Reflections on Libertarianism and the Judeo-Christian Tradition

35330514_10213157332062410_6396680856211030016_o

Travis Hallman,  5/10/2018

Much has already been written about the Founders of this nation being Deists rather than orthodox Christians. That is, they had a worldview that a Supreme Being created the world and set things in motion, but then backed off from intervening in nature and human affairs. Nevertheless, part of that understanding was that the Creator had given human beings inalienable rights, and that when such rights were jeopardized by a tyrannical government, it is justified to rebel against it. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men [sic] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Even though active participation in organized Christianity has declined in America, it is worthwhile to explore the compatibility between the ideals of Libertarianism and the Judeo-Christian tradition that has shaped our history. One of the principles of Libertarianism is that, as Jefferson stated above, governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.” A large majority of the governed have accepted the judeo-christian tradition as the basis for our national culture, even if they don’t participate in organized religion.

Judeo-Christian tradition first came to America along with the European colonizers who started settling in North America at the end of the 16th century and beginning of the 17th century. They saw themselves as the Chosen People of God—children of Abraham by faith if not by lineage. Therefore, they felt they had a God-given right to take land that was already occupied by a large, well-developed civilization. This follows how the ancient Israelites had taken land they believed was promised to them by God, even though it was already inhabited by the Canaanites.

Therefore, it is important to understand how both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament shaped the mindset of the European colonizers. The history of the Hebrews involves a people who had been enslaved in Egypt. In a dramatic and seemingly miraculous rescue, they escaped their bondage, and after a period of wandering in the wilderness, were successful in wrestling the land of Canaan away from its original inhabitants. Importantly, however, they were commanded to continually ritually remember their origins.

In the beginning of their occupation, the Hebrews were organized in a loose confederation of twelve tribes, each independent of the others, with respected elders giving guidance. Whenever an external threat arose from surrounding peoples, a charismatic leader (called a “judge”) would emerge to galvanize the tribes to band together to respond to the threat. When the threat was defeated, the judge would return to obscurity. This seemed to work well and runs parallel to the Libertarian value of local government, where leaders are known and actions are taken by consensus of the community.

However, the Israelites began looking at other nations around them and became anxious about their growth in political power and influence. Around 1000 BCE, the Israelites began to clamor that they needed a king to protect them from the surrounding nations. The prophet Samuel warned them that this was not necessary because God was their king and was watching over them. If they adopted a human king, the result would lead to taxation, conscription of young persons to serve in the military, and in forced labor. Nevertheless, the people persisted, and Samuel anointed a man named Saul as the first King of Israel, claiming him to be the one God had chosen. This story is recounted in 1 Samuel 8-9.

Samuel’s prediction came true and a century later, during the time of King Solomon, the taxation and conscription had become so onerous that it led to civil war and the dividing of the land into two kingdoms—Israel in the north and Judah in the south. It seems the natural tendency of government is to become bloated and bureaucratic.

One of the basic tenets of Libertarianism is non-aggression toward one’s neighbors and their property. This value can be compared to the Golden Rule espoused by most religions. Jesus stated it as part of his famous Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 7:12): “In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the Law and the prophets.” According to the Jewish Talmud, Rabbi Hillel, who was a contemporary of Jesus, taught something very similar based on his understanding of the Jewish Law (Torah). It is unfortunate that the European settlers did not apply this Golden Rule to the native inhabitants already living in North America, nor to the African slaves brought to the continent.

The summary of the Ten Commandments, according to Jesus, was to love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength; and to love your neighbor as yourself. (Matthew 22:37-40) Later, the Protestant Reformer Martin Luther would write in his Small Catechism that the commandments are not just prohibitive, but are also prescriptive—that is, calling for benevolent proactive actions on behalf of one’s neighbors. For example, in explaining the commandment, “You shall not steal,” Luther said that it is not enough merely to refrain from stealing from a neighbor oneself, but also to “help them improve and protect their property and income.” Similarly, the commandment against murder admonishes us to likewise “help and support them in all of life’s needs.” Certainly Libertarians encourage voluntary support and encouragement of one’s neighbors.

At issue for Libertarians is using government coercion through taxation to redistribute wealth and resources to those in need, rather than relying on voluntary altruism. There is evidence to suggest that non-profit social service agencies—both faith-based and secular—have a better and more efficient track record of meeting human needs than government agencies. They also tend to be marked with genuine compassion and they enable volunteers to support with their time, energy, and skills, as well as financially.

The prophet Ezekiel pointed this out in Chapter 34 of the book that bears his name in the Hebrew Scriptures. “Ah, you shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep?” he cries out in verse two. In this context, “shepherds” refers to politicians. There was a sense in Judaism that the King and his administration should provide for the minimum needs of the populous. But as with Samuel’s earlier warning that only God could be the rightful king, so, too, Ezekiel says that only God is the Good Shepherd.

Jesus also called himself the Good Shepherd, in one of his statements meant to associate himself as the Messiah, the Chosen agent of God—or, as Christians believe, God himself. There is a curious story about Jesus concerning the payment of taxes (found in Matthew 22:15-22; Mark 12:13-17; and Luke 20:20-26). The Jewish authorities try to trap him by asking whether or not one should pay taxes. If he said yes, then he would alienate his fellow Jews, who hated the Roman taxes imposed on them. If he said no, he risked arrest from the Roman authorities. Wisely, he asked them to produce a coin, and then asked whose likeness was on the coin. The answer, of course, was the Emperor, Caesar. Then Jesus responded, “Therefore, give to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” On the surface, that may sound like Jesus is supportive of paying taxes. But his skillful and enigmatic answer leaves the question open, “Are taxes actually legitimate? Do they actually belong to the government?” Yes, the government mints money to regulate and expedite commerce, one could argue, therefore it legitimately deserves a tax to pay for that industry. But is it proper and ethical for any government to mint money at all? If so, should bartering also be taxed? These are issues of great concern to Libertarians.

There is actually a subversive undertone to Jesus’ answer about taxes in this passage. For both Jews and Christians believe that everything ultimately belongs to God. So essentially, Jesus is saying, pay taxes if you want, but remember that God created everything, and so it ALL belongs to God.

There are two more passages in the New Testament that need some consideration in terms of what the Bible says about government. The first is Romans 13:1-7 and the second is 1 Peter 2:13-17. Both have been traditionally used by Christians in support of government. It is important to note that many Biblical scholars think those verses in Romans are a later addition and not necessarily a part of Paul’s original letter. Similarly, most scholars agree that the letters bearing Peter’s name were NOT written by the leader of the twelve apostles, Simon Peter.

It is also important to note the context of the time in which these words were written. Christianity was a very small sect within the Roman Empire, and somewhat in competition with Judaism. Therefore, it was beneficial for Jewish leaders to foster enmity against the Christians on the part of the Roman Empire. Christians were said to be impious and seditious because they would not worship the Emperor as a god. These passages were specifically written in order to convey reassurance that Christians were not organized to oppose the rule of Rome.

Centuries later, European Christians living under Nazi power would wrestle with obedience to a government that embraced persecution of the Jews as legal. Some Christians concluded that when laws are unjust, there is a higher divine law that takes precedence. In our own times, the modern Sanctuary movement, in which Christian churches provide safety to undocumented immigrants, hiding them from immigration authorities, is similarly practiced because immigration laws and punitive enforcement of them are deemed unjust.

Finally, we should note that the last book of the Bible, the Revelation of Jesus Christ to St. John, has a very dystopic view of government. Written at the height of Roman persecution of Christianity, it noted that persons could not even conduct commerce—neither buy nor sell—without the stamped approval of the Empire. Libertarians question the multitude of professional and business licenses that are necessary, all of them supported by fees to the State. This book seems to be the antithesis of the passages from Romans and 1 Peter quoted earlier.

This is a very brief overview of some of the ways Judeo-Christian heritage intersects with Libertarian thinking. Judeo-Christian heritage and Libertarian thinking intersections are largely important because consistency improves legitimacy for a philosophy. Questioning, studying, then adopting the values upheld by Judeo-Christians and the values upheld by Libertarians is an option that empowers the individual to have a structured philosophy for decision-making that consistently remains non-contradictory. Neither Judaism nor Christianity are monolithic. There is a wide diversity of opinions within each religious tradition. This article can help Christians to be reminded that no government is perfect, and there is enough overlap between Libertarian principles and Christian principles not to outright reject Libertarianism.

 

In liberty,

-Travis Hallman

 

Follow us at http://www.facebook.com/askalibertarian

Do you have a libertarian oriented message you want to get out? Consider contacting Ask A Libertarian via messenger at https://www.facebook.com/messages/t/askalibertarian to find out how you can become a volunteer in our Journalism Department.

The author’s views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the entire Ask A Libertarian Team or its followers.

 

Advertisements

Kneeling, Patriotism, And The Constitution

kneeling

Kris Morgan 5/27/2018

Ever since San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick began kneeling during the Star Spangled Banner, the NFL has been rife with controversy. First, the players who have joined him are seen as being disrespectful to our country and the military. Second, the NFL’s recent move to fine players for doing so is viewed as an infringement on their freedom of speech. As we shall see, those holding these beliefs are wrong on both counts.

Let’s examine the claim that kneeling is disrespectful to the military. What’s interesting about this charge is that it does not come from kneeling players. It comes from politicians like President Trump, and others who feel it prudent to listen to him, rather than to the players themselves. So what did Kaepernick say was the motivation? “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.”

Not only did his message have nothing to do with the military, but according to Sports Illustrated a Green Beret was in contact with Kaepernick discussing a way to get his message across without disrespecting the flag, the troops, or the country. The football sensation originally sat down on the bench during national anthem, until informed by Nate Boyer kneeling would be more respectful. While it’s true Mr. Boyer received some criticism from his peers in Special Forces, others have also praised his view. Whatever the case, what matters here is intention more than accuracy. While we can disagree on whether kneeling during the Star Spangled Banner is disrespectful, it is a mistake to believe it is the intention.

Now, let’s suppose you don’t care about intentions and find the act of kneeling disgraceful. Of course, you have the right to refuse to purchase tickets to NFL productions, to change the channel when a game comes on, or make any other changes in your life that you see fit. But what does the First Amendment say about it?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Clearly, Congress cannot make a law punishing players for kneeling. But contrary to popular misconceptions, the NFL can punish players for damaging their reputation. Under natural law and under our constitution, every person has an equal right to free speech. If a player can say ‘I choose to kneel in protest at this time’, there is no reason their employer cannot say “I refuse to associate with this person’ or ‘I don’t like them, but I also need them to have a football league. Maybe I can discourage their behavior with a fine.’ (assuming it is not addressed with in player contracts)

Both acts are expressions of ideas that deserve equal protection. The NFL is not infringing on free speech by determining the conditions upon which they will interact with others; everyone in the world does this every day. However, there is an issue related to free speech that desperately needs to be highlighted.

The Huffington Post reported: “The Department of Defense doled out as much as $6.8 million in taxpayer money to professional sports teams to honor the military at games and events over the past four years, an amount it has ‘downplayed’ amid scrutiny, a report unveiled by two Senate Republicans on Wednesday found.” There is no question this is a free-speech issue. Unlike the situation involving the players and the NFL, in this case law is being used. Tax law. Where we put our money is symbolic of the things we like, including ideas. But don’t take my word for it. The Supreme Court had a similar position when answering the question of campaign finance.

In 2002 the Supreme Court ruled that limitations on campaign finance violate free speech. According to csmonitor.com, those opposed to regulating the funding of campaigns argued that “corporations should enjoy a First Amendment right to spend money and advocate political and policy positions during election seasons just as individuals can.” If blocking corporations from spending their money in a way they see fit is a violation, then we must also conclude collecting tax payer dollars to finance the advancement of any idea, such as taking a pro-military stance, is as well. Those saying we should boycott the NFL (such as President Trump) over kneeling players have to choose between accepting this position or admitting their priorities place personal bias over justice.

At this point, you may be thinking, ‘but I do support the military, so it’s not something I have a problem with.’ Whether the Armed Forces are a force for good or evil is debatable. The questions you should be asking yourself here are, ‘how would I react to my money being taken from me to push ideas I disagree with? Whether I personally support the message or not, is using other people’s money against their will to advance causes they despise an honorable and just thing to do? Is the fact that I agree with the message even relevant?

 

Follow us at http://www.facebook.com/askalibertarian

Do you have a libertarian oriented message you want to get out? Consider contacting Ask A Libertarian via messenger at https://www.facebook.com/messages/t/askalibertarian to find out how you can become a volunteer in our Journalism Department.

The author’s views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the entire Ask A Libertarian Team or its followers.

Mises vs. Hobbes: Fortnite Edition

miseshobbes

Kris Morgan 5/17/2018

For those of you who don’t play video games, Fortnite is is the hottest game around. In fact, Forbes reported in October 2017 that it “may have hit the 10 million player mark faster than any other game in history, thanks to its inclusion of Battle Royale.” Battle Royale is a player-vs-player mode in which 100 gamers battle each other. Once connected to a server, players parachute onto a map and search for guns, shields, building materials, and other items and attempt to eliminate each other. If you would like a visual, click here to see gameplay. Aside from being an incredibly successful and fun activity, it is also an excellent portrayal of Thomas Hobbes’s perception of humanity without governments.

Hobbes believed if left alone, human beings would be in a never-ending state of war with each other. Life would be short — full of conflict and chaos. This belief lead him to support the absolute monarchy form of government. Stanford.edu informs us that “his main concern was to argue that effective government—whatever its form—must have absolute authority. Its powers must be neither divided nor limited.”

Fortnite involves constant competition for resources, always looking over one’s shoulder for enemies, and rarely sitting in one place longer than a few seconds. There is no time to mourn the loss of dead teammates if you are playing on team mode. Others will not hesitate to kill you and loot your inventory if you drop your guard. But Fortnite and Hobbes both make the same common mistake so many others fall prey to. They have chosen a single characteristic of humanity and used it to define the entire species. People are extremely dynamic and infinitely complex; labeling our species with a single trait is extremely narrow and leads to mistakes. Ludwig Von Mises articulated this point in his world-renowned work Human Action.

In his Treatise on Austrian Economics, Mises created a systematic approach to economic analyses based on the axiom of action. Stated simply, any time a person acts, they do so because they are trying to remove some uneasiness. He wrote, “His mind imagines conditions which suit him better, and his action aims at bringing about this desired state. The incentive that impels a man to act is always some uneasiness. A man perfectly content with the state of his affairs would have no incentive to change things.”

Unlike Hobbes, Mises never claimed to know the exact outcome of unmitigated actions. In the era of specialization, it’s easy to conclude him a simpleton and Hobbes brilliant as a result. However, as we shall see, leaving the possibilities open was much wiser than the notion humanity can be accurately portrayed in a narrow lite.

What Thomas Hobbes refused to recognize is that cooperation is another tool for gaining resources, which left no room in his framework for a marketplace. We can forgive the programmers of Fortnite for that omission since its purpose is merely to entertain. As for Thomas Hobbes, being born in 1588 relieves fault for not witnessing the Industrial Revolution work to build wealth, shred infant mortality rates, and build a middle class with a quality of life he could not have dreamed. Those alive today who subscribe to the Hobbesian view have no excuse for overlooking the positive effects of a liberalized economy.

The consequences of allowing personalities like Mr. Hobbes’s influence us are in motion today. The idea of liberty can be very frightening to someone who believes humanity without rulers would be violent and chaotic. However, we can’t forget that for a government to be formed in the first place, the population must want peace more than conflict. If those two things are true, freedom is not something to be afraid of.

In fact, a Misesian would argue that since the people form the government, and they do so because they value peace and eschew friction, it is the idea of conflict that makes people tense. Forming a state is just one approach to resolving that issue. Without one, or under one with limited powers, the population would find alternate means to live in harmony.

For too long, on too many issues, our population, out of fear, has been making decisions on that diminish our basic freedoms indefinitely. The media makes money off showing us all how dangerous it is out there, how there are criminals lurking at every corner, but when we look at our day-to-day life, the peace vastly outweighs the conflict. We have more wealth in the modern era than any other time in history, and it takes cooperation to build it. We need more Misesians and less Hobbesians.

 

 

Follow us at http://www.facebook.com/askalibertarian

Do you have a libertarian oriented message you want to get out? Consider contacting Ask A Libertarian via messenger at https://www.facebook.com/messages/t/askalibertarian to find out how you can become a volunteer in our Journalism Department.

The author’s views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the entire Ask A Libertarian Team or its followers.

 

Time To Say Goodbye To Bipartisanship

Bipartisan

By John Klear, 4/7/2018

I know this is considered unconventional thinking and will probably offend the masses, but why does it have to be called ‘bipartisan?’ In a society where people are offended if the wind blows in the wrong direction, and all are encouraged to be individuals, it is demanded that we be ‘right’ or ‘left.’ There can be no happy median, only pro or con. And once a side is chosen, DO NOT attempt to go against the party. However, this is not a sporting event where you root for either the home team or visitor, these are real life decisions that affect everyone.

Lately, I have heard the phrase ‘if our forefathers were alive today…’ tirelessly used.  Our forefathers were average citizens; farmers, shoppe owners, chemists, doctors, and lawyers who came out of the fields and stores to meet and vote on laws meant to further society, not stifle it. And that is why they created a democracy that represents the voice of the PEOPLE, not the voice of one person or party. Our system is meant to help advance, as a whole, and not just one side or the other — to represent the voices of the of majority, while allowing those whose beliefs are not aligned with the collective the freedom to enjoy their own lives as they choose.

The system, much like the Constitution, must remain solid but fluid, changing and adapting to societal needs. However, this does not mean that it should immediately change to meet the ‘complaint du jour’ (see Amendment 18). The pace of society today is quick, but changes to our laws should not follow the same tempo.

I am not a politician, nor related to any politicians. I am an average middle-aged American who grew up in this great Nation. I still believe in its principles and values. My education came from an equal mix of books and the streets. I paid MY OWN way through Masters and part of my PhD. In addition to my regular work, I give back by volunteering in a homeless shelter, am active in different charities, and teach part-time with the hope that I can still make a difference.

With the support of this party, and other ‘3rd’ party options, I believe we can break those bipartisan chains that unintentionally suppress the great freedoms that so many died to ensure. The days of the two party system must come to end. This was illustrated in the recent Presidential election. The two parties offered what I’ve heard many call ‘subpar’ candidates. For an event that should have been based on which candidate represented a continued commitment to freedom, was instead on who was least despised at the time.

Thomas Jefferson wrote, “The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.” Continued support of a two-party system greatly limits the growth of the nation. By rewarding the elite for their decisions, we hinder progress. And for the country to thrive, we should never accept status quo.

 

 

Follow us at http://www.facebook.com/askalibertarian

Do you have a libertarian oriented message you want to get out? Consider contacting Ask A Libertarian via messenger at https://www.facebook.com/messages/t/askalibertarian to find out how you can become a volunteer in our Journalism Department.

 

The author’s views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the entire Ask A Libertarian Team or its followers.

 

Why Marx Was (Almost) Right

marxwrong

Kris Morgan 1/25/18

Karl Marx is one of history’s most controversial figures. Those of us who are politically engaged will inevitably have to resolve his ideas with our own beliefs, whether we reject or accept them. Not only was he a staunch nemesis of capitalism, he and Friedrich Engels developed a competing economic system that does not rely on private property, capital investments, or entrepreneurship. Since we do live in a capitalist society, it is beneficial to revisit his critiques of capitalism, which were rolled out in the late 19th century in Das Kapital.  

In 2014 Sean McElwee of Rolling Stone wrote an article based on Marx’s analysis of capitalism titled “Why Marx Was Right: Five Surprising Ways Marx Predicted 2014”. These included the chaotic nature of capitalism, imaginary appetites, globalization, monopoly, and the impoverishment of the middle class. On the surface, there is plenty of evidence that suggests Marx was correct. The middle class is diminishing, we are still recovering from the real estate collapse, and it’s safe to say we all have things we don’t need. Additionally, WalMart dominates and presently operates stores in 44 countries. However, in spite of proving correct in his long-term economic predictions, Marx was wrong on every point.

On the chaos of capitalism, McElwee’s argument in favor of Marx went as follows: “Broadly speaking, it’s what made the housing market crash in 2008. Decades of deepening inequality reduced incomes, which led more and more Americans to take on debt. When there were no subprime borrows (sic) left to scheme, the whole façade fell apart, just as Marx knew it would.” This is true, but what is also apparent is the domination of the financial system by the Federal Reserve, through Act of Congress, since 1913. With the ability to offer loans at lower-than-market rates, combined with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (chartered by Congress in 1938 and 1970 respectively) and the Community Reinvestment Act, we can safely say we have not had a free market for quite some time. The chaos we experience is the result of central planning, not free markets.

Of imaginary appetites, Marx stated capitalism would lead to “a contriving and ever-calculating subservience to inhuman, sophisticated, unnatural and imaginary appetites.” McElwee then surmises that though cell phones change very little with each progression, we purchase the latest anyways. But this is more a statement about human demands than the capitalist system of private property. The capitalist economy is nothing more than the notion that if left alone, people will store a supply of goods to satisfy perceived demand. Should our preferences change, production and marketing strategies will change as well. That is the strength of markets. The fact that so many have the means and time to focus on the latest and greatest advances, rather than whether we will eat, is a sign that we have surpassed basic subsistence.

In 1848 Marx predicted globalization, arguing “It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere.” It is undeniable that capitalists want to trade with as many people as possible, however, is this not true of every economic organization? Communism itself is an international force the same way capitalism is. Neither ideology can be said to be a complete reality so long as the global community is mixed. Each will strive for what they perceive as the liberation of others as well as the advancement of its own agenda.

Monopoly is also a part of his critique of the market economy. According to the article, “Marx, however, argued that market power would actually be centralized in large monopoly firms as businesses increasingly preyed upon each other.” Wal Mart’s success is then used as an example. While we can agree Wal Mart has controlled the market, we cannot agree it is entirely due to market forces. Since the Progressive Era industry has turned to government for cartelization and other benefits. According to Forbes, Walmart cost taxpayers $6.2bn in public assistance. It is officially safe to stop pretending Walmart is an example of out-of-control free trade.

As Murray Rothbard pointed out, “The government interventions of the Progressive Era were systemic devices to restrict competition and cartelize industry… Just as other industries turned to the government to impose cartelization that could not be maintained on the market, so the banks turned to government to enable them to expand money and credit without being held back by the demands for redemption by competing banks.” Do we honestly believe the rich fund political campaigns and lobby politicians to make sure things are always fair?

Finally, we address the diminishing middle class. With the aforementioned interventions, dispelling this myth should be a piece of cake. The central bank disrupting the economy and causing malinvestments and subsequent bailouts, devaluation of currency, and cartelization of industry, we have an obvious recipe for corporate oligarchy.

Marx would have been right on all points had he simply used the phrase ‘state capitalism’ or ‘crony capitalism’. The only way one can conclude Marx was correct in his analysis of the market economy is by completely ignoring all state interventions. Free market economists, such as viewed by the Austrian School, do not consider central bans, whimsical regulations, nor any other infringements on property as part of capitalism. There is simply no basis to attribute flaws in society under the broad umbrella of free market deficiencies.

These predictions under the conditions of our current political system are obvious. Of course big business pays for favors from big government. Even Obamacare worked to enrich the health insurance industry as well as big pharma, while our premiums skyrocket. The alliance between industry and politics is unholy, damaging, and has nothing at all to do with free trade. Indeed, Free Market economists not only made the same predictions, but in his latest work The Progressive Era, Murray Rothbard offers a historical record of it! When the extreme rich use their money to influence politicians, politics itself becomes nothing more than one massive marketing campaign.

 

Follow us at http://www.facebook.com/askalibertarian

Do you have a libertarian oriented message you want to get out? Consider contacting Ask A Libertarian via messenger at https://www.facebook.com/messages/t/askalibertarian to find out how you can become a volunteer in our Journalism Department.

 

The author’s views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the entire Ask A Libertarian Team or its followers.

 

 

Helping The Poor: Markets vs. Charity and Welfare

markets

Kris Morgan 1/15/18

There is much debate on the best means to help the poor. The left trusts welfare programs with the task, while their adversaries offer charities as a viable alternative. Too few point out that the market economy is empirically and logically the best overall choice. Crony capitalism and a general lack in understanding of economics have created an environment where the very idea is met with disgust. Despite that attitude, the market economy is the greatest arena to improve conditions for the poor.

Welfare programs operate to redistribute income from one person to another. While it’s true this makes it possible for the recipients to consume more, in the long run we are only working to subsidize inactivity. It doesn’t matter whether a welfare recipient works or not. Money given for nothing is always money that could have been traded for something. Taxing production to subsidize idleness diverts resources which could otherwise be used to make investments and create jobs, withholding opportunities from the very people we are trying to help. In essence, we create a welfare trap and permanent underclass.

Charity is a cousin of welfare. Although it’s perfectly within the confines of private property rights, it too is not the best way to help the poor. Resources are given to the needy at the behest of their proper owners. Some do help people by offering or finding them work, but such actions represent market activity. Charity, absent investment to meet economic demands, is no more stabilizing than welfare. No wealth is created, nor is anything done to make the receiver more marketable for future or better employment.

The only way to provide the poor with greater stability and wealth in the long run is through capital investment and entrepreneurship. For low wage earners, investment in capital goods makes labor more productive. Increased productivity leads to increased earnings by the business and opens the door for higher wages. When a society boosts production, prices fall. Even if employers refuse to offer raises, material well-being increases for everyone.

Entrepreneurship is the force for creating jobs. Though new businesses usually offer lower pay, entry level jobs help us gain experience and make connections. Building a positive reputation is a building block towards advancement and/or finding a better employer. If one is lucky enough to apply at a new establishment early, they may also attain a leadership role. It’s safe to say most of us look back on our first jobs as providing a template for proper workplace etiquette; knowledge that is expected of all adults in any organization.

Whatever one may think about the market as a mechanism for helping the poor, it’s telling that both charity and welfare attempt to hold people over until they are able to find a stable source of income. A welfare/charity case is not considered turned around until they find good paying employment; which the market provides. Additionally, resources offered by charities and programs alike are first generated by the productive market.

Steve Patterson made this point clear when he wrote: “Without this initial creation of wealth, charities would have nothing to distribute. In the developed world, it’s easy to forget that poverty is the default state of human existence. Wealth is not found in nature; it must be created, which is precisely the role of businesses and entrepreneurs.”

Whatever you think about living standards during the Industrial Revolution, can we imagine where we would be had it not taken place? One of the hottest topics of debate is what to do about America’s decline in factory jobs (though our output is actually up). Without the revolution there would be no factory job issue today, nor would we be in the middle of a technological revolution that gives us access to almost anything we want to learn.

When it comes to welfare, charity, and markets, there is no question as to which is the best method for helping the poor. Creating new jobs and investing in capital equipment is how economic growth occurs. Not only are more jobs available, but each unit of labor is more productive. Real wages rise, and the well-being of all sees a net gain as a result.

Next time you consider giving to a charity, or perhaps a person in need whom you happen to see in your city, consider paying them to do something. Anything. No matter how small. By offering a trade rather than a handout, you give them something to build on (including their self-esteem), much better than a few bucks that will tide them over until the next meal.

 

Follow us at http://www.facebook.com/askalibertarian

Do you have a libertarian oriented message you want to get out? Consider contacting Ask A Libertarian via messenger at https://www.facebook.com/messages/t/askalibertarian to find out how you can become a volunteer in our Journalism Department.

 

The author’s views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the entire Ask A Libertarian Team or its followers.

Envisioning a 12-Step Limited Government

12step

By Travis Hallman 11/30/2017

The speakers in 12-step meetings are remarkably inspiring. They have a genuine understanding of serenity and the necessary steps to attain it. One wonders what a government would look like if its representatives applied the same simple principles to its policies. Here is a presentation of each step and how they can be applied to government.

Limiting our government using a 12-step program would require more effort than any individual could offer. It would challenge communities to elect local, state, and national representatives which support limited power.

Step 1:

We admitted we were powerless over alcohol—that our lives had become unmanageable.

Adjusted:

We admitted we were powerless over others—that people were unmanageable by government.

  Applied:

Prohibition is ineffective and immoral.
“The United States has focused its efforts on the criminalization of drug use. The government has, to no avail, spent billions of dollars attempting  to eradicate the supply of drugs. Efforts of interdiction and law enforcement have not produced decreases in the availability of drugs in America. Apart from being costly, drug law enforcement has been counterproductive. Current drug laws need to be relaxed.”
These principles could be applied to any form of prohibition. Prohibiting non-violent activities drives demand into black markets which negatively affects every aspect of society.
Government tactics for modifying behavior through punishment have been costly and ineffective. Friends, family, and local community programs have much greater ability to tailor solutions to the struggling individual’s personality..

Step 2:

Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

Adjusted:

Came to believe that a community greater than ourselves could restore our government to sanity.

Applied:

Governments extorting people (via taxes) to fund departments such as the DEA, FDA, EPA, DoE, CIA, FBI, IRS, NSA, etc that are not only immoral but impractical.

Step 3:

Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him

Adjusted:

Made a decision to turn our government and representing politicians over to the care of the community as we understood it

Applied:

It is well known that many politicians pass bills in the interest of their lobbyists. This is called crony capitalism. However, limiting businesses that partake in lobbying would be immoral and detrimental as they provide valuable products and services to the community. The solution is to elect representatives which consistently support free markets. “A free market consists of economic freedom such that anybody could open a business without having to pay the government for permission (permits, licenses, etc). A free market would have no taxes, eliminating reasons for corporations to partner with politicians for tax breaks. A free market would not allow bailouts, allowing businesses to have setbacks, and avoiding the creation of artificial monopolies. These economic freedoms would enable new competition to compete more efficiently.” –How Free Markets Empower Green Markets

Case in point: Corporations do not tend to donate large sums of money to libertarian campaigns because in a free market, which libertarians support, that would be a conflict of interest.

Step 4:

Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.

Adjusted:

Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of our government.

Applied:

“I learned that courage was not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it. The brave man is not he who does not feel afraid, but he who conquers that fear.” –Nelson Mandela
If we perform a moral efficiency audit of various government programs, we will discover many are ineffective and immoral. Officials keep a self-determined portion of that income, spend ample amounts on services most Americans deem undesirable, and give only a small amount to citizens on welfare. Welfare limits the amount of income individuals can earn, resulting in multiple dependent generations who often seek non-taxable income elsewhere. Voluntary Socialism would be a moral and efficient means of establishing a safety net within our communities. The list of flaws in government operated welfare highlights what happens when government restricts freedoms. Other examples include immigration; foreign policy; and prohibition of various civil liberties.

Step 5:

Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.

Adjusted:

Admitted to our community, to ourselves, and to others the exact nature of wrongs by our government.

Applied:

Ignorance is bliss until we realize it allows government to limit the liberties of others and ultimately ourselves.
“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.” –Martin Niemöller
Avoiding intellectual discussion results in people continuing to vote in a manner that precipitates the nightmare presented by Martin Niemöller. We must engage in intellectual discussions about the wrongs of our government in order to make changes.

Step 6:

We’re entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.

Adjusted:

We’re entirely ready to have our community remove all these defects of government.

Applied:

Limiting government will require responsibility within ourselves, our families, and our communities. Currently governments incarcerate children caught using drugs, whereas a 12-step limited government would allow the family, friends, and community to rehabilitate them.

Step 7:

Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.

Adjusted:

Humbly asked our community to remove the shortcomings of our government.

Applied:

Having a community remove the shortcomings of our government consists of electing limited-government politicians, and replacing excessive or incompetent departments with voluntary charities and organizations which are more compassionate and efficient.

Step 8:

Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.

Adjusted:

Made a list of all persons our government had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.

Applied:

Most people have been harmed by our government somehow by either having money extorted from them via taxes, earning a criminal record for non-aggressive offenses, prohibition from non-aggressive activities, or something altogether different. Making amends by establishing voluntary safety nets, rehabilitation centers, halfway houses, etc, would encourage these persons to vote for limited-government politicians; making dependence on the government no longer necessary. The aforementioned businesses could be for profit, competing in a free market, costing less per consumer, with higher quality than government operated/regulated non-profit businesses.

Step 9:

Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.

Adjusted:

Made direct amends to such people harmed by government wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.

Applied:

Returning all taxes collected and expunging all non-aggressive criminal records would directly amend people harmed by the government. Furthermore, allowing citizens to voluntarily choose which government programs to support during tax season would be a benevolent deed to follow up with direct amends. Concurrently allowing socialist programs to be funded by the free market, creating a voluntary tax system, and making legal immigration easier would encourage undocumented immigrants to become documented.
Darryl Perry stated how to best make amends during the 2016 LP presidential debate: “How many people in here, (and I actually do want a show of hands,) love grandma’s? How many of you would donate money to feed grandma’s? I do not see a single person that did not raise their hand. That’s how you fund social security, medicaid, and medicare.”
Voluntary Socialism would provide a more efficient and moral solution to the problems caused by government.

Step 10:

Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.

Adjusted:

Continued to take personal inventory of our government and when we were wrong promptly admitted it

Applied:

Limiting government officials will be an endless task. We will need to work together (to assess the damages so far), analyze the data with realistic goals, and continue educating new voters about the dangers of a powerful government.

Step 11:

Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God, as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.

Adjusted:

Sought to improve our conscious contact with representatives, only for their knowledge of our will for us and the power to carry that out.

Applied:

It is our responsibility to remain in contact with  our legislators, informing them of our wishes. By remaining active in our communities we ensure our voices are heard and our representatives held accountable.

Step 12:

Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

Adjusted:

Having had a political awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to other communities, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

Applied:

Caring for other communities as we care for our own is essential to establishing federal liberties for our states. Focusing on single States would likely create a domino effect by setting an example of success for other states to follow. Once several states prove the success of liberty, voters nationwide would be more likely to elect liberty-minded Representatives at federal levels.

Conclusion

The Libertarian Party consistently supports limited-government via free markets, social tolerance, decreasing border controls, and not intervening in foreign affairs. Voting for libertarians at local, state, and federal levels expresses care for others as much as oneself. “As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty — a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values.” Correspondingly, selfishness isn’t taught to be necessary for recovery anywhere in the 12-step program.

12-step slogans that align with libertarian slogans

12 step: “Live and let live.”

Libertarian: “Choose for yourself, not for others.”

12 step: “One day at a time.”

Libertarian: “Just vote Libertarian until you’re too free.”

12 step: “Feelings are not facts.”

Libertarian: “Our freedom is more important than your good idea.”

12 step: “Principles before personality.”

Libertarian: “If you don’t trust us to govern ourselves, how can you trust us to govern others?”

12 step: “Humility is not thinking less of yourself, but thinking of yourself less.”

Libertarian: “Ask not what your country can force other people to do for you.”

12 step: “You can’t think your way into a new way of living…you have to live your way into a new way of thinking.”

Libertarian: “Vote Libertarian. Win a free country.”

12 step: “Your worth should never depend on another person’s opinion.”

Libertarian: “Excuse me, your security is standing on my freedom.”

12 step: “It’s a simple program for complicated people.”

Libertarian: “People are complex, but liberty is simple.”

12 step: “Keep it simple.”

Libertarian: “Legalize freedom.”

12 step: “To thine own self be true.”

Libertarian: “Everyone should be free to be true to their self.”

12 step: “Keep the plug in the jug.”

Libertarian: “Please don’t feed the donkeys and elephants. It just increases their output.”

12 step: “I was sick and tired of being sick and tired.”

Libertarian: “Screw this. I’m voting Libertarian.”

12 step: “You only get out of it what you put into it.”

Libertarian: “Your money. Your body. Your planet. Take responsibility for what you do with them. Vote Libertarian.”

In liberty,

-Travis Hallman

Follow us http://www.facebook.com/askalibertarian

Do you have a libertarian oriented message you want to get out? Consider contacting Ask A Libertarian via messenger at https://www.facebook.com/messages/t/askalibertarian to find out how you can become a volunteer in our Journalism Department.

 

The author’s views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the entire Ask A Libertarian Team or its followers.

 

Military Libertarians

military

Travis Hallman   12/22/17

Many of our most vocal activists within the Libertarian Party are current and former members of the military. Veterans and active duty service members were one of our largest groups of voters in the 2016 election. The official Libertarian Platform states:

Libertarian Platform 3.3: International Affairs

“American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.”

Please click this link if you’re interested in understanding the reasoning behind our support of a non-interventionist foreign policy.

Libertarians with experience in the Armed Services

Ron Paul

Ron-Paul-military2

“Ron Paul is America’s leading voice for liberty, prosperity and peace. As a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives and three-time presidential candidate, Ron Paul tirelessly works for limited, constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. Ron Paul never voted for legislation unless the proposed measure was expressly authorized by the Constitution.”

https://www.ronpaul.com/who-is-ron-paul/

Leading libertarian politician Ron Paul started out in medicine. After graduating from Duke University’s medical school in 1961, Ron Paul soon went on to become a military doctor. He served with the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. National Guard during the 1960s. Paul branched out into politics in the 1970s.”

https://www.biography.com/people/ron-paul

Drew Carey

Drew-Carey2

“I never thought I was a libertarian until I picked up Reason magazine and realized I agree with everything they had printed..”

Drew Carey in Time (August 9, 2007)

“Drew Carey served 6 years in the United States Marine Corps Reserve. When Time Magazine asked him what events in life made him who he is, Carey replied “the Marine Corps. It instilled a great sense of discipline that I can call on when I need to.” Obviously he enjoyed being a jarhead because he has kept his Marine crew cut through most of his stage and TV career.”

https://m.usni.org/news-and-features/10-people-you-didnt-know-were-us-marines

Adam Kokesh

Kokesh2

“[Adam Kokesh is] running for not-president in 2020 to dissolve the entire federal government.”

https://www.facebook.com/KokeshForNotPresident/

“[Adam Kokesh was] an Iraq war veteran [that was] kicked out of the Marines days early with a general discharge after he wore his uniform during an anti-war demonstration.”

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/06/13/iraq-vet-who-wore-uniform-to-war-protest-gets-general-discharge.html

Jesse Ventura

ventura2

“Jesse Ventura is a Progressive Libertarian.”

http://www.ontheissues.org/Jesse_Ventura.htm

“Ventura enlisted into the United States Navy and joined the Underwater Demolition Team (UDT) after graduating from Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL (BUD/S) school. Ventura frequently references his military service in public, and a lawyer from San Diego criticized him for faking his claims of being a SEAL. Although Ventura never completed the extra 26 weeks of training to become a SEAL, the UDTs were broken apart and combined with the SEAL teams after Vietnam. Ventura claims that UDTs simply refer to themselves as SEALs due to the restructuring. Despite his membership with Underwater Demolition Team 12, Ventura never saw combat during Vietnam although he did receive the Vietnam Service Medal.”

https://www.military.com/veteran-jobs/career-advice/military-transition/famous-veteran-jesse-ventura.html

Harry Browne

browne2

Harry Browne was an American free-market Libertarian writer and the Libertarian Party’s 1996 & 2000 candidate for President of the United States.”

https://www.harrybrowne.org/

“He was inducted into the U.S. Army on May 5, 1953. He went to the Southwestern Signal Corps Training Center at Camp San Luis Obispo, California to study cryptography. On October 4, 1953, he was sent to Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands, where the 1954 Operation Castle hydrogen bomb tests were conducted.

In 1955 Browne was sent to Eniwetok to finish his tour of duty and afterwards was transferred to the Army Reserves at Fort Huachuca, Arizona. He was released from active military service on July 17, 1956. He was honorably discharged from the Armed Forces on February 28, 1961 and discharged from the Army Reserves on July 1, 1961.”

https://www.revolvy.com/Browne

Carl E. Person

person2

“He [Carl E. Person] was a candidate for the 2012 presidential nomination of the Libertarian Party, was the Reform Party nominee for Mayor of New York City in 2013, was the Libertarian nominee for New York State Attorney General in 2010 and was the Libertarian nominee for New York State Attorney General again in 2014.

Person was born in Manhattan and has lived in New York State most of his life with the exception of 2 years when his family lived in Nebraska and his 3 years of service in the U.S. Army. Person dropped out of Northport (New York) High School after his sophomore year, and joined the U.S. Army for a 3-year enlistment. His service included two years on Okinawa as a ship to shore high speed radio operator, to send and receive Morse code. Despite his lack of a high school diploma, Person is a graduate of Long Island University and Harvard Law School.”

https://www.revolvy.com/CarlPerson

James P. Gray

gray2

“James Polin ‘Jim’ Gray (born February 14, 1945) is an American jurist and writer. He was the presiding judge of the Superior Court of Orange County, California. Gray was the 2012 Libertarian Party vice presidential nominee, as well as the party’s 2004 candidate for the United States Senate in California. He is the author of multiple books and a play, and is critical of current American drug laws.

Gray has been a member of the California Judicial Council, as well as the California Judicial Council’s Advisory Committee on Juvenile Law, the Alcohol Advisory Board to the Orange County Board of Supervisors, the Advisory Board of the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, and the Orange County Law Library. He has also been a member of the Board of Councilors of the USC Law School. Gray also introduced Orange County to the Peer Court system, where juvenile defendants travel to a school outside their district to have their actual cases tried by other teenagers. In 2012, Gray was nominated by Libertarian Party convention delegates as the running mate of former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson.”

https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Judge%20Jim%20Gray&item_type=topic

US Army Vietnam Veteran
29+ Years Portsmouth Naval Shipyard
2 Years Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, DC
A total of 34 years 10 months Federal Service”

www.jpgraynh.com/serving-the-people

R. Lee Wrights

wrights2

“Roger Lee Wrights (June 8, 1958—May 4, 2017) was the Vice Chair of the National Libertarian Party from 2012 to 2014. He was also a frontrunning contender for the nomination for US President for the 2012 election season.”

https://lpedia.org/Lee_Wrights

“Wrights was born on June 8, 1958 in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. He graduated from West Forsyth High School in Clemmons, North Carolina in 1976. Afterwards he enlisted in the United States Air Force, and served as a medical services technician at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, Goldsboro, North Carolina. He was honorably discharged in 1981 with the rank of sergeant.”

Mike Gravel

Mike_Gravel2

“Mike Gravel was born on May 13, 1930, in Springfield, Massachusetts. He graduated from Columbia University and was elected to the Alaska House of Representatives in 1963. In 1968, he was elected to the U.S. Senate, where he became known for his attempts to end the draft during the Vietnam War and for releasing the Pentagon Papers. Gravel ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008. In March of that year, he left the Democrats and switched to the Libertarian Party. With little success in the elections, Gravel ultimately left elected office but remained politically active and championing his ideas through the years.”

https://www.biography.com/people/mike-gravel

In 1951, Mike Gravel enlisted in the United States Army (1951–54) serving as Adjutant in the Communications Intelligence Service in Germany and as a Special Agent in the Counter Intelligence Corps in France.”

https://mikegravel.com/bio/

Larry Sharpe

Sharpe2

“Larry Sharpe (born July 12, 1968) is an American business consultant and political activist. He was a Libertarian candidate for Vice President in 2016. On July 12, 2017, he made the official announcement that he will be running for Governor of New York in 2018.”

https://lpedia.org/Larry_Sharpe

As a Marine Corps veteran and father, Larry values duty, service, honesty, and loyalty. His experience imparted crucial skills like flexibility, resilience, discipline, and focus. With nearly seven years of active duty and an honorable discharge, teamwork and strategic thinking are at Larry’s core. He is attuned to the needs of veterans, as well as to the value of human life and liberty.”

https://www.larrysharpe.com/bio/

Kevin Enilc

enilc2

Kevin Enilc is an author for Liberty Viral that wrote 6 Reasons Why It Blows To Be A Libertarian In The Military along with many other articles related to foreign policy.

Kristopher Morgan

morgan2

Kristopher Morgan is an author and publisher for the Ask A Libertarian Facebook page. Kristopher was a sergeant in the Army.

“The enforcement arm of the government gets thanked while the other branches get blamed, even though the executive is in charge of administering what the legislative decides. We complain about bad laws and then go around thanking policeman… or we strongly disagree with our foreign policy and then get yellow ribbons that say ‘support our troops’ and buy vets beers and all this other nonsense… I’m sorry, I’m a veteran myself, and I’m not gonna go around thanking people for being part of the military and fighting political battles for the military-industrial complex…”

Andrew Deemer

deemer

Andrew Deemer an author for the Ask A Libertarian Facebook page. Andrew Deemer served six years and was deployed to Iraq twice as an Army mechanic specialist.

“War is damaging in so many ways, the people being invaded more so. Men in uniforms breaking down doors, shouting, yelling in the middle of the night waking them up. The father doing what a father does, protecting his family. They shoot him in front of the rest of the family and then just leave. Leaving this family broken, and making new enemies. Now that soldier that pulled the trigger because he was acting on instinct will have to live with that the rest of his life. We do not want to kill anyone. We do not want PTSD. We don’t want to be messed up.

Why do I support non intervention? How many more fathers, mothers, daughters, and sons have to suffer? How many other countries have to stay behind because we won’t let them advance, knowing dang well it is our interventions that make them hate us?

I support non-intervention because every 65 minutes another veteran dies by his/her own hand. Because I want to stop 22 veterans a day from killing themselves. #nomore22 #nomoreintervention”
-Andrew Deemer

Trent Somes III

somes

Trent Somes, III (Theodore Arthur Somes, III, born 24 April 1998) is a current USMC reservist. He is one of the youngest Libertarian Party leaders in the US. Somes started Westmoreland County Libertarians in 2015 under the direction of the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania at age 17, and the Libertarian Youth Caucus.

At the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania convention in 2016, Somes, along with other youth, founded the Libertarian Youth Caucus, which quickly rose to be a well – known organization.

“I believe in a foreign policy that emphasizes nonintervention and global cooperation. I believe open borders and free trade are essential to having a world of liberal democracy.”  -Trent Somes III

Admiral Michael C. Colley

colley_michael

“He [Michael C. Colley] graduated with distinction from the United States Naval Academy. He had sea duty assignments on several nuclear-powered submarines and was Commanding Officer of the attack submarine Narwhal. Other operational assignments included command of the submarine tender Proteusin Guam and the Navy’s largest submarine squadron in Groton, Connecticut. During the Gulf War, he was commander of the Pacific Fleet submarine force of over 40 boats from his headquarters at Pearl Harbor. Later onshore he was Commander for Navy Recruiting. He was also Director, Division of Mathematics and Science (including the departments of math, physics, chemistry, oceanography and computer science) at the Naval Academy for three academic years.

Colley has been active in the National Security Policy and Analysis fields.”

http://lpedia.org/Michael_Colley

“Colley became involved in the Libertarian Party after more than 30 years of service in the U.S. Navy. A year after he joined the Alabama Libertarian Party in 2003, he started serving the first of his three terms as at-large representative on the Libertarian National Committee.”

https://www.lp.org/blogs-staff-the-libertarian-party-remembers-admiral-michael-c-colley/

Conclusion

“A 2014 Military Times survey showed that the number of troops who identified themselves as Republican was dropping, while those identifying themselves as libertarian or independent was rising.”

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/295409-johnson-tops-among-veterans

Dismissing libertarian foreign policy by assuming libertarians haven’t served in war is inaccurate because many libertarians have served in the United States armed forces. It is a flawed paradigm because one does not have to experience war to understand it, just as one does not have to have experience designing doorknobs to know how one should be used.

In liberty,

-Travis Hallman

Follow us at http://www.facebook.com/askalibertarian

Do you have a libertarian oriented message you want to get out? Consider contacting Ask A Libertarian via messenger at https://www.facebook.com/messages/t/askalibertarian to find out how you can become a volunteer in our Journalism Department.

 

The author’s views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the entire Ask A Libertarian Team or its followers.

Common-Sense Guns

mafia

Donnie Davis, October 5, 2017

Let’s end the debate on gun control. Criminals will always be able to acquire guns because they don’t abide by laws. Laws make it harder for ordinary citizens to buy weapons to protect themselves, while criminals access the black market.

In many states, purchasing a firearm requires passing a NICS check. It consists of running your ID through federal and state databases to screen people who have been involved in domestic disturbances or have criminal records.

In addition to the NICS background check, potential gun owners must meet local and state requirements. It is noteworthy that in some cities, such as Chicago, it is illegal to own handguns.  In 2016, Chicago experienced 762 homicides; the gun control crowd bears a heavy burden explaining this. While some instinctually believe restrictions are not rigorous enough, libertarians argue the regulations cause black market activity, which in turn breeds violence. According to the article, “police and prosecutors agree that the city’s black market for illegal guns has thrived in no small part because of street gangs and their drug operations.”

To understand the nature of prohibition we can look at the market for illegal substances, where much study has been completed. Heroin is a perfect example. Though it is illegal to use, possess, manufacture, and sell, our country is experiencing an epidemic. The same is happening with other drugs such as methamphetamines and cocaine. In fact, politicsmadepublic.com reported that the illegal drug trade is one of the most profitable markets in the economy.

Alcohol prohibition in the early 20th century didn’t work either. Bathtub gin, speakeasies, rum runners, and the like managed to maneuver around the law. The black market in alcohol created the environment for organized crime to flourish, offering those willing to take the risk an opportunity to provide that service/commodity anyway. If not for alcohol prohibition, organized crime would have never existed in the capacity it did.

Promoters of gun control may point to a recent review of multiple studies that have shown regulations actually do lower homicide rates. However, the findings “were observational, which meant that researchers couldn’t control for variables. That’s a problem… Failing to control for variables in any social study is huge when we consider the complexities of human society. The article also mentions bias within the team, though they do believe it was not shown in the results.

The real debate is control vs freedom. Permitting incremental losses in freedom for the illusion of gains in security is the path to serfdom. If we allow the government to violate the bill of rights, sooner or later freedom of speech will be legislated against…. oh wait, it already is.

100% freedom is preferable. passing legislation to control people shifts the focus from individual growth to political control. Rather than getting at the roots of violence, we try to manage the symptoms, ironically, using violence.

Laws are only necessary when there are victims; i.e. murder, rape, theft, kidnapping, assault, etc. Passing legislation which is designed to control our behavior violates of our liberty, and arguably the Ninth Amendment. Crime can only exist when someone can claim victimhood. Anything else is just a matter of personal opinion and moral values.

Should negligent behavior be legislated? No. Should negligent behavior that results in someone/thing being victimized be legislated? Could negligence increase the punishment for a crime? Most certainly, because there is a victim. But when we use the law to force people to abstain from doing things that don’t directly threaten us or our rights, we become the criminals.

 

Follow us at http://www.facebook.com/askalibertarian

Do you have a libertarian oriented message you want to get out? Consider contacting Ask A Libertarian via messenger at https://www.facebook.com/messages/t/askalibertarian to find out how you can become a volunteer in our Journalism Department.

 

The author’s views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the entire Ask A Libertarian Team or its followers.

 

It Is A Privilege

privilege

Kris Morgan

President Trump signaled his intention to stop allowing transgender individuals to enlist in the military. He transmitted the following in a series of tweets:

“After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail.”

This decision can be seen in multiple ways, most obvious as being a step back for LGBTQ rights, as service to country is once again being blocked. Another way of viewing this decision is that it is nothing more than a calculated move to make the military more efficient and focused, taking the president at his word. Hardly anyone questions whether joining the military is a right.  That is where libertarian philosophy comes into play.

If our military were strictly restrained to national defense, there would be no reason to refuse transgenders from serving. However, that is not how things are. Ever since Saddam Hussein first attempted to annex Kuwait back in the early 1990’s, the United States military has been involved heavily in the Middle East. They’ve done everything from invading Iraq (twice) to laying sanctions and establishing no fly zones. The conflict has spread to Syria, Libya, Somalia, Pakistan, Yemen, and Afghanistan.

Major conflicts going on today began as a result of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which killed almost 3,000 people. Operation Enduring Freedom began in 2001 when US forces hunted down Osama Bin Laden. Operation Iraqi Freedom began in 2003 when President Bush’s administration couldn’t decide if Hussein possessed WMDs, was a party to the 9/11 attacks, or both (neither turned out to be true). The result of these operations has been a refugee crisis, the destabilization of the Middle East, the creation of ISIS, and the US desperately trying to restore stability.  

To get an understanding of the legacy the US is leaving in Iraq, it’s important to review key pieces of information. First, in the 1990s the UN estimated that 500,000 children died as a result of US sanctions. The finding was one of the motivators behind the 9/11 attack. To be fair, that number is in dispute. However, then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright took credit for it when she told 60 Minutes that price was worth controlling Saddam.

On another point we turn our attention to Fallujah. Due to heavy bombings from US forces and their allies in the current occupation, Fallujah has experienced “the highest rate of genetics damage in any population ever studied”, according to Dr. Chris Busby who authored and co-authored several studies on the Fallujah Health Crisis. It is clear that the United States is the aggressor nation in modern conflicts in the Middle East.

The goal is to wage a war against terrorism. This is a crusade that will likely go on until the American economy completely collapses and the war effort can no longer be funded. The more we press on against countries and populations who have never harmed us, the more terrorists we will create. The more terrorists we create, the more fuel our politicians have to justify their actions.  It is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Though a judge has recently blocked the ban, there is no right to join an organization that bombs and occupies other parts of the world. It makes no difference if you’re part of the LGBTQ community. To join the military, wage aggressive war while radiating populations, killing and displacing civilians, creating the very problems it is allegedly solving, and not come under formal charges is a legally created exemption. There is a world of difference between legal immunity and culturally created incentives, and human rights under natural law.

If President Trump wants to sort out this problem, our military has to be one that is strictly used to defend the United States. This would mean ending the operations in the Middle East, bringing our troops home, and giving the power to declare war back to Congress. Congress has not declared war since June 4, 1942. Until a formal constitutional amendment is passed altering the powers of Congress and the Presidency, anything which empowers the executive with the ability to start war is an act of treason.  

The transgender question cannot be properly resolved until we correct the issues with American Foreign Policy.

 

Follow us at http://www.facebook.com/askalibertarian

Do you have a libertarian oriented message you want to get out? Consider contacting Ask A Libertarian via messenger at https://www.facebook.com/messages/t/askalibertarian to find out how you can become a volunteer in our Journalism Department.

 

The author’s views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the entire Ask A Libertarian Team or its followers.