Liberty Maven

Harry Browne

Harry Browne is our latest Liberty Hero. Check out our growing list of liberty heroes here.

Browne ran for President twice on the Libertarian Party ticket, once in 1996 and again in 2000. Sadly, he passed away in 2006 and was paid tribute by Ron Paul. No doubt Harry Browne is looking down on America shaking his head saying, “I told you so.”

His biography on his website describes him perfectly: Harry Browne was an American free-market Libertarian writer and the Libertarian Party’s 1996 & 2000 candidate for President of the United States. He was also a well-known investment advisor for over thirty years, author of “Harry Browne’s Special Report” — a financial newsletter published from 1974-1997, author of 19 books and thousands of articles, Co-founder and Director of Public Policy of the libertarian Downsize DC Foundation, host of two weekly network radio shows — one a political and the other a financial show, host of an ETV (internet-based television) show called “This Week in Liberty with Harry Browne” on the Internet based Free Market News Network, a consultant to the Permanent Portfolio Family of Funds, and a popular inspirational public speaker.

Harry Browne’s campaign book, “Why Government Doesn’t Work“, is right up there alongside Ron Paul’s manifesto as the two best campaign books of all time.

For my money, he had a way of speaking that made you understand libertarian principles better than anyone. Lew Rockwell summed up the essence of Harry Browne’s abilities in an article following Browne’s death.

He was exceptional as a public speaker during the campaigns. No matter whether the topic was taxes, education, states rights, war and foreign policy, or the drug war, he took the right position and explained it in a way that allowed anyone to see his point of view. He changed minds, and stuck to principle the whole time. Harry was not tempted to sell out his message for the sake of more votes. He didn’t trim or compromise. His energies were spent trying to think of ways to make the core message more marketable and understandable.

Below are a few quotes from Harry Browne

“I am running for president because it is obvious that no Democrat or Republican is ever going to stop the relentless growth of the federal government. …only a Libertarian is going to set you free.”

“The government’s War on Poverty has transformed poverty from a short-term misfortune into a career choice.”

“The Bill of Rights is a literal and absolute document. The First Amendment doesn’t say you have a right to speak out unless the government has a ‘compelling interest’ in censoring the Internet. The Second Amendment doesn’t say you have the right to keep and bear arms until some madman plants a bomb. The Fourth Amendment doesn’t say you have the right to be secure from search and seizure unless some FBI agent thinks you fit the profile of a terrorist. The government has no right to interfere with any of these freedoms under any circumstances.”

And finally a quote that encompasses the economic disaster of 2008/2009:

“The free market punishes irresponsibility. Government rewards it.”

Amen Harry. We miss you, but your message carries on.

Last week I wrote an article suggesting that Obama put the decision of war in Afghanistan back in the hands of Congress where it belongs. In a Washington Times op-ed Bruce Fein makes a similar argument for Obama’s Iraq exit strategy. I couldn’t agree with him more.

After Inauguration, he should declare the war illegal because it was initiated by President George W. Bush pursuant to an unconstitutional delegation of power by Congress effectuated by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq (AUMFAI). Mr. Obama should announce that all combat operations in Iraq will cease 30 days after Inauguration unless Congress enacts a statute directing him to continue the war.

He can depend on congressional inaction. Members lack both the incentive and political backbone to take responsibility for sending men and women to die on a fool’s errand to make Shi’ites, Sunnis, and Kurds democrats after 5,000 consecutive years of despotism and vicious tribal, ethnic or religious enmities.

After Congress balks at President Obama’s challenge, all U.S. combat troops in Iraq would return home in an orderly fashion beginning February 2009. President Obama could blame any ensuing Iraqi strife, ethnic cleansing or domination by Iran on Congress for failing to prolong the war.

Fein goes a bit further and suggests that such action is a win-win for Obama.

The first three comments to this piece on the Washington Times site demonstrates the complete and utter ignorance many people still have about the authority of the Constitution. The document is law. It is not just law, but the “supreme law of the land.” Just because a lawmaking body in the 21st century makes a law in direct opposition to the Constitution doesn’t mean the 18th century document is null and void.

In practice though, that is what the Constitution has become and sadly, that may be all that matters. The great question of our time may be: How can the Constitution effectively protect our natural rights when the citizens have left it up to the federation of money and power hungry bureaucrats in Washington to enforce and follow it? They aren’t interested in natural right preservation. They are solely interested in power preservation.

Maybe the answer lies in the question itself. It is up to the people to enforce Constitutional restrictions on our government, but how can this be done in this era of government and citizen co-dependence?

In time, the only remedy for such co-dependence may be a new Declaration of Independence.

Dave Weigel at Reason magazine sat down with Bob Barr for a kind of exit interview for his failed bid to become the first Libertarian President of the United States. The Ron Paul phenomenon is discussed openly except for one particular answer about access to fund raising lists.

reason: What did matter? Campaign funds? At the convention, Russ Verney told me that he hoped to raise $30 million, and the campaign eventually raised about $1.2 million.

Barr: If certain things had happened that we expected to happen early on, like gaining access to certain lists very quickly, I think we could have gotten there. But those lists turned out to be not available, unfortunately, and that prevented us early to turn over and over again into significant fundraising. We didn’t get that seed money early on that we anticipated. We realistically anticipated it. We didn’t sit around say ‘it would be nice to have all that money.’”

reason: Was one of these Ron Paul’s fundraising list?

Barr: All I can say is that it appeared very realistic that we would have a list that let us raise a large amount of seed money that we could build on. And that didn’t happen.

Read the full interview

With Barack Obama set to continue to wage the war on terror in a different locale it is important to understand that justification for such actions is no better than Bush’s old justifications for going into Iraq. One of the best arguments against such actions comes from David R. Henderson.

The question arises, “Should Canada’s government remove its military presence from Afghanistan in 2011, remove it earlier, or keep it past 2011?” This question arises for other members of the occupying coalition besides Canada. To answer it, I propose that we step back and consider how good the case was for invading and occupying Afghanistan in the first place.

Henderson continues his argument using hypotheticals that reinforce his overall point quite clearly. This article is a great one to send off to your war on terror loving neo-conservative friends and family.

Read the entire article.

Perhaps it is unflattering, and potentially offensive, to suggest that Ron Paul’s effort to restore the Constitution as the rule of law in America is a jihad, but a jihad it is. He has devoted his life to this cause. While the majority focus on the violent definition of the word, there is also such a thing as a non-violent jihad.

Ron Paul often speaks with praise for those that practice peaceful civil disobedience. He lists Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi among his heroes. Both men were practitioners of non-violent jihad.

From Wikipedia:

In Modern Standard Arabic, jihad is one of the correct terms for a struggle for any cause, violent or not, religious or secular (though كفاح kifāḥ is also used). For instance, Mahatma Gandhi’s struggle for Indian independence is called a “jihad” in Modern Standard Arabic (as well as many other dialects of Arabic)

Ron Paul, thanks mostly to the media, has earned the “extreme” label. Indeed some even transformed the word “libertarian”, as applied to Ron Paul, into a snarling invective. American politics has devolved into something akin to professional wrestling: numb skulls blustering into microphones followed by false maneuvers that excite zealots, but leave thinking people incredulous at the lunacy of it all.

Read More »

Gary Johnson

Make no mistake, Ron Paul lit the flames of liberty under a small but active percentage of the American populace about one year ago. At this point last year the Ron Paul faithful were drunk on hope after the first highly successful money bomb brought in millions of dollars in a single day. Now that Barack Obama is our President-Elect and Ron Paul is focused on continuing his freedom education and liberty activism effort through the Campaign For Liberty, talk of a 2012 Ron Paul Republican Presidential candidate has begun in earnest.

One of the most popular choices to carry forward the Ron Paul liberty torch is former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson. There is certainly a lot to like about Gary Johnson and he may very well be the best choice for 2012. However, investigating Gary Johnson a bit deeper does reveal some cracks in his freedom armor. I don’t find these cracks significant enough for me to not support him, but then again I supported Bob Barr for President, so I’m used to “cracks”.

These cracks may cause some Liberty Maven readers to reject supporting him. We hope to rate Johnson on the Paul-O-Meter within a few days, so that will give a more complete picture of Johnson. Until then let us discuss some of his potential negatives to the cause of liberty and the viability of him running for the Republican nomination.

Read More »

Barry Goldwater

We continue our series of Liberty Maven’s Liberty Heroes list with Barry Goldwater. Goldwater was known as “Mr. Conservative”. He is credited with sparking the resurgence of the conservative political mindset in the 1960’s. He is also credited with having an impact on the libertarian movement. He is known for speaking his mind which reminds me of a certain doctor from Texas, Ron Paul. The best way to know Barry Goldwater is to read his book, “Conscience of a Conservative“, which is yesterday’s equivalent of Ron Paul’s excellent , “The Revolution: A Manifesto“.

The main area (and it’s an important one) where Goldwater could not be considered in line with Ron Paul’s view of liberty was with foreign policy. He was an interventionist and supported the cold war wholeheartedly. Indeed, this is the precise position Lyndon Johnson attacked with the now famous “Daisy” advertisement. Many point to this as the reason Johnson was able to defeat Goldwater in a landslide in the 1964 election.

Goldwater was quite libertarian on social issues. He supported legalizing medicinal marijuana, getting the federal government out of the abortion debate, and was quite vocal against the religious right in the early 1980’s. Below are a few choice quotes from our liberty hero Barry Goldwater.

“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!”

“The income tax created more criminals than any other single act of government.”

“I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in “A,” “B,” “C” and “D.” Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?”

“The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they’re gay. You don’t have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that’s what brings me into it.”

“Hubert Humphrey talks so fast that listening to him is like trying to read Playboy magazine with your wife turning the pages.”

Who gets your vote now that Ron Paul is no longer on the ballot in most states? Liberty Maven’s newest contributing author, Mark Keller charts the candidates on the Nolan Chart to help you decide.

Some people seem to always vote for the candidate from their chosen party.  Others vote for whomever they believe to be the “lesser of two evils”.  I, personally, am a great advocate of voting on principle ― voting for the person who most aligns with your views, no matter their party or chance of winning.  Determining who that candidate is takes a good deal of research.  Detailed analysis of a candidate’s positions on a wide variety of issues is highly important.  But when you’re slogging through so much information, it can be hard to compare the different people running for office.  How much are these two guys alike?  Exactly how authoritarian is this person’s viewpoint?

And that’s where fun stuff like graphs and quizzes come into play.  A great way of displaying how a certain political philosophy fits into the spectrum of thought is by means of the Nolan Chart.  This is a square (or diamond-shaped) diagram, with a coordinate system charting varying amounts of economic and personal freedom.  With the four corners mapped to the extremes of libertarian (absolute freedom), conservative (economic freedom, but government regulation of personal lives), statist or authoritarian (absolute government control), and liberal (personal freedom, economic regulation) viewpoints, any person or candidate’s beliefs can be pretty well reduced to a point on the graph.

An excellent way of figuring out where you (or the candidate you’re considering) fits on the spectrum, is by means of the World’s Smallest Political Quiz.  In it, you indicate whether you agree with ten statements about economic and personal freedom, and then are shown where your views fit on the Nolan Chart.  It’s quick, it’s simple, and it’s pretty accurate.

I got the idea, a few days ago, to try to figure out what answers the six major presidential candidates would give, if they took the quiz.  So, after a lot of research and discussion, I took the quiz for each one of them, and put all their scores together on a single graph, for easy comparison, as you can see in the image above.

The findings were kind of surprising.  I would have expected Chuck Baldwin to be closer to the conservative part of the chart, and I didn’t think Bob Barr would be quite so libertarian.  Nor did I realize how nearly identical McKinney and Nader were on everything!  But McCain and Obama both are, predictably, found in the statist quadrant.  Now this isn’t a completely comprehensive score (there are, after all, only ten questions), so there’s a little room for error.  And there’s no indication of their views on foreign policy, for example.  But you can check the data for each candidate, yourself, at the bottom of this post, where I’ve got an explanation on why I gave them the answer I did on each question.

I doubt anyone will be changing their mind on who to vote for, this late in the season (today, is, after all, election day), but this info should, at least, give you something to think about.  And if, in fact, you haven’t voted yet and are still undecided, taking the quiz and comparing your score to the candidates might be helpful.

I’ll leave you with this quote from John Quincy Adams:

Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone; and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.

And now, get out and hit the polls!

Read More »

Dave Wiegel of Reason magazine is spending some of the final hours of Bob Barr’s campaign at their headquarters in Atlanta. He reports that staffers are working the phones trying to find last minute votes for Barr in Georgia.

One interesting point is made by Shane Cory (Barr Communications Director). He has some parting words of blame for Ron Paul.

As the campaign wound to a close, it was clear that Barr wouldn’t get close to the $30 million fundraising goal campaign manager Russ Verney set in May, a disappointment that staffers blame in part on former Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). “Paul set the liberty movement back a decade by encouraging people to stay in the GOP,” Cory says. “Not that the Republicans planned it, but if they did they couldn’t have planned it any better.”

While I’ve been quite critical of the Barr campaign I’ve also said that there were many things that went wrong that were not under their control. I have no praise for Shane Cory other than to say that in this case I tend to agree with him.

I firmly believe that if Ron Paul chose to run as a Libertarian after losing the GOP nomination as Bob Barr and the Libertarian National Committee wanted back in December of 2007 we’d be looking at a very different electoral map on CNN and other news outlets today. Ron Paul was a great unique unifying figure. His supporters are a wire mesh of far left, far right, and in between. The decisions he made after losing the GOP nomination caused that wire mesh to rip apart.

However, the unity he once fostered is not gone for good. It is just gone for now. I have hope that a new unifying candidate emerges within the next few years to carry the torch of liberty toward the future and all of this divisiveness will be merely history.

Here is Bob Barr on CNN talking about his efforts for providing voters for a real choice in the election today. Barr is a choice for limited government and maximum liberty. He also is one of the few who actually mention the Constitution. Bob Barr has my vote today. He should have yours as well.