Liberty Maven

Another slam dunk media appearnance by Ron Paul on CNBC this afternoon. He appeared with Kudlow who had nothing but praise for him and then was invited to stay on as part of the panel discussion following the interview. No embedded video but here is the link to CNBC site containing the video. Great stuff.

Bob Barr appeared on CSPAN’s “Road The White House” tonight in an interview recorded on Wednesday. The interview lasts about 30 minutes and it demonstrates not only Bob Barr’s excellent liberty message, but also the CSPAN host conducting an interview how interviews should be conducted. Barr goes into details on a number of subjects including his brand of Libertarianism, Ron Paul support, Defense of Marriage, and his campaign fund raising status. This is an excellent interview leading in to his national television appearance scheduled on “FOX and Friends” tomorrow morning around 6am eastern. Available below in 4 parts.

Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

Bob Barr sat down for a rather lengthy grilling from GQ magazine’s Wil S. Hilton. Hilton approached the interview with an obvious sarcastic bias and attacked Barr with some of his questions. They even argued a bit, but Barr held his own, as usual. Here is a particularly argumentative excerpt:

Why shouldn’t the government interfere in the market and rein in corporations?
Is that the job of the federal government? I would say absolutely not. The government is not there to guarantee that the market is going to operate in a certain way.

Isn’t the government there to do whatever the people want? Isn’t that the whole idea of a democracy?
In a pure democracy, yes. But we don’t have a pure democracy. We have certain principles on which the nation is founded. The basic philosophy—the reason the government was set up the way it is—is to keep the government out of those areas. In our system, it’s not the job of the federal government to do those things. It is the job of the government to ensure free commerce.

Do you actually believe free commerce will cap pollution and keep the water pure and the air clean?
It may or may not.

Don’t you think the public has a right to keep its water clean?
I wouldn’t equate public concern with the appropriate role of government. The public, by and large, would like government to do all sorts of things.

And this is a democracy, and the government should do what they want.
It’s not a democracy. We have certain principles. The government exists to provide very limited functions—for example, free commerce.

The government exists to do whatever people want it to do.
Part of the problem is that we no longer have a truly educated public. The Founding Fathers lived in a very different world. They lived in a world where people understood and cared about the written word. They had a much more educated citizenry.

The reason the “citizenry” was more educated was because the “citizenry” excluded everybody who wasn’t a white male landowner.
Abigail Adams was one of the brightest people around back then.

But she couldn’t vote, and neither could slaves, or anybody who didn’t own land.
But Abigail Adams still influenced public policy through her interchanges with her husband. Part of the problem today is that we don’t have an educated citizenry like that. The citizenry may clamor for the government to do all sorts of things. That does not provide an appropriate basis for the government to do it.

Who else is going to decide what the government should do, if not the citizenry?
We don’t live in a democracy! This was not intended to be a country where the citizenry decides what they want government to do! We have a structure of government that is based on principles, independent of the vagaries of public opinion.

I’m not sure that’s true at all. The citizens can elect representatives to do whatever they want. If the citizens want to take away their own right to free speech, they can do it.
They could.

They can make government come to their doors every morning with a newspaper and donuts if they want.
Well, we’re almost at that point.

And so it goes. One wonders if they would treat Obama and McCain to the same line of opinionated questions, sarcasm, and assumptions. Read the full interview here at GQ.

Yesterday, the Dow Jones Industrial fell over 3 percentage points, a drop of well over 300 points. Sadly, these kinds of swings hurt small investors far more than they do institutional investors; many individuals see the large drop and immediately sell. On the surface, such a move makes sense. Rather than face further losses, one should leave the market and cut one’s losses.

Why doesn’t this logic hold up? Long-term growth and broker fees.

Over the long-run, these volatile swings in the market tend to be corrected by general economic growth. Timing the market can work; however, many small investors are not quick enough to catch these trends in time to maximize earning potentials. Moreover, many investors fail to rationalize their reasoning for their purchase. Often enough, purchases have as much to do with an investor’s whims and emotions rather than a thorough analysis of fundamentals. As Benjamin Graham, the famed value investor, once said: “The individual investor should act consistently as an investor and not as a speculator. This means.. that he should be able to justify every purchase he makes and each price he pays by impersonal, objective reasoning that satisfies him that he is getting more than his money’s worth for his purchase.”

What can an investor do to avoid dangerous sell-offs like many made yesterday? Detach one’s self from the market. Purchase securities for their long-term growth potential. Better yet, purchase an index fund or ETF. SPDR (SPY) track the S&P 500, whereas Vanguard Total Stock Market (VTI) tracks the entire market itself. Either should provide, over the long-term, growth rates higher than that of the average investor. Since 1950, the S&P 500 has returned 8.66% per annum. Such a rate would mean that one dollar invested in the S&P 500 in the year 1950 would be worth $65.27 today.

Furthermore, make sure that your broker fits your need. With a long-term growth strategy, it makes little sense to have a full-service broker. Many full-service brokers, as well as some discount brokers, charge inactivity fees. These fees can range from $40 to $400 per year. Such a cut can be a significant portion of a client’s portfolio, and is removed regardless of performance.

As you are a long-term investor, stock transaction fees should not matter an incredible amount. However, it would still be advisable to find transaction prices below $15 a trade. Some online brokers, such as Zecco, now offer $0 trades to their investors. Another worthwhile feature of online brokers is automated dividend reinvestment; every dividend received is invested back into stocks as you indicate, compounding your growth further.

Next week, we’ll analyze high-dividend stocks, and why they’re often overlooked. Make sure that this week, which will perhaps bring further drops in the market, does not necessarily create a poor situation for us common investors. Rather, look at it as an opportunity for us to get into the market at a low-point. That does not mean we are entering a bull-market, as it is best to remain highly cautious during these severe dips. However, it is best to take a non-emotional approach to our investing, and remember the long-term outlook.

Alexander Drummond owns none of the stocks mentioned in this article.

Here is some rhetoric from the past, as in before today. Who said it?

The currently favored instrument of collectivization is the Welfare State. The collectivists have not abandoned their ultimate goal– to subordinate the individual to the State– but their strategy has changed. They have learned that Socialism can be achieved through Welfarism quite as well as through Nationalization. They understand that private property can be confiscated as effectively by taxation as by expropriating it. They understand that the individual can be put at the mercy of the State– not only by making the State his employer– but by divesting him of the means to provide for his personal needs and by giving the State the responsibility of caring for those needs from cradle to grave. Moreover, they have discovered– and here is the critical point– that Welfarism is much more compatible with the political processes of a democratic society. Nationalization ran into popular opposition, but the collectivists feel sure the Welfare State can be erected by the simple expedient of buying votes with promises of “free” hospitalization, “free” retirement pay and so on….

I do not welcome this shift of strategy. Socialism-through-Welfarism poses a far greater danger to freedom than Socialism-through-Nationalization precisely because it is more difficult to combat. The evils of Nationalization are self-evident and immediate. Those of Welfarism are veiled and tend to be postponed.

No it’s not Ron Paul. It was Barry Goldwater from his 1960 classic, “The Conscience Of A Conservative”.

Read More »

The Supreme Court ruled a few minutes ago that the Second amendment protects an individual’s right to own a firearm. This is great news for gun rights activists. From the Supreme Court blog:

The Court has released the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), on whether the District’s firearms regulations – which bar the possession of handguns and require shotguns and rifles to be kept disassembled or under trigger lock – violate the Second Amendment. The ruling below, which struck down the provisions in question, is affirmed.

Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg. We will provide a link to the decision as soon as it is available.

Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm.

Get all the information at the SCOTUS live blog here, including the opinions.

Walter E. Williams has been one of my favorite columnists over the years. Anytime I open up one of his columns I salivate for the contents. His latest column is another good one. This article finds Williams, as usual, effectively arguing against government intervention in our lives. Here is an excerpt.

Right now Congress tells each American how much should be set aside out of his weekly paycheck for retirement. How can they have the information to know what’s the best use for the $70, or so, taken from you and put into Social Security? Might you benefit more by saving that money to start a business, purchase tutoring lessons for your children, or putting it in a private retirement plan? Unlike congressional control of traffic signals and supermarkets, the effects of Social Security aren’t apparent because we don’t have the information about what people would have been able to accomplish if they were able to keep more of their earnings.

You might argue that saving for retirement is important, but so is saving for a home or your children’s education. Would you want Congress to force us to put money aside for a home or our children’s education?

Read the full column here.

Much has been made amongst the Ron Paul faithful about who Ron Paul will end up endorsing for President. The only thing they all seem to agree on is that it won’t be John McCain. It seems that the sentiments are evenly split between Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin. The truth is it doesn’t really matter who wins his endorsement. Anyone who has followed Ron Paul knows what issues represent true liberty. They don’t need Ron Paul’s expressed approval to know which candidates support liberty and which do not.

For those that don’t already know here is a refresher. If your last name is Obama or McCain you are anti-liberty and don’t understand the Constitution even though you will swear to defend and uphold it when you take office. If your last name is Barr or Baldwin you are pro-liberty and you understand that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. That is really all you need to know. Ron Paul has De-facto endorsed both Barr and Baldwin. It is unlikely Paul will officially endorse either candidate.

Why is it unlikely that he endorse one or both of them officially? The answer is simple. He’s a sitting Republican Congressman. If he were to publicly and officially endorse someone from another party he could be committing political suicide. He could lose his committee memberships. He could lose his seniority. It is important for Paul to walk this political line in order to help return the Republican Party back to its “Old Right” principles. He could not do so if he loses his status as a senior Congressman. He would be jeopardizing his ability to directly question the Federal Reserve Chairman about monetary policy. That is something he seems to relish so much, as do his supporters.

The only other evidence that can be given to support the argument that he will not endorse a non-Republican candidate is that he has played politics with his endorsements over the past year. He refused to endorse against any incumbent Republicans even when the challenge came from a liberty minded Ron Paul Republican. To this day he still has not endorsed against any incumbent neo-conservative Republican. The only motivation for doing this has to be maintaining his Congressional status on committees and other relationships. This runs at odds with his rhetoric of castigating the party for its neo-con ways. He won’t put his endorsements where his mouth is.

So stop waiting for Ron Paul to endorse Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin. Pick one to endorse yourself then go out and campaign for your choice. When you do so you know you are campaigning for liberty whether Ron Paul gives his endorsement seal of approval or not.

We support Bob Barr over Chuck Baldwin, but supporting either is a victory for liberty. Writing in Ron Paul is a victory for your own conscience but it won’t help liberty win. However, supporting Barr, Baldwin, or writing in Ron Paul is infinitely better for liberty than voting for Obamccain.

Tomorrow Bob Barr will be interviewed by Al Rantel on KABC 790 at 2:05pm Eastern. Last Friday Wayne Allyn Root was interviewed by Rantel. He certainly didn’t sound like a neo-conservative war monger in this interview. In fact, he sounded much like Ron Paul and Bob Barr. He admits in the interview to doing a 180 on the Iraq war. Some will look at this transformation as mere convenience, others will take him at his word. Some are stuck somewhere in the middle. All in all though Root gives a pretty good interview.

Listen to the Wayne Root interview here via Rantel’s podcast (mp3).

According to the media the big debate over the FISA warrantless wiretapping bill is because the Democrats don’t want retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies and the Republicans do. Indeed this is an important part of the debate, but it is hardly what the real debate should be. It just shows that our lawmakers care little about the rule of law in the Constitution. If they did care the debate would be about whether it is permitted by the Constitution to spy on American citizens without a warrant.

Instead they focus on the telecom immunity portion which is almost just as bad, but from a liberty standpoint focusing on this portion of FISA reeks of political misdirection. The recent so called compromise on FISA by the Democrats clearly demonstrates neither party truly cares about “upholding the Constitution”. Someone needs to remind them of their oath.

It is good advice to always be weary when a lawmaker uses the word “compromise”. A zebra truly is a horse designed by a committee. This FISA zebra like so many others coming from “compromise” just means a bigger and costlier federal government and less freedom for American citizens.

It is close to impossible technologically to guarantee that government eavesdropping as outlined by FISA will only be done when one side of the communication resides outside of the United States. This says nothing of the fact that government required monitoring systems put in place by communications companies give hacker terrorists another method of breaching the system. So it can be argued that FISA is not just unconstitutional but it makes America more vulnerable to terrorist attacks, not less.

In fact this type of attack has already occurred in Greece leading up to the Olympic Games in 2004. That attack and other technological issues regarding FISA are explored in depth in an article by the IEEE Computer Society’s Computer and Security publication earlier this year.

FISA is yet another in the litany of “good sounding” legislation with horrible unforeseen consequences.