The goal of any free society should be total privatization of education.
"Oh but that's too expensive," you say....Well really it isn't.
If you had hundreds of millions of parents seeking for teachers and all teachers were competing for jobs, this would cause the price of private schooling to drop and the value to become increasingly high.
Not to mention many more parents would be inclined to not send their kids to school at all but to homeschool.
However, total privatization of education is not something we are close to in this country, however there are steps we can take to improve the public education ring and infuse competition into it that would greatly increase the quality of education and give parents a greater say in what their children are taught.
I am in favor of a Voucher System, in which each child is given a Voucher for a certain amount of money (and schools are given nothing) and the child according to the decision of the parents, goes to whatever school they believe is best fit for their child and then sign that voucher to that school as part of its funding.
As schools then compete for their money by means of providing the best quality education they can offer, cutting the unnecessary expenses they usually pay, and hiring and firing those teachers who are most appealing to the parents, this will cause a much more free-market approach to education and will result in more children being taught the values their parents hold to, it will greatly decrease any corruption in the teaching materials and will help cull out all those teachers who are not fit to teach and it will also start to cost less money to tax payers.
Thursday, March 6, 2014
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
Environments
Who is the greatest polluter? Would you be surprised to find out that it is our own Government?
Just as Government is given the job of protecting civil liberties and often times is the greatest threat to them, so too Government has been given the authority to protect our environment and fails at that job as well.
Environments are protected when they are under the authority of private ownership. Governments have absolutely zero incentive to protect environments because Governments are neither held accountable for their pollution or gain any personal profit by protecting them.
When an ordinary person has a certain section of his own private property there is a great incentive to protect the environment and cultivate the land in such a way that yield certain products or purposes that generate revenue.
For example, he may keep the land as natural as possible for people to pay and camp on, he may instead use his land to grow crops or raise cattle for people to buy and eat, he may just keep his land nice and clean so his yard is healthy and safe for his family to grow on.
The best way to protect our environments are to pass legislation that guarantees that Governments are held accountable for their pollution and also to return federal and state lands under the protection of private ownership. Not only would this create jobs but it would also restore liberties and protect our environment.
Environments are protected when they are under the authority of private ownership. Governments have absolutely zero incentive to protect environments because Governments are neither held accountable for their pollution or gain any personal profit by protecting them.
When an ordinary person has a certain section of his own private property there is a great incentive to protect the environment and cultivate the land in such a way that yield certain products or purposes that generate revenue.
For example, he may keep the land as natural as possible for people to pay and camp on, he may instead use his land to grow crops or raise cattle for people to buy and eat, he may just keep his land nice and clean so his yard is healthy and safe for his family to grow on.
The best way to protect our environments are to pass legislation that guarantees that Governments are held accountable for their pollution and also to return federal and state lands under the protection of private ownership. Not only would this create jobs but it would also restore liberties and protect our environment.
Monday, March 3, 2014
Religious Liberty
All men have the natural right to worship or not worship their Creator in whatever manner best fits their conscience. This does not mean that all religions are true or that all methods of worship are proper. But it does mean that no one (including Government) has the right to use any type of coercion to force another person into the same religion or manner of worship as themselves.
If we disagree with the religion or world view of another person we only have the right to use the Free Market to our advantage and debate and attempt to peacefully persuade them to our manner of thinking, however, all men also retain the right to listen and agree, listen and disagree, or refuse to listen all together and walk away.
If we disagree with the religion or world view of another person we only have the right to use the Free Market to our advantage and debate and attempt to peacefully persuade them to our manner of thinking, however, all men also retain the right to listen and agree, listen and disagree, or refuse to listen all together and walk away.
Saturday, March 1, 2014
Abortion: Free Market Answers in a world that looks to the State.
As someone who is personally socially conservative and a Christian, I am outspokenly pro-life!
Life begins at the moment of conception and we as a society have an obligation to protect human life the best possible way we know how- we need policies that decrease and hopefully END abortion.
Based upon my understanding of the U.S. Constitution and the dangerous nature of the Federal Government, I believe abortion is a State issues; that is, State Governments are the highest level of Government that the issue of abortion should be handled on. And I have been very open about my policy views with the Libertarian Party of Arkansas that I have no problem with our State regulating abortion.
This is just logical argument-IF it is true that government's role is to protect the life of individuals and IF it is true that a baby is a human, it goes to reason that the State has the authority to protect life. The 89th General Assembly passed a law essentially making abortion illegal in our State, a law that I was supportive of, however it was not my prefered method of decreasing or ending abortion.
As someone who believes in free market principles and the superior nature of the free market to solve the problems our society faces, my primary method of addressing abortion would not have been to run to the government for the answer.
My policy is to return to free market principles in many areas, including but not limited to:
-dergulating our economy, abolishing the income tax and the result thus being job growth and more money in the pockets of the ordinary man, this would allow women to be more likely to choose life knowing they (or their husband/spouse) have the money to provide for the baby.
-ending welfare; welfare I believe is a great catalyst for the destruction of the family and by ending abortion and allowing the free market to provide for the poor, the family would be strenghtened and people more likely to choose life.
-deregulation of adoption agencies; this would give women comfort and confidence that adoption is a more preferable method than abortion because they would know their child would go to a good family as opposed to growing up in an orphanage.
-Fixing Education; infusing competition into the education ring so that schools compete with one another for students and funding, this would give parents a much stronger ability to decide what their children are taught and cause schools to teach those value more closely associated with the parents themselves, therefore I believe teaching children the value of human life.
-Protecting religous liberty and the right to free speech; this would allow the battlefield of ideas to take place so people can continue to reason and debate one another on the important merits of pro-life views
...and as a Christian it protects my right to preach the Gospel of Christ, that men are sinners who have sinned against God and need forgiveness and are commanded to repent of their sins and put their faith in the God-Man Christ who is the only way anyone will every have peace with God the Father. (obviously I in no way mean to imply only Christians are prolife or that only the gospel can persuade people to pro-life views)
I believe these free market solutions would increase liberty and raise the overall morale of our people and result in a strong decrease in abortions. We as a free society must understand that any problems we face in society are most efficiently solved by free people persuing their own self-interests without the government invading in their lives.
Based upon my understanding of the U.S. Constitution and the dangerous nature of the Federal Government, I believe abortion is a State issues; that is, State Governments are the highest level of Government that the issue of abortion should be handled on. And I have been very open about my policy views with the Libertarian Party of Arkansas that I have no problem with our State regulating abortion.
This is just logical argument-IF it is true that government's role is to protect the life of individuals and IF it is true that a baby is a human, it goes to reason that the State has the authority to protect life. The 89th General Assembly passed a law essentially making abortion illegal in our State, a law that I was supportive of, however it was not my prefered method of decreasing or ending abortion.
As someone who believes in free market principles and the superior nature of the free market to solve the problems our society faces, my primary method of addressing abortion would not have been to run to the government for the answer.
My policy is to return to free market principles in many areas, including but not limited to:
-dergulating our economy, abolishing the income tax and the result thus being job growth and more money in the pockets of the ordinary man, this would allow women to be more likely to choose life knowing they (or their husband/spouse) have the money to provide for the baby.
-ending welfare; welfare I believe is a great catalyst for the destruction of the family and by ending abortion and allowing the free market to provide for the poor, the family would be strenghtened and people more likely to choose life.
-deregulation of adoption agencies; this would give women comfort and confidence that adoption is a more preferable method than abortion because they would know their child would go to a good family as opposed to growing up in an orphanage.
-Fixing Education; infusing competition into the education ring so that schools compete with one another for students and funding, this would give parents a much stronger ability to decide what their children are taught and cause schools to teach those value more closely associated with the parents themselves, therefore I believe teaching children the value of human life.
-Protecting religous liberty and the right to free speech; this would allow the battlefield of ideas to take place so people can continue to reason and debate one another on the important merits of pro-life views
...and as a Christian it protects my right to preach the Gospel of Christ, that men are sinners who have sinned against God and need forgiveness and are commanded to repent of their sins and put their faith in the God-Man Christ who is the only way anyone will every have peace with God the Father. (obviously I in no way mean to imply only Christians are prolife or that only the gospel can persuade people to pro-life views)
I believe these free market solutions would increase liberty and raise the overall morale of our people and result in a strong decrease in abortions. We as a free society must understand that any problems we face in society are most efficiently solved by free people persuing their own self-interests without the government invading in their lives.
Friday, February 28, 2014
Welfare and Poverty
As a nation we have the duty of providing for the poorer among us, and regardless of political affiliation, I do not think any one of us ever wants anyone to go without food on the table, clothes on our backs and a bed to sleep on.
But the question we need to ask is, "What is the best way of providing for the poor and ending poverty?"
A large portion of people, no matter how well they mean, get the answer wrong and are convinced that we need welfare programs-in any and every area that people need help, the govermnent should provide at tax payer expense! Food, housing, clothes, healthcare, etc.
But ever since the War on Poverty came on the scene in America, poverty has skyrocketed in this country!
You see, poverty can't be solved by Government because although there certainly may be some good short-term effects of welfare programs, the long term effects are vastly more dangerous and complex.
Welfare programs eventually create a dependency on government, a loss of liberty, and ruins the incentive for charitable giving.
The most efficient means of helping the poor is through free market economics. The only places on earth that have escaped severe poverty and all it's sad effects are those countries that have embraced free market capitalism and the protection of individual freedoms.
What we need to do to help the poor and end poverty is to lower or abolish the majority of taxation in our state and throw off those heavy tax burdens that do nothing but harm the lower and middle class. We also need to get government red-tape out of our economy so that smaller businesses and individuals can compete in growing markets and create more jobs and more wealth. We need to let competition and consumer freedom lead the way in improving the lot of the ordinary man. We need to end minimum wage so that those who are less educated or experienced can get jobs at lower wages and gain experience and move up the ladder into higher paying jobs.
The result of this growth of wealth is not only more jobs but more funds going to private charities that would then be more than capable of providing for those people who absolutely cannot provide for themselves.
And we also need to fix our welfare system so that it assists people into slowly transitioning into providing for themselves without the government holding them back.
An example of this could be a slow gradual lower in the amount of welfare money they get until they are finally completely financially independent.
But the question we need to ask is, "What is the best way of providing for the poor and ending poverty?"
A large portion of people, no matter how well they mean, get the answer wrong and are convinced that we need welfare programs-in any and every area that people need help, the govermnent should provide at tax payer expense! Food, housing, clothes, healthcare, etc.
But ever since the War on Poverty came on the scene in America, poverty has skyrocketed in this country!
You see, poverty can't be solved by Government because although there certainly may be some good short-term effects of welfare programs, the long term effects are vastly more dangerous and complex.
Welfare programs eventually create a dependency on government, a loss of liberty, and ruins the incentive for charitable giving.
The most efficient means of helping the poor is through free market economics. The only places on earth that have escaped severe poverty and all it's sad effects are those countries that have embraced free market capitalism and the protection of individual freedoms.
What we need to do to help the poor and end poverty is to lower or abolish the majority of taxation in our state and throw off those heavy tax burdens that do nothing but harm the lower and middle class. We also need to get government red-tape out of our economy so that smaller businesses and individuals can compete in growing markets and create more jobs and more wealth. We need to let competition and consumer freedom lead the way in improving the lot of the ordinary man. We need to end minimum wage so that those who are less educated or experienced can get jobs at lower wages and gain experience and move up the ladder into higher paying jobs.
The result of this growth of wealth is not only more jobs but more funds going to private charities that would then be more than capable of providing for those people who absolutely cannot provide for themselves.
And we also need to fix our welfare system so that it assists people into slowly transitioning into providing for themselves without the government holding them back.
An example of this could be a slow gradual lower in the amount of welfare money they get until they are finally completely financially independent.
Thursday, February 27, 2014
Nullification
The Patriot Act, the NSA illegal spying, Obamacare, the War on Drugs, illegal Federal regulations on our right to bear arms, Supreme Court decisions that give the government authority to search our homes without a warrant! And this list goes on!
It's such a shame that we can't do anything about it...Or can we?
The 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution says, "The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, is reserved to the States, respectively, or to the People."
Nullification is the process whereby States assert their 10th Amendment right for the State OR the People to govern in those matters where the Federal Government cannot legally or morally govern, and pass laws that nullify unconstitutional Federal laws and essentially say, "We will NOT comply! We will not enforce these laws! Not on our soil! Don't tread on me!"
I believe Nullification is one of the greatest weapons we as a State have and we need Representatives in our Legislature that have the spine to stand up and take radical action to Nullify the horrific laws being passed by our Federal Government, and protect the liberties of Arkansans!
The States created the Federal Government, they obey us, we do not have to enforce any law they pass that we consider violations of our natural rights.
It's such a shame that we can't do anything about it...Or can we?
The 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution says, "The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, is reserved to the States, respectively, or to the People."
Nullification is the process whereby States assert their 10th Amendment right for the State OR the People to govern in those matters where the Federal Government cannot legally or morally govern, and pass laws that nullify unconstitutional Federal laws and essentially say, "We will NOT comply! We will not enforce these laws! Not on our soil! Don't tread on me!"
I believe Nullification is one of the greatest weapons we as a State have and we need Representatives in our Legislature that have the spine to stand up and take radical action to Nullify the horrific laws being passed by our Federal Government, and protect the liberties of Arkansans!
The States created the Federal Government, they obey us, we do not have to enforce any law they pass that we consider violations of our natural rights.
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Marriage, what role does the Government play?
Politicans constantly debate the question, "In marriage, what role does the Government play?"
And this causes all sorts of different views of marriage to clash and have endless debates and usually only results in more government regulating more of our religious and civil liberties.
Now, it must be understood, that I am a Christian, I attend a Reformed Church and I believe, based upon the Word of God that marriage is between one man and one woman. But the question is misleading, "what role does the Government play?" The correct question is, "Is there even a role at all?"
The best way to protect my view of marriage AND all the views of those who disagree with me, is by REMOVING Government out of the equation. Marriage is religious in nature and therefore should be defined and regulated by the religious preference of the party being married, according to their churches/organization's practice. Marriage is a private matter that the Government has no place in regulating...Just as we don't need a license to have a friend at work or to have a cousin or parent, we don't need, and in a free society, should NOT need, to have the Government involved in private relationships between consenting adults.
Protect Marriage, Protect Liberty, Get the Government OUT!
And this causes all sorts of different views of marriage to clash and have endless debates and usually only results in more government regulating more of our religious and civil liberties.
Now, it must be understood, that I am a Christian, I attend a Reformed Church and I believe, based upon the Word of God that marriage is between one man and one woman. But the question is misleading, "what role does the Government play?" The correct question is, "Is there even a role at all?"
The best way to protect my view of marriage AND all the views of those who disagree with me, is by REMOVING Government out of the equation. Marriage is religious in nature and therefore should be defined and regulated by the religious preference of the party being married, according to their churches/organization's practice. Marriage is a private matter that the Government has no place in regulating...Just as we don't need a license to have a friend at work or to have a cousin or parent, we don't need, and in a free society, should NOT need, to have the Government involved in private relationships between consenting adults.
Protect Marriage, Protect Liberty, Get the Government OUT!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)