[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM_sef3tYuo[/youtube]

Anwar al-Awlaki

I have been called unrealistic and “a little nuts” for suggesting that Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen, should have been charged and convicted before he was assassinated on September 30, 2011, in a U.S. drone attack in Yemen. It’s hardly an unrealistic position, considering that Awlaki has been on the CIA’s hit list since April 2010. That’s 17 months the Obama Administration had to assemble and present evidence to a court in order to charge and convict Awlaki.

In any case, I would like to hear from people. Which of these four points do you disagree with, and why?

1. The Administration, in the months leading up to Awlaki’s assassination, in light of the visible evidence against Awlaki, should have received a warrant or similar order from a federal court after submitting evidence against Awlaki.

2. This new precedent of it being legally acceptable for U.S. Presidents to assassinate U.S. citizens is a danger to the general American citizenry and the Constitution itself.

3. The Obama Administration, in light of the concerns provided by some of the American public, civil liberties organizations, and members of Congress, should submit its compiled evidence against Awlaki to a federal court/judge.

4. Although contrary to the individual protection of due process guaranteed under the Constitution, assassinations of U.S. citizens carried out by the President are, at the absolute minimum, to be illegal without evidence first being submitted and approved by a federal judge/court.

I am amazed how quickly people defend the assassination of an unconvicted human being, provided a President calls him a bad guy. It is truly sickening. Don’t get me wrong, Awlaki likely deserved his fate; I am not disputing this.

The majority of Americans are happy Awlaki’s dead and don’t think for a second that maybe there’s something wrong with how this justice was served. The death of Awlaki was no doubt a popular event appreciated by most Americans. However, the Constitution and the individual rights it protects is not subject to a popularity contest.

What do you say? Is this just an annoying and uneducated attempt to uphold the Constitution? Should the President have the legal authority to assassinate U.S. citizens when deemed necessary for “national security,” even without any legal charge or conviction?

“What would Constitutional Law professor Barack Obama think of this?”

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6bgwZGZiIo[/youtube]

Consider the planet Pandora, where the “savage” Na’vi tribes have made their residence for generations. Their planet is their property. When a human corporation backed by hired mercenaries (hardly a constitutional military used for national defense) establishes itself on the planet to further the exploration and mining of a valuable mineral called Unobtanium, they face severe blowback from the tribes. One of the first scenes in the movie shows a massive vehicle returning to base with several arrows stuck in the tires. The tribes understandably felt threatened and saw the human tactics as an invasion of their property. Is this really an attack on the principles of peaceful exchange common in a free market?

The Omiticaya tribe that is prominent in the film does not need anything the humans offer in return for the mineral whether it be roads, education, medicine, etc. Is this really unreasonable? Does an owner of a product not have the right to negotiate the terms of a transaction? The Na’vi are not being selfish, the humans simply do not have a product or service that is more valuable than the land itself is already worth to the Na’vi. It is the same as if someone was offering $10 for a family heirloom that you will never give up. Just because you refuse their offer doesn’t mean they can take that item by force, as the mercenaries in Avatar did.  Once again, this reinforces peaceful and voluntary exchange in a free market.

Many libertarians who have written about the movie do not especially appreciate how the Na’vi tribes operate through a cooperative community structure. They debate if the property rights displayed in Avatar are individual or collective. Either way, it does not hurt the message of freedom and voluntary interaction. All people, this planet or not, have the right to live as they please so long as they don’t intrude on the rights of others. In other words, if I really felt compelled to I can walk around butt naked in my house but that doesn’t mean I can jump into your house displaying myself whenever I choose. Just the same, if people want to live in a voluntary community structure as the tribes on Pandora do, they absolutely have that right. They can’t force people into that structure, but on the flip side a person or collective group such as the human mercenaries can’t prevent them from living peacefully in such a structure either.

Libertarians also seem to be greatly distressed by Ewya, the “spirit in all living things” that essentially is the deity or God of the Na’vi tribe. I have even read a comment that suggested this was a “totalitarian” approach that destroys individual liberties. Is this really any different than the very libertarian concept that all individuals are from God, our Creator, and all individuals are born free? Many libertarians strongly believe that God is in all living things (all people, anyway), and this principle strengthens individual liberty, it does not reduce it. Is it inconceivable that God is in all living things on Earth as well, not just humans? Regardless, the spirituality of the Na’vi can hardly be called anti-libertarian.

I have come to disagree with many libertarians’ view of communities. I was born, raised, and currently live in an intentional spiritual cooperative community that was founded more than forty years ago. The people in the community live simply, have similar goals spiritually, but they hardly have given up their rights and abilities as individuals. Voluntary cooperative communities strengthen individual liberties and happiness by providing an environment that allows you to live with people of common goals and work together to further those goals. Cooperative communities are certainly not enemies of freedom. In fact, I believe communities will start popping up worldwide as the economy and current government structure weakens and people recognize that living and working together has its benefits on both a mental and physical level. Since I myself have lived in a cooperative community my entire life, the cooperation of the Omiticaya tribe in Avatar does not present itself as a structure that is anti-capitalist or far-fetched. Cooperative communities can and do indeed work, and libertarians should recognize this sooner rather than later.

Lastly, there are those who call Avatar something along the lines of a “typical Hollywoodized, Green crazed, environmental spew package.” Okay, maybe not that bad. I read an article that discussed this from a more liberal perspective, and the author made an excellent point: how is being pro-environment a bad thing? Those who work to protect the environment and demonstrate the beauty of nature can hardly be called crazy, anti-American, or anti-capitalist. Sure, there are many disagreements between the ideologies on the role of the environment and how to protect it. Personally, I think the environment is best protected through individual property rights (out of which can stem collective rights through individuals voluntarily joining cooperative communities) and local initiative. The Na’vi tribes demonstrate these principles perfectly. They understand, see, and interact with nature on a daily basis, thus they work their hardest to protect it from foreign intruders who do not have the same values (the human mercenaries). When libertarian-minded individuals write off environmentalists as wackjobs, it weakens the freedom movement. No one can argue against clean air, water, and land, and it should be through discussion of all ideologies that we come to a common understanding and implement strong solutions with regards to the environment. Bickering and attacking other ideologies won’t strengthen principles.

Certainly others came away from Avatar with a different feeling or message than I did. Regardless, it was easy for me to see the underlying principles of libertarianism in the film. It is not anti-military: it strikes at the principles of preemptive attack, aggressive war, lawless corporate mercenaries, and invasion of private property. It is not anti-capitalist: rather, it clearly demonstrates the right of an individual or group to maintain their property as they see fit and decline an offer that isn’t to their liking. And is it pro-Green? Certainly. But I do not call myself anti-Green, and I don’t think other libertarians do at heart either. We don’t want a dirty environment and a complete disregard for nature, do we? It is time that we productively show, through honest discussion and analysis, that we can work together with people of all beliefs and demonstrate to our best abilities the benefits of freedom. It might be crazy, but I see Avatar as a grand display of freedom’s benefits, not as its enemy.

“A lot of problems were created in 20th century as a consequence the Flexner Report (1910), which was financed by the Carnegie Foundation and strongly supported by the AMA. Many medical schools were closed and the number of doctors was drastically reduced.” – Ron Paul; September 24, 2009

The seeds of the Flexner Report were planted in 1908 when the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching commissioned Abraham Flexner, a high school principle, to research and report on medical schools in the U.S. Flexner himself was not involved in the medical industry, but after being asked to take on the report he researched and grew fond of the medical systems in England, France, and Germany.

In the report, which was officially published in 1910, Flexner called homeopathic schools “a striking demonstration of the incompatibility of science and dogma.” What’s curious is that Flexner points out that between 1900 and 1909 homeopathic schools decreased from 22 to 15 and students within the schools decreased from 1,909 to 1,009. Flexner uses these figures to conclude that “the rise of legal standard must inevitably affect homeopathic practitioners.” In short, even with the marketplace whittling out the unproductive and unsustainable homeopathic colleges (or any colleges, for that matter) that Flexner clearly did not appreciate, he still advocated increased government intervention to further clear out homeopathic schools.

Flexner believed the problems in medicine were primarily because there were too many doctors and medical colleges. “The country needs fewer and better doctors; and…the way to get them better is to produce fewer.” The flaws of Flexner’s arguments and his general report is that he may indeed have made some noticable observations, but he did not consider the economic consequences of increased government intervention, a centralized medical system in the hands of the American Medical Assossiation (AMA), and the impact of fewer doctors and medical schools.

Basic economic common sense tells us that when you forcibly remove one product without subsequently lowering demand, you will increase the price of that product. Less supply without less demand means higher prices. The homeopathic schools that Flexner so strongly criticized may have lacked in some areas of educational standards compared to more traditional health schools, but they provided a key element of competition for allopathic medicine and an essential choice for individuals who needed health care.

Basic economics also tells us that weak products and services are bound to fail to the competition due to inefficiency and poor judgment. As I previously mentioned, Flexner’s own research displayed that homeopathic schools were struggling to stay open and maintain steady attendance. Their services had difficulty competing in some cases, and those schools (or services) disappeared or were in the process of failing.

The publishing of the Flexner Report in 1910 led to many educational reforms. Among Flexner’s final proposals included extending years spent in health education (two years in undergraduate collegiate studies and four years in medical school), increasing the caliber of medical schools to universities, expanding government involvement in medicine, decreasing total graduates to 3,500 from 4,500, and bringing the total amount of medical schools in the U.S. from 150 to roughly 31. In short, Flexner proposed a medical system driven not by the free market and individuals, but a manipulated system molded by some of the wealthiest men and foundations in the world. In fact, the Rockefeller Foundation donated large sums of money to schools who followed the model recommended by the Flexner Report.

One of the unfortunate impacts the Flexner Report had on medical education was the shut-down of many schools geared toward disadvantaged rural areas, African-Americans, and women. Because of mandated school time regulated by the AMA and state governments, only those wealthy enough to afford at least six years of college had a chance at becoming a licensed doctor. This essentially limited the market for prospective doctors to wealthy white males. (All but two African-American medical colleges were closed.)

The flaw with the Flexner Report is the same flaw that has brought us to today’s broken medical system. When a product is forcefully limited to be provided by a certain central group (in this case the AMA), it will reduce choice and competition. Choice and competition in a free marketplace are what drive businesses to become more efficient and productive, which provides the greatest possible benefits to individuals who are able to freely buy and sell in the market. A strong, sustainable system built for individuals cannot come from a manipulative central source, it must come from the demands and choices of the people whom it is intended to help.

Government regulatory standards do not necessarily serve the individual as many people believe. In the case of medical care, the Flexner Report recognized many flaws with education that the free market was already weeding out on its own. Rather than allow people and communities to make their own choices with doctors, medicine, and education, it was all placed in the hands of the AMA and state governments, thus limiting the supply. This resulted in less doctors, more expensive education, and decreased access to medical care.

A central system concentrates power into the hands of a select few individuals, groups, and organizations who have the means to control that respective market. A free market divides that power among individuals who have the ability to make their own decisions themselves and through their communities.

Concentrated control, as proposed and implemented in the Flexner Report, is the direct cause of the majority of problems with health care today. The solution does not lie with more government intervention and centralized power, but rather with increased individual freedom. The answer is not centralized power in government, but centralized power within ourselves.

The swine flu outbreak of 1976 is not often brought up in the current H1N1 discussion. In February 1976 one soldier, Private David Lewis, died from and several of his peers fell ill to the swine flu in Fort Nix, New Jersey. Due to the strength and the quickness with which the flu could potentially spread, President Gerald Ford ordered nationwide vaccinations, which started up in October 1976. However, soon after receiving the vaccinations, roughly 500 people were developing a disease paralyzing the nerves, Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). Private Lewis ended up being the only individual to die directly from the swine flu itself, while more than 25 people died because of the vaccinations. After more than 40 million people received vaccinations, the $137 million program was canceled on December 16.

The reasoning behind massive mandatory vaccinations, particularly today (as well as 30 years ago) with the swine flu, is to avoid another disaster such as the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic which killed millions of individuals around the world. This despite recent research suggests that the swine and Spanish flu may not be as connected as previously thought, primarily because the swine flu is spread through pigs, while the Spanish flu is passed from birds to humans.

I am not downplaying the positive effects that some vaccines have had on humanity. I am simply questioning the principle of compulsory vaccinations, coerced medical care, and forceful quarantines supposedly justified by government-declared health emergencies. These have been the topics of increased discussion of the WHO and many government health agencies around the world, and certainly are not to be dismissed as mere crackpot theories.

Mandatory vaccinations limit the soundness and viability of vaccinations. If a certain vaccination is proven to prevent disease, increase strength of health, and protect the body, clearly it would not require force to be implemented in society. The very idea of mandatory vaccinations implies that you must impose on someone’s beliefs, preferences, and reasoning.

If an individual decides to reject a vaccination that the majority of people are receiving, how does his decision impact others? If the vaccinations are effective and voluntarily received by many people, the individual is only placing himself at risk. If people feel they are exposing themselves to too great of a risk by not taking a vaccine, they are free by all means to get a vaccine. Individuals receive or decline vaccinations at their own risk.

As far as the swine flu situation goes, people will not need a government mandate or forceful coercion to take a vaccine if they feel a major potential risk is looming. In the case of 1976 it was government officials who determined that the swine flu might turn into a disastrous situation, and in turn imposed their frights on millions of Americans. The actions the government carried out were primarily based on the information and beliefs of unelected officials who felt it was worth the risk to potentially sacrifice lives in the name of protecting people against a possible disaster.

The idea that if someone doesn’t take a vaccine they are therefore a potential risk to other individuals makes no sense whatsoever. If one group of people chooses to get vaccinated while another group declines the opportunity, the vaccinated group is supposed to be protected against that particular disease. They are not put in danger by those who decided to opt out of the vaccine. They are also taking the chance that they could possibly grow more ill from the injection. In the event of a true pandemic you can bet that if proven vaccines are available, the majority of people will choose to get vaccinated; you do not need government officials determining the weight of different risks. It is the responsibility and free choice of the individual, plain and simple.

The Merriam-Webster definition of freedom is “the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action.” Can anyone seriously defend the potential policies of mandatory vaccinations and still make the argument that we live in a free country? Freedom does not suddenly become a doormat to new and abusive government powers in times of potential health problems as declared by government; last I checked the Constitution, anyway.

It is illogical to expect government to constitutionally take on the job of keeping people healthy. It is the responsibility of the individual, not government, to decide what food to eat, which medications are most helpful, and whether or not to receive vaccines. The federal government has already attempted to regulate and control substances in this way through the Drug War, and it has not lessened drug use or violence. Whenever government has tried to protect individuals from themselves it has always failed and led to far worse consequences.

The reality is that it cannot be up to government officials and politicians to decide when or if a vaccination will truly protect the individual. Who can push away the possibility that politicians aren’t trying to score a victory for the pharmaceutical companies providing the vaccines? The potential for deadly abuse of mandatory vaccinations alone proves the insanity of giving the president, Congress, or a government agency the power to mandate medications and vaccinations.

No person or group, no matter how powerful, has the moral or legal authority to force or deny substances like vaccines and drugs. The 5th Amendment mandates that no one is to “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” while the 4th Amendment protects the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Whether it’s an individual or government holding a gun to your head, mandatory vaccinations are an unequivocal infringement on free will, choice, and individual discretion.

Mandatory vaccinations destroy individual liberty, individual sovereignty, and any concept of freedom. If the vaccinations the government feels must be forced on the entire country are as fantastic as officials claim, force and coercion certainly would not be necessary to convince people of their benefits.

Vaccinations must treated and managed like any other good or service: through individual choice, discretion, responsibility, and freedom. It is the only method that guarantees the absolute control is where it belongs: with the individual.

Profit represents the reward for taking a risk. You wouldn’t start a business if you knew you weren’t going to make more than you would spend creating that business, would you? However, if you can increase your income more than your expenditures through that business, you’ll feel much more inclined to continue with the operation. Obviously, people cannot survive operating a business at a loss.

Profits do not come without work and risk. It is only possible to make a profit if you can offer a product or a service, that people want, in an efficient manner. No matter how greedy you may be, in a free market you cannot survive without efficiently producing a product that has market demand. You cannot force people to work for you, you cannot force people to invest in your business, and you cannot force people to purchase your product. Your greed is limited to free and voluntary exchange.

Profits have been especially dissed when it comes to health care. It is easy to blame the insurance corporations and many missteps that the current system carries, but people fail to realize that it has been government intervention into the market that has increased prices and decreased accessibility. The more that government regulates, controls, and manipulates health care, the less access individuals will have to health care because of the higher costs.

The Kefauver Harris Amendment of 1962 was added on to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938, providing the FDA with greatly expanded regulatory powers, including the ability to deny approval of drugs that they felt weren’t fully effective. The FDA’s regulatory process to bring new drugs into the market is very costly in terms of money and time, making it exceedingly difficult for businesses other than large pharmaceutical corporations to survive in the drug market. Dr. Mary J. Ruwart estimates that no less than 50% of new drugs have been blocked from the market due to this process.

Because of the 1962 amendments, the FDA can determine and change the requirements to bring new drugs from the laboratory and into the marketplace. In 1962, the development phase of drugs took approximately 4.5 years. A good amount of time for a business to invest money in a product that might never get the chance to sell on the market, right? Today the development time is 15 years. With such brutal development and marketing procedures for drugs, it should be no surprise that drug prices are rising. These regulatory proceedings limit the supply of new drugs, raise the price of existing drugs, and limit patient access overall to drugs. In other words, the demand for these drugs does not disappear, but the supply is often heavily limited. Thus, prices go up.

With the drug market essentially limited to the few businesses who can afford to comply with the expensive FDA regulations, competition has taken a beating. Drugs often represent a more affordable method for prevention, treatment, and a general tool to lower medical costs. However, the FDA has so greatly limited potentially life-saving drugs that medical costs continue to rapidly expand.

If it was the patients, not central bureaucrats, who worked with their doctors to decide whether or not certain drugs were logical for their own situation, competition in the drug industry would flourish, prices would fall, and accessibility would increase. We need to understand that government intervention comes with a price by benefiting larger corporations and limiting the competitive ability of smaller businesses.

I am not discounting the effects of greed and the want/need for profits that is inherent in some individuals. But the answer to these problems is not more government intervention or centralization of the markets. The trouble that we face in health care and many other industries is precisely too little competition, a trend that government has consistently worsened. Just look at the drug market: it has become such a bureaucratized process that it ends up helping the larger corporations, hurting small businesses, and pinching the consumer in terms of choice and cost.

The power of the individual is the power of choice: the ability to choose your own insurance plan (without being forced into an employer or government option), and to choose which drugs and medical treatment make sense to you, not to federal bureaucrats. The more power that you transfer from the individual to the government, the more you will see lobbyist activity, corporatism, and inefficiency increase. We are constantly trying to force a one-size-fits-all system on the country (whether it be HMOs or “public options”), neglecting the fact that we are all very unique as individuals and might have better ideas for ourselves, even if politicians turn “bipartisan” to force legislation on the people.

The key point is that demonizing profits in support of a government plan completely misses the underlying problem: limited competition. You do not need government to encourage competition, you need freedom of the individual, freedom of choice, and freedom of competition to create a prosperous, healthy, and accessible market.

It is amusing that so many people are hopping on the bandwagon that government operating at a loss is somehow more noble than for-profit businesses. The whole reason that government can operate at a loss is because it borrows from foreign nations, prints and devalues the currency, and forcefully taxes private productivity. As much as people would like to believe it, government cannot defy the laws of economics and common sense over the long run. They may be able to operate Medicare, Medicaid, and countless other programs with trillion dollar deficits for a time, but it will come crashing down just as it would for any irresponsible business that chooses to spend more money on unprofitable activities.

We need not look any further than the drug industry to see how disastrous a powerful, unelected, and centralized bureaucracy can be. The FDA has powers intended to help the people, but its very policies to help people have likely caused far more deaths and suffering by preventing and limiting new drugs, raising the price of current drugs, and decreasing accessibility to drugs because of the higher prices.

True, revolutionary, and sustainable change can only come through the individual. Profits themselves are not the problem; discouraging competition for those profits is the problem. Government provides a de facto monopoly to large corporations when it gets as involved as the FDA in private affairs, laying the foundation for a system that can never fully serve the individual. For full individual service, the individual must be in full control.

The numbers show there is only one sure way out of the problem, and, after months of roundabout discussion, that solution has re-emerged: It’s a tax on health care.

If Congress taxes health care, the revenue has a chance of rising with health spending. A health tax will also create an incentive for workers and businesses to slow the growth of health spending – thus reducing the amount of taxes needed to pay the nation’s health bill.

In other words, politicians want to control the health care industry with a special government plan that will cost trillions of dollars in a several-year period. Government doesn’t have money, considering that the nation is broke and suffering a harsh recession. But with this brilliant new proposal, Congress can provide health care service and pay for it by taxing health care spending.

I honestly don’t know where to begin with this one. If cutting wasteful spending is as simple as slapping a tax on an item, why not throw a tax on the escalating government spending, where there is far more waste than any business or service in the marketplace?

More from the Times article:

Because health care – unlike food, clothing and most other things – isn’t taxed, it’s effectively on sale. And when something is on sale, people often buy more of it than they need.

In the case of health care, they buy – or their employer buys for them – insurance plans that don’t make much of an effort to control costs. Rather than putting pressure on hospitals to root out administrative waste, the plans cover the cost of that waste.

Taxing rising spending is not going to lower the price of health care without a cost. To compensate for the lost income businesses will either cut or limit their service or increase prices. If government really knew a method of lowering prices while increasing productivity, I highly doubt anyone would be against that type of plan. It’s funny, though, when I think of the yearning for lower prices and higher productivity, I can’t help but think of some other economic system that provides this exact service without the supposed wisdom of government officials: the free market.

Certainly there is a good deal of waste and over-use in the health care industry today. But the last thing that is causing this phenomena is the lack of a tax on health care spending. The direct problem for rising health care costs is the fact that today the individual carries little control over his or her’s medical plan. Through HMOs and other programs encouraged and forced by government, we have effectively put other people in charge of our health care.

The more that people rely on third-parties to manage and pay for their health care (whether it’s their employer, insurance businesses, or government), the less they will be financially attached to their medical plans. If they aren’t paying for their health care directly, they have little incentive to take cost into account. It isn’t because we haven’t slapped a tax on medical spending that we have the problem of rising spending, it’s because the individual is losing the direct control over medical spending and therefore the incentive to limit medical spending and costs as much as possible. When someone else is paying the bill, who is really going to hold back and not grab as much of a service as possible?

Another problem stems from the idea that health insurance needs to pay for every little medical cost. This again takes more of the incentive away to control spending and cost. If you buy flood insurance, you do not expect it to pay for covering the damage of a muddy lawn after a drizzle of rain. Insurance is a simple tool to measure and pay for risk, not common procedures.

Consider what caused the price of cell phones to drop quickly while the products continually improved. The first cell phone, the Motorola DynaTAC 8000x, released in 1984, weighed two pounds, had a half-hour battery life, and cost $3,995. Today, you can purchase a cell phone for twenty or thirty dollars with far more capabilities than the DynaTAC. Was it a tax on cell phone spending that encouraged businesses to increase efficiency, lower costs, and create cheaper and better products, or was it competition, a relatively unregulated market, and the power of the consumer?

Imagine if in 1984 the government forced employers to offer cell phones to their employees and placed “insurance” businesses in charge of paying the simple fees. When you take the power away from the individual and hand it to a third party, people greatly lose the incentive to find the best product at the cheapest price. They lose the incentive to find value, and the ability and options to find value become greatly limited because of the government intervention. This is why people will often overuse the medical system in Canada, which leads to rationed medical care, limited medical services, and long waiting periods for simple procedures.

The solution to our health care problem does not lie in a collective system such as socialism. We have had a sort of collective corporatism insurance and few people are pleased with it. It really does not matter which third party is paying for health care; so long as individuals don’t have the financial control over their medical care, inefficiency will abound. Employer-provided medical coverage, corporate insurance plans, and socialized medicine all have a basic flaw: they can’t fully serve the individual because it is not the individual who is in full control.

Individuals need more, not less, control over their medical care, and this is what many people and politicians fail to recognize today. More government involvement through subsidies, taxes, and programs will not solve a thing in the long run. To save health care, it must be the individual -  not the employer or the corporate workers or the government officials – who carries the power of choice and the incentive to reward value in the marketplace.

The history of marriage licenses is not widely known. In the early history of our republic, marriage was a family, church, and community issue. Marriage was a private contract, outside of the jurisdiction and power of the government (although unfortunately there were laws preventing whites and blacks from marrying):

No State shall [...] pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts – Article 1, Section 10; United States Constitution

Imagine it! You didn’t need permission from the government to marry, the state didn’t dictate the rules of marriage, the government was in its proper role of protecting private contracts. Then marriage licenses started popping up in various states, primarily in the later part of the 19th century. The legal definition of license is, “The permission granted by competent authority to exercise a certain privilege that, without such authorization, would constitute an illegal act.”

States started requiring licenses in only one case of marriage: interracial marriage. If two whites wanted to marry, it remained a private issue and the government respected the contract. By creating marriage licenses, the states were easily able to regulate and prohibit interracial marriages (such as a white marrying a black person, Native American, Japanese individual, Chinese individual, etc.). Most states wanted to keep interracial marriage in their complete control through licenses.

In 1923, Congress approved the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act, and by 1929 every state had created marriage license laws and carried control over marriage. This is essentially the system we have had for more than 80 years, and today people seem to have forgotten that there is another way around either legalizing or prohibiting homosexual marriage: return to the concept of private contracts.

If you are joined in a wedding ceremony without first obtaining a marriage license from the state, the state recognizes your matrimony as invalid. Without the state’s permission it cannot happen. It is the nanny state at its best in an area that government has no logical involvement. Why do married couples get special privileges that a single man or woman can’t? I find it incomprehensible that people go along with the idea that the right to marry comes from the government.

Government has mangled marriage into a scenario of special privileges and tax breaks rather than marriage’s supposed purpose of love, commitment, and the union of two souls. Marriage has become an institution of the state and, to that degree, it has been taken away from the family, community, and church. It is an issue that the government created with its own flawed beliefs of controlling the people (the states wanted to control and prevent interracial marriage and personal decisions); marriage licenses remain an easy way for government to unnecessarily regulate individuals.

There is a simple solution to the issues of marriage today, and that is to again understand contracts. Licenses were unneeded in marriage from the beginning and used only to regulate behavior that the state didn’t approve of. The government’s proper role is to recognize civil unions, uphold and protect private contracts, and return the power back to the families and churches. It is not government’s role to define marriage, control marriage, and make decisions that should be left to the local level.

The last thing people should be calling for is more government control of marriage. This takes power from individuals and local entities and gives it to government bureaucrats. In a time when constitutional amendments and increased state regulatory power over marriage are seen as the main solutions to the ongoing controversy, I implore you to consider an alternative viewpoint.

More government control over marriage is hardly a sensible and sustainable solution. Instead, allow people to voluntarily enter into contracts without the watchful eye of the state dictating the conditions. Let families, churches, and communities make the final decisions, not the state. It is time to grasp that the natural right and ability to marry does not stem from the state. Increased individual regulatory power, not increased governmental might, will go tremendously further toward solving the issues of marriage by promoting freedom and responsibility, free of state control.

The primary problems that I see with government intervention and central planning on all levels is that it assumes that those select few individuals know what’s best for the people, the economy, etc. Capitalism is the only system that “admits”, so to speak, that there is room for improvement outside the control of the government and central planners. Human nature to increase efficiency, get lower prices, and create sustainable living styles cannot be outdone by an interventionist government system.

What we’re going to realize is that a nationalized, subsidized, and fiat money economy is not sustainable. We’ve experienced and tinkered with it for nearly a century, and while the short-term results haven’t been too bad, it simply cannot last. With an inflationary monetary system like we’ve had since 1971, saving is discouraged because it makes no sense to hold dollars when they’re losing value every month. This is the largest fundamental problem with our economy today. It seems that we always have to be spending, that is at the heart of the bailouts and stimulus packages over the past year. Never has it been suggested that people save money and make their own decisions with their money. Whether it be banks or auto businesses, the U.S. has lost the core capitalist principle of individual responsibility and instead has gone the route of letting no one fail.

I’ve heard many times that we’ve had an economy of greed over the past several years. In many ways this is correct, but blaming it on capitalism is not. I believe that our paper money system controlled by the Federal Reserve has encouraged more greed than anything else. When you have a deceitful central bank with an unsound currency, I don’t think there’s a snowball’s chance in hell of that not stimulating greed. Central banks do not hold the citizens’ interest, that is the first thing to remember. With the Fed, we have a central bank who doesn’t even give out the names of the many banks it has loaned trillions of dollars to in a matter of months. With these special, unbalanced interests, it will not impact the economy in a good way. Couple this with a paper money currency enforced by the government which leads to higher prices and a stretched middle class, and you’ve got a recipe for greed and reckless spending to take off. I am not saying that the Fed is the only entity or factor to blame, but merely that it has contributed more than anything else to this unbalanced and unfair economy.

When the greed argument is used to blame capitalism, this often is aimed at “lack of regulation” on Wall Street. With the amount of bickering about too little regulation, you’d think we had a system of anarchy ten years ago. People forget about Enron and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that came of that scandal. People forget that The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was established in 1934 to prevent corporate abuse on reporting information. Laws and regulations have stacked up for 70+ years, yet bad and stupid things still happen in the world of business. Only now, when something goes wrong, the whole country accepts more regulations and the belief that more money poured into government intervention will suddenly make everything better.

Instead of shareholders being responsible for the business and its accounting practices, the SEC stepped in and essentially led people to believe that it has everything under control. It discourages investors from performing their own research and due diligence. Rather than the SEC, FDIC, and lord knows what other regulatory agencies try to take the place of personal research and responsibility, the destiny of a business must lie with the shareholders and consumers. As we can see from the past hundred years or so, when the government tries to take the place of the invisible hand of supply and demand, it does not solve the problems. It’s foolish to think that the government and central planners can perform a task in a more efficient, smart, and sustainable manner than the individuals of this country.

As the federal government and Federal Reserve have pulled in more responsibility for themselves, taking it from the people, we have embarked on the road to nationalization, big business, and big government. We’ve tried our hand at nationalized education, which has been a horrendous excuse for a public program. Ever since the 1970s the federal government has gotten much more involved with the health care industry and put more control into the drug companies, taking away from the pivotal patient/doctor relationship. In a broader sense, we are quickly moving toward nationalizing industries, both with government and through the government’s favoring of larger corporations.

What I see this as is an attack on localization. I find it silly to believe that we can solve our problems by putting them up on a larger scale, by “modernizing” industries which has always led to the destruction of smaller businesses at the hands of government intervention, and many other ways through government involvement. By discouraging local and community involvement, we have lost the key to what makes an economy great. Strong growth doesn’t mean a thing on its own in the short-term. Rather, it is strong, sustainable, honest growth that capitalism aims to create. I think the easiest, most efficient, and most sustainable way to achieve this is through local economies and community involvement. Whether it be with politics, economics, or business, it is the personal interaction that makes a strong system.

When we nearly force businesses and politics to be done at a national level, it tears away the personal touch that is so essential to a prosperous society. Individual responsibility is much more easily accomplished through a local economy, rather than through a government and corporate-controlled national economy, which is increasingly evident what we have in place today. With politics, it is much simpler and beneficial to bring about change on a local or state level than on the national scale. I think the same goes for a business and economy too. With a strong, involved community, next to nothing is impossible.

The Founding Fathers shared this ideal as they were writing the Constitution and envisioning America. They made it very clear in the Bill of Rights with the 10th Amendment; that issues not given to the federal government or prohibited to the states were to be put in the power of the states or the people:

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.

The federal government was not created to solve every social, economic, and even political problem. The federal government was initially created to be as little involved as possible compared to the states, but today the opposite seems to be true. Rather than give more power to the people and states to make their own decisions and take their own responsibility, that power has been given, like never before, to the federal government. In other words, localization is near being destroyed due to nationalization and a huge federal government overstepping its bounds.

The sooner we realize that individuals, local communities, and states can solve their own problems far better than the federal government, the sooner we will be on the road to recovery, and a prosperous, sustainable economy and society.