Reading List in Politics, Economics, and Government

This is a list of written resources and inspirations for libertarians, classical liberals, federalists--anyone who wishes to see freedom and limited government. Please be aware that I have not read everything on this list and am largely going on recommendations--feel free to comment if you feel a work should be included or left out. Enjoy.

--Nathan

THE BASICS

The Constitution of the United States, by various authors

The Declaration of Independence, by various authors

The Law, by Frederic Bastiat

The Federalist Papers, by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay

The Anti-Federalist Papers, by various authors

Two Treatises on Government, by John Locke

Civil Disobedience, by Henry David Thoreau

The Republic, Crito, and The Social Contract, by Plato

The Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes

MORE READING

1984, Animal Farm, and Politics and the English Language, by George Orwell

On the Political Economy, by Jean Jacques Rousseau

Capitalism and Freedom, by Milton Friedman

The Revolution: A Manifesto, by Ron Paul

On Liberty, by John Stuart Mill

Democracy in America, by Alexis de Tocqueville

Politics, by Aristotle

Civilization and its Discontents, by Sigmund Freud

FROM THE OPPOSITION

Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels

The Prince, by Machiavelli

Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler

The Real Reason for Gun Rights

The issue of gun ownership of varying degrees in the populace is a hot topic with a new President in office, firearms being blamed for shootings across the country, and anti-gun groups springing up everywhere. Proponents of gun rights defend themselves with several arguments, the most common of which are:

1. Self-defense. Wielding a firearm has obvious advantages over being unarmed or using a knife, pepper spray, or other weapon in home defense.
2. Hunting. Hunting is a tradition and hobby for many people, and firearm ownership is an integral part of hunting.
3. Sporting. Firearms are used in such sports as shooting clay pigeons.
4. Defense in an invasion. An armed populace in addition to the military and National Guard would provide a detriment to any nation trying to invade the United States. The invader would have to level that which he wishes to gain in order to fully subvert the country.

However, I feel even the staunchest gun owners have forgotten the real purpose for civilian gun ownership and the 2nd Amendment. The Bill of Rights contains several basic rights for the American people, including the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and the right to a fair trial before a jury of one's peers. But in the end, these can all be taken away by anyone with sufficient force, including the government itself. The right to bear arms is what protects those rights from malevolent forces. When the document of the Bill of Rights fails to protect the people, which it inevitably will at some point, the 2nd Amendment is what will allow the people to defend themselves and their rights, and restore the government to its place.

The Socialist's "End Move"

I still find it both funny and saddening that even today, after centuries of watching socialist systems such as the Soviet Union and China fail miserable and seeing free markets prosper in places such as the United States (for the most part) and Hong Kong, people still do not see the evidence against planned economies and societies. I was just watching a YouTube video of an interview with Bob Beckel where he asked, "What is wrong with socialism?" I was taking a drink of water at the time and snorted.

Aside from the logical argument that competition, not government intervention, drives the economy and the historical evidence of the aformentioned nations, the main problem I have with socialism what has been called its "end move". When someone does not want to participate in the system by having their money taken away in return for devalued government projects, what does the state do? It puts a gun to the objector's head and says, "tough". Coercion is the central aspect of socialism. And that is why I oppose it.

The Misconception About Capitalism

Capitalism is increasingly being misunderstood as a system of destructive competition where the only way to make a profit is to hurt the interests of someone else. However, this idea forms the exact opposite of a major principle of capitalism: that a transaction taking place in a truly free market benefits all involved.

Visualize an economy without government intervention. A consumer wishes to buy a computer. He goes to an Apple store and looks around for the right computer to buy. If the Apple store wants to make a profit, it will make it worth the consumer's while to buy an Apple computer and thus provide quality products and service. The customer leaves happy with computer and Apple has received another sale. Both sides win.

What if Apple didn't make its product of high quality or the Apple store didn't provide good service? Then the consumer could go to a Fry's and buy a computer there or order a computer from Dell if he chooses to. In all three cases, the consumer had a choice of where they wanted to make their purchase, and the manufacturers and sellers had a choice of whether or not they could help the consumer by providing the best deal possible. Competition induced by the free market drove the industry to better itself. The "invisible hand" came through again.

The concept of beneficial competition extends beyond the buying and selling of products and services, too. In the field of employment, capitalism is often viewed as favoring big business above the workers. However, the interaction between employer and employee is in fact very similar to that between the producer and the consumer. If a company wishes to be able to function, it must first attract and keep workers by providing them with better pay and conditions that its competitors. Likewise, if the worker wants to keep his job, he must work hard for the company. The company provides good wages and working conditions for the laborer, while the laborer works several hours for the company. Does anyone truly lose in such a situation?

In a free society as described above, everyone benefits from someone else in return for providing something for them. When the government intervenes, whether with good intentions or bad, everyone loses.

If the state moves against business, then the business will be unable to hire as many workers or provide as good a product to consumers. But if the government moves in favor of business, government power can be used to coerce workers (as in the Great Railroad Strike of 1877), and the company is under less pressure to serve consumers.

The evidence and logic cannot be denied. Government interference in the economy clearly hurts somebody, and by doing so, it hurts the whole of society.

He Who Governs Best, Governs Least

Now, more than ever, the people and the politicians alike push for more government involvement in society, but what are they really asking for? The traditional "big government" comes with a hefty price tag. Here is a list of several ways in which an active, powerful government harms society (in no particular order).

• The Middle Class Loses

In a society with a powerful government, that government can be used as a weapon by politicians and special interest groups. The lower class is catered to by politicians in an attempt to gain votes, while the rich and large businesses have enough clout politically to, in practice, bribe the government in return for favors. In a small-government society, the government would not have enough power to cater to these groups' interests, and it would not be worth their time to pander to the politicians. The middle class, which is prosperous enough to sweep under the government's radar for tax cuts and welfare but not rich enough to hold powerful positions with those in the government, would be able to grow, benefiting the whole of society by focusing on individual rather than group rights in a triumph of a small government.

• Government Power can be Corrupted

History is full of examples of governments that overstepped their bounds and either oppressed the people or caused the downfall of their societies: Rome, France, fascist Germany, communist Russia; the examples are endless. When the balance of power swings from the people to the government, the ease of a dictator getting into power increases.

• Government Intervention Destroys the Economy

It's a fundamental principle of economics: competition is good for both parties involved in a transaction. Capitalism is not based on getting rich off of another person; instead, each person involved in the deal chooses what is best for them, and in return provides something for the other party. But when the government interferes with the economy, competition is stifled, and prices and wages are completely out of touch with supply and demand. The incentive to do well and provide a quality product or service to others is destroyed. A good example of this kind of destruction is in the public school system of the United States. Because the public schools are under no pressure from a market of any kind and continue to function whether they succeed or fail, they do not contribute to a healthy society by providing quality service in return for pay.

• Big Governments are Inefficient Governments

When the nation's government (federal in the case of the United States) increases its power in comparison with state, city, and local government, money gets wasted. The federal government's lack of connection with the communities it helps means that money is inevitably wasted. Also, special interest groups (see first point) are able to wield political power to gain funds for their cause in a way that would be impossible if the government held less power.

• Big Governments Inflate the Money Supply

Governments need money to fund their basic operations and programs. When the size of government swells, so does the amount of money required to carry out these functions. The government can then do two things to raise money: it can raise taxes or it can increase the money supply. High taxation raises the ire of the people and subverts the economy with immediate effect, so to avoid causing public opinion to fall, the government devalues the money. The inflation of the money supply ends up creating a destructive cycle of boom and bust, undermining the fundamentals of the free market.

• Personal Responsibility Decreases

Much as the phrase "nanny state" has become a cliche, the idea of a government existing only to take care of its people becomes a vivid reality when the government grows. Indeed, this is at the core of a big government. For what purpose does a large government even exist if not to either oppress the people (see the second point) or take care of the population's every need, telling them what they can or can't do, regardless of whether individual actions affect anyone else. The government holds no responsibility to protects its citizens from themselves, and when it attempts to do so, the work ethic, moral fiber, and independent decision-making skills of the people vanish.

A Nation in Crisis--Hand Control

Dear America,

Fact: 100% of all child abusers, murderers, pedophiles, rapists, and lawyers have hands.

Fact: 100% of all cities where citizens possess hands have had a crime.

Fact: Possession of hands turns responsible citizens into maniacs.

Fact: That the victims also had hands just goes to show that hand possession is irrelevant in stopping crime.

Fact: If a law against hand possession is enacted, everyone, criminals and law-abiding citizens alike, will come and turn in their hands, just like they did with crack and heroin.

Fact: Once the criminals turn in their hands (which they will), they will have no other weapons with which to attack innocent people, such as teeth.

Fact: Those who wish to keep their hands for themselves obviously have some sinister motive. Obviously.

Fact: If you are attacked by a homicidal maniac, you will die a very dignified death without your hands, but will live in shame forever if you use your hands to survive.

Fact: Hands are useless for defense, but the military and police will be allowed to keep theirs.

Fact: Hands require so much training to use in defense that they are useless, but are easy enough to use that criminal who keeps their hands can easily beat the first random person they come across.

Fact: You don't need hands to protect you! That's what the police are for! (Why do you think they're allowed to keep theirs?)

Fact: Hands make no-knock searches, martial law, and complete control over the sheeple next to impossible. Which is why we should ban them.

Fact: Hands have no use outside of killing people. You will never, ever use your hands outside of the act of committing a crime.

Fact: Hands are weapons of mass destruction and must be banned.

I have proposed a ban on hands of all sorts, with special attention paid to hands possessing more than three fingers. This tool of hate and suffering must not go unchecked! Hand collectors will soon be coming door-to-door with axes to collect all hands not turned in at collecting stations. If that does not work, those no-knock raids we discussed will soon be coming to theaters near you.

Put our children first, my loyal subjects. Please do not dismiss this imminent threat.

Signing out,

Nate

Obamanomics- Income Tax

The next part of my case against President-Elect Obama's policies regarding the economy. Now up: the income tax.

Obama's tax plan is a strange cocktail of welfare, raised income tax, and less overall income. Using the Wall Street Journal and the IRS as sources, let's break it down piece by piece. This report by the IRS shows projected 2009 income tax, shown as a division of different income levels.

First, note that those with higher income pay not only a higher base amount, but also a much higher percentage of the income above the lowest amount of income for that level. If Obama's plan involves cutting taxes for the lowest 95% of America's population (income-wise) and involves getting at least the same amount of revenue, what does that mean for the remaining 5%? Yes, that puts an incredible burden on 5% of the American population: the richest, who despite claims to the contrary, are critical to the economy. You take money from the catalysts of the economy, and you take jobs away from the rest of the country.

Also, as pointed out in this article by the Wall Street Journal, more than a third of Americans already pay no income tax at all. What does a "tax break" mean for them, then? That's right. Something that used to be called "welfare" in a less politically correct time. If you bothered to read down further, you would see that this journalist estimates that the cost of these tax credit increases would amount to $1.054 trillion annually by 2018, being paid from the pockets of taxpayers. To put it simply: taxpayers paying non-taxpayers.

Also, while CNN points out that Obama's plan would involve an $80 billion tax cut across America overall, and other sources that I'm too lazy to google search for point out that lower tax rates do not always lead to lower revenue, taxes are not just being cut, money is being given from one group to the other. Does it matter that there are some hard-working men and women that will slyly be pickpocketed from in this plan? Does it matter that the Roman Empire's attempts to create a welfare state eventually led to its downfall? Does it matter that everywhere you look, the kind of socialist state Obama's plan calls for fails miserably through history? Apparently not.

I repeat the number: $1.054 trillion. Over 1,000,000,000,000 dollars just for tax credit. That's a lot of zeroes. Do you know America's annual gross domestic product for the year 2007? Approximately $13 billion dollars. Do you know the rate of inflation for the American dollar? According to InflationData.com, about 5%, as of September 2008. That means that the value of what we give in the form of this disguised welfare will will decrease approxmiately five percent, and the value of the government's revenue will have decreased approximately five percent as well.

In my mind, this leads to an educated question: who in their right mind would even think of voting in such an absolutely terrible plan? Obama will be president this January, but please let him know what you think about his "hope" for "change" in the economy. Well, economy will change, but not in the way Barack Obama intended it to.

Sources for historical welfare states.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0690c.asp
http://www.unrv.com/decline-of-empire/decline-of-empire.php