George H.W. Bush: Legacy of Crimes

48038510_566264653785844_1897636303650947072_n.jpg

Franc Turner 12/8/2018

By the looks of the news reports, one would get the impression that George H.W. Bush was a great man, a great President, and a champion of freedom. It’s even more surprising when these sentiments, which propel the former President to nearly saint-like status, come from “liberalmedia outlets. But then again, this is how propaganda works; and it goes to show how short people’s attention spans really are.

While I do not celebrate the passing of anyone, I also will not pretend that #41 was a noble person who deserves scores of accolades upon his demise. It would be the equivalent of the news media praising Charles Manson and pretending he was a great and humble person when he passes. The only thing both of these guys were great at was brainwashing people into committing mass murder to further their own agenda.

While promoting himself as a champion of christian and family values, George H.W. Bush was responsible for more innocent deaths than any modern day mass shooter could’ve ever dreamed of. Yet, you’ll never hear that from an anchor on CNN.

All one has to do is look up Bush Sr.’s role in the funding and arming of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. This was before his own administration fabricated justifications to sway public opinion for U.S. intervention in the first Persian Gulf conflict (see Nayirah al-Sabah’s false testimony). One can also look at Bush Sr.’s involvement in the Iran Contra scandal, and his subsequent pardoning of those who were involved when he, himself, became President. The “humble” nature of Bush Sr. can also be seen in the events his government facilitated at Ruby Ridge. Not to mention the fact that his CIA was largely responsible for drug trafficking into the United States. Bush and company were publicly engaged in the farce called the “war on drugs”; against the very drug culture that they, themselves, fostered.

As far as Bushes go, he definitely was not the only member of his family who turned out to be an authoritarian lunatic. His father, Prescott Bush, along with others, wanted to overthrow FDR’s administration and install a fascist dictatorship modeled after Hitler’s Germany while simultaneously funneling money to Nazi Germany through his Union Banking Corporation. And it goes without saying that George Bush, Jr. followed in his family’s footsteps, initiating a multi-generational War on Terror which has destroyed countless more lives while fueling the very terror it said it would eradicate.

News outlets are more than happy (and pathologically programmed) to condemn people’s everyday speech and apparent political leanings. They condemn one’s support (or lack thereof) for specific modern day puppet politicians. They declare insignificant opinions/statements/jokes/actions as being completely unacceptable, “shame-worthy”, racist, and “fascist”. They even go so far as to inspire groups who call themselves “anti-fascists”; or more popularly, “antifa.” Yet when it comes to an actual fascist family who epitomizes every one of those characteristics, the media calls them patriotic and humble servants, implying they are/were genuine leaders who deserve our respect, adoration, and remembrance.

This reinforces the idea that our leaders have the United States’ best interests at heart, and have worked towards making life better for those of us at home. In the words of George Carlin, “The government doesn’t give a fuck about you. They don’t care about you… at all. At all. AT ALL.” I’m willing to bet that this same kind of emotional outpouring and adulation will also be given to Trump twenty or so years from now by the same media who apparently despise him today, and/or by everyday liberals. Because by that time, a different puppet president will be in office and he/she will be the focus of ire for people who have forgotten the crimes of the past.

George Orwell, himself, would probably look at these whitewashings of history today and say, “Yeah, like that. I tried to warn you guys.”

“War is Peace! Ignorance is Strength! Slavery is Freedom!” -George Orwell; from the novel 1984.

 

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

 

 

 

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

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

Advertisements

Not A Good Plan, Even On Paper

plan

Kris Morgan 5/10/2018

Most of us have either heard or used the saying ‘It’s a good plan on paper, but it just doesn’t work out in real life,‘ when discussing Marxism. With libertarians being the underdogs in politics, it seems we should just be glad the person we are conversing with is open to that concession. However, when we appease our opponents by pretending it’s not a bad plan, we keep the door open to the ideas. If we want to permanently crush his ideas, we have to go for the jugular. It is my hope that by using what follows effectively we will be able to do that.

When discussing such a complex topic, it is wise to adequately describe our terms. Marxism here is defined as the dictatorship of the proletariat through the political means. The labor class in society seizes control of the political power structure, in our case the Federal Government, and uses its power to create a classless society. For this to happen, everyone must get an equal share of resources despite providing different services. There are no capitalists as the market abolished, and all production is directed by the state.

Nobody should shy away from saying these ideas are terrible on paper, have never worked out anywhere to date, nor will they in the future. The notion that organizing a population in such a way would succeed in peace, harmony, and prosperity is hinged on believing many things contrary to our daily experiences. For example, we accept that a single private company having a monopoly over just one product would lead to low quality and high costs. Marxism demands we believe a small group of politicians controlling everything would yield a much better outcome.

Additionally, receiving the same amount of resources regardless of function mocks something all workers experience at some point in our lives. Attaining skills and/or college instruction is an investment we make in ourselves. We expand on our abilities in hopes of using them to make a higher income. Still, there are those who make no such investments and stick to roles which require only a willingness to work. If there is no reward of higher income, the number of people investing in themselves will be vastly reduced. While we all would prefer a doctor who loves helping others enough to do so for free or very little, we are willing to accept one who does it for profit to having no doctor at all.

Does it really sound good on paper for those with no skills to make the same as the ones who made themselves more valuable? Does the janitor really deserve the same pay as the doctor? Are we prepared to say the act of cleaning floors matches that of saving lives? Don’t misunderstand, it’s not that the doctor’s life is worth more than the janitor’s, only that the task being performed is in higher demand. The skill set of a doctor is also far more scarce than that of a janitor.

Marxism’s own contradictions are the final case against it as a plausible plan. First, the dictatorship of the proletariat is a goal inconsistent to that of a classless society. There is no better way to create divisions than for one group to control the entire economy. Attempts at weeding out all the capitalists will always run futile since individuals are perfectly capable of fluctuating between laborer and entrepreneur, and often hold both roles simultaneously. In fact, major parts of the Soviet Union operated only due to black market operations. The classes would not disappear. They’d simply be redefined and entrepreneurship swept underneath the rug. Rather than having separations based on income or whether their role involves investment or labor, they’d be rooted in power politics.

According to Marxist logic, the bourgeoisie have more than the lower classes due to systematic exploitation of surplus labor value. The lower classes rising up and installing a dictatorship is a response to this injustice. But the abuses committed by the capitalists are based on economics, not politics. Assuming this reasoning holds, are we to believe complete economic and political power in the hands of a few would not result in similar or worse exploitation? If economic power split up by many capitalists is bad, how can total power embodied by a single group be good? Would the proletariat not also become entrepreneurs in this system, as the state directs production?

There is no reason whatsoever to beat around the bush. Marxism is a terrible plan on paper and in practice has been a disaster. In a century of communist experiments, over 100 million people have died, according to the Wall Street Journal. The contradictions are obvious and the issue of trusting people with unlimited power really should put the matter to rest. The plan is rooted in hatred for capitalists with economic influence, and relies on trust for laborers-turned-entrepreneurs with no limits on power. Let’s not be afraid to be bold, but still respectful, and refuse to entertain the idea that Marxism is a good plan that just didn’t pan out.

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

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

On Approach

approach

Kris Morgan   2/26/2018

If you’re a libertarian, chances are you have debated someone who seems to think you stuck your head in the sand. If you are lucky enough, you have conversed with people who stumped you by asking how services could be provided outside of politics. However, if you’re like 99.9% of us, you have also spoken to someone who just can’t seem to figure out why you would support liberty in the first place. At first your opponent may just think you are naive, but after chatting with you for a while, they are left with the impression that you are hopelessly dogmatic. The truth is we are neither naive nor dogmatic; we simply believe in a different method of approaching problems.

A perfect example of such thinking can be found in an article titled “The Libertarian Delusion” published by the American Prospect Magazine in 2015. The piece touches on a wide range of topics including pollution, income inequality, and the 2007 housing crash. It then goes on to discuss the great marvels pursued by governments which have lead to private investment, using Apple as an example. The author later suggests the market is a creature of government. While some arguments are well thought out, it is painfully obvious the writer fails to understand libertarianism.

As tempting as it is to write a point by point response, it is much more important to clarify something our critics almost always fail to grasp. Libertarianism is not an ideology revolved around results or personal gain, nor do we wish to bury our heads in the sand and pretend problems don’t exist. Instead, we hope to persuade others to approach our shared challenges within the context of free associations and individual freedom. This is in sharp contrast to other schools of thought, which rely heavily on solving problems through the force of law.

This is made more clear by reviewing the way Mr. Kuttner closed his piece: “So if we are to win the argument with the libertarians, we need to take back effective government. Friedman was wrong to argue that the cure for market failure is more market. However, the cure for weak or corrupted democracy has to be more democracy. The only way to redeem public confidence in government as a necessary check on the market is to repair faith in democracy itself. It is not difficult to prove that the claim of market efficiency is delusional.”

Critics such as Mr. Kuttner could speak about market failures and political efficiency until they are blue in the face; it is not going to make the slightest difference to any serious libertarian. What speaks to us are ideals, such as justice and peace. Prosperity is more of a bonus. The mechanism by which justice and peace are achieved is respect for legitimate property rights; legitimate property defined as that which is gained through proper homestead, received as gift, or earned through trade.

Most treat this opinion as a minor difference in politics, but there are great implications which result from this perspective. Most importantly, we are not interested in using political power nor any other form of coercion to solve problems. Rather than asking how the law should be modified to suit the circumstances we want to change, we ask ‘what can we do within the framework of liberty to make life better?’

There are many benefits to approaching society’s troubles this way. First, it is the only way to sustain a free state. Seeking new laws in order to overcome obstacles has the inevitable consequence of creating a totalitarian regime, since we will always have our imperfections. Secondly, we avoid the pitfall of pretending law can make society more secure. Seeking to increase our own safety at the expense of other people’s liberty (i.e. gun control) is a method that is sure to fail for obvious reasons, as liberty and safety are one and the same. Perhaps most importantly, we are forced to deal with the roots of our problems, whereas the use of law encourages us to focus only on the symptoms.

The next time someone demands you know every detail about how a free society would work, remind them that our message is really one about method. Don’t be scared to leave omniscience to God. Where we don’t already have answers, the logical thing to do is brainstorm. According to gallup, only 27% of Americans can be characterized as libertarian. If so, 73% of our nation’s brain power is open to, likely relying on, the passing of new laws as a panacea when facing challenges. Freedom cannot last if every problem is met with a reduction in liberty, and passing laws will never ‘fix’ humanity. We can do better. The only caveat is we need that other 73% to work with us.

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

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

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.

Meet PA Senatorial Candidate Dale Kerns

David Beaver, January 29, 2018

The Senate races are heating up across the country and the state of Pennsylvania is no exception. With soon to be former Congressman Lou Barletta taking on the incumbent, Senator Bob Casey many are unaware that there’s a third candidate in the race. Senatorial candidate Dale Kerns plans to change that as he runs for the seat with the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania. A former businessman and Eddystone borough councilman he is not what you would describe as a typical career politician and has stated that if elected he will only serve one term.

“…I will not accept a pension, will not take the healthcare, and will only run for one term. I am not part of DC and will not allow myself to be either. I am asking for one term to get some work done, and take back the seat in DC owned by Pennsylvanians and hijacked by the two-party system.” he said in a recent interview. While acknowledging the struggles of running with a third party, especially in fundraising, he is very optimistic about his chances of winning. “Being that our team is volunteer-based, and we are fiscally responsible, we do not need millions to win, but we do need to raise more.”

With opponents like Lou Barletta fighting it out over wedge issues like immigration Dale Kerns has placed individual liberties and the values of small government at the forefront of his campaign. He has also taken on controversial issues, hosting town halls across the state discussing the opioid crisis and proposing unique solutions. He believes in allowing the free market to provide addiction treatments and in treating drug use as a medical issue rather than as a matter of criminal justice. His proposed bill, Addiction is Not a Crime would in effect accomplish these goals, and he has been busy advocating for it around the state. In addition to providing treatment for addicts in lieu of prison sentences he has also supported a controversial measure in which clinics around the country would off maintenance levels of heroin for addicts who reject treatment, citing its success in Portugal who has seen a drop as high as 90% in drug-related HIV infections and a rate of drug-induced deaths that has fallen to a stunning five times lower than the European Union average as a result of its more lenient and care-based policies.

In addition to shrinking the size and scope of federal government, and enforcing constitutional restrictions on its authority, Kerns has stated a number other goals in running.

“I want to show everyone that a Libertarian can be elected and that they want more Libertarians. I want them to know they don’t have to choose the lesser of two evils anymore – we are here to free them from that burden.”

A loving husband and father of two he also expressed a more personal goal in his pursuit of the Senate seat:

“I now have two young girls that cannot know the world we live in, and the world we are headed towards. I owe them the best life, a life of freedom.”

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

 

 

 

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

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

 

Unlocking Your Inner Sociopath

sociopath

Kris Morgan 12/8/17

Most people find the thought of committing acts of violence repugnant. According to the FBI, in 2015 the violent crime rate was just 372 per 100,000 citizens, a 50% drop since 1993. It seems we are on the right track in our private lives, as far as the numbers are concerned. However, the gains we are making in our personal lives are being lost by our political pursuits. About two-thirds of Americans support free college, over half support universal-basic-income (UBI), and most want universal healthcare. Some even believe the democratic nomination was stolen from self-defined socialist Bernie Sanders.

For libertarians, this trend is alarming. Society’s plan, as far as politics is concerned, is to point policemen, jail cells, and courts at productive people and demand they pay for these programs under penalty of law. How is it we are becoming more peaceful in private life yet exceedingly vicious in political? There are a number of angles to analyze this, but they all lead to the same inevitable conclusion. Politics encourages ordinary citizens to unlock their inner sociopath.

The DSM-5 defines antisocial personality disorder (the phrase for sociopathy) as “[a] pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others, occurring since age 15 years…” Several personality traits are then listed. Consistently displaying three out of seven is the criteria for sociopathic behavior. Of the seven, politics brings out at least five:

  1. Impulsivity
  2. Irritability and aggressiveness
  3. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others
  4. Consistent irresponsibility and
  5. Lack of remorse.

Most of us generally don’t express these patterns in our daily lives, but when it comes to politics, not only do we embrace them, we often eschew those who don’t.

Numbers three and five go together. Whenever we support laws which are designed to control others, rather than protect us from predation, we invite a confrontation involving an armed person in uniform and a peaceful person. When our actions create such a dangerous environment, we can safely define it as reckless disregard for safety. When we blame the perpetrator of the victimless crime with phrases like “they shouldn’t have broken the law,” we prove we have no remorse for them.

Impulsivity and irresponsibility are almost the same thing. When we are impulsive, we don’t think through our decisions. We react to a gut feeling without any conscious screening. Our nation’s finances are a prime example, as we have never failed to raise the debt ceiling, and owe over $20 trillion. In spite of the numbers we show absolutely no sign of slowing down.

The final aspects to analyze are irritability and aggressiveness. Facebook debates aside, this attitude towards others may be the most important to counteract. It fuels our hatred for anyone living outside our borders, who disagrees with us, or who breaks any law. A moment’s reflection is all it takes to realize those outside American borders are just as human as any of us. Deep down, we know not all laws are just. Finally, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. What causes our anxiety to flare is the knowledge that a group of politicians are going to have power and they will be able to force the country to abide by their opinions on these and all other matters.

When we support the use of politics to provide UBI, universal healthcare, and education (among other things), we essentially support the jailing of people who would rather not hand over their money for these programs. Libertarians often speak of charities as a means to provide for the less fortunate, but the sad truth is it’s just not guaranteed. If people are free to choose what to do with their own money, they might say no, so the coercive nature of politics gets ignored, or much worse, it gets accepted as necessary. Nevertheless, there is no right to a political establishment that forces people to do what we please.

Being free to make choices with our own money can be uncomfortable to those wanting certain services. We have debates about how economies grow, how wealth is created, and how society can find alternatives to government power, seemingly with the goal of appeasing those who want law to govern everything. It’s well past the time we take a stand, point out the inherent sociopathy that comes with the use of power over others, and just say no. We don’t have to explain how all of society can work through consensual relationships in order to stand firmly against the use of power. We don’t accept that excuse from private criminals, there’s no reason to pretend it’s valid when dealing with the state.

 

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

 

 

 

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

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

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.

 

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

 

 

 

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

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

Tragedy and Politics

4B09C7BA-7E36-4F1D-BBF6-F080C0570C31

Andrew Deemer, Campaign Manager for Nickolas Wildstar

10/6/17

I would like take a little time to touch on the (2017) Vegas tragedy. It is sad the actions of one person have done so much damage, damage to families. As I was watching the TV, I couldn’t help but think about 9/11 and how I saw people running in fear, how it made me so angry. I am just as angry and saddened now as I was then. I pray for every single one of you that have been affected in any way. I care for EVERY single person. I do not see voters, but Americans. Now more than ever, we need to come together. Unity helps us get through our darkest days as a nation. We need everyone to come together to help the victims’ families and anyone else that has been affected. To those that will try to politicize this tragedy, it is to you I say shame on you. Do you not see anything but your political agenda? Can you not see the true damage that has been done? Of all people that could unite us, your actions only divide us more. Now is not the time for politics! Now is the time for unity and love.  So look out for one another, help out where you can, and show that this will not tear us apart! 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

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

The Quest For Moral Superiority

AB50FC31-F8E9-4DC3-BF91-6A9BCC3A9F8C

Kris Morgan  September 17, 2017

Liberals believe in big government at home, whereas conservatives support an interventionist foreign policy.  The two combined have given us a welfare/warfare state that cannot last.  The United States has accumulated over 20 trillion dollars in debt, over 127 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities, killed innocent people abroad, and jailed millions of peaceful people.  In spite of this, the Federal Government shows no signs of slowing down.  How is it that the “freest nation in the world” manages to imprison more of its citizens than North Korea, a communist dictatorship?  Ironically, these evils exist because our debates revolve around attempts at gaining the moral upper-hand rather than an unhindered search for truth.

Since politics is always a question of when it becomes morally acceptable to use force, our views reflect our sense of justice.  We assume ourselves good and just upon entering political debates.  As a result, we define opposing ideas as unjust.  Any admission on our part that our beliefs are flawed inherently implies the other person is more just and morally superior.  These biases cause our conversations to get out of hand.

For example, many believe that the United States did not provoke Osama Bin Laden to carry out the 9/11 attacks.  Some lash out when presented with a review of US interventions in the Middle East, including sanctions in the 1990s that lead to half-a-million children dying, and our Secretary of State affirming their deaths were acceptable.  They often label the messenger as part of the “blame-America-first” crowd and ignore the facts.

Conservatives who push for interventionism abroad are frequently combative to those who highlight US aggression.  They dismiss the opposition with cliches about how the world is an unfriendly place, or claim the dissenter hates America. Admitting the US is a hostile nation contradicts their view that America is the greatest country on the planet.  To backtrack on that base belief would make them appear weak and discredit their moral authority, so they often react with a critique of their own without acknowledging yours.  This method is not restricted to conservatives.

Liberals voice support for civil liberties, yet favor central economic controls.  When an opponent points out that economic controls are violations of our freedom, they claim their foe is uncaring to those in need.  Their inconsistency goes unrecognized as they focus on attacking their opponents.  It is easier to blindly accuse adversaries of being sexists, racists, or wanting the needy to starve than face their contradiction.

Democrats and Republicans alike listen to their own bases.  If their supporters are not willing to admit discrepancies in their platforms, then politicians will continue to roam free.  The welfare/warfare state will endure until there is no wealth left to tax and the currency hyper-inflates.  Making excuses, creating strawmen, deflecting legitimate critiques, and ignoring new information has allowed our government to grow completely out of control. It is an unsustainable model for political discourse.

One can argue that libertarians are not exempt from taking part in this manner of conversation, and there may be some valid critiques.  However, libertarians have a ‘north star’ with which to follow.  While Republicans and Democrats have only their own sense of moral superiority to guide them, libertarians have the Non-Aggression Principle. This keeps our personal virtues away from our politics.  For instance, a libertarian may wish for society to build a sound safety net.  Nevertheless, progressive taxation is the initiation of force and is accordingly rejected by libertarians.  Libertarians do not use morality to justify coercion.

We are being taken advantage of by a system that knows people have a desire to appear morally strong, so much so that they will defend politicians in order to protect themselves.  The best way to smash this system is to set aside our own egos, admit when we are wrong, develop consistent ideologies, and hold our rulers accountable. We have to make this change if we are ever going to claim our rightful place as the dominant party in our relationship with our power structure.

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

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

Black-American Libertarians

8F6EB371-68E7-47BF-ABEF-47199B5F028F

Travis Hallman  September 20, 2017

Recently a friend from high school told me he switched from supporting voluntary socialism to democratic socialism because there are not enough Black-Americans within the liberty-movement. Respectably, he said this concerns him because minorities know what’s best for minorities. This author agrees that individuals (including minorities) know what’s best for themselves. The purpose of this article is to highlight a few Black-American Libertarians and why libertarianism is the most caring solution for minorities.

“Averaging across nine Reason-Rupe surveys I conducted at Reason Foundation/Reason Magazine with Princeton Survey Research Associates between 2012-2014 and a recent survey we conducted here at the Cato Institute with YouGov, here’s what we find: Among those who self-identify as ‘libertarian’, 71 percent are Caucasian, 14 percent are Latino, 5 percent are African-American, 8 percent identify as another race, and 4 percent chose not to identify. While not an exact reflection, these numbers are similar to the demographic makeup of all respondents averaged across the surveys: 67 percent white, 13 percent Latino, 12 percent African-American , 7 percent identifying as other, and 1 percent not identifying.”

https://www.cato.org/blog/libertarians-are-more-racially-diverse-people-realize

What is libertarianism?

“Libertarians strongly oppose any government interference into their personal, family, and business decisions. Essentially, we believe all Americans should be free to live their lives and pursue their interests as they see fit as long as they do no harm to another”

https://www.lp.org/about/

 

Black-American Libertarian Revolutionaries

Mr. Thomas Sowell:

sowelll2

“Currently Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution in Stanford, CA. His writing is always strongly in favor of free-market economic policy and a libertarian social policy.”
https://www.theadvocates.org/libertarianism-101/libertarian-celebrities/thomas-sowell/

 

Mr. Walter E. Williams:

Williams2

“In this lecture given at a Libertarian Party of Georgia event in 1991, [Walter] Williams talks about libertarianism generally and relates his own moral arguments against state coercion. Williams also briefly suggests a few things he thinks libertarians should be doing if they want the libertarian movement to grow.”
https://www.libertarianism.org/media/video-collection/walter-e-williams-libertarians-liberty

 

Mr. Malcolm X:

XX2

“Malcolm X, for one, was very critical of the U.S. government’s international meddling, particularly in Africa, as well as its social and governmental hypocrisy when confronted with the plight of American blacks. Although embraced by the radical Left, Malcolm’s speeches and writings were not in the spirit of Karl Marx or even Howard Zinn—he preached personal responsibility, entrepreneurship, mistrust of the government, and the unquestionable right to self-defense. This isn’t to say Malcolm was a libertarian, but the ideas that permeate the American Dream have also been prevalent throughout black America’s political and social history, in some form or another. The United States is, thankfully, in a much different place than it was in the 1960s, but the desire to be free and prosperous is just as alive among black Americans, and it has been there for centuries. Perhaps, then, the problem is in the messaging.”
https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/why-are-there-so-few-black-libertarians

 

Mr. Martin Luther King Jr.

mlk2

“Martin Luther King Jr. was a strong believer in civil disobedience and disobeying unjust laws. That belief was the starting point for every one of his marches and demonstrations. Libertarians today hold that an unjust law is no law at all, as we believe in natural law and natural rights. The government cannot simply pass laws that take away our natural rights, and those laws should not be obeyed.  The other base for Martin Luther King Jr.’s protests and speeches was his strict belief that they should be non-violent. He rightfully understood that he would never achieve his goals through force. Libertarians believe in the non-aggression principle, which states aggression against another’s property is inherently illegitimate. The most important property of all is our bodies, and therefore violence against another person is the worst form of violence. Martin Luther King Jr. agreed with that sentiment and consistently preached non-violent methods for protest. Martin Luther King Jr. displayed libertarian ideals in foreign policy and his famous opposition to the Vietnam War. King saw the dangers of American imperialism abroad and the threat to freedom that it posed at home as well.”

https://alibertarianfuture.com/famous-libertarians/famous-libertarian-quotes/martin-luther-king-jrs-famous-libertarian-quote/

 

Mr. Richard Boddie:

Boddiee2

Mr. Boddie describes himself as an ‘Aframerican individualist’ and ‘secular evangelist.’ Mr. Boddie is a ‘people person’ who can transmit people skills to others. His charisma, personality, background, life experience and vision establish the foundation of his mission: ‘To teach and share the ideals and ideas of individual achievement and individual liberty with others – everyday, for the rest of my life.’

-Highest vote getter ever in Libertarian Party History for U.S. Senate

-250,000 in California’s 1992 election

-Runner up for Libertarian Party Presidential Nomination in Chicago 8/31/91 for 1992 race

-Beat the margin of victory between the Republican and Democratic candidates for U.S. Senate in California 1994

-Current Chairman of Orange County Libertarian Party (Region 40 of the California Libertarian Party).

-Executive Director, Focus PAC

-Executive Director & Founder, Socially Tolerant Caucus of the Libertarian Party

-President and Founder, The Motivators motivational speakers bureau.”
http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/inactive/focus/rbbcv.htm

*Here is a much more extensive list of Black-American libertarians

 

Black-American Libertarian/ Libertarian-Leaning Celebrities

Rock2

“Chris Rock is known to be politically cynical and may even be heard praising Democrats and ripping into Republicans. Rock may have even been a little too complimentary of socialist liberals at times, favoring President Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Al Gore, reportedly  donating $42,100 Democratic campaigns.
An important distinction to make is that Rock’s views are not always so one-sided. In fact, some of Rock’s quotations have been ideologically consistent with resisting the idea of a ‘collective’. Here’s a list of 10 Chris Rock Quotations that sound more libertarian than liberal:”
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/10-chris-rock-quotes-that-are-libertarian-as-fck/

 

Ray2

“Anthony Ray (Sir-Mix-A-Lot)

Known For: Grammy Award-winning single ‘Baby Got Back’

Libertarian Leanings: It’s a known trope that most rappers hate taxes and Ray is no exception. However, one particular song called ‘Take My Stash’ off of his Chief Booth Knocka album seems to go a level deeper:”
http://www.thisispw.com/post/94353746341/5-rappers-with-libertarian-leaning-views-and-one

 

Boi2

Rapper Big Boi of Outkast explains to Huffington Post why he’s a Libertarian and talks the importance of thinking independently. “I’m a libertarian. I’m, you know, liberty justice for all. Liberty for all. Im really pro people, pro freedom, and you know its all about positivity.”

 

July3

“Eric July is America’s top black Christian anarcho-capitalist rap-metal artist.” Reason Magazine  Mr. Eric July is a full time activist for the Libertarian movement being a vocalist in his band “BackWordz” & co-founder of Being Libertarian.

 

The following candidates have partnered with Ask A Libertarian in the past or are currently partnering with us to provide Public AMA’s (Ask Me Anything). Check out the links to their AMA events below:

 

Black-American Libertarian Candidates

laguerre2

Karese Laguerre for NJ Lieutenant Governor under Libertarian candidate Peter Rohrman. Ms. Karese Laguerrec will be available to answer your questions during her guest appearance on Ask A Libertarian via live video feed. Her Live AMA is scheduled for October 15th at 7pm (est).

 

Sharpe2

Larry Sharpe is running for Governor of New York. Mr Sharpe will be available to answer your questions via live video feed during his Live AMA on October 17th at 8pm (est).

 

windstarr2

Nickolas Wildstar is running for Governor of California. Mr. Wildstar will be available to answer your questions via live video feed during his AMA scheduled for January 15th (Martin Luther King Jr. day). The time for this event is TBA.

 

fleurr2

Gary St. Fleur is running for Mayor of Scranton, PA. “Gary St. Fleur, chair of the Lackawanna County LP, who has been working to bring runaway taxes, spending, and high debt under control in Scranton, Pennsylvania, is now running for mayor on the Libertarian ticket.” https://www.lp.org/libertarian-gary-st-fleur-rattling-cages-scranton-mayoral-race/

Mr. St. Fleur, along with seven other tax payers, recently sued Scranton Pennsylvania’s local government over illegal tax hikes.  The city was forced to adhere to Act 511, which caps taxes. https://www.lp.org/major-tax-victory-scranton-thanks-libertarian-gary-st-fleur/

Click here to view Mr. Gary St. Fleur’s previous Public AMA.

 

Why libertarianism is the most caring solution for minorities

“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.”

Www.Lp.org/platform

“Certainly, the Drug War has been the largest driver of the disproportionate black and Hispanic prison populations in recent years, both through the incarceration of non-violent offenders and prosecuting those people involved in the violence associated with prohibition regimes. But the tensions between blacks and the American justice system did not start with Nixon’s War on Drugs in 1971.”
https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/looking-back-look-forward-blacks-liberty-state

“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.”

Www.lp.org/platform

“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.”

https://askalibertarian.wordpress.com/2017/07/13/how-free-markets-empower-green-markets/

Understandably, free markets in America are often blamed for allowing slavery. This is indubitably incorrect. The government failing to enforce the non-aggression principle is what allowed slavery in America. Even though libertarians support free markets, we also believe that slavery violates human rights, and therefore should not be considered a “free market” practice.

“The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, or the anti-coercion or zero aggression principle or non-initiation of force) is an ethical stance which asserts that ‘aggression’ is inherently illegitimate. ‘aggression’ is defined as the ‘initiation’ of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense. The principle is a deontological (or rule-based) ethical stance.”

https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Principle_of_non-aggression

“You might have heard the Libertarian Party (LP) referred to as the ‘Party of Principle.’ This is because the LP bases its programs and policy positions on the non-aggression principle.”

https://www.theadvocates.org/aggression/

 

In liberty,

Travis Hallman

 

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

 

 

 

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

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