Why The Libertarian Party Fails

I've written about lowercase and uppercase libertarians. Uppercase libertarians are those who follow the principles of the Libertarian Party. They seem to set hard lines and allow for little deviation. This is one of the reasons they have trouble garnering votes in elections.

We find most lowercase libertarians voting Republican because they tend to have more in common with Conservatives. It's mostly in social areas and war that they find differences. The one area where all lowercase libertarians disagree with the Libertarian Party, is the border.

Hard core Libertarians don't want borders. They believe people should be able to travel freely around the world. What they fail to understand, is that without borders there is no country. Why do they participate in an election in a country they don't think should exist? This is bordering on one world order thinking.

Mistake of Government Controlled Marriage

Today we have the issue of gay marriage that is creating division across American, and many places around the world. We have two sides, both are entrenched and unwilling to budge a fraction of an inch. There was national outrage by progressives when a pizza owner said she wouldn't cater gay weddings(doesn't cater any weddings), but would, and have, happily welcomed gays daily as a customer. There was a threat to burn down the eatery. The owners received death threats. They were harassed to the point they were forced to close until conservatives came to their aid.

People divide this issue along the lines of religion and discrimination. Both sides have valid points. I say we just need to solve the problem. The easiest way, or at least simplest sounding, is to remove marriage from government. We have couples of the same gender, and of opposite gender, that choose to make a lifetime commitment. Even heterosexual couples sometimes choose not to enter into a government devised contract. Because a couple chooses not to get married, or can't because of laws, they cannot take advantage of certain government benefits.

Common Ground

I recently had a conversation about opposing ideologies finding common ground and willing to view problems facing both sides. Unless we are willing to open our minds to problems facing both sides, then we can never find common ground. No matter if people are left or right, they are still citizens and the Constitution and all laws apply to them equally.

We can take this to an extreme and point to the Civil War. There were two differences of opinion and neither side could find common ground. Because the country had a weak leader who couldn't find a resolution to problems, he resorted to guns. Unless something changes, the USA is once more on that same course.

The USA has two major ideologies and both have been conditioned to hate one another. Most of the time, each side wants all or nothing, whether it's gay marriage or drug legalization. Let's take a moment and revisit history and see what happens when both sides become immovable objects that refuse to change.

Reply to a Salon Progressive

It's been a long time since I read something that demanded answering in detail. I just read, Piketty shrugged: How the French economist dashed libertarians’ Ayn Randian fantasies. The first thing that stood out was that despite referring frequently to Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, it's obvious he never read the book. It's also clear he doesn't understand libertarians.

Parramore wrote:

To understand the libertarian view of inequality, let’s turn to Milton Friedman, one of America’s most famous and influential makers of free market mythology. Friedman decreed that economic policy should focus on freedom, and not equality.

Right off I have to address the fact he called the free market a mythology. Friedman and libertarians believe the focus is on liberty as well as freedom. Also freedom doesn't mean you get to harm your neighbor. The progressive's focus on equality is a waste of time because it's unachievable. No matter how hard government tries it can never make us equal. The best government can do is give us equal opportunity to be the best we can and treat us equally under the law.

Societal Failure – Government Protectionism

In today's world we too often hear buzz words such as multiculturalism and diversity. For some they get a warm and fuzzy feeling from embracing such beliefs. The same people will in turn shout hateful rhetoric at those who might have different beliefs. History will likely show us that segments of the population embrace sub groups they perceive to be slighted, while having anger at those they believe to be slighting.

Everyone seems to be talking about this or that group needing protection, or believing they are victims of society. The reason for this is because most of us have at times found ourselves at the bottom, or an outsider in a group. In high school we would search for people who might also be outcast or similar in personality to form our own group. There are some like myself who could float easily among all groups, but finding a true home with none – not because of others, but because of myself. I truly enjoyed diversity and often filled my life with some of the oddest and insane characters you will ever meet. That has at least made life interesting.

Through out history we have found groups of people who were bound into slavery. Today slavery is as prevalent as ever, yet few fight to free these people. We have a media that seems to talk daily about a new victim class, but rarely about today's slaves. With that said, we can never end victim-hood. As long as humans survive they will hold prejudices against their bothers and sisters for a variety of reasons. No law can protect us from prejudice. For the most part laws have been written to promote discrimination. Demand freedom from government so that you can live your life as you see fit.

The Approaching Death of Free Speech

Bundy Ranch, Nevada

We have all been watching the battle between the IRS and Tea Party groups. There is growing, and maybe clear evidence that the IRS has been holding up certain groups for political reasons. There is also evidence that some staffers campaigned for candidate Obama while at work. But there is much more at stake with this – and that is the 1^st Amendment. By giving one political group more power than another they can effectively control speech – and possibly elections.

I have been watching the battle between LGTB and Conservative groups over gay marriage. For the most part the battle is only over marriage. So far the process is working, if not at a snails pace. But this piece isn't about gay marriage, but the right to voice your opinion is being placed in danger. A recent headline grabbed my attention, Hate group leader Peter LaBarbera detained at Canadian airport. Until that moment I have never heard of the anti-gay group, Americans for Truth about Homosexuality.

After looking over the website I agree with LGBT groups that this is in part a hate group – not so much because of their stand on marriage, but for a stand against homosexuality in general. With that said, I will defend their right to exist as long as they don't physically harm people. Simply because a group or person might spout hate, that doesn't mean people should listen and act on that speech. Those who act on that speech already had those beliefs.

It scares me that in Canada a person can be arrested for simply speaking out about their beliefs. If they wish to deny entry to people, that's up to the Canadian people. There are those in this country who would love for government to allow only their speech – those people come from both the left and right political spectrums.

The mistake of government controlled morality

Belle Knox Duke student

I've written often about the word moral. I've talked about how it is too often used to support an argument. The definition of moral changes along with ideology and regional location. If you ask a leftist to to give an example they will likely tell you that that it is immoral for someone to be obese. If you ask a conservative about sex outside of marriage they will tell you it is immoral, even if that marriage was sanctified by a government representative versus a minister.

Morality has always been a social institution. In the USA, what is considered immoral in the south is often more accepted in the north – or west. In America's past it wasn't immoral to marry a 12 year old girl, while in today’s society that is absolutely unacceptable. In those times life was about surviving. Male children were thought to be more capable at cutting firewood and plowing fields, while too often the female child was seen as simply another mouth to feed.

Female children were married off at or near puberty. Sometimes much older males would pay a diary for the right to marry that child. Arranged marriages are still happening around the world. Some of it might be for the same reasons as in our past, while in many cases it happens simply because it is now a tradition – just the way things are done.

Social standards evolve for a variety of reasons. In the modern American society arranged marriages are seen as barbaric. In today’s world sex outside of marriage is much more common. In the not so distant past sex for women outside of marriage was forbidden while for men it was simply frowned upon. This is likely because it is the female that often bore the consequences for these liaisons. Out of wed births often stigmatized the woman and was too often a financial burden that was impossible to overcome. These pregnancies were also a barrier to future relationships. In short, the price for sex outside of marriage was too high. Because of science out of wedlock births are less likely to occur. While the financial burden for out of wedlock births are still a problem, it doesn't carry the social stigma of the past.

Slavery, Yesterday and Today

I was just reminded about Irish slavery, something about which history rarely speaks. Slavery is alive and well in today's world. We all know about Uganda slaves, but the largest slave market might currently be the one for women and children. This is typically known as the white slave or sex trade.

I can never forget the tale of a Russian teen during the 90's. She had dreams of being a European model. The young beauty signed with some company and managed a visa to leave Russia. She arrived at the address given to her and was immediately taken into captivity. For some time she was used as a prostitute in Europe. She was eventually sold to someone in the USA. Her captives planned to bring her through the southern border with fake documentation. She sat nervously in the back seat as they were questioned at a border checkpoint. Finally one of the border guards looked at her paperwork and ask the Russian captive a question. Despite speaking fluent English, she decided to reply in Russian. The cold war was still fresh enough in everyone's mind that this made them look more closely at her and the paperwork. The guards took her from the car to some place where she could be questioned alone. It was then she revealed to them who she was and that she had been kidnapped. The kidnappers were arrested and and she was given asylum in the USA.

Anarchical Societies vs Libertarianism

Anarchist Utopian is an oxymoron if there ever was one, right?  Maybe not as much as one thinks. Utopia was this fictional society where everything was perfect. Typically we think of communist or socialist societies as false Utopias. I think to expand the definition to any society that is filled with absolutes and infringes on the liberties of others.

We must ask. Can an Anarchical society that believes in absolute individual liberty infringe on the liberties of others? Any society that deals in absolutes forces their beliefs on others. To understand this we must understand why we have towns and cities. We can start this with “Once upon a time.” Yes – we go that far back. The earliest humans were by nature social creatures.   Unlike animals, they don't abandon their family once grown. Because of this nurturing instinct humans began to share common resources.

In time they found that forming close knit societies helped them survive the ravages of nature and enemies. As time went on and the small communities grew they found that it helped if they had a few to make some of the decisions for all. They would select villagers thought to be the wisest and most educated to make decisions for the community. People found they couldn't leave fields to vote on each small decision needed to be made. Of course there were some who didn't agree with the decisions and they would leave the community. They would sometimes form their own communities with a different set of rules. There was one thing all communities had in common, they had an individual or group to make decisions for the collective.

Conservatives vs libertarians: The Divided Tea Party.

I was reading the college thesis of Washington Times reporter, Jessica Chasmar and she reminded me of the day I stood on the Capitol lawn on 9/12, 2009. That day I saw a movement that I believed could change the country forever. That was one of the proudest moments of my life. I had finally become a part of something great.

Today, late 2013, the progressives have full control of government. We see far left policies as norm of the day. We are witnessing one of the greatest government takeovers (Affordable Care Act) go into effect with disastrous results so far.

What happened to the Tea Party? It's being torn apart by those who use its name for money or power. It's being torn apart by those that believe it is a conservative movement. If you are not a social conservative you are often ostracized.

The Tea Party was originally the accretion of people who came together because of TARP and other fiscal matters. For once the social agenda had taken a backseat and the Tea Party managed to make significant change in the 2010 House.

Today the Tea Party is unpopular and often viewed as racist, or filled with bigots. There are instances of both, while I still believe there is a silent majority that are not either of those things. There are Tea Party websites that allow comments that can only feed negative views of the movement. It's time we stand up to those segments that put the Tea Party in a bad light.

When is a Conservative liberal?

We have political liberals and political conservatives. We can break this down to liberals wanting more government with conservatives wanting less. Yet in life we find many conservatives who are very liberal in their life. Many conservatives are smokers, while we have liberals who are for smoking bans.

A political liberal might be more the party type, while at the same time calling for stricter laws on alcohol. A political conservative might or might not be a partier. Both conservatives and liberals are guilty of calling for bans, although each might call for the ban of books or movies on opposite ends of the spectrum.

We can be sure a political liberal isn't always liberal thinking and a conservative isn't always conservative in how they live their life. Some see conservatives as people who spend their lives in church and are teetotalers. You would think they didn't smoke, wear short skirts, or expose cleavage, but we find many conservatives that do these things. Not all conservatives are social conservatives.

Are you an Interventionist or a Non-Interventionist?

Some days a light goes off and you begin to see things in a different way. Today is one of those days. For too long we have argued over who was what politically. The Democrats say they are doing what's best for the country, while the Republicans and libertarians say the same. Sometimes we get so wrapped up in party we forget to think. There is a simple solution.

We are all interventionist or non-interventionist. It doesn't matter if it's social politics or foreign events, the terms can be applied. Can it be this cut and dry? Can we be an interventionist on some thing and a non-interventionist on others? Remember the age old adage “Mind your own business.” Our ancestors have passed those wise words along through the ages. The non-interventionist is simply the same thing.

The interventionist often uses the power of government to do their bidding. They don't want other people to eat certain foods so they elect people who are also interventionist. Interventionist believe most people aren't capable of self governance. There are some people who are, and will always be, dependent on others. Even a non-interventionist believes in helping those who ask for help. The interventionist doesn't wait for them to ask for help, but forces help on those in need as well as those who aren't.

Knowing History—The Pledge of Allegiance

The Pledge of Allegiance is something I thought little about as I stood in my grammar school class each day repeating the phrase. My only thoughts were that my nation was something about which to take great pride. I feel no differently today. The only difference today is that I often have to seek out corrections to history as taught by our schools and perpetuated by the different political ideologies. The simple Pledge of Allegiance is one of those things.

Where did the pledge originate?

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in August 1892 by the socialist, Baptist minister, Francis Bellamy (1855-1931). It was originally published in The Youth's Companion on September 8, 1892. Bellamy had hoped the pledge would be used by citizens in any country. Years after the Civil War had ended the nation was still divided. This was an attempt to bring the nation together under one flag.

The pledge in its original form:

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

The lowercase libertarian

In today's political environment more and more people are identifying with libertarianism. This often confuses some when they look at the Libertarian party and it's members. To some extent the Libertarian Party has been hijacked by anarchist and communists. It would take an article unto itself to fully explain how communists find their way into the Libertarian Party. True communists believe they can create a libertarian styled society and replace government with some board of elders. They fail to see that the board of elders is simply government under a different name.

When we hear the term libertarian tossed around we must pause and look to see if they are a true libertarian. Capital 'L' libertarians are those who belong to the party and can have varying political beliefs. The lowercase 'l' are those like me who believe in all cases limited government is the best road to travel. We don't want the elimination of government or a major change in how government operates. We simply want less government and the right to self govern.

I believe the founders intended for society to operate on the edge of anarchy, but far enough from the line of chaos that it doesn't become only the strongest survive . Any society needs rules by which people must live, but there must be limits placed on those rules and rulers. We too often elect someone to power and then turn our backs as they pass regulation after regulation. We then are shocked when we receive a parking ticket for parking in our own driveway because of an ordinance that prevents anyone from parking within thirty feet of the road. You might think this sounds ridiculous, but it actually happened in a Pittsburgh neighborhood.

Lost in Paradise

Amy Lee and the goth-metal band is for me no doubt the greatest ever to create music. I know most my age would not agree—that's beside the point. I was just listening to the song “Lost in Paradise" and thought this describes how I feel at times about my country.

Not since the so-called Civil War has this country been so deeply divided by political parties and ideologies. Americans fight vehemently in the name of their political parties. Even war is divided by party. Each party believes their war is the only one that's just. American people are too often sold a bill of goods in order to fight their supposed just war. If someone speaks out against war they are called an isolationist or pacifist. We repeatedly elect politicians that play those types of word games.

I awoke today to hear Mayor Bloomberg attacking his white opponent for posing with his black wife, saying he is racist for posing with her in a photograph. This couldn't have ever happened in paradise. There is no doubt we will hear one talking head after another justifying the mayor's comment.

Political Ideology Diagram 2013

This is another revision to my ideology graphic. I believe this one more accurately reflects what we have today. Some might be confused by where I placed the perceived moderate. I believe most people fall in that category even though they might think they are more to the left. Most people are sadly driven by party instead of personal beliefs. Most people vote for whom they believe cares the most for them.

Because the US Constitution by which all other laws are measured, that should be the moderate. Because too many people no longer care about the Constitution, I have placed it on the edge of moderation. The Kennedy administration is a good point to begin the modern moderate. He seemed to try to adhere to the Constitution, while his party might have been more progressive. Because of the FDR period it was impossible to move Kennedy farther to the right because of his connection to the Democratic Party.

Wasted vote

I just watched an electoral landslide victory of a lesser of two evils. Obama was not the man of hope and change that people believed him to be. He has been a failure as president. It should have been impossible for him to win with nearly 8% unemployment, yet he did.

A lot of people are sitting around wondering what went wrong. The wrong is the two parties. We are forced into positions where we must elect someone that will either expand federal power a lot, or a little.

I think we can reduce this to gay marriage. No, this is not about the Republican Party’s stand against gay marriage. It doesn’t matter if we have a republican or democratic president, those laws never change. The mistake is that people think they vote for someone who will help them legalize their relationships.