Do celebrities deserve our attention when they choose to pontificate on global economic matters? Why not? They certainly have proven, in many cases, that they can perform well and/or take on the personalities of various characters. Well, okay, that's not really relevant. So, then, what qualifications does the typical celebrity have to speak on matters of national import? If you answered "none," you'd be right nine times out of ten (and maybe more).
How does this relate to limiting the size of government, you ask? Why should you care? Well, it's always been very interesting to me that big government folks have Hollywood in their pockets. Anytime there's a chance that government can grow, politicians can count on celebrities to speak up in favor. Why? Why is it that they're first in line to suggest tax increases on everyone, including themselves in order to grow government in some way or another?
Why are most of us less-famous Americans more hesitant to part with the money that we earned with our labor? Part of the reason may lie in the fact that we make, on average, only a fraction of what most celebrities earn annually. Further, as Dave Smithee points out, "The ordinary burdens of regulation, taxation, and other realities of high-bracket economics that impact other segments of the wealthy simply don't apply to them."
While they rally around the "Grow Government, Grow!" crowd, with loud voices and lots of air time, we commoners are watching the rubber hit the road daily and recognizing the realities of life. That's the real difference.
Monday, August 20, 2012
Washington's Farewell Address: UPDATE
UPDATE: The formatting for this publication on Kindle is now corrected. So, borrow and buy to your heart's content!
Whether this becomes at all popular isn't my concern. I'm more excited that it actually happened, meaning that I've published something that I believe may help others in studying the events of the founding of the USA.
Comments? Questions? Feel free to post!
-Matthew Nielesn
Whether this becomes at all popular isn't my concern. I'm more excited that it actually happened, meaning that I've published something that I believe may help others in studying the events of the founding of the USA.
Comments? Questions? Feel free to post!
-Matthew Nielesn
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Washington's Farewell Address
This morning a new publication went live on Amazon.com: George Washington's Farewell Address of 1796 with periodic headings and summaries. The aim is to increase accessibility of the address for those who care to study and review it. If you have a Kindle, it's free to "borrow" for a limited time. Have a look and tell me what you think. I'm anxious for feedback on its layout and format. Let me know if you have suggestions for improvement!
Matthew Nielsen
-IVLG
P.S. I do think there may be an issue with the paragraph formatting.
Matthew Nielsen
-IVLG
P.S. I do think there may be an issue with the paragraph formatting.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Past Performance as Predictor: Romney Pt. 1
From the outset it is important for me to draw a clear picture of what the goal is with this post. The idea is not to smear Romney or his campaign for the presidency. Smearing requires ad hominem attacks or half-truths. I will attempt to steer far clear of either of them. I am merely reproducing Romney's own statements on various topics in order to persuade the reader to consider again whether Romney is really for "small government." With this said, I don't need to remind you that the other party's candidate, our current president, is most certainly not for small government. We now have close to four years of experience, which is enough to convince voters one way or the other.
On to the question at hand, "Is Romney pro-small government?
First, Romney seems to support government involvement in corporate governance and compensation. He uses the word "encourage," but we don't know what his type of encouragement may include:
From his book, No Apology
- 17) Encourage shareholders and boards of directors to adopt reasonable compensation and long-term incentives for CEOs and executives.
- 18) Encourage measurement of corporate CEOs and union CEOs on the basis of teamwork, productivity, and long-term success of the enterprise.
His eleventh item in this same list says "Get the government out of General Motors - and other private companies." This further muddles our understanding of Romney's intent with items 17 and 18. We're left to wonder, but with some uneasiness.
Source: GoogleBooks
Next, Romney apparently believes that one of the president's duties is to create jobs:
Source: FoxNews Transcript
Further, Romney's foreign policy includes using military force outside our borders without a declaration of war. To be fair, this is not unique to him. Obama, G.W. Bush, Clinton, etc. have all waged war, engaged military in battles on foreign soil without formal declarations of war. However, just because "everyone's doing it" doesn't make it right... or constitutional:
The GOP candidate stood by his position that the U.S. should "keep a military option available" to handle Iran, should diplomatic efforts and sanctions not "dissuade them from becoming a nuclear capability nation."
To be continued...
Monday, July 30, 2012
What is Freedom? Can We Keep It?
As we approach another election season, the temperature begins to warm with each passing day. Tempers flare and the temptation to resort to personal attacks grows stronger. The USA enjoys a high level of freedom of speech, and is just one of many freedoms in America.
Americans are legally allowed to share their opinions on religion, politics, government, and even sports. Can we keep this freedom? In this I'll defer to Frederic Bastiat who explained it much better than I could. The Law was written by Bastiat in France in 1850. I encourage all to read it with the intent to understand it.
Freedom is not inherently immortal. Once established, it can be destroyed. How?
An excerpt from The Law:
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose — that it may violate property instead of protecting it — then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder."
In today's terms, "special-interest groups" hire "lobbyists" to consistently and persistently "lobby" members of Congress in order to "persuade" them to vote in a certain way that, of course, favors their clients.
Unfortunately, this has become the norm. Every member of Congress receives visits from lobbyists. Whether they "buy-in" or not varies, I'm sure, but the fact remains that the law "may be diverted from its true purpose."
Special interests are not new and neither is lobbying. We do owe it to ourselves, however, to ask "How much longer can the freedom-preserving laws of our Republic withstand the destructive waves caused by the persistent onslaught of competing special interests?" Sadly, the circus of Congress has become a spawning ground for lobbyists who are employed to counter-lobby against other special-interest groups.
More eloquently and succinctly, Bastiat writes:
Americans are legally allowed to share their opinions on religion, politics, government, and even sports. Can we keep this freedom? In this I'll defer to Frederic Bastiat who explained it much better than I could. The Law was written by Bastiat in France in 1850. I encourage all to read it with the intent to understand it.
Freedom is not inherently immortal. Once established, it can be destroyed. How?
An excerpt from The Law:
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose — that it may violate property instead of protecting it — then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder."
In today's terms, "special-interest groups" hire "lobbyists" to consistently and persistently "lobby" members of Congress in order to "persuade" them to vote in a certain way that, of course, favors their clients.
Unfortunately, this has become the norm. Every member of Congress receives visits from lobbyists. Whether they "buy-in" or not varies, I'm sure, but the fact remains that the law "may be diverted from its true purpose."
Special interests are not new and neither is lobbying. We do owe it to ourselves, however, to ask "How much longer can the freedom-preserving laws of our Republic withstand the destructive waves caused by the persistent onslaught of competing special interests?" Sadly, the circus of Congress has become a spawning ground for lobbyists who are employed to counter-lobby against other special-interest groups.
More eloquently and succinctly, Bastiat writes:
"See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law — which may be an isolated case — is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system."
The United States Congress operates in this system today. It needn't be so. I invite you to read the remainder of Bastiat's essay. It's worth the effort.
-Matthew Nielsen
IVLG
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Recommended video from CATO Institute:
http://www.cato.org/multimedia/daily-podcast/reasons-you-are-libertarian
For all, regardless of political persuasion.
-IVLG
http://www.cato.org/multimedia/daily-podcast/reasons-you-are-libertarian
For all, regardless of political persuasion.
-IVLG
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
The Ideal President
Republicans want a president who will get spending under control, make jobs, education, and seniors a priority. They want a president who will get health care working correctly and make meaningful improvements to other social programs.
Democrats want a president who will get spending under control, make jobs, education, and seniors a priority. They want a president who will get health care working correctly and make meaningful improvements to other social programs.
Hmmm... Notice any similarities? Here's the Libertarian / Classical Liberal ideal:
Libertarians want a president who will drastically reduce spending by shrinking the size of government. They want a president who will set in motion the elimination of government involvement in jobs, education, and senior / health care, as well as all social programs.
Well, that sounds harsh, you say. Why? Given the history of incredible monetary efficiency in government (tongue-in-cheek), everyone should be clamoring for a libertarian president. If that was the only consideration, we'd still be in trouble, but not much less. Our freedoms depend on our ability to choose for ourselves. When presidents and Congress call themselves "lawmakers," I cringe! Please! No more laws! We have too many already, and if politicians didn't feel the need to meddle in every single facet of Americans' lives, we'd all feel and be more free.
What America needs in a President is someone who will reverse the tsunami of government meddling in the personal lives of its people. So far, no one from either party seems willing to "lay off." So, we're left to decide on the speed at which we move toward more government control rather than whether we want it at all.
Not much of a choice at all, is it?
Democrats want a president who will get spending under control, make jobs, education, and seniors a priority. They want a president who will get health care working correctly and make meaningful improvements to other social programs.
Hmmm... Notice any similarities? Here's the Libertarian / Classical Liberal ideal:
Libertarians want a president who will drastically reduce spending by shrinking the size of government. They want a president who will set in motion the elimination of government involvement in jobs, education, and senior / health care, as well as all social programs.
Well, that sounds harsh, you say. Why? Given the history of incredible monetary efficiency in government (tongue-in-cheek), everyone should be clamoring for a libertarian president. If that was the only consideration, we'd still be in trouble, but not much less. Our freedoms depend on our ability to choose for ourselves. When presidents and Congress call themselves "lawmakers," I cringe! Please! No more laws! We have too many already, and if politicians didn't feel the need to meddle in every single facet of Americans' lives, we'd all feel and be more free.
What America needs in a President is someone who will reverse the tsunami of government meddling in the personal lives of its people. So far, no one from either party seems willing to "lay off." So, we're left to decide on the speed at which we move toward more government control rather than whether we want it at all.
Not much of a choice at all, is it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)