Letters to Editor
At the outset of this letter, let me make clear that as a Libertarian individualist and activist that I am not really enamored of any flag. They are all symbols of nationalism and statism, both of which are collectivist philosophies and ideologies that believe the individual should be subordinate to the so-called "greater good."
Having said this, let me also make clear that the current frenzy over the Confederate battle flag (erroneously referred to by many as the "Stars and Bars," which was the flag of the Confederate government) shows that the "politically correct" liberal crowd is just as intolerant and hateful as the people they claim to be against!
Once again government goes too far
Much has been in the news recently about the so-called Religious Freedom Restoration Act in Indiana and also in Arkansas. Sadly, all sides in this debate focus on the wrong issues.
We already have a Religious Freedom Act – it’s called the First Amendment to the Constitution! The real issue is property rights and the right of individual business owners to choose their customers – bringing religion into this debate only clouds the issue.
I would like to respond to two letters that appeared in the Suburban Trends on Feb. 14.
First the letter by Bill Weightman of Hardyston, advocating more taxpayer funding of the arts here in New Jersey. Government (at any level, even local) should not be taking money from one group (taxpayers) and redistributing it to special interest groups such as those who claim to be promoting the "arts."
On February 1, a letter appeared in
your [The Suburban Trends] claiming that "conservative and libertarian voters" were advocates of voter ID laws. I can't speak for conservatives, but I'd like to know the writer's source of information that led him to think that we Libertarians support more voter ID laws.
As a point of fact, Libertarians have been in the forefront of making it easier to vote by our opposition to ballot access laws that make it difficult for all third parties and independents to get on the ballot as an alternative to the Republican and Democrat duopoly in American politics.
While our property taxes and debt climb, the Mercer County freeholders are focused on other things. What could be more important than making living here more affordable? Plastic shopping bags and new taxes.
Our freeholders want to levy a 5-cent per bag tax on each plastic shopping bag used here in Mercer County. First, I consider it a waste of time, when there are more important things to be done. Second, let the actual stores worry about their shopping bags. The freeholders should mind their own business; the stores can charge a fee if they deem it necessary. Most grocery stores already sell reusable shopping bags and some offer a discount to those who use them. I've never seen any reason that the county government had to step in.
Among the many advantages the Republicans and Democrats have conferred upon themselves is their privileged position on the voting ballot. The establishment political parties are guaranteed the first two columns on every ballot. The other political parties, such as the Libertarian Party, are then put in lottery drawing for columns three and above.
According to state election law, the Republicans and Democrats lose their special columns on the left of the ballot if neither can "poll" at least 10 percent of the votes cast in the previous Assembly election. In 2014 only 8 percent of eligible New Jersey voters participated in one of the two taxpayer-funded primaries. Some 10 percent of 3.7 million votes is 370,000. The law is clear. Neither party even came close.
A recent letter to the Suburban Trends expressed outrage that some business groups take their holdings offshore to avoid U.S. taxes.
The writer shows a complete ignorance of economics and a hostility to private business.
Business and industry flee America because of the anti-free market environment they have to deal with thanks to the politicians and unelected bureaucrats. No business leader in their right mind would want to set up shop where they will be penalized for being productive.
As I write this, another Memorial Day has come and gone and the politicians and their media allies have mouthed the usual high-sounding platitudes about the "service" and "sacrifice" of our armed forces. Nice, lofty sounding stuff but sadly it is a blatant lie! There is an old saying that "Truth is the first casualty in war."
For nearly a century now, the globalists and other assorted international interventionists have lied, tricked, and maneuvered us into two world wars plus a seemingly never-ending string of unconstitutional, undeclared "no-win" police-action "interventions" around the world.
Our so-called leaders don’t’ give a damn about our armed forces; they view them as expendable, cheap "cannon-fodder" to be used to prop up foreign regimes around the world that we happen to be allied with at any given moment. Our veterans have been lied to; they have fought, bled, and died for nothing and no one seems to want to "rock the boat" and point this out to the American people.
Former New Mexico Governor, Gary Johnson was once voted the most fiscally conservative governor during his time in office beginning in 1995 and ending in 2003. He brought a business like mentality to governing and believed that public policy should be based on cost and benefits and not strict ideology.
Known as “Governor Veto” during his time in office, Johnson vetoed a record of 750 bills, a majority of which had to do with spending. When he left office, New Mexico was one of four states at the time to have a balanced budget. Also, during his time there, he received a grade of “A “ for his fiscal policies from the libertarian Cato Institute.
By Matthew Boyer. Matthew Boyer is a School of Arts and Science sophomore with a major in political science and a minor in German. His column, “Legalizing Life,” runs in The Daily Targum on alternate Wednesdays.
Every election, America faces a battle between two dominant political parties, which in turn divides America. We bicker about the opposing party’s policies and are distracted by trivial matters. We then elect a new president who typically behaves similarly to the one prior. Four or eight years down the road, half the country regrets who they cast their vote for. This scenario has essentially been an ongoing ordeal for decades. The American people have let the establishment of the two dominating parties overshadow the possibility of new voices in American politics. But there is a fresh alternative to the Democrats and Republicans we have all come to love and hate: Libertarians.
Putting aside talking points from watching an hour of MSNBC or Fox News, what are the legitimate differences between Democrats and Republicans? Well, let’s start with America’s history of military interventionism. Many people consider Democrats to be anti-war, whereas Republicans are considered warmongers — hence the anti-Condoleezza Rice sentiment among the University faculty. However, since World War II, history in the White House has shown an overwhelming pursuit of war, regardless of which party held office.For example, our current president continues Middle Eastern interventionism, global spying programs and unrestricted drone use, and he is a Democrat. Somalia intervention was under Bill Clinton, a Democrat. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars were under George W. Bush, a Republican. The Gulf War was under the President Bush senior, also a Republican. The Vietnam War was started under John F. Kennedy and continued through Johnson’s administration. Both were Democrats. It was Franklin D. Roosevelt who established the Japanese internment camps across the United States through executive order. The striking similarity in both parties’ foreign policy suggests the need for a new party that would boldly proclaim their pro-diplomacy, pro-peace and anti-war policies.
Published in Suburban Trends
Please let me be one of the first to commend you folks at the Suburban Trends for your editorial today (April 2, 2014) calling for the end of marijuana prohibition.
As we all know, alcohol prohibition didn’t work in the 1920s (and created all kinds of crime problems) and the so-called "War on Drugs" isn’t working either. Ninety years may have passed since the first "prohibition" but economic laws never change and certain substances will always be available.
The late free-market economist Milton Friedman called for the repeal of drug laws decades ago, and he was ridiculed for his Libertarian pro-individual choice views; time has, however, shown him to be correct.
To the editor:
I am not a career politician. I am not a wealthy or well-connected member of the elite. I am a regular person standing up for the Constitution.
Last year at age 28 I was the most successful Libertarian candidate in New Jersey for a second year. But my real goal is to recruit other young people to run for office as Libertarians. Freedom is the future and we’re the generation we’ve been waiting for.
'Our View' editorial draws reaction
‘Our View’ editorial draws reaction
In your "Our View" editorial ("What do Republicans and Democrats look like?") in the Sunday, Nov. 10 Suburban Trends, you mention "the need for moderates or least not the ideologically-driven to stand up and help put an end to the endless partisan bickering." Isn’t that another way of saying that political leaders of both parties should be "wishy-washy" and not stand up for any real principles or convictions?
In the 1850s would you have approved of politicians who took a "moderate" stand regarding the expansion of slavery unto the Western territories? Or if it was the early 20th century would political leaders who only took a "moderate" stand on women getting the right to vote, have met with your approval? Somehow I doubt it!
The ballot for the upcoming election asks New Jersey voters to approve or reject an amendment to the NJ Constitution increasing New Jersey's minimum wage and mandating automatic cost-of-living increases. Advocates of this proposal would have you believe that, by raising the minimum wage, everyone working below that rate would get an immediate increase, and those out of work would be offered jobs at the higher rate.
The truth is a bit more complicated. No one would remain employed at the higher rate if their services are not, in the eyes of their employers, worth the higher rate. So while, no doubt, many people earning less than the new rate would initially get a bump in their hourly rate, it is equally certain that employers with limited resources would have to let many of them go - the less educated, less skilled, less experienced - as a result of the higher rate.