Where do I stand?

Most of the time in the morning I am standing on the Rector Street "R" train uptown platform. In the afternoons you can usually find me standing on line at Joe's Pizza for lunch and in the evening hours various places throughout New York City will suffice including, but not limited to, L.A. Fitness. But when it comes to where I stand on the election and political views, It's not as easy as finding me standing, waiting, hoping that over aged skateboarder hurries up and hands me the hot pepper shaker so I can get myself and my pizza out of that shoe box that is Joe's. For someone like me, its a little more complicated.

Economics is in my blood, but politics is something new. One can make the argument that the two go together like Ike and Tina, and I'd agree.

When it comes to the economy I have always been a conservative. Not a conservative in the social sense (i.e. pro-life, don't ask don't tell etc.) but a conservative in the "laissez-fare", limited government sense. The belief that government should keep its hands out of the economy and business and let the "invisible hand" do its thing. Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek , both Nobel Prize winners are the most notable voices of this idea. Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom", arguably the most influential book written in the 20th century, is my bible much like it was the economic bible of low tax, small government leaders like Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and now Arnold Schwarzenegger. Free markets, capitalism and economic freedom without government interference will lead to absolute political and social freedom for the individual. What a beautiful idea in concept. Many theorists, economists and politicians agree that the fundamentals of this idea are concrete. These ideas are most prevalent in the campaign of candidate Ron Paul.

Perhaps the best way to test this idea of total economic freedom is to look at its antithesis, the planned economy. In a planned economy, the central planning unit, the government, manages the economy making all decisions on pricing, production, distribution etc. We call this socialism or communism. When Germany was divided after World War II into East (socialist) and West (democratic) Berlin, were Berliners risking their lives to flee democratized West Berlin to get into the socialized East Berlin? Are South Koreans flooding the 38th parallel to get into the communized North? Are Floridians desperately trying to flee from Miami in makeshift watercraft to a better life in Cuba? You get the point. Socialism negates freedom, individual liberties and happiness. So what I'm trying to get at here is that as far as economics goes, I'm with the "little government" policies of the Republicans. Why? We'll lets throw it out there. What is the Democrats proposal for health care reform? It is SOCIALIZED medicine.

Let's not mask this proposal by calling it "national health insurance" Lets call it what it is, Socialized. Much like when FDR and his New Deal moved us toward a welfare state post-WWII with "Social Security", this is doing the same. Socialized health care is a government run agency which oversees arguably the most important aspect of American life, our damn health! When has the government EVER run anything smoothly and effectively? Think of the I.R.S, the budget deficit, the Iraq War etc. The government has a lackluster track record of being effective. Now, with socialized medicine, we are taking away the most important aspect that makes products and services in the free market so much better, competition. Without competition there is less incentive to produce a quality product or keep prices down. Next, doctors will be told what type of medicine to practice, where they are needed to practice that medicine and many will be relocated against their will to areas of need, depriving them of their basic freedoms. Also, certain medicines will only be available under the government plan, giving the consumer a lack of alternatives if one medicine should not be effective. The list goes on and on showing more restrictions of individual liberties. This step in policy is a fairly large leap to a welfare/socialist state. The question is what policy, like "national health care", under the guise of being beneficial to the American people, will the government institute next to further our journey down "The Road to Serfdom?" What starts with health care ends with totalitarianism. Sound extreme? Tell that to the people of Germany in the early to mid 1930's.

With that said there are many fantastic principles coming out of the Democratic camp. Barack Obama, a fantastic orator, has captivated me. On the social issues, I'm totally liberal. So what if the homosexual couple in Chelsea, who have been together for 30 years wants to marry. More power to you. Fund stem cell research so that hopeless 15 year old boy injured in a diving accident can at least have a chance to walk again. And most importantly, get us out of that god awful mess that is Iraq. But I will caution not to be too hasty as we do not want it to become a bigger problem than when we had first arrived. I fear it may be too late for that already, but lets at least think it through this time around.

I agree it is time for some changes, and somethings are better left untouched. To find one candidate who encompasses all of what I believe is an impossibility. In this dual-ocracy we have created that might never come to pass. So where do I stand? Somewhere in the middle of the road with my hands raised up, eyes to the sky, asking myself the same question.