Tag Archives: Gary Nolan

Legislation Reform Act: Keep It Simple

Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)

Recently, the media reported that House Resolution 3309 was debated in the House that would prevent employers from asking prospective or current employees for their social network passwords as a condition of employment. Or did it?

When I heard the bill was voted down (later amended and passed) along party lines, I was furious with House Republicans. One of the few roles of government is protecting Americans from entities that would infringe upon our rights, and this certainly qualifies.

No one would be OK if an employer said, “I need keys to your house so we can have a forensics team go through it before we hire you.” So why are they allowed to see online private information?

While I enjoy networking, I have my account hidden from the public eye. I love sharing views and making new friends, but I choose whom to share that with. Prospective employers are not included.

If I wanted a technical job at the left-leaning NBC network, for instance, I certainly wouldn’t want them knowing I’m a libertarian who is big on gun rights, limited government, and entitlement reform. Since I wouldn’t be in front of the camera, my opinion shouldn’t matter. But I know their views are quite the opposite and would sooner kill a bunny rabbit than hire a conservative.maxresdefault[2]

I have written previously about the importance of skepticism. Don’t presume to know everything just because your favorite news agency told you “all about it.” Do your research from as many outlets available to you and inform yourself.

Practicing what I preach, I found the amendment and read it. Please read here.

(2015 Update: The next session of Congress passed HR 537, which did prevent this practice here.)

Now after reading that, do you see anything in there that prevents someone from asking for your private information? I don’t either. It was an amendment which merely allowed for a law to be passed preventing the practice as opposed to actually preventing it directly. The fact that there was no reason such a law would be prohibited in the first place, made the amendment redundant and moot. Such redundancy leads me to believe that the only purpose by Democrats was solely to slow up a Republican bill the Democrats didn’t care for. Worse yet, it was for a bill to reform the FCC, which has little to do with most private business practices anyway.

Why did Republicans vote it down? Because it didn’t accomplish what the legislators that wrote it proposed it would. So my apologies to those Republicans I cussed out under my breath when I first read the story. Carry on good sirs.

House of Representatives
House of Representatives

So why did it exist and what was its purpose then? I can’t know with complete certainty what Democrats were thinking. But this appears to be an attempt to make Republicans look bad by writing legislation that presents their opponents with a catch-22.

They propose a law and declare it serves a certain purpose, but when opponents actually read it and see that it doesn’t, they vote no accordingly. This then allows Democrats to say, “Those evil Republicans don’t care about you, and this is proof!”

Both parties propose catch-22 legislation which they know won’t pass for political purposes. It’s a deplorable waste of our money and certainly not the work of people who “serve” their constituents. Sadly, there are countless examples, all of which should be offensive to every American since we’re paying for this nonsense.

Let me propose a hyperbolic theoretical question to illustrate my point. Imagine Congress proposed a bill that would legalize cures for 90% of all deadly diseases, but it required the execution of homeless people. Would you approve it?

If you say no, these opponents would say you voted down a bill that cures 90% of all deadly diseases. If you OK it, they would say you’re killing homeless people. Either way, you are made to look bad, which was the only goal of your opponents in the first place.social_media_strategy111[1]

This is the problem with bills that have unrelated multiple components. If Democrats had really wanted the privacy violating practice to stop, it would have been a stand-alone bill that simply read:

No employer shall ask or require a prospective or current employee to allow that employer access to private online content, including but not limited to social networking sites as a condition of future employment.”

Such a bill would likely have easily passed. I know that single-sentence plain English legislation is rare, but it worked pretty well in our Constitution where each provision was largely straightforward and simple. My apologies to compliance lawyers who would need to repurpose their lives as a result, but maybe we should get back to that model.

Since Congress can’t seem to play nice, I propose the Legislation Reform Act:

No proposed legislation may contain multiple provisions that do not directly pertain to each other in a way that dictates one could not exist without the other. Any non-related provision must be proposed, written, and voted on as a separate and individual piece of legislation.

This simple proposal would end any attempts at attaching bad legislation to good legislation just for political gain. Earmarks and other such nonsense would fall victim to it as well.

It would ensure that all proposals are simple and effective in their design and that each piece be voted on based on its individual merits as opposed to the collective merit of countless unrelated parts as is currently done.

Advertisements

The Justice System Needs An Overhaul

Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)

Imagine our justice system is an old sports car. It was sleek, fast, full of bells and whistles, and a blast to drive—a triumph in modern design for its time. However, like an old sports car, it has been abused, laden with aftermarket junk, the maintenance neglected, rusting away in the yard, and most of the electronics are reminiscent of the infamous Lucas Electronics (jokingly referred to as the Prince of Darkness because the lights rarely worked) whose switches are said to have three positions—off, dim, and flicker.lucas[1]

This description reminds me of our justice system. Over the years, it has gone from a system seeking justice to a system of winners and losers with little regard for justice.

We have people like Gloria Allred, who just want money and recognition instead of justice. We have prosecutors who get so enthusiastic about a high-profile case that they ignore exculpatory evidence just to improve their conviction rate. There are justices who don’t seem to understand that the legislative branch is separate from their own, and we have litigants who look to get rich at the expense of the innocent.

A free market allows lawyers to compete, but the system has done little to penalize those who abuse it. I want to see our LEGAL system be a JUSTICE system again.  So, I’m proposing a “Common Sense Legal Reform Act” which includes, but is not limited to the following:

Scales of Justice
Scales of Justice

Some states have “Loser Pays” legislation; this should be nationwide. Loser pays prevents civil cases where people are unjustly enriching themselves.

For instance, when I was in the insurance industry, we often paid claims that were properly denied because the cost of defending our position in court was more than the cost of the claim, and it did not make fiscal sense to fight it. If these leeches are lawyers, or have one in the family, it often doesn’t cost them anything other than the filing fee, and they end up getting something they do not deserve.

“Loser Pays” legislation would help immensely in reducing such frivolous lawsuits as it would both deter individual from suing unjustly since they would pay if they lost the case as well as encourage victims to fight them regardless of the cost. Many businesses have failed, jobs lost, and bankruptcies incepted because of such unjust litigation. If you are curious, read more about it here.

Manhattan Institute on Loser Pays

Proper management technique entails recognizing the difference between an innocent mistake and a purposeful wrongdoing when disciplining employees. If I had an employee make an innocent mistake, a little coaching was often all that was needed. On the other hand, if someone knew it was wrong and did it anyway, it was potentially a firable offense.

The legal system is composed of legislators, lawyers, judges, police, and a myriad of other trained professionals. Most people don’t take an oath to uphold the law when they start a new career; but these folks sure do, and they should not only know better than to violate those laws, but should be penalized more severely if they break them.

Chief Justice Roberts Being Sworn In
Chief Justice Roberts Being Sworn In

“We the people” trust them to be supremely honorable in their duties, and if that trust is broken, the belief of a government serving its people is lost in a cesspool of distrust. Children used to want to become cops; now they hate them. Why?

While most are invaluable servants of the community, there are a few rogue officers who commit serious felonies. The less than severe penalties they often receive for such corruption infuriate those of us who trusted them. While I may know most are good and honorable, it often only takes one bad apple to ruin the tree for those who are not so fair and optimistic.

Lawyers and judges should be disbarred, police should be removed from serving, and legislators should be impeached for what, in a normal workplace, would be “fireable” offenses. They must hold themselves to the highest of standards and police themselves even more vigorously than they police us. If a doctor purposefully does wrong, they lose their license to practice.  But when Charles Rangel does wrong, he gets nothing more than a glorified tongue lashing and it’s deplorable.

Liability is a term that is often abused and should be redefined to protect the innocent. If someone slips on the ice on my sidewalk because I didn’t shovel it, I’m liable? Give me a break! Let natural selection run its course. If someone is not intelligent enough to exercise caution while treading ice, then they deserve a bump on the head. I should be charging them for the education. Ice-slip-drink[1]

While good Samaritan laws currently exist in some states to protect doctors, it wasn’t long ago that if a doctor stopped to help someone dying on the side of the road, he could be sued if the person died because the doctor couldn’t scrub up, sterilize equipment, etc.

Liability should be restricted to an action where the defendant knew what they were doing was wrong and put people at risk with no mitigating circumstance to excuse it. The idea that I can be held liable because I didn’t anticipate someone getting hurt as a result of my inaction is ridiculous. People should be responsible for damage from their own ignorance, not me for not foreseeing the results of such idiocy.

I’m sick of warning labels on kids bikes that say, “Warning: experienced riders” or labels on paper respirators that say, “Warning: Does not provide oxygen”. FYI, both were featured on an episode of Stossel and are a result of our overly generous definition of liability.WWL2011_blue_bicycle-400[1]

America must get back to basics with the justice system, prevent “get rich quick” schemes, and worry more about the spirit of the law than the letter of it. Until we force Congress to ignore the campaign-generous trial lawyers and address the issue, innocent people will be financially raped by those who have done nothing to deserve such wealth. Where is the justice in that?

 

 

 

PEP Amendment (Privatize Everything Possible)

Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)

The government shall engage in no service that private enterprise is able and willing to provide not specifically designed to protect the rights of others. – My proposed Constitutional Amendment.

Recently a Michigan woman named Amanda Clayton was discovered to have been using food stamps after winning a million dollars. Once the story broke, her assistance was quickly cut off, but apparently her actions may not have been illegal. (update: She pleaded No Contest for fraud, and eventually was found dead of a drug overdose.)

Amanda Clayton
Amanda Clayton

 

I liken government to a loving three year-old who draws their parent a picture. Sure they mean well, and the picture was drawn with love, but let’s be honest; the kid is not Picasso, and it’s a picture only a mother could love.

Government tries honorably to help the helpless, but if you put food outside for the local feral cat, it’s probably going to get eaten by a raccoon, opossum, or a myriad of other local scavengers because self-enrichment is in every animal’s nature. Whether it was intended for them is irrelevant.

Imagine if I were to put a million dollars in a town square, leave it unguarded with only a sign that reads:

Money for the needy. Take ONLY what you need.

Most understand that money would be gone in seconds, and much of it would be going towards “wants” not “needs,” and not necessarily taken by the needy either. It may seem like they are bad people, but they are not—they are simply doing what comes natural, either by squirreling away every nut they can in case winter comes early and ends late, or just improving their own standard of living.

The government should try to prevent this type of behavior that leads people to take advantage of government programs they don’t genuinely need, but why would they? They do not fear going out of business nor have a bottom line to meet. They have no motive to improve because they don’t have a competitor coming up with more innovative methods they could emulate such as private companies in a free market.

I want America to go crazy with privatization! For example, statistics show charters and private schools predominantly outperform public schools. Some fail, just like any other business, but they will be replaced with newer and better ones, just like any other business.v2002-44a[1]

I’m 40 years old, childless, and sick of paying to educate the children of others. If you’re going to produce children, it’s your fiduciary responsibility to educate them, not mine. I’m even sicker when young people don’t understand why I give them $8.14 for my $7.89 Taco Bell order because they apparently don’t teach mathematics in public schools anymore either. All I want is a freaking quarter, kid!

With my new PEP amendment, the government would be banned from education altogether. Give every citizen their money back from school taxes, and let the parents deal with their children’s education how they best see fit.

The post office loses money like a gambling addict in Vegas. Let Fed-Ex or UPS buy up that business. Their balance sheets show they’re clearly better at it, and if the USPS went away, one of them would certainly pick up the slack more cheaply and efficiently. Some might argue that if this were true, Fed-Ex and UPS would already do it, but since 1845, federal law prohibits any organization from delivering 1st class mail outside USPS.uspslogo1[1]

Private jails have proven to be far better economically than government-run ones. Privatize them all!

Ever watch a public road crew work? There are five supervisors watching one guy do all the labor. You can just feel your tax dollars burning, and you can’t even make s’mores with the fire. When the government allows private companies to bid for these jobs, they are almost always done ahead of schedule and under budget because companies get rewarded for doing so. The quality of the work is often better as well.

Back to the lottery person and entitlements in general; I used to work for an insurance administrator overseeing the claims process. We were literally in charge of a third party’s checkbook. We processed claims using our expertise on contractual law, parts resource knowledge, ability to detect fraud and waste, and so on. There are many similar administrators–some good, some bad. The bad ones failed, but we grew strong because we paid every legitimate claim possible while guarding the checkbook like our life depended on it. Oh wait, it did.

If the government had paid us to do so, I have no doubt we could have protected your tax dollars from Welfare, Social Security, Food Stamp etc. fraud and waste far better than they do themselves.

A friend argued that if we got an incentive for saving money, we would just avoid paying claims altogether and deny everything. However, we would still answer to our claimants as well as our employer. If we didn’t pay legitimate claims, we’d open ourselves to lawsuits which are more expensive than just paying the claim, public outrage, our auditor’s ire, and the people with the checkbooks taking their business elsewhere.

The one shining example of our government doing something right is our military. Ever notice that the military doesn’t build much? They get planes from Northrup Grumman, weapons from Colt, vehicles from AM General, etc. It’s a great example of the government utilizing the private sector whenever possible, and it works damn well as evidenced by our dominant military might.

I’m sure many of you could think of more instances where government could turn services over to private companies. I’m also confident most of our legislators could as well. It’s time we Americans demanded it of them.

 

It’s A Free Country… Or Is It? The Powerful but Forgotten 9th Amendment

Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. – US Constitution 9th Amendment

Imagine a family of ten children. Nine of them are very good-looking but not all that bright; however, the average looking one is the brainiac of the family with a 150 IQ. All the others will get attention for their beauty and elegance even though the ugly duckling, that is often ignored, should be the star of the show because they bring the most value to the table. This is how I feel about our Ninth Amendment.36508_490192697685638_337128855_n[1]

I always clarify that I have never used, nor have any desire to use, recreational drugs. But as a libertarian, I feel that many of them should be legal. I was debating this with someone and he asked me to make a case as to why they should be legal. There should never be a conservative among you that makes a constitutionally based argument against legalization because it is fundamentally wrong, based on the Ninth Amendment.

The generally accepted meaning behind the Ninth Amendment is extremely important. The framers wanted to ensure that the Constitution wasn’t a document that granted rights to the people, but instead a document that limited the powers of government over the people. We the people have the inalienable rights, and we the people decide how we wish to be governed. The Ninth Amendment is  saying, in essence, that one should assume they have the right to do something unless there are laws specifically forbidding it.

So, when asked by my friend to defend legalization, my response was that it was not my burden to make such a case in a free country. It was his burden to explain how and why a specific drug’s use by one person infringes upon the rights of another and thus should be illegal.

Marijuana Harvest
Marijuana Harvest

I’m not trying to make a case here for drug legalization specifically—he might have made a good case, so we’ll save that argument for another day. Instead, what I implore of every legislator is to employ the paradigm the framers of our Constitution did when they envisioned this great nation—the idea that all actions should be legal by default and should only be outlawed once a proper case has been made to do so.

Our Declaration of Independence indicated we all should have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution replaced pursuit of happiness with property. So a proper argument for making something illegal should be restricted to actions which deny those rights accordingly.

For example, If I drink and get inebriated at home, it is not a crime since no one else is being harmed. If I drink and drive my car, however, I’m putting the lives of others at a scientifically demonstrable greater risk due to my impaired ability, which potentially infringes upon their right to life. Thus, it is rightfully illegal.drunk-driving2[1]

I think it’s easy to put any proposed law up to that light and realize that, if it is limiting someone’s right to life, liberty, happiness, and/or property, and it is not protecting one person from another person, then it has no place being a law and should be voted down no matter how well-meaning its intentions may be.

Morality is a relative term. For instance, I think facial cosmetic surgery is immoral for doctors to perform (accident victims excluded) and utterly stupid. One look at Mickey Rourke, Jerry Jones, Joan Rivers, and everyone else who has had it done that now looks like a side-show attraction should be a lesson to everyone to accept what nature gives you. If I had a loved one wanting to do it, I’d want to shake the stupid right out of them. Why would a doctor who has sworn first to do no harm, take a reasonably good-looking person and make them look like they’re skydiving horizontally 24/7?

Mickey Rourke
Mickey Rourke

However, proponents often feel there is improvement gained from these procedures and the victims, oops, I mean patients, are occasionally pleased with the results. So what I think is immoral, some think is perfectly fine and good. While I will vigorously encourage anyone I care about not to do it, do I think the government should make cosmetic surgery illegal? Of course not! I hope you wouldn’t either. Morality is best regulated through social and peer pressure, not government regulation.

So how are vices, which are almost always victimless crimes, any different? I’d sooner argue that one look at Mickey Rourke indicates he’s a victim before I’d argue that you or anyone else is a victim as a result of a pot smoker’s indulgence. I defy anyone to argue differently.

My argument was intended to be humorous, but the fact is that morality varies from person to person. Any time you try to legislate personal behavior for the sake of morality, you’re infringing on someone’s right to the pursuit of happiness. You’re saying that they have to be more like you BY LAW whether that makes them happy or not. It has little to do with public safety no matter how loud the left and some social conservatives say so.  Does that really sound like freedom and liberty to anyone?

One of America’s greatest attributes is its diversity. Victimless crimes curb that diversity by trying to get everyone to conform to the majority. We have a republic, not a democracy, because our Constitution protects the minority from the majority. A victimless crime, by definition, should be unconstitutional. So please stop trying to make people exactly like you and, instead, just enjoy the freak show. It’s not hurting anyone, and you might have a little fun!

 

 

 

Bad Friends: A Lesson in Bad Politics & Policy

Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)

In Bill O’Reilly’s book, Who’s looking out for you? he talked about the importance of surrounding yourself with good friends and purging bad ones. This really struck a chord with me.

Bill O'Reilly --- Image by © Deborah Feingold
Bill O’Reilly — Image by © Deborah Feingold

On Facebook I often see friends post about how they are having a bad day. Usually, there is a response from someone offering the suggestion, “Let’s go get drunk.”

While I’m not a huge advocate for philosophy, or philosophical sayings, let me offer up this:

“Just because it came from a good friend with good intentions, doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.”

Most of my youth was spent at billiard halls learning the game, but also learning what I didn’t want to be in life by observing the many patrons, a good portion of whom were rarely sober. What I learned was that drunken people make dumb decisions, including but not limited to playing people like me for money when they’re drunk. As a result of watching this phenomenon, I’m basically a teetotaler.billiards

It’s not because I’ve been negatively affected in my life by alcoholism, it’s just a result of my analytical mind, coupled with my fascination with human behavior. As I observe, I learn from everyone. Many people only watch those who inspire them, so they can emulate accordingly, but I think they are missing half of life’s important lessons. You learn a lot from the people you do not admire—such as what not to do in life.

We’ve all heard, “If you’re not aware of history, you’re doomed to repeat it.” If we learn from the failures of others, how are we to learn if we’re not watching?

There are two types of bad friends: Those who are malicious sociopaths who will wrong you at the drop of a hat for personal gain; not feeling an ounce of regret for doing so. All of us generally eschew these people from our lives once we identify them.

But there’s a bad friend of a lesser degree that many consider best friends—the misery-loves-company friend, such as the person that encourages you to go drinking when you’ve had a bad day.two-guys-on-toilet[1]

It would seem they’re a good friend because they generally care about whatever ails you. But I would submit to you that there has never been a person who was happy and successful that spent a significant amount of time getting drunk when life punches them in the gut, instead of dealing with the issue intelligently. On occasion, some otherwise happy people might do it, but usually it’s a sign of someone who has decided their life cannot nor will not get better—they’ve given up.

Yes, a lot of rich and famous people who appear to be enjoying life are alcoholics and drug users, but many an autobiography has shown that they often feel like the only friends they have around them are people who simply use them for their fame and fortune. These aren’t friends; they are a cancer feeding off of the host. As long as the host is alive, they can continue to feed. But make no mistake, they are killing the host inside every day of their supremely selfish existence. Not to mention, many a rich and famous star ends up penniless and bankrupt via the partying lifestyle.

Good friends will rejoice at your success. No matter how bad they may be feeling, they will avoid reflecting that negativity onto you. They don’t want to bring you down to their level; they prefer to elevate themselves to yours. Good successful friends will tell you what you need to hear regardless of what you want to hear and won’t encourage you to exacerbate your problems with bad behavior such as drinking or drugs. They are the definition of unselfish as they risk upsetting you by caring enough to be honest.

To be clear, there is a fine line between being honest in a caring way, and being a jerk. Think, “I don’t really like that haircut on you” versus, “Whoa, did you lose a f***ing bet?” People who are jerks, and defend it by saying, “well hey, at least I’m honest” are really just jerks; not the honest friends they claim to be, because their intention isn’t to offer constructive criticism, it’s just to knock you down to their level.

If I have friends who are having a bad day, I usually ask if I can help solve the problem, or at least listen with empathy, not encourage them to drink their problems away.

Have you ever had something great happen for you only to be brought down by the misery loves company friend? For instance, you get a new mate and they respond with, “Hopefully they don’t cheat on you like mine did.” Or maybe you get a new car that you’re excited about and they say, “I hope it holds up better than my piece of junk.”

It may seem that they mean well by giving caution, but these people are miserable people who instead of being happy for you, are jealous and apparently derive some sick pleasure from planting the seed of doubt in your success. Instead of making themselves feel better through hard work, they are doing so at your expense. Simply put, no good person will consider any behavior that knocks someone down in any way as proper and ethical behavior.tumblr_m7afsdJQhl1qdn5w8[1]

I think most of you will understand and agree with this but are wondering what this has to do with politics? Well, I ask that you remember this when confronted with someone who wants to tax the rich to give to the poor.

“Just because it came from a good friend with good intentions, doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.”

The idea that knocking down the successful to the level of the poor, as economic policy, is not, nor has ever been an effective method to a greater economy. Economies grow by the unsuccessful being left behind until they’re sufficiently motivated to catch up. If government doesn’t stand in their way during this journey by over-regulating, or increasing their tax burden progressively, they can achieve that success.

Libertarians Are Not Mindless Anarchists, Time for the GOP to Embrace Us!

Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.” ~ Ronald Reagan

Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan

I believe that libertarians are simply the staunchest of conservatives. We want the government’s role to be limited more than any other faction, even more so than your average Republican. Where they often differ is the legislation of morality such as the war on drugs, gambling, and prostitution laws, etc.

From the time I was 16 and became interested in politics; largely thanks to Reagan, I considered myself a Republican. In recent years, I gravitated towards libertarianism. The distinction feels somewhat misplaced to me. because to me, they should be the same party. Ron Paul is and Gary Johnson was a Libertarian running as a Republican after all.

Someone dismissively referred to me as a “Paulbot” for saying I was libertarian. Never mind that my first choice would be Gary Johnson, not Paul. I believe Reagan was the best president in my 40+ year lifetime and probably the 3nd best president of all behind Lincoln and Washington.

George Washington
George Washington

A recent survey shows I’m not alone. Sadly, many in the Republican Party often talk about libertarians with the same dismissive attitude that the liberal elitists use to talk about conservatives, which is troubling. Just because we embrace libertarianism as Reagan sometimes did, doesn’t mean that we have no brain and cannot think for ourselves. Referring to us as Paulbots has no place in adult-like political discourse.

Stereotypes are the work of fools. Republicans AND libertarians should strive to be better than these figures, yet many on radio and TV sadly can’t be bothered to be better. We both promote personal responsibility, which is part of acting like an adult. So let’s lead by example.

“Paulbot” implies one is a mindless robot that agrees with whatever Ron Paul says. The insulting nature of this statement is obvious, and it’s arrogant and stupid to think you understand someone solely based on their party affiliation. I disagree with Ron Paul and Gary Johnson on more than one issue, but I don’t let it push me away from men who are the most like me, that are contending for the presidency.

Ron Paul
Ron Paul

The reason libertarians seem so fanatical is because we’re passionate about liberty, freedom, and the Constitution. We don’t believe government has the right to tell someone how to live their life, and we get upset when people try to take that from us. If I said I was going to take away your freedom, you’d get pretty passionate too.

The left isn’t completely stupid though, they rephrase these positions using words like fair share, regulations, and protections for the consumer. Republicans use phrases like public health, responsible behavior, etc. Sorry folks, it all means “government control and loss of freedom” no matter what you call it.

The Libertarian Party does have a platform on their website. I defy many of you to find a considerable amount in there that you disagree with. As a Republican, I used to dismiss Libertarians myself. After I read their platform, I couldn’t help but think, “Why are we fighting when we generally want the same things?”

Libertarian Party Logo
Libertarian Party Logo

Many people think libertarians are anarchists. It’s like saying all Democrats are socialists. While many Democrats champion social policies, few of them actually advocate making everything property of the state. Most Libertarians reject anarchy too, I assure you. It’s another incorrect stereotype that needs to be quashed. Judging the majority of a party by its fringe is simply irresponsible.

So with that being said, I’ve come up with Gary’s three roles of government that I think we all can agree on:

• The government should protect me from OTHERS that would do me harm, but NOT from myself.

• Do the things that need to be done for the common good (such as infrastructure), but ONLY if the private sector cannot or will not do it themselves due to a lack of financial incentive.

• Get the heck out of my way!

Most conservatives generally espouse those principles. Libertarians just emphasize the third one more, and adhere to them more strictly.

I understand that conservatives are often times religious, and things like gambling, assisted suicide, marijuana use, gay marriage, etc. are things they think people should not do. On occasion, we agree with you.

maxresdefault[1]
Gavin McInnis
Gavin McInnes stated it perfectly on an episode of Fox News’ Red Eye when he said that just because we want to legalize it, doesn’t mean we endorse it. He’s right!

I personally think recreational marijuana use is irresponsible behavior. But it’s not the government’s role to protect that person from themselves. It’s a free country and you should have the freedom to be an idiot, irresponsible, and foolish, up until the point you become a danger to others.

Someone else said about gay marriage that opposition to gay marriage by a straight person is like someone being mad at you because you’re eating a doughnut while they’re on a diet. At some point, we simply have to recognize it’s none of our business how others live their lives as long as it doesn’t affect us.

Republicans and Libertarians should unite just as Romney and Paul seem to have done during the election by largely avoiding pot shots at each other, and realize that either is better than Obama. But please stop with the mischaracterizations of us being mindless anarchists. It’s utter nonsense.

Labor Unions: Quality and Legality Run Amok

Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)

When I entered the work force, I attained a job at a local GM dealer washing cars. By law, dealers are privately owned entities, so while we sold GM products, we were not owned or operated by General Motors Corporation. I worked there for five years, learning all I could about the business, striving to earn raises and promotions that might come my way.

In previous years, GM factories had created a group of stand-by employees to their labor pool. It consisted of workers that were hired to sit idly in an office for a shift in case subs were needed for normal laborers who missed work or had to leave unexpectedly.General Motors

This might seem frivolous to pay people whom often did nothing, but at the time, factories were running at full capacity. GM determined that as people missed work, the costs of having stand-bys compared to the cost of assembly slow-downs if they didn’t have stand-bys made fiscal sense.

Eventually, the quality of the overseas competition caught up to the domestic trio of Ford, Chrysler, and GM, and demand for domestic autos waned. As a result, GM had no need for such extra workers; they needed more money to build a better product by cutting that staff to free up money for research and development. However, because of the United Auto Workers’ contracts and their unwillingness for concessions for the good of the company, GM was required to keep them on staff for a period of time. So GM opted to send them as helpers to the dealers and give us some free “labor”. The hope being that their assistance help cut costs for the dealers, who then might invest in more product.

Photo: Sheldon Dick, Strikers guarding window entrance to Fisher body plant #3, Flint, Michigan - via Library of Congress
Photo: Sheldon Dick, Strikers guarding window entrance to Fisher body plant #3, Flint, Michigan – via Library of Congress

The observant of you will notice I put quotation marks around labor. Let me explain. The “labor” we were provided took a 10-minute break every hour, moved at a snail’s pace, and he couldn’t even spell quality, nevertheless deliver it.

One day we had 24 cars to clean that came back from auction. The day we were to do this, I did 21 of them in the time he did the other three. Knowing that he was making well over twice my pay, I was furious. I asked if this was how he always worked. He didn’t seem to understand the meaning of the question, for indeed, it was his normal work ethic. He was twice my size, so I let it go.

For the record, I fully understand one instance doesn’t constitute a pattern, but almost all my subsequent encounters with unions have been equally disturbing, leading me to believe that I cannot argue in any way, that they provide superior labor to their employers, a claim that unions often try to make.

While the quality of their labor is sub-par compared to their non-union counterparts, the issue that truly troubles me, are the laws they’re allowed to break, specifically because legislators have carved out exceptions for them in the law.

I only have a layman’s understanding of law, but here are what I believe to be, some reasonable questions:

  • If I take the financial risk to start a company and grow it into a large corporation, what right does someone I hire have to tell me what I will or won’t do for them? I’m the one that took the financial risk; I own it, and it’s my property. If I choose to hire someone, shouldn’t I have the right to determine how they work and how they are compensated?
  • Monopolies are illegal. Yet, if I go to work for GM, I can only join the UAW, there’s no other union I can choose. This is true for all unionized businesses as far as I know and even true for most unions in an industry. So is this not a monopoly?
  • Some states have right to work laws, but in others, if you go to work for a company whose labor force is unionized, they don’t have a choice. They must join the union. How can a union legally force me to join them? What’s next? If I buy a house next to a golf club, I will legally be forced to become a member there as well?
  • People say that the unions “negotiate” with the employers. But is is an actual negotiation? In a normal negotiation, if the two parties cannot agree to a mutually beneficial deal, they will decide not to do business together. However, if a company doesn’t like the deal the union is offering, the law says they legally can’t just walk away; they call that “union-busting,” a practice that can sometimes be illegal. In a normal free market capitalist environment, I would choose to do business with someone if I saw value in doing so. But with unions, I’m not REALLY given a choice.
  • The documentary “Waiting for Superman,” pointed out that one out of every 57 doctors loses their license to practice; one out of every 97 lawyers loses their license; but union teachers lose their job one out of every 1000. The private sector averages around 3 out of 20 as a whole. Unless one is attempting to argue that teachers are universally 10-20 times better at what they do than everyone else, this is clearly an indication that unions are preventing proper turnover that weeds out under-performing employees. It’s not important though, they’re only teaching YOUR children.


The fact is that there is likely no organization that would choose to do business with unions if they weren’t forced to and likely none that have benefited financially from that relationship. In a free country, it should be their right to do business with whomever they want. If unions offered a valuable product, people would gladly do business with them. So the idea that we have laws forcing people to join is contradictory to a capitalist system. Let them compete in a free market like everyone else under the same laws as everyone else so that they can evolve like everyone else. Enough is enough with allowing them to infect and destroy the wallet of American businesses and our government.