Democrats Don't Have a Candidate

I like Jim Evans. I don't think he's a "real" Democrat. He admits he's a former Republican. He calls himself an "Eisenhower Democrat," which is like a "Kennedy Republican." In some ways, he may be more "conservative" than Billy Long. The "Old Right" -- opponents of New Deal statism, people like Rose Wilder Lane and Missouri Senator Jim Reed -- would not recognize Billy Long, Roy Blunt, and the Republican Establishment as genuine conservatives.

In the November election, "liberals" don't really have a representative "liberal" candidate in the race; they can only choose between three different kinds of "conservatives."

But what is a "conservative," really? Hard-core Marxist-Communists in 1989-91 were "conservatives" because they wanted to "conserve" the old Soviet Communism which was crumbling in Russia and Eastern Europe. America's Founding Fathers did not want to "conserve" British Mercantilism in the colonies. As a Christian and a Libertarian, I want to "conserve" the Declaration of Independence, but I also want to "legalize everything" and "abolish everything" in Washington D.C. Is that "conservative?" Most "conservatives" don't think "libertarians" are "conservative."

Democrats Should Vote for LIBERTY
Rather than "Progressive Government"

The Libertarian Party is the party of Liberty. It stands for the proposition that people should be free from coercion, intimidation, compulsion, threats of violence, and the initiation of force. If you consider yourself a "progressive democrat," I would like to persuade you to vote LIBERTARIAN rather than "conservative democrat." I would like to believe that the Libertarian platform will do a better job of achieving your real goals.

I emphasize the word "real goals."

Is your real goal

to have a big teachers union and jobs for lots of democrat bureaucrats in a huge Department of Education,

or is your real goal

to help children become socially responsible adults?

You must distinguish ends and means.

I suspect most people in all parties share the same ends, but if we disagree on means, we accuse the other of denying the end:

"What? Cut federal spending on welfare? You just want poor children to starve!"

I don't believe that. I don't believe Republicans believe that.

Liberty Under God

My campaign theme is "Liberty Under God." I'm I am the founder of a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational ministry called "Vine & Fig Tree." The words Vine & Fig Tree come from verses in the Bible which the Library of Congress says were George Washington's favorite verses. Here's my favorite of many Vine & Fig Tree passages:

And it will come about in the last days
That the mountain of the House of the LORD
Will be established as the chief of the mountains
And it will be raised above the hills
And the peoples will stream to it.
And many nations will come and say,
"Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD
And to the House of the God of Jacob,
That He may teach us about His ways
And that we may walk in His paths."
For from Zion will go forth the Law
Even the Word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
And He will judge between many peoples
And render decisions for mighty, distant nations.
Then they will hammer their swords into plowshares
And their spears into pruning hooks;
Nation will not lift up sword against nation
And never again will they train for war.
And each of them will sit under his
Vine and under his fig tree,
With no one to make them afraid.
For the LORD of hosts has spoken.
Though all the peoples walk
Each in the name of his god,
As for us, we will walk
In the Name of the LORD our God
forever and ever.
from henceforth, even for ever.
Micah 4:1-5

Before getting to the specifics of the Jim Evans platform, I'd like to ask two questions:
     1. Do Democrats believe in God?
     2. Do Democrats believe in Democracy?
The answer to both questions was seen at the 2012 Democrat National Convention. Grassroots Democrats wanted to remove the word "God" from the Party Platform, but Party Bosses realized this removal would be red-meat for the Religious Right. So against the democratic process, the vote of the convention was overruled by the Bosses. Just like Republican bosses rigged their conventions to undemocratically exile Ron Paul.  I say this to Democrats and Republicans: your party bosses don't care about the party grassroots. The party bosses don't care about your real goals.

I have to admit: I just don't understand Democrats. My political views are close to those of America's Founding Fathers. They believed in God and did not believe in Democracy. There doesn't seem to be a place for "conservative Christians" in the Democrat Party. But there is a place for Christians in the Libertarian Party, as well as for those with "progressive" goals, once progressives (and Christians) realize that progress toward their real goals will be made better through Liberty than through government coercion and bureaucracy.

Is that an unfair thing to say? that progressives put their faith in bureaucracies and government coercion? From a Biblical perspective, the Hebrew word frequently translated "salvation" is also translated "victory," "deliverance," "security," "health," "welfare," "wholeness," "prosperity," etc. It seems like progressives believe "salvation" comes through the government departments of welfare, homeland security, the department of health and human services, etc. All of these government bureaucracies promise what the Bible calls "salvation." I believe more progress has been made toward social salvation by trusting in people, obeying "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," guided by "the Invisible Hand of Divine Providence," than by trusting in the monopoly of coercion we call "government."

Who is a Real Democrat?

"Democracy" comes from two Greek words, demos, "people," and kratein, "govern" [literally, to choose or seize, and the power to hold onto your choice].) Notice that the prophet Micah says "the peoples will stream to" the Kingdom of God. That's their choice. Do progressives believe that the People must be forced by government to do otherwise than the People choose? Should fundamentalist Christians be compelled to support atheistic government schools? Libertarians believe in "the separation of school and state." Parents should be free to buy a homeschool curriculum at Wal-Mart, or send their kids to any competing brick-and-mortar school outside the home. I believe that if parents have a choice, they will send their kids to schools that teach the Bible and "Liberty Under God." Progressive liberal secular Democrats might not like that choice, but do they have the right to threaten parents with violence (fines, prison, execution) or kidnap their children  if parents choose to teach their children the Bible or other ideas that offend secular progressives?

Who should have the freedom to choose: "the people," or the aristocrats in government bureaucracies?

• Libertarian Democracy
• Liberalism is Aristocracy

Notice also that "the People" in the Vine & Fig Tree world beat their swords into plowshares. Do liberal progressives support the vast military-industrial complex,  U.S. imperialism, and nuclear weapons? I hope not. But sometimes the politicians that liberal progressives vote for feel they need to be "pragmatic" and "compromise" and vote for these things in order to get the votes they need for funding of their departments of health, education, welfare and progressive social salvation. Libertarians understand that "compromise" is government's middle name. They would rather lose liberty at the ballot box than lose liberty in public office by compromising with tyranny.

Who is a Real Liberal?

The word "Liberal" is obviously related to the word "liberty." Occasionally, you will find this quote on Wikipedia's Liberalism Portal:

The goal of liberalism is the peaceful cooperation of all men. It aims at peace among nations too. When there is private ownership of the means of production everywhere and when laws, the tribunals and the administration treat foreigners and citizens on equal terms, it is of little importance where a country's frontiers are drawn. ”
— Ludwig von Mises, Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, 1922.

But Mises was more of a conservative or libertarian, and "liberal" used to mean "libertarian." Progressive democrats don't seem to be enthused with the "private ownership of the means of production." Am I wrong about that?

Who is a Real Progressive?

One option on Wikipedia's Progressivism disambiguator is

"Progressivism is a broad political movement."

and when I click that link, I find the Wikipedia Progressivism page has this:

Sociologist Robert Nisbet finds that "No single idea has been more important than ... the Idea of Progress in Western civilization for three thousand years" and defines five "crucial premises" of the Idea of Progress as being: value of the past, nobility of Western civilization, worth of economic/technological growth, faith in reason and scientific/scholarly knowledge obtained through reason, intrinsic importance and worth of life on earth.

These are questions I have about liberal progressives. If you'd like to educate me, call me:

(801) 7-KEVIN-0
(801) 753-8460

Best times to call: after 2pm, till midnight.
Seriously. I'd love to talk to a liberal progressive.

Now let's look specifically at Jim Evans' Platform. At left are links to the subjects on his website. "Lightening Round":

 1.We both care about the elderly. I think the government gives Veterans a raw deal

  2. We're both concerned about deficits, but Jim Evans thinks they're OK sometimes.

  3. Jim wants "fair" taxation; I think that's a contradiction in terms.

  4. I've never met anyone who favors "rape, pillage, and waste" rather than "conservation."

  5. I think the best way to deal with "Climate Change" is to deal with it  IF  it gets here
rather than try to prevent it. (I don't scare easily.)

  6. Everybody likes Clean Energy

  7. Nobody likes Class Warfare (right?)

  8. Everybody wants our kids to be well-educated

  9. "Government That Works" is like "fair taxation" and "military intelligence"

10. Torture: Jim and I agree.

11. Surveillance: we're agreed.

12. Same-Sex Marriage: I oppose the initiation of any and all government force against homosexuals. But some people describe my position as "hateful" and "homophobic."

13. Affordable Care Act: not the best way to achieve "affordable care."

14. Immigration Reform: I'm for immigration, but not government "reform."

15. Abortion: Jim wants to reduce it. I say why "reduce" but not "eliminate completely?"

16. Second Amendment: Jim likes guns more than I do, but also likes government regulation of guns more than I do.

But the difference between the Libertarian Party and the other two parties is staggering. Even breathtaking. The Libertarian believes that nobody has the right to initiate force against you. The Democrat believes that the 51% can initiate force against the 49%. The Republican believes that the Federal Government can bomb other nations "back to the stone age." The two major parties are basically OK with the government taking over half of everything you earn.  The two major parties are basically OK with the United States having more people in prison than China, North Korea, or Iran. And, unfortunately, most voters don't really like the social vision of America's Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. When most voters are given the choice between

most voters choose slavery over liberty.

We're really talking about two different ideas of human society:

Liberty Under God
vs.
"Security" Under Bureaucrats

• Liberty Under God is the vision of society that made America the most prosperous and admired nation in history.
• "Security" Under Bureaucrats  has made America bankrupt and despised.

Government and Happiness

The question is: what is the best way to get there? What transforms these campaign slogans into reality? (We'll have many opportunities on this webpage to ask that question.)

"Government By the People"

When Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, first heard the radical ideas of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson against the long-established doctrine of "the Divine Right of Kings," Rush was scandalized:

“Never before had I heard the authority of kings called in question. I had been taught to consider them nearly as essential to political order as the sun is to the order of our solar system.”

A nation with no king? It's like a headless horseman! Who will lead the nation? Who will govern the unruly masses?

Both Republicans and Democrats are scandalized by radical libertarians, who believe the People can govern themselves in every detail of their everyday lives under 100% pure Laissez-Faire Capitalism.

True Democracy

If you really want government “of the people, by the people and for the people,” and you're OK with the people governing themselves without the watchful oversight and benevolent guidance of a God-appointed king, then you are ready to consider true democracy for the 21st century. (As we saw above, the word "democracy" comes from two Greek words which mean "the people make their choice."

Radical Libertarians believe the people (that is, each individual person) should have complete choice, and no politicians should choose for them. I don't have the right to "vote" for someone to choose for you. I don't have the right to "vote" for someone to "represent" my views and impose them on you by force. Nobody has that right. The implications of this basic principle are as scandalous in 2014 as Jefferson's ideas were in 1776.

Self-Government

I believe the People must govern themselves. James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," is reported to have said:

We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves ... according to the Ten Commandments of God.

According to the Columbia Dictionary of Quotations, John Wycliffe, in the Prologue to his English translation of the Bible way back in 1384 (a century and a half after the Magna Carta), said:

The Bible is for the government of the people, by the people, for the people.

The Declaration of Independence speaks of "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Blackstone said these laws can be found only in the Bible. I believe a well-governed, orderly, prosperous and peaceful society is the product of believing and obeying the Bible. America's Founders believed the Bible should be the core of our public education.

Limits of Choice

America was founded on the idea that nobody really has a right to violate "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Not without expecting consequences from "the Supreme Judge of the World." And not without expecting the disapproval of a Vine & Fig Tree-loving society. (Hopefully such social stigma would bother you; some people don't have "a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind").

Like Jim Evans, my platform contains Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Life

If we are created in the Image of God, our lives have meaning. If we are just cosmic accidents, un-designed descendants of cockroaches, life has no meaning. Thomas Jefferson said,

The God who gave us life gave us liberty

Liberty

Jefferson said:

And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever . . . ."

America's "Liberty Bell" quotes the Bible and exhorts us to

"Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all the Inhabitants thereof Lev. XXV.X

Property

When Jesus said "Blessed are the meek," He meant "Happy are the meek." We pursue happiness by creating and trading our property. We must be free to create, to own, and to trade our property. There are no "human rights" without property rights. There is no "freedom of the press" if the government owns all the presses.

Liberty. Under God. That's my platform in a nutshell.

When my opponents hear me talk about "liberty," they think "Anarchy!"
When they hear my reminders that America used to be a Christian nation, they think "Theocracy!
Our government-run secular schools and mainstream media have brainwashed us into rejecting the philosophy that made America the most prosperous and admired nation in history. The greatest export of this shining "City upon a Hill" has been the idea of "Liberty Under God." If that idea is not revived and exported around the world, we will slip into the darkest tyranny.

Government is so over-grown and complex that even Congressmen don't have "accurate information regarding the operations of government."

What is it that Jim Evans believes caused an "unfair playing field.?" Freedom?
What exactly is "unfair" about the playing field? Inequality?
Is it "unfair" that some people are more talented than I am and work harder than I do and therefore have more money than I do? Or is it unfair that even though I have chosen not to do business with a certain corporation, that corporation has gone to Washington D.C. and lobbied government to take money from me and give it to the corporation?

If the playing field is really unfair, I believe the government is the greatest cause of the unfairness. In 2008, the government took $3,000 from every man, woman, and small child in America and gave it to Wall Street Bankers as a bailout for their bad investments. The same thing happened repeatedly during the Obama Administration through the Federal Reserve ("Quantitative Easing").

Unequal is not unfair. I would rather be the poorest person in a nation that is rich and free, than the richest person in a poor nation oppressed by a socialist tyranny.

What are "we the people" supposed to do to "secure the blessings of liberty?" First, we must acknowledge the Source of all blessings.

"We the People" have murdered more than 55 million of "our posterity" since the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Roe v. Wade.

When government was smaller, more people had a deep down gratitude for the blessings of liberty. Today we all have cell phones and also resentment and the spirit of "entitlement."

But Jim Evans believes government should "invest" in special interests like "infrastructure," "creation care," and education.

Madison, Jefferson, Monroe, and many other founders said

• the federal government should not be involved in "infrastructure."
• They would say that government should not "invest" in things like "green energy" (Solyndra).
• They would say that modern "education" has neglected the interests of children in favor of special interests like teachers unions, textbook publishers, social experimentation, and other special interests.

Lobbyists want government to give their special interests what consumers refuse to do. Libertarians like Ron Paul never even get contacted by lobbyists, who know that libertarians don't believe in taking from the People and giving the corporations what the lobbyists ask for.

Is it stupid to discriminate between two people based on the amount of melanin in their skin? Of course. We should discriminate based on "the content of their character" not the color of their skin.

Conclusion:
George Washington is reported to have said,

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. . . .

The ideas of "the nation-state" and "the government" are centuries old. They may have served as a transition from something worse, but now they have outlived their usefulness. They can no longer be a "dangerous servant." They serve no useful purpose at all. The entities called "governments" killed well over 10,000 people per day on average, every day, every year for the last 100 years, not including abortions. We will not make it to the 22nd century unless we repudiate the initiation or force as a solution to social problems. The "cure" is far worse than the disease.

 If you disagree, please leave a comment on my blog or Facebook page. I'd love to hear from you.

I would like Jim Evans to name one person who believes "that every American ought to be constantly insecure economically at all stages of life." Nobody wants that. As always, the issue is ends vs. means. Good people with good intentions can produce bad results ("constant economic insecurity") when they choose the wrong means and work through a bad system.

"Government" is a bad system. Freedom and personal responsibility produces the highest level of economic security for the greatest number.

Does government really keep its promises by passing out checks that cannot buy food?

The problem with Social Security is not that the tax is regressive (although it is regressive). The problem with the system is that it is an unethical "ponzi scheme" administered by a government that is made up of compulsive spend-aholics.

Government promises voters money and healthcare when they're retired. Government promises many things to many people. The government doesn't have the money to pay for these vote-getting promises. These promises are called "unfunded liabilities." The current total of these financial obligations is $222 trillion. That's $713,826.36 for every man, woman, and small child in America; almost three million dollars for every family of four. That's almost 16 times more than the total combined economic output of all of us as Americans and all of our businesses each year. That's insane.

Most of those liabilities are from Medicare and Social "Security." Feeling "secure?"

At the same time we abolish programs, we need to remind ourselves that Americans are the most generous people on the planet. More generous, in real life, than politicians. We need to work on a local level to provide for the needs of those who are victims of politicians and their larceny. This is something that Americans can do, if we put our hearts and minds to it.

We are not "entitled" to anything.  That attitude is what is destroying us. We all have obligations to someone. We need to fulfill our obligations.

For example, last year Medicare spent more than $21 million on pumps to help older and disabled men attain erections, paying about $450 for the same device that is available online for as little as $108. (Source)

"Your tax dollars at work."

Private health care providers have higher "administrative costs" because they need to be more efficient, less wasteful, and more competitive. Governments can afford to waste billions of dollars a year -- because it's not the government's money.

Answer: not the government, but a Free Market -- "capitalism," not "socialism". The freer the market, the higher our standard of living. This is the clear lesson of the last two centuries, where free markets have brought prosperity, and socialist economies have suffered poverty and death.

I believe Americans are the most generous people in the world. We will not let the elderly starve. We will get our kids in the kitchen and make a delicious home-cooked dinner for anyone whose investments have gone belly-up -- provided they are willing to receive charity, and don't refuse it because they think they are "entitled" to other people's money impersonally seized and impersonally redistributed through the Social Security bureaucracy.

Washington, D.C. does not have the answers -- it isn't even asking the right questions. The right questions were asked recently in a letter to the Los Angeles Times written by a school teacher. Mrs. Jones told the editors that she had taught in the public school system and enjoyed a successful and rewarding career. It was her habit to enter the classroom each day and address her students by saying, "Good morning, class." The students would respond, "Good morning, Mrs. Jones." Then they would get on with the day's tasks. This happened for many years until she finally retired.

Mrs. Jones decided that it was time to go back to teaching. She was, of course, a bit nervous about facing students again, so she prepared very carefully. She was relieved when she finally entered the classroom and saw all the bright, young faces. Certainly, the clothes and the hair styles were much different, but she reminded herself that these things always changed from year to year. With growing confidence, she said in a friendly tone, "Good morning, class." And a student sitting in the front row shouted, "Shut up, bitch!" All the other students laughed.

The first question Mrs. Jones asked the Los Angeles Times editors was, "What happened in America between 'Good morning, Mrs. Jones' and 'Shut up, bitch'?" And her second question was: "Who is going to do something about it?"

Entitlement programs will not do anything about it.

"Security" is a by-product of morality.

Veterans should have looked into U.S. foreign policy and learned that no U.S. war has ever been justified. Nobody is forced to enlist in a "volunteer army" Even when there was a draft, going to prison for a few short years would be a wiser decision than fighting for the interests of global corporatism and being crippled for the rest of your life.

Wise people do not trust government promises.

As we saw above, politicians cannot be trusted, and are not competent, to pursue projects which "pay for themselves." In a Free Market, entrepreneurs make forecasts about which projects consumers will pay for. If their forecasts are correct, consumers will be served. If their forecasts are incorrect, their investors will absorb the loss, not the taxpaying public. In a Free Market.

But many voters -- who might be OK with allowing competition for delivery of "first-class" mail -- still hesitate to vote for a libertarian. They don't even want to get started privatizing everything. They can't see very far down the libertarian road to complete privatization. In fact, the very first question that is usually asked of a libertarian (instead of agreeing with the obvious) is "What about roads?"

"Interstate Highway System"

This system was created for the Defense Department to move nuclear-armed missiles around the country. Government roads have subsidized oil companies and internal combustion vehicles at the expense of cleaner fuels and the transportation systems of the future (think "the Jetsons"). Congested government roads separate families, create a commuter culture, pollute the environment, promote "sprawl," subsidize "cubicle nation" rather than family-based businesses under their "Vine & Fig Tree," and arguably have not been good for America and the world. Unless you automatically believe that government planners make better plans than Americans in a Free Market, choosing from competing plans by businesses that assume all the risk rather than expecting corporate welfare and government bailouts.

Somewhere there's an entrepreneur with a great idea who would like to make money by getting you to work in 1/4 the time. So you can spend more time with your family.

"Science and Technology"

Over the years, government funds have been used primarily for "defense" (killing people and destroying their property and the environment) and subsidizing corporate special interests. This is unconstitutional. Let entrepreneurs in a Free Market invest in R&D, using their own money to develop and test their products, and taking personal responsibility for their forecasting.

"Higher Education"

The government loans billions of dollars to students, and that raises the prices of tuition. The brick-and-mortar university is probably a dinosaur that should be allowed to go extinct, rather than be government-funded. The Internet and the MOOC may be the wave of the future, but who knows? Let competition and freedom chart the path to the future, not politicians and lobbyists for a dying over-funded system.

• An Alleged Decline in Economic Mobility
• Economic Mobility | Thomas Sowell
• A Primer on State of the Union Economics
  "The biggest actual barrier to upward mobility, in fact, turns out to be single parenthood."
• The 'Fairness' Fraud | Thomas Sowell
• How the Welfare State Traps the Poor in Dependency, the British Version
• The Worldview that Makes the Underclass | Anthony Daniels

The greatest cause of "gaming the system" is the Federal Reserve, which rewards well-connected people who have not worked or invented. The Fed puts trillions of dollars in the hands of these well-born gamers.

Why grow only "middle class prosperity?" Isn't this "class war?" See below.

• Why is dependence on welfare bad if welfare is a "right?"

• Why should deficits be reduced if they "serve a useful macroeconomic purpose?" Why does Jim think he and 434 other Congressmen are better able to recognize a "useful" deficit than all the Ph.D.'s at the Federal Reserve, or the CEOs of Goldman Sachs who always get appointed to Secretary of the Treasury, administration after administration?

• What if the business is small because consumers would rather patronize a big business? Who should choose where our money goes? We the people, or government aristocrats?

• Why should abortion rates be reduced if abortion is a "right" and the unborn baby is just an unwanted blob of tissue?

• Isn't reducing crime an attempt to "legislate morality" and a violation of "the separation of church and state?" The government prohibits your local public schools from teaching students that God says "Thou shalt not steal." You have no "rights" if your neighbor is his own god and feels no obligation to obey "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." America's Founders did not believe that crime would be reduced by a "strong economy," but by religion and morality.

Diligent hard-working laborers who take advantage of a low-wage entry-level job, learn skills on the job, move up the ladder, and are eventually high-paid workers who serve their country with their productivity.

Every libertarian opposes government redistribution of wealth from anyone to the rich.

Taxation is theft.

• Fairness. Fairness requires that persons with similar incomes and assets should be taxed alike. Fairness also requires that those who have more should pay more than those who have less.

• Fairness | Why should the rich pay more? Why shouldn't everyone pay the same? Of course, the rich do pay more. But some people want the rich to pay even more.

• Simplicity. A tax system is unsuitable for a democratic republic if it cannot be understood by the taxpayers themselves. Our present tax system is exceedingly complex and demands simplification.

• Simplicity | Life is complex. Every individual is different. Some people appreciate being able to get deductions that mirror their unique style of giving and living.

• Fiscal Goals. A tax system should be used primarily to raise revenue. It should not be used to subsidize business activity or to influence personal conduct.

• Fiscal Goals | As a radical libertarian, I don't believe in any taxes at all. But if you're going to have them, why not reward productivity and virtue with lower taxes?
  Tax "subsidies": If I steal your wallet, remove 90% of your money and leave you with 10%, that 10% is not a "subsidy."
  The sole purpose of the IRS is to intimidate and get people "in line." Why doesn't the government just print up all the money it needs and spread the "inflation tax" evenly across the economy, instead of putting tax evaders in prison with violent felons?

• Efficiency. Tax deductions, credits and exclusions usually confer their greatest benefit on wealthier persons and give little or no help to those who are desperately in need. The most efficient way to implement government programs is through direct appropriations, which are subject to annual budget review, and which relate benefits to needs. Tax subsidies should be rejected because they waste scarce government resources and are seldom subject to budget review.

• Need | Those who are "desperately in need" don't pay any income taxes.
  
• Efficiency | "Budget review" is a myth. Congress never even reads the budget. Nobody knows what's in it. Tax "loopholes" provide direct relief to victims of government extortion.

• Burden Shifting. When tax breaks allow others to escape their fair share of the tax burden, others have to pay more to make up the difference. This shifting of tax burdens is an important source of the unfairness in the federal tax system. It must be halted.

• Burden-shifting | "escape their fair share" is just rhetoric and slogans that appeals to envy.

What is the best path to the goal of "creation care?" Libertarians want to take care of the environment, but history proves that government ownership of the environment is the worst way to care for it. Private owners take better long-term care of their property than bureaucrats. Disputes between private owners can be resolved by competing Dispute Resolution Organizations. "Progressive" Government courts have often sided with powerful polluters when their pollution was challenged as a "nuisance" or "trespass" on private property. The government said that pollution was necessary for "progress." A Free Market better protects an "environment" of private property. Caring for property is a moral value, but the government subverts morality. Pollution is immoral. Government assaults on private property are also immoral.

Foxes don't "conserve" chickens. The Indians ("Native Americans") hunted all there was and then moved on to where new game could be found. "Scientists" say the entire universe is going to die a heat death. Why conserve for the future and sacrifice our own immediate desires?

• How do you justify your concept of "responsibility" and your responsibility prescriptions?
• How do you justify the violent, forcible imposition of your prescriptions on others by "the government?"

I am a Bible-believing creationist. I believe human beings were created by a personal God to "exercise dominion" over the earth. God has revealed His prescriptions ("the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God") to us. When we follow God's laws, we secure the "rights" with which we were endowed by our Creator. The "environmentalist" worldview worships the creation rather than the Creator. Hard-core environmentalists hate human beings, because human beings are created in the Image of God. God says "All they that hate Me love death" (Proverbs 8:36). "Environmentalism" seeks a planet where non-human forces have dominion over human forces. Vital reading in this area is George Reisman's essay, The Toxicity of Environmentalism. Reisman documents the pathological hatred of Man which too many environmentalists have had since the very beginnings of the movement. In his "Benediction to Alligators," John Muir, Founder of the Sierra Club, wrote:

"Honorable representatives of the great saurians of older creation, may you long enjoy your lilies and rushes, and be blessed now and then with a mouthful of terror-stricken man by way of a dainty!"

Would you trust this man's public policy prescriptions? If your child was in a conflict with nature, would you trust this environmentalist to protect your child, or protect the environment? PETA says a shark attack is "payback." Fanatic environmentalists are terrorists. "A rat is a pig is a dog is your boy."

 If you disagree, please leave a comment on my blog or Facebook page. I'd love to hear from you.

• There haven't been "frequently occurring" "unprecedented meteorological events" as have been predicted for over a decade.
• Too many Americans believe anything they are told if preceded by the words "Scientists say. . . ." Americans have very short-term memories.
• We had "global warming" hundreds of years ago, and by all accounts this "greenhouse effect" increased agricultural productivity (plants love CO2) and human beings did just fine.
• What proof is there that global warming would not be a good thing?
• This medieval warming, occurring centuries ago, was clearly not caused by automobiles, air conditioning, or aerosol hairspray.
• There has been no warming for 17 years, despite all our cars and CO2 emissions.
• No proposal for dealing with global warming even claims to be able to do much more than lower the temperature of the earth a few fractions of one degree.
• There is universal agreement that developing nations (consisting of more than three billion of the world's seven billion people) are in no mood to stop their historic rise out of poverty by cutting their energy consumption. Energy use is the key to a rising standard of living. If these nations do not jump on the environmentalist bandwagon, nothing Americans do by way of lowering their standard of living will have any effect on global climate.
• The so-called "Climategate" scandal shows that some scientists are so dead-set on reducing human use of technology that they will skew the data and cover up evidence that conflicts with their hopes. The whole mess is not truly "scientific," but is agenda-driven.
• Most human CO2 production is a result of government subsidies and protection. A libertarian society, with no big government, no central planning, no rapid industrial growth fueled by monetization of debt, might well be a very different environment.
• Of course a decentralized libertarian society might not be any different if any "global warming" or "climate change" is caused by the sun or anything completely unrelated to human industry.
• Most rumors of climate change are wrong.
• Call me a "denier."

It would take a lot of space to really debate the "scientific facts" behind climate change, and then look into the future to see the many possible ways a free market might deal with any climate change that occurs, and do so without trampling on the rights of the people. I'm always willing to have that discussion. Truly scientific decisions are not based on "consensus."

Many scientists reject "the consensus." 

• Oregon Petition

• Heartland Institute

"benign consequence" -- The consequence of our CO2-emitting technology is a standard of living that keeps billions of human beings alive and enjoying life. In my eyes, that's "benign." The consequence of following environmentalist prescriptions will be the deaths of millions of human beings and the impoverishment of billions. That's "benign" in the eyes of environmentalists. But they delight in "terror-stricken men."

"The Scientific Community" is not a monolith. There is wide disagreement. | Cornwall Alliance

Government action to prevent climate change will destroy thousands of jobs, throw millions into poverty, with no guarantees of changing the climate. Not worth the risk -- unless human beings are a "cancer" and a "virus" on nature. In that case, killing off a billion or so human beings would be a good thing -- even if the democide has no effect on climate.

 If you disagree, please leave a comment on my blog or Facebook page. I'd love to hear from you.

Washington D.C. cannot plan the construction of a single pencil, much less the creation of new energy systems for the 22nd Century. Government should stop subsidizing the energy of the early 20th century.

"Energy Independence" is a myth, like "coffee independence," or "banana independence." Let's get our energy from the cheapest source, anywhere on earth. (Or better, let's stop using the word "let's" and "our." Individual human beings should be free to procure whatever energy they want, without politicians talking about "our" "national" resources.)

 If you disagree, please leave a comment on my blog or Facebook page. I'd love to hear from you.

Envy is spiritual poison. Envy dominates politics. Envy deters development in the 3rd world.

The Federal Reserve has created trillions of dollars for government growth and Wall Street speculation. That policy diverts purchasing power from genuine healthy economic growth.

Nothing that this nation or any other nation has done in modern economic history compares in difficulty with the selling job that must now be done to make people accept the new reality.”

 If you disagree, please leave a comment on my blog or Facebook page. I'd love to hear from you.

My own perspective: "Public schools" were invented following the Protestant Reformation ("sola Scriptura") to teach everyone in society the Bible -- the "common man," not just clergy -- and to inculcate "religion and morality." This is the worldview that made America the most prosperous and admired nation in history. Recall the story of Mrs. Jones, above.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free,
       in a state of civilization,
             it expects what never was and never will be."

But should parents be asking these questions and implementing their own choices, or should politicians be asking and answering these questions for the parents and imposing a one-size-tries-to-fit-all system on all parents?

Compulsory government-run education is the enemy of democracy, because it is the enemy of the People's choice. If you disagree, leave a comment on my blog or Facebook page. I'd love to hear from you.

If you don't believe parents can be trusted to educate their children, can they be trusted to feed them? Why not require all parents to send their children to "public" nutrition centers so that politicians can feed the children properly? If parents can't be trusted to educate their children, you don't believe in democracy. How can parents who can't choose between competing education systems choose between competing political candidates with competing visions for the education of other people's children?

Bottom line: children will be better educated if parents can choose from competing educational opportunities.  If you disagree, please leave a comment on my blog or Facebook page. I'd love to hear from you.

My problem is with "citizens" who are united in believing whatever they see on TV.

• Libertarian Democracy
• Liberalism is Aristocracy

"Beware, Citizen; the XYZ group is not approved by your information gatekeepers. Do not listen to their ads."

"Disclosure" shouldn't matter. Just refute the ad. It doesn't matter who funded it.

If you disagree, please leave a comment on my blog or Facebook page. I'd love to hear from you.

The concept of a "citizen legislator" is a citizen who goes to the legislature for a week or two, passes necessary laws, and then goes back home to work in his real job. I don't know what that has to do with campaign finance. I should be able to take up a collection from my friends to elect a "citizen legislator." The federal government (that is, the already-elected legislators) should pass no regulations of that campaign finance activity whatsoever. None.

“In all those things which deal with people, be liberal, be human. In all those things which deal with people's money, or their economy, or their form of government, be conservative.”

The government can only "be liberal" with other people's money. The more "liberal" the government, the more totalitarian.

I also repudiate all gun control laws.

Any politician who takes an oath to "support the constitution" and the supports any form of federal gun control violates his oath of office and takes the Lord's name in vain.

James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," originally opposed the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment. He said the Constitution created a government of enumerated powers, and there was no power enumerated in the Constitution empowering the government to control guns. The federal government has no authority to pass any gun control legislation whatsoever. The federal government has no right to ask for a fake gmail address from a guy driving a truck full of bazookas. That's my take on the Second Amendment vs. Gun Control.

The U.S. Federal Government is the largest arms dealer on the planet. All gun registration laws are a prelude to a government crack-down on "the competition."

Name one prosecutor who would bring a miscarriage to trial if all abortions were illegal. Name one. Is there one on record voicing such an intention? Ridiculous.

This last point is good, and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor made this point about Roe v. Wade: the decision is on a "collision course" with itself. The Court said the states could regulate abortion late in pregnancy if late-term abortion were too dangerous, but not early in the pregnancy if medical technology could not save a premature baby. But medical technology is making abortions "safer" even if later, and babies "viable" even if earlier.

The Roe framework . . . is clearly on a collision course with itself. As the medical risks of various abortion procedures decrease, the point at which the state may regulate for reasons of maternal health is moved further forward to actual childbirth. As medical science becomes better able to provide for the separate existence of the fetus, the point of viability is moved further back toward conception.

Roe v. Wade is a very bad case. It should never have come before the Court, it was wrongly decided, and should be thrown out.

• "encourage abstinence" -- remarkable for a Democrat.
• "morning after" contraception is no different from "month after" or "9-month after."
•  adoption is hobbled by government regulation
• "public" programs for pregnancy support means "government" programs. But this is not the government's role, according to the Constitution.

The issue of abortion is not unrelated to the issue before: gun violence. The root cause is the belief that we can kill any other human being who gets in our way.

The Declaration of Independence criticized the king for impeding immigration. Nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government any power to prevent me from hiring a Mexican for my business.
The borders should be open, as the Statue of Liberty says.
Government should get out of the profligate welfare business.
Private property must be respected.
With this foundation, immigration will raise our standard of living.

Libertarians believe in the separation of medicine and state, just like we believe in the separation of computers and state. A Free Market has brought the price of computers down so far that a welfare-recipient carries around more computing power in his iPhone than all of NASA had 35 years ago. The Free Market system was making health care more and more affordable before 1965. Medicare caused healthcare costs to explode, and Obamacare will seal the coffin. Don't believe claims about lower "administrative costs."

We do not have a "Free Market" in healthcare. We haven't had a Free Market health care system since at least 1965. Tying insurance to employers is a relic of post-WorldWar II tax avoidance. There was no reason for government to get involved in health care. It was a Democrat voter registration drive. Reverting to pre-Medicare levels of freedom from government regulation and subsidies will drop the price of healthcare like the drop in prices of computers. Low prices increase access. Today's consumers of medical care don't know the prices of anything they're buying, so competition is crippled.

Hospitals were created by Christians, not politicians. Private charity is better than indebted government "entitlements." Prof. Ronald J. Sider notes;

“If American Christians simply gave a tithe rather than the current one-quarter of a tithe, there would be enough private Christian dollars to provide basic health care and education to all the poor of the earth. And we would still have an extra $60-70 billion left over for evangelism around the world.”
Book Review: The Scandal Of The Evangelical Conscience - Acton Institute PowerBlog

Do Democrats believe "the People" (demos) should choose (kratein) their own medical care, or be forced to get healthcare from the government? If you believe "the People" are too greedy to take care of the poor and elderly as a charitable task, why do you believe they would vote for politicians to take care of the elderly at a much greater cost? In other words, why have a democracy? Why not just entrust our lives to our wise and benevolent overlords in Washington D.C.?

Obamacare is likely a plan to destroy health insurance qua insurance and move to single-payer.

The Cold War was a myth. The Soviet Economy, like all socialist economies, was a basket case. The danger is always "defeat," not destruction.

• Homosexual Activist Admits True Purpose of Battle for "Marriage Equality" is to Destroy Marriage

When the government takes sides against "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," all bets are off. The First Amendment means nothing if the laws of God mean nothing.

As a libertarian, I oppose "homophobic" bullying on the schoolyard and anti-family bullying by federal judges. "The Government" is the most phobic bully on the planet.

Liberty or compulsion: which makes a better world?