Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.

 

voluntarymerced
Advertisements

Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.

choices

Libertarians support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.

 

mexicowall

Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.

right and left

Libertarians favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Markets are not actually free unless fraud is vigorously combated. Those who enjoy the possibility of profits must not impose risks of losses upon others, such as through government guarantees or bailouts. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item. We support a halt to inflationary monetary policies and unconstitutional legal tender laws.

hatetrump

Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.

 

90s kids

The Why Not Of Democratic Socialism

democraticsocialismno

Kris Morgan 9/6/2018

Democratic Socialism is a phrase that has been popularized by Vermont Senator and former Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders. The word ‘socialism’ sets off red flags in the minds of Libertarians and Conservatives alike. This is understandable given the body count of the 20th century that traces back to socialist countries. Nevertheless, supporters of the ideology claim that those opposed are merely associating their form of socialism with that of totalitarian dictatorships. Whether we agree with this statement or not, one thing is for certain; Democratic Socialism is gaining in popularity and if we are going to successfully push back against that tide, we should not engage in hyperbole. The Democratic Socialists of America webpage has two major tasks for the visitor to explore. It behooves us to listen to their message and highlight where we disagree and offer alternatives.

Number one on the to-do list is providing medicare for all. The text reads “In the capitalist system, you have to pay to get care or go without, and under a democratic socialist system, we would collectively provide care as a society.” It would be great to reach a point where everyone has access to quality healthcare. However, there are two major points worthy of examination.

First, the present medicare program is due to go bankrupt by 2026, despite the fact that it does not cover all citizens. A piece in the LA Times noted “The report from program trustees says Medicare will become insolvent in 2026 — three years earlier than previously forecast. Its giant trust fund for inpatient care won’t be able to fully cover projected medical bills starting at that point.” The Democratic Socialists would likely develop a financial plan designed to resolve this issue. However, we must keep in mind that no government program is ever presented as if it will be poorly managed and leave us bankrupt. Yet here we are, over $21tril in debt; not because of a single party or even a single office, but because of the system as a whole.

Second, though libertarians recognize and sympathize with the current state of medical services, we identify the problem as being government interventionism in the first place. Mises.org has a great piece showing step-by-step how the United States has empowered and enriched private entities at the expense of the people, resulting in higher costs and fewer services. Our solution is to end the practices that lead to the current state of affairs to begin with. We want to trust communities and markets with the ability to solve problems. Contrary to the popular belief that we have a do-nothing answer, we would remove artificial barriers so individuals can make investments and increase efficiency of current services. Models that don’t result in greater output than input end in bankruptcy, whereas political failures continue until change is advantageous for those in power, regardless of the damage they cause.

Next on their list of objectives is stronger unions. Notwithstanding the lack in details, their ideas still warrant attention. Not surprising, capitalism itself is made the target.

“Capitalism pits us against each other and workplaces are fundamentally authoritarian unless workers can self-organize and build collective power. This is why people build unions, and why employers undermine them. It is also why the capitalists as a class constantly work to undermine unions and promote narratives about unions that frame them as unnecessary, undemocratic or ineffective. We are forming a national project to fight back and build power in the economy, since outside of Wall Street, workplaces are the place where the owning class extract resources from the working class.”

Yes, under capitalism there is competition. The nature of this competition is largely peaceful, with workers determined to prove themselves more valuable than each other, and entrepreneurs working on meeting demand most efficiently. While it can be argued this is less than perfect, it is much more preferable than competing for power over each other. In free markets the goal is to trade one’s economic efforts for material gain. In socialism, the goal is to pander to, or seize, power and force everyone to do what we want. Talk about pitting us against each other!

Libertarians are not anti-union per se. Our objections only arise where force is being used. Rules which make it illegal for an employer to end associations with those wanting to form unions go against individual liberty. Freedom in these decisions would make it possible for workers and employers to weigh their options and do what is in their best interest. If a skill is valuable and rare enough, those who have it have a bargaining chip. Industry leaders would understand that negotiating is in their best interest under those circumstances. Economic problems persist where skills are not scarce, but law restricts entrepreneurs from opting out of negotiations. Demand for such labor diminishes under artificially higher costs, and lower-level employees assume added responsibilities, or technology fills in the gap. Opportunities for unskilled workers to gain experience, skills, and knowledge fade.

These Democratic Socialist stepping stones are just a launching pad to encompass key aspects of life. In their view, eventually everything would be transformed from spontaneous order to a centrally-planned, democratic decision making process. In their words, “Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.”

Trade by itself is here to meet public needs. In markets, our highest order needs and wants are expressed in the pricing system. Consumers willing to buy products at high prices signal producers to direct more resources towards said goods, and the result is lower prices and a supply and demand reaching as close to equilibrium as conditions would allow.

Who determines if the public’s needs are being met in Democratic Socialism? Or, in the existential sense, how do we determine what exactly the public needs to begin with? Life is infinitely complex and peoples’ wants and needs are in a constant state of change. Running everything in a democratic manner would never allow for the flexibility needed to match these conditions, not to mention whatever the politics involved would look like. The only way to adapt to is to untie our hands and let us react to changes. A handful of us cannot possibly know what all of us need, and if they did, the bureaucratic process of democracy is far too slow to adjust.

Whatever the intentions are of democratic socialists, the course of action they have chosen will not make the world a better place. Our economy is already riddled with trade cycles, endless deficits, regulations, wars, etc, we don’t need more. The move to provide medicare for everyone is a step in the wrong direction. In bad times, just as in good times, the real solution is increased capital investment to make labor more productive and directed to meet real demand. This only occurs under conditions of freedom. The government’s job is simple; get out of the way and deal with people who infringe on private property rights. Stop running deficits, eliminate tariffs, allow interest rates to reflect economic realities, and stop inflating bubbles.

The task of taking purposeful economic action is on the people. For example, if more medical services are really what we want, then new models should be constructed and invested in privately, so that in the event the planners are wrong, they fail as they should. Under conditions where entrepreneurs hit their mark, they have a solvent system in play and get to remain. In spite of popular opinion, no form of socialism is synonymous with sharing, it’s about institutionalized theft. Scarce resources are not something we should want politicized under any circumstances. Political decision-making is precisely what got us to where we are today, and we should not be entertaining the notion of expanding it.

 

For more content from askalibertarian, follow us on the following platforms:

 

 

 

 

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.

Social Media Censorship; Mainstream Media Lies

smcensorship

By Franc Turner  August 26, 2018

I’d like to preface these next thoughts by saying that I disagree with practically everything that Alex Jones has said in recent years. That said, I’ve heard that the alternative media radio host has been banned from Facebook, YouTube, and Apple all on the same day, within the span of 12 hours. All of his content, thousands upon thousands of videos, podcasts, live streams, etc; all deemed to be “unfit for human consumption” i.e. removed because it might offend a listening ear. In other words, they’re worried about losing ad revenue for their social media outlets.

Again, I’d like to point out that I don’t think Mr. Jones has had anything even remotely enlightening or relevant to say lately. However, the fact that WHAT he says has been “banned” throughout the social media world has set a rather concerning precedent for anyone who doesn’t fit into the cookie-cutter paradigm of “general consensus” concepts, ideas, or expressions. This may have been the purpose of having someone like Jones on the airwaves in the first place. Here’s someone who was completely anti-authoritarian, questioning the motives behind all of those in power, and gradually made to appear crazier and crazier. He ultimately became a caricature of himself, of “conspiracy theorists,” and of alternative media outlets in general; thereby, giving the greenlight to remove any voices who may use these various platforms to go against the grain.

It seems the only outlets allowed to have opinions (political or otherwise) in the 24-hour news-cycle world are Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN. Anything else is “fake news” and subject to censorship. If I remember correctly, all three of these organizations were cheerleaders, initially, for the Bush Jr. administration when the War in Iraq was in its infancy. They all willfully parroted the blatant lies of WMD’s that brainwashed the country into believing Iraq was a threat to the United States, and also believing that perpetuating the never-ending War on Terror was a just cause.

During those years, before it became cool to criticise Bush Jr.’s Presidency, Alex Jones was an anti-war/peace activist who called out the Neoconservatives/Republicans with every action they took. This was a time when no one else (at least in the mainstream media) had the balls to do so (with the exception of maybe Jon Stewart). The fact that Jones is now basically a talking-piece for every Neoconservative policy and agenda should, at the very least, make a person wonder why that is.

I personally think that this is all an attempt to take anyone who questions official news and equate them with the likes of Alex Jones or whoever else they choose to censor. It seems as though the goal is to make the idea of questioning the “official” anything, in and of itself, seem “crazy,” “off-hinged,” and “dangerous.”

The reality is the opposite. It’s the “officials” who have done nothing to shed light on all of the government-sanctioned bloodshed and brutality inflicted upon specific geopolitical regions for the past seventeen years, against people and nations who had nothing to do with the events of 9/11. Instead, the “real” news is too concerned with what Stormy Daniels is saying, what Roseanne is saying, what gender Bruce Jenner is, where alt-right vs. antifa fights are breaking out, and what our puppet presidents are tweeting.

While some people may argue that these are private corporations, and they have the “right” to censor whatever they want on their platforms, these same people are also arguing whether or not football players have the right to kneel during the national anthem. And the reason given is, you guessed it, FREE SPEECH; despite the fact that NFL teams are also private organizations. The whole “violating the terms of service” isn’t the issue here. Individuals who are just now being deplatformed are, for the most part, saying the exact same things that they’ve always been saying since the beginning of social media. Yet, they are only now being taken down by popular demand i.e. media hype and taking words out of context to make it all fit a certain narrative. While at the same time, other major organizations are saying/doing very similar things on these platforms and not given the ax. Social Media is cherry-picking who they decide to ban on these forums of apparent “free expression” and the voting population is cherry-picking what constitutes free speech/expression.

The bottom line is: as a society, we either believe in freedom of speech or we don’t. And if you believe that it is ok to censor thoughts and beliefs that you personally don’t agree with, then you are also saying that it is ok for those in power to censor what YOU have to say, simply because they don’t agree with YOU.

Questioning and voicing your opinion, no matter how unpopular your particular views are… is a good thing. Never be afraid to say what you believe, for that fear is the essence of authoritarianism.

 

 

The Confidence Conundrum

Confidence

Kris Morgan 7/11/2018

Libertarians have made much progress advancing the intellectual case for liberty. In economics, Ludwig Von Mises wrote about the economic calculation problems of socialism in 1922, 69 years before the collapse of the Soviet Union. He then went on to write a treatise called Human Action, which provided a step-by-step analysis of how economies grow based on the axiom of action (individuals engage in conscious actions toward chosen goals). In the area of philosophy, Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard contributed with a system of objectivism and the validity of unabated private property, respectively. It seems that reason and evidence are on our side, so what are we missing?

One fact that few discuss is that human decision-making is not entirely based on logical consistency and empiricism, but is heavily rooted in emotion. Jim Camp at Big Think noted the research of neuroscientist Antonio Damasio: “He studied people with damage in the part of the brain where emotions are generated. He found that they seemed normal, except that they were not able to feel emotions. But they all had something peculiar in common: they couldn’t make decisions. They could describe what they should be doing in logical terms, yet they found it very difficult to make even simple decisions, such as what to eat.”

It is common knowledge that our emotional styles are installed during childhood. Is it possible that we are not peaceful in adulthood because our childhoods are full of conflict? Dr. Nadine Burke Harris makes the argument in her book, The Deepest Well: Healing The Long-Term Effects of Childhood Adversity, as well as a compelling TED-Talk, about how toxic stress in childhood impacts our lives forever. The information she brings to the table, which is based on the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) study, suggests what one might expect —that how we are raised shapes who we become. Our hormones, genetic expression, physiology, brain development, and more are dependent on our upbringing and the amount of stress in it. The question is: how does this information explain how society is shaped?

On a recent radio broadcast, the host made a very brief comment about confident people that might point us in the right direction. Self-assured people do not allow others to push them around. In fact, bullies target people who give off subconscious indicators of low self-esteem. After considering our current state of affairs with safe spaces, poor mental health, over-sensitivity, and increases in suicide, I felt it prudent to attempt to pinpoint where we went off course. It seems self-confidence is lacking in our population and PsychologyToday had an interesting piece on the subject.

Jim Taylor, Ph.D. wrote: “Sometime back in the ’70s when the “self-esteem movement” started, a bunch of parenting experts said that raising well-adjusted children is all about self-esteem. And I couldn’t agree more. This is also when America’s self-esteem problem began because parents and other influences on self-esteem (e.g., teachers and coaches) got the wrong messages about self-esteem from those experts. Instead of creating children with true self-esteem, our country has created a generation of children who, for all the appearances of high self-esteem, actually have little regard for themselves (because they have little on which to base their self-esteem). These same experts told parents that they could build their children’s self-esteem by telling them how smart and talented and beautiful and incredible they were (“You’re the best, Johnny!”). In other words, parents were led to believe that they could convince their children how wonderful they were. Unfortunately, life has a way of providing a reality check and children learned the hard way that they weren’t as fabulous as their parents told them they were. Parents were also told to praise and reinforce and reward their children no matter what they did. The result: lower self-esteem and children who were self-centered and spoiled.”

Rather than building up the core of our kids, we have been building hollow shells. Kids are often more intelligent than we give them credit for. In due time, they realize on their own that their parents have been filling them with hot air. Might some believe mom and dad were just being nice and the truth is they’re not capable of anything? While we do see articles such as this one, claiming our kids are “brimming with self-esteem,” we have to keep in mind that overconfidence/arrogance is a symptom of low self-worth.

Fast-forward to 2001, an unstable economy and the attack on 9/11. Our population accepted losses in personal freedom with the Patriot Act, and more economic controls in light of the dot-com bust and the subsequent housing fiasco. A society with a significant amount of people who don’t believe in their own abilities is going to turn to power. It’s clockwork. We all have worries about the future, and in times of emergency we will fall back on our training. Our training has taught us to rely on authority. What was once mom and dad becomes the government in adulthood.

Unfortunately, there are those among us who partially understand this issue with child-rearing but only offer a negative solution. Then President Barack Obama, while addressing the NAACP, asserted “we need to go back to time, back to the day when parents saw somebody, saw some kid foolin’ around and, it wasn’t your child, but they’ll whoop ya anyway.” While Mr. Obama did offer reasonable advice prior to this statement, this invoked a roar in the audience. It is no secret most believe parents are simply too soft on their kids.

The facts disprove this myth. Studies consistently find spanking has negative consequences. Globalnews reported in 2017 that “A recent study out of the University of Manitoba found that spanking had similar outcomes to those experienced through adverse childhood experiences (ACE), including physical, emotional and sexual abuse, and physical and emotional neglect. They found that children who were spanked were more likely to suffer from depressive effects in adulthood, including moderate to heavy drinking and street drug abuse, and especially increased odds of suicide attempts.” We also have to bear in mind that the overwhelming majority of Americans still favor and apply the practice.

This is not to say that all libertarians are confident, nor is it to say all confident people are libertarians. However, it is reasonable to conclude that confidence plays a big role when contemplating ideas. Self-reliance requires faith in one’s abilities. If we cannot trust in ourselves, we may find it difficult to rely on free interactions to solve our most challenging problems.

It’s important to note that from this point of view statism is not the solution to social dysfunction, it is part of it. By being authentic with our kids, and building them up at the core rather than giving them a house of cards to fall back on, we can overcome this gap. The good news is all parents want what is best for their children.

 

For more content from askalibertarian, follow us on the following platforms:

 

 

 

 

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.

Who’s Naive?

naive

Kris Morgan 7/7/2018

Like supporters of nearly any other cause, after a while libertarians hear repeat objections to our ideas. Some of these are well founded and need to be addressed, while others simply exist because of ignorance and misunderstanding. Responding to the former is beneficial because it helps us to refine our thinking, and sorting through the latter gives us the opportunity to reach out to those who are willing to dive below the surface. Here, I hope to resolve the shallow claim that libertarianism is a naive philosophy that can never work.

Shant Eghian wrote: “…I ultimately find libertarianism as a political philosophy too simplistic to be put into practice. Take the taxation views of candidate Darryl Perry, for instance, the self-described ‘most libertarian’ of the five candidates. Perry (like the other four candidates) considers all taxation theft, and stated that government had no legitimate role in society. Instead of taxation, he proposed a system of completely voluntary donations; citizens would only give money to the programs that they use or wanted to give money to. Economic issues certainly aren’t my strong suit, so forgive me for wandering into territory that I know very little about, but Perry’s idea seems incredibly problematic, taking a naive view of human nature that only the most rosy-eyed socialist would consider. While voluntary taxation may work in some areas (advocates for school choice and a voucher program certainly have my attention), I think having this strategy used for everything is unrealistic.”

The error in this view is two-fold. First, libertarians do not hold the view that human beings are angels and will band together singing kumbaya if we end taxation. On the contrary, we are just cynical enough to understand that once taxation is accepted as legit, there is very little we can do to keep powerful sociopaths in check. Vote ‘em out they say… and vote who in exactly?  That is our question. John McCain? Hillary Clinton?

Secondly, we often see those who support taxation as being engaged in delusions of their own. The state proves to be abusive, wasteful, and inefficient on a daily basis. Yet there remain so many who believe it is going to and do all the right things; stop invading vulnerable countries with natural resources, and stop destroying economic growth.

Eghian also took issue with the Non-Aggression Principle when he stated: “Instead of an inordinate faith in the power of big government, libertarians have an inordinate faith in things just working out for themselves, without any regulation or outside force to intervene when things go wrong. I could go on with my problems with the libertarian debate. From the idea that no one who has committed non-violent crimes should go to jail .”

In the quote above, he is comparing his differences with socialism to those of libertarianism. Where is he wrong? Libertarians do not believe that things are going to simply work out in lieu any sort of checks and balances. What we do believe is the rich will-and do-bribe politicians, as well as seize political power to attain favorable regulations. The Federal Reserve itself, charged with the task of stabilizing the financial system, often works to the benefit of specific banks. In fact, it originated through a team of politicians and private bankers. The term crony capitalism has been popularized to describe the unholy alliance between public officials and private business.

We favor regulation from private parties, most notably in the form of market certifications. The greatest example of this is Underwriters Laboratories (UL).  The UL logo on virtually all electronics we purchase means the item has been deemed safe by a private institution. In addition, you may be aware that food safety and quality are more rigorous in the market than by government. Safe Quality Foods is one example. Before retailers will consider selling a product on their shelves, they require manufacturers meet the standards of private inspections.

Additionally, if the purpose is to defend American citizens and their property, why should anyone favor jailing non-violent offenders? When people are arrested who have not committed acts of force, fraud, or theft, the government contradicts its own purpose. Rather than taking the role of defender, it becomes aggressor. There is no doubting the validity of the non-aggression principle in our personal lives, therefore we should not surrender it in politics.

This is not to say libertarians believe nothing bad could ever happen in private settings. However, keeping things private maximizes our power to call the wrongdoers out, put them out of business, minimize the potential for damage, and at least attain market justice. We also reserve the power to make decisions for ourselves, such as what risks we are willing to take. With organizations like the FDA, drugs that may help others in times of crisis are often withheld, special interests can bribe their way to favorable regulations, and we are essentially powerless against it. A feasible market solution would be Labdoor; an entity that routinely tests supplements sold by retailers. The absence of the FDA would create a vacuum for the useful checks it provides, which Labdoor and others could fill in the same way UL and SQF operate.

In the spirit of the title of this article, I have to ask who is truly naive? Is it the libertarian, who sees government’s use of power as inherently evil and wants to curb it? Or is it those who believe, in spite of everything that happens almost daily, power will be used correctly and justice will be done? When we measure crime in terms of coercive acts, there is no question governments are worse than any private group that has existed anywhere at any time. For example, when the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima took place, “the explosion wiped out 90 percent of the city and immediately killed 80,000 people; tens of thousands more would later die of radiation exposure.” Three days later, an additional 40,000 died in the bombing of Nagasaki.

Some believe this was justified because the conflict was called a ‘war.’ But it raises the question: what would happen if you were in a bar fight and exploded the bar with C-4? No one would believe that’s morally acceptable for an individual, so why do some think it’s justified on an infinitely larger scale? Civilian populations are not a threat, military targets are. Yet the destruction of these cities and the resulting death tolls are often viewed by those in power as examples of success.

If our goals are justice and security, is it not naive to believe we will achieve them by allowing the rule of an aggressive force? The constant fighting over who should have power, and what they should force us to do, will go on indefinitely. The solution is to overcome the adversity of securing ourselves and our families without inviting aggression into our lives. If we are not willing to do so, then we will never know true liberty, peace, or prosperity.  

 

For more content from askalibertarian, follow us on the following platforms:

 

 

 

 

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.