Amendment One

If approved, the proposed measure would amend Article 14 of the North Carolina Constitution by adding a new section:

Sec. 6. Marriage.
Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.

There are several good practical and legal cases to be made against Amendment One (Bothwell, Coalition to Protect NC Families). I oppose the adoption of Amendment One into the North Carolina Constitution on moral grounds.

1. Amendment One directly subverts government's only proper function in a free society, which is the protection of individual rights, and, instead, allows government to violate unalienable individual rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness based purely on religious grounds.

2. Amendment One violates individual rights by preventing free adults from using their best judgment regarding social contracts. Individuals have the right of association, the right of contract and the right of freedom of action without interference by others or by the government.

3. Amendment One represents the conflation of church and state by codifying religious precepts in a law that forces everyone to adopt, in practice, the religious views of a majority. Law should at all times reflect a strict separation of religion and government.

4. Amendment One treats unequally under the law a segment of society based purely on sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is a subset of individuality and, as such, should be beyond the reach of the law. The individual human person is the primary category deserving of the legal protections of a limited government and no law should be made to single out subordinate characteristics for special, or unequal, consideration. A homosexual who injures no one else's rights is a FIRST CLASS CITIZEN. The rights of both heterosexuals and homosexuals should be protected in the same way the rights of both Buddhists and Christians should be protected.

5. Amendment One represents a resort to the use of force in human relations. Government should prevent and adjudicate the initiation of force in society and should not be the source of it. The initiation of force, in both the private and public spheres, is the abrogation of freedom and is an improper method of influence in a free society. Those objecting to gay marriage should attempt to use persuasion, not force, and let the arguments lie where they fall.

6. Amendment One appeals to mob rule to determine right and wrong by delegating the right to violate rights through an electoral process. Civil rights should not be subjected to a vote. No individual, no majority, no society, no government has the right to violate rights.

It is for these reasons that Amendment One is immoral and should be opposed by all defenders of liberty.

---

RELATED

NC Libertarian Party announces opposition to Amendment One
Coalition to Protect North Carolina Families
The North Carolina Libertarian Party today declared its formal opposition to Amendment One. The state’s third-largest party is encouraging its members, as well as all other voters, regardless of party affiliation, to vote against the constitutional amendment on the May 8 primary ballot.

N.C. Libertarians Oppose Amendment One
Whereas, the great value of constitutions is the protection they provide for individual rights;

Yaron Brook discusses what's wrong with social conservatives.

Response to LTE on Profit

Tim Peck is a real card
Mountain Xpress | 3/28/2012

Tim Peck is fast becoming my favorite conservative, outpacing the always-entertaining Carl Mumpower. In his March 7 missive, “People and Profits Are in Harmony,” Peck explains the basics of capitalism as a fair exchange between a buyer and seller. And it's true: capitalism as a theory is a wonderful, productive enterprise, and I don't doubt profit as an effective motivator. However, it's just a theory. I could probably make a similar case for communism: In theory, it works great.

Peck is so colorful in his depiction of capitalism, even slipping "property" into the time-honored phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." What a card.

Capitalism, however, isn't so wonderful in practice. When huge corporations use their financial power to sway markets (and now politics) in their favor . To put it simply (and to use one of Peck's examples), "when Steve Jobs invents and sells an iPhone, Apple Corporation profits." Actually, it profits more, because it pays some overseas workers less than a living wage so that you can pay a little less for your smart phone. Do we all profit from this?

In addition, we don't have a free market in the U.S., and it's not because of all those pesky government regulations protecting our land, air and water. No, it's because our government is either bailing out entire industries or sending subsidies (like the Farm Act) to corporations with no strings attached. Why is the government subsidizing oil companies? Why are banks giving their executives huge bonuses from the bailout funds? The list could go on and on.

One final comment: Corporations are not interested in the public's best interest, and they never will be. Heck, they aren't even interested in their employees' best interests. (If they were, layoffs would be a thing of the past.) They are interested in one thing only: short-term profits, and they will do anything, legal or otherwise, to get it. Now tell me, Mr. Peck, is that in line with "people and profits are in harmony?"

— Mark H. Bloom
Asheville

MY RESPONSE

"Tim Peck is fast becoming my favorite conservative"

I'm not a conservative. I'm a libertarian.

"even slipping "property" into the time-honored phrase"

Yes, that's the original phrasing. And properly so. Property, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are all derivative of the right to life.

"Capitalism, however, isn't so wonderful in practice."

We don't have a capitalist economy. You say so yourself: "In addition, we don't have a free market in the U.S"

That is correct. We have a mixed interventionist economy. As you point out yourself. Subsidies and bailouts are the consequence of government interference in the economy and are not characteristics of a free market. In a free market, successful businesses succeed and failing businesses fail.

"'when Steve Jobs invents and sells an iPhone, Apple Corporation profits.' Actually, it profits more, because it pays some overseas workers less than a living wage so that you can pay a little less for your smart phone. Do we all profit from this?"

If I pay a little less for my iPhone then I profit a little more too. The buyer of an iPhone profits or they wouldn't buy one. Right? It's a voluntary transaction for mutual profit. Also, an overseas worker for the Apple Corporation profits by being offered a job that makes him better off. Or else he wouldn't take it. Right?

"Corporations are not interested in the public's best interest, and they never will be."

Corporations, in a free market, must be entirely concerned with the public's best interest. Otherwise they could not make a profit. Right? A corporation can't make a profit by ignoring the interest of its customers; unless the government interferes with anti-competitive legislation, subsidies, bailouts and regulatory capture.

"They are interested in one thing only: short-term profits, and they will do anything, legal or otherwise"

Being interested in short-term profits is perfectly moral. I want corporations to profit because that means they must please me with great products and services to get it. If a corporation, or any other entity, does something otherwise than legal, it is the government's proper role to protect my rights against fraud and any other crime against my person or property. Instead, the government subsidizes and bails out corporations. As you point out yourself. This is a violation of rights where the government forcibly confiscates my property (money) and gives it to someone else to whom it does not belong. Corporations in a free market, which we agree we do not have, are in perfect harmony with people, as I have shown.

The problem, as you have also pointed out, is with the government. Capitalists trade, government robs. It is not corporations, but the government and its interferences that are wildly out of harmony with people.

LTE: Profit

People and Profits Are In Harmony
Mountain Xpress | 3/7/2012

In today's headlines and protest signs we hear pleas to "put people ahead of profits." But are people and profits opposed to one another? In commercial transactions, two parties profit: the seller and the buyer. The buyer acquires a product and the seller gains financially. This peaceable, voluntary transaction of value for value to mutual benefit is an exercise of the rights of individuals to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. It is the proper and moral exercise of economic and political freedom.

When a person offers to mow your lawn for payment, he seeks to profit financially from his labor for his own betterment as he sees it. The same principle holds on larger scales. When Steve Jobs invents and sells an iPhone, Apple Corporation profits. And so do you. Profits motivate individuals to improve the lives of others and the prospect of making a profit is what makes any business enterprise worthwhile.

In a free market, a business profits to the extent that it pleases people by improving their lives. When it does not, it properly loses its profits and is replaced by competitors who stand to do a better job of pleasing people and, therefore, of making a profit. Profit is what people willingly give to businesses in exchange for the improvement of their lives in material ways. Profit is the measure of successfully serving the needs and wants of the community in a free, voluntary marketplace. It is the people who rule in a free economy. Consumers vote in the marketplace with their dollars and they are ruthless in their choices. They ultimately determine who will earn a profit and succeed and who will rack up loses and suffer defeat. In this sense, people and profits are in harmony and are not opposing concepts.

---

RELATED

Why Is Creating Value Good, Profits Bad?
By Paul Hsieh
"Profit" is a dirty word. Profit-seeking businessmen are stock villains in Hollywood movies. "Occupy Wall Street" protestors demand, "People not profits" (whatever that means). Companies reporting healthy profits are automatically assumed to be exploiting customers and can only atone for this by "giving back" to their communities. "Making a profit" has an unsavory, morally suspect taint.

A Better Tea Party Slapdown

Posted on Voices of the Tea Party

---

I do not dispute Michael Patrick Leahy's claim ("Tea Party Slaps Down Mitt Romney in South Carolina"), January 21, 2012) that a fair measure of Newt Gingrich's wide victory margin in SC can be attributed to Tea Party influence. I would agree with that claim. The Tea Party is angry. Newt Gingrich is angry.

Gingrich, the winner of our third presidential contest, gives voice on a national stage to the Tea Party's outrage and frustration over enlarging socialist public policy, liberal media bias and entertainment industry antagonism. He goes after them directly and does not tend to mince words or shrink from a fight. The tea partiers are hearing from Newt what they want to say themselves -- and how they want it said. And voting for him over Romney in this Southern primary sends a message to all concerned that this is their attitude toward a whole host of adversaries; some included the Republican establishment.

The question for me is this: Is a primary election the proper place to vent a frustration that could give improper cover to a candidate that does not deserve their attention and which could give the false impression that this candidate, above all others, understands and respects their values and will carry them forward into national policy once in office?

I think not. The stakes in this election are high and missteps along the way are amplified. When the Tea Party calms down and takes a careful, steady look at the candidates still standing, they would be wise to seriously consider the candidate who has been with them all along and even heralded their very emergence: Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is the quintessential Tea Party politician and has been for decades preceding the rise of this populist movement. Physician, veteran and congressman Ron Paul consistently articulates the Tea Party position on a range of public policy issues. He opposes unconstitutional and immoral entitlement programs, corporate bailouts, stimulus packages and capricious military adventures that materially harm our national security. He would happily dismantle federal agencies that do nothing but prop up union power and favored special interest groups at taxpayer expense. He is the primary spokesman for ending the central banking cartel that controls monetary policy, debases our currency, prints endless supplies of debt-based money and manipulates interest rates that trigger devastating economic booms and busts. In Congress, he has steadfastly voted for lower taxes, for a balanced budget, for gun rights, for an unregulated internet and for stricter limitations on the power of the executive branch.

“A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.” --Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, 1801

Both the Tea Party and Ron Paul have long agreed that the country is moving in the wrong direction. If you are driving your car toward the edge of a cliff, you need radical change. Ron Paul is precisely that type of change. And we need it now, not later, when it's too late. And I think it is also important that we lend our considerable support to a candidate who not only has the right message but who delivers it consistently as a seasoned statesman with an even temper.

So, consider wisely and vote accordingly. We all have a lot to loose. A national victory for Ron Paul would be the hardest slapdown the Tea Party could possibly deliver.

---

RELATED

Coulter Not Happy With Gingrich's South Carolina Win


Difference Between Streamlining the Military and Isolationism

Ben Bankson's Interview

LTE: New Tribune Editor

As a long-time local libertarian activist, I was happy to hear about the changes in the editorial staff at the Asheville Tribune (“Who is Clint Parker,” November 10, 2011). I remember, not so long ago, when the paper's editor was Bill Fishburne, a religious conservative who took every opportunity to deride libertarians and their political principles of individual rights, limited government and free markets. Then the Tribune installed John North, an outspoken Austrian-school economist, with his articles on the Federal Reserve central banking cartel, fiat currency debasement and Constitutional politician Ron Paul. Now, the new editor is a self-described “Constitutional libertarian," who promises us a series on individual rights. My, how times have changed.

Peter Schiff at Occupy Wall Street

LTE: Occupy Wall Street

Occupy Wall Street protests are misguided
Asheville Mountain Xpress
October 26, 2011

Dear Editor,

Capitalism is morally good. It also happens to work remarkably well, raising millions around the world out of poverty and providing the marketplace with a myriad of life-enhancing material goods. This social system of economic and political freedom is the only one that fully recognizes, respect and protects individual rights. It is a system that we do not have in this country and have never had. We have had only greater or lesser degrees of economic freedom. We were the closest to capitalism during the inventive period of the late 19th Century, when most of the great innovations and conveniences we live with today were invented (phones, cameras, lighting, cars, appliances, etc.). Today, entreprenuers, like tech visionary Steve Jobs struggle, to provide society with innovations that give individuals more power over their lives.

Our current crisis is the result of government intervention in the marketplace through regulation, taxation, welfare, economic incentives, bailouts, central banking, fiat currency and rank cronyism. We live in a mixed economy. It is a mix of some capitalism and some socialism; some freedom and some political control. Half good and half bad equates to bad. And what we have today is bad. Businessmen, lobbyists and special interest groups are buying politicians because politicians are for sale. When you first hang up a shingle, buyers soon appear and compete for favors, handouts and bailouts, all at the expense of the rest of society.

The “Occupy Wall Street” protests are misguided by focusing on only one half of the equation. You cannot cure a disease with a misdiagnosis. Those angry protestors in New York and Asheville have misdiagnosed the problems they accurately perceive and would be better served by properly identifying the true source of their grievances: Government.

For an entertaining video on these points, visit econstories.com.

Election Results

Makes Me Want To Holler

Money. We make it
'Fore we see it, you take it
Oh, make you wanna holler
The way they do my life.