Archive

Archive for the ‘PL Contributors’ Category

The Token Marijuana Patient

July 10th, 2011

medical-marijuanaBy: Stephen Carter - stephen@icarter.com

I’ve heard a lot of different responses to the marijuana legalization movement during the time I’ve been involved with this great group of people. Some have been good, some bad, many have been irrational, but the one I’ve begun to hear recently sickens me.

The charge levied against those involved in the marijuana movement? That we are using medical marijuana as a cover, that we really don’t care about the sick, and that we just want to get high without getting arrested. Well, one part of that statement is accurate, and you’d better believe that every single one of us is in this for it. All of us that consume marijuana “yes there are some people involved that do not consume marijuana” do just want to get high in peace, and there isn’t a thing wrong with that. Read more…

VN:F [1.9.9_1125]
Rating: 5.0/5 (4 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.9_1125]
Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)

Stephen Articles, PL Contributors

Rep vows federal marijuana bill to not see the light of day

July 6th, 2011

Cannabis Uses

By: Stephen Carter - stephen@icarter.com

As you may have already heard, an alliance has been forged in congress on the issue of marijuana legalization. Democrat Barney Frank (Ma) and Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul (Tx) have come together to bring us H.R. 2306, known as “Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011″ however thanks to Rep. Lamar Smith(R) of Texas, the bill likely will not even get a hearing. Read more…

VN:F [1.9.9_1125]
Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
VN:F [1.9.9_1125]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Stephen Articles, PL Contributors

Thank the right people, for the right reasons, on Independence Day

July 5th, 2011

Independence Day

By: Stephen Carter - stephen@icarter.com

Happy 4th of July everyone, a day where we all celebrate our liberty and those who stand up and actively work against those who would oppress others.

You might thank a soldier, but few wars have been fought to preserve liberty. You might thank a politician, but few politicians have been on the side of liberty. The unseen are the ones you should be looking for, those that fight for your rights on a daily basis, the ones hassled by those in positions of power for exposing corruption, malice, and inconsistencies in liberty. Read more…

VN:F [1.9.9_1125]
Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.9_1125]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Stephen Articles, PL Contributors

What You Can’t Say

June 28th, 2011

By: Paul Graham

Have you ever seen an old photo of yourself and been embarrassed at the way you looked? Did we actually dress like that? We did. And we had no idea how silly we looked. It’s the nature of fashion to be invisible, in the same way the movement of the earth is invisible to all of us riding on it.

What scares me is that there are moral fashions too. They’re just as arbitrary, and just as invisible to most people. But they’re much more dangerous. Fashion is mistaken for good design; moral fashion is mistaken for good. Dressing oddly gets you laughed at. Violating moral fashions can get you fired, ostracized, imprisoned, or even killed. Read more…

VN:F [1.9.9_1125]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.9_1125]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Stephen Articles, PL Contributors

How To: First Aid Kit

June 24th, 2011

firstaidA well-stocked first-aid kit is a necessity in every home.

The first-aid kit should be kept in an easy to reach place. It is best to keep one first-aid kit in your home and one in each car. Also be sure to pack a first aid kit when you go on vacation.

How to make a First Aid Kit

Choose containers for your kits that are roomy, durable, easy to carry, and simple to open. Plastic tackle boxes or containers for storing art supplies are ideal, since they’re lightweight, have handles, and offer a lot of space.

The following items are basic supplies. You can get most of them at a pharmacy or supermarket.

Bandages and dressings:

  • Assorted sizes and shapes of Band-Aids
  • Sterile gauze pads and adhesive tape
  • ACE bandage for wrapping wrist, ankle, knee, and elbow injuries
  • Triangular bandage for wrapping injuries and making an arm sling
  • Aluminum finger splints
  • Eye shield, pads, and bandages
  • Home health equipment:
  • Thermometer
  • Syringe, medicine cup, or medicine spoon for giving specific doses of medicine
  • Disposable, instant ice bags
  • Tweezers, to remove ticks and small splinters
  • Sharp scissors
  • Sterile cotton balls
  • Sterile cotton-tipped swabs
  • Blue “baby bulb” or “turkey baster” suction device
  • Save-A-Tooth storage device in case a tooth is broken or knocked out; contains a travel case and salt solution
  • Safety pins
  • First-aid manual

    Medicine for cuts and injuries:

    • Antiseptic solution, such as hydrogen peroxide or wipes
    • Antibiotic ointment, such as bacitracin, polysporin, or mupirocin
    • Sterile eyewash, such as contact lens saline solution
    • Calamine lotion for stings or poison ivy
    • Hydrocortisone cream, ointment, or lotion for itching
    • Ibuprofen for pain
    • Extra prescription medications
    • Anti-diarrhea medication
    • Antacid (for upset stomach)
    • Laxative

      Miscellaneous items:

      • Plastic gloves
      • Flashlight
      • Extra batteries
      • Mouthpiece for administering CPR
      • List of emergency phone numbers
      • Blanket
      • Dried food
      • Canned goods
      • Can opener
      • Prescription glasses
      • Eye wash solution
      • Bottled water

        Check your kit regularly, and replace any supplies that are getting low or which have expired.

        VN:F [1.9.9_1125]
        Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
        VN:F [1.9.9_1125]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        Stephen Articles, PL Contributors

        Barney Frank and Ron Paul will Introduce Legislation on Thursday to Fully Legalize Marijuana

        June 23rd, 2011

        Via Reason Magazine

        inweedwetrustRep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) will introduce “bi-partisan legislation tomorrow ending the federal war on marijuana and letting states legalize, regulate, tax, and control marijuana without federal interference,” according to a press release from the Marijuana Policy Project that just hit my inbox. More from that email:

        Other co-sponsors include Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO), and Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA). The legislation would limit the federal government’s role in marijuana enforcement to cross-border or inter-state smuggling, allowing people to legally grow, use or sell marijuana in states where it is legal. The legislation is the first bill ever introduced in Congress to end federal marijuana prohibition.

        Rep. Frank’s legislation would end state/federal conflicts over marijuana policy, reprioritize federal resources, and provide more room for states to do what is best for their own citizens.

        I called Morgan Fox at MPP to ask about the chances that this bill will get any serious debate time in the House (a fair question, considering that it has only one Republican supporter at the moment). “It’s definitely going to get a serious debate, probably more in the media than on the floor of the House,” Fox told me. “But I think it needs to be debated on the floor.”

        What does MPP see as obstacles?

        “Someone in the prohibitionist camp could hold it up as long as they wanted, but the slew of opinion pieces that came out last week calling for the end of the failed drug war will give this momentum,” Fox said.

        While Paul’s status as a declared presidential candidate should help with media pick-up, Frank is leading the press teleconference tomorrow, and Paul’s not even on the call.

        Previous Frank-Paul partnerships include a 2010 op-ed to reduce military spending and a marijuana decriminalization bill introduced in the House in 2009. In the intervening two years, Arizona and Washington, D.C., have legalized medical marijuana, and the Connecticut legislature has moved to decriminalize it. Now former U.S. Attorney John McKay and Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes are organizing to completely legalize marijuana in Washington State. The time is ripe.

        VN:F [1.9.9_1125]
        Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
        VN:F [1.9.9_1125]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        Stephen Articles, PL Contributors

        Spreading American values at the point of a gun

        June 18th, 2011

        valuesBy: Stephen Carter -  stephen@icarter.com

        We have been at war in order to introduce good, liberty oriented American values to everyone else in the world and prevent tyranny since we got involved massively on the world stage in world war one. This has been the line of thinking, that we’re so heavily involved in the world in order to make it a better place. How have we fared? Read more…

        VN:F [1.9.9_1125]
        Rating: 3.7/5 (3 votes cast)
        VN:F [1.9.9_1125]
        Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)

        Stephen Articles, PL Contributors

        Strangling Good Jobs to Death

        June 15th, 2011

        Over the last decade, the share of U.S. national income taken home by workers has plummeted to a record low.

        As shown by the chart below the decline began with the brief recession that followed 9/11 in 2001. But it continued even as the economy picked up again, and got even worse once the Great Recession hit. In the weak recovery since then, workers’ share of income just kept on falling.

        shrinkingworkers

        Why is this you ask? It is because there are so many complex and burdensome laws, regulations, and taxes that upstarts and smaller businesses face which prevent them from emerging as real players in the market. The established businesses like this just fine because they don’t have to change the way they do business, they’re not worried about the competition. They can get by with paying lower wages, providing fewer benefits, and employing fewer workers because the law largely prevents other businesses from challenging their position. Big Business tends to prefer economic suffering, because it helps to line their pockets, and they love to use government power to do so.

        It comes down to laws and regulations that are presented to people as a safety measure, competition fairness, or as a means to protect workers. That’s not to say that all of them are bad, but this is generally the form these entitlements to companies take so that they may be easily passed. A prime example of this is Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s recent budget bill that also imposed high costs on small beer brewers at the request of a larger business in the brewing industry. These new regulations did not help or protect anyone, it just helped the larger brewers by imposing unnecessary restrictions on the smaller ones that the bigger players can easily handle.

        We see this in all areas of the market, where a politician crafts a bill that is favorable towards the established businesses by making it hard for the smaller ones to compete. We must focus on simplifying laws and regulations, removing unnecessary taxes, and getting rid of regulations that are only serving to help big businesses. We’re not talking about regulations that actually protect people here, but everything else that was either implemented as a once conceived “great idea” for business flow, or to intentionally suffocate smaller businesses so they would have a disadvantage against the bigger ones. We don’t have to live in a society with stagnating wages, high unemployment, and little financial mobility, but it will be this way until we unwind the massive tangled web of laws, regulations, and taxes that prevent the average person from making something for themselves while keeping the rich at the top. Too much regulation is strangling good jobs to death.

        This video below is but just a small example of what the problem is.
        Like us on Facebook!

        VN:F [1.9.9_1125]
        Rating: 3.0/5 (2 votes cast)
        VN:F [1.9.9_1125]
        Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

        Stephen Articles, PL Contributors, Videos

        The Gun is Civilization

        June 13th, 2011

        By: Marko Kloos

        Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

        In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

        When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

        There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

        Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

        When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

        VN:F [1.9.9_1125]
        Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
        VN:F [1.9.9_1125]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        Stephen Articles, PL Contributors

        Why is Identity Theft still Prevalent?

        June 13th, 2011

        By: Stephen Carter

        Identity and credit theft by all logic, should not exist. The agencies responsible for protection against this are government and business, and neither are doing enough to help the victims involved or deter criminals from committing the fraud. This is clear because this type of theft is still widespread.

        It is the responsibility of the government to provide part of these protections as this is the primary function of government, which is to enact laws that ensure a person or party’s actions do not infringe on the rights of others, specifically the right to be safe from theft of property. Currently, existing laws do more to take action after the fact, rather than deter and prevent theft before it happens. We must rely on businesses to prevent the theft up front, rather than have the credit card companies sort it out after the fact, which causes expenses to go up, thereby causing consumer expenses to go up.

        Purchasing with a stolen identity is not the only problem either. Gaining employment through the use of another person’s identity is a major problem as well, and causes all sorts of headaches and expenses in having to deal with the IRS. Businesses must be held accountable in this area as well. Our goal should be to ensure that the victim is never held liable in any manner for the wrongdoing of others. This currently is not the case, as any identity theft victim can attest to. Read more…

        VN:F [1.9.9_1125]
        Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
        VN:F [1.9.9_1125]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        Stephen Articles, PL Contributors

        I don’t care about New York’s Weiner!!!

        June 8th, 2011

        susanBy: Susan Spaulding Cassidy

        I am sorry, but I could care less about yet another politician behaving badly. My libertarian views go beyond politics. I believe that people have choices to make every day, and will face negative or positive consequences as a result of those choices. Weiner is no different. I don’t know what his wife will do after this, that’s her business, and she will face the consequence of her choice. I don’t know what his constituents will do, that’s theirs, and again their consequence to deal with. I don’t care if he resigns, and I’m certainly not shocked that he hasn’t. Should I have expected a man of his apparent lack of morals and judgement to turn around and do something that requires a strong sense of character and personal integrity? Um, no.

        What do I care about? I care about the fact that five American soldiers were killed yesterday. I care about the fact that when I drive down Glenway Ave, I pass far too many empty buildings that used to contain a business with employees. I care about the fact that our government has reached an historic $61 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities. I care that this breaks down to over $500,000 per American household. I care that everyone can articulate the problem, but demonizes anyone that offers a solution.

        And what of Anthony Weiner and his ilk? I care that the people of New York can vote in someone and then I get stuck with him. They probably feel the same way about Steve Chabot. I care that we continually are asked to give up more freedoms and money to people in Washington so that they can fix stuff, and then they just break it more. Is Weiner a better steward of my hard-earned money than I am? Should he decide what type of lightbulb I can purchase? Why did he have any say in MY Chrysler dealership closing? Has he acquired some vast knowledge that I should look to when deciding how I will feed my children? in how I should care for my family? my neighbors? Um, no.

        James Madison…”If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” Well, Weiner is certainly no angel. And it’s not like his case is an isolated incident, nor are those incidents contained on one side of the aisle.

        I believe in the American experiment of self-government. I understand that we must give up some of our freedom in order to have an effective government, but I feel we’ve not only given up too much, but those we’ve relinquished our freedoms to are not about to stop taking more anytime soon. As long as there is a wrong to be righted, a national problem to fix, another country’s dictator behaving badly, there will be Weiners ready to rise up and shout, “elect me, I will handle it! I will make it all better. I will keep you safe, fed, and comfortable.” When Franklin was asked if we had a Republic or a monarchy, his response was….”a republic, if you can keep it.” We’ve kept it for over 200 hundred years, and I pray that we will not be enticed by the Weiners in public office to give it away.

        VN:F [1.9.9_1125]
        Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
        VN:F [1.9.9_1125]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        Stephen Articles, PL Contributors

        Why End The Drug War?

        June 7th, 2011

        By: Stephen Carter

        The UK Guardian Times just put out a piece about a new, but not so new it seems, drug that is making its rampage through South America. It seems we have had many new, lethal, cheap drugs pop up over the past four decades. So why should you support ending the drug war? Read on to see all of the “goodness” produced by the war on drugs.

        Meth, Crack, PCP, Paco, even K2, all drugs that have popped up in recent years, all having severe effects not just because of how dangerous they are to use, but also because they are far cheaper to buy than other drugs. Since the beginning of Nixon’s Drug War in 1971, to Reagan’s subsequent crackdown, Bush Sr’s creation of the “drug czar”, and Clinton, Bush, and Obama’s efforts afterwards to stem the tide of drug problems, we have seen no improvement of the situation. What we have seen are rising drug prices and drug-related deaths.

        While many would view the rising of drug prices as a good thing, everything has it’s unintended and unseen consequences. The unintended side-effects of making drugs cost more are the creation of new cheap drugs that the poor can afford, and higher crime rates as these highly addictive drugs drive people towards their inner, less desirable dangerous traits that they otherwise might not embrace and act on in order to fuel their addiction.

        Another unintended side-effect of the War on Drugs has been the amount of people killed due to drug cartel violence, gang violence, and unintended killings by the people executing the war. Over 35,000 people have been killed in the last few years alone. In what seems as backwards reasoning, Obama nominee Michele Leonhart, head of the DEA recently said that the deaths we have seen is considered a benchmark for success in the war. Can human death and misery really be seen as a result of success? Read more…

        VN:F [1.9.9_1125]
        Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
        VN:F [1.9.9_1125]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        Stephen Articles, PL Contributors

        Note to Republicans

        May 22nd, 2011

        arthurBy: Arthur Thomas

        Remember the “Contract with America” which was the GOP document of promises back in 1994? After almost two decades of chances to change things, the United States is still having the problems it always has. Only now we have the ‘Pledge to America’, which is the Republican’s newer set of promises based on the old ones. This is their version of ‘hope’. They seem to be good at making the promises but when they get the power to do so they fall quite short. Isn’t it time to stop waiting on promises and start relying on principle?

        When given the power Republicans continually use it to grow government for their own interests. Whether it is yet another bipartisan promise to reform education, in the No Child Left Behind Act, or attacking free speech in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, they have worked towards the same goals as Democrats in many cases. When free to do as they will, our freedoms are attacked, as in the USA PATRIOT Act, which has detained US citizens without charge, or taking your money and funding corporatism and attacking the free market ideas they claim to adhere to in the TARP Program. They make promises to their base supporters while offering nothing to them. They never use their power to fulfill the wishes of their supporters. What they do quite well is to upset citizens to the point of creating blow back in the election cycles that the Democrats keep getting back into power. This only feeds the cycle because they can come make promises again and use it for their special interests while not meeting any of their pledges to America but certainly to their lobbyists.

        From the Drug War, Afghanistan War, Iraq War, Middle East hostilities, and the never ending War on Terror, Republicans have shown they are great at starting conflict but incapable of getting out of it. They grow government bureaucracy with expansions in security agencies while having little understanding of security. We are more threatened by the breaches of liberty and the dangers imposed by our government than really solving security concerns. The government puts troops overseas, spends your tax money on people that are not friendly to the US, and spends decades meddling in sovereign states that end up opposing us. All the while instead of being more secure we are told to worry more and that the threats are growing. What are these billions of dollars and thousands of lives going towards if we are not more safe now? Read more…

        VN:F [1.9.9_1125]
        Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
        VN:F [1.9.9_1125]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        Stephen Articles, PL Contributors

        The Reckless Dismissal of Ideas

        May 20th, 2011

        Today I would like to take some time to talk about the reckless dismissal of ideas.

        There has been many times where a person has had a good idea, but it was dismissed not because of any failings the idea might have, but simply because of who the idea originated from. This is very common in our society, and it spans many depths of bigotry. The irony of this, is that it is practiced by people who claim to be against all bigotry as well.

        There are so many ways that this takes place, some forms that are unacceptable to most, and some that seem as if there is absolutely nothing wrong with them. In the end though, it is all the same.

        Let’s begin with the basics that we all know and generally accept as bigotry. Say a person has a great idea, but that idea has trouble gaining traction among various people. The idea isn’t accepted or looked at in its own merit because it originated from a woman, a black person, a white person, an immigrant, a disabled person, a gay person, an old person, a young person, etc. When a person cannot simply look at an idea on its own because of who it originated from, this is bigotry.

        There are other forms of bigotry though that we don’t see quite so clearly. A few examples are because of a person’s religion or lack thereof, political affiliation, nationality, social views, character, whether or not they are married, have kids, their choice of lifestyle, wealth, etc. These are the most commonly *accepted* forms of bigotry by a great many people, yet they are no different from the previously mentioned forms.

        Some even believe that a person cannot have ideas about something unless they meet pre-requisites. A common instance of this is that a person cannot have any ideas about how to raise children, how to teach them, or even the things in society that should be legal or illegal when it comes to children. To not even consider someone’s idea because they don’t meet a certain pre-requisite is bigotry just as well.

        Let’s get rid of refusing to discuss an idea because it came from an atheist, a muslim, a christian, a pothead, a rich/poor person, a gay person, a disabled person, a libertarian, conservative, liberal, socialist, pacifist, and whatever other things you can think of.

        A good idea is a good idea, no matter who came up with it. By ignoring an idea, and even worse, bashing the creator of the idea instead, we gain absolutely nothing. In fact we lose, we all lose, because a good idea has been abandoned in favor of attacking one another instead of discussing logically the idea itself. Pride and ego cause many ideas to fall by the wayside because people aren’t willing to accept an idea from someone who is different from what they imagine an optimal person should be. We cannot have progress so long as these forms of bigotry are accepted in our society.

        - Join us on Facebook!

        VN:F [1.9.9_1125]
        Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
        VN:F [1.9.9_1125]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        Stephen Articles, PL Contributors

        How it affects you, when the government creates a monopoly

        May 13th, 2011

        Economist Robert Murphy recently put out an article discussing New York City’s requirement that all Taxi’s become uniform in that they all must be a Nissan mini-van by 2013, no other types will be allowed. He also goes into the issue of an artificial shortage of cab drivers through licensing restrictions, most costing no less than $700,000, and also tackles the issue of privatizing roads.

        The major problems addressed here are linked, but not individually similar in nature. Putting the idea of privatized roads aside, since that is an epic discussion in itself, lets look at the other problems here, a government induced monopoly.

        First of all, mandating that all taxi’s be a certain make and model vehicle constrains competition by automakers to make better taxi’s, and limits cab operator’s choices in providing a unique service for their customers. Since Nissan is being shielded from competition here, they’re not as quick to bring better products to market since they can milk old technology for as long as possible and charge a price that would be higher than normal. This is a law that effectively subsidizes Nissan, a foreign automaker to boot!

        Secondly, by restricting the amount of cab operators, supply cannot keep up with demand. Since supply is lower than the demand, prices will go up as people are willing to pay more for a scarce service, or simply have to pay more because cab drivers know that they don’t have to compete against as many other drivers, so they can get away with charging more. On top of this restriction in supply, they also charge extremely high prices for the “privilege” of operating a cab. This also piles on the already high prices from the reduction in supply to make for ever higher prices. Here, the government has effectively subsidized cab drivers and companies, all at the expense of the consumer.

        It really is a good thing, from an education standpoint, that this is being implemented. We couldn’t have asked for a clearer, more blatant example of a government induced monopoly, especially through licensing and mandate practices. If you look at this scenario and understand it’s implications on consumers, you can begin to look at other examples of government induced monopolies and mandates, and understand the issues with them and how typically a government intervention is going to harm the consumer in order to help a particular company, or group of companies or individuals. The consumer is the main driver of the economy, so we cannot help the economy by constraining the consumer.

        VN:F [1.9.9_1125]
        Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
        VN:F [1.9.9_1125]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        Stephen Articles, PL Contributors

        On 420, Think Twice Before You Toke

        April 17th, 2011

        Cannabis Uses

        In a few days, many cannabis enthusiasts will be celebrating a stoner holiday, 420. Some will be going to public events for NORML and other like minded organizations, and there will surely be some who will decide to toke up in public. What those that choose to do this don’t seem to realize though, is that they are ultimately hurting their own cause.

        When these types of events are held, the police are always around the area, watching and waiting. They know just as we do, that there will be some that will sneak off to the parking lot to grab a quick smoke, and when they do, they’ll bust them. Granted it doesn’t always happen this way, many go undetected by the police, but there are still others in the area that take notice of this.

        This reflects poorly on the organizations holding the events, and the idea of legalizing marijuana in general. One of the biggest things we hear from the anti-legalization crowd is that they don’t want them and their kids to be walking down the sidewalk and run into “some guy smokin’ dope.”

        When people decide to run out to the parking lot to grab a smoke, and get caught by either the police or some person that happens upon them, word spreads quickly that people who support legalizing marijuana have no respect for the public, and that legalizing marijuana will ultimately lead to the decay of our society. Of course we know this isn’t true, but perception is stronger than reality, and in order to attain our goals, we must establish good rapport with the public and keep a good image. A publicly owned place like a sidewalk, street, or a non-private parking lot is no place to be consuming a drug anyways.

        People are going to consume marijuana whether the law allows it or not. As Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws” and many people feel that way when it comes to marijuana. However on 420, or any other future marijuana related event, let’s think about how our actions have an effect on the whole, and keep it out of public.

        Progressive Libertarianism on Facebook

        VN:F [1.9.9_1125]
        Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
        VN:F [1.9.9_1125]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        Stephen Articles, PL Contributors

        Monetary Policy Oppresses the Poor and Middle Class

        March 3rd, 2011

        In an economy where we have seen the gaps between the haves and the have nots widen, and the cost of living steadily rise, we’re all wondering what’s wrong and how it will affect us. As I’ll explain, there is indeed a very good explanation for these problems. First though, we need to cover some basic things in order to help understand it all.

        dollar-devalue1

        Natural inflation is what happens as a product gains significant demand. Prices rise because of an increased demand, which signals to producers that more of this product is wanted, so they increase their output until they are able to sustain the level of production needed to satisfy current demands. As this goes on, profits are funneled into research that leads to more efficiency and reductions in cost, spurred on by competition from other producers that are finding ways to undercut the cost of competitors and increase the quality of their product. Until producers are able to expand and improve production to keep up with the demand, prices will inflate, or rise naturally. Once this level of production has been reached, natural deflation begins to set in as prices decrease due to competition and cost decreases. These decreased prices persist until the next surge in demand for the product, which would drive the next major advance in the technology of this economic sector. This will also include benefits for other related economic sectors as related technology decreases costs and improves quality there as well.

        Fractional reserve banking is a practice where banks are able to lend out money that they don’t actually have available to lend out, and then profit from the money they loaned that didn’t exist. Banks are able to do this because law permits them to keep a money reserve of only 10% of what it loans out. Say it has on hand on hundred dollars to loan out, this would enable it to loan out a thousand dollars, nine hundred of which it does not have. While this is dishonest in itself, the ultimate problem is that this causes a monetary supply expansion as newly made loans introduce money to the economy that didn’t previously exist. Read more…

        VN:F [1.9.9_1125]
        Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
        VN:F [1.9.9_1125]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        Stephen Articles, PL Contributors

        War for Terror

        February 10th, 2011

        Wars are not about ideals. Wars are about things, things people want. Telling people that wars are about religion or ideals is what is known as propaganda. No one wants to be the guy who is fighting over a “thing” because that makes you appear greedy.

        Terror is not a group of people, or a country, it is a tactic used in war. Telling people that we are at war on terror is propaganda. It may be simplistic, but effective, to play a substitution game. Whenever they say “war on terror” substitute “war against people who want us out of their countries”. So we have a giant war against people who want us out of their countries, which makes it easier to understand why we need propaganda in order to propagate this myth. People in this country don’t want to believe that we are fighting people who just don’t want to buy what we are selling. Let me explain.

        We were attacked by terrorists on 9/11, but the history of our War for Terror did not begin on 9/11. The United States has engaged in a belligerent, meddlesome foreign policy that has inspired the very enemies we now face while bankrupting our country both morally and financially. Read More

        VN:F [1.9.9_1125]
        Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
        VN:F [1.9.9_1125]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        Stephen Articles, PL Contributors

        Taboo Activism

        February 7th, 2011

        Written by: Stephen Carter

        For people who believe deeply in their social views, many join social groups with like minded people and/or are involved in activism to help further the causes that they believe in. Some join churches, groups like the Salvation Army, Susan G. Komen, political parties, Habitat for Humanity, the Sierra Club, etc. Those are pretty common, socially accepted groups, yet there are others that are for a good cause, but are labeled “taboo” and are shunned.

        Personally, I am an activist, supporting broad ranges of issues, some by joining together with groups of like minded people, others by myself. One such group that I am a member of, and have the honor of serving as a board member of, is a local chapter of NORML. For those not familiar with the group, it is the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. By many, especially here in Texas, this group is considered taboo, and even the people that believe in what the group does are reluctant to join, or even come out openly in support of it. It’s a shame that societal pressure prevents people from helping and participating in things that they believe will help their communities and the people in them.

        Their hesitation is understandable. Many of us have worked hard in life to achieve what we have, and don’t want to risk losing it. Some have jobs that they feel are vulnerable if they come out in support of something taboo. Others believe they will be targeted, not only by possibly their friends, neighbors, and acquaintances, but also by government agencies. I know countless people who support in private what groups like NORML do, but fear getting involved in any way because they believe the police may unfairly target them for it. It’s horrible that our society has so much to fear for simply voicing an opinion, especially from government. Read more…

        VN:F [1.9.9_1125]
        Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
        VN:F [1.9.9_1125]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        Stephen Articles, PL Contributors

        Explaining the Libertarian: Corporate Responsibility

        November 16th, 2010

        This is the second installation of the Explaining the Libertarian series, view the first here

        Businesses should be held accountable for the bad things they do by both consumers and government, this is the belief of the libertarian. However, the areas in which each group is responsible differs and it is all too often not clear which group is responsible for what.

        It is obvious that businesses often do very little policing of themselves, especially when there is no incentive to do so. Since this is the case, it is clear that they need external pressure to ensure they have good business practices. So where does the role of the consumer, and the role of the government begin and end in this matter? Let’s begin with government.

        As stated in the first article of this series, libertarians believe that the government has two functions as it relates to businesses. First, businesses should be required to give full and accurate information to consumers on the products and services they consume, and second, that businesses are held fully accountable for any negligent actions. This ensures that businesses are allowed to operate in a manner that is best suited to each individual business’s needs, provides the consumer with access to any goods they may want, complete with all of the information they need to make an informed decision, and gives businesses an incentive to do right or else face unrestricted legal action from both the government and the infringed-upon. Beyond requiring information on products and services and enforcing accountability, the rest falls on the shoulders of the consumer.

        In order for a business to place their product or service for sale on the market, they would have to provide full information about what their product is intended for, and any hazards associated with using their product. When a consumer buys something from a business, they are basically entering into a contract, that being they are agreeing to buy whatever it may be in the condition that the business describes the product as. So long as you have been given the option to be informed about your purchase and use of a product, by purchasing the product, you agree to release the business that made the product from any liability associated with the use of their product, so long as the business made available full information on the intended usage and dangers of their product. Say you want to buy medicine for a headache, so you go to the store and buy a medicine that you approve of based on cost, intended use, and side-effects. If the business has made available information that states you may get rectal bleeding from taking their product, then you assume the risks of using the product since you agreed to purchase it knowing that problem could happen. Now say the business had not made that information available, both you and the government could pursue legal action against the company and receive a settlement. The fines and injury awards would be enough to ensure that most companies are thorough in their actions to inform consumers about their products.

        Aside from being an informed consumer, there must also be consumer activists. These are people and groups who publicly protest and boycott businesses and products for various reasons. Say that a restaurant treats a disabled child and their family badly because of their disability. On instinct, many people would call for a government of some sort to pass laws requiring that restaurants such as this give this boy the same service as it would anyone else. Making this restaurant treat people equally in a case like this is not the role of the government, but of the consumer.

        Why is this the job of the consumer? Ultimately businesses live or die because of consumer preference. In our current system, it is not always this way because of special treatment from the government. Without the special treatment, a business can only succeed by delivering a product or service in a manner that people like. When a business acts in a way such as the above mentioned scenario, it is the duty of consumers to boycott and protest that business. If an act is really egregious to someone, they should have no problem refusing to do business with a particular establishment, and to urge their friends, family, and others to do the same. Organizing people to confront and boycott businesses that do things people don’t agree with is the most effective way to get results. No business likes bad PR, and if they are hurt enough financially they will either collapse or change their ways. One last thing to add, it is better to see businesses discriminate out in the open in order to better target them, than to have that discrimination hidden away.

        So what about businesses that just can’t protect the consumer, and must have the government step in? This mindset is very rampant, but does not hold water. The best example is airport security, where government has stepped in to take control. Obviously the airline industry has failed to protect its passengers, seeing as how they allowed terrorists to take over their planes and crash them, right? When you consider that prior to this, the government prevented the airline companies from allowing their employees to carry weapons on board planes, they pretty much tied their hands and helped the terrorists out with those regulations. Going back to what has already been stated, if a business is allowed to conduct its operations in a way that is best suited for their needs and is held accountable for their negligence, there will be relatively few problems. Each airline could have its own safety practices, and consumers are free to choose which airline is best for them based on how far the airline goes to protect its passengers. The airlines that do bad will fold because no one will be willing to pay them for their poor services, and any time an airline is negligent, they will have to pay for it through the nose.

        One last example here are traveling carnivals. Often these rides are thrown up and taken down without any inspection. The role of government here would be to ensure that the carnival provides information to its patrons about the state of their attractions. This would involve requiring that notices be posted about whether or not an attraction has been inspected, how old it is, any past issues it may have had, and how many times it has been dis-assembled and re-assembled. Notice that this type of regulation does not restrict either the business or consumer, it only provides the grounds for a consumer to make an educated decision. As for the consumer’s role here, it is their job to make judgments about how safe a carnival is, and alert other consumers about its track record and shortcomings. It should be obvious by now that consumer activism requires some effort, but not as much as you might think. Accomplishing these tasks is as simple as requesting information from the carnival, which it would be required to disclose fully, and then bring that information to local news outlets, as well as spread this information through word of mouth. If people decide that the carnival is not doing something right, they will abstain from anything they deem unsafe due to their new-found knowledge, and the carnival will lose money and customers until it makes sufficient changes. Imagine how many people would pause and think for a moment if they were to see a sign on the ride they are about to get on that says the ride has not been inspected and may not be safe.

        Some may see this as a contradiction to libertarian values, as we do not advocate the use of force against others. We are however permitted to use force in the defense of others. Observing this, this permits government to force businesses to provide full and accurate information about their products in the defense of consumers. If a business knowingly sells a service or product to a consumer that can harm them, but does not disclose this, the business is in effect depriving the consumer of their liberty.

        It all comes down to holding businesses accountable and promoting consumer knowledge. Rather than restrict businesses and consumers from doing business with one another, the libertarian prefers to allow the consumer to make the decision as to whether or not a transaction should take place. Remember, knowledge is power, use it rather than force to help make the world a better place.

        VN:F [1.9.9_1125]
        Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
        VN:F [1.9.9_1125]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        Stephen Articles, PL Contributors

        For Understanding: Explaining the Libertarian

        November 9th, 2010

        It is often that I find people regularly misunderstanding where libertarian types are coming from when they make statements about their positions on limited government and the way in which government should be structured. Often there isn’t enough clarification on our “libertarian” end, which leads to confusion about why we support the positions we do. With that, I’d like to give a simple overview of how libertarians tend look at society and the government that “oversees” it.

        Let me start with the biggest of the bunch, the federal government. Most people likely have a pretty clear cut view on where people such as myself stand on this monstrosity, that being it’s too big, too expensive, and too overreaching in power. The federal government should be more geared towards keeping the peace between the states, ensuring that states aren’t infringing on civil liberties, managing the military and border, and managing relations with other countries. Nothing more is really needed at this level, the rest of the issues can and should be dealt with at either the state or local levels. This helps to prevent a lot of corruption, political handouts, and general waste at the federal level, and allows people to focus much more of their energy on their local political institutions where their efforts will be the most effective. Also, the state and local governments are better equipped to serve their people than the federal government, since they are closer to the people and have a better perspective of local issues.

        The state governments should be concerned with any social programs the people of a certain state may want to implement, the structuring and final authority of civil and criminal laws, the state guard, education, districting, major roads, parks, and the implementation and overseeing of regulations on businesses. Much of what the federal government currently does could be more easily and effectively handled here, not to mention that the constitution leaves many of these regulatory powers to the states anyways.

        Local governments should be concerned with maintaining local roads and areas, zoning laws, ordinances, and what types of business and activities can be conducted in their areas. I’m sure there are bits and pieces I’ve missed, but the jist of it is here.

        While I don’t necessarily agree with many of the things that governments do, this is the structure which best serves the people. Basically, a very light overhead at the federal level keeping the pieces together, which allows states to compete with one another in policy for their respective territories, while ensuring that people at the core local levels get a say in how their immediate surrounding area functions. This allows a lot of choice to people, in that they can live in an area that they deem best suitable for their chosen lifestyle.

        Libertarians believe in the principle that government which governs least, governs best; a government that ensures that people are free to do as they wish, so long as their actions do not restrict others from doing the same.

        When it comes to regulating businesses, regulations should do two things and two things only. First, businesses should be required to give full and accurate information to consumers on the products and services they consume, and second, that businesses are held fully accountable for any negligent actions. The government fouls a lot of things up and makes it very hard on small and medium businesses and keeps the big businesses on top by trying to direct traffic, rather than just ensure that those who do wrong, are held accountable for it.

        Accountability is all that is needed in order to assure a natural rise of order in business dealings. We only shoot ourselves in the foot by giving preference to certain businesses through government granted power. A business succeeds because they provide a good service or product, because people want it to succeed. This isn’t how our system currently works though; it is designed to serve the biggest while keeping the competition at bay through regulation and subsidy. Businesses that perform badly and should fail are being kept afloat by government interventions, effectively rewarding bad behavior and punishing consumers.

        When it comes to our personal lives, we shouldn’t be getting the government involved in what the people next door are doing, so long as their actions aren’t infringing on the rights of others to do as they wish as well. If you don’t like what someone does, take the civil route and talk to them about it, explain your reasons, and hope that what you say to them persuades them to your side. If it doesn’t work, well that’s life, and no one is ever going to completely agree with one another. It just doesn’t make sense to fine people or throw them in jail for doing things that aren’t harming other people, just because you don’t agree with them. I think we can all agree that “might makes right” is a bad thing.

        Another thing I think we can all agree on is the fact that most of us work hard for our money, we earn it through hard work and dedication, and don’t like to see it taken from us. It is a given that taxes are a necessary evil, however that doesn’t mean that taxes should be rampant. It cannot be denied that taxation is simply, theft. We’d all be a lot better off if taxation was kept to the bare basics needed for a functioning government.

        Government is slow and inefficient, and no one is going to agree with how their tax money is spent beyond the basics of society. The best way to ensure that the money intended to go towards helping people is to let people decide for themselves which charities their money goes towards. We are a charitable people, that cannot be denied, and we are great because we are generous. It would be ignorant to believe that without government sponsored welfare, help for the needy would dry up. Sure it wouldn’t be quite as easy as it is now to just get a check in the mail from the government, but is that really what we want our society to be? We would be much more involved with one another, a much more tight knit community, a people flush with humility, if we relied on one another directly, rather than through the indirect means of government.

        I’d like to touch on one last subject here, that being foreign relations. We should be working at all times to tend our own business and establish positive ties with every country in the world. Throughout much of our existence as a country in history, we have a track record of meddling in the affairs of other countries, which has caused a lot of blow-back. We need to focus on our own affairs here at home, neutral trade with the rest of the countries in the world, and keep our military on our own soil, not just because of the massive costs and wastes of deploying our military across the world, but because our esteemed members of the military deserve to be here at home with their families, leading productive lives, and standing ready to guard us should the need ever arise. There’s too much to cover in this topic for me to put it here, and it takes a great deal of knowledge about our history to understand why we are in the position we are right now. There is one thing I can say though, if we are indeed in danger, we must focus on security here at home, and keep our noses clean abroad. This is the only sure way to assure our continued prosperity and security. The best offense is a good defense.

        Live and let live, be generous and understanding, and let your actions set a shining example, rather than force your will on others. Live by the principle of non-aggression towards others. Let there be peace and liberty for all, for that is the solution to a great deal of our problems.

        VN:F [1.9.9_1125]
        Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
        VN:F [1.9.9_1125]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        Stephen Articles, PL Contributors