Category Archives: Liberty

Vote Libertarian, Because Not All Politicians Are Smart, But All Politicians Can Count

libertarian-party-logo

Thus proclaims Arvin Vohra, Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee and a candidate for Maryland’s fourth congressional district. Vohra and I are in agreement that the only effective way to tell politicians they must shrink the size and scope of government is to vote for libertarian candidates (“small l” intended).

Not voting at all accomplishes nothing more than making one’s opinions irrelevant to the people who hold political power. Voting for the “less bad” of the two contenders is guaranteed to continue the policies of the last two administrations.

In contrast, consistently voting only for libertarian candidates pulls the two major parties toward more libertarian positions. That, standing alone, is reason to vote libertarian.

We know the strategy works because it is working! Twenty-five years ago, mainstream journalists rarely mentioned libertarians. Now, not a day goes by that the word is not featured in the headlines of big-name publications or crossing the lips of mainstream commentators.

Google the words “libertarian moment,” and witness how shrilly both the left and the right deny that one is occurring.

Their foot-stamping to the contrary, Republicans are fundraising for openly gay candidates. Donors are pressing the party to stay out of marriage altogether. Republican candidates are campaigning to make birth control available over the counter. The first U.S. Senator has come out in favor of marijuana legalization.

Thanks for these shifts goes in some degree to the people who consistently prove their motivation to visit the polls, while simultaneously refusing to cast votes for statist candidates in either party. More people today identify as independents than either Republicans or Democrats. Fifty-nine percent of voters self-identify as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal.” Even under conservative estimates, 15% of voters can be treated as consistently “libertarian” in their positions.

Libertarians (“small l”) have become a swing-voting block as powerful as the religious right.

The best use of that power is to end the conspiracy of false choice and emotional partisanship that operates to keep the two-party oligarchy in power.

The Republocrats have given us federalized schools; a morass of unfunded entitlements and dependency; wild inflation in the cost of education and healthcare; the Drug War, the highest incarceration rate in the world, militarized police, and asset forfeitures; welfare and cronyism for corporations, agribusiness and green energy; a national debt in the trillions; the surveillance state and the erosion of the fourth amendment; expensive, immoral, ineffective and deadly interventions overseas; and restrictions on political speech.

If the foregoing is not convincing enough, consider the following. When Republicans are in power, Democrats support balanced budgets, oppose unfunded spending and resist increases to the debt ceiling. As then-senator Barack Obama said in 2006:

This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our chil- dren of critical investments in edu- cation and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.

*     *     *

Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘‘the buck stops here.’’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

When the Republicans are in power, they simply trade positions. Republicans complain about spending and Democrats oppose balanced budgets.

Or consider this example from Robert Sarvis, Virginia’s libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate:

In 2008, when Republicans were the ones supporting the Export-Import Bank, candidate Barack Obama called it little more than corporate cronyism, but in 2014, it was Democrats lining up to support it. Virginia’s Democratic Senators Mark Warner and Tim Kaine introduced the reauthorization bill, and President Obama signed it.

Republicans are keeping the bank going until 2015 when they can figure out who is is in power, so they know which position to take.

How anyone keeps falling for this shtick is beyond me.

Spoilerism is a feature of third party voting, not a glitch. It communicates to mainstream politicians that we’re here, we vote, and if they want to beat their opponent, they need us to do it. The libertarian moment is nigh. Stay the course.

Sarah Baker is a libertarian, attorney and writer. She lives in Montana with her daughter and a house full of pets.

How Not To Engage Non-Libertarians In A Political Discussion

There’s a video being shared by some libertarians that shows a libertarian activist, who identifies an affiliation with Students for Liberty, asking a progressive activist about his policies and ideology. After about a minute or so, the libertarian brings up that the progressive ideology requires a state and violence to implement it. The progressive then got angry and eventually walked away from the cameraman and the SFL guy.

Here’s the video:

The guy who made the video and the libertarian echo chamber that is pushing it are identifying as a progressive who got angry when he realized that violence was needed to promote his ideology. Meanwhile, I believe that the progressive got angry because he knew he was being ambushed as has become common.

Make no mistake, this video is defeat for the libertarians and a missed opportunity to promote libertarianism. Furthermore, it reinforces the negative stereotype that libertarians only care about eccentric things and not about practical solutions to real problems.

Here’s what I would’ve done in the same scenario.

  • The first 50 seconds or so were on the money. I would’ve let the progressive talk about himself.
  • When the progressive brought up his motivations: equality, justice for all, equal opportunity; I would’ve taken the opportunity to develop some common ground.
  • The common ground with this type of progressive is easy, start with cronyism and crony capitalism.
  • Once there was agreement established that crony capitalism is bad, start to bring up that it is because of government laws and regulations, which are well intended and be sure to emphasize that, that make it easy for corporations to rig the system. Then make an argument for free markets and less government.
  • The progressive is going to do one of three things: be persuaded, challenge your argument (which is just as good), or throw a fit and walk away. If they walk away in this instance, you clearly win because it shows they cannot handle a dissenting argument and there was no ambush, just a debate.

Notice what is never brought up, “violence” or “coercion”. The reason why those terms are never brought up is because no one cares about them outside of hardcore libertarians, voluntarists, and anarcho-capitalists. When reaching out to someone, you reach out to them by using their way of thinking, not yours.

Here’s the thing about progressives, they’re going to be very difficult for any libertarian to persuade to join team libertarian. This is because progressives have a different mindset than conservatives and libertarians in that they believe in the collective instead of the individual and in fact, they see individuality as the threat. This is why when liberaltarians urge outreach to progressives, they water down libertarianism.

To put it in linguistic terms, it’s easier for libertarians and conservatives to converse because libertarians speak French whereas conservatives speak Spanish. Both languages are in the same linguistic family (Romance) therefore there are major similiarities between the two. Both political ideologies, in the Anglosphere, stem from the same classical liberal tree. Progressives on the hand speak Chinese, which has no similiarities. Some on the left already realize that progressives and libertarians will never be on the same side. The two have different interests and that’s why, especially among the rank and file, most libertarians come from conservative ranks.

All in all, libertarians need to do better reaching out to non-libertarians and they way to do that is to get on the other person’s wavelength. When a person storms off and won’t engage you, you’ve already lost and that’s not a good thing if the goal is to win converts.

I’m one of the original co-founders of The Liberty Papers all the way back in 2005. Since then, I wound up doing this blogging thing professionally. Now I’m running the site now. You can find my other work at IJ Review.com and Rare. You can also find me over at the R Street Institute.

Invalid Presumption of Moral Superiority

A reader commented that the problem with what you might call “strict Randites” is that they “seem to have a lack of compassion”.

An APPARENT lack of compassion.

Some do yes.

Others simply recognize that it isn’t compassion, when one is being “compassionate” with other peoples time, money, and resources.

Not a Randian by any stretch of the imagination… but there IS a point there.

The larger point with Rand, and with Neitzsche, and other individualist philosophers; is that the assumed obligation to sacrifice oneself in favor of others, and the assumed moral superiority of it, are both not only false, but in fact harmful.

Voluntary self sacrifice for good cause, and to good effect (or at least with a realistic attempt at good effect), is a noble thing. In all other cases, it is not.

I am a cynically romantic optimistic pessimist. I am neither liberal, nor conservative. I am a (somewhat disgruntled) muscular minarchist… something like a constructive anarchist.

Basically what that means, is that I believe, all things being equal, responsible adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want to do, so long as nobody’s getting hurt, who isn’t paying extra

Re-post: The Right to Life Also Implies a Right to Die

Brittany Maynard says ‘I don’t want to die.’ The 29 year-old is is not unique in her desire for self-preservation as most of us do not want to die. What does make her somewhat more unique is she has tragically been diagnosed with a stage 4 glioblastoma. To put this in laymen’s terms, she has terminal brain cancer which will end her life if nature is allowed to take its course.

Brittany, however; has other plans. She has moved from California to Oregon to take advantage of Oregon’s ‘right to die’ law. Her goal is to live until her husband’s birthday on November 1st. If she lives until November 2nd, Brittany says she wishes to die on her own terms on that day. “I may be alive on Nov. 2 or I may not, and that’s my choice,” Brittany explained.

Back in June of 2007, I wrote a post entitled: The Right to Live Also Implies a Right to Die. I wrote the post in response to Dr. Jack Kevorkian’s release from prison. While I appreciated the gravity of physician assisted suicide then, it was still a bit abstract. Since that time I have seen friends and family members waste away to terminal conditions and it is truly horrifying to witness. I cannot say for sure that any of these friends or family members would have opted to make the same choice as Brittany and others have made but they should have had the choice. The state should not stand in the way of end of life decisions by the person who owns his or her life.

The following is a re-post of the original article I wrote in 2007.

Dr. Jack Kevorkian has finally completed an eight year prison term. For what exactly? For helping a terminally ill and suffering man exercise his right to a have a dignified and peaceful death. I find it very irritating that the media has given Dr. Kevorkian the nickname ‘Dr. Death’ as if he were some kind of serial killer.

Dr. Kevorkian has done our society a great service by bringing this issue into the national debate. On what basis can society deny a person his or her right to die? If we truly believe that every individual has the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property, then the individual cannot be denied this right on any of these measures.

The individual has the right to life but this does not mean that government can force an individual to live. The individual has the right not to exercise his or her rights. The individual has the right to keep and bear arms but the government cannot force an individual to own a gun. The individual has the right to his or her liberty (provided he or she does not infringe on the liberty of others) but he or she can willfully surrender his or her liberty to be subjugated to a cult or religion. The individual has a right to his or her property (which would include his or her body by the way) which means he or she can do with it whatever he or she wishes (again, provided he or she does not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of others).

Thomas A. Bowden has an excellent piece on this issue at Capitalism Magazine.

The Declaration of Independence proclaimed, for the first time in the history of nations, that each person exists as an end in himself. This basic truth–which finds political expression in the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness–means, in practical terms, that you need no one’s permission to live, and that no one may forcibly obstruct your efforts to achieve your own personal happiness.

[…]

For these reasons, each individual has the right to decide the hour of his death and to implement that solemn decision as best he can. The choice is his because the life is his. And if a doctor is willing (not forced) to assist in the suicide, based on an objective assessment of his patient’s mental and physical state, the law should not stand in his way.

The fear by those who oppose the inherent right to die is that the government would eventually start killing those who are suffering regardless of the wishes of the individual. But upon closer inspection, recognizing an individual’s right to choose his or her manner of death is protecting the individual’s right to life. The individual does not live for the purpose of pleasing society or the religious sensibilities of others.

“Bad” or “Wrong” or “I don’t like it” is not equivalent to “Unconstitutional”

In a comment on someone elses post, another reader wrote “The DEA is an unconstitutional and illegal agency”.

This bugs me… We frequently see these sorts of statements made about the DEA, the ATF, the federal reserve (where ok, there’s at least a rational and reasonable though flawed argument to be made… most of the people shouting stuff like that above aren’t making those arguments, but still)… Basically any federal agency that they don’t like, or which enforces laws, or uses delegated powers which they personally don’t like.

No, the mere existence of the DEA is not unconstitutional or illegal. It is perfectly constitutional in that it is an executive agency chartered to enforce the laws promulgated by the legislative branch.

The fact that the federal government has no constitutional authority to outright ban or criminalize such substances as the DEA is chartered to regulate, or to ban or criminalize their manufacture, use, or possession (and only limited power to regulate their sale. No, sorry, regulating interstate commerce and making such laws as necessary for the general welfare does not grant them such broad and deterministic powers… and Wickard v. Filburn is bad law and needs to be overturned), does not mean that all laws relating to such substances are illegal or unconstitutional. There are legitimate regulatory powers that such an agency may lawfully and constitutionally exercise.

AS CURRENTLY EXTANT AND IN THEIR CURRENT ROLES AND ACTIONS… The DEA often engages in unconstitutional behaviors, and acts to enforce unconstitutional laws. That much is certainly true. But they are not inherently unconstitutional, or illegal.

Those are actually really important distinctions. Not just semantics or distinctions without difference.

This is so, because you go about addressing the issues, and solving the problems, differently. Things which are blatantly and directly illegal or unconstitutional are best addressed in one way. Things which are peripherally so, are best addressed in a very different way.

You have to shoot at the proper target, with the proper ammunition.

Also, it’s really important to remember, that “bad and stupid” or “harmful” or “undesirable”, or “pointless”; does not necessarily mean “unconstitutional”. Nor does “constitutional” mean “good”, or “useful” or “effective”.

That’s not even a matter of judges discretion or interpretation… The constitution actually provides far less protection of rights, and limitation of powers, than people believe it, expect it, and wish it to (at least explicitly… the 9th and 10th amendments… there’s much bigger and messier issue).

I am a cynically romantic optimistic pessimist. I am neither liberal, nor conservative. I am a (somewhat disgruntled) muscular minarchist… something like a constructive anarchist.

Basically what that means, is that I believe, all things being equal, responsible adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want to do, so long as nobody’s getting hurt, who isn’t paying extra

1 2 3 4 5 6 32