It was a very good talk focused getting government out of our daily lives and out of foreign affairs. It seemed that the biggest area of discussion and perhaps disagreement with the audience was over US involvement overseas. It seems that it’s seen that it may be our duty to police the world in order to keep our allies and ultimately ourselves safe, as opposed to focusing on defense.
(“J” is for Jacob and “S” is Sheldon)
J : Instead of trying to reform health care, social security we should just repeal them… government should also get out of education.
S : We need a theory of social change. We need a huge change in the way people think. Friedman taught many about the free market.
J : Freidman wasted time. I advocated against school vouchers. Vouchers entrenches the government in education. We need a total separation of education and state. We need to shoot for the goal.
S : Incremental steps are good such as 50% tax reduction. Opposed school vouchers as it’s not a step in the right direction.
J : Conservatives are for reform, Libertarians are for complete freedom.
S: Saying you want to abolish doesn’t do anything. People need to be open to ideas.
J : Problem is people believe they are free. Libertarians say they want freedom and people don’t understand what you mean.
S : In good measure people are free compared to Cuba. We can buy books and move around freely. Not wacked out, as we can live fairly free. It’s just not enough.
J : If you can vote and do what you want Saturday morning you feel free. Why can you not work the job you want such as a doctor, lawyer or keep all your income or do the drugs you want without permission from government.
S : To many ancients freedom meant being able to participate in government through voting. Modern freedom is the right to do as you want with yourself and property. As a society we are heading back to the ancient meaning of freedom.
J : We’re born into system that says your free when you’re really not. It’s a surprise to people when they discover libertarianism and learn just how unfree we are. Also many laws such as minimum wage actually hurt the poor.
S : Many people don’t understand economics. Don’t realize that economics should by self-running. It should run itself. We need to educate people. Many of us libertarians read something that clicks but many don’t.
J : Safety nets sound comforting but free markets are the ultimate safety net for people. National security issues keep people fearful and believing they need them and they provoke problems.
S : If you are ignorant of the history of US intervention overseas you don’t understand why we’re being attacked. We need to educate people that the best way to defend ourselves is to stop provoking people.
J : We need to stop causing problems in the middle east going back to Iran with US overthrowing the government and placing the Shah of Iran in power who was unpopular.
S : Lack of information. People believe big military is better than the alternative of chaos.
J : The real way to maintain freedom is to dismantle big military and the welfare state.
Members of audience very concerned about nuclear weapons, unstable countries, humanitarian aid, problems like Somalia. Believe the US government needs to be involved to remove weapons and help allies of the US government.
S : Sceptical that government makes it better such as Libya with huge flow of arms. People here don’t know enough about societies and end up making matters worse such as in Iraq. The people making policies don’t know what they are doing based on history. Often the people we support are just as bad as the people we fight. Any modern problem is caused by past actions of outside entities such as creating borders that don’t make sense, splitting tribes and grouping people that don’t get along that fight for control of the government.
J : Rational for other countries to develop nuclear weapons because the US is a threat to their freedom. John Quincy Adams in “In Search of Monsters to Destroy?” stated we will not help you outside the US but you are free to come here no questions asked with open immigration. Private people can go over and do what they want to help.
S : History in US is clear that we’ve always had empire on the mind under the guise of national security.
J : Look at what it has done to us. We lead the world in torture and assassination. We would never have approved of this previously but now we look the other way.
S : Libertarians don’t promise a utopia, but won’t make matters worse.
J : As young people you live nice lives now and many register for draft to get educational funds and the us government would have no problem sending you to your death for nothing.
Another person said that libertarians telling people that they don’t promise safety scares people and they like being told by government that they will do whatever they need to do to make it them safe. People like the large military and support the troops.
J : Fear is important to the government. How do we overcome the fear citizens have and willing to trade freedom for safety. Don’t know how we change that.
Recommended Reading: Hazlet, Mises, Hayek, Bastiat wrote great stuff on economics.
Visit http://www.FFF.org for more information on The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Below is another video Jacob G. Hornberger and Sheldon Richman did after the talk discussing their trip throughout the northeast and some highlights of the discussions.
A survey as been put out by the @NorthEndNPA asking what residents want for their community. Anyone is welcome to comment on this. I just submitted my comments, which are below. I had trouble with the form, but you can also email them to firstname.lastname@example.org like a did.
The survey: http://goo.gl/gv9Ab5
My responses to selected questions are below:
Either New North End (NNE) or North Burlington if fine. However, people are used to the area being called the “New North End” so I’m not sure there is a real compelling reason to change it. However, I have often wondered about the possibility of the NNE splitting off from Burlington to become its own town and North Burlington could be a good name for it. Basically, we could do what South Burlington did when they split off from Burlington or Winooski from Colchester. They sought charter changes from the state legislature to become their own towns and were given that status.
It seems there would be a growing interest as it seems many citizens are not pleased with the treatment of the city government towards the NNE. Perhaps now would be the time to explore this option further?
Love the Leddy park and beach, and the bike path. We use them a lot during the summer months.
More affordable shopping options such as a department store and lower cost dining and entertainment.
A business association for the NNE is an interesting idea. It could be like BBA.org but specifically for the NNE. I’m a member of BBA so I’m familiar with how they operate. They have a good level of engagement, but are increasingly expensive for small businesses as time goes on, which can hinder micro business from getting involved. If a business organization with minimal fees could be created, it could provide a great lower cost option for them to be able to network.
As a web developer, I would be able to provide website/hosting for the project and possibly be involved in the organization of it if there is desire from other area business people to start one.
Brian David Johnson (@IntelFuturist) describes his job as Futurist at Intel as telling the company what people will be doing 10-15 years into the future so that they can plan the technology now. Below are some notes Heavenly and I took from the lecture:
Johnson said he “Wants to design things that embrace the complexities of who we are”
2020 Compute Moves to Zero
Big Data can be Used for Good or Bad – what do you want to do with it?
The World is Split into Two Groups
Fight, Flight, or Freeze
The thing holding us back is our imagination
How Do We Change the Future?
Question: Which of Windows, Apple and Linux will win?
Answer: All of the above. Choice always wins. Always bet on choice and as much variety as possible
Question: What makes technology successful?
Answer: Are you making people’s lives better? If it solves a problem it will succeed. Any new tech should solve a problem – improve life. Blending the physical and digital. I am a farm futurist (for a mag). Farmers are the geekiest of geeks. Best review of Google Glass from a farmer: “like a smartphone on your face” Farmers are very busy and don’t have time for anything not useful, they are the best at figuring out how to get stuff done.
Question: Tesla cutting out middleman, thoughts?
Answer: The internet has reduced the need for many middlemen such as travel agents. They still exist, but not as much. To succeed you will need to provide more value than the direct/ internet counterparts.
Question: Healthcare market future?
Answer: New devices, smaller devices than smart phone can be used with healthcare. New devices will help with preventable healthcare.
Question: How to become a futurist?
Answer: His job came from the energy industry, make yourself redundant. Look at places at need to make big bets, energy, high tech, pharma, government. His job is also called strategic forecasting.
Question: Idea translation, any tips to communicate ideas that are hard to describe?
Answer: SciFi, we relate through narratives. Put it into context or narratives. Example: person place and problem. Be able to know the smell of the future, and as bonus know what it tastes like.
Question: What kind of future imagine with resource scarcity?
Answer: We do look at resources while taking future into account, a big part of the modeling they do.
Question: AI, will it catch up with human intelligence?
Answer: Not sold on idea that it will. Thought he would ask about terminators – as that is telling of humans, but we must take responsibility for it. The Technological Singularity is when machine intelligence surpasses human intelligence. What kind of intelligence do we want and what do we want them to do for us? Good futures and bad ones, steps to good? To have a good future we need to have a vision – based on facts rather than fears. Have conversations with people.
Question: Economics dying? Alchemy?
Answer: Favorite economist is Paul Thomas, talks about how GDP, is flawed. Human beings are value based systems, and data driven. How you look at the market? What are you optimizing for? We should question how we look at economic metrics/values.
Question: Insight to 3d printing and 3d printing stores?
Answer: Over time with technology we are able to do more in our own home, but there still remains a need for a stores to do some of the work for us like with desktop printing. We print stuff at home, but still use print shops for some tasks or buy greeting cards instead of printing them at home or we buy books at a bookstore instead of reading them on a computer. Working on an open source robot that will be freely available to download and print through a 3d printer. Open source robots should be like a smart phone with legs. Freely available with the ability to download various apps into them to make them do whatever you want.
Students are unencumbered by the past, they would be the 1st gen of not knowing what it is like without internet.
It’s your responsibility to go to past generations to discuss the future.
The video below WAS NOT from this lecture but from a Keynote Presentation he did for ASTC in 2012:
Increasing the minimum wage shouldn’t make much of a difference as the starting wage, whatever it is, is always going to be at the bottom. When you increase the minimum wage the wages for everyone else will go up to compensate for the difference as the person that’s been working somewhere for a year isn’t going to want to make the same as the person who just started yesterday and so on.
At least temporarily should give everyone a boost in buying power, especially those that earn the least as it would make the biggest difference to them. The labor unions like this policy because many of their contracts are tied to a certain amount/percentage over certain wages so it looks good for the unions when their memberships wages are going up.
However, then the prices of goods and services must also go up to pay for the extra labor cost unless you import products outside of the country, bring in outside workers or replace human labor with machines, which of course reduces jobs.
Also, it then excludes a group of workers that may be lacking in skills from competing for the easiest jobs since if you have to choose between two job candidates, one is slightly skilled more than the other but you have to pay them both the same wage, who are you going to go with? The skilled one. Now if the unskilled one could offer to accept a lower wage at first in order to be trained, you may go with that candidate. I was in this situation myself a few times.
If this is not how it works, then why are they being so cheap… why not increase the minimum wage to $100/hour?
The proposed redistricting plan would add an additional ward for a total of 8 wards with 4 larger districts. There would be 2 less city councilors for a a total of 12 city councilors. All city councilors would be voted on in 2015.
I don’t like the idea of less representation on the city council. I would much rather the city just add more city councilor positions. Mayor Miro Weinberger has threatened to veto any addition of city councilors and current city council candidates have argued this fact as a reason to support the current proposal. However, they could simply override his veto if they wanted to. I imagine that the mayor and the current city council members don’t want any additional city councilors for one simple reason. I would dilute their power. The mayor only has one vote, any additional councilors will dilute his vote. Also, more new city councilors run the risk of new people not willing to support the established power’s plans. Plans going forward could be threatened.
Having the 4 larger districts help solidify the incumbent’s ability to keep power as the larger the district the harder it would be a for a challenger to cover the district with signs and go door-to-door.
I can certainly understand why the mayor and existing city councilors would want this proposal, but the voting citizens should see this as a threat to diverse representation on the city council.
Ballot Items 6, 7 and 8 are about gun control and are probably the most controversial ballot items on the ballot. My guess is that like most things that city government tries to do this is just a step towards a complete gun ban in Burlington, which I’m sure some of the supporters of these 3 ballot items desire.
At first glance, this may seem like a good policy. However, it’s fairly vague. What qualifies as a weapon specifically for starters and how do you determine for sure who’s weapons are who’s? Don’t you run the risk of seizing a weapon that the potential victim may need to defend themselves against the attacker? What specifically qualifies as a domestic abuse incident? We are not even specifically proposing to take weapons away from a convicted abuser, but just a suspected one, what qualifies as a suspected abuser?
The current laws provide sufficient tools for police to deal with domestic abuse. If a citizen does harm to someone with ANY weapon, whether its a gun, bat, knife, or fist, they deserve to face consequences and the victim should be taken care of whether its special protection and/or compensation.
However, this charter change seems to be unnecessary and could actually put potential victims at greater risk as a weapon may be the only defense someone may have against an abuser.
This one is an easy one to vote no against for me. Many bars, such as Manhattan Pizza, like the idea of not allowing firearms in their bars, so why can’t they just do it. A bar owner can set the rules as they see fit for patrons… why ask the government to do their own dirty work. I imagine many don’t want to come off as the “bad guy” and anger existing/potential customers.
This charter change also would encompass a lot of properties in downtown Burlington as it means a ban of guns in all restaurants, bars, and many hotels. Again, I imagine this is only another step towards extending the ban to more areas to eventually cover the entire public area, just like what’s happening with smoking bans.
The funny thing about criminals and abusers is they usually don’t follow the laws, so charter changes like this will not stop them from holding weapons, but will certainly make them feel more confident when committing crimes that their victims will be disarmed.
Another really easy one to vote no on. This one would require firearms not in our immediate possession to be locked up. What sense does it make to keep a gun locked up if want to have it available during an emergency.
My wife and I called for police help a few years ago and the response time was far too slow, over 2 hours I believe even though we are about 2 miles away from the nearest police department. If one feels comfortable depending on them or something else for protection so be it. However, if other citizens want to be able to defend themselves their own way who are we to stop them from protecting themselves as they want in their own home?
Even if all three pass by Burlington voters it may not matter since they would need state approval and it’s been argued that all three are unconstitutional. Other towns have tried passing gun control bans, just to be turned down by Montpelier. However, it’s possible that these might have a better chance as they are not as strict.
Also, lets be honest here. Most of Burlington is quite peaceful. We have very little gun violence that I can think of. Is gun policy really something we need to be worried about? Don’t we have much bigger issues to worry about in Burlington? Perhaps its a distraction from the real issues. The last gun violence incident I know of in Burlington is when the Burlington Police gunned down a resident in our area who was armed with a shovel.
Karen was a fiscally conservative, pro-liberty supporter of the law as created by the nation and state founders.
While campaigning, Karen fought for victim’s rights, regulatory reform and gun rights. Karen felt there was too little justice for the victims of crime. Karen felt that we had too many laws and regulations that intruded on our liberty to use our own personal property as we see fit as well as costing the state much needed jobs. Karen also felt we must protect our state’s rights and as an example she spoke against the health care bill and wished to join other states in suing the federal government to overturn it. Karen also was a ardent supporter of the gun rights and spoke against actions to limit personal gun ownership.
Karen was a very committed and passionate candidate for the Vermont Libertarian Party. She ran for office even in poor health traveling the state, attending state committee meetings, campaigning and fighting for victims and for what she felt was right, despite her personal suffering and poor finances.
You can read more about Karen Kerin at her 2010 campaign website: http://www.karenkerin.com.
Last Sunday, I attended the “Celebration of Life” for Hardy Macia, former chair of the Vermont Libertarian Party and one of Vermont’s greatest Libertarian-activists. It was very moving to see so many people express how much he touched their lives.
I said a few words about Hardy. For those interested, I have posted a transcript below…
I knew Hardy for a short time when he lived here in Vermont and my involvement with him was through his political efforts.
I first met Hardy when he ran for governor. I was just learning about Libertarianism at the time and discovered the Libertarian Party in Vermont had a candidate for governor. I had contacted him by email I believe and then he surprised me by calling me and asking to meet at my home. I was so surprised at the offer. He had showed up that day and he explained a whole lot about the party and his campaign. Hardy was very straight-forward about how he felt about a variety of issues. It impressed my wife Heavenly and I so much we both got involved with his campaign and the party soon after.
Since then, I’ve witnessed him campaign and work so passionately for the cause of liberty for all. He showed much dedication and optimism in everything he worked on. Everyone seemed to like him, even those who didn’t agree his beliefs. People knew he was the real deal, even if they didn’t agree with his positions, they knew he was doing what he felt was right and they respected that.
He inspired me to run for local office myself and he was very helpful throughout the process and provided much support and encouragement.
He was a crucial part of the party here in Vermont and we’ve missed him very much since he left for New Hampshire. I have committed to keeping the party alive here in Vermont since he left and will continue to as long as I can. I’m sure he will be widely missed by his New Hampshire friends as well.
You will be missed Hardy… may you rest in peace!
Below is an interview with Gary Johnson on national issues. In the interview Gary Johnsons supports:
If Gary Johnson decides to run for president in 2012, he could be a good possible candidate.
However, he would most likely run as Republican which would most likely mean he will not get too far as I don’t believe the National Republican party would let him get too far, they would most likely do whatever necessary to marginalize his efforts, like what happened with Ron Paul. He will not make it past the primary.
I would rather see him seek the Libertarian nomination or run as an independent so that he could at least be in the race when it comes time for the people to vote.
More about Gary Johnson: