Finally Some Progress!

Dear Fellow Libertarian,
Libertarian activists around the country are ecstatic about this year’s elections results:

• “The best election results I’ve seen in 41 years.”
• “It almost doesn't get any better than this. Can't wait for the future.”
• “Freedom is happening all around us.”
• “I've spent the last two months inviting Ron Paul people into the LP – and they’re coming!”
• “I'm ready to grow the party!”

It’s no wonder why these Libertarians are so pumped. 2012 was a great year for Libertarian Party candidates. And a great year for liberty.
Just look at some of our candidates’ results. Their accomplishments.
1,255,791 Votes for Gov. Gary Johnson.
2012 Libertarian Presidential Candidate Sets a New LP Record for Highest-Ever Vote

• Gary Johnson Shattered Ed Clark’s 1980 Vote Record of 921,128 Votes for President of the United States.
• 2012 Libertarian Presidential Ticket of Gov. Gary Johnson and Judge Jim Gray More Than DOUBLED the 2008 Vote Total of Bob Barr and Wayne Root.
• They More Than TRIPLED the 2004 Libertarian Presidential Vote Total of Michael Badnarik and Richard Campagna.

Item: Republicans Blame Libertarian U.S. Senate Candidates Andrew Horning and Dan Cox for Republican U.S. Senate Losses in Indiana and Montana. Each Libertarian Candidate received more votes than the Republican candidates lost by.
Item: Republicans Blame Libertarian U.S. Congressional Candidate Dan Fishman for Republican Loss in Massachusetts.
Item: 2012Libertarian Votes Give LP Ballot Access in 30 States + the District of Columbia.   Saves LP over $400,000 in 2016 Petitioning Costs.

Item: 7 Libertarian Candidates Each Get Over One Million Votes

• Gov. Gary Johnson for President: 1,199,824 votes
• Mark W. Bennett (TX) Court of Criminal Appeals: 1,326,526 votes
• William Bryan Strange (TX) Court of Criminal Appeals: 1,313,746 votes
• RS Roberto Koelsch (TX) Texas Supreme Court: 1,280,886 votes
• Jaime O. Perez (TX) Railroad Commissioner: 1,122,792 votes
• David Staples (GA) Public Service Commission, District 5: 1,082,481 votes
• Tom Oxford (TX) Texas Supreme Court: 1,030,735 votes

Question: Why are these Libertarian Party campaign results even more spectacular than they look?
Because an overwhelming onslaught of Money and Media were unleashed against us. 
Money Fact: Republicans and Democrats Spent $2 Billion on the Presidential Campaigns of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.
Libertarians raised and spent $3 Million for the Presidential Campaign of Gov. Gary Johnson.
Romney and Obama Outspent Gary Johnson 667 to 1.
Media Fact:  News Media Showered both the Mitt Romney and Barack Obama Campaigns With More Than 1,000 Times the News Coverage that they Devoted to Gov. Gary Johnson and his Libertarian Presidential Campaign.
With these facts in mind, aren’t our 2012 Libertarian Party Election Results even more amazing?
Adding to our Libertarian Party progress, voters across the country voted overwhelming in a libertarian direction on ballot initiatives – on taxes, on the ending the insane Marijuana Prohibition, and more.
America is more ready than ever for liberty.
Would you like to take advantage of this 2012 campaign momentum NOW? To use it, magnify it, amplify it, multiply it – to recruit, educate, and activate  tens of thousands of new members of the Libertarian Party  – starting NOW?
If we begin now, you and I can turn this 2012 momentum into a “snowball effect” for the next four years – and set in motion a freedom avalanche in 2016. A Libertarian Party Too Big to Ignore, Too Big to Exclude. 
What We Can and Must Do Now
To amplify and magnify the effect of more members and more money, we must provide our Libertarian Party activists and candidates with the right Tools and Training and Coaching to do the job.
'Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish, feed him for a lifetime.' – Proverb
We want to teach our Libertarian Party candidates and campaign workers 'how to fish,' so they can run great LP campaigns time after time, year after year. And so that they can teach other LP candidates 'how to fish.'
Candidate Training from Experienced, Skilled Libertarian Party Experts.
Campaign Training from Proven, Seasoned Libertarian Party Campaign Experts. Libertarian Party campaigns face radically different obstacles and challenges than Republican and Democratic campaigns. We need guidance from those who have successfully navigated them.
Libertarian Solutions, Not Just Positions. Running for office is like interviewing for a job. What will the candidate DO if she is elected? Our LP candidates need to offer simple, credible libertarian solutions to high taxes, high spending, and Big Government programs and policies - and show voters the huge, immediate, direct benefits to them and their neighbors. This is a master key to being taken seriously.
Fundraising Training. By the most successful, most effective LP fundraisers.
How to Recruit, Train, Motivate, and Nurture Dozens of Volunteers for Your Libertarian Party Campaign. Whether it's a statewide or local campaign, volunteers make the difference.
Door-to-Door Campaigning. A Libertarian Party candidate can be elected with less than 1,000 votes in over 30,000 elective offices in the United States.
One-Time Seminars, One-Time Training is NOT enough to make sure our candidates regularly, repeatedly do what they learned.  They need practice, practice, practice. We can create online, internet tele-trainings – that our candidates can work with any hour of the day or night.
Will you help us teach LP candidates 'how to fish'? Will you help us provide the tools and training now for our 2014 and 2016 LP candidates? Will you help us coach our LP candidates to keep practicing their 'fishing skills'?
580 Libertarian Party Candidates ran for office this year. But, if you help now, in 2014 and 2016 we can run over 1,000. And, if you help now, they will be better-funded, better-trained, better-equipped - and together we can elect more and more Libertarians to office.
We need you. Help us help you get the Libertarian Party elections results in 2014 and 2016 that you got a glimpse of this year.
If you can donate $5,000 or $2,500 now, will you please do it now?
If you can give $1,500 or $1,000, or $850 or $500 to this high-leverage, high-payoff project, will you please do it now?
If you can give $240 or $150,  $75 or $50, you will make a huge difference. Whatever you can afford, it helps. Will you please?
Please either click and donate now or mail your donation to the address below with "I’m on board" in the memo.

Carla Howell, Executive Director
Libertarian Party 
P.S. Don’t let this 2012 Libertarian campaign momentum run down, or grand to a halt. Help us harness it and use it to build the Libertarian Party. To recruit, educate, activate tens of thousands of new LP members. To help us provide the LP Tools and Training needed to make more and more Libertarian breakthroughs in 2014 and 2016. Please make your most generous donation of $250 or $150 or $85 today. You’ll love the results.

---

Paid for by the Libertarian National Committee
2600 Virginia Ave, N.W. Suite 200, Washington D.C. 20037
Content not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee.

Socialism has already been tried and failed!

Our First Thanksgiving

by SARTELL PRENTICE JR. from the Foundation for Economic Freedom at www.fee.org

Mr. Prentice is an economist, lecturer, writer, and Counselor on Profit Sharing, now living in Dobbs Ferry, New York.

Our American Thanksgiving Day is a unique holiday, a day  set aside by Presidential Proclamation so that we may thank our Heavenly Father for the bountiful gifts he has bestowed on us during the year.

It is also a day dedicated to the Family, the basic unit of our American society, the core and center around which all else in America revolves. This, too, is in accord with our basic religious faith, for the Commandment has come down to us to "honor thy father and thy mother."

And so, from wherever we may be, North, South, East, or West, we Americans travel, sometimes great distances, back to the family hearth, to be present at the tradi­tional Family Reunion and Feast on Thanksgiving Day.

But Thanksgiving Day has still another meaning; on this day we are asked to remember what Ed­mund Burke, in one of the most eloquent phrases to be found in all literature, described as "that little speck, scarce visible in the mass of national interest, a small seminal principle, rather than a formed body"—the tiny vessel, more accurately to be described as a "cockleshell," the Mayflower, and its hundred passengers, men, women, and children, who sailed on her.

Twelve years earlier, in 1608, they had fled from religious per­secution in England and estab­lished a new home in Holland. Despite the warm welcome ex­tended by the Dutch, as con­trasted with the persecutions they had endured in England, their love for their homeland impelled them to seek English soil on which to raise their children, English soil on which they would be free to worship God in their own way.

Finally, the Pilgrims landed, as we all know, on Plymouth Rock in the middle of December 1620, and on Christmas Day, in the words of Governor William Bradford,^¹ they "begane to erecte ye first house for commone use to receive them and their goods."

So was established the first English colony in New England.

Three years later, when the plentiful harvest of 1623 had been gathered in, the Pilgrims "sett aparte a day of thanksgiving."

Governor Bradford adds, "Any generall wante or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day."²

Three Kernels of Corn

But what of the intervening years? After all, there were har­vests gathered in 1621 and 1622.

I know of one family, descended from the Pilgrims, who place be­side each plate at their bounteous table on Thanksgiving Day a little paper cup containing just three kernels of corn, as a constant re­minder of the all too frequent days during these first years when three kernels of corn represented the daily food ration of their Pil­grim forebears.

Within three months of their landing on Plymouth Rock, "of one hundred and odd persons, scarce fifty remained. And of these in ye time of most distres, ther was but six or seven sound persons, who, to their great comendations be it spoken, spared no pains, night nor day, but with abundance of toyle and hazard of their own health,… did all ye homly and necessarie offices which dainty and quesie stomaks cannot endure to hear named; and all this willingly and cherfully…, shew­ing herein their true love unto their f reinds and bretheren. A rare example and worthy to be remembered."

One half of the crew of the Mayflower, including "many of their officers and lustyest men, as ye boatson, gunner, three quarter­maisters, the cooke, and others," also perished before the little ves­sel set sail on her return voyage to England in April 1621.

In the following excerpt from his History, Governor Bradford vividly describes the lot of the Pilgrims during these early years. Writing about conditions in the spring of 1623, after their corn had been planted, he says:

"All ther victails were spente, and they were only to rest on Gods providence; at night not many times knowing when to have a bitt of any thing ye next day. And so, as one well observed, had need to pray that God would give them their dayly brade, above all people in ye world….; which makes me remember what Peter Martire writs (in magnifying ye Spaniards) in his 5. Decade, page 208. ‘They’ (saith he) ‘led a miser­able life for 5. days togeather, with ye parched graine of maize only, and that not to saturitie’; and then concluds, ‘that shuch pains, shuch labours, and shuch hunger, he thought none living which is not a Spaniard could have en­dured.’

"But alass these [the Pilgrims], when they had maize (yt is, Indean come) they thought it as good as a feast, and wanted not only for 5. days togeather, but some time 2. or 3. months togeather, and neither had bread nor any kind of come.

"Yet let me hear make use of his [Peter Martire's] conclusion, which in some sorte may be ap­plied to this people: ‘That with their miseries they opened a way to these new-lands; and after these stormes, with what ease other men came to inhabite in them, in respecte of ye calamities these men suffered; so as they seeme to goe to a bride feaste wher all things are provided for them.’ "

Yet, following the harvest gath­ered in in the fall of that same year, 1623, and for all the years that followed, Governor Bradford tells us, "Any generall wante or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day."

Three years of near starvation—and then decades of abundance. Was this a miracle?

Or is there a rational explana­tion for this sudden change in the fortunes of our Pilgrim fore­fathers?

So They Tried Freedom

Describing events that took place in the spring of 1623, Gov­ernor Bradford answers our ques­tions, in eloquent words that should be engraved on the hearts and minds of all Americans:

"All this whille no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expecte any. So they begane to thinke how they might raise as much corne as they could, and obtaine a beter crope then they had done, that they might not still thus languish in miserie. At length, after much debate of things, the Govr (with ye advise of ye cheefest amongest them) gave way that they should set come every man for his owne per­ticuler, and in that regard trust to themselves…. And so as­signed to every family a parcell of land, according to the proportion of their number for that end, only for present use (but made no devission for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some familie. This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corne was planted then other waise would have bene by any means ye Govr or any other could use, and saved him a great deall of trouble, and gave farr better contente. The women now wente willingly into ye feild, and tooke their little-ons with them to set corne, which before would aledg weaknes, and inabilitie; whom to have compelled would have bene thought great tiranie and oppres­sion.

"The experience that was had in this comone course and condi­tion, tried sundrie years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanitie of that conceite of Platos and other an­cients;—that ye taking away of propertie, and bringing into a comone wealth, would make them happy and florishing; as if they were wiser then God. For this comunitie (so farr as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much imploymet that would have been to their benefite and comforte. For ye yong-men that were most able and fitte for labour and service did repine that they shouldspend their time and streingth to worke for other mens wives and children, with out any recompence. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in devission of victails and cloaths, then he that was weake and not able to do a quarter ye other could; this was thought injuestice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalised in labours, and victails, cloaths, &c., with ye meaner and yonger sorte, thought it some indignite and dis­respect unto them. And for mens wives to be commanded to doe servise for other men, as dresing their meate, washing their cloaths, &c., they deemd it a kind of slav­erie, neither could many husbands well brokke it. Upon ye poynte all being to have alike, and all to doe alike, they thought them selves in ye like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut of those relations that God hath set amongest men, yet it did at least much diminish and take of ye mutuall respects that should be preserved amongest them. And would have bene worse if they had been men of another condi­tion.

"Let none objecte this is men’s corruption, and nothing to ye corse it selfe. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in his wisdome saw another course fiter for them."

This new policy of allowing each to "plant for his owne perticuler" produced such a harvest that fall that Governor Bradford was able to write:

"By this time harvest was come, and in stead of famine, now God gave them plentie, and ye face of things was changed, to ye rejoy­sing of ye harts of many, for which they blessed God. And ye effect of their particuler planting was well seene, for all had, one way and other, pretty well to bring ye year aboute, and some of ye abler sorte and more industrious had to spare, and sell to others, so as any gen­erall wante or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day."

The Importance of Property Rights

Our first Thanksgiving should, therefore, be interpreted as an ex­pression of gratitude to God, not so much for the great harvest it­self, as for granting the grateful Pilgrims the perception to grasp and apply the great universal prin­ciple that produced that great har­vest: Each individual is entitled to the fruits of his own labor. Prop­erty rights are, therefore, insepa­rable from human rights.

If man abides by this law, he will reap abundance; if he violates this law, suffering, starvation, and death will follow, as night the day.

This is the essential meaning of the two great Commandments, "Thou shalt not covet" and "Thou shalt not steal."

When it came time for the spring planting in the following year, 1624, the Pilgrims went one step further. In Governor Brad­ford’s words:

"I must speak of their planting this year; they having found ye benefite of their last years harvest, and setting corne for their par­ticuler, having therby with a great deale of patience overcome hunger and famine. That they might encrease their tillage to bet­ter advantage, they made suite to the Govr to have some portion of land given them for continuance, and not by yearly lotte, for by that means, that which ye more in­dustrious had brought into good culture (by much pains) one year, came to leave it ye nexte, and often another might injoye it; so as the dressing of their lands were the more sleighted over, and to lese profite. Which being well considered, their request was granted. And to every person was given only one acrre of land, to them and theirs, as nere ye towne as might be, and they had no more till ye seven years were expired."

Describing the results of the application of this policy in the year 1626, Governor Bradford tells us:

"It pleased ye Lord to give ye plantation peace and health and contented minds, and so to blese their labours, as they had come sufficient (and some to spare to others) with other foode; neither ever had they any supply of foode but what they first brought with them. After harvest this year, they sende out a boats load of corne 40. or 50. leagues to ye eastward, up a river called Kenibeck     God preserved them, and gave them good success, for they brought home 700 ti. of beaver, besids some other furrs, having little or nothing els but this corne, which them selves had raised out of ye earth."

The discovery and application of this concept of individual prop­erty rights, derived from the Crea­tor, was the real "seminal princi­ple" so eloquently phrased by the great English statesman and ora­tor, Edmund Burke. As it devel­oped from this tiny seed into a "formed body," it became the cor­nerstone of our Declaration of In­dependence and of our Constitu­tion, and produced the extraordi­nary explosion of individual hu­man energy that took place in nineteenth century America.

Famine Persisted in England

In England, meanwhile, farm­ing "in common" continued to be the general practice for another hundred years. Not until the sec­ond decade of the seventeen hun­dreds did "setting crops for their particuler" begin slowly to be ac­cepted in England—and decades were to pass before the new prac­tice became sufficiently wide­spread to provide an adequate food supply for the population.

As recently as 1844, an English writer thus describes the condi­tions which then existed:

"Full one third of our popula­tion [in the United Kingdom] sub­sist entirely, or rather starve, upon potatoes alone, another third have, in addition to this edible, oaten or inferior wheaten bread, with one or two meals of fat pork, or the refuse of the shambles [slaughterhouses], per week; while a considerable majority of the re­maining third seldom are able to procure an ample daily supply of good butcher’s meat or obtain the luxury of poultry from year to year.

"On the continent of Europe, population is still in a worse con­dition…."³º

No country was ever more "underdeveloped" than the wilderness of New England on which our Pil­grim forebears set foot. The ma­jority of those who landed from the Mayflower in December 1620 perished prior to that first great harvest of 1623. For two years they followed the age-old custom prevalent in England of "farming in common"—and they starved.

Through suffering, starvation, and hardship, they learned and ap­plied the fundamentals of freedom—and, instead of starvation, they grew crops sufficient not only for their own needs, but to spare, en­abling them to exchange their sur­plus with the Indians for beaver and other "furrs."

If Pilgrims Had Had "Foreign Aid"?

But suppose some foreign coun­try, or their mother country, had taken pity on them in their misery and sent them ample food supplies during those first terrible years; this would have been impossible, for England herself was virtually on a starvation diet, as were most of the countries on the continent of Europe. But suppose it had been possible; suppose they had received such "foreign aid"?

Would not the Pilgrims have continued to "farm in common"? Would they not have continued to follow the practice that more than two centuries later was to become a basic tenet of Marxian philoso­phy, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"?

Would the Pilgrims ever have learned and applied the concepts of the dignity of the individual and the sanctity of property—the idea that each individual is en­titled to the fruits of his own labor—the Law of Individual Freedom and Individual Respon­sibility?

Freedom for the individual, with recognition and respect for the right of each individual to his property, is essential to the release of individual human energy, which alone can raise the standard of liv­ing of any people.

It is for this reason that aid sent to support socialist govern­ments (which deny the right to private property) and aid sent to help underdeveloped peoples that have not yet learned the lessons taught to the Pilgrims by hard experience—it is for this reason that such "aid" may be likened to attempting to fill a bathtub with­out first putting the stopper in.4

Would not America be render­ing a greater service to these peo­ples by teaching them, through precept and example, the real meaning of our first Thanksgiving—and by pointing out to them the truth and applicability of the great ideals of individual freedom and individual responsibility under God?

The young American nation grew and prospered because for more than a century and a quarter the sanctity of property rights was recognized as being indispen­sable to human rights; because her people were free to "plant for their own particuler"; because the resultant "free market economy" invited domestic and foreign capi­tal seeking a profit.

What of Today?

Is America, today, still abiding by these principles?

Not only is the answer "No!" but there is evidence on every hand that we are re-enacting the very mistakes our Pilgrim Fath­ers made during their first years of "farming in common," mis­takes which produced nought but disaster, re-enacting in the New World the age-old miseries of con­stant hunger and starvation that continued to plague the Old World for some two centuries to come. We are not as yet suffering the Pilgrims’ privation, but we are re­verting to arbitrary communaliza­tion on an enormous scale, reset­ting the same old-world stage.

Our present tax structure is a case in point. Its aim is not to fi­nance the costs of a strictly limited government, but rather to reform society, to remold our lives, and to redistribute our wealth ac­cording to the ideas of economic and social planners dedicated to the socialization, the communiza­tion, of our once free America.

As a consequence, we are now supporting vast armies of govern­ment bureaucrats who swarm over the land—and over much of the world—devouring our substance like a plague of locusts. Today, one in every six employed Americans is on a government payroll.

As a consequence, we are com­pelled to contribute from the fruits of our labor billions of dol­lars for subsidies and handouts granted by politicians in their endless search for votes and per­sonal power.

As a consequence, we have gov­ernment operating vast businesses—already representing 20 per cent of the industrial capacity of the USA—businesses that ride the backs of the American people as interest free, rent free, cost free, and tax free princes of privilege, in competition with tax-paying en­terprises.

In our program of aid to so­cialist governments and to under­developed nationalities and peo­ples that have not yet learned to apply the great universal truths tested and proved by our Pilgrim forebears, are we not seeking to fill the bathtub without first see­ing to it that the stopper is in place—in a fruitless attempt to buy loyal allies with money? Re­ferring to our sixty billion dollar Foreign Aid since World War II, on January 27, 1957, Hon. Spruille Braden said: "It is a sum equal to the assessed valuation of all real and other property in our seventeen biggest cities!"

Each time I accept a govern­ment handout, for any reason whatsoever, I am stealing from the only Treasure House any peo­ple has—the surplus wealth cre­ated by the productive energies of millions of individual men and women, each seeking a better life for himself and for his children. Each time I produce less, in my work, than enough to earn a profit for my employer, I am stealing from someone else—and contribu­ting toward creating unemploy­ment for others and a higher cost of living for all.

This Thanksgiving Day, let us, each in his own way, humbly ask forgiveness for the degree to which we have all violated the great "seminal principle," either directly, or through tolerating its violation by others.

Then, this Thanksgiving Day, let us highly resolve to dedicate our lives, as individuals, to "plant­ing for our own particuler," rather than living as parasites on the productive energy of others; let us dedicate our lives to a re­newed application of the ideal of individual freedom and individual responsibility, which our Pilgrim forebears learned at such sacrifice, and which they passed down to us as our most precious heritage.

Foot Notes

¹This and subsequent quotations are taken from Bradford’s History "of Pli­moth Plantation" from the original manu­script. Printed under the direction of the Secretary of the Commonwealth by order of the General Court. Boston: Wright & Potter Printing Company, State Printers. 1898.

²Presumably 1647, the last year covered in Bradford’s History.

³Treatise on Artificial Incubation" by Mr. W. Bucknell, London: p. 36, quoted in Dictionary of the Farm by Mr. W. L. Rham (Charles Knight and Co., 1844), pp. 418-419. I am indebted to my uncle, the late Col. E. Parmalee Prentice, for the vast amount of research he carried out in gathering material such as this for his remarkable book, Hunger and History (Caldwell, Idaho: Caxton Printers, Ltd., 1951), without which this part of the article could not have been written.

⁴The distinction between free market services to individuals and intergovern­mental foreign aid may be clarified by this statement by Joseph Stalin in Marx­ism and the National and Colonial Ques­tion (New York: Four Continent Book Corporation, 1940), pages 115 and 116:—"It is essential that the advanced coun­tries should render aid—real and pro­longed aid—to the backward nationalities in their cultural and economic development. Otherwise it will be impossible to bring about the peaceful co-existence of the various nations and peoples within a single economic system that is so essen­tial for the final triumph of Socialism."

Read more: http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/our-first-thanksgiving#ixzz2CxYWqzvG

An Oldy But A Goody!

The Pilgrims’ Real Thanksgiving Lesson
By Benjamin Powell originally posted on Thursday November 25, 2004
Also published in Charlotte Observer, and The San Diego Union-Tribune

Feast and football. That’s what many of us think about at Thanksgiving. Most people identify the origin of the holiday with the Pilgrims’ first bountiful harvest. But few understand how the Pilgrims actually solved their chronic food shortages.
Many people believe that after suffering through a severe winter, the Pilgrims’ food shortages were resolved the following spring when the Native Americans taught them to plant corn and a Thanksgiving celebration resulted. In fact, the pilgrims continued to face chronic food shortages for three years until the harvest of 1623. Bad weather or lack of farming knowledge did not cause the pilgrims’ shortages. Bad economic incentives did.
In 1620 Plymouth Plantation was founded with a system of communal property rights. Food and supplies were held in common and then distributed based on “equality” and “need” as determined by Plantation officials. People received the same rations whether or not they contributed to producing the food, and residents were forbidden from producing their own food. Governor William Bradford, in his 1647 history, Of Plymouth Plantation, wrote that this system “was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort.” The problem was that “young men, that were most able and fit for labour, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense.” Because of the poor incentives, little food was produced.
Faced with potential starvation in the spring of 1623, the colony decided to implement a new economic system. Every family was assigned a private parcel of land. They could then keep all they grew for themselves, but now they alone were responsible for feeding themselves. While not a complete private property system, the move away from communal ownership had dramatic results.
This change, Bradford wrote, “had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.” Giving people economic incentives changed their behavior. Once the new system of property rights was in place, “the women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability.”
Once the Pilgrims in the Plymouth Plantation abandoned their communal economic system and adopted one with greater individual property rights, they never again faced the starvation and food shortages of the first three years. It was only after allowing greater property rights that they could feast without worrying that famine was just around the corner.
We are direct beneficiaries of the economics lesson the pilgrims learned in 1623. Today we have a much better developed and well-defined set of property rights. Our economic system offers incentives for us—in the form of prices and profits—to coordinate our individual behavior for the mutual benefit of all; even those we may not personally know.
It is customary in many families to “give thanks to the hands that prepared this feast” during the Thanksgiving dinner blessing. Perhaps we should also be thankful for the millions of other hands that helped get the dinner to the table: the grocer who sold us the turkey, the truck driver who delivered it to the store, and the farmer who raised it all contributed to our Thanksgiving dinner because our economic system rewards them. That’s the real lesson of Thanksgiving. The economic incentives provided by private competitive markets where people are left free to make their own choices make bountiful feasts possible.

---

Benjamin Powell Send email Benjamin Powell is Senior Fellow at The Independent Institute, Associate professor of economics at Suffolk University, and President of the Association of Private Enterprise Education. Dr. Powell received his Ph.D. in economics from George Mason University. He has been assistant professor of economics at San Jose State University, a fellow with the Mercatus Center's Global Prosperity Initiative, and a visiting research fellow with the American Institute for Economic Research. Benjamin is also the editor of Housing America: Building out of Crisis. Full Biography and Recent Publications

Dear Fellow Libertarian,

The election is over. The vote totals are in. Now we know: Election Year 2012 was a record-breaking, ballot access achieving, fabulous year for the Libertarian Party.
In case you haven’t seen all the exciting news about this year’s election results posted at LP.org and our Facebook page, check out these great stories:

·         1,233,168 Votes for Gov. Gary Johnson. Record-Setting Libertarian Party Presidential Vote

·         Libertarian Votes Result in LP Having Ballot Access in 30 States

·         7 Libertarian Candidates Win Over One Million Votes

·         Arizona "Top Two" Initiative Goes DOWN!!

·         Daily Kos: Libertarians provided the margin for Democrats in at least nine elections

·         Libertarian US Senate Results

·         Barbara Howe Campaign Secures Critical Ballot Access in NC Saving LP Over $300k

·         Top 2012 Libertarian Campaigns for US House of Representatives

·         New LP Milestone Reached: Bruce Majors Wins Ballot Access in D.C.

·         Republicans Blame Libertarian Candidate Horning for U.S. Senate Defeat

·         LP Gubernatorial Election Results

·         David Moran for Governor Wins LP Ballot Access in West Virginia

·         Richard Brubaker Retains Wyoming Ballot Access

·         In Montana Mike Fellows Wins Highest Vote % Ever for Libertarian in Statewide Partisan Race

·         2 Libertarian Officials Re-elected in California

Want to see even more great news in 2013 and 2014? Help us start to recruit and train Libertarian candidates now.
Already over 200 Libertarians have expressed an interest in running! We want more – and we want every one of them to have the tools and training they need to run the best Libertarian campaigns ever.
Please help us raise $10,000 this month to get the ball rolling so we can put materials in place, step up our recruiting and get right to work on election years 2013 and 2014. Please donate $85 or $150 or $250 or $1500 right now – or whatever your budget allows - to help us meet this goal.

Freedom is on the rise. Let’s rock and roll!
Yours in liberty,

Carla Howell
Executive Director
National Libertarian Party

P.S. Please donate now online or by sending a check to the below address. Your donation is our budget. Thank you!

---

Paid for by the Libertarian National Committee
2600 Virginia Ave, N.W. Suite 200, Washington D.C. 20037

Dr. No Says Goodbye To Politics!

Below is the transcript of Ron Paul’s farewell address to Congress:

This may well be the last time I speak on the House Floor.  At the end of the year I’ll leave Congress after 23 years in office over a 36 year period.  My goals in 1976 were the same as they are today:  promote peace and prosperity by a strict adherence to the principles of individual liberty.
It was my opinion, that the course the U.S. embarked on in the latter part of the 20th Century would bring us a major financial crisis and engulf us in a foreign policy that would overextend us and undermine our national security.
To achieve the goals I sought, government would have had to shrink in size and scope, reduce spending, change the monetary system, and reject the unsustainable costs of policing the world and expanding the American Empire.
The problems seemed to be overwhelming and impossible to solve, yet from my view point, just following the constraints placed on the federal government by the Constitution would have been a good place to start.
In many ways, according to conventional wisdom, my off-and-on career in Congress, from 1976 to 2012, accomplished very little.  No named legislation, no named federal buildings or highways—thank goodness.  In spite of my efforts, the government has grown exponentially, taxes remain excessive, and the prolific increase of incomprehensible regulations continues.  Wars are constant and pursued without Congressional declaration, deficits rise to the sky, poverty is rampant and dependency on the federal government is now worse than any time in our history.
All this with minimal concerns for the deficits and unfunded liabilities that common sense tells us cannot go on much longer.  A grand, but never mentioned, bipartisan agreement allows for the well-kept secret that keeps the spending going.  One side doesn’t give up one penny on military spending, the other side doesn’t give up one penny on welfare spending, while both sides support the bailouts and subsidies for the banking and  corporate elite.  And the spending continues as the economy weakens and the downward spiral continues.   As the government continues fiddling around, our liberties and our wealth burn in the flames of a foreign policy that makes us less safe.
The major stumbling block to real change in Washington is the total resistance to admitting that the country is broke. This has made compromising, just to agree to increase spending, inevitable since neither side has any intention of cutting spending.
The country and the Congress will remain divisive since there’s no “loot left to divvy up.”
Without this recognition the spenders in Washington will continue the march toward a fiscal cliff much bigger than the one anticipated this coming January.
I have thought a lot about why those of us who believe in liberty, as a solution, have done so poorly in convincing others of its benefits.  If liberty is what we claim it is- the principle that protects all personal, social and economic decisions necessary for maximum prosperity and the best chance for peace- it should be an easy sell.  Yet, history has shown that the masses have been quite receptive to the promises of authoritarians which are rarely if ever fulfilled.
If authoritarianism leads to poverty and war and less freedom for all individuals and is controlled by rich special interests, the people should be begging for liberty.  There certainly was a strong enough sentiment for more freedom at the time of our founding that motivated those who were willing to fight in the revolution against the powerful British government.
During my time in Congress the appetite for liberty has been quite weak; the understanding of its significance negligible.  Yet the good news is that compared to 1976 when I first came to Congress, the desire for more freedom and less government in 2012 is much greater and growing, especially in grassroots America. Tens of thousands of teenagers and college age students are, with great enthusiasm, welcoming the message of liberty.
I have a few thoughts as to why the people of a country like ours, once the freest and most prosperous, allowed the conditions to deteriorate to the degree that they have.
Freedom, private property, and enforceable voluntary contracts, generate wealth.  In our early history we were very much aware of this.  But in the early part of the 20th century our politicians promoted the notion that the tax and monetary systems had to change if we were to involve ourselves in excessive domestic and military spending. That is why Congress gave us the Federal Reserve and the income tax.  The majority of Americans and many government officials agreed that sacrificing some liberty was necessary to carry out what some claimed to be “progressive” ideas. Pure democracy became acceptable.
They failed to recognized that what they were doing was exactly opposite of what the colonists were seeking when they broke away from the British.
Some complain that my arguments makes no sense, since great wealth and the standard of living improved  for many Americans over the last 100 years, even with these new policies.
But the damage to the market economy, and the currency, has been insidious and steady.  It took a long time to consume our wealth, destroy the currency and undermine productivity and get our financial obligations to a point of no return. Confidence sometimes lasts longer than deserved. Most of our wealth today depends on debt.
The wealth that we enjoyed and seemed to be endless, allowed concern for the principle of a free society to be neglected.  As long as most people believed the material abundance would last forever, worrying about protecting a competitive productive economy and individual liberty seemed unnecessary.
This neglect ushered in an age of redistribution of wealth by government kowtowing to any and all special interests, except for those who just wanted to left alone.  That is why today money in politics far surpasses money currently going into research and development and productive entrepreneurial efforts.
The material benefits became more important than the understanding and promoting the principles of liberty and a free market.  It is good that material abundance is a result of liberty but if materialism is all that we care about, problems are guaranteed.
The crisis arrived because the illusion that wealth and prosperity would last forever has ended. Since it was based on debt and a pretense that debt can be papered over by an out-of-control fiat monetary system, it was doomed to fail.  We have ended up with a system that doesn’t produce enough even to finance the debt and no fundamental understanding of why a free society is crucial to reversing these trends.
If this is not recognized, the recovery will linger for a long time.  Bigger government, more spending, more debt, more poverty for the middle class, and a more intense scramble by the elite special interests will continue.
Without an intellectual awakening, the turning point will be driven by economic law.  A dollar crisis will bring the current out-of-control system to its knees.
If it’s not accepted that big government, fiat money, ignoring liberty, central economic planning, welfarism, and warfarism caused our crisis we can expect a continuous and dangerous march toward corporatism and even fascism with even more loss of our liberties.  Prosperity for a large middle class though will become an abstract dream.
This continuous move is no different than what we have seen in how our financial crisis of 2008 was handled.  Congress first directed, with bipartisan support, bailouts for the wealthy.  Then it was the Federal Reserve with its endless quantitative easing. If at first it doesn’t succeed try again; QE1, QE2, and QE3 and with no results we try QE indefinitely—that is until it too fails.  There’s a cost to all of this and let me assure you delaying the payment is no longer an option.  The rules of the market will extract its pound of flesh and it won’t be pretty.
The current crisis elicits a lot of pessimism.  And the pessimism adds to less confidence in the future.  The two feed on themselves, making our situation worse.
If the underlying cause of the crisis is not understood we cannot solve our problems. The issues of warfare, welfare, deficits, inflationism, corporatism, bailouts and authoritarianism cannot be ignored.  By only expanding these policies we cannot expect good results.
Everyone claims support for freedom.  But too often it’s for one’s own freedom and not for others.  Too many believe that there must be limits on freedom. They argue that freedom must be directed and managed to achieve fairness and equality thus making it acceptable to curtail, through force, certain liberties.
Some decide what and whose freedoms are to be limited.  These are the politicians whose goal in life is power. Their success depends on gaining support from special interests.
The great news is the answer is not to be found in more “isms.”  The answers are to be found in more liberty which cost so much less.  Under these circumstances spending goes down, wealth production goes up, and the quality of life improves.
Just this recognition—especially if we move in this direction—increases optimism which in itself is beneficial.  The follow through with sound policies are required which must be understood and supported by the people.
But there is good evidence that the generation coming of age at the present time is supportive of moving in the direction of more liberty and self-reliance. The more this change in direction and the solutions become known, the quicker will be the return of optimism.
Our job, for those of us who believe that a different system than the  one that we have  had for the  last 100 years, has driven us to this unsustainable crisis, is to be more convincing that there is a wonderful, uncomplicated, and moral system that provides the answers.  We had a taste of it in our early history. We need not give up on the notion of advancing this cause.
It worked, but we allowed our leaders to concentrate on the material abundance that freedom generates, while ignoring freedom itself.  Now we have neither, but the door is open, out of necessity, for an answer.  The answer available is based on the Constitution, individual liberty and prohibiting the use of government force to provide privileges and benefits to all special interests.
After over 100 years we face a society quite different from the one that was intended by the Founders.  In many ways their efforts to protect future generations with the Constitution from this danger has failed.  Skeptics, at the time the Constitution was written in 1787, warned us of today’s possible outcome.  The insidious nature of the erosion of our liberties and the reassurance our great abundance gave us, allowed the process to evolve into the dangerous period in which we now live.
Today we face a dependency on government largesse for almost every need.  Our liberties are restricted and government operates outside the rule of law, protecting and rewarding those who buy or coerce government into satisfying their demands. Here are a few examples:
Undeclared wars are commonplace.
Welfare for the rich and poor is considered an entitlement.
The economy is overregulated, overtaxed and grossly distorted by a deeply flawed monetary system.
Debt is growing exponentially.
The Patriot Act and FISA legislation passed without much debate have resulted in a steady erosion of our 4th Amendment rights.
Tragically our government engages in preemptive war, otherwise known as aggression, with no complaints from the American people.
The drone warfare we are pursuing worldwide is destined to end badly for us as the hatred builds for innocent lives lost and the international laws flaunted. Once we are financially weakened and militarily challenged, there will be a lot resentment thrown our way.
It’s now the law of the land that the military can arrest American citizens, hold them indefinitely, without charges or a trial.
Rampant hostility toward free trade is supported by a large number in Washington.
Supporters of sanctions, currency manipulation and WTO trade retaliation, call the true free traders “isolationists.”
Sanctions are used to punish countries that don’t follow our orders.
Bailouts and guarantees for all kinds of misbehavior are routine.
Central economic planning through monetary policy, regulations and legislative mandates has been an acceptable policy.
Excessive government has created such a mess it prompts many questions:
Why are sick people who use medical marijuana put in prison?
Why does the federal government restrict the drinking of raw milk?
Why can’t Americans manufacturer rope and other products from hemp?
Why are Americans not allowed to use gold and silver as legal tender as mandated by the Constitution?
Why is Germany concerned enough to consider repatriating their gold held by the FED for her in New York?  Is it that the trust in the U.S. and dollar supremacy beginning to wane?
Why do our political leaders believe it’s unnecessary to thoroughly audit our own gold?
Why can’t Americans decide which type of light bulbs they can buy?
Why is the TSA permitted to abuse the rights of any American traveling by air?
Why should there be mandatory sentences—even up to life for crimes without victims—as our drug laws require?
Why have we allowed the federal government to regulate commodes in our homes?
Why is it political suicide for anyone to criticize AIPAC ?
Why haven’t we given up on the drug war since it’s an obvious failure and violates the people’s rights? Has nobody noticed that the authorities can’t even keep drugs out of the prisons? How can making our entire society a prison solve the problem?
Why do we sacrifice so much getting needlessly involved in border disputes and civil strife around the world and ignore the root cause of the most deadly border in the world-the one between Mexico and the US?
Why does Congress willingly give up its prerogatives to the Executive Branch?
Why does changing the party in power never change policy? Could it be that the views of both parties are essentially the same?
Why did the big banks, the large corporations, and foreign banks and foreign central banks get bailed out in 2008 and the middle class lost their jobs and their homes?
Why do so many in the government and the federal officials believe that creating money out of thin air creates wealth?
Why do so many accept the deeply flawed principle that government bureaucrats and politicians can protect us from ourselves without totally destroying the principle of liberty?
Why can’t people understand that war always destroys wealth and liberty?
Why is there so little concern for the Executive Order that gives the President authority to establish a “kill list,” including American citizens, of those targeted for assassination?
Why is patriotism thought to be blind loyalty to the government and the politicians who run it, rather than loyalty to the principles of liberty and support for the people? Real patriotism is a willingness to challenge the government when it’s wrong.
Why is it is claimed that if people won’t  or can’t take care of their own needs, that people in government can do it for them?
Why did we ever give the government a safe haven for initiating violence against the people?
Why do some members defend free markets, but not civil liberties?
Why do some members defend civil liberties but not free markets? Aren’t they the same?
Why don’t more defend both economic liberty and personal liberty?
Why are there not more individuals who seek to intellectually influence others to bring about positive changes than those who seek power to force others to obey their commands?
Why does the use of religion to support a social gospel and preemptive wars, both of which requires authoritarians to use violence, or the threat of violence, go unchallenged? Aggression and forced redistribution of wealth has nothing to do with the teachings of the world great religions.
Why do we allow the government and the Federal Reserve to disseminate false information dealing with both economic and  foreign policy?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority?
Why should anyone be surprised that Congress has no credibility, since there’s such a disconnect between what politicians say and what they do?
Is there any explanation for all the deception, the unhappiness, the fear of the future, the loss of confidence in our leaders, the distrust, the anger and frustration?   Yes there is, and there’s a way to reverse these attitudes.  The negative perceptions are logical and a consequence of bad policies bringing about our problems.  Identification of the problems and recognizing the cause allow the proper changes to come easy.
Too many people have for too long placed too much confidence and trust in government and not enough in themselves.  Fortunately, many are now becoming aware of the seriousness of the gross mistakes of the past several decades.  The blame is shared by both political parties.  Many Americans now are demanding to hear the plain truth of things and want the demagoguing to stop.  Without this first step, solutions are impossible.
Seeking the truth and finding the answers in liberty and self-reliance promotes the optimism necessary for restoring prosperity.  The task is not that difficult if politics doesn’t get in the way.
We have allowed ourselves to get into such a mess for various reasons.
Politicians deceive themselves as to how wealth is produced.  Excessive confidence is placed in the judgment of politicians and bureaucrats.  This replaces the confidence in a free society.  Too many in high places of authority became convinced that only they,   armed with arbitrary government power, can bring about fairness, while facilitating wealth production.  This always proves to be a utopian dream and destroys wealth and liberty.  It impoverishes the people and rewards the special interests who end up controlling both political parties.
It’s no surprise then that much of what goes on in Washington is driven by aggressive partisanship and power seeking, with philosophic differences being minor.
Economic ignorance is commonplace.  Keynesianism continues to thrive, although today it is facing healthy and enthusiastic rebuttals.  Believers in military Keynesianism and domestic Keynesianism continue to desperately promote their failed policies, as the economy languishes in a deep slumber.
Supporters of all government edicts use humanitarian arguments to justify them.
Humanitarian arguments are always used to justify government mandates related to the economy, monetary policy, foreign policy, and personal liberty.  This is on purpose to make it more difficult to challenge.  But, initiating violence for humanitarian reasons is still violence.  Good intentions are no excuse and are just as harmful as when people use force with bad intentions.  The results are always negative.
The immoral use of force is the source of man’s political problems.  Sadly, many religious groups, secular organizations, and psychopathic authoritarians endorse government initiated force to change the world.  Even when the desired goals are well-intentioned—or especially when well-intentioned—the results are dismal.  The good results sought never materialize.  The new problems created require even more government force as a solution.  The net result is institutionalizing government initiated violence and morally justifying it on humanitarian grounds.
This is the same fundamental reason our government  uses force  for invading other countries at will, central economic planning at home, and the regulation of personal liberty and habits of our citizens.
It is rather strange, that unless one has a criminal mind and no respect for other people and their property, no one claims it’s permissible to go into one’s neighbor’s house and tell them how to behave, what they can eat, smoke and drink or how to spend their money.
Yet, rarely is it asked why it is morally acceptable that a stranger with a badge and a gun can do the same thing in the name of law and order.  Any resistance is met with brute force, fines, taxes, arrests, and even imprisonment. This is done more frequently every day without a proper search warrant.
Restraining aggressive behavior is one thing, but legalizing a government monopoly for initiating aggression can only lead to exhausting liberty associated with chaos, anger and the breakdown of civil society.  Permitting such authority and expecting saintly behavior from the bureaucrats and the politicians is a pipe dream.  We now have a standing army of armed bureaucrats in the TSA, CIA, FBI, Fish and Wildlife, FEMA, IRS, Corp of Engineers, etc. numbering over 100,000.  Citizens are guilty until proven innocent in the unconstitutional administrative courts.
Government in a free society should have no authority to meddle in social activities or the economic transactions of individuals. Nor should government meddle in the affairs of other nations. All things peaceful, even when controversial, should be permitted.
We must reject the notion of prior restraint in economic activity just we do in the area of free speech and religious liberty. But even in these areas government is starting to use a backdoor approach of political correctness to regulate speech-a dangerous trend. Since 9/11 monitoring speech on the internet is now a problem since warrants are no longer required.
The Constitution established four federal crimes.  Today the experts can’t even agree on how many federal crimes are now on the books—they number into the thousands.  No one person can comprehend the enormity of the legal system—especially the tax code.  Due to the ill-advised drug war and the endless federal expansion of the criminal code we have over 6 million people under correctional suspension, more than the Soviets ever had, and more than any other nation today, including China.  I don’t understand the complacency of the Congress and the willingness to continue their obsession with passing more Federal laws.  Mandatory sentencing laws associated with drug laws have compounded our prison problems.
The federal register is now 75,000 pages long and the tax code has 72,000 pages, and expands every year.  When will the people start shouting, “enough is enough,” and demand Congress cease and desist.
Liberty can only be achieved when government is denied the aggressive use of force.  If one seeks liberty, a precise type of government is needed.  To achieve it, more than lip service is required.
A government designed to protect liberty—a natural right—as its sole objective.  The people are expected to care for themselves and reject the use of any force for interfering with another person’s liberty.  Government is given a strictly limited authority to enforce contracts, property ownership, settle disputes, and defend against foreign aggression.
A government that pretends to protect liberty but is granted power to arbitrarily use force over the people and foreign nations.  Though the grant of power many times is meant to be small and limited, it inevitably metastasizes into an omnipotent political cancer.  This is the problem for which the world has suffered throughout the ages.  Though meant to be limited it nevertheless is a 100% sacrifice of a principle that would-be-tyrants find irresistible.  It is used vigorously—though incrementally and insidiously.  Granting power to government officials always proves the adage that:  “power corrupts.”
Once government gets a limited concession for the use of force to mold people habits and plan the economy, it causes a steady move toward tyrannical government.  Only a revolutionary spirit can reverse the process and deny to the government this arbitrary use of aggression.  There’s no in-between.  Sacrificing a little liberty for imaginary safety always ends badly.
Today’s mess is a result of Americans accepting option #2, even though the Founders attempted to give us Option #1.
The results are not good.  As our liberties have been eroded our wealth has been consumed.  The wealth we see today is based on debt and a foolish willingness on the part of foreigners to take our dollars for goods and services. They then loan them back to us to perpetuate our debt system.  It’s amazing that it has worked for this long but the impasse in Washington, in solving our problems indicate that many are starting to understand the seriousness of the world -wide debt crisis and the dangers we face. The longer this process continues the harsher the outcome will be.
Many are now acknowledging that a financial crisis looms but few understand it’s, in reality, a moral crisis.  It’s the moral crisis that has allowed our liberties to be undermined and permits the exponential growth of illegal government power.  Without a clear understanding of the nature of the crisis it will be difficult to prevent a steady march toward tyranny and the poverty that will accompany it.
Ultimately, the people have to decide which form of government they want; option #1 or option #2.  There is no other choice.  Claiming there is a choice of a “little” tyranny is like describing pregnancy as a “touch of pregnancy.”  It is a myth to believe that a mixture of free markets and government central economic planning is a worthy compromise.  What we see today is a result of that type of thinking.  And the results speak for themselves.
American now suffers from a culture of violence.  It’s easy to reject the initiation of violence against one’s neighbor but it’s ironic that the people arbitrarily and freely anoint government officials with monopoly power to initiate violence against the American people—practically at will.
Because it’s the government that initiates force, most people accept it as being legitimate.  Those who exert the force have no sense of guilt.  It is believed by too many that governments are morally justified in initiating force supposedly to “do good.”  They incorrectly believe that this authority has come from the “consent of the people.”  The minority, or victims of government violence never consented to suffer the abuse of government mandates, even when dictated by the majority.  Victims of TSA excesses never consented to this abuse.
This attitude has given us a policy of initiating war to “do good,” as well. It is claimed that war, to prevent war for noble purposes, is justified.  This is similar to what we were once told that:  “destroying a village to save a village” was justified.  It was said by a US Secretary of State that the loss of 500,000 Iraqis, mostly children, in the 1990s, as a result of American bombs and sanctions, was “worth it” to achieve the “good” we brought to the Iraqi people.  And look at the mess that Iraq is in today.
Government use of force to mold social and economic behavior at home and abroad has justified individuals using force on their own terms.  The fact that violence by government is seen as morally justified, is the reason why violence will increase when the big financial crisis hits and becomes a political crisis as well.
First, we recognize that individuals shouldn’t initiate violence, then we give the authority to government.   Eventually, the immoral use of government violence, when things goes badly, will be used to justify an individual’s “right” to do the same thing. Neither the government nor individuals have the moral right to initiate violence against another yet we are moving toward the day when both will claim this authority.  If this cycle is not reversed society will break down.
When needs are pressing, conditions deteriorate and rights become relative to the demands and the whims of the majority.  It’s then not a great leap for individuals to take it upon themselves to use violence to get what they claim is theirs.  As the economy deteriorates and the wealth discrepancies increase—as are already occurring— violence increases as those in need take it in their own hands to get what they believe is theirs.  They will not wait for a government rescue program.
When government officials wield power over others to bail out the special interests, even with disastrous results to the average citizen, they feel no guilt for the harm they do. Those who take us into undeclared wars with many casualties resulting, never lose sleep over the death and destruction their bad decisions caused. They are convinced that what they do is morally justified, and the fact that many suffer   just can’t be helped.
When the street criminals do the same thing, they too have no remorse, believing they are only taking what is rightfully theirs.  All moral standards become relative.  Whether it’s bailouts, privileges, government subsidies or benefits for some from inflating a currency, it’s all part of a process justified by a philosophy of forced redistribution of wealth.  Violence, or a threat of such, is the instrument required and unfortunately is of little concern of most members of Congress.
Some argue it’s only a matter of “fairness” that those in need are cared for. There are two problems with this. First, the principle is used to provide a greater amount of benefits to the rich than the poor. Second, no one seems to be concerned about whether or not it’s fair to those who end up paying for the benefits. The costs are usually placed on the backs of the middle class and are hidden from the public eye. Too many people believe government handouts are free, like printing money out of thin air, and there is no cost. That deception is coming to an end. The bills are coming due and that’s what the economic slowdown is all about.
Sadly, we have become accustomed to living with the illegitimate use of force by government.  It is the tool for telling the people how to live, what to eat and drink, what to read and how to spend their money.
To develop a truly free society, the issue of initiating force must be understood and rejected.  Granting to government even a small amount of force is a dangerous concession.
Our Constitution, which was intended to limit government power and abuse, has failed.  The Founders warned that a free society depends on a virtuous and moral people.  The current crisis reflects that their concerns were justified.
Most politicians and pundits are aware of the problems we face but spend all their time in trying to reform government.  The sad part is that the suggested reforms almost always lead to less freedom and the importance of a virtuous and moral people is either ignored, or not understood. The new reforms serve only to further undermine liberty.  The compounding effect has given us this steady erosion of liberty and the massive expansion of debt.  The real question is: if it is liberty we seek, should most of the emphasis be placed on government reform or trying to understand what “a virtuous and moral people” means and how to promote it. The Constitution has not prevented the people from demanding handouts for both rich and poor in their efforts to reform the government, while ignoring the principles of a free society. All branches of our government today are controlled by individuals who use their power to undermine liberty and enhance the welfare/warfare state-and frequently their own wealth and power.
If the people are unhappy with the government performance it must be recognized that government is merely a reflection of an immoral society that rejected a moral government of constitutional limitations of power and love of freedom.
If this is the problem all the tinkering with thousands of pages of new laws and regulations will do nothing to solve the problem.
It is self-evident that our freedoms have been severely limited and the apparent prosperity we still have, is nothing more than leftover wealth from a previous time.  This fictitious wealth based on debt and benefits from a false trust in our currency and credit, will play havoc with our society when the bills come due.  This means that the full consequence of our lost liberties is yet to be felt.
But that illusion is now ending.  Reversing a downward spiral depends on accepting a new approach.
Expect the rapidly expanding homeschooling movement to play a significant role in the revolutionary reforms needed to build a free society with Constitutional protections. We cannot expect a Federal government controlled school system to provide the intellectual ammunition to combat the dangerous growth of government that threatens our liberties.
The internet will provide the alternative to the government/media complex that controls the news and most political propaganda. This is why it’s essential that the internet remains free of government regulation.
Many of our religious institutions and secular organizations support greater dependency on the state by supporting war, welfare and corporatism and ignore the need for a virtuous people.
I never believed that the world or our country could be made more free by politicians, if the people had no desire for freedom.
Under the current circumstances the most we can hope to achieve in the political process is to use it as a podium to reach the people to alert them of the nature of the crisis and the importance of their need to assume responsibility for themselves, if it is liberty that they truly seek.  Without this, a constitutionally protected free society is impossible.
If this is true, our individual goal in life ought to be for us to seek virtue and excellence and recognize that self-esteem and happiness only comes from using one’s natural ability, in the most productive manner possible, according to one’s own talents.
Productivity and creativity are the true source of personal satisfaction. Freedom, and not dependency, provides the environment needed to achieve these goals. Government cannot do this for us; it only gets in the way. When the government gets involved, the goal becomes a bailout or a subsidy and these cannot provide a sense of  personal achievement.
Achieving legislative power and political influence should not be our goal. Most of the change, if it is to come, will not come from the politicians, but rather from individuals, family, friends, intellectual leaders and our religious institutions.  The solution can only come from rejecting the use of coercion, compulsion, government commands, and aggressive force, to mold social and economic behavior.  Without accepting these restraints, inevitably the consensus will be to allow the government to mandate economic equality and obedience to the politicians who gain power and promote an environment that smothers the freedoms of everyone. It is then that the responsible individuals who seek excellence and self-esteem by being self-reliance and productive, become the true victims.
What are the greatest dangers that the American people face today and impede the goal of a free society? There are five.
1. The continuous attack on our civil liberties which threatens the rule of law and our ability to resist the onrush of tyranny.
2. Violent anti-Americanism that has engulfed the world. Because the phenomenon of “blow-back” is not understood or denied, our foreign policy is destined to keep us involved in many wars that we have no business being in. National bankruptcy and a greater threat to our national security will result.
3. The ease in which we go to war, without a declaration by Congress, but accepting international authority from the UN or NATO even for preemptive wars, otherwise known as aggression.
4. A financial political crisis as a consequence of excessive debt, unfunded liabilities, spending, bailouts, and gross discrepancy in wealth distribution going from the middle class to the rich. The danger of central economic planning, by the Federal Reserve must be understood.
5. World government taking over  local and US sovereignty by getting involved in the issues of war, welfare, trade, banking,  a world currency, taxes, property ownership, and private ownership of guns.
Happily, there is an answer for these very dangerous trends.
What a wonderful world it would be if everyone accepted the simple moral premise of rejecting all acts of aggression.  The retort to such a suggestion is always:  it’s too simplistic, too idealistic, impractical, naïve, utopian, dangerous, and unrealistic to strive for such an ideal.
The answer to that is that for thousands of years the acceptance of government force, to rule over the people, at the sacrifice of liberty, was considered moral and the only available option for achieving peace and prosperity.
What could be more utopian than that myth—considering the results especially looking at the state sponsored killing, by nearly every government during the 20th Century, estimated to be in the hundreds of millions.  It’s time to reconsider this grant of authority to the state.
No good has ever come from granting monopoly power to the state to use aggression against the people to arbitrarily mold human behavior.  Such power, when left unchecked, becomes the seed of an ugly tyranny.  This method of governance has been adequately tested, and the results are in: reality dictates we try liberty.
The idealism of non-aggression and rejecting all offensive use of force should be tried.  The idealism of government sanctioned violence has been abused throughout history and is the primary source of poverty and war.  The theory of a society being based on individual freedom has been around for a long time.  It’s time to take a bold step and actually permit it by advancing this cause, rather than taking a step backwards as some would like us to do.
Today the principle of habeas corpus, established when King John signed the Magna Carta in 1215, is under attack. There’s every reason to believe that a renewed effort with the use of the internet that we can instead advance the cause of liberty by spreading an uncensored message that will serve to rein in government authority and challenge the obsession with war and welfare.
What I’m talking about is a system of government guided by the moral principles of peace and tolerance.
The Founders were convinced that a free society could not exist without a moral people.  Just writing rules won’t work if the people choose to ignore them.  Today the rule of law written in the Constitution has little meaning for most Americans, especially those who work in Washington DC.
Benjamin Franklin claimed “only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.”  John Adams concurred:  “Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
A moral people must reject all violence in an effort to mold people’s beliefs or habits.
A society that boos or ridicules the Golden Rule is not a moral society.  All great religions endorse the Golden Rule.  The same moral standards that individuals are required to follow should apply to all government officials.  They cannot be exempt.
The ultimate solution is not in the hands of the government.
The solution falls on each and every individual, with guidance from family, friends and community.
The #1 responsibility for each of us is to change ourselves with hope that others will follow.  This is of greater importance than working on changing the government; that is secondary to promoting a virtuous society.  If we can achieve this, then the government will change.
It doesn’t mean that political action or holding office has no value. At times it does nudge policy in the right direction. But what is true is that when seeking office is done for personal aggrandizement, money or power, it becomes useless if not harmful. When political action is taken for the right reasons it’s easy to understand why compromise should be avoided. It also becomes clear why progress is best achieved by working with coalitions, which bring people together, without anyone sacrificing his principles.
Political action, to be truly beneficial, must be directed toward changing the hearts and minds of the people, recognizing that it’s the virtue and morality of the people that allow liberty to flourish.
The Constitution or more laws per se, have no value if the people’s attitudes aren’t changed.
To achieve liberty and peace, two powerful human emotions have to be overcome.  Number one is “envy” which leads to hate and class warfare.  Number two is “intolerance” which leads to bigoted and judgmental policies.  These emotions must be replaced with a much better understanding of love, compassion, tolerance and free market economics. Freedom, when understood, brings people together. When tried, freedom is popular.
The problem we have faced over the years has been that economic interventionists are swayed by envy, whereas social interventionists are swayed by intolerance of habits and lifestyles. The misunderstanding that tolerance is an endorsement of certain activities, motivates many to legislate moral standards which should only be set by individuals making their own choices. Both sides use force to deal with these misplaced emotions. Both are authoritarians. Neither endorses voluntarism.  Both views ought to be rejected.
I have come to one firm conviction after these many years of trying to figure out “the plain truth of things.”  The best chance for achieving peace and prosperity, for the maximum number of people world-wide, is to pursue the cause of LIBERTY.
If you find this to be a worthwhile message, spread it throughout the land.