Michael the politician

There seems to be very little that detracts people from each other more than politics. So, people with different political views often have trouble getting along. I've seen this many times. For better or for worse, the political opinions that I hold are not shared by too many people - at least, not too many people are willing to admit that they share my political views (however, I expect that many people don't know that they share my political views). So, that said, you'll probably disagree with a lot of what I say, and not necessarily because you actually disagree, but because the ideas are often so far from normal that you may not have had time to contemplate the ideas carefully. So, please contemplate the ideas presented. If you still disagree with me, more power to you (if you want a LOT of power to you, try sticking your fingers into a power outlet, if your fingers are too fat, use forks). It is our right to disagree and voice our disagreement that makes me thankful that I live in America.

So, first a little background on political views. I was raised in a family where I'd call the political views to be on the more conservative side of Republican (note: both Republicans and Democrats are near the center of the spectrum, so being on the conservative side of Republican doesn't mean too much). As is the case with most people, I shared my parents' political views for a good part of my life. Accepting them without considering them. However, I expect that most people also start challenging their parents political views in their teenage years. In the couple of years leading up to the 2000 election, I started thinking about other political views, however not in a very clear manner. I found in debates that one person would say one thing and I would think "Wow, the point he made was completely correct", then the next person would contradict the previous person, but I would still think "Wow, that point was also completely correct." It was clear that something was wrong, so I adopted the attitude "politics schmolitics!" That isn't too bad an attitude, except it lets other people make decisions for you, which I didn't like too much either.

Anyway, one day I was reading computer news at ZDNet.com and the article I was reading was about the different presidential candidates' standing on the issue of Internet taxation. While, I may have been mainly "politics schmolitics" at that point, I felt very strongly against Internet taxation. Being an Internet entrepreneur myself, I knew that taxes could easily crush any hope that Internet commerce ever had. There was and is nothing magical about Internet commerce that will keep it around forever. The profit margins are thin or negative and there is little known about the field. So, my political choice for that election could have probably been solely determined by the candidate's view on Internet taxes (not that it mattered, because I was too young to vote, but whatever). I read through the article, which I don't remember clearly, but then I started reading through the user response forum. There was a lot of pointless yelling back and forth, but there was one post that said something to the effect of "Why don't these articles ever talk about presidential candidate Harry Browne?" I had no clue who Harry Browne was, so I looked him up. I found his presidential campaign site, and on that site there were some half-hour video clips of Harry Browne explaining his political views. I decided to watch these clips.

I know what you're expecting to read next. I bet some of you are even considering skipping this paragraph because you know exactly what it's going to say. You're expecting me to say "Well, he agreed with me on Internet taxation, and of course, since I was so easily swayed during the other debates, I was completely converted to his point of view." Actually, that's pretty far from the truth. Harry Browne started stating his opinions, and I actually found myself getting mad at him. His ideas were crazy! I kept watching just to see what he would come up with next. Every minute he introduced a wild new idea that clearly could never work and never had worked for all the history of humanity! Or so I thought, at least. Once I was done watching the videos, I thought I realized why ZDNet didn't mention. His other ideas were simply too crazy to ever.

Well, I instantly rejected nearly all of what he said. But later I started thinking about exactly why his ideas wouldn't work, but the more reasons I came up with, the more I realized that I was wrong. Admittedly, I was a little bit confused that all these "facts" that I was testing against Harry Browne's ideas were all creating contradictions. I realized that I held the wrong political views, and that Harry Browne was right about basically everything.

So, my political views are now aligned with Harry Browne and his political party, which is known as the Libertarian party (I bet some of you were wondering when I'd finally say the name of the party!). If I had to sum up the party's views in a few sentences, here is what I would say: the government should be small. The purpose of the government is to protect the rights and liberties of its citizens from outside countries and other citizens. From those very basic ideas, the whole Libertarian view point can be derived.

The official rant of Michael. Also known as "Responsibility? What's that?" Every day for the past 8 years I have eaten at McDonalds: breakfast and lunch and often dinner. Recently I notice that my body is covered with a thick layer of protective jelly called "fat" and my heart doesn't want to beat anymore. Then I realize "maybe I shouldn't have eaten at McDonalds. Maybe eating bad food made me sick." So, I drove down the street toward the hospital, which is across the street from the gym... and the court house. I enter the court house and file a lawsuit against McDonalds for allowing me to eat their food. I am a victim of the "no responsibility" philosophy. I do not know how to be responsible for my own actions.

For those of you who actually know me, the story above never happened to me. It was just an illustration, and using the word "I" was easier than thinking of a random name. Sadly this philosophy is very ingrained in us. It is this philosophy, in my opinion, that is the cause of a good deal of the social trouble we experience today. It is this philosophy that has allowed the government to grow to enormous levels and rule over every part of our lives. We are unwilling to take responsibility for our actions, and we are unwilling to let other people take responsibility for their actions, so we have chosen instead to have someone dictate our lives. And the worst part is that this is a cycle that gets worse and worse. We vote for a government program to reduce the amount of responsibility we must take, and then the next generation grows up without any idea that there should be no responsibility in that area.

Let me explain with the help of an example. It used to be that drugs were perfectly legal. Don't get me wrong, there was a drug problem back when drugs were legal. However, people were required to take responsibility for their actions. If the drugs did them harm, that was something they had to live through. The government did not stand in and say "You cannot use drugs because they are dangerous." The first American drug laws were actually racist laws against Chinese drug users, then later laws were specifically aimed at black drug users. The current spin on drug laws is that they are for the protection of the whole American public. The government says that people are not responsible, and therefore must be forbidden from using drugs (or else the drug users will suck out your brains). So, people, when they realize that the government thinks they are irresponsible, go ahead and do the irresponsible thing: they go out and buy the drugs illegally.

Think for a minute... What if drugs were completely legal? What would happen? Would everyone suddenly start using drugs? If so, what would be the problem? The problem of drug use is not the actual using of the drug, but the side effects (for example, violence, neglect, and a poorly run life). Is it possible to use drugs, but still not be violent? But still run a normal life? Believe it or not, yes, it is quite possible. People must be held responsible for their actions. If they neglect their children, on account of drugs, or for any other reason (for example, laziness), they must be held fully accountable for that. However, if all the drug use is force that person's life down the tube, should we punish that? Should we throw that person in prison? (Note, American has a greater percentage of people in jail than any other nation, and the majority are non-victim offenders). If the only victim of an action is the people who did that action, should that be punished? Should that be regulated? Why do we assume that the person is unable to be responsible for his own actions?

Let me give another example to clarify my main idea. First, let me ask you a question. Is drunk driving bad? I am going to assume that you answered "yes". The government has said "anyone who has more than x% alcohol in his blood while driving must be thrown in jail." However, many studies have shown that sleepy driving is just as dangerous as drunk driving, and there aren't really the same laws against sleepy driving. Does this mean we should introduce a ton of laws to regulate sleepy driving? Then what about the other dangerous activities while driving? What about changing the climate control? Eating? Talking with friends? Talking on a cell phone? (Quick side note, you are more likely to be killed by lightning than to be killed by an accident caused by a cell phone. It is far more dangerous to change than climate control than to use a cell phone while driving. The current cell phone laws are hype). We should create a ton of laws regulating all that, right? No, actually, we shouldn't. The problem is not that people are driving with alcohol in their blood. The problem is not that people drive while sleepy. The problem is not that people drive while talking on the cell phone. The problem is that people drive dangerously. If a police officer pulls you over for dangerous driving and it is found that you have a high level of alcohol in your blood, he can bring you to prison, have your license revoked, and take away your life. If a police office pulls you over for dangerous driving and you're sleepy (which is just as dangerous as drunk), the officer cannot do much. He can probably give you are warning, tell you to get some rest, and send you on your way. Consider this, it takes 8 hours to become fully rested, but only a few hours to become sober. Why is drunk driving worse?

The crime should not be that people drive with alcohol in their blood. The crime should be that people drive dangerously. People should be responsible for their driving. If he hits another car, the punishment should be the same regardless of the reason. Maybe he was drunk, maybe he was sleepy, maybe he was just a bad driver.

Another important to notice is the problems that these anti-responsibility laws cause. Going back to the example of drug laws, we can see that drug laws (not drugs) have created massive violent black markets. A market cannot be black unless the government makes it so. Back when alcohol was illegal, there were massive black markets for alcohol, but now if some guy with a gun tried to sell a bottle of beer behind an old factory for $20, people would laugh at him! Likewise if drugs became legal, the black market would vanish. The black market for drugs is terrible and sad. A great deal of inner city violence is a direct result of the drug black market (not drugs, but the black market. I want to make the distinction clear). Drug adicts have to satisfy their cravings, but since drug use is illegal, it is risky to get help, and since drugs are on a black market are expensive, many people are forced to commit robbery to get the money needed to buy drugs.

You may think that I am just a stoner trying to get his drugs legalized so that he can get a cheap high. That is quite far from the truth. Personally, drug use upsets me a great deal. It saddens me to see people ruin their lives in such a manner. However, that does not mean I think they should be criminals. If drug use were legal, I think more people would be forced to acknowledge drug use as a problem that the government cannot solve. The government has not solved the drug problem (it has probably made it worse. Look at the statistics. A good place to look is back to alcohol prohibition). If drugs were legal, it would force everyone to stare the problem right in the face. I believe more people would donate money and time to help those drug users who want to stop, and I believe people would donate more money and more time to keep non users from becoming users. We rarely realize that the government has failed when the government is still working on the problem. We say the solution is not for us to go out and do something, but rather for some men in suits to sit in a hall in Washington D.C. and work on some paper they call "reform." When the government is busy failing, our solution is "reform". Everything has been reformed hundreds of times. The government is still failing. Our solution is not to go out and take repsonsibility for the problem ourselves. Our solution is to tell the government to make more "reform." That will solve the problem.

Social Security does not provide well for the needs of retirees, abandons many, and will go completely bankrupt. Not only that, but the fact that people believe Social Security will be functional and useful when they retire, means that many will not take responsibility for their own retirement, and thus not save for retirement. Will reform solve the Social Security problem? Has reform solved the problem? Why will the next reform be the magic bullet? Think of other government programs. There are tens of thousands of gun control rules on the book. Does that stop criminals from getting guns? No. They're criminals. It's their profession to break the law. A gun law is not unbreakable. Meanwhile, many non-criminals cannot arm themselves in the case of defense, and criminals know this. If I am a rapist walking down the street and I see a women alone, I can be fairly certain that she is unarmed and her only defense will be her fists (and if I exercise a lot, statisically speaking, I will be much stronger than she). However, if I knew she were allowed to defend herself, since I am a dirty criminal watching out only for me, I might think twice before jumping her.

There are so many cases where the government promises to protect us, and we take their promise at their word. However, the government is a massive organization, and thus they will always fail, as the US government has nearly 300,000,000 involuntary customers. That's a lot. You should expect to fall through the cracks of their protection many times. However, since the protection is promised by such a large (and thus seemingly trustworthing) organization, we often feel that we should let down our gaurds and not watch out for ourselves - not take responsibility for ourselves. We don't need to save for retirement, the government will do it. We don't need to keep the air clear, the government will do it. We don't need to know how to defend ourselves, the government will do it. The government will do it. Well, the government has failed again, and again, and again. In any case, government or not, it is needed that we take responsibility for ourselves at the very least. As long as we have massive government programs, a great majority of people will not take repsonsibility for themselves, and thus will become a burden on those who did take responsibility for themselves (because those who fund the government often tend to be those who have high levels for responsibility). Punishing those who are responsible to take care of those who are irresponsible is hardly an encouragement to become responsible.

I am getting tired of writing and sleepy. I think I'll kick back, drink a few beers and shots of vodka, then drive home, being sure to pay a visit to the social security office. If the last statement didn't make any sense to you, don't worry, it doesn't make sense to me either. However, there is a government program called "The Office of the Logic Checkers." It is their job to make sure published material makes sense. They'll fix the last statement for me. Why should I have to do it?

I've decided not to go deep into specific issue, because I'm not a great writer. I invite you to take a look at all the government has done (just a note, try using some sources other than government-published articles). You can go to Libertarian Party website and read the issues (http://www.lp.org/issues/). There are very many issues addressed. I invite you to at least what we have to say. Even if you don't agree, just think about it for a while. At one point or another, I've agreed with the other side of the argument of almost all of the Libertarian party issues. It really helps to be able to at least see the other side of the argument.

Very few people want the government telling them what to do, but many people seem willing to give up their own freedom in order to boss around someone else (and most people only give up freedoms that they don't take advantage of. For example, a non-drug user wouldn't care too much if he weren't allowed to use drugs any more). Ask yourself if it is right for you to decide how to run other people's lives. If someone is minding their own business, should they really be put in jail? Can the government really spend your money better than you can? Can they spend your neighbor's money better than your neighbor? (Go to your neighbors house and ask them, and I bet you'll find out). Do you need the government telling you what you can and cannot buy? Telling you how much extra you have to pay for imported goods? Telling you that you can't buy something from somewhere because a couple people who call themselves "leaders" can't agree? Do you really need the government to baby sit you? Are we that misbehaved? America was founded on freedom. The American founders came over here because they didn't want the government telling them whom to worship and how to worship. The early Americans threw tea into Boston harbor to fight a tax that is quite trivial compared to modern taxes. Have we lost our founders desire for freedom? Or is it simply surpressed? It was surpressed in me, until I thought about it. I want freedom - not just for me, but for the millions of Americans who have been working hard to live the American dream.