Arthur Thomas's blog

“You didn’t build that” - Obama

Many have argued that individual business owners work on their own to build successful businesses. This is correct. I don’t think Obama was making the straightforward statement as many have argued though. It isn’t merely a statement of an individual not building up their business by their own hard work. I think he made a much more dangerous statement that people are ignoring. When he says someone didn’t build a business on their own he wasn’t just implying that others helped or that though government services (roads, loans, utilities) owners are assisted in building their businesses. The much more subversive implication of the comment is that a business cannot exist without government. Not only that it cannot be built without help but that only through government can these things even exist. Essentially he is saying that businesses are the product of government facilities. What a frightening idea.

The reality is that government doesn’t exist without private business. When asked the question: “Can you name products produced by private business?”, plenty of products easily flood one’s head. When asked “Can you name products produced by the federal government?” what comes to mind? How hard is it to populate that list? Certainly there is a grey ‘ideas’ area of products coming from government research. It becomes more clear who is actually behind the development and fulfillment of those products when you think about who brings those as consumable polished items to the consumer. When you also remove the implication that these things couldn’t have been created without government it becomes a starkly black and white idea. How much of the government depends on private companies? Look at the military and its complete reliance on private companies. When was the last time the government built a plane or tank? When the government wastes taxpayers money on extravagant meeting locations or even sensible and necessary office supplies who is it paying? Is it purchasing from itself? It is buying the goods that private companies produce? Imagine if the government had to supply everything it needed to function. It would come to a grinding halt for lack of ability to function.

Take the internet for example. It is used often to show how government created a common good we all use today. I can point out that the first ARPANET network created is nothing like the vast efficient internet we have today. In 1995 the ARPANET had to be decommissioned and deregulated so that commercial entities could actually start using the network. Ignoring the history though, does anyone believe the internet could not have been developed by others besides the government? Who knows how it would have happened, but development of ideas certainly are not limited to government entities. Again, I say look at the products you use and can think of that solve problems that meet needs of the private sector. When compared to government production of goods and services it becomes plainly obvious who actually solves problems. Because government was first to claim victory over something should not give it right to claim our futures and remove alternate possibilities for solutions. Ideas are not the domain of the government. Ideas and solutions are what the market provides and government can only get in the way of that function by claiming right to it.

Take something basic like roads. The government doesn’t actually build them. They take your money, funnel it through a bureaucratic system, and then pay private companies to build them. Why not take out the middleman and reduce cost? There is the underlying assumption in all of this that government is some altruistic guiding force that provides goods that we will never accomplish on our own. The logical problem with that is that we are supposed to be in control of government. If we cannot do these things for ourselves then why does the assumption exist that we can control a government that will do them better than us? Are not our choices better than a twice removed government bureaucracy? We have handed power over to a monopoly of force that takes credit for everything and continually claims it needs more power because we are incapable of doing things on our own. This is an extremely dangerous idea.

What we should be concerned with is lost opportunities. How many things does government prohibit and regulate which actually get in the way of solutions? When government does something it usually declares a monopoly over the area so that no one else can compete. Space exploration is a good example of this. If businesses were allowed to behave the same way, can you imagine the completely stifled market that would emerge? The market in the US would resemble Cuba of the old Soviet Union. Progress would halt. We should stop giving credit to a monopolizing and credit taking entity and start wondering why it won’t get out of the way.

When government does try to provide solutions it wipes

Just because something did not happen does not mean it could not have happened, and just because someone cannot imagine something does not mean it is impossible.

As a Libertarian I am used to getting extreme arguments all the time. No other party has to deal with edge cases of political philosophy as much as the Libertarian Party. This is understandable given that a lot of the arguments for freedom are from positions this country has steered away from long ago. It is easy to be labeled as extreme when you are saying the status quo is not acceptable. We have gotten so used to creating rules and giving up freedoms that the idea of restoring freedom has become foreign. I wish to take up one of the common arguments we encounter and give insight into the possibilities of freedom. I want to show the path we have chosen and accepted as ‘inevitable’ and how that may lead to missed opportunities.

The argument: We need to tax people to build a public road system. Without a public transportation system people would not be able to travel and businesses would not be able to transport their goods. Only the government could provide our road system. It has been implied that “without government we would not have roads”.

Let us do the extreme first. Imagine that all the current roads disappeared. No highways, no neighborhood roads, and no city streets. Now of course, since this is the common reaction, everyone would yell out for government to solve the problem. It is a knee jerk reaction because we have been taught that government is an organizing force in our lives. Let us propose for a moment though that the government is not an option available to us. So we have our grassy areas with no roads in our example. This is not too convenient for those cars we have. Businesses still need to carry goods. People still need to get to work. Life must go on. What would you do? Just give up and stay home? Let your life dwindle away in hopelessness because your car is stuck in a garage? Certainly you may be upset at the disappearance at roads all of a sudden but would you let it stop you?  Would it stop your life?

At first it would be hard. You may walk more or people rely on friends with 4 wheel drive vehicles or use all terrain buses that can travel on rough ground.  As time passed though the interests that care about roads would get together. They would start planning to solve the problem. Large corporations that pushed goods would get together to solve their common problem. Construction companies would quickly adapt to seek out a private road market for these companies. Local neighborhoods would band together to look into paving options for their mutual benefit. People would start solving their problems. Maybe paving to each driveway is too expensive so a neighborhood creates a communal garage and everyone creates more green space in the neighborhood. Some communities may create more bike and scooter paths and take more buses. Certainly there would be roads that become toll roads to pay for their ongoing operations as well. The needs of the area come in to solve problem. The solutions would reflect the culture of the area as well. No longer would a single solution path be there to tell everyone how to ‘pave their way’ but people come together to fix their transportation problems. Over time the roads would be built. Goods would still get to where they need to go and people would be able to travel. Even taking away all the current roads would not stop life. So just posing the question that implies roads would not exist without government is a straw man argument. Just because some may lack the imagination to see another path does not mean another path does not exist.

Now that was a wild what if, but let us go back and imagine that government was not the sole provider of roads. Let us look into a possible avenue of what would happen if the state was not expected to build public roads. What if roads were left more to those who use them instead of forcing them upon all?

One argument is that the poorest people would not have roads and be able to travel while the richest have nice roads. This is of course how the economy usually sorts things out. Rich people will always have the nicest things, but does that mean poor people are ‘trapped’? I would argue that they are trapped now. What are their choices? They have to rely on a subsidized system that runs whenever others determine it will run. The other choice is to sink lots of money into a car, fuel, and all the fees associated with it. They have very limited choices that are extremes in cost and freedom. How is that free or better for the poorest of us? An unmolested economy solves problems like these. It balances out necessity of travel for work with cost and freedom. It means light transport can develop with low cost long distance transport and serve everyone alike.

Another of the hidden costs that I want to show is probably a surprising one.

While not in Texas, I believe this blog article shows the kind of thinking that can seep into government. This is what happens when the idea that government is here to build society takes over. This is the result of when the idea of creating a society overtakes the idea of protecting it. This is emotional folly and the worst of good intentions over principle. 

When you have a foundation of principles based on ideas of liberty then questions like these are obvious. You never destroy freedom. Even in the heart tugging case of 'for the children' you realize that a sacrifice of rights hurts them more in the long run. This is a very clear example of just what it means to have absolute rights and the responsibilities that come with them. What is the right of free speech? Is it just some high minded goal of letting people say stuff about politics now and then? Is it more fundamental than that? Does it mean we can potentially 'harm' another with our words? Even through Libertarian principles of non aggression we cannot physically harm someone, but what of hurting them deeply with words or ideas? All humans run into the sting and agony of emotional pain from these things that have no weight but hold great meaning. Most of us know that an emotional attack on the heart can hurt more than a cut to the arm. If these things are so powerful then why should we retain all rights over them? 

The power that they hold mandates that we must maintain absolute right to express ourselves. We must never yield power each of us contains through our words. As with all great powers there is a balance each of us must find. We can lift, empower, educate, and bring hope with our words, but we can also, demoralize, lie, and bring despair with them as well. This is the essence of liberty and personal responsibility that comes with it. If you want to power to lift someone up then the ability to lower someone must exist. If you threaten one ability then you threaten both. When the right to create words that convey how you feel and think about the world are stripped from your mouth then the power is no longer yours. That power then belongs to others. When all you are allowed to say are words that are supposedly positive then what meaning does that hold when it is the only option. How are the words yours any more? 

Pain exist in the world and it is foolish to think that words cannot cause great pain. This is also the great blessing of liberty to use them to heal. We should not try to silence words that hurt because we take away the meaning of the words that heal. When other are allowed to put words into our mouths then we no longer own our thoughts or expression which are fundamental to freely expressing ourselves and tailoring our society. Keep your words. Keep your power. Keep your right to fix the damage other would cause through their ignorance and desire to rob you of your power.

A word or thought may seem like a simple thing. Intangible and fleeting. They form ideas though that are more powerful than any weapon. Ideas change society. They change the flow of our very future. Never, for any reason, allow someone to take away your ability to tailor your future.

The socialists believe in two things which are absolutely different and perhaps even contradictory: freedom and organization  -- Elie Halevy

Over the last few years as the word "libertarian" has become more widely used, even applying it to people who clearly are not libertarian. On several occasions certain media representatives and their admirers have stooped to pinning the label "racist" on libertarians and the Libertarian Political Party. Specifically this issue has come up in regards to defense of property rights.

I haven't met any Libertarians that are racists. I have met the ugly face of racism growing up here in Texas unfortunately, but not from anyone that has labeled themselves as Libertarian. I am sure there are some people that call themselves Libertarian for whatever reason and are racists, but this is no different than any other group 'collecting' outsiders that are confused. I will quite honestly tell you that, if I were forced to choose, I would feel more comfortable with a true Libertarian racists than a non Libertarian one. By definition a Libertarian knows not to impose themselves upon another while a racists of any other party will happily do so with the power of government. So even if you believe Libertarians are racists they would be the most harmless kind by the very definition of being Libertarian.

There are no rights held higher or lower than another. The issue of property rights is extremely simple: Are you free to do something with what you own or not? But the argument being made here against racists shop owners really isn't about rights at all. The argument really is about someone else being allowed to do something one does not like. The argument is to force someone to do what what another person finds as morally as acceptable. It is personal statement of morality. That is why the ideas are so easily placed on a moral stepladder because it has nothing to do with rights and everything to do with personal judgment of others. This is nothing but desire to punish people that are disagreeable using the power of government. I understand the urge. It is perfectly human to desire to do that, but one must realize that the power to do such a thing strips away freedom and does not protect it as expected. If one group can impose their judgment using government power then what stops another group? Freedom must be maintained absolutely for all parties or it holds no meaning and is left to the whims of the times and those in power. Beware of when the faddish moral judgments of a mob turn against you in a tyrannical world!

So lets bring this back to actually discussing rights. First lets realize that businesses are people. Its easy to abstract them away and see them as cold inhuman entities but fundamentally it is no different than Person A wanting to trade a good with Person B. People run business, people make businesses, people participate in business, people are businesses. We are really talking about peoples' rights here and separating them out into an abstracted entity is not very meaningful. So the question is does Person A have a fundamental right to do what he wants with his property even when that is judged as morally bad. Libertarians state, and I think you have to agree if you believe in freedom, that doing what you want with your property is freedom. So the next question is how much freedom? Is there a limit? Just how much freedom does one have that extends to what they own? Can Person A sell their property for 100 times what it is worth, or hold it away until someone they like better comes along? Can they hold their property until someone they think really needs it wants it? Can they give it to a charity of their choice? Can they destroy it and not give it to anyone? Can they give it away haphazardly. Can they give it to a favorite person? Can they not share it and sell it off and enjoy the money for themselves? There are so many choices that it is easy to see a spectrum of possibilities and how any ability to regulate what someone does with their property instantly turns that property into the governments property and not the property of the individual. If a person cannot choose to do what they will with their property then it is simply not their property. So if I take my property and enclose it within a structure that I have purchased (again my property) then why should I not do what I want with all my belongings. If I put up a bag of sugar and say it is for sale then it is really no different than having a bag of sugar in my house that I may be willing to give away. All of it is my property and what happens with it is governed by my will. I can choose to trade it as I see fit and I also cannot force it upon another. Mutual agreement of transaction is king here. This is the argument for absolute property rights and not for flippant checks of whatever a powerful group at the time thinks is proper. 

Now focusing specifically on racism, it is obvious that is not a moral or

I keep hearing Rick Perry say that he knows about how to fix the economy and create jobs. He says he knows how to do it because of his leadership in Texas. Would that be the same leadership that has Texas ranked 27th in the nation in unemployment? Would that be the unemployment rate that is worst than it has been in a quarter century? 

If he wants to be president of the United States he should actually check those credentials. I know there is a lot of desire to get Obama out of office, which I agree with, but I fear that putting Perry in will office will be no change for the better. Are people not tired of status quo politicians that say one thing and have a record of doing another? Look at Perry's records and they do not match his words. 

I want to see the economy strong and people with jobs so they can work on their lives and dreams without fear. I have seen no evidence that the Republicans can do that better than any Democrat. Spending less on stimulus than a Democrat is now conservative? Lets end the political game and start dealing with real life.

Vote Libertarian and fix Texas... then lets fix the US by our lead.