A couple of years ago my site was getting good search results from Google, but now it's practically zero. I know the algorithms changed awhile back, and I know Google wouldn't single me out, so I have to wonder if certain keywords prevent good search results. I wonder if other anti-statist, obviously-libertarian sites have found the same reduction in search results. I'm probably paranoid, but I don't see how the results could drop so precipitously, and many days there are no Google results. It doesn't make sense. My site is optimized, I have longevity and I have steady, rich content, so I don't have any other explanation.
The Wall Street Journal is the wrong paper for America's business community and those who seek to understand what's happening in our economy. The WSJ is more appropriate to State Capitalism or State Marketism and propaganda sources that protect the State from truth. Daniel Henninger has written an article asking why the Left can't govern, as if our interventionist system of governance, brought on by years of progressive encroachments with the Republican establishment compromising all along the way, could successfully implement the myriad interventions if only the right people are governing.
It's this type of government-centric thinking from the political realm that has led us to the economic stagnation and longterm high unemployment we face today. It's not a matter of the Left's inability to govern -- it's the system of government that's the problem. Interventionism is flawed -- it was flawed in the 19th century -- it was flawed in the 20th century -- it's flawed in the 21st century -- and if it lasts to the 22nd century, it'll still be flawed.
We can no longer perceive of what's possible under a system of economic liberty. Although our economy has never been free, as in the true meaning of free market, we've had periods of great economic liberty, as have other nations, and tremendous economic progress was made during these periods of economic liberty. Imagine if during the Revolutions of 1848 enough Europeans had promoted the classical liberal principles understood by far too few, and imagine if socialist demands had not scared the conservatives into a government backlash against those who sought economic liberty. Then imagine if the world had allowed economic liberty to guide economic activity without the damaging effects of interventionism. We'd probably have a world of productivity, undreamed of prosperity and peace rather than poverty, military conflicts, economic stagnation, cronyism, and harmful bubbles.
Imagine today if influential papers like the WSJ understood and could speak the language of liberty and understood limted government/free market principles. Perhaps we'd quickly realize that interventionism is leading us to economic collapse and complete loss of liberty, and we'd wonder why we ever thought a group of politicians, technocrats and bureacrats in DC can manage an economy, healthcare, environmental concerns, social issues or morality. Instead of asking why the Left can't govern, let's ask why, given that both parties have governed under a statist system of wrong-headed interventions that's completely flawed, Henninger doesn't know the correct answer to his question.
Some commentators like Glen Beck really believe that WWIII might be near. Beck predicted the collapse of the Arab Spring, but so did I, and yet I don't predict WWIII. I like Beck and respect most of what he says, but it's highly unlikely any major power will want to go to war directly against other major powers. It's more likely that Super-Powers will use countries such as Syria, Afghanistan and Ukraine to fight their "wars". Who knows for what reasons. Powerful States have many reasons to start and participate in international conflicts and internal civil wars -- none of the reasons pertain to national defense, so they're bogus regardless of how they're justified. Humanitarian reasons are usually given, but it could be just as likely that the State wants to create a diversion to keep people's attention off a bad economy, or to create more rationalizations for interventions and defense build-up. The defense industry is humongous and very, very profitable and, thus, influential.
Terrorism will be an ongoing problem for practically all bigger, economically important nations, and it'll have to be handled with good intelligence and hard-headed dealing with nations who'd prefer they aren't attacked by the US because terrorists are hiding in their country and a few of them do something real stupid. We don't need to continue building world-destroying weapons when we have way more than we need right now. A prepared and well-paid military is necessary, but we have no need for militarism as our nation's main achievement. We don't have much legitimate need for our military right now, and that's as it should be. I know after a decade of frantic activity and attention it'll be hard for the military to stand ready and prepared in the background, but it's time to concentrate on bringing government and the military/industrial complex under control. As Eisenhower warned us, militarism puts liberty at risk.
A lot of the talk in the US now about Russia and WWIII is a campaign to build up the State and strengthen a government that's not trusted by most Americans. US leaders and international power-players who have a stake in a strong US can't afford for the US government to lose credibility, so they're using the tactic that's always worked in the past, the "last refuge of scoundrels" -- patriotism. Cold War patriotism against Russia is remembered -- all government had to do was warn the people that the USSR was on the prowl in Viet Nam or Cuba or South America and Americans were willing to release the dogs and forget about the Constitution -- just keep us safe and get the bad guys. The Communists were the enemy and the USSR represented the Kingdom of Communism.
Don't get me wrong, I think communism is a system that always leads to totalitarianism. If America really wanted to save the world, as they said they did when they entered WWI and WWII, then they would have stopped Stalin and Mao who killed far more people and did more damage to the world than Hitler or Mussolini, but that's another story, and everyone should read the historical accounts of the world wars that aren't State propaganda -- they're enlightening.
Let's chill and gather ourselves and decide what type of military we need, and let's assess our real threats. We need reason and logic, not fear-mongering, abuse and misuse of our troops and phony, pumped-up patriotism.
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.
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.