Tonight I had the opportunity to stop and think for a while on the phrase “Well Regulated Militia”. As usual, hopping through the forums makes for great opportunities to stretch your knowledge further, and reinforce some of the oft forgotten foundational elements of our Republic.

What does a “Well Regulated Militia” mean in the parlance of the 2nd Amendment? How is it still a valid premise today?

When you think Militia, you might conjure up the image of a bunch of less than perfect fellows standing in some semblance of a line, looking like some combination of hunter and army reject. You might think of the “Condo Commando” who spends his weekend wasting ridiculous amounts of ammo at one of the local shooting ranges.

Alternatively, you could look to what the founders envisioned. The reason “well regulated” was used to define “militia” is that in the presence of a vacuum of direction, some individuals will form their own loose alliances and perform their own rituals of training and discipline. If that vacuum is filled at the State and local levels with direction and guidance, you will have a “well regulated militia”.

Also, just so everyone understands, a militia is reasonably defined as “The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.”

How many States in our Union today spend any time or effort on the militia of the State? The general answer is probably very few, if any.

This important responsibility was defined for the State level in our Constitution, In Amendment 2 of the Bill of Rights. This is important because the Constitution assigned some specific rights to the Federal government, Some others to the States, and left everything else to “the States, or the people”. By being lax in our duty at a State level, we are making it easier for the Federal Government to usurp yet more power from the States.

Militias do not have to organize for the express purpose of training at the duties of the soldier. Instead, we should look to this important power assigned to the State as a way of gathering individuals to teach history, current events, and the necessary and important responsibility of the individual to be responsible for their personal security and liberties.

This service has to be both voluntary and universal. It should never be used as an excuse to spend tax payer money frivolously. There are a great number of volunteer resources in every state with knowledge and ability in these areas. They should be tapped, encouraged, and organized around. Your State Legislature should encourage and promote this formation of the body politic.

After all, the Federal Government cannot strip liberties from an informed, educated and awake populace. Does your local community have a “Well Regulated Militia?” If so, when are you joining? If not, when are you getting started?

Posted on December 19th, 2008 by lloyd
Filed under: Activism, politics | 3 Comments »

You will often hear that the Fed is actively combating “Deflation”. Have you ever asked yourself, is Deflation something that needs to be fought against?

First, we should define deflation. According to investorwords.com Deflation is defined as:

A decline in general price levels, often caused by a reduction in the supply of money or credit. Deflation can also be brought about by direct contractions in spending, either in the form of a reduction in government spending, personal spending or investment spending. Deflation has often had the side effect of increasing unemployment in an economy, since the process often leads to a lower level of demand in the economy. opposite of inflation.

That definition seems to fit today’s economic climate fairly well. We’re seeing contraction in prices for commodities like oil and gas. Food and other consumer items could see similar price changes, as the costs to deliver them decrease. We are seeing reduction in spending at every level, and there is certainly a rise in unemployment.

The Federal Reserve has taken a firm stance that they must fight deflation at every turn. This is actually an incredibly easy task to perform. All you have to do is print more money. A larger sum of total money will immediately cause inflation in currency, thereby “defeating” deflation. This bit of wizardry comes with a caveat, however. If you print too much money at one time, you could create a situation known as “hyper-inflation” where money is so plentiful that it is basically worthless. At the very least, it’s worth “lots less” than you are used to.

This tactic and strategy would possibly be worth the risk of hyper-inflation, if deflation were really evil. In reality, it is not anything more than a natural contraction that occurs when we are over extended. Most of us have experienced a level of deflation on a personal basis in the past.

Surely you can remember a time when you spent more than you intended. When that happened you probably ate less expensive foods, drove a bit less, read a book you already had, went to a park instead of a concert or did something similarly “cheap” or “free” rather than further extending yourself. When you did that, you reduced your costs and eliminated some of your excess expenditures. This is overly simplistic, but parrallels the contraction very well on a personal level.

We are experiencing a similar effect in a macroeconomic level today. Instead of an individual reigning in spending and further extension of their debt load, it is happening in large swaths of people. It is happening involuntarily for some, and voluntarily for others, depending on their personal situation at the moment. Even for the involuntary folks, this is still a healthy occurence.

Think of the example of a kid in a candy store. Sometimes, it’s perfectly fine for Mom and Dad to tell little Johnny “No, Johnny, you can’t have any candy today.” I’m sure we’ve all had similar experiences growing up. Johnny was just fine, and we will be just fine as well. He’s probably better off for learning that having sugar every time he wants it is a bad thing. Credit can be similarly bad for us. Deflation needs to occur in cycles after inflation occurs. The more we meddle with this process, the more likely we’ll spend more time with tough economic conditions.

For now, I won’t delve deep into this, but I will add this briefly: Deflation would never be so severe, if we weren’t constantly pumping new money into the system every time someone feels they need to spend more. Our Federal Reserve has had a long standing inflationary practice. That is, every time they see deflation occurring, they cut it off by printing more currency.

By now, you might be wondering if deflation is really a bad thing. I will tell you it’s a very scary thing. When deflation occurs, individuals who hold debt have to continue paying the demand on that debt. That is, you still have to make payments on your credit cards, car loans, and other things. The only problem is, things cost less, so people make less money. If you make less money than what you owe every month on your debts, you have a big problem, right?

You might even have to file for bankruptcy, and settle your debts. You might go into default on some of your debts and manage to pay others. Regardless, the situation seems difficult, scary and quite possibly, more than you want to deal with? This is very important. This is one of the subtle interplays between collectivism and individualism.

The collectivist makes every possible situation anonymous, removing personal accountability. (Inflation.)

The Individualist, the person who loves liberty, cherishes personal responsibility for the liberty it brings. (Deflation.)

Scary to find our liberal friends so deep in the bowels of this, isn’t it?

The Fed knew the easy answer. They knew the answer that protects you from the uncollected indulgences. The bad choices and the more expensive lifestyle that you’ve become accustomed to. They know that they can just print more. They’ve done it time and again for years. Unfortunately for us all, now is the time where our indulgences have gone beyond our means to ever pay them back. That is why deflation is occuring despite the best effort of the Fed to combat it.

In the end, Inflation and Deflation are simply cyclical with each other. One brings the other. Both are accepted as a part of any economic system. The problems really only crop up when we have a system, such as our Federal Reserve, that has no real checks on power to print money. They can simply continue this inflationary cycle until we really and truly come crashing down.

If you would like a more scholarly tome on this discussion, please check out this monograph by Jörg Guido Hülsmann: Deflation and Liberty. The Podcast is available here.

Posted on December 18th, 2008 by lloyd
Filed under: Economy | 1 Comment »

President Bush said in an interview on Tuesday “I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system, to make sure the economy doesn’t collapse.”

Unfortunately for us all, Free market principles have long been left out in the cold in favor of massive deficits, tax and spend policies, and unrestrained fiat currency. President Bush can’t abandon principles that he has not exhibited.

Instead President Bush is simply continuing down the unsafe path of deficit spending, currency creation and increasing the size of government.

In order to “save” the market from collapse, we have to allow the market to exist on its own. The “market” is nothing more than the aggregate of Human activity in commerce. By this definition, markets are not things to be saved. They will exist as long as Human beings interact with one another to trade goods, services or currency.

No entity can now, nor ever, control enough aspects of the Market to affect it without unintended consequences. The housing bubble, and the crash that followed are just one of many consequences haunting us today.

We aren’t going to be able to spend our way back out of this mess. We can only repair it by returning to real free market principles. Save money, spend only within your means. Do not stretch yourself or your business with risky credit, or risky aquisitions, unless you are ready to accept that risk. Do not allow the creation of additional inflation through the printing of unrestrained money.

Players in the market need to be able to accept risk, price it accordingly, and accept the consequences of failure. Until the basic principles of the free market are applied, we won’t have a Free Market, and therefore, our liberty and opportunity to improve are in great peril.

Posted on December 17th, 2008 by lloyd
Filed under: Economy, politics | No Comments »

According to a USA Today/Gallup Poll 82% of Americans polled would consider an American vehicle for purchase. 67% would do so, even if the company were in bankruptcy. (source)

This is great news for lawmakers, industry leaders, and union leaders. Those folks can allow any of our “Big 3″ to go through a normal bankruptcy proceeding, just like everyone else facing financial difficulties in this trying time.

If you are experiencing hard times, and go through a reorganization or Chapter 11 bankruptcy, you have the opportunity to come out stronger, smarter and faster on the other side. Take the plunge, whenever you need to. No need to waste more money on trips to Washington, waiting around for bailouts, loans, or other unnecessary funding from the tax payers.

The President can rest easier now, knowing that He don’t have to ask Mr. Paulson to appropriate TARP funds away from their intended purpose. Well, it’s a little late for that, but I digress. Mr. Paulson certainly can avoid going even further away from the intended purchasing of toxic mortgage assets. Clearly  writing loans to automakers who don’t actually require it is not in any way in the spirit or the letter of the TARP law.

Let the market do its work now. You’ve got consumers confident in the process. When are law makers, union leaders and industry leaders going to get the picture?

Posted on December 16th, 2008 by lloyd
Filed under: Economy, politics | No Comments »

I ran across a discussion going on this morning on the Facebook RNC forum. One of our new posters asked:

I have been trying to figure out why people seem to hate republicans mostly young people, its like they all hate Bush and love Clinton/Obama, even when giving facts about what they did.

One of our resident liberals threw down his prime talking points.

Maybe, as a liberal thinker, I can shed a little light on the subject. The comments that follow, will probably help as well.

Liberal don’t “hate” the GOP, but there’s a few things we don’t like.

Republicans come off as greedy.
They seem to mention the bible a lot, but don’t really gay people.
They seem to care more about bombing Iraq, than the schools in America.
They seem to care about abortion more than anything.
They can’t tell the difference between socialism and anything else.
They haven’t travelled much.
They seem to think anyone who works in the arts or similar, is an idiot.
Many seem convinced Obama isn’t America.
They think that Sarah Palin was the best they had to offer.
They seem old and out of touch.
They don’t seem to like the Mexicans or the blacks.
They seem to think that “global Warming” is a hoax, when 95% of scientists don’t.

There’s more, but I need coffee.

So of course, I responded with answers from my Conservative principles:

Stephen did characterize the liberal slant on the GOP. Allow me to respond with the conservative viewpoint. This viewpoint, by the way, has had very little play in recent elections, and I look forward to sharing it with the public as we rebuild the GOP with real conservatives.

“Republicans come off as greedy.”

This is a liberal viewpoint, and it is code for reducing opportunities so that everyone is near some imagined wage parity. Conservatives believe in equal opportunity, not equal results. If results are equal, there is no onus for people to do more than the minimum. Clearly this would not bode well for our future.

“They seem to mention the bible a lot, but don’t really gay people.”

The bible is not overtly mentioned in politics. God is mentioned as the root of protection for our Unalienable Rights. The liberal viewpoint removes God, and puts the State in his place. This untenable path can only lead to the removal of Freedoms and the creation of slavery to the State. Freedoms do not come from the State, and are subject to removal when they are not held above the State.

There is no correlation between the bible and gay people in this discussion of the GOP. You’re lumping arguments together that do not relate specifically. The protection that is called for by Social Conservatives for marriage is related to the protection of the Family unit as the primary morality, and keeping that out of the hands of the State. This is a “States Rights” issue, and should never exist in commands from the Federal level.

“They seem to care more about bombing Iraq, than the schools in America.”

We spend more money per student than anywhere else in the World, yet we have terrible results. The conservative position calls for School Vouchers, so that there is real competition for our children’s education. This will improve the schools tremendously, and remove more power from the liberal agenda which is used to indoctrinate children.

“They seem to care about abortion more than anything.”

Abortion is now, and will always be a hot button issue between left and right. It is used as a scare tactic by the Liberal agenda. In reality, the conservative position says that Abortion is immoral, because it takes life, but is a States rights issue. This is another issue that the federal level has over stepped.

“They can’t tell the difference between socialism and anything else”

Sweeping generalization. I have regularly discussed Collectivism in this forum, in its many forms. Socialism is a part of any political discussion. The question is always how far the individual is willing to go into the ideals of individualism or collectivism. The Conservative position tends much further toward the individualist position.

We believe in individual liberties for all things possible. We prefer legislation only to punish behaviors that have already directly affected another human beings rights. We believe that national security requires a collective response. We believe that trade disputes can and should be settled amicably through a federal mediation process. Those are the only necessary purposes of the Federal government. All other purposes are excess.

“They haven’t travelled much.”

Again, sweeping generalization. I have travelled extensively. I happen to still believe we have it quite a bit better here than anywhere else in the world. It’s always interesting to meet immigrants who have moved here from other countries. Their impression of this place is very different than the socialist, who hopes to move us more in parity with the places that these immigrants come from.

“They seem think anyone who works in the arts or similar, is an idiot.”

I disagree. There is art that is successful, and art that is not. If it is not successful, it is not in my best interest to pay for it. Conservatives believe in the free market for ideas. If your idea is successful, it will pay you well. If it does not, and you still choose to pursue it, that is your choice. It is not a requirement for me to support you.

“Many seem convinced Obama isn’t America”.

I will assume you mean “American”. Obama certainly is NOT America, that, however is a different discussion. Cases were brought before the Supreme court. Those cases were brought forward specifically because our current President Elect has chosen to be secretive with his college transcripts and personal information. This is unprecedented in our history. The Constitution calls for specific requirements to become President. Mr. Obama must provide that information in full, so that it can be vetted in the process. It is in our best interest to ensure that the letter of the Constitution is followed.

“They think that Sarah Palin was the best they had to offer.”

Sarah energized the base better than anyone else in our last election. This does not mean she is the best, or even the top candidate. There are many other conservatives who will do similarly well in energizing the base. First our party needs to remove many of the “RINO” folks who have usurped portions of our party.

“They seem old and out of touch”

I’m 34, a small business owner, a conservative, and I’m using Facebook and Twitter to network with other young, savvy conservatives who want our party to return to core values.

“They don’t seem to like the Mexicans or the blacks.”

Completely false liberal propaganda. Go look at which party tried to keep Slavery around. Go look at which party incites and encourages class warfare.

Having strong borders will improve our national security, and encourage LEGAL immigration. Providing equal opportunities to all will bring up all individuals who take opportunities. Removing liberal social programs that encourage bad behavior will result in fewer people needing the “help” of the social programs, and mean more freedom and a wider and greater group of independent, happier people, regardless of race or color.

“They seem to think that ‘global warming’ is a hoax, when 95% of scientists don’t.”

Man Made Anthropomorphic Global Warming has not been scientifically proven. We have not had a global Temperature increase since 1995. We have cooled every year since then. Scientific thought requires proof for assertions. If 95% of scientists actually agreed as you state, that would mean only 5% is following through on their training in the Scientific method. The fact is, Scientists don’t know, and we are making sweeping and expensive changes that may or may not have any effect whatsoever on the Global Climate.

Conservatives promote and support conservation. This does not mean that we are interested in being bilked for yet another tax on an unproven scientific theory. Carbon Offset Credits are nothing more than a tax on economic activity. The reduction of carbon emmissions are not scientifically proven to modify our Climate, for better or for worse.

How was your coffee, Stephen?

Follow the discussion on Facebook.

Posted on December 15th, 2008 by lloyd
Filed under: Activism, politics | 2 Comments »

Unfortunately, governments do not produce things. People produce things. Government takes money from people and spends it on projects for other people in order to give the illusion of producing something. So now that ‘We the People’ are reacting correctly to an untenable situation of over consumption that cannot continue, the government steps in, and tries to spend more money.

President Elect Barack Obama has announced a new economic stimulus plan that seeks to do just that. His massive new spending plan is reminiscent of President Eisenhower’s Interstate highway project in 1956. The claim is, of course, that this will create new jobs, and stimulate the economy.

In order for all of this to happen, the government will create new money to spend, increase taxes by at the very least removing existing tax cuts, and by borrowing yet more money. In previous articles, we have exposed some of the reasons why this actually causes the rest of us some serious problems.

It is true that this may create some jobs in the public sector. It will also present opportunity for certain larger businesses that make their business based upon government contracts. However, in order to do so, it will be at the cost of private sector jobs and opportunities, and at a cost to every American, as it will continue to suppress private investment and consumption.

A measured approach where savings and cost reductions are encouraged by all parties involved will lead to a future where we each hold more of our earnings. Of course, in order to get there, we may experience some pretty hard times. You will likely see some serious deflation, and probably a very large amount of bankruptcy, as we sort out all the misappropriated capital that has appeared by all of this uncontrolled spending.

The approach presented by our new President will mean that each person has less and less of their own funds, but it may mean that those who were witty enough to work the government system will live more comfortably than they otherwise would have on the free market.

You see, this is the real question at the end of this global economic crisis. Who will get to spend the future earnings of each and every one of us?

Posted on December 12th, 2008 by lloyd
Filed under: Economy, politics | 1 Comment »

PE Obama and his transition team have created a website to take questions. The web project is entitled “Open for Questions” and is a part of the PE’s election promises surrounding government transparency.

This is an excellent opportunity for conservatives to place our message in front of the new administration, and demand the answers that the news media has neglected. In order to ensure conservative questions are highly visible, we will be asking everyone in TopConservativesOnTwitter to help vote on questions.

Stay tuned on #TCOT on twitter for more details. I will tag all announcements with #ORtC.

Posted on December 11th, 2008 by lloyd
Filed under: Activism, politics | 2 Comments »

Consumer capitulation is what Paul Krugman, a NY Times Op Ed Columnist, calls it. American consumers finally started spending less. Although, if you would hear Mr. Krugman tell it, this is a very bad situation.

The situation of our economy is bad, don’t get me wrong. We’re definitely headed down a very bad path, but blaming the consumer for not spending more money in troubled times is just out of touch with reality. If you have less, you spend less. This little nugget of common sense is something that our friends at the government would do well to heed. You are spending only on the things you absolutely need. You save for a rainy day. This, by the way, was the norm, up through the 1980s. Americans traditionally saved 25% or more of their income.

Unfortunately, this has changed dramatically in the last Decade or so. Most Americans were not saving at all. In the last quarter, and for the first time since 1995, the American savings rate has finally ticked up above 1% to almost 3%. Contrast that with the rest of the modern world, where they are saving upwards of 10%.

Mr. Krugman is also calling for massive new government spending programs. He wants the government to produce a product. To build things. He claims this increased spending will replace the out of place consumerism that occurred in recent years.

This argument has one very serious flaw: The government can’t do all of that spending unless they tax you, print more money, or put us further in debt. Any of these actions will cause you to spend even less, and attempt to save even more.

Imagine instead, if government programs were sharply cut. Imagine if the government just needed a whole lot less money. Now you have more of your income available to you. You save the amount you now realize you need to save, and still have money left over for investing and consuming. Ultimately, the only way out of a recession is for people to be comfortable with the risk associated with spending their money.

Posted on December 10th, 2008 by lloyd
Filed under: Economy | No Comments »

The government is meddling in the markets, and pushing cash into the hands of troubled banks and other businesses. It is doing so by taking a few pennies invisibly from each dollar you have. Banks were already dangerously “over leveraged”. In other words, they had more debt than they had assets. In most cases, it was way more. Banks were ‘banking’ on the idea that housing prices would continue to go up. That fancy term ‘leverage’ really only means gambling, to you and me.

The uncertainty caused by the actions of the banks and government are also suppressing new investments by businesses. Businesses often go to banks looking for money for a short period of time, so that they can purchase things that will make them more money, provide more jobs, and create more wealth. Banks aren’t lending that money, and the government is reducing the amount of wealth and capital the businesses have in their hands, threatening even their existing operations.

This causes the business to reduce expenses. Businesses do this by reducing payroll, which means fewer jobs. They are also reducing benefits, which means less money for each worker. Lastly, the business is reducing its own purchases, which cycles through the chain, forcing yet more businesses and individuals to spend less, as they have less to work with.

Economists have started claiming that this means the market is broken. Consumers aren’t spending, they decry. Businesses are recapitalizing instead of helping consumers go further into debt! Does that sound broken to you? It sounds like a market acting exactly like it should to the environment that we are living in.

Now it’s time for another question to ask yourself:

Do you personally want to be on the hook for more debt? In your present economic condition, do you want to ‘leverage’ your efforts further, and owe more money to someone else?

Posted on December 9th, 2008 by lloyd
Filed under: Economy | 5 Comments »

According to some economists, inflation of the money supply is exactly what we should be doing right now. They believe that the economy will improve if the Government creates more money and then spends it on the current in vogue project; for example this week, it is public works projects. Of course, they said the same thing about printing more money and handing it to banks, so that they would start lending again. That was the final supposed outcome behind the original $700 billion dollar “TARP” bailout plan that you heard so much about on the news.

However, what really happened with much of that money was contradictory to the desires of the Government. Banks used most of the money they received to recapitalize their books, or buy up other assets. In other words, they held on to the money to cover their liabilities, or used it to grow. Business and government works very differently from one another, this is why the confusion and chaos occurs when the government sticks its hands into the market.

A business finding a windfall of cash when it is badly in debt, pays down its debts. Think about that: If you won a million dollars today, would you pay off your credit cards and your car loan? Probably. You might even pay off your mortgage. If you were not heavily in debt, would you not buy a new car or boat? Perhaps an addition to your home, or some sort of investment property? You might even use it to start or expand a business. You might invest it by other means, and use or save the interest generated.

Why would a business act any differently? Like you, a business has to live under the same rules as a real person. They can only accumulate so much debt before they will not be able to obtain more. They cannot print money. With those constraints in place, the banks reacted the same way most people would.

Posted on December 9th, 2008 by lloyd
Filed under: Economy | 2 Comments »