Showing posts with label Libertarians. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Libertarians. Show all posts

Friday, November 1, 2013

The "Libertarian At A Dinner Party" Halloween Costume

I find this costume terribly offensive.



 First of all, we don't smoke pipes, we do cigars.

Plus, out of the dozen or so copies of "Atlas Shrugged" that we all own, we would never bring our precious hardbacks to a meal at someone else's home. We have the small paperbacks for those events. 

Unlike the clown in this picture, we always, always, always hold the labels of our liquor bottles toward the camera, since we are huge fans of corporations, branding, and private enterprise. 

What else is wrong with this repugnant stereotype? THE GUY'S BOWTIE DOESN'T HAVE LIBERTARIAN PORCUPINES ON IT!! 



(You should always get a LP proofreader to sign off on these images before posting them. God is in the details.) 

And finally, I've never known a libertarian to deliver a "possibly racist rant", publicly or privately. 

But I've heard several rants that would make anyone feel awkward who voted for Obama just because he was a black guy (i.e. - voters who are racists). 

This picture is a stench in the nostrils of the righteous, and in a civilized society, it would be removed from the internet. 

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

The Public Religion Research Institute survey of libertarians in America

Ok, this is going to take a while.  The Public Religion Research Institute has surveyed people claiming to be small-l and large-L libertarians.  (Small-l libertarians generally believe in liberty instead of political demigods.  Large-L Libertarians share the same beliefs, but go so far as to join the Libertarian Party.) 
This is interesting stuff.  Hope you'll devote a lunch break to reading the whole thing here
Or just check it out on my site, with additional Whited commentary. 

According to a newly developed Libertarian Orientation Scale, less than 1-in-10 (7%) Americans are consistent libertarians, and an additional 15% lean libertarian. At the other end of the spectrum, an equal number of Americans are consistent communalists (7%), and an additional 17% lean communalist. A majority (54%) of Americans have a mixed ideological profile, falling in between libertarian and communalist orientations.

I don't believe that the communalists "lean" toward communalism.  I think they're leaning on me and you.  But that's quibbling over details. 


Compared to the general population, libertarians are significantly more likely to be non-Hispanic white, male, and young. Nearly all libertarians are non-Hispanic whites (94%), more than two-thirds (68%) are men, and more than 6-in-10 (62%) are under the age of 50.

I'm surprised these percentages aren't higher.  On the age issue, for instance, the closer you get to being in God's Waiting Room, the more concern you have about free goodies. 

The party affiliation of libertarians skews significantly more Republican than Democratic. Close to half (45%) of libertarians identify as Republican, compared to only 5% who identify as Democrat. However, half of libertarians identify as politically independent (35%) or identify with a third political party (15%), including roughly 1-in-10 (8%) who identify with the Libertarian Party. Roughly 4-in-10 (39%) libertarians identify as part of the Tea Party movement, while 61% do not.
Libertarians make up a smaller proportion of the Republican Party than other key conservative groups.  Only 12% of self-identified Republicans are libertarians, compared to 20% of Republicans who identify with the Tea Party, 33% who identify with the religious right or conservative Christian movement, and 37% who identify as white evangelical Protestant.

I had to read that last sentence several times.  Are they saying that Libertarians, Tea Partiers, the Religious Right, and White Evangelical Protestants are all religions?  Bizarre. 

Libertarians also constitute a smaller proportion of the Tea Party movement than other core conservative groups. About one-quarter (26%) of Americans who identify with the Tea Party movement are libertarians, compared to a majority (52%) who say they are a part of the religious right or conservative Christian movement, and 35% who identify as white evangelical Protestant.
Libertarians are composed of a disproportionately high number of white mainline Protestants (27%) and religiously unaffiliated Americans (27%). Only about 1-in-10 (11%) libertarians identify as Catholic, and no libertarians identify as black Protestant.

I would've bet on the "religiously unaffiliated" percentage as higher.  I know a lot of atheists.  All but a few are Libertarians.  (The others aren't really atheists, but are actually Secular Theists.) 

GOTW.102913.Libertarian 320x414 Survey | 2013 American Values Survey: In Search of Libertarians in America

Generally speaking, libertarians are more opposed than white evangelical Protestants, those affiliated with the Tea Party, and Republicans overall to government involvement across a range of economic policies, such as raising the minimum wage, Obamacare, and increasing environmental protections.
  • Nearly two-thirds (65%) of libertarians oppose increasing the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $10.00 an hour, as do 57% of Americans who identify with the Tea Party. By contrast, 57% of Republicans overall and 61% of white evangelical Protestants support raising the minimum wage.
  • Nearly all (96%) libertarians have an unfavorable view of the 2010 health care law, compared to 83% of white evangelical Protestants, 78% of Tea Party members, and 89% of Republicans.
  • On the issue of passing tougher environmental laws, libertarians and Tea Party members are generally aligned in their strong opposition (73% and 74% oppose), while white evangelical Protestants and Republicans overall are also opposed but with less intensity (62% each opposed).
Ok, now I've got to go into the dangerous area of litmus tests.  According to the survey, 35% of libertarians don't oppose minimum wage hikes.  That's almost like saying 35% of Christians don't believe Jesus existed.  Are these people libertarians, or have they just heard a cool word and now claim to identify with it?  Or am I going into the "No True Scotsman" fallacy? 

Christ almighty, this is a depressing chart. 



Unlike economic questions, on which libertarians are generally aligned with other conservative constituencies, libertarians have a more distinct profile on social issues.
  • Nearly 6-in-10 (57%) libertarians oppose making it more difficult for a woman to get an abortion, a proportion identical to the general population. By contrast, strong majorities of Republicans overall (58%), Americans affiliated with the Tea Party (58%), and white evangelical Protestants (68%) favor making it more difficult for a woman to get an abortion.
  • Seven-in-ten (70%) libertarians favor allowing doctors to prescribe lethal drugs to help terminally ill patients end their lives. Americans who identify with the Tea Party are closely divided on this question (49% favor, 51% oppose). By contrast, strong majorities of Republicans (58%) and white evangelical Protestants (70%) oppose this policy.
  • More than 7-in-10 (71%) libertarians favor legalizing marijuana. By contrast, approximately 6-in-10 Republicans (61%) and Tea Party members (59%), and nearly 7-in-10 (69%) white evangelical Protestants, oppose legalizing marijuana.
  • Unlike most other social issues, libertarians remain socially conservative on same-sex marriage. While a majority (59%) of libertarians oppose same-sex marriage, they are significantly less opposed than Republicans overall (67%) and than other conservative-leaning groups such as Tea Party members (73%) and white evangelical Protestants (80%).
I can't believe I just read that.  I don't know of a single Libertarian Party member who opposes same-sex marriage.  Ditto for weed legalization.  I think they surveyed some of the people that The New York Times interviews for libertarian viewpoints.  (But yes, differences in our viewpoints do exist.  We have some serious differences of opinion on abortion and immigration into a welfare state.) 
 
A majority (53%) of libertarian voters say they always vote in primary elections, a rate comparable to white evangelical Protestant voters (48%) and Republican voters overall (50%) but significantly lower than the participation rate among Tea Party voters (62%).


1.Libertarian Scale1 320x369 Survey | 2013 American Values Survey: In Search of Libertarians in America

A majority (57%) of libertarians have a favorable view of the Republican Party, but a substantial minority (40%) have an unfavorable view of the GOP. Americans who identify with the Tea Party and white evangelical Protestants have a more positive view of the GOP than libertarians. Approximately two-thirds of Tea Party members (68%) and white evangelical Protestants (66%) have a favorable view of the Republican Party. Notably, libertarians hold more negative views of Democrats than they hold positive views of Republicans. Nearly 9-in-10 (89%) libertarians have an unfavorable view of the Democratic Party including nearly two-thirds (64%) who have a very unfavorable opinion of the party.

Schizophrenia update:  I think that the Democrat Party is generally sillier than the Republican Party.  But I'm sick of Republicans promising small government and delivering a massive government.  That's why I vote for the Democrat when no Libertarian is on the ballot.  There really are some Dem politicians who consistently support Marriage Equality, ending the Drug War, and Weed Legalization. 

Among voters who identify with or lean toward the Republican Party, support is spread fairly evenly across the potential 2016 presidential field in a head-to-head question. Eighteen percent prefer Governor Chris Christie, 18% prefer Congressman Paul Ryan, 15% prefer former Governor Jeb Bush, 14% prefer Senator Marco Rubio, 11% prefer Senator Rand Paul, and 11% prefer Senator Ted Cruz.
  • Among libertarian voters who identify with or lean toward the Republican Party, Paul (26%) was the most popular potential candidate, while 18% prefer Cruz, 16% prefer Rubio, and 13% prefer Ryan. Fewer libertarian voters prefer Christie (10%) or Bush (6%).
  • Among Tea Party voters who identify or lean Republican, Cruz is the most preferred candidate (22%), followed by Rubio (18%), Ryan (14%), and Paul (13%). Roughly 1-in-10 Tea Party voters prefer Bush (11%) or Christie (12%).
  • White evangelical Protestant voters have less clear candidate preferences than libertarian and Tea Party voters. Among white evangelical Protestant voters who identify or lean Republican, top preferences include Ryan (19%), Christie (16%), and Bush (15%), while roughly 1-in-10 prefer Rubio (13%), Paul (11%), or Cruz (10%).
As usual, the previous Libertarian candidate for president, Gary Johnson, wasn't included in the survey of Libertarian preferences for president.. That's ok.  We're used to it. 
 
Some of these findings confirm what I've long suspected.  Others surprise me. 
 
The relevant question is whether we'll allow ourselves to have a bigger and bigger tent. But Jesus Christ Almighty, are you really a libertarian if you support the minimum wage?   

Monday, September 9, 2013

Libertarian, Quite Contrarian - by Caroline Gorman

My friend Caroline Gorman posted this on Facebook the other day.  It's about how some small government types will sometimes use symbols from the Confederacy, just to show that they, too, are rebelling against Washington.  Or are being iconoclasts.  Or just want to be controversial. 

I went to a school whose fight song was "Dixie".  I started playing that song (drums) in marching band in the 5th or 6th grade.  Then I went to Ole Miss, where the fight song was "Dixie".  Transferred to Delta state, where the fight song wasn't "Dixie", but we played it a lot just because we were in.... Dixie. 

For the benefit of the Brits, Aussies and Kiwis who visit this site, "Dixie" was the fight song of the Rebel/Confederate army during the U.S. Civil War. 

I played the drum part to "Dixie" after every touchdown, field goal, extra point, blocked punt, and kickoff for about 12 years.  I've played it in parades and during basketball games.  Some level of racial sensitivity kicked in about 1984, shortly after I left school, not just at Ole Miss, but at colleges across the deep south, and you never hear the song any more.  Therefore, I think I may have played the pro-slavery war song "Dixie" more times than anyone now alive.  I've also carried my share of rebel flags, so I was interested in Caroline's take on Confederate symbols.  (BTW, now that I've put away that childishness, you won't catch me within 20 feet of a rebel flag.  Symbols don't mean what you think they mean.  They mean what OTHER people think they mean.) 

Here's Caroline:

Background: Jack Hunter, director of social media for Senator Rand Paul, was ‘outed’ in mainstream news outlets as, variously, “a fan of the old Confederacy,” (Slate), someone who said “John Wilkes Booth’s heart was in the right place,”[1]“anti-Lincoln,” (Chris Hayes, both) and related slurs. It’s unclear why this became news now, since Jack Hunter’s past as an outrageous radio personality named The Southern Avenger is certainly no secret. In any event, all of these slurs were taken as indicators of the number-one accusation: that Jack Hunter is a racist.



In response to this, libertarians jumped in to defend Jack Hunter. My Twitter and Facebook feeds were crowded with libertarians who wanted to assure me that they’d “never met a nicer libertarian” than Jack Hunter, that he was “a pillar of the libertarian community,” a “real lover of liberty” and most importantly, a nice guy. Or at least, he had been nice to his white fellow libertarians. Then came the proliferation of articles in his defense. A post on Lew Rockwell added some venom, as usual, but nothing substantive, again as usual.

But the most stereotypically libertarian – and flagrantly wrong reaction – was fromTom Woods and his scathing article on ‘Sweetie Pie Libertarians.’

Tom Woods’ argument reads as a brilliant, brave stand for intellectual freedom against ‘zombies’ and other intellectual light-weights. He begins with a blazoning “Now there are perfectly good reasons one might have to oppose the Lincoln regime.” And then he lists several. Then he turns his attention to the Sweetie Pie Libertarians, those who cravenly rush to be in the good graces of “Mr. Nice Media Person, sir.” These Sweetie Pie Libertarians are “policing the thoughts” of the brave, noble libertarians, in a cowardly, backward attempt to be “more attractive.” These Sweetie Pie Libertarians are just caving in to public opinion. Fortunately, we have big strong brave men like Tom Woods to stand up to the Establishment and tell it like it is!

Tom Woods, answer me this question: What does wearing a luchador mask with the Confederate flag on it have to do with a rational, intellectually honest exploration of the historical issues concerning the advent of the Civil War?

Answer: Absolutely nothing.

Jack Hunter’s use of Confederate symbolism had nothing to do with bravely questioning standard histories. He was taking a side in identity politics – and on the side of violent racists and bigots (note: even if, for some reason, you think that the Confederates weren’t violent racists and bigots, note that in the 150 years since then, that symbol has been used by violent bigots from the KKK to the murderers of James Byrd, Jr., - which means that symbol is now a symbol of racism).

I thank Tom Woods for his article. He entirely missed the point about why Jack Hunter should not work for a politician, or anywhere that he has a chance to put his racist views into action, but he did highlight another problem in the libertarian community.

He exemplified the‘Libertarian, Quite Contrarian’ Syndrome.

What is the "Libertarian, Quite Contrarian" Syndrome? It presents in the form of people who, if told to do one thing, will do another. These people are more predictable than zombies. Zombies at least have desires of their own (well, one desire: delicious brains). The Contrarian Libertarians don’t know what they want until they hear what they’re not supposed to want. They are individuals! They do what they want! Which is always, without fail, the opposite of what you are telling them to do.

Libertarian, libertarian
Quite contrarian
How does your movement grow?
When they say yes, you say no
They go left, you go right
Always spoiling for a fight
They say up,
you say down,
Turn that argument around!
They say red, you say blue
You can’t tell me what to do!

How is this relevant to the Jack Hunter situation? Jack Hunter, and the libertarians who support using Confederate imagery, just want to do something controversial. They want to use that word because they’re not supposed to. They want to say inflammatory things. And they want to pretend it’s brave.



Using Confederate imagery has nothing to do with historical revisionism, with individual rights, with states’ rights, with anything libertarian. To use the Confederate flag is to prove, supposedly, that you support freedom – by using a symbol of a time when human beings were enslaved.

Instead, using the Confederate flag is a perfect example of the dark side of individualism: relentless contrarianism. This contrarianism has nothing to do with questioning standard histories (perfectly admirable), taking a moment to reconsider childhood lessons (absolutely necessary) or understanding that few issues areas clear-cut as we would like (I wish more people understood that).

The use of Confederate symbolism which has swirled around the libertarian movement and the more populist elements is only a base childish desire to do something ‘naughty,’ dressed up in libertarian colors. Let’s stop protecting these people just because they know enough to use the language of liberty to justify their immaturity.

The irony is that being a Contrarian Libertarian is about as anti-individualistic as you can get. It also involves the same actions they so disdain in the mainstream media: race-baiting, kneejerk reactions instead of measured debate, and a profound acceptance of authority.

Because if you’re wearing the Confederate flag to prove that Civil War historical revisionism is necessary, you have lost. You have let the mainstream media put you in one of two boxes – for or against the Civil War. For or against the Confederacy. If you want to dislike Lincoln, go for it. If you want to question the cause of the Civil War, go for it. But accepting that questioning the traditional account of the Civil War equates to supporting the Confederacy (and wearing a flag is a pretty blatant symbol of support) is accepting their rules.

Why don’t you take the unusual third position of opposing the Civil War and opposing the Confederacy?  Of exercising your intellectual freedom to question the traditional Civil War narrative while also refusing to emotionally ‘take sides?’ That would be truly individual, and truly unusual!

Caroline K. Gorman is the Chair of the Travis County Libertarian Party in Austin, Texas. She also serves on the State Libertarian Executive Committee and is heavily involved as an activist at the local level.

Thursday, July 25, 2013

Who's to say that Libertarian politicians, over time, wouldn't become Statists?

I get variations on this all the time:  "Who's to say that your Libertarian candidates wouldn't start spending and regulating like Statists if they stayed in office long enough?"

My answer  "If you left mulitiple generations of them in office long enough, without changing any of the rules of the game, or changing the worldview of the electorate, they probably would become Statists."

People are people.  They don't become cherubs when they win the beauty contests that we call "elections".  I'm sure that Ron Paul could be swayed by flattery and donations.  Ditto for Gary Johnson.  Judge Jim Gray is one of the finest men I've ever met, but I bet if you agreed to fund one of his favorite causes, he'd be willing to consider using a few taxpayer dollars to build that new stadium, or blow up some brown people overseas, or throw some stimulus in the right direction. 

This is why it's so important to have a government that is as small as possible.  Government is force.  The power to take other people's stuff and redistribute it.  The power to throw your enemies into steel cages.   I honestly don't know anyone that I would trust with that power for a long period of time. 

Here's some vintage Milton Friedman:
The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or it they try, they will shortly be out of office.
I believe that Libertarian candidates are the most likely to do the right thing.  But it's even more important for you to be aware of the right thing - stopping redistribution, ending privacy violations, curbing the spending and ending the wars. 

In the meantime, we're getting the government (and the wars, and the debt, and the wealth transfers, and the black incarceration rate, and the taxes) that we deserve. 

Monday, June 24, 2013

The Monica Perez Libertarian Glossary

Several months ago I started getting hits from the Monica Perez website.  Ms. Perez has a lively talk radio show based in Atlanta. 
Go here for videos and livestreams.  It's good stuff. 

This is the Monica Perez glossary of Libertarian terminology, shamelessly copied from here.  We should all be grateful that we live on the same planet as this lady.  Here's Ms. Perez:

There are a few expressions and references I like to use on the air that are not (yet!) in common usage. For your convenience, I define them here. For additional color on the expression, click on the term itself and you will be directed to an outside source.

If you heard me say something on the air you don’t understand or if you know an expression you think I might like, please send me an email so I can define it for you and the other listeners.

Anarcho-CapitalismLibertarian and individualist anarchist political philosophy (also known as “libertarian anarchy” or “market anarchism” or “free market anarchism”) that advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty in a free market.

Austrian EconomicsEmphasizes the spontaneous organizing power of the price mechanism and holds that the complexity of subjective human choices makes mathematical modeling of the evolving market practically impossible. Its proponents tend to advocate the strong protection of private property rights and the strict enforcement of voluntary contractual agreements between economic agents, but otherwise advocate a laissez-faire approach to the economy.

Barry Goldwater Conservative
A traditional American conservative in the model of Senator Barry Goldwater, “Mr. Conservative,” who led the conservative movement in his 1964 Republican Presidential Campaign against incumbent Lyndon Johnson. A traditional conservative believes in fiscal conservatism, personal liberty, respect for the Constitution, strong defense and non-interventionism. This differs strongly from a neo-conservative, defined below.

The Blue Pill
From the movie The Matrix, the blue pill allows you to “believe what you want to believe,” while the red pill opens your mind to reality.

Boiling Frogs
The idea that if you put a frog in unheated water and heat it VERY slowly, it will boil to death before it has the sense to jump out. In the political context, it refers to the genius of incrementalism, whereby policies that could not otherwise be adopted wholesale are adopted little by little until the original goal is accomplished.

Conspiranoid
Seeming paranoid because you believe in a conspiracy theory.

Conspiranoid Mind-Vitamin
A small idea, or seed for your brain, that sounds like a conspiracy theory, but may be true and in any case will get you thinking about something from a different angle.

Controlled Opposition
From Lenin‘s theory that “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” The idea is that people like Alex Jones and Ron Paul who warn us of the power elite and lead movements of dissent are doing so at the behest of the very power elite they denounce. According to this theory, establishment operatives lead protest movements in order to direct the actions of those who would change the system, either by keeping them in line or by breaking them up into factions in order to neutralize them.

Crapitalism
Crony capitalism.

Crony Capitalism
A system in which the dominant force is the mutual relationship between the state and politically well-connected businesses in a mixed economy. As social power is increasingly replaced by state power, collusion between the political class and well-connected business leaders occurs with greater frequency and to a much higher degree.

Deep StateA deep state, or a state-within-a-state, is a political situation in a country when an internal organ, generally from the armed forces, intelligence agencies, or police, does not respond to the civilian leadership. The NSA scandal hints at the existence of a deep state.

Drinking the Fluoride
A popular conspiracy theory holds that fluoride in the water alters people’s brains and increases their docility and susceptibility to control. I use the expression “drinking the fluoride” when I’m trying to explain why someone might accept what is a clearly false or irrational explanation for a political event or position.

False Flag
In modern usage, a government operation that is made to look like it is done by an outside party in order to justify otherwise unpopular government action. For example, “9/11 Truthers” think the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, were a false flag operation conducted by the United States government to justify a more intrusive federal government. There is some evidence that the “Underwear Bomber” incident was a false flag operation.

The Full Rothbard
Many Libertarians are minarchists, which are akin to Classical Liberals, meaning they believe government should be limited to courts, police and national defense. Murray Rothbard claims that this can never happen because government, which is a monopoly, will never in practice limit itself, therefore government itself needs to be a function of competing institutions. Rothbard’s political philosophy is called anarcho-capitalism and arguments based on this theory go The Full Rothbard.

Fusion Center
State, local and regional institutions originally created to improve the sharing of anti-terrorism intelligence among different state, local and federal law enforcement agencies. Their mission has quickly expanded – with the support and encouragement of the federal government – to cover “all crimes and all hazards.” The types of information they seek for analysis has also broadened over time to include not just criminal intelligence, but public and private sector data, and participation in these centers has grown to include not just law enforcement, but other government entities, the military and even select members of the private sector.

Going Galt
Referring to the main character, John Galt, in Ayn Rand‘s novel Atlas Shrugged, “going Galt” refers to the phenomenon whereby the smartest, most productive people get fed up with the injustice and corruption of the existing system and refuse further to contribute to it.

Hippies of the Right
The pejorative expression used by Ayn Rand to describe libertarians, the political philosophy of whom she disapproved.

Internet Reformation
The phenomenon by which the Internet allows users to develop ideas that hone in on the true structure of society similar to the manner in which the Gutenberg press, by allowing a new and powerful form of communication among the masses, spurred the Reformation.

Keynesian Economics
The economic theory established by John Maynard Keynes in his magnum opus The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. This theory is the foundation of current government-run economic policy and in my view serves to justify central economic intervention by using specious arguments. In the Twentieth Century, this theory won out over The Austrian School of Economics much to the detriment of our economic stability.

Liberal Fascist Center
When I lived in California in the early 1990s, I noticed that the liberal politicians were all for the Welfare State as all modern liberals are, but that they had abandoned social liberalism as evidenced by one-time Mayor of San Francisco Dianne Feinstein’s war on the Mitchell Brothers O’Farrell Theatre. Now of course the left has even abandoned it’s anti-war stance as evidenced by Obama’s unilateral decision to bomb Libya. Similarly, the right abandoned its principled opposition to the Welfare State and also abandoned Constitutionally-defined liberty. The parties had become essentially the same, both incorporating the worst of each side (welfare and warfare) and abandoning the best (peace and liberty). I dubbed this compromise position the liberal-fascist center. Later a book came out called Liberal Fascism that focused only on the left, but I believe it is the position of the entire Republocrat Oligarchy (see below).

Limited HangoutA limited hangout, or partial hangout, is a public relations or propaganda technique that involves the release of previously hidden information in order to prevent a greater exposure of more important details. It is possible that NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden was actually part of a limited hangout.

Neo-Con or Neo-Conservative
The traditional conservative movement was largely displaced by the self-named Neo-Conservative Movement in the 1980s. Unlike traditional conservatives, neo-conservatives do not eschew the welfare state but wish to make it more efficient; advocate legislating social issues; and wish to actively influence other countries using both economic and military means.

New World Order or NWO
Widely considered a conspiracy theory, the term New World Order or NWO refers to the emergence of a totalitarian one-world government through which the power elite aims to rule the world. Many politicians have referred to the New World Order over the past 40 years and have also used the word “Globalism” to indicate the same. Radio host Alex Jones is probably the most outspoken opponent of the New World Order.

Open Your Mind
From the movie Total Recall, a mutant named Kuato allows the main character Quade, played by Arnold Schwarzenegger, to understand the underlying reality of his world.

Paulbot
An often pejorative expression used to describe a follower of Ron Paul.

Paulbot Next Door
A segment on The Monica Perez Show in which we play a voicemail from a normal person who likes Ron Paul to dispel the myth that only fringe people can be libertarians.

Permission Living
An expression I coined to describe the phenomenon by which the government conditions you to ask them permission to do things you have every right to do: May I drive a car? May I get on this plane? May I take this job? May I buy a gun? Permits, licensing, registries, universal IDs, security check-points, e-verify are all ways in which the government has us ask permission to do basic things in our everyday lives. For now the government does not usually withhold permission unreasonably, but if they wish to they will have the apparatus and social conditioning in place to control the basic moves of law-abiding citizens.

Power Elite
A closely knit alliance of military, government, and corporate officials perceived as the center of wealth and political power in the West.

Prohibition Drugs
Drugs that arise in response to the incentives of the black market for drugs created by the Drug War. During alcohol prohibition moonshine took the place of softer, safer alcohol like beer and wine because whiskey was more concentrated and moonshine could be made locally. Similarly, meth and crack arise to replace cocaine because they are more powerful and pack more of a punch in a smaller quantity allowing for a higher price for any given quantity transported. Recently synthetic marijuana has been added to the list of prohibition drugs.

Proxy War
A proxy war is a war that results when opposing powers use third parties as substitutes for fighting each other directly. While powers have sometimes used governments as proxies, violent non-state actors, mercenaries, or other third parties are more often employed. If Saudi Arabia attacks Iran or Syria it will be a proxy war.

Red Herring
A clue or piece of information which is intended to be misleading or distracting from the actual issue.

The Red Pill
From the movie The Matrix, the blue pill allows you to “believe what you want to believe,” while the red pill opens your mind to reality.

Republocrat Oligarchy
Voting in the two-party system is like deciding between whether the Gambinos or the Genoveses are going to run your neighborhood–it’s not going to make much of a difference! The Iron Law of Oligarchy states that this is the inevitable consequence of democracy, according to Robert Michels, who posits that democracy is a façade legitimizing the rule of a particular elite, and that elite rule, which he refers to as oligarchy, is inevitable.

Shamocracy
I use this term specifically to refer to the false choice offered by the oligopoly of the Republican and Democratic Parties in the United States. The two sides appear to offer different philosophies and policies but in the end the march toward an overreaching government that operates above the rule of law at the expense of the citizen continues regardless of who wins a particular election.

Smoking the Kool-Aid
Drinking the Kool-Aid refers to the tragedy at Jonestown where cult followers of Jim Jones, and Jones himself, drank poison-laced Kool-Aid in a mass suicide. I say smoking the Kool-Aid to describe a combination of seeming too high and too fuzzy headed to see the truth combined with a blind willingness to believe propaganda.

Social Engineering

Efforts to influence social behaviors and the social structure on a large scale.

Social Conditioning

A sociological process of training individuals in a society to think, act or respond in a manner generally approved by society overall or forces within society that benefit from the populace being so trained.

Statist
Someone, especially a politician, who promotes the power of the state above all; this transcends any apparent loyalty to left or right, Democrat or Republican.

Stepping off the Grid
Technically, living without dependence on the power grid. Figuratively, this means not being subject to the controls of mainstream society but having to forfeit the conveniences that society has to offer.

Voluntarist/Voluntaryist
The philosophy which holds that all forms of human association should be voluntary. One of the moral principles frequently used to support this philosophy is the non-aggression principle, which prohibits the initiation of aggression or coercion.

Hit the links up top for the Perez website and livestreams.  This is good, good stuff !!! 

Sunday, April 28, 2013

Breakfast At Tiffany's

Someone named Tiffany who goes to a private academy in Dallas sent me some questions about the Libertarian Party Of Texas for a school project. 
Since I'm feeling lazy this morning, I'm letting it double as today's blog post.  Thought it might shed a little light on how we work.  The rant at the end has almost been finessed into a liturgy.   

Tiffany,


I hope these answers are satisfactory. Let me know if you need any details.

-Does the Libertarian Party of Texas's platform differ from the national party’s platform?

The platforms occasionally differ in degree or in emphasis, but seldom in principle. There are two issues for which the core libertarian philosophy doesn’t provide easy answers. Abortion (two possibly conflicting sets of rights), and immigration in the context of a welfare state.

One of the best things about being a Libertarian is that our core platform really doesn’t change, whereas the Democrats and Republicans have swapped or otherwise changed their positions on several issues over the last 50 years.

-What do you do within the State branch?

In addition to acting as Tarrant County Chair, I serve on a committee called SLEC. This is the State Libertarian Executive Committee. Our core responsibilities are to ensure that we have ballot access, that the message of Liberty is spread throughout the state, and to oversee the state conventions every two years. There are several committees within that group, and I currently chair the Compliance committee. We ensure that all actions taken by the county groups and SLEC are done according to the by-laws, and can withstand any legal challenges.

-What is the Libertarian Party of Texas's main job/function?

The purpose of the Libertarian Party of Texas is to win elections.

-How does Libertarian Party of Texas work with the national Libertarian party?

We help coordinate and host events for presidential candidates. Our most recent presidential candidate, former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, was very well-received in Texas, BTW.

We also elect and send delegates from Texas to the national conventions, where they select our presidential and veep candidates.

-Which candidates is the Libertarian Party of Texas currently supporting and which elections are you all currently preparing for?

All of the “off-year” elections are non-partisan. But because of his pro-liberty stance, we’re encouraging people to support Daniel Wood, who is running for Arlington City Council. Sybil Lane is running for the school board in Crowley and she seems to have some strong libertarian support. We’re also making phone calls for John Basham, Tim Nold, and Mary Kelleher, three of the candidates for Fort Worth Water Board. These local elections are extremely important to us, even though no one runs under a Libertarian Party banner. It’s a shame that so few people vote in them, because the local races are often more likely to have a direct impact on the citizens than the national contests do.

-How much money does the Libertarian Party of Texas raise for “party activities”? How much money do they raise for specific candidates?

Fundraising is often a struggle for us. The Big Two fund their campaigns by blatantly selling exemptions to the tax, import, and tariff codes. It’s difficult to raise large amounts of money by promising to merely leave you (and your competitors) alone.

Fundraising for individual candidates has almost become a theological dispute for us, with some libertarians insisting that the national, state, and local parties not get into the business of “picking winners and losers”, and others wanting to put 100% of our limited resources into just a few competitive races in hopes of winning more elections.  At this point, the candidates are supported by their own fundraising events, with administrative and some logistical support from the county and state operations. 

-On what does the Libertarian Party of Texas spend most of their money?

Publicity for the party, administration, educational events and conventions.

-What are two recent headlines/events with which the Libertarian Party of Texas associated?

The Tarrant County Libertarian Party recently hosted a presidential candidates debate featuring the six Libertarians vying for the LP presidential nomination. We also hosted a gun rights/2nd amendment debate at TCU this past weekend.

The state party recently hosted an activists forum about dealing with the Texas Legislature. Speakers from NORML, the ACLU, a gun group, a transportation lobby and others all gave their take on how to lobby the legislature, where they’ve succeeded and where they’ve failed. Since this is an off-year for elections, the county organizations have been more active and visible than the state level operation.

-Does the Libertarian Party of Texas face any obstacles?

The biggest obstacle we face is something called the “wasted vote fallacy”. This is the belief that unless you vote for a Democrat or Republican, your vote is wasted.

Please remember that your share of the national debt is $50,000.00, and even more if you intend to grow up and be a net taxpayer to the federal government.

Your share of the government’s unfunded liabilities is more than $350,000.00

The Democrats and Republicans got you this far into debt by working together, as a team, in a bi-partisan manner.

They are borrowing billions of dollars from China, to protect the South Pacific from…..China.

We have enough people in our military (45% of the world’s military spending) to put a soldier along every 20 feet of the borders of the United States.

According to author Michelle Alexander, Barack Obama now has more black men confined in steel cages (mostly for owning or selling a weed) than The Confederate States Of America did prior to the start of the Civil War. One million government jobs could be eliminated if we were to end the Drug War (which is why so many government employees support the Drug War.)

The Federal Reserve printing press on Blue Mound Road in Fort Worth is pumping an additional 65 billion dollars a month into the nation. You’ll soon see prices rising because of this.

The only “wasted” vote is a vote to maintain this disaster.

Hope this helps!!

Allen Patterson

Tarrant County Libertarian Party Chair

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Margaret Thatcher - R.I.P.

I've been trying to think of the right things to say about the Iron Lady's passing.  I've failed. 
Perry de Havilland, my good buddy that I've never met says it all: 

Maggie Thatcher pissed off all the right people and I swung her name around like a handbag with a brick in it.


Go here.  Read the whole thing. 


Monday, April 15, 2013

A Hypothetical Question On Why You Took Your Income Tax Deductions

Thanks to heroic efforts on the part of Mrs. Sepulchre, we're going to get a $4.00 check (of our own money) back from Obama. 

We claimed every possible deduction.  Work mileage, political activism for non-profits, charitable deductions, and on and on and on. 

I don't speak for Mrs. Sepulchre on this website. 

But the reason I like to take every possible deduction is that I think I can spend my money better than Barack, Boehner, Reid, Rick Perry, and whichever Monsanto employees are running the FDA this week. 

I believe that every single dollar given to the U.S. government will be, at worst, spent on very bad things for very bad reasons, and at best, spent more inefficiently than it would be spent in the private sector. 

That's why Libertarians take every possible tax deduction. 

If you're not a Libertarian, what was your excuse for doing the exact same thing? 

Sunday, January 27, 2013

When Libertarians officiate at a wedding

The Tarrant County Libertarian Party Vice-Chair, Michael Coyne, recently asked me to officiate at his wedding. 
If this is your first visit to this site, I'm the Chair of the Tarrant County (Fort Worth) Libertarian Party.

(Yeah, I'm ordained.  I can also lead the singing at revivals, navigate duck hunts, train Labrador Retrievers, broker freight, do Tarot readings, and do about three card tricks.) 
Michael is a lapsed Catholic.  His lovely bride, Shayna, was raised Jew(-ish), meaning "not really".  They wanted a 100% secular ceremony.  An Anglican priest friend of Mike's had agreed to tie this particular wedding knot, but backed out, perhaps because of the secular nature of the ceremony that Mike and Shayna wanted. 

So I borrowed some ministerial vestments from my friend Dan Freemyer, the guy who feeds the homeless and helps the poor at Broadway Baptist Church. 

When you ask the Tarrant County Libertarian Chair to take on a ministerial/rabbinical/priestly role at your wedding, this is what you're gonna get: 
We are gathered here today to celebrate one of life’s greatest moments, to give recognition to the worth and beauty of love, and to hear the words which shall unite Michael and Shayna in marriage.

A few days ago, Michael and Shayna filled out a marriage “license”, issued by the state of Texas. In the eyes of the state, they are already married, and now have the right to sue each other.

That piece of bureaucratic paperwork has absolutely nothing to do with the sacred event that you will witness and participate in today.   The state of Texas is not ensuring the legitimacy and worth of this union. You are. Michael and Shayna have invited you, their families, friends and co-workers to join with them in their vows to remain faithful, loving and committed to each other.
The wedding party already knew what I was going to say in this Welcome/Greeting, and had signed off on it.  The families, friends, and co-workers liked it and laughed in the right places. 

Mike and Shayna are now married - just as married as if Billy Graham, Pope Benedict, Rabbi Ralph Mecklenburger, a ship's captain, a Justice Of The Peace, or a Supreme Court Justice had officiated at the wedding. 
Texas has given them a contract that says they can sue each other. 
Their friends, families, co-workers (and The Tarrant County Libertarian Party) watched these two wonderful people enter into a contract to love each other, care for each other, and provide for each other for the rest of their lives.  I think that's the one that matters.   

Email me if you want to get married.  I work cheap.  @Whited79


Thursday, November 29, 2012

Thursday, November 22, 2012

Happy Thanksgiving, thanks to The Invisible Hand!!

Hope everyone is having a good Thanksgiving, and that the Turkey Czar successfully got a bird to your house despite the shortages, waiting lines and quotas.
Oh, wait....  The ObamaCare mentality doesn't apply to turkeys yet.  Never mind. 

But on the same subject...  Here's the best thing that Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe ever wrote.  Hit the link to read the whole thing:

Isn’t there something wondrous — something almost inexplicable — in the way your Thanksgiving weekend is made possible by the skill and labor of vast numbers of total strangers?


To bring that turkey to the dining room table required the efforts of thousands of people — the poultry farmers who raised the birds, of course, but also the feed distributors who supplied their nourishment and the truckers who brought it to the farm, not to mention the architect who designed the hatchery, the workmen who built it, and the technicians who keep it running. The bird had to be slaughtered and defeathered and inspected and transported and unloaded and wrapped and priced and displayed. The people who accomplished those tasks were supported in turn by armies of other people accomplishing other tasks — from refining the gasoline that fueled the trucks to manufacturing the plastic in which the meat was packaged.

The acivities of countless far-flung men and women over the course of many months had to be intricately choreographed and precisely timed, so that when you showed up to buy a fresh Thanksgiving turkey, there would be one — or more likely, a few dozen — waiting. The level of coordination that was required to pull it off is mind-boggling. But what is even more mind-boggling is this: No one coordinated it.

No turkey czar sat in a command post somewhere, consulting a master plan and issuing orders. No one forced people to cooperate for your benefit. And yet they did cooperate. When you arrived at the supermarket, your turkey was there. You didn’t have to do anything but show up to buy it. If that isn’t a miracle, what should we call it?

Adam Smith called it “the invisible hand” — the mysterious power that leads innumerable people, each working for his own gain, to promote ends that benefit many. Out of the seeming chaos of millions of uncoordinated private transactions emerges the spontaneous order of the market. Free human beings freely interact, and the result is an array of goods and services more immense than the human mind can comprehend. No dictator, no bureaucracy, no supercomputer plans it in advance. Indeed, the more an economy is planned, the more it is plagued by shortages, dislocation, and failure.

It is commonplace to speak of seeing God’s signature in the intricacy of a spider’s web or the animation of a beehive. But they pale in comparison to the kaleidoscopic energy and productivity of the free market. If it is a blessing from Heaven when seeds are transformed into grain, how much more of a blessing is it when our private, voluntary exchanges are transformed – without our ever intending it – into prosperity, innovation, and growth?”

So if you're the praying type, don't just thank The Almighty for the bird and for Mama's cooking.  Be thankful for the millions of people who want to leave the market alone and let The Invisible Hand work! 

Death To The Turkey Czar !!

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Ron Paul's Farewell Address

Here's Ron Paul's Farewell Address to Congress. 
Pure, undiluted greatness. 

This may well be the last time I speak on the House Floor. At the end of the year I’ll leave Congress after 23 years in office over a 36 year period. My goals in 1976 were the same as they are today: promote peace and prosperity by a strict adherence to the principles of individual liberty.


It was my opinion, that the course the U.S. embarked on in the latter part of the 20th Century would bring us a major financial crisis and engulf us in a foreign policy that would overextend us and undermine our national security.

To achieve the goals I sought, government would have had to shrink in size and scope, reduce spending, change the monetary system, and reject the unsustainable costs of policing the world and expanding the American Empire.

The problems seemed to be overwhelming and impossible to solve, yet from my view point, just following the constraints placed on the federal government by the Constitution would have been a good place to start.

How Much Did I Accomplish?

In many ways, according to conventional wisdom, my off-and-on career in Congress, from 1976 to 2012, accomplished very little. No named legislation, no named federal buildings or highways—thank goodness. In spite of my efforts, the government has grown exponentially, taxes remain excessive, and the prolific increase of incomprehensible regulations continues. Wars are constant and pursued without Congressional declaration, deficits rise to the sky, poverty is rampant and dependency on the federal government is now worse than any time in our history.

All this with minimal concerns for the deficits and unfunded liabilities that common sense tells us cannot go on much longer. A grand, but never mentioned, bipartisan agreement allows for the well-kept secret that keeps the spending going. One side doesn’t give up one penny on military spending, the other side doesn’t give up one penny on welfare spending, while both sides support the bailouts and subsidies for the banking and corporate elite. And the spending continues as the economy weakens and the downward spiral continues. As the government continues fiddling around, our liberties and our wealth burn in the flames of a foreign policy that makes us less safe.

The major stumbling block to real change in Washington is the total resistance to admitting that the country is broke. This has made compromising, just to agree to increase spending, inevitable since neither side has any intention of cutting spending.

The country and the Congress will remain divisive since there’s no “loot left to divvy up.”
Without this recognition the spenders in Washington will continue the march toward a fiscal cliff much bigger than the one anticipated this coming January.

I have thought a lot about why those of us who believe in liberty, as a solution, have done so poorly in convincing others of its benefits. If liberty is what we claim it is- the principle that protects all personal, social and economic decisions necessary for maximum prosperity and the best chance for peace- it should be an easy sell. Yet, history has shown that the masses have been quite receptive to the promises of authoritarians which are rarely if ever fulfilled.

Authoritarianism vs. Liberty

If authoritarianism leads to poverty and war and less freedom for all individuals and is controlled by rich special interests, the people should be begging for liberty. There certainly was a strong enough sentiment for more freedom at the time of our founding that motivated those who were willing to fight in the revolution against the powerful British government.

During my time in Congress the appetite for liberty has been quite weak; the understanding of its significance negligible. Yet the good news is that compared to 1976 when I first came to Congress, the desire for more freedom and less government in 2012 is much greater and growing, especially in grassroots America. Tens of thousands of teenagers and college age students are, with great enthusiasm, welcoming the message of liberty.

I have a few thoughts as to why the people of a country like ours, once the freest and most prosperous, allowed the conditions to deteriorate to the degree that they have.

Freedom, private property, and enforceable voluntary contracts, generate wealth. In our early history we were very much aware of this. But in the early part of the 20th century our politicians promoted the notion that the tax and monetary systems had to change if we were to involve ourselves in excessive domestic and military spending. That is why Congress gave us the Federal Reserve and the income tax. The majority of Americans and many government officials agreed that sacrificing some liberty was necessary to carry out what some claimed to be “progressive” ideas. Pure democracy became acceptable.

They failed to recognized that what they were doing was exactly opposite of what the colonists were seeking when they broke away from the British.

Some complain that my arguments makes no sense, since great wealth and the standard of living improved for many Americans over the last 100 years, even with these new policies.

But the damage to the market economy, and the currency, has been insidious and steady. It took a long time to consume our wealth, destroy the currency and undermine productivity and get our financial obligations to a point of no return. Confidence sometimes lasts longer than deserved. Most of our wealth today depends on debt.

The wealth that we enjoyed and seemed to be endless, allowed concern for the principle of a free society to be neglected. As long as most people believed the material abundance would last forever, worrying about protecting a competitive productive economy and individual liberty seemed unnecessary.

The Age of Redistribution

This neglect ushered in an age of redistribution of wealth by government kowtowing to any and all special interests, except for those who just wanted to left alone. That is why today money in politics far surpasses money currently going into research and development and productive entrepreneurial efforts.

The material benefits became more important than the understanding and promoting the principles of liberty and a free market. It is good that material abundance is a result of liberty but if materialism is all that we care about, problems are guaranteed.

The crisis arrived because the illusion that wealth and prosperity would last forever has ended. Since it was based on debt and a pretense that debt can be papered over by an out-of-control fiat monetary system, it was doomed to fail. We have ended up with a system that doesn’t produce enough even to finance the debt and no fundamental understanding of why a free society is crucial to reversing these trends.

If this is not recognized, the recovery will linger for a long time. Bigger government, more spending, more debt, more poverty for the middle class, and a more intense scramble by the elite special interests will continue.

We Need an Intellectual Awakening

Without an intellectual awakening, the turning point will be driven by economic law. A dollar crisis will bring the current out-of-control system to its knees.

If it’s not accepted that big government, fiat money, ignoring liberty, central economic planning, welfarism, and warfarism caused our crisis we can expect a continuous and dangerous march toward corporatism and even fascism with even more loss of our liberties. Prosperity for a large middle class though will become an abstract dream.

This continuous move is no different than what we have seen in how our financial crisis of 2008 was handled. Congress first directed, with bipartisan support, bailouts for the wealthy. Then it was the Federal Reserve with its endless quantitative easing. If at first it doesn’t succeed try again; QE1, QE2, and QE3 and with no results we try QE indefinitely—that is until it too fails. There’s a cost to all of this and let me assure you delaying the payment is no longer an option. The rules of the market will extract its pound of flesh and it won’t be pretty.

The current crisis elicits a lot of pessimism. And the pessimism adds to less confidence in the future. The two feed on themselves, making our situation worse.

If the underlying cause of the crisis is not understood we cannot solve our problems. The issues of warfare, welfare, deficits, inflationism, corporatism, bailouts and authoritarianism cannot be ignored. By only expanding these policies we cannot expect good results.

Everyone claims support for freedom. But too often it’s for one’s own freedom and not for others. Too many believe that there must be limits on freedom. They argue that freedom must be directed and managed to achieve fairness and equality thus making it acceptable to curtail, through force, certain liberties.

Some decide what and whose freedoms are to be limited. These are the politicians whose goal in life is power. Their success depends on gaining support from special interests.

No More ‘isms’

The great news is the answer is not to be found in more “isms.” The answers are to be found in more liberty which cost so much less. Under these circumstances spending goes down, wealth production goes up, and the quality of life improves.


Just this recognition—especially if we move in this direction—increases optimism which in itself is beneficial. The follow through with sound policies are required which must be understood and supported by the people.

But there is good evidence that the generation coming of age at the present time is supportive of moving in the direction of more liberty and self-reliance. The more this change in direction and the solutions become known, the quicker will be the return of optimism.

Our job, for those of us who believe that a different system than the one that we have had for the last 100 years, has driven us to this unsustainable crisis, is to be more convincing that there is a wonderful, uncomplicated, and moral system that provides the answers. We had a taste of it in our early history. We need not give up on the notion of advancing this cause.

It worked, but we allowed our leaders to concentrate on the material abundance that freedom generates, while ignoring freedom itself. Now we have neither, but the door is open, out of necessity, for an answer. The answer available is based on the Constitution, individual liberty and prohibiting the use of government force to provide privileges and benefits to all special interests.

After over 100 years we face a society quite different from the one that was intended by the Founders. In many ways their efforts to protect future generations with the Constitution from this danger has failed. Skeptics, at the time the Constitution was written in 1787, warned us of today’s possible outcome. The insidious nature of the erosion of our liberties and the reassurance our great abundance gave us, allowed the process to evolve into the dangerous period in which we now live.

Dependency on Government Largesse

Today we face a dependency on government largesse for almost every need. Our liberties are restricted and government operates outside the rule of law, protecting and rewarding those who buy or coerce government into satisfying their demands. Here are a few examples:

•Undeclared wars are commonplace.

•Welfare for the rich and poor is considered an entitlement.

•The economy is overregulated, overtaxed and grossly distorted by a deeply flawed monetary system.

•Debt is growing exponentially.

•The Patriot Act and FISA legislation passed without much debate have resulted in a steady erosion of our 4th Amendment rights.

•Tragically our government engages in preemptive war, otherwise known as aggression, with no complaints from the American people.

•The drone warfare we are pursuing worldwide is destined to end badly for us as the hatred builds for innocent lives lost and the international laws flaunted. Once we are financially weakened and militarily challenged, there will be a lot resentment thrown our way.

•It’s now the law of the land that the military can arrest American citizens, hold them indefinitely, without charges or a trial.

•Rampant hostility toward free trade is supported by a large number in Washington.

•Supporters of sanctions, currency manipulation and WTO trade retaliation, call the true free traders “isolationists.”

•Sanctions are used to punish countries that don’t follow our orders.

•Bailouts and guarantees for all kinds of misbehavior are routine.

•Central economic planning through monetary policy, regulations and legislative mandates has been an acceptable policy.

Questions

Excessive government has created such a mess it prompts many questions:

•Why are sick people who use medical marijuana put in prison?

•Why does the federal government restrict the drinking of raw milk?

•Why can’t Americans manufacturer rope and other products from hemp?

•Why are Americans not allowed to use gold and silver as legal tender as mandated by the Constitution?

•Why is Germany concerned enough to consider repatriating their gold held by the FED for her in New York? Is it that the trust in the U.S. and dollar supremacy beginning to wane?

•Why do our political leaders believe it’s unnecessary to thoroughly audit our own gold?

•Why can’t Americans decide which type of light bulbs they can buy?

•Why is the TSA permitted to abuse the rights of any American traveling by air?

•Why should there be mandatory sentences—even up to life for crimes without victims—as our drug laws require?

•Why have we allowed the federal government to regulate commodes in our homes?

•Why is it political suicide for anyone to criticize AIPAC ?

•Why haven’t we given up on the drug war since it’s an obvious failure and violates the people’s rights? Has nobody noticed that the authorities can’t even keep drugs out of the prisons? How can making our entire society a prison solve the problem?

•Why do we sacrifice so much getting needlessly involved in border disputes and civil strife around the world and ignore the root cause of the most deadly border in the world-the one between Mexico and the US?

•Why does Congress willingly give up its prerogatives to the Executive Branch?

•Why does changing the party in power never change policy? Could it be that the views of both parties are essentially the same?

•Why did the big banks, the large corporations, and foreign banks and foreign central banks get bailed out in 2008 and the middle class lost their jobs and their homes?

•Why do so many in the government and the federal officials believe that creating money out of thin air creates wealth?

•Why do so many accept the deeply flawed principle that government bureaucrats and politicians can protect us from ourselves without totally destroying the principle of liberty?

•Why can’t people understand that war always destroys wealth and liberty?

•Why is there so little concern for the Executive Order that gives the President authority to establish a “kill list,” including American citizens, of those targeted for assassination?

•Why is patriotism thought to be blind loyalty to the government and the politicians who run it, rather than loyalty to the principles of liberty and support for the people? Real patriotism is a willingness to challenge the government when it’s wrong.

•Why is it is claimed that if people won’t or can’t take care of their own needs, that people in government can do it for them?

•Why did we ever give the government a safe haven for initiating violence against the people?

•Why do some members defend free markets, but not civil liberties?

•Why do some members defend civil liberties but not free markets? Aren’t they the same?

•Why don’t more defend both economic liberty and personal liberty?

•Why are there not more individuals who seek to intellectually influence others to bring about positive changes than those who seek power to force others to obey their commands?

•Why does the use of religion to support a social gospel and preemptive wars, both of which requires authoritarians to use violence, or the threat of violence, go unchallenged? Aggression and forced redistribution of wealth has nothing to do with the teachings of the world great religions.

•Why do we allow the government and the Federal Reserve to disseminate false information dealing with both economic and foreign policy?

•Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority?

•Why should anyone be surprised that Congress has no credibility, since there’s such a disconnect between what politicians say and what they do?

•Is there any explanation for all the deception, the unhappiness, the fear of the future, the loss of confidence in our leaders, the distrust, the anger and frustration? Yes there is, and there’s a way to reverse these attitudes. The negative perceptions are logical and a consequence of bad policies bringing about our problems. Identification of the problems and recognizing the cause allow the proper changes to come easy.

Trust Yourself, Not the Government

Too many people have for too long placed too much confidence and trust in government and not enough in themselves. Fortunately, many are now becoming aware of the seriousness of the gross mistakes of the past several decades. The blame is shared by both political parties. Many Americans now are demanding to hear the plain truth of things and want the demagoguing to stop. Without this first step, solutions are impossible.

Seeking the truth and finding the answers in liberty and self-reliance promotes the optimism necessary for restoring prosperity. The task is not that difficult if politics doesn’t get in the way.

We have allowed ourselves to get into such a mess for various reasons.

Politicians deceive themselves as to how wealth is produced. Excessive confidence is placed in the judgment of politicians and bureaucrats. This replaces the confidence in a free society. Too many in high places of authority became convinced that only they, armed with arbitrary government power, can bring about fairness, while facilitating wealth production. This always proves to be a utopian dream and destroys wealth and liberty. It impoverishes the people and rewards the special interests who end up controlling both political parties.

It’s no surprise then that much of what goes on in Washington is driven by aggressive partisanship and power seeking, with philosophic differences being minor.

Economic Ignorance

Economic ignorance is commonplace. Keynesianism continues to thrive, although today it is facing healthy and enthusiastic rebuttals. Believers in military Keynesianism and domestic Keynesianism continue to desperately promote their failed policies, as the economy languishes in a deep slumber.

Supporters of all government edicts use humanitarian arguments to justify them.

Humanitarian arguments are always used to justify government mandates related to the economy, monetary policy, foreign policy, and personal liberty. This is on purpose to make it more difficult to challenge. But, initiating violence for humanitarian reasons is still violence. Good intentions are no excuse and are just as harmful as when people use force with bad intentions. The results are always negative.

The immoral use of force is the source of man’s political problems. Sadly, many religious groups, secular organizations, and psychopathic authoritarians endorse government initiated force to change the world. Even when the desired goals are well-intentioned—or especially when well-intentioned—the results are dismal. The good results sought never materialize. The new problems created require even more government force as a solution. The net result is institutionalizing government initiated violence and morally justifying it on humanitarian grounds.

This is the same fundamental reason our government uses force for invading other countries at will, central economic planning at home, and the regulation of personal liberty and habits of our citizens.

It is rather strange, that unless one has a criminal mind and no respect for other people and their property, no one claims it’s permissible to go into one’s neighbor’s house and tell them how to behave, what they can eat, smoke and drink or how to spend their money.

Yet, rarely is it asked why it is morally acceptable that a stranger with a badge and a gun can do the same thing in the name of law and order. Any resistance is met with brute force, fines, taxes, arrests, and even imprisonment. This is done more frequently every day without a proper search warrant.

No Government Monopoly over Initiating Violence

Restraining aggressive behavior is one thing, but legalizing a government monopoly for initiating aggression can only lead to exhausting liberty associated with chaos, anger and the breakdown of civil society. Permitting such authority and expecting saintly behavior from the bureaucrats and the politicians is a pipe dream. We now have a standing army of armed bureaucrats in the TSA, CIA, FBI, Fish and Wildlife, FEMA, IRS, Corp of Engineers, etc. numbering over 100,000. Citizens are guilty until proven innocent in the unconstitutional administrative courts.

Government in a free society should have no authority to meddle in social activities or the economic transactions of individuals. Nor should government meddle in the affairs of other nations. All things peaceful, even when controversial, should be permitted.

We must reject the notion of prior restraint in economic activity just we do in the area of free speech and religious liberty. But even in these areas government is starting to use a backdoor approach of political correctness to regulate speech-a dangerous trend. Since 9/11 monitoring speech on the internet is now a problem since warrants are no longer required.

The Proliferation of Federal Crimes

The Constitution established four federal crimes. Today the experts can’t even agree on how many federal crimes are now on the books—they number into the thousands. No one person can comprehend the enormity of the legal system—especially the tax code. Due to the ill-advised drug war and the endless federal expansion of the criminal code we have over 6 million people under correctional suspension, more than the Soviets ever had, and more than any other nation today, including China. I don’t understand the complacency of the Congress and the willingness to continue their obsession with passing more Federal laws. Mandatory sentencing laws associated with drug laws have compounded our prison problems.

The federal register is now 75,000 pages long and the tax code has 72,000 pages, and expands every year. When will the people start shouting, “enough is enough,” and demand Congress cease and desist.

Achieving Liberty

Liberty can only be achieved when government is denied the aggressive use of force. If one seeks liberty, a precise type of government is needed. To achieve it, more than lip service is required.

Two choices are available.

1. A government designed to protect liberty—a natural right—as its sole objective. The people are expected to care for themselves and reject the use of any force for interfering with another person’s liberty. Government is given a strictly limited authority to enforce contracts, property ownership, settle disputes, and defend against foreign aggression.

2. A government that pretends to protect liberty but is granted power to arbitrarily use force over the people and foreign nations. Though the grant of power many times is meant to be small and limited, it inevitably metastasizes into an omnipotent political cancer. This is the problem for which the world has suffered throughout the ages. Though meant to be limited it nevertheless is a 100% sacrifice of a principle that would-be-tyrants find irresistible. It is used vigorously—though incrementally and insidiously. Granting power to government officials always proves the adage that: “power corrupts.”

Once government gets a limited concession for the use of force to mold people habits and plan the economy, it causes a steady move toward tyrannical government. Only a revolutionary spirit can reverse the process and deny to the government this arbitrary use of aggression. There’s no in-between. Sacrificing a little liberty for imaginary safety always ends badly.

Today’s mess is a result of Americans accepting option #2, even though the Founders attempted to give us Option #1.

The results are not good. As our liberties have been eroded our wealth has been consumed. The wealth we see today is based on debt and a foolish willingness on the part of foreigners to take our dollars for goods and services. They then loan them back to us to perpetuate our debt system. It’s amazing that it has worked for this long but the impasse in Washington, in solving our problems indicate that many are starting to understand the seriousness of the world -wide debt crisis and the dangers we face. The longer this process continues the harsher the outcome will be.

The Financial Crisis Is a Moral Crisis

Many are now acknowledging that a financial crisis looms but few understand it’s, in reality, a moral crisis. It’s the moral crisis that has allowed our liberties to be undermined and permits the exponential growth of illegal government power. Without a clear understanding of the nature of the crisis it will be difficult to prevent a steady march toward tyranny and the poverty that will accompany it.

Ultimately, the people have to decide which form of government they want; option #1 or option #2. There is no other choice. Claiming there is a choice of a “little” tyranny is like describing pregnancy as a “touch of pregnancy.” It is a myth to believe that a mixture of free markets and government central economic planning is a worthy compromise. What we see today is a result of that type of thinking. And the results speak for themselves.

A Culture of Violence

American now suffers from a culture of violence. It’s easy to reject the initiation of violence against one’s neighbor but it’s ironic that the people arbitrarily and freely anoint government officials with monopoly power to initiate violence against the American people—practically at will.

Because it’s the government that initiates force, most people accept it as being legitimate. Those who exert the force have no sense of guilt. It is believed by too many that governments are morally justified in initiating force supposedly to “do good.” They incorrectly believe that this authority has come from the “consent of the people.” The minority, or victims of government violence never consented to suffer the abuse of government mandates, even when dictated by the majority. Victims of TSA excesses never consented to this abuse.

This attitude has given us a policy of initiating war to “do good,” as well. It is claimed that war, to prevent war for noble purposes, is justified. This is similar to what we were once told that: “destroying a village to save a village” was justified. It was said by a US Secretary of State that the loss of 500,000 Iraqis, mostly children, in the 1990s, as a result of American bombs and sanctions, was “worth it” to achieve the “good” we brought to the Iraqi people. And look at the mess that Iraq is in today.

Government use of force to mold social and economic behavior at home and abroad has justified individuals using force on their own terms. The fact that violence by government is seen as morally justified, is the reason why violence will increase when the big financial crisis hits and becomes a political crisis as well.

First, we recognize that individuals shouldn’t initiate violence, then we give the authority to government. Eventually, the immoral use of government violence, when things goes badly, will be used to justify an individual’s “right” to do the same thing. Neither the government nor individuals have the moral right to initiate violence against another yet we are moving toward the day when both will claim this authority. If this cycle is not reversed society will break down.

When needs are pressing, conditions deteriorate and rights become relative to the demands and the whims of the majority. It’s then not a great leap for individuals to take it upon themselves to use violence to get what they claim is theirs. As the economy deteriorates and the wealth discrepancies increase—as are already occurring— violence increases as those in need take it in their own hands to get what they believe is theirs. They will not wait for a government rescue program.

When government officials wield power over others to bail out the special interests, even with disastrous results to the average citizen, they feel no guilt for the harm they do. Those who take us into undeclared wars with many casualties resulting, never lose sleep over the death and destruction their bad decisions caused. They are convinced that what they do is morally justified, and the fact that many suffer just can’t be helped.

When the street criminals do the same thing, they too have no remorse, believing they are only taking what is rightfully theirs. All moral standards become relative. Whether it’s bailouts, privileges, government subsidies or benefits for some from inflating a currency, it’s all part of a process justified by a philosophy of forced redistribution of wealth. Violence, or a threat of such, is the instrument required and unfortunately is of little concern of most members of Congress.

Some argue it’s only a matter of “fairness” that those in need are cared for. There are two problems with this. First, the principle is used to provide a greater amount of benefits to the rich than the poor. Second, no one seems to be concerned about whether or not it’s fair to those who end up paying for the benefits. The costs are usually placed on the backs of the middle class and are hidden from the public eye. Too many people believe government handouts are free, like printing money out of thin air, and there is no cost. That deception is coming to an end. The bills are coming due and that’s what the economic slowdown is all about.

Sadly, we have become accustomed to living with the illegitimate use of force by government. It is the tool for telling the people how to live, what to eat and drink, what to read and how to spend their money.

To develop a truly free society, the issue of initiating force must be understood and rejected. Granting to government even a small amount of force is a dangerous concession.

Limiting Government Excesses vs. a Virtuous Moral People

Our Constitution, which was intended to limit government power and abuse, has failed. The Founders warned that a free society depends on a virtuous and moral people. The current crisis reflects that their concerns were justified.

Most politicians and pundits are aware of the problems we face but spend all their time in trying to reform government. The sad part is that the suggested reforms almost always lead to less freedom and the importance of a virtuous and moral people is either ignored, or not understood. The new reforms serve only to further undermine liberty. The compounding effect has given us this steady erosion of liberty and the massive expansion of debt. The real question is: if it is liberty we seek, should most of the emphasis be placed on government reform or trying to understand what “a virtuous and moral people” means and how to promote it. The Constitution has not prevented the people from demanding handouts for both rich and poor in their efforts to reform the government, while ignoring the principles of a free society. All branches of our government today are controlled by individuals who use their power to undermine liberty and enhance the welfare/warfare state-and frequently their own wealth and power.

If the people are unhappy with the government performance it must be recognized that government is merely a reflection of an immoral society that rejected a moral government of constitutional limitations of power and love of freedom.

If this is the problem all the tinkering with thousands of pages of new laws and regulations will do nothing to solve the problem.

It is self-evident that our freedoms have been severely limited and the apparent prosperity we still have, is nothing more than leftover wealth from a previous time. This fictitious wealth based on debt and benefits from a false trust in our currency and credit, will play havoc with our society when the bills come due. This means that the full consequence of our lost liberties is yet to be felt.

But that illusion is now ending. Reversing a downward spiral depends on accepting a new approach.

Expect the rapidly expanding homeschooling movement to play a significant role in the revolutionary reforms needed to build a free society with Constitutional protections. We cannot expect a Federal government controlled school system to provide the intellectual ammunition to combat the dangerous growth of government that threatens our liberties.

The internet will provide the alternative to the government/media complex that controls the news and most political propaganda. This is why it’s essential that the internet remains free of government regulation.

Many of our religious institutions and secular organizations support greater dependency on the state by supporting war, welfare and corporatism and ignore the need for a virtuous people.

I never believed that the world or our country could be made more free by politicians, if the people had no desire for freedom.

Under the current circumstances the most we can hope to achieve in the political process is to use it as a podium to reach the people to alert them of the nature of the crisis and the importance of their need to assume responsibility for themselves, if it is liberty that they truly seek. Without this, a constitutionally protected free society is impossible.

If this is true, our individual goal in life ought to be for us to seek virtue and excellence and recognize that self-esteem and happiness only comes from using one’s natural ability, in the most productive manner possible, according to one’s own talents.

Productivity and creativity are the true source of personal satisfaction. Freedom, and not dependency, provides the environment needed to achieve these goals. Government cannot do this for us; it only gets in the way. When the government gets involved, the goal becomes a bailout or a subsidy and these cannot provide a sense of personal achievement.

Achieving legislative power and political influence should not be our goal. Most of the change, if it is to come, will not come from the politicians, but rather from individuals, family, friends, intellectual leaders and our religious institutions. The solution can only come from rejecting the use of coercion, compulsion, government commands, and aggressive force, to mold social and economic behavior. Without accepting these restraints, inevitably the consensus will be to allow the government to mandate economic equality and obedience to the politicians who gain power and promote an environment that smothers the freedoms of everyone. It is then that the responsible individuals who seek excellence and self-esteem by being self-reliance and productive, become the true victims.

Conclusion

What are the greatest dangers that the American people face today and impede the goal of a free society? There are five.

1. The continuous attack on our civil liberties which threatens the rule of law and our ability to resist the onrush of tyranny.

2. Violent anti-Americanism that has engulfed the world. Because the phenomenon of “blow-back” is not understood or denied, our foreign policy is destined to keep us involved in many wars that we have no business being in. National bankruptcy and a greater threat to our national security will result.

3. The ease in which we go to war, without a declaration by Congress, but accepting international authority from the UN or NATO even for preemptive wars, otherwise known as aggression.

4. A financial political crisis as a consequence of excessive debt, unfunded liabilities, spending, bailouts, and gross discrepancy in wealth distribution going from the middle class to the rich. The danger of central economic planning, by the Federal Reserve must be understood.

5. World government taking over local and US sovereignty by getting involved in the issues of war, welfare, trade, banking, a world currency, taxes, property ownership, and private ownership of guns.

Happily, there is an answer for these very dangerous trends.

What a wonderful world it would be if everyone accepted the simple moral premise of rejecting all acts of aggression. The retort to such a suggestion is always: it’s too simplistic, too idealistic, impractical, naïve, utopian, dangerous, and unrealistic to strive for such an ideal.

The answer to that is that for thousands of years the acceptance of government force, to rule over the people, at the sacrifice of liberty, was considered moral and the only available option for achieving peace and prosperity.

What could be more utopian than that myth—considering the results especially looking at the state sponsored killing, by nearly every government during the 20th Century, estimated to be in the hundreds of millions. It’s time to reconsider this grant of authority to the state.

No good has ever come from granting monopoly power to the state to use aggression against the people to arbitrarily mold human behavior. Such power, when left unchecked, becomes the seed of an ugly tyranny. This method of governance has been adequately tested, and the results are in: reality dictates we try liberty.

The idealism of non-aggression and rejecting all offensive use of force should be tried. The idealism of government sanctioned violence has been abused throughout history and is the primary source of poverty and war. The theory of a society being based on individual freedom has been around for a long time. It’s time to take a bold step and actually permit it by advancing this cause, rather than taking a step backwards as some would like us to do.

Today the principle of habeas corpus, established when King John signed the Magna Carta in 1215, is under attack. There’s every reason to believe that a renewed effort with the use of the internet that we can instead advance the cause of liberty by spreading an uncensored message that will serve to rein in government authority and challenge the obsession with war and welfare.

What I’m talking about is a system of government guided by the moral principles of peace and tolerance.

The Founders were convinced that a free society could not exist without a moral people. Just writing rules won’t work if the people choose to ignore them. Today the rule of law written in the Constitution has little meaning for most Americans, especially those who work in Washington DC.

Benjamin Franklin claimed “only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.” John Adams concurred: “Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

A moral people must reject all violence in an effort to mold people’s beliefs or habits.

A society that boos or ridicules the Golden Rule is not a moral society. All great religions endorse the Golden Rule. The same moral standards that individuals are required to follow should apply to all government officials. They cannot be exempt.

The ultimate solution is not in the hands of the government.

The solution falls on each and every individual, with guidance from family, friends and community.

The #1 responsibility for each of us is to change ourselves with hope that others will follow. This is of greater importance than working on changing the government; that is secondary to promoting a virtuous society. If we can achieve this, then the government will change.

It doesn’t mean that political action or holding office has no value. At times it does nudge policy in the right direction. But what is true is that when seeking office is done for personal aggrandizement, money or power, it becomes useless if not harmful. When political action is taken for the right reasons it’s easy to understand why compromise should be avoided. It also becomes clear why progress is best achieved by working with coalitions, which bring people together, without anyone sacrificing his principles.

Political action, to be truly beneficial, must be directed toward changing the hearts and minds of the people, recognizing that it’s the virtue and morality of the people that allow liberty to flourish.

The Constitution or more laws per se, have no value if the people’s attitudes aren’t changed.

To achieve liberty and peace, two powerful human emotions have to be overcome. Number one is “envy” which leads to hate and class warfare. Number two is “intolerance” which leads to bigoted and judgemental policies. These emotions must be replaced with a much better understanding of love, compassion, tolerance and free market economics. Freedom, when understood, brings people together. When tried, freedom is popular.

The problem we have faced over the years has been that economic interventionists are swayed by envy, whereas social interventionists are swayed by intolerance of habits and lifestyles. The misunderstanding that tolerance is an endorsement of certain activities, motivates many to legislate moral standards which should only be set by individuals making their own choices. Both sides use force to deal with these misplaced emotions. Both are authoritarians. Neither endorses voluntarism. Both views ought to be rejected.

I have come to one firm conviction after these many years of trying to figure out “the plain truth of things.” The best chance for achieving peace and prosperity, for the maximum number of people world-wide, is to pursue the cause of LIBERTY.

If you find this to be a worthwhile message, spread it throughout the land.

Consider it done !  Please spread this, link it on FB, whatever is necessary....