Something occurred to me at the Dollar Store this week.
The prescription to correct my near-sightedness has finally gotten high enough (but still not THAT high) that it affects my ability to read things close up. So, if I'm wearing my contacts it is difficult, uncomfortable or impossible sometimes to make out the text in a book or examine something close up.
So, I finally broke down and bought a pair of reading glasses so I don't have to keep borrowing Lisa's pink ones to read at night. The glasses were a moderate +1.5 power, they were easily available at the Dollar Tree* for, yep, a whole dollar. Now, interestingly enough, I cannot purchase -1.5 (or the -2.5 I need) glasses for $1.00. I must pay for an optometrist visit, get a prescription, pick out frames, pick out lens or contact options and ultimately I'm out the door for usually between $100 and $200.
Think about this for a minute. In one case I can go to the dollar store, select what works to improve my vision to my satisfaction and it costs me a dollar. In the other, because of government regulations, I have to spend 100 to 200 times that amount to get the others.
I think I might even go back and get a few extra pairs so I always have some handy (keep a pair in my desk, in the bedroom in my laptop bag ... why not?)
Think about this massive cost difference when you consider government's role in health care, insurance or any other industry.
*note: I wanted to look at Dollar General since they support Indy Car driver Sarah Fisher; but, the nearest Dollar General store to me appears to have closed down (even thought it's still listed on their web site). Also, cheap reading glasses at CVS right in front of where the Dollar General used to be were around $16.00 - I didn't buy those.

Most people in the liberty movement are well aware of Peter Schiff. Peter Schiff is the president of Euro-Pacific Capital and is running to be the Republican nominee for Chris Dodd's soon to be vacant Senate seat in Connecticut. Peter is frequently found on the cable TV news shows talking about the economy and the mistakes that government is making in their efforts to try and "fix" what government broke. He is a student of Austrian free market economic theory and predicted the big economic meltdown will eerie accuracy.
Wayne Root was recently competing to be the National Chairman of the Libertarian Party and ended up settling for a spot on the Libertarian National Committee. Wayne is high energy guy who , during and after his stint as the party's vice-presidential nominee in 2008, has built up quite a resume of television appearances promoting the Libertarian party and his continuing to mature brand of big-tent libertarianism.
This past week a bit of a stink got raised because Wayne Root (Libertarian) sent out an endorsement and fundraising e-mail on behalf of Peter Schiff (Republican). I have to admit that it caused me some pause as I read it and considered the political ramifications and appropriateness of the message; but, as a huge fan of Peter Schiff and someone who wants him to win his race I agreed with Wayne's motive and intent. I also immediately knew others would use this as another reason to try and heap criticism on Mr. Root. Sure enough, as Libertarians are often want to do, the rock throwing commenced immediately and, I'm sorry, it's just silly and shows a non-commitment to freedom, sound economics and liberty and makes the rock throwers look like any other kind of partisan party hack.
There is no Libertarian candidate vying for the Connecticut Senate seat. And Libertarians (big L and small) should always be interested in having as many great pro-liberty options on the ballot as possible. As a fictional example, who wouldn't feel great about having to pick between three candidates like Ron Paul, Peter Schiff and Michael Badnarik (or Judge Napolitano, John Stossel, etc...) regardless of the letter after their name on a ballot?? How great would that be? Knowing that whichever candidate won, you're going to get a libertarian defender of natural rights and the Constitution?
A bunch of the rock throwers in this case are publicly on record as having given money to Ron Paul's Republican presidential campaign. So, if you're a Libertarian that is going to blast Wayne for endorsing the most libertarian candidate in a race with no "big L" competitor because the guy has an "R" after his name, you better darn well make sure you didn't give enough money to Ron Paul to show up on public FEC reports. Because, well, that would make you a hypocrite would it not? Hope you didn't vote in a Republican primary (for Ron or anyone else) either.
So, at the end of the day, SO WHAT if Wayne threw some support behind one of the best advocates for free market systems we have in this country, Peter Schiff. Wayne's endorsement came on the heals of one earlier in the week from Congressman Ron Paul who is the best friend to liberty and sound economic principles we have in the entire Congress at the moment. I'll take a good advocate for freedom and liberty wherever I can find one, and if that means having to accept certain electoral realities when a really great candidate manages to sneak his way onto the ballot in one of the two "old party" systems, I'll take it.
So, for whatever it's worth. Ron Paul endorses Peter Schiff for Senate. Wayne Allyn Root endorses Peter Schiff. And so do I. Go to Peter's campaign web site and toss a few bucks his way but don't forget your local Libertarian friends either. Let the children keep throwing rocks and whining, the rest of us will take freedom and liberty wherever we can find it.

Here is part one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6G1rq5LdA4

I'm writing today to publicly state that I support Wayne Allyn Root for Chairman of the Libertarian National Committee along with his running mate, Mark Rutherford who seeks the Vice-Chairmanship. I have had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Root on more than one occasion as he tirelessly and unselfishly has spent time visiting my state and engaging with some of our leaders. I have known Mr. Rutherford for what this year marks as a full decade.
There has no doubt been significant and often unflattering discussion amongst members, fans and observers of the Libertarian Party regarding who should next lead the party. The national convention approaches in just a couple of days and I know that the other individuals vying for these positions with the party are bright, well-meaning people. Even when some of the rhetoric and tactics in trying to discredit Mr. Root have been divisive or misleading I like to believe that it is over an interest in protecting the Libertarian brand however misguided the effort. Regardless, it is clear that the Libertarian Party needs leadership that goes beyond an interest in intellectual debate and rock throwing.
The current environment is ripe for the Libertarian Party, if not libertarians of any affiliation, to stand up, be heard and let America know that there is another way. So many voters have really started to realize that the two old political parties are really just clubs with an interest in raising money and seeking power via elections and that they are not really organizations dedicated to preserving liberties, rights or Constitutional government. Sure, there might be some good people holding office who are still trapped within the old two-party system; but, how often are those folks with whom we might most agree marginalized despite their broad appeal?
In order to get the libertarian message out, I firmly believe that the party needs not only the kind of savvy intellectual leadership that Mr. Rutherford brings to the table but also the energy, enthusiasm and know-how that Wayne Root desires deeply to leverage for the benefit of this great country. If you want someone who can take a message to the media and to the people, who can engage with them and spread enthusiasm for libertarian candidates and ideals than Wayne is the guy. His choice of Mark Rutherford, the once long-serving Indiana State Chairman, shows that he wants to ally himself with people who have proven they can develop a Libertarian organization into an accessible, credible and important part of the political dialog as Mark and his immediate successors have done.
If you're looking for some kind of purity test that would isolate libertarian support down to only the most anarcho-capitalist folks among the party's ranks than, indeed, you may not be ready to help demonstrate to the rest of the world the kinds of pragmatic, sensible solutions that would gradually and increasingly show people that libertarian ideals and philosophy can and will work in the real world. The kinds of things that show that we can be measured and patient while peeling back the onion of spending, taxation and government control of our lives. And more than anything the voters need to know that the Libertarian Party will pay more than lip service to these issues; but, that if given the reigns it will prove that they meant it. Let's give Wayne and Mark a chance to see what they can do. It's time for some fresh perspectives while still sticking true to our core beliefs.
(note: the author is a former Libertarian candidate for U.S. House of Representatives, a former communications director for his county party, a policy advisor and occasional speaker on libertarian issues and helped other volunteers organize and support Indiana Tea Party efforts as far back as 2007)