Ms. Wehby

 

Ms. Wehby’s bullets are so non-specific, how could anyone oppose them? Even in their meaninglessness I find offense. Their general theme is ‘governmental solutions.’ Here goes:

  • Lower taxes for just Oregonians? Where are her cuts? Mine are everywhere. Begin the process of shrinking government to its essentials.

  • Decrease excess regulation? Regulation has failed from British Petroleum in the Gulf of Mexico to Exon’s spill in Valdez to Oregon’s forest lands. The paradigm of regulation lends itself to regulatory capture as evidenced by the NY Feds fake oversight of Goldman Sachs and Congress’ oversight of the NSA. Regulation is not an essential function of Congress or the agencies it creates. As easy as it is to think that, ‘all we need is good regulation,’ it is a fail. It is time to fall back to our common law tradition of voluntarily negotiated contracts and covenants, and as a last resort, litigation and legitimate liability as opposed to endless codes and agencies and regulation that has strangled our tradition of wealth creation for the benefit of all through Free Market allocations of resources, labor, production, etc.

  • A Balanced Budget Amendment is just feel-good regulation that can always be ignored through accounting. Ultimately voters must take responsibility for their selections for office. In my opinion virtually every incumbent must be dismissed. This is especially true for Oregon’s State Legislature. Well, it is especially true of Congress too.

  • Reduce our $17 trillion debt I agree

  • End corporate bailouts and cronyism I agree

  • Close the US Department of Education. Education should be transparently funded and controlled at the state level, or locally, or privately.

  • When Ms. Wehby says, “Institute patient centered, market driven reforms.“ it is still the language of regulation, control and institutions. In that environment she hopes to somehow find market drivers, i.e. price-signals. There is no substitute for removing government regulation and licensing in favor of totally Free-Markets where real price-signals bring real supply solutions (which includes quality) in the context of an economy that is as complex as a rainforest ecology.

  • When Ms. Wehby says, “Ensure people can pick the doctor they want, and the healthcare they need,” I have no idea what she is talking about or proposing. It sounds like she is claiming she can do Obamacare better than Obama, Kitzhaber, Romney, & Merkley put together. I am skeptical.

  • Ms. Wehby wrote that she is Protecting Oregon Values such as, “Support a woman’s right to choose.” This means, “Abortion as a right.” The Libertarian Party of Oregon explains the Libertarian way of thinking about abortion masterfully:

    Abortion

Libertarianism holds no official position on the issue of abortion. A Libertarian applies principles to formulate a personal opinion on any number of issues. On the issue of abortion the majority of Libertarians would be against abortion based on the application of the non-aggression principle.  Then there may be Libertarians who side with choice based on private property rights, in other words, your body is your most sacred private property and trespassers maybe removed. The one caveat is that Libertarians also recognize there can be extraordinary situations that need to be evaluated on a case by case basis by the individuals involved and that a one size fits all solution is no solution at all.

Libertarians do agree that society should be organic and not engineered by central planners that are far removed from the families and communities that their interventions interfere with. Libertarians believe that the use of force by government to enforce a pro choice position or pro life position is not acceptable. That a culture should grow through dialogue and persuasion, community mores, and family values. This can be achieved by removing government incentives that has made the family unit financially and socially irrelevant to raising children in an economical sense. A strong family base with principled behaviors, modeled by the adults, is the natural way to raise children. These children then can mature into principled adults, who then value human life. In the end a society is best off living organically and not driving any behaviors underground with coercive laws. It is best to minimize certain human actions. However, trying to eliminate certain human actions only achieves negative and unintended consequences in the long run.

http://lporegon.org/index.php/issues/abortion

I am not the author of the above excerpt, though I like it a lot. I believe life begins at conception. The Non-Agression Principle usually trumps Self-Ownership in these cases because we are obliged to share the most basic, and only the most basic, items of sustenance with those closest to us.

  • Government has NO interest in regulating love and marriage.

  • Government & Regulation gets low marks for cost and results in protecting our environment. Let’s try private ownership, covenants, and liability. More than half of lands within Oregon are owned by the federal government, and should have been transferred to state ownership at statehood. It is time for Oregonians t begin the discussion of State ownership or resident ownership now.

  • Begin reform by ending our government’s wars.

  • When Ms. Wehby says, “Ensure people with pre-existing conditions have access to healthcare,” she is either suggesting they buy their own. Or she is suggesting that the government provide after-the-fact insurance priced at before-the-fact premiums. There are completely different risk factors here. She is suggesting that some innocent third party pick up that difference in risk premium. The only way this makes any sense at all is in the context of nationalized health care, which is pretty dubious because because over time the price signals generated by a Free-Market would be long lost and invalid – kind of like the price signals in today’s health care system – long since lost and invalid.

 

Please let me know what you think.

%d bloggers like this: