By popular demand:

As a delegate to the Libertarian National Convention, one of my obligations was to take part in the by-laws and platform debates.

As someone who enjoys writing, I am profoundly concerned with the details of our language.  And I understand how nuances can affect the responses of people exposed to what has been written. 

However.

I don’t know how the other parties handle this part of their management, and I don’t much care.  There were obviously people there at mine who thrive on debating (and debating and debating) the precise wording of every sentence.  And I would not for the world take away from them the right to have a say in the matter.  I admit to not being present for the entire debate on every word.

~~~~~

Speaking of being absent from some of the main activity, there was a constant stream of breakout sessions available.  The official business of the convention was held in a large ballroom where the delegations were seated.  Adjacent to that was another and equally large room containing booths rented by vendors, candidates, and other organizations.  Around the edges of THAT room were smaller meeting rooms where the delegates could attend hour-long seminars on such topics as “Introduction to Economics for Libertarians,” “Bordering on Chaos” (about immigration), “Campus Organizing,” and “How Almost Any Libertarian Who is Reasonably Presentable Can Get Into Public Office.”  I attended several, and found them very helpful.

I’m hoping that in 2010 Kansas has enough delegates that I can go as an alternate and attend more breakout sessions without guilt.

~~~~~

I was an alternate on the Credentials Committee.  As such I did not attend their meetings, but I could work at the desk.  I now have a t-shirt identifying me as a volunteer, with the convention logo on the back.  On the front it says “The One Who Must be Obeyed.”

Anyone familiar with Rumpole of the Bailey will enjoy that even more.

~~~~~

At their booth, The Advocates for Self Government were selling a large button saying “Courtesy and Respect for Everyone Here.”  I brought back a handful, and gave them to attendees at the Libertarians of Northeast Kansas meeting last night.  I wore mine to work yesterday.

I plan to wear it lots of places.

~~~~~

I have to go to work now.  More gibberish later.

Posted by Sharon under Libertarianism | 1 Comment »

I am freshly returned from the Libertarian National Convention in Denver.

For a day and a half I have been trying to collect my thoughts so that I could write something coherent.  I have been unsuccessful. 

Analyses of the convention and the decisions made there have been presented earlier and better than I could do, and by many (many, many) people more adept at and more interested in political intricacies than I am.  So for now, I will just give you a few of my observations and opinions, and relate a couple of interesting stories.

Did we make the right decision in nominating Bob Barr?  For this election cycle, I think we did.  Some Libertarians are dreadfully unhappy, of course, and I understand that.  Me, too, a little bit.

One of the phrases I heard a lot at the convention was “perfect storm.”  There is little doubt that record numbers of American voters are fed up with both of the major parties, and this is a real opportunity for Libertarians to have an impact like never before.  Nominating a candidate with broader appeal than the more fundamentalists is almost certainly the way to do that.

It still hurts my heart a little.

I hope many of you watched the debate on Saturday night.  The candidates were intelligent, articulate, courteous.  I have never been prouder to be a Libertarian.

Mike Gravel did way better than I thought he would.  Listening to the talk around me, I heard very little support for him.  But he was 4th on the first ballot, and lasted four rounds.  I can’t account for that.

Michael Jingozian did something unexpected and, in my opinion, touching.  He was nominated, the nomination was seconded, he made his speech, and he and his group left the stage.  He then immediately came back to the microphone and nominated the next candidate.  For that, I gave him my vote on the first ballot.

The delegations were seated in order by the percentage increase in the LP membership in that state in the two years since the last convention.  Kansas was 4th, and we were seated front row, far right as you faced the stage.  Hooray for us!

Posted by Sharon under Libertarianism | 4 Comments »

I seldom remember my dreams, but I had a doozy of a nightmare last night.  I dreamt the Libertarian candidate for president actually got elected, then proceeded to raise taxes, escalate the war, increase the power of the federal Department of Education, and make the IRS regulations more incomprehensible.

I have been having a spirited online conversation with a young friend over whether it is more important to nominate Libertarian candidates who adhere to strict Libertarian principles, or who are more moderate and can appeal to a broader range of voters.

This young friend has also suggested I write about my criteria for deciding whom I will vote for at the upcoming Libertarian National Convention.

I lay the responsibility for my nightmare squarely at his feet.

The fact is, I don’t know whom I will vote for yet.  No, really, I don’t.

I admit I will be looking carefully at how the candidates present themselves.  As shallow as that looks to me even as I type it, I know I don’t have to apologize for it.  I suspect that’s what a large percentage of the American voters do, and presentation is just background for any serious candidate.  So I will be looking for a presidential candidate who looks, well, presidential.

Fundamentalist Libertarians running for office have sometimes had the bad sense to conduct their campaigns along the lines of, “Let me tell you how wrong your views are and why mine are right.  And let me start out with the Libertarian principles you disagree with the most.”  That is fatal to any campaign.

So I guess I’ll be looking for a candidate who will approach the voters with, “Let me show you how Libertarian ideals will help you and your family, how an LP president will help make your life safer and more prosperous.  Here’s how the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, the War on Terror, the War on Crime have failed the American people, and here’s the LP approach instead.”

There is one area in which I will expect my candidate to be a fundamentalist — the Constitution.  I will expect anyone I vote for to be willing to veto any legislation that pushes us any further away from the Constitution than we already are.  I don’t expect to eliminate the federal Department of Education next February, but I would expect an LP president not to let it get any bigger.

I don’t want my nightmare to become reality.

I don’t know whom I will vote for yet.  No, really, I don’t.

Posted by Sharon under Libertarianism | No Comments »

Some thirty years ago, I came across the word uncouth for maybe the hundredth time in my life. But that time it jumped out at me – if the word uncouth exists, so should couth. Or couthful. Logic dictates that negative words must have a corresponding positive, but that seems not to be so with uncouth. How strange.

It wasn’t a day later, still musing on the concept, that I encountered the word inert, and I was off and running.

I’m an inveterate list maker, and in my mind any two similar things do a list make. I grabbed a grocery receipt, wrote uncouth and inert on the back of it, and pinned it to the kitchen bulletin board, inviting my kids to add to it as they ran across more examples. The little list stayed pinned to that board for the next ten years, finally incorporating more pieces of paper and several dozen words. It was a source of learning, laughter, and discussions about the vagaries of this magnificent language we speak.

With that in mind, let me tell you a story:

Once upon a time, there was a little girl named Ina whose doting and supportive parents, Una and Ian, were determined that her childhood would be filled with positive experiences. The three of them lived in a kempt little house, where the tidy little girl always delighted in looking sheveled, and never let her room become macculate.

As she grew older and became more socially aware, Ina sometimes she worried that her manners were peccable, but her dignant and supportive mother Una assured her that she offended no one.

Feckful and ept, Ina’s father Ian worked hard to support his little family, but he never let the worries of his job interfere with his home life. He came home gruntled and traught every evening, and always treated his wife and child with dain.

All Ina’s schoolwork was good, but she excelled at writing poetry. Her work was consistently ane and sipid, and she won many awards because of the effability of her writings.

In Ina’s junior year at college she met Ivan. Ina had dated a number of other men, but she found many of them to be uninterested in their studies, prone to partying a little too much, and not always trustworthy. Unlike many of them, Ivan was always ebriated, ruthful, and ert. Ina was especially taken with Ivan’s shiftfulness, and they fell in love.

Ina and Ivan were married soon after they graduated and, evitably, had two great little kids. Una and Ian, of course, were delighted with their ruly and couthful grandchildren.

And they all lived positively ever after.

TK Magazine, May 2008

Posted by Sharon under Reprints from TK Magazine | 2 Comments »

Posted by Sharon under Observations | No Comments »

This is a slightly edited version of a letter I sent to my pastor on February 6, 2007.

~~~~~

Dr. Sherry Triggs, Pastor
Central Congregational Church
1248 SW Buchanan
Topeka KS 66604

Dear Sherry:

Congratulations on being chosen to give a talk on “Kansas Minimum Wage 101” at the Legislative Event for Advocacy in Faith later this month.

I know that you approach this issue from a different viewpoint from mine, and I was gratified when we talked last Sunday to know that you are actively seeking input from many perspectives. Thank you for the opportunity to present mine.

I understand that the faith-based approach to wage issues is often centered on the plight of those people who struggle with low wages, and this sometimes leads to the perception that employers are greedy, uncaring people, intent on exploiting the people who depend on them for a living. The answer, from that perspective, is to use the power of government to keep them in line and require them to be nicer people.

But the fact is that anyone smart enough to run a business is well aware that businesses get the best workers when they offer the best jobs, the best wages, the best working conditions, and the best benefit packages they can possibly afford. When businesses compete for customers it produces the best products and services; when employers compete for workers it produces the best jobs. No governmental interference is necessary for that to happen — the free market ensures it.

I know the people who advocate for a legislatively-mandated minimum wage or a hike in the wage already imposed will cite statistics claiming to prove that a minimum wage hike does not contribute to inflation or unemployment. Studies and statistics are kind of like experts at a trial: You can always find two or three to say anything you want, and both sides seem obligated to produce some.

Anyone who has earned a paycheck for more than a year or two knows that what you earn doesn’t matter – it’s what you earn in relation to what things cost that matters. And when the legislature forces businesses to increase their expenses, prices will go up. There is just no other way for most businesses to comply with a raise in the state-mandated minimum wage but to raise their prices. And when prices at the discount department store go up, the increased wages of the workers at the fast-food restaurant across the parking lot just don’t buy as much.

And prices also go up for the workers who were making a little more than minimum wage, and who did NOT get a raise.

The Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration released a study in September 2005 indicating that the smallest businesses in this country – those with fewer than 20 employees — on average must spend $7,647 per year per employee to comply with federal regulations. Some of the regulations are reasonable, and many of them are not.

So consider a hypothetical small business with 10 minimum-wage employees. This tiny firm is already spending some $76,500 per year to comply with oppressive governmental regulations. If the minimum wage is raised by 50 cents an hour, it will create another $10,000 in yearly expenses for this little business (10 employees x 2000 hours per year x $0.50 per hour).

I can guarantee you that will push some marginally-profitable small businesses out of the market. And it will keep many others from ever getting started in the first place.

According to the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council’s “Small Business Survival Index 2006,” Kansas ranks 35th in the nation in policies that are friendly toward and encourage small businesses. Personal and corporate income tax rates, capital gains taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, death taxes, unemployment taxes, health care regulations, and taxes on utilities all combine to determine whether businesses can thrive and keep adding good jobs to the economy, or fall by the wayside.

So what would I recommend instead? How can faith-based organizations act on their very appropriate concerns for those who are struggling to pay their bills without punishing the small businesses which provide 50 percent or more of the employment in this country?

A good start might be to start working with the legislature to ease some of the unreasonable regulations imposed on businesses. When the costs of compliance are lessened, businesses will be able to pay their employees more without raising their prices.

Another approach is to help low-income workers qualify for better-paying jobs. As Dr. Ted Kane pointed out in a web memo published in October 2005 by the Heritage Foundation, “…the poorest of the poor are kept out of the labor market when the price of low-skilled labor is set artificially high through minimum wages. A minimum wage of $6 an hour makes it illegal for a single mother to work for $5 an hour, even if she wants to.” But if the churches help that single mother to improve her job skills, everyone benefits – worker, business, and the economy in general.

Would either one of these approaches be harder than mindlessly lobbying the legislature for a minimum wage hike? You bet they would. But taking the easy way out – advocating for laws that hurt small businesses and, in the long run, do not really help low-skilled workers – is not worthy of a caring community.

Thanks again for the opportunity to give an opinion.

My best wishes for a rewarding experience at the LEAF event.

Sharon

Posted by Sharon under Libertarianism | No Comments »

Posted by Sharon under Laughter | 2 Comments »

Dr. Lawrence Reed’s “The Seven Principles of Sound Public Policy” has been around for several years, but it needs to be revisited every once in a while.  In my opinion, this small pamphlet is one of the finest guidelines for liberty ever written.

The seven principles are

• Free people are not equal and equal people are not free.
• What belongs to you, you tend to take care of; what belongs to no one or everyone tends to fall into disrepair.
• Sound policy requires that we consider long-run effects and all people, not simply short-run effects and a few people.
• If you encourage something, you get more of it; if you discourage something, you get less of it.
• Nobody spends somebody else’s money as carefully as he spends his own.
• Government has nothing to give anybody except what it first takes from somebody, and a government that’s big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you’ve got.
• Liberty makes all the difference in the world.

 You can read the whole thing here.

Posted by Sharon under Libertarianism | 1 Comment »

Why do so many place names begin and end with “A”?

Continents…

…and states…

…and nations…

…and cities and regions…

Posted by Sharon under Observations | No Comments »

Libertarians are sometimes said to be uncompromising and stubborn extremists.

Yes.

In politics, as on a seesaw, when you’re trying to counterbalance something huge on the other side, you have to get as far away from the center as possible.

Posted by Sharon under Libertarianism | No Comments »