Category Archives: Libertarian opinion

Permission to live

The state of Georgia has officially made it illegal to make a living UNLESS you are willing to ask your master for permission first (namely the state & federal government). To wit: I discovered today that in order to maintain the extreme privilege of operating a business in Georgia one must now sign a sworn affidavit and provide documentary evidence that one is a US citizen.

So now not only are business owners drafted into being unwilling arms of the state apparatus by being required to make their employees prove they are US citizens, but now business owners themselves must prove to the state they are US citizens (because clearly that is a real problem, undocumented illegal aliens coming to this country to establish self-sustaining businesses).

What pray tell could be the rationale for this: Well according to OCGA §50-36-1 any “public benefit” one might receive requires said recipient to prove they are a US citizen. However their definition of “public benefit” is quite odd insofar as it includes “benefits” that the state itself REQUIRES business owners to obtain from the state, namely business or other occupational licenses. If a business license given to me by the state is a “benefit” that is causing them so much distress is doling out, I’ll be the first to volunteer that they can keep it. Somehow I think businesses would run just fine absent a framed piece of paper on the wall.

To those not familiar with the regulatory hurdles one must go thorough to operate a business in this state (and I assume most states): this is not merely a one time annoyance, i.e. get your license and you’re done. Oh no, this is an annual event, every year I must prove to my overlords that I was a US citizen last year and oddly enough 12 months later I’m still a US citizen. I need to provide copies of citizenship records, I need an affidavit signed and notarized.  A few years ago it was one form, last year it was 2, now it is 3 this year and I will be shortly required to obtain the not so euphemistically named “Federal work authorization user identification number” in order to enjoy the simple privilege of operating a business and being permitted to hire employees.

But I’m a good little slave to the state and I signed my document with tail tucked between my legs knowing that if I refused to the bitter end I would ultimately be dragged from my home or office at gunpoint – all because I simply see no reason any human being should ask for permission of another human being whether they can work or not. Here’s a copy of the form to which I attached my own “Signing Statement”. If it’s a bit hard to read, here’s what I said:

“Signing statement: I sign this document under duress owing to the implied threat of violence resulting from non-compliance. OCGA §50-36-1 is morally unsound law. My inalienable right to peacefully engage in trade is not predicated or dependent on the prior approval of another person or persons. The state has no authority to say I have no right to work or trade unless I kiss their ring.”

Hunting with a BB Gun

“[The recent fungal meningitis outbreak] marks a lapse in the responsibility of government to protect against such a disaster.” – Editorial board, Washington Post, October 16, 2012

This statement (regarding an outbreak of fungal meningitis due to contamination at a New England compounding pharmacy) reflects a fundamentally paternalistic view of the world. It presumes government can and should be our protector against all the ills that might befall us in life. Click our seat belt, put on our helmet, limit our soda, license those who cut our hair, force us to buy insurance – it’s all for our own good, we’re just too ignorant to know better. The world is scary, understandably we want to be in control, but this is the real world and there simply cannot exist a magical entity that can protect us from all harm. We are adults and this desire for a paternalistic caretaker is a step backward into childhood and dependency and stands in stark contrast to stepping forward into adulthood and independence.

The danger in believing government can actually protect us is that we become complacent and assume there are no dangers lurking out there, how could there be, isn’t government in control? Why should I bother investigating this drug or this company, I mean, the FDA would never let anything dangerous through, right?  In this particular case the FDA actually did not have oversight control of the compounding pharmacy where contaminated injectable steroids (for back pain) were produced. The local state licensing boards had authority, however oversight was lax and even the regulations that were ignored were simply paperwork related and could not have prevented this disaster. But the average consumer doesn’t know all the ins and outs of government regulation; they just assume Big Brother is looking out for them. Is the answer then to give the FDA total control over everything then? Well only if you think the best answer to a failure of government is even more and bigger government. When it comes to a product as critical as drugs we obviously want someone double checking what it is we’re putting in our bodies. But I would feel a whole lot better knowing that if the entity doing the checking has an incentive not to fail because I can sue them too. The FDA (and state boards) have no such incentive; they are immune from all prosecution. Failure of the regulators has no consequences.

Government regulation is a government response to a government created problem. In this case the problem is corporate liability protection. Government creates by fiat entities that are mostly immune to liability for errors and misdeeds (LLCs, Corporation, LLPs, etc.). In order to reign in the moral hazard created by such government granted limited liability, government then decides it must regulate the beast it has created. Doing away with all liability protections and threatening owners with unlimited liability for harm (intentional or not) will be the incentive that will drive the creation of a private regulatory market wherein businesses owners insure themselves against loss and are then tightly regulated by their insurers who have an incentive to eliminate events that would result in paying damage claims. Insurers would hire FDA-like companies to closely monitor their insured and only those most effective at regulating and minimizing losses would survive (as they too could be sued for failure). Government simply stands as the backstop against any unscrupulous insurer that refused to pay valid claims (although such insurers would naturally go out of business quickly as that reputation spread).

Government regulation lulls citizens into a false sense of security. This is as dangerous as going on a lion hunt with a guide whose rifle actually turns out to be a BB gun.

The hypocrisy of local control advocates

November 6 there will be a proposed constitutional amendment to the Georgia state constitution (Georgia Charter Schools Amendment 1) on the ballot that would grant the General Assembly the authority to create charter schools directly, thus bypassing creation by the local school board. This activity had been found to be unconstitutional in a May 2011 ruling by the Georgia Supreme Court – hence the amendment to make it constitutional. This amendment is quite the conundrum: voting yes would marginally increase school choice at the expense of creating an entirely new government bureaucracy to oversee “state” charter schools. However voting no would prevent new bureaucracy, but at the expense of continuing to maintain the monopoly privilege of the local school system. A bit like trying to decide if I would prefer to be kicked in the mouth or the stomach.

When the positions of both sides are contrary to the principles of a free society it makes it that much easier to pick apart their rhetoric. The argument from the pro camp is essentially that in order to increase choice we need to just stop pouring money into the current (local) system, and now pour money into an entirely new (state) system. Trust us. We know what we’re doing. They claim it will not divert money from the local schools, and that is true, to an extent, as the amendment makes specific mention of non-diversion of funds. However, it is laced with qualifying language such as “prohibits…deduction of CERTAIN state funds from local school districts”. Funds are fungible, although non-discretionary funding may not be touched, there is no doubt that discretionary funding will magically become scarcer. And when that happens you will have one side shouting “draconian cuts!” and the other “no change in funding!” and both would be correct. Is it any wonder voters are turned off by the political process?

The con side is just as bad. They employ the same anti-competitive rhetoric usually reserved for discussions of vouchers. Charters are evil because the competition they would engender results in (a) wasteful duplication of effort and (b) would siphon money away to evil non-local “for profit” school organizations. So I suppose then it would be an equally good idea if we were to outlaw private groceries and establish a local government run “food board” that monopolistically sells food to citizens in its region in order to eliminate duplication of effort and the export of “local money”. It’s much easier to misdirect the spotlight from one’s own pro-monopoly rhetoric if it is draped in anti-local jingoism. I guess a local monopoly is preferable to “foreign” competition.

The perplexing part is that both sides are right and wrong. Both local control and more choice ARE better, but monopolistic trusts and bureaucratic government programs are not the way to achieve those goals. The truly hypocritical position lies with the local school boards that take great offense at the state intruding into their perceived power domain, however, they have no qualms about intruding into a parent’s right to have ultimate control over their child’s education. A true advocate of local control defends the rights of the most local decision makers: the parents. Parents have the right, not the privilege, of deciding how their children will be educated – without being required to suffer the diminishment of choice via the act of reaching into the parent’s wallet in order to pay for the choice already made for the parents by the school board.

In the end I reluctantly recommend a “no” vote if only to send a message to the legislature that we want better legislation. We do not need more government control of the education market, we need less. We need an option that provides for less outside control and more local control, control by the parents.

Cutting corners

“And so you’ve got higher administrative costs, plus profit on top of that. And if you are going to save any money through what Governor Romney’s proposing, what has to happen is, is that the money has to come from somewhere.” – President Barack Obama.

President Obama made the above remark in last week’s (10/3/12) presidential “debate” (aka joint press conference) comparing the cost structure of Medicare to that of private insurance. His remarks rely on a grade school understanding of profit that is sadly shared by many.

Let’s dissect the error of his ways. “And so you’ve got higher administrative costs”: The president is being a bit deceptive here. Medicare’s administrative costs are lower because it has virtually no checks against fraud prior to payment. The system is designed purposefully this way in order to entice doctors with an easy claims process. Unfortunately it leaves the system vulnerable to every type of conman and charlatan. Kind of like saying a government-run unmanned honor system bank operates with lower costs than a private bank full of tellers and security guards.

Next he says “plus profit on top of that” in reference to private insurance: Implicit in this statement is the notion that without profit (or perhaps just “excess” profit, “excess” being defined in the liberal dictionary right next to “fair share”) everything would cost proportionately less. If he is going to be intellectually honest then using this logic there is no other conclusion then that government should run everything profit-free. Considering how well that system (communism) has worked, it is unlikely he will be intellectually honest.

However the last statement, “the money has to come from somewhere” reveals his ignorance of business. This ignorance renders him incapable of comprehending how a business could enhance profit by any method other than cutting corners. The method that eludes him is productivity improvements. These are achieved by (a) identifying inefficiencies and removing them and (b) utilizing new or existing tools. With productivity gains the consumer receives the same or a better product for a lower price while the business earns a greater profit. The profit motive encourages good businesses to enhance productivity, which benefits both themselves and their consumers. The profit motive can also encourage some businesses to cut corners on product quality. However these businesses can only cut corners to the extent consumers are willing to accept the tradeoffs. If they go too far they risk going out of business at the hands of more efficient competitors. In the long run the profit motive strengthens good businesses and weakens bad businesses.

If government operates without a profit motive (as the President implies is a superior route for purposes of saving money) it operates in an information vacuum, like a ship adrift beneath a cloudy sky with no stars to guide it. It is not possible to know if one is adding or degrading value if they never ask “what is this worth?” A prime example: baking apple pies adds value, but burning apple pies degrades value. Both involve the same use of resources (apples, labor, oven) however one process is wasteful while the other beneficial. There is no non-arbitrary method to determine which process adds value or degrades value and by how much. The only way to know is to offer each on the market and see which one more people are willing to give more in exchange for. To those that might say healthcare is different, then I ask you this: if the consumer does not directly bear the cost of the healthcare they consume, then on what basis can they draw a line and say “this is too much to spend?” Is there no amount that is too much? There is only one tool government has to maintain product access when it forces prices for scarce goods below their market rate: rationing. Rationing through waiting lists (a common practice in the single-payer no profit systems) gives the false illusion of lower nominal costs by simply ignoring the costs in terms of quality of life for those suffering while they wait or the cost of lives cut short. It may seem like voodoo to President Obama, but the desire for profit is a powerful motivator to increase efficiency and thus lower costs.

End the TSA

“You can’t professionalize unless you federalize” said Senator Tom Daschle after the 9/11 attacks regarding the apparent need for the federal government to assume the responsibility for all airport security. It sounded somewhat plausible at the time. After all, clearly the private system must have failed by allowing the hijackers through? Actually, no. The knives used were not in any way restricted under the government rules in place at the time. Three of the hijackers were permitted entry to the US by the federal government even though they had expired visas. Yet these failures in both governmental policy and procedure were simply ignored as those in power assured themselves that NOW we would learn from our mistakes. Until the shoe bomber. Ok, now we’ve really learned – check everyone’s shoes too. Until the underwear bomber. Ok, ok, now we’ve really got it this time, we swear – check for liquids above some arbitrary number we pulled out of thin air. Some might argue that despite its flaws the TSA must be effective, as we’ve had no more hijackings since 9/11. True, but under the prior private system there had not been a single hijacking incident on a commercial passenger flight originating from a US airport since 1983 (and that was merely a diversion, no lives were lost). For some perspective consider that in the 1970’s we had 13 hijacking in US airspace. Thirteen! And yet no one saw the need to federalize then. However after nearly two highjack-free decades it was decided that the only way to prevent another 9/11 style attack is to put in charge of security the same people that can’t even manage to efficiently run the post office or Amtrak: the US federal government. The TSA has increased staff over 400% since 2001 (costing taxpayers $56 billion) while flights have only increased 12% – and yet security related delays are commonplace. That is classic text-book government inefficiency at work.

The real problem with the TSA, however, is not the bloated inefficiency or free mammography’s but rather their complete lack of accountability to the airlines or the passenger. When a terrorist does eventually manage to navigate the well-publicized security maze, who will be held accountable? No one. The government is immune from any sort of prosecutorial culpability. Rather than being the catalyst to ending the TSA, such a failure will only be the rallying cry for even more money and manpower. Funny, failure in the private sphere results in bankruptcy, but in the government sphere it only enhances the failing entity. In a private system there is accountability. Airlines have a self-interest in not seeing their planes destroyed and their customers killed – it’s kind of bad for business. They have insurance for such events. Their insurer has a self-interest in not paying claims, therefore it requires the airline to screen passengers. The airline in turn hires an outside firm to handle screening. That outside company would bear liability for their failures therefore they would have insurance. Both insurers would closely monitor and regulate the screening company to ensure they did an effective job because those insurers would not want to pay out claims.

In a private system of interlocking companies and insurers the common goal of not losing money is accomplished most effectively by those who in turn are most effective at preventing property damage and loss of life. Those ineffective at it are quickly driven out of business (assuming no government bailouts). It is accountability, not government, which fosters professionalism.

Don’t blame people, blame the system Mitt

Poor Mitt Romney – apparently no one ever taught him the first rule of politics: always assume you are being recorded. The issue at hand though is not so much his ham-fisted point making, but rather that he, like so many other politicians, decries the effects of government policies while ignoring the underlying causes.

What government gives in benefits they take away in choice.

Both the left and the right work their constituencies into a lather by heaping denigration upon individuals rather than upon the system that fosters the behavior they impugn. When government intervenes they not only give but take as well. What they give in benefits they take away in choice. Government programs crowd out or eliminate private markets that would permit the individual to take personal responsibility. For example, Social Security participation is mandated by law. We cannot opt out. After being robbed of 12.4% of our income whom but the wealthiest has anything left for private retirement? Social Security offers supplemental income for children with disabilities (to help pay for care). There currently exists no private insurance market for disability/long term care for those under 18. Likewise, there is no private market for unemployment insurance. Is this surprising? Why opt to pay for something that is already “free.” Private disability insurance for adults exists however only a minority of workers have such coverage. It offers little to lower wage workers relative to the “free” offerings of Social Security disability. People are not stupid. You can’t blame them for choosing “free” over “not free” given the choice. And you certainly can’t blame them when there is no choice at all. The solution is to fix the system, not the people. Phasing out government monopolized programs like social security, unemployment insurance, and welfare would give people back their natural incentive to look out for themselves. They would purchase their own individual (a) disability policy, (b) unemployment policy and (c) save for their own retirement. Elimination of the taxes that pay for these programs would permit higher wages thus offsetting or eliminating net costs. These changes alone would mean the private market would cover 99% of what people are currently receiving as government “handouts.” Private charity would easily handle the 1% of cases where extreme bad luck has left some unable to care for themselves. And even if you believe in the government “safety net” concept, surely it should be for the bottom 1%, not the bottom 50%.

The left is no more immune to this chicanery then the right. They decry the evil one-percenters and crony-capitalists without addressing what created them. Their outrage is the moral equivalent of leaving all the windows and doors of your house wide open while on vacation and then being surprised that someone robbed you. Maybe hunting down the robbers and putting them in jail will make you feel better, but wouldn’t it make sense to just lock your house? The solution to combat cronyism and corporate welfare is to simply eliminate government authority in the arenas that the large corporations are controlling. End the bailouts, the money printing, fractional-reserve lending and bogus deposit “insurance”, the tariffs, the competition-eliminating regulations, the subsidies and the mandates. All of these are mechanisms by which government helps big business to the detriment of everyone else. Big banks and big business are big and powerful because of government standing behind them like the kid on the playground who has the big bully backing them up.

The left and the right have something to learn from Mitt’s gaffe: don’t blame people for simply using the bad tools government gives them. Destroy the bad tools.

The Value Myth

Are teachers underpaid? How much is a teacher worth? To answer this we must first define “value”. Although it is a common myth, there is no such thing as intrinsic value. Gold has no more intrinsic value than a lump of mud. The act of digging a hole has no more intrinsic value than teaching. By “intrinsic” I mean objectively measurable. Value is an entirely subjective human construct (just as “beauty” is.) It cannot be measured like density or boiling point. However, subjectivity does not imply lack of consensus. In broad strokes we rank things quite similarly (i.e. we prefer gold over mud). But at the finer scales our value rankings are different and can shift over time. These differences are in fact a necessary condition for commerce. Generally speaking, one values things they want more highly than things they already have. For example, if I buy your wristwatch for $10 then I value the wristwatch more than the $10. Likewise, you value the $10 more than the wristwatch. The value of the wristwatch is not $10, it is either more than $10 or less than $10 depending on who you ask. If that seems counterintuitive, consider this: would you sell your $10 bill for my $10 bill? No, because you gain nothing in the exchange. Then why sell a wristwatch for $10 if you gain nothing in the exchange? Both parties realize a gain in an exchange due to their different value rankings (within the context of that trade).

Both parties realize a gain in an exchange due to their different value rankings

So how does understanding subjective value relate to determining if teachers are underpaid? In a free (non-coercively influenced) market, every completed trade is “fair” in the sense both parties subjectively gained. In a free market being “underpaid” simply means there was a willing buyer that you failed to find that valued what you sold more than the party you sold it to. Subsidized public schooling is at best a semi-free market. It has actually driven wages higher, not lower, than they would be in a free market. We know this because if teachers were underpaid then private schools would poach the best teachers with elevated pay. In fact the reverse is true. Private school teachers make on average 25% less than public school teachers. And yet some would like to widen the disparity even more. For example at the “Save our Schools” rally in 2011 (see video at 3 min.) a woman implied we should spend $72 trillion/year on education (I guess the public schools indeed failed her in that she lacked the math skills to realize that spending $1 billion/child would come to that sum).

So how do we align the fact that most if not all of us value teaching above say professional football and yet teachers make far less? The cumulative effect of our individual value rankings when filtered through supply and demand across an economy can result in apparent societal ranking of value at odds with the ranking of value of the individuals making up that society. Teachers don’t make less than football players because “society” values them less. They make less because of math. A small number divided by a very small number is bigger than a large number divided by a very large number. (e.g. what each pays in property taxes or tuition far exceeds what one might spend on watching professional sports yet teachers make less because in part they vastly outnumber (about 4,000 to 1) professional football players).

If you really think teachers are underpaid you are certainly free to start a private school and pay them exactly what you feel is appropriate. That’s the advantage of a free market vs government; nobody’s approval is needed for you to immediately take advantage of the mistakes of others in the market

You didn’t put that fire out

Nestled deep within President Obama’s infamous “you didn’t build that” speech is a subtle statist sentiment that has escaped the slings and arrows of his detractors. Perhaps because, being statist themselves, they agree with it. He says:

“The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.  There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own.  I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service.  That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.”

There are two flaws in this statement, the first philosophical, the second practical. The philosophical flaw is the implication that a necessary condition for success is human cooperation (true) that is facilitated by government action (false). This notion rests on the faulty premise that absent government coercion certain types of cooperation are simply not possible. To underscore this sentiment he utilizes what many statists consider to be the “slam dunk” example against privately supplied “public goods”: fire fighting. Alas, he has picked just about the most easily debunked example.  This one is almost too easy to dispense with. Here goes:

To the statist the question is this: We want to protect our homes from fire, but how shall we pay for this service? If your house is burning down you aren’t going to compare prices, therefore market failure is implied. In fact some have made the most ironic of arguments against privatization of such services by citing the recent example of a public fire department that allowed a house to burn due to lack of fee payment. The irony lies within their straw man argument that mischaracterizes the distortions of normal market incentives inherent in a public monopoly as being examples of flaws in putative private market.

To understand how any private market works requires an understanding of incentives. Who has an incentive to prevent property destruction? The owner and the insurer. In a private system insurers would REQUIRE homeowners to purchase fire protection (if not outright inclusion of such costs in the premium). Because the insurer wants to be reasonably confident that these companies are competent, the insurer will have a vested interest in auditing and regulating these fire companies to be sure they know what they’re doing. And the fire companies will welcome such regulation because meeting the insurer’s standards will ensure they are on the insurer’s short list of approved fire mitigation vendors. The mutually beneficial incentive structure of the relationships ensures their continued maintenance. No outside compulsion or force is necessary. The homeowner is protected from fire and loss, the insurer is protected from loss and the fire company receives remuneration for their valuable service to both parties.

What would be the benefits of this private system over the current system? The amount the homeowner pays will be related to risk. Riskier homeowners pay more, less risky ones pay less. Our current system simply assumes expensive homes are somehow inherently more likely to catch fire than inexpensive homes. This is absurd on its face.  In a private system costs will be driven downward as each party tries to minimize risk. Owners suffer fewer losses, insurers pay fewer claims and fire companies decrease their capital overhead and operate more efficiently. In our current monopoly system, fire prevention technology may help the owner and the insurer however it has minimal to no impact on the budget of public fire departments. Because there is no price feedback in the public system, resources may be under or over allocated due to budgets driven by bureaucrats rather than customers.

So, the President is wrong. If we all had our own fire service it would work just fine. It is indeed possible to cooperate without the gentle fist of government.

The Mortgage Interest Myth

There is a persistent myth that the Home Mortgage Interest Deduction (HMID) does the following: (a) promotes home ownership by (b) providing a financial benefit to the middle class taxpayer. That’s the funny thing about myths; they aren’t true. In fact, the truth here is the exact opposite. The HMID has not expanded homeownership in any meaningful way. Between 1960 and 1997 the rate of owner occupied homes has bounced around in the 62-66% range. This is no different than other Western countries that lack a tax favored deduction for mortgage interest. Why? The HMID is a government subsidy and subsidies drive the costs of whatever they are subsidizing upward (healthcare, education, sugar, etc). The government is effectively paying people to engage in approved behavior (home buying). However, these subsidies do not occur in an information vacuum: home sellers are aware of this subsidy and adjust asking prices upward accordingly. There is no net benefit to the buyer (who pays more upfront and is then reimbursed by the government) or to the seller (who gets more when selling but paid more when buying). The only consistent beneficiary is the real estate agent. The National Realtors Association lobbies hard to maintain the HMID. Their protestations to the possibility of losing this part of the tax code make clear current policy benefits them. Their reaction makes sense in light of the fact that by their own admission the HMID drives prices upward (as much as 15% higher) thus effectively keeping all home prices 15% higher than they otherwise would be. A government-sponsored program that maintains artificially high prices is beneficial for what reason again?

The second part of this myth is that the HMID actually benefits the middle class. As of 2009 only 22% of federal returns took advantage of the HMID and of that only 30% were classified as “middle class”. In other words, only a mere 6% of returns constitute middle class usage of this deduction. The average tax savings for people in this group is only $152/year. The primary beneficiaries of the HMID are the “wealthy” – those making over $200k/year. Over 70% of returns above $200k/year claim the HMID. Because the wealthy pay disproportionately more tax they reap a likewise disproportionate advantage from this deduction with an average savings of $1862/year. Technically no taxpayers “benefit” from the HMID. Absent this deduction they would have paid a lower price for their home so their net payment is roughly the same.

Eliminating tax subsidies coupled with a lowering of marginal rates would allow a tax savings to be spread around to ALL taxpayers, not just a narrow few. In fact, Obama’s own “Deficit Commission” aka the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson Deficit Reduction Plan called for eliminating nearly ALL tax exemptions coupled with lowered rates. Those benefiting the most (the wealthy with large exemptions) from current exemptions will effectively pay more tax even with decreased marginal rates because the net benefit to all other taxpayers from lowered rates must come from somewhere if revenue neutrality is maintained.

It’s time to let go of tax myths that act as obstacles to change and move toward a simplified tax system (ideally the Fair Tax but for now we are discussing income tax) with a low (and ideally flat) rate structure and broad base that is built on a relative foundation of fairness (to the extent that the concept of “tax fairness” is not an oxymoron) that does not attempt to manipulate behavior by rewarding a few for behavior that many are unable to participate in.

Who shall steer us then?

This week the Republican Party will be carrying out their well-scripted coronation of Mitt Romney as the party’s presidential nominee. Sadly, those in control of the party are either moles for the Obama campaign or are criminally inept. They have done everything in their power to suppress any possibility of Ron Paul’s name going into the nomination ring at the convention (in case you’re not aware, he never officially dropped out of the race and technically can be nominated were it not for recent RNC shenanigans).

What is the result? The nomination of a candidate who is more like Obama than unlike him. Yes, their rhetoric may be different, but both are in stark agreement on many issues: the war on drugs, the war on terror, bailouts for big banks (TARP), increasing government spending, and government managed socialized healthcare (Obamacare v Romneycare) to name just a few. So while the American people watch the cleverly orchestrated marionette show between Mitt and Barry, little do they realize there is only one manipulator controlling the strings: the elite party bosses of the centralized state (D’s and R’s are two sides of the same coin). In that respect I suppose it should not be surprising that Ron Paul was ignored and shut out of the process at every turn. He represented an opportunity for a meaningful choice between the two major parties. Why would the party push a candidate who is nearly identical to the opposition rather than a candidate that can offer a real alternative in the market place of ideas? If I’m trying to sell a product I don’t do it by copying my competition and then claiming the product is different because mine comes in a red box and theirs comes in a blue box.

Libertarians don’t want to pilot the ship, they want to dock it so people are free to come and go as they please.

Of course one could make the same argument against the Democrats. Their candidate claimed to stand in stark contrast to the policies of Bush yet he furthers Bush-era policies: bank bailouts, DEA raids of state-legal marijuana dispensaries, Guantanamo, and strong support of the PATRIOT Act and the NDAA. The Democrats are becoming war hawks and pawns of the military industrial complex (NDAA support) while the Republicans are becoming socialists (Romneycare, Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind). Both parties are merging into the single Bureaucratic State Party. This “BS” Party is a monopoly that suppresses all outside dissent and rigs the rules to prevent you, the voter, from even hearing about other options. For example, the Commission on Presidential Debates (a non-profit organization literally controlled by the Democratic and Republican parties) has a “15% rule” that prevents Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gov. Gary Johnson from being on the debate stage with Romney and Obama this fall. The media, rather than acting in its regulatory role as part of the Fourth Estate, is willingly involved in the suppression of dissenting opinions by not even placing Gov. Johnson (or any other party’s candidates) in any polls used as the metric for the magical 15% threshold.

So again I ask, why would both parties be so aligned across so many issues while feigning the appearance of difference in order to give the populace the illusion of choice? Because the goal of both parties is power. Their policy alignments all have one thing in common: expansion or maintenance of government power. The bureaucrats write rules that validate the existence of more bureaucrats. The parties may fight over who is steering the ship, but what they both agree on is that the people must never ever leave the ship. If the people find out they can live on land and take care of themselves, then there won’t be much need for a ship and her crew, will there? Libertarians don’t want to pilot the ship, they want to dock it so people are free to come and go as they please. It’s all about choice. You may not agree with Gov. Gary Johnson, but fairness in the political process is a very basic American principal. There is no legitimate reason to establish rules that suppress ideas that fall outside of the 3×5 card of approved political opinion. Let the voters hear all sides and make up their own minds.