With apologies to Rev. Niemoller

The tactics being used by Smoke Free Indy and their City-County Council Stooges (Yes, I said Stooges for in my opinion that is exactly what they are.) remind me of the poem by Martin Neimoller. I will not go into it in detail here, as I have already quoted it on numerous occasions. The bottom line for me is that details, in a very succinct and credible fashion, the attacks upon our personal freedoms.

First they banned smoking in restaurants, because it was "For the Children".
Then they banned smoking in bars and taverns, because it was for the employees.
Then they banned it in Cigar Shops and Specialty Tobacco Bars, to protect non-smokers.
Then they banned smoking everywhere, and said it was for our own good.
Finally, when tobacco was banned, they came for alcohol, soft drinks, sugar, trans-fats, guns...

At what point do we say enough? Are we as a community, a state and a nation willing to let someone else dictate to us what we can and can not enjoy? Who gets to determine this? Elected officials who represent the special interest groups and not the people? What good is Liberty if we allow it to be slowly legislated away?

The Forgotten Man - A Smoking Ban Story

Let us consider the case of a cigar store owner. No food is served. No alcohol is available. The only products are cigars and tobacco products and accessories. Since no alcohol is served it doesn't qualify for status as "Specialty Tobacco Bar".

Let us also assume that this establishment is owned by a retiree and he is the sole employee. No one else works there. He started this store because of his love of cigars. The store is open 6-8 hours/day. He has become something of an expert and customers often seek out his advice, much in the way a wine enthusiast may seek the opinion of a sommelier.

Under the expanded ban he will not be allowed to sample a new cigar in his own store in order to provide advice for his customers.

Who is being harmed and needs to be protected by the expanded ban?

Does he not have the right run his business to best of his ability?

A Call to Arms - Proposed Smoking Ban Extension

The City-County Council is going to begin considering a total smoking ban in Marion Co. removing the current exemptions for Bars, Tobacco Shops and Private Clubs.

Regardless of whether or not you’re a smoker, this issue is a classic case of the nanny state trying to remove an individual’s freedom to make his or her own choice. That’s what it distills down to, choice.

If a bar or tavern allows smoking I can choose to patronize that establishment or not. The question becomes one of, am I willing to put up with a couple of hours of second hand smoke to gain some other desirable benefit such as a great band, really good food, attractive members of the opposite sex (or the same sex if that’s applicable), or is the presence of smokers enough to deter my patronage. The choice is mine, not the government’s.

Two dates to keep in mind:

Oct 5, 2009 (today) The City-County Council takes up the issue for the first time; 7:00 PM City-County Building
Oct 7, 2009 (Wednesday) Libertarian After Hours; 5:00 PM-?, The Beer Garden at the Rathskeller. Strategy, among other things, will be discussed.

Government Health Care Reform - A Potential Outcome

Will this be the future?

They "reformed" the health insurance companies and I applauded for they were all greedy bastards.

They "reformed" the pharmacuetical companies and I applauded for they were also more interested in profits than people.

They "reformed" the Hospitals and I cheered because they overcharged for everything.

They "reformed" the physicians and I was happy for they were only in it for the money.

Then I became ill.

I waited six months to see a specialist.

I had to wait three months to have a CT Scan and MRI.

I found out that a drug company had been working on a treatment for my condition but had to abandon it as they had no more money for research.

I died because the government health plan decided the cost to benefit ratio for the surgery I needed was too great for some one my age.

I was only 49.

Mr. Obama’s Cross of Carbon

In 1896 the Democratic Party Convention was electrified by William Jennings Bryan's "Cross of Gold" speech which advocated the addition of a silver standard to the gold standard then in use. His plea for "bimetallism" struck a resonant chord at the convention and defined Bryan as the leading economic populist as he famously compared the use of the gold standard as the basis for the monetary exchange rate to "the crucifixion of mankind upon a Cross of Gold".

Fast forward 113 years and we see a nation about to be sacrificed to the theory that global warming is the result of human activity. Global Warming is just that, a theory. It has not been proved and there is just as much evidence available to disprove it. This cause has been taken up by the Progressives who appeal, not to logic, reason and fact, but to emotion. This is the main strategy of Progressives ignore the facts of an issue and focus on raw emotion, paint your opponents as having sinister ulterior motives while you are concerned about saving polar bears and other fuzzy creatures. Never mind that, if we were to believe the most vocal proponents of Global Warming, anything we do now will be too late. Other predictions, such as the total disappearance of the polar ice cap by 2008, made by these same super-alarmists have failed to bear fruit as well.

So, without knowing whether Global Warming is real and is the result of mankind's industry, our government at the urging of our newly elected President is in the process of enacting the most sweeping restrictions (Cap and Trade) on human enterprise ever conceived, the cost of which will be borne by every citizen of this nation in the form of higher energy prices, potential fuel shortages, and increased inflation in general. Let the individual citizen decide whether to "Go Green" or not, do not legislate it.

To paraphrase Mr. Bryan:

Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the laboring interests and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a carbon emissions standard by saying to them: You shall not press down upon the brow of the people this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of carbon.

Cap And Trade or Bait and Switch - I told you so

I first posted this back in March, no one listened until it was too late to do anything.

The Obama budget includes a provision for auctioning off "carbon pollution permits". This can only result in higher energy costs for all American consumers as the vast majority of our nation's electricity is derived from the combustion of fossil fuels. Most of the expected 646 billion dollars that is anticipated to be raised over the next ten years by this measure would be reflected in a $400 tax cut per individual or $800 per couple. The rest would be given to wind and solar power research. The pollution permits are part of a program termed "Cap and Trade".

Here's what's going to happen.

1. Coal and oil burning utilities will be forced to buy these permits to remain in operation.
2. The limited nature of the permits will result in speculation.
3. The cost to obtain a permit will be significant,
4. The utilities will pass the expense on to the consumers.
5. The "Tax Break" may or may not be sufficient for most Americans to cover the increased costs of electricity.
6. As energy prices grow the government will reap more revenue in the form of taxes on the energy sold.

The results: The government wins, speculators win, the energy companies may break even and the American taxpayers will suffer.

Never mind the fact that no one has demonstrated conclusively that "global warming" is the result of human industrial activity as opposed to a natural cycle occurring over thousands of years.

I guess it's just all part of change we can believe in.

(Don't take my word for it, check out the followinfg link http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/636.pdf )

The Case for Libertarianism – Part Two “The Big Tent”

Over the past eight years our Republican brothers and sisters have managed, at the national level, to alienate a considerable percentage of their constituency. In an effort to rebuild their party after the "meltdown" of 2008, there has been considerable discussion surrounding the need to rebuild the "Big Tent."

The "Big Tent" refers to the attempt of a political party to be inclusive of many different viewpoints, something with which the Republican Party has always struggled. The stance they have taken on issues such as abortion, and gay marriage, to name but a few, have pushed many away. Now the emphasis to remake the party has become almost an obsession, the "Big Tent" is falling down and must be repaired.

Does the Libertarian Party need to also expand its tent? How do we fair on these "wedge" issues? Our National platform states:

1.4 Abortion - Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

1.3 Personal Relationships - Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.

This last issue is particularly illustrative of the general attitude Libertarians hold regarding that which is often been termed, for lack of a better phrase, "Gay Rights". Within the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, there are the Log Cabin Republicans and the Stonewall Democrats, who seek to further acceptance of their views and opinions within the framework of their two respective parties, albeit with little or no success. The Libertarian Party does have the Outright Libertarians and this excerpt from their FAQ explains the relationship between the Libertarian Party and their organization:

Does Outright's positions on "gay issues" differ from the Libertarian Party?

In substance, no. Currently, every one of our positions are consistent with libertarian principle and the Libertarian Party Platform (Neither Log Cabin Republicans nor even Stonewall Democrats can say this). However, we and the LP do sometimes disagree on the approach.

For example: The LP takes a hard line on Hate Crimes Legislation, as legalized discrimination against the victims of some violent crimes in favor of others. Outright opposes Hate Crimes Legislation but understands, sometimes first hand, why it is so popular and seeks to show GLBT people that the legislation is not only discriminatory but flawed even when it actually includes us! The LP's approach is often hard hitting and direct to the central issue. Outright's approach is more understanding, we are more willing to explain the failings of government solutions and to show how some things that look good for us on the surface may actually work against us. But one thing to keep in mind: the national LP has never taken a negative stance on the inclusion of GLBT individuals in any legislation that secures equal rights for GLBT people, whether marriage, military service, taxation, etc.

So I ask again, does the Libertarian Party need to expand its tent? No. In fact we don't even need a tent. There is room enough under the sun for all who cherish Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.