much every product imaginable. You alone can decide
for yourself if your long-term health is worth a brief high, not any government
agency. Rolling back restrictions to what I have described would cut costs,
near $300,000,000 by legalizing drugs alone, not counting any agencies to
police products like soap or deodorant.
Liberty is a state of mind. We can sit
back and let our government slowly grow and destroy our once great nation, or
we can fight. We must fight for freedom. We must fight for the liberty our
fathers purchased with their blood long ago. No government agency can give us freedom,
but it can sure as hell take it away. So we must fight. Will you join me?
Images Retrieved From: www.followmymovement.com, twinfallsfireworks.org, www.sportspinandstuff-billyw.blogspot.com, and www.thoroughfarebooks.com
