Liberty Watch Episode 6: Trump’s First Speech Before Congress Part 2

This is the text version of my YouTube video that can be viewed by clicking here https://youtu.be/9aZimXmtz2o.  You can subscribe to my YouTube channel by clicking here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIb4k41f3A1lftMXivcvj5g.

Video clip Trump:  We are also taking strong measures to protect our nation from radical Islamic terrorism.  (Applause.)  According to data provided by the Department of Justice, the vast majority of individuals convicted of terrorism and terrorism-related offenses since 9/11 came here from outside of our country.  We have seen the attacks at home — from Boston to San Bernardino to the Pentagon, and, yes, even the World Trade Center.

  • Initial ban included Iran,Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
  • Why wasn’t Saudi Arabia on the list? Could it be because we have a cozy relationship with them?

Video clip:  I am greatly honored to have Maureen Scalia with us in the gallery tonight.  (Applause.)  Thank you, Maureen.  Her late, great husband, Antonin Scalia, will forever be a symbol of American justice.  To fill his seat, we have chosen Judge Neil Gorsuch, a man of incredible skill and deep devotion to the law.  He was confirmed unanimously by the Court of Appeals, and I am asking the Senate to swiftly approve his nomination.

  • Good pick. Constitutional conservative. We need more judges that will abide by the original intent of the constitution.
  • Judges are human and often let their political ideology corrupt their thinking on the bench.
  • One of the most common errors the Supreme Court makes is to take cases that should be decided at the state level and make them federal such as abortion, gay marriage, etc.

Video clip:  Right now, American companies are taxed at one of the highest rates anywhere in the world.  My economic team is developing historic tax reform that will reduce the tax rate on our companies so they can compete and thrive anywhere and with anyone.  (Applause.)  It will be a big, big cut.

  • Tax cuts good for economic growth
  • Laffer curve?
  • Will need to offset tax cuts with budget cuts or deficit will increase

Video clip:  The first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, warned that the “abandonment of the protective policy by the American government… will produce want and ruin among our people.”  Lincoln was right — and it’s time we heeded his advice and his words.

  • Protectionism leads to trade wars which will benefit some companies and hurt others
  • Leads to crony capitalism
  • Lincoln a poor president to emulate for trade policy
  • Lincoln called his protectionist system the “American system”
  • Nothing more than the old mercantilist system

Video clip:  To launch our national rebuilding, I will be asking Congress to approve legislation that produces a $1 trillion investment in infrastructure of the United States — financed through both public and private capital — creating millions of new jobs.

  • Tax cuts plus new spending will explode the budget deficit
  • Merely transfers work from one group to another
  • Politicians will choose winners and loser rather than the free market
  • More crony capitalism will result

Video clip:  First, we should ensure that Americans with preexisting conditions have access to coverage.

  • Any plan with this provision will be nothing more than Obamacare lite.
  • Trump not serious about true reform
  • Republicans in congress would not vote for movement toward free markets; do not want to relinquish control of the health care market.

Video clip:  Megan’s story is about the unbounded power of a father’s love for a daughter.  But our slow and burdensome approval process at the Food and Drug Administration keeps too many advances, like the one that saved Megan’s life, from reaching those in need.  If we slash the restraints, not just at the FDA but across our government, then we will be blessed with far more miracles just like Megan.

  • Good idea to streamline the FDA approval process and give patients more choice.
  • FDA regulations help drive the high cost of drugs.
  • FDA’s incentives are to err on the side of slower approval.

Video clip:   I am calling upon members of both parties to pass an education bill that funds school choice for disadvantaged youth, including millions of African American and Latino children.  (Applause.)  These families should be free to choose the public, private, charter, magnet, religious, or home school that is right for them.

  • A move in the right direction
  • Current system leaves school officials in control rather than parents and children
  • ALL parents should be free to choose where to send money and the public funding should follow them.
  • Why is a monopoly bad for consumers with everything except education?

Liberty Watch Episode 4: Republicans Push Obamacare Light

The following is the text version of my YouTube video that you can watch by clicking here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vCa4wbU1bI.  You can subscribe to my YouTube channel by clicking here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIb4k41f3A1lftMXivcvj5g.

Liberty Man Van:  Welcome to Liberty Watch.  I am your host Liberty Man Van.  On this show we look at the world through a libertarian lens.  As the root word of libertarian implies, we are for maximum freedom of action for individuals.  Libertarians believe in:

  • Individualism over collectivism
  • Private property rights and Free markets
  • Freedom of association
  • Principle over party
  • Non-aggression principle

When looking at public policy I ask the following two questions. 1) Is the proposed law constitutional?  2) Will the proposed law increase freedom or seek to limit freedom?  If I determine the law is constitutional and will increase freedom I ask this question:  Does the proposed law violate anyone’s person or property?  If so, I could not support it.

Let’s take two controversial topics that illustrate how my thinking would operate.  Would I support legalization of?

  • Prostitution
  • Child pornography

Next, we will spend a little time discussing health care policy and specifically Obamacare.  My first question to ask about health care is to ask if it is constitutional for Uncle Sam to be involved with it.  The answer is no.  The federal constitution gives the federal government only certain enumerated powers:  control of the health care system is not listed as one of those powers and the general government should have no role in it.

But, as a practical matter, they have decided to be involved heavily with it.  The most recent federal legislation involving health care is the patient protection and affordable care act, aka Obamacare.

These major provisions of Obamacare guaranteed that premiums would rise:

  • Community rating for health insurance premiums- Community ratingis a concept usually associated withhealth insurance, which requires health insurance providers to offer health insurance policies within a given territory at the same price to all persons without medical underwriting, regardless of their health   The exception is tobacco use.
  • Cannot be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions.
  • Minimum standards for health insurance policies.
  • Certain types of preventive care must be covered at no additional cost.
  • Annual and lifetime dollar limits on care are prohibited.

The following provisions of Obamacare were an attempt to keep premium costs down:

  • Subsidies for people under 400% of the poverty level.
  • Individual mandate

Other major provisions:

  • Medicaid was expanded in participating states
  • Employers may not require employees to wait for more than 90 days for health insurance eligibility.
  • Employers with over 50 full-time employees will be charged a penalty for each full-time employee that lacks health coverage.

Liberty Man Van:  Trump was asked by an interviewer recently about Obamacare.  Here is what he had to say.

Video clip:  Moderator- Let me ask you about Obamacare which you say you will repeal and replace.  When you replace it are you going to make sure that people with pre-existing conditions are still covered?  Trump- Yes, because it happens to be one of the strongest aspects.  Also for the children living with their parents for an extended period.  We are very much going to try to keep that in.

Liberty Man Van:  This is consistent with what Trump said on the campaign trail.  He always said he would repeal and replace, not just repeal Obamacare.  He has consistently said that he will keep the pre-existing conditions provision intact.  If you keep that provision you will have to keep many of the other provisions as well.  This is why I believe the republicans will replace Obamacare with another piece of legislation that will be essentially just Obamacare by another name.  They will then be able to say they repealed the law and replaced it but the replacement will be just as bad if not worse than the original.  When congressional republicans are on the campaign trail they often talk a good game about their desire to cut government spending.  But when push comes to shove they will always “play it safe” and leave these spending programs in place.  Their first priority is to get re-elected and this always comes before any principled action.  No one is looking out for the interest of the taxpayers.  No one.

Liberty Man Van:  House speaker Paul Ryan was recently at a town hall meeting.  Here is one of the Obamacare questions he encountered.

Video clip:  When it was passed I told my wife we would close my business before we complied with this law.  Then, at 49, I was given six weeks to live with a very curable type of cancer.  We offered three times the cost of my treatments, which was rejected.  They required an insurance card and thanks to the affordable care act I am standing here today alive.

Liberty Man Van:  These are the types of people who are paraded out in front of the camera to defend Obamacare.  I would like to make the following points about his case:

  • We can all suddenly be struck by a devastating disease and we feel compassionate.
  • Was it responsible for him not to carry health insurance?
  • Are his fellow citizens now responsible for paying for his irresponsibility?
  • Does he own the labor of his fellow citizens?
  • If you can buy insurance AFTER you get sick, doesn’t that just encourage more people to be irresponsible and skip the premiums?
  • Should people who gamble be rewarded with other people’s money?

Liberty Man Van:  Here is how speaker Ryan addressed the question.

Video clip:  Paul Ryan- The problem with Obamacare, the actuaries call it a death spiral, it is a really kind of ugly and gruesome term.  But a death spiral is a mathematical term they say when the insurance becomes so expensive that healthy people won’t buy it.  It’s just a trade-off; the penalty to not buy it is a lot cheaper than buying the insurance.  So healthy people won’t buy it and they won’t participate in the insurance pool to help cover the losses caused by sicker people.  That is what is happening to Obamacare now.  So now you have unhealthy people buying it and healthy people not buying it.  That is why the rates are going up so much and causing many insurers to pull out.  The biggest health insurer in the country, United, last year pulled out of Obamacare.  Aetna pulled out of Obamacare.  Humana pulled out of Obamacare.  As I mentioned, five states now are down to one insurer.  Over one thousand counties in America are down to one insurer.

Liberty Man Van:  And Tucker Carlson had this to say.

Video clip:  Tucker Carlson- If you tell insurers that they can’t account for risk, which is basically what you are doing when you say that they have to take people with pre-existing conditions, you are no longer really selling insurance.  I am not saying that it is not virtuous, it is a good deed, but you are not really selling insurance.

Liberty Man Van:  Carlson here:

  • Not insurance but charity
  • I disagree that it is virtuous and a good deed
  • Indentured servitude coerced upon others is not virtuous. Theft is not virtuous.

Liberty Man Van:  As an example of how insurance premiums for many Americans have risen under Obamacare we have the following article from msn.com.

Video clip:  article

Liberty Man Van:  When you allow people with pre-existing conditions into the insurance pool it was predictable that premiums would go up on many responsible people who had bought health insurance BEFORE getting sick.

Liberty Man Van:  The republican proposals for replacing Obamacare include an expansion of health savings accounts.  These are a good idea.  One proposal was from Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky.

Video clips:  “What if 30 percent of the public had health savings accounts?” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) asked.

“What do you do when you use your own money? You call up doctors and ask the price. … If you create a real marketplace, you drive prices down.”

Liberty Man Van:  He makes an important point here.  You tend to pay more attention to price and quality when you are spending your own money.  With health savings accounts you are spending your own money.  Economist Milton Friedman discussed the four categories of spending.  Let’s hear it from the master himself.

Video clip:  Milton Friedman with chart.

Liberty Man Van:  Now back to Senator Rand Paul’s H.s.a. plan.

Video clip:  Paul’s plan would eliminate the requirement that the accounts be tied to high-deductible health plans, increase the amount of money users are allowed to add to their HSA each year and allow people to use their accounts to pay for deductibles and premiums, which currently is not allowed.

Liberty Man Van:  Expansion of health savings accounts are a great idea because they will give people more control and drive down health care costs.

 

 

  • We were promised a social security trust fund
  • Initial surplus because there more than two paying into the system for each receiving benefits
  • Trust fund was raided and spent on other programs
  • Irresponsible stewardship of the trust fund
  • Demographic changes will not produce a yearly deficit
  • Operates like a legalized Ponzi scheme

How do we now fix the social security deficit?  Bernie Sanders proposed the following.

Video clips:  show text summary of the bill from Bernie’s website.

  • WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) introduced legislation Thursday to expand Social Security benefits and strengthen the retirement program for generations to come. Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) introduced a companion bill in the House.“It is time to expand Social Security, not cut it,” Sanders told Social Security Works, The Alliance for Retired Americans and other organizations at a meeting on Capitol Hill.The legislation would ensure that Social Security could pay every benefit owed to every eligible American for the next 61 years, according to a newanalysis Thursday by the retirement system’s chief actuary.

 

  • The bills would increase benefits by about $1,300 a year for seniors now making less than $16,000 annually. “At a time when more than half of older Americans over the age of 55 have no retirement savings, our job is to expand Social Security to make sure that every American can retire with the dignity and the respect that they have earned and deserve,” Sanders said.The legislation also would make the wealthiest Americans – those with incomes of more than $250,000 a year – pay the same rate into the retirement system as everyone else already pays. Current law now caps the amount of income subject to payroll taxes $127,200. Under the proposal, only the top 1.6 percent of wage earners would pay more under the proposal, according to the Center for Economic Policy Research.

Liberty Man Van:  This is classic Bernie Sanders.  When he wants to expand the size of government he always presents himself Santa Claus, seeking to give you a new benefit.  He’s always going to get the funds from those greedy rich people.  So here is the gist of the argument from those who would support this legislation:

  • We told you we would put your money in a trust fund
  • But we couldn’t be trusted, we raided the trust fund
  • Just give us some more money. We promise to be responsible this time.
  • Fooled me once shame on you. Fooled me twice shame on me.

As a matter of fact, I have a message for Bernie and his band of thieves.

Video clip:  The Who, Won’t Get Fooled Again

Liberty Man Van:  That’s right.  This time let’s not get fooled again.  And as for Bernie Sanders and politicians like him, you are not like this guy:

Video clip of Santa Claus.

Liberty Man Van: Instead, you are like this guy.

Video clip of the Grinch.

Liberty Man Van:  Why the Grinch rather than Santa Claus?

  • Santa Claus uses his own resources to make toys and gives to children
  • Grinch steals from children to give to adults

Liberty Man Van:  Bernie Sanders, the Grinch, always want to spend now and pay for it later.  That means that our children and grandchildren will have to pay for it.  It amounts to intergenerational theft.  How large is the national debt?  Let’s take a look at it.

Video clip:  National debt clock.  Record a voice over reading the numbers out loud.  Grinch song over part?

Video showing convention drawings.  Voice over:  Our next story comes from Philadelphia, home of the constitutional convention of 1787.  Unfortunately, the wisdom of the founding fathers does not continue in the city leaders of Philadelphia today.

Liberty Man Van:  That’s right, from the city of brotherly love comes this headline.

Video clip: Soda companies, supermarkets report 30-50% sales drop from soda tax.

Video clip: Consumers who don’t want to pay an extra 1.5 cents per ounce for their favorite sugary drinks have a strong incentive to avoid buying soda (or juice, or iced tea, or sports drinks) in Philadelphia. They’re leaving the city to buy soda, and doing the rest of their grocery shopping outside the city too. That leaves grocery stores with less revenue and creates an incentive to cut costs, which could mean laying off workers.

Liberty Man Van:  Which leads us to our next headline.

Video clip:  With Sales Depressed by Soda Tax, Philly Grocers Look to Cut Jobs as Mayor Blames ‘Greedy’ Soda Industry

 

Video clip:  It’s not the first time Kenney has tried to ignore basic economics when it comes to the soda tax. A few weeks ago, he blamed grocery stores and restaurants for “price gouging” when they increased prices for sugary drinks to make consumers pay for the cost of the tax (the tax is technically applied on the transaction between distributors and retailers, but, like all other taxes, it gets passed along).

Video clip:  Per month, Philadelphia expects to collect about $7.6 million from the tax, but in collections totaled just $2.3 million in January, City & State Pennsylvania reported this week, citing a city report.

Liberty Man Van:  As a libertarian I believe that a free market creates the most wealth for the most people and that people should be free to act in their own self-interest.  This story illustrates how government intervention always creates winners and losers in the market.  Who were the winners?

  • Merchants just outside the city limits of Philadelphia
  • Workers just outside the city limits of Philadelphia
  • Non-sugary drink manufacturers and merchants

Liberty Man Van:  To see the loser simply reverse these.

Liberty Man Van:  This next story is a light-hearted one.  Have you ever read an online article that bashes white people and think “Boy, if this magazine said that about a black person they would be shamed out of business.”  Then have some fun with the new chrome extension called the “racism simulator.”  It works on the Salon, Huffington Post, and buzzfeed websites.

Video clip:  Demonstrates new chrome extension.

Liberty Watch Episode 5: Trump’s First Speech Before Congress Part 1

Trump’s first speech before congress part 1.

The following is the text version of my YouTube video which can be viewed by clicking <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQOLyhP7zVk>.  You can subscribe to my YouTube channel by clicking here <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIb4k41f3A1lftMXivcvj5g>.

Trump’s first speech before congress 2/28/17

Liberty Man Van:  Most libertarians are either minarchists or anarchists.

  • Why I am a minarchist
  • Does minarchism violate the principle of self-ownership?
  • You cannot believe in self-ownership and coercive taxation at the same time. These principles are mutually exclusive.
  • Can you believe in socialism and be a libertarian? Yes and no.

Now let’s get to Trump’s first speech before a joint session of congress.  After each of his comments I will either clap or boo, then explain why.  Off we go.

Video clip:  The stock market has gained almost $3 trillion in value since the election on November 8th, a record…  We have placed a hiring freeze on federal workers…

Liberty Man Van:

  • During campaign said stock market overvalued
  • Risky strategy, now he has co-opted the market
  • Federal hiring freeze a good thing

We have undertaken a historic effort to massively reduce job-crushing regulations, creating a deregulation task force inside of every government agency.  (Applause.)  And we’re imposing a new rule which mandates that for every one new regulation, two old regulations must be eliminated.

Liberty Man Van comments:

  • This will be good for business and economic growth.
  • NAM, National Association of Manufacturers estimated in 2012 regulations cost over 2 trillion dollars, or 21% of payroll.

Video clip:  We have cleared the way for the construction of the Keystone and Dakota Access Pipelines — (applause) — thereby creating tens of thousands of jobs.  And I’ve issued a new directive that new American pipelines be made with American steel.

  • Jobs “created” in one sector are stolen from another
  • Infrastructure spending does not create jobs.
  • Pipelines are privately owned, this is an intrusion into their business
  • Did Trump use American only parts in all of his property developments?

Video clip:  I have further ordered the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice, along with the Department of State and the Director of National Intelligence, to coordinate an aggressive strategy to dismantle the criminal cartels that have spread all across our nation.  (Applause.)  We will stop the drugs from pouring into our country and poisoning our youth.

  • This continues the ineffective “war on drugs.”
  • This is a states rights issue. Drug policy should be handled at the state and local level allowing experimentation with different strategies.
  • http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/15/heroin-crackdown-oxycodone-hydrocodone/1963123/ Explains how government policy against oxy has increased heroin overdose
  • Drug war expensive and has not diminished the supply of drugs
  • Drug money causes corruption of cops, courts, judges.
  • Makes criminals of drug suppliers and addicts, thus increasing the prison population and the cost of incarcerating them.
  • Take one drug dealer off the street; ten are waiting to take his place
  • Multiple ways someone can become addicted, including pain relief, self-medicating due to emotional trauma or depression, etc.
  • People turn to heroin because it is less expensive than pills and easier to obtain
  • Heroin more dangerous because the purity is not regulated, users never know exactly what they are taking or how much. Lenny Bias.
  • Added peril of needle sharing leading to AIDS, hepatitis, etc.

For example, what if Arkansas wanted to make generic oxycodone available to addicts they should be allowed to do so without federal interference.

 

Video clip:  At the same time, my administration has answered the pleas of the American people for immigration enforcement and border security.  (Applause.)  By finally enforcing our immigration laws, we will raise wages, help the unemployed, save billions and billions of dollars, and make our communities safer for everyone.  (Applause.)  We want all Americans to succeed, but that can’t happen in an environment of lawless chaos.  We must restore integrity and the rule of law at our borders.

  • Property rights. Individuals and countries have a right to post a “no trespassing” sign on their property.
  • Democrats think illegal immigrants will become legal and vote for them; business leaders like illegal immigrants to keep the cost of labor down and to buy stuff.
  • Politicians also see immigrants as a solution to the demographics problem; entitlement programs need young workers to fund them.
  • “We are a nation of immigrant.” Some politicians never make a distinction between legal and illegal immigrants.

Liberty Watch Episode 1: Capitalist Criticisms Critiqued

Capitalist Criticisms Critiqued

The following text is a summary of the Youtube video which can be found at <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QJlTnOAx-I>.  You can subscribe to the Liberty Man Van YouTube channel at <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIb4k41f3A1lftMXivcvj5g>.

Liberty Man Van: Today we will hear from a Marxist professor professor being interviewed. He is quick to criticize capitalism and equally quick to praise socialism. We will listen to his arguments and then discuss their flaws. Here we go:

Marxist professor clip: Every capitalist is either trying to make more money or either survive competitively by saving on labor costs. One capitalist does it by substituting machines for working people, automated, getting a computer to do what he used to have 50 people do, etc., etc. Another capitalist tries to do it by hiring cheaper workers in place of more expensive one- hiring women to do the job, if they are cheaper, than they used to hire men for, hiring immigrants rather than domestic workers, moving to another part of the world where wages are much lower. We all know that. So capitalists are always trying to save on labor costs because they can make a better profit if they do that. But here comes the contradiction. If all capitalists are reducing the number of workers they pay or reducing the pay they give the workers what will happen is that the working people have less and less money and if they have less and less money they can’t buy what the capitalists are producing to sell. The capitalists, therefore, are destroying themselves but they have no choice. They have to save on the labor outlay and then that comes back and bites them in the rear end because there is no demand. If you have become so successful becoming rich as a capitalist you’ve killed yourself.

Liberty Man Van: The professor makes three claims here:

1) If business owners reduce wages the workers will have less money to spend. We need to make a distinction here between real wages and nominal wages. Real wages take inflation into account. If a worker makes 1% less in wages but general prices decrease by 2% then his nominal wages have decreased but his real wages have increased. You have to take the full picture into account. In other words, if business owners are having to cut wages it often means that prices for products are also decreasing. Every worker is also a consumer and as a consumer will pay less for goods.

2) Lowering of wages creates less demand for products- This will be true only if wages are going down faster than the cost of goods or because of demographic shifts in the population. For example, if their is a relative increase in the number of retirees versus babies you would expect a slackening demand for diapers.

3) If you have become rich as a capitalist you have “killed yourself.” This claim has no basis in fact. In a free market the only way to “get rich” as a business owner is to provide value to people. Consumers must see a value in your product or else they will not buy it. It is ultimately consumers that will decide if you are successful or not.

Marxist professor clip: For example, when the people couldn’t buy in the 70’s they kept it going anyway. How did it do that? How did they keep it going when the people couldn’t buy enough from their wages? The solution? Credit. We loaded the world up- house payment, that’s your mortgage; car payment- nobody buys a car except through credit. Credit cards that didn’t exist until the 1970’s for anyone except traveling businessmen, and only small number of them. And when that was not enough we loaded up, for the first time in history, students who can’t get a degree without loading up with tens of thousands of dollars of debt.

Liberty Man Van: The attack here is on credit. Who decides whether to borrow or not in a free economy? People do. The existence of credit is not a failure of capitalism; it is an expression of people’s freedom to choose. Would the professor outlaw credit? Creditors extend credit to individuals on the basis of their ability to repay a loan. If a person is a bad risk they will pay a higher interest rate for the loan. The high interest rate is also a signal that maybe that person should curb spending rather than borrow. Some people use credit responsibly; others irresponsibly.

The student debt he refers to in this clip is not a capitalist failure but a result of government intervention into the student loan market. That is another subject and we won’t get into it here.

Marxist professor clip: People could buy stuff, even though their wages couldn’t pay for it, by borrowing. And in 2008 the predictable happened. It turns out that your fix only lasts for a while.

Marxist professor clip: Question: The housing crisis, the crisis of overproduction, the fact that we have more houses than homeless people. But because we have this crisis of overproduction…

liberty Man Van: These clips refer to the housing bubble that burst in 2008-9. The bubble was caused by cheap money and the lowering of mortgage lending standards. Cheap money was the result of Federal Reserve monetary policy; this central bank was created by the government. The lowering of lending standards also created more demand for houses; these lower standards were encouraged again by government policy. The housing bubble and bust is a good example of how a problem is created by government intervention in the markets and business gets the blame when it goes sour.

Marxist professor clip: They realized that in the West: North America, Western Europe, Japan. Two hundred years of capitalism have built up impressive factories, offices, and stores. But they were built up in the places where capitalism was born. That’s where they have built everything. They had drawn up workers from the countryside to become the industrialized working class. And along the way the working people, noticing how productive capitalism was since they did the work, demanded for themselves an increasing standard of living. From 1820 to 1970, particularly in the United States but elsewhere, wages rose. Over that time capitalists were doing so well they could raise the wages of their workers and still make out like bandits. So it was a system in which the people began to get the idea that capitalism works- it delivers the goods because it raises wages. You had to not look at what was happening to wages where most of the world lived- Asia, Africa, Latin America- because for them the situation was horrible.

liberty Man Van: Wow! The professor here acknowledges the tremendous wealth in the world that capitalism has created. The wealth went not just to the business owners but to workers as well. Consider the automobile as an example. When they were first produced they were produced by craftsmen one at a time. They were toys of the super wealthy. Then along came capitalist Henry Ford, the factory, and division of labor. The car, once a plaything of the wealthy, became a good that normal people could afford. This happened not just in the auto industry but in many other industries as well. People could afford to have more than one pair of shoes, more than one coat, more than one loaf of bread. The arrival of the industrial revolution along with capitalism produced a degree of wealth previously only dreamed of to ordinary people everywhere. Today we take many goods for granted that previously only kings owned. Today we have become so wealthy that we can afford to pay Marxist professors to produce nothing of value and still get paid.

Bernstein graph of wealth per capita exploding with the industrial revolution.

Marxist professor clip: But if concentrated on where capitalism was born you could fool yourself into thinking “Wow! This is a system that works.” And the capitalists and the people that liked it of course celebrated that. But then in the 1970’s the capitalists had this eureka moment. They said to themselves “Wait a minute. We are in North America, Western Europe and Japan where the wages are very high. Workers are very happy, but why are we here?” In the rest of the world, which has been savaged by the growth of capitalism in those privileged areas, wages are very low. So in this eureka moment capitalists said “What are we doing here in Western Europe, North America, and Japan. It’s much profitable if we produce in China, India, and Brazil.” And there begins what we are still in the middle of- the exodus, the abandonment of the places of origin of capitalism by the capitalists. So there is a massive move to China, India, Brazil, and all those places. Producing what? Well, what every capitalist wants- to make a bundle. So they make big factories imagining that they can sell all this stuff like they used to. But they forgot something. If you go from high wages in the US to low wages in China, the bottom line is that the people earning wages are earning a lot less than they used to. They can’t buy back what you are building. They can’t consume what you have the ability to produce.

Liberty Man Van: Again, the professor considers only part of the equation. He wants to focus on workers that have lost their jobs to cheaper wages overseas. But he ignores the millions of consumers that now have the choice of buying less expensive goods.

Marxist professor clip: They came up with the following idea. The problem with capitalism is twofold. First, that private individuls own the means of production. They own the land, factories, stores, machinery. And that the owners are a small part of the population: 1%, 2%, 5%, maybe even 10% but rarely did it get that high. So the vast majority of people are never a part of the owners.

Liberty Man Van: Let’s address the two “problems” with capitalism he mentions in this clip.

1) Private ownership of the means of production is bad. This is THE biggest flaw in his thinking. Why is private ownership better than public ownership of a business? Let’s say you borrow some money and purchase a car. You have every incentive to take car of the car and keep it well maintained to preserve its value. You clean the inside and outside regularly. You don’t drive too fast in order to preserve the engine and transmission. What if the car belonged to the community as a whole? Would you treat it as well? Probably not. The same goes for a business. If you had to buy it yourself you are much more likely to attend to the details that will make it succeed. And what must a business owner do to succeed? He must provide VALUE to other people. That is the beauty of capitalism. A business owner must provide value to others in the market place. He must convince others, without the aid of a musket, to purchase his good or service.

2) Business owners are a small part of the population- This is because there are risks involved in starting or buying a business and most people don’t want to take on that risk. Your business can fail. You can lose your investment. If you DO want some ownership in a business you can buy stocks. You don’t have to be rich to share in the profits of a company.

Marxist professor clip: So the socialist idea was this is fundamentally unjust, fundamentally undemocratic. This is what’s wrong with capitalism and how do you solve it. You have collective ownership, not private. The society as a whole should own the means of production- the factories, the offices, the stores- so that they are good for everybody, so that what they produce is distributed roughly equally. The influence and decision are made social- that is why it is called socialism. It is the society that should own. It focuses on the workplace. It’s idea is the way you make sure the government never again becomes an instrument over the people but simply an instrument of the people. Making sure that at the base of society where the people live and work the wealth and the productive capability is in their hands. If you want the slogan of 21st century socialism it’s this: democratize the enterprise. End this process where there is a handful of people who make the decisions.

Liberty Man Van: Democratize the enterprise? We have that already. They are called stocks and people who don’t own them directly often do indirectly through their pensions.

Marxist professor clip: In most American corporations, and corporations are the bulk of the business, are a tiny group of major shareholders. They select the board of directors. One percent of Americans own 75% of the shares- it’s highly concentrated. How do you run a corporation? At the top is a board of directors, usually 15-20 people. How do you get on the board of directors? There is an election every year to get on the board. The way the election works is if you have one share you get one vote, if you own 100 shares you get 100 votes, if you own one million shares you get a million votes. There is no pretense of democracy. Since a handful of people own the bulk of the shares they control everything. They decide what the company produces, how the company does it, where the company is located and what is done with the profits.

Liberty Man Van: He complains that people who own more shares in a stock get more of the decision making opportunity. What he doesn’t mention is that they also share more of the risk; they have more “skin in the game.” Would it be fair to expect a person who owns one share in the company run the company? Not unless you wanted everyone to lose money when it went “belly up.”

Marxist professor clip: If workers took over a co-op and decided what to do with the profits do you think they would give executives 25 million dollars so that they had more money to do with while everybody else has to borrow money to send their kids to college? It’ll never happen. You think a collection of workers, say 400 in a factory, considering you could make more money if you move production to China, will vote to get rid of their own jobs? It’s not gonna happen. They are not going to destroy their community by having an empty factory. They are not gonna deprive their local government of the tax revenue to run the local schools and the hospital. And they won’t deprive themselves of jobs. So what we’ve had for the last forty years, all those jobs leaving, would never have left if it were a collective decision of the workers where this production will take place.

Liberty Man Van: There is a major flaw in the professor’s utopian co-op factory vision. The factory must create products that are competitively priced in the market place. If the workers all give themselves a big raise and it causes the price of the widgets they produce to cost a lot more than competing widgets they have a problem. No one will buy their more expensive widgets and the workers will get to share in the profits- zero! Now no one gets paid but at least it’s fair!

Marxist professor clip: I wanted you to counter another argument I hear frequently- “I earned it.”

Marxist professor clip: The best way to describe this is to go back to Karl Marx and his analysis of capitalism so that we all understand what earning is about. Let’s imagine that you are looking for a job and I’m an employer that you’re looking to get hired by. So you come in and fill out the application form and I look at you and I describe what work I will have you do. You’ll work 9-5 M-F and you’ll sit over here and do this kind of work, etc. And then we get to that big question of what you will get paid. We talk back and forth and we agree on $20/hr. At this point Marx enters with a smile on his face. And he’s going to show the readers of his books that something is going on that you actually know but you don’t want to face. But I’m going to show it to you. When I hire you for $20/hr I know that for every hour that you work for me I will have more stuff to sell and the end of the day because you are added to my work force. You’re going to help me produce more goods or services or better quality goods and services than I could before I hired you. So I’m gonna say to myself “hmm… I going to give Abbey $20/hr. What will I get out of her?” I will have the output that Abbey adds by her labor. So that has to be more than $20. The only way I will hire you for $20/hr is if you earn more in that hour than I give you(said with a sinister tone of voice).

Liberty Man Van: Wow! Sounds like these workers just made a deal with the devil.

Concert video clip: Charlie Daniels playing the devil’s fiddle solo from “The Devil Went Down to Georgia.”

Liberty Man Van: Again, the professor only wants to look at the profit side of the equation. He never mentions that maybe the business owner saved like a miser for twenty years, took those savings and then borrowed some more money to open the business. It’s called risk and no one in their right mind will take on risk without the hope of some reward. In the socialist mind I guess that reward will come in heaven for being “fair.”

Marxist professor clip: He just ripped people off. The way corporations work is that four times per year they take the profits they’ve made in the preceding three months and they distribute a portion of them to their shareholders and these distributions are called dividends. So if you own a lot of shares- say you inherited them from your grandma, or you stole money and bought them on the stock market. There are lots of ways of getting them. But if you have them, then four times per year you go to your mailbox find a check for your share of the profits of the company. For rich people this is millions of dollars. They have all that money. What did they do exactly to earn that money? Nothing. Those people are going to tell me they earned it? Earned what? Did they ever set foot in the factory? No. Do they have any idea what this company does? No. They don’t care!

Liberty Man Van: In his mind only undeserving, lazy people can own any shares. What if he is a school teacher and saved money out of each paycheck to invest in shares his whole life. Now he is retired and living off the dividends from the shares he owns. When he dies he passes the shares to his only child who has a great job. The child doesn’t need the extra cash so she takes the dividend proceeds and give them to the homeless shelter across town. These types of people don’t seem to enter the professor’s cerebral cortex.

Marxist professor clip: Let’s now do a little logic. If there are people like shareholders who get a lot of goods and services they didn’t produce then there must be someone else in that system who produce but do not get. If we allow this it means that some people get more than they produce and others produce more than they get. For Marx, he stands up and says “I rest my case. This system sucks.”

Liberty Man Van: The last time I checked workers who produce do get something. It’s called a paycheck. But wait. In a socialist system the worker would have to share that paycheck “for the common good.”

Marxist professor clip: Famous socialist Rosa Luxembourg once that that it is either socialism or barbarism. Here we are 100 years later. In what ways have you seen that play out today? The 62 richest people in the world, most of whom are Americans, have more wealth than the bottom half of the world population- roughly 3.5 billion people. That is beyond obscene; I don’t have an adjective that captures it. If you look at the statistics of the world health organization, the bottom half of the population are people who die way earlier than they need to. Their diets are no good, or they don’t have enough food to begin with, or they can’t get to a clinic to treat little health problems that are easily solved.

Liberty Man Van: Barbarism? Has the professor heard of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? It was in this socialist dystopia that farmers starved to death or were forced onto collective farms. Citizens waited in long lines to get the basic necessities of life such as a loaf of bread. Soap was a luxury. The only well off people worked for the communist party. They kept the wealth for themselves while regular people starved or were exterminated in concentration camps by the tens of millions. Tens of millions. That is not a typo. No thanks professor. In the words of the singing poet Billy Joel “If that’s movin’ up then I’m movin’ out!” Private property is all that stands between us and tyranny. I will keep mine. How about you?

 

Liberty Watch Episode 3: Trump wins!

Trump Wins!

The following is the text version of my YouTube video which you can view at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylMAJQUVSPY.  You can subscribe to my YouTube channel at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIb4k41f3A1lftMXivcvj5g.

Liberty Man Van:  President-elect Trump was in the news recently with his announcement about a deal to keep the Carrier air conditioner company from moving some jobs to Mexico.  He started by mentioning this issue during the presidential campaign.  Here are the first couple of clips.

Video clip Trump:  You’re gonna go to Mexico.  You’re gonna make air conditioners in Mexico.  You’re gonna bring them across the border with no tax.  I am going to tell them right now I will get consensus from congress and we are going to tax you.  So stay where you are or build in the United States.

Video clip Trump:  But we have to stop our jobs from being stolen from us.  We have to stop our companies from leaving the United States and with firing all of your people.  All you have to do is look at Carrier Air Conditioner in Indianapolis.  They left, fired 1400 people going to Mexico.  So many hundreds and hundreds of companies are doing this.  We cannot let it happen.

Video clip:  Today, Carrier announcing that it will keep 1100 jobs in Indianapolis but not all of them, largely in return for $7 million in tax incentives in large part facilitated by the state’s governor, Vice-President elect Mike Pence.

Video clip:  But we’re going to have a lot of phone calls made to companies when they say they are thinking about leaving this country because they are not leaving this country.

Liberty Man Van:  What is the libertarian position on this issue?  Should we be in favor of these types of deals or opposed to them?  Remember that we are in favor of free markets.  We believe free markets allow people and businesses the most freedom to act on their own behalf.  We believe this encourages the most economic growth and helps the most people.

Whenever government intervenes in the free market it causes distortions; winners and losers are determined by State planners rather than by the market players themselves.  It is easy to focus on what is seen and forget what is not seen.  In this case everyone sees the workers at Carrier who got to keep their jobs.  What we don’t see is who lost out with the $7 million in takes breaks doled out by the state of Indiana.  That $7 million did not appear out of thin air; it came from the pockets of Indiana taxpayers.  So the State determined the winners and losers.

What if the Carrier corporation had refused to make a deal and moved the plant to Mexico and then a law had been passed to place a tariff on air conditioners being imported from Mexico?  Again, we would the State intervening in the market choosing the winners and the losers.  In this case the workers in Indiana would have lost.  The price of air conditioners would have gone up so that American consumers would have also lost.  The only winner here would be government; it would collect more tax revenue.

The bottom line is that the State should not intervene.  We all lose a little freedom when it does and a little prosperity.

To see a practical example of how tariffs we can look at the Smoot-Hawley tariff which was passed by congress and signed by President Hoover into law in 1930.  These next clips are from a book entitled “America’s Great Depression” by Murray Rothbard.

Video clip:  Congress continued to work on a higher tariff, and finally reported a bill in mid-1930, which Hoover signed approvingly. In short, it was at a precarious time of depression that the Hoover administration chose to hobble international trade, injure the American consumer, and cripple the American farmers’ export markets by raising tariffs higher than their already high levels. Hoover was urged to veto the Smoot– Hawley Tariff by almost all the nation’s economists, in a remarkable display of consensus, by the leading bankers, and by many other leaders.

Video clip:  The stock market broke sharply on the day that Hoover agreed to sign the Smoot– Hawley Bill. This bill gave the signal for protectionism to proliferate all over the world. Markets, and the international division of labor, were hampered, and American consumers were further burdened, and farm as well as other export industries were hindered by the ensuing decline of international trade.

Liberty Man Van:  But many in the news media just don’t get it.  Rather than attack the deal on principle they just attack it because it didn’t do enough.

Video clip:  You would never know from hearing Donald Trump today at the Carrier plant in Indiana that 1300 people there at that plant are going to lose their jobs because those jobs ARE being moved to a plant in Mexico.  That is the REAL news of the day at that plant.

Liberty Man Van:  Now this next talking head is all in favor of this type of crony capitalism.  He is just upset HIS team didn’t do it first.

Video clip:  Now if you want to get United States government contracts then you are going to have to keep some of your jobs in the United States.  Now this is EXACTLY what I have been saying to the Democrats and to President Obama- that you could do this stuff- that if you really wanted to apply pressure there are thousand different ways to apply pressure.

Liberty Man Van:  And this next progressive media analyst is also in favor of intervention.  As a matter of fact, he would even like a new law.  To him, we must be just a few more controls short of an economic boom!

Video clip:  We want a law that says if you get more than 10% of your revenue, 8% of your business from federal contracts, then you must X, Y, and Z.

Video clip:  Moderator- You must concede that keeping American jobs in this country, something you have been for for many years, that’s a good thing.

Liberty Man Van:  Now some conservative leaning analysts jump on the intervention bandwagon.  Remember me saying that the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are now both in favor of big government.  Now it is the Republican’s turn to praise the deal.

Video clip:  Commentator-  I think it is a great thing Tucker.  I think 1000 jobs staying in Indiana instead of going to Mexico is a step in the right direction.

Video clip:  And it sends a very important message to working people in this country- I’m on your side.  I’m on your side.  And as Jeffrey will tell you that was one of the secrets of FDR.  FDR didn’t turn things around in his first term in office.  It was too difficult.  But people felt he was on their side.  They had a friend in the White House and it made an enormous difference in his governing.

Liberty Man Van:  It is no surprise that men who believe in State intervention into the economy would adore FDR.  What these State lovers either don’t know or will fail to acknowledge is that FDR’s interventionist economic policies and programs made things worse and prolonged the Great Depression.  But we will have to save that discussion for later.  Suffice it to say that we libertarians believe in free markets, not highly manipulated markets with Presidential bullying.

Our next series of video clips have to do with the electoral college.  These clips all attack it from a number of angles.  The first attacks say it is undemocratic and violates the “one person one vote” principle.

Video clip:  Every four years we hear the words “electoral college” over and over again but we never talk about what a ridiculous and frankly undemocratic system it really is.  The electoral college gives vastly more power to some voters depending on which state they live in.

Video clip:  Everyone’s vote should count equally but the method the United States uses to elect its president, called the electoral college, violates this principle by making sure that some people’s vote is more equal than others.

Liberty Man Van:  Do you think these people would be attacking the electoral college if their candidate had won the election but lost the popular vote?  I seriously doubt it.  Too many people vote for party rather than on principle.  We will focus on the principle and defend it.

What WAS the thinking behind the electoral college?  It has to do with an idea called federalism.  The new government that came out of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 was a federal republic.  The republic part means that we elect people to represent us; we don’t all vote on laws ourselves.  The “federal” part of federal republic means that the states retained their sovereignty; they were not abolished by the new government and would have considerable influence on it.  The idea here is that the states, representing different regional concerns, still matter.

The smaller states, such as Delaware, insisted on this approach to keep the larger states from having too much influence over the new government.  That is why the smaller states have just as many senators (2) as the larger states.  In addition, in the original constitution the U.S. senators were elected by the state legislatures.  Again, the idea was to give the states a great deal of influence.  The new constitution may never have been ratified if these provisions had not been inserted.

In the electoral college a state gets the number of electors equal to its number of U.S. representatives plus senators.  Thus, a very populous state such as California gets the same number of electors for its senators as does a sparsely populated state such as Montana.  This means that Montana does get more electors/person than does California, but California still gets more electoral votes.  This also means that a presidential candidate can’t just win the large population centers but must appeal to a wider swath of the country to win the election.  This helps keep the rural areas of the country from being dominated by the urban population centers; they have different interests to protect.  From this historical perspective the electoral college makes a lot of sense.  Changing it would require a constitutional amendment and I would personally be opposed to it.

Those who call for presidential election by popular vote either don’t understand or don’t respect the concept of federalism.  Many have cried foul because Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.  They say it is not fair.  But would it be fair to agree to play a game by one set of rules before the game but for the loser to want to change the rules after the game?  Of course not.  Furthermore, if Trump had been trying to win the most popular votes he would have run his campaign differently.  You can’t say that Clinton would have won the popular vote if the rules stated that the popular vote winner would win the election.  The campaign strategy for both candidates would have been different.  We can never know who would have won.

Many citizens were upset over the Trump victory.  Many took to the streets in protest over how their fellow citizens voted.  Some became violent or engaged in vandalism.  Others burned an effigy of Trump.  Let’s take a look at some of those who chose to disrespect the choice of their fellow citizens.

Video clip:  Rashida Jones simply tweeted “#notmypresident #nevermypresident.”  Chris Evans tweeted “This is an embarrassing night for America.  We’ve let a hatemonger lead our great nation.  We’ve let a bully set our course.  I’m devastated.”

Anna Kendrick tweeted “Woke up feeling like I’d had a nightmare.  Then started crying again.  Mantra:  I am not alone, we are not alone.”

Madonna got a little more optimistic with a selfie tweeting “A new fire is lit.  We never give up.  We never give in.”

Video clip:  We refuse to accept these election results.  We refuse to accept Donald Trump as even a viable candidate.  Like, this man should not have been on the ticket to begin with.

Video clip:  Street protestors chanting “Not my president.  Not my president…”

Video clip:  We were so close to having our first ever woman president and we have a guy that is a white nationalist.

Video clip:  Not my president.  That was the chant of protestors across the country Wednesday as tens of thousands of people took to the streets to protest the election of Donald Trump who surged to victory of Hillary Clinton.

Video clip:  Overnight the outrage over an election sparking protests from coast to coast and cities in between.  In Oakland it started as a peaceful protest quickly turning violent, demonstrators burning flags and vandalizing cars.

Video clip:  Breaking overnight thousands of people across the country and some here in the bay area protesting the election of Donald Trump.  In California protestors shut down a highway, highway 101, linking Hollywood to Los Angelos.  In Manhattan hundreds gathered on Columbus Circle and in New Orleans protestors lit a Trump effigy on fire.

Video clip:  Hundreds gathered in Union Square chanting “Not my president.” More than 10,000 people responded to a Facebook event for the demonstration.

Liberty Man Van:  At least one woman chose to conflate politics and religion.  I wonder if she realizes how seriously this undermines her witness for her faith.

Video clip:  Choir member Jan Chamberlain says she is out and she is now making headlines after formally quitting the group (the Mormon Tabernacle Choir) in protest of singing for Mr. Trump.  Chamberlain wrote a lengthy Facebook post that said in part “I’ve tried to tell myself that it will be all right and that I can continue in good conscience before God and man… I only know I could never ‘throw roses to Hitler.’  And I certainly could never sing for him.”

Liberty Man Van:  This type of behavior does not make me want to become a Mormon.  Here are some more whiners about the electoral college.

Video clip: Bill Maher- But first off how do we solve this problem of we win the election but we don’t get to be president… because this has happened twice now since 2000, and it seems to be happening to only one party.

Eric Holder- I am in the process now of writing an article.  There is a simple solution.  We have to just abolish the electoral college (applause).

Video clip:  Rachel Maddow- So, stick a pin in this popular vote thing.  Her lead is now over 2 million votes, that’s 1.5%.  That’s the biggest in over 140 years.

Video clip:  I’m sorry Hillary; you were robbed.

Michael Moore:  He’s only president because of a stupid idea from the 1700’s that was meant to appease people in the rural south, people in the slave states.

Commentator: Hopefully that the people in the electoral college will hear us and go with the popular vote that Hillary clearly won.

Commentator:  A true democracy is who wins the popular vote.

Video clip:  Congressman Charlie Rangel commenting on a bill by Senator Barbara Boxer that would eliminate the electoral college and determine election winner by popular vote- The reason I introduced this with Barbara Boxer is let the people know we still have not elected or voted for a president.

Video clip:  California senator Barbara Boxer released a statement today saying she will introduce legislation when the senate comes back into session to eliminate the electoral college calling it “…an outdated, undemocratic system that does not reflect our modern society, and it needs to change immediately.  Every American should be guaranteed that their vote counts.”

Video clip:  But here’s the thing, there is the democratic idea of one person one vote and that does not happen with the electoral college.

Liberty Man Van:  The Founding Fathers never intended to create a pure democracy.  For a little historical perspective, let’s see what the Federalist papers had to say on the subject of democracy.  The following clips are Federalist #10.

Video clip:  …a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

Video clip:  The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

Liberty Man Van:  Again, our government was set up as a federal republic.  It was never intended to be a pure democracy where the citizens go out and vote on every issue.  The founders wanted to avoid mob rule, and the electoral college was part of the strategy to avoid it.  The issue was resolved in 1787.  Let’s leave it alone.

Liberty Man Van:  The next graphic shows the great number of red states that Trump won; he appealed to a wide geographic section of the country.

Video clip:  A graphic is displayed which shows a wide swath of states that voted for Trump.  Many red states compared to blue states.

Liberty Man Van:  The next graphic shows the counties that went to Trump and the election looks even more one sided for Trump.

Video clip:  Shows the counties won by Trump in red.

Liberty Man Van:  As a libertarian I was not able to vote for either of these bad candidates, Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.  In order to get my vote a candidate must show me that they espouse liberty as a primary value.  Unfortunately, not even the Libertarian Party candidate passed the test.  We covered Gary Johnson and his candidacy on another video.

Even though I don’t support the Republican Party, it was still fun to watch the Democrats throw a temper tantrum after the election.  It must have come as a big shock to them after having such a big early lead.  Let’s go back and take a look at some of the horse race coverage leading up to the election.

Video clip:  Let’s get straight to our top story, the topsy turvy presidential election.  A new Fox poll of registered voters shows Hillary Clinton increasing her lead against Donald Trump.  In a head to head matchup Clinton is ahead by 10 percentage points, 49 to 39, compared to a six point lead about a month ago.  Also, two new battleground polls have solid news for Clinton’s campaign.  In New Hampshire a WBUR poll has Hillary Clinton with a 17 point lead over Trump, 51% to 34%.  And in Pennsylvania a Franklin & Marshall college poll shows Clinton with an eleven point lead with 49% vs. Trump’s 38%.

Video clip(one day before election):  No doubt about it Erin, we have five national polls today that meet CNN’s standards and in every one of them Hillary Clinton had the edge from about 3-6 points.  Our poll of polls, seven national polls shows Clinton with a four point edge.

But let’s look, as you know it is a state by state battle.  Let’s look at some of the states where both candidates are campaigning today.  The most recent poll out of Michigan, a four point edge for Clinton.  In Pennsylvania the poll of polls shows Clinton up 47% to 42%.  Let’s go up to New Hampshire.  Clinton leads there 44% to 41%.  And in critical North Carolina she leads 45% to 43%.

Video clip:  As the presidential election draws nearer this race is virtually tied.  A new poll out today by ABC News-Washington Post shows Donald Trump’s support increased in the last week.  He’s now down by only one point in a four way race among likely voters.  Is this a turning point?

Video clip:  It is the final countdown.  In fewer than 24 hours American voters will cast ballots for who they want to be the next president of the United States.  In the past days polls have tightened in battleground states.  However, in the latest CBS News survey shows this.  The majority of likely voters believe Hillary Clinton will win the election.  Fifty-five %, in fact, say they expect that while only 31% say they believe Donald Trump will be victorious.

Video clip Sam Seder:  Donald Trump is going to get beat worse than John McCain did by Barack Obama in 2008.  I believe, off the top of my head, that was about 53 to 47%.  I believe Donald Trump will not reach 47% of the vote.

Video clip Rachael Maddow:  If you sign those out that way, and then, you say that Donald Trump has the best day in the entire world, completely outperforms expectation and he wins all of the toss-up states.  He wins all five of those states plus that electoral college vote in Maine that he is after.  If he wins all of the toss-ups, and that would be insane, because nobody wins ALL of the toss-up states.  Even if Donald Trump wins all of the toss-up states he would still lose.

Liberty Man Van:  Why do these elections attract so much attention and inspire such exasperation for the losers and glee for the winners?  Because this big bully we call the federal government controls too many aspects of our lives.  It has the power to enrich some and the power to impoverish others.  With a limited State that only performed some basic functions such as protecting our borders and our property would we care so much who was president?  No.  The fact that so many people care so much tells you how out of control is this leviathan.  Let’s work to diminish its power and scope.  Let’s take back the freedom the Founding Fathers sought to ensure with their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor.  We must begin now.

Liberty Watch Episode 2: Libertarian town hall discussion 2016

Libertarian town hall 2016

The following is the text for my YouTube video that can be found at <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5CfZ69aXdg>. You can subscribe to my YouTube channel at <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIb4k41f3A1lftMXivcvj5g>.

This video will look at a libertarian town hall discussion with the libertarian party candidates for president and vice president Gary Johnson and Bill Weld.

Liberty Man Van: Hello, I am Liberty Man Liberty Man Van. Today, we will critique a recent libertarian town hall meeting with the libertarian candidate Gary Johnson and vice presidential candidate Bill Weld. Here is the first question.

video clip 1 question: What is a libertarian, Johnson answers with “fiscally conservative socially tolerant” answer

Liberty Man Van: Sounds like taking from dems and repubs. We libertarians have our own ideology.

> The non-aggression principle- You can’t hit people and you can’t take their stuff.
> Property rights- You own your own body and the fruits of your labor and your property cannot be taken from you.
> Free markets and freedom of association – people should be able to trade with and associate with whomever they wish.
> Live and let live- You can do whatever you wish as long as you don’t violate the person or property of others.

Liberty Man Van: The next questioner asked how a free market would work with health care. What if someone chose not to buy health insurance and then got sick. Shouldn’t there be a safety net?

video clip 2: Johnson “There should be a safety net”

Liberty Man Van: Government providing safety net means money must be taken from some and given to others. This is a violation of their property rights. With freedom comes responsibility. The safety net should be provided by private charity, not coercion.

Liberty Man Van: Next Gary Johnson explains how a free market in health care would work.

video clip 3: Johnson- will sign on to any approach that brings brings a free market approach to health care, my health insurance premiums have quadrupled, insurance should be used to provide for catastrophic not minor needs, genuine competition would drastically reduce the cost of health care, you would have health care prices advertised with published outcomes, now we go to doctor and have no idea how much the care will cost and knowing we won’t pay the bill.

Liberty Man Van: Good answer by Johnson, give LASIK example and why it is affordable.

video clip 4 question: What is the federal gov’s role in ensuring a woman’s right to choose in every state?

video clip 5: Johnson “Republicans alienate a lot of people when they talk about defunding planned parenthood. Planned parenthood does a lot of good and that starts with women’s health.”

Liberty Man Van: Here is where Johnson ignores one of the fundamental tenets of libertarianism, the non-aggression principle. When you can’t hit people or take their stuff then you can’t take their stuff through taxation and give it to someone else; it is fundamentally immoral to do that. This is why a true libertarian will not support planned parenthood and any other coerced redistribution of wealth.

> But let’s say you were not a libertarian and just wanted to follow the constitution. The tenth amendment says the following:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This amendment was supposed to limit the federal government to the powers specifically listed in the constitution. If you search the text of the constitution for “health” or “medicine” you will come up empty. Therefore, the federal government has no authority in these areas. The courts had to be creative to find a way to around these restrictions. They did so by applying an unconstitutionally broad meaning to phrases such as “general welfare” and “regulate commerce”. A broad interpretation of phrases such as these by the courts has allowed the federal government to pass just about any legislation they please, thus gutting the original meaning of the constitution.
Article 6, clause 3 United States Constitution

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;

Members of the federal government are bound by oath to defend the constitution. Today they don’t defend it; they ignore it.

video clip 6: Weld talks about gay marriage and why it is protected under the constitution. “That’s not the Nanny State, that’s the constiitution.”

Liberty Man Van: I did a text search on the constitution for the word “marriage”. This should have been a states rights issue; the federal government had no business getting involved.

Liberty Man Van: Johnson next responds to a question about marijuana legalization.

video clip 7: Johnson defends legalization of marijuana. “People should be able to live their lives as they see fit.”

Liberty Man Van: Libertarians believe that people own their own bodies. That means any adult should be able to make decisions regarding their own bodies as long as they are not harming others. Freedom to act also includes freedom to make stupid decisions such as using drugs.

Liberty Man Van: The candidates are next asked whether Trump or Clinton would be a better choice for president. Johnson appropriately responds that he would not answer the question. But Weld can’t resist an answer.

video clip 8: Weld responds to question of whether Clinton or Trump be better president(Johnson would not endorse either) by saying Clinton is qualified but Trump is not.

Liberty Man Van: Wow! That ought to get the libertarian base out to vote for the Johnson/Weld ticket!

video clip 9: Moderator- Libertarians are seen as isolationist. Where do you see the US role in world theaters? Johnson: If we are attacked we will attack back and you can argue we were attacked by ISIS. We should involve congress, a role that has been abdicated to the President.

Liberty Man Van: This is a pretty good answer. The Congress has allowed way too much foreign entanglement by presidents without insisting on a voice in this important matter. They don’t want to get involved because they know that war is not popular and they will soon be up for re-election. Getting re-elected is all that matters to them.

Liberty Man Van: The next question is about free trade.

video clip 10: Weld discusses free trade: Free trade will always benefit the US over other countries because we have a more advanced economy. Free trade will produce high wage jobs in the US. It is imperative to get wages up in the country. You may lose some jobs on the lower end of the wage scale. Trump’s idea of tariffs, we tried that with the Smoot-Hawley tariff in the 1920’s; it destroyed western economies.

Liberty Man Van: Americans should be able to trade with whomever they want without interference; this includes foreigners.

video clip 11: Moderator: How do you generate good jobs in the US? Johnson: count on me as President to sign legislation to simplify taxes, I would eliminate the income tax, corporate taxes, I would abolish the IRS and replace it with a consumption tax. A zero corporate tax would create tens of millions of jobs in the US.

Liberty Man Van: Speaking of taxation, is it legitimate? Libertarians differ on this subject. Some believe in anarchy or no government. Others believe in minarchy or minimal government. Many libertarians are anarchists because they believe that taxation is a form of coercion and violates the non-aggression principle. In addition, they believe even a minimalist government will always grab for more power over time. Personally, I don’t have a problem with a minimalist state as long as it is voluntarily funded. I believe that taxation if theft. I believe that a state that had to rely on voluntary funding would be less likely to engage is activities that many find offensive such as foreign wars and funding of abortion.

video clip 12: Moderator: The problem with your plan is that it would reduce tax revenue. Johnson: No, it is revenue neutral.

Liberty Man Van: OMG! The government would collect less revenue. The questioner thinks that would be horrible. I do not. I would like to see the revenue reduced to zero.

video clip 13: Johnson: With a consumption tax 80 percent of lobbying would go away because they are primarily there to garner special tax favor.

Liberty Man Van: Johnson is correct here. Lobbying is all about trying to gain some special favor from Congress and much of it involves the tax code. Simplifying the tax code would give Congress less opportunity to hand out gifts to lobbyists. This, it turn, would make it more difficult to raise funds for their re-election campaigns. Therefore, replacing the current tax system with a flat tax or consumption tax will not happen.

In addition, Johnson is naive to think that a consumption tax would eliminate lobbying. Before long you would start to see exceptions to the consumption tax, such as no tax on food items. Before long the exceptions to the consumption tax would be as numerous as the items that get special treatment under the current tax code.

video clip 14: question: Tell us what you have done while in office that is consistent with libertarian ideals.

video clip 15: Johnson: I supported school choice, I would like to bring competition to education, eliminate federal involvement in education allowing those dollars to remain in the state, fewer dollars come back to the states that are sent to Washington and the money comes back with strings attached. Our drug policy- we have tens of millions(this number is way too large) of people who are convicted felons that would be contributing citizens if not for our drug laws.

video clip 15a: Hey, occasionally he sounds like a real libertarian. Go figure.

video clip 16 question: It has been reported in the media that libertarians respect but don’t endorse the black lives matter movement. Where do you stand on upholding the rights of black people?

video clip 17: Weld answers that early in his administration he established an african caribbean American commission, met with them personally monthly, same with asians, hispanics, muslims. His wife even read to them in Arabic from the Koran.

Liberty Man Van: The question is about the rights of black people. The concept of collective rights is fallacious. There is no such thing as group rights; there are only individual rights. Ayn Rand addressed this fallacy in an essay entitled “Collectivized ‘Rights'”. Let’s read from it now:

Every legitimate group undertaking is based on the participants’ right of free association and free trade…A group, as such, has no rights. A man can neither acquire new rights by joining a group nor lose the rights which he does possess. The principle of individual rights is the only moral base of all groups or associations. Any group that does not recognize this principle is not an association, but a gang or a mob. Any doctrine of group activities that does not recognize individual rights is a doctrine of mob rule or legalized lynching. The notion of “collective rights” (the notion that rights belong to groups, not to individuals) means that “rights” belong to some men, but not to others— that some men have the “right” to dispose of others in any manner they please— and that the criterion of such privileged position consists of numerical superiority.

Liberty Man Van: In other words, if a group has a “right” that others don’t possess, then other groups must be deprived of this “right.” In this case, you must necessarily infringe on the individual rights of some to give group “rights” to others. Group rights and individual rights cannot coexist.

That’s it for our libertarian town hall comments. I hoped you enjoyed the presentation. Until next time this is Liberty Man Liberty Man Van signing off.