Ron Paul laid the smackdown on Baldwin. The argument for drug laws have never been good and Baldwin hasn’t improved upon it. It ends with Baldwin running out of intelligent things to say and taking a jab at Paul supporters.

For the record, I support Paul and I don’t smoke pot. I am also not against those who do smoke it. People are free to make their own life choices.

Arguing the case for Liberty is never easy. People say they want to be free and know they should be free. It is the means by which we want to get there that is misguided. We will willfully violate Liberty as a means to achieve a free society.

The idea that we can violate Liberty in order to have Liberty is ridiculous. The Western world has taken freedom for granted. We know that a free society is the only humane way to live. What we don’t know realize is that our societies have become less free over time–less humane.

Not only have we not kept our houses in order but, we go around telling everyone else how they should live. Those living in glass houses should not throw stones. We force our way of life on everyone else and expect them to like it. We forget that Liberty means we can live one way and our neighbors another.

We have decided that temporary safety is more important than lasting Liberty. Whether the monsters are terrorists or financial crises, we want protection from them at the expense of our freedoms. So while we say we respect personal Liberties, we act in the exact opposite.

We should stop lying to ourselves and admit it: we don’t believe in freedom. We just give it lip service. Deep down we may still know that Liberty is right but, we have lost our understanding and respect for Liberty. The following are seven reasons for Liberty that will try to reawaken the free spirit inside all of us.

Read more

I discovered a comic or graphical novel by Irwin Schiff today while browsing through my RSS feeds. Someone on Campaign for Liberty asked for help with producing a children’s book focused on Liberty. A comment pointed to How an Economy Grows and Why it Doesn’t by Irwin Schiff.

This is essentially a comic book that tells a story and teaches economics at the same time. I found it to be incredible useful and a good means of understanding basic economic principles. I liked it so much so that I decided to put it into an easier to use form.

So have a read when you get a chance. It is good stuff! Especailly in current times when things are all going awry and no one in the mainstream has any idea what is going on! Irwin Schiff explains sound economics in an easy to understand fashion. And who doesn’t like cartoons?

According to the DailyKos reporting a Fox News poll, Obama’s “economics” is more popular than Reagan’s economics. I never lived through the era of Reagan so I don’t know what it was like under the execution of his economics.

I do know that the four principles stated in Wikipedia about Reaganomics are economically sound:

1. reduce the growth of government spending,
2. reduce marginal tax rates on income from labor and capital,
3. reduce government regulation of the economy,
4. control the money supply to reduce inflation.

You always want to reduce government spending so that more productive uses of money can take place in the private sector. Taxes are always a disincentive to work and be productive so they should always be lowered. The best case scenario is we abolish all taxes on income.

Regulation is all the rage these days from the left and the right. The reason why we are in this economic mess was due to regulation so more of it is not going to help. Regulation is any intervention into the market and the government has been intervening for decades. (Read Meltdown for a comprehensive look.)

We should never let the government run the printing presses and dilute the value of existing dollars. Deflation is a good and inflation is an evil–everyone benefits from lowered prices. Idealy, the market would take care of what medium is used as money.

While Reaganomics looks good on paper, Obamanomics is bad on paper and in execution. The comparison of Obama to FDR was already a bad sign. Few Presidents has done more to harm the economic well-being of Americans than FDR. He took a recession upon entering office after criticizing Hoover’s absurd government spending and made things many magnitudes worse by injecting Hoover’s policies with steroids.

Obama is taking Bush’s economics and injecting it with steroids. Bush’s economics was poor and has largely extended length of the recession. Obama’s economic actions since taking office will make things even worse. You cannot solve a problem caused by excessive spending and credit with more spending and credit. To think that America is going to become prosperous once again by going into even greater debt is exceptionally poor financial advice.

It is unnerving to see a poll suggesting Americans believe we need more socialism over free markets. However, I hope that this is just a wanting to believe that Obama can solve the nation’s economic crisis than a real indication of people’s perceptions. Everyone wants to be out of this crisis and back to the good life.

Free markets made this nation the economic engine of the world. Centrally planned systems have driven nations into destruction through all of history.

The Washington Post had an interesting article written by Reid Hoffman, founder of LinkedIn, about letting start-ups bail us out. I wouldn’t be calling what he talks about a bail out–it would be a real stimulus. I love start-ups and have made it a point to only work for small companies–the smaller the better.

While I absolutely agree that it will be up to new businesses and innovative entrepreneurs to bring the United States and world economy out of this crisis, I do not agree with the means by which Hoffman suggests. The last thing we need is for governments to create more bubbles–we are living the result of the last government created bubble.

Hoffman says that “we need incentives for business innovators.” That is very true. However, the incentives should not be to “encourage small business with loans”. The SBA has always attached terms to their loans and it must be used for specific purposes that they deem important. This is influencing the flow of capital to industries or sectors that the government wants. This is creating a bubble.

Secondly, where is the government getting the money to lend? The government has no money today. It didn’t have money yesterday either but, it is in worse shape now than it has ever been. If the only means to get this money is to tax, borrow, or print then one group will be made worse off for another. Redistribution of capital never makes the economy better off. If an idea has merit, capital will find its way there–that is how the free market works.

While this proposal is a better alternative to creating jobs using war or public works projects, there is still an infringement of Liberty as long as the government needs to take from one group in order to lend money to another.

“Venture capitalists are biding their time — not for want of good ideas, solid management or stable capital but to ensure that they can get the most bang for their buck. Similarly, venture capital firms are waiting for the slide to stop and the recovery to begin before investing.”

I’m not sure if that is entirely true. As the founder of LinkedIn, I will assume that he knows better than I do. I am not in the VC circle. Regardless of whether that is the truth, there is an economically sound reason why people don’t want to lend.

No one knows when or how the economy is going to turn north again. The government is intervening on a weekly–if not daily–basis thus creating an environment of uncertainty. It is much riskier to make long term investments that VC’s generally make if no one knows what the rules are going to be six months from now.

Start-ups are going to lead us out of our current predicament but, it will not be because of government “stimulus” or loans. If these companies can find a way to flourish it will be inspite of the government and not because of it.