FreeMarketUnderBlog

Hopefully the name Free Market Underdog speaks for itself. The obvious bias is toward freedom - not just in markets, but freedom in general. That is, complete freedom in your own personal actions and behavior. The principal is simple, or at least it should be. You should be free to do anything, as long as you don’t cause harm to other people or their property. Period. End of story. 

Too much time, energy, and taxpayer money is spent today in providing safety nets, righting perceived wrongs, and restraining distateful behavior - in short, guiding society in some mistaken belief that this is the role of government. And worse yet, that government has the ability to do so. 

Sure, many government programs are helpful in the short run, or for select groups over time. The problem, however, is the aggregate and cumulative effect of all of those programs and the disincentives they create. With government the old axiom “give them an inch, and they’ll take a mile” is absolutely true. This creeping socialism is strongly evident just in the 20th Century by comparing the size and scope of government today with that of one hundred years ago. 

Many people will respond by pointing out how much better off we are today than one hundred years ago. While this is almost certainly true, it is quite a stretch to suggest that this improvement is at the hands of government. On the contrary, I would argue that virtually all improvements of the 20th Century are a result of free market enterprise. And we don’t need models, debate or dissertation to make the case. We have real life experience to prove this – simply compare the condition of the United States today with the former Soviet bloc (i.e. totalitarian, communist) countries.    

As for the Underdog part of the name, it is sad but true that the opinions expressed in this web site are very much in the minority these days. Gradually, people have, over time, accepted a large government presence in their lives, and have difficulty imagining life without it. Worse yet, they have come to believe that such a government presence is just and necessary. This is a far cry from the concept of liberty and self-sufficiency known by our forefathers. 

Most likely, this web site, and my book, An Island Called Liberty, will have little or no effect on the direction of this country. Maybe, though, it will prompt a few people to think differently and talk differently to other people when these issues come up. If you agree with these opinions, please don’t shy away from persuading others of them. If you disagree with them, please spend a serious amount of time with an open mind reading and studying other similar opinions. There are several great sources listed in my blogroll and on my Links page. And there is always the volumnious work, such as the Federalist Papers, of our founding fathers.  

Finally, don’t avoid voting for a third party candidate or someone who speaks in favor of these arguments. Currently, Ron Paul, a libertarian (with a small “l”) Repubican, is running in the primary election for the Republican presdiential nominee. He won’t win, but that shouldn’t be a reason not to vote for him. A vote for him will send a message to the Republicans in particular, and all parties and politicians in general, that these ideas are popular with the American people. Sending that message is the only peaceful way to begin steering this Titanic government away from the iceberg of death. The alternative is that our children and grandchildren will have to go the route of our forefathers. And I don’t think they’ll have any easier time of it than our forefathers did.

Please check back periodically for new posts. Or, better yet, please subscribe via your RSS feeder. I apolgize in advance for the sproadic nature of my future posts, but I do have a “day job” and two small children, so I can’t devote as much time as I would like to this effort.    

I sincerely thank you for your time. Please do all you can for the cause of true freedom and true liberty, if only to persuade others of these sound and solid arguments and principals. 

Joe Specht