What is a Libertarian?

By -  Rex Ballard

statism vs. libertarianism model

All labels, when applied to people, points of view or ideology are dangerous because they imply a level of binary discipline. You either "are" or you "aren’t". Early in my life, as I became more aware of the world around me and the fact that the world didn’t actually revolve around me, I decided to become more politically active and I would actually register to vote. So, of course the first thing you are confronted with is to declare your affiliation. When I asked the person helping me fill out the voter registration card what it meant to be a "republican" or a "democrat" (the "big two") I didn’t feel like I really fit into either of those camps – there were things he described a democrat as that I would think…"yeah that’s me", but there were also things about a republican that I would also think…"yeah, that’s me". So with this dilemma, I focused on the other choices, which at that time were "libertarian", or "unaffiliated". Well, unaffiliated didn’t seem like a real choice so through this crude process of elimination I decided I was a Libertarian – even though I didn’t actually know what a Libertarian was, I simply assumed it applied to someone like me who could see virtue in aspects of the democrat and republican dogma of the time.

I was a child of the 70’s. Too young to actually be sucked into the Vietnam War but old enough to know a lot of people who were. Also, old enough to have strong opinions about just how little was accomplished as a result of that war and what a high price was paid in terms of; a) human and financial sacrifice, b) public resentment both for and against the war and c) the huge rift that was created in our political thinking. I was personally conflicted in that I was and am a firm believer that capitalism and democracy, in spite of their inherent flaws are a better alternative to other forms of government as they contribute to an individual’s right and ability to pursue their own personal liberty, which is a foundational belief of libertarian political philosophy. So, this early thinking framed my belief of what it meant to be a "Libertarian".

However, after doing a bit more research and by listening to people of the time who tried to define what a Libertarian was, I began to have serious doubts that I really fit into this party affiliation. Historically, libertarians believe that individuals have a right to exercise their individual freedom and to freely associate. The underlying philosophy goes on to suggest that there should be little or no role for Government. These two key tenets of liberalism have made for some strange bedfellows. So, I find it interesting that liberalism, as the underlying tenet of Libertarian politics, has been co-opted by people on both ends of the political spectrum. In the 60’s, radical groups who were opposed to the Vietnam War advocated anarchy under a "Libertarian" call. At the same time, there were figures such as Barry Goldwater on the extreme right who espoused small Government under a "Libertarian" mantle.

Today, John Stossel is a public personality who defines himself as Libertarian and does a good job of articulating his view of what it means. John Stossel, currently has a regular program on Fox Business Channel and is frequently a contributor on other Fox News programs. Previously, John Stossel had a popular segment that often appeared on ABC’s 20/20. Stossel, chooses to emphasize individual freedom and "the free market" as an alternative to outright anarchy. However, his views on free market do suggest a much smaller role for Government. As an example he has suggested that the FDA as an agency contributes as much if not more so to the danger of the public as it does to its safety. He cites such examples as the delays in releasing drugs to the US market when many of these drugs are widely distributed and used in other countries and how the massive bureaucracy of the FDA contributes directly to the high cost of drugs in the U.S. He has also suggested that the FDA’s attempt to ban electronic cigarettes, while not banning cigarettes, suggest that they play a role in protecting an industry that kills thousands of people every year. Alternatively, Stossel suggests that the "free market" can sort this all out. If people want to kill themselves by smoking cigarettes, real or electronic – it’s their right to do so. Furthermore, if a company sells a drug that is dangerous, the legal system will penalize them for doing so.

So, once again I can see merit to his viewpoint on a number of levels, but I’m not sure I’m ready to completely eliminate the FDA and rely on the free market to decide what is and isn’t safe. If I’m the poor schmuck who dies after taking an untested medication it gives me little comfort to know that my survivors will be able to sue on my behalf. But at the same time, he has a legitimate point; we may be jeopardizing lives in attempt to guarantee the public’s safety. Furthermore, we see that the safety net has a lot of holes in it given the number of class action law suits drug developers face. All of which contribute to the high cost of medicine.

So, what is a Libertarian? As with all labels the definition depends on the point of view of the beholder. Its two most basic principles are a person’s right to exercise their individual liberty and a world with very limited government intervention.

Gas Prices and Other Stupidity

By -  Bill Holmes

Once upon a time when I was an emerging driver the price of gas was around $0.30 a gallon for "regular" leaded gas. Premium (high test) was a couple of cents higher. The only unleaded (white gas) I remember was at Amoco stations. We only used it for the lawnmower. That $0.30 gas was at a full service gas station. Full service included pumping the gas, checking the oil and cleaning the windshield. If you asked, the attendant would also check any or all other engine fluids and tire pressure. There were often four gas stations at an intersection. On occasion the stations would have a "gas war". One station would lower their price by a penny, of course to be matched by the other three stations. You can see where this is going. Within a few days gas at that intersection might be $0.17 or less a gallon. I know I saw $0.12 a couple of times and I think I remember $0.09. I'm sure they were losing money or at best breaking even. They were competing and hoping you would buy a quart of oil, a fan belt or a new tire. Maybe you would have some repair or maintenance work done. Did I forget to mention that almost every gas station did car repairs? A couple of blocks away the three or four stations were still charging $0.30. As teenagers usually driving our parent's big gas guzzlers, we loved a good gas war. Imagine getting five or six gallons of gas for a buck. Of course that only meant we could drive 50 or 60 miles.
I mention all this to compare that to today's situation. When was the last time, if ever, you saw a gas war at an intersection? There is hardly any competition for gas prices. Sure, it's a little higher by the highways and a little cheaper by the neighborhoods but only by a very few cents. We have fewer companies in the energy business. Exxon/Mobil used to be two companies. Sinclair, Pure, Ashland, Getty, Gulf, Sunoco were all independent companies. They are now either part of merged or acquired companies or gone. Fewer companies refining, franchising and selling gas leads to less competition. Now we have a few huge energy companies making obscene profits. Exxon/Mobil made over $9 billion in profits last quarter . That's about $28 for every US citizen.

So, less competition, probably at least a little more corporate greed, inflation all contribute to $4 gas. That being said, I think the biggest culprit is the energy speculation market. If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gets a pimple on his butt or Chavez in Venezuela wags his finger the price of future oil goes up. If it goes up very much the price of gas goes up immediately even though that oil won't reach a refinery for months. If the butt pimple pops the price of future oil might go down. Very little has to do with actual oil production or consumption. It's mostly based on perception, rumor and of course greed. There is so much money in the speculative markets (not just oil) that they now set the price rather than wait for the results.

In my perfect world the speculators would be much more regulated. The other alternative would be to have completely unregulated markets. Truly buyer beware. These partially and ineptly regulated markets give a false sense of security. In the last several years all the markets have become less about value and more about leverage and/or turning a 50 nanosecond profit. So since the NYSE, NASDAQ, Chicago Board of Trade and other exchanges are just like casinos, lets treat them as such. Casinos are regulated, audited, heavily taxed and restricted. Speculators need at least as much regulation. Make the speculators have much more skin in the game. Let's make speculation and gambling a little less prevalent in our markets and maybe bring back more value and supply and demand into our markets. We should have learned more and fixed things more quickly from the 2008 housing and market crashes. Speculators are gamblers, they should lose more than they win. Just like I do at the casinos. Fun and exciting but not profitable over the long term.

Bubbles Burst.