Dina Gusovsky of Russia Today, and a friend of mine, did an interview with Ron Paul. I’m a little jealous. Dr. Paul discusses libertarian views and faith in the free markets. As usual Ron Paul is amongst the few people in D.C. speaking with any intelligence.

The last couple of months has marked the period of greatest international experience for me. I have not traveled the world but, to my fortune, many parts of the world have so kindly come to me. I have only traveled to one country outside of North America in my entire life and only stayed there for a week–not much cultural immersion from that.

I have spent every weekend in the last two months with them going to a variety of restaurants, bars, and clubs in New York City. These are some of the most interesting and fun people I have ever met–certainly some stand out above the rest. I can say with absolute certainty that the last two months have been the best time I’ve had all year.

One of the things I find most dear is the difference in opinion we have on social, political, and economical issues. In this period of global economic distress and an America that is generally despised around the world, these are inevitably topics of much discussion. It is certainly important to note that I am not some American nationalist or statist and I will never stand up for the American government or empire. I only defend the principles of liberty.

A recent topic of debate was about guns. One of my French friends had walked around one night looking for his friends and was greeted by a man with a gun at a psychic reading shop. No one knows if this was some sort of criminal, an off duty police officer, or other government official. The only fact is that he showed his gun as a means of intimidation.

The debate was certainly not in my favor as I was the only American and apparently every European nation has strict gun laws. They had a stereotype in their minds that every American is for the Second Amendment and obssessed with Wild West stories of cowboys and bandits. The reality is that I have had debates about guns with many people native to the States–especially in liberal New York.

My position on guns and gun laws is simple. An individual has the right to own anything they want as long as it does not intrude on the property rights of another individual. The government has no right to take away a person’s right to private property. There only job is to enforce contracts and rectify situations where one individual violates the rights of another individual.

I am not for guns but, I am also not against guns. This conundrum was too difficult for my European friends to grasp at the time–it may have been the alcohol.

If it was possible to remove all guns–or any weapon–from the face of the Earth and stop them from ever coming back and no individual’s natural rights are violated in the process, I would be in favor of it. The problem is that this is not possible. How can you remove every gun in the entire world, the knowledge behind that technology, and not violate people’s natural rights? It may be possible in a police state to confiscate all the world’s guns. It may be possible in an Orwellian world to brainwash people to such a degree that the common man would not even know what a gun is. But, all of those actions will require destroying all kinds of personal liberties.

Of course, even in a police state or an Orwellian dystopia, someone will have the guns. It might not be you or me but, someone in power will. I certainly don’t believe it is better to live in a gun-free world as a slave.

If we can agree that it is impossible to create this utopian world where guns do not exist and people can still live freely, what is then the next best thing we can do? Some might argue that passing laws banning guns or putting some sort of heavy punishment for having a gun will work. I argue that it will not.

Those of us who are law abiding citizens will obviously not have guns. We are also not the people who are going to commit crimes. The problem is in stopping the criminals from getting guns. They are criminals. By definition, they break the law. We have laws against thievery, yet they rob people. We have laws against drugs, yet they sell it. If the means to solving all our problems could be accomplished by passing laws, the world would already be a utopia.

In all my debates with people who are in favor of gun laws, they have never proposed a means to stop the criminals from getting the guns. Some people simply do not understand why passing a law is not enough to stop the criminals. I consider those people to be a lost cause. The others simply revert the argument back to a moral or philosophical one. The problem with that is that there is no disagreement there. I agree that the existence of weapons makes death easier and more likely.

In my experience, those who want gun laws feel that those who do not agree are in favor of death and destruction. I am against war and violence in general. The fact of the matter is that reality is not so black and white.

My solution to the gun problem is fundamentally the concept of a stalemate. It is most important that an individual’s rights are never violated in an attempt to create a sense of security. In a society where there are no gun laws and people can freely buy guns, it is possible that every person will own a gun. Some people will choose not to and that is their right to do so. Those of us who do not currently own a gun will not suddenly decide that they are going to buy a gun and kill everyone they see tomorrow. That is completely irrational.

The criminals who were already buying guns will still have guns so nothing changes for them. However, they now have to consider that the next person they intend to commit a crime against may also have a gun. Their risk to reward ratio has now changed dramatically. The risk was low when gun laws existed because your average person who abides by the law will not own a gun. Now, the risk is unknown to high because no such laws exist.

Of course, this doesn’t guarantee that no more crimes will be committed or that no one will die because of guns. Passing a law against guns also doesn’t guarantee any of that but, it does guarantee a violation of individual liberty.

It appears the United States is the capital for school massacres. The Columbine incident and the more recent Virginia Tech incident come to mind. It is easy for people to blame an inanimate object like a gun for these horrible events but, they are in fact blaming the symptoms and not the causes. These killers could have used a gun or a knife or a baseball bat or even a rock. They so happened to have used a gun but, how many murders by weapons other than guns occur on a yearly basis? Just recently in Japan, seven people were killed with a knife.

Passing laws willy-nilly is a lazy person’s way of dealing with a much bigger problem: why are people motivated to kill other people? Why do suicide terrorists blow themselves up? These are the real questions that need to be asked and problems that need to be dealth with. You can’t just pass a law and hope the problem goes away.

I went into the debate expecting a meltdown of epic proportions for Sarah Palin. She has been unable to put together coherent sentences in interviews in the past weeks. One would naturally assume that this debate was going to be the equivalent of a goat heading to slaughter. If you watched the debate, you would know that it wasn’t the case. I once again viewed this year’s Vice-Presidential debates from Pace University’s Schimmel Theater in New York City where almost everyone was an Obama supporter.

I did miss the first 15 minutes of the debate due to an Indian club throwing an event with food. I love Indian food so I gave up the first 15 minutes of the debate for it. The topic appeared to be energy when I got to the theater. My first impression was how well Sarah was speaking. I had almost forgotten how well she spoke in her speech during the Republican Convention. The Sarah at this debate was more like the one who I thought had ended the Democrat’s chance at the White House this year.

As far as substance goes, there is really nothing new to report here. My views on the first Presidential debate apply here all the same. Both candidate’s ideas are ridiculous and not different from each other.

Biden did stress one point to be a fundamental difference between the two tickets: the Iraq War.

Unfortunately, Biden must not know the meaning of fundamental. I agree that we should withdraw from Iraq and end the wasteful war. However, that point alone is not a fundamental difference. Iraq is only one part of a much larger picture. That picture is the American Empire. We are in 130 countries–I can’t even name 130 different countries. When one of these candidates decide to talk about withdrawing all our troops from around the world, then they can call it a fundamental difference.

To make matter worse were their comments about Pakistan and Iran. I was displeased with what Obama and McCain had said in their debate and the same goes for Biden and Palin. Pakistan has had nukes for years and we’ve been giving them money in the tune of billions! Why is this suddenly a grave problem?

And in a spin-off of that topic, you would have thought that the citizens of Isreal would be voting for our President in November. What was the point of all that pandering to Isreal? Isreal has more nukes than any nation in the Middle East. They can defend themselves just fine. We are constantly coddling Isreal as if they are powerless. There are few countries in that part of the world that can match Isreal’s sophistication and military strength. If any country needs protecting, it is Iran.

In regards to the powers of the Vice President, both candidates need to more regularly read the Constitution. Biden referred to Article I of the Constitution and claims that it says the Vice President is part of the Executive branch. Of course, Article I does not say that but says that the Vice President is the President of the Senate and has no vote except when there is a tie. Clearly, that speaks of the Legislative branch and not the Executive. The VP in fact does have authority in the Congress since he or she is the President of the Senate. The VP would have no authority in the Executive. The best demonstration of the VP’s job functions is displayed in HBO’s recent John Adams mini-series.

When Washington was elected President, Adams was the runner up and became the Vice President. Adams in fact sat in the Congress bored out of his mind most of the time. He would advise the President from time to time as other members of the cabinet did. Otherwise, he could just as well has sat in the Senate and read the newspaper. I would have preferred if that was all Cheney did.

To believe that either Biden or Palin offered anything substantial, different, or meaningful is a reflection of how far we’ve strayed from the ideas of the Founding Fathers. I don’t want to constantly reiterate the same point but, both parties are the same! They will only make government bigger and take away more and more freedoms. The way that they do it might be a little different but, the end result is going to be the same. Big government has predictable consequences and it is never a good one.

The candidates also briefly talked about a topic that I have a strong opinion on: global warming or “climate change”. For some reason, we have changed the term describing this “crisis” from global warming to climate change. It might have something to do with the fact that the Earth is not warming–just a hunch. To claim that the climate is changing is absurd. When is the Earth’s climate not changing? I can write pages about the ridiculous government policies on climate change but, I will spare you from it. You can read what I’ve written in the past.

So who won the debate? Putting aside my dislike for both parties and both tickets, I would say that Sarah Palin came out the victor. I expected her to trip all over herself. She didn’t. She was charismatic–more so than Biden or Obama. She smiled often. She spoke in the vernacular. She looked confident–except for a few times where she seemed nervous.

While people in the big cities aren’t as likely to be wooed by Palin’s seemingly common-folk ways, I am still inclined to believe that the vast majority of Americans will be. She just feels warmer and less like a politician.

An example that demonstrates this point is when the candidates discussed how they were really just like you and me. Sarah talked about her kids–one going to war, one with a disability, and those going to college. She talked about paying bills, etc. Biden had his own story of hardship and how he is better off now. The big difference here is when they talked about sitting at the kitchen table to figure out the finances.

This is where Biden is so clearly a politician. He claims the American people are looking for help. I’m sorry, but I don’t want any government handouts and neither do the majority of the American people. We are hard working and self sufficient people. In order for government to “help” anyone, it has to steal from someone else and I do not support thievery. The only form of “help” I want from government is for them to stay the hell away–the further away the better. I am convinced that most people are still willing to make an honest living and Biden’s suggestion is an insult. 

In the study of marketing, the product is only one factor in a successful campaign. Sarah Palin can be the least qualified person to be a heartbeat from sitting behind the Resolute Desk but, if the rest of pieces are sound, she just might end up in that position.

The best case scenario is if the American people rise up and vote third party. The Republocrats are still on track to take us into the smoldering depths of hell. There are four other candidates in the running: Barr, Baldwin, McKinney, and Nader. Pick one of them.

The first of 4 Presidential debates took place today and I watched most of it at Pace University in New York City. It was a very pro-Obama crowd as one would expect at a university in New York. I am against both of these parties because neither of them are speaking any sense and that was on display at the debate. I may have been the only person in support of a third-party candidate at the event.

The two candidates argued over a variety of issues including the economy and foreign policy. Neither of them would say whether they were in support of the $700 billion bailout. They just danced around the question when all they needed to say was yes or no. The majority of Americans are against this bailout bill and obviously neither of these candidates have the balls to take a stance knowing that the bill is unpopular and if they do nothing the economy will collapse. The economy will collapse whether this bill gets passed or not but, it is a lot harder to spin the collapse if they take a concrete position. I appreciated the moderator’s attempts to get the candidates to provide a solid answer but it was to no avail–in the end, McCain gave a half-hearted “sure”.

While some people may say that there is a real difference between these two candidates, this debate clearly demonstrated that there is not. McCain started talking about earmarks and pork barrel spending that–according to Obama–totaled $21 billion dollars. Clearly that is chump change with the Iraq War and all these bailouts and welfare programs. McCain then accused Obama of some million dollar earmarks for things of no matter while Obama dissected McCain’s tax cuts for the rich.

On the surface that might seem like a difference but, it is not. Neither candidate is willing to actually cut any spending. McCain proposed a spending freeze except for the war, veterans benefits, and welfare programs. My question it, exactly what spending are you freezing? The two biggest parts of our budget is the war and welfare programs. A spending freeze on useless things is not going to make a difference. Obama, instead of asking McCain the question I would have, argued against a spending freeze and basically danced around the idea of changing his plans to account for this $700 billion bailout if it passes.

Yea, they are so different. They both want to ensure that we continue spending ourselves into oblivion and maintain troops in 130 countries. Totally different candidates for sure.

On the foreign policy front, both candidates agreed that Russia was the aggressor and evildoer in the conflict against Georgia. I’ve written about that topic and clearly showed that the real story is that Georgia attacked two independent territories with a lot of Russian citizens and Russia merely protected its own people. McCain even told a story where he said he was in that area and saw a poster with Putin’s picture and a caption that read, “He is our President”. Yea, that is correct. The people living in that area associate themselves with Russia and not Georgia. Georgia attacked innocent people and Russia was just protecting them. Granted, Russia should not have invaded Georgia but, by no means is Georgia innocent.

The debate over war in the middle east was also nonsensical. Somehow we are soon going to attack Pakistan and Iran for no reason at all. Both candidates are willing to extend war into any and every country in the region. It is on this issue that I agree with Obama the most. We should leave Iraq and we certainly should never have gone in. However, I would take our troops out of every country and neither candidate is willing to consider that.

And of course, both candidates are trying to show how the American people are in support of their view on the war. Apparently, both candidates have a bracelet with a deceased soldier’s name on it. I don’t want to belittle the duty of our armed forces but, it was of some hilarity to see that both candidates had this same card under their sleeves and used it at the same time. Different? Looks the same to me.

All in all, the debate was a big waste of time. These candidates are not different. They are going to continue on the same course we are on now. There is no change and there is no maverick. And if you didn’t know–and a lot of people apparently do not–there are four other candidates in the running: Barr, Baldwin, McKinney, and Nader. You might want to consider a second choice because McCain and Obama is really the same choice.

I hate all kinds of central planning. I love free markets. The actions of the United States government in this past week and in the past months since our financial system have started its collapse has been the definition of socialism. Our politicians keep telling us that this is a necessary evil. It has to be done in order to protect our savings, our money, our economy. The reality is that they are destroying our savings, our money and our economy.

The Federal Reserve played chicken and decided to allow Lehman Brothers to fail to test the waters. The market responded by collapsing through the floor. This is what should happen and needs to happen. The Fed then decided they could not let AIG fail and bailed them out with $85 billion freshly printed dollars and an almost 80% stake in the company. So now the government owns Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG. What if WalMart fails? Are we going to go to the government to buy groceries? This is ridiculous.

Our financial system was maybe a couple of days away from a complete meltdown. This would have been one of the biggest market crashes in history but, the government stepped in and estimated that they would spend half a trillion dollars or more to stabilize the markets. They are going to set up an entity similar to the RTC of the Savings and Loan crisis that would buy all the bad debt from all the banks. Who is going to own this bad debt? You and me. I don’t know about you but, I don’t like making bad investments. Especially not ones that I have no say in.

So now we are falling into the hellhole of socialism. There is nothing remotely good about socialism. The theory sounds nice but, the execution has always been the same. I don’t care if you want to redefine what socialism is to keep it a theory–it is never going to work. Central planning–regardless of the form–is never going to work.

Government has no money. They don’t produce goods and therefore cannot produce wealth. They can only steal from us. That is what they are doing right now. They are stealing our money to make sure that their friends on Wall Street don’t lose their shirt. Instead, we will lose ours. I don’t think you really support this. What is your benefit that Fannie and Freddie were “saved”? That AIG was “saved”?

If you have a mortgage that you couldn’t afford, you now still have a mortgage you cannot afford and on top of that, the dollar’s value is about to fall through the floor. Maybe you worked for Fannie, Freddie, or AIG and might have been out of a job if they collapsed. You’ll find a new one–yes, you will. Instead, we are going to put this giant band aid on the problem to push the day of reckoning later. It doesn’t help you. It is just going to make sure that you hurt harder later.

If the government wants to help America and the American people, they can pay off our mortgages. They can eliminate the interest on our credit cards. Pay our student loans. Get the people out of debt. How about, we bail out the American people? Why are hard working American people bailing out these giant corporations so that their executives can get their millions of dollars in salaries? I don’t want to pay their salaries. They made bad choices, they should live with it.

Millions of Americans made bad choices to buy a house they couldn’t afford. Bail them out. If we are going to have bailouts, we should bailout the American people. Not the multinational corporations.

The economic blow back of these policies are predictable. The ban on short selling of almost 800 financial institutions is market manipulation. The markets are going to go up in what will appear to be a bull market. There is no bull. We have not hit a bottom of any sort. The Dow Jones was more likely to have tanked below 10,000 than to have hit any bottom. With the government announcements of the biggest bailout that we have ever seen, the market responded by skyrocketing. The volatility of this past week could have either made you a lot of money or lost you a lot of money.

No one knows when this fake bull is going to take off the mask and reveal it is really the nastiest bear we have ever seen and send the market sinking like a rock. Playing the stock market now is exceptionally dangerous but, it can also make you an enormous return. Because of this “temporary” ban on short selling, the market will fall through the floor when it decides to correct. The officials say that they want to restore equilibrium but anyone who understands economics has to laugh at that. Eliminating short selling is doing the exact opposite of creating equilibrium–it is ensuring we stray as far away from equilibrium as possible. So when it hits the market that the stocks are not worth this much–and they aren’t–it will snap back like a rubber band.

Our markets are going to collapse. It is hard to determine when with all this government interference and manipulation but the law of economics cannot be suspended. If we really enter into a full blown form of socialism, we will all be equally poor in no time flat and our markets would have collapsed because of it. The alternative is that we stop bailing out the corporations and we enter into an incredibly painful depression. It won’t be fun but, at least there will be a future option of being better off. Socialism ensures that such an option won’t exist–there will only be one option: equality in the sense that we will all be equally poor.