The Free State Project: A Libertarian Testing Ground For Bitcoin, 3D Printers, and DronesForbes ^ | 6-12-14 | Kashmir HillPosted on 6/21/2014, 6:35:02 AM by RKBA DemocratLong before billionaire venture capitalist Peter Thiel dreamed up the idea of a floating libertarian island nation, a 24-year-old Yale grad student named Jason Sorens proposed a far more down-to-earth experiment for those who wanted to live the limited government lifestyle: that a critical mass of “freedom-loving people… establish residence in a small state and take over the state government.”
“Don’t hurt people” and “Don’t take their stuff” are actually the first two of six “rules for liberty” found in the first chapter of Matt Kibbe’s new book Don’t Hurt People and Don’t Take Their Stuff: A Libertarian Manifesto. The others are “Take responsibility,” “Work for it,” “Mind your own business,” and “Fight the Power.” Chapter 1 is indeed somewhat of a libertarian manifesto,
but the rest of the book is standard conservative fare—just as I predicted.
the advocacy of limited government and a free economy. (If you think of it, you will see that there is a redundancy in this formula, for a government of limited powers would have little chance of interfering with the economy.)
As libertarianism begins to gain in popularity and seep into the youth culture, there is increasing pressure from certain strains of the movement to attempt to modify the theory and transform it into something that it is not.
To begin with, let us examine what is meant by the term “libertarian,” what its limits are, and what it attempts to explain. Libertarianism is exclusively a political philosophy describing the legitimate use of force in society.
It claims that humans have the right of self-ownership, and that theft, assault and other forms of aggression violate this right, except in the case of legitimate self-defense against an aggressor.
By Bionic Mosquito
April 25, 2014
Thanks to Robert Wenzel, today I came across this dandy of a post, entitled “Six Reasons Libertarians Should Reject the Non-Aggression Principle, by Matt Zwolinski.
The War on Libertarianism
And drive for the total state.
The media’s caricature of libertarians is a pendulum that swings from one extreme to another. One minute we’re grasping plutocrats, championing the privileged, and the next minute we’re losers living in our parents’ basements.
Libertarians flex their muscle in the GOP… “Way back in 1975, a Republican agitator named Ronald Reagan had this to say about an esoteric young movement that was roiling politics: “If you analyze it, I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.””
Libertarians flex their muscle in the GOP
Wash. Post ^ | 07/31/2013 | By Karen Tumulty
Posted on Thursday, August 01, 2013 12:28:50 PM by Responsibility2nd
Way back in 1975, a Republican agitator named Ronald Reagan had this to say about an esoteric young movement that was roiling politics: “If you analyze it, I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”
Neither the GOP old guard nor the rowdy libertarians ever quite bought that argument.
They both lay claim to the same conservative economic philosophy. But libertarians are more isolationist and antiwar than Republican orthodoxy allows on foreign policy and more permissive on social issues.
Still, in the nearly four decades since Reagan made those comments, the two have managed — at least most of the time — to maintain an uneasy marriage of expedience.
» Who Really Wrote the Declaration of Independence? ….. “Among many other points in the fascinating lecture series, Galambos makes clear that he believes that it was Thomas Paine not Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence. He has me convinced.” Alex Jones’ Infowars: There’s a war on for your mind!
July 4, 2013
He was a fascinating mixture of contrasts. He combined a brilliant mind with an ungracious personality.
He was an astrophysicist who taught social science. He preached the importance of respect for intellectual property, but freely lifted the ideas of others without giving them credit. He was dishonest, but he inspired others to be more honest. He disdained the word “libertarian” while turning thousands of people into libertarians. He was an insensitive teacher, and yet he apparently changed the lives of most of the people he taught.
What If Trayvon Martin Had Been a Libertarian? –… “There is no right to privacy; none at all. It is not a negative right, all of which are supported by libertarian theory; e.g., the right not to be molested, murdered, raped, etc. Rather, the so called right to privacy is a so called “positive right,” as in the “right” to food, clothing, shelter, welfare, etc. That is, it is no right at all; rather the “right” to privacy is an aspect of wealth. As Murray N. Rothbard (The Ethics of Liberty, chapter 16) made clear, there is only a right to private property, not privacy[...]But suppose a private individual were to invade our privacy without violating our private “
There is no right to privacy; none at all. It is not a negative right, all of which are supported by libertarian theory; e.g., the right not to be molested, murdered, raped, etc. Rather, the so called right to privacy is a so called “positive right,” as in the “right” to food, clothing, shelter, welfare, etc. That is, it is no right at all; rather the “right” to privacy is an aspect of wealth. As Murray N. Rothbard (The Ethics of Liberty, chapter 16) made clear, there is only a right to private property, not privacy[...]
But suppose a private individual were to invade our privacy without violating our private property rights. Would he have a right to do that? Yes, at least insofar as I understand the libertarian perspective. The paparazzi have a right to take pictures of movie stars, professional athletes, without permission, provided only they do not violate private property rights.
» Who Really Wrote the Declaration of Independence? Alex Jones’ Infowars: There’s a war on for your mind!
He was a fascinating mixture of contrasts. He combined a brilliant mind with an ungracious personality. He was an astrophysicist who taught social science.
He preached the importance of respect for intellectual property, but freely lifted the ideas of others without giving them credit. He was dishonest, but he inspired others to be more honest. He disdained the word “libertarian” while turning thousands of people into libertarians. He was an insensitive teacher, and yet he apparently changed the lives of most of the people he taught.
The entire obituary of Galambos written by Browne is must reading. Browne says a lot of negative things about Galambos, but at the end of reading the obituary, the thought lingers: Who was this guy? And the next thought is: Boy, I wish I could have sat in on one of his courses. They aren’t any notes of his class. Browne reports, Galambos was very protective of his ideas and never put anything in writing. Indeed, Browne tells us:
He required every student entering one of his courses to sign a contract agreeing not to divulge any of the course ideas without permission from Galambos — and not even to use the ideas, in business or elsewhere, without permission.
Exclusive to STR
I suppose I had wanted to begin this essay talking about a piece published back in January by Jay Bookman, “Second Amendment is Not License for Treason, Armed Revolt.”
I further suppose I had wanted to point out how, from a libertarian/market anarchist/voluntaryist perspective, it matters little what any amendment in any government document has to say about individual self-protection – it is an inherent and most obvious requisite of any human life.
Conservative Libertarian Outpost | MOLAN LABE!… “UN Arms Trade Treaty Calls for Disarmament of Persons 55 and Older”
Within the pages of “Behold a Pale Horse,” Cooper charges that certain sectors of the U.S. government initiated a covert operation decades ago designed to gradually turn the population against the private ownership of firearms.
In order to accomplish such a feat, the government set about on a deliberate course of action that would insure that deadly, military grade firearms would make it into the hands of dangerous criminals.
The Law of Unintended Libertarian Consequences
self | 3/31/13 | crusher
Posted on Monday, April 01, 2013 1:39:17 PM by crusher
The Law of Unintended Libertarian Consequences
Over the past forty-five years since becoming politically aware, I have vacillated between conservatism and libertarian thinking in contemplating the world around me. I never feel completely at home with either camp when living out my own minarchist tendencies. It is of course oversimplification, but the former seem to think that everyone wants to be like us, and that the impulse for liberty is the yearning of the human spirit.
Evidently they are not paying attention to what is happening in the nation and around the world where dependency is in full march. On the other hand libertarians seem to relish their contempt for my own deeply held Christian faith and view debauchery not as an unfortunate side effect of freedom (my attitude) but rather celebrate hedonism as the whole point of liberty.
Kent’s “Hooligan Libertarian” Blog… “Those who believe in government might as well be feeding us all, and turning us all into, Soylent Green. Because the truth of the matter is that their actions grind up individuals to feed others.”
Those who believe in government might as well be feeding us all, and turning us all into, Soylent Green. Because the truth of the matter is that their actions grind up individuals to feed others.
Your life is worth only what it can do for “society”. You are not worth defending if it means “allowing” you to have an effective gun, and you can be destroyed for daring to disobey.
Few issues highlight the gaping philosophical divide between libertarians and modern conservatives more starkly than the issue of guns. This might seem counterintuitive, because libertarians and modern conservatives often stand shoulder to shoulder against liberals and progressives to defend individual gun rights. The convenient alliance between modern conservatives and libertarians in the political trenches, however, conceals a fundamental and serious philosophical disagreement.
In order to fully grasp the division between libertarians and modern conservatives on this issue, it is important to understand why libertarians and conservatives think gun rights are so important. At the most general level, both libertarians and modern conservatives agree that all men have a natural right to defend themselves against aggression. More specifically, every man has a natural right to repel with violent force any unjust aggression against his life or his property.
Libertarians and modern conservatives do not defend individual gun rights out of some bizarre and loony obsession with a 200-year-old piece of parchment called “The Constitution.” On the contrary, they hold that the Constitution of the United States merely articulated something about man’s nature that has always been and always will be true.
The logical implication of this, both libertarians and modern conservatives agree, is that individuals have a natural right not just to defend their lives and their property against aggression from individual murderers and thieves, but that they have a natural right to defend themselves from unjust aggression by government. Hollow indeed would be the right to self-defense if it did not include the right to defend oneself against aggression by government – including one’s own government, because governments have killed and robbed exponentially more people than have private criminals.
Recognizing this fact, libertarians and modern conservatives agree that the natural right to self-defense must include a right to defend oneself against unjust government aggression, and that doing so usually requires more than simply a stick or a slingshot. A population armed with modern guns is not easily cowed, robbed, or massacred unless governments resort to wildly immoral and indiscriminate tactics or weapons of mass destruction.
So far so good. Libertarians and modern conservatives agree that…..
Before It’s NewsThe Media has banned this Rand Paul video and its message. What do you think of it?Related Stories
About | FlyoverPress.com ~ Explaining Liberty to Liberals, Democratic Socialists, Neo-Conservatives and Fascist Alike…
Neo-Conservatives and Fascist Alike
Albert J Nock summed it up with the title of his book, “Our Enemy the State.”
We believe that there is nothing the State does that a private property, natural law based, for profit society can not do better.
We take every possible opportunity to demean the State and point out its crimes and ineffeciencies. There is no shortage of material.
Here is a summary of what we are all about.
As a staunch Anarcho-Capitalist and editor of the libertarian on-line news magazine, FlyoverPress.com, I am frequently confronted with all manner of political views. Thus, I find myself having to repeatedly explain the fundamentals of libertarian philosophy. Essentially, I have written the same essay thousands of times. This paper is an attempt to summarize and consolidate those essays and thereby save myself a great deal of time in the future.
For most of my life I have searched for a set of principles by which to live—ethical principles that could be applied to any and all human interactions. I have always rejected “situational ethics” as my intuition told me that there is such a thing as an “objective” ethic. But it eluded me for many years, until I discovered libertarianism.
Here is the introduction to the new edition of For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto.
There are many varieties of libertarianism alive in the world today, but Rothbardianism remains the center of its intellectual gravity, its primary muse and conscience, its strategic and moral core, and the focal point of debate even when its name is not acknowledged.
The reason is that Murray Rothbard was the creator of modern libertarianism, a political-ideological system that proposes a once-and-for-all escape from the trappings of left and right and their central plans for how state power should be used. Libertarianism is the radical alternative that says state power is unworkable and immoral.
(Gunny G Reader Response) ~ Math-Challenged Silly People Voting Libertarian Cost GOP Victory in At Least 9 Congressional Races
even rr figured things out and began calling himself a libertarian-conservative….true conservatives are libertarians (small l)…the issues libertarians are said to endorse and are criticized for are simply issues that gubmint has no business sticking its nose in…true conservatism is basic libertarian in the tradition of Thomas Jefferson, Robt Taft, Barry Goldwater, RR and Dr RP, etc.
Would-be conservatives attempt to fit their own confused dumbed-down beliefs into the label…
Keep it Simple, Stupid! (kiss)
Here’s a wonderful quote from Reagan in 1975 from Reason magazine. If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories.
The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is. Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions.
There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves.
Before one can understand the nature of partisan or party politics, a correct comprehension of The Choice of Ideology is essential.
During the interview, I ask him about his libertarian influences and his understanding of Austrian economics. The answers will likely surprise…..
Paying attention to politics matter of self-defense… (“…about libertarianism; the politics, or “anti-politics” as the case may be, of liberty….”)
Every day, in a variety of places, I write about libertarianism; the politics, or “anti-politics” as the case may be, of liberty. Everything I am is libertarian.
That shouldn’t scare you; it just means I will not steal from you and I won’t use force against you unless it is in self-defense, nor will I have other people do this dirty work on my behalf.
ARE RON PAUL AND GARY JOHNSON STUPID LIBERTARIANS?
Of course, they are. If you wanted to prove the tenets of libertarianism were once and still are the basis of American political life, where would you go? The Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776 and the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777 established the foundation for libertarian government in the United States of America.
Who prevented the United States of America from becoming a libertarian country? George Washington stopped libertarianism dead in its tracks on April 30, 1789, when he became dictator by combining the two offices of President of the United States and President of the United States of America.
If you want to re-establish libertarianism in the United States of America, all you have to do is go back to the Organic Laws before the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787 and Constitution of September 17, 1787.
“It’s easy to be conspicuously compassionate if others are being forced to pay the cost”
I admit it. I discriminate. I am kind and respectful to the elderly; I am helpful to the handicapped and I open doors for women.
When I go into a Japanese restaurant, I am a racist. I don’t want to see a white guy or a black guy or a Latino guy, or even a Korean guy making my sushi. Funny that. When I go into a Korean restaurant I certainly don’t want to see a Japanese making the food either (ask any Koreans you know if they agree with me).
And speaking of Seoul food, ditto goes for, say a German or Italian, or down-south real Soul food restaurant; and nope, I don’t want to see a guy named Yamazaki making the pork chops and gravy with collard greens.
To many atheists, the claim for the existence of God is roughly on a par with the existence of the Easter Bunny, or witches, ghouls, werewolves, leprechauns, Santa Claus, whatever.
Gunny G: Real Americans (Not AINOs) Are Fed Up w/the BS!…Dr Ron Paul Should Run Third Party Enabling America An Actual Choice !!!!!
Judge Napolitano Says Libertarianvoters Now will Vote Romney…
I don’t think so–maybe the AINOs–lotsa folks do NOT think so!
Libertarianism is controlled opposition, part of the phony Illuminati dialectic.Readers of this website are not surprised by the news the Pauls are endorsing Mitt Romney. Not since Stalin made a pact with Hitler have idealists felt so betrayed.
by Anthony Migchels
Rand Paul endorses Mitt Romney last Friday, just days after Romney was anointed at the Bilderberg Conference, elitists who started financing Ron Paul with millions a few months ago. The backlash among the libertarian community is intense. Libertarian leaders all over the place are denouncing him. Adam Kokesh is clearly hurting badly here.
The list below will not make anyone a scholar in libertarianism or an expert in Austrian Economics, it is designed to introduce to the busy individual the essence of libertarianism. There are 30 articles listed below.
If one reads one article, slowly and carefully, per day, by the end of 30 days one should have a very strong grasp of libertarian principles and a basic understanding of Austrian economics. The list contains articles on a variety of topics, but does not cover all possible libertarian topics. More than anything it provides an overview of libertarianism and how libertarians think about issues of the day.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) adopted a combative tone in a recent interview with NPR where he said that he is “doggone offended” by libertarians. He told NPR “I despise these people” and implied that he is happy to intimidate those that “dump on” him with threats of violence.
(Excerpt) Read more at mediaite.com …
- Orrin Hatch Says He Will Punch Libertarians in the Mouth (economicpolicyjournal.com)
- Sen. Orrin Hatch Threatens To Punch ‘Radical Libertarians’ In The Mouth (mediaite.com)
- Orrin Hatch On How To Win Friends And Influence People (thecampofthesaints.org)
- Orrin Hatch praises Ron Paul and son Rand (abcnews.go.com)
- @ Right back atcha, buddy: Senator Orrin Hatch is “doggone offended” by libertarians, says “I despise these people” (reason.com)
- Disappointment: Sarah Palin endorses entrenched incumbent GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch (twitchy.com)
- Orrin Hatch Pushed into Primary (economicpolicyjournal.com)
- Sen. Orrin Hatch To Greta Van Susteren: ‘I Don’t Have Any Respect For’ Freedomworks (mediaite.com)
- Bailout Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch Will Face Primary (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- Sen. Orrin Hatch On FreedomWorks And “Radical Libertarians”: “I Despise These People” (alan.com)
- ALAN STANG: REPUBLICAN PARTY, RED FROM THE START by Alan Stang ” CITIZEN.BLOGGER.1984+ GUNNY.G BLOG.EMAIL (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- Gunny G: Previous Inquiry Re POTUS Richard Nixon At Camp Pendleton… (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- GUNNY G: FYI: To Gunny G’s Readers Re Dead-End Links Due To $/Subscription Articles/Blogs… (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- Gunny G: The First Gung Ho Marine ~ GUNG HO! ~ According To Evans F. Carlson (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- GUNNY G: FYI: To Gunny G’s Readers Re Dead Links Due To $/Subscription Articles/Blogs… (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- Gingrich Calls for Universal Right to Bear Arms at NRA Forum-UN Treaty, Is Fox News Reporting This? ” CITIZEN.BLOGGER.1984+ GUNNY.G BLOG.EMAIL (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- ALAN STANG: REPUBLICAN PARTY, RED FROM THE START by Alan Stang ” CITIZEN.BLOGGER.1984+ GUNNY.G BLOG.EMAIL (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- Gunny G: Col Hackworth’s Term “Perfumed Prince” Caught My Eye… (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- Gunny G: Ok, Who Is Cia Director David Pretraeus ? (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- When America Went Crazy by Eric Peters (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- Chicago–Communist Paradise of the Midwest… (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- The Patriot Webmaster’s Creed (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- Communism Comes To America Earlier Than We Think | revisedhistory (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- Would the US Military Stand Down and ‘Empower a Revolution’? (raptureimminent.wordpress.com)
- The Obama Administration Looks To Be Close To A Breakdown……….. (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- A WORLD GONE MAD By Paul Proctor (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- Betty Freauf — Ron Paul Was There All the Time (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- (“Obama should likely be behind bars with the results of multiple felonies he is alleged to have committed.Unfortunately…”) What are the odds Obama is Ineligible to run again for president? | Western Journalism.com (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- Obama’s dangerous mistake: attacking religious freedoms (raptureimminent.wordpress.com)
- GUNNY G: And So, The Question as to Just When Communism/Socialism Arose In America? (johnmalcolm.me)
- GUNNY G: And So, The Question as to Just When Communism/Socialism Arose In America? (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- Prison Planet.com ” Obama’s Five Trillion Dollar Lie (raptureimminent.wordpress.com)
- Citizen Blogger, Gunny G: Request Assistance of Real Americans To Become Citizen Bloggers USA! It’s lonesome out here!. (genomega1.wordpress.com)
- If I Were the Devil: Paul Harvey (Warning for a Nation) (audio) (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- ROME IS BURNING, NERO IS FIDDLING By Lynn Stuter (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- Explaining “Nbc” and Current Freedom Threats (freedomisamerica.wordpress.com)
- The Plan… from Common Man (standupforamerica.wordpress.com)
- Marco Rubio is NOT eligible to run for POTUS or VPOTUS!!! (usamericanfreedom.com)
- A Democrat lawyer calls Obama’s Executive Order “martial law lite” (fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com)
- Is Obama’s campaign film pure propaganda? (politico.com)
- The War On Women Part III: “Blunt” Force Drama/Trauma (theobamacrat.com)
- Texas INMATE gets 40 per cent of votes against President Obama in West Virginia primary (theobamahustle.wordpress.com)
- Student loan interest: Obama ‘slow jams’ the rate, loan holders can deduct it (dontmesswithtaxes.typepad.com)
- Youth vote still favors Obama, but enthusiasm is waning (newsobserver.com)
- Obama’s First Ford ‘Rattled and Shook’ (abcnews.go.com)
- Dispatches From Birtherstan – 8-11 May 2012 (badfiction.typepad.com)
- Romney: Obama’s SC Warning a ‘Curious Turn of Events’ (abcnews.go.com)
- Hilarious One-Paragraph History of Politicos News-Invention Morning-Win Technique (delong.typepad.com)
- Geoengineering balloon trial cancelled (physicsworld.com)
- Dispute over whether Biden floated trial balloon on same-sex marriage policy (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com)
- Trial Balloon? The Head Of The Super PAC Considering The Obama-Jeremiah Wright Ad Rejects Leaked Proposal (businessinsider.com)
- How to Balloon Map Your Neighborhood, Google Maps Style [Video] (lifehacker.com)
- NYT: US spy balloons hover over Afghans (msnbc.msn.com)
- Self-Expanding and Balloon-Expandable Stent Systems Perform Well in Study of Real-World Peripheral Artery Disease Patients – MarketWatch (socallegs.wordpress.com)
- Spy balloons, part of Afghanistan’s landscape, stir unease (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
- NEJM Publishes Trial Results Demonstrating Bard FLAIR Endovascular Stent Graft Is Superior To Balloon Angioplasty For Failing Dialysis Grafts (prweb.com)
- First test of floating volcano geoengineering project cancelled (wired.co.uk)
- Is two better than one? (xminus1.wordpress.com)
- Spy in the sky (thehindu.com)
- Insightra Medical Today Announced The Expansion of Its Range of Cardiology Products (prweb.com)
- William Balfour Found Guilty In The Hudson Family Murder Trial (dlisted.com)
- Geoengineering experiment cancelled amid patent row (junkscience.com)
- Japanese operator to test quake-proof floating phone-mast BLIMPS (go.theregister.com)
- Geoengineering experiment cancelled due to perceived conflict of interest (climate-connections.org)
- Nitrome Site Updates (nitromeuniverse.wordpress.com)
- Man Sues After His Infected Penis Had To Be Amputated (dreamindemon.com)
- Climate fix test grounded again (bbc.co.uk)
- Jennifer Hudson Testifies In Family Murder Trial (now1031.cbslocal.com)
- William Balfour Found Guilty In Jennifer Hudson Family Murder Trial – Daily Gossip (dailygossip.org)
- Jennifer Hudson — Jury Divided in Family Murder Trial (tmz.com)
- William Balfour Guilty In Jennifer Hudson Family Murder Case (snspost.com)
- International EECP Therapy Week Underway (prweb.com)
In a comment to the author of this thread, and speaking to the subject of Libertarianism, I commented in this vein that, “Republicans don’t need a Libertarian to tell them that Romney is ripping the very heart of the Republican Conscience right out of the body of the Republican Party.” (source)
The Reagan Conscience to be precise.
In a recent article for the online journal Public Discourse, conservative Jay Richards asks the question: “Should Libertarians Be Conservatives?: The Tough Cases of Abortion and Marriage.”
Richards is Director and Senior Fellow of the Center on Wealth, Poverty, and Morality at the Discovery Institute, a Visiting Scholar at the Institute for Faith, Work, and Economics, and co-author, with James Robison, of the New York Times bestselling book Indivisible: Restoring Faith, Family, and Freedom Before It’s Too Late (FaithWords, 2012). Richards and I have many common interests: Christianity, theology, economics, politics. He sounds like my kind of guy – except that he’s not.
Richards is your typical “criticize the welfare state while you support the warfare state conservative.” I wasn’t sure at first, but after looking at his new book Indivisible, and especially his remarks in chapter five (“Bearing the Sword”) on pacifism, just war, the war on terror, the military, and defense spending, my suspicions were confirmed.
Richards maintains in his Public Discourse article that libertarians “tend to disagree with conservatives on social issues.” He views the issues of abortion and marriage as “the two greatest sources of conflict between libertarians and conservatives.” He believes that “there is a tacit if inarticulate conservative wisdom that recognizes that the libertarian commitment to free markets and limited government is best preserved within a broader conservative context.” He posits that this “conservative wisdom” should appeal to the “‘everyman libertarian’ who values limited governments, individual rights, and free markets, but is not otherwise committed to a deeply libertarian philosophy.” Richards concludes: “We conservatives need to strengthen our base without alienating our near allies. One way to do that is to show how the central convictions of ‘everyman libertarians’ can find a peaceful repose in a conservative home.”
One does not have to be a conservative to oppose abortion and defend traditional marriage. And one should certainly not be a conservative when it comes to other important issues.
I’m about two hours away from finishing Mocking Jay, the last book of the Hunger Games trilogy. I wasn’t planning on reading the books, but once I got wind that there were some libertarian themes contained therein I figured…welllll, ok. So, do the books make up some sort of libertarian manifesto? One might think so based on this, this, this, this, and this.
My take? I was pleasantly surprised. I kept waiting for the typical progressive themes of “Yeah, these big-government types over here are bad, but these big-government types over here are good.” Instead, you get the pleasing “These big-government types over here are bad, and these others that you thought would be good? Well, maybe they aren’t any good either.” There does seem to be a pervading message that if all these power-hungry leaders would just leave people alone, they could take care of themselves and be just fine, and “just fine” would be worlds better than where they’re at.
Conceived in Liberty 1975. In 1676, Nathaniel Bacon began a mutiny against the governor of Virginia, William Berkeley, because Bacon and many other Virginians wanted to pursue a more vigorous war against the Indians than Berkeley would allow.
This mutiny was the spark that lit the flame of Bacon’s Rebellion.Why? Why revolution? This question is asked in fascination by contemporary observers and historians of every revolution in history. What were the reasons, the “true” motives, behind any given revolution? The tendency of historians of every revolution, Bacon’s Rebellion included, has been to present a simplistic and black-and-white version of the drives behind the revolutionary forces.
Thus, the “orthodox” version holds Nathaniel Bacon to have been a conscious “torchbearer” of the later American Revolution, battling for liberty and against English oppression; the version of “revisionist” history marks down Bacon as an unprincipled and Indian-hating demagogue rebelling against the wise statesman Berkeley.
Neither version can be accepted as such.The very search by observers and historians for purity and unmixed motives in a revolution betrays an unrealistic naïveté. Revolutions are mighty upheavals made by a mass of people, people who are willing to rupture the settled habits of a lifetime, including especially the habit of obedience to an existing government.
They are made by people willing to turn from the narrow pursuits of their daily lives to battle vigorously and even violently together in a more general cause…….
(“There is a chorus of calls for Ron Paul to get out of the race because “he’s not a true Republican.””) Why Republicans Just Don’t Get Libertarians
There is a chorus of calls for Ron Paul to get out of the race because “he’s not a true Republican.”
Recent momentous events at Cato have drudged up some age-old questions about libertarianism and politics: how should libertarians interact with politics and political candidates? Should libertarians compromise “full freedom” by promoting half-measures in the form of less-than-perfect candidates who are better than the alternatives on some matters but perhaps worse on others?
Today, Presidential candidate Rick Santorum appeared on the Glenn Beck program to discuss the state of the race for the Republican nomination for President of the United States. The tone of the overall exchange was cordial, with Santorum joking at the start, “You know, Glenn, sometimes my wife loves you more than me.”
What is wrong with Libertarianism?Libertarianism emphasizes individual freedom, but fails to recognize that humans are social beings, not isolated individuals. Self-interest reigns supreme for libertarians, but there is no room for social justice.
Although informed by “Catholic” Jesuit doctrines, Austrian economics accepts and even justifies usury, which is contrary to the following Bible verses: Psalm 15:5, Exodus 22:25, and Leviticus 25:36-37. Another Bible verse, Deuteronomy 23:20, states that “you may charge a foreigner interest, but not an Israelite“.
Meanwhile, the Austrian crowd has no problem calling for deflation. In fact, Austrians deny that their coveted Gold Standard is extremely deflationary because physical gold can never keep up with the need for credit.
They blame the State for everything but ignore the Money Power. They refuse to see that Gold has been under the control of Money Power for centuries. Worse, they sell their deception by professing unabashedly that ‘Bankers hate Gold’.Communism and Libertarianism: a 500-year old Illuminati dialecticOf course, the same Jesuits a.k.a. Illuminati who concocted Libertarianism also perfected the system of reductions, a sort of proto-Communism, in 17th-century Paraguay.
These same Jesuits later taught Karl Marx, another Jew.
(“Santorum explicitly declared, “I am not a libertarian, and I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement”) Why Santorum’s anti-libertarianism is a problem
Nobody expects the Republican presidential nominee to be a libertarian purist, but it helps if he or she at least has a libertarian streak. In Rick Santorum‘s case, he’s actively hostile toward libertarianism, and that’s an obstacle not only to him winning the nomination, but also to having a chance in a general election against President Obama.
With Santorum emerging as a true contender for the Republican nomination, he’s been coming under fire for his many votes to expand government. He took earmarks, voted for the Medicare prescription drug plan and backed No Child Left Behind. He pushed dairy subsidies, steel tariffs and sided with unions over workers.On the other hand, should he win the Republican nomination, he’ll come under fire for his views on social issues. To be clear, it’s one thing to make a moral case for protecting the right to life of the unborn, which Santorum does passionately. But it’s another thing to argue, as he did in an interview last October, “One of the things I will talk about that no President has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea.
(Excerpt) Read more at media.aei.org …
Several months ago, I was visiting some friends in Sydney and was invited to the house of a friend-of-a-friend for some late night drinks and a chat. My host and his friends were left-wing bohemian types and had been informed by my friend that I am a “free-market anarchist,” or something like that. They found this notion intriguing, and so they quizzed me on what that means, and this naturally led into a discussion of the merits of a free market versus a democracy.
Introduction: Larken Rose is an outspoken, nationally known proponent of individual liberty, self-ownership and a voluntary society. He lives with his wife and daughter in eastern Pennsylvania and is the author of several books, include The Iron Web and How to be a Successful Tyrant, (The Megalomaniac Manifesto). After spending a year in prison as a result of his beliefs about the US income tax, he just completed another book, The Most Dangerous Superstition. Visit his website for more info (Larkenrose.com).
Daily Bell: Thanks for sitting down with us!
Larken Rose: Thanks for having me.
Daily Bell: Give us some background on yourself.
Larken Rose: Well, I was raised in a conservative, Republican, Christian setting, not just home but the whole town I grew up in. I grew up thinking the Constitution was great, America was great, and that we are free, and everyone else isn’t. Where I was raised, it was popular and easy to see the flawed thinking in what the leftist statists wanted, and to bash the silly, stupid, collectivist ideas that socialists were advocating. But it wasn’t until years later that I began to see that left-wing statism and right-wing statism are two slightly different flavors of the same gigantic lie.
Over the years, by way of reading things and having discussions and arguments about politics, I went from being Constitutionalist to libertarian, and finally to recognizing the belief in government as not just a bad idea but an insane, self-contradictory superstition, start to finish.
My wife and I sort of made the intellectual journey at the same time, talking about stuff, dragging each other further away from statism and toward freedom. Without giving my whole life story here, we got married in 1992, and had a daughter five years later. We took turns being political prisoners in 2006 and 2007 − me for a year, my wife Tessa for a month. Now we’re pretty much full-time enemies of the state, raising our daughter to hopefully be a sane, moral human being while we try to recover from what the parasite class did to us, and try to help other people escape the authoritarian cult indoctrination that almost everyone we know was put through.
- AMERICA BACK TO ITS ROOTS? FIRST, DESTROY THE R PARTY!
- ARE COPS CONSTITUTIONAL? AS STANDING ARMY? RIGHT TO BE LEFT ALONE?, ETC.
- ARE POLICE OBLIGATED TO PROTECT CITIZENS?
- BING! (Pvt)
- BLOGGERS: THE NEW PAMPHLETEERS
- CHESTY PULLER…ON LOYALTY DOWN…
- COMMIE CHICAGO By AL BENSON
- COWBOY NATION
- DR ED RIVERA, PROFESSOR OF LAW AND GOVERNMENT…
- GUNNY G SITES, ETC.
- KARL MARX, HORACE GREELEY, and JFK, Etc.
- NOW BLOG THIS! ~ GET YOUR OWN BLOG & START BLOGGING RIGHT NOW!
- PERENNIS: EUROPE’S PLAN TO SAVE THE SOUTH
- REAGAN ON CONSERVATISM and LIBERTARIANISM…
- THE “R” PARTY: RED FROM THE START By: ALAN STANG
- THE MEN WHO DESTROYED THE CONSTITUTION ~ BY: THOMAS DILORENZO
- THE REAL RON PAUL
- UNDERSTANDING WHY THE CONSTITUTION WAS AND REMAINS A DETRIMENT TO INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY
- WILL JUSTICE BE DONE ?
- WILL THE REVOLUTION BE “AMERICAN”?
- WOODROW WILSON REVEALING SPEECH!
- Will Ron Paul Destroy the ‘Party of Lincoln’? by Thomas DiLorenzo (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- THE CULTURE of VIOLENCE in the AMERICAN WEST MYTHS Vs. REALITY ~ By: Thomas J. DiLorenzo ” ~ BLOGGER.GUNNY.G.1984+. ~ (BLOG & EMAIL) (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- GUNNY G: 1851: KARL MARX GETS HIS FOOT IN THE AMERICAN DOOR, HORACE GREELEY; NY TRIBUNE, Etc….. (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- National Review’s Racist Rants by Thomas DiLorenzo ~ “…by smearing Ron Paul as being insensitive on matters of race…” (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- (“Some On The Right Hate Ron Paul”) The Stupid and the Dishonest Join the Attacks on Ron Paul by Thomas DiLorenzo (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
In Defense of Libertarians (being libertarian and being Republican are not mutually exclusive)
American Thinker ^ | 01/12/2012 | Rachael Williams
Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2012 7:55:31 AM by SeekAndFind
Throughout the primary election season there’s been a group unfairly villainized by the rest of the Republicans. Not the establishment (they can’t be villainized enough for giving us McCain and trying to keep folks like Rand Paul from getting elected in 2010) — I mean libertarians.
Republicans like to villainize libertarians for infiltrating their party — but refuse to acknowledge that being libertarian and being Republican are not mutually exclusive. I wish someone had told me, but apparently all self-identified libertarians are the same caricature of Ron Paul supporters who refuses to debate and instead just shouts “Neo-con! Neo-con!” at everyone with whom he disagrees.
I’m not what you’d call a “Ron Paul libertarian”; I don’t think he’s the end-all, be-all personification of what a libertarian is or what libertarians must believe to fit the title. Love him or hate him — which seem to be the only two options — I’d like to believe that everyone on the right can admit that Ron Paul has brought the mainstream of the far right a little closer to libertarian beliefs. Without Ron Paul, you wouldn’t have candidates like Rick Perry and Rick Santorum pushing for trillions of dollars in spending cuts, nor would they be promising to outright eliminate regulatory agencies.
“I don’t listen to corporate radio very often. However, when I do and a Ron Paul caller is let through the screening process I normal cringe, since they are either an obvious plant and/or kook to allow the host to easily make them look crazy and by extension, Ron Paul. Today when a legitimate Ron Paul supporter slips through it completely, it throws Rush off his game; he becomes very frustrated and he is the one who looks silly.
Governor Reagan, you have been quoted in the press as saying that you’re doing a lot of speaking now on behalf of the philosophy of conservatism and libertarianism. Is there a difference between the two?
REAGAN: If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories.
The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy.
American Thinker ^ | 12/30/2011 | Don Feder
Posted on Friday, December 30, 2011 11:49:57 AM by SeekAndFind
To “get” Ron Paul you have to understand libertarianism — an ism every bit as delusional as Marxism. The National Libertarian Party, which first ran a presidential candidate in 1972, hasn’t had many wins — electing 4 state legislators in as many decades, as well as a planning commissioner here and an alderman there. Ron Paul is its greatest success.
The Texas congressman is far and away the most prominent proponent of what I like to call rightwing utopianism. Libertarianism is to authentic conservatism what Barack Obama is to 19th century liberalism.
Inspired by Ayn Rand (Ron named his son, the future senator, Rand Paul), Libertarianism was an outgrowth of 1960s campus conservatism. Like ideologues of the left, libertarians of the day were on a never-ending quest for ideological purity and the foolish consistency Emerson derided. (They still are.) Unlike traditional conservatives, libertarians came to oppose the Vietnam War and what they called “prohibitionist” drug policies. You must be consistent, libertarians lectured us. If you support economic liberty, then you must support “personal liberty” (legalized abortion, freedom to use soul-destroying drugs) and the libertarian principle applied to foreign policy — isolationism.
What the State Is Not
The State is almost universally considered an institution of social service. Some theorists venerate the State as the apotheosis of society; others regard it as an amiable, though often inefficient, organization for achieving social ends; but almost all regard it as a necessary means for achieving the goals of mankind, a means to be ranged against the “private sector” and often winning in this competition of resources.
With the rise of democracy, the identification of the State with society has been redoubled, until it is common to hear sentiments expressed which violate virtually every tenet of reason and common sense such as, “we are the government.”
The useful collective term “we” has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the reality of political life. If “we are the government,” then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical but also “voluntary” on the part of the individual concerned.
If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by taxing one group for the benefit of another, this reality of burden is obscured by saying that “we owe it to ourselves”; if the government conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then he is “doing it to himself” and, therefore, nothing untoward has occurred. Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have “committed suicide,” since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part. One would not think it necessary to belabor this point, and yet the overwhelming bulk of the people hold this fallacy to a greater or lesser degree.
We must, therefore, emphasize that “we” are not the government; the government is not “us.” The government does not in any accurate sense “represent” the majority of the people. But, even if it did, even if 70 percent of the people decided to murder the remaining 30 percent, this would still be murder and would not be voluntary suicide on the part of the slaughtered minority. No organicist metaphor, no irrelevant bromide that “we are all part of one another,” must be permitted to obscure this basic fact…..
- Why Be Libertarian? by Murray N. Rothbard (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- Ron Paul, on Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell: “They enjoyed antagonizing people, to tell you the truth, and trying to split people” (reason.com)
- Environmentalists Clobber Texas by Murray N. Rothbard (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- The Whiskey Rebellion by Murray N. Rothbard (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- My Politico Commentary on Ron Paul and his Racist Newsletters (volokh.com)