Let me begin by making a very simple, direct point: There is one — and only one — solution to the so-called immigration crisis: freedom and free markets. Every other measure, including the recently enacted immigration law in Arizona, will accomplish nothing more than continue the “crisis” and actually exacerbate it.

After all, how many times have we been here during the past several decades? How many so-called immigration crises have we encountered, followed by countless measures that would supposedly resolve the crisis, only to encounter a new immigration crisis a few years after immigration “reform”? How many times have we been told that if we just adopt one more measure — laws against transporting, laws against harboring, laws against employing, highway checkpoints, warrantless searches of private ranches and farms along the border, raids on businesses, amnesty, a border fence, and all the rest — the immigration “crisis” would finally be resolved.

It has never happened, and it will never happen until Americans adopt the only measure that will finally resolve the immigration “crisis” — freedom and free markets.

Permit me to explain why.

Immigration controls are simply a form of socialist central planning and economic intervention. What do we know, from both theory and experience, about socialist central planning and economic interventionism? We know that they don’t work, that they’re inherently incapable of working, and that they inevitably produce market distortions and perversions.

That’s what has happened in the area of immigration. For decades the federal government has served as an immigration central-planning authority. The central planner determines how many immigrants will be permitted to come in from any particular country, and it decides the types of immigrants it wants on the basis of such factors as age, education, language, and skills.

That’s on the supply side of the equation. The federal central-planning authority also looks at the demand side. The planner determines the types of immigrants that are needed in the United States and then factors those considerations into its allocation.

Do you see the problem? It’s the problem that besieged the Soviet Union, which relied on central planning for the production of most goods and services almost as long as the United States has relied on central planning in the area of immigration. Yet, we all know what central planning in the Soviet Union produced — planned chaos, in the form of shortages, over-supplies, and other perversions and distortions.

The reason for that planned chaos was explained a long time ago by libertarian Nobel Prize-winning economist Friedrich Hayek. Hayek pointed out that the central planner, no matter how brilliant, can never possess the requisite knowledge and expertise to plan and direct a complex market activity. One of the primary reasons for that inability is that market conditions, which turn on ever-changing subjective valuations of people, are changing constantly, and they’re different in every particular locale across the land.

In the marketplace, circumstances are changing every minute. In the real world, demand is never constant, not even for labor. For example, it depends on what area of the country one is considering. It depends on what the particular circumstances are. Everything is in flux at any given time.

How is a central planner supposed to come up with a plan for this? He can’t, because the minute he comes up with a plan, it’s outmoded. The minute the planner allocates workers to one part of the country because workers are needed there, another part of the country begins experiencing a greater scarcity of workers. The planner cannot possibly keep up with ever-changing conditions in life.

The beauty of a free market is that it accommodates instantaneous changes in people’s valuations. If demand for something goes up, suppliers rush to increase supply. If demand goes down, suppliers decrease production. And it all happens without a central planner. The phenomenon of the market was described by Hayek as the result of human action, not of human design.

What is it that guides people in making their decisions in a free market? The price system, a fascinating market phenomenon that we all take for granted. How do ice and workers get allocated to New Orleans when a hurricane hits there? Suppliers see the price of ice soaring, and they rush to meet the demand. Workers see wage rates soaring, and they rush to supply their labor.

No central planner. Just people planning their own lives, in accordance with the price system.

When government intervenes in the marketplace with economic controls, that’s when the trouble starts. That’s when the never-ending series of “crises” begin, along with the never-ending calls for new interventions to fix the never-ending “crises.”

Here’s another aspect to this sad tale, one that explains the role of the American people in all this. When government enacts an economic intervention, many Americans become vested in its success. It’s almost an act of patriotism. When the intervention fails to accomplish what it was supposedly intended to accomplish, people get angry and frustrated and even go into emotional hyperdrive. They then come up with an endless array of reform plans and enforcement measures that they’re convinced will finally make the intervention succeed.

Along come libertarians, who say, “The problem is with interventionism itself. All you have to do is repeal the interventions and let the free market operate, and the crises will disappear.”

That infuriates those people who have become vested in the interventions. “You libertarians are so impractical. Don’t give us your pie-in-the-sky solutions. Show us your plan for making the intervention work.”

A good example of this phenomenon took place when price controls were adopted during the 1970s. The Federal Reserve was debasing the currency, which was reflected by rising prices across the board.

So what did the government do to address the Fed’s inflationary policies? No, it did not stop the Fed’s monetary intervention. Instead, it adopted a system of price controls, an intervention that placed criminal penalties on suppliers who illegally raised their prices.

Almost immediately there were shortages, including shortages of gasoline, reflected by long lines of automobiles at service stations. There were also numerous cases of suppliers violating the price controls. Countless Americans became snitches, reporting price-control violations to the authorities.

People became vested in the success of the price controls, and they became angry and frustrated when they didn’t work. Going into hyperdrive, they kept trying to come up with some sort of ideal reform — such as rationing cards — that would finally, once and for all, make the intervention work.

But of course, it could never work, which libertarians continually pointed out, much to the chagrin of the reformers. The only thing that would work, libertarians kept emphasizing, is the free market, which meant a total and absolute repeal of the price-control system.

“Repeal? Are you libertarians crazy? Why, that would just lead to chaos!”

But chaos is what the price controls had produced through their attempt to alter the laws of supply and demand. Finally, beaten down by the failure of the intervention, federal officials did what libertarians had been advocating — they repealed price controls.

What was fascinating is how quickly things turned back to normal, once the laws of supply and demand were free to operate. Sure, the Fed was still manipulating the money supply but at least the price system could accommodate the supply of good and the demand for them, and the supply of money and the demand for it.

What was even more fascinating is how the anger and frustration that the controls had produced among the citizenry dissipated so rapidly. Once the program was repealed, people no longer had a vested interest in seeing it succeed.

It was the same with respect to Prohibition. People got angry and frustrated when that intervention failed to eradicate alcohol from society, and they became vested in coming up with reforms to make the program succeed. Finally, Prohibition was repealed, and things returned to normal.

It’s the same with the drug war. For decades, angry and frustrated Americans have come up with an infinite variety of drug-war reforms. Nothing has worked, and nothing will ever work because, again, the government cannot repeal the laws of supply and demand. More and more Americans are finally seeing that we libertarians have been correct from the beginning — the only solution to the drug war is repeal of drug laws.

It’s no different with immigration. The only thing that is going to work is freedom and free markets, which means opening the borders to the free flow of people, goods, and services.

After all, look at the United States, the largest free-trade and free-movement zone in history. People are free to cross borders of the different states. No border patrol. No customs. No interstate checkpoints. No passports. No papers. It works the same way when people cross from county to county.

It didn’t have to be that way. The Framers could have said, “Each state shall have the sovereign prerogative of controlling its borders from the people of other states.” Thank goodness they didn’t do that, because if they had, there is no doubt that many a state government would today be exercising that power, to protect its state from competing workers and producers, welfare seekers, terrorists, drug dealers, and so forth.

The same principle of free trade and free movements of people that characterize the domestic United States is what should be adopted for international borders as well: people freely crossing back and forth, visiting, touring, buying, selling, investing, opening businesses, working, and living their lives as easily as people do domestically.

Think about it this way: Suppose millions of foreign tourists “invaded” America this summer. Would anyone care? When was the last time you asked someone you dealt with to prove to you that he was an American citizen? My bet is: never. The only reason that people care about that issue is that they’ve become vested in making immigration controls work. In a totally free market, no one would care who was a citizen and who wasn’t, except on Election Day, in which case only citizens would be able to vote. In fact, my hunch is that in a free market, most foreigners wouldn’t care much whether they were U.S. citizens or not. After all, if voting was so important to them, they could still vote absentee at home. What matters most to most people is living the life they wish to live, working, and supporting their families.

Millions of people’s entering and leaving the United States during the summer months is no different, in principle, from millions of people’s entering and leaving the United States throughout the year. If the borders were opened to the free flow of goods and services, circumstances would return to normal, as they did after price controls and Prohibition were repealed. People’s lives would no longer be consumed with the immigration “crisis” and they wouldn’t be spending their lives trying to come up with a reform of immigration laws. How many people were consumed with the Prohibition “crisis” or the price-control “crisis” after those interventions were repealed? My hunch: very few.

What about the claim that immigrants just come to America for welfare, not to work? The vast majority of immigrants come to sustain and improve their lives through labor. The reason why the ICE always raids private businesses and not the welfare offices is that it knows that that’s where the immigrants are. Immigrants have always been characterized by their strong work ethic. Moreover, immigrants pay taxes, just as Americans do. Anyway, why infringe on fundamental, God-given gifts, such as freedom of travel, freedom to move, freedom of contract, freedom of association, and freedom to work in order to protect a crooked, corrupt, immoral, and destructive statist system as the socialistic welfare state?

What about the claim that immigrants steal jobs from Americans? While immigrants will impact employment in particular sectors, the vitality and prosperity they bring raise the number and quality of overall jobs in the economy, including better, higher-paying jobs for the people they displace.

What about the claim that borders will disappear? Just because people are free to cross a border back and forth doesn’t mean the border disappears. Just ask the people of Maryland and Virginia, who cross the Potomac back and forth every day. When people cross a border, the border remains and they become subject to the jurisdiction and laws of the area they’re entering.

What about the claim that terrorists will come to America? The only way to put a stop to the threat of terrorism against Americans is to stop the U.S. government from doing any more killing, injuring, or harming of foreigners with its foreign policy of sanctions, embargoes, invasions, occupations, assassinations, kidnappings, torture, rendition, support of foreign regimes, drug laws, and interference with the internal affairs of other countries. A victim of such actions who is determined to wreak vengeance will find a way to enter the United States, even as a tourist. Don’t forget: The 9/11 attackers entered the United States legally. Anyway, we don’t call for immigration controls between the states, notwithstanding the fact that terrorists are free to cross state borders, because we refuse to surrender the freedom to cross domestic borders for the sake of trying to secure safety from terrorists.

What about the claim that not all immigrants assimilate? So what? But why should anyone care if someone assimilates or not? Do we care whether foreign tourists assimilate? What difference does it make if the tourist decides to live here? There are more than a million Americans retired in Mexico, many of whom don’t learn Spanish, continue preparing American food, continue cheering for American sports teams, and maintain their American citizenship. Who cares? Isn’t that what freedom is all about? I say: Leave those Americans alone, and leave foreigners living abroad alone. Anyway, freedom and diversity are America’s culture. That’s why Americans take such pleasure and pride in such places as Chinatown, Little Italy, Greektown, the French Quarter, and, indeed, the entire Southwest United States, which constituted the northern half of Mexico before the United States eagerly absorbed it, along with its Indian-Spanish-Mexican culture, language, people, and customs. We also should bear in mind that immigration and citizenship are two different things. Simply because foreigners, including Americans, are living abroad doesn’t mean that they have to be granted citizenship in the country in which they are residing. Finally, history has shown that by the time the grandchildren of immigrants are born within a country, this third generation is fully absorbed into the culture, with many of them not even being able to speak the language of their grandparents’ country of origin.

A policy of open borders is the only thing that is consistent with the principles of liberty, free markets, morality, love-thy-neighbor as thyself, and economic prosperity. And it’s the only policy that works. In a world mired in socialism and interventionism, Americans should be leading the world out of this morass, and one of the best places to begin is by repealing immigration socialism.

To further explore why a policy of open borders is the only moral and practical solution to America’s immigration woes, I highly recommend the following three books: FFF’s book The Case for Free Trade and Open Immigration, edited by Richard M. Ebeling and Jacob G. Hornberger (libertarians), Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them, by Philippe Legrain (a liberal), and Let Them In: The Case for Open Borders, by Jason Riley (a conservative).

Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. This article appears at http://www.fff.org/comment/com1005c.asp

Photo Enforcement is pervasive now all over Phoenix and Arizona, clearly as a revenue measure, but it is also an effective speed-reduction system. I have quickly learned where I can speed and where I must brake down to 65-55mph (Arizona DPS highway cops do post yellow diamond signs giving you half-mile and 300 ft. warnings, so you have time to hit the brakes.)

I understand and celebrate the spirit of rebellion. Why should the fucking government use new technology to extract cash from us, just to use the free roads.

Free roads?

Zero priced roads are not zero cost roads, and the gasoline excise tax pretends to cover this problem. A tax on vehicle axle weight would be more sensible, in regard to road maintenance.

I regard all of the roads as “somebody’s property,” in this case the highway department boss (government employee). He is the commissar who should be mandated to operate his transportation system at a cash profit. Yes, I say “cash profit” to take away the fuzzy “social benefits” claim.

I understand these new photo enforcement cameras as a toll collection – revenue technique. Toll booths and electronic-radio car sensors are other toll collection revenue techniques. The difference is that they give me a choice:

Taxation Methods

Among the choices of sales (consumption taxes), net income taxes (reduces savings), and direct taxes (per capita), the Henry George/D.Ricardo/Adam Smith proposal to tax land rent – and not to tax labor or capital – is the best. It is least worse among bad things.

Add to this list what I call “the Pirates of the Caribbean tax system.” Instead of the tax collector getting maybe 10% from all of the producers, he takes 100% from a decimated group. It would increase uncertainty, but fiscally the result is the same.

Cameras at intersections, to catch red-light runners; cameras along the freeway to collect speed fines; and the sneaky photo vans they move around to nab drivers at unusual locations; all of these are very annoying, but they are merely a “Pirates of the Caribbean” tax on highways.

> Dear Prospective US Congressman,
> As you may know, I am a Republican PC in Tempe.
> My friends and I are seeking a better
> explanation of your political positions.

Questions for Prospective US Congressmen

How would you describe your Conservative views?
(JOE) I am a Libertarian. I an NOT a conservative. I hate being labeled a “conservative.”

How would you describe the Conservative views of your opponents in this race?
(JOE) Ed Pastor and Don Karg are “status quo” conservatives who promote special interests and big government; Rebecca Dewitt is a “social elite” conservative (she wants to conserve the environment instead of helping the poor); she is a socialist – and socialists advocate the road to serfdom.

As a future US Congressmen, what would be your major goal(s)?
(JOE) Ending the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, repealing the 16th Amendment, cutting Federal programs, restoring federalism, and reform of America’s monetary system.

The Federal government often threatens to withhold federal monies to States if they do not comply with certain laws that they want the States to accept, Do you think that is right in principle or would you work to stop that practice? Take for example, withholding federal freeway monies unless the State raises its drinking age to 21.
(JOE) I agree with Barry Goldwater’s original book, this is a pernicious Federal practice that must be ended.

Is shrinking the size and power of Government your major goal or is it something else?
(JOE) Definitely my major goal.

Would you vote yes, to raise the minimum wage? In so doing, would raising the minimum wage help the working poor or hurt them?
(JOE) I would repeal the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, which would include repeal of the minimum wage sections.

Are you looking to work in Congress for the rest of your life? If not, what other careers interest you?
(JOE) I believe in term limits. I would restrict all Members of Congress to one term.

What is your position on the Real ID act?
(JOE) Strong opposition to this power grab.

If given the choice of living in a “Total Information Awareness” society, which would it be:
(A) A society in which the private citizens could track its public servants whereabouts 24/7, its financial transactions 24/7, and its conversations 24/7.
(JOE) Obviously this is my preference.

or (B) a society in which the public servants could track its private citizens whereabouts 24/7, its financial transactions 24/7, and conversations 24/7? Which would you seek to live in? Which society most resembles the kind of society that our founding fathers wanted? If as a young Congressmen, you learned there was a government program that sought to build a society that looked more like B, than A, what would you do about it? Would you seek to give it more funding? Would you seek to abolish that government program?
(JOE) Abolish the government program.

Do you plan to shrink the size and scope of government by both abolishing departments and functions and reducing taxes?
(JOE) Yes, both reducing taxation and government programs, abolishing department and agencies, downsizing DC.

If so, which departments & functions and which taxes?
(JOE) Repeal the 16th Amendment, reduce all tariffs to Zero, and abolish all Federal departments except the original State, Justice, Defense, and Treasury.

Do you support all the Bill of Rights, or just a select few?
(JOE) All of the first 10 Amendments, particularly 9th and 10th.

Of all of the Constitutional amendments, which do you find most disturbing, if any?
(JOE) 16th Amendment must be repealed.

The US Supreme Court has ruled that the “Commerce Clause” gives Congress a very wide latitude to regulate the US economy. Do you agree with this interpretation?
(JOE) Strongly disagree (I recommend implementing recommendations in Robert Levy and William Mellor’s “The Dirty Dozen” book).

Nancy Pelosi has said that she would not seek to have a Congressional investigation into the misinformation that resulted in the pre-emptive war with Iraq. Do you agree?
(JOE) Yes, this would be a good use of Congressional authority.

Is Pre-Emptive war ever ok? If yes, under what conditions need to be met before Pre-Emptive War is ok with you?
(JOE) I would favor pre-emptive war if knowledge was absolutely certain an attack on the United States was about to happen.

Excluding foreign policy, are your conservative views closer to Barry Goldwater’s or George Bush?
(JOE) Goldwater.

Should the federal government even be “in the marriage business”?
(JOE) No, and neither should the State government.

As a Congressmen, how would you vote on the Gay Marriage issue? Is it a civil right?
(JOE) I favor gay marriage. It is not an issue for the government to be involved with. It is protected by the 9th Amendment and a private activity.

As a Congressmen, what is your view of Posse Comitatus? Is it ok for the military to be used inside the USA?
(JOE) I support the traditional separation of civil police powers and oppose the use of national defense forces for criminal law enforcement.

The former Attorney General said he did not see right of Habeas Corpus in the Constitution, do you agree with him?
(JOE) He is a totalitarian toady and clearly perjured himself when he took his oath of office.

As a future Congressmen, do you see think the CIA has the right to conduct secret wars that are unknown and unauthorized by you, as a Congressman?
(JOE) Absolutely not.

As a future Congressmen, how do you feel about waterboarding and torture?
(JOE) Torture does not obtain valid information.

John McCain’s “anti-torture” McCain/Graham-Levin Amendment to the Defense appropriations bill ended up “legalizing torture” anyway. [link: Anti-Torture Law Legalizes Torture] Do you agree with that assessment?
(JOE) Yes, as usual the prevaricators write laws.

Hypothetically speaking, if all of the States West of the Mississippi wanted to succeed [sic] from the Union, is it within their Constitutional State rights to do so?
(JOE) Originally, it probably was; but the Civil War has settled this and I disagree with secession.

The Supreme court ruled in the Kelo decision against private property rights and in favor of cities having the power to use Eminent Domain, pretty much as they wished. Do you agree with that historic decision by judge Sutter? If not, what would you do about it as a Congressmen?
(JOE) I would vote for strong laws that restrict and forbid the practice, even if the Supreme Court does not reverse itself and correctly interpret the 5th Amendment to forbid the practice.

Do you believe there is a real need for the CIA?
(JOE) No.

Do you think the CIA has the Constitutional Right and Congressional authority to assassinate foreign leaders and institute coups at the Presidents will?
(JOE) No.

Would you be agreeable to transfer the intelligence gathering function of the CIA over to the State Department and abolish the CIA?
(JOE) Defense Department would be a better location for the spying needed for national defense.

Do you think catching international terrorists calls for International Police work from Interpol?
(JOE) No.

Would you support more funding for Interpol and less funding for military occupations and military bases being built in the middle east?
(JOE) No.

Do you think that the medical industry needs to be freed from government? [link: Market Medicine]
(JOE) Absolutely. What is wrong with medical care today is all the government regulations and tax law treatment of medical insurance deductions.

As a future Congressmen, how would you vote on re-instating the Patriot Act?
(JOE) I would repeal it.

As a future Congressmen, how would you handle a full blown economic collapse, as in another Great Depression?
(JOE) First, it would be most important to understand what Federal government actions have CAUSED the economic collapse.

As a future Congressmen, would you vote for more American Farm aid, or would you vote to eliminate all Farm Aid?
(JOE) I would vote to eliminate all agricultural programs and abolish the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

As a future Congressmen, would you vote for more aid to Israel, or less?
(JOE) No foreign aid to any government at all.

What is your opinion of the cause or causes of strife in Israel?
(JOE) The madness of religious zealotry on both sides.

Is Israel justified in their occupation of the West Bank?
(JOE) Yes, by right of conquest in 1967.

Is Israel justified in their continued settlement building in the Palestinian areas?
(JOE) This is not an issue any American congressman should care about; it should not affect U.S. foreign policy.

Is it ok that American foreign aid tax monies goes to building more Israeli settlements in the West Bank?
(JOE) They should not get any U.S. tax-funded aid.

What is your position on the Iraq War before the USA invaded Iraq?
(JOE) I opposed economic sanctions and I opposed the invasion.

What is your position now that we Occupy Iraq?
(JOE) Bring the troops home immediately.

What is your position on Afghanistan War?
(JOE) Bring the troops home immediately.

What is your position on a possible aggressive US attack and war with Iran?
(JOE) Strongly oppose launching a war against Iran.

Ronald Reagan in his last years of office, sought to rid the world of nuclear weapons, do you support that goal?
(JOE) It would be a nice dream, but before we go into deep sleep we should first try to rid the world of religious fanatics.

How would you have voted, (if in Congress) on the FISA bill?
(JOE) Against it.

How would you have voted, (if in Congress) on Denis Kucinich’s Impeachment bill?
(JOE) In favor of it.

How would you describe your Republican views on Foreign Policy?
(JOE) Republicans since Teddy Roosevelt have been imperialists and interventionists. They should all be kept out of political office.

Republicans have always been divided on the military draft. This issue may rise again during your future days as a US Congressman. Are you 100% against a military draft or are their certain conditions you would vote yes for a military draft?
(JOE) Military drafts are just slavery under a different name. I am opposed to slavery at all times under all circumstances.

Some in Congress say there is a plan for Martial Law. Is Martial Law ever justified in your mind? If so, under what conditions?
(JOE) Never justified, under any circumstances. Even in the situation of a foreign invasion, I would not support martial law.

Would you be for opening up a new outside independent investigation into 9/11? After all, not one person was held accountable on our inability to defend ourselves that day, not even NORAD.
(JOE) I think this is all old history now and we should look to protect America from foreign threats that have not yet happened. I do not believe in conspiracy theories.

Are you interested in seeing our American based military bases revitalized and reconstituted?
(JOE) I think military bases should be closed in foreign countries, and most of the military bases in the United States should also be downsized or closed.

Would you describe yourself as a Non-interventionist?
(JOE) Yes.

Would you describe yourself as having “NeoConservative Foreign Policy views”?
(JOE) No.

As you know, Harry Mitchell has voted right down the line for each and every Warfare spending bill and has signed on to the NeoConservative Foreign policy agenda, as a Congressmen, how would you be any different?
(JOE) I would vote along with Ron Paul and Jeff Flake.

How are you on the War Against Poverty?
(JOE) It has been a spectacular failure and should be abandoned.

How are you on the War Against Drugs, the Drug War?
(JOE) It has been a spectacular failure and should be abandoned.

Should the Federal government have a Drug War?
(JOE) Definitely not, nor should any State government.

Do you think the Federal Government should involve itself into the business of the Internet?
(JOE) No; this is a First Amendment zone.

Do you think that the FDA should be privatized as a private Consumer Protection Agency?
(JOE) No, the FDA should be abolished and the Federal drug control laws – particularly for medicines – should be repealed. The drug companies can be adequately regulated by tort law in the courts.

Do you think Free Trade is better for America than managed Trade such as NAFTA & CAFTA?
(JOE) Absolutely.

Do you think the USA should still be a member of the UN?
(JOE) It does not hurt to participate, but the United States should not pay more than any other government to support that failed organization.

Do you think the USA should be a member of NATO?
(JOE) I believe NATO’s mission disappeared when the Warsaw Pact disappeared.

Do you think the USA should still have its military in S. Korea?
(JOE) No.

Do you think the USA should still have its military in Japan?
(JOE) No.

How are you on the separation of Church and State issue?
(JOE) It would be good if they were even more widely separated.

Would you continue George Bush’s policy of giving tax dollars to Church charities?
(JOE) No.

Your campaign advertisements say you want to stop government spending. What federal programs and departments would you cut?
(JOE) All except State, Justice, Defense, and Treasury – and I would significantly reduce those four.

Your campaign advertisements say you want to reduce taxes. How do you want to reduce taxes, and by how much?
(JOE) I want to repeal the 16th Amendment, abolish the Federal income tax, and cut all tariffs to Zero.

Are you for eliminating the National Income Tax?
(JOE) Yes.

Would you sign on to eliminate the 16th amendment to the Constitution?
(JOE) Yes.

Are you for eliminating the Federal Reserve and allowing a Free market Money system?
(JOE) Yes.

Your campaign material says you are for “protecting the borders”. What specifically does that mean?
(JOE) I would repeal the immigration quota laws enacted originally in 1921 and 1924 as racist, eugenics legislation. I would offer a Green Card to anyone who applies legally at a border entry location and passes health, criminal background, and positive identification tests.

As an American businessman, am I not free to hire and fire potential employees as I please?
(JOE) You should be.

Is not free trade, low taxes, low cost of government, low cost of the legal system, a conservative goal?
(JOE) No, conservatives would favor traditional restrictions to support local businesses, and cultural practices, which globalization threatens. George W. Bush is actually a pretty good example of a conservative, and I dislike everything about him.

Do you have any ideas on how you could achieve that goal? Congress can repeal tariffs and other trade restrictions.
(JOE) This is the definition of free trade.

Once in Congress, what bills would you like to write and sponsor immediately?
(JOE) Repeal of the 16th Amendment. Repeal of the Federal drug control laws.

Can you name one case whereby a US inspired “trade embargo” ever worked?
(JOE) No.

Is it time to end the trade embargo on Iran?
(JOE) Yes.

Is it time to end the trade embargo on Cuba?
(JOE) Yes.

The Constitution in the 5th bill of rights talks about the right to life, liberty and property. How important is the right of Property?
(JOE) It is co-equal to the rights to life and liberty. There is no logical distinction.

Also, do you think that the office of patents and copy-writes [sic], be shut down and eliminated?
(JOE) I think patents and copyrights serve a legitimate function, to establish limited property rights in intellectual property. I would reduce copyright protections to the original 28 years with one renewal.

Speaking of Patents and Copy-writes [sic], the US Supreme court ruled that “recipes” can be patented. By “recipes”, things as different as a cookie recipe, to parts of the genetic code, to code in software can be patented. As you may know, Thomas Jefferson wrote against patenting recipes. In his famed essay on the candle and the flame, he wrote that the candle is property, but the flame can never be. Do you agree with the Supreme Court decision to allow patents on recipes or do you agree with Thomas Jefferson? Would you sign on to support a bill to end the patenting of “recipes”?
(JOE) Yes, I would reduce the extent to which “process patents” have been extended.

What book or books are your favorite books that represent to you, the conservative views that you hold dear?
(JOE) I do not have any “conservative” views. My favorite ideological books are Thomas Sowell, “A Conflict of Visions,” and F.A. Hayek, “Law, Legislation, and Liberty.” My first book, at age 14, was Frederic Bastiat, “The Law” and soon thereafter I discovered Ludwig von Mises.

Congress may have to “Get America Working Again”. How could this be done?
(JOE) Cut taxes and repeal regulations.

As a future Congressman, what issue or issues do you feel is important that a voter should consider?
(JOE) The future of our free society is threatened by the United States government. Our free government itself is threatened by the democratic efforts of social conservatives, including Muslims and Christians, who want to impose their traditionalist agenda on free individuals like me. They would eagerly violate my 9th Amendment rights. Individual rights should come before any social tradition, and even before any legitimate government. Jefferson got it right in the first place.

What do you think of the words of this former Iraq Veteran? Should he be placed in jail for saying it’s a soldier’s duty? [link “a duty to disobey illegal orders”]
(JOE) This soldier is absolutely correct. That principle was established at Nuremburg after World War II.

2008 Congressional Candidate Questions:

These are my answers:

1. To whom do you turn for political advice?

I look to my fellow Libertarians for suggestions and ideas. As Libertarians, we are not so concerned about telling voters what they want to hear, so for me “political advice” is more about how better to communicate the ideas of personal liberty, free minds and free markets.

2. If elected, what would be your top priority?

My top priority would be cutting taxes and government programs that subsidize special interest groups (earmarks, boondoggles) and working to restore a limited Federal government consistent with The Federalist Papers. I would vote very much like Congressmen Jeff Flake and Ron Paul if elected.

3. What policies would you support to help stimulate the nation’s economy?

The United States economy is over taxed and over regulated. The only way to promote economic growth is to promote the innovations of entrepreneurs who start and expand new businesses. The dead hand of government is what slows and extinguishes economic growth and expansion.

4. What policies would you support regarding the war in Iraq?

I would work to end the war in Iraq as quickly as possible, and to prevent any future foreign adventures. I want to see American troops home before Christmas 2009 if not sooner. It was a terrible blunder in foreign policy to get involved in the Middle East.

5. How would you address the border security/immigration situation?

I would repeal the immigration quota system and make Green Cards available to anyone who wants to come to America to work, provided they enter legally at a border station and provide verifiable identification. I would not allow criminals, terrorists, or people with communicable diseases to come into the United States.

6. Do you favor or oppose moving the country towards adopting universal health care?

I oppose taxpayer-financed mandatory health programs. The existing employer-linked system of health insurance must be replaced with a portable worker-owned system that is open to everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions. The dominant third-party-payment system today is responsible for skyrocketing costs, so I would promote health savings accounts and payments directly from patients to healthcare providers. The existing system was fostered by income tax regulations; these must be repealed.

7. What are your views on environmental regulation?

I believe a prosperous and growing economy helps us afford a cleaner, greener environment. We all want a greener, cleaner environment and things have been getting much better in the past few decades – not because of government regulations, but because people want to act as better stewards of the planet. Global warming is happening for many reasons, including solar variations, and I strongly oppose shutting down economic growth at gigantic costs in order to “feel good” about carbon dioxide. There is too much unproven hype about climate change. We should not take actions that cannot help solve the problem and will only make everyone on earth poorer.

8. Should the temporary tax cuts enacted over the past six years be made permanent?

Absolutely, yes, and there should be more tax cuts enacted. I would repeal the Federal income tax, but short of that giant step, I would cut as many holes in it as possible, creating as many tax breaks and lower tax rates as possible for everyone. The battle cry of envy, “tax breaks for the rich,” is a shameful slogan since only productive people who earn income actually pay taxes. Of course every productive person should get tax breaks.

9. Should states have the right to opt out of federal programs such as No Child Left Behind?

Absolutely, yes. The Federal government should not mandate programs to the states. This was a major theme in Senator Goldwater’s book, Conscience of a Conservative, which was my first inspiration to become active in politics in 1960.

10. What changes, if any, would you want to make to the North American Free Trade Agreement Treaty?

I would work to have Canada, Mexico, and the United States adopt a common set of external tariffs, preferably Zero, so that all of the paperwork required by the “rules or origin” could be dispensed with. This paperwork is a burden on producers in every country. I would further promote the free movement of labor (see my answer to Question 5 above).

But I think for myself. I hope you do too.

When it comes to ideas, we are not a “team” who follow “consensus” of opinions. We like to look at the evidence and to question the Conventional Wisdom. If we were professional researchers, that would be called “the scientific method.”

I hope in my Congressional Campaign in 2008 (Arizona- 4th District) some new issues will be introduced into the discussion, and I will push for a few particular ideas.

I like to say, “Stand Up for Human Rights.” That is the tag line on my business card.

I would appreciate your vote on September 2, 2008, in the Libertarian primary (if you are registered as LBT). On November 4, 2008, I will face off against Ed Pastor and Don Karg, who have done this contest a few times. I used to work for Congress, so I really do know what this job is all about. Look at my Experience and work history.

Review of Gusher of Lies; the dangerous delusions of “energy independence” by Robert Bryce

After motherhood and apple pie, energy independence probably qualifies as the most popular political slogan in the land. It is, as they say, a no-brainer. Robert Bryce agrees: You have to have no brain to think it is possible or even desirable.

In “Gusher of Lies,” Mr. Bryce, a freelance journalist specializing in energy issues, mounts a savage attack on the concept of energy independence and the most popular technologies currently being promoted to achieve it. Ethanol? A scam. Wind power? Sheer fantasy. Solar power? Think again. For the foreseeable future, which is to say the next 30 to 50 years, fossil fuels will reign supreme, as they have for the last century. Deal with it.

With all the gusto of a hunter clubbing baby seals, Mr. Bryce goes after one cherished green belief after another, but he is an equal-opportunity smiter. Having kicked the props from under every green technology in sight, he goes after the political right.

The current administration and its neoconservative allies, he argues, have made energy independence part of the war on terror, a moral and tactical blunder. “Energy independence, at its root, means protectionism and isolationism, both of which are in direct opposition to America’s long-term interests in the Persian Gulf and globally,” he writes.

Mr. Bryce begins coolly, then heats up and eventually approaches core meltdown. In a perspective-setting opening chapter, he reviews the history and current state of energy needs in the United States, whose situation is not nearly as desperate, he argues, as one might think. Yes, the United States depends on foreign oil and natural gas, as it has for many decades, but only 11 percent of its oil came from the Persian Gulf in 2005. It imports 80 percent of its semiconductors and 100 percent of strategic minerals like bauxite and manganese.

Oil, Mr. Bryce argues, is simply a commodity. It also costs about the same, in real terms, as it always has. Oil producers need to sell just as badly as customers need to buy. It is undoubtedly true, as President Bush declared, that “America is addicted to oil.” To which Mr. Bryce answers, So what? Besides, he writes, “America’s appetite is simply too large and the global market is too sophisticated and too integrated for the U.S. to secede.”

After clearing the ground, Mr. Bryce gets to work demolishing cherished green beliefs about alternative energy sources. Ethanol, in particular, drives him wild. Fuel derived from corn has channeled billions in subsidies to Midwestern farmers and agribusiness, he writes, despite glaring shortcomings. It is expensive to produce and requires enormous amounts of water when irrigation comes into play. It produces much less energy than gasoline while emitting more pollutants into the air.

Detroit loves ethanol because it can use it to inflate fuel-efficiency ratings on their cars artificially. The mammoth Chevy Suburban, produced as a flex-fuel vehicle capable of burning both ethanol and gasoline, magically boosted its fuel efficiency to 29 miles per gallon from 15, since under federal rules only a vehicle’s gasoline consumption need be factored into the equation. Ethanol, in other words, has allowed American car manufacturers to produce more gas guzzlers and contribute to increased imports of foreign oil.

The problem with corn and other alternative fuel sources boils down to cost and output. Fuel made from switch grass, another potential solution to the energy problem, costs a lot to produce, delivers a lot less energy than petroleum and would require, like corn, vast areas of farmland to meet a meaningful percentage of current energy needs.

Wind power and solar power have the added drawback of being intermittent and unpredictable. A town that relied entirely on solar or wind power would suffer constant service interruptions and wild fluctuations in output, which is why both technologies must be used in conjunction with traditional fossil-fuel generators.

Mr. Bryce lands one telling blow after another, but he favors a slashing, ad-hominem style of attack that can undercut his credibility, especially when he moves away from economics and technology and ventures into politics, an arena to which he brings no particular expertise. He employs a peculiar, almost actuarial assessment of the risk posed by terrorism, which he compares to random events like lightning strikes. This completely misses the point about the threat posed by radical Islam. Using the word “neocon” seems to be enough, for him, to discredit an argument or an opponent.

Fortunately, the book steers back to the high road at the end, when Mr. Bryce suggests that there is some light at the end of the tunnel, some of it solar-powered. Within modest limits, he argues, solar power can play a bigger role in meeting energy needs, especially with new technology that transforms infrared light into electricity. Algae look promising as a source of biodiesel. The major environmental groups may even, eventually, see the point of nuclear power, “the only sector that has enough momentum and enough capital behind it to make a significant dent in the overall use of fossil fuels.”

Mr. Bryce’s pet idea, though, is something that does not exist, a superbattery capable of storing large quantities of electricity. As the magic wand to bring this “silver bullet” into existence Mr. Bryce proposes a Superbattery Prize awarded either by the Energy Department or private foundations: $1 billion, say, for a compact, affordable system that can store multiple kilowatt-hours, and $10 billion for a system that can store megawatt-hours. The hard-nosed Mr. Bryce reveals himself in the end as something of a visionary and perhaps even a revolutionary. Power to the people.

Read this book:
Gusher of Lies
The Dangerous Delusions of “Energy Independence”
By Robert Bryce
Illustrated. 371 pages. PublicAffairs. $26.95.

Consider this quote from the CNN news report on the Supreme Court decision:

In March, two women went before the justices with starkly different opinions on the handgun ban.

Shelly Parker told the court she is a single woman who has been threatened by drug dealers in her Washington neighborhood.

“In the event that someone does get in my home, I would have no defense, except maybe throw my paper towels at them,” she said, explaining she told police she had an alarm, bars on her windows and a dog.

“What more am I supposed to do?” Parker recalled asking authorities. “The police turned to me and said, ‘Get a gun.’ ”

Elilta “Lily” Habtu, however, told the high court that she supports the handgun ban, and tighter gun control in general. Habtu was in a Virginia Tech classroom in April 2007 when fellow student Seung-Hui Cho burst in and began shooting. She survived bullets to the head and arm.

“There has to be tighter gun control; we can’t let another Virginia Tech to happen,” she told the court. “And we’re just not doing it; we’re sitting around; we’re doing nothing. We let the opportunity arise for more massacres.”

The police replied to Shelly Parker with cold realism, candidly admitting they were not prepared to do anything to protect her. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005) that there is no constitutional obligation for the police to protect you.

Yet, look at the quotation from Elilta “Lily” Habru. This unfortunate woman has experienced the horrible effects of violence committed by a criminal with a gun. The criminal, Seung-Hui Cho, was already violating a “gun-free zone” law against bringing his gun onto the Virginia Tech campus. She blames lax law enforcement for her suffering and wants “tighter gun control.”

What exactly does she want? She has a lovely dream: a world without guns or violence. Washington, DC, is famous as the “murder capital” of the country. Guns are everywhere, and yet that city had the strictest gun control laws in the nation. If there had been any more strict enforcement, it would have required some kind of periodic house to house search of the city, as well as TSA-airport security searching of individuals as they walk down the streets.

That is where Elilta Habru’s wishful thinking would lead. We should all have a dream about a world without violence, but a world without individuals owning – and carrying, loaded – firearms is not likely to bring us that peaceful situation. Wishful thinking cannot make guns and violent criminals go away, but wishful thinking can bring us an authoritarian police state.

By order of its state Supreme Court, California began legally marrying same-sex couples this week. The first to be wed in San Francisco were Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, pioneering gay-rights activists who have been a couple for more than 50 years.

More ceremonies will follow, at least until November, when gay marriage will go before California’s voters. They should choose to keep it. To understand why, imagine your life without marriage. Meaning, not merely your life if you didn’t happen to get married. What I am asking you to imagine is life without even the possibility of marriage.

Re-enter your childhood, but imagine your first crush, first kiss, first date and first sexual encounter, all bereft of any hope of marriage as a destination for your feelings. Re-enter your first serious relationship, but think about it knowing that marrying the person is out of the question.

Imagine that in the law’s eyes you and your soul mate will never be more than acquaintances. And now add even more strangeness. Imagine coming of age into a whole community, a whole culture, without marriage and the bonds of mutuality and kinship that go with it.

What is this weird world like? It has more sex and less commitment than a world with marriage. It is a world of fragile families living on the shadowy outskirts of the law; a world marked by heightened fear of loneliness or abandonment in crisis or old age; a world in some respects not even civilized, because marriage is the foundation of civilization.

This was the world I grew up in. The AIDS quilt is its monument.

Few heterosexuals can imagine living in such an upside-down world, where love separates you from marriage instead of connecting you with it. Many don’t bother to try. Instead, they say same-sex couples can get the equivalent of a marriage by going to a lawyer and drawing up paperwork – as if heterosexual couples would settle for anything of the sort.

Even a moment’s reflection shows the fatuousness of “Let them eat contracts.” No private transaction excuses you from testifying in court against your partner, or entitles you to Social Security survivor benefits, or authorizes joint tax filing, or secures U.S. residency for your partner if he or she is a foreigner. I could go on and on.

Marriage, remember, is not just a contract between two people. It is a contract that two people make, as a couple, with their community – which is why there is always a witness. Two people can’t go into a room by themselves and come out legally married. The partners agree to take care of each other so the community doesn’t have to. In exchange, the community deems them a family, binding them to each other and to society with a host of legal and social ties.

This is a fantastically fruitful bargain. Marriage makes you, on average, healthier, happier and wealthier. If you are a couple raising kids, marrying is likely to make them healthier, happier and wealthier, too. Marriage is our first and best line of defense against financial, medical and emotional meltdown. It provides domesticity and a safe harbor for sex. It stabilizes communities by formalizing responsibilities and creating kin networks. And its absence can be calamitous, whether in inner cities or gay ghettos.

In 2008, denying gay Americans the opportunity to marry is not only inhumane, it is unsustainable. History has turned a corner: Gay couples – including gay parents – live openly and for the most part comfortably in mainstream life. This will not change, ever.

Because parents want happy children, communities want responsible neighbors, employers want productive workers, and governments want smaller welfare caseloads, society has a powerful interest in recognizing and supporting same-sex couples. It will either fold them into marriage or create alternatives to marriage, such as publicly recognized and subsidized cohabitation. Conservatives often say same-sex marriage should be prohibited because it does not exemplify the ideal form of family. They should consider how much less ideal an example gay couples will set by building families and raising children out of wedlock.

Nowadays, even opponents of same-sex marriage generally concede it would be good for gay people. What they worry about are the possible secondary effects it could have as it ramifies through law and society. What if gay marriage becomes a vehicle for polygamists who want to marry multiple partners, egalitarians who want to radically rewrite family law, or secularists who want to suppress religious objections to homosexuality?

Space doesn’t permit me to treat those and other objections in detail, beyond noting that same-sex marriage no more leads logically to polygamy than giving women one vote leads to giving men two; that gay marriage requires only few and modest changes to existing family law; and that the Constitution provides robust protections for religious freedom.

I’ll also note, in passing, that these arguments conscript homosexuals into marriagelessness in order to stop heterosexuals from making bad decisions, a deal to which we gay folks say, “Thanks, but no thanks.” We wonder how many heterosexuals would give up their own marriage, or for that matter their own divorce, to discourage other people from making poor policy choices. Any volunteers?

Honest advocacy requires acknowledging that same-sex marriage is a significant social change and, as such, is not risk-free. I believe the risks are modest, manageable, and likely to be outweighed by the benefits. Still, it’s wise to guard against unintended consequences by trying gay marriage in one or two states and seeing what happens, which is exactly what the country is doing.

By the same token, however, honest opposition requires acknowledging that there are risks and unforeseen consequences on both sides of the equation. Some of the unforeseen consequences of allowing same-sex marriage will be good, not bad. And barring gay marriage is risky in its own right.

America needs more marriages, not fewer, and the best way to encourage marriage is to encourage marriage, which is what society does by bringing gay couples inside the tent. A good way to discourage marriage, on the other hand, is to tarnish it as discriminatory in the minds of millions of young Americans. Conservatives who object to redefining marriage risk redefining it themselves, as a civil-rights violation.

There are two ways to see the legal marriage of Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon. One is as the start of something radical: an experiment that jeopardizes millennia of accumulated social patrimony. The other is as the end of something radical: an experiment in which gay people were told that they could have all the sex and love they could find, but they could not even think about marriage. If I take the second view, it is on conservative – in fact, traditional – grounds that gay souls and straight society are healthiest when sex, love and marriage all walk in step.

Mr. Rauch, a senior writer with National Journal and a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution, is the author of “Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America” (Holt Paperbacks, 2004).

[Click here to see an interview with Jason L. Riley,
about the ideas in this new book.]

Same-sex unions do not diminish the bonds of marriage, they uphold them.

Across California today, in mass public weddings and in small, private services, gay and lesbian couples will exchange official vows of undying love and wedlock. With the sanction of the state Supreme Court, these couples stand together as full citizens at last.

Their long odyssey to reach this day serves to remind us why people marry at all, especially in an era of casual relationships. As any married person can attest, marriage is significant precisely because it is difficult. True, it confers certain public protections, but even more, it requires personal sacrifices. If mutual affection and appreciation were enough to sustain relationships across the years, there would be no need for solemn vows of fidelity. Those vows protect many a marriage through many a rough patch; when two people agree to enter into such a union, it by rights should carry the name and honor of marriage, whether it’s between people of opposite sex or between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

Opponents of same-sex marriage often deplore this expansion of the meaning of marriage because they view it as threatening to traditional unions. As they use this day as a rallying point for a proposed amendment to the state Constitution to ban such marriages, it’s time to ask them directly: How does marriage of one type threaten others? Why do many heterosexuals feel that the beauty of their own marriage vows is in no way changed by today’s weddings, while others feel theirs have somehow been diminished?

Perhaps the next few months will ease these fears, as same-sex couples begin their married lives together. Those couples will settle into communities without disorder or threat; they will bring legal protection to their bonds of love. Those bonds can only be good for society – children gain from being raised by married parents, and communities are stronger when residents are legally committed to one another. As more and more Californians marry, society will grow stronger, not weaker.

That’s no doubt why opponents sought a stay of the court’s ruling until after the election. They know that as same-sex marriages become commonplace, the fears about them will fade, and eventually we will wonder what all the fuss was about. In the meantime, opponents will resort to hyperbole and fear. Take this missive last week from the Alliance for Marriage, issued in response to the announcement that the state of New York would recognize the unions performed in California:

“The governor of New York state will declare hundreds of years of marriage law in New York to be null and void. … The governor of New York state will force California-style ‘gay marriage’ on all the families and children of his own state.”

It’s a fairly reliable indicator of a bad argument when its proponent is forced to overstate the case in order to make it. The above surely qualifies. Same-sex couples are not upending the institution of marriage; nor are their supporters. Rather, they are engaged in a profoundly conservative act: They ask not to abolish marriage but to uphold it.

Some religious organizations won’t perform these marriages or recognize these unions -that’s their constitutional right. But the government, which has obligations of equity, may not engage in the discrimination that religions are allowed. As long as it bestows the privileges of marriage on some couples, it must bestow them on all.

In California, the initiative process allows voters to amend the state Constitutiondirectly, and unfortunately, a measure on the November ballot will give them the chance. The question won’t be whether same-sex marriage is right or wrong -that’s a matter of personal conviction -but whether those who believe it is wrong should have the power to deny marriage to those who seek its protections.

Put another way: Many Californians undoubtedly object to unwed couples who have and raise children together, but no constitutional amendment prevents that, whatever themoral calculus.

To those who insist that an unevolving morality undergirds our state and federal constitutions, we remind them that not so long ago, many Americans believed with passionate conviction that it was a sin, a threat to families and a violation of the law for people of different races to marry.

The 1959 ruling of a Virginia state court judge to deny this right to a black woman and a white man aptly summarized the fervor with which opponents of miscegenation drew on tradition and religion to support their views:

“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents,” trial judge Leon Bazile wrote. “And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down that ruling in 1967; on that happy day, 16 states were forced to abandon their laws banning interracial marriage. Today, interracial couples go about their lives without legal threat; some no doubt still feel the sting of disapproval. But those who would look askance on those lawfully wedded couples do so without the state to reinforce their bigotry. Our courts, certainly our supreme courts, exist not to assess God’s will but to enforce the precepts of our constitutions, including the insistencethat all Americans — black or white, male or female, straight or gay -are entitled to equal protection and the due process of our laws.

The California Supreme Court affirmed that principle last month and delivered the eloquent basis for today’s ceremonies. As the state’s voters watch the celebrations in the coming months, they should enjoy the sight of fellow citizens availing themselves of a public institution, that of marriage. These celebrations allow us to share in the newlyweds’ happiness, to join in acknowledging a milestone of joy and lifelong commitment. And they prompt at least one more question for those who disapprove: How can the state’s blessing on these acts of love in any way diminish us?

Published in the Los Angeles Times, June 17, 2008.