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 http://www.facebook.com/askalibertarian

 

Advertisements

UBI Part III: Alternatives

F64D0918-E94D-4921-B99C-CDDE4073585B

Kris Morgan   September 21, 2017

Universal Basic Income (UBI) comes with high costs.  Economically, it will inhibit growth by placing a tax burden on production, making it more difficult to start new businesses and for small ones to compete.  Taxation also detracts from funds which could be used for reinvestment.  Monetizing more debt would put heavier pressure on our already weak dollar, as well as cause malinvestments.  Our government is not only 20 trillion dollars in debt, but it presently holds over 127 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities, in addition to wartime spending.  If we do not reject the UBI on our own terms, basic economics will force the issue.  That does not mean we must embark on the future without a plan.

Fortunately, plenty of economic reforms have been presented which are worthy of support.  Regulations that do not directly protect the property rights of others can be discarded.  Overtime rules, wage floors, truth in advertising, licensing requirements, and others restrict market forces from allocating resources to meet demand efficiently.  For example, the operant assumption in truth in advertising is that a particular business has engaged in false advertising, until proven otherwise.  By pushing back harmful regulations, we give ourselves a fighting chance to build.  It is unwise to face an uncertain future with our hands tied.  

Support for UBI indicates people have empathy for those who are unable to adequately adapt.  UBI is a means of expressing this feeling.  The alternative to government power is the conduit of civil society.  Entrepreneurs could market goods and services as products which support jobs.  Consumers can use purchasing power to reinforce such ventures, and philanthropists could fill in the remaining vacuum.  

UBI has brought attention to significant defects in our education system.  Its original intent may have been to create a labor force suitable for factory work, rather than enlightened critical thinkers.  In 1903, when John D. Rockefeller founded the General Education Board, his advisor Frederick Gates informed “…We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning of science. We are not to raise among them authors, orators, poets, or men of letters.  We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians…”  

This design was confirmed in 1990 by New York Teacher of the Year John Taylor Gatto, who said the following during his acceptance speech: “…Schools are intended to produce through the application of formulae, formulaic human beings whose behavior can be predicted and controlled.  To a very great extent, schools succeed in doing this. But our society is disintegrating, and in such a society, the only successful people are self-reliant, confident, and individualistic…”  

Education to induce conformity may have worked in the past, but it will not suffice any longer.  According to careerfaqs.com, the skills needed in the future include cognitive flexibility, creativity, critical thinking, and complex problem solving, among a few others. We should be pressuring our local school boards to focus on building skill sets, such as these, which are projected for future success.

As parents, we should not leave the task entirely to school.  Computer competence can be taught in our homes.  By teaching our kids a programming language, we could give them a head start in facing the future with a marketable skill.  If need be, we could find someone to act as a tutor.  

It is clear that the areas which need the most reform are our economy and our education system.  Our children must be able to exercise their creative muscles, and it is fundamental they be economically free to adapt.  Anyone supporting the idea of UBI without considering our weak financial position should consider what is addressed in this article.  It is not a question of whether we will have to take responsibility for ourselves, it is whether a severe economic crash will be the cause.

 

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

UBI Part II: Education

57FEEFE1-C50A-4D98-AF4B-5531E16C3B15

Kris Morgan, September 15, 2017

Since Universal Basic Income (UBI) in the United States would potentially fill in for wages lost to automation, it is wise to get a snapshot of where American education stands in terms of science and technology. Presumably, the labor market will be reoriented towards developing software and other tasks workers are presently unqualified to perform.  What do we know about science?  Per ultratechlife:  “According to an MIT report, at least 216 million Americans are scientifically illiterate. There are several other reports that seem to highlight this assessment of US ignorance. There appears to be a failure in American culture and the educational system especially when an adult cannot understand basic science concepts.  Where did we go wrong and what can be done about this? Believe it or not, science literacy is a matter of national security, critical for our economy and future as a competitive nation.”  

By solving the mystery of our ignorance, and closing the gap, we can cultivate logical alternatives to the UBI.  Perhaps the explanation of American ignorance can be solved by taking a glance at our school curriculums.

The Atlantic reported that just half of children between seventh and 12th grades attend schools that offer computer science courses, which are typically electives. It is noteworthy that according to the article, minorities are less likely to have access to computer classes, and males are more encouraged to take Computer Science courses than females.

The scientific community is not silent about this issue.  Renowned physicist, cosmologist, futurist, professor, and author Dr. Michio Kaku made the following comments on education in 2016: “The United States has the worst educational system known to science.  Our graduates routinely compete at the level of third world countries.” Referring to our tech sector specifically, he remarked “Without the H1B (visa), the scientific establishment of this country would collapse!  Forget about Google.  Forget about Silicon Valley, there would be no Silicon Valley without H1B.”  The visa allows non-immigrants to work for American businesses if they have “theoretical or technical expertise in specialized fields such as in IT, finance, accounting, architecture, engineering, mathematics, science, medicine, etc.”

This lack of education is precisely what is causing many of our anxieties and support for UBI. At present, 50% of the population surveyed already favor it.  It is reasonable to expect this number to grow as we see our economy decline due to war spending, quantitative easing, inflation, and the rest of government inflicted hardships.  Indeed, we are facing automation earlier than we would had it not been for wage floors, regulations, and political involvement in the hiring and firing processes.  

Fortunately, we have more tools than ever for self-directed education.  Khan Academy, Rosetta Stone, iTunes U, books on pdf, and of course libraries, are all excellent supplemental educational resources.  We can teach ourselves skills. We can hire tutors to help us and our kids learn basic programming. We can pressure our local schools to do a better job of preparing our children for the future.  Many businesses offer programs for their employees to earn certificates and degrees in areas such as robotics and programming, as they do for maintenance personnel and other departments.

We need not always focus on where we disagree on education, i.e. religion’s place, or how much money teachers are being paid.  The coming of automation and whether we need to be prepared for it is a completely bi-partisan issue.  We all share the responsibility of making this transition easier for future generations, even if that means it is hard for us today.  We should get involved in our local schools and ask “What is being done to ensure our kids have the necessary skills to thrive in the future?”  

People avoid growth often times because it is time consuming, means making mistakes, and invites the possibility of embarrassment. Growth is often painful.  What gets ignored due to these fears is how much better off we will be when we succeed.  Within a generation, mental labor will be the norm and physical labor will be rare.  We have the opportunity to permanently change humanity for the better.  We either fight for a future that revolves around subsidies, with little to show for it in the long run, and remain absent from history; Or we fight for a future dependent on growth, enrich society for generations to come, and go down as one of the great generations in human history.


 

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

 

Government Unchained

 

use

Jeremy Medley, September 14, 2017

Federalism is defined by Merriam-Webster as “The distribution of power in an organization (such as a government) between a central authority and the constituent units.” Our founders were so intent on this idea that they gave us the Tenth Amendment in our Bill of Rights. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution delegated few enumerated powers to the Federal Government, reserving all remaining powers to the States and the people. Thus, powers of the Federal Government were meant to be limited by our founders, with no exception. They knew then, as we are learning now, the true dangers of a government unfettered and the beast it can become.

Our federal republic was created by joint action of the several states. It has been gradually perverted into a socialist machine for federal control in the domestic affairs of the states and the individual. The Federal Government has no authority to mandate policies relating to state affairs, natural resources, transportation, private business, housing, nor healthcare. Yet these gross violations of our rights happen every day. We, as a society, are more in awe of what celebrities are wearing, or how our favorite football team is doing. We have given up on the idea that the government is beholden to the people. What caused this societal shift to take place? Can we right the course? The people must call on the Federal Government to close all unconstitutional federal agencies that usurp state power and infringe on the rights of this nation’s citizenry, such as the NSA, EPA, IRS, DEA, DHS, etc.

Throughout our history, as a nation we have allowed the Federal Government to squeeze the rights of the people away. We have nearly nothing left to give, but our labor and our lives. President Lincoln is regarded by many historians as a hero of the nation.  However, the issue of slavery aside, he was actually nothing more than a tyrannical ruler who discarded the constitution as it suited him, when southern states attempted secession.  President Franklin Roosevelt vowed to fill the Supreme Court with justices friendly to New Deal policies, which helped pave the way for our current welfare state. President Johnson and his “War on Poverty” has laid a tax burden on the people that is nearly unsustainable. President Nixon attacked the African American community with the “War on Drugs.” In recent history, Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump implemented legislation which has basically thrown your cConstitutional rights out the window with the Patriot Act. The blame does not only lie at the feet of the presidents, but they are the figurative head of the beast. “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” – Benjamin Franklin. Yet, we have given up the the warm embrace of liberty to suckle the teat of big government.

In a nation that honors itself on freedom we have allowed basic liberties to be swept away by a few legislators like thieves in the night. Why is there no outcry? What happened to the idea of “Give me liberty or give me death”?  Does this only apply in times of national threat or crisis? If so, aren’t we standing at the precipice of a cliff on which we will be unable to climb back? Yet, we still elect the same failed officials for political expedience. We can’t be bothered with the corrupt or troublesome world of politics unless it is sensationalized via Facebook, soundbite, or tweet.

Libertarians see atrocities across the globe committed in the guise of government doing what is right for the people, and for “freedom.” In the words of Ronald Reagan  “You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children’s children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.”

Our nation was started by individuals who were tired of the corrupt and oppressive rule of a government that never truly cared for its commoners, the same as we have today. Their political awakening started as a grassroots movement much like ours. Let our voices not go quietly in the night and unheard as if we were never here. We must continue our pursuit of true liberty for all.

 

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

 

Give Me Liberty

32979324-9B60-4625-9B9D-755754271A77

Jeremy Medley September 14, 2017

What comes to mind when you hear, “I’m gluten free” or “Yeah I do Crossfit?” If you’re like 99% of Americans you tune the person out, regardless of what may come after. They have touched a nerve. You don’t want to listen to them even though what follows may hold some value.

This is what the libertarian movement has become. From its meteoric rise with the 2008 and 2012 Presidential campaigns of Representative Ron Paul to the “What is Aleppo?” Gary Johnson moment; which in my opinion is when he became dead in the water, even though Google experienced a huge increase in searches regarding Aleppo following this. When did we allow the party of liberty and individual choice to become cliche? Was it when we became meme warriors? Where all you saw was “I just want to smoke pot, carry my gun, at my gay friend’s wedding?” Was it when few libertarians couldn’t offer a concise solution to the argument when they heard, “What about the roads?” Comical at best I give you, but we can cover this in another article.

As a party we face an uphill battle. We need to focus on our core principles. Even though we may have differing opinions on some issues, we are the party of truly limited government. We believe that you as an individual know what choice best suits your needs, not the government. You wouldn’t want your neighbor coming in your home telling you how you need to live your life. Why would you allow elected officials do this?

The biggest issue within the libertarian movement is libertarians themselves. We can’t go a day without someone saying “You’re not a real libertarian.” This is the difference between the party of liberty and the Republican and Democrat parties. They can rally their base while we have constant infighting. They also have the privilege and curse of being so at odds with one another their bases never side with the opposition. They look at themselves as uniting against the common enemy. Where, regardless of how our views differ from both major parties, we have the opportunity to appeal to both sides of the proverbial aisle. Remember just because you and another member of the party have some small disagreement on an issue doesn’t make you more libertarian than them. They have their ideas; you have yours.

If you’re brave enough to discuss politics with someone without mentioning the Libertarian Party, just focusing on the issues, chances are they will see the awe inspiring light. When you hear them talk about the failures of the establishment, show them an alternative.  

Following the 2016 election, the Libertarian party gained ballot access in all 50 states. This is nothing short of amazing for a party that began in 1971, especially with the duopoly political system where we are lumped into groups of conservatives or liberals. Why can’t you just be the individual? In a time when identity politics is all the rage, remember the individual is the smallest minority.

The seeds of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness have been planted into each one of us, regardless if our ancestors landed upon these shores with the Mayflower or we are first generation Americans. Let us nurture these ideas to grow and flourish in a newly awakened America.

The revolution has just begun.

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

Sixteen Years (and counting) Of Eroded Liberty: Where Does It Originate?

FAA50074-DA24-44FA-B8D8-84AB91433CA3

A Guest Article, by Franc Turner, September 9, 2017

Do you know what our last three Presidents have in common?

Inner me – “Everything?”

Well, yes. But to be more specific, Bush, Obama, and Trump all escalated military action in Afghanistan within their first several months in office after running on a platform of non-interventionism.

The Bush Administration, along with the neoconservatives, laid the groundwork of never-ending military intervention, occupation, and destabilization of country after country. The torch was then passed to “anti-war” Obama, who expanded the reach, scope, and magnitude of the policies which he inherited from his predecessor. And Trump is the culmination of everything that the neoconservatives wanted to bring about during the Bush era, but just had a hard time accomplishing in eight short years.

Among these objectives were multiple and simultaneous theater wars, along with achieving military strongholds in specific geopolitical regions of the Middle East, Asia, and elsewhere; not only as a means of acquiring finite resources, but also to assert dominance in areas that are considered “unfavorable” to U.S. interests (commercially, politically, or otherwise).  Also on the table was the implementation of regime change in those nations through economic sabotage, instigating manufactured uprisings, or all-out coup d’etat via tomahawk cruise missiles. They would then engage in nation building after the initial destruction, and give contracts to businesses that profit off of that very destruction. Similar to our own government, those private contractors have a vested interest in keeping all of these regions in a state of conflict.

Each and every item listed above was desired, including the countries with whom we’ve since gone to war or at least suggested that we should, by the very people who propped up the Bush presidency before he even took office. In September of 2000, one year before 9/11, a neoconservative think tank called the Project for a New American Century, or PNAC, described the objectives they wished to achieve in their publication entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses.” However, they also acknowledged that, “the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”

It has been sixteen years since they got their wish for that catastrophic and catalyzing event.  Yet, our nation is still doing the bidding for these people, even though their reign allegedly ended when Obama took office, and their  “swamp” was supposed to be “drained” when Trump took office.

Major aspects of life in this country are based entirely off that one day. This includes most aspects of foreign and domestic policy, travel, homeland security, militarized police, the ever-expanding government, the subversion of the Bill of Rights through the Patriot Act, TSA, NDAA, MCA, the surveillance state “smart grid” built up around us, warrantless searches of property, and “free speech zones.” All of which could mean the end of your privacy in regards to every action you take — whether it’s where you go, how you spend your money, your personal beliefs, etc.

Each new military action taken along with the loss of thousands of our own military, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians abroad, the torture, the destruction, the destabilization, the blowback, and new “threats” are a direct result of 19 individuals with box cutters and a bearded freak, apparently.

But, “Hey, I guess it’s all just to “protect us from the terrorists” and to “preserve freedoms,” right?” Weren’t those freedoms obliterated for the sake of having the illusion of security?  Weren’t they swept under the rug while we were too busy updating our Twitter statuses, and arguing about Obama vs. Trump vs. Hillary, and walls, and Russia, and statues, and fringe “radical” groups?”….. Yes, they were.

Every aspect of our lives seems to have been molded by that one day. The real question is who stands to gain from everything that’s transpired over the last 16 years. Is it the American citizen? Is it the countries we’re at war with? Is it those pesky terrorist organizations we just can’t seem to stamp out? Or is it the folks who were wanting these kind of things to take place, long before they ever came to fruition?

Just some food for thought, folks.

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

Defining Anarchy 

 

C8D26ED9-8CD1-46ED-ABF8-D5BDD97BD2F1

Kristopher Morgan 8/31/17

Every single time violence is used during a protest you hear politicians, the media, and everyone in between shouting “anarchists!”  Not only do those of us who proudly wear the badge find it insulting, it is an incorrect use of the term.  Ironically, it seems very few members of society are actually willing to spend time studying and contemplating anarchy and what it means to be an anarchist.  I present the following to close that gap and do my part in informing society on what anarchy is and is not.

What Anarchy Is Not

First and foremost, anarchists are not people who legitimize or perceive violent actions as acceptable.  The molotov cocktail throwing ‘anarchist’, who has no respect for law, or people and their property, is a complete farce.  Anarchists have the utmost respect for property, which is why we oppose states in the first place. In order to pay for government provided services, taxes must be collected with or without the consent of the people, as a matter of law.  It is inconsistent to reject governments on the grounds that they constantly infringe on people and property and then riot and commit acts of vandalism to get the message out.

Furthermore, there is a misunderstanding about lawlessness and disorder.  Anarchists understand and respect natural law, but reject legal positivism.  The basis of natural law is private property rights, whereas the operate assumption of positivism is the state may assault private property when the political climate demands.  An example of positivism would be the Affordable Care Act (ACA).  Socio-economic circumstances opened the door for another layer of healthcare legislation and President Obama and Congress gave us the ACA.  It violates natural law by demanding people who don’t purchase health insurance pay penalties when filing taxes; a way of using force to alter behavior.  Anarchists view such use of law as not only undesirable, but criminal.

Anarchy is not a utopian worldview.  It may be true that a successful anarchist society depends on everyone following natural law and staying within the bounds of actions that are based on consent.  However, it is also the recognition that if we are to protect ourselves, permitting political coercion by a body of people is a poor first step.  Anarchists do not believe that life without the state would be a paradise by any stretch of the imagination, we simply define the state as another criminal organization the same way we might the Mafia.  It is noteworthy that often times the most adamant defenders of government’s necessity often try to find ways to save money during tax season.  Anarchists simply seek to apply the same rules against theft, arson, murder, etc. to governments as we do everyone else.

Finally, we do not imagine an anarchist society as one wrought with chaos and crime with no means of protection.  Since anarchists are people who reject violence and embrace peace, an anarchist society would be quite orderly.  (I should note here that a society that has decided a state is undesirable due to the violence involved should not be confused with a society whose government has collapsed and created a power vacuum).  There would be no government passing laws which reallocate people’s resources, nor would a society made up of such peaceful people be riddled with crime.  Security would be provided through a host of consensual relationships such as, but not limited to a) the individual, b) family and friends, c) the community, d) charities and e) business.  On the other hand, governments open the door for the chaos we normally associate with anarchist societies.  Since government force is perceived as necessary, everyone is encouraged to use force against others through the hub of the state.  How many people would never participate in such coercive acts if not for the state? Just observe the liberals and conservatives struggling with each other, each to gain the upper hand and get our government to do their bidding.  The outcome? Kids born in 2016 already “owe” the United States Government $42,000; theft on a scale that would otherwise be impossible.  Politics can turn the most peaceful people into monsters if they’re not careful.  Anarchist society would have its imperfections, but its foundation would not be violence.

What Anarchy Is

Anarchy is a philosophy based on total equality and freedom of all members of society, with complete adherence to natural law.  The very act of taxation is coercive in nature, so the logical conclusion is that a government that cannot tax nor hold a territorial monopoly on force cannot be considered a government.  Powers allocated to governments may be written in constitutions and other governing documents.  They may even be accepted by the majority of people. But the ruler/subject relationship is not a part of the human condition and has no place in natural law.  The closest we come to is parent/child relationships, which may explain why America has one mommy party and one daddy party, but it’s still a far cry from saying states are natural.  Authority and power structures will always be artificial.

Anarchists also embrace peace in private life.  It may be true that there are some among us, for example the poorly named anarcho-communists, who wish to overthrow the existence of private property.  Whether they realize it or not, they are closer to competitors of state power, NOT anarchists who eschew the use of force as a means to attain goals.  If their ideas ever become popular, all property would be up for grabs, with everyone in society “defending” their right to take ownership of the things they want.  Everyone struggling over control of everyone else’s property is the beginnings of a communist revolution, and eventually those who do the best job ‘defending’ their right to use resources become a state, since they would have to continue protecting what they have seized.  I must reiterate here that private property is an absolute must to form a society without a state.  Proper ownership of property is achieved through homesteading, gift, or trade, none of which includes theft.  Contrary to the concept of public property, the message of private property is that one only has a just claim over any property gained through the aforementioned methods.  In the framework of private property, property lines are a two way street.  They let others know where their sphere of control ends and yours begins, as well as telling the owner where their sovereignty is limited. States on the other hand fund everything they do through coercion.  Rather than trade or ask for donations (gifts), they simply take.  As is the case with anarcho-communists, states view resources as being theirs for the taking.  For these reasons, anarchy in its truest form will always be a branch of libertarianism, not communism.

Conclusion

Most anarchists have a tough time telling those around them what they truly believe.  This is to be expected when majority of the population is educated in government schools.  Governments and anarchism do not mix.  We all know those liberals who know everything they know about conservatism from liberal media, or those conservatives who know everything they know about liberals from conservative radio.  Each has a caricature impression of what and how the other thinks.  Likewise, government schools and the  superstructure misrepresent anarchy.  Pile that on with the fact that every time a protest turns violent someone labels them anarchists along with the confused anarcho-communists, and it’s easy to see why there is confusion.  By now we should all know better.  Violent actions are not consistent with anarchy or anarchist values.  Anarcho-communism would never lead to the state dissolving.

 

The defining feature of a government is the ability to exercise power over individuals and their property under the perception that their actions are warranted.  This is precisely what any criminal wants.  The bank robber wants a monopoly over taking all the money in the vault.  They don’t want competition from other thieves or from the rightful owners. And they certainly don’t want to be held accountable. When we apply those rules for universal moral standards to the government, what can we call it but the most successful criminal organization in a country?

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

HOW TO TOPPLE IMMORAL MONUMENTS WITHOUT FORCE

statues

Travis Hallman, August 17, 2017

Physically damaging property that isn’t owned by oneself is aggression. Taxing citizens to maintain property is also aggression. Aggression is immoral, impractical, and (above all) not necessary. If you perceive taxing and damaging other’s property as wrong then you may be a libertarian.

This libertarian does not personally support glorifying monuments that represent any form of aggression (such as the Robert E. Lee statue representing slavery, the Vladimir Lenin statue representing communism, the Nathan Bedford Forrest Monument representing the original grand wizard of the KKK, the El Mesteño blue demon horse of death in Denver, and more). Furthermore, I believe Libertarians would have fought the war within the United States to abolish slavery without the intentions to draft slaves into a military (like Abraham Lincoln did).

How do we abolish immoral monuments without using force?

Simple answer, free markets.

What is a free market?

A free market consists of economic freedom such that anybody can open a business without having to pay the government for permission (permits, licenses, etc). A free market has no taxes, eliminating reasons for corporations to partner with politicians for tax breaks. A free market does not allow bailouts, letting businesses have setbacks, avoiding the creation of artificial monopolies. A free market does not allow patents. These economic freedoms enable new competition to compete more efficiently. Click here to see how free markets empower green markets!

How does a free market abolish immoral monuments?

Allowing monuments to be maintained by private owners would allow the owners to require a pay-per-view for the monuments, in museums for example. The immoral monuments that have a lacking of demand for viewing could be abolished by the private owners if they’re not profitable. The immoral monuments that have a demand for viewing would continue to have a supply. There is no reason to abolish immoral monuments with high enough of a demand to continue the pay-per-view business because it’s still deemed to have historical value by the consumer. However, you could collect funds to (consensually) purchase this property and abolish it. That choice may not be pragmatic because profits are attainable.

When will the immoral monuments be abolished?

History creates itself daily with new stories and new monuments. Eventually all (current) monuments will lose their appeal and be replaced with new monuments. Even if they aren’t, I don’t agree with the practices of the ancient Mayans or Egyptians but that doesn’t mean I feel the temples and pyramids should be demolished.

How do we establish a free market?

The libertarian party is the largest political party that consistently supports free markets.


2.0 ECONOMIC LIBERTY

“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.”
Lp.org/platform

Voting libertarian in upcoming local, state, and national elections expresses you care about the methods which monuments are allowed to exist or be abolished.

Ask A Libertarian Facebook page encourages you to message us with your questions!

In liberty,

-Travis Hallman

*Follow us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/askalibertarian

Battle of the Laws

law

Kristopher Morgan, August 14th

One of the hardest aspects of being a libertarian is being portrayed as someone who does not want any of the goods and services provided by the state.  For example,  when libertarians express the notion that government should not be involved in something like education, our opponents sometimes assume we don’t want an educated population.  Sometimes they’re just creating a strawman, but just as often they are sincere in their belief.  Why do people automatically assume if you don’t want the government to provide a service, it means you don’t want the service to exist at all?  It occurred  to me that the misunderstanding is due to competing philosophies of law.  The libertarian conclusion that natural law is just and moral, while positivism is not, is what separates us from the rest of society, and the consequences of that finding run much deeper than we realize.

Positivism

Positivism dominates society in terms of what constitutes a legit approach to law.  According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Legal positivism is the thesis that the existence and content of law depends on social facts and not on its merits…  positivism is the view that law is a social construction.” In essence, in positivism law is seen as artificial, and as such, the approach isn’t limited by concerns for natural rights.  It’s no wonder there are so many laws in the US the average citizen commits three felonies every day.  Society wants legislation passed and rulers push to make it happen.  A good example is the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the bill gets voted on, approved, and signed into law by our politicians.  There is clearly demand for more affordable healthcare, so the political system proposed legislation to solve the problem, and it eventually became law.  Furthermore, the biggest supporters of the ACA paint anyone wanting it repealed as monsters who want to see tens of millions of people dying in the street.  But what if that’s not really the case?  What if the so-called monsters don’t see government as the only acting body within society?  What if we also happen to have an entirely different philosophy of law; one that is incompatible with positivism?

Natural Law

Allaboutphilosophy describes natural law as law that “finds its power in discovering certain universal standards in morality and ethics.” Basically, people who subscribe to natural law believe that concepts of right and wrong are what matter.  In natural law, rules are discovered, not legislated.  Law is not seen an artificial construct, rather we develop our understanding of right and wrong and the human condition is what determines what law ought to be.  Governments are artificial.  They don’t sprout up on their own, people have to form them.  Since they’re made of people, they are held to the same moral standards as everyone else in society.  So when a libertarian says they oppose a bill, such as the ACA, they do so because they perceive violations of natural law.  Private citizens could never get away with using an armed force to regulate local insurance companies and hospitals the way the government does.  Most of us would look at citizens behaving in such a manner and label them criminals.  Natural law does not make a distinction between governing body and private people.  Standards of behavior are universal, not dependent on artificial classes (in this case of rulers and subjects).

Which Is More Just?

Despite what goes on in politics, in private life most people are already followers of natural law.  We don’t hurt each other, we don’t steal from each other, etc. because deep down we identify those actions as flat out wrong.  In fact, if a policeman were caught observing a theft and not confronting the suspect, people would be outraged.  Nobody sits around reading gigantic books on law; but we do assume that we will not be harassed too much if we don’t harm anyone and drive safely.  Because of positivism, we have a superstructure in society that possesses the power to take money from other people through force, to ensure compliance with society’s artificial laws.  So why do we bother making theft a crime?  Why do we get so concerned if a thief knocks over a 7/11 and makes off with a few measly hundred dollars, when all children born in 2016 ‘owe’ the government $42,000?  While it may be true that security services are paid for through taxation, using taxation as a means removes the universality feature of justice.  Having one law that says you get to take through force, yet another that says nobody else can, is clearly meant to create privileges for those in power.

Positivism empowers political forces at the expense of everyone.  Artificial laws always come from politicians, regardless of what form of government.  But in natural law, we are all free to hold each other accountable to universal standards of behavior rooted in the human condition.  We all have the right to defend ourselves and what is rightfully ours.  For physical survival, the one thing everyone has to have to satisfy their needs for food, water, and shelter is property.  Property is nothing more than having control over resources.  It follows logically that interference with the property of another undermines their attempts to satisfy their needs, and so our guide for determining if natural law is violated is whether property is violated.

Society has to choose between these two philosophies.  Either legal positivism is just, in which case law has no real meaning and justice is really just about power and pandering to it; Or natural law is correct, in which case we have to start looking at government as an agency that has no right to initiate force to make its ends meet.  Justice is based on universal standards that flow consistently from the human condition which nobody has the right to take away.  The choice is ours.

 

*Follow us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/askalibertarian

Decreasing the homicide rate in Chicago

20227828_10154590967666175_1446307641_o

Cameron Williams, July 19, 2017

What I usually hear from the people of Chicago who want to decrease the homicide rate there is “Take the guns away and there will be no homicides.” In theory they’re right. If no guns are present in Chicago, or anywhere for that matter, gun-related homicides would then disappear. However, is it really necessary to take guns from legal and responsible gun owners? Is it legal or illegal gun owners committing crimes at high rates?

This topic is tricky. There are multiple solutions. One solution would be to allow responsible gun ownership and defensive training in areas of high crime. This skilled and armed community would act as a deterrent for would-be criminals. Last year, Chicago had well over 700+ homicides. What communities suffered the most? Black communities. Under gun laws that heavily favor the restriction of gun ownership, the people of Chicago were still unable to protect their families and communities.

I support Maj Toure’s “Black Guns Matter” (BGM) movement of pro-second amendment rights and gun safety. BGM is a pro-second amendment movement aimed at educating urban communities on their second amendment rights and responsibilities. The BGM movement has given attention to a much misunderstood topic. Join me and the Libertarian Party of Chicago as we move forward in making Chicago citizens safer and more knowledgeable through gun ownership.

 

If you liked this quick post follow me at wordpress/free2choose
Follow us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/askalibertarian