Discussing Healthcare and Rights

tumblr_np0slkEYoL1sipw2xo1_540
I used this meme back last year in a post on whether people have a right to healthcare or not. Of course, I argued that people did not, as it does not naturally exist, and is the produc of other people’s labor. Still, many think they’re entitled to it, and for free as well. Recently, I responded to a few comments on this, and I will go ahead and post those below.

The first set are the criticisms that the Rand Paul argument received:

#1 – officermilky

Call me naive, but wouldn’t he be paid through taxes? He wouldn’t be working for free. The argument to that, of course, would be “robbing peter to pay paul” but healthcare would be taxes that, you know, a society would all agree to go in on because they democratically believe it’s the right thing to do?

I’m not even saying that’s a perfect solution to everything, but the Rand caption seems faulty.

#2 – ramblingferret

Yes just like in Canada and Europe we round up doctors and force them to work against there will. Like my poor shrink who works 8-5 with Wednesdays off.

#3 – sweertomato

And now, here is how I responded to each one of them:

@officermilky He would be paid under a market wage that he would have regularly earned, due to government price setting (both on goods and wages). Your main mistake is that you will not have all of society agreeing to this universal healthcare plan. You would only need 50% +1 to make this happen, and that doesn’t sound in any way like it “society would all agree to go in” with this, as you say. THAT WOULD BE THE CASE.

@ramblingferret You mention Canada’s system, and I’d be a bit careful with that. They tried to first off ban private insurance, which was ruled unconstitutional. Canadian healthcare wait times are far longer than American wait times.

canada healthcare times

In addition to this, Canada’s system is lagging in adopting to new technology and practices to improve the quality and speed of care. And I’d be even more careful to use Canada’s system, since it’s projected to eat up 97% of government revenues over time. If that’s something America should copy, I’d be skeptical. And if you still don’t believe I should be skeptical, I would ask the 40,000+ Canadians who sought medical treatment outside Canada due to these problems, and more.

@sweer-tomato You mention that it would be free. About that…

Inigo+Montoya+from+The+Princess+Bride+_5eb38f6e2f66bcfb3c178e52e0882339.jpg

And if that is the route you wish to take (in saying that universal healthcare is free), then this also applies:

giphy

Weird how neither me nor Rand actually said the “ and saying oh “Survival of the fittest” if you get seriously ill / injured you deserve to die is the most barbaric and jackass thing you can say.” I honestly wonder where this even comes from, but I don’t think I care.

Now, under the current ACA, quality of care has gone down, and prices have gone up (especially when you’re not subsidised, like regular people with their own healthcare or through their business). Under the universal system, the costs become simply unseen by the everyday taxpayer, but is still felt on April 15, and don’t think for a second this is going to be in any way cheap, especially for people who are poor or have pre-existing conditions. Not when the plan require a bunch of crap that a) shouldnt be part of health insurance, and b) is mandated by government fiat.

And let’s chat about government mandated bull. I’ve yet to hear someone explain logically how the government can require health insurers to cover something, and the health insurers won’t raise their prices. The health insurers know they can simply jack up their prices all they want, because it’s now mandated that “x” service be covered. You wanna know why healthcare costs keep going up? It ain’t corporate greed that is the main problem. I’ll tell you that.

And let’s talk about 2016. If you’d like to see more poor people, go ahead, enact your universal healhcare system. Bernie’s plan sure ain’t cheap, since you’d have to come up with $3.2 trillion in new tax revenue per year (equalling $32 trillion in total, more than his original projections were) over the next decade to pay for just the healthcare costs. Since the Sander’s plan already boasts of tax hikes on the wealthy (aka the one’s who currently pay the majority of taxes), where is the rest of the money coming from? Hint hint, he will HAVE look lower. But don’t worry, you might be audited by the IRS after not paying taxes because you can’t afford them, but you’ll have healthcare still… that is, as long as they haven’t cut you off.

It’s 2016: let people actually keep their money for a change and get the damn government out of healthcare, so people can afford it and not go broke should something bad happen.


All in all, I haven’t done a good rebuttal like this in a while, and I probably could have done tons better, but this still came out good, and still hasn’t been rebutted by any of these three posters. I’m not expecting it to, but hey, we shall see.

Advertisements

Socialism Killed Venezuela

maduro

If there is one news story that’s not going to be mentioned on the mainstream news media  broadcasts, it will most likely be the continuing fall of Venezuela. For those of you who have not heard, Venezuela is currently descending into chaos, and is approaching an almost anarchic failed-state status, where it’s government is of no really power, and there is no order and balance. How do we see that Venezuela is falling? Here is a list of things that are happening as of now:

  • Food has become incredibly scarce to the point that supermarket shelves are completely bare. As a result, people have resulted to looting to get even basic necessities
  • For some who are really desperate, they’ve taken to killing stray animals, just to get some sort of food
  • Venezuela is experiencing very bad hyperinflation, making their currency more worthless by the day. This means that even if people have money, it’s losing value as the day goes on.
  • They’ve ran out of money to even print new money.
  • They’ve been selling their central bank’s gold reserves to willing buyers (under the table, of course)
  • The country’s morgues are overfilled with bodies
  • President Maduro has ordered that there be a three day weekend, due to the lack of electricity availability (which he blames on El Nino)
  • In reality, the hydroelectric dam that supply’s 2/3’s the power to the country doesn’t have the water capacity to operate
  • Venezuela has a murder rate of 3 per hour, or 76 per day, making it one of the highest in the world
  • Venezuelan hospitals have essentially ran out of medicine, intravenous fluids, and food.
  • Hospitals are also effected by the power shutdowns, causing respirators and other machinery to go off. As a result, infants in the maternity ward have to have air pumped into their lungs manually. The infant mortality rate has gone up drastically.
  • This is all basically what Maduro wants, so that he many maintain power
  • For a much better list, I recommend you go here.

Now, what do you think will happen next? I’m putting my money on martial law, and I think I may be (unfortunately) winning that bet.

Many regions and cities in Venezuela have recently been militarized, such as Caracas, and Guarenas. The militarization one you may expect from some third world despot: tanks, military in riot gear, and no emotion or holding back on protesters. This has been the case now for many days now, and meanwhile Maduro pleads his ignorance:

Meanwhile, Maduro pled ignorance: during a press conference, President Maduro mocked the international media for questioning cities under military control. “What militarization?” He asked. “Show me.”

And what better way is there to sneak more militarization and grab a few opponents than to hold some military exercises!

Venezuela is preparing for the biggest military exercises in its history this Saturday after the South American country’s government said it’s on high alert as the opposition pushes for a recall referendum on President Nicolas Maduro.

“Venezuela is threatened,” Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino Lopez said on state television Thursday. “This is the first time we are carrying out an exercise of this nature in the country. In terms of national reach, it’s going to be in every strategic region.”

On one hand, Venezuela has reached the end-of-the-line. On the other, it may just completely descend from the workers socialist paradise into the socialists hell. I’m sympathetic to the former, but more inclined to believe the latter. There is no good outcome for Venezuelans looking to restore their country from the failure that is socialism. Even with Maduro’s major blow back in December elections, where his party lost big, and the opposition won the congress, he has stacked the supreme court, halted any new members from the Congress, and made sure that his people (who would be loyal to HIM) were in cabinet positions. In example, the military.

History has recorded many times when socialist nations have died, but it never just ends in a quick death, and then there’s a reformation. It’s drawn out by a government attempting to hold power. This government has controlled many aspects of Venezuelan’s lives, and now, it’s losing all that power, and it will not go quietly. I may not be able to tell you what will happen, but I can say that it will not go quietly.

Rand Paul & His Many New Bills From This Week

rand-paul-marijuana

Rand Paul has been quite active this past week with a series of bills that have been introduced.

Here are three of the one’s that have caught my eye:

Gun Rights for Recipients of Social Security

Sen. Rand Paul has introduced a new bill aimed at stopping an Obama Administration move to strip seniors on Social Security of their gun rights.

The current White House deal would strip gun rights as follows:

The reporting would happen “in consultation with the Department of Justice” and would “cover appropriate records of the approximately 75,000 people each year who have a documented mental health issue, receive disability benefits, and are unable to manage those benefits because of their mental impairment.”

The Paul bill, if passed, would make sure that due process is followed when the case of a mental evaluation is taken for these people, instead of the current rubber-stamping of these cases by state mental health organizations. In addition, the Paul proposal would do the following:

  • Prohibits the sale or disposition of a firearm or ammunition to an individual that has been adjudicated as mentally incompetent or committed to a psychiatric hospital. Adjudication requires findings by a judicial officer or court and the individual receives notice to participate with counsel.
  • Within 90 days, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs must review and remove from NICS any veteran that has not been adjudicated as mentally incompetent. The Attorney General will certify that the removal of names has taken place.
  • Prevents the Social Security Administrator from reporting individuals to NICS unless individual has been adjudicated as mentally incompetent. Attorney General will conduct a yearly review to certify reported names have necessary documentation.
  • Attorney General must certify a state’s report indicating a person had been adjudicated as mentally incompetent prior to inclusion to NICS.
  • All individuals considered to no longer be adjudicated as mentally incompetent will be notified and have their rights restored .

Fighting the Heroin Epidemic

Rand Paul has been fighting for a bill that would expand the usage of a certain drug called Suboxone, which helps to lessen the dependence on heroin, allowing a person to better overcome it as a whole.

Currently, federal law only allows doctors to prescribe this drug to 50 patients in their first year with this drug, followed by 100 afterwords. The proposed legislation would expand the starting number to 500, thus allowing for more people to seek and receive actual treatment.

While it would be better to allow this to be prescribed more freely (without restriction, for their main concern is this drug being used in pill mills), this bill moves things in the right direction, and allows more people to seek out and receive treatment.

Economic Freedom Zone’s

Rand Paul has proposed the Economic Freedom Zones Act as an amendment to the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2016. If passed, this amendment would allow for Economic Freedom Zones to be created in areas where there is poverty and little to no growth.

What would these economic freedom zones do for the people who live in them? Here is a brief overview of the changes:

The legislation would provide for a series of tax cuts, such as reducing the corporate and individual income tax to 5% and lowering payroll taxes by 2%. It would also ease regulation, such as suspending the Davis-Bacon wage requirements and streamlining the National Environmental Policy Act. The amendment would also give a $5,000 per child educational tax credit to parents.

What Would Henry Hazlitt Think About Trump’s Trade Policy With Mexico And China?

download (1)

Donald Trump loves talking about Tariffs: he talks about them quite constantly actually. He’s gonna slap a tariff on Ford cars made in Mexico. He’s gonna slap tariffs on China (say that in Trump exaggerated way now). It seems like the so-called fair and free market supporter that he is is in favor of some unfair policies, and policies that will hurt American workers, as they’ve done so in the past.

Today, I’m talking some Henry Hazlitt, specifically on tariffs and trade policy (because those two seem to be the two of the core points in his campaign). To start, allow us to examine some select words from Chapter 11 of Henry Hazlitt’s “Economics in One Lesson” on tariffs, and to do this, we need to first read over an example that Hazlitt gives:

Now let us look at the matter the other way round, and see the effect of imposing a tariff in the first place. Suppose that there had been no tariff on foreign knit goods, that Americans were accustomed to buying foreign sweaters without duty, and that the argument were then put forward that we could bring a sweater industry into existence by imposing a duty of $5 on sweaters.

There would be nothing logically wrong with this argument so far as it went. The cost of British sweaters to the American consumer might thereby be forced so high that American manufacturers would find it profitable to enter the sweater business. But American consumers would be forced to subsidize this industry. On every American sweater they bought they would be forced in effect to pay a tax of $5 which would be collected from them in a higher price by the new sweater industry.

Americans would be employed in a sweater industry who had not previously been employed in a sweater industry. That much is true. But there would be no net addition to the country’s industry or the country’s employment. Because the American consumer had to pay $5 more for the same quality of sweater he would have just that much less left over to buy anything else. He would have to reduce his expenditures by $5 somewhere else. In order that one industry might grow or come into existence, a hundred other industries would have to shrink. In order that 20,000 persons might be employed in a sweater industry, 20,000 fewer persons would be employed elsewhere.

But the new industry would be visible. The number of its employees, the capital invested in it, the market value of its product in terms of dollars, could be easily counted. The neighbors could see the sweater workers going to and from the factory every day. The results would be palpable and direct. But the shrinkage of a hundred other industries, the loss of 20,000 other jobs somewhere else, would not be so easily noticed. It would be impossible for even the cleverest statistician to know precisely what the incidence of the loss of other jobs had been—precisely how many men and women had been laid off from each particular industry, precisely how much business each particular industry had lost—because consumers had to pay more for their sweaters. For a loss spread among all the other productive activities of the country would be comparatively minute for each. It would be impossible for anyone to know precisely how each consumer would have spent his extra $5 if he had been allowed to retain it. The overwhelming majority of the people, therefore, would probably suffer from the optical illusion that the new industry had cost us nothing.

It is my contention that Trump may actually be aware of this. Maybe he does not care, and he’s willing to go ahead and do it anyways. His tariff proposals will mean that ALL CONSUMERS will pay a higher price on goods, be they the foreign goods with the tariff, or the domestic goods at the higher price. This is a gross manipulation of the free market, and further promotes a big government that Donald *occasionally* professes to hate.

This brings me to the next thing from Hazlitt which I will quote from him, specifically referring to the earlier example, and what would happen with wages:

And this brings us to the real effect of a tariff wall. It is not merely that all its visible gains are offset by less obvious but no less real losses. It results, in fact, in a net loss to the country. For contrary to centuries of interested propaganda and disinterested confusion, the tariff reduces the American level of wages.

Let us observe more clearly how it does this. We have seen that the added amount which consumers pay for a tariff-protected article leaves them just that much less with which to buy all other articles. There is here no net gain to industry as a whole. But as a result of the artificial barrier erected against foreign goods, American labor, capital and land are deflected from what they can do more efficiently to what they do less efficiently. Therefore, as a result of the tariff wall, the average productivity of American labor and capital is reduced.

If we look at it now from the consumer’s point of view, we find that he can buy less with his money. Because he has to pay more for sweaters and other protected goods, he can buy less of everything else. The general purchasing power of his income has therefore been reduced. Whether the net effect of the tariff is to lower money wages or to raise money prices will depend upon the monetary policies that are followed. But what is clear is that the tariff—though it may increase wages above what they would have been in the protected industries—must on net balance, when all occupations are considered, reduce real wages.

Allow me to use an example: the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930, which increased tariffs on a large number of imports to protect American industries. This was after the Depression was already well underway. The result of Smoot-Hawley was to begin a trade war, where countries raised tariffs on the United States. This crippled all exports in EVERY country, and what you saw was a worsening of the Depression, and sinking the US into further troubles. More people suffered after something intended to help them was passed. This WILL be the result of the Trump tariff plan, whether you like it or not.

You will raise tariffs, but you will not raise wages, you will not make productivity better, you will not make people better off, you will not. It simply won’t work, not in the current climate of business. And do not tell me how Donald will make that better, because I know it’s not going to happen.

My Thoughts on The Libertarians: John McAfee

download

I’m doing a series on the Libertarian Party Presidential Candidates (top 3). These are 3 people whom I would have no problem with being President, for either three would be a net positive for liberty, the country, and the American people. This post is going to be covering John McAfee.

John McAfee’s Campaign Website: [Link]

To start off, let me briefly talk about McAfee’s history. He is the founder of McAfee Security, which he left in 1994, when he sold his stake in the company after it had gone public (and yes, he too doesn’t like how annoying McAfee Security Suite is, but it’s not his fault). McAfee went on to do several other business ventures, including one more medical venture down in Belize involving antibiotics. He currently runs Future Tense Central, which hosts a number of technologies, and Everkey, which is explained below:

So, where does he stand on issues? I’ll dive into that below:

Personal Freedoms:

Our bodies and our minds belong to ourselves.

Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. Our support of an individual’s right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.

Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm.

“One of the first acts of a McAfee Administration would be the wholesale decriminalization of marijuana by changing its schedule -something that can be done without congressional consent – along with pardons to any individual serving time for non-violent marijuana possession.”

The War On Drugs is an abject failure, spreading misery across the world and here at home. From America’s abysmal incarceration rates, to the terror inflicted internationally in the name of drug eradication, the War on Drugs has had terrible consequences. Drug legalization should be an issue decided on the state level. Production of drugs in any other country should be the concern of that country.

So, right off the bat, we have issues dealing with personal freedoms, such as drug possession (and the War on Drugs as a whole), to really free association. If you watched the first part of the Libertarian Debate on Stossel, you may remember that John sided with Austin Petersen when he was talking about a Jewish baker not wanting to make a Nazi cake.

So, I would say that John has a good grasp on voluntary asociation.

Foreign Policy & Security

Foreign Policy & Cyber Awareness

“The US has for too long considered itself as the world’s policeman, at the expense of rational internal growth. This must change. Interference in the affairs of foreign states is the true cause of national animosities, and is the fertilizer and feed for terrorism.” –John McAfee

We reject the interventionist pursuit of idealistic and moral goals. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense, especially the defense of our national technological infrastructure.

We must seek to end the current United States government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid.

We must focus on using our strength only when and where it protects the security and interests of the American people, not multinational corporations or war profiteers.

Cyber Awareness

One of the few legitimate roles of the American government is to provide for our national security –the defense of our nation against all forms of aggression.

The United States government, like many western nations, has lost touch with the technology upon which our world is built.

“With its new government, Australia has announced the creation of the Digital Transformation Office – a cabinet level Position. The goal of the office is to bring cyber awareness and cyber security education into the Australian Government. They recognize that the nation of the future cannot survive without Cyber Awareness within its leadership. We must look hard at this example and ask ourselves how we got to the tragic situation of cyber illiteracy that we now occupy. We must immediately change course, lest we be at the mercy of more technologically astute nations.”

Interference in the affairs of foreign states is the true cause of national animosities, and is the fertilizer and feed for terrorism.” *Clapping* I love it when someone really gets it, and when it comes to John, I think he really does. There’s a lot foreign policy wise that the US is doing wrong, even terribly, such as aid to the Syrian “moderate” Rebels. We cannot afford to keep this terrible streak of nation building up, because it’s not working.

Cutting this, along with foreign aid will help to free up a lot of taxpayer dollars, which in turn, will allow us to begin actually paying down the debt, and will actually make us more safer. We can’t even keep our own country safe here, so what makes us think we can protect the world?

Now, about his cyber awareness bit. I wouldn’t have a problem with it, if it’s goal is to beef up government security, and actually stop, for example, Chinese hackers from hacking government systems. That’s something that has completely been looked over, and for the safety of everyone, we need. I would trust McAfee to do this because he is a tech guru, and none of these phony politicians would be able to compete with his knowledge on the issue.

Privacy:

Libertarians advocate individual privacy and government transparency.

We support the rights recognized by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, property, and communications.

“A McAfee administration will end the unconstitutional NSA surveillance of all Americans, and end the invasive and wasteful existence of the TSA.”

The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights shall not be suspended even during time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency.

We oppose the government’s use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law.

Ending the NSA and TSA would be very much beneficial to Americans, since it’s been proven that both the NSA and TSA aren’t exactly helping to protect us. The elimination of the TSA doesn’t necesssarily mean that airports will be unprotected, as private firms do offer the same service as the TSA, but with more success and better quality for both the airports and passengers.

In addition to the end of these two terrible agencies, McAfee wants to protect the Constitution from abuse in times of war, which is a major thing that we all really need to be thinking of. When 9/11 happened, there was talk of immediate war and an all out assault on not only the enemies, but our own rights and freedoms in the name of “safety”. It’s been no better under Obama than under Bush. We now have indefinite detention allowed. I used to think that’d be something you’d find in some third-world dictatorship, not the “Land of the Free”. These Democrats and Republicans have trashed this document, even though they profess to be the protectors of it. They suck, and it’s time for the Libertarians to rise up and be the real defenders of it.

Regulation:

Neither the Democratic, nor Republican parties can be trusted with our economy.

George W. Bush’s presidency was characterized by massive spending, not only on unjust war, but also massive new farm subsidies, huge increases in education spending, and finally the disastrous Wall Street bailouts.

The Obama administration followed suit, with its endless fiscal “stimulus” and “stabilization” spending, bloated entitlement budgets, and an ever-rising national debt ceiling.

The failed policies of the Democrats and Republicans in Washington have lead us into a decade of economic stagnation, all the while still wasting money on endless war.

Where America has seen incredible progress is in those sectors of the economy that are least regulated, such as the technology sector.

With the new online sharing economy, and the exponential advances in our ability to conduct commerce electronically, we have already proven that great advances are made possible when government gets out of the way.

Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control trade, are improper in a free society.

‘Nuff said.

Debt Slavery:

It’s Time To End The Federal Reserve

The Fed performs 5 main functions:

– It facilitates interbank monetary exchanges

– It sets standards and procedures for ordinary banks

– It prints currency

– It is the lender of last resort

– It sets monetary policy (controls interest rates)

Prior to the creation of the Fed, there existed private Clearinghouse Associations. These associations performed the following functions:

– Interbank exchanges

– Lenders of last resort

– Created standards for membership. A bank had to meet these standards in order to become a member

What about paper currency? Paper currency can be issued by ordinary banks, as it was in the US until the 1930s. We are already familiar with American Express, Visa and other institutions issuing redeemable travelers checks.  It is the same concept as banks issuing redeemable currency notes.

And who would control monetary policy? No one. Monetary policy, obviously, would be self controlled by decentralized market forces, as it should be.

But all of these issues are becoming moot. It is clear that crypto-currencies will soon be the defacto standards of the world’s money. The Fed will disappear due simply to the issue of relevancy. An irrelevant institution cannot survive in the world of reality.

#EndTheFED and send it to its grave for good.

War:

We must seek to end all war; from foreign intervention, to military and economic aid, to the war on drugs.

If this point wasn’t made clear, and I believe it was, then I think you need to scroll back up a bit and reread some of the stuff on foreign policy.

The Libertarian Party:

The Democrats and the Republicans have failed us.

It’s time to #UninstallTheSystem …the two-party system.

The Libertarian Party is America’s third largest and fastest growing political party. The Libertarian Party was created by people who realized that the politicians had strayed from America’s original libertarian foundation, with disastrous results. Their vision was the same as that of America’s founders — a world where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, a world of peace, harmony, opportunity, and abundance. Libertarians are practical; we know we can’t make the world perfect. But, it can be better. Libertarians will keep working to create a better, freer society for everyone.

Learn More about the Libertarian Party at LP.Org


 

I think that’s all I have to say about John’s positions. Truly, I think John McAfee is a great candidate on the issues. The main problem I take with him is the sketchyness of certain past activities, including what happened in Belize that prompted police to go after him. It’s all a hot mess, if you ask me, and I believe John also has addressed this in the recent Stossel Libertarian Debate (Part 1). He is also the most flamboyant of what he is like. there isn’t a picture I’ve seen recently where he doesn’t have a gun, or he’s shirtless, or he surrounded by women. Something, but that might play against him should someone try appealing to “family values”.

I’m just trying to find things that might hurt him, but he’s probably already thought of this. The fact that he is able to address this stuff is GREAT, and that’s great because it leaves little room for media speculation, which in this case should he be the nominee, they will do to a very big extent. It also shows people that he’s willing to be level with them about their concerns, which in this day and age, is worth a lot. Other than that, I think that John McAfee is a solid candidate, and I think his involvement in the party and the election is a great thing.

John McAfee’s Campaign Website: [Link]


 

Candidate: John McAfee

Overall Score: 8.5/10 Would definitely vote and support enthusiastically

 

Why This Libertarian Cannot Vote For Donald Trump

11745783_506779719472700_6819942421763321944_n

If you’ve followed the election in some more in-depth ways, you may have noticed that some notable libertarians have begun to back Donald Trump. Walter Block is the main starter of the group Libertarians for Trump, which is aiming to get libertarians to support a Trump GOP candidacy, and not some other route (such as not voting, or the Libertarian Party). However, I have some deep issues with this, and I’ll explain why using this from Walter’s article:

There are several issues upon which libertarians do not and cannot support Donald Trump. For example, protectionism. But, typically, regarding the issues where Mr. Trump deviates from libertarianism, so do the other candidates.

And, also, we readily admit that the presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party (unless they nominate someone like, ugh, Bob Barr) will very likely have views much closer to ours than those of Mr. Trump.

But, the perfect is the enemy of the good. It is our goal to throw our weight behind the candidate who has a reasonable chance of actually becoming President of the United States whose views are CLOSEST to libertarianism.

To start off, you need to understand how I go about evaluating candidates. I cannot support a candidate when I disagree with their economic policy, so anything involving the economy is what I mainly look at. If I don’t agree with that person on that, then I cannot support them. Thus, when Trump spews out his rhetoric on protectionism, it only further seals how I cannot support him.

When he talks about raising tariff’s on Chinese Imports, which he wrongly says the Chinese, and not American consumers through higher prices will pay, I cannot support him. When he talks about bringing jobs back to America via putting a higher tariff on American companies who make their products outside the US, and how he’d slap them with a higher tariff, I cannot agree with him. When he threatens Apple for producing iPhone’s overseas, I cannot vote for him.

In addition, he talks about his tax policy, which is a continuation of the current progressive system we have today. But Trump somehow believes that raising the taxes on his hedge fund buddies (by 1.2%) will make things better. Notice that this is only after making a large cut from the top tax rate from 39+% to 25% (projected revenues aren’t looking too hot). The expected deficit from this plan would also be an increase from the current one the Federal Government carries now.

And if he really wants to cut taxes, then he needs to cut a lot of things from the budget and government overall. For instance, he would need to make cuts to entitlement programs. However, he has said he won’t touch them. Maybe cuts to defense spending? Not at all. In fact, he has said he will rebuild the military, which was the same thing Rubio wanted to do. How much will that cost? Trillions, more than likely. Yet Trump wants to do that. You cannot cut taxes and raise spending by the amount needed, and have the Laffer Curve on taxes fund everything! You cannot do it.

Here is federal spending for 2015. Take a look at this:

total-desk

Explain to me how he doesn’t raise taxes, yet fund all of this? Oh, he’ll cut stuff? WHERE??? What does he cut? The biggest parts of the budget, practically more than 75% of this is OFF LIMITS to a Trump Administration. What do you cut? How is President Trump going to shrink government in any meaningful way? What will he cut? The Department of Education (the purple sliver), which only uses $80.9 Billion, compared to that of the Military, Social Security, or Medicare and Health? Congrats, you’ve only scratched the surface.

But I have a theory as to why he won’t cut entitlements. It’s because his he thinks there could be blowback on his protectionism, and that should a trade war ensue, he may need that welfare state to keep people from turning on him. It’s a theory, and only that.

In addition, as a libertarian, I support a person’s right to privacy, which Trump does not. Trump has come out in opposition to Apple keeping the encryption on the San Bernadino iPhone locked, and not helping the FBI. Trump has come out in support of the PATRIOT Act, as well as metadata collection by the NSA. This takes place in the United States on regular US citizens, and if you don’t believe somehow that China has ever gotten their hands on this information, you need to get out of the bubble you’re living in.

In addition to this, as a libertarian, I do not support the infringements on the rights of individuals who assemble. When Trump wants to shut down mosques, I can’t support him. When he thinks that Japanese Internment camps were okay under one of the biggest, and worst Presidents in the country’s history, I cannot support him. I don’t know how to say it, but these are simply gross violations of the First Amendment, yet Trump supports them.

Trump is terrible with the Constitution. He is willing to screw over the First Amendment. He is willing to further continue the screwing of the Fourth Amendment. I’m sorry, but those don’t look very good to me, and it should be concerning to libertarians, and constitutionalists and conservatives, but I guess that’s only if you still care about the Constitution.

So, when I hear that a libertarian wants to support Trump, it befuddles me. This guy doesn’t stand for smaller government, individual liberty, or even simply a set of guided principles. There is no concrete foundation to Trumps positions, and to me, that’s concerning. To me, that doesn’t give me a good feeling.

These are the reasons why I, a libertarian, cannot support a Trump candidacy. It amazes me that Walter Block (the champion of defending the undefendable) is backing Trump. But he believes that Trump will be good, but not perfect. I don’t even see how he could be good. I don’t see how he could even be okay. Perhaps Walter won’t support the Libertarian Party candidate, whomever it be (who would be infinitely times better than Trump), and that’s his choice. But, I will, and I will do what I can to help them grow and be more successful.

My Thoughts On Bernie Sanders: Making the Wealthy, Wall Street, and Making Large Corporations Pay Their Fair Share

20150626_023252000_iOS

I’m talking about Bernie Sanders again today, and in this post, I’ll be going over his “Making the Wealthy, Wall Street, and Large Corporations Pay Their Fair Share” section on his website. This is a really long section, but it looks like I’ve already covered portions of the stuff he mentions in this, so if that’s the case, I’ll link back to my commentary about them already done.

With that done, let’s dive in.

Continue reading

%d bloggers like this: