Independents Have A Natural Right To Vote!

The previous is a petition to President-Elect Obama on behalf of an organization I work for. Independents are asking the President-Elect to support federal legislation allowing Independents to vote AS Independents in federal elections in all fifty states. Please sign this petition so that all Americans have a their inherent right to vote at every step of the electoral process, not only those who identify as Republicans and Democrats. Please share this petition with your freinds, family, and loved ones.

Thank You.

An Open Letter to President Barack Obama from The Independent Movement

An Open Letter to President Barack Obama from The Independent Movement

Is Homosexual Marriage A Religious Rite, Or A Natural Right?

I philosophically support homosexual marriage, however, I fully recognize the political reality of the current national climate in opposition to homosexual marriage. The California vote clearly demonstrated that reality.

As a Roman Catholic, I am conflicted on this matter since my faith is so opposed, and the right of each faith to either support or oppose homosexual marriage is sacrosanct.

As a Natural Rights theorist, I must concede I can not find a Natural Rights framework or foundation for marriage, either heterosexual or homosexual. I find it difficult to argue that marriage is a Natural Right.

The conflict I had philosophically over the California Proposition Eight situation in particular, is that the legalization of homosexual marriage was imposed on the citizens of California by the judiciary. A practice I find repugnant.

Complicating matters further, the law overturning the legalization of homosexual marriage was passed by the people. A constitutional method most libertarians find more acceptable than through judicial fiat.

I believe it best that Independent libertarians maintain neutrality on the California matter for the time being.Recognizing that several libertarian principles are in conflict with one another in this particular situation.

I believe the Independent libertarian position on this contentious issue was correctly articulated by the Libertarian Party platform,a Party which hardly ever gets any principle of libertarianism correct,which declares:

"Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no discriminatory impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration, or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have legitimate authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships."

I believe most Independent libertarians, no matter what personal convictions they may hold on the matter, should concur that the government has no role in marriage other than ensuring public health.

Marriage is a religious rite, not a Natural Right. Moreover, homosexual marriage is not a matter for the state beyond ensuring public health.

This should be a starting point upon which to construct a respectful framework for this complex and contentious debate.

Stop The Bailout Insanity

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing twice and expecting a different outcome.

By this definition, the federal government is clinically insane.

I opposed the seven hundred billion dollar bailout for financial institutions because I believed it would not work. Moreover, I believed the taxpayer funded measure to be creeping socialism, in the form of the largest government intervention in the free market in American history.

I don't mean to say I told you so, but...

The United States economy continues its downward spiral, and the credit market remains a frozen river.

Now, Uncle Sam, bruised and battered as he may be,has set his considerable sight upon the American automobile industry, in the form of a automotive industry bailout.

The market is crashing, the U.S. economy is collapsing. Many Americans will not have a Christmas to speak of.

The American People cannot afford to bailout GM, Chrysler, and Ford. These corporations have been failing for decades, and throwing billions and billions of more taxpayers' money at them will not save those corporations. The American car companies are failing because of stifling labor union costs, enormous government regulations, a non existent business model, and poor quality product.

The federal government can give the three corporations a trillion dollars of our money and it will not solve the underlying problems that have suffocated 'The Big Three" for many years before this current economic collapse we are enduring.

GM, Chrysler, and Ford should declare Chapter Eleven bankruptcy. In doing do, the corporations may continue to function while they re-negotiate the suffocating labor union benefit costs that have stunted their prosperity and prevented all three from turning a consistent profit over the decades.

At The same time, the government should establish an 'Employment Superfund' so that employees of these corporations may receive financial assistance and job skill training so that they may more easily find a new job in a different American industry that is prosperous.

The three American car companies must reorganize just like every other American corporation has done in the bast, in good and bad economic times alike, they must go into bankruptcy, enabling the corporations to relieve themselves of debt and paralyzing overhead.

The three auto companies that were once the pride of the American People can continue to survive in the years ahead if they take such steps without needing the scarce money of the American People.

Otherwise, they should be allowed to fail.

A Path Other Than Socialism Or Economic Armageddon

This author seeks to clarify a misconception that has been circulating in the press. The media has been declaring that laissez-faireists, such as this author, are in some manner not willing to recognize that politics is the art of compromise, and by extension, unwilling to accept any legislation that is introduced to tackle this liquidity crisis confronting the United States economy. This assertion could not be farther from the reality of this fiscally conservative author.

Pragmatic economic libertarians are not opposed to having liquidity legislation, recognizing this is a true liquidity crisis that needs to be addressed. Free Market economists objected to this atrocity of a bill that was defeated by House Republicans. Had that piece of legislation become law, it would have effectively suffocated the free market under the oppressive hand of dramatic and unwieldy government intervention across all economic sectors. The choice was either socialism, or prepare for economic collapse. This is a false chocie.

The Cantor proposal is widely viewed as acceptable to economic libertarians, as well as the Gingrich proposal that utilizes free market instruments to add liquidity to the economy.

As a libertarian, this author proposes the following reforms that turn to the free market to resolve this liquidity crisis over the long term. The instrument of Mark to market must be abolished without delay, the Capital Gains Tax must be abolished, the repeal of the 'Community Reinvestment Act' must occur, and the horrific Sarbane Oxley Act must be repealed. The government can, and should, LOAN financial institutions money at a fixed rate with five years maximum to repay the loan in full to the Treasury,no exceptions nor time extensions, rather than bailing these institutions out at taxpayers' expense. The FDIC insurance threshold must be raised from the current one hundred thousand dollar level to at least a two hundred and fifty thousand dollar level

These are just a few measures that fiscal conservatives and economic libertarians alike are proposing, and would find acceptable to our principles in this legislation.

Fiscal conservative await the impending vote of the Senate Wednesday evening, and hope the one hundred Senators will allow the Constitution, and their consciences, to be their guides.

The Seven Hundred Billion Dollar Atrocity

The proposed seven hundred billion dollar economic bailout legislation is a complete atrocity. I will vote only Libertarian Party downticket if any House Republicans support this legislation that is nothing more than Socialism.

I read the entire final version of the bill that was released on the web (I know get a life). All one hundred and ten mind- numbing pages of the proposal, and quite honestly, it is a disgrace. Only Washington could devise something so spectacularly pathetic. The legislation will stifle and suffocate the free market, and implement massive government intervention at every level of the U.S. economic system.

Seven hundred billion dollars of taxpayers' money, the nationalization of God -only- knows how many corporations, and granting the Treasury Secretary massive powers never granted to him under the Constitution.

I cannot begin to comprehend how President Bush supports such a fiscal atrocity. Everyone knows I am a strong supporter of President Bush. Perhaps the only one remaining in the nation other than blood relatives. I cannot wrap my mind around how a self proclaimed 'fiscally conservative' President could throw his support behind such a measure. This is a policy I would expect from FDR or Jimmy Carter, not a fiscally conservative President. Disgraceful.

Please read the proposed legislation everyone. The government will grow in size and scope beyond our wildest nightmares if this legislation in its current form is passed and signed into law. Which it now appears the House wil indeedl pass this legislation on Monday, and the Senate later in the week. There is no going back once this Socialistic legislation is law. The federal government will have massive powers never granted to it under the Constitution.

We will now see a massive centralization of power in the federal government. Once this incredible disruption of the free market system takes hold, there will be little chance of rolling back federal supremacy over the economic sphere.

There are plenty of ways to utilize the private sector to stabilize this current liquidity crisis. Read Newt Gingrich's website or CATO's policy proposals. There is no need to have the government spend taxpayer's money at massive amounts to take over large sectors of the free market.

I wrote to several dozen House Republicans urging them to stand up and fight this unconstitutional legislation. One Member wrote back to me saying that the phone hasn't stopped ringing over the outrage of this legislation from their constituents.

The only recourse left to libertarians and fiscal conservatives is to watch the Roll Call vote on Monday to see who votes Yea on this legislation in the House, and then to throw them out accordingly come November.

This bill is the anthesis of libertarian and fiscally conservative principles and ideals.

So that I am not accused of tearing down without building something in its place, I am endorsing Congressman Cantor's (R-VA) proposal to address the current liquidity crisis:

"This morning, Representatives Eric Cantor of Virginia and Jeb Hensarling of Texas, are proposing a counter proposal to the huge bailout of Wall Street firms. Their proposal is consistent with libertarian principles, and reads like something straight out of a Cato Institute Handbook.

Here are the highlights:


Economic Rescue Principles

Common Sense Plan to Have Wall Street Fund the Recovery, Not Taxpayers

* Rather than providing taxpayer funded purchases of frozen mortgage assets, we should adopt a mortgage insurance approach to solve the problem.

* Currently the federal government insures approximately half of all mortgage backed securities. (MBS) We can insure the rest of current outstanding MBS; however, rather than taxpayers funding insurance, the holders of these assets should pay for it. Treasury Department can design a system to charge premiums to the holders of MBS to fully finance this insurance.

Have Private Capital Injection to the Financial Markets, Not Tax Dollars

* Instead of injecting taxpayer capital into the market to produce liquidity, private capital can be drawn into the market by removing regulatory and tax barriers that are currently blocking private capital formation. Too much private capital is sitting on the sidelines during this crisis.

* Temporary tax relief provisions can help companies free up capital to maintain operations, create jobs, and lend to one another. In addition, we should allow for a temporary suspension of dividend payments by financial institutions and other regulatory measures to address the problems surrounding private capital liquidity.

Immediate Transparency, Oversight, and Market Reform

* Increase Transparency. Require participating firms to disclose to Treasury the value of their mortgage assets on their books, the value of any private bids within the last year for such assets, and their last audit report.

* Limit Federal Exposure for High Risk Loans: Mandate that the GSEs no longer securitize any unsound mortgages.

* Call on the SEC to audit reports of failed companies to ensure that the financial standing of these troubled companies was accurately portrayed.

* Wall Street Executives should not benefit from taxpayer funding.

* Call on the SEC to review the performance of the Credit Rating Agencies and their ability to accurately reflect the risks of these failed investment securities.

* Create a blue ribbon panel with representatives of Treasury, SEC, and the Fed to make recommendations to Congress for reforms of the financial sector by January 1, 2009."
Courtesy Libertarian Republican website.


I firmly believe the current economic crisis can be solved in the long term without placing a seven hundred billion pound weight on the backs of the American taxpayer.

Anti - War Activist Stifling Free Speech

Libertarians are often lauded as the last guardians of liberty, and without question freedom of speech and freedom of expression are fundamental principles of libertarianism. This is clearly not the case for Anti - War Libertarian, and self-proclaimed omnipotent Wikipedia editor, Carol Moore.

Ms. Moore has taken the decidedly unlibertarian action of threatening to delete enteire articles at will that do not meet her criteria of the libertarian philosophy. Moore has insisted that libertarian-conservatism and neolibertarianism are not libertarianism, despite ample empirical evidence provided to the contrary. Ms. Moore appears to be embarking upon her very own philosophical Jihad, weeding out those ideas that contradict her interpretation of libertarianism.

Ms. Moore's actions on Wikipedia underscore a larger dilemma that America is currently confronted with. The inability to distinguish between blind partisanship and fundamental fairness. This particular affliction has infected more individuals than just Ms. Moore, and has seeped into our political discourse as a nation,eating away at its host.

As Francois-Marie Arouet, better known as Voltaire once said,
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

All Americans should adhere to this spirit, particularly if they wish to proclaim themselves; libertarians.

Wikipedia links of note:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Carolmooredc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neolibertarianism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Libertarian_conservatism