Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty.

I saw on CNN this morning (I was at the gym, and couldn't change the channel to a better news station) that Clinton and Obama are making free trade a major issue in Ohio. Apparently Ohio has lost manufacturing jobs since President Clinton signed NAFTA into law, and the Democrats are both eager to show that they don't support free trade.

There are two issues here, as I see it. The first is econonmic: the government can't protect every industry or everyone's job. They can protect some industries, and so protect some jobs, but this will be at the expense of other industries. Take steel as an example. The government protects the steel industry (through trade restrictions), and steel workers' jobs are safe. But the steel industry needed protection in the first place because the U.S. just can't make steel as cheaply as some other countries can. As a result, the American auto industry has to pay more for steel (because they can only buy U.S. steel, not cheaper foreign steel) and has to lay people off to offset some of the added cost. At the same time the cost of American cars goes up to offset some of the rest of the added cost, while countries that are free to buy cheaper steel can sell their cars more cheaply. The American auto companies then lay off more jobs, because people are buying cheaper foreign cars.

The steel industy is just an example; the same effects are seen any time the government protects an industry. Politicans know this, and economists know this- but most Americans don't. The problem is that is takes years for the effects to be felt, and by that time most people won't connect the dots. This is wonderful for politicians, who can look like the champions of the working class for protecting an industry- and escape all the blame once the effects are felt.

The second issue is possibly even more distressing than the lack of basic economic knowledge evinced in this election season: the growing desire of most Americans for the government to take care of them. The Ohio example: they want the government to guarantee them jobs (and not just any jobs- the ones they want). If an industry is struggling and has to lay people off, they look to the government to end free trade and bring jobs back to that industry. (Apparently finding a job in a different industry or learning a more marketable skill is out of the question.) Compare the reactions to the Democrats, who want to "bring jobs back" (cheers), and to Mitt Romney, who said in Michigan that people need to face the fact that some jobs may not be coming back ("backlash"). People don't want to be self sufficient anymore, so they certainly don't want to be told that the government can't protect their jobs: they just want the government to take care of them. Nevermind that it is impossible for the government to protect everyone- most people don't know that and don't care to find out.

I'm really hoping that the people who are willing to educate themselves and who don't need the government to take care of them don't let ignorance win this election.

The title of today's post is a quote by Thomas Jefferson.

In its essentials not only is completed socialism the same as communism but it hardly differs from facism.

Lately I've been thinking a lot about leaving this country. I'd already decided that I was going to leave New York for somewhere less stifling on individual freedoms within the next three years, but now I think that may not be drastic enough. Don't get me wrong, I love America and everything she's supposed to stand for. What I don't love is the politicians that are perverting it. Yesterday I read an article about Hillary Clinton in the New York Times. For those of you that haven't yet had the displeasure of reading it, I'll post the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/us/politics/21clinton.html?_r=1&ex=1358571600&en=ff696d598a7af887&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

First let me say: if you don't know what's wrong with the picture she's drawing, you really need to be reading an economics book right now. But let me help you get part of the way. An executive's compensation is agreed upon by him and the company. CEOs get paid so much because they're worth it, in the eyes of the market. HC wants to step in and impose her opinion of what's too much on parties who would otherwise come to a mutual understanding: freedom of choice being taken away. Instead of lowering taxes, which would increase the economy by letting people spend more of their money, she wants to raise taxes on the "wealthy." The top 1% of wage earners is already paying 40% of all taxes, and the bottom fifth is paying nothing... but that's not good enough. According to her, raising taxes on the wealthy will help the economy. How? She's not asked, and she doesn't explain. Freedom to keep what you earn continues to dwindle away. Socialism, anyone?

She also wants the government to create more jobs by raising spending on "job creating projects." Forget all the free market options that would help create jobs, the government to the rescue. Final thoughts: jobs did once pay enough to allow one parent to support the family, but they don't anymore. A couple of reasons you won't hear HC mention: taxes are too high, and the government refuses to control inflation so prices are rising while wages can't keep up. HC wants to halt foreclosures and freeze subprime interest rates. This would make it nearly impossible for anyone without perfect credit to qualify for a mortgage at an affordable interest rate. Sounds like socialism to me.

I've been asking myself, when did we get to the point where people actually agree with ideas like this? Do she and Edwards get away with their socialist views because people don't understand why it won't work? or do they just not care? I am very, very frustrated, and you should be too. I for one am not going to work if taxes keep getting raised. I'm already angry that in September when I start work I'll be paying at least 30% of my income in taxes. I'm angry, but I'm trying to do something about it, so I'll work anyway. But if I'm expected to pay 40% or 50% of my income in taxes, I'm just going to leave the country. I don't think I'm alone in thinking this way, either. Except for American companies relocating to other countries and wealthy Americans moving their money offshore I don't have any data to back me up, but you can only push people so far before they just say "no." (I think more people should have said no a long time ago, but that's a whole other post.) This country is quickly coming to a point where one of two things will happen: we'll either have an Atlas Shrugged scenario, or there'll be a revolution. Things can't keep going the way they're going.

Do you hear that? It's the death throes of individual responsiblity- and freedom. If freedom lovers are going to prevail we have to unite and start making a concerted effort now- we have to take a stand. If we don't... well, I can almost hear the socialists cheering.

The title of today's post is a quote from The Socialist Tragedy, by Ivor Thomas.

A slave is a being who allows others to make his choices for him.

I've been a libertarian forever. I don't like the government, except in very small doses, and I especially hate paying taxes. But it's been just recently that I've started reading a lot more; economics books (if you haven't ever read one, get a simple one and read it - The Undercover Economist by Tim Harford is a great place to start), political blogs, etc. The more I read, the angrier I get. Every day, the government encroaches a little more on our freedoms, takes a little more choice away from us. Even more upsetting, few people seem to care. Talk to most people about smoking bans or mandatory seatbelt laws, and they'll say they don't care because "they're for our own good" or "those don't affect me." And granted, these are very small things- if you look at them by themselves.

But if every day, or every month, the government takes a small freedom away from the people... those small freedoms are going to start adding up before too long. Unfortunately, many people are too shortsighted to see this. Others are happy with the government making decisions for them, so they don't mind that they aren't truly free. I mind a lot. And I think we're already at a point where so many small freedoms have been taken from us, that most of us don't even think much of it when another one is taken away. I think something needs to be done now, before it's too late - if it isn't already.

I argue politics when I had an opponent, rage at the TV when I see Hillary Clinton on it, and frequently tell everyone how much I hate the government. And people say to me: "What can you do about it? Stop getting so upset." And while that may be true, I would like to try to do something. This blog isn't much, but it's better than sitting on the couch complaining about the way things are going. I know there are many people that think like I do. If we all get angry enough to start doing something about it, we could change this country for the better. Do something! Start a blog, write a letter to an editor, join a local group that believes as you do. But do something! Apathy will get us nowhere.

~Libertarianista

Reading suggestion: Hologram of Liberty, by Kenneth W. Royce. He argues that the Constituion was never meant to keep the government small, that it was structured in such a way to allow the creeping growth of the federal government that we've seen. Very good book, and more than worth picking up a copy.

Finally: the title of this post is a quote by Aristotle.