http://swgapolitics.com/index

If you’ve got us on your blog roll, we’re going to ask you to update the link.  We’ve moved all of our links to the new site, so don’t worry

After reading the book, it is clear that this country has abandoned many of those principles. Currently we are on a fast track, not to return to the original intention of the founders, but to distance ourselves even farther from that intention.

How can we get back to the garden? A new effort is being entertained by the states. Resolutions are being passed to return the power to the respective states and limit the size of the federal government, States’ Rights.

Georgia Senate Resolution 632 passed, “affirming states’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles; and for other purposes.” Nine states have passed similar resolutions and twenty-five others have resolutions calling for states’ rights pending.

A few states have taken the measure a step further. Montana has passed a bill (HB 246) that would allow guns and ammunition that are produced in the state and remain in the state to be regulated by the state, not the federal government. The bill will become law on October 10, 2009 and is suspected to be challenged by the Supreme Court shortly after. Texas is considering similar legislation.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution states that the federal government has the power, “…to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;” Because the federal government gets its power from the states according to the Tenth Amendment, the government has no power to regulate intrastate commerce. This should prove to be a fascinating court case when the law is challenged.

There is talk about calling for a Constitutional Convention to repeal or alter Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 which gives the federal government the power to collect taxes. It is believed that such a Constitutional Convention, or even the threat of one, will help to curtail the spending spree that the federal government is currently enjoying.

All of this talk of States’ Rights is fascinating, but I have to wonder if these resolutions are just words on paper. Since the War Between the States, the states have surrendered more and more of their power to the central government until state boundaries have become little more than historical lines on a map. Are these resolutions too little too late or are they the beginning of something big? Time will tell.

As for what the future holds, one never knows. However, we figure that you all read this blog because of what we write, so we might as well keep going with that if nothing else. In other words, if you like what we’re doing, don’t worry. We plan on continuing down that path.

The big move will happen Saturday morning by 10:00 AM. All posts and comments will be on the new site, and the last post on this particular site will be our new URL. The only reason I’m not sharing it now is because the site still has a little ways to go. I’ve gotta have my secrets, right?

On behalf of Jeff and myself, we hope everyone will come on over to the new site and check us out Saturday. We’re excited by the new possibilities and hope you are as well!

“A solid majority of voters (62%) continue to prefer a government that offers fewer services in exchange for lower taxes. Twenty-eight percent (28%) want more services even if it means higher taxes.

In previous surveys, those who say they favor lower taxes and fewer services have ranged from the high 50s to the mid-60s. Those who want more services and higher taxes have run from 24% to 31%. ”

So, we have almost two thirds of the American public wanting something very similar to us.  They’re ready for smaller government if it means lower taxes.  Essentially, that’s what we’re in favor of as well.  What’s particularly telling is the date.  That’s right.  April of this year!

Americans are ready for the next step.  Most polls seem to show Americans in line with the Libertarian Party’s position on a great many things including abortion and the war in Iraq.  So then, why don’t two thirds of the country vote Libertarian?  After all, this should be a slam dunk, right?

Normally, you would think so.  But it’s important to realize what many voters believe the Libertarian Party represents.  “Oh.  You’re the guys who want to legalize pot,” is a common understanding of our platform.  The vast majority of people don’t agree with us on this.  According to Gallup, 60% of the American people don’t support legalization.  They’re not on our side in this, our defining issue.  Granted, this is from 2005, but there’s little evidence that number has increased significantly.  In fact, a March 19, 2009 CBS News poll shows that only 31% favor legalization.

Now, we can argue until we’re blue in the face about the cost of the drug war.  We can point out how there are far better uses of law enforcement resources than to arrest people who are either selling a product or using a product that does nothing more in and of itself than screw up the health of the person ingesting it and offending the sensibilities of a significant number of people.  It doesn’t matter, because we’re in agreement.

However, it’s imperative to bump the pot question to the back burner.  Yes, to some I’m speaking of Libertarian heresy, but I’m really not.  I’m not saying we should change our platform, nor should we back away and pretend we’re not in favor of ending prohibition.  Instead, we should focus on the many other issues we can win voters with.  People want less taxes, we want to give them no income tax at all.  People want to be free to do as they wish, and that’s all that we want to give them!  The hitch is that you have to let others do the same, so long as neither of you hurt another.

In time, the drug issue will shift completely in our favor.  Trending at Gallup shows that from the time they first started polling on legalization of pot in 1964, those who favor legalization has increased from 12% to 36% in 2005.  It took 40 years, but the percentage tripled.  In time, we’ll have them on our side on this issue as well.  Until then, let’s put this on the back burner, shall we.

Instead, we need to reach out.  We need to spend more time discussing what we offer as a party.  Find the “Ron Paul” Republicans or the libertarian Democrats (those who are democrats because of their social stances, not their fiscal ones).  We need to show them that while their party marginalizes them and their thoughts, we do not.  We are their party, they just didn’t know it until now.

Reaching out is vital.  Until we do, we will never amount to anything more than an “also ran” party.  No Libertarian is satisfied with that.

You may have even heard that he got into a very verbal and visual altercation with his accuser around lunchtime today.

I can verify that the accusations are indeed accurate, and to steal a phrase from the late great Paul Harvey, here’s the REST of the story…

It all began, according to several sources, on January 30. On that day, the House of Representatives debated the Homeowner’s Tax Relief Grants. At about one hour and 36 minutes into the debate, Rep Dukes makes the comments shown in this video – which was taken directly from the video in the GPB archives. Now, the comments Rep Dukes makes about Delta and Gulfstream could be taken as attacks on Reps Burkhalter and Keen, respectively. Rep Burkhalter’s district is in the North Fulton/Alpharetta area, where Delta is a major player due to the proximity of its home base at Hartsfield Airport. Rep Keen’s district in Brunswick is the site of a major Gulfstream office. Burkhalter and Keen are also 2nd and 3rd in charge of House leadership, right behind Speaker Glenn Richardson.

So the comments in the video, and the fact that this early in the session he was already balking on major initiatives of House Leadership, didn’t earn Rep Dukes too many favors. And ultimately, as we all know, the way politics unfortunately works is who owes who favors. I personally can’t STAND this, but until we elect people with spines that will stand for right no matter what, it is the way the game is played.

So Rep Dukes already was shooting himself in the foot, when ANOTHER major pet project of House Leadership came up. Indeed, this particular project was SB 200, the Department of Transportation reorganization that was signed by Governor Perdue today, and has been a pet project of his throughout the session. House Leadership knew this particular bill was going to be extremely close, and the voting was kept open for quite a long time – roughly 5 minutes, about 5x as long as any other vote. While it was speculated then by myself, Jason Pye, and many others, that much deal making was going on during this time, I can now confirm this – and Reps Dukes and Fullerton were at the heart of it.

You see, according to what I am hearing, a deal was made whereby if Reps Dukes and Fullerton voted for SB 200, BOTH the Ray Charles project at Albany State AND the project at Darton would be funded in this year’s budget. Rep. Fullerton upheld her end of the deal and voted for SB 200, and Rep Dukes simply walked away from the chamber and did not vote. Because he did not vote, the Speaker himself was forced to take the EXTREMELY unusual move of casting a vote himself, and the Speaker’s vote – that should have been Rep Dukes’ vote – was the deciding factor in the passage of the bill.

Because of Rep Dukes reneging on his end of the deal, and because he had made no secret that the Albany State project was a pet project of his, Leadership then decided to strip the Albany State project from the budget during the final conference committee.

So you see, Rep Dukes DID, in fact, cause Albany State to lose the funding for the Ray Charles project, no matter how much he protests it.

SB 200 House Vote Record

This is a VERY good law that allows people who are victims or potential victims of family violence to not risk their lives by registering to vote. Basically, it says that if you have a protective or restraining order or are a verified resident of a family violence shelter, you can request that your voter registration data not be made public.

In case you didn’t know, by and large, voter registration data is publicly available, at least for political organizations and the military, and maybe other individuals/organizations. Meaning that prior to HB 227 and Project VoteSafe – the Secretary of State’s name for her implementation of the bill – if a guy wanted to know where his ex-wife was living now and knew she had registered to vote in Georgia, he could get the voter registration data and track her down. This WAS perfectly legal, and now – thankfully – it is not, once the proper procedure has been done.

So consider this a public service announcement: To those with protective/restraining orders and/or who are living in a family violence shelter: You no longer have to fear for your life or your kids’ lives if you want to vote. PLEASE go register, and PLEASE vote in every election affecting your district!

For everyone: If we here at SWGA Politics can be of any use in helping you locate any information about who your politicians are and/or where they stand, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

What Mr. Millman seems to not understand is that there is a third option.  You see, people can easily blame this current mess on the Republicans, and the Democrats will hammer that into people’s heads over the course of a campaign.  When this mess isn’t better, and I don’t think it will be, Republicans can hammer the concept that Democrat ideology won’t get us out of this mess either.  They will sling mud until the cows come home, blaming one another for the economy, and God forbid we have another terrorist attack, because they’ll blame one another for that one too.

Meanwhile, there’s the Libertarian Party and our candidates.  You see, we had no hand in this mess.  Our hands are clean on this, and anything else that people are mad about when the elections roll around.  We can honestly point out how none of the things we are proposing were actually done prior to this mess, so how can anyone say they won’t work?

People are mad at the Republicans.  I feel they’ll soon be mad at the Democrats as well.  When that happens, the alternative parties such as the LP, the Green Party, and the Constitutional Party have a much stronger chance of making inroads against the Big Two.  Alternative parties haven’t screwed things up yet, and when elected they have this annoying tendency to do exactly what they were elected to do.  Novel concept, isn’t it?

Right now, people are sticking to the two party system because that’s what they know.  However, once people start understanding that there are alternatives, things can change for the positive.  We can go after these politicians and remove them from office, and do so in a way that they won’t be replaced by someone who may actually be worse!

First, let’s assume we can agree that the turning point for economic policy was during the Great Depression with FDR’s “New Deal” policies. As such, I took an average of recession lengths and time between the start of recessions from before and after the Great Depression. Unfortunately, these numbers only tell part of the story.

First, the average length for a recession (then called “Panics”) prior to the Great Depression was actually 4.1 years, while post Great Depression was only 1.21 years. Obviously, this looks like a strike against truly free markets, right? Well, not so fast.

You see, the time between recessions prior to the Great Depression was an average of 13.4 years, while post FDR we had only 9.75 years. What’s more, during that time we had two huge wars that artificially propped up the market, namely World War II and Vietnam. This caused gaps of 24 years and 13 years respectively. These numbers skew the average a fair amount, obviously.

You see, I’ve never claimed that Keynesian ideas that government spending can get us out of a recession are actually wrong. They’re not. What my claim is, and has always been, is that the prosperity is artificial. The 24 year period post World War II was a result of debt spending to finance the war, yes, but also the lack of anyone’s ability to actually spend any money. Rationing was the norm in those days, and both adults in a household were typically bringing in money. The guys fighting the wars often had wives at home working in places like aircraft factories (my grandmother worked in a munitions plant for example). This forced savings, and permitted people to buy things like cars and houses in great amounts. It created an era of prosperity.

However, this prosperity was an illusion. Behind the scenes was massive debt, and 8 years after the war ended, we were slammed with yet another recession. This is similar to what happened during Vietnam, as more people were working to support the war, and large numbers of Americans were being drafted (and plenty were volunteering) to go to war, which kept even more people employed. Only this time, the war was barely over before we were smacked with yet another recession.

I should also, in the interest of fair disclosure, mention that I did not count the Long Depression.  The reason for that is that I don’t feel it was truly a recession.  Production actually increased fourfold during that period, which is hardly indicative of a recession.  Instead, prices went out of whack as the United States tried to get the US back on the gold standard, among other factors that were based outside of this country.

Recessions are a part of life.  Keynsian ideologies haven’t done a thing to prevent them from happening, and it is an ideology that requires that governments take on massive debt and tax the people to pay for it.  Since the numbers don’t show this to actually solve anything long term, why not let people keep their money and stimulate the economy that way.  It’s what this nation was founded on, so lets just step up and return to a true free market economy.

Government intervention doesn’t actually work, and it provides yet another way for Uncle Sam to take away our freedoms.  It’s time for this to end.

Obviously, this elicited a couple of letters to the editor.  The first one is here and the second one is here.  Both letters bring up some great points, and are factually correct in every way so far as I can tell.  However, these letters are also insulting to Bill Shipp.  Now, I don’t know either of these writers, but I’m a gun guy too, so I know the type pretty well.  They don’t care a fig about whether Bill Shipp feels insulted or not, and I don’t blame them, I don’t either.

However, there are probably hudreds of thousands of gun control advocates in this country.  Truth be told, I used to be one.  I’m not alone.  Noted gun rights advocate Paxton Quigley is another one.  We switched to the “dark side” long ago because of the facts regarding guns.  Criminals fear armed civilians.  Legally, an armed civilian doesn’t have to try and arrest someone committing a forcable felony  first, and can only shoot as a last resort.  In various stand your ground states, like Georgia, we can fire not only to defend ourselves, but others as well.  This creates a dangerous environment for the scum of society, and they know it.

These facts helped change my opinions regarding gun control, and the same is true for Ms Quigley.  However, hurling insults at someone who’s the “face” of gun control won’t change anyone’s mind.  People, when they feel attacked, have a habit of becoming more entrenched and dogmatic regarding their chosen path, rather than listening to whatever logic and reason are also embedded with that attack.

If we are to win the hearts and minds, and you can’t change policy until you change minds, we must understand human nature.  While emotion is a powerful ally, we must understand that it can become a tool for our own undoing.  We must master our own emotions to avoid being labeled as unstable and therefore not worth listening too.  Everyone has their pet policies.  For me it’s firearms.  For others it’s immigration.  We can start to see red and froth at the mouth to the point we should consider legally changing our name to Cujo.  I get it.  But we must curb that emotion and instead passionately speak about facts and use emotions as our weapon.

Libertarians are branded by many as nuts who want to legalize pot and ban stop lights.  Any attacks by us must be based on sound logic and free from insult.  The same is true for gun rights activists, as there are many on the left who believe only the unstable would want a gun.  Granted, I guess that, as a gun nut, I get a double whammy of crazy by these people.  I can live with it.  However, I’m still going to try and change their minds.

In 2008, Libertarian candidate Bob Barr received just 0.4% of the vote nationally.  It wasn’t that no one had heard of Bob Barr either, so lack of name recognition probably wasn’t a factor.  What I suspect had a bigger impact on that election was the public’s perception of Libertarianism, and what that actually means.  Sure, Barr not being included in the debates didn’t help one bit, but we should be able to do better than 0.4%, don’t you think?

Bob Barr raised just over $1,300,000 (as opposed to $500 million for Obama).  Fund raising is usually a good metric for seeing how popular a candidate is, and by extension how many hearts and minds have been won.  Barr’s spending averaged out to be $2.57 per vote while President Obama spent $7.39 per vote.  I might be wrong here, but it sounds like it’s cheaper to get someone to vote for a Libertarian than for a candidate who supposedly inspires people just by opening his mouth.

So then, why didn’t we get more than 0.4% of the vote in 2008?  Simple.  We haven’t focused on winning the hearts and minds.  We can be insulting to both parties, and to independents who lean in a direction that we don’t like.  To some extent, it will always happen.  I’ve done it and will continue to do it in the future, though not intentionally.  It’s human nature to do such things.  However, we must try and curb human nature a bit and understand that most people out there don’t understand our positions on most anything.

We must use the political tools available to us to change people’s minds.  Without that, we will remain a third party and the two party system will continue on.  And let’s face it, neither party has done that great a job so far.  Can we really let them continue?

Libertarians are notorious for embracing the idea of legalizing drugs, especially pot.  Now, plenty of people disagree with us on this issue, saying that drugs leads to a host of other crimes such as robbery and burglary.  We don’t necessarily argue this point.  However, alcoholism leads to drunk driving and assault, and how do we deal with this?  Easy.  When a drunk punches someone, we arrest them for assault.  Drugs should be treated the same way.  While I personally think that drugs are bad for you, both physically and spiritually, I don’t feel the state has any business telling you so.

Crimes that are considered “victimless” should, in my opinion, be repealled immediately.  Drug use, in and of itself, doesn’t hurt anyone else.  If someone wants to be stupid and use drugs, then so be it.  I fail to see why the state needs to get involved whatsoever.   Our government wastes billions of dollars each year to prosecute the “drug war” and have little to show for it besides crowded prisons, bloated budgets, and a continuing epidemic of drug use and addiction.

Prostitution is another such “crime” that doesn’t hurt a sole in and of itself.  The problems with prostitution involve pimps forcing young girls into prostitution against their will, and forcing them to stay in.  Were prostitution legal, this would abruptly end.  These girls wouldn’t be labeled criminals, but instead would be seen as the victims that they truly are.  They could go to police without fear of arrest themselves for what they’ve been doing.

Another change in the Libertarian Paradise is the removal of state mandated seat belt laws.  They would be a thing of the past.  Now, some may be thinking “why shouldn’t we have them?  I don’t want my tax dollars to pay for some brain dead fool who didn’t wear a seat belt.”  I understand the sentiment, I really do.  However, remember that there is no socialized medicine in the Libertarian Paradise.  The individual’s insurance has to foot the bill.  If not, then his family.  If not his family, then private charities will do it.  But it will not be anyone’s tax dollars.

Also, in my Libertarian Paradise, the borders would be opened.  Those from South of the Border who want to enter the US simply have to fill out a form and have an instant background check done to make sure they’re not fleeing prosecution in their home countries, then they’re welcome to come on in.  Sure, this sounds bad.  Frankly, for a long time, I disagreed with the Libertarian Party’s stance on illegal immigration.  However, I came to realize that you have to look at the party’s platform as a whole, and the same is true here.

Yes, you will have immigrants able to just enter the United States.  However, there is no longer any socialized health care.  There’s also no minimum wage laws.  What this means is that immigrants will have to compete on a level playing field with Americans.  As such, fewer will actually enter the US, since employers will tend to side with people who actually speak English versus those who don’t.  And yes, I understand that many are fans of the minimum wage.  However, it serves to drive costs up.  Employers who are no longer bound by such laws will be able to lowers costs, and thereby prices (they’ll have to…people won’t have the income they might have had at one time).

In short, people are free.  They are free to make any decision they want, so long as they don’t hurt a living soul.  But they also have a responsibility to act right, or else they’ll get the full brunt of their stupidity.  And really, the right to be stupid is one of our most fundamental rights.  When government tries to take it away, they destroy our liberties in ways that people are oblivious too.

We must remain vigilant each day, and then, maybe, we’ll find our Libertarian Paradise.

SWGA Politics will also have a continuing series ‘Candidate and Liberty’, examining each candidate’s statements as they appear on their websites and looking at them from the eyes of one Libertarian – namely, me. The first mini-series in this series is now complete, and ‘John Oxendine and Liberty: Series At a Glance‘ has already been posted.

They want to make sure that the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) is “fair”

For those who don’t know, the BCS is a complicated process that attempts to crown a National Champion without breaking the previous bowl system.  So, they feed college football scores into a computer, along with poll rankings.  If you don’t understand the specifics already, I’m afraid you’ll still be clueless after reading this article.  Truth be told, I don’t think anyone understands it.

Don’t get me wrong.  I can rail for days against the BCS.  I hate it.  I think it’s a steaming pile of something that comes out of the back end of a male bovine.  But why is this the government’s responsibility?  Republican Rep. Joe Barton of Texas has even introduced a bill that will stop the NCAA from calling anyone a “national champion” without a playoff.  It’s funny though that the University of Texas was ranked number 3 in the BCS last season, which means they did not play for the national championship.  I’m sure Rep. Barton would have introduced this legislation regardless of that fact, right?  Anyone?

Yeah…I didn’t buy that one either.

A lot of people want a playoff in college football, and I’m near the top of that list.  Heck, that’s one thing that President Obama and I agree on completely.  But why is this even before Congress?  This is not a Congressional matter, and frankly there are more important things to worry about.  Instead, it seems that Congressional football fans are taking advantage of their positions to influence a sport they love, rather than doing the job they are in Washington and are supposed to do.

Of course, most on Congress don’t really know what they job they’re supposed to do actually is.  I’ll give you a hint:  You swore an oath to “support and defend” this old and important document.  Why don’t you guys give it a shot?

There’s only a few problems with that.  First is that there is a measure of dispute about how reliable polygraphs really are.  A polygraph is really nothing more than set of monitors that measure things like blood pressure, resparations, pulse, things like that.  In theory, it can tell if someone’s lying by the descrepencies in these biological functions.  However, there’s actually little scientific evidence to support the reliability of this.

In fact, there’s even reports that place the relability of polygraphs as being only slightly better than chance.  However, Mayor Adams isn’t stupid.  He’s a physician as well as a mayor, so I have to assume he’s done some research on polygraphs.  If he has, then he knows that the machine can be beaten.  Even in it’s best estimates, it’s only supposedly 93-96% accurate, so that means it’s beatable.  With the 70% or lower figure, that increases one’s chance to beat the polygraph.

With this in mind, why act like a polygraph would solve everything?  It still doesn’t change the fact that Carol Fullerton was in Atlanta in the General Assembly, and that her absences should have been considered excused.  Regardless of Mayor Adams’ charges that teleconferencing capabilities were not available during the meetings, she was conducting official business for the State of Georgia and representing the people of this area.  How, Mayor Adams, can this not be instantly considered excused?  I’m just curious.

Once again, I’d like to applaud Roger Marietta, who I have plenty to disagree with on other issues.  Mr. Marietta was the only member of the City Commission to make a stand in Rep. Fullerton’s defense, and for that we here at SWGA Politics commend him.

As for me, it’s my most sincere hope that Rep. Fullerton is reinstated to the WG&L board as soon as possible.  It would be a betrayal of the city for any less to happen.  And think of it this way, if WALB, the Albany Herald, and SWGA Politics agrees on something, then perhaps there’s something to it!

In any economy, you will have the “haves” and the “have nots” simply because of human nature.  People will work towards accumulating wealth and power (often the same things) regardless of the economic system.  The only difference is the route by which one must go to get it.  Capitalism, in it’s truly free form (which we do not have in this nation), actually…um…capitalizes (sorry, but it’s the best word) on this tendency and redirects it toward the betterment of the entire society.

People will always want wealth, so by letting them work towards it without prohibition, they ultimately create new jobs all on their own.  They don’t need federal stimulus or corporate welfare, they just get to do what they need to.  However, what’s to prevent an monopoly?  Honestly, that’s a great question.

First, for a Libertarian Paradise to exist, the ties between business and government must be severed.  Monopolies exist primarily because of government.  So, in the Libertarian Paradise, there are no regulations on who can sell you cable service, or who you have to get your phone service through.  If one company becomes to big and powerful, they will invariably start to discount their customers and alienate them.  This has happened time and time again.  So, someone else starts up a new company to compete.  Soon, the giant is back down to size, and we now have to companies competing for your dollars, and jobs have increased overall as a result of this competition.  Plus, even more companies can come in and compete, making it better all around.

Now, the charge I mentioned earlier about how Libertarians don’t care about the poor.  That’s unfair and untrue.  It’s not that Libertarians don’t care about poor people.  Instead, it’s just a case of we believe that government is a good way to screw up anything.  In a Libertarian Paradise, private charities take over the role of providing for the poor.  Health care, clothing, food, housing, all done with private charity.  And how will this be funded you ask?  Simple.  In a Libertarian Paradise, people will have more money to donate, so many more will.  Or, conversely, if they don’t donate it, they’ll probably spend it, meaning there will be more jobs which will mean fewer poor.

You see, your money will remain your money.  While I believe some form of taxation is necessary, it can’t be anything resembling our current system.  The idea of working for 3-4 months for the government is called slavery, and that has never set well with me.  Instead, a sales tax of some sorts maybe, though hopefully simpler than the Fair Tax, will be utilized instead.  Honestly, who knows.  So long as it’s not something like this income tax we currently have, I’m remarkably OK with it.

Your money is yours, and you’re free to spend it however you want.  However you should be aware that you’re responsible for the repercussions of your actions.  If you don’t want to drive without insurance, then so be it…but if you get in a wreck that’s your fault, the other person can file suit and take the money, with the help of the courts, to pay for repairs and any medical bills due to your carelessness.  If you don’t have health insurance and you’re seriously injured in a wreck, you or your family will be responsible for paying as well.

You see, economic freedom sounds all wonderful on the surface, and it truly is.  However, with freedom comes responsibility, something our nation has been lacking for some time.  If you screw up, you have to pay the price…literally.  Perhaps having to do that would solve a few more problems we have in this nation.  Seriously, how many teenagers would be getting pregnant if they knew they’d have to foot the bill for everything?  Sure, it would happen, but not nearly in the epidemic proportions we currently have.  And there’s many other potential benefits to society besides just this.

Without Uncle Sam in your business, you’re free to make money and keep it.  Investments would go up.  Unemployment would go down.  Freedom would ring from sea to shining sea.  And the best part is, it won’t cost a dime to implement.  How’s THAT for stimulus?

What you have just read is my own interpretation of a Libertarian Paradise.  I’m sure there are others who agree, and more than a few who will disagree.  However, it still sounds a lot better than what we’ve got, and this isn’t a Utopian dream.  This, my friends, is real.

To quote Mr. Gary Willis from the report,

“It’s just anti-business. That’s the bottom line,” said Willis. According to the city’s updated sign ordinance adopted last year, they’re in violation.

“We’re trying to survive, trying to do whatever we can do to make it from day to day,” said Willis.

And another lot owner.

“If I can’t advertise, the profitability of my lot is going to decline to the point that I can’t make a living. And I certainly won’t be able to pay my employees,” said Lawson Auto Sales Owner Jeff Lawson.

Quite frankly, they’re right.  The idea of sign ordinances is to make a community look more presentable to outside traffic.  Visitors will get an impression of a community from how business signs look.  I really do understand that the idea is to attract visitors and businesses to Albany.

I have an idea that the City of Albany may want to look at.  It’s a crazy idea, I know, but perhaps it’ll work.  Here it is.  Instead of worrying about signs at lawful businesses who are trying to make it through the worst economic climate since the Great Depression, let’s focus on another element that puts Albany in a bad light…criminals.

Now, stay with me here, but here’s my thinking.  People who look at the community size won’t really care about what kind of signs Lawson Auto Sales has up, but they just might care about running gun fights down the streets of Albany, or the rash of home invasions that’s been plaguing the city in the last few days.

Yes, I know Code Enforcement is a different division of city government.  However, the City has finite resources.  Instead of utilizing those resources to hit businesses that pump much needed tax dollars into the city, use those resources against those who violate the most basic laws of society.

We have a crime problem in Albany.  Something has got to change in this town, and frankly I’m at a bit of a loss about what to do.  However, I’m pretty damn sure that it’s not banners and streamers that are the problem, nor are they gambling machines in the back of conveneince stores.

To the City Leaders of Albany:  Yes, I have been critical of you.  As a voter, it’s my job to dissect what you do.  However, we all want the same thing.  We want Albany to be a great place to live.  We want to attract industry and therefore jobs to town.  We want to clean up the streets and make Albany one of the best places to live in the US.  We may disagree about how best to go about it, but we want the same things.

However, I think anyone can see that sign ordinances aren’t really the issue.

Fair Disclosure:  I happen to have a couple of old friends from High School who own car lots.  I have not spoken with either of them about the new ordinance, and frankly it doesn’t matter.  I doubt  you’ll find a Libertarian OK with laws like this.