Tag archive

Politics

ARE POLITICIANS OUR ‘PROTECTORS’ OR ULTIMATE FREE RIDERS? TIME TO VOTE NOTA AND GET RID OF ALL BLOODSUCKING POLITICAL PARASITES?

Published on in Activism/Free Market/Opinion/Poor Pratt's Almanack
TIME TO VOTE NOTA AND GET RID OF ALL BLOODSUCKING POLITICAL PARASITES?


Think about the percentage of GDP wasted to support parasitic political free riders of all stripes whose income at least partially depends directly or indirectly on the corrupt cronyism-riddled political process that produces absolutely nothing other than wars, economic dependency, elite authority versus free market producer societies, and a multitude of degrees of misery and slavery.

Yep, get elected, be part of the political process, delude yourself with artificial power peer approval, and reap the perks that go with power like hot dogs and beer go with baseball.

Do you think that is not a very thoughtful approach to achieving freedom? and freedom from what? Well, maybe freedom from the need to embrace the rigors of the free market while diluting freedoms for the rest of us?

Now, who is fooling whom? The political process and politicians are explicitly the problem, not the solution, which will come first and foremost from the free market.

Boy Did We Sell The Voters a Bill of Freedom Goods!

The sole redeeming values of the political process are education, planting seeds of freedom, and possibly a mop-up role to dismantle Big Brother, but only after the free market does the heavy lifting. Look to the free market for freedom from political parasites.

Is the LP well on its way to becoming the lesser of three evils third leg of a terrible triopoly? If so, what should we change to get the LP pointed back to the vision and mission of the healthy, growing, and maturing broader Libertarian movement: Freedom, Nothing More, Nothing Less, For All People IN OUR LIFETIMES?

Now, the burning question is: How will Libertarian politicians respond? Stay tuned and take notes before you decide whether to vote NOTA as a way to stop enabling cronyism-prone corruptible politicians.

Giddy About Freedom As We Do About Politics?

Thoughts?

D. Pratt Tseramed, July 6, 2020
David.Demarest@R2FF.org, 402-493-0873

You might be interested in

HOW CAN YOU MAXIMIZE YOUR POLITICAL CAMPAIGN AND PROJECT DONATION BANG FOR THE BUCK?

Published on in Activism/Information/Opinion/Politics/Poor Pratt's Almanack
HOW CAN YOU MAXIMIZE YOUR POLITICAL CAMPAIGN AND PROJECT DONATION BANG FOR THE BUCK?

Political donors are notoriously naive. They get so giddy about the political process, their favorite candidates, and political agenda projects that they forget about due diligence precautions inherent in the free market. They leave the door wide open for bad actors.

Let’s stop and think about what attracts bad actors. Money and power that translates into money. The biggest pots of money are in the free market. True, the free market does attract some bad actors.

Free markets however, are primarily merit-based. Bad actors find it more difficult to avoid having to embrace the free market requirement that nothing gets produced without effort. They might actually have to work hard and earn their way, exactly what they are trying to avoid.

Where can bad actors go where they don’t have to earn their way. Bingo, You got it. Politics. True, the pots of money in politics are not as big as those in the free market. However, political money, primarily in campaigns and political agenda projects, is donor based. Donations are harder to track and easier to cook the books on.

Free market ventures must meet generally accepted accounting practices and their long range survival depends on how profitable they are. In the case of non-profits, their success is nevertheless measurable and their ability to attract talent depends on the salaries they can offer.

Not so with politics. The profit is getting elected, influencing policy, or sending a message. The modus operandi of bad actors in the political arena is to recruit candidates, initiate donor-attractive projects, or insert themselves into campaigns or projects based on alleged management, marketing, or fund-raising skills, particularly the latter. The next step is to offer or insist on control of the campaign or project finances.

Once intrenched in a campaign or project, how can bad actors attain their goal of enriching themselves at the expense of the endeavor at hand? Inflated performance fees, misrepresented performance, siphoning off donations, cooking the books, sloppy reporting with no or friendly audits, just for openers.

The big prizes for bad actors, however, are the funds left over when the campaign or project is completed. The telltale sign of the opportunity for malfeasance is money left over and and vague or non-existing policies on how to distribute the spoils. Sound familiar? A campaign or project that is sincerely intended to achieve the stated goal will typically use all funds available to ensure victory or achieve success.

It is conceivable that an efficiently run campaign or project could end up with surplus funds. The ethical approach would be to escrow surplus funds for a future campaign or follow-on project and do so with crystal clear well-documented and publicly reported transparency.

Here is a dose of reality for political donors. When a campaign or agenda project has run its course, political donors, unlike free market investors, predictably move on to the next exciting political drama and lose interest in how the campaign or project finances were wrapped up.

It is easier in politics for bad actors to split the leftovers, leave a trail of unpaid bills, head for the hills with their ill-gotten gains, hole up until they run out of money, and then set the trap for their next political campaign or project financial victim.

How could you as a donor smoke out bad actors short of testing for psychopathic behavior?

  • Do your due diligence as if it was a free market endeavor
  • Get involved in the cause, campaign, or project you believe in
  • Insist on a commitment to financial transparency
  • Insist on published lists of board, staff, and credential profiles
  • Insist on a financial prospectus
  • Insist on a business plan
  • Insist on frequent financial reports reviewed by an independent auditor
  • Insist on profit retention and distribution policies
  • Guard the campaign wallet like it was your own

Political donors are to be congratulated on their enthusiastic largess. However, the challenges and responsibilities for donors are more than just taking advantage of an opportunity to avoid getting their fingers dirty.

A wise donor actively participates in the endeavor they are supporting. They ensure that their donation dollars are wisely used and do not fall into the hands of bad actors. They hold the beneficiaries of their philanthropy accountable.

Click the following link for a related meme and story:

HOW CAN YOU TELL IF A CANDIDATE IS SERIOUS ABOUT GOING FOR THE WIN?

D. Pratt Tseramed, June 3, 2020
David.Demarest@R2FF.org, 402-493-0873

You might be interested in

Why Is LNC Acting Like Trump At A Press Conference? Are Otherwise Good LNC Members Saddled With The Wrong Purpose?

Published on in Activism/Opinion/Politics/Poor Pratt's Almanack
Why Is LNC Acting Like Trump At A Press Conference? Are Otherwise Good LNC Members Saddled With The Wrong Purpose?

We have a wealth of talented, professional, and good people on the Libertarian National Committee. What in the world is driving them to act like an out of control Donald Trump at a press conference? How can we help them get through this with the Libertarian Party intact?

Let’s take a deep breath, step back, and reflect rationally on what might be behind this out of character behavior.

To start with, LNC members are under a huge burden of stress with the Covid-19 pandemic and the resulting need to reschedule and relocate the 2020 national convention. But LNC members normally handle crises well. What else could explain their out of character behavior.

Are convention rescheduling concerns and blaming leadership for proposed convention options a legitimate justification for their out of character behavior or a convenient cop out? I leave that for the reader to judge. Regardless, how can we help them get through it?

It may be more productive to examine other possible causes than might suggest constructive solutions. However, before we get to solutions, here are some additional mitigating circumstance to consider.

First, does politics as usual bring out the worst in us? Absolutely, in my opinion. However, given the explicit political nature of our organization, that is a problem that will not go away and we must counter by applying Libertarian principles. The reality is that most human actions have a political element under the hood. How we channel our political behavior is another matter.

Second, is the LNC authoritarian top-down structure also a cause for dysfunction? Yes, in my opinion. However, we are stuck with a top-down structure as long as the LNC is an elective body.

The LNC, like most political party national committees, is made up entirely of elected members. The LNC includes officers, At Large members, regional representatives, and regional alternates, all elected by national convention delegates. The LNC is by definition a top-down structure. Whether it is an authoritarian top-down structure is open to debate. My assessment is that all top-down structures are authoritarian by design and typically but not necessarily in practice.

There is no simple way to change the LNC top-down nature, which flies in the face of my understanding that the purpose of the Libertarian movement is to fight top-down institutional authoritarianism at every turn. Regardless, there is no choice today but to accept the political nature and top-down structure and commit to circumventing those limitations if the LNC is to succeed in achieving the Libertarian goal of freedom.

Given that the LNC is saddled with a political nature and top-down structure, what facet of the LNC structure can the LNC control? Perhaps the operational purpose? That begs the question: Are you willing to consider the possibility that the LNC’s function is not appropriately purposed?

Perhaps looking at LNC strengths and weaknesses would be a useful method to analyze the possible issue of the LNC being mispurposed. What strengths and weaknesses can we distill from the LNC’s top-down structure and diversity of elected representative views and purposes?

First, here are specific LNC weaknesses that are outside their control:

The elective structure and diverse views and purposes present considerable challenges that are outside LNC control. As a restult, the LNC has considerable difficulty agreeing on what to do, why to do it, how to do it, when to do it, and how to pay for it, all of which are preconditions to getting stuff done successfully. This inherent weakness is difficult to avoid in a top-down political structure.

Another weakness outside LNC control is the fact that the LNC is NOT an organization composed of individuals who volunteer to work together based on a comprehensive list of shared views and purposes as is the case with volunteer projects.

The LNC is an elective body whose individual members are theoretically expected to reflect the will of the majority of the constituents they represent despite the wide range of diverse views and purposes of their constituents, not to mention minorities whom they also are supposed to represent but in name only because the minorities differ from the majority with their own set of diverse views and purposes.

Unfortunately, the LNC is stuck with elective representative top-down structure weaknesses that are outside their control and limit their ability to get stuff done. Further, the top-down structure fosters passing the buck on responsibilities and stifles innovation. We must face the fact that In the foreseeable future we cannot change these inherent weaknesses that are outside LNC control. What to do?

Not all is lost. Despite the top-down structure and elective diversity limitations, elective committees are exceptionally well suited to act as think tanks to brainstorm project ideas. The diversity of LNC member backgrounds and rational talents works well to ensure an over-brimming melting pot of innovative ideas.

LNC members are also good at communicating their innovative brainstorming ideas to those outside the top-down structure, including affiliates and independent volunteers who are willing and able to take the bull by the horns and run with LNC project ideas on top of their local projects.

The same talented people who struggle to get stuff done within a top-down elective structure have remarkable talents best expressed outside their parent top-down structures as the ability to tackle and carry innovative projects through to successful conclusions. We see it all the time. Our talented LNC members are no exception and excel at it.

When committee-bound folks, limited by top-down constraints, step outside their confining structure, their accomplishments are amazing. They take the bull by the horns, surround themselves with like-minded folks outside their structural constraints, lead by example, make and keep commitments, and get a hell of a lot of amazing stuff done.

Other strengths that the LNC could leverage despite their top-down and elective diversity limitations are the underutilized talents of LNC members to act as project liaisons and facilitators when invited, and providers of moral and logistical support to those outside the structure who are accomplishing projects critical the Libertarian movement agenda of achieving freedom goals.

Is the LNC open to reconsidering the purpose of their operational strategy and leveraging their brainstorming, liaison, facilitation, and moral support skills of their talented members in order to circumvent their top-down and elective diversity constraints? Time will tell. The long term success of the LP and Libertarian movement may depend on Libertarians’ willingness to reexamine the purpose of the LNC and modify it as necessary to better suit members skills within a top-down elective structure.

As Ken Moellman, our over-achiever Libertarian from Kentucky, wisely said, it is time to “take a deep breath”. In this time of pandemic turmoil and convention concerns, let us take a time out, smell the sweet scent of freedom that Libertarians seek, and tackle our Libertarian and LNC challenges with a refreshed and renewed sense of purpose.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2960585530687863&set=a.2011194558960303&type=3&eid=ARAnGmShz2QF2PYTFu2GM3VrllyJ0mxFthYI2UjQv-onTNg1xpv4gQNrwy9rw1_4_Vsreni_4prI7mNC

Thoughts?

D. Pratt Tseramed, May 14, 2020
David.Demarest@R2FF.org
402-493-0873

You might be interested in

Would Legally Mandated Pinnochio-Nose GMO Therapy For All Politicians Reverse The Unfortunate Reality That Politics Usually Brings Out The Worst In Us?

Published on in Activism/Business/Free Market/Opinion/Politics/Poor Pratt's Almanack

Here some humorous and serious consequences of requiring all politicians to undergo Pinnochio nose genetic modification:

  1. Proliferation of politicians and candidates on crutches after tripping over their own noses and the noses of their colleagues, forcing governing bodies to provide crutches and wheel chairs as standard equipment for all members of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches
  2. Exponential increase in Guinness nose length records
  3. Explosive new market in nose camouflage products
  4. Sharp increase in the demand for nose job surgeries
  5. Laws passed forcing health insurance policies to cover nose job surgeries
  6. Decline of political correctness as a viable political tool
  7. Nose length contests replace political genital length comparisons
  8. Dramatic shift in political integrity or the lack thereof from liars contests to truth-telling contests
  9. Shoe on the other foot as politicians lose their advantage in dealing with supporters, constituents, and other politicians
  10. Politicians forced to either A) admit that governments exist solely for the benefit of those who govern, or B) suffer embarrassing nose-length consequences
  11. Politicians forced to own up to the fact that there is nothing that governments can do for us that we can’t do better by and for ourselves
  12. Two-party system flounders as smaller parties sporting shorter-nosed candidates win the respect of voters due to physically measurable differences in integrity
  13. Driving home what we already implicitly know about politicians but don’t admit, that the real goal of most politicians is just to gain power over others and the perks that go with power like hot dogs and beer go with baseball
  14. Private sector entrepreneurs, with no incentive or need for political correctness, become our leaders by example with corresponding economic and societal improvements including but not limited to higher standards of living and more freedom for all
  15. _____________________________

Fill in the blank with your own prognostications about the consequences and benefits of the unmasking of politically-correct, disingenuous politicians exposed by the length of their nose.

Even though we recognize that the humorous but unrealistic possibility of politicians with Pinnochio-nose afflictions is a fantasy, we might pause to reflect on this implausible scenario and come to the conclusion that politics invariably brings out the worst in us.

By contrast, we can achieve many more concrete economic and social advances by refocusing on free market successes and private sector leaders by example as they act in their own self-interest and cement their economic success as they establish a reputation for telling us the truth about the benefits of their products.

Most of us are realistic enough not to expect perfection from free-market entrepreneurs. Nevertheless, we intuitively know that private sector leaders are far more trustworthy than politicians spouting politically correct bromides and platitudes intended to pull the wool over the eyes of constituents while ripping them off to the tune of outrageous taxes.

If we are individually insightful and successful in assessing the deceitfulness of many if not most politicians, more truthful liberty-leaning candidates just might win more elections. Those elected in such circumstances just might help us get rid of the delusional notion that politics as usual is the only solution to mankind’s problems.

Point of fact, politics is the problem, not the solution. Further, lying politicians spouting obvious politically correct nonsense are the purveyors of the problem.

The solution lies not in politics but in the private sector. Part of the inarguable proof for this truism is graphically demonstrated by the obvious fact that governments inevitably collapse, typically in less than 200 years due to cronyism-induced bankruptcy if not overthrown before then. Hmmm? Now, what about the longevity of free markets?

Governments and politicians come and go with predictable regularity. However, free markets, an awesome reflection of our rational capacity, have never failed in the entire history of mankind. This historically established fact about the contrasting longevity of governments and free markets clearly suggests that institutional authoritarian ‘politics as usual’ is not a good representation of our rational capacity.

Roll over, politicians. Make room for the real purveyors of integrity and success in dealing with human challenges, our private-sector free-market leaders by example, the motor of the world.

Thoughts?

D. Pratt Tseramed, January 7, 2020

You might be interested in

December 29, 2019 Texas Church Shooting: How Can Gun Law Advocates Ignore Life Saving Benefits of Concealed Carry?

Published on in Activism/Opinion/Politics/Poor Pratt's Almanack
Who Benefits From Disarming Innocent Victims?

Click the following link to view a dramatic video of the December 29, 2019 church shooting that starkly illustrates the benefits of concealed-carry armed citizens that probably saved the lives of countless potential parishioner victims, as opposed to the naked threat posed by gun-law advocates in their misguided at best attempts to disarm innocent victims in gun-free zones. Note that my “misguided at best” characterization intentionally infers the possibility of misrepresented motives aimed at taking away our freedoms to feather their own nests.

https://imgflip.com/i/37mex7…A gunman who opened fire and killed two people at a Texas church on Sunday was shot and killed by an armed member of the church.About this websiteABCNEWS.GO.COMVideo: Texas church shooting caught on livestreamA gunman who opened fire and killed two people at a Texas church on Sunday was shot and killed by an armed member of the church.

After viewing the video linked above, you will understand my motivation for the following postscript to my August 9, 2019 Facebook post below.

All eight questions in my earlier August 9th post are directly or indirectly relevant to the church shooting that occurred yesterday (December 29,019) in Texas.

Miraculously, only three people died, including the shooter. Do you wonder why the explanation for the reduced body count has been conveniently downplayed or ignored by most of the traditional press who are in the pockets of today’s ‘politics as usual’ public officials? What will the socialist-leaning Teachers’ Union have to say, if anything, about the moral of this story that flies in the face of gun-law advocates?

Here is my postscript written today, following the December 29th Texas church shooting yesterday. This postscript continues with questions 9 through 15, building on where I left off in questions numbered 1 through 8 posed in my August 9th post copied following this postscript:

9. How can we ignore the fact that only three died in yesterday’s Texas church shooting, thanks to a host of concealed-carry volunteer security guards and parishioners who promptly silenced the shooter in less than six seconds and saved the lives of 242 more potential victims.

10. How can we ignore the fact that the traditional media has given short shrift to this clear example of how armed citizens can drastically reduce the large numbers of mass shooting fatalities that occur in government-mandated gun-free zones?

11. How can we ignore the fact that traditional media is more concerned about the newsworthiness of high body counts in gun-free zones rather than reduced body counts due to intervention by armed citizens intent on protecting their friends, loved ones, and many other potential innocent victims?

12. How can we ignore the fact that soft-headed progressive liberals and their traditional media mouthpieces are actually contributing to increased mass shooting body counts as a result of their emotional foggy-brained gun-control nonsense that is really a smokescreen to get votes for their socialist-leaning candidates?

13. How can we ignore the fact that protection of strong-arm government officials and law-enforcement killers of innocents from retaliatory measures by disillusioned citizens is the real motive for gun-law advocates who hide behind the skirts of misdiagnosed and/or deliberately misrepresented mass shooting causes and solutions?

14. How can we ignore the fact that the moral of this dramatically reduced church shooting tragedy yesterday in Texas is the fact that the solution to mass shootings and other violent crimes is to recognize our second amendment rights that are intended to protect us from tyrannical government?

15. How can we ignore the fact that citizens can readily take the bull by the horns instead of relying on over-burdened and often out-of-control law enforcement, arm themselves, and protect their loved ones far better than so-called government ‘defenders of the peace’, and their enforcers, whose ulterior motive is gaining more power and feathering their own nests?

Reiterating with annotations for emphasis:

Shame on [politicians, progressive liberals, traditional media, and gun-control advocates] for trying to pull the wool over our eyes [just to get more votes and power over us].

Shame on us for being so gullible.

Thoughts?

D. Pratt Tseramed, December 30, 2019

***********************************
***********************************

August 9, 2019 Facebook post:

The politically motivated hysterical rush to take guns away from citizens and disarm innocent victims deserves an objective examination. Here are some questions that strike me as obvious no-brainers ignored by both the media and those that make political hay and seek more personal power by jumping on the bandwagon of disarming not just criminals but also the rest of us that might threaten their political power ambitions:

1. How can we ignore the fact that gun violence continues to steadily decline?

2. How can we ignore the fact that most mass shootings take place in gun-free zones?

3. How can we ignore the fact that it is impossible to disarm bad actors without resources and manpower required for an oppressive police state that would be a far worse threat to our freedoms than the shooters that the power seekers purportedly want to protect us from?

4. How can we ignore the fact that providing adequate official protection in gun-free zones would require a police state that we cannot afford either financially or politically not to mention the inevitable and far worse threat to our freedoms?

5. How can we ignore the fact that disarming innocent victims will only create more victims?

6. How can we ignore the fact that the only practical means to protect innocent victims are concealed-carry and arming ourselves?

7. How can we ignore the fact that gun laws are not intended to protect us and are merely a smoke screen for self-aggrandizement by power-seeking authorities?

8. How can we ignore the fact that protecting us from ourselves is the standard excuse used by power seekers, dictator wannabees, and all forms of collectivism around the world?

Shame on them for trying to pull the wool over our eyes. Shame on us for being gullible.

Thoughts?

D. Pratt Tseramed, December 30, 2019

You might be interested in

Libertarian Presidential Candidate Releases Resolution To Declare Fourth Amendment Sanctuary

Published on in News/Politics
Privacy Rights

Libertarian Candidate for President Ben Leder is calling for people
to establish Fourth Amendment Sanctuaries across America.

On Christmas Eve 2019 Ben Leder published the following resolution to his website calling upon his supporters to take action.

: “RESOLUTION BY __________ COUNTY IN SUPPORT OF THE PEOPLE’S RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM UNLAWFUL AND WARRANTLESS SEARCHES, SEIZURES, AND SURVEILLANCE

WHEREAS, it is the desire of the __________ County Commissioners Court to declare its support of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Texas Constitution Art 1 Sec 9 protecting citizens inalienable rights

WHEREAS, the members of __________ County Commissioners took an oath to support and defend the United States Constitution, the Constitution of the State of Texas and laws of the State of Texas (insofar as they are constitutional), and,

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commissioners Court of the County of ____________ by the authority granted to the Commissioners by the laws of the State of Texas that this commissioners court will defend the citizens rights and liberties, which are guaranteed by the United States and Texas Constitutions.In addition:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Commissioners Court affirms its support for the duly elected Sheriff of __________ County, Texas in the exercise of his sound discretion. We also affirm our resolve to support decisions by our Sheriff to not enforce any unconstitutional firearms laws against any citizen.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Commissioners Court will not authorize or appropriate government funds, resources, employees, agencies, contractors, buildings, detention centers or offices for the purpose of enforcing law that unconstitutionally infringes on the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, vehicles and transportation devices, effects, papers, physical or electronic possessions, and the communications, and transmissions, and the transportation thereof from all unreasonable seizures, searches, or surveillance.”

I designed this as a template custom tailored for Texas Counties, however it can easily be modified for use in other States by citing the relevant articles from your States Constitution in conjunction with the US Constitution.

Ben Leder – December 24th 2019


Hoping for the best is not enough to secure ourselves and future generations from tyranny, I’m asking you to join the fight to reclaim the rights your ancestors fought a revolution for, I’m asking you to join the fight in your very own backyards and run for local office to restore and defend the rights of all.


I’m asking you to join the fight to declare your county a Fourth Amendment Sanctuary…

Ben Leder

You might be interested in

Announcing Freedom Magazine’s First Amendment Free Speech Candidate Forum

Published on in Activism/Candidate/Opinion/Politics

Have you wondered about Freedom Magazine’s editorial position on first amendment free speech rights? Read on.

In the spirit of transparency, the staff of Freedom Magazine has a decidedly radical Libertarian flavor. However, Freedom Magazine was conceived as a voice for free speech within the limits of common decency and collegiality.

We are opening our doors to candidate submissions not only from the Libertarian Party but from all political parties. Censorship is not our nature. We join our readers in the desire to learn from opposing views.

The purpose of the forum is to be a megaphone for the voices of a wide range of candidates limited only by a few common sense constraints detailed in the following paragraphs.

We will, however, out of logistical necessity, filter articles based on standards that take into account the level of originality, innovation, and outside-the-box thinking. We will be looking for thoughtful advances to policy, philosophy, economics, and governance, regardless of whether we agree with the candidate’s positions.

We emphatically welcome diverse points of view presented sincerely. Ad hominem attacks on other candidates will be rejected. Xenophobia and blatant ‘ends justifies means’ propaganda will be discouraged. Due diligence support of arguments will be encouraged.

Submissions should focus on your voice and what you, the candidate, have to offer. Transparency and willingness to look at other points of view will be embraced with open arms.

Again, welcome to the Freedom Magazine candidate forum. We challenge you to enlighten our readers. Submissions can be sent to david.demarest@r2ff.org until a candidate forum email address is announced.

Yours truly may be part of the review process but will forward your submissions to other members of our remote staff for their review. Realistically, most of the review process will focus on format suggestions to pass on to the candidate before publication.

Submission length is somewhat flexible, roughly between 250 and 1000 words. Although yours truly is not noted for missive brevity, concise articles will be appreciated and may increase readership of your submissions.

Associated memes are not required but are strongly encouraged given our online format. Your text is most important but a picture is worth a thousand words and will increase the impact of your submission. Our editorial staff can help with meme generator suggestions.

To repeat, please submit your candidate articles via email to david.demarest@r2ff.org.

Submissions will be prioritized first come first serve subject to relative evaluation rankings based on innovative and thoughtful content. All things being equal, first come first serve will be given first consideration, particularly on articles with commensurate rankings.

Evaluation rankings will not be biased based on political affiliation. The editorial staff may respond to specific points with an op-ed dedicated to a specific topic, but that is not the purpose of the candidate forum.

The candidate forum is designed explicitly to be a first amendment voice for candidates, not the editorial staff who have other forums and columns available to them to voice their ideas and opinions. We will welcome and learn from the diversity of your candidate submissions.

Non-candidate articles on a variety of topics to supplement our resident staff columns will also be welcomed with open arms within the common sense constraints delineated above. More to come as we expand our authoring options.

Freedom Magazine is the first amendment free speech voice for your definition of liberty!

Thoughts?

David Pratt Demarest, December 22, 2019



You might be interested in

Nation of Sheep or Free Market Heroes?

Published on in Activism/Business/Free Market/Opinion/Politics/Poor Pratt's Almanack
Nation of Sheep or Free Market Heroes and Heroines?

The following is a continuation of a stimulating dialog with Emily Goldberg, LSLA Secretary, with several edits and additions for clarity:


Emily, I have a higher opinion of mankind. Government and the political process has a way of creating a nation of sheep. A properly tuned LP message focused on the strength of our turf, the private sector and benefits of the free market, will free our nation of sheep.

True, some market leaders gain their nefarious stature through government preferences, bailouts, and so on. We all know who they are. Warren ‘More Bailouts’ Buffet, the ‘Oracle of Omaha’, for one. What a shame that a former astute stock market analyst hero of mine from my home town succumbed to the free lunch temptations of the dark side of progressive economics and politics.

For the sake of transparency, Bill Redpath (long-time LNC At Large and former LNC Chair), my wife Re, and I recently had a group picture taken at Buttet’s Gorats Restaurant in Omaha in front of a life-size image of Warren, a credit to Buffet’s earlier financial accomplishments of hero proportions. I sincerely hope that the significant good side of Warren will see the light.

Unfortunately, as evidenced by Buffet’s Berkshire-Hathaway firm, a large segment of the corporate world is in bed with government. Kudos to corporate leaders who resist that temptation, not to mention all our small business and entrepreneur heroes and heroines who reflect the best of our Libertarian principles.

Emily, expanding on our earlier conversation about heroes, have you thought about the differentiating factor between dubious political heroes and private-sector champions? Could it be the nature of their diverse accomplishments? We all know and admire the achievements of free-market heroes that benefit mankind and raise our standard of living. Politicians, on the other hand, are sadly respected for their aggrandizement in acquiring power over others (the rest of us). From my perspective, power-seekers and power over others is what we Libertarians are supposed to be fighting against.

But political power exists only as long as politicians are in office. Once out of office, their power ceases and the glamour of their power over others rapidly evaporates. Maintaining voter respect for their political power over others is what drives politicians to do whatever is necessary to get reelected, including but not limited to the evils of political correctness, corruption, and cronyism. Politics invariably brings out the worst in us.

Many if not most politicians could care less about the future impact of their corruption and cronyism actions as long as they get reelected in the here and now to maintain their illusory hero status. In economic terms, their focus on short-term power status, available only if they get reelected, represents a high time preference rate. See time preference rate comments in tomes by Hans Hermann Hoppe, including ‘A Short History of Man, Progress and Decline’ and ‘Democracy – the God that Failed’. To summarize, the high time preference rate of politicians is epitomized by their behavior, living for the moment with little interest in saving and investing for the future. After all, it is not their money they are spending at the expense of our freedoms, it is our hard-earned money they so thoughtlessly throw around just to garner votes.

We know that the success of free markets is due to just the opposite, the low time preference rate of saving and investing for the future to maximize not only long-term profits but more important, the benefits to customers and all of mankind that is the overriding motivation for most entrepreneurs and business start-up heroes.

To make a long story short, my abhorrence for power-seeking politics and the cronyism and political correctness required to get elected is why I bypass the political process food fight for power over others and the temporary illusion of hero worship derived from power over others available only while in office. I look to the private sector for the real heroes, the non-politician producers and leaders by example, the motor of the world, who are directly responsible for our well-being and standard of living.

May our Libertarian candidates and political efforts be a reflection of the awesome motivations and achievements of our private-sector free-market heroes. Do you think such a message just might win more elections by differentiating us from duopoly politicians, and, more important, accelerate our quest for freedom, nothing more, nothing less, for all people?

Thoughts?

D. Pratt Tseramed, December 14, 2019

You might be interested in

Go to Top