Contrary to popular belief, ObamEnomics are not all that different from George Bush’s: Pandering to Big Banking still rules the roost, while legislation proposed does nothing to deal with the real problem — The Big Banks will still have their hands in the pockets of Big Government, while the extra tape added to the system will only hamstring smaller competitors unable to curry political favor with the anointed political class doling out billions of taxpayer money while the Federal Reserve prints out $ trillions of fresh dollars from thin air, which gain their purchasing power at the expense of the common man.

The question of who owns your body — the government, voters, or you — is asked in a different way in this Reason TV Video. Libertarians believe you own you, and by inference you own the byproducts of you — that your property really is a representation of you in the past, with all that work it took to earn it. If you don’t own you, that implies slavery of some sort or another.

That’s Ron Paul on a recent episode of CBS’s “Meet the Press.” Libertarian ideas are libertarian Ideas, and Ron Paul generally speaks them well. That’s what makes the Libertarian Party different than other political parties. We are not about power and political convenience “just to get elected.” We are about a belief system of freedom, liberty, and the right to say no thanks. We believe the government’s sole role is to protect your freedom to live consensually among your fellow citizens without threat to body or property — that fundamental right to be yourself and think for yourself. Hence, you’ll find libertarians use the terms “small l libertarians” and “big L Libertarians”, with the former being those who believe in libertarian ideas of freedom, and the latter being Libertarian Party members.

Ron Paul agrees with us on freedom and very much on government’s role. He may be an R by party affiliation, but he is a libertarian at heart.

The poll, run by Terry Moddonna’s opinion research firm, found that a majority worried about increased underage drinking, although the figures were evenly split on allowing PA residents the same freedom as countless neighboring states where citizens don’t have to make extra stops to buy beer, and can buy the exact quantity desired vs. being forced to buy an entire case or an overpriced 6-pack at a bar.

The Post Gazette reports, “The group is opposed to beer being sold in supermarkets and convenience stores for both public safety and business reasons, (MBDAP President) Mr. (David) Shipula said.” Really? This wouldn’t have anything to do with the monopoly on beer sales in PA held by those Mr. Shipula represents? Really, is not Mr. Shipula representing the monopoly held by his membership’s Beer Cartel?

We agree with State Sen. Sean Logan, who dismissed the relevance of the poll suggesting “This sounds like somebody protecting their own turf.” No doubt, that’s what government power does so effectively for organizations that are able to buy such power from politicians — it goes hand in hand when your wealth, freedom, and liberties are consolidated and handed over to government.

As for public safety and underage drinking, we’d point out that neighboring states are not facing numbers any worse than those in PA despite their allowing consumers more freedom. We think it is high time to break the PA beer cartel’s strangle hold on beer sales.

Note: We also question the underage drinking age laws in the United States and PA. This prohibition has created its own problem where those under age 21 are still able to access alcohol in most cases, while learning to drink with other juveniles vs. with under the comparatively more responsible supervision among parents and close family friends, much like in Germany or other European countries where reckless underage drinking is far less common. When beer is not accessible, youth turn to other alternatives such as hard liquor or pharmaceutical and harder illegal drugs.

This is another example of failed prohibition in the United States, where common sense is abdicated to government force. Libertarian minded candidates will fight against this lunacy of those who think government can solve problems it instead makes much worse. Visit Choose Responsibility for more information on the benefits of changing the drinking laws in the U.S. for those under 21.

Libertarians do not support dumping the cost of one persons’ needs on the backs of others. It also does not support pitting citizen against citizen in fights like this.

In this case, the drink tax proposal pits two groups against each other. First there are those who would benefit from the drink tax:

1. The riders of public transportation;
2. The unionized Port Authority Transit (PAT) employees who monopolize public transportation services;
3. the politicians who garner votes from both of these constituencies.

Then there are those who pay for it:

1. Those earning a living serving drinks;
2. Those consumers who enjoy a drink out.

Now, let’s be clear: The root problems with public transportation are being dodged by your current local politicians, and their objective is to saddle unsuspecting taxpayers with more of the transportation bill so they get more votes from two key constituencies — the riders and PAT employees. These politicians also want you to believe the problem is — as it always is — that there is not enough money, and that a new source is needed or else all will fall apart.

The LP of Pittsburgh disagrees with this cop-out solution because it does nothing to solve the core problems, and it makes worse others. We note the that the real problems are as follows:

1. Existing laws prevent open competition in public transportation, providing a monopoly to those who are politically connected. It is quite literally illegal to compete in some areas of public transportation, keeping taxpayer costs artificially high. This results in overall costs that would translate into fares that would far exceed what the market tolerates — and taxpayers have been forced for years to cover the difference.
2. The taxpayer paid subsidy to PAT further exacerbates the monopoly, making it impossible for entrepreneurs to offer competitive alternatives in those areas where it is legal to compete;
3. The PAT government employee’s union has a monopoly on labor supplied in PAT-related transportation. Those contracts far exceed the free market wage and benefit rate, and those excesses are not passed on to consumers, but are instead piled onto the struggling backs of taxpayers year after year;
4. Consumers are subsidized, and are therefore price-indifferent except when a larger portion of the real, bloated costs are liable to be passed on to them through higher fares. Compounding this problem is that consumers are provided no choices due to the aforementioned monopolies.

Libertarian candidates will address these problems without dumping their consequences on unrelated parties who have enough tax burdens on them already. We agree with those complaining: a drink tax is a cop-out and politics as usual in Allegheny County. It risks providing yet another reason for business and taxpayers to seek greener pastures elsewhere. Worse yet, it does so by favoring some citizens at the expense of others — an immorality native to poor governance and warned of by our founding fathers.

Libertarians believe Pittsburgh and the overall region needs less taxes and politicized redistribution of wealth from hard working citizens and the functioning economy, and into the bottomless pit of the government trough.

Vote Libertarian!