Young Americans For Liberty: Thomas Sowell- On Freedom of Choice

Source:Young Americans For Liberty- Conservative columnist Thomas Sowell talking about how Big Government destroys freedom of choice.

Source:The New Democrat 

Freedom of Choice and personal and economic freedom in general is just that. The freedom to decide what is best for yourself. Not what is best for others. Not the freedom to hurt people other than in self-defense, but the freedom for one to make their own decisions and have the personal responsibility to live with the consequences of their decisions. To consume alcohol or not, to smoke tobacco or not, to even use marijuana or not, to marry or not and the same things for gays. The freedom to gamble one's own money or not. The freedom to watch an adult film or not. The freedom to read adult material and listen to graphic music and watch graphic entertainment or not. Not the freedom to make these decisions for others, because you approve of them. Ot to deny others from making these decisions for themselves, because you don't approve of them.

If there is a free market and of course there isn't and I've argued this a lot in the past, but if there were a free market it would be an individual market based on choice. Where we can all make these decisions for ourselves and then be held responsible for the decisions that we make. A free market of individuals, not a market of business's that would go unregulated and untaxed with the freedom over our own lives as far as what we consume, because even if there are a lot of different products, there would be very few competitors, because of all the unregulated monopolization in the market. But a true individual market where all free adults make these decisions themselves with a wide-range of different business's and competitors, because monopoly is truly illegal. With an educated public that has all the information that they need to make their own decisions.

Freedom of Choice is always something that I believe in as a Liberal. Because that along with Freedom of Speech and equality opportunity and equal rights and justice for all, is really what liberalism is about. I don't want to force people to make the same decisions that I did. Or be held responsible for the decisions that I made. I just want the freedom to make my own decisions and given the responsibility to personally live up to the consequences of my decisions. Not eliminate government and get it out-of-the-way all together. We still need a regulator to regulate how people interact with each other and to punish when the innocent are harmed. But let people make their own personal decisions short of hurting innocent people and hold them personally responsible for their own decisions.

Sheldon Richman: "Planned Parenthood, Social Peace, And the Libertarian Approach'

Source:Planned Parenthood.

Source:The New Democrat

This is going to sound strange coming from a Liberal, but I’m going to make a fiscally conservative, perhaps even classically liberal case for publicly funding Planned Parenthood. They serve low-income mothers and women who otherwise would have a very difficult time getting birth control and other women’s health care. Do people who call themselves Conservatives really want low-income women having more kids while they’re still collecting public assistance? Birth control is pro-life, because it prevents future Americans from having to live in poverty. Living with a single mother without the education and resources to raise their kids properly. Planned Parenthood is pro-life, because it provides millions of Americans with health care that they probably wouldn’t be able to get.

Tax-payer funding of Planned Parenthood means the Federal Government doesn’t have to create some new Federal agency to provide the health care to millions of American women who probably couldn’t get it anywhere else. It means a smaller Federal Government, fewer Federal workers, less Federal tax dollars being spent on these services, because they’re not being provided by the Federal Government instead. We’re not talking about taxpayer funding of abortions which are illegal anyway and I support that except as Sheldon Richman put it under extreme circumstances. Like going through the pregnancy would kill the mother. What we’re talking about is health care not including abortions for millions of American women who probably couldn’t get it otherwise.

I know the libertarian argument about this is not government’s business and that they should butt out of what goes on in the private sector. But tell me where does that system exist in the world so I could look at that and see how it works. If you don’t have government serving people and seeing to it that people who might not be able to get by without that assistance gets help that they need, then what is government for. What’s the point of having a public sector at all? Government is supposed to serve the people. Not direct them, but to see to it that we all have a good shot at making it in life on our own. And preventing unwanted pregnancies and women from having to raise their kids in poverty, is part of that public service.

Andrew Klavan & Bill Whittle: Should Prostitution be Legal?

Source:Bearing Arms & Company- with a video about prostitution.

Source:The New Democrat

"Check out the entire Klavan & Whittle series, by becoming a member at PJTV:Pajamas TV But for now, don't miss this episode-- 'should prostitution be legal?'" 

From Bearing Arms & Company

If I had to guess, it's rare if ever that I agree with Andrew Klavan and Bill Whittle on anything. If they said it was snowing in Chicago in January, I would ask for a second opinion. But as a Liberal (or Classical Liberal, meaning real Liberal, if you prefer) I don't like the idea of government using our tax dollars to lock people up and incarcerate people, simply for what they do to themselves. If you want to go after and lock people up who beat up prostitutes, like their johns and pimps, that's a good use of tax dollars. 

Prostitution is a horrible business and I wouldn't suggest it to my 100 worst enemies (not that I even have one enemy) but locking people up who represent no threat to a free society, is even worst. We would be much better off if prostitution was legalized, regulated, and taxed, instead of punishing people for simply hurting themselves.

Mises Daily: Gary Galles: 'Labor Unions & Freedom of Association'

Source:Mises Daily- talking about organized labor.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Mandatory union membership and mandatory dues imposed on those who do not want to join are again at issue. On the heels of contentious “right to work” disputes in several states, the Supreme Court has recently heard arguments challenging an Illinois mandate requiring home health care workers to pay representation fees to a union they did not want. That case, Harris v. Quinn, has the potential to even challenge the Court’s 1977 Aboud precedent upholding mandatory union dues for public sector workers. Such a result would be a victory for liberty.

Unions and their allies in Harris v. Quinn reiterate the claim, accepted in Aboud, that “union security” rules are needed to prevent workers from unfairly opting out of paying for union services. But that claim, which portrays the issue as defending the property, contract, and freedom of association rights of unions (to be paid for services rendered to workers they represent), intentionally misrepresents the core issue, which is the liberty of workers and employers.

“Union security” rules are clear violations of the liberty of workers’ and employers’ freedom to not be forced to associate with certain groups against their will, a freedom unions ironically steamroll in the name of freedom of association, asserted only for themselves, despite its inconsistency with freedom of association for all. Consequently, unions must find a legitimate sounding way of defending the coercion involved. That is where the free-rider argument comes in, which frames the issue as protecting legitimate rights, rather than the illegitimate use of government-granted coercive powers to impose employment terms violating government’s primary role: protecting individual rights." 

You can read the rest of this article at Mises Daily. 

"Mulhall v. Unite Here decision will have a profound effect on employer neutrality, a union's ability to reach employees, and whether a union will be recognized by the employer during labor negotiations." 

Source:The Real News Network- and organized labor.

From the so-called Real News Network  

Here's a perfect example of why I love being a Liberal. It is the perfect belief system for laying out the best plan in the fairest and most balanced way that protects everyone's freedoms. It is also a label under which so-called free market economic Libertarians, and pro-big labor Socialists should be able to find common ground when it comes to Freedom of Assembly and the Right to Organize, which give all workers the freedom of choice they deserve and need.

There are people, let's say, on the far-left who do not so much believe in the Right to Organize but would like to see it mandated, and all work places, both private and public, unionized, requiring union membership of all workers, with a non-participation penalty of paying union dues whether or not they are members. Then you have the so-called Libertarian-Right, which demands that unions be abolished and the market (meaning employers) decide what all workers get paid. They also would eliminate most, if not all, regulations, including the minimum wage.

But if you are an actual Progressive and not just someone who calls yourself a Progressive, then the Right to Organize is real, meaning that it should be a right and not a mandate for workers to join or not join a union.  

If you are a real Libertarian and not just someone who calls yourself a Libertarian or a Conservative Libertarian, you don't want government power or corporate or business power deciding for individuals whether they should sign up for a union because you believe in the individual and freedom of choice and not government or employers making these decisions for the individual instead.

Now here is where the common ground can be found for actual Progressives and Libertarians, that is, let the workers decide for themselves whether to sign up for a union and let people unionize if they want but then have the union earn its union membership and members, including dues, and not let them be automatically rewarded just because they are a union. 

And if workers do not sign up for the union, then they do not pay union dues and do not get the benefits of being union members.  They work as free agents, negotiating their own wages and benefits. Both sides win. Big government and big business get out of the way.  Individuals decide for themselves.

Chris Paul: 'Don't Take Away Our Prostitutes'

Source:Chris Paul- correct me if I'm wrong: but doesn't coming out against legalization of prostitution, in your own state where it's already legal, the political version of shooting yourself in the foot? Which is what Harry Reid is doing here, especially representing a state that has one of the highest rates of unemployment and poverty in it.

"Sen Harry Reid says that Nevada should end it's business of legalized prostitution.

I say NO!" 

From Chris Paul

I'm not saying prostitution is a good thing and that I'm suggesting that guys should go out and get prostitutes. Or dump their wives or girlfriends or cheat on them. But there are a lot of things that I wouldn't do and I wouldn't suggest that other people should do as well. My point is just I personally don't like a particular activity, food, drink, etc, doesn't mean I think people who disagree with me on that and go the other way, should be sent to jail for it, especially if I have to pay for their time in jail with my tax dollars. 

But if someone rapes, murders, assaults, robs, etc, sure, I'm in favor of putting those folks in jails. Which is what criminal justice is about: protecting the innocent from predators. Not trying to protect people from themselves and treating people you disagree with like idiots or children who can barely take two steps without tripping over themselves. 

I don't smoke anything, I don't drink alcohol, I don't gamble (not even state lottery which is a form legalize gambling) I don't hook up with prostitutes. (Pun intended) I'm not attractive to women that look like prostitutes. Doesn't mean I believe that any of these activities should be illegal, that people should go to jail and have a criminal record even for what they do to themselves. 

I believe it's dumber to arrest people who aren't a threat to anyone and who don't hurt anyone, then to legalize these activities. Doesn't mean these activities shouldn't be regulated either. 

We regulate everything else in the economy thats legal, whether it's healthy for us or not and for good reason, to protect and prevent the abuse of others on to innocent people. Thats what regulation is for. And when our economy is doing well, like in the 1980s and 1990s we regulate. Regulation is just simply a lot more effective and efficient and cost-effective measure in preventing people from abusing others. 

Regulate how people interact with each other, rather than try to control how people live their own lives. And you'll have more influence in controlling those activities. Because they are going to go on anyway, prostitution being a perfect example of that. 

Prostitution is not called: "The Oldest Profession in the World" because someone on Madison Avenue or in Hollywood finally came up with a great tag line. They've earned that title and worked hard to keep it as well. Big Government so-called Progressives (nanny-statists, in reality) should be big fans of decriminalizing prostitution, which just means legalizing prostitution. But then regulating it, something that the State of Nevada has been more more progressive on than most of the rest of the country, if not the entire country, because that what they've been doing. At least as long as Las Vegas and Reno have been major casino markets. 

So-called Progressives (nanny-statists, in actuality) should be big fans of decriminalizing prostitution because of the money in it would generate in tax revenue for all of their social insurance programs and their ideas for more public services. Especially in this age of austerity where the Federal, state and local government's are all cutting back their public services. 

Taxing and regulating prostitution would generate a lot more tax revenue for leftists to run their programs. As well as decriminalizing gambling and marijuana as well.

Liberals and Libertarians of course like this idea, because the see it as a freedom of choice issue individual liberty. decriminalizing prostitution would be fairly simple, because prostitutes and pimps (for lack of a better term) rather than be regulated and pay taxes then go to jail. That is the people who are in it to make a living and are not criminals. And the people who are the professionals, would continue doing their thing. 

The criminals would go to jail but for tax invasion and prostituting without a license, sponsoring a minor, that sort of thing and you could get the irresponsible people out of the business. And collect taxes and cut down on your prison populations. All good reasons why regulation beats prohibition.