Why I'm a Libertarian
Swatting away the heavy hand of paternalism – what libertarianism is all about

By Joe Holmes

The contemporary political landscape is pulled in two directions – social paternalism (our Republican friends) and economic paternalism (our Democratic friends).  A neutral definition of paternalism can be seen as a system, principle, or practice of managing or governing individuals, businesses, nations, etc., in the manner of a father dealing benevolently and often intrusively with his children.  The core character, then, is that the government knows what’s best for you.  The Republican Party, by fighting against gay rights, abortion rights, and seeking to preserve a generally conservative society, can be said to be socially paternalistic.  Similarly, the Democratic Party, by seeking to employ people in collective bargaining contexts and unions, increased taxation, and providing a whole host of expensive and largely inefficient government resources, can be said to be economically paternalistic.  The libertarian would say that both forms of paternalism are equally invasive and destructive.

Jeffery A. Miron finds that by decriminalizing cannabis, the federal government would generate $2.4 billion in federal tax revenue annually, and that an additional $7.7 billion would be saved as the cost of incarceration, policing, and processing offenders. Now, that's too much money to for the human brain to fully conceptualize, given the air quality around April 20th, so your friends at the Prometheus Institute have provided this handy quantitive index in order to show exactly how much the U.S. can earn each year from cannabis decriminalization. The math: $2.4 billion per year + $7.7 billion per year = $10.1 billion gained in total per year. You're welcome.

Reevaluating Gun Control Laws
Support 50's right to bear arms
Joe Holmes

"Listen, Buck, when the gun-control crazies protest the concealed carry legislation, all you got to say is 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'. I mean, it's just that simple. After all, when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns, right?"

This is a bumper sticker distributed by the National Rifle Association. And while it is funny, there is some truth to it. With the recent tragedy at Virginia Tech, new breath has been breathed into both sides of the gun control debate. Many states are now actively trying to pass more permissive gun laws. Texas recently passed a law that did away with its required duty to retreat. Previously, Texans were held to a reasonable person standard, meaning that a party was justified in killing someone only if “a reasonable person in the actor’s situation would have retreated.” The new law assumes that a law-abiding citizen has good reason for opening fire and that retreat was not a viable option. The new law also gives shooters immunity from civil lawsuits. Texas also allows gun owners to open fire if they are threatened in their car or in their office. Florida goes one step further – allowing individuals threatened on streets to shoot to kill.

The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer in America, and nowhere else. This reality is popular in the news these days, as it both provokes maximum interest and also opens itself to be manipulated by all sorts of political spinmasters, which in turn creates more news. The Left savors every glimpse of middle-class struggles during economic expansion, which they tout as the golden nugget of proof finally adjudicating the free market as inherently bad for workers. Europeans lead this chorus, where they are already aghast at America's assumptions of the free market's social value.

But the data is welcomed on the Right, too, to the extent that it "proves" the economically-injurious impact of immigration. Rich business owners hire illegals, lowering costs and getting richer, so goes the argument, while poor white Americans are left without jobs.

Shake Ya Tailfeather...And Go To Jail?

"Sexually suggestive dancing" is now banned in Texas
Matt Harrison

The Texas Legislature has passed a bill proposed by one Representative Al Edwards that bans "sexually suggestive" dances performed by high school cheerleaders. As of yet, there is no indication that the male high school population of Texas is planning a massive protest, which might be a scathing indictment of America's 28th state.

Also, the distinction that the proposed legislation is in the Texas Legislature is slightly surprising, as one might naturally assume it would be a promulgation of Michael Powell as his Farewell To Indecency Tour passed through the Lone Star State.

Feminism: The Freedom to Make Bad Choices
The true liberation of women
Justin Hartfield

Freedom, in its rawest form, is the ability to make incorrect choices. The barometer to measure the degree of freedom for a society is the permissiveness of its government's stand on issues which deal with the rights of an individual. More options available for a citizen (without government restriction) imply more personal liberty. A government should strive to provide its populace with the minimum amount of laws possible which would impede those personal freedoms.

Our government is struggling with balancing individual liberty and preventing its citizens from unnecessary harm. Should the government continue to take away choices which are seemingly wrong (such as drugs) or should they allow freedom of its citizens to make these seemingly incorrect decisions? It is not an easy decision by any means, but it is clear that the alternative to allowing societal vices would be to banish the very thing which all humans have in common, namely fallibility. Obviously, I'm not Catholic.