End the Duopoly, Vote Third Party

Going hand-in-hand with not voting for the lesser of two evils is the topic of voting for a third party, and why you should.

The fact is the Republicans and the Democrats have a duopoly on the electoral system. It is extremely difficult for third parties to successful be listed on the ballots in many states, and it is even harder for a third party candidate to get in on the debates. It is rare for these two leading parties to work together, but they work together to keep other parties out of the current two-party system. In fact, it is the Republicans and Democrats who establish the criteria needed to be allowed in on the debates. Because of this, they can effectively control the system.

One of the many problems with the situation is that the two parties are essentially the same. Neither party is what it once was; they’ve both deviated from their original establishment and have drifted closer and closer together. They disagree on some issues, but for the vast majority of topics they agree. The two parties are diverging to the point where a vote for either is essentially a vote for the same thing.

The only candidates who really ever have any significant difference of opinion on the issues are third party candidates. This ranges from the libertarian positions of the Libertarian and Constitution Parties to the positions of the Green Party, the Independent Party and others. Virtually all of the third parties have platforms that are hugely differ from the Republicans and Democrats, especially on issues where the duopoly agrees. Rarely do we hear of the obstruction to personal and economic liberty. Rarely do we hear of a return to constitutional government or sound money or free markets. Rarely do we hear a candidate who supports a non-interventionist policy, a balanced budget or a reformation or abolition of the Federal Reserve.

Why do we rarely hear of issues such as this? Again, it is because the two parties are diverging. No longer do the liberals support the social liberties they once did; no longer do the conservatives support the economic liberties they once held so dear. No longer is the Republican Party fighting for the limited government it once longed to return to, and no longer do the Democrats yearn for the principles that classic liberalism is defined by. Instead, both parties have become the parties of big government. Both parties support increased regulation of business, bailouts and corporate welfare, increased public services and more control by big brother.

Many people refuse to vote for a third party candidate because they think their vote will be wasted. There are several problems with this method of thinking. Most obviously, unless you live in a battlefield state, your vote probably won’t count anyway. This is a problem with how the electoral college is established as a winner-takes-all system. Take my state, Illinois, for example. Illinois is considered the most Democratic state in the Midwest and has gone Democrat in the past 4 presidential elections. Regardless of which party you think is the so-called “lesser evil,” your vote will likely have no impact in a state such as Illinois, which leaves no excuse not to vote for a third party that you agree with more strongly. Additionally, if you don’t like the two party system, the only way to change it is to vote a third party. There is growing support to give more access to third parties, but until people stand up and vote for a third party candidate, this can never happen. Many people often dislike both the Republican or Democrat presidential option and only vote for them because they don’t think they have a choice; you do, however, have a choice. A vote for a third party is a true vote for a change of the status quo.

It is true that it is unlikely a third party candidate will win, at least overnight. It will take several election cycles for any true impact to be evident. This is one of the reasons that political activism is so important. This is why it is so important to discuss politics and promote the candidates you support. By educating others about the candidates and real issues, grassroots movements can be much more successful.

Many Americans are fed up with the two-party system. You don’t want to vote for the lesser of two evils but don’t think you have a choice. I’m here to tell you that you do - you do have a choice. You’re vote won’t be wasted. Educate yourself about third parties, their candidates and their platforms. Find someone who you can truly get behind and vote for the candidate, not against the greater evil. Once you’ve done this, spred the word. Get your peers invovled. The only way to break from the duopoly is to take a stand and not simply go quietly into the night, dissatisfied. There is something - many things, actually, - deeply flawed within our political system. The only way to change this is to vote for a candidate you truly support. Vote for a third party and help transform our election process into a system that is fair and just, not a farce that provides the citizens with no real choice.

Do Not Vote For the Lesser Evil

Recently, I wrote a letter to the editor of my school newspaper about the lesser of two evils. While I think I got my point across, I was unable to go into much detail because of the 450 word limit that was put in place. In this post I hope to further expand on the thinking that went behind the article.

If you live in America, chances are you’ve often heard of the term the “lesser evil.” In politics especially, people are constantly referencing “the lesser of two evils.” The philosophy is this, essentially; when given two poor choices for a leader (the president), people (the voters) chose the candidate who they think will do the least damage. This school of thought is not restricted to our current election where voters “must” chose between McCain or Obama; this way of thinking has existed for at least a century. Unfortunately, mainstream America followings this voting philosophy. The problem with voting for the lesser evil is that this philosophy is fundamentally flawed.

When a voter votes for what they consider the “lesser evil,” they’re still voting for evil. Evil is evil is evil. Regardless of which of the two they vote for, they’re still choosing a candidate they feel is inadequate for the position. When one of the options is considered either the lesser or greater evil, both choices will hurt the country. In such – this is essentially the definition of such a philosophy. In such a situation, we cannot expect overall improvement; rather, we will experience backwards progress. Instead of solving problems and bettering our once-great nation, with a lesser evil in a leadership position, we will be creating more problems than we are solving. This collectively results in negative progress; perhaps some problems may be worked out; some solutions might be found; however, these solutions will either be inadequate or overshadowed by newer, direr problems that the new administration would create. The result of electing either “evil” is a nation that decays.

When presented with two bad choices, do not vote for the choice you think is less bad. Evil is evil, wrong is wrong, a bad choice is a bad choice. One might be slightly better than the other, but in the end they’re both going to do more harm than good. By following this school of thought - that there is a lesser evil - you’re giving in to a false dichotomy. The truth is you do have a choice. You can chose between more than two in such a situation, which should void the lesser evil philosophy.

In modern politics, people often have to choice between a Republican presidential candidate and a Democratic presidential candidate, often when they dislike both choices. In such a situation, rather than choosing the lesser evil, the voter could choice to vote for a third party. Many Americans would rather vote for a third party candidate, but fear that such a vote would be a wasted vote. The reality is if all Americans that thought this way voted for a third party, a third party would likely have a viable chance at winning the election. Moreover, if we are to peacefully reform the electoral process, it probably will not happen overnight. Gradually, we will gain a foothold.

In reality, the Republicans and Democrats have duopoly on the political system. One of the few instances in which they work together is when they work together to keep third parties out of the system. If you’re a candidate for a third party, it is extremely difficult to be listed on state ballots and nearly impossible to appear in the political debates. The reason for this is because the two major parties are the ones who set the standards for entrance into the debates, which they set ridiculously high. By doing so, they make the chance of a third party appearing to discuss issues virtually nil.

I encourage voters to break away from the mindset of voting for the lesser evil. I suspect this is the majority of Americans. Not only is this mindset a flawed way of thinking, it degrades our country, slows progress, and only strengthens the two parties’ hold on the system. If we ever want true change, voters need to wake up and stop voting for more of the same. We need to stop voting for the status quo. As voters ,we need to choose a new party, such as the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, or Independents. We need to demand a change to the electoral system; we need to destroy the duopoly’s grasp on how things are run. Rather than have a two party system, we need a three party system, a four party system; we need a system that allows equal access to an infinite amount of parties. Voters should vote for a candidate who truly represents their values and ideology, rather than a candidate who is, allegedly, “less evil.”]

In modern times, most politicians will tell people what they want to hear, rather than what the candidates themselves believe. I suspect that one of the main reasons the two leading parties try so savagely to keep other parties out of the debates is to keep their voices from being heard; by having the opinions of third parties heard, the Republicrats would be forced to address issues of real importance. Rarely do we hear a “viable” candidate address issues such as sound money, smaller government, non-interventionism, abolition of victimless crimes or returning to a Constitutional government. Were a third party to directly confront a candidate of either the Republicans or the Democrats with such issues, voters would likely see through the shallowness of the candidates of the Democrats and Republicans.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. Voting for the lesser evil is a vote for the status quo; it is a vote for backwards progress, and it is a vote for a candidate you dislike. A system that is restricted to a duopoly is a broken system, and the first step towards fixing such a problem is to stop voting for the lesser evil and to begin voting for a candidate who represents the values one holds dear.

The Importance of Political Activism

Three weeks ago I went off to college and I have been absolutely disgusted with the amount of political apathy that exists in our country. I knew a lot of people don’t like politics, but being apathetic? Being ignorant on the issues?

Political activism of any kind is vital to getting more people to open their eyes and see where we’re headed. This isn’t restricted to solely promoting libertarian ideas, but regardless of what you belief; if you’re a libertarian, a conservative, a liberal, a statist, or an anarchist, it is vital to get people involved, aware, and educated on the important issues our country faces.

As a libertarian, I believe that much of the reason our country is headed downhill is because of apathy and ignorance. Being politically apathetic affects politics, as does ignorance. I think a big reason that we’re heading towards oppression is because of ignorance. At face value, most government restrictions on personal and economic liberty sound appealing, until investigated further. That’s why we must promote awareness and knowledge on the issues. We need to make people more aware of the problems and the solutions that work.

Political activism can take many forms. You could start your own organization, join an organization, or be involved on a more basic level. This could include talking to your family, friends, and peers about pressing issues. Raise questions that make them think and will cause them to investigate further. Write a letter to the editor of your local paper.

Getting people involved, thinking, and educated about political issues is vital to any type of positive political reform we need. This can be evidences by some of the enormous libertarian grassroots efforts we’ve seen lately; many, if not most, of the members were apolitical until they learned more about the issues and realized their importance and relevance on their lives.

On a side note, I’m not just talking the talk. As a new college student, I’m already trying to get more involved on educating people on the importance of personal and economic liberty. I have this site, ForWhichItStood.Org, which is a great place for me to help spread the message of liberty nationally through the web. Additionally, I’m currently working on forming a political group on my college campus. Hopefully we’ll be involved in things like writing to newspapers, holding discussing, inviting guest speakers, and more.

Political activism is key to changing people from flawed schools of thought or apathy to being passionate about issues that are vital to the future of our country.

The Campaign For Liberty Surpasses 100,000 Members

Recently, Ron Paul’s Campaign For Liberty surpassed its 100,000 member goal. While the group didn’t meet its goal by September 2nd as it hoped, it only fell short by a few days. Thi100,000 member mark is yet another milestone in our fight for freedom.

The fact that the Campaign For Liberty has gained so many members in such a short time is evidence that the message of freedom and liberty continue to resonate in the hearts and minds of the American people. We need to unite today to spread the message of liberty and to elect officials that share our view of freedom.

Additionally, the Rally For the Republic drew over 84,000 viewers from 91 countries. This shows that the message of liberty isn’t exclusive to the United States. The actual event, held in Minneapolis, Minnesota, drew over 12,000 people. Ron Paul’s Rally For the Republic speech was one of the greatest I’ve ever heard, and is bound to be a historic event. Please take time to watch it here.

Additionally, the Campaign For Liberty released a notice saying that Ron Paul will speak at the National Press Club at 10:00 am this Wednesday. This will be a “special announcement.” The CFL states, “Dr. Paul will announce his intentions for the fall presidential election and will be accompanied by several special guests.” Ron Paul supporters are already speculating on what that could mean. Most likely it will involve the next step of the Campaign For Liberty. He may endorse Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, or both of them. Some people have suggested that this could be an even bigger announcement; the Constitution Party and the Libertarian party could merge, or Ron Paul could run for President. Both of these are extremely improbably and nothing more than wishful thinking. Regardless, hopefully Wednesday will be something big enough to shake the foundation of this two party system. Several other third party candidates will be attending, so it seems likely that this press release could involve some method of involving third parties in the debates. The Campaign For Liberty could potentially be hosting a debate that would include third party candidates.

As we look forward to Dr. Paul’s annoucement this Wednesday, let us take pride in the fact that our movement is gaining momentum. The 100,000 member mark for the Campaign For Liberty is a fantastic milestone, but is only one of many more to come. Godspeed, friends of liberty.

Should the Government Really Police Morality?

Over the past century, the size of the government has been growing. Its totalitarian reach has been extending, just as its spending has been increasing. Many times, with the increased legislation and laws, it apparently creates more problems than it solves. It seems, as of late, that the federal government intends to continue policing morality.

This appears to be the case with just about every issue - big government getting into your business. Ron Paul does a great job explaining how personal liberty should not be regulated by the government; rather, it should be a personal choice.

Why should the government tell you what you can and can’t do with your own body, in the privacy of your own home? As long as you aren’t putting someone else in danger or infringing on the rights of others, you should be free to do whatever you want.

This is the case with scores and scores of issues. Recently, I wrote briefly on lowering the drinking age; in hindsight, this is just on the fringe of many greater issues.

For example, take a look at the use of marijuana. Why should the government continue their (failing) war on drugs? Not just marijuana, but all drugs. Marijuana, for personal use, should be legal; it’s not dangerous, does little to no harm, and could even increase federal revenue through taxation. Additionally, marijuana may have some basis for medical use.

There is also the issue of prostitution. While I’m not an advocate for prostitution and would never hire a prostitute, I strongly believe that people should have the right to do so if they desire. By forcing thing such as a military draft or prohibiting things like prostitution, the government is effectively saying that they own its citizens and not the other way around. As Ron Paul briefly mentioned in the video I linked to above, prostitution and drug use may be related; he theorizes that the government may have indirectly increased prostitution by making drugs illegal. Because drugs are illegal, they’re harder to get and they cost more, leaving many women (and sometimes men) left to resort to prostitution to fuel their drug habits.

Other issues include telling us which types of food to eat and whether or not we can smoke. While these two issues are primarily issues on a local or state level, essentially they’re the same; government telling its citizens how to live their lives (and businesses how to run their business).

I could go on and on. We also have the issue of internet censorship (and censorship in general). We need to keep the net neutral. Broadband companies and the internet should not control what the internet user has access to. Be it pornography or file sharing, it is not the duty of companies or the government to police what people do.

The government should have zero involvmenet in most of these issues. Period. Envision a future where they tell you want to do, where to go, what to eat, where to live, what carreer to have, and so on, all done, alegedly, in your best interest. We would become a society without a choice and without a voice. It sounds absurd, but this path towards tyranny is where we are headed. The federal government - or any government, for that matter, - should not police morality. They can rant, they can make their recommendations on how to be moral, but come the end of the day, it should be the burden of the individual to decide what is right or wrong.

(don’t forget to digg this!)

The Drinking Age Should Be Lowered to 18

The issue of the drinking age has recently come to public attention once more. Over 100 college presidents are calling for lawmakers to lower the drinking age from 21 to 18. The argument that many presidents of the 100 colleges, including presidents from Duke, Dartmouth, and Ohio State use, is that the current age encourages binge drinking on or around campus. This group of college presidents call themselves the Amethyst Initiative. Their goal isn’t necessarily to repeal the drinking age limit set by the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, but rather to promote debate and discussion on the issue. Since they’ve come into the public spotlight, they’ve faced a lot of criticism.

Let’s think about it in more detail. Why not? I’m 18. Why shouldn’t I be allowed to take a drink? Personally, I dislike alcohol. Were the limit dropped to 18, I most likely wouldn’t drink at all; even so, I think that I should still have the right to drink if I chose to.

It’s illogical and unjust. It’s an infringement on the personal liberties of anyone from 18 to 21. At 18, I’m old enough to enlist in the military, old enough to vote, old enough to sign private contracts, old enough to get married, and old enough to buy pornography and cigarettes. However, I’m still not old enough to buy and consume alcohol?

This issue, in my mind, is very similar to the issue of voting. The voting age was 21 until it was lowered to 18 by the 26th Amendment. While the right to drink alcohol is hardly as important as the right to vote, it’s the same concept. The government has a long habit of giving youth adult responsibilities, yet continues to treat them like children.

Many people will have strong, convincing arguments about why the drinking age should remain at 21. Perhaps drinking among college students will increase. It probably will. That being said, most college students will drink anyway. I could not immediately find statistics, but I know that a majority of college students under 21 have tried alcohol, and a large percentage still drinks regularly.

If the drinking age was lowered, it would most likely result in increased drinking for people in the 18 - 21 age bracket. However, it’s likely that it would gradually fall as students grew used to it. It would be become more casual and less of a big deal, which would most likely result in a decrease in their usage of alcohol.

Regardless of whether or not students would drink more or less in the long run, the fact is that they should be allowed to drink at 18. It doesn’t matter if they’ll drink anyway, it doesn’t matter that the rest of the world has a drinking age of 18; what matters is that, as a responsible adult, those age 18 to 21 should be able to make decissions for themselves. Essentially, an 18 year old is an adult and should be treatd as one; they should be trusted to know their limits and to drink responsibility. Just as it is not the governments duty to police morality, censor the internet, or regulate what people do in the privacy of their homes, it is not the government’s duty to prohibit and 18-year-old from drinking.

Support For Bob Barr Growing, Yet Barr Faces Troubles

A recent Zogby poll shows that 55% of Americans think Bob Barr should be included on the national debates. He has also been polling around 6% nationally.

It is worth noting, however, that Bob Barr has been having his own troubles. On top of fund raising issues, he’s been unable to get the support of many party members and Ron Paul supporters, largely because of his voting record and a few of his stances on issues. Additionally, it seems Bob Barr is pulling in a large amount of votes from conservatives who are angered with McCain rather than from solid libertarians.

One thing that might give Barr a renewed chance to pull in votes is John McCain’s running mate. A few days ago, Hannity asked Newt Gringrich the following:

“I am hearing some pretty credible rumors from people that know that Senator McCain has really narrowed down his selection process to about two or three people, and one of those people would be Joe Lieberman. Would that be a good choice in your view?”

Newt replied:

“Well, I like Senator Lieberman a great deal, I admire him a lot, he’d be a great Secretary of State, he’d be terrific as an Attorney General, but the idea of him being the Republican Vice President nominee would split the convention, and Bob Barr would get 15% of the vote.

I first learned of this story/situation from our friends over at United Liberty.

Here’s the clip:

It’s a rather delicate situation, this election. Either you vote for the lesser of two evils, or you make a change and vote for someone who can make a real difference. That being said, some members of the Libertarian Party have argued that Bob Barr, especially because of his voting record, isn’t a true libertarian. Instead, you would be voting for the lesser of three or four evils. Bob Barr is currently polling around 6% nationally, and he needs at least 15% to get in on the presidential debates. As you saw in the above clip, Newt Gringrich seems to think that if McCain chooses Lieberman, Bob Barr will ge 15% of the popular vote (or just at the convention?), primarily from Republicans and conservatives. If this happens, it is likely, in my opinion, that Obama will secure the nomination. However, if Bob Barr gets 15% of the popular vote, it will put him and the Libertarian Party more clearly on the map.

Police Statism Shows Its Ugly Face in an Arkansas Town

In the small town of Helena-West Helena, Arkansas, authoritarianistic ideas are being enacted. The town is known for its high crime rates and poverty levels. Because of the increased violence and crime, the City Council imposed a 24-hour curfew based off a 9-0 vote. The curfew started out in a ten-block, high crime area of the city; however, yesterday the City Council expanded the curfew to cover the entire city. If police find people on the street, they can stop and question them. This has resulted in several arrests. The city went ahead with a city-wide curfew, despite an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who warned them that these actions were unconstitutional. The City Council said that they want the shootings, drugs, and violence to stop, regardless of the cost.

“Now if somebody wants to sue us, they have an option to sue, but I’m fairly certain that a judge will see it the way the way the citizens see it here,” Mayor James Valley said. “The citizens deserve peace, that some infringement on constitutional rights is OK and we have not violated anything as far as the Constitution.”

“We’ve had people call us, expressing concern for their children,” Fielder, the Police Chief said. “They had to sleep on the floor, because of stray bullets.”

“As far as I’m concerned, at 3 o’clock in the morning, nobody has any business being on the street, except the law,” Councilman Eugene “Red” Johnson said. “Anyone out at 3 o’clock shouldn’t be out on the street, unless you’re going to the hospital.”

The Mayor seems to think that the Judge will side with something unconstitutional because it’s necessary; the Police Chief plays on the fears of the citizens; and the Councilman seems to think he knows what the people should and shouldn’t do, despite the fact there is no law to support his claim. That being said, so far it appears that, rather than arresting anyone for violating the curfew, the police simply ask questions. If they act nervous or odd, they’re further interrogated or searched.

The situation is obviously a delicate one. The city has to balance the rights of its citizens with increased crime; it appears, however, that the city has a high disregard for its citizens rights.

The U.S. Constitution says, in the first amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

A 24 hour curfew seems like a violation of the right to assemble. Why can’t a lawful citizen go out of their house when they like? According to the city’s government, it’s because of crime. However, is the threat of harm or unlawfulness sufficient enough to infringe on the right of the people? Most certainly not. Additionally, the city may have issue with our fourth amendment right, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The fourth amendment states that:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

As of yet, it doesn’t appear this has been an issue, though it very well could become one in the near future. For example, say a police offer stops a man leaving his house (without cause). They have no bases to stop him, yet they do. They then deem that he is acting “suspiciously.” They can then search them. In such a situation, the police would be violating not one, but two fundamental rights of the American people.

It seems as if the city government is playing on the fear of its citizens. Essential, this is an example of extending government reach on a local level. The city has become, or is becoming, its own miniature police state where the local government can do whatever it wants, regardless of the rights of its citizens.

Remember, as Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Should We Really Tax “Radical” Oil Profits?

Many of you have heard the complaining or have been the ones complaining about the record profits that oil companies are making. ExxonMobil recent released their high record earnings for oil and natural gas, showing a $11.7 billion profit this quarter. This is the most profitable quarter for any company, ever. Barack Obama has called Exxon’s profits outrageous, suggesting a $1,000 rebate for working couples; this attractive rebate would be funding by “a windfall profits penalty on oil selling at over $80 per barrel.”

It’s hard to deny that for the average American, this is a very appealing proposal. The big oil companies are making record profits - shouldn’t we get a piece? As is expected, the concept of a federal handout is appealing to those who receive the handout, but we should consider the principle of the matter. Why should we get a portion of a public companies profits through tax? Did they lie, cheat, or steal? No. They’re simply being successful in the free market. Some argue that this taxation on windfall profits is necessary. Is it? Let’s look into it in more detail.

Worth noting is the fact that Exxon Mobil’s earnings actually fell short of what analysts predicted, which resulting in their stock price actually dropping. More importantly, the company’s net profit was a modest 8.5%. That’s a good profit margin, but it isn’t fantastic. Moreover, a company that has a mere 8.5% gain shouldn’t be taxed excessively with a profit penalty. That being said, few people know the difficulty it is to actually get the oil America has grown to depend on. Oil companies have to explore and produce oil, which requires large amounts of capital. Many times this process can hurt the company significantly, so there is a large amount of risk involved. When you contrast the 8.5% profits to a near 20% profit by Coca-Cola, things are put into a better perspective, especially considering that many regard oil as a necessary and soda as a luxury. Following the ideology of many people today, Barack Obama included, all companies that make more than Exxon Mobil’s radical 8.5% profits should have a penalty, profit tax. Not only does this go against the concept of liberty, the concept of taxing someone for being successful is fundamentally wrong.

The idea of taxing profits that aren’t excessive or placing a price cap goes against gthe entire concept of the free market. I would propose that with one comes the other. If we place a windfall profits tax on big oil companies, what do you think will happen? It doesn’t take a genius to figure it out - they’ll raise the price even higher to make up for the new tax! If the federal government increases tax on Exxon on other companies, it makes economic and business sense for the company, in turn, the raise their prices to make up for their decrease in revenue. If that happens, gas prices will spike even higher, leaving us with a choice; remove the profits tax, add a price cap, or live with an increased price for oil and gasoline. No one wants to pay high prices, so I think it’s practical to say that many legislators would propose we add a price cap. If they artificially force the price lower, this will result in a shortage. Not only will we have a shortage of fuel, but we will have a increased demand. With lower prices, people will want to travel more, but will be unable to do so because of the shortage.

The solution is to help create opportunities for entrepreneurs to find new ways to get oil, increase our supply by use of domestic oil, and explore alternative fuel options. Price ceilings, profit taxes, and more restrictions on the free market are not the solution and will only harm the economy and the average consumer, despite how just or attractive politicians make it sound.

The Dangers of Economic Compromise

Any type of political compromise is dangerous. In my opinion, you should never give up what you stand for, your  beliefs, your principles, or your personal liberty. Any law or compromise politically that takes away from one’s doctrine should be regarded with high scrutiny.

Economic compromise is especially dangerous and problematic to the country as a whole. One thing I’ve noticed in the past year or two is that there’s been increased anger over the free market. Because of recent economic problems, many people have blamed capitalism for Americas problems. Some people have gone so far as to suggest that we should rethink our entire economic structure and scrap capitalism for a much dangerous and unworkable socialistic system. In reality, socialism would be far worse that the most restricted of free markets; moreover, it is not the free market that has caused our recent economic problems, but rather restrictions on the free market and economic compromise.

What many people don’t realize is that the free market and limited government often go hand in hand. With a big government, the ability to have a truly free market is greatly restricted. Increased taxes, high tariffs, trade restrictions, zoning laws and other restrictions on trade are restrictions on free trade and should be reduced or eliminated.

A good example of a poor economic compromise would be keeping tax cuts for the poor but disposing of them for the rich. On the surface, this sort of thing sounds good to the average American. The greedy upper class gets taxed and I get taxed less. This is not good for the average citizen or America. Taxing the rich more than the poor doesn’t help the poor become any richer, it only makes the rich poorer - and that doesn’t help anyone. More importantly, the rich, the ones who would be taxed in such a compromise, are many of the people who create jobs, invest in companies, or venture in new startups. Essentially, by taxing the rich we would be hurting the economy by taking money away from people who would have otherwise pooled that money into economic investments and ventures.

Another example of a bad economic compromise would be in the matter of federal spending. The federal government is constantly spending more money than they have or receive in tax revenue; many times these spending are on trivial and unnecessary things. The government should be run like a household, at least in this case. Would you spend more than you have? Many people do and they end up with enormous debt and often file bankruptcy. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that radical spending and poor fiscal responsibility is hurting America.

In order to move towards economic freedom and keep our current economic liberties, compromise must be a rarity. Political compromise may sometimes be necessary, but one should never sacrifice ones principles or liberties, regardless of how attractive it may be.