I also just read an advertisement by Deloitte, which stressed that “The key to good government: Treat citizens like consumers. . . . As long as government requires businesses to get licenses and permits, pass inspections, pay fees, and comply with other regulations, it’s in government’s interest to help make those transactions as painless as possible.” In a different way, that is what Reason is saying. We citizens are the consumers of government. So government should be asking, “Who are we? How do we behave? And what do we want?” Individual liberty, free markets, free trade and the rule of law have delivered those billion people out of poverty, and brought wealth to billions more. That is what consumers want. So please spread the word, because what the Reason Foundation does matters. For example, as he started reading about the results of this philosophy in Reason magazine, John Stossel started seeing life differently, saying: “Suddenly, I saw the wonderful things that happen when government leaves us alone.” In the coming year and beyond, Reason Foundation deserves our help as it promotes our principles of Liberty.
Judge Jim Gray (Ret.)
2012 Libertarian candidate for Vice President,
along with Governor Gary Johnson as the candidate for President
Please forward this on to your circle of friends for their consideration. And, by the way, these columns are now on Facebook and LinkedIn at judgejimgray, Twitter at judgejimgrayOAI, and wordpress at judgejimgray@wordpress.com. Please visit these sites for past editions, and do your part to spread the word about the importance of Liberty.
from WordPress http://ift.tt/2hdyPhP
via IFTTT
From my involvement in Juvenile Court and also on the Mental Health Calendar, I have learned, among other things, that people with mental and physical disabilities simply want to be treated like everyone else. But, as a practical matter, so often when we encounter these people whether they are in wheelchairs, are missing limbs or have obvious mental disabilities we turn away from them (often so as not to stare).
were horrified and they simply stopped. The second was when truthful information was promulgated about the harms of smoking tobacco products, their usage was seriously reduced. Prohibitions of these products in many ways cause more harm than good, but a Liberty/Government partnership that combines the promulgation of truthful information with responsibility for the manufacturers maximizes the benefits and reduces the harms these products can bring.
For the past 92 editions this column has advocated the benefits of Liberty as opposed to Big Government. But this does not mean that greater Liberty and a lessening of government always produce the best results. The “reset button” should always favor Liberty, but sometimes there must also be a balance. This point was reinforced again when a great friend of mine recently sent me the book Leaded: The Poisoning of Idaho’s Silver Valley by Michael C. Mix (Oregon State University Press, 2016). In this book, Dr. Mix traces the history of mining in Idaho’s Coeur d’Alene Valley from its beginning in the 1880s, when the area was truly pristine and even sublime, until the last large mining operations closed in December of 1981, after which the area was soon designated as one of the most polluted of the Superfund sites.
Under our nation’s laws governing presidential elections, each state is empowered to choose how their citizens’ votes will count in the Electoral College. Most states have chosen a “winner takes all” system. The exceptions are Maine and Nebraska. In those states, the winner of the popular vote receives two Electoral College votes, and the winners of the two individual congressional districts in Maine and three in Nebraska receive one vote each. But there are other systems that would bring more Liberty in voting, so that people could both vote their consciences and also keep from “wasting their vote” by voting their consciences. The most promising systems are “Instant Runoff Voting” and “Approval Voting.”
Here are some observations and final thoughts about the 2016 presidential election:
As I hope you have noticed, for the past 89 weeks this series has focused upon how Liberty in so many circumstances more positively and effectively addresses and resolves issues and problems in our world than Big Government. And this has been shown to be true in many areas, including justice, the tax code, education, healthcare, security, immigration, international relations and many more. In addition, I anticipate that you have noticed my assertions that Libertarian Gary Johnson is the only presidential candidate who would consistently employ Liberty in Washington, just as he did as the two-term governor of New Mexico. In fact, this directly led to his campaign slogan “Good Government is Easy: Watch!” Well, the presidential election is now upon us, but Governor Johnson will not win it outright. (He could still win if the election is sent to the House of Representatives under the 12th Amendment.) Why won’t he win it outright? Because even though he is on the ballots in all 50 states, he was not included in the presidential debates, which is the Super Bowl of presidential politics. And he was not included because the debates are completely controlled by the so-called Commission on Presidential Debates which, in turn, is completely controlled by high-ranking Democrats and Republicans.
How/why can the government prohibit us from gambling? Because gambling addictions can ruin people’s lives, or enrich some unsavory people? Because often gambling proceeds are untaxed? Because gambling is immoral? Etc. and etc. Okay, then how/why can government approve or at least allow some types of gambling for adults, such as horse or dog racing, state-run lotteries (note the irony?) and almost all forms of gambling in places like Las Vegas and at Indian casinos? In fact, how is that gambling essentially different than “playing the stock market,” or even fishing?
So we now have seen the first debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, which any neutral observer would define as much more of an entertainment spectacle than a substantive discussion of the issues. Indeed, much of the entertainment consisted of a sophomoric exchange of falsehoods and panderings to various interest groups. Instead of being presidential, it was more like watching a reality show or an episode of “House of Cards.” So let’s all do America a Big Favor, and lobby, argue and advocate for a third candidate to be in the last two debates!
If the government controlled the development of goods and services do you believe technology would be anywhere close to where it is today – in anything? Of course not, because government has far fewer incentives to take risks and be creative. Actually the same thing is true regarding big established companies, as opposed to smaller or at least younger ones. For example, let’s talk about the automobile.
Companies and employers are constantly being regulated – by their customers, employees and competitors. That means that if a company gets “bad marks” from its “regulators” it loses revenue, loses its employees to other businesses, or even goes out of business,. Of course government does have a place in regulating the marketplace. Sometimes some companies get such a market share that they can forcibly restrain trade, and some employers are predators that take unfair advantage of their workers. But regulations should be used only when market forces and the criminal laws are ineffective. So we need far less than regulation than we have today. Not only is it a question of better results for more people, it is a question of Liberty! 
The Democratic candidate for president is threatening to do damage to at least six groups that thrive on Liberty. Why? Because many of those groups are challenging vested interests to which she is beholden. But the Libertarian candidates of Governors Johnson and Weld will support them. These six groups are home-schoolers, charter school supporters, concealed-carry permit holders, fracking workers, users of e-cigarettes and vapor products, and Uber drivers and others in the “sharing” economy. So everyone who is in or supportive of those groups should realize that their liberties are being threatened, and they should vote accordingly.
Recently my good and thoughtful friend Judge Frank Firmat (Ret.) and I were talking about how blessed we are. And all the more so because we appreciate our blessings. For example, only one in 20 people in the world live in America, and often, as in my case, by a sheer “luck of the draw.” Millions of people all around the world would give virtually anything to live where we live. Furthermore, we are healthy, blessed with a moderate amount of intelligence, have good friends and family, have many interesting experiences and can be well paid for our time.
Since I am currently writing a musical about the Constitutional Convention, I am particularly aware of the debates by and feelings of the Founding Fathers as they struggled to create what would become the greatest document of the Age of Enlightenment. And any inquiry will readily disclose that the Founding Fathers felt that the most important function of government was to protect individual liberties from government encroachment. (The second most important function was to keep us safe from foreign nations and from each other.) Furthermore, and to hammer the point home, the 9
Like the old saying goes, “Money Talks.” And, on the issue of medical marijuana, money has resulted in the institutional corruption of the federal government. This is a harsh charge, but demonstrably true. How so? Because the federal government, on the one hand, classifies the natural cannabis (marijuana) plant as a Schedule I Drug – which by definition means that it has no medical value whatsoever, joining heroin and LSD – at the same time it classifies Marinol, which is a synthetic marijuana, as a Schedule III drug, like Tylenol with Codeine. Therefore marijuana cannot be prescribed by a medical doctor, but Marinol can be. How could this inconsistency occur? The answer is that a plant cannot be patented, but a synthetic substance can be. So big pharmaceutical money has corrupted the federal government’s decisions by successfully lobbing for different treatment for marijuana and Marinol. 
+a.jpg)
