The Conservatarian

The other day I was having a conversation with some friends about the electoral college system. It appears that both of my friends feel that this system is antiquated and unfair to the voting populace. I thought I would write a short article about one aspect of the electoral college: balance popular votes with state populations.

The electoral college system was started for two reasons. One, back in the horse and buggy days, it was difficult for people to travel to vote, so this system of vote representation was devised to represent the vote. Secondly, the system was created in order to balance the sheer number of the majority vote with the ability of the the less populated states to have representation.

In the electoral system, each state has a number of electors equivalent to its total Congressional representation, with the District of Columbia receiving three electors. The reason for this is simple. Let me list some major cities for you:

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_population)

The population of the top 10 cities in the United States is 25,247,504 (if I punched the numbers in correctly). Now, let us consider that this is 8.4% of the population of 300 million. This does not sound like a big deal, but numbers like this sway the vote. Why else do politicians focus their energies in highly populated areas? Not just for numbers, but electoral votes- they need both. This graphic illustrates this quite well:

These maps show the amount of attention given to each state by the Bush and Kerry campaigns during the final five weeks of the 2004 election. At left, each waving hand represents a visit from a presidential or vice-presidential candidate during the final five weeks. At right, each dollar sign represents one million dollars spent on TV advertising by the campaigns during the same time period. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_%28United_States%29)

Let’s imagine for a minute, for the sake of mathematical simplicity, that there are only 1 million people in the United States. The population is concentrated in two cities, and sparse in the rest of the U.S. Suppose 550 thousand people lived in two cities, New York and Los Angeles. The rest of the population (450 thousand) lived in the rest of the country, evenly distributed in each state, for a total of 9,375 votes per state. Based on this ficitious country’s rules of representation, the 48 states would each get three electoral college votes, for a total of 144 electoral votes. The other two states would get 61 votes each, for a total of 122 electoral votes (again, I am trying to prove a point by having close numbers between the states- this is not how numbers are allocated in real life). Now, the balance of power has shifted away from two highly populated areas to a more evenly distributed balance across the nation. The two cities can not decide the president on their own- it takes other smaller states to decide. These two large city-states have their own special interests, good or bad, that may be different from the smaller states. The city-states are still influential, but they are not all-powerful. Plus, the candidates have to give time to the other states to get elected.

In this very simplified form of the electoral college system, one can see the wisdom of our founding fathers in that the electoral system provides equity and protection to the less populated states from the whims of highly populated states. Our founders were intent on preventing tyranny in any form, whether it was the tyranny of the crown or the tyranny of the states.

A bill called “The Restroom Access Act” may soon bring some relief to 30,000 Tennesseans who suffer from inflammatory bowel diseases. I am opposed to this for quite a few reasons:

1) I’m sorry, but it is not the government’s problem to provide facilities for the bowel afflicted.

2) This adds to the slippery slope of government instrusion into private areas.

3) If government can force these businesses to provide this sort of service to people with bowel problems, when will the far stretch to providing quarter to soldiers be forced upon us?

Here is the whole story:

Restroom act would bring Tennesseans relief

http://www.wkrn.com/Global/story.asp?S=8205205

A bill called “The Restroom Access Act” may soon bring some relief to 30,000 Tennesseans who suffer from inflammatory bowel diseases. Those who suffer from inflammatory bowel diseases often need to instantly find a bathroom, or face an embarrassing consequence. Finding a restroom can be an issue for people like local bank executive Vickie Storm. “My daughter had been diagnosed three years earlier and for me to be diagnosed two years later, I was in denial,” the senior vice-president at Avenue Bank told News 2. Their condition was diagnosed as Crohn’s disease. Both control it through medication, but Storm said so many others out there need help. That is one of the reasons for “The Restroom Access Act.” The measure would provide entry to private restrooms, like those in small businesses without public facilities, for sufferers of inflammatory bowel disease. “We are a society and we all have to live together and sometimes we have to reach out and do things for citizens that have special needs and that is what we have done here,” said Sen. Doug Jackson, a sponsor of the bill. Storm thinks eventually it might mean that she would carry a card informing the business of facility of her disease. “Without having to go into an uncomfortable or embarrassing explanation, just the fact you have this card would allow you to present it so that you would have access to the restroom facility you so desperately need,” she said. The need appears to be heard on Capitol Hill. “The Restroom Access Act” is expected to pass both Houses and signed by Governor Phil Bredesen. 

Has Ron Paul pulled out of the race? No. But the media would have you think so. He is not missing, he has just been dismissed from the attention of the media. From the debates to the primaries and caucuses, the media has had an extremely effective blackout on Dr. Paul. His voice has not been heard in the media, and I think I know why.

The Media is afraid. The fourth estate, which is predicated upon the freedoms of speech and press, is suppressing this man’s voice. He did not have the CEO good looks of Romney. In truth, he looks more like someone’s grandfather than anything else (actually he reminds me of John Mahoney, who plays the elder Crane on the television sitcom “Frasier”). He is only a year and a few days older than John McCain, so age should not be a factor for him, if it isn’t for McCain. He is not the eloquent speaker that Obama is, but at least Dr. Paul speaks on facts, and not emotion. And compared to Hillary, well, enough said there.

America, do you want change? Write in the name of Dr. Paul if he is not on the November Ballot. Vote for him if there is a caucus or primary in your area. I agree with Obama that we need change, but not the kind of change Obama espouses. We need a change back to the gold standard of currency to keep governmental powers and inflation in check. We need a change back to the form of goverment that ensures that states oversee the central government, and not the other way around. We need a military presence on our on shores to stem the tide of illegal immigration. We need to change back to the philosophy of less governement, and more personal reliance. Yes, we need a change to move from the solcialistic policies of today to the independence driven, non-government-dependent value system of our forefathers.

You want a vote for change? Vote for Ron Paul.

by Ron Paul, Dr.   February 13, 2008

Madam Speaker, 

I rise to speak on the concept of competing currencies.  Currency, or money, is what allows civilization to flourish.  In the absence of money, barter is the name of the game; if the farmer needs shoes, he must trade his eggs and milk to the cobbler and hope that the cobbler needs eggs and milk.  Money makes the transaction process far easier.  Rather than having to search for someone with reciprocal wants, the farmer can exchange his milk and eggs for an agreed-upon medium of exchange with which he can then purchase shoes. 

This medium of exchange should satisfy certain properties:  it should be durable, that is to say, it does not wear out easily; it should be portable, that is, easily carried; it should be divisible into units usable for every-day transactions; it should be recognizable and uniform, so that one unit of money has the same properties as every other unit; it should be scarce, in the economic sense, so that the extant supply does not satisfy the wants of everyone demanding it; it should be stable, so that the value of its purchasing power does not fluctuate wildly; and it should be reproducible, so that enough units of money can be created to satisfy the needs of exchange.

Over millennia of human history, gold and silver have been the two metals that have most often satisfied these conditions, survived the market process, and gained the trust of billions of people.  Gold and silver are difficult to counterfeit, a property which ensures they will always be accepted in commerce.  It is precisely for this reason that gold and silver are anathema to governments.  A supply of gold and silver that is limited in supply by nature cannot be inflated, and thus serves as a check on the growth of government.  Without the ability to inflate the currency, governments find themselves constrained in their actions, unable to carry on wars of aggression or to appease their overtaxed citizens with bread and circuses.

At this country’s founding, there was no government controlled national currency.  While the Constitution established the Congressional power of minting coins, it was not until 1792 that the US Mint was formally established.  In the meantime, Americans made do with foreign silver and gold coins.  Even after the Mint’s operations got underway, foreign coins continued to circulate within the United States, and did so for several decades. 

On the desk in my office I have a sign that says: “Don’t steal – the government hates competition.”  Indeed, any power a government arrogates to itself, it is loathe to give back to the people.  Just as we have gone from a constitutionally-instituted national defense consisting of a limited army and navy bolstered by militias and letters of marque and reprisal, we have moved from a system of competing currencies to a government-instituted banking cartel that monopolizes the issuance of currency.  In order to introduce a system of competing currencies, there are three steps that must be taken to produce a legal climate favorable to competition.

The first step consists of eliminating legal tender laws.  Article I Section 10 of the Constitution forbids the States from making anything but gold and silver a legal tender in payment of debts.  States are not required to enact legal tender laws, but should they choose to, the only acceptable legal tender is gold and silver, the two precious metals that individuals throughout history and across cultures have used as currency.  However, there is nothing in the Constitution that grants the Congress the power to enact legal tender laws.  We, the Congress, have the power to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, but not to declare a legal tender.  Yet, there is a section of US Code, 31 USC 5103, that purports to establish US coins and currency, including Federal Reserve notes, as legal tender. 

Historically, legal tender laws have been used by governments to force their citizens to accept debased and devalued currency.  Gresham’s Law describes this phenomenon, which can be summed up in one phrase:  bad money drives out good money.  An emperor, a king, or a dictator might mint coins with half an ounce of gold and force merchants, under pain of death, to accept them as though they contained one ounce of gold.  Each ounce of the king’s gold could now be minted into two coins instead of one, so the king now had twice as much “money” to spend on building castles and raising armies.  As these legally overvalued coins circulated, the coins containing the full ounce of gold would be pulled out of circulation and hoarded.  We saw this same phenomenon happen in the mid-1960s when the US government began to mint subsidiary coinage out of copper and nickel rather than silver.  The copper and nickel coins were legally overvalued, the silver coins undervalued in relation, and silver coins vanished from circulation. 

These actions also give rise to the most pernicious effects of inflation.  Most of the merchants and peasants who received this devalued currency felt the full effects of inflation, the rise in prices and the lowered standard of living, before they received any of the new currency.  By the time they received the new currency, prices had long since doubled, and the new currency they received would give them no benefit.

In the absence of legal tender laws, Gresham’s Law no longer holds.  If people are free to reject debased currency, and instead demand sound money, sound money will gradually return to use in society.  Merchants would have been free to reject the king’s coin and accept only coins containing full metal weight.

The second step to reestablishing competing currencies is to eliminate laws that prohibit the operation of private mints.  One private enterprise which attempted to popularize the use of precious metal coins was Liberty Services, the creators of the Liberty Dollar.  Evidently the government felt threatened, as Liberty Dollars had all their precious metal coins seized by the FBI and Secret Service this past November.  Of course, not all of these coins were owned by Liberty Services, as many were held in trust as backing for silver and gold certificates which Liberty Services issued.  None of this matters, of course, to the government, who hates to see any competition.

The sections of US Code which Liberty Services is accused of violating are erroneously considered to be anti-counterfeiting statutes, when in fact their purpose was to shut down private mints that had been operating in California.  California was awash in gold in the aftermath of the 1849 gold rush, yet had no US Mint to mint coinage.  There was not enough foreign coinage circulating in California either, so private mints stepped into the breech to provide their own coins.  As was to become the case in other industries during the Progressive era, the private mints were eventually accused of circulating debased (substandard) coinage, and in the interest of providing government-sanctioned regulation and a government guarantee of purity, the 1864 Coinage Act was passed, which banned private mints from producing their own coins for circulation as currency. 

The final step to ensuring competing currencies is to eliminate capital gains and sales taxes on gold and silver coins.  Under current federal law, coins are considered collectibles, and are liable for capital gains taxes.  Short-term capital gains rates are at income tax levels, up to 35 percent, while long-term capital gains taxes are assessed at the collectibles rate of 28 percent.  Furthermore, these taxes actually tax monetary debasement.  As the dollar weakens, the nominal dollar value of gold increases.  The purchasing power of gold may remain relatively constant, but as the nominal dollar value increases, the federal government considers this an increase in wealth, and taxes accordingly.  Thus, the more the dollar is debased, the more capital gains taxes must be paid on holdings of gold and other precious metals.

Just as pernicious are the sales and use taxes which are assessed on gold and silver at the state level in many states.  Imagine having to pay sales tax at the bank every time you change a $10 bill for a roll of quarters to do laundry.  Inflation is a pernicious tax on the value of money, but even the official numbers, which are massaged downwards, are only on the order of 4% per year.  Sales taxes in many states can take away 8% or more on every single transaction in which consumers wish to convert their Federal Reserve Notes into gold or silver. 

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, allowing for competing currencies will allow market participants to choose a currency that suits their needs, rather than the needs of the government.  The prospect of American citizens turning away from the dollar towards alternate currencies will provide the necessary impetus to the US government to regain control of the dollar and halt its downward spiral.  Restoring soundness to the dollar will remove the government’s ability and incentive to inflate the currency, and keep us from launching unconstitutional wars that burden our economy to excess.  With a sound currency, everyone is better off, not just those who control the monetary system.  I urge my colleagues to consider the redevelopment of a system of competing currencies.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/1057/statement-on-competing-currencies/

Well, it appears the infamous Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled “that a roommate-finding site (Roommates.com)cannot require users to disclose their sexual orientation, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Thursday, in the latest skirmish over whether anti-discrimination rules apply to the Web.” (quote from Reuters article, link below)

Now I don’t know about you, but if I am looking for a roommate, I’d be looking for someone with similar tastes as mine. If I am a straight male, I want to board with another straight male. I’d want to know what kind of roommate I was getting. Heck, moral or not, if I was a straight male and wanted a gorgeous, straight, female to bunk with, I’d ask what her gender was and what her, um, proclivities for adventurousness was (that is the libertarian bent in me, I guess, because it is no one’s business what I ask someone else. However, being a Christian, I myself would not do that). However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has specified that asking such questions is now a no-no. Never mind that this is not Equal Housing Opportunity, nor is it discrimination of an UNPROTECTED class (gays), this court has went over and above it’s lawful jurisdiction and said “No, you can not ask that question.”

 So I have a question: does the person looking for a roomate have recourse because he/she suddenly finds out the new roommate is gay? What are other ramifications here? This ruling is a prime example of judicial activism of judges running amok.

For the full article, go to http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0347688720080403?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true