Liberty vs. Leviathan

Chronicling Liberty's battle against Leviathan

Under the bus

From Politico this weekend we’re informed that Rick Santorum says Ron Paul does not stand for life:

[Paul] doesn’t vote for anything restricting abortion on a federal level because he doesn’t think the federal government should be involved in restricting abortion…Well, that’s just wrong! The bottom line is that we need to have restrictions on abortion.

Santorum must have a bad memory at best, or be lying at worst.  For in 2003, despite his misgivings, Paul voted “Yea”  on HR 760 and “Yea” again on S3, the Santorum sponsored Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

And what were Paul’s misgivings?  There were two and they were big.  Both can be found in his remarks from the House floor but I’ll let him summarize here.  The bill…

  1. “…inadvertently justifies federal government intervention into every medical procedure…”
  2. “…ingrains the principles of Roe v. Wade into our justice system, rather than refutes them as it should.”

So despite his reservations, Paul voted for a bill that Santorum sponsored in order to save a life thus disproving Santorum’s claim that “…[Paul] doesn’t vote for anything restricting abortion…”

Paul made clear then as he does today, Santorum and all the other progressive GOP candidates seek to use the unconstitutional power of the federal government for their own causes.  Paul, and Paul alone, is the true conservative, seeking to preserve the constitutional republic our founders entrusted to us.


Filed under: Uncategorized, , , , ,


Despite the fact that the fix has been in since the days of FDR, Bernanke’s press conference this week is a sure sign that Keynes is on the ropes.

And just in case you missed EconStories‘ “Fear the Boom and Bust” from last year…

Filed under: Uncategorized, , , , , , ,


Twenty-six Republicans cast a vote for Liberty tonight by denying party leadership and voting down a fast track approval of HR 54, an extension of provisions of the so-called Patriot Act.  One among those was Justin Amash of Michigan’s 3rd District.

Small government, conservative Republicans voting to extend the unconstitutional legislation include Michele Bachmann and Paul Ryan.

Filed under: Uncategorized, , , , ,

Romney for Paul?

Can’t resist pointing out that Romney has unwittingly implied he could support Ron Paul in 2012.  Or, maybe he’s finally seen the light.

…I’m inclined to make sure there is somebody in the race who understand[s] how the economy works…

Filed under: Uncategorized, , ,


What do the AARP, American Cancer Society, Boy Scouts of America and National Public Radio have in common?  Each is a member of Independent Sector, a lobby group for charitable organizations.  In fact it’s a lobby group that’s pushing Congress to not decrease your estate taxes so that you’ll be more inclined to give your money to charities.

From their web site:

Independent Sector is calling on Congress to preserve this critical tax incentive for philanthropic giving by ensuring that any modifications to the tax do not raise the exemption level or lower the tax rates beyond the 2009 levels.

See if your favorite charity is a member.  Maybe you need a word with them to let them know what you think of confiscatory estate taxes.

(h/t to LRC Blog)

Filed under: Uncategorized, , , ,


Laughing is better than crying plus this sums it up quite nicely.

Warning: A couple of scatological references.

Filed under: Uncategorized, , ,


To all my pro-life, tea party, conservative friends:

If there’s any doubt that the GOP establishment takes your energy, concern and vote for granted, look no further than this SPIEGEL Interview with Karl Rove for confirmation.  He makes clear that pro-lifers and liberty minded conservatives are his lessers and fully expects them to be co-opted and to toe the party line.

SPIEGEL: Are you convinced, then, that the Republican Party will be able to integrate the Tea Party without drifting too far to the right?

Rove: Sure. There have been movements like this before — the Civil Rights movement, the anti-war movement, the pro-life movement, the Second Amendment rights movement. All of them popped up, insistent, loud, and relatively unsophisticated. They wanted everything now and for politicians to be with them 100 percent of the time. And after an election or two, people wake up saying, our system produces mostly incremental progress and takes time and compromise. That’s exactly what’s going to happen here. I meet a lot of Tea Partiers as I go around the country, and they are amazing people. Most have never been involved in politics before. This is their first experience, and they have the enthusiasm of people who have never done it before.

SPIEGEL: Is the Tea Party movement a repeat of the Reagan Revolution?

Rove: It’s a little bit different because the Reagan Revolution was driven a lot by the persona of one man, Ronald Reagan, who had an optimistic and sunny view of what the nation could be. It was also a well-organized, coherent, ideologically motivated and conservative revolution. If you look underneath the surface of the Tea Party movement, on the other hand, you will find that it is not sophisticated. It’s not like these people have read the economist Friedrich August von Hayek. Rather, these are people who are deeply concerned about what they see happening to their country, particularly when it comes to spending, deficits, debt and health care.  (Emphasis added.)

Mr. Rove needs to know that people have and still do read Hayek.  Proving you don’t have to be “sophisticated” to appreciate Hayek, it was my first reading of The Road to Serfdom fifteen years ago that opened my eyes to the true nature of politics and, as Walter Williams said about Bastiat, “created order in my thinking about liberty”.  Reading Bastiat‘s The Law brought even more clarity.

To echo Taking Hayek Seriously, Rove is the first person I’ve ever heard to refer to Hayek as Freidrich August von Hayek. Maybe it’s Rove who has never read him.

Filed under: Uncategorized, , , , , ,


Once again the major parties have supplied ample evidence that Hayek was right when he explained “Why The Worst Get On Top” in his classic The Road to Serfdom.  In “Sorry, Mayor, you’re in sales not job creation“, Manny Lopez of the Detroit News calls out Michigan Democrats’ worst, gubernatorial candidate Virg Bernero, for his claim that he has created, and will continue to create, jobs.  Pointing out that Virg, like all politicians, doesn’t create jobs with his own capital but rather buys jobs with our money.

Recruiting a company to a city or state is not actually creating any jobs. It’s closing a sale using tax dollars to lure a company that then results in jobs, but it’s nothing like putting your own money on the line and hiring someone.

If Symmetry Medical later leaves Lansing, it will be bad for the city and damaging to the economy and to the families affected, but the mayor’s salary and job are secure. He’ll move on to the next company with your tax dollars in hand to try and find a substitute.

If that requires digging deeper into your pockets for more tax incentives instead of fixing the structural problem that exists, or hurting an existing business by offering perks to new businesses but not the ones that have been longstanding supporters of the community, so be it.

Filed under: Uncategorized, , , ,

Crumbling pillars

One of the pillars of a thriving economy is the rule of law.  Those (entrepreneurs) who risk their capital and create things (which leads to job creation) need to know that private property and contracts will be protected, and that the legal environment is stable and predictable.  These no longer exist in today’s legal and economic environments.

Vox Day puts some practical application to the theory in “The feet, they vote too“…

…it simply doesn’t make much sense to start any business that isn’t a location-tied service one in the USA anymore.

As Schumpeter explained, no entrepeneurs means no economic growth, which means declining societal wealth and eventually grass hut city time.

Filed under: Uncategorized, , , ,


In the forward to The People’s Pottage, Garet Garrett points out the semantic changes of words such as freedom and sovereignty that occurred during the two decades prior to his writing.  After the recent Obama commencement address at the University of Michigan, we could add republic and democracy to his list.  For while in his introductory remarks the president recalled the often told story of Ben Franklin after the Constitutional Convention responding to an inquirer that we had a republic if we can keep it, he then proceeded to give his view of what is needed to preserve our “democracy” not our republic.  As Franklin said though, a republic is what our founders left us, not a democracy.  Democracy, with all of its failings, is what the founders warned against and what’s been forced on us as our republic has been destroyed.

Now that Michigan graduates have heard Obama’s recipe for preservation they would do well to review Ron Paul‘s speech from 2003 based on the same Franklin story – Sorry Mr. Franklin, “We’re All Democrats Now”.  Rather than lauding democracy, Paul points out its perils and calls for the restoration of our republic.

Here’s a few of democracy’s traits left unstated by Obama:


  • consumes wealth
  • leads to tyranny
  • encourages the use of political money to buy influence
  • endorses special interest interventionism, inflationism and corporatism
  • brings about currency debasement

Filed under: Uncategorized, , , ,

July 2018
« Jan