Dear American Voter,
Hello. David Page here, running for President of the United States.
I can imagine your first question: is this guy crazy? No. But please read on and decide for yourself.
For starters, know that I am legally qualified. I was born here in 1953.
Obviously I’m no spring chicken. But I’m younger than Donald Trump, I’m in good health, and most folks I meet guess I’m about as old as Kamila Harris.
I know it’s late to be asking for your vote in November. But I’m diving in now because the thought of Trump or Harris as President for the next four years deeply worries me about the future for myself, my family, and my country.
CAN YOU EVEN VOTE FOR ME, WHEN I WON'T BE ON ANY BALLOT?
Yes! Several years ago I wanted to see if my vote actually counted. I wrote in my own name for President. After the election I went to the Board of Elections and asked to see the results of the vote.
I was there. As I recall, Mickey Mouse got a few votes as well. And there were several F-bombs.
So, go ahead and write in David Page with confidence.
WASTING YOUR VOTE? NOT AT ALL.
I’ve always voted for whomever I think is the best candidate, usually Libertarian. Some friends tell me I waste my vote. I disagree.
I believe voting for the best candidate is the only way to vote. It states your preference, and it’s not as if your vote would swing the election anyway.
In college I took a course from a professor who kept harping on the value of “America’s two-party system.” But there is nothing in the Constitution about political parties. As for its value, the two-party system has grown and mutated, like the Alien or the Thing. Its value is not just zero, it’s negative. It hurts America.
My theory is that someone will be the first write-in candidate to win the Presidency. Most likely it won’t be me. (See? Not crazy.) After all, I am not The Rock, Joe Rogan, or a Kardashian.
But even a modest showing for me may pave the way for someone else. Not necessarily a third-party candidate, just someone who values freedom, reaches out directly to Americans, and has no political baggage.
ABOUT TRUMP
In 2016, if I’d been forced to choose between Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton, I’d have voted for Trump. Sure, he was a jerk. But I figured he might be the jerk America needed to shake things up.
Unfortunately, President Trump doubled down on being a jerk and added chronic lying. He lost me on day one when he bragged about drawing the biggest inaugural crowd in history, when he did not.
It kept getting worse. The creepiest thing was that Cabinet meeting where they went around the room and everyone kissed his ass. It felt like that “Twilight Zone” episode where folks always say it’s a wonderful day, or that creepy kid will use his supernatural power to bury them in the cornfield.
Regarding January 6 of 2021, was Trump legally responsible? I’d have to study the law on that. Did he goad his more rabid supporters to commit violence? Obviously. Seems like reckless endangerment.
I know intelligent people, some in my own family, who are all in for Trump. They think I don’t get it, whereas they know what to take seriously and what to take as showmanship. I say that’s fine for reality TV (which is not televised reality) but not in the Oval Office with the nuclear button.
Also, what did Trump actually accomplish, even when he had both sides of Congress on his side? Repeal Obamacare? No. Lock her up? No. Build the wall and get others to pay for it? No. But give him credit for moving the American embassy in Israel to its capital.
I’m not saying Trump was a dictator who could have kept his campaign promises on his own, but he could have led the charge. He may well want to be a dictator, even beyond the first day of a second term, as he has claimed. Call it Putin envy.
Also, since Trump campaigned on draining the Swamp, he met fierce resistance from the Swamp, the Deep State, the bureaucracy, whatever you want to call it. But since he’s such a masterful genius and leader by his own account, he should have prevailed.
About the “stolen” 2020 election: Trump was still President from November 21 to January 19 the following year. If he had actual evidence that he won, all he had to do was go on TV and present his case, the way Ross Perot did when running for office in the 1990’s.
Also, if Trump truly believed he won, why did he leave the White House? I mean that literally: why not make the Secret Service drag him out?
Trump is a bully on the surface and a wimp beneath. He left with his tail between his legs. Now he plays it both ways: GOAT and First Victim.
We can add his abysmal pick for Veep to all the other ways Trump has proved he does not deserve four more years. It’s time for him to exit, stage right.
Sidebar. I think Michael Moore was right in saying that some middle Americans voted for Trump, at least in part, as a way of giving the middle finger to the so-called elites who want to force their woke agenda upon us all. (Nothing wrong with being awake and aware, just not woke to the point of idiocy.)
The anger of folks in the “fly-over” states is justified. Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan has written about those Americans feeling “invaded” by their own government.
Here's another thought about Trump’s appeal to his base. Wouldn’t you like to be able to say whatever you want and have people cheer? If you’re a guy who’s had three wives, wouldn’t it be great if they were all hot? And when you cheated on them, wouldn’t you love to do it with a Playmate of the Year? Not to mention being rich, no matter how many people you stiff or cast aside along the way. Call it Trump envy.
ABOUT HARRIS
We’re used to politicians flip-flopping, but Harris has done so more than a freshly caught bass.
As the Democratic nominee she has veered toward the center to try and get swing votes. Once she’s in office, what’s to stop her from veering back to the left? Towards Medicare for all. Student loan forgiveness. Free healthcare for illegal immigrants—how is thatsupposed to help the border crisis?
Now she wants the government to butt into housing even more than it does already. And cap food price increases after creating the inflation that causes them. The arrogance is unlimited.
It’s no wonder Harris supports DEI issues. She became Vice President because Joe Biden insisted on a woman for a running mate, especially a non-white woman. (For more on this and Harris in general, check out Andrew Sullivan’s “Weekly Dish.” He has done the heavy lifting.)
On top of all that, Democrats use climate change as the lever for government interference in the economy. (They must be pissed at Elon Musk for getting rich on all those tax credits for electric cars, then supporting Trump.)
Kamila is no Commie, just your garden-variety combo of socialist and fascist (see section on vocabulary below). But the way she was anointed as the Democratic Party’s candidate does remind you of how Soviet leaders emerged from the machinery of The Party.
As for Harris’s choice for Veep, the guy equates using the power of government with being “neighborly.” Enough said.
It’s time for Harris to exit, stage left.
A FUNDAMENTAL FLAW IN THE “TWO-PARTY SYSTEM”
Presidential elections in America are close. When was the last time the popular vote for Democrats and Republican was split any wider than 55/45?
That means, if 20% of either party is the extreme and extremely loyal base, they amount to 10% of the popular vote, and they are essential to win. Which is why virtually all Republicans end up kowtowing to Trump no matter how much he disses them, and why Democrats must cater to the far-left elements in their camp.
Adding a third party is not the answer. The Economist recently pointed out that since 2000 the two major parties have guarded their duopoly by tightening the rules around who can get on the ballet for a presidential election. It takes tremendous effort and expense for the Libertarian, Green, or any other party to get on the ballet in every state.
That’s why I’m going directly to you, the voter, to join the write-in revolution.
NOW YOU KNOW WHY NOT TRUMP OR HARRIS.
BUT WHY DAVID PAGE?
While I’m a senior citizen, I’m neither doddering like Biden was, nor blathering like Trump. I have my wits about me. I wrote this missive myself—no A.I. at all.
But the main reason to vote for me is that I would govern based not on who contributed to my campaign or flew me on a private jet to some fancy vacation, but rather on principle.
The principle is individual freedom, which entails responsibility, and is tempered by the fact that we live with each other in society.
Richard Maybury, whose work I admire, has stated the two natural laws that make civilization possible: “1) Do all you have agreed to do, and 2) Do not encroach on other persons or their property.” The first being the basis of contract law, the second of criminal law.
The laws apply to governments as well as individuals. That’s vital because government is the only organization legally entitled to use force or the threat of force against people who have done nothing wrong. Government officials don’t ask; they command.
How deep into the weeds shall we go here? I could write volumes on this topic, but others have already done so. You’ll find a list of suggested reading at the end. But here are a few comments.
FEDERAL OVERREACH IN GENERAL
The federal government’s responsibilities are basically national law enforcement, national defense, and running federal courts. The Constitution enumerates all federal powers. Anything else is off limits—for the government, not citizens. That’s what made the United States a republic. (And made slavery so hypocritical as well as horrible. Ditto for not letting women vote.)
However, the Constitution has a huge loophole that proves the country’s founders weren’t perfect: it states that Congress shall have the power to provide for the “general Welfare of the United States.” I’ve read that this language was intended to ensure that all states benefit from a law, not just a specific state. That interpretation makes sense, because if the intention was that Congress could do anything that benefits people, why bother enumerating powers elsewhere?
The sloppy “general welfare” wording has been a disaster and only promises to get worse. As Albert Camus put it, “The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.”
Some of the country’s founders argued against the Bill of Rights precisely because it wasn’t needed—of coursethe government couldn’t restrict speech or religion—and for fear that citizens would come to think their rights are grantedby the government. Many people define rights incorrectly. Rights are inherent in being human. Check out Ayn Rand on this.)
EDUCATION
The federal government should have zero involvement in education. That’s not to say the states should. But at least if we get the feds out of it, some state might try eliminating public schools. Do we really want the government educating our kids? (No Child Left Behind: the lie is right in the name of a program that dumbs down all kids.)
While we’re on the topic of schools, why should someone with no kids pay property tax that funds schooling for someone with several kids? Because “we” all benefit? That “we” is a slippery slope.
Student loans for college are simply a racket. The government guarantees loans that no bank in its right mind would risk giving on its own. Colleges raise tuition, build magnificent facilities, and bloat their administrative payrolls. Some kid gets a degree in art history and a hundred grand in debt and ends up working at Starbucks.
The final affront: proposals to forgive student loan debt. This while high school grads who didn’t go to college have worked hard and paid taxes. No wonder some Americans detest the so-called elites.
FOREIGN POLICY
One of the few things Trump does right is raise the possibility of America leaving NATO. His financial reasoning is valid: European spending on social programs has skyrocketed due in part to subsidized protection under America’s security umbrella. Americans have to work longer so Europeans can take longer vacations? To hell with that.
However, withdrawal should not be just a negotiating tool to encourage other countries to pony up for their defense. (Also, Trump’s taunting Russia to invade any slacker country is despicable.) We should simply get out of NATO because it’s in our interest. Do you want America to get into World War III if Russia invades Latvia?
The United States should have no military alliances whatsoever. Do you want to escalate into World War III if China invades Taiwan? If North Korea invades South Korea? If Iran nukes Israel?
I don’t, and I don’t want my kids to die, or your kids, or their kids, whether in a nuclear fireball or a conventional war. Bring home our troops from everywhere.
By the way, both England and France have nukes. Europe can defend itself against Russia—or could soon, given a deadline for when they must. They have far more population and money than Russia.
Please note that my position is not isolationism. I’m all for trade and scientific engagement with countries that share our values.
If it’s ever truly in our interest to support a country’s military efforts, we can do it ad hoc, instead of locking us in ahead of time. That applies to donating money or weapons as well as sending troops. As Maybury points out, when you fund a war, you’re in the war. We also should be picky about selling military kit.
On deterrence. Some would argue that American military alliances have deterred countries like Russia and China from further aggression. Perhaps so, but let’s not confuse coincidence with cause and effect. And let’s recognize that if deterrence has helped, it has helped so far. Does anyone believe it will work forever?
On Ukraine. A tragic example of European wars that have been going on for hundreds of years. Not our fight.
On the Middle East. Make that thousands of years. Not our fight. Regarding Israel, Jews needed a homeland to survive, but Palestinians got a raw deal. How would folks on Long Island feel if the U.N. voted that Jews can take that land, and any current occupants had to leave or be second-class citizens in an apartheid state?
At this point a two-state solution seems the only way out. For Gaza, I’ve heard a proposal for a narrow, demilitarized buffer zone run by the U.N. Maybe it would work, with a steel barrier driven into the ground to prevent tunneling. For the West Bank, Israel should have declared victory in previous wars and annexed the territory, with its natural boundary of the Jordan River. Now it’s a holy mess.
THE MILITARY
Eisenhower was right about the dangers of the military-industrial complex, but we needn’t tear it down. Just focus on defense instead of offense. Especially since it’s now called the Defense Department instead of its original, more honest name: War Department.
How about an anti-missile system? It needn’t be so gigantic as to be destabilizing and start an arm race with Russia or China. Besides, if hundreds or thousands of missiles go flying, there’s no way we’ll stop them all. Even if a small percentage get through, the damage will be catastrophic. Mutual Assured Destruction remains a perfect acronym.
But if North Korea lobs a missile at us, wouldn’t it be nice to be able to shoot that down? Perhaps with a combo system including land-based anti-missiles and others mounted on our aircraft carriers, battleships, and subs, positioned off our own coasts to protect our own country.
Also, even if the possibility of a big meteor hitting the Earth is tiny, it’s an extinction-level event—like thermonuclear war—worth taking seriously. What steps could we take to defend against it? Here’s something that would benefit America as well as the rest of the world. Speaking of which...
WORLD LEADERSHIP
Madeleine Albright called America the indispensable nation. Talk about hubris.
Has forcing our indispensability upon the world caused more good or bad? Start with the Spanish-American War and our atrocities in the Philippines. Now add thousands of dead or maimed citizens in Iraq—men, women, and children—are they better off than when they were living under Saddam Hussein? I was aghast when we invaded Iraq. Had we learned nothing from Vietnam?
Afghanistan is called “the graveyard of empires.” How did that work out for us? Any better than for Britain or Russia? Yes, we needed to get Osama Bin Laden—who turned out to be in Pakistan, anyway. (Why not show his corpse on TV?) After that, out!
It would take a long time for us to explore World Wars I and II: the real reasons for our involvement, and the long-term results. Check out Richard Maybury in the suggested reading for more on that.
The bottom line on leadership: we should lead by example. We’re already doing a decent job of that, judging by how many people want to get into our country. Which brings me to...
THE BORDER
We need a secure border. If that means building The Great Wall of America, we should build it. But of course that won’t solve the problem, since people can get here by boat.
Mainly we need to provide zero health and welfare benefits to illegal immigrants. That alone might make the problem manageable.
As for asylum for genuine victims of oppression (violence, not just economics), while we don’t have a moral obligation to help (see Ayn Rand on altruism), and we should pull out of any international legal agreements to help, basic human compassion dictates that we come up with a plan to accept a certain number of such people, providing the adults are willing to work for a living.
SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE
Promises must be kept, and the programs phased out. People can invest in their own retirement and medical insurance. What we have now is a Ponzi scheme. The late Harry Browne had a good blueprint for unwinding these programs.
WELFARE: FOOD, HOUSING, HEALTHCARE, ETC.
Get the federal government out of ’em. Obviously, here and in other areas, the changes would need to be gradual but as rapid as practically possible. At least the goal would be clear. As clear as the fact that the War on Poverty is a failure—or, if the real goal is to perpetuate poverty and keep the Swamp filled with bureaucrats in cushy jobs, a rousing success.
A note on race. The percentage of poverty among blacks is higher than among whites. Given that, and the benefits of a two-parent household, could a racist white person have come up with anything more destructive to blacks than paying single women to have children?
A plan for limited, compassionate welfare. No one wants an innocent baby to suffer. Let’s offer welfare if needed for a woman's first child, but only if Mom goes on Norplant (long-term birth control) until the child is 18 years old. Please note that this is voluntary on Mom’s part, not compulsory: if she wants to keep having kids (or risk having them), she can refuse money for the first one.
DRUGS
The War on Drugs is a failure—or success, if the real goal is perpetual war. Oregon’s decriminalization of hard drugs was first lauded, then called a disaster, but Oregon didn’t punish the public use of drugs. Idiots! You’d get arrested for public drinking from a bottle of booze, so why should you get a pass for shooting up on a sidewalk?
From a purely moral standpoint, there should be no penalty for buying or selling drugs, except for severe penalties for selling or giving drugs to children. But it’s not that simple, is it?
Maybe some drugs are so dangerous they should be banned. Heroin? Keith Richards made great music on it until he got busted. Leave drug users alone, whether their drug of choice is alcohol or crack, so long as they commit no crime. If they crash a car or steal, punish them harshly for that.
Then there’s fentanyl: so powerful, so addictive, so easy to overdose. Precursors for the drug’s manufacture have come mostly from China. I wonder if this isn’t Xi’s revenge on the West for the Opium Wars, when Britain and France wouldn’t let China stop the profitable opium trade, and for America sending gunboats up the Yangtze River. More likely Xi is simply okay with weakening the West in any way.
Fentanyl and possibly a few other drugs aside, the War on Drugs remains immoral and tragic, and should simply be ended. I know of a young man who dealt a little marijuana back in the day and ended up doing 10 years of hard time with hard men in prison. Now you can buy dope in a store. Let’s figure out a solution for other drugs.
FREE TRADE
Generally it makes sense. Why shouldn’t you have the freedom to buy something made cheaper elsewhere?
However, what if a country artificially keeps prices low in order to gut another country’s manufacturing base?
An economist might argue that folks getting goods on the cheap benefit from that. But folks who lose their jobs pay a fierce price for others’ savings.
Slapping more tariffs on imported goods is not the answer. It’s not as if the money goes to the people who lost jobs. It disappears down the gaping maw of government. Just another tax.
Trade is a tough issue worth discussing. Here’s another one...
GUNS
The Second Amendment is another badly written part of the Constitution: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” One could reasonably interpret that as saying you must be in a well regulated state militia to own a gun.
And then, what kind of gun? If an assault rifle or equivalent is standard issue for the military, and by extension a militia, how do you argue against citizens owning one?
Certainly we have a right to defend ourselves against criminals with guns. So do folks in Australia, and they’re no wimps, but after they had a mass shooting they gave up their guns.
I don’t see that happening here. If Sandy Hook and the hail of lead in Las Vegas didn’t change minds, will anything?
It seems like intelligent people from both sides of the gun debate could come up with a definition of what weapons civilians have a right to own, and what training is required to own them (as with driving a car, potentially a lethal weapon).
Like defining porn vs. art, it won’t be easy. But clearly we don’t need maniacs using a bump stock to go from semi-auto to full auto.
ABORTION
Not my decision. I’m not a woman. I don’t think an early-term fetus is yet a human being, nor do I think it has some divine spark, which brings us to...
RELIGION
I’m not religious. My Mom was born again. So are two of my brothers. I love and respect them. But I can’t wrap my head around the nonsense in the Bible, from the talking donkey to walking on water to Revelations. (Was John tripping or what?)
This doesn’t mean I support the Koran. It advocates jihad, and an alarming percentage of Muslims who wouldn’t become suicide bombers themselves don’t have a problem with others doing so. (As for getting 72 virgins as your reward, sooner or later wouldn’t you want partners who know what they’re doing in bed?)
I can’t wrap my head around the Big Bang, either. Neither the concept itself nor the math, which is way above my pay grade. I’m fine with saying I don’t know how the universe started and how life began.
Certainly as President I would do nothing to encroach upon anyone’s religion. Indeed, how could I?
TAXES
You may currently benefit from one or more federal programs. So why vote for a guy who wants to dismantle most of them?
Because the ultimate result would be lower taxes. A major goal would be no income tax—imagine getting the IRS out of our lives! We did without an income tax until 1913, when it started funding government bloat.
A national sales tax could fund the transition until the federal government shrinks to its core functions. Then a national lottery might suffice, coupled with a voluntary fee for contracts to be enforceable in court. (See Ayn Rand for more on those strategies.)
TERM LIMITS
Great idea. Including for the Supreme Court—how about one term of 20 years? Also, let’s increase the individual term for those in the House from 2 years to at least 4 years, so they don’t have to always be campaigning.
ANTI-TRUST
Laws on anti-trust should be abolished. Companies become huge and stay huge because people choose to buy their stuff. There is nothing inherently evil in a monopoly gained by doing something well. If such a firm starts charging too much, the high profits can attract new capital investing in new competition.
Does Bill Gates take a third to half of your money and do with it as he pleases? No. Only government has the power to enforce a monopoly, as with first-class mail.
A FEW NOTES ON VOCABULARY
Influencing what people call something is a powerful way to persuade them how to feel about it. Here are a few terms we’d do well to stop using, or at least use with full knowledge of what they mean.
Progressive. The so-called Progressives gained prominence over a century ago, and the movement was misnamed from the start. Then and now it means more government interference in our lives.
The government has botched retirement funding (unsustainable), health care (try getting a timely appointment), and education (don’t learn how to think, just memorize), and negatively impacts the rest of the economy. The movement should be called regressive, because the more it goes forward, the more our freedom goes backward.
Liberal. This word originally meant free—basically libertarian. Now it means the opposite when referring to folks in Washington. Or rather, it means theirfreedom to do whatever they want to you with your money after they’ve taken it from you by threat of force.
Capitalism. Nothing wrong with this word per se. The problem is that it puts too much emphasis on capital, the saved money that allows investment, and therefore capitalists.
What about the benefits to everyone when you’re free to produce what others want and enrich yourself by increasing overall wealth? When I was a kid, I often heard it called the free enterprise system. Perfect.
Socialism. An unfortunate word. It can mean government ownership of the means of production, which is tyrannical, or controlling the distribution of goods and services, with the same net effect. Plus, who doesn’t want to be social in the sense of friendly, accepted, a team player?
Too bad socialism has failed everywhere from Russia to Britain (in the 1960s) to Venezuela. As for America, our current path is more towards fascism: for government, anything goes, just trust our fearless leaders to tell us what to do.
Strongman. Let’s stop flattering leaders who imprison or kill those who don’t agree with them. That’s a sign of weakness, not strength. Call them tyrants, despots, or the expletive of your choice.
MY EXPERIENCE OR LACK THEREOF
I’m running on principle. Mostly I’ve worked in advertising. No government experience. You can decide if that’s important or not. I must admit, lack of experience didn’t work out well with Trump.
My formal education is a Bachelor of Science with a major in advertising. I have continued to educate myself in the years since. The Constitution is written in plain English, check it out.
Of course, I would not govern in a vacuum. I’d reach out to experts in all fields, including politics, even including former Presidents. Can’t hurt to talk.
MY HEALTH
I’m in general good health and walk for exercise.
You deserve to know that I had a minor stroke last year. The effects have been about as mild as you can get: a little numbness and tingling on one side. No effect on thinking or talking. I take meds to help prevent any further problem.
I also take meds for OCD, which has been under control for decades.
I occasionally stutter, but way less than when I was a kid. I can say yes, no, launch, and abort with no problem.
ABOUT GOVERNING
The President has limited powers—good! Congress makes the laws and sends them to the President for approval or veto. Mostly I would be leading the charge to reduce the obscene size and harmful impact of the federal government.
I’m not concerned with how the sausage is made in Washington so much as how we can put less pork in the grinder. I would work with Democrats and Republicans alike to achieve that.
If anyone with my values gets elected, we can expect enormous opposition from those who make money from government or simply crave power. Some people love telling others what to do. I’m not interested in telling or being told.
I hasten to add that there are plenty of good, well-intentioned people in government—I’ve known some of them. They are simply wrong in thinking they know how to run things and have a right to tell others what to do.
IN CONCLUSION
I hate our government, but I love our country and our freedoms.
Freedom of speech is among the most important. Author Norman Mailer said he was glad to live in America because he could say whatever he wanted. The FBI had a fat file on him, but no one dragged him away to a slave labor camp in Siberia or Tibet, or poisoned him or threw him out a window.
I feel the same way about free speech, though I wish there was less stupidity in many of our loudest speakers. The Internet isn’t helping us here, with people spewing hateful nonsense spread by algorithms.
While you may disagree with some or even most of what I’ve said here, I hope you’ll agree that I’ve avoided nonsense, and I hope I’ve stimulated fresh thinking.
Again, I do not expect to win. But if you help me get a decent number of votes, maybe it will stimulate the idea of someone else doing the write-in thing and bypassing the two-party bottleneck. We may need it even more desperately four years from now.
If you want your vote to count for something, even if it’s just a poke in the eye of the system that continues to fail us so miserably, write in David Page for President. After the election I’ll let you know how we did.
Sincerely,
David Page
P.S. This content is Copyright 2024 by me. However, feel free to share it. In fact, I hope you do share it—but if you do, don’t just copy and paste part of it, share all of it via the link: www.WriteInDavidPage.com.
FURTHER READING AND RESOURCES
RICHARD MAYBURY
His Early Warning Report newsletter is my favorite reading each month. His books on history explain why America has no need to get involved in foreign wars, why it happens anyway, and how we ultimately make things worse by doing so. A unique perspective.
AYN RAND
Her famous novel Atlas Shrugged has some clunky stuff (one character calls another Non-Absolute), but you can’t beat the plot. Francisco’s speech on money and the hobo’s story of Starnesville are highlights.
John Galt’s mammoth radio broadcast feels out of place in a novel. For a more comprehensive and better organized statement of Rand’s philosophy, read Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by her student Leonard Peikoff.
Rand has several nonfiction books, including Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. (See above regarding the word capital.) Especially helpful for understanding fallacies about monopolies and the evils of antitrust law.
You also may enjoy Peikoff’s The Ominous Parallels on the philosophical basis of Nazism and the danger of it rising in America.
HENRY HAZLITT
Economics in One Lesson. Simple, true, and even fun.
SAM HARRIS
The End of Faith is outstanding on why faith itself is the problem—and why all religions are not equally bad.
ANDREW BARD SCHMOOKLER
The Parable of the Tribes. How power grows and corrupts societies whether the people like it or not.
HARRY BROWN
How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World, practical and inspirational. Also, Why Government Doesn’t Workand The Great Libertarian Offer, with ideas on tackling big challenges like how to fairly unwind Social Security.
P.J. O’ROURKE
Great political comedy writer. Try Parliament of Whores or All the Trouble in the World.
DAVID BOAZ
Libertarianism: A Primer. Excellent summary of Libertarian principles, plus some suggestions for applications.
A sidebar: I’ve heard people scoff at hardcore Libertarians who say government should own nothing, which means we should privatize the roads. Tell you what: we’ll leave the roads for last. First let’s get the government out of healthcare, education, and retirement.
G. EDWARD GRIFFIN
The Creature from Jekyll Island. How the Federal Reserve, which is a banking cartel, came to be, and how to get rid of it.
Since its founding in 1913, the Fed has reduced the value of a dollar to three cents and utterly failed to prevent recession/depression.
Creature explains that inflation is a deliberate tactic, enabled and compounded by fractional reserve banking, that earns interest for banks at the ultimate cost of devalued money and risk shifted to taxpayers.
What’s the endgame? Hyperinflation or default.
(In case you’re wondering: Jekyll Island is a real place. When I first heard about the title, I thought it was a metaphor for banks becoming evil. It resonates that way, too.)
THE CATO INSTITUTE
Libertarian think tank. A voice of sanity in D.C.
ANNIE JACOBSEN
Nuclear War: a Scenario is the scariest book I’ve read since The Fate of the Earth back in the 1980’s. By the way, I sent a copy of Fate to President Reagan, so you can thank me for détente. Or blame me, since it eventually led to Putin.
DOWNSIZE D.C.
The organization’s name says it all. Their historic “Read the Bills Act” and “One Subject at a Time Act” are brilliant, simple ways to tame Congress. Lately the organization focuses on decreasing unjustified incarceration.
THE ECONOMIST
Excellent weekly news magazine. Goes far beyond economics—even more than the WSJ (see below). International in scope, with an emphasis on the U.S., Britain, and China. Good on science and the arts, too. The obits alone are worth the price of subscribing.
However, beware: they never met a problem that government shouldn’t try to fix. You will have to pay careful attention to separate facts from opinions in support of their agenda.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
I find the WSJ to be the most reliable and objective news source around, far beyond their coverage of business. Their general news reporting and columnists are excellent.
The Washington Post and New York Times are not fake news. They work hard to get their facts straight, and when they make a mistake, they own up to it, as with that Pulitzer-winning fake story the Post failed to vet. But they are biased in their choice of what to report and the spin they put on it.
To be fair, that charge can be levied against the WSJ as well—and myself. Everyone has a bias because everyone has a starting position. That’s why I told you I favor freedom and responsibility.