1Declaration: Free Markets, Free People, Free Minds

A recent Rasmussen Reports poll indicates that only 47% of Americans favor not nationalizing oil. 29% favor nationalization and about a quarter of Americans are not sure. Nationalization of industry is a dangerous practice of totalitarian governments, governments like Soviet Russia, Communist China, and Socialist Venezuela. This to say the least is a scary thought. By a similar margin more Americans trust private industry as opposed to government intervention to lower oil prices.

Hugo Chavez in Venezuela has nationalized oil production. What have been the effect? Simply, declining production and wells falling into disrepair. This is in short the effect of nationalizing an industry. Another example comes from a teacher I had for US History in 8th grade. She visited Russia many times in the 1990's after the fall of the USSR. She was visiting a family and looking at some family portraits. She noticed as the children grew older the nails holding the frames grew larger as well. She asked the family why this was. The family replied that in Soviet Russia businesses were told they had to produce a certain weight of nails and then they could call it a day. In effort to speed up the day they produced fewer larger nails while decreasing the quality and usefulness of the product.

Nationalizing has an effect of reducing efficiency and quality of the product because the government is not motivated by profit. The evidence for this is on display in Venezuela where nationalizing the industry has seen declining oil production. In a free market economy where oil can be bought and sold, nationalizing oil would increase the price because of the reduction in quantity that would result. Nationalization of the oil industry is not the answer.

Nationalization may cut out the profits companies seek but in return the government will become a monopoly. Without competition in the market, the demand for higher efficiency in the drilling and refining process will decline and prices will rise. The government will not be forced to compete for survivability, which in all cases has resulted in higher prices.

Finish reading the story here.

When discussing politics the usual sides are conservative and liberal, or Democrat and Republican. Most people consider politics to be linear ranging from totalitarian government (fascism, communism, or more generally statism) on the far left, to liberalism, then moderates, conservatives, and anarchists. Most tend to forget the latter because a traditional form of government and politics does not exist.

When will the world learn that a million men are of no importance compared with one man?
--Henry David Thoreau

Political Diamond

I contend that the political sides are not linear but rather a diamond. The bottom corner represents statism, the two side corners liberalism and conservatism, and the top corner libertarian with the center area being a centrist or moderate with slight tendencies towards one of the extremes or corners.

Statism as previously discussed represents big government at its most extreme. A government where economic and personal liberties are eroded for the benefit of the community (fascism, communism, and totalitarianism fit into this category). Liberalism and conservatism are a bit hypocritical and confused. Both political leanings have big government and small government leanings. Liberals generally seek a maximization of personal liberties (not legislating morality such as marriage, drug use, abortion, and etc.) while neglecting economic liberties favoring higher taxes and welfare programs to act as a safety net on society. Conservatives are the opposite favoring economic liberties while imposing morality legislation on personal liberties. Conservatives favor lower taxes, a strong military, a free market, and oppose social welfare programs.

Libertarians on the other hand favor minimal government intrusion into people's lives economically or personally. We view it as unethical to forcefully take money from one social groups pockets and put it in another in the name of social justice. To make it simple, libertarians are generally pro-choice everything, strongly favor the free market, favor a laissez faire form of government, and view government as a necessary evil with a few specific functions. These functions are in the most general terms policies that protect individual liberties and choice, a common defense, and the administration of justice.

Why am I a Libertarian?

Simple, life is a precious gift! Life is too short and every individual should be free to live their life in whatever manner they choose as long as they do not engage in activities that would take another persons right to live their life in the way they choose. In essence, the forced imposition of your beliefs is immoral and unethical.

But what about the "less fortunate" (a phrase I despise)? "Less fortunate" is a phrase invented by socialists and liberals for the imposition of social welfare programs. "Less fortunate" is a term that implies that those who are well off have gotten lucky and those who are not well off have not been fortunate to have luck on their side. Off of my soapbox now.

As an individual you are free to engage in any activity you choose, whether positive or negative, so long as you do not impede another persons ability to live their life in their own manner. With that liberty you are also responsible for your own position in life, your failures, and your successes. This means that your position in life are brought upon by your own decisions in life. As with the force imposition of morality, the forced collection of money for the purposes of social welfare programs is unethical and immoral because the actions of one group impedes another groups right to live their life including the donation of goods and money to those who they chose to support.

The power to tax is the power to destroy.
--John Marshall

Surely government must institute laws to protect traditional values, right? Wrong. Each person should have the chance to develop their own personality and their own moral compass. Not everyone has the same religious, moral, or other beliefs. To be fair government must remain neutral on policies towards the legislation of morality.

So why am I a Libertarian? Life is too short and precious to remove individual choice and freedom whether through social welfare schemes that forcefully take from one and give to another, the legislation of morality that do not affect another's "life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness," or economic limitations.

Conclusions

Government is a necessary evil and is the worst failure of civilized man to quote both Thomas Jefferson and H.L. Mencken.

Government's throughout history have largely proven to be failures where power becomes absolute and individual freedoms have been crushed. From the monarchies of Europe, to the liberal fascism that Hitler and Mussolini espoused, on to the Communists who preached for the collective, and governments who legislate religion onto the masses.

Government has proven through history to be a tool to enslave man mentally, economically, morally, and religiously. The founding fathers of the United States recognized these facts and created a country where individual and economic liberty should be cherished. Today though liberals espouse views that forcefully take money and livelihood from one groups labor to give it to another who have done little to nothing and conservatives who seek to legislate "traditional values" while neglecting other people's beliefs and morals; government has failed and been oppressive.

As P.J. O'Rourke has clearly stated, "A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trusts either of them." This is why I am a Libertarian.