Email Message
This form does not yet contain any fields.
    The Will to Create


    Young people and the liberty movement

    I wish I could start over as an 18 year old at this point in time. Young people have an exciting future ahead if they continue to rebel against powerful States and gain control of and actively form their governments. Information is so plentiful today that even State-run schools can't keep people ignorant and submissive.

    Never before in the US has the public thought so little of those in government, and this is a good thing, because governments are out of control all over the world. There's a nascent, global, liberty movement, and I suspect that young people from around the globe will increasingly resist government control over their lives. There's too much to do in today's world to spend your life mindlessly following dumb government rules and regulations. The potential for a grand new age of innovation, creativity and production is real (although it looks bleak presently, it doesn't have to be this way), but first governments have to be limited so that they work in service of the people, not against them.

    I hope that the liberty movement is built on the premise that they can't achieve what they set out to achieve if governments block the path. I also hope the liberty movement, especially in the US, is not derailed by political correctness. I wish I could remember who recently wrote about young, American libertarians falling for the social "issues" of progressivism -- I'd give him credit. The author said that young libertarians don't need to adopt all the popular causes when general principles will do. The popular, modern, liberal/progressive causes of environmentalism, gay rights, women's rights, and so on, create social division when they are politicized and used as political weapons. Libertarian principles are mostly concerned with political principles -- limiting government power, allowing economic liberty, establishing a foreign policy of strong defense and non-interventionism regarding the affairs of other nations.

    I hope young libertarians realize that once government is limited, society can deal with social problems in the free market of ideas. Most of the current popular issues are manaufactured to make one party or the other look bad -- however, most eveyone wants clean water and air -- most eveyone accepts that gay people deserve to be treated with dignity and the same compassion shown toward any fellow human being -- most people respect and value women and don't believe they should be treated as second class citizens -- most people want to help those in need -- most people believe that the color of a person's skin shouldn't dictate how they're perceived and treated -- most people believe in equal treatment under the law -- most people don't think that wealthy business concerns should receive special treatment by government -- most people want peace and equal opportunity for all. It'd be a mistake for young libertarians to divert their attention to special interests when their general principles cover the violation of rights more comprehensively. Many young progressives or neocons or social cons want to protect certain rights from violation while allowing the violation of other rights they don't consider important, or they want to protect the rights of those who share their worldview while violating the rights of those with whom they disagree. Progressives haven't shown any consistency when it comes to basic human rights, and neither have many neo-cons or social conservatives or other political factions except a relative handful of libertarians and limited government conservatives and a few liberals like Glen Greenwald.

    For the young libertarian, it's enough to promote the separation of government from the issue of marriage. There's no need to fight for the legal recognition of gay marriage. Government shouldn't be involved in who chooses to form a relationship bond and call it marriage. Government, nor any group, owns words. If two consenting adults or three adults or five adults choose to live together in a mutally agreed upon relationship arrangement and call it marriage, who's business is it but the adults involved? If two Christians of the oppositie sex want to get create a relationship bond based in their religion and call it Church-Sanctioned Marriage, then they are free to do so. It's not the responsibility of government to regulate and define marriage. Young people are hopefully deeply insulted by the statist premise that we're all incapable of working out social problems among ourselves.

    It's ridiculous to go around screaming equal pay for equal work as if you and your group alone value the work of women and think it's just for a woman to receive equal pay if she does work that's equal the work of a man. I don't know of anyone who disagrees with this. A young libertarian should take a principled position rather than pretending a righteousness that's manufactured. The young libertarian should be more concerned with how government intervenes in the decisions of business, and the unintended consequences it causes, rather than finding more things to regulate. Society can handle employers who discriminate. If consumers refuse to do business with bigots, then bigots go out of business. If a business owner violates a basic, Constitutional right, then we have a court system to settle the dispute.

    I can see where the temptations are great for young libertarians to lean toward progressive, special interest, politically correct issues, but this is how classical liberals first capitulated to the State and embraced interventionism and, thus, libertarianism was created to begin with. I know conservatives, liberals and progressives will disagree with what I've written, and even some who consider themselves libertarian will disagree, but libertarian principles aren't squishy. Too many libertarians are drifting left to the progressives or right to the neo-cons, and too many are looking for political advantage for a "great cause" -- if the next generation is to build a real liberty movement, then they have to understand liberty and integrity. It'll do no good to capitulate to the State like many classical liberals did in the early 20th century, embracing interventionism for ostensibly grand reasons. Interventionism always has good reasons, according to those who seek to control you.


    We can stop with the relativity

    Is there a form of governance that is good for all people? I contend there is. At one point, American liberals (classical liberals) claimed to have found the right way, and they were right. When the US government coopted the liberal message, however, and perverted it with interventionism, then the advocacy became a major problem of contention between nations. Economic liberty, free trade with nations and government limited to the duties of protecting rights, protecting borders and settling disputes in courts of law -- these are the ways to a better world. We've been told that some cultures natually conform to more strict government interventionism, and others will say that all nations require an interventionist government in this complex and dangerous world. I disagree.

    Most Americans and Europeans will agree that liberty creates the greatest human flourishing, but they say it's unrealistic to think that all countries will accept the principles of liberty and limits on power. These  statists who pretend to be lovers of liberty contend that human nature is such that Consitutional liberty, as the classical liberals advocated, is naive and dangerous. When Ted Cruz and Rand Paul and others even approach the subject of adhering to what's now considered libertarian principles they're admonished for being absolutists. extremists, Tea Party radicals. The modern statist sees the State as a necessary force of security and stability, so anyone who even approaches the libertarian (classical liberal) mindset is deemed a threat to national security, the environment and the government safety net.

    Still there are many who realize that economic liberty and division of labor create pressure for peace, cooperation and, thus, prosperity. Progressive economists have lied to the world as they advocate government interventionism, which leads to wars, a lower and lower standard of living, loss of privacy, dependence on government, militarism, factionism, and uncertainty throughout the economy. Paul Wolfowitz was on a Fox panel today patiently and patronizingly explaining to Laura Ingraham how the US must intervene in the affairs of other nations so that we don't allow circumstances to build up to war like in WWII. Amazing.

    Wolfowitz ignores the many government interventions that led to WWI, plus the peace treaty afterwards in which the major powers intervened against Germany, creating the false impression that Germany was the sole cause for WWI and that the punishments against Germany post-WWI were just. The many interventions pre and post WWI led to WWII, and the many interventions after WWII are the cause of many international conflicts now. Statism leads to wars -- libertarianism (classical liberalism) leads to peace and cooperation.

    When industry is allowed to freely compete, stablity created by the rule of law is vital, and free trade between nations is vital, so domestic economic interventions and wars are disruptive occurences that interfere with trade and cooperation in the market. No election should be a major event for special interest groups. No election should favor some groups over others. Elections should be a peaceful change of government that's mundane and insignificant. One group of representatives and government officials might be slightly more efficient than another, but we shouldn't have a system of government that elects a hawkish adminstration which gets us entangled in the affairs of other countries, or a progressive gang that intervenes in the economy and expands the welfare State and oppresses politically incorrect business concerns, or favors big corporations over small businesses, or a religiously conservative gang that tells us how to act morally according to their religious dogma. This is not the type of government the Founders envisioned, but it's what has evolved.

    It's even worse in many other countries. I propose the libertarian form of limited government and economic liberty is best for everyone -- it's best for the people in China, in Russia, in France, in Taiwan, in Peru, in Greenland, in Spain, in Nairobi, etc. Those who say this is impossible are wrong. It's not likely anytime soon but it's possible, especially as the international economy grows weaker and weaker as super-power nations continue to search for ways to control the global economy. There could be an evolution toward economic liberty and limited government as nations collapse from interventionism and factionalism, or as people grow weary of being dominated by the elite few who know far less than the people about how the people should live and work and search for happiness. As humans learn more and more about the best ways to interact and cooperate and peacefully trade in a growing prosperity, we might one day look back at our savage, ignorant ways as we look back on slavery. We think we're sophisticated and attuned to reality, but a good look at what's happening all over the world caused by government interventions tells us we're not progressing -- we're going backwards.

    We can at least work toward this type of liberty by doing everything we can as a nation to live up to the principles of classical liberalism, pushing for peace and cooperation, free trade and limts on government power. I propose that if we did this, our economy would excel in ways that attract the attention once again of the entire world. America could lead the world in economic growth, peaceful relations and free trade. It would be much better than the insane interventionism that's tearing our country apart as political means dominate economic means and interest groups fight one another for government power in order to deify the State in one way or another, depending on the political gang in power. I don't mind saying that libertarian principles are the best way to properly control governance. Relative value judgements in politics and economics haven't helped much -- they're destroying the world. History has revealed liberty and limits on power as the best routes to happiness, charity, innovation, creativity, justice and equality of opportunity. We need champions, not political weaklings who capitulate to the dominating State power.



    Obama's need for distractions

    It's obvious that Obama's operatives are carrying on a campaign of obscurantism and diversion designed to get past the elections this year. It's getting harder and harder for the operatives and media to guide the nation's interest and to make them believe the propaganda. The hoopla surrounding Ukraine is based on the State's favorite form of diversion -- scare people. We're now supposed to see Putin as a new age Stalin -- some even say he's comparable to Hitler. It's strange that Putin has been around for a long time, and Hillary reset it all with him just a little while ago, and now, presto, he's Hitler.

    Mideast culture is so different from what we're accustomed to that individulalized mideast boogeymen never took hold. Osama bin Laden was the only individual terrorist who scaled the heights of political/pop culture in the US, but even bin Laden was a stretch -- the beard, the robe, the towel on his head, living in a cave -- it was just too strange. Putin, however, rides a horse shirtless, wrestles animals, plays hockey. Putin is almost like Liam Neesom, except he's not that tall.

    Putin makes a better Goldstein than bin Laden. We can imagine Putin leading millions of Russian soldiers in one conquest after another heading for America to take command of our McDonalds and Starbucks. We're told that Putin is a grand strategist who's putting the old band back together in the USSR. Putin is a threat to our way of life -- freedom is once again under attack from the Russian Bear, on and on.

    The political narrative first allows Putin to rise above Obama as a major threat to Eastern Europe, Western Europe and the US, then expect media to weave the narrative of how Obama is attacking the Russian threat in his own backdoor, calm and collected way, finally out-witting Putin and saving the day. When the media smoke clears, Putin might have Crimea and a couple of other strategic pieces of land, but Obama will have saved the world from Putin's naked, well shirtless, aggression.

    Come on, people, I know how exciting it is to imagine a dangerous, demonic Russia -- I lived through the Cold War and all the hyperbole and political games. But then we didn't have Russian billionaires owning parts of Wall Street and hobnobbing with our powerful and beautiful elite. Putin is no threat to Europe or America, and if Eastern Europe unites and stands against Putin, he'll back down. Russia is now too dependent on the global economy, and it can't afford to manage coerced nations that don't want to be coerced by Russia -- this is what broke them the first time. If some Russian speaking regions in Eastern Europe choose to unite with Russia, well, that's their choice, but Putin knows he can't start killing Eastern Europeans and driving tanks into capitals declaring glorious victory for the Mother Land.

    Russia's economy is shaky, and if they want to completely destroy themselves economically, then they should go ahead and waste more money on futile shows of renewed Glory. Putin represents everything I oppose -- he's a Super Statist, an interventionist with grand designs, but he's not suicidal, and he knows his limits. As I wrote before, if Obama had any integrity, and if our nation hadn't embraced interventionism too, we could use this opportunity to show the world once again the big difference between people who love and defend freedom and dictators who oppress their people, but that's just not believable right now.



    Libertarian consistency

    If I believe that government economic-intervention domestically is harmful to liberty, then I have to maintain scepticism regarding military/intelligence interventions abroad. This is an area in need of clarification if libertarians and conservatives are ever going to successfully fuse politically. As a libertarian I'm not a pacifist, although I'm very sceptical of all military interventions that aren't directly tied to national defense.

    Our government tells us all interventions are in service of our security, but so did the government of Great Britain tell its people that its many foreign interventions were for the security of the British people as they built their empire and abused their power. USSR was ostensibly creating greater security for its people when it expanded and abused its power. It's the responsibility of the American people to oversee their government and elect representatives who'll maintain a healthy scepticism regarding foreign interventions. Our Founders were very sceptical and warned against foreign entanglements.

    It's all too natural for super-powers to lose sight of Constitutional limits and move toward greater and greater control over other nations. Recently, it's been reported that NSA is going way beyond all limits as it gathers information on foreign nations and all Americans. BIG Data is power expansion, and we have to ask if this extent of privacy violations is necessary to national defense. To be consistent as a libertarian, I have to condemn such actions. Gathering foreign intelligence on governments is not the same as recording all phone calls and universal snooping on websites. Technological innovations have made many things possible, but just because something is possible doesn't make it ethical or legal. We perhaps need to reassess international law regarding spying and technology.

    If our government can record all phone calls and gather more and more information from private citizens, even American citizens, than other countries can eventually do the same thing, and this is a world in which I don't want to live. I don't want China recording my phone calls or collecting private files from my computer. The common response has been that if you aren't doing anything wrong then what does it matter, but this is foolishness.

    If governments are collecting all information that goes across smart phones or websites, then they can simply pull up information when they need it and use it for nefarious purposes. If governments control all information then they control us, completely. Bribery will be common. Blackmail will be common. Reform groups like the Tea Party can be squashed. Politicians can be bullied into voting certain ways if embarrassing private information is simply a button push away. And it only has to be suggestive and harmful perception-wise.

    No, I'm not a pacifist, and, even at my age, if our nation was under attack, I'd volunteer to risk my life to help defend this country, but that doesn't mean I turn a blind eye to the State and Military/industrial Complex and trust they're doing only what's necessary for national defense. Living in a free nation requires that we limit government power, and that includes all of government, NSA included.


    General welfare

    Continuing with the previous post, another loophole in the Constitution has been the general welfare provision which evolved to mean anything the government thinks might pass as good for the collective. As Madison wrote in Federalist 41, the authors of the Constitution wouldn't limit power to those enumerated then eradicate all limits with one mention of general welfare. Whether "general welfare" was intentional as a loophole or whether it was an inexact allusion to government help during emergencies, it's been misused and needs clarification once and for all.

    Our huge, burdensome, demeaning and wasteful welfare system is a result of purposefully misunderstanding the role of government. With a scaled back, limited government our tax burden would be minimal and working Americans would have enough money to buy comprehensive insurance plans that replace entitlements and provide retirees with a much more secure retirement. This insurance plan could cover different safety net issues at different points in a person's life, heavy on unemployment insurance when a person is young and light on healthcare, then adjusting later on in life to cover healthcare more than unemployment and such. This type of insurance plan could place part of the premium in a retirement account that takes on less investment risk as the person grows older. There could be many creative versions of this type of insurance so that people can pick and choose. Parents could buy policies for new born children, and when the child grows into a young adult he/she could  keep it going. It would become a standard purchase at birth.

    This type of insurance will cover 90 percent of Americans, so that the remaining 10 percent who need assistance can easily be helped through private assistance organizations funded by ordinary people and wealthy donors. Our new media could market the assistance efforts with everyone having a favorite cause they support. Anyone who can't envision this is blinded by State propaganda and doesn't understand the power, innovative genius and compassion of free people challenged to solve problems.