I don’t write just for the fun, but to share my ideas and to hone my arguments in defense of them.  Unfortunately, TomKnighton.com never really developed like I hoped it would.  After almost a year of doing this, the readership never really got where I wanted it to be.  When I launched Laws-n-Sausages, it was to fill a niche that SWGAPolitics.com had left.  However, the readership from the first day has been higher than this site.

When I think about it, it’s not particularly surprising either.  There are tons of sites that cover national politics.  Competing with them is difficult.  However, local politics is a different matter entirely.  Local news and commentary is rather rare and therefore it’s easier to find LnS.

So what will happen to TomKnighton.com?  For the time being, not much.  Political commentary will probably cease, but I still intend to post a bit about political philosophy.  I also hope to share news about Knighton Media, the company I’m in the process of launching that will manage Laws-n-Sausages as well as a couple of other websites I have in the works.  There is a hope for Knighton Media to grow out of the internet and actually branch out into more traditional media like radio and television.  We’ll have to see how that goes.  This site will provide the news and updates on that for the time being.

I’d like to thank those who have followed what’s been going on here.  It means a lot.  I only hope you’ll continue to follow my writing by visiting United Liberty and Laws-n-Sausages.  Thanks.

One point that’s been brought up is that the father’s race is listed as “African”, not “Black”.  Of course, the fact that his father was actually from Africa, therefore the term was appropriate, seems to be lost on some folks.  Black was a term used for American black people, but people actually from Africa?

As for the issue of dual citizenship, read the Constitution.  It simply says a “natural born citizen”.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Dual citizenship, even if Obama did have it, isn’t disqualifying.  However, so far there’s absolutely no evidence to really support the dual citizenship argument.

Many birthers have argued that Obama traveled to Pakistan during a period in the 1980′s when travel to that nation was impossible for American citizens.  Sounds pretty damning, doesn’t it?  Of course, the same year Obama went, there was a New York Times travel article about going to Pakistan.  Um…oops?

The whole birther nonsense is a distraction.  Yes, I agree that President Obama has been a bad president.  Yes, I want to see him out of office.  However, conspiracy theories don’t help anyone in any way.  They make the president’s opposition look insane at best.

We have some real problems in this country, and while some will still try to argue that Obama is Kenyan or Indonesian or Martian or whatever, it won’t change a thing.  He produced the birth certificate, but like so many predicted, it wasn’t enough.  For crazy people, it usually isn’t.

Today, many companies spend a great deal of money on lobbyists that take their wish list to Congress.  That wish list does occasionally call for relaxing of some regulations, but more often than not it calls of increases in regulation.  Why?  Because they like the idea of making in harder to enter the market and provide competition.  Increase regulations also give them the benefit of possibly stamping out smaller competitors.  That forces consumers to go to one of the big guys for their products.

This, my friends, is not capitalism in any way, shape, or form. It’s not.  This is corporatism, plain and simple.

In capitalism, these regulations designed to stamp out the little guy wouldn’t exist.  Would the little guy thrive?  Maybe, maybe not.  It would be up to that little guy to make it though.  He (or she) would have to work hard, make good decisions, and convince his potential customers that they should be from his company.  If all that comes together, then he’ll survive just fine.  If not, well…it’s all on him.

Capitalism isn’t a pretty system, but it actually is the most fair.  When progressives talk about fairness, they never consider capitalism as being just that.  However, it really is.  An open market, where each individual is free to determine their own destiny.  If they want to start a company, there’s not a governmental body standing in the way trying to keep them from it.  There’s nothing to it but their own determination and skill.

No, not everyone makes their millions in capitalism.  It’s the sad fact that not everyone is cut out for owning their own business that is to blame, not the capitalistic system.  There’s no way around that unless you start requiring everyone to buy a product and that’s just wrong health care.

Capitalism also isn’t about killing the competition, though they do work towards that goal.  The truth is there’s usually room for multiple competitors in any industry.  There’s never a real reason to kill competition, except for greed.  Now, I don’t have a problem with greed per se.  I recognize much of what we identify as making the modern world what we see around us came about as a result of someone’s “greed”.  However, there are lines that get crossed from time to time, and that’s where the problem comes in.  And yes, someone actively trying to use the force of government to stamp out competition is most definitely in that camp.

I remember reading Atlas Shrugged for the first time and hearing the characters talk rather blithely about destroying each other through fair competition.  It was weird to my mind, because I didn’t understand how they could be so nonchalant about losing everything.  However, they weren’t.  They simply didn’t expect to lose.  Ever.  However, if they did they would take their lumps and move on.

Unfortunately, Rand’s capitalist are primarily works of fiction.  Are there people like that who exist though?  Probably.  And those are the true capitalists.  Not the greedy bastards who go to Congress and support laws that would kill the competition for them.  Oh no.  Capitalists don’t mind killing the competition, they’ll just be damned if they outsource it to Uncle Sam.

I’ve been as guilty as anyone of thinking that the liberty movement can really only support one guy.  In reality, that still remains to be seen.  While Johnson is somewhat more likely to resonate better with independents and moderates, Paul will resonate better with the Tea Party groups.  This adds a somewhat more diverse mix listening to the pro-freedom messages of both candidates.

Yes, eventually one candidate will probably bow out.  Let’s face it, the odds aren’t great that even one of these men will win the nomination.  The odds aren’t particularly great that both will make it all the way to the convention.  One will, more likely admit defeat and probably endorse the other one.  It doesn’t really matter either way.  You see, those who liked the message of one are far more likely to find plenty to like in the other anyways.

The pro-liberty movement will, eventually, settle behind one of the two.  Yes, I do believe the best man is Johnson, but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t support Paul if Johnson bowed out.  I can’t think of any other Johnson supporters who wouldn’t do the same.  Truth be told, I suspect the same can be said of Paul supporters as well.

Ideally, I want to see a real pro-liberty candidate win the nomination and, hopefully, the White House.  It would be wonderful to have a President I could defend on a regular basis for once.  However, if the best we can do is raise awareness, aren’t two voices better than one anyways?

In a story on Fox News, I found something interesting.  Padma says this:

“I don’t get up in the morning thinking, ‘I’m an Indian’ or ‘I’m a woman’ or ‘I’m a person of color’ or ‘I’m this or I’m that.’ I get up thinking, ‘Alright, what can I do to accomplish what I find interesting in the world?’ I never start from a place of my ethnicity or my gender, I start from a place of ambition and just curiosity about the world I live in and enthusiasm for being active, mentally and physically,” Lakshmi added. “Also, because I want a good life for me and my child, I’m professionally ambitious just from a monetary standpoint.”

[Emphasis mine]

The translation?  She wants to make money.  No apologies, just a statement that she wants the best for herself and her child.  You have no idea how refreshing this was to read.

Profit is acknowledged by most to be essential, but a necessary evil.  I don’t agree.  Desiring profit is no different than desiring anything else.  You want a nice car?  Cool.  You want world peace?  Fine.  You want profit?  Go right ahead.

Profit is, in and of itself, a perfectly noble pursuit.  The idea of being paid well isn’t something that people need to be ashamed of.  Today, far to many people are made to feel guilty because they seek to make a profit.  It’s treated like a dirty thing, one that should be scoured from the Earth, but since we can’t we’ll just make people feel guilty for wanting it.

Yet no one has ever been able to tell me how it’s any different than desiring anything else.  The idea that money is somehow wrong is ridiculous.  Money is nothing more than a tool used for the exchange of goods.  How is it evil?  Is it evil because some people do evil things in the pursuit of it?  If that’s the case, then you’re blaming the goal for jerk who tries to achieve it.  It’s like blaming the woman because she got raped.

Lakshmi simply wants to make as much money as possible.  I’m not only fine with that, but she just shot up a bit more in my estimation.

To discuss the cultural impact of a movie that’s only been out two weeks is obviously premature.  However, Rand’s work on the big screen does open up some real possibilities.  For example, a nine year old boy saw that work could be noble without the typical spin that it must be geared towards helping another.  He learned that capitalism wasn’t some evil thing that needs to be stamped down by the benevolent hand of government, but a tool that empowers all to have the opportunities to create more for themselves.

What he did grasp was that there are people in this world who seek to tear down those who have achieved, either intentionally or unintentionally.  They want what those people have.  They use words like fairness to enslave one man to another, as if the motivation for that slavery makes it alright.  He learned these things at age nine, and he learned them because of a movie.

Not all of that was clear from the movie, but it came out in the conversations we had because of that movie.  In truth, if they are able to make the rest of the films they have planned, he will see it all on the screen.  But even if they don’t, he’s learned a great deal.  He, at his tender age, is thinking about how he can earn his own money.  He’s thinking lawn care, since that’s a time honored trade for young men seeking to earn a few bucks.  He is looking at it as his own business, something most kids his age won’t comprehend.

While many disagree with Rand’s message from the book, few will argue that small businesses and entrepreneurs are the key to a strong economy.  If this movie is capable of creating more people like my son, then it may well have the most meaningful impact on society that any fiction film ever has.  If that is its cultural impact, then it was well worth every penny spent in making it.

Unfortunately, the problem with that theory is that Utopia means a loss of freedom.  There’s no way it can exist in a free society.  You see, freedom means freedom for things you dislike.  The presence of that which you dislike, even possibly the prevalence of it, automatically makes it at least a little less than perfect.

In order to have Utopia, you must remove people’s rights.  Property rights, free speech, Second Amendment rights, freedom of religion, what have you, all freedoms have their dark side that makes the world less perfect.  For some, they accept the dark side as being preferable to losing rights.  It’s not Utopia though, and that’s not a bad thing.

You see, some people like to throw around the term “Libertopia” to describe a libertarian ideal society.  The truth is, no such place exists.  Libertarianism has its dark side as well.  Free speech and freedom of religion gives us the Westboro Baptist Church.  Second Amendment rights gives us the occasionally gun wielding madman.  Property rights gives us the guy down the street with a run down house with three partially rust destroyed cars in the back yard.  There’s a downside to all of it.  We accept that.  We know that in capitalism, there are still losers.  We understand that the world will never be perfect, but we also understand that we should strive to make it such.

No one who loves freedom truly wants a Utopia.  They might think they do, but the reality is that Utopia can not exist without sacrificing what makes humanity so truly wonderful as a whole.  Free will.  The ability to decide for ourselves if we will walk in the sun or cower in the shadows.  The ability to determine for ourselves how we will shape our own destiny towards whatever hopes and dreams we cling to.  The idea that we, as people, are ultimately heroic in an age when heroes are trivial and legends don’t truly exist.

These things can not exist in a Utopia, but it’s not anything to worry about anyways.  Utopia is a goal for so many people, but it’s an unattainable one.  The perfect society is impossible to craft by mortal hands, because those mortal hands are so imperfect themselves.  Instead, those hands can warp the hoped for perfection into something unrecognizable to the artist, a hideous creation that bears only a passing resemblance to the original idea which spawned the beast.  Human hand will take the noble goal and smash it like a glass figurine thrown upon the rocks.

However, many people don’t realize it can never be achieved.  So they strive for it, believing in their own flawed minds that perfection is attainable and that each person shares their ideas of perfection.  That is where the danger of Utopia lies.  It’s not in the achievement, but in the journey itself.  It is there that we will find the path to hell, paved with you know what.  And it is there that we must fear to tread.

However, as things stand at the moment, I’m putting my weight behind Gary Johnson.  This isn’t a lack of respect or admiration for Ron Paul, those are as strong as ever.  However, Johnson has a few things going for him that Paul doesn’t necessarily.

It’s true that both have a record to stand on.  However, Paul as repeatedly used earmarks to send money to his home district.  Granted, he always votes against the budget after adding those earmarks, but some can easily argue that Paul knows it will pass anyways so he’s just voting against the budget on form.  He’s bringing home the pork just like so many he criticizes, at least in their eyes.  Johnson, on the other hand, vetoed over 750 pieces of legislation during his time as governor of New Mexico.

Paul can also get hit with the racism charge.  No, Ron Paul has never said anything racist.  However, the newsletter he once published did have an anonymous piece which did just that.  It was a charge that he got beaten over the head with last time, and make no mistake that it’ll come back.  Johnson, on the other hand, has a clean slate.  While it’s entirely possible that he’s got a similar – or worse – skeleton in the closet, it’s not already out.  It would have to be found, and that’s the hard part.  And that’s only if there is one.

Ron Paul also loses people on his stance regarding the FED and the gold standard.  While I agree with him on both of these to some extent (it doesn’t have to be a gold standard, but our money should be backed by something other than good wishes), it has been labeled by many people as “crazy”, for whatever reason.  Johnson, on the other hand, doesn’t have that either.

Johnson has solid credentials and little of the baggage that Paul has.  While both men are solid libertarians in my view, and we would be well served with either living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Johnson is the best shot this time around.  As things stand right now anyways.

Everywhere I turn, I hear someone talking about how the rich need to pay their fair share, despite the fact that most of our government’s revenue comes from them.  I hear a tool like Michael Moore refer to their money as a national resource.  I hear people all around me bantering about how rich people only got that way by screwing someone over.  It’s annoying.

Much of it stems from jealousy.  They’ve got it and I don’t, therefore they’re evil.  Which is about as mature as wetting your pants while watching cartoons with your thumb in your mouth, just sucking away.

The rich have needed a bit of defending lately.  They’re not perfect though, and I will be among the first to point out the flaws that many exhibit.

Far to many of the wealthy seek to protect their wealth by pushing for regulations.  One of the biggest supporters of the employer mandate in the health care reform package was Wal-Mart.  One of the biggest supporters for cap and trade was Enron.  These “rich” companies (run by rich people who want to protect their wealth), want these new rules not because they’re better for the world but because they will help push out competition.  In this, they’re wrong.

However, I don’t defend these people.  They’re rich, but they’re not capitalists.  My defenses have been for rich people, but only to a point.  The corporatists deserve no defending on their efforts to use government to stamp out competition.  Unbridled competition means that any guy with a dream has the chance to give the big boys a run for their money.  Stamping out that by using the full force of government is hardly capitalism.

So why do I defend these people when many of their actions disgust me?  It’s simple.  I hate seeing a small group of people being vilified just because they’re convenient.  I can’t stand it, so I won’t stand it.

Vilify people because they’re wrong, not because they have what you don’t.

“I don’t want to lie to you: there is a big philosophical divide right now,” Obama said, going on to say that he believes “America wants smart government, it wants a lean government, it wants accountable government, but it doesn’t want no government.”

Apparently, the president and I have very different ideas of “lean”.  You see, my idea of a lean government is one that doesn’t get involved in so much crap.  A lean government guts the federal budget until it provides for a minimum of service, namely those required by the Constitution of the United States of America.

President Obama, on the other hand, seems to feel that cutting a bit here and there make it a “lean” government.  Really?  Let’s take a look at the “lean” government.

For example, there are hundreds of government programs that are duplicates of one another.  They all do the exact same thing.  Each one has its own bureaucracy which supports the program.  Cutting that is probably something that President Obama and I agree on.  Where we differ is that even the original programs typically exceed constitutional authority.  The United States government doesn’t have any authority to monitor egg safety, for example.

Yet, I have little doubt that President Obama would argue differently.  After all, they don’t have any authority to get knee deep in health care like they did, but he did it anyways.  The bureaucracy for that monstrosity will be enormous, but that’s supposed to be “lean”?

Look, I can accept people not agreeing with my worldview.  I think they’re wrong, just as they think I’m wrong, but I accept it.  Some great discussions revolve around talking to people who don’t agree with you.  However, I can’t accept the idea that this is somehow a “lean” version of government.

I agree that people don’t want no government.  Most people don’t.  However, there’s a long way between what I envision as a lean government and the presidents interpretation of the exact same thing.