Are the donkey and elephant really all that different?

“This country is a one-party country. Half of it is called Republican and half is called Democrat. It doesn’t make any difference. All the really good ideas belong to the Libertarians.” Hugh Downs

Today, if you were to ask a democrat at the grassroots level what the Democratic Party is supposed to be for, they would generally say they support civil rights, economic justice and are the party of the common man and woman.

The Democratic Party traces its roots to the Anti-Federalist factions that opposed the fiscal policies of Alexander Hamilton in the early 1790s. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison organized these factions into the Democratic-Republican Party.  The party favored a limited national government and strict adherence to the Constitution; it opposed a national bank and was generally thought of being the party of the farmer.  The Democratic-Republican Party ascended to power in the election of 1800. After the War of 1812, the party’s chief rival, the Federalist Party disbanded. Democratic-Republicans split over the choice of a successor to President James Monroe, and the party faction that supported many of the old Jeffersonian principles, led by Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren became the Democratic Party. Ultimately, the Democratic Party sold out to the J.P. Morgan interests in the 1890’s and have been firmly statist ever since.

Today, if you were to ask a republican at the grassroots level what the GOP is supposed to stand for, they would say they are opposed to deficit spending and to interference in the affairs of businesses, individuals and other nations.

The Whigs were a commercial party, and usually less popular, but better financed.  The Whigs divided over the slavery issue and the Mexican–American War and faded away.  In the 1850s, as a result of the Fugitive Slave Law and the Kansas-Nebraska Act, anti-slavery Democrats left the party. Joining with former members of existing or dwindling parties, the Republican Party emerged in 1854.  Its early existence was characterized by protectionism (which actually hurt the economy), industrial development, and moral purity aspirations.

While slavery was one issue of national prominence during this time, the claim that the war between the states was about ending slavery is intellectual dishonesty. If the American Civil War ended slavery, then what about the hundreds of millions of slaves (conservative estimate) or the estimated 4 billion people (2/3 of the world’s population) who are in poverty today?  The real cause of the war was economic specifically tariffs.

In the 20th century, both parties had taken on “the government can and ought to do more” approach particularly on economic and moral issues aka the so-called Social Gospel.  Both parties would claim that Jesus was on their side never mind the fact that Jesus never advocated force or the use of violence in doing His work.  He came as a lamb, not a lion.  Jesus did not judge people by group labels, but addressed them as unique individuals.

There were cycles where both parties would claim to be the party of small government, but those statements were rarely argued on the basis of true principles.  They were merely making these claims so that they would appear to be different.

U.S. political policy runs between communism and fascism which is derived from the Latin word fasces. This nation has not had a free market economy in at least 100 years or so. Communism and fascism are merely two brands of socialism. Both find classical liberalism (rights of the individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) to be repulsive.

In theory, communism and its derivatives is supposed to result in a classless, stateless and oppression-free society. Generally, communists would be opposed to the imperial aims that most European nations have embarked on since ancient times, but see a struggle of the workers rising up in every nation against what they see as oppressive capitalism. Economic decisions are supposedly made in a democratic fashion, but in fact is determined by a central planning committee. In a nutshell, whenever communism theory has been put to practice, the end result was a disaster. Communist leaders like Stalin and Mao justified their collectivist policies as being for the public good or that he was modernizing society and his means of doing this led to a cult of personality, famine or terror. According to R.J. Rummel, in the 20th century alone, 262,000,000 people have been murdered as a result of democide.

In terms of economic policy, many fascist leaders have claimed it was a “Third Way” in economic policy, which they believed superior to both the rampant individualism of the free market and state socialism. This was to be achieved by establishing significant government control over business and labor. Italian fascist leader Mussolini called his nation’s system “the corporate state”.

So basically, while both systems were undoubtedly collectivist, they differed greatly in their socio-economic content. For Communism was a genuine revolutionary movement that ruthlessly displaced and overthrew the old ruling elites; while fascism, on the contrary, cemented into power the old ruling classes. Therefore, fascism was a counter-revolutionary movement that froze a set of monopolistic privileges upon society. This was the reason that Fascism proved so attractive (which Communism, of course, never did) to big business interests in the West throughout much of the 20th century.

Given that the Communist approach would not work in the revolutionary sense, it had to adopt a different tactic. Thus it adopted the ways of the Fabian Society vis a vis gradualist and reformist, rather than revolutionary. In a nutshell, communism became institutionalized.

The hallmark of this institutionalization was Keynesian economics named for John Maynard Keynes.  Keynes was as elitist as they come.  Keynes would have been at odds with communism in terms of its original social/economic intent (the peasants rising up against the landlords), but not its ultimate application (centralized planning of the economy).  One of Keynesian economics main features is massive government spending by means of increasing deficits and public works projects.

Neo-conservatism is the merger of these philosophically opposing views.  Neo-cons derive their inspiration from national socialism (hence all the talk about the homeland) and support the social welfare programs of the Progressives thus appealing to the communist branch of socialism. It is an attempt to unite socialism under one roof.  The other aim is economic collapse on a global scale.  The free-market implies small business ownership and independence.  Free markets are incompatible in a statist society.  This is mixed with religious fervor (i.e. the State is God) so as to ensure generally religious people would at least not be opposed to the state if not join the state altogether.

So in summary, neither party minus a few individuals is pro-liberty. Both parties are firmly statist in economic and personal matters as well as foreign affairs.  It is high time for people at the grassroots level to finally acknowledge the inherent weaknesses of political parties just as George Washington had forewarned.  Perhaps Tennessee representative Lincoln Davis was right when he said “If the Republican Party continues to trend to the far right and the Democrat Party trends to the left after this election, I think there is a good possibility that a second party will emerge, a second party because I think both the democrats and republicans will become the minority.”

That second party should be you!

Little Known Facts about the 4th of July

“The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more. You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not. I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will tryumph in that Days Transaction, even altho We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not. (The Book of Abigail and John: Selected Letters of the Adams Family, 1762-1784, Harvard University Press, 1975, 142).

List of years that July 4 fell on Sunday: 1779, 1784, 1790, 1802, 1813, 1819, 1824, 1830, 1841, 1847, 1852, 1858, 1869, 1875, 1880, 1886, 1897, 1909, 1915, 1920, 1926, 1937, 1943, 1948, 1954, 1965, 1971, 1976, 1982, 1993, 1999 and 2010.

The copy of the Declaration of the Independence that sits in the National Archives is the signed, engrossed copy.

The most famous signature on the engrossed copy is that of John Hancock, who, as President of Congress, presumably signed first centered below the text.

In accordance with prevailing custom, the other delegates began to sign at the right below the text, their signatures arranged according to the geographic location of the states they represented. New Hampshire, the northernmost state, began the list, and Georgia, the southernmost, ended it.

Edward Rutledge (age 26) was the youngest signer and Benjamin Franklin (age 70) was the oldest signer.

The task of getting the document signed began on August 2, 1776.  Congress made sure that all states would have access to an authenticated copy of the Declaration by ordering a special printing of multiple copies on January 18, 1777 including the names of the signers be sent to each of the thirteen states.

Contrary to how it is often portrayed in books,  movies, and TV shows, the signing was not a ceremonial signing in the sense that we think of it as being. Not all of the delegates who were present at the final approval signed the document and of the signatories that appear, not all of them were present nor were all of them delegates at the time of final approval.  Of the roughly fifty delegates who are thought to have been present in Congress during the voting on independence in early July 1776, eight never signed the Declaration:  John Alsop, George Clinton, John Dickinson, Charles Humphreys, Robert R. Livingston, John Rogers, Thomas Willing, and Henry Wisner.

Eight men signed the Declaration who did not takes seats in Congress until after July 4: Matthew Thornton, William Williams, Benjamin Rush, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, George Ross, and Charles Carroll of Carrollton.

Elbridge Gerry, Lewis Morris, Oliver Wolcott, Thomas McKean, Richard Henry Lee and George Wythe were present at the debates when final approval was given, but they signed after August 2nd.

The committee that oversaw the drafting process was made up of John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Robert R. Livingston, and Roger Sherman, who in turn instructed Thomas Jefferson to write the declaration.

Jefferson began his work on June 11 and it has been said he wrote as many as a dozen drafts. After presenting his final draft, the committee further revised the document and submitted it to the Continental Congress on June 28. On July 2, the Continental Congress voted for independence and refined its Declaration of Independence before releasing it to John Dunlap on the afternoon of July 4th for publication.

Around 200 “Dunlap broadsides” were published and read publicly across the colonies.  The first copies that were read publicly did not have the signer’s names listed.

The Pennsylvania Evening Post (which would later become the first daily newspaper in 1783) is the first newspaper to print the Declaration of Independence, on July 6, 1776; the Pennsylvania Gazette publishes the Declaration on July 10 and the Maryland Gazette publishes the Declaration on July 11; the first two public readings of this historic document include one given by John Nixon on July 8 at Independence Square, Philadelphia, and another on the same day in Trenton; the first public reading in New York is given on July 10; the first public readings in Boston and Portsmouth, N.H., take place on July 18; three public readings take place on the same day on  July 25 in Williamsburg;  a public reading in Baltimore takes place on July 29; in Annapolis on August 17 at a convening of the convention, “unanimous” support of the tenets of the Declaration are expressed.

In 1801, Jefferson hosts the first public Fourth of July Executive Mansion reception.

On the 50th anniversary of the signing (actually refinement) of the Declaration of Independence, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson die.

Sources

“Fourth of July Celebrations Database”                        http://gurukul.american.edu/heintze/fourth.htm

Charters of Freedom: A New World is at Hand                               http://archives.gov/exhibits/charters/

Friedenwald, Herbert, “The Declaration of Independence: An Interpretation and an Analysis” New York: Macmillan, 1904

Libertarian Party presidential candidate expresses viewpoints during Knoxville visit

(Originally published in the East Tennessee Business Journal 2004;
View more at Michael Badnarik visits East Tennessee)

By Jayne Andrews, East Tennessee Business Journal

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. On July 1, Libertarian Party presidential candidate, Michael Badnarik, made a five-hour visit here to meet with local supporters and answer questions from the media. He attended a luncheon at the Mandarin House sponsored by the Knox County Libertarian Party. The event attracted Republicans, Democrats, and Green Party members as well as people who said they attended because they had never met a presidential candidate in person before.

Badnarik, a computer programmer from Texas and Constitutional scholar, also teaches Constitution classes. He was nominated at the Libertarian Party’s national convention, which was held in Atlanta in late May 2004.

Badnarik’s vice presidential running mate is Richard Campagna, a native of New York, now living in Iowa. Campagna is an attorney who has practiced, counseled and taught law for over 25 years. He has led seminars in all 50 states and every continent of the world and has an extensive record of public and community service. Additionally, Badnarik’s mother, Elaine Badnarik, is the Libertarian Party’s candidate for lieutenant governor in Indiana.

The Libertarian Party is the third-largest political party in the U.S., and well known for their emphasis on smaller government, civil liberties and personal freedom, a commitment to a free market economy and adherence to the Constitution. Libertarians are against gun control and believe that the “War on Drugs” has raised the price on all drugs, making them “profitable enough to kill for.” They claim the Department of Education is unconstitutional, and not doing its job. Libertarians also support a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace and free trade, as prescribed by America’s founders.

Badnarik answered the following questions from East Tennessee Business Journal and the audience:

Q. Where do you stand on property rights?
A. You have a right to all of your property, but you do not have a right to anyone else’s property. When the government takes someone else’s property in order to give it to you although you didn’t do the stealing the government did it for you, and it is still government theft.

Q. What should we do about Social Security?
A. We have two groups of people who are pitted against each other. The older people who have already paid in to Social Security are expecting some sort of benefits so they can retire when they are too old to work any longer. The young people recognize that this is a sinking ship and they don’t want to be forced to continue paying into Social Security. We need to be able to separate the two groups and find a way to take care of our elderly who unfortunately allowed the government to take responsibility for their retirement, which was a bad decision. We need to allow the young people to invest their money for their retirement. The baby boomers are going to cause this problem to really explode when they begin to retire in 2008.

Q. How did you feel when you were nominated as your party’s presidential candidate, and how will you campaign?
A. I was a wee bit surprised that I was the one chosen, but am very honored. My first words in my acceptance speech were, “Never in my wildest dreams.” I will continue to work very hard to bring the Libertarian message to Americans all the way up to the election. I want to bring as many people as I can into the Libertarian Party, which is strongly unified right now. I have found that people like me and know that I have integrity. Our slogan is “The Party of Principle” and I try very hard to live up to that. The media has taken a great interest in my campaign, and I have interviews booked all day every day. We have three people who do nothing but field phone calls from the media and organize my interviews.

Q. Where does the Libertarian Party stand on gay marriage?
A. Some members of the Libertarian Party are pro-life, some are pro-choice. As libertarians, we respect each other’s right to our own beliefs. Personally, I believe that when two people say “If do,” the government has no business saying, “Oh no, you don’t.” Politicians don’t get to decide whose baby can be baptized, who can receive Holy Communion or who can get bar mitzvahed and they shouldn’t get to decide who gets married either.

Q. Where do you stand on the environment?
A. Libertarians want clean water and air, and we want to protect the environment. I think I’m a wonderful spokesperson for the environment since I was a Boy Scout for 12 years and a Scout Master for 10 years. But having the government take care of environmental matters is probably the worst solution. We all know that any time the government does something, it costs 10 times as much as it normally would, and it doesn’t work it creates more problems. The Bureau of Land Management polices forest area so that paper mills can come in and clear cut. Does that sound like protecting the environment? Having more government is not the answer, which we have already seen demonstrated. We can prove that private ownership is the only way. If a paper mill owns the land, they are only going to cut selected trees and will spend a lot of money to reforest that area so they’ve got resources in the future.

Q. What about deficit spending?
A. Every college student that leaves home learns one simple rule you can’t spend more than you bring in. If a college kid leaving home can figure this out, why can’t Congress? We have a $700 billion per year deficit that’s $700 billion per year they spend that is not in the budget. That’s absolutely criminal, and we the people need to hold the people in Congress responsible.

Q. What would you do about economic development in the U.S. if you were elected president?
A. We would eliminate the Internal Revenue Service so people would have more money to invest. We would eliminate the Federal Reserve Bank, to stop inflating our economy and we would eliminate NAFTA and any other free trade agreement the government has come up with which doesn’t provide free trade. What it does is provide “managed trade,” creating a hostile economic climate for businesses large and small. It puts small businesses out of business, and causes large businesses to move jobs and manufacturing overseas. There is no possible way that American businesses can compete with the yoke of government regulations around their neck. As Libertarians, we believe in the free market and that means we are going to remove regulations and allow businesses to do what they do best provide goods and services.

Q. What would you do to reduce the national debt?
A. I would assign my friend, Bernard von NotHaus, as the secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Bernard was the royal mint master of Hawaii for over 20 years, and is the designer of the Liberty Dollar, private silver currency in the U.S. He understands the economy far better than I do. My personal reaction is that the national debt was perpetrated under fraud and could justifiably be repudiated. Bernard says that while that may satisfy my emotional instincts, there are better things we can do to eliminate the debt without causing economic distress.

Q. What would you do to downsize the scope and size of the federal government property ownership?
A. The federal government has no reason to own as much property as it does. I believe the federal government owns at least 90 percent of Nevada. While we may be able to sell off federal property, I don’t know how much money it would bring in, and so I don’t know how much debt we would be able to pay off. However, I would like to eliminate federal property. Property should either belong to the states or to individuals.

Q. American property owners and business owners are constantly concerned about potential lawsuits and the government shutting businesses down. How would you change this?
A. We would make the justice system actually mean something. One of the first things I would do as president would be to eliminate the idea of sovereign immunity for the government. The 1st Amendment not only protects our freedom of speech and our freedom of religion, but it also protects our right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. That’s Founding Fathers’ talk for you can sue the government and win. But the federal government has set itself up as bulletproof. Anytime they do something, theoretically you cannot sue them because they are the government and were obviously just doing things in your best interests. That is not true. We the people have rights, and we grant limited privileges to the government. Not only can we take those privileges away from them anytime we want, we can also file a lawsuit against the government and win.

Badnarik said that he has campaign volunteers from all 50 states, and that he believes his background as a technical trainer and computer programmer gives him the ability to communicate his party’s message so that all Americans can understand it.

“If I’m talking to a Democrat, that person is usually complaining that I’ll steal votes from the Democrats, ” he said. “If I’m talking to a Republican, they think I’m stealing votes from the Republicans. I’d like to point out that the candidates don’t own the votes. The voters do.”