Why Blame The Police For Doing Their Job?

420

Jared Miller, 4/20/18

“Sin, regardless of how someone may define it, it is not a crime. Creating a victim, regardless if it is a sin, is a crime”.    – Larry Sharpe

For many, today is an excuse to smoke weed and pretend to be edgy. For others, it is an act of civil disobedience intended to highlight the absurdity of cannabis prohibition. Others like me, who don’t personally smoke, still share a sense of excitement about eventually winning back some measure of self determination in this area. But we still have a long way to go before we can say we’ve overcome the mentality that enables prohibition in the first place.

I recently made a snarky comment on a post from a police department criticizing the bust of a huge marijuana grow operation in Cleveland, Ohio. I was poking fun at the idea that these officers were keeping our children safe.

Someone I respect very deeply took issue with it, taking the all too common stance that one should fight the law and leave the police alone. “They are just good men doing their jobs. They don’t get to decide which laws to enforce.” I understand where he’s coming from, because I used to share that sentiment. On the surface it seems like the only respectable position. But it is wrong.

First, they do decide which laws to enforce. Police departments decide how to spend their resources. They decide what leads to follow and where officers patrol. Officers decide in the field, for example at a traffic stop, whether to let it slide or find every possible violation. They choose every day and in every situation which laws are important and which laws are not — which laws are worth enforcing and which laws are garbage.

Either they can “just do their job” as stalwart defenders of the law no matter what, or they can admit that they are intentional about which cases are worth pursuing. They shouldn’t get to hide behind their job to justify their actions in one situation, and opt to let someone off the hook in another. They always choose. And that can be a good thing. But when it comes to drug law, they generally choose poorly.

Often, the law was drafted with a specific moral goal in mind. So sometimes the officer is forced to make his choice either based on his moral code, or contradictory to it. In the latter case, he can compartmentalize his guilt by “just following orders.” At that moment, justice is no longer the goal, and the officer shows that he can be made capable, as we all can, of almost any action the ruling body sees fit to carry out. The inescapable conclusion is that morality is not just a poor basis for the formation of law. As a legal standard, it lays the foundation for all manner of injustice. When morality is the goal, anything can be justified.

What else is there? That’s a longer answer… but I’ll try to keep it short. Law exists to reduce or eliminate the ability of one person or group to do direct, intentional harm to another person or group. That’s all.

A law that causes more harm than it prevents stands in direct opposition to its proper role, and should be fought. If the person enforcing it is the one who causes the harm, then law enforcement should also be held accountable.

If an officer’s actions cause direct harm because he’s “just following orders,” he’s not more virtuous than a mafia thug that whacks a guy because it’s “just business.” In that case he just works for a more socially acceptable gang.

So what harm can an officer do in the course of “just doing his job?” The immediate effect is the most obvious. Individuals who have harmed literally no one by cultivating what should be an agricultural product are now felons. For the rest of their lives, they can’t vote, can’t own a gun, can’t find the meaningful employment that might help them live a life outside of “crime,” and will likely be imprisoned at the cost of the taxpayer for something that has not harmed anyone.

You might say the growers knew the risks when they started, and fair enough. But every one of those risks has nothing to do with the product itself, or the manufacture, sale, and use of the product. Every ounce of harm done by growing marijuana is done by enforcing a bad law.

And what about the extended effects? Instead of having legitimate, legal businesses, it has to be done on the black market. The number one cash crop of every drug cartel and street gang is marijuana. If you are concerned with fighting organized crime, the very first step is to cut off their income. In this case, that means fighting this terrible, destructive law.

That is to say nothing of the people actually using marijuana who are now criminals also. Before you say, “it’s not the same thing,“ prohibition requires that the user be punished at the same time as the producer. It’s all just different pieces of the same pie.

This is not meant to be anti-cop. I’m certain these cops aren’t bad men. They don’t have to be. History is littered with good men doing terrible things to others because “it’s the law.“  That is the real crime. Remaining complicit in that is what allows it to continue. It is absolutely right to say that the problem begins with the law forcing the cop into a false dichotomy between causing harm and potentially losing his livelihood.

Which is why sometimes both fighting a bad law and drawing attention to its enforcement are necessary. If you don’t believe that, I’ll assume you never go above 55 on the highway, or that you’d never oppose a cop enforcing any law, no matter how tyrannical. Where would you draw the line? If we have determined that a law is wrong, is the enforcement thereof not also wrong? With so many states taking a stand against federal marijuana law, and a majority of US citizens believing the law to be unjust, there has never been a better time for police officers and local departments to choose to devote their resources elsewhere.

 

 

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

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.

 

Who Are The Cronies Part IV: Big Pharma

pharma

Kris Morgan 3/20/2018

The media has done its part blasting the heroin epidemic but has had little success completely informing us on the abuse of prescription medication. This is likely to provoke demand on the part of the people for stronger policing measures in the failed war on drugs. As it stands, Americans consume 80% of the global supply of opioids according to CNBC. Another aspect of concern is what is happening with our children. According to PsychologyToday,  “extrapolated to the U.S. population as a whole, the consequences are stark: approximately 1.1 million children received an inappropriate diagnosis [of ADHD] and over 800,000 received stimulant medication due only to relative [im]maturity.” So who is benefitting from drugging our population?

 

Shire CEO Flemming Ornskov

ornskov

Shire is an Ireland-based company that produces Adderall, which is marketed towards children diagnosed with ADHD. Not only is is ADHD is overdiagnosed, but in 2014 Healthline outed Shire for exaggerating the benefits of Adderall. They were fined $56.14mil as a result. According to subsidy tracker, Shire received $250,543,073 in federal, state, and local grants from FY2000 to present. Mr. Ornskov has a networth of about $21mil.

 

Novartis CEO Vasant Narasimhan

Narasimhan

Novartis is a ritalin manufacturer based in Switzerland. Like Shire, they have faced a class-action lawsuit for over-promoting ritalin as an ADHD medication. FY2000 to present, Novartis received grants in the United States in the amount of $159,582,837 while Narasimhan has a salary of $8.9mil.

 

Johnson & Johnson CEO Alex Gorsky

Gorsky

Johnson & Johnson is the world’s most profitable pharmaceutical company. In 2014 the BBC reported $71.3bn in total revenue (Novartis was number two with $58.8bn). Janssen, the official name of J&J’s drug manufacturing branch, makes products ranging from Tylenol to Sylvant, a drug used by patients undergoing chemotherapy. The amount of subsidies FY2000 to present was slightly lower, at 83,613,496. Per the Chicago Tribune, the company would, not surprisingly, like the insurance industry to pay for pre-existing conditions as well as allow children to remain on their parents’ plans until age 26. Mr. Gorsky has a salary of $21.2mil.

 

Pfizer CEO Ian C. Read

IanRead

According to their website, Pfizer is involved in manufacturing both prescription and over-the-counter medications. Pfizer provides a notable example of cronyism in the area of eminent domain. As ij.org stated, “In 1998, pharmaceutical giant Pfizer built a plant next to Fort Trumbull and the City determined that someone else could make better use of the land than the Fort Trumbull residents. The City handed over its power of eminent domain—the ability to take private property for public use—to the New London Development Corporation (NLDC)… In 2009, Pfizer, the lynchpin of the disastrous economic development plan, announced that it was leaving New London for good, just as its tax breaks are set to expire.” FY2000 to present they have received a whopping $371,367,005 in US subsidies. Mr. Read receives a salary of about $24mil.

 

A big driver in pharmaceutical corporatism is intellectual property rights. The industry makes the consistent claim that intellectual property stimulates innovation, as R&D can be conducted with the expectation that one’s work will be handsomely rewarded and not ‘stolen.’ Dissent Magazine voiced a different opinion: “…while movements have grown to expand treatment access, corporations have bulked up artificial barriers through intellectual property laws. Today, 26 million people worldwide are still not getting proper treatment [for HIV/AIDS], and the WHO has recently pressed wealthy donor states for a major infusion of aid for treatment programs. Yet those same programs are sliding on a collision course with powerful pharmaceutical monopolies.

Not only does intellectual property stifle competition, it is not in line with consistent property rights. The Mises Institute published the following in an article titled “The Fight Against Intellectual Property”: “…when government grants IP rights, it’s not really granting a property right in an idea, but is instead granting a monopoly on the right to use an idea for certain profitable purposes. If you own a copyright in a book, only you (or someone to whom you give permission) can produce and sell copies of that book. If you own a patent on an invention, only you (or someone to whom you give permission) can produce and sell the invention for a certain period of time.”

No matter how beneficial it may seem to consumers and producers alike, allowing the government to grant monopolies to whomever they see fit leads to monopoly pricing, as we all witnessed when Martin Shkreli raised the price of an AIDS pill from $13.50 to $750. Parties in a sector of the economy, in this case prescription drugs, will become greedy, politicians will become corrupt, and the people/consumers will lose. Monopoly prices will rear their ugly heads as competition is cut at the neck and body-politic would lose its influence on its chosen leaders, as we have. Whatever language we wish to use; taking our country back, restoring democracy, eliminating cronyism, etc. we all know the unholy alliance between business and government has to end.

 

Part I                                                          Part II                                                                 Part III

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Who Are The Cronies Part III: Prisons

prison

Kris Morgan 2/14/2018

In parts one and two of this series we dealt with the military-industrial complex and the banking industry. The issue regarding prisons is a little less well-known, but is even more unjust than the others. Nothing is less libertarian than taking freedom from a person who has not violated another’s rights. Sadly, the United States holds 25% of the world’s prisoners despite carrying only 5% of the total world population. Perhaps by examining the beneficiaries of these conditions we can shed some light on how the ‘land of the free’ has come to this.

Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) is the fifth largest corrections organization in the country, behind the Federal Government and three states. According to their site they “specialize in the design, construction, expansion and management of prisons, jails and detention facilities, along with residential reentry services, as well as inmate transportation services through its subsidiary company TransCor America.”
Damon T. Hininger, CCA CEO and President

hininger

Hininger joined the company in 1992. He has had Vice President and Business Analysis positions as well as working in Federal and Local customer relations. According to salary.com his base pay is over $861,000 and over $2mil in stock value, and over $3mil total compensation.

 

GEO Group (previously Wackenhut) is another large prison company. Shamelessly, they very enthusiastically advertise their relation with the government on their page. “GEO’s U.S. Corrections and Detention division oversees the operation and management of approximately 75,500 beds in 71 correctional and detention facilities. GEO’s U.S. Corrections & Detention division provides services on behalf of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Marshals Service, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as well as 9 state correctional clients and various county and city jurisdictions.”

George C. Zoley, CEO, Chairman of the Board, and Founder

zoley

Bloomberg ran a summary of Zoley. “Mr. Zoley founded GEO Care Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of The GEO Group, Inc. in 1984 and serves as its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. He serves as Chief Executive Officer and Vice Chairman of Wackenhut Corrections of The Wackenhut Corporation. He served as the President Geo of Group Inc. since 1988.” According to the article he made $5,176,221 last year.

While managing and operating prisons has made plenty people rich, Attn.com points out money is also made providing inmate services. Ashley Nicole Black displayed her understanding of the economics involved when she wrote of the phone call service. “Few companies hold a virtual monopoly on the service and even pay the state a profit based commission. Remember, it’s the state that hires these companies. When the state is making money off these phone calls, do you think they are really interested in negotiating a fair, cost-effective phone plan for their prisoners?”

The following are examples of companies which make profit from offering services to inmates at what essentially amounts to monopoly prices.

 

Steve Rector, Corizon CEO

rector

According to their website, “as the correctional healthcare pioneer and leader for 40 years, Corizon Health provides client partners with high quality healthcare and reentry services that will improve health and safety of our patients…” In January 2018, the Kansas City Star reported Corizon had $2bn in contracts with Missouri and Kansas alone. Mr. Rector’s compensation information was unavailable.

 

Finally, we come to Global Tel-Link. According to their own site, GTL “serves approximately 2,300 facilities and 1.8 million inmates in 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Our products and services are deployed in 32 state DOC contracts (including 8 of the largest 10) and over 650 counties, including many of the largest city/county run jail facilities. We also provide service to the Federal Bureau of Prisons.”

Brian D. Oliver, Global Tel-Link CEO

Oliver

Per Bloomberg, “Mr. Oliver was responsible for leading Global Tel*Link Corporation’s due diligence review with respect to new potential investments in the telecommunications and related sectors and overseeing portfolio companies once investments have been completed in those sectors. Mr. Oliver joined GTL from Gores Technology Group, LLC…” Compensation information was not available.

One can argue that these services are necessary, and the market is merely providing services, even to those in jail. However, it is clear the income generated by providing these services is stimulated by government created demand for them. Attn reminds us “the War on Drugs has also created ballooning prison populations by increasing arrests for petty offenses (such as marijuana possession). America has the longest first time drug offense sentences (5-10 years) of developed nations. …65 percent of private prison contracts require an occupancy guarantee. That means states must have a certain amount of prisoners — typically between 80 and 90 percent of occupancy — or pay companies for empty beds. Talk about bad incentives — a state throws money away if it does not have enough prisoners.” There are a lot of people with a lot of money riding on maintaining or increasing prison populations in the US and abroad.

To drive the point home, the Washington Post reported in 2015 that “several reports have documented instances when private-prison companies have indirectly supported policies that put more Americans and immigrants behind bars – such as California’s three-strikes rule and Arizona’s highly controversial anti-illegal immigration law – by donating to politicians who support them.”

Marco Rubio can be viewed as a case-study of how the relationship between prisons and politicians works. “While Rubio was leading the House, GEO was awarded a state government contract for a $110 million prison soon after Rubio hired an economic consultant who had been a trustee for a GEO real estate trust. Over his career, Rubio has received nearly $40,000 in campaign donations from GEO, making him the Senate’s top career recipient of contributions from the company.”  

The economic incentives surrounding the prison sector have clear and harsh consequences for the rest of us. The people we are supposed to trust with our security have taken that trust and twisted it into building a system which profits from our imprisonment. No private persons would ever be capable of such crimes against humanity without politics to support it. Our goal should be to reverse these trends in their tracks.

 

Part I                                                             Part II                                                         Part IV

 

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.

Who Are The Cronies Part II: Bankers

cronys-in-line1

Kris Morgan 2/8/2018

When President Bush and his administration bailed out banks in light of the 2007 housing collapse, the crony nature of banking was at the forefront of all our minds. The New York Times even ran a headline in 2009: “Bankers Reaped Lavish Bonuses During Bailouts.” According to the article, nine of the biggest recipients of bailouts paid about 5,000 people $1mil each in bonuses. So not only does bailing out losers undermine the market’s goal of weeding out those who fail to meet economic demand efficiently, the moral hazard involved is shocking.

CNN posted a special report listing all the banks bailed out as a result of the aforementioned 2007 crash. The list is endless, but the top three were Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase & Co., and Citigroup. Each received  $25bn to hold them over. Without further adieu, here is a profile of the top three banks’ CEO during the time.

 

John Stumpf – Wells Fargo CEO in 2008

stumpf

In 2008, as Wells Fargo received a $25bn bailout, Stumpf was paid $13.8mil in his first year as CEO. The bank posted a $2.66bn dollar profit in the same year. While Stumpf has had an extensive banking career, Janet Yellen’s final act as Chairman of the Fed in 2016 was to slam Wells Fargo with $185mil fine in light of the fake accounts scandal. Stumpf retired as a result. From Fiscal Year (FY) 2000 to present, Wells Fargo has received $530,481,584 in subsidies (government granted money without demand for repayment).

 

Jamie Dimon – JP Morgan Chase & Co. in 2008

jamiedimon

JP Morgan Chase & Co. received $25bn to remain afloat in 2008. Jamie Dimon was paid $19.7mil that same year (to his credit, in 2007 he made $34mil). What is troubling is the bank received a bailout, but according to Dimon’s bio, in 2008 “he steered the business clear of most of the wreckage and maintained its profitability, while also scooping up ailing Bear Stearns for $2 per share…” However, in 2013 it became apparent JP Morgan misrepresented mortgage securities it was selling prior to 2008 and was forced to pay $13bn in a settlement with regulators. JP Morgan has received $1,577,130,318 in subsidies since FY 2000.
Vikram Pandit – Citigroup in 2008

vikrampandit

Like JP Morgan Chase & Co. and Wells Fargo, Citigroup received a $25bn bailout in 2008. Pandit reported a measly $1mil salary to Congress for 2008, however, the Huffington Post reported he made almost $11mil and simply neglected to “mention his sign-on and retention awards, as well as stock and option awards.” Per the story, he originally made closer to $40mil but lost big when the stock price tumbled to under $1 per share. From FY 2000 to present, Citigroup has received $564,762,028 in subsidies.

 

No proper work on cronyism in the financial sector can even be started without mentioning the two people most in charge: Former Chairman of the Fed Ben Bernanke and Former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson.

 

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke in 2008

bernanke

Ben Bernanke began his career in academia. After graduating Summa-Cum-Laude in Economics from Harvard in 1975, he earned a PHD from MIT in 1979. Following that, he taught at Stanford, NYU, MIT, and Princeton. He was appointed to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors in 2002 and Chairman in 2005. Bernanke worked closely with President Bush and Hank Paulson to draft the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, more commonly known as the 2008 bailout.

 

Hank Paulson – Treasury Secretary in 2008

hankpaulson

Henry Paulson earned a Bachelor’s in English from Dartmouth and an MBA from Harvard before going to work at the Pentagon as staff assistant to the assistant secretary of defense under President Nixon. Just after serving as Domestic Council assistant to President Nixon, he made his way to Goldman Sachs. In 1982 he made partner, in 1988 he made managing partner, and from 1990 – 1994 he operated as President and COO. In 1999 he replaced Jon Corzine as Chairman and CEO, as Corzine worked his way into politics, becoming Governor of New Jersey. In 2006 he was named Treasury Secretary by President Bush.

 

The 2007 housing crash and subsequent 2008 bank bailouts were a trying time for everyone. Perhaps every person on this list acted admirably, and in spite of that, the media found a way of viewing their actions with a touch of fraud. Even if we believe that unlikely story, do we still want the federal government determining who stays afloat and who drowns every time we enter the bust phase of the cycle? Do we want banks, with a revolving door between the private sector and high levels of government, operating under the impression they will just get bailed out? What is to stop them from approving high-risk high-reward loans to people in desperation?

 

Part I                                                              Part III                                                               Part IV

 

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.

Doctor Libertarians

doctorcollage

Travis Hallman 2/1/2018

Many of our most vocal activists within the Libertarian Party are current and former doctors. Doctors have an inside perspective of the healthcare industry as well as how decisions that negatively affect one’s life, i.e. drugs, also affect the body. On healthcare and self-ownership, the official Libertarian Platform states:

Libertarian Platform 2.10: Health Care

“We favor a free-market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want (if any), the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. People should be free to purchase health insurance across state lines.”

Please click this link if you’re interested in understanding why Libertarians support a free-market health care system.

Libertarian Platform 1.1: Self-Ownership

“Individuals own their bodies and have rights over them that other individuals, groups, and governments may not violate. Individuals have the freedom and responsibility to decide what they knowingly and voluntarily consume, and what risks they accept to their own health, finances, safety, or life.”

Please click this link if you’re interested in understanding why libertarians support self-ownership.

When the Affordable Care Act was being hotly debated, it was apparent the AMA supported the bill. Even today one is left with the impression that, generally speaking, doctors support Obamacare. The following is a list of of doctors who not only oppose the ACA, but who are also outright libertarians.

 

Dr. Ron Paul

Ron-Paul-military2

“In his last year of college, Ron Paul married Carol. After he graduated in 1957, the couple moved to Durham, North Carolina, where Ron attended the Duke University School of Medicine. Finishing his degree in 1961, he and his young family then moved to Detroit, Michigan. There Paul did his internship and residency at Henry Ford Hospital. Serving his country, he was as a doctor in the United States Air Force from 1963 to 1965 and then with the United States Air National Guard from 1965 to 1968.”

“Specializing in obstetrics and gynecology, Paul opened his own practice in Texas. During the course of his career, he is said to have delivered more than 4,000 babies.”

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

“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/

 

Dr. Rand Paul

rand

“Paul attended Baylor University and then the Duke University Medical School, his father’s alma mater. After receiving a medical degree in 1988, Paul pursued a general surgery internship at the Georgia Baptist Medical Center in Atlanta, Georgia. While there, he met Kentucky native Kelley Ashby. The couple dated for a couple of years and married in 1991, and when Paul finished his ophthalmology residency at Duke two years later, they moved to Bowling Green, Kentucky to start a family and Paul’s medical practice. They soon had three sons, William, Duncan and Robert.

A longtime member of the service organization Lions Club International, Paul founded the Southern Kentucky Lions Eye Clinic, a nonprofit offering free eye care to patients in need, in 1995. He also performed free eye surgeries for impoverished children in developing countries through the Children of the Americas program.”

“A lifelong Republican with Libertarian leanings, Paul became involved in political causes in 1994, when he founded Kentucky Taxpayers United, a watchdog group tracking taxation and spending issues in the Kentucky state legislature, until it disbanded in 2000. Rand was inspired to become involved in politics, in part due to his father, Ron Paul, who was the first member of the Paul family to run for and win political office.”

https://www.biography.com/.amp/people/rand-paul-588472

 

Dr. Marc Allan Feldman

Feldman

“Dr. Feldman was born in October of 1959. He was a 1980 graduate of Northwestern University with a major in Philosophy, Phi Beta Kappa. He received his Doctorate of Medicine from Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in 1984. He practiced anesthesiology at Johns Hopkins for 11 years. He is survived by his wife Anne and his sons Aaron, Abram and Andrew. His son Alec passed away from cancer at age 16. He worked at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio.”

“Dr. Feldman was a candidate for the Libertarian presidential nomination this year. His campaign was one of the most inspirational in the field as a result of his sincerity, warmth, messaging, and his closing statement during the Libertarian National Convention’s final presidential debate.”

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/dr-marc-allan-feldman-was-thatkindoflibertarian/

 

Dr. Mary J. Ruwart

Ruwart

“Dr. Mary J. Ruwart is a research scientist, ethicist, and a libertarian author/activist. She received her B.S. in biochemistry in 1970 and her Ph.D. in Biophysics in 1974 (both from Michigan State University).  She subsequently joined the Department of Surgery at St. Louis University and left her Assistant Professorship there to accept a position with The Upjohn Company of Kalamazoo, Michigan in 1976.  As a senior research scientist, Dr. Ruwart was involved in developing new therapies for a variety of diseases, including liver cirrhosis and AIDS.

Dr. Ruwart left Upjohn in 1995 to devote her time to consulting and writing. Her communications course for scientists (www.speakingforscientists.com), covering written, oral, and poster presentations has received high praise from attendees. She also provides consulting services for nutraceutical companies, clinical research organizations, and universities.

Between 2003 and 2006, Dr. Ruwart was an adjunct Associate Professor of Biology at the University of North Carolina in Charlotte.  During that time, she served with the Center for Applied and Professional Ethics, designing a medical research ethics course for the University.  Her radical application of ethics to medical regulation, especially regulations regarding pharmaceuticals, has life-and-death-implications.”

“Mary J. Ruwart, Ph.D. Dr. Mary J. Ruwart is a research scientist, ethicist, and a libertarian author/activist. She has worked extensively with the disadvantaged in low-income housing and was a contender for the 2008 Libertarian Party Vice-Presidential nomination. Her scientific, political, and community activities have been profiled in several prestigious biographical works, including American Men and Women of Sciences, World’s Who’s Who of Women, International Leaders in Achievement, and Community Leaders of America.”

Healing Our World: The Compassion of Libertarianism

 

Dr. Keith Smith

Dr. Keith Smith

“Dr. Keith Smith, co-founder and managing partner of the Surgery Center of Oklahoma, took an initiative that would only be considered radical in the healthcare industry: He posted online a list of prices for 112 common surgical procedures. The 51-year-old Smith, a self-described libertarian, and his business partner, Dr. Steve Lantier, founded the Surgery Center 15 years ago, after they became disillusioned with the way patients were treated at St. Anthony Hospital in Oklahoma City, where the two men worked as anesthesiologists. In 1997, Smith and Lantier bought the shell of a former surgical center with the aim of creating a for-profit facility that could deliver first-rate care at a fraction of what traditional hospitals charge.”

Oklahoma Doctors vs. Obamacare

 

Dr. Kyle Varner

varner

“Dr. Kyle Varner practices hospital medicine in Washington State and Maine. He earned his BA from St. John’s College, his MD from American University of Antigua College of Medicine, and completed his residency in Internal Medicine at Tripler Army Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii.

He has been a member of the Libertarian Party since 1999 and currently serves as the treasurer of the Libertarian Party of Hawaii. He has spoken at events around the United States promoting health care freedom.”

Libertarian Solutions for the Health Care Crisis

 

Joshua James, Founder, CEO,
& Industry Consultant of James Healthcare

james

“Joshua owes his life to chemotherapy and innovations in modern medicine. Joshua founded a healthcare marketing LLC and co-founded telemedicine provider networks in Texas and Nevada. His network and LLC are focused on veteran transitions of care and the growing population of those in need of social, mental, and medical intervention/supervision. He is building a virtual privatized healthcare system for veterans and civilians alike. He apprenticed beside his father, a pharmacist and former Bexar County Pharmacy Association president. He has a background as a pharmacist intern at the Cancer Research & therapy Center in San Antonio, TX. Joshua has extensive experience as compounding pharmacist intern at a regional independent pharmacy system. Joshua has a compassion for veterans and their success in transitions of care.”

“JJHC is devoted to innovative healthcare, development of original brands, marketing solutions, and networking opportunities, while focusing on veterans affairs, telemedicine, and transitions of care. JJHC is facilitates a Voluntary Provider Network (VPN). Clients and providers communicate through a mutually convenient, HIPAA credentialed interface. Our network of providers work in an outcomes focused, collaborative, free market, voluntary, and affordable environment. JJHC offers contemporary marketing, through a variety of resources. If you would like to grow your practice and network with providers from various areas of practice; JJHC has a solution for you.”

http://www.jameshealthcare.com/

 

Republicans historically have been known to support free-market health care, but surely as we see their representatives compromising their principles, we also see their member registrations decreasingHowever, Libertarian Party member registrations are increasing and Libertarian representatives have championed a free-market health care system consistently.

Democrats have been known to support legalizing decisions which have negative consequences, but again, as we see their member registrations decreasing we simultaneously see their representatives compromising their principles. On the other hand, Libertarian representatives have championed legalizing personal decision-making across the board. The LP has remained true to its principles in both self-ownership and healthcare freedom.

 

In liberty,

-Travis

 

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.

 

Meet The LNC Vice Chair Candidates

28170134_10160136463170595_185820210_o

The Feldman Foundation recently hosted a debate featuring the candidates running for the upcoming LNC Vice Chair position. They offered a series of 10 questions to see where they stand on several issues. We at Ask A Libertarian sent that same list of questions, offering each candidate the opportunity to consider their thoughts and respond accordingly. The following pages include their replies along with a brief bio.

Much like the team at Ask A Libertarian, The Feldman Foundation’s goal is to “Immerse liberty into the American political system.” Their mission is “to impact the political realm with engagement, resources, training, ground efforts and strategy toensure legislation is repealed which does not align with a free America.”

Ask A Libertarian is a team of volunteers who strive to provide a quality platform for libertarians to engage with libertarians and non-libertarians alike, to spread the message of liberty while keeping the public informed of libertarian values, principles, and current events within the party.

We present Mr. Alex Merced, Mr. Arvin Vohra, Mr. James Weeks II, Mr. Joe Hauptmann, Mr. Joe Paschal, and Mr. Steve Sheetz.

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.

 

 

The End of History

history

Kris Morgan 1/15/2018

As a means of making decisions that affect our future, specifically in the realm of politics, the internet has all but ruined the use of pure history. With historical  facts readily available, and the ease of publishing, we are all free to post our own takes on causal relationships. We have an unlimited number of ways to analyze events, but few sound means to test our hypotheses. The following examples are just a few of many demonstrating how different perspectives on history can distort one’s thinking.

The first is the idea that aliens created mankind. “The Anunnaki are also one of the MOST controversial subjects among many people around the globe. Millions of people around the world believe the Ancient Anunnaki are the creators of man and are not mythological beings but in fact flesh and blood ‘gods’ who came to Earth in the distant past.”

People are clearly open to believing extraordinary conclusions. This example  may not carry much weight politically, but others do. Suppose there are many among us who believe the following:

David Robinson wrote an article titled America is still a British Colony Under The Roman Empire.  Within it he used historical information to support the notion that the United States is not an independent nation. He even cites the 1783 Paris Peace Treaty when he states, “this treaty identifies the King of England as the prince of the United States, contradicting the belief that America won the War of Independence.”  The article continues on to the War of 1812, and later points out that the Federal Reserve is a government created yet privately-owned central bank, owned by the (London branch) House of Rothschild.

This is very different from the belief that the United States is a sovereign country. Whatever you think, the point is we have a number of interpretations of the same historical events.  Also, consider that which version of history we accept could alter the way we vote.

The above examples are obviously far outside of what is widely accepted, however, others are more subtle and have a much greater impact on life. It’s difficult to find a historical event with more practical implications than the New Deal; a topic that gets many of us into heated debates.

The causes of, and solutions to the Great Depression are guides for what modern economic policy should be. The problem is that history supports multiple sides of the debate.

According to Joseph Lazzaro at aol.com, “The New Deal increased U.S. GDP and resulted in a substantial decrease in U.S. unemployment, both during its initial phase (1933-37) and after FDR turned back 1937-38 Republican pressure to balance the budget (1939-41). The fiscal stimulus provided by the New Deal worked. That’s the record, and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.”

Robert Higgs, on the other hand, concluded the New Deal may have made the depression worse. In an article at mises.org he wrote “…the grand promise of an end to the suffering was never fulfilled. As the state sector drained the private sector, controlling it in alarming detail, the economy continued to wallow in depression.”

Imagine two people, each reading their own versions of history, debating this topic. We experience this daily on social media; each person claiming to have the facts while accusing the other of failing to absorb them. The same situation arises when discussing tax rates.

On April 5th of 2017, Neil Irwin authored a piece for the New York Times in which he offered his opinion regarding tax cuts and their effect on economic growth.  He summarized the work of economists who looked at the history of the United States and other countries by writing “there are countries with high or rising taxes that have strong economic growth and countries with low or falling rates that don’t.”

In 2003, Daniel Mitchell reviewed decades of tax reduction and opened his report with the following:

“There is a distinct pattern throughout American history: When tax rates are reduced, the economy’s growth rate improves and living standards increase. Good tax policy has a number of interesting side effects. For instance, history tells us that tax revenues grow and “rich” taxpayers pay more tax when marginal tax rates are slashed. This means lower income citizens bear a lower share of the tax burden – a consequence that should lead class-warfare politicians to support lower tax rates.  Conversely, periods of higher tax rates are associated with sub par economic performance and stagnant tax revenues.”

Again, different articles, different experts, different conclusions, same topic. Most people have neither the time nor interest to take up studying economics and political science. If they did, they’d soon discover there is no consensus among the experts. With competing versions of history and differing views on economic and political theory, how do we decide what to do?

In situations where the correct choice is not crystal clear, I invite all readers to consider applying the Non Aggression Principle (NAP). For libertarians the NAP is appropriate for all circumstances. It does not matter how economically beneficial a proposal seems, the use of force for personal or political gain is immoral.

It is unreasonable to assume students of other political ideologies are willing to hold the NAP in such a high regard. Nevertheless, law is coercion. When private citizens use force against each other, they have to prove their actions were justified to avoid legal issues. For example, shoving someone is assault. However, shoving someone out of the way of traffic could save their life, and is heroic.

Non-libertarians also must justify the power they wish to cede to the government if moral standards are to be universal. We can easily imagine situations where a policeman protects a citizen from an immediate danger. Things get far more questionable when we look at laws criminalizing peaceful behavior in the interest of economic well-being, such as minimum wages. History, unaccompanied by sound theory, does not justify inflating state powers.

 

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.