The U.S. Senate has passed the 2013 version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).  The previous version of the NDAA was an extremely controversial bill in that provisions essentially allowed the permanent detainment of American citizens.

While the 2013 version of the NDAA has an amendment that is supposed to guarantee a jury trial for Americans, it still permits the president to detain Americans.  In fact, the amendment may be worse in the fact that it is more explicit in its permission.  In addition, the amendment applies to Americans.  I guess non-Americans have no rights and the politicians can play with them like they are little toys.

The Senate passed this bill unanimously.  It was 98 to 0, with two senators not voting (Kirk and Rockefeller).  Whenever the media or politicians talk about bipartisan support for legislation, you should cringe.  And this bill is no exception.  Legislation that is passed unanimously, or close to it, are usually the most anti-liberty bills out there.

There are 100 senators who are supposed to represent their state and people, and yet not one could vote against this atrocity.  This should be a message to all Americans that the government is not on their side.  The senate is loaded with a bunch of thugs.

Rand Paul, son of the great libertarian Ron Paul, has shown his true colors again.  Based on this vote alone, I will absolutely never support one of his campaigns, whether it is for senate or president.  He has just shown that he has very little in the way of principles and he should be ashamed of what he is doing, especially since his father has been such a great example.

Not only is this legislation atrocious in its violation of basic human rights, it is also a massive boondoggle in spending.  Its spends $631 billion on the Pentagon.  And Rand Paul claims to favor a balanced budget?  Just based on the massive spending alone, this would be a “no” vote for anyone who favors liberty.

A spokesman for Rand Paul admitted that the amendment did not do enough to preserve due process, but said it was a step in the right direction.  If this is the right direction, then I want to be wrong.  I don’t want to go in that direction at all.

This whole thing is disgusting and any American that values liberty should be disgusted.  These people are thugs, pure and simple.  This is not a free country.  It is up to the American people to put a stop to this.  We must withdraw our consent.  If we let the government provide us our healthcare, our retirement, and education for our children, then we are going to end up with things like the NDAA.  When you give the government power, the politicians will continually try to build on it.  We must not permit this power.  These people in the senate are evil and they must be stopped.  I encourage everyone to withdraw any support or consent.

It is fairly well understood that libertarians and Republicans (not including the libertarians who are registered as Republicans) are quite different on some issues.  On civil liberties and foreign policy, you could almost say they are opposites.  But it is assumed that Republicans and libertarians are much closer on fiscal issues.  Perhaps this is true in comparison to the Democrats and libertarians, but it should be known that Republicans and libertarians are generally quite different, even on economic and fiscal issues.

I heard a few minutes of Marco Rubio (Republican senator from Florida) on Sean Hannity’s radio show.  Hannity asked him about John Boehner (Speaker of the House) and his proposal to raise tax “revenue” by closing so-called loopholes and reducing deductions.  Rubio gave his compliments to Boehner, but said he disagreed with him on how we should increase government revenue.  Rubio said we should do it by generating economic growth and increasing employment.

So while Rubio is not in favor of raising tax rates and is apparently not in favor of reducing deductions, he is saying that he has a goal of increased government revenue (I hate that word in this context) to close the budget deficit.

For radical libertarians, this should be appalling.  Rubio admitted that he wants more money going to the government.  For most libertarians, they want less money going to the government.

I am a defender of the Laffer Curve in that it makes sense that higher income tax rates do not necessarily lead to higher government tax collections.  If you raise the tax rate to 100%, who is going to work?

But I am not a defender of the Laffer Curve when it is used simply for the goal of maximized government tax collections.  I don’t want the government to get more money.  I want them to get less.  In fact, there is no evidence that an increase in tax collections would decrease the budget deficit anyway.  The government would probably just spend more, leaving the budget deficit just as big (or even bigger as seen in the Reagan years).

All of this focus on taxes is a major distraction.  There is only a tax problem because there is a spending problem.  If government spending were drastically reduced, then we wouldn’t have to worry about high taxes and government “revenue”.

It is all about the spending.  As long as the government continues to fund virtually every human activity, then we are paying for it in one way or another.  It is consuming and misallocating resources.  It is making us poorer than we should be.  It will only stop when the American people put a stop to it or there is a major default.  We’ll wait and see which happens first.

It is challenging and difficult to be a libertarian, particularly when the government is growing its power by leaps and bounds almost every day.  It often gets tiring trying to defend pro-liberty positions against those with a closed mind.

I remain a long-term optimist, although many libertarians even find that hard to believe.  They think that human tendency is always on the side of wanting to be told what to do.  While that certainly can be a tendency, it does not necessarily mean that we are doomed towards statism forever.  There is also a tendency among many individuals to prefer liberty over being told what to do.

One thing I hear from the anti-liberty side quite frequently is that if you don’t like it here (America), then you should leave.  Of course, there aren’t many places on earth that you can go to without having big government in your face.  Some places are better than others, but you can’t find total freedom anywhere, unless you want to live on a lonely island somewhere in the middle of the ocean.

Imagine applying this argument of moving to the American colonists.  Tell Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, “if you don’t like British rule, why don’t you just move somewhere else?”

Many people confuse their government and their country.  Just because I criticize the U.S. government (although I criticize every government), it doesn’t mean I don’t like America or Americans.  In fact, it is quite the opposite.  I appreciate my fellow Americans so much that I want to be able to voluntarily trade with them, do business with them, and live in peace with them.  I also want a higher standard of living for Americans and for people all around the world.

I want more peace and more prosperity.  I don’t want to see needless suffering, war, poverty, starvation, disease, and all of the other horrible things around the world.  While we can’t press a magic button and make all of these bad things go away, we can work towards significantly improving things.  And this will only be done through liberty.

The only way we can achieve more liberty is by reducing government.  The only way we can reduce government is by convincing others that their lives would be better off.  It is all in the hearts and minds of the people.  If a substantial portion of the population no longer believes in big government (and not just in words), then big government will not survive.  Government can only continue by having the consent of the large majority of the population.

The good news is that we don’t even need a majority to turn back the tide of big government.  If only 10% of the population is well educated in libertarian philosophy, then this may be enough, assuming that a good portion of the population remains somewhat apathetic.

I almost laugh when I hear young Ron Paul supporters talking about how bad things are and how stupid some people can be.  I think to myself (or sometimes say it), you should have seen things ten or twenty years ago then.  With the internet and the last two Ron Paul presidential campaigns, there are probably more libertarians now than there have been in at least a hundred years or more.  I would even venture to say that today’s libertarians are far more libertarian than the American colonists (even if the percentages today are still lower).

Government can be reduced.  It is not about elections or convincing your representative to sponsor a particular bill.  It is not even much about money, especially now with the internet.  It is about spreading the message of freedom and how almost everyone will be better off with more liberty and less government.  Once hearts and minds are changed, then the government will start to change to reflect that.

With the continuing advancements in technology and the growing liberty movement, the prospects for liberty in the long run are actually quite good.

Housing prices have begun to tick back up in many areas across the U.S.  We will have to see if this will continue or if we will see another bottom in the future.

The government and the central bank (the Federal Reserve) caused the unsustainable housing boom in the first place.  In particular, it was the easy money/ low interest rate policies of the Fed that contributed the most.  But there were certainly government laws and tax considerations that contributed also.

I believe that the government and the Fed are helping to prop up prices once again.  This is not really a recommendation to buy or sell real estate.  I am simply pointing out that the housing market is being altered by government policy.

While there has been a pick up in prices, it is curious to me why there are so many empty houses out there.  I see it with my own eyes.  I don’t need to look at any statistics or charts.  I have seen houses that have been sitting empty for at least two years and I would find it hard to believe that the owner is someone other than a bank.

There is something going on that the American public doesn’t know about.  I have heard the explanation that banks are releasing foreclosures onto the market slowly, so as not to crash the prices again.  It is a controlled release of their inventory.  While this might seem to make sense, it really doesn’t make sense, unless it is being encouraged (or forced is more likely) and coordinated by the government.

Imagine if you owned your own small bank.  You own 100 houses that you obtained through foreclosures because the borrowers were not repaying their loans.  At this point, it doesn’t matter whether you lost money on these loans or not.  You own 100 houses.  Does it make sense, for you as an individual business owner, to have some of these houses remain empty and off the market?

Don’t forget, when a house sits empty, you still have to pay property taxes.  You have to pay any association dues, if they apply.  You have to maintain the lawn.  You probably have some electricity bills.  If you shut off the electricity, you are risking mold in the summer time.  You are also risking other problems with the house sitting empty for a long period of time.  In other words, there are considerable expenses to owning a house and letting it sit empty.  For an individual business owner, you would want to get rid of this inventory as quickly as possible, unless you decide to get in the landlord business.

Prices are not going to go down with any significance in this example because of the bank selling 100 houses.  Even if the bank owner thought prices might be a little higher two years from now, it probably wouldn’t make up for all of the property taxes and other costs over that period of time.  So even for a large bank that might move the market significantly with putting a huge number of foreclosures on the market at once, it still wouldn’t make much sense to let these properties sit empty.  They are losing money like crazy.  That is probably why the Fed started QE3 to bail out the banks again.

Letting foreclosed homes sit empty makes no sense from a business aspect.  This is why it is probably being dictated and coordinated by the government, at least upon the big banks.  They are trying to do a controlled liquidation.  They do not want another crash of the housing market and are doing almost anything to keep it from happening.

The housing market is nothing resembling a free market right now.  But that doesn’t mean that it might not be a profitable business for those with capital.

Since the Republicans hold a majority in the House of Representatives, they could essentially prevent any tax increases from taking place.

“No, no, that isn’t right” you say.  “The tax rates are scheduled to go higher, regardless of what the Republicans do.”

For some reason, almost everyone forgets that spending bills originate in the House.  The Republicans in the House can basically dictate spending.  They can’t spend as much as they want, but they can spend as little as they want.  They could simply refuse to pass a budget that is any bigger than $2 trillion per year (or pick any number).

Actually, it is even easier than that.  The Republicans could simply refuse to raise the debt ceiling, which currently stands at just under $16.4 trillion, which the Republicans helped to raise the last time.  Once that limit is reached (which will be shortly), then the federal government will essentially be forced to balance its budget, assuming Obama does not try to obtain pure dictatorial powers.

So what does balancing the budget have to do with tax increases?

There are two things.  First, total spending is really what matters anyway.  That is essentially the total taxes that we pay when it is all said and done.  Every penny that is spent by the government is money that comes from somewhere.  Regardless of where it comes from, it is consuming and misallocating resources.  It makes our standard of living lower.

Second, even tax rates would have to come down with a balanced budget.  While this may not be immediate, it would happen quickly.  If the federal government all of a sudden cut about $1.5 trillion out of the budget to bring it into balance, or even surplus, then the only thing to do with the extra money would be to pay down the debt or return it to the taxpayers.  It would not be hard at that point for taxpayers to demand lower taxes to go along with the reduced spending.

Of course, most people make the wrong assumption that Republican politicians in Washington DC actually want to cut taxes.  Most of them don’t.  They just say they want lower taxes to get support from their constituents.

Now I understand many Republicans will say that the Republicans in the House can’t refuse to raise the debt limit because the media will attack them and it will be political suicide.  But so what?  Then what is the point of electing them if they will never do what they say?

While I despise most of the Republican politicians, I do put some of the blame on the American people in general.  I would be curious to see what would happen if the Republicans in the House really did refuse to raise the debt ceiling (which they won’t).  They would certainly be attacked by most of the media.  But would they lose badly in the next election?  I’m not sure I know the answer to that question.

Unfortunately, the politicians in DC are never going to scale back government on their own.  They will only do it if there is substantial pressure on them.  This means that a large portion of the American people need to withdraw their consent, at least up to a certain point.  It means that Americans must realize that big government is the problem and less government is the solution.

In conclusion, the House Republicans could quickly lower our taxes simply by dramatically cutting spending.  But they have no interest in doing this and they won’t do it until there is significant pressure on them to do so.

I consider myself a panarchist, but I am open to other ways of governance in society.  It is a commonly mistaken belief that libertarians (particularly anarchists) do not believe in law.  It is just that some libertarians do not think that it is necessary to have government in order to have laws.  Every libertarians I know does not accept murder or theft in society.  It is just whether they think it should be handled by government or by private enterprise.

Libertarians generally advocate the non-aggression principle.  You are not supposed to use force or the threat of force, unless it is for defensive purposes.  But it has bothered me that it seems you cannot agree with this principle and be a minarchist (advocating very limited government) at the same time.  Even if the government were to only run the courts and police force, it would still need to collect taxes for this purpose.

I’ve been thinking about this though, and I see no reason that it wouldn’t be possible to have a government and have it funded through voluntary taxes only.  When Hollywood liberals talk about how their taxes should be higher, libertarians and conservatives often respond that they are free to write a check if they want to pay more.  We can say this mockingly, knowing almost nobody will knowingly pay more than they are legally required.  But we know this because taxes are so high already.

The federal government alone spends about 25% of national GDP right now.  State and local governments spend another good chunk.  If you live in a place like California or New York, you are easily paying over half of your income towards taxes in one form or another.  If some rich guy is already paying about 60% in taxes, do you really think he would ever voluntarily pay more?  Maybe you could convince one in ten thousand to pay extra.

Let’s imagine that we did live in a world designed by minarchists.  Let’s say that the government was only in charge of defending people and property and enforcing contracts.  It would need courts and police and maybe a few other minor things.  The total tax to fund this would be less than 1%.  If you put government in charge of roads also (which I don’t think is a good idea), maybe the total tax burden would be around 1% or even slightly higher.

If taxes were only around 1%, you could get most people to pay voluntarily.  You wouldn’t need to track people’s income and have them file forms.  People could simply send in money as they felt appropriate.  Perhaps a few big corporations or donors could pay for it all.  Maybe Coca-Cola and Toyota would donate large sums, just to put advertising on courthouses.  Or maybe they would just donate so that they could brag about funding our government, just for good public relations.

The possibilities are really endless.  The point is, you won’t get voluntary donations when people are already forking over half of their income because of the threat of force.  You don’t hand extra money over to a criminal if you don’t have to.  On the other hand, people donate to charity all the time.

There are other little things that are still debatable, even amongst libertarians.  What about jury duty?  Nobody should be forced to do something he doesn’t want to do, especially without some kind of a contract or agreement.  If someone refuses to serve on a jury, then maybe he doesn’t get the same benefits from the police and court system.  Or maybe there will be enough volunteers that it wouldn’t matter anyway.

We are miles away from this.  The details will be worked out if we ever get that close.  If we get down to a government that only protects people and property and enforces contracts, then the minarchists and panarchists and anarchists can argue all day long about the details.  But if the government were extremely limited, perhaps even I would be willing to pay a miniscule tax each year to fund it, even if it were completely voluntary.  We can all dream a little.

Some of the Republicans in DC are capitulating, including John Boehner, the Speaker of the House.  Some well-known Republicans are suggesting that they would be willing to go along with a compromise that would involve some increases in tax revenue (as if the government is selling something to get “revenue”).

These politicians are now playing word games, saying that they might be willing to eliminate certain tax “loopholes” or deductions.  This way, they can avoid calling it a tax increase.  But the problem is that eliminating or reducing deductions is a way of raising taxes.  Most people filing taxes have some kind of deduction or tax credit, even when not itemizing.  Tax deductions and credits allow us to keep more of what we earn.

I heard the despicable Karl Rove on Hannity’s radio show.  I could only stand about two minutes of it, but I heard him say that Republicans should stand against tax rate hikes.  This is his slick way of saying that he favors getting rid of deductions and tax credits, which means that people will keep less of what they earn.

I often hear Republicans talk about how our tax system is so complicated (to which they have contributed) and that we need a simpler system.  While this is certainly true, it is not the number one concern of most libertarians when it comes to tax policy.  The biggest issue is not how complicated the tax system is.  The biggest issue is how much money it takes out of our pocket.  I would rather save $10,000 per year on my taxes than save an extra 5 or 6 hours per year preparing them.

Perhaps I would be in favor of eliminating deductions and credits if the tax rate were brought down to 2% or less.  But most Republicans aren’t talking about reducing tax rates any more.  They are talking about lowering deductions and credits with the existing tax rates.

Don’t believe that Republican politicians are really interested in low taxes.  Most of them only say this because this is what their constituency wants to hear.

Of course, this whole talk about taxes is ridiculous in the first place.  The federal government has a spending problem, not a taxing problem.  The big problem is that politicians refuse to cut any significant spending and the voters keep letting them get away with their promises of a free lunch.

Libertarians should not be focused on taxes.  Libertarians should be focused on the spending side.  If we want the economy to improve significantly, then we need massive cuts in government spending.  Once spending is cut, then taxes can follow.  But as long as the federal government is spending close to $4 trillion per year, then it doesn’t really matter much in the end on how it is collected.

There is a lot of talk in the news about secession.  With the re-election of Obama, there are petitions in all 50 states that are being signed by people who think they would be better off if their individual state were to secede from the union.

As a libertarian, I have a lot of mixed thoughts on the subject right now.  Of course, decentralization is usually a good thing for liberty and it is ridiculous to think that 545 people (535 in Congress, 1 president, and 9 Supreme Court justices) should rule over a population of over 300 million people.

It is important to remember that the American Revolution was really a war over secession.  The colonies declared independence.  They were, in effect, seceding.  The British crown did not want this and a war broke out.

I also don’t think it is unconstitutional for a state to secede.  But even if that were the case, I wouldn’t care.  I never signed the Constitution, nor did anyone else alive today.  In fact, most of the American colonists did not sign the Constitution either.  If it is supposed to be some kind of a contract, it is a very bad one with no effect.  Anyway, it is not like anyone is actually following the Constitution today.  It is laughable when some statist tries to use a constitutional argument against secession.  Not only are they wrong, but they are extremely hypocritical too.

It would also be ridiculous if secession weren’t allowed by the Constitution.  If secession were never a possibility, then you almost have a dictatorship.  You are going to trust the federal government to write its own laws, enforce its own laws, interpret its own laws, and determine if its own laws should stand?  Without secession, there is essentially no recourse.

With all of that said, there are a few things about this secession movement that bother me.  First, I’m not sure how many of these same people would have signed a petition had Romney been elected.  Even though the policies of the Republicans and Democrats are nearly the same, all of a sudden many Republicans are giving up on their government with Obama in office.  Did they have this same attitude when Bush was in office?  So in that regard, I really only agree with the consistent libertarians who signed a petition, not the anybody-but-Obama crowd.

The other thing that bothers me about these petitions is that we are nowhere near ready for this movement.  The American colonists of the 1770’s were very well educated on the subject of liberty.  Most of them were well-read and understood what was happening.  Aside from the issue of slavery, most of the American colonists already believed strongly in liberty before independence was ever declared.

Although the internet has helped a great deal and it will continue to help in the future, Americans are simply not ready for a secession movement.  Most do not understand what liberty is.  Before libertarians start advocating secession, we have to do the dirty work of educating our fellow citizens.  As Downsize DC recently wrote, you can’t put the cart before the horse.  You can’t skip steps.

In conclusion, I don’t think this secession movement is going anywhere right now.  There are not enough truly liberty-minded people yet.  As the libertarian message spreads and Washington DC gets closer to default, then secession may become a real possibility.  But we aren’t there yet.  We must first continue to spread the message of liberty.  At least these petitions to secede are getting more people to think about not needing a federal government.

I consider virtually all government spending to be a waste of resources.  I suppose it could be argued that government spending on courts, police activity against crime, and a few other things are not wasteful because they may actually be protecting property and enforcing contracts.  So without arguing these points, then radical libertarians should be able to at least agree that 99% or more of government spending is wasteful, since most of what the government does (at all levels) is beyond property protection and contract enforcement.

One point that is important though is that not all government spending is unproductive.  It is just that government spending is less productive than it would have been had it been left in the hands of the people who earned it.  Governments can spend money to build bridges, manufacture electric cars, maintain parks, and an endless list of other things.  Of course, governments can also destroy resources with spending, if it is on something like war.  And government spending can create dependency and wreak much havoc in that sense.

But even if government limited its spending to producing goods and services (and not destroying them), it would still not be an efficient use of capital.  When the government spends money, it is not allowing the market to determine what should be produced and sold.  It is not that entrepreneurs don’t make mistakes.  It is just that entrepreneurs are sent market signals such as prices and profits and losses.  The entrepreneur must quickly adjust or else risk losing his money and going out of business.  Governments do not have to adjust as there are no signals telling if something is a good idea, and governments can keep taking more money through the threat of force to fund projects.

So again, it is not that all government spending is completely unproductive.  It is just that government spending misallocates resources.  The government could spend money to make an iPod for every single American and have them distributed.  It is not completely wasteful.  I’m sure most Americans would probably use their new government iPod.  But the problem is that many people would have preferred to keep their money and spend it on their next top priority.  That priority could have been paying down debt, saving more money, buying clothing, buying food, or millions of other things.

The best case scenario for an individual in the above example is that he or she would have gone out and bought an iPod with their money had the government not done it for them.  I suppose it would have been a wash in this case (assuming no government administration fees).  So perhaps a few million Americans would have been satisfied with their government iPod, while the rest would have preferred to use their money for something else.

Unfortunately, if the government used the Fed to create new money, or even if the government used general tax money (instead of having a special iPod tax), then many millions of Americans would be quite happy to receive their “free” iPod.  (I should note that I would rather the government use my tax money to make iPods than to “educate” children, fight wars, or arrest people for drug use.)

In conclusion, virtually all government spending is a misallocation of resources.  This makes us poorer and lowers our standard of living.  It is not that all government spending is completely unproductive.  It is just unproductive in comparison to leaving it to the free market.  A free market allocates resources according to the needs and wants of the millions of consumers who are using their own money to buy goods and services.

Libertarians, while still a small minority, are growing in numbers.  This is not in reference to Libertarian Party members, but philosophical libertarians.  This, in tandem with a poor economy, leads to many libertarians being asked what their solution is to the bad economic conditions.  There are many people out there who still don’t know much about libertarianism and are genuinely curious.  Unfortunately, there are also many people who do not like the answers.  The reason is because people want to believe there is such a thing as a free lunch.

I consider myself to be a radical libertarian.  But for the sake of this discussion, I am going to suggest some dramatic changes, without going all the way to a minarchist, panarchist, or anarchist society.  These are solutions that could be adopted without eliminating the state.

The biggest drag on the economy is government spending.  Everything that is spent by government is not being spent by the people who actually earned it.  Everything the government spends is a misallocation of resources or a redistribution of wealth or both.  In order to increase our standard of living and increase savings and production, there must be a dramatic reduction in overall government spending.  For this discussion, I will just focus on federal spending for the U.S.

All wars must be ended.  Not only are they immoral, but they are extremely expensive.  In addition, most of the bases overseas should be closed and the troops should come home.  (I did not say ALL bases, as I am trying not to be too radical for this post.)  All foreign aid should be ended.  The military budget should be cut by at least two-thirds.  If there are no more wars and interventions, then the number of military personnel can be reduced dramatically.  Even if it is just done through attrition, that process must start.  But even employing a troop in America would be far cheaper than employing a troop in a country thousands of miles away.

Domestic spending must also be cut dramatically.  The Department of Education should be eliminated.  It would be up to the states if they want to make up the difference.  The Departments of Labor, of Housing, of Agriculture, and of Energy should all be eliminated in a short amount of time.  The federal government has no constitutional authority or any other business in these matters.  There are many other departments and agencies that must go also.  The federal war on drugs must also be ended.

So-called entitlement spending like Medicare and Social Security are more difficult because there are so many Americans currently depending on these programs.  But something still needs to be done as they are unsustainable in their current fashion.  The retirement ages to collect must be increased.  It should be announced now and should be started soon.

The current tax rates must not go up.  At the very least, they should be maintained and then lowered as spending is dramatically cut.  While the tax code should be simplified and hopefully eliminated eventually, the amount of taxes being paid is more important than the method in collecting them.

The monetary system must change.  The Fed should stop buying all government debt (which won’t be necessary if there is no longer any new debt to buy).  It should stop all monetary inflation.  Legal tender laws should be repealed and all taxes on gold and silver should be repealed in order to allow for competing forms of money.

Regulations must be scaled back on a huge scale.  It is extremely difficult to do business in America compared to what it once was.  It is much easier now in other places like Hong Kong or Singapore.  There are enough regulations at the state and local levels.  We don’t need a one-size-fits-all scenario where Washington DC is dictating the lives of over 300 million people.

If all of this were done in a short time span, then we would have a deep recession to clear out all of the previous malinvestment.  But things would quickly recover and we would see a new prosperity that can only be dreamed of, especially when it is combined with current technology.

The one problem that is still difficult is the banks and the FDIC.  Perhaps the government would have to bail out  depositors (not banks) and the FDIC would have to be slowly phased out of existence.  This is probably the hardest problem to solve for a libertarian right now.

Of course, none of this will happen, or at least not in the near future.  But libertarians need to be ready with an answer on what to do about the bad economy.  Our current system is very far away from a free market system.  When government is cut dramatically and people are free to trade peacefully, then a strong economy will follow.  Otherwise, we can count on more struggles ahead.