I’d probably have to read the book again and keep notes to really talk intelligently about what Hayek is saying. Even after a casual read I feel that I gained a better understanding about the reasoning behind my economic and political philosophy. It seems the best way to get smarter is by reading what really smart people have to say. I would only recommend reading the book if you have a preexisting interest in economics and politics. If you have heard about John Maynard Keynes and Keynesian economics and always wondered if there was an opposite view then this is your book.

Even if you don’t have enough interest to read a book like The Road to Serfdom I highly recommend the following two videos. You don’t have to be an economics nerd to recognize the opposing views and decide which approach is predominately used in government today. The next question to ask is whether that approach is working and what effect it has on the individual. This isn’t really a moral debate so you can’t really say one is wrong or right, but there are definitely different consequences.

Keynes vs Hayek Round 1

Keynes vs Hayek Round 2

IN A MUCH QUOTED PASSAGE in his inaugural address, President Kennedy said, “Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.” It is a striking sign of the temper of our times that the controversy about this passage centered on its origin and not on its content. Neither half of the statement expresses a relation between the citizen and his government that is worthy of the ideals of free men in a free society. The paternalistic “what your country can do for you” implies that government is the patron, the citizen the ward, a view that is at odds with the free man’s belief in his own responsibility for his own destiny. The organismic, “what you can do for your country” implies that government is the master or the deity, the citizen, the servant or the votary. To the free man, the country is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something over and above them. He is proud of a common heritage and loyal to common traditions. But he regards government as a means, an instrumentality, neither a grantor of favors and gifts, nor a master or god to be blindly worshipped and served. He recognizes no national goal except as it is the consensus of the goals that the citizens severally serve. He recognizes no national purpose except as it is the consensus of the purposes for which the citizens severally strive.

The free man will ask neither what his country can do for him nor what he can do for his country. He will ask rather “What can I and my compatriots do through government” to help us discharge our individual responsibilities, to achieve our several goals and purposes, and above all, to protect our freedom? And he will accompany this question with another: How can we keep the government we create from becoming a Frankenstein that will destroy the very freedom we establish it to protect? Freedom is a rare and delicate plant. Our minds tell us, and history confirms, that the great threat to freedom is the concentration of power. Government is necessary to preserve our freedom, it is an instrument through which we can exercise our freedom; yet by concentrating power in political hands, it is also a threat to freedom. Even though the men who wield this power initially be of good will and even though they be not corrupted by the power they exercise, the power will both attract and form men of a different stamp.

- Milton Friedman in the introduction of Capitalism and Freedom (1962)

• Prop 13 – Yes
• Prop 14 – No
• Prop 15 – No
• Prop 16 – Yes
• Prop 17 – Yes
• Governer – Whitman or Poizner (favoring Poizner for 2nd Amendment)
• Lt. Governer – Sam Aanestad (anyone but the douchebag Abel Maldonado)
• Secretary of State – Damon Dunn (better website, Orly Taitz sounds like a wacky birther)
• Controller – Either one, Evans is a fresh face in politics
• Attorney General – Eastman or Cooley
• Insurance Commissioner – Brian Fitzgerald (not the douchebag Mike Villines)
• Senator – Devore or Fiorina
• Judge Office #28 – Kim Smith
• Judge Office #35 – Soussan Bruguera
• Judge Office #73 – Laura Matz
• Judge Office #107 – Tony De Los Reyes
• Judge Office #117 – Pattricia Vienna
• Judge Office #131 – Maren Nelson
• Superintendent – None, they all sound like union hacks
• Assessor – John Loew (just because he put “Lower Taxes” as his middle name and affiliation with Howard Jarvis)

AN ACT EXEMPTING FROM FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES A FIREARM, A FIREARM ACCESSORY, OR AMMUNITION MANUFACTURED AND RETAINED IN MONTANA; AND PROVIDING AN APPLICABILITY DATE.

If you aren’t too familiar with interstate commerce, I found this excellent analysis of the original purpose for the federal government’s power of regulating interstate commerce. The power to regulate was not meant to be on the actual items themselves, but the imposition of tariffs by states on each other and with foreign countries. If State A imports widgets from State B and State C, it would be harmful to state relations to allow State A to impose a tariff on the goods from State B and not on State C. State B could retaliate on State A and C with its own tariffs. It doesn’t matter what the widget is, it is the actual “commerce” and “trade” that needs to be regulated.

The federal government has developed lots of powers using interstate commerce as a justification. Let’s look at the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. In United States vs. Lopez, the government argued it could ban firearms in schools because possession of a firearm there would lead to violent crime which would cause damages, increase insurance rates and then spread to the greater economy there by affecting interstate commerce. The Supreme Court struck this down in 1995 because it gave the federal government nearly unlimited power to regulate anything that might eventually lead to violent crime. The powers of the federal government are enumerated in the Constitution and the court found that possession of a handgun was not a commercial activity or even remotely related to one.

So what’s all this have to do with Montana? The law Montana passed makes firearm regulations justified by interstate commerce moot. If the federal government wanted to impose a 50 cent tax on each round of ammunition, it would use interstate commerce as a justification because that ammunition could move over state lines. Remember, there is no enumerated power given to Congress that specifically gives it the power to regulate ammunition. The Montana law says that if the ammunition is manufactured, sold, possessed and used in Montana, then the federal government has absolutely zero power to regulate that ammunition.

This is big. Utah and Texas have similar laws going through their state legislatures. States are telling the federal government that they want them to go the hell away. This isn’t just about firearm laws either. The DEA has been prosecuting people here in California for marijuana violations even though the state okay’d medical marijuana over a decade ago. A similar law passed here could say that all marijuana grown, sold and used for medicinal purposes in California is exempt from federal law. This isn’t about what issues you agree or disagree with, this is all about state rights and fighting back against unenumerated powers held by the federal government.

I truly believe the founding fathers never intended the government to wield such far reaching powers and any movement back towards the idea of putting the federal government in a box and leaving everything outside that box up to the states is okay with me. It will be interesting to see what happens with these laws and how things go down in the Supreme Court when they’re eventually challenged. Something tells me the bureaucrats won’t cede their power quietly.

• 1A – Extend tax increases for 2 more years with $16 billion coming out of tax payer pockets
• 1B – Takes money from 1A and gives it to schools
• 1C – Borrows $5 billion from future lottery “profits”
• 1D – Takes $600 million in tobacco revenues from some kids and gives it to other kids
• 1E – Takes $200 million of mental health money from some mental health programs and gives it to other mental health programs
• 1F – Politicians can’t give themselves pay increases when there’s a budget deficit

1F is the only one that even remotely looks like a good idea on the surface, but what the hell does it actually accomplish? Politicians aren’t going to be more motivated to pass a balanced budget knowing they’ll get a little bump in their salary when lots of them are already rich bastards. Funny how none of the propositions propose reducing the burden of government, the only option we have is to increase the burden or shift around who receives our money. If you missed it, here’s my little quote I call The Encumbrance of Government.

So yeah, NO on all the propositions.

Let’s take one hypothetical situation, tweak the parameters a few times and see what effect the different parameters have on the outcome of an event like a public shooting.

Constant conditions:

• 1 large room with 1 door and no windows
• There are 20 people in the room
• A man enters the room armed with two semi-automatic pistols and extra loaded magazines with the intent of murdering everyone in the room (public shooters are overwhelmingly male so that was intentional)
• The gunman has the element of surprise and has a pretty good idea about who will be occupying the room

Situation #1: All 20 people in the room are members of law enforcement armed with Glock 21 .45 semi-automatic pistols.
Result #1: The gunman enters the room and begins firing immediately. By the time officers identify the gunman as a threat and neutralize the threat, several of them have been struck.

Situation #2: All 20 occupants of the room are normal citizens. 2 of the occupants have concealed weapon permits and are carrying semi-automatic pistols concealed on their person.
Result #2: The gunman enters the room knowing that someone could potentially have a concealed weapon. He cautiously opens fire as he does not know who might be armed. Both armed occupants draw their weapons and neutralize the threat. Several occupants were struck including one of the armed occupants.

Situation #3: All 20 of the occupants are normal citizens. State law either prohibits all weapons in the building and the surrounding area or concealed carry is explicitly illegal everywhere. The gunman, who has premeditated the murder of everyone in the room, breaks this law when he pulls into the parking lot with the firearms.
Result #3: The gunman enters the room and begins methodically murdering the occupants of the room. The gunman is confident that he will not encounter armed resistance. Several occupants attempt to rush the gunman, but are killed before disarming him. After killing the resistive occupants, the gunman orders his hostages against the wall. He moves to each one and shoots them in the head. After making sure everyone in the room is dead, he turns the gun on himself.

1. Which situation sounds the most familiar?
2. Which situation is the most tragic?
3. Are gun free zones like a university safer than areas saturated with legally carried firearms like a police department?
4. Does concealed carry by law abiding citizens increase or decrease a murderer’s effectiveness in carrying out a multiple victim public shooting?
5. Would someone intent on murdering innocent people go where he will meet zero armed resistance or where he might encounter armed resistance?

Common sense questions that have common sense answers.

“As the burden of the government’s yolk increases, we transfer more of our economic and personal freedoms to those at the reins. Those at the reins increase the load on our backs hoping that it will make the burden easier to carry. If the burden does not break us, then eventually it will become too large for ourselves and even our masters to remove.”

And like Dennis Prager always says, I prefer clarity to agreement. Anyone else want to concisely sum up their philosophy?

“Contrary to popular perception, California not only taxes and regulates  its economy more than most other states, it also aggressively interferes in the personal lives of its citizens. California ranks #48 on economic freedom and #37 on personal freedom. California simply needs to cut government spending. The budgetary categories most out of line with the rest of the country are public safety, natural resources and environment, and administration. The state actually does not spend more than average on education and social services. For a large state, it is also fairly centralized, with local governments receiving about half of their revenue in state grants, and almost two-thirds of all state and local tax revenues controlled by Sacramento. Labor laws are of course extremely strict; for instance, California is one of only five states to mandate short-term disability insurance. Health insurance mandates add about 60 percent to the cost of premiums in the state. Eminent domain reform has been cosmetic, and the state’s liability system almost reaches the abysmal quality of the Deep South. On personal freedoms, California does well of course on same-sex partnerships and marijuana, but it also has the most restrictive gun laws in the country, a highly restrictive policy regime for motorists, and smoking bans. Arrests for victimless crimes are surprisingly high, with 21.6 percent of all arrests being for victimless crimes, the fifth highest in the country. Effective homeschooling regulations are about average, but the state has no statute explicitly permitting homeschooling. Fortunately, the state has a reasonable asset forfeiture regime (burden of proof on government, owner knowledge of criminal activity required).”

We can’t ignore the fact that we carry a tax burden well above that of other states. Prop 1A on the May ballot seeks to extend this year’s $16 billion tax increases for up to 4 years instead of 2. Are we really going to let Sacramento take more of our hard earned money out of our pockets?

I’m not attacking the idea of paying these veterans and acknowledging their service, but I’m just a little perplexed about the timing and why it is even in this bill that is suppose to create lasting and sustainable growth. In the context of economic stimulus this just seems like something out of left field. Turns out this was a bill in Congress last year, but never got voted on. It probably got pushed into this bill by Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, who sponsored it in the Senate. Hey, we’re giving money to NASA so why not Filipino veterans?

I’m thoroughly convinced that the sole purpose of “The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009″ is to spend money on anything as quickly as possible. I seriously don’t know what else to say, I’m completely flabbergasted.

“We can’t embrace the losing formula that says only tax cuts will work for every problem we face; that ignores critical challenges like our addiction to foreign oil, or the soaring cost of health care, or falling schools and crumbling bridges and roads and levees.”

“They didn’t vote for the status quo — they sent us here to bring change.”

“Then there’s the argument, well, this is full of pet projects.  When was the last time that we saw a bill of this magnitude move out with no earmarks in it?  Not one.  (Applause.)”

“Millions more Americans will lose their jobs.  Homes will be lost. Families will go without health care.  Our crippling dependence on foreign oil will continue.  That is the price of inaction.”

“I believe that legislation of this enormous magnitude, that by necessity we are moving quickly — we’re not moving quickly because we’re trying to jamb something down people’s throats.  We’re moving quickly because we’re told that if we don’t move quickly, that the economy is going keep on getting worse, and we’ll have another 2 or 3 or 4 million jobs loss this year.”

“Number two, it is expected that we are going to lose about a trillion dollars worth of demand this year, a trillion dollars of demand next year because of the contraction in the economy.  So the reason that this has to be big is to try to fill some of that lost demand.  And as it is, there are many who think that we should be doing even more.  (Applause.)  So we are taking prudent steps.”

“So then you get the argument, well, this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill.  What do you think a stimulus is?  (Laughter and applause.) That’s the whole point.  No, seriously. (Laughter.)  That’s the point. (Applause.) “

“But let’s think big right now.  Let’s not think small.  Let’s not think narrowly.”

“This plan will save or create over three million jobs — almost all of them in the private sector.”

No price tag is too big if we believe it will solve all of our problems.