My attitude toward all other persons is well illustrated by this story from a celebrated traveler: He arrived one day in the midst of a tribe of savages, where a child had just been born. A crowd of soothsayers, magicians, and quacks — armed with rings, hooks, and cords — surrounded it. One said: "This child will never smell the perfume of a peace-pipe unless I stretch his nostrils." Another said: "He will never be able to hear unless I draw his ear-lobes down to his shoulders." A third said: "He will never see the sunshine unless I slant his eyes." Another said: "He will never stand upright unless I bend his legs." A fifth said: "He will never learn to think unless I flatten his skull."

"Stop," cried the traveler. "What God does is well done. Do not claim to know more than He. God has given organs to this frail creature; let them develop and grow strong by exercise, use, experience, and liberty."

God has given to men all that is necessary for them to accomplish their destinies. He has provided a social form as well as a human form. And these social organs of persons are so constituted that they will develop themselves harmoniously in the clean air of liberty. Away, then, with quacks and organizers! A way with their rings, chains, hooks, and pincers! Away with their artificial systems! Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization, their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations!

And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.

-Frederick Bastiat, The Law

Let me start by saying I am a professional artist. I'm an illustrator, animator and film maker. My wife is a photographer and a skilled musician, my sons are talented actors and singers. In my extended family I have accomplished painters, designers, sculptors, writers, thinkers, poets and musicians. I love art, and for this reason I reject the idea that in order for an art community to thrive, it must be supported by city council members with bad taste and a raging appetite to shop with other people's money. 

Public Art is Bad Art
Many say that they LOVE public art, but I'm almost certain that most are lying because I don't see many people buying abstract squiggly forms, metal trees or giant genitals for their own front lawns. Since the quality of art is subjective, there are only two ways to tell if art is good. 1. An individual is willing to buy it or 2. You take the effort to make it for yourself. The qualification is that just one individual, somewhere in the world, actually wants to invest time or money into the creation or acquisition of the piece. The public square might be the only place where unwanted/bad art is found. I might go as far as to say that the existence of public funds for art IS the cause of bad art in the world!

I'll explain why this is...

Public Funds for Art Stifles the Artistic Process
When an artist is inspired, they create their best work. They are motivated to communicate their deepest feelings, passions and thoughts in words, song, image, form or story. They focus on presenting the highest quality work for their audience to carry their message. The art is important enough that the artist might sacrifice their personal money, time and energy to create it. If they do not have the resources to create the work, they petition for private commissions. If a patron has evidence that the artist is skilled enough, and is inspired by the work themselves, they might pay the artist to produce it. After the work is completed the artist decides if it is good or not.

Another kind of commissioned art is when a non-artist is inspired but needs a skilled artist to carry out the production. In this case the client decides if the work is good or bad. 

Public Funds for art distort this artistic process of genuine inspiration. With public art, where does the inspiration come from, and who decides what is good or bad? The answer is that public art does not come from inspiration.

If the inspiration comes from the artist, why did they not value the idea enough to pursue its creation by commission or by their own efforts? I can only assume that they didn't because the idea wasn't worth the effort...or worse, and more likely, they were never inspired to begin with - until the thought of public loot was added to the equation.

If the inspiration comes from the client, in this case "The Public", how can it be determined if the resulting work is good or bad when there are 100,000 opinions involved? (How is it even possible to have public inspiration?).  The artist will most likely look externally to try to meet the diverse expectations of "the public". This is why the resulting public artwork tends to be trendy, pretentious and uninspiring. 

Public Funds for Art Distorts Value Judgments
Is the art worth producing or buying? This is a question that an artist or a patron must ask themselves. If the art is desired, then how much? Because value is subjective, a pile of dirt may be very valuable to a landscaper, but totally not valuable to a restaurant owner. The monetary value of art is a judgement that cannot be made without both the patron and the artist discovering a mutually acceptable price. If no one is willing to sacrifice to produce or acquire the art, it is literally worthless.

The problem with publicly commissioned art is that city council members are shopping with other people's money. They are not personally sacrificing or feeling the weight of the cost. Any offer they might give would be based on arbitrary conceptions. They cannot properly judge the value, leaving the artist with no way to negotiate fairly and receive push back from market forces. This is why the resulting public artwork tends to be overpriced. 

An important skill in good economic evaluation is to be able to "see that which is unseen". Example: We might love the public stages, galleries, and some might even pretend to like the sculptures, but we can only imagine what we have missed out on, if these public funds were allocated differently. I believe the funding of art, and even the funding of public venues for art, have distorted the market so much that artists and businesses that would be more innovative and less expensive in bring us higher quality art have been drowned out by a tax funded monopolistic force.

Help Good Art and Help the Public
What have these unattractive and overly priced public displays done for the public's perception of fine arts in general? I believe it has done harm. The kinds of art that are consumed and enjoyed the most are the arts that are not publicly funded (Film, Advertising, Music, Clothes, Graphic Design, Interior Design, Architecture, etc.). These are the things that the market loves to consume. Artists in these areas create an abundance of work, can make a good living and are even adored by fans.

By attempting to help the art culture with public funds, I believe city councils, and those that support public art, have actually damaged a strong, genuine culture of artists and art lovers that we will never know as long as the trend continues.
​

Libertarians are often accused of promoting unregulated chaos. I admit there are some libertarians who don't fully understand how building, pharmaceutical, and food regulations might work without government intervention. All they know is "Regulation bad" according to the rhetoric they've been exposed to. But the truth is that we actually do suffer from a lack of regulation. The problem is that these regulations are written and enforced by government. I'll try to explain why this is a bad idea and what some of the unintended consequences are when government plays the role of regulator.

Conflict of Interest
When the government writes and enforces aggressive legislation and regulation, called positive law, it supposes itself to have the power and authority to play an active role in molding society by political force. But the reason for the creation of governments in the first place was for defensive purposes - negative / natural law. A government cannot participate in creating positive laws without breaking negative laws. 

"...the purpose of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning. In fact, it is injustice, instead of justice, that has an existence of its own. Justice is achieved only when injustice is absent."

                                                                                                             -Frederick Bastiat

In this contradiction of purpose comes chaos and corruption. If it is accepted by the people that government should be involved in positive law making, everyone will look to advance their personal well-being through the political means. When government is the regulator, a door is open for people and corporations to seek to seize that power in order to dominate over their competitors and protect themselves from risks in the market. Is it a surprise that corporations spend millions to lobby lawmakers? 

Government Regulation Protects Businesses From Liability
Poorly constructed buildings, dangerous medication, and hormone filled foods are serious problems, but it should be recognized that all of these horrible things have been highly regulated by government for decades. They have been approved as "safe" by government regulation. You see regulation, when mandated by government, actually legalizes a certain amount poison in food. It legalizes drugs and immunizations that can kill you. The worst part is that because they have been approved as safe, the guilty parties are pretty much free of liability because as long as they have met the regulatory standards they are not at fault.

When a business is not directly accountable to its customers, they have no incentive to improve the quality of their products and services. Risk of getting sued is the greatest motivator for caution. Government regulations remove that risk and responsibility, resulting in businesses acting reckless and irresponsible.

Government Regulatory Services Are a Subsidy to Big Business
Why is it that we have tax funded building departments? Why are tax payers giving free safety inspections to dairy farmers? Why aren't pharmaceutical companies paying for their own third party test trials? Sure they might pay an occasional small fee, but these departments are not supported by these fees. The staff, building and vehicles are funded by people who may not ever use their services. 

A Solution For More, Stricter Regulations
There is no reason why these government service industries shouldn't be privatized and fully funded by their customers- just like any other business. If the burden of liability for the safety and quality of products was placed on property owners and those they contract with we would see an increase in regulation. Businesses would be extremely careful about the safety of their customers out of fear of legal action. Businesses that provide quality and safety inspections would be incentivized by the same fear as their property owning clients. They would be paid to check for safety issues and if they fail, they would be at fault.

Pharmaceutical companies would make cleaner vaccines. Milk and meat would be hormone and poison free and buildings would be built to a higher standard. Some may think this is naive thinking, but again government has already been regulating these things and the result has been that we have lower , not higher, standards of safety, enforced by law. 

It has finally become clear to the average voter that no matter how hard they try and no matter how mad they get, the American political system is not going to give them candidates that the majority can get behind. Both major parties are for empire, corporatism and for abolishing basic constitutional rights. For anything that is actually important, there's not a lick of difference between them and everybody knows it. The party electoral system is intentionally designed to maintain the established power structure and suffocate any opposing voices. For many years it has well been made known that outright cheating is standard practice when the establishment is significantly challenged. We saw it with Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders, and any of the alternative party candidates that could be considered. Think of the billions of dollars and millions of hours that have spent on campaigns, protests, petitions, marches and elections that have brought little to no meaningful change. Through these conventional means the situation seems (and probably is) hopeless.

What if there was a way to bypass the dead-end party primary system, and put forward respected voices, under a banner of reason and unity, directly by the people. This solution is not hard to imagine as many of the biggest shows on TV are based around the “America votes” concept. Imagine an American Idol/Apprentice/Survivor type show called “The Independent”. The 2023 program season would begin with independent minded contestants, from a virety of political views, who have already earned the respect and popularity of America. Personalities like Mike Rowe, Chuck Norris, Oliver Stone, Sherif Richard Mac, Tom Woods, Naomi Wolf, Tom Morello, John Stossel, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Dr. Cornel West, Joe Rogan, and Rick Steves, in order to win America's vote. Of course, there will need to be a host, and who better than Penn Jillette?

Each week, these contestants (divided into left/right teams) would participate in group tasks in a variety of situations (Wall St, Soup Kitchen, Boot Camp, Farms, etc.).  These activities would give the audience a foundational understanding of real world issues and an opportunity to hear the different perspectives and proposed solutions of the contestants. The tasks would become more exotic as the season progresses; with some taking place in foreign nations. The audience is able to see the contestants in entertaining and dramatic ways, establishing an emotional connection that not even the most well funded political campaign could ever deliver.

America votes each week (via text, phone, or website) for their favorite contestant. The person with the lowest number of votes is eliminated. Since the American audience has a left/right demographic the last two contestants would be politically polarized independents. At the end of the season the winner and the runner up will have to agree on a platform (these platform discussions would be amazing episodes). These winners would then be placed on the ballot in all 50 states as “The Independent” ticket for President and VP. Through social networking and because of the interactive nature of the show, grassroots organizations will already be established in each state and would have fulfilled the legal requirements for ballot access. 

A common theme throughout the show would be that the two party system is broken, and offers no real choices. This would put the establishment parties on the defensive and force the mainstream candidates to engage in meaningful debate. Whether the Independent actually wins the general election is of less importance than the effect that would be made from 20+ weeks of intelligent, non-rhetorical ideas (whether they be progressive or libertarian) being pumped into the minds of the general population. It would force the voters to actually think about what they are listening to and form their own opinions. The show would drive the political dialogue like nothing ever has before. The time is perfect for "The Independent".


----------
Suggested Episode List
1. Independant HQ "The Deck is Stacked" - Guests: Ralph Nader/Ross Perot
2. Washington D.C. "The Belly of the Beast" - Guests: Ron Paul/Dennis Kucinich
3. Wall St. "More Than Business" - Guests: Paul Krugman/Robert Murphy
4. Texas/Mexico "Bleeding at the Border" (immigration, drug war, trade) - Guests: Gary Johnson/Mexican Official
5. New Mexico/ "Militarized Police State" - Guests: Will Grigg/Radley Balko
6. Arizona/L.A. "Guns, Guns, Guns" - Guests: Ice-T/Gabby Giffords
7. L.A. "Business Exodus" (regulations, taxes) 
8. Nevada (Federal lands/Environment/Green energy)
9. Utah (NSA Spying) - Guests: Connor Boyack/Edward Snowden
10. Idaho/Washington (Cannabis legalization) - Guests: Rick Steves/Will Grigg
11. Idaho/Washington (Farms, Food, Monsanto)
12. Alaska/N.Dakota (Oil,Fracking and the Environment) Guests: Palin/Greenpeace
13. Hong Kong/S. Korea (international trade) 
14. Moscow (Diplomacy)
15. Israel/Palistine (Aid, sanctions, middle east, arab spring)
16. Final contestants Flashback
17. Winners announced - platform debate begins
18. Grassroots and Ballot Access
19. U.S. Tour
20. U.S. Tour
21. U.S. Tour
22. U.S. Tour
23. Finally (contestant reunion)

In response to the idea of "gay marriage", many have stood up in defense of "traditional marriage". But what is meant by traditional marriage? I found that I really didn't know and most people who say they stand for it, haven't thought it out enough to make a sound argument to protect it. So over the last couple of years I have put a lot of thought and study into this, trying to grasp what marriage was and what it means to me now.

When most think about marriage they think about two lovers making vows of lifelong fidelity. But love hasn't always been the motivation for this union and behind the wedding and vow is a purpose to it all that reveals the  traditional definition of the word marriage.

Weddings
Most cultures today accept a wedding as the socially exceptable way to officially kick off a marriage but throughout history there have been many ways to "take to wife". A man could konk a woman on the head and drag her to his cave or an army of men could raid a village and steal the virgin daughters. A more socially acceptable method of "taking a wife" among the Anglos might included a romantic encounter under the stars (or a barn, where ever). The act of sex was ceremony enough to be accepted by the community as a wedded couple. 

Socially acceptable "weddings" in the Hebrew tradition include taking your slave into a tent, as with Abraham and Hagar, but the most common, preferable and peaceful practice was for the man to approach the patriarch of the home and pay him something in trade for his daughter, maybe 8 cows or so. Sometimes the father even asked the daughter if she was okay with the deal. The process was a legal contract between two men. The daughter now belonged to the husband. Note that a priest had nothing to do with any of this. This religious element came waaay later and has NO doctrinal foundation. Although these different methods of weddings range from horrific rapes to highly unromantic legal arrangements to enchanted nights under the stars, the understanding remains universal that once a virgin woman was "taken" by a man, she was considered his wife. 

What Marriage Is Not
It's important to point out here what is NOT marriage. The original meaning of fornication was to have sex with a prostitute or harlot. In other words, sex without future commitment. The intent was only for sexual pleasure. The word "adultery" means to "take" an already married woman. "You stole my property, you thief! " ...Not to mention these women were NOT VIRGINS, so clearly not desirable for wives. 

Multiply and Replenish
Why all the hassle over obtaining wives? With harlots there is no commitment, so what's the benefit that motivates these men to take on such commitments? The only conclusion I can draw is that a committed relationship with a woman is needed to make and raise a family! (seed). The word matrimony comes from the word meaning "mother". Marriage was specifically for making babies.

So, this understanding of traditional marriage brings up some controversial questions; People who are infertile...can they have a traditional marriage if they can't make babies? Under this definition of marriage and paired with the religious command to not have sexual relationships outside of a commitment of marriage, should these infertile people be denied the physical and emotional desires for a sexual relationship because of their physical condition?

Bloodlines 
In the past, strategic breeding was more important to people. The earliest reasons might have included an "evolutionary" purpose, to make strong, healthy people (no inbreeding). Then somehow inbreeding became desired (Royal blood, Jews, KKK, etc.). The desire for keeping the family DNA in the mix seemed really important to them. Is that still important today? I still get a thrill seeing the mixed DNA of my wife and I run around the house, so I know the natural instinct is still there, but I also know that I could love an adopted child just as much, and would be just as happy, proud and honored to raise them to become great people. In this way infertile couples can participate in the joyful institutions of parenting and marriage. But from this perspective, one could understand why gay couples feel that they also can be married and raise children, even under the traditional definition of marriage. 

A Renovation
Since dismantling this topic down to its basic foundations, I now believe the definition of marriage DOES actually need some renovating, taking into consideration some modern understandings about individual rights, self worth, love, sexuality, emotional health, respect, freedom, race and family. These changes include restoring some of the traditional framework from the past, while completely removing the ridiculous and tacky ideas that we should be voting about private and personal relationships and the idea that we need a license for relationships! Read up on the history of the marriage license. It will sicken you. 

Here are my ideas:

Erase the government definition:
Over the last 100 or so years the legal system has really embedded itself into family affairs. So much so that I think expelling it may take a few steps. The first step would be to dissolve the racket of the state marriage license completely and immediately. Getting a license (state permission) to marry is really absurd. As a temporarily legal patch, the state could recognize a "union" status declared by consenting parties for tax purposes, survivor benefits, parental rights, etc. These unions should not be exclusive to marriages, but for any consenting adults in any number or combination. Example: A mother and daughter should have the same legal privileges and protections as anyone else. Eventually and ideally there should be no special government privileges or incentives that require any information about relationship status, making this union status irrelevant. All of these arrangements ( shared property, survivor benefits, parental rights, etc.) should be made through private contracts and enforced just like any other contracts would be. The word "marriage" should not have any government mandated definition. Everyone should be free to live the desires of their conscience and accept or reject any definitions of "marriage" without persecution. Our society deals with different definitions of god, health, happiness without causing major disruption to our lives...we can deal with different definitions of marriage. The only reason it is an issue today is because the law forces all of us to accept one marriage. Into the fires of mount doom, I say.

I speak as a small business owner who has considered hiring employees in the past, but has found it too unprofitable to go down that road because of state regulations and minimum wages.

My thoughts:

1. If employees got paid in the amount they deserve there would be no incentive for business owners to employ them. The point is to make a profit off of their labor. There are benefits of stability and security with this arrangement but clear limitations. Once an employee becomes skilled enough and more profitable to the employer, they have more chips to bargain with. Raises or even working independently as a contractor become options. Unskilled or less profitable workers do not have these bargaining chips.

2. The only companies that are able to pay $15/hour for low skilled workers, as well as keep up with the slew of regulations that come with having employees, without raising prices substantially are the mega corporations with billions of $ and government employers who have access to tax revenue and $ printing presses. Small local businesses will get smaller and big corps will become stronger. We are already seeing this trend in the economy, mandating a raise in the minimum wage will make it worse.  

3. $15/hour is an attractive amount for a higher class of worker. The poor, unskilled labor will find themselves out of work permanently as clean-cut collage graduates swoop in and gobble of these base level jobs.

4. A businesswoman (or man) will NEVER take a cut from her profits weather by regulation or tax increase. She will only see them as production costs and roll them into the prices for the service or product. The end results WILL BE higher prices for everything and for everyone. 

I'm not saying these are fair outcomes -I believe there is clearly an economic imbalance that needs to be addressed*, but from my perspective as a small business owner, higher prices, less jobs, poorer poor seem to be the direct consequences of a universal minimum wage. On the surface it seems it would set things right, but as I've pointed out it will make these problems worse. 

I do have a few ideas for solutions. If we want the opposite result: lower prices, more jobs, wealthier poor, I suggest we do the opposite. No minimum wage, less burdensome regulation, lower corporate taxes...Sounds like conservative rhetoric, so I'm going to take it to another place...

What I propose is a MAXIMUM living wage for politicians, government employees and employees of large corporations and banks who directly benefit from government benefits, contracts, subsidies or participate in lobbying for special advantages (that's most of them). These organizations should be under stringent regulations. Because of these regulations, people who seek government work and public money would be motivated by higher causes at the sacrifice of higher wages.  All other businesses (like mine) dealing in the dangerous open market, unprotected from special government protections and privileges, should be free to do business without government interference and mandates.

-------------------------------------------------

*The profit motive of business fed by the public funds and legislative favors from government (economic fascism) are a disastrous duo that leads to massive market distortions and political corruption. This combo is very common in modern America and I feel is at the core of the extreme imbalance of wealth distribution.

The world is on the verge of a financial and political meltdown. People are rightfully worried and upset that the systems that were designed to maintain consistency and order seem to be failing at every level. This has forced people to look for solutions and to gravitate toward ideological radicalism. There is an all out war of ideas. The biggest ideas. The ones that form our basic understanding of civilization, individuality, rights, freedom, government, nationalism, family and religion. In my opinion these debates are long overdue.

Whatever the outcome that this war of ideas brings, it's safe to say we are living in a revolutionary time. It's also a fascinating time but what I am becoming more and more annoyed with is the increase of rhetoric. This, i think, is due to the corralling of politicians and parties as they try to drum up a "base" for the elections. This type of thing always waters down the conversation to a point of bumper sticker phrases and dogmatic jib-jab that brings us nowhere new. But isn't that "new place" where we want to go? That's what this debate is all about right, a revolution? I even find myself debating points I agree with from an opposite perspective just because I'm certain we've entered a phase of regurgitation.

I just want to feel that there is an honest idea behind the words, one that has taken a trip around the brain a few times and developed into something that is one's own. Just because a founder said something or it's in the constitution or martyrs died for it doesn't mean you have to automatically agree with it. Don't be lazy. Chew on it. Sure there is wisdom to be found in history and in studying the words of thinkers, scientists and philosophers of the past (I'm going to quote one later) but we've got to eventually come up with something fresh that will get us out of the funk of old rhetoric. Logically we should have a better perspective than those in the past because we can look and see where they failed and where they advanced.

You have a brain. Don't you have ideas? Take your idea and elaborate on it. How did you come up with this idea? How does it apply to reality? How does it harmonize with a principle? Is there a problem that needs to be solved? Can the solution be scaled to solve similar problems? Maybe your idea will be the one that will catch fire, bring people together, start or end a revolution. You might be the Thomas Jefferson or Martin Luther King of our day.  

It's a sad thought to think that THIS is as far as humanity can go. I believe we're not even close to realizing our collective potential but we can't get there if we don't let go of some of the things we may currently cherish. Unions yes, unions no. Gay marriage yes, gay marriage no. Abortion yes/no, Gold standard yes/no, Amnesty yes/no...DON'T BOX ME IN MAN! Let's not hit our heads on the same walls that have been built in the past. Maybe there is a way around the wall where everyone can move along. I believe particularly that today's young "progressives" and "libertarians" have an excellent opportunity to work together against common enemies, advance causes they agree on and hack out some really cool solutions to problems they disagree on. Developing a system that respects the individual and property while checking inequality and social injustice seems like a worthy and very attractive goal. 

Ludwig von Mises puts it clearly, "Everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders; no one is relieved of his share of responsibility by others. And no one can find a safe way out for himself if society is sweeping toward destruction. Therefore everyone, in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interests of everyone hang on the result. Whether he chooses or not, every man is drawn into the great historical struggle, the decisive battle into which our epoch has plunged us."

So in summary, We are in a time of radicalism (Latin radix, meaning "root.") and I welcome it. It's not surprising that those sitting pretty in the current establishment are the ones calling for moderation. Although I think it's a time for reason, open minds and respectful debate I DON'T think heeding to this call for moderation will help us discover that gem that is sitting at the bottom of these debates. That gem is going to change everything.