SWGA Politics » Editorial

What is a Libertarian

Tom — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 12:00:28 +0000

What follows originally appeared in The Albany Journal and on thealbanyjournal.com.

On a web comment regarding Leesburg City Council candidate Jeff Sexton, someone claimed that they opposed Jeff because he was a libertarian. This person claimed that libertarians want to take down all government, and specifically cited police and fire departments as targets of ours. Now, the ignorance was abundant in this comment. However, there is a misunderstanding on what libertarianism is and what we actually want.

First, one must understand that libertarians aren’t some monolithic voting group that speaks with one voice. We’re not. Truth be told, we have people with varying levels views on any given topic. However, I’m going to speak of the bulk of the libertarians floating around the world. There will always be an example someone can give of a libertarian who believes “X”, because we all have our own opinions.

To address the specific criticisms of the comment, that we want to eliminate police and fire departments, I have to say I don’t know a single libertarian who feels that way. You see, libertarians believe that the prime things that should be illegal are instances when force is used against another. Things like robbery, rape, murder, assault and anything similar. Frankly, we get very little resistance on what we think should be illegal, because these particular crimes are universal. They probably predate government per se, so it’s no surprise there.

Because these crimes exist, and because someone jerk will commit these crimes at some point, a police department is unavoidable. I’m the son of a police officer after all, and one thing I learned a long time ago was that crime will happen. So, since these crimes will happen, we need people to deal with the criminals. There would only be two options, and the best one society has ever come up with is the police department.

The other public safety entity mentioned is fire departments. First, it’s worth noting that municipally funded fire departments are a relatively modern concept. Once upon a time, there were free market fire departments. It was a disaster on many levels, and the municipal fire departments sprung forth. While there are some privatization efforts underway with fire departments throughout the country, those efforts tend to be where a community contracts with a company to provide fire service. This, in and of itself, isn’t necessarily a libertarian position. Many libertarians don’t begrudge tax dollars going to fund governmental fire departments.

Some people argue that we want to tear out all the stop lights and let the world go nuts. The problem is that the people saying these things know little about libertarianism. They don’t realize that a libertarian Utopia wouldn’t look like Somalia (as some have claimed). Instead, it would look like the United States shortly after the Constitution was ratified but without slavery.

The vast majority of libertarian thought springs from the idea of property rights. You own you, and you own your stuff. No one should be telling you what to do with your body or your stuff. You know what’s best for you, or at least you should be able to learn from your own mistake. No one has a right to force you to do anything. It’s not anyone’s job to protect you from you either. This isn’t a difficult concept to understand, yet it seems to be one that folks can’t grasp.

Now, I’ll admit that the interpretation of this can get a little dicey. For example, on the issue of abortion, there is a libertarian position for both sides of the issue. Personally, it’s an issue I try to avoid discussing because it’s too easy to take me to school on it. There is an issue on the initiation of force versus personal property rights, and it makes it difficult. I accept arguments as being in good faith from both sides…because they are.

In most cases, however, it’s not overly difficult. There are a lot of things you can hit a libertarian on. Our position on legalizing many drugs, for example. Our position on intervention in another nation’s foreign affairs is another. For the record, not all libertarians agree with the “party line” on those issues either. However, they are indicative of the bulk of libertarians. But if you’re going to criticize us, at least know what you’re talking about when expressing our positions.

Please.

Nathan Deal and Fiscal Irresponsibility

No Deal Georgia — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 22:00:25 +0000

Let’s get real about Deal. This candidate says he believes in fiscal responsibility, going even so far as to introduce a bill in Congress called “The Fiscal Responsibility Act.”

And Nathan Deal is by far and away the least fiscally responsible candidate running for Governor this year.

Barnes balanced the budget every year he was Governor, getting a B from the CATO institute. Nathan Deal sure hasn’t done a great job as a Congressman in balancing the budget. Now, Nathan Deal is attacking Barnes for proposing a 300 million dollar tax cut for businesses without a plan to pay for it. Really? Because, one of the biggest contributions to our national debt has been the Bush tax cuts that were pushed through with no plans to pay for them. Deal had no problem supporting that mountain of debt (over 2 trillion) added to our grandchildren. How do we know his prior fiscal irresponsibility won’t carry over into his possible administration?

Barnes spent about 15k on air travel this gubernatorial cycle. Nathan Deal spent 135k. We’re talking NINE TIMES what Barnes spent on airplanes. Of course, it’s no surprise to find that the 135k is going to a company Nathan Deal co-owns. He’s spending nine times the amount of Barnes to get the same job done. How do we know his campaign’s fiscal irresponsibility won’t carry over into his possible administration?

And, of course, at this point an entire book could be written about The Deal Financial Scandal. Deal’s Financial Scandal has more twists and turns than Chutes and Ladders. There’s a great summary up over at The Perimeter Progressive, but saying that Deal has some personal financial issues at this point would be putting it kindly. How do we know his personal fiscal irresponsibility won’t carry over into his possible administration?

The next Governor of the great state of Georgia has the legal obligation to balance our budget. But everything we’ve seen from Deal, from his prior governmental experiences to his campaign experiences to his personal experiences, shows he’s just incapable of actually balancing a budget. How do we know his fiscal irresponsibility won’t lead our state into financial ruin?

We don’t.

No Deal Georgia.

Lee County Sign Ordinance Workshop

Tim Nelson — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 13:36:55 +0000

Last night the Lee County Board of Commissioners held what was advertised as a “Sign Ordinance Workshop.” I was personally invited by County administrator Alan Ours to bring my opinions about the workshop, then later in the week invited by the Lee County Chamber of Commerce to do the same. During the presentation by the consultants I was beginning to get frustrated listening to the presenters tell half truths and skirt serious flaws in the document. It was at this point I ask Chairman Ed Duffy if I could ask questions of the consultants to clarify some of my issues with the sign ordinance. At that point I was told that this was not an open meeting and I would not be given the opportunity to question the consultants. I informed Mr. Duffy that I was invited to bring my opinions by 2 different people and ask him again why the meeting was posted as an open workshop and verified the public’s input was not welcomed. At this point I gathered my effects and stood up and began to exit the meeting. Mr. Ours had Mr. Duffy stop me and ask me to stay and they stated they would allow our opinions to be heard as several other businessmen also stated their displeasure in the chairs statement.

After a few questions by the public and commissioners it became clear the consultants were being paid to present a document that wasn’t worth the paper it was written on. There are areas in the document that contradict each other, and still other areas that are made vague so that it leaves interpretation up to the courts.

The biggest issues that struck the board as absurd was the recommendation that only one flagpole could be erected per lot and that didn’t sit well with commissioner Rick Muggridge. It was also discussed that there are points in the ordinance which would have the county allowing a billboard monopoly rather than allowing free market economics to play.

The citizens in attendance had many concerns as well, particularly the flag issue, multi-tenant property signs, and signage laws that would limit the growth of the Hwy 82 Corridor. The consultants did make some changes to the originally proposed document so it would fall in line with current State law, as well as stating that flags wouldn’t be regulated in residential areas, however this wasn’t in the document and as the document is currently organized it would be left up to interpretation.

I think several of the questions asked opened the eyes of some commissioners, but I think their hands are tied by bureaucracy. This morning I sent an email to Commissioner Rick Muggridge asking if he would support the drafting of a new ordinance to offer them an alternate to the one presented by the Camilla, GA Consulting firm.

Misuse of County assets in Lee County

Tim Nelson — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 19:39:48 +0000

Last night while enjoying an adult beverage and a cigar on my front porch I saw blatant misuse of county assets that SHOULD cost an employee their job. I watched the Lee County mosquito spray truck enter my neighbors yard and spray the front and back yard of their PRIVATE property. I immediately notified County Chairman Ed Duffy of the time and place of the incident. In these days of economic crunch it’s time to keep a vigilant eye out for clear misuse of county assets.

State Capitalism is an oxymoron

Tom — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 14:00:05 +0000

The original post of this appears over at TomKnighton.com, as well as many others you might find interesting. Go on over and check it out.

You would think that a columnist for the New York Times would understand a few things. For example, the definition of capitalism. However, in his column today, David Brooks illustrates that perhaps that’s not necessarily the case. He points to nations like Russia, China, and Venezuela. It’s pretty clear that Brooks doesn’t grasp that if the state runs it, it can’t be capitalism.

Dictionary.com describes capitalism as:

An economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism encourages private investment and business, compared to a government-controlled economy. Investors in these private companies (i.e. shareholders) also own the firms and are known as capitalists.

Read the rest of this post here.

Politics of the Panthers

Tom — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 18:32:46 +0000

What follows is a post originally appearing on my blog, TomKnighton.com. Please feel free to come on over and check it out.

-Tom

Politics, particularly racial politics, is always a touchy subject. Racial politics in particular. All to often, we constrain our voices in fear that our opinions will be labeled racist. Many people see someone of another race accomplish something, or get a helping hand from someone, and it becomes easy to assume that race plays a factor either way. However, it doesn’t have to be that way.

Saturday night, the Knighton men had a “boy’s night out”. My father, myself, and my son all hit the Albany Panthers game at the James H. Gray Civic Center. It was a 71-6 pounding that I suspect the Greenville Force players will see replayed in their nightmare for years. The game was fun, mostly because with a 50-0 halftime score, we were hoping to bust the scoreboard and log in over 100 points.

All around us, people of all races embraced the team and the game and their fellow fans, regardless of race.

It was unusual, but not unprecedented.

In 1994, Albany suffered the worst flood in the city’s history. In the aftermath, people banded together to help out others in their community. White folks went into neighborhoods that they normally wouldn’t have gone into if they were paid to be there. Black folks helped out white neighbors that they normally wouldn’t even have spoken to.

As a community, we united together for a common goal. That’s exactly what happened on Saturday night, and what happened in previous years with the Wildcats. Perhaps the source of our problems isn’t racism, but a lack of a common goal that people can band together over regardless of race. Maybe, instead of talking about race, we should be talking about what common goals we may already have and unite together to work towards them.

President Obama has said before that he wants a national discussion on race. Here’s my side: White, black, red, yellow. Who gives a damn. There is only one race, the human race. The longer we pretend otherwise, the longer we will go on perpetuating old ideas. Events that unite us vary greatly, from 9/11 to the Albany Panthers. We need to develop these ideas intentionally, to unite us as Americans, Georgians, and Albanians. It’s the only way, as a community and as a nation, to move forward.

With a little luck, we can start putting aside skin color and start focusing on stuff that actually matters. We’ve need jobs. We have government involved in our lives in ways that our own grandfather’s couldn’t have imagined. We have some serious problems.

Someone’s skin color? Who really cares in the grand scheme of things?

And your point is?

Tom — Tue, 25 May 2010 12:00:20 +0000

Guns are a touchy subject with me. They always have been, and always will be. You see, I rarely see a single object so vilified as the gun. Sitting in a room, not being touched, it is harmless. It takes motion to cause it to discharge, sending it’s projectile down the barrel with supersonic velocity. That motion is almost always generated by man, whether through intention or negligence. And yet, it’s the gun that gets the blame.

The latest hit piece against the firearm came yesterday from MSNBC (shocking, right?).

The piece reports that rural kids are just a likely to be killed by a gun as urban youth, and then goes on to lay out that most of these rural kids die in either firearm related accidents or suicides. The author of the report being cited says this:

“This debunks the myth that firearm death is a big-city problem,” said lead author Dr. Michael Nance of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “This is everybody’s problem.”

Really? Everyone’s problem?

First, it’s absolutely idiotic to consider suicides in such statistics. Suicide is the result of mental illness, and it’s pretty well understood that if someone is determined to kill themselves, they’ll find a way. Even if you ban everything else that could possibly be used for someone to kill themselves with, eventually you’re left with the old “jump off a bridge”. What are you going to do? Ban gravity?

Suicide, like murder, is the result of a conscious decision being reached to take a life. The only difference is whose life is being taken. It’s also important to know that the mechanism would only change with the removal of firearms. Instead of blaming the firearm, why to look for the causes for the high rate of depression among American teens? I mean, that could actually be productive.

Instead, these doctors apparently would rather make a statement about the evils of guns. What’s worth noting also is that the report cites that the death rate is 4 deaths per 100,000 people. A whopping four people. Now, if that were your child, that’s obviously far to high and I can sympathize with that. But if you remove the suicides, that rate wouldn’t even be that high.

Guns aren’t the boogieman some try to make them out to be. It’s a tool, one used to defend someone’s life an estimated 2.5 million times each year. It’s not the root of all evil. It’s the equalizer. A 120 lbs woman isn’t nearly as likely to be able to take down a 215 lbs potential rapist with Tae Kwon Do as she is with a 9 mm Glock. A 76 year old man in a wheelchair isn’t going to be able to run to a neighbor’s house when the local gangbangers decide his house look like fun, but he can use a 230 grain projectile out of the 1911 pistol he used in World War II.

Every time someone trots out the suicide rates to try and prove a point about guns, the world’s response needs to be “and your point is?” They’ve proven nothing, other that kids kill themselves. How many millions were spent on this study to determine that? We already knew that. What I want to see is for one of these eggheads to admit that the problem isn’t the gun, but the people using them for unintended purposes.

What do you figure the odds of that happening will be?

Initial thoughts on the Lee County Sign Ordinance

Tim Nelson — Fri, 21 May 2010 21:02:29 +0000

Read the Ordinance

Complete disgust doesn’t begin to explain how I feel about this proposal. It seems that the Board of Commissioners feels it is their duty to “protect private property values” enough so to mention it not once, but twice in the statement of purpose. I also find it interesting that they say they are trying to “protect the public” from, “Individuals right to convey their message through sign.” This statement alone clearly makes this ordinance unconstitutional in my mind, because they clearly stated they are removing a persons constitutional right for the good of the public.

First let me say, I am not going to raise to many issues with the commercial aspects of the sign ordinance, I see their restrictions as more of a “sign tax” than limiting freedom of expression. I also believe the permit process if applied fairly everyone can come out happy with a win/win for the County and Commerce.

Now it’s time to dig into the residential ordinance, it is fairly simple, you get 3 ground signs, no lighted signs(directly or indirectly).

So that being said, I have a home alarm system installed at my residence, I have a sign with my address and the name of the alarm company, placed by my front porch indirectly lighted by my front porch lights at night. This is clearly illegal according to the new ordinance, but I’m guessing it would never be enforced. But I digress, if you move forward from my porch and to the right about 3 feet, I have a Chicago Bears Banner “sign” in my garden, strike two, this might be offensive to my neighbors. But when I continued around my house I came into direct violation, because the next sign isn’t a ground sign, instead it is an, “Albany Fence Co.” sign affixed to my chain link fence. I was also reading through back and forth through the ordinance, and I’ll be damned if my 2 sets of house numbers aren’t in direct violation of the ordinance as they are both wall signs and neither of them are exempted, which I am guessing puts this ordinance in direct conflict with another county ordinance I am too lazy to look up.

What really irks me is that our County Officials PAID someone to write this piece of garbage that still violates State Law:
OCGA 16-7-58(a)(2) states

It shall be unlawful for any person to place posters, signs, or advertisements: On any private property unless the owner thereof or the occupier as authorized by such owner has given permission to place such posters, signs, or advertisements on such property; and, provided, further that no municipal, county, or consolidated government may restrict by regulation or other means the length of time a political campaign sign may be displayed or the number of signs which may be displayed on private property for which permission has been granted

I am at a loss for words for why the County Board would even consider approving such a policy. In fact if they did I would make it a point to wear the planning and zoning office out reporting all of these illegal signs! I mean considering they can fine someone up to $1000 and put them in jail for 60 days, I’d rather the county fine these lawbreaking no good citizens so that maybe they can lower my taxes.

Citizens of Lee County we need to make a stand, tell the county, that they don’t need to protect reasonable citizen’s from themselves.

Incumbents don’t get it yet!

Tim Nelson — Thu, 20 May 2010 12:15:03 +0000

We here at SWGAPolitics.com recently sent out invitations via email to attend our candidates forum on June 12. Yesterday I followed up with phone calls. By design it is amazing how few of these people have phone numbers listed on their websites to even contact a staff member. Surprisingly, I did find a phone number for Karen Handel and got to speak with a campaign staffer. The first time I got transferred to a dead phone line, later in the day I gave a staffer all of my contact information. This lead to an interesting e-mail. It seems that Karen Handel must think that we want her to attend this event, because in order for her to attend we at SWGAPolitics.com are supposed to submit a “Campaign Scheduling Request”, Karen you won’t be getting this request from us, we sent you an invitation to speak at a forum to help your campaign, not for our good. The fact is this event is costing SWGAPolitics.com to put on and we are glad to spend the money to provide a much needed service to the public, who otherwise wouldn’t get to see candidates prior to an election.

Politics gone too far

Tom — Mon, 10 May 2010 12:00:38 +0000

Politics is an ugly business. From backroom deals, to somewhat legal payoffs, many people get turned off on the process and never look at it again. While some things are somewhat unavoidable, like scandals that are bound to happen to members of any party, some aren’t. It’s probably because of this ugliness that we have the voter apathy in this country, a problem that has lead us to the point we’re at right now. If there’s going to be hope for tomorrow, we need future voters who are interested in the process and understand where the money comes from.

But harassing a 16 year old kid via email? Pretty sad really.

We’ve written on this site about Kyle Constable. He’s 16 years old, and is actually a pretty impressive kid. He understands policy better than a lot of adults. What’s more impressive is that he understands policy better than a lot of politically active adults.

That’s why I listened when he sent an email to me saying that he had decided to back Rick Allen for the Second District seat currently held by Sanford Bishop. Kyle had been behind Mike Keown, but that was before meeting Allen and while he never said anything negative about Mike Keown, the man, he did question his leadership.

Yesterday, Kyle forwarded an email exchange with someone who hid behind the anonymous identity of “ilikefirst name Mike”. Now, “ilike” asked some valid questions, though Kyle wanted to know who he was talking to before answering them, but one line in particular struck me.

I would like to hear that “reasonable” explanation. I bet it has more to do with Rick Allen showing you more attention than it does any actual politics.

For what it’s worth, Kyle shared his “reasonable” explanation with me to the question posed. It was. I’m not going to get into it now, because it’s neither here nor there. This is about someone, apparently an adult, sending an anonymous email regarding a candidates support from a 16 year old kid.

I contacted the Mike Keown campaign to get their thoughts. Mike Keown said he knew of no such email being sent from someone within his campaign, which isn’t surprising. I strongly suspect that this was a supporter of Mr. Keown, but not staff and wasn’t done with Mr. Keown’s knowledge. In fact, Mike Keown said, “Kyle is a fine young man and I wish him the best. I hope he gets a lot of good experience running a campaign.”

Politics is ugly, but there are lines that should never be crossed. Harassing a 16 year old because he supports a different candidate? Please, someone tell me where that’s acceptable?

For what it’s worth, Kyle seems more amused than anything, but that hardly excuses such behavior from what I assume is an adult. Politics is ugly, but it’s no reason to act like a child.