The good news: with current petroleum prices, wind power is currently competitive with other methods of electric generation even without tax subsidies.
The bad news: Congress will almost certainly renew those subsidies next year- despite the fact that wind power companies no longer need them to be competitive.
Here's the Houston Chronicle's article on the subject.
Note the following numbers in the article:
COAL FIRED ELECTRICITY: 4.2 cents per kilowatt-hour
WIND POWER (subsidized): 4.6 cents per kilowatt-hour
WIND POWER (without subsidy): 6.0 cents per kilowatt-hour
NATURAL GAS FIRED ELECTRICITY: 6.8 cents per kilowatt-hour
The article also goes on to note infrastructure costs are fairly high for wind power. Viable wind generation sites are limited to remote areas- deserts, plains, or offshore sites- all of which require long-distance transmission wires to be installed. Furthermore, the high cost of wind turbine construction has caused a bottleneck for expansion of wind generation projects, making them more expensive. These, plus the call to make electric generation affordable for all, are the justifications cited for the tax credit.
HOWEVER.
If an industry is so successful that it has maxed out its ability to expand... why does that industry need tax dollars to survive?
As for transmission line costs... the same argument should apply to rural electrification projects, including the one I live on. Yes, I indirectly receive a government subsidy- because electric service to my area would never have been profitable without a massive initial government outlay. Even now my electricity comes not from a commercial provider, but from the regional co-op that owns the electric lines. In many, if not most, places the electric wires are run on publicly acquired rights of way, but the wires themselves are privately owned. This has led to monopolies in the past and mind-boggling regulations today.
There's a very simple solution to this. We have government owned roads to rural areas so that people who live and work there can get goods to and from the market- enriching all. We have government operated sea ports and airports for the same reasons. Let's extend this public service to transmission infrastructure- in short, publicly owned electric wires. Charge the electric companies a tax per kilowatt hour for maintenance- say, a nickel per- and let anyone with generation capacity into the market. This simplifies the current absurd regulations that try (and fail in many cases) to make the current private infrastructure open to competition- while opening that competition wider than ever.
The anarchists in the Libertarian Party, of course, would never go for this. In fact, there are some who with a straight face call for all public roadways to be auctioned off to the highest bidder- immediately. I don't know about you, but I'd rather not pay a $5 toll just to leave my driveway... and I don't like the "toll" electric companies charge for the use of their wires. This is a case where monopolies will exist UNLESS government acts... and I'd like to abolish all natural monopolies in such a manner.
But in the meantime, let's stop giving taxpayer money to companies owned by Goldman Sachs, hm? Subsidies are only justifiable as a temporary assistance to growing industries which, without them, could not get started. Wind power has its feet under it now- in fact, it's growing by leaps and bounds. It's time to get Goldman Sachs and other investors in wind power off the Welfare rolls... for a start.
Saturday, December 9, 2006
Friday, December 8, 2006
Texas Immigration Issue Update
By the way, in today's Houston Chronicle is an article which outlines a report from the Texas Comptroller's Office saying that illegal immigrants contribute to the economy far more than they take from it in government services.
The quick numbers: illegal immigrants boost the Texas economy, as a whole, by 17.7 billion dollars- $17,700,000,000. That's the wealth they produce- not how much they pay in taxes. They DO pay taxes, though- about $1 billion in state sales taxes and other fees, $582 million in school property taxes, and $513 million in local sales and property taxes, for a total of not quite $2.1 billion paid into state and local government treasuries. From this they get nearly $1 billion for education, $1.4 billion for indigent health care, and about $270 million to lock them up and deport them each year.
So yes, they're getting about half a billion dollars more out of the system than they put in... but poor people across the board always get more out of government than they put in. As a general rule, we try not to tax people with little or no money.
The worrying thing is, though, that the vast majority of the $2.6 billion comes out of local government's pockets. The government in Austin actually makes a profit on illegal immigration, if the Comptroller's Office numbers are to be believed. Unfunded mandates- devolving a government program to a lower level without paying for it- are a chronic problem in Texas, one which neither of the two big parties gives the least attention to.
The quick numbers: illegal immigrants boost the Texas economy, as a whole, by 17.7 billion dollars- $17,700,000,000. That's the wealth they produce- not how much they pay in taxes. They DO pay taxes, though- about $1 billion in state sales taxes and other fees, $582 million in school property taxes, and $513 million in local sales and property taxes, for a total of not quite $2.1 billion paid into state and local government treasuries. From this they get nearly $1 billion for education, $1.4 billion for indigent health care, and about $270 million to lock them up and deport them each year.
So yes, they're getting about half a billion dollars more out of the system than they put in... but poor people across the board always get more out of government than they put in. As a general rule, we try not to tax people with little or no money.
The worrying thing is, though, that the vast majority of the $2.6 billion comes out of local government's pockets. The government in Austin actually makes a profit on illegal immigration, if the Comptroller's Office numbers are to be believed. Unfunded mandates- devolving a government program to a lower level without paying for it- are a chronic problem in Texas, one which neither of the two big parties gives the least attention to.
It's CORN FLAKE FRIDAY!
What is a Corn Flake (besides a joyless processed foodstuff made palatable to millions only by the addition of milk, sugar, and occasionally fruit)?
A Corn Flake is a person who, through his or her public acts, makes everyone in the Libertarian Party look not merely eccentric or radical but absolutely insane by association.
In order to be named a Corn Flake, a person must meet the following criteria:
* That person must say or do something in a public forum or in some form of mass communication. Merely posting to a blog or discussion group is not sufficient- the outside world must be able to get wind of things.
* What the person says or does must demonstrate exceptional levels of stupidity, insanity, hypocrisy, or utter disregard for the consequences of his or her actions.
* That person's actions must be in some way connected to the Libertarian Party, its positions, or its actions. Lyndon LaRouche or David Duke, not being in any way connected to anything Libertarian, are not the LP's problem; let the Democrats and Republicans come up with their own names for those types. A person who does stupid things in the name of tax protest, eminent domain protest, free speech, etc., however, DOES qualify if he's on the same general side of the issue as the LP- even if said person denies being an LP member.
So, that said, who is this week's winner?
Allen Hacker, as campaign manager for Michael Badnarik's run for Congress (TX-1o) in 2006, helped raise over $400,000- more money than any other Libertarian candidate raised without going into his or her own pocket. (Bruce Guthrie emptied his pockets and took out a mortgage on his home to raise the $1.6 million he needed to qualify for the Oregon debates.) However, Badnarik only polled 4.3% of the vote in a three-way race. Granted, this was about two percentage points better than the average Libertarian performance in three-way Congressional races in Texas... but Patrick Warren, running in District 18, polled 4.26%, and Robert Powell in District 27 polled 4.31%... neither man spending a PENNY on his campaign.
This is not, however, why Hacker is this week's Corn Flake. For one thing, the election is over a month gone. For another, Badnarik's race suffered from an unusually high turnout in his district. 176,755 votes were cast in the US House Dist. 10 race- more than cast in any other Congressional race in Texas. Patrick Warren's race, for example, only drew 86,051 votes- half those in Badnarik's race- and Robert Powell's district turned out just under 110,000 votes.
Hacker earned the honor by how he has run the Badnarik campaign. Despite raising almost as much money as the Democrat candidate in this race, Badnarik's campaign never got off the ground. Many blame Hacker for his decision to spend not one penny on radio, television or newspaper advertising, opting instead for three billboards (in a district that stretches from northeast Austin to northwest Houston), some yard signs, and a number of "meet the candidate" dinners across the district. When people questioned this strategy, Hacker said that the campaign's plans were a secret and would remain that way... but that victory was all but assured.
The thing that finally put Hacker over the top happened just this week, though. According to Austin Cassidy's Third Party Watch, Hacker has sent out another fundraising request to the 2004 Badnarik for President donor list... asking for MORE donations to pay the campaign's estimated $215,000 of debt.
Of that debt, $65,000 is for salaries, office rent, advertising buys (mainly ads at the Libertarian 2006 national convention, attended by fewer than a thousand people) and contracts with outside companies. The remaining $150,000 is entirely Hacker's personal salary, held in abeyance until the end of the campaign, for his expert consulting services.
This is in addition to the $134,250 paid out to Hacker's consulting firm, Articulate Campaigns, by the Badnarik campaign.
Hacker has said that, if he is not paid for his services, his report on what is wrong with the Libertarian Party in general will be greatly delayed. Quoting from his email:
So, not only did he essentially waste every penny of the Badnarik campaign's revenues, but he's promising a magic pill to cure all the Libertarian Party's ills if only you send him about half as much as the Badnarik campaign raised over fourteen months... by the end of December.
And that report, remember, is based on his expertise as a consultant.
And this went out to over 6500 past donors to Libertarian candidates- many of whom, contacted after the election, have said they'll never donate to the LP again after Badnarik's awful performance.
Mr. Allan Hacker, by making everyone who tries to run a serious, high-budget Libertarian candidacy look like a complete nutjob, this week's official Corn Flake!
A Corn Flake is a person who, through his or her public acts, makes everyone in the Libertarian Party look not merely eccentric or radical but absolutely insane by association.
In order to be named a Corn Flake, a person must meet the following criteria:
* That person must say or do something in a public forum or in some form of mass communication. Merely posting to a blog or discussion group is not sufficient- the outside world must be able to get wind of things.
* What the person says or does must demonstrate exceptional levels of stupidity, insanity, hypocrisy, or utter disregard for the consequences of his or her actions.
* That person's actions must be in some way connected to the Libertarian Party, its positions, or its actions. Lyndon LaRouche or David Duke, not being in any way connected to anything Libertarian, are not the LP's problem; let the Democrats and Republicans come up with their own names for those types. A person who does stupid things in the name of tax protest, eminent domain protest, free speech, etc., however, DOES qualify if he's on the same general side of the issue as the LP- even if said person denies being an LP member.
So, that said, who is this week's winner?
Allen Hacker, as campaign manager for Michael Badnarik's run for Congress (TX-1o) in 2006, helped raise over $400,000- more money than any other Libertarian candidate raised without going into his or her own pocket. (Bruce Guthrie emptied his pockets and took out a mortgage on his home to raise the $1.6 million he needed to qualify for the Oregon debates.) However, Badnarik only polled 4.3% of the vote in a three-way race. Granted, this was about two percentage points better than the average Libertarian performance in three-way Congressional races in Texas... but Patrick Warren, running in District 18, polled 4.26%, and Robert Powell in District 27 polled 4.31%... neither man spending a PENNY on his campaign.
This is not, however, why Hacker is this week's Corn Flake. For one thing, the election is over a month gone. For another, Badnarik's race suffered from an unusually high turnout in his district. 176,755 votes were cast in the US House Dist. 10 race- more than cast in any other Congressional race in Texas. Patrick Warren's race, for example, only drew 86,051 votes- half those in Badnarik's race- and Robert Powell's district turned out just under 110,000 votes.
Hacker earned the honor by how he has run the Badnarik campaign. Despite raising almost as much money as the Democrat candidate in this race, Badnarik's campaign never got off the ground. Many blame Hacker for his decision to spend not one penny on radio, television or newspaper advertising, opting instead for three billboards (in a district that stretches from northeast Austin to northwest Houston), some yard signs, and a number of "meet the candidate" dinners across the district. When people questioned this strategy, Hacker said that the campaign's plans were a secret and would remain that way... but that victory was all but assured.
The thing that finally put Hacker over the top happened just this week, though. According to Austin Cassidy's Third Party Watch, Hacker has sent out another fundraising request to the 2004 Badnarik for President donor list... asking for MORE donations to pay the campaign's estimated $215,000 of debt.
Of that debt, $65,000 is for salaries, office rent, advertising buys (mainly ads at the Libertarian 2006 national convention, attended by fewer than a thousand people) and contracts with outside companies. The remaining $150,000 is entirely Hacker's personal salary, held in abeyance until the end of the campaign, for his expert consulting services.
This is in addition to the $134,250 paid out to Hacker's consulting firm, Articulate Campaigns, by the Badnarik campaign.
Hacker has said that, if he is not paid for his services, his report on what is wrong with the Libertarian Party in general will be greatly delayed. Quoting from his email:
We’ve been accused of risking the LP’s future with this campaign. The argument has been that by raising so much money and talking about winning, We have set everyone up for a huge disappointment, which will in turn stall everyone’s fundraising and support for years to come. Balderdash!
What we have actually done in pushing the envelope so far is to peel back the scab hiding the chronic infection that has been keeping the LP anemic and unhealthy all along. By going for the whole enchilada, we aggravated every failure mode the Party has ever adopted. We incurred so much wrath from some unfortunate souls that they actually began a proactive underground counter-campaign to sabotage our fundraising. And they succeeded, too, to the degree that the Party itself has institutionalized their ways of stopping everything good anyone tries to do as a libertarian activist, officer or candidate.
. . .
I’ll be revealing why, even though these people and what they do will be our most difficult problem to solve, they aren’t even close to being our worst problem. That would be the fatally-conflicted value that’s embedded in the libertarian thought process but must be excised if we are ever to succeed. That’s the one that keeps me smiling to myself, remembering the old Confucian admonition, “Your greatest strength is also your greatest weakness.”
. . .So, what has your money bought, since it wasn’t victory at the polls in TX CD10?
Well, once the bills are paid and I have the freedom of mind to compile everything, you’ve sponsored a final report and a libertarian manifesto for the future. An analysis and a plan, if you want them. From a top consultant in his field, one who routinely doubles and triples his clients’ operations within the first year or two.
. . .So here’s the deal. First, we pay the debt. Then we build the party and the movement, and ultimately, we take back our freedom.
When you think about it, there’s no way to put a price on that, yet in our case reality has put a price on it nonetheless. That price is simply what it takes to clear the campaign and free my attention so I can deliver on the future instead of forever deal with the past.
. . .
Again, what do you get for your money? You get the solution to our problems as a party. Cheap at twice the price!
. . .
So, let’s get with it. This is not about your hard-earned hundred bucks, it’s about the LP getting the desperately missing knowledge whose absence has been stifling it all these years.
So, not only did he essentially waste every penny of the Badnarik campaign's revenues, but he's promising a magic pill to cure all the Libertarian Party's ills if only you send him about half as much as the Badnarik campaign raised over fourteen months... by the end of December.
And that report, remember, is based on his expertise as a consultant.
And this went out to over 6500 past donors to Libertarian candidates- many of whom, contacted after the election, have said they'll never donate to the LP again after Badnarik's awful performance.
Mr. Allan Hacker, by making everyone who tries to run a serious, high-budget Libertarian candidacy look like a complete nutjob, this week's official Corn Flake!
Thursday, December 7, 2006
Hypocrite Doesn't Begin to Describe It
During this past campaign, Texas governor Rick Perry ran campaign ads which presented him as a crusader on border security- that he was, essentially, the only thing standing between us and a mass migration of Mexican nationals into the USA. These ads were probably what got him over the forty percent threshhold in the vote, and might even have been what held off Chris Bell and Carole Keeton Strayhorn- especially with highly bigoted anti-Hispanic anti-immigration groups pushing hard in Texas in support of closed-border policies and candidates.
Well, Perry got 41% of the vote and won the election thereby. Now that he's not on the stump, he's entirely changed his tune on the issue. Now he opposes building a fence along the border- plus he calls for a guest-worker program, essentially following the lead of his patron George W. Bush.
And, y'know, look how well that proposal served him.
Most telling to me, though, is the following quote from the Houston Chronicle's coverage:
"Let's create a guest-worker program that takes these workers off the black market and that legitimizes their economic contributions without doing the same for their citizenship."
Translated: "I want them Mexicins mowin' my yard, but I don't want my daughter ta marry one."
And that's the crux of it. The Republicans in general don't object to illegal immigrations for any reason associated with labor or law; they object because they don't want immigrants, legal or not, who aren't white and rich. They'll never admit to that in public, but if you follow their policies and their actions, you'll see the trend for yourself.
Now for a few facts.
Fact #1: The more people you have at labor in a society- regardless of their legality- the more jobs and more wealth there is. Labor produces wealth, be it by manufacturing or simply by doing something that other people find annoying or distasteful. The more wealth there is in circulation, the more people spend; the more people spend, the more jobs there are; the more jobs there are, the more wealth in circulation.
Fact #2: There is no argument, aside from "rule of law" concerns, against illegal immigration that cannot also be applied to LEGAL immigration. Immigrants have always accepted lower wages than native-born citizens, because they're used to a lower standard of living. In the past people have complained that blacks, Irish, Italians, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Jews, etc. etc. etc. were "stealing jobs away from good (white) Americans." Those immigrants have always sent money back to family members who remained in the old country- would that American families retained that ethic! These immigrants, for the most part impoverished by our standards, take disproportionate advantage of government mandated services like emergency medical care- because (a) we provide it to those who need it regardless of circumstance, and (b) they can't afford anything else.
Fact #3: Many Americans- and especially Texans- are descendants of illegal immigrants. At the time of the Texas Revolution, only about ten thousand Texans were in the district legally according to Mexican law- either native-born Mexicans or authorized settlers under land grants chartered by the Mexican government. The rest, including such people as William Travis, Sam Houston and Davy Crockett, simply jumped the border and settled illegally. Other places- Santa Fe, NM, Deadwood, ND, Atlanta, GA, the Cumberland valley of Kentucky and Tennessee, the entirety of Connecticut and Rhode Island, the entire eastern Gulf Coast including Florida- were settled in direct violation of the prevailing laws of the time- even the prevailing WHITE MAN'S laws of the time. I'm not even considering the (valid) arguments of Indians here.
Fact #4: America is NOT overcrowded. In fact illegal immigrants over the past decade have shifted from urban to rural migration. Even east of the Mississippi there are vast regions underdeveloped or completely undeveloped, with fewer than four persons per square mile. We still have plenty of room for immigrants- so there's no good reason to restrict them on that count.
There is a valid purpose to having borders- to repel conquering invaders and to stop criminals and known terrorists from entering the nation. However, don't believe conservative propoganda- most Mexicans are NOT members of Aztlan and do NOT support a Reconquista. They want to get away from crushing poverty and corrupt government- just as our ancestors did, centuries ago. People like Rick Perry want to use these people and then throw them out when their usefulness is gone... but they're willing to lie about that belief in order to get the votes they need to retain power.
The ethical stance- the Libertarian stance- is to let them stay so long as they don't violate the rights of others.
Well, Perry got 41% of the vote and won the election thereby. Now that he's not on the stump, he's entirely changed his tune on the issue. Now he opposes building a fence along the border- plus he calls for a guest-worker program, essentially following the lead of his patron George W. Bush.
And, y'know, look how well that proposal served him.
Most telling to me, though, is the following quote from the Houston Chronicle's coverage:
"Let's create a guest-worker program that takes these workers off the black market and that legitimizes their economic contributions without doing the same for their citizenship."
Translated: "I want them Mexicins mowin' my yard, but I don't want my daughter ta marry one."
And that's the crux of it. The Republicans in general don't object to illegal immigrations for any reason associated with labor or law; they object because they don't want immigrants, legal or not, who aren't white and rich. They'll never admit to that in public, but if you follow their policies and their actions, you'll see the trend for yourself.
Now for a few facts.
Fact #1: The more people you have at labor in a society- regardless of their legality- the more jobs and more wealth there is. Labor produces wealth, be it by manufacturing or simply by doing something that other people find annoying or distasteful. The more wealth there is in circulation, the more people spend; the more people spend, the more jobs there are; the more jobs there are, the more wealth in circulation.
Fact #2: There is no argument, aside from "rule of law" concerns, against illegal immigration that cannot also be applied to LEGAL immigration. Immigrants have always accepted lower wages than native-born citizens, because they're used to a lower standard of living. In the past people have complained that blacks, Irish, Italians, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Jews, etc. etc. etc. were "stealing jobs away from good (white) Americans." Those immigrants have always sent money back to family members who remained in the old country- would that American families retained that ethic! These immigrants, for the most part impoverished by our standards, take disproportionate advantage of government mandated services like emergency medical care- because (a) we provide it to those who need it regardless of circumstance, and (b) they can't afford anything else.
Fact #3: Many Americans- and especially Texans- are descendants of illegal immigrants. At the time of the Texas Revolution, only about ten thousand Texans were in the district legally according to Mexican law- either native-born Mexicans or authorized settlers under land grants chartered by the Mexican government. The rest, including such people as William Travis, Sam Houston and Davy Crockett, simply jumped the border and settled illegally. Other places- Santa Fe, NM, Deadwood, ND, Atlanta, GA, the Cumberland valley of Kentucky and Tennessee, the entirety of Connecticut and Rhode Island, the entire eastern Gulf Coast including Florida- were settled in direct violation of the prevailing laws of the time- even the prevailing WHITE MAN'S laws of the time. I'm not even considering the (valid) arguments of Indians here.
Fact #4: America is NOT overcrowded. In fact illegal immigrants over the past decade have shifted from urban to rural migration. Even east of the Mississippi there are vast regions underdeveloped or completely undeveloped, with fewer than four persons per square mile. We still have plenty of room for immigrants- so there's no good reason to restrict them on that count.
There is a valid purpose to having borders- to repel conquering invaders and to stop criminals and known terrorists from entering the nation. However, don't believe conservative propoganda- most Mexicans are NOT members of Aztlan and do NOT support a Reconquista. They want to get away from crushing poverty and corrupt government- just as our ancestors did, centuries ago. People like Rick Perry want to use these people and then throw them out when their usefulness is gone... but they're willing to lie about that belief in order to get the votes they need to retain power.
The ethical stance- the Libertarian stance- is to let them stay so long as they don't violate the rights of others.
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
So the report is out at last...
... and contrary to the New York Times' pre-release "leak", it's not an endorsement of stay-the-course.
It's boiled down into three points:
(1) Change US military strategy from security to training- make the Iraqi army and police solely responsible for stopping the insurgency / civil war.
(2) Make it crystal clear to the Iraqi government that, if they do not do what is necessary to pacify the country- rebuild infrastructure, establish law, keep the peace- that the United States will withdraw support for that government.
(3) Scrap current diplomatic policies (which are essentially the total lack of diplomacy) and call together Iraq's neighbors and convince them to aid in the stabilization of Iraq.
From where I sit, these proposals have no hope whatever.
Not that it matters- Bush will reject or ignore them as much as he can. He won't budge on demarche to Syria and Iran; he won't withdraw troops; and he won't hold the Iraqi government accountable. In fact- and this is a joke- Tony Snow's first post-report press briefing has the White House claiming that it's already doing the things the report calls for.
The facts are very simple. We cannot impose peace on the Iraqis. Most of the Iraqi government we installed wants us gone and will oppose us any way it can. There is nothing more our troops can accomplish in Iraq; it's time for them to come home now.
The Baker Commission has utterly failed to recognize this... in fact, it's utterly failed, period.
It's boiled down into three points:
(1) Change US military strategy from security to training- make the Iraqi army and police solely responsible for stopping the insurgency / civil war.
PROBLEM #1: A large portion, perhaps the greater portion, of the Iraqi armed forces are also members of the same sectarian militias which seek to establish national dominance through terror and murder.
PROBLEM #2: The Iraqi constitution limits the powers of the central government, making it difficult for the central government to exercise police powers within the various districts at the best of times.
(2) Make it crystal clear to the Iraqi government that, if they do not do what is necessary to pacify the country- rebuild infrastructure, establish law, keep the peace- that the United States will withdraw support for that government.
PROBLEM #3: The Iraqi government, in large part, is composed of the leaders of the militia forces which are the main CAUSE of the violence, and as such have no interest in the government being successful unless said government is under the control of their particular faction.
PROBLEM #4: Saudi Arabia has publicly stated that, should the US pull out of Iraq, it will immediately invade to establish stability itself.
(3) Scrap current diplomatic policies (which are essentially the total lack of diplomacy) and call together Iraq's neighbors and convince them to aid in the stabilization of Iraq.
PROBLEM #5: The two leading players in such a situation here would be Syria and Iran, neither of which want a stable Iraq.
PROBLEM #6: Talking to Syria and Iran would require concessions on the part of the United States. This would essentially involve giving up a democratic Lebanon in favor of a Hezbollah regime and abandoning efforts to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons capability.
PROBLEM #7: The Iraqi government has stated that it will not accept the interference of any of its neighbors in its internal affairs, nor will it support a multi-nation conference on Iraq.
From where I sit, these proposals have no hope whatever.
Not that it matters- Bush will reject or ignore them as much as he can. He won't budge on demarche to Syria and Iran; he won't withdraw troops; and he won't hold the Iraqi government accountable. In fact- and this is a joke- Tony Snow's first post-report press briefing has the White House claiming that it's already doing the things the report calls for.
The facts are very simple. We cannot impose peace on the Iraqis. Most of the Iraqi government we installed wants us gone and will oppose us any way it can. There is nothing more our troops can accomplish in Iraq; it's time for them to come home now.
The Baker Commission has utterly failed to recognize this... in fact, it's utterly failed, period.
Welcome to One Man's Opinions...
My name is Kris Overstreet, and I'm a Libertarian Party politician.
Technically I'm a retired politician, in that I don't intend to ever run for public elective office again. In 2000 I ran a write-in campaign for my local school board and got ten votes out of eighty-four cast. In 2006 I ran for Texas state representative and got over 7,000 votes, winning 24% of the vote against a Republican incumbent. After that run, and after the media's focus on my personal life (which includes writing and publishing sexually explicit material), I decided that, although I did better than any other Libertarian candidate for state legislature in Texas, there has to be other candidates with more money, more time, and fewer distractions.
However, I still intend to remain active in the Libertarian Party, or in whatever political party I feel best represents what I believe in. I joined the Libertarian Party reluctantly in 1999 because it is the only political party in the United States which consistently calls for less government and greater freedom. Every other party- the Republicans, the Democrats, the Greens, the Constitution Party, the Reform Party, etc.- calls for larger, more intrusive government for its own purposes. I served as a county chairman from 2000 to the end of 2005, when I ran for office. I've also served as Texas state platform committee chair twice, and in 2004 I sought the state vice-chairmanship, losing by a vote of 27 to 20.
The reason my loyalty to the Libertarian Party remains conditional is that there are too many Libertarians who believe that nothing less than total anarchy- the absence of government- is morally acceptable. There are two groups of this kind of person currently in the party. First there are the anarchists- those who believe that no law is good law. Second there are the purists- those who believe that no one who does not believe in every point of anarchic principle should be allowed into the Libertarian Party. There is a large overlap between the two groups, but they're not identical. Both groups, though, are not merely annoying but actively destructive to the one hope Libertarians have of reversing the trend against freedom: elect people to office.
I am not an anarchist. I am not an Objectivist. I am firmly opposed to both philosophies. Objectivism is based on the concepts of rationality and enlightened self-interest, which are used to justify the concept that selfishness is good and self-sacrifice evil. I believe that enlightened self-interest, if it exists at all, only leads to the thought, "How can I do this and not suffer any consequences?" Anarchy holds that freedom lies in an absence of government. I reply that anarchy leads directly to tyranny- in any anarchic system there will be at least one person willing to do anything to seize power, and a large number of people who will support anyone who will end anarchy.
We must accept these two points of human nature to live in the real world: that the concentration of power in any one place, be it government, the individual, a corporation, religion, or whatever, is a bad thing; and that there will always be people who will seek short-term advantage without any regard for the rights of others. These are the reasons why laws and government are tolerated, even approved of, by the vast majority of people. These are the proper role of government; to protect the rights of the weak against the encroachments of the strong, and to take out of circulation those who would violate the rights of others.
Having said that, I must stress that government power, like any power, must be restricted. Today we have a government which takes nearly a quarter of all wealth produced in this nation for its own ends, and still spends vastly more than it takes in. We have a government that spies on its own people and harrasses those who oppose those in power. We have a government which endorses torture. We have a government which censors, which favors one religion over others, which takes property without due process of law. We are swiftly losing those things which make America a "free nation"- the ability to do as one wishes, so long as no one else is harmed, without restriction.
There are very good cases to be made for reducing government's size at all levels... but the anarchists in the Libertarian Party cripple us by calling for all-or-nothing, smash-the-state changes. The purists cripple us by attacking those who propose small, incremental changes or who disagree on which government functions are valid and which aren't. As time has passed, I've gone from being a loyal party-line supporter to an active reformer and opponent of purism, because I've seen that the tactics of the anarchists and purists in this party drive voters actively away from us and into the arms of those in power.
This blog will be my commentary on three points. First and foremost, it will comment on the government as we have it- its constant expansion, its bungling, and what should be done to change it. Second, it will point out the Corn Flakes in the Libertarian Party. (A Corn Flake is a party member or spokesperson who, through his or her words or deeds, makes our whole party look not merely misguided but insane.) Third, it will point out those in the Libertarian Party who are either working for reform or who are actually making their part of the world a more free place to live in.
I'll try to have one post per day, but no promises; I have a life away from the computer, including family issues, personal issues, and business issues. For those things I have a LiveJournal. Whenever I have something political to say, though, it'll go here.
Technically I'm a retired politician, in that I don't intend to ever run for public elective office again. In 2000 I ran a write-in campaign for my local school board and got ten votes out of eighty-four cast. In 2006 I ran for Texas state representative and got over 7,000 votes, winning 24% of the vote against a Republican incumbent. After that run, and after the media's focus on my personal life (which includes writing and publishing sexually explicit material), I decided that, although I did better than any other Libertarian candidate for state legislature in Texas, there has to be other candidates with more money, more time, and fewer distractions.
However, I still intend to remain active in the Libertarian Party, or in whatever political party I feel best represents what I believe in. I joined the Libertarian Party reluctantly in 1999 because it is the only political party in the United States which consistently calls for less government and greater freedom. Every other party- the Republicans, the Democrats, the Greens, the Constitution Party, the Reform Party, etc.- calls for larger, more intrusive government for its own purposes. I served as a county chairman from 2000 to the end of 2005, when I ran for office. I've also served as Texas state platform committee chair twice, and in 2004 I sought the state vice-chairmanship, losing by a vote of 27 to 20.
The reason my loyalty to the Libertarian Party remains conditional is that there are too many Libertarians who believe that nothing less than total anarchy- the absence of government- is morally acceptable. There are two groups of this kind of person currently in the party. First there are the anarchists- those who believe that no law is good law. Second there are the purists- those who believe that no one who does not believe in every point of anarchic principle should be allowed into the Libertarian Party. There is a large overlap between the two groups, but they're not identical. Both groups, though, are not merely annoying but actively destructive to the one hope Libertarians have of reversing the trend against freedom: elect people to office.
I am not an anarchist. I am not an Objectivist. I am firmly opposed to both philosophies. Objectivism is based on the concepts of rationality and enlightened self-interest, which are used to justify the concept that selfishness is good and self-sacrifice evil. I believe that enlightened self-interest, if it exists at all, only leads to the thought, "How can I do this and not suffer any consequences?" Anarchy holds that freedom lies in an absence of government. I reply that anarchy leads directly to tyranny- in any anarchic system there will be at least one person willing to do anything to seize power, and a large number of people who will support anyone who will end anarchy.
We must accept these two points of human nature to live in the real world: that the concentration of power in any one place, be it government, the individual, a corporation, religion, or whatever, is a bad thing; and that there will always be people who will seek short-term advantage without any regard for the rights of others. These are the reasons why laws and government are tolerated, even approved of, by the vast majority of people. These are the proper role of government; to protect the rights of the weak against the encroachments of the strong, and to take out of circulation those who would violate the rights of others.
Having said that, I must stress that government power, like any power, must be restricted. Today we have a government which takes nearly a quarter of all wealth produced in this nation for its own ends, and still spends vastly more than it takes in. We have a government that spies on its own people and harrasses those who oppose those in power. We have a government which endorses torture. We have a government which censors, which favors one religion over others, which takes property without due process of law. We are swiftly losing those things which make America a "free nation"- the ability to do as one wishes, so long as no one else is harmed, without restriction.
There are very good cases to be made for reducing government's size at all levels... but the anarchists in the Libertarian Party cripple us by calling for all-or-nothing, smash-the-state changes. The purists cripple us by attacking those who propose small, incremental changes or who disagree on which government functions are valid and which aren't. As time has passed, I've gone from being a loyal party-line supporter to an active reformer and opponent of purism, because I've seen that the tactics of the anarchists and purists in this party drive voters actively away from us and into the arms of those in power.
This blog will be my commentary on three points. First and foremost, it will comment on the government as we have it- its constant expansion, its bungling, and what should be done to change it. Second, it will point out the Corn Flakes in the Libertarian Party. (A Corn Flake is a party member or spokesperson who, through his or her words or deeds, makes our whole party look not merely misguided but insane.) Third, it will point out those in the Libertarian Party who are either working for reform or who are actually making their part of the world a more free place to live in.
I'll try to have one post per day, but no promises; I have a life away from the computer, including family issues, personal issues, and business issues. For those things I have a LiveJournal. Whenever I have something political to say, though, it'll go here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
