Why is it the cowardly ruling elite or even the American people refuse to discuss the failing Ponzi schemes funding our entitlement programs?  Could it be they and the vast majority of American people believe the funding will magically appear if they do not think about it; is it a ‘bad’ political move to acknowledge the abject failure of the state to uninformed voters; or is something else?

Looking at the systemic under funding/over promising of Americas’ sacrosanct social programs will certainly cause great distress to all but the most seriously financially illiterate but yet, this fast approaching catastrophe is all but ignored in our political discourse.

Referencing clearly shows over $104 trillion of under funding of the lefts’ Social Security and Medicare programs.  I have yet to hear a cogent argument that this data is incorrect or that there is a real solution to this problem.

All Americans whether, statists or liberty seeking patriots should demand a honest debate of this problem before it is too late.




Expansive state power

This story should elicit a primal fear in those of us who enjoy our morning cup of coffee.  It seems that the statist land of California has now decided that it can charge a licensed driver of being under the influence of caffeine.  The particular story speaks about the audacious attempt by the State of California to continue to unjustly persecute a citizen for having caffeine in their bloodstream while driving an automobile. It seems unlikely, according to the article, that the state could win a conviction in this case however, while reading the piece, please consider.

The driver has had to enlist the services of an attorney at great cost to themselves and has had to live with a tarnished name for over a year due to unchecked state power.

This is yet another example of the ever growing power of the state and its inverse of citizens losing their liberty. So sad, so sad.


What the state does

While reading Anatomy of the State by Murray Rothbard, one point leaps off the page at me where Rothbard speaks to the oppressiveness of the state with its acquisition of others’ resources. The political means Rothbard refers to is the state’s means for securing (siphons production) resources to support itself given its ability to forcibly, under the threat of imprisonment for noncompliance, tax peoples’ production.

“The “political means” siphons production off to a parasitic and destructive individual or group; and this siphoning not only subtracts from the number producing, but also lowers the producer’s incentive to produce beyond his own subsistence”.1

While it is possible to write volumes on the injustice of this means of wealth confiscation and its immoral nature, understanding its power holds the key to the method of stopping or slowing the state’s growth.  Simply put, all citizens should work towards eliminating or at least diminishing, the taxation of income (personal production).

1. Rothbard, Murray N., and Murray N. Rothbard. Anatomy of the state. Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig Von Mises Institute, 2009. Print

This is what statists want for us

One of the economic models the statists, especially those on the left, would like the United States to follow is Euro or Democratic Socialism.  This movement, while not pure Marxism, is a state led economy with cradle to grave welfare and can be described officially as:

“Social democracy is an ideological stance that supports a broad balance between market capitalism, on the one hand, and state intervention, on the other hand. Being based on a compromise between the market and the state, social democracy lacks a systematic underlying theory and is, arguably, inherently vague. It is nevertheless associated with the following views: (1) capitalism is the only reliable means of generating wealth, but it is a morally defective means of distributing wealth because of its tendency towards poverty and inequality; (2) the defects of the capitalist system can be rectified through economic and social intervention, the state being the custodian of the public interest […]”. 1

These statists who dream of making America more like Europe have been somewhat successful however, many free market supporters have often fought the statists’ efforts since the origins of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal.  In this epic battle, more often than not, the statists have not won and America has kept at least some vestige of free markets and thus a growing Gross Domestic Product (GDP). However, since the mid 1990s Europe has embraced more statism and their economic progress has been greatly retarded as show in the Euro Area’s paltry GDP growth in the chart below which shows GDP Growth Rate in the Euro Area averaging only 0.37 percent from 1995 until 2016. 2

The question is, do we really want to become more like Europe?


  1. Heywood, Andrew (2012). Political Ideologies: An Introduction (5th ed.). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-230-36725-8.
  2. “Euro Area GDP Growth Rate 1995-2016.” Euro Area GDP Growth Rate 1995-2016. Trending Economics, 12 Dec. 2016. Web. 12 Dec. 2016. <;.

Is it possible to be happy and sad at the same time?


I have an aggregation of emotions when I read the Libertarian party platform. I am very refreshed, optimistic, and hopeful when reading the words within that document. My most serene belief is Americans and the world at large would be better off if our nation would adhere to the principles engrossed in the Libertarian party’s platform.

The document says what I really believe in terms of the role I, others, and the government should play within our society. It speaks of wonderful principles.  For example, “we hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives”.1  What could be more uplifting than an acknowledgement of our own personal liberty.

The document also defines the proper role of government in protecting our personal liberty.

“We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life—accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action—accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property—accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation”.2

Simultaneously, I feel quite melancholic when I delve into the Libertarian party platform because I fully understand its message is not being successfully communicated to Americans. If America is to realize something akin to liberty and self-determination the Libertarian party needs to step-up to the major leagues of the American political battlefield.

1 2016 Platform. (n.d.). Retrieved December 05, 2016, from

2. Ibid.