Wasted Paper


“End the lies! Give responsibility back to the people. The government was not founded to regulate life… only to represent the minorities across this nation on an international scale and to secure freedom for all with limitations to none.”

Donnie Davis, Feb 10, 2017

The American dollar is worth nothing, more or less, when compared to the silver certificates of yesteryear. Our currency is inflated, to this we can all agree, yes?

Ok, so our currency is inflated exponentially over time, during which, we have seen more and more government control of our markets. Since the birth of “controlled monopolization” as I like to call it, or government assured markets, our jobs have been shipped overseas, “minimum wage” has fallen way below where it needs to be (matter of opinion), the price of goods skyrocketed, stock markets crashed, too big to exist corporations falter and fail then are bailed out by our government who now owns them more or less, corrupt bankers give loans, and crashed marketplaces for profit, etc etc etc….. all while under the strict eye of big brother government.

We have seen that more regulations bring about cronyism, the controlled monopolies I was speaking about earlier. This is where lobbyist and politicians band together to not give business licenses to new businesses because it will threaten the profit margins of the already established monopoly that is secured through “law”. Not ending there, we have lobbyist. People that are paid to “persuade” politicians to vote in corporate interest by any means possible, the literal definition of corruption. Yet it’s legalized and nobody’s doing anything about it. We [libertarians] are one of the only parties who have this as a main issue of concern. Moving on, we have the mis-informed public, who have never seen what a free market actually is, that has to suffer the checks and balances of social justice. Meaning that if a corporation is immoral in its business practices that it will suffer profit loss. The common idea that monopolies will be rampant and take over the nation are a fallacy. Child labor is a fallacy. People need to stand up and take responsibility for their society. Personal responsibility goes a long way in libertarian ideas. If someone is willing to shorthand themselves, good for them. Hopefully they will learn that through pride in oneself that they can demand their employer to raise their wage to an acceptable level or find a new occupation. It is literally that easy.

If you wouldn’t send your kids to go work in sweatshops, take a wage that is not worth the job, or support monopolization…. why do you think anyone else will? Probably because they have been lied to their entire lives to believe that this is the best that it can ever be.


*Follow us at www.facebook.com/AskALibertarian



Libertarianism and Farming: A Two Part Article


farming2Amanda Perkins-January 29, 2017

Henry Kissinger once said, “If you control the food supply, you control the people.” This could not be more true today. Through government regulations, subsidies, and a highly controlled market, the US government controls a large chunk of the world by controlling the food supply.

Libertarianism and Small Farming Operations

Let’s say you run a small farm, which is defined by the USDA as one that grows and sells between $1,000 and $250,000 per year in agricultural products, which can include livestock, eggs/dairy, feed/fuel crops, fruits, vegetables, or any combination thereof. The government currently taxes the land the farmer owns and the money he makes throughout the year in order to pay for regular inspections provided through the USDA and often times, local authorities if someone deems the farming practices unorthodox.

In order to support small farms and their inhabitants, libertarians believe in abolishing the USDA and forcing a free market system. Without intense government regulation over what can be grown, how it can be grown, and how it can be marketed, small farms can take advantage of farm to table, herd sharing (an agreement where consumers pay a farmer a fee for boarding their livestock and caring for the livestock. The consumer then gets the product: milk, eggs, meat at no cost). This free market system would put an end to mono-cropping (practice of planting the same crop season after season on the same land, no crop rotation, no soil regeneration), therefore diversifying the products produced and assisting the soil in regenerating nutrients without forcing farmers to conserve land by threat of fines, imprisonment, and loss of land.

What does this mean for you as a consumer?

  • It means that the products grown will be exactly what the market is demanding. If the consumers want more tomato varieties, the farmers will have to abide by their wishes or lose business.
  • Certain government benefit plans would be cut and passed straight to charitable organizations for management. No more Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Plan. SNAP currently works with states and faith based agencies to provide a food safety net. Without government support, this program would most likely be passed straight to the community outreach centers, eliminating unnecessary regulations, red tape, and wasteful spending, while allowing the community to support their members in the best ways possible.
  • Genetically Modified Organisms, GMOs, would not have to label themselves as such, but for the transparency of the market, may choose to do so on their own. To mandate companies to produce products in a certain way or label them in a particular fashion would be an act of aggression against the manufacturer by the government. Alternatively, organic products, non-GMOs, and heirloom varieties of food would also have the option to label themselves or leave it to consumers to research their own food sources. But who will protect us from false labeling?! Currently, many third party consumer advocates will test products to verify the information on labels and report it to the public. Watchdog testers are already operating in the food world, so it would not be terribly difficult for these consumer advocates to expand their label library and inform the public with what they need to know independent of government overrule.

How will the Libertarian Party help small farmers?

  • Libertarians want to eliminate the inheritance tax, meaning sons and daughters won’t have to worry about paying the taxes on hundreds of acres of undeveloped farmland. Small farms are known to be land rich, but money poor. This leads to many family farms and homesteads being taken away for back taxes.
  • By eliminating subsidies and price management on cash crops, such as corn and soy, small farmers have just as much chance to sell their products as large factory operations.
  • Maximum crop allotments would be prohibited allowing farmers to sell as much of a product as they want, in whatever quantities suit their buyer, whenever they want.
  • Less government regulation also means that farmers are free to sell products that have been “off limits” for quite some time. Raw dairy, unwashed eggs, and home butchered meats are the perfect example. Currently, in some states, these products are banned because the government finds them unsafe to consume. With consumers steering the market, the individual buyers have the option to choose what suits them and their family’s needs. The production and consumption of these goods will be driven by customers. A bad reputation for unsanitary product conditions will ruin a small farm faster than a government imposed fine.
  • Bringing an end to the Surface Transportation Board, formerly the Interstate Commerce Commission, which has oversight of railroads, trucking companies, pipelines, and every other over land transportation method. They currently regulate rates, construction, and services of the aforementioned modes of transportation. This board is currently exempt from federal, state, and local laws to best provide regulatory services. The STB has a policy of forcing the setting of “reasonable and just rates” instead of encouraging competition which would drive down transportation costs for shipping goods.

Libertarians and Large Scale/Corporate Farming

Corporate farms may have started as family run operations, but their production methods differ greatly and are in direct opposition with libertarian views on business. Deregulating the production of food sources put the power into consumers’ hands, instead of in the hands of Big Agri-Business.

  • Corporate farms have a high input, high output mentality. By growing cash crops continuously, they deplete soil nutrients, which leads to the use of more chemicals, many of which are hard to control. Libertarians have no issue with using chemicals or GMOs in farming, but they do have a problem when those products affect the surrounding land that may not utilize those practices. “Don’t tread on me” also includes land, private business, and mode of production.
  • By discontinuing subsidies for cash crops, the monetary output per acre for Big Ag will plummet. Those that only grow corn and soy will lose revenue unless they can find better ways to market their product.
  • Never fear, the Libertarian Party also has a solution for that! By eliminating ethanol limits in gasoline, corn can be fermented and distilled into oxygenating biomass to produce cleaner burning fuel. Most of the gasoline sold in the United States is based an E10 rating, which means 10% ethanol, 90% gasoline. Corn is currently used heavily in the production of E85 fuels. Corn oil is also used in the biodiesel industry, again burning cleaner and more efficient than traditional fuel. So although corn prices will initially drop due to the elimination of government subsidies, good business practices and marketing have the opportunity to bump the price right back up without any federal assistance.

Although libertarians want to abolish the USDA and EPA, that doesn’t mean there is no concern for public safety or environmental wellness. Libertarians preach individual responsibility which would include making the best food choices for your family and taking care of the land around you. Trusting government to choose what is safe and unsafe is like trusting the government to pick your daily wardrobe. Only you know what’s best for your body. Why should the modes of production for the foods you consume be anyone’s choice but your own?






*Follow us at www.facebook.com/AskALibertarian


Voting & Gun Rights Restored for Non-Violent Drug Offenders?


“Arguably, the government had no authority to “take” the right of self-protection in the first place, it being a natural right, protected-from, NOT bestowed-by, government. By contrast, the “right” to vote is a privilege bestowed by government. Further, any “crime” which did not involve depriving, or attempting to deprive, another person of life, liberty, or property, is in fact no crime at all. The State, not being a person, cannot be a victim. That stipulated, anyone not actually incarcerated should retain all rights belonging to any other citizen.”

J.D. Parks-Ask A Libertarian- Jan 26, 2017

Further Reading:

Restoring Voting Rights for Former Felons

Felon Voting Rights

House votes to let nonviolent ex-felons restore gun rights

Federal Lawsuit Could Restore Gun Rights To Nonviolent Felons


*Contest Winner Mr. J.D. Parks was selected based on the articulation of his argument which made persuasive points that we feel best represents the libertarian perspective on “voting and gun rights for those convicted of non-violent drug offenses.


*Follow us at www.facebook.com/AskALibertarian

Money vs Wealth


Eliyahu Neiman-Jan 23, 2017

Do the wealthy accumulate their riches at the expense of the poor? Some believe that wealth inequality means that the poor must be losing out – because, after all, there is only so much money to go around. However, this is not exactly true. To see why, it is important to understand the difference between money and wealth.

Consider a case focusing on only two people: a tool manufacturer and a contractor. Say that the manufacturer pays the contractor $100,000 to build a production facility. Over the course of a year, the contractor buys $100,000 in tools from the manufacturer. Having paid off his initial investment, the manufacturer now pays $100,000 to the contractor to expand his facility.

How much money has changed hands? Apparently, only $100,000 – three times. But how much wealth has been created? The tool manufacturer has produced $100,000 worth of tools for the contractor. The contractor has built $200,000 worth of construction for the manufacturer. Our two-person economy now contains $400,000 in wealth. It is richer by $300,000. In fact, that would be its GDP if it were a country.

How is it possible that only $100,000 of money has created $300,000 of wealth? The secret is that money is not actually worth anything – other than as a means of exchange. Money represents a collective IOU that can be collected from anyone at all. This allows anyone to use their skill set to create wealth on behalf of anyone else,  requiring nothing in return but an anonymous IOU. Those who find ways to create wealth for consumers accumulate money, which they can exchange for other forms of wealth. This is the reward that the free market delivers for serving consumers. If Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have more money than anyone else, it is because they have created real wealth for consumers, and used their initial profits to create more wealth for consumers to purchase.

Two government activities are particularly harmful to this process:

1. High taxes. By confiscating the IOUs, government becomes the new recipient of the wealth owed in exchange for creative activity. This reduces the reward for wealth creation. (Equivalently, it diminishes the purchasing power of consumers). If government then spends this money on activities which don’t create wealth (i.e. goods or services that don’t improve people’s lives), then it has wasted resources, making them unavailable for real wealth creation.

2. Overregulation. If a small business owner cannot afford to spend the time and energy, or to purchase the additional equipment, required by government regulations, they may not have enough remaining resources to create wealth at a price that consumers are willing to pay. Overregulation can shut down the means of wealth production entirely.

In short, money is just an IOU, or stand-in for real wealth. Anyone, rich or poor, who can sell their services to a consumer has not only earned a share of their own wealth – they have contributed more wealth to the whole economy. Taxing the creation of wealth harms everyone; this is because everyone benefits from being able to purchase the goods and services that wealth creators produce. Policies that benefit poor people most are those that encourage and enable them to create valuable goods and services. When more people are able to create and contribute to the economy, we all become richer.


*Follow us at www.facebook.com/AskALibertarian

Show support for Liberty!

Our friends over at “Libertarian for President 2020″ created these Facebook profile banners so we can spread awareness of the growing Libertarian Movement. If you haven’t already, please check out their Facebook page.

Vote Libertarian, Your Freedom Depends On it!



*Follow us at www.facebook.com/AskALibertarian

Legal Theft


legal-theft  Donnie Davis- Jan 11, 2017

Legal theft: The passage of laws that their sole purpose is to extort the citizens for creating revenue in the community in which the laws apply. This style of criminalization is done by making an action illegal that has no victim and does not harm property under the guise of protecting the community or protecting people from themselves.

Taylor Trupiano, who left his car running with the keys in the ignition, has been labeled a criminal by his community, or better yet, the politicians who passed this legislation have labeled him a criminal for using his property as he willed with no harm being done to anyone or anything.

Again, he was ticketed for a misdemeanor crime of leaving HIS car, his own property, running with the keys in the ignition with it not affecting anyone except his own pocket.

Frederick Mercado, the Libertarian candidate for Michigan State Representative in the 57th district, who will be taking on rogue legislation come 2018 aimed at reducing or eliminating victimless crimes or infractions which do nothing further to protect our community other than scheme at revenue building, was appalled at the actions of local law enforcement, and that laws have been passed which criminalized non-criminal behavior had this to say:

“No harm had come to anyone, and this is not what Michigan needs as something counter to common sense legislation. We need to be able to trust people to make their own decisions as adults, whether it involves risk. Honestly, it’s wasteful spending on behalf of our government and resources to cite people for these types of offenses, wasting officer and judicial time. Citizens should feel secure in their person and property, while trusting law enforcement to apprehend those who intend on harming us.”

There are many instances of this in modern American life; food distribution licenses that are needed to serve food as a charity to the homeless; drivers licenses that do not keep the roads safer by keeping unsafe drivers off the road;  gun laws, drug laws, traffic laws, and any other form of social control legislation that is geared towards protecting people from others through oppression of their freedom or to protect people from themselves.

The idea of protectionism is defined as the passing of laws to keep citizens from performing any action that society does not condone aside from the already illegal acts of violating someone’s life/health, liberty, and property. Our society has become so attuned to using a protectionism train of thought that people want to control other people by passing laws so they may not be able to do that thing that they don’t like. This is a real issue that this nation has and this train of thought/law making is violating everyone’s freedoms.

Benjamin Franklin said it best when he engraved our first national coinage, “Mind Your Business.” If it does not affect you or society, it is their liberty to do as they please.

Be a good neighbor. Allow your neighbors the freedom to do as they please as you would like the freedom to do the same.

*Follow us at www.facebook.com/AskALibertarian

Why I’m a Libertarian

Jennifer Andreas-  Jan 4, 2017

I’m a member of the Libertarian Party. A short articulation of why is “my body, my choice.” One might reasonably assume I’m referring to my right to choose regarding abortion or recreational drug use, and I do support both, but to claim that is the whole story would be a superficial reading of my commitment to liberty. “My body, my choice” as a maxim must extend to the choice to sell one’s own sexual services. Otherwise, it is a shallow refrain with little meaning and less impact.

It is perplexing when pro-choice advocates, with whom I largely agree, have boo to say regarding an individual’s natural right to sell their own body as a commodity. Or, even worse, when they reject that right.

Consider the positon of feminist scholar Andrea Dworkin. Regarding abortion, Dworkin claims the state has a duty to provide the legal option to terminate any pregnancy; she asserts abortion is, in fact, a civil right. This argument turns on two claims, one more controversial than the other.

The first claim is that because terminating a pregnancy is a medical procedure which only women can undergo, denying abortive services violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. The second, more provocative claim, is that the patriarchal culture in which we live and which is supported by the state, conditions toxic gender roles; men are trained and conditioned to be sexually dominant and women, against their own self-interest, to find pleasure in submission. Thus, Dworkin concludes sex is always a coercive act and becoming pregnant can never be interpreted as a free choice. Additionally, the state ought to be considered complicit in every unwanted pregnancy. Drawing again from the 14th amendment and a state’s obligation to promote gender equality, the state must provide legal means by which those pregnancies can be terminated.

Now, one can reasonably reject the premise that all sex is coercive and still recognize the fundamental right of individuals to bodily autonomy. Dworkin rightly points out the state is largely responsible for the systemic oppression and patriarchy in our society. However, when it comes to the question of whether a woman-or any individual-should be free from government reprisal for prostitution, she gives the state a pass.

Even though she argues the state must provide legal means of abortion, she contends prostitution ought to remain illegal and this puzzles me. Dworkin, a powerful communicator and writer of feminist ideas, seems to ignore the danger her theoretical arguments present to real sex workers, most of whom are women. Because the sexual marketplace remains illicit, prostitutes are left without the legal redress of monetary and physical damages incurred in their line of work. Not only are these individuals deprived of legal protections, their workplace itself is made exponentially more dangerous because it exists in the shadows.

Furthermore, those who argue for the continued prohibition of prostitution don’t seem to recognize that individuals with felony records are unlikely to break free from poverty and oppression. Having a felony diminishes the likelihood of obtaining employment and with no other means to support themselves or loved ones, individuals (again, mostly women) return to the sex trade, perpetually trapped.

Liberty is the solution to these problems, not institutionalized paternalism. The Libertarian Party recognizes, as Dworkin did, the state is culpable for perpetuating a cycle of oppression. But, by supporting an individual’s liberty to engage in the sex market with a legal safety net, the Libertarian Party stands taller than those who simply want the freedom to terminate pregnancies or use drugs. The Libertarian Party is working to liberate those women forced into sexual slavery and to encourage voluntary individual entrepreneurship. That’s why I am a Libertarian.

Further reading:

Women Hating by Andrea Dworkin

Intercourse by Andrea Dworkin

*Follow us at www.facebook.com/AskALibertarian



Melissa Davis – Contributing Editor – 11/17/16

The discussion on Universal Basic Income (UBI) is becoming more prevalent across the globe. Countries including Canada, the Netherlands, as well as the Dutch city of Utrecht are developing pilot programs to test its effectiveness. FinlandIndia, and France are considering UBI as an option to streamline government welfare programs. Though there are still many unknown variables, an incremental approach may prove to be a viable solution to resolving the disastrous mess that is our welfare system here in the United States.

According to an article posted by FiveThirtyEight: What Would Happen If We Just Gave People Money?  The “U.S. government spends nearly $1 trillion across dozens of separate programs at the state and federal level…This all requires enormous administrative oversight on the part of the government, and it requires the ability to navigate multiple agencies on the part of recipients.” “In the U.S., we’re left with a patchwork benefits system, an indecipherable alphabet soup of programs: SNAP, TANF, CHIP, Section 8, EITC, WIC, SSDI.” “The problems with this system go beyond its complicated structure. Because eligibility for most social assistance is based on income (or is “means-tested”), recipients lose their benefits as they earn more income — this is often labeled the “welfare trap” or “poverty trap.”

We are all aware of the “poverty trap” where recipients on such programs cannot earn income in addition to the assistance they receive from the government, discouraging work even if one is capable in slight capacity. This leads to either hiding extra income through “under the table” cash payments or non-efforts by the recipient to seek extra income elsewhere. With UBI, these limitations would not be relevant. Therefore, if one chose to seek extra income, to better their life through education, and so on, they would not be penalized by losing the safety net their families rely on for basic living expenses.

Switzerland rejected the idea of UBI earlier this year citing fears that “disconnecting the link between work done and money earned would have been bad for society.” However, so far, studies have shown the opposite to be the case. One Study led by Johannes Haushofer (Princeton) and Jeremy Shapiro (Princeton) “documented large, positive, and sustainable impacts across a wide range of outcomes including assets, earnings (from sources other than our transfers), food security, mental health, and domestic violence, after on average four months. The study found no evidence of impacts on alcohol or tobacco use, crime, or inflation.”  Another U.K. based program, the Universal Credit Pathfinder Evaluation, cited by Cato Institute claims that “recipients of the cash payment were more likely to look for work and believed that the program offered a “better reward for small amounts of work“.

In an interview with CNBC Elon Musk of Tesla Motors says “there is a pretty good chance we end up with a universal basic income, or something like that, due to automation. He based his assessment on the prospect of increased automation in society. Given that his companies use robots and automation extensively in their products and that he has started a non-profit to explore judicious uses for artificial intelligence, Musk should know a thing or two about such matters.”

Silicon Valley agrees, “If technology eliminates jobs or jobs continue to become less secure, an increasing number of people will be unable to make ends meet with earnings from employment. UBI becomes a consolation prize for those whose lives are disrupted. Benefits still accrue to the designers and owners of the technologies, but now with less guilt and pushback about the collateral damage.”

While factors still need to be considered, including the counter argument from a libertarian perspective that it would be a form of socialism, perpetuating the “slave to the system” mentality, a slippery slope to communism; the overall concept of providing a universal basic income implementation gets complicated. How would it be distributed fairly across states with varying costs of living?

While It would eliminate the current complex government welfare system which has proven to be a dramatic failure, it would provide opportunity to those who wish to better themselves sans penalty for their efforts.

*Follow us at www.facebook.com/AskALibertarian

The World As We Know It Ends! What’s the Path to Libertarian Recovery?



John Schlosser, November 9, 2016

The 2016 election is over. Donald Trump, AKA Cheeto Jesus, the Great Pumpkin, the Orange Calf, the Mango Mussolini, the Tangerine Tyrant, and many other things you shouldn’t let your children read, is President of the United States (for as long as he can avoid prison).

How should we react, as Libertarians, to the situation we all find ourselves in?

We could always try the method it appears Democrats are exercising; it’s called “The U.S. Air Force Disaster Drill”, and it goes like this:

“When in trouble

Or in doubt,

Run in circles,

Scream, and shout.”

It is quickly evident to sane people that said drill is ineffective. It also greatly annoys your more peaceable neighbors. In fact, if you keep it up for any period of time, constables of the peace are liable to escort you to a small locked “safe space”, where you can pull all your micro-aggressed triggers until the magazine is empty. A nice person in a white lab coat will then give you pills to make certain it stays empty, and send you on your way. While that technique can be entertaining for a few days, perhaps we should avoid it.

It goes without saying that we should also avoid the apparent Republican method, which seems to have spread like the Black Plague throughout all their ranks, even those of the “never-Trump” persuasion. Libertarians do poorly at kissing rings, genuflecting and prostrating ourselves. We often seem to have enough trouble even being kind to the genuinely religious within our own ranks; we certainly aren’t game for helping the Republicans with their new cult, the Cult of the Little Itty Bitty Teeny Tiny Orange…um…Hands.

Ew. Definitely not kissing the hand.

What should we do then?

We could go back to the ancient and dishonorable “typical” post-election behavior of the Libertarian Party we’ve always reverted to–making ineffective protest noises, then returning to all our usual internecine infighting and backbiting, always trying to determine what a “real Libertarian” is while we haggle over every jot and tittle of the platform. We could do what we’ve always done, expecting different results, which is the very definition of insanity.

Or…we could change.

First, as individuals, we should find our copy of the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. Not the book Doug Adams wrote, but the Guide itself. Read the big red friendly letters on the cover. DON’T PANIC. Do not, at this point, hitch a ride on a Vogon ship: Vogons are but slimy green versions of Trump, and we need you here. You could grab your towel, rush to the nearest pub, down as many pints and peanuts as you can in twenty minutes, and put a paper bag over your head. It won’t help, of course, when the Giant Orange Trump Bulldozers arrive, but…

Next, it’s time to do something effective. Something we’ve never tried. Here it goes.

NOW–right now–TODAY–is when the campaigns for ’18 and ’20 begin. We don’t do that, which is one of the reasons we lose. NOW is the time to start building a formidable $war chest$ for all our future candidates, from dog catcher to POTUS. NOW is the time to begin organizing ground game at the PRECINCT level. Find your county Libertarian organization and get connected. If your county doesn’t have one, start one. We’ll help. NOW is the time to find (or draft) serious, qualified, viable and marketable candidates, and to start vetting and prepping them. NOW is the time to LIVE LIBERTARIAN, all day, every day. NOW is the time to be the loud–but polite and principled–opposition. Let’s get going!

Why I Support A Non-Interventionist Military Foreign Policy


David Beaver, 11/05/2016

Recently I read an article that seemed to suggest that many of Gary Johnson’s supporters are unaware of his policies other than his stance on legalizing marijuana. Well, it turns this libertarian does. It would take the writing of a full-length novel to truly cover all of his policies as well as the reasons not to vote for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. For the purpose of this article, I’ll focus on the policy of non-interventionism as a foreign policy. This is a concept not shared by the other two candidates.

In simplest terms, non-interventionism is America tending to its own affairs and living in peace with their neighbors rather than trying to be the policemen of the world. It is best defined by Thomas Jefferson who said, “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations entangling alliances with none.”

It Prevents Blowback

Blowback is a term that has historically been used by the CIA to describe the unintended consequences of various covert operations. The term has also expanded to describe the unintended consequences of foreign policy as a whole, especially as it relates to our covert and military operations.

One example of the surprises produced by blowback came to us via the Reagan Doctrine, which sought to stamp out the evils of communism throughout the world. In the name of this well-intended idea, as well as to help bring about the demise of the Soviet Empire, the United States supplied weapons to anti-communist Islamic groups in Afghanistan during the Soviet Invasion of the country. Collectively known as the Mujahideen, these resistance groups eventually splintered into various factions. This would eventually lead to the rise of Al-Queda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, leading to many unpleasant surprises for the U.S in the years to follow.

An example of the blowback of our militarized foreign policy would also include the war in Iraq under the administration of George W. Bush. After winning this war we saw an Iraq that was fractured politically and religiously, leaving a void for ISIS to emerge.

Finally, we get one more example with Syrian Civil War, this one under the administration of Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, noted by some to the “most hawkish” member of his cabinet at the time. During the civil war, the U.S cooperated with Saudi Arabia to provide arms for the Syrian Free Army and groups moving for the overthrow of Assad. Later on, these same groups were found to be associated with ISIS and other Islamic extremist groups.

It turns out, however, that this isn’t just an American problem but a global one. Just ask the Israelis whose government, through their efforts to weaken the Palestinian Liberation Organization helped create one of their bitterest of foes, the terrorist group Hamas.

History both American and abroad is full of examples just like this. Examples where we seek to impose our will on the world, often with the best of intentions, yet time and time again we intervene only to make things better they end up worse. We toppled Saddam Hussein and traded him for ISIS. We seek to overthrow Assad and we might be supporting ISIS. We helped overthrow the tyrant Mubarak and aided the Arab Spring; now we have The Muslim Brotherhood.

It leads one to believe that this policy is clearly not working. Much like a hornet’s nest, the more we poke the more we feel its sting. When it comes to ideas and policies I tend to ignore the politics of it in favor of examining the results. Speaking as a former GOP hawk myself I can honestly say that history has shown time and time again that our interventions, military and covert, just aren’t working. Not only are they not working, but they’re making the world I live in a more dangerous place.

We Don’t Have the Money

It’s no secret that the national debt is still on the rise. Some of us are still old enough to remember when $6 trillion seemed like a lot. Now we are up to $20 trillion and the numbers are still rising. During his 2012 campaign, Gary Johnson cited the debt as one of the greatest threats to our country as a whole. So what does military policy have to do with this? Everything actually. While you’ll hear a lot of conservatives paying lip service to small government and spending cuts, you’ll never hear these same pundits, or anyone for that matter, advocate cuts in military spending.

Yet our military spending is over half of the overall U.S budget and we outspend most of the world on military expenditures. 800 of our bases are operated overseas, begging the question of why we need to subsidize the defense of Germany, Japan, and a number of other nations we essentially have on a military form of welfare. Is it worth the cost? The only thing that could justify the cost (other than the joy of sightseeing around the world for our military personnel) is an interventionist foreign policy that requires us to defend some of the people of the world while attacking others.

The simple fact is, however, we can’t afford it.

Lest Innocent Blood be Spilled

In Iraq alone thousands of civilian deaths have been the result of our military operations in the country. In just the year 2006 we saw civilian casualties of over 29,000. Each year from 2003 up until 2009 saw the numbers in the tens of thousands. Even today the casualties still remain in the thousands figure. This is one country and one conflict. Add to this the deaths of our men and servicewomen, and you have to ask at some point: is this worth it?

The return argument is often that there are always casualties in war, innocent bystanders that suffer as the result of a necessary action. This is true. But because it’s true we should exhaust every other option before going to war. Most of all, however, if we have to go to war we should have a discussion as a nation about it. This is precisely why the constitution requires a declaration from congress, a provision not followed in years, despite its reassertion in the War Powers Act.

I Am a Man of Peace

At the end of the day, I support non-interventionism because I’m a man of peace. I don’t want bloodshed performed in my name through my elected representatives unless it’s absolutely paramount to the safety of my loved ones and my country. I also don’t feel the need to tell others how to run their lives, much less the people thousands of miles away whom I may never meet how to run their countries.

Johnson, myself, and fellow Libertarians have been called isolationists as a result. What greater symbol of isolationism could be however, than a wall and massive tariffs? But I digress If being a man of peace makes me an isolationist, then so be it.

*Follow us at www.facebook.com/AskALibertarian