Tag Archives: Libertarian

When We Said “Smaller Government” We Meant Smaller Government!

For nearly 40 years I lived free from the burdens of a red hot political fire.  Sure I had my views on issues, the big ones, without a doubt.  But reading and studying like I’ve done?  Never.

It never EVER occurred to me to “be political”.

But that ALL changed with Barack Hussein Obama.  In an instant.

Continue reading

The More Liberal You Are – The Less You Know About Economics

Absolutely fascinating.  Though not surprising.

A study was done by Zogby.  In it, 4,835 people were asked 8 questions on economics.

The results are in.  And they don’t look pretty if you are a Leftist.

Continue reading

Coffee With Cato: I

I love CATO.  And their blog.  You should go read ’em both.  Anyway, I am going to try to work out a piece every Tuesday that grabbed my attention over there and discuss my take.

This is the first installment.

Continue reading

Tar Heel —- Purple?

Check out this video of Libertarians discussing immigration, gay marriage and abortion.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

On Liberty

I have been interested in the concept of Liberty for some time now.  What is it.  How is it obtained.  How can it be denied.  Can it be created or granted.  Before I begin to study the concept, I want to jot down my thoughts:

  1. Liberty is inherent.
  2. It is hierarchical.  Humans have Liberty that animals might not.
  3. Liberty can be denied or restricted.
  4. Liberty can not be given.
  5. Liberty does have limits.


HealthCare: Price vs. Cost

I wish that I could say that I said it.  But I didn’t; Mr. Munger did:

Right now, our attempts at reform are doomed by a law of accounting physics: Insurance can’t cost less than the health care it insures.

Consider: I have car insurance. But my insurance doesn’t pay for oil changes.

Instead, I go down to the Happy Lube, without an appointment, get a diagnosis of the needs of my car, and choose services based on a price list published online. Some of these services are complex, and require large expensive machines and equipment. But I don’t have to pay a separate bill, or go wait in another line, at another office or lab.

… compare it to car insurance, for two people. Imagine neither of us has to pay for our car repairs, from accidents or engine wear. We can go to the garage as often as we like, and get whatever service we want, for free. The car repair shop can charge our insurance whatever they want, because insurance pays everything. An oil change would bill out at $600; an alignment would bill our insurance $2,200, with another $800 tacked on to pay for micro-digital wheel axis imaging.

Of course, the services aren’t really free. At the end of every year, we sum the total repair costs for both people, and each of us pays half of that total.

The cost of that free car care would be enormous, because of all the unnecessary and overly expensive charges. Of course, the government could subsidize the final bill; would that help? The answer is no, for two clear reasons.

First, having the government (meaning taxpayers) subsidize the total would do nothing to reduce the runaway cost increases. Buyers won’t shop around if they don’t know or care about real costs. Subsidies mean I don’t pay if I spend, and I don’t save if I’m frugal.

Second, let’s expand the example from two people (each paying half) to 300 million people getting free care (but paying an equal share of total costs). We have met the public option, and it is us! Once we are all paying ourselves, there is no one else to hit up to help with the costs. We are simply taking each person’s money in taxes, then giving some of it back in subsidies. There is no saving, even to individuals.

Just good stuff.

Tarheel Red Favorite

I really enjoy reading and listening to Mike Munger.  Mr. Munger is a professor of economics and chair of the Political Science department at Duke University.  He was also the Libertarian candidate for Governor of North Carolina in 2008.  Further, I LOVE reading reason.com.

Mixing the two is always good pleasure:

…will they burn the castle of the Al Franken monster in Congress, or will they join Sarah Palin and her populist following and simply go RINO (Republican In Name Only) hunting? The point is that we could be heading toward 1994 all over again. Or toward 1964. The tea leaves are there for the reading. Either way, it should be interesting.

Interesting indeed.  And a worthy read.