MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Libertarian Party’

Non Aggression Principle

Posted by M. C. on February 15, 2021

Every member of the Libertarian Party has to agree to this. What do you think Brennan, Clapper or anyone else who has agreed to that labels the LP as a terrorist organization?

Does their organization have a Non Aggression Principle?

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Are You Really Free?

Posted by M. C. on January 29, 2021

[Editor’s Note: As part of our solution oriented approach to taking your power back, yesterday we started running a short series of articles from Simon Black. He’s the Founder of SovereignMan.com which specializes in crafting a Plan B to protect your freedom and wealth. Enjoy!]

January 29, 2021Bahia Beach, Puerto Rico
It was the summer of 2004. I remember hearing on TV that the Libertarian Party’s national convention was starting in Atlanta.
I immediately hopped in the car, hoping to find some sympathetic minds.
And at the convention I did meet some wonderful, freedom-minded people.
But the event was an unproductive circus, something like a cross between a high school pep rally and a Star Trek convention.
People in costume ran up and down the aisles chanting for their favorite candidate and getting into impromptu debates about the Constitution and Ayn Rand.
As nice and intelligent as everyone was, it felt like a giant freedom pity party.
I didn’t just want to complain. I wanted to fix it. I wanted to do something about it. And solutions were sorely lacking.
So I started educating myself more.
I dove into the federal balance sheet. I learned about the petrodollar and the debt.
That led me to discovering the complete scam of central banking, fiat currency, and the fractional reserve system.
I realized that the political and banking elite have given us war, instability, and epic financial crises.
They’ve turned Western civilization into a giant police state. And they’ve managed to brainwash the great masses so effectively that the people are crying out for more.
They rigged the system.
I wanted out of the system. So after this emotional, gut-wrenching awakening, I spent years traveling to more than 100 countries looking for freedom and opportunity.
Eventually I learned that education, prudent planning, and global thinking can rebuild much of our stolen liberty.
Yes, things are crazy.
Freedom is in decline. Governments are bankrupt. Central banks are borderline insolvent.
The financial system is in precarious condition barely held together by a patchwork of negative interest rates, currency manipulation, and misguided confidence.
We award our most esteemed prizes for intellectual achievement to phony scientists who tell us to spend our way into prosperity and borrow our way out of debt.
We give absolute power to control the money supply (and hence manipulate the price of nearly everything) to unelected bureaucrats who have a track record of failure.
Yet, we call ourselves ‘free’.
It’s complete madness. And it gets crazier with each passing month.
Take an honest look at your life…
Do you feel free right now?
Many of you would probably say ‘no’ due to the crazy lockdowns that are happening around the world.
Nothing is more important than your freedom, and tomorrow I’m going to share with you how you can protect it.
To your freedom and prosperity,
Simon BlackFounder, SovereignMan.com

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

The Libertarian Party Will Never Have Political Power | The Libertarian Institute

Posted by M. C. on November 28, 2020

The purpose of politics is to seize power and centralize it to your party. The Left knows how to do this even when they aren’t in power and the Right fails even when they hold all the cards. As Curtis Yarvin puts it

https://libertarianinstitute.org/libertarianism/the-libertarian-party-will-never-have-political-power/

by Peter R. Quinones

Just give it up already. Those who are holding onto the dream that the LP will be able to wield any significant political, or cultural power have not thought this through. An ideology of non-aggression and voluntary interactions has no place in the political sphere unless they are willing to become like the other two parties. Their message is that we are not like them. It is one of incompatibility when it comes to Machiavellian power structures.

The purpose of politics is to seize power and centralize it to your party. The Left knows how to do this even when they aren’t in power and the Right fails even when they hold all the cards. As Curtis Yarvin puts it,

“Progressives see power as an end; conservatives see power as a means to an end. As soon as conservatives get even a sliver of power, they start trying to use this power to create good outcomes. This is irrational.

The rational way to use power is the progressive way: to make more power. Your power grows exponentially. Eventually you have all the power, and can get all the outcomes you want.

There is not one progressive idea which does not yield a power dividend. I cannot think of a conservative idea that does. If one did, the progressives would steal it. Then the conservatives would persuade themselves to oppose it, and all would be well.”

Anyone paying attention knows this. In our lifetimes the Left has grown their power – especially over the culture – to an insurmountable level. The Right has become what the Left was 25 years ago, and they always play catch-up. I hear echoes of Michael Malice saying, “Conservatism is Progressive driving the speed limit.”

What does this all mean for the Libertarian Party? It should be obvious. What is described above IS politics. It is the dirtiest, slimiest, most reprehensible way of gaining power over mankind. To argue against that is to be naive beyond measure. An ideology promoting the Non-Aggression Principle entering into the American political realm is like a kindergartener entering a UFC match. The outcome is inevitable.

And don’t think I’m just talking about the 202-area code. No, local politics is just as bad. If you’re walking in there as “the good guy” the inevitable “bad guy” will rear their head and take you out. And if you’re a Libertarian and you are “consistent” in your ideology, you won’t fight dirty because once you do you are out of the realm of libertarianism. You’ve just became “The Swamp” (even the local Swamp).

Once you understand this you realize that the old argument about whether the purpose of the Libertarian Party is one of “education” or “getting people elected” to institute political change is easily answered. You are a party of education. And one that will always be a joke in the eyes of those who understand the Machiavellian nature of politics. But is education even possible if you won’t do what it takes politically to even get on a debate stage ignoring the inability to centralize all power to you if you do get elected?

Maybe there are better ways to spend your time rather than tilting at windmills.

About Peter R. Quinones

Peter R. Quinones is managing editor of the Libertarian Institute and hosts the Free Man Beyond the Wall podcast. He released his first book, Freedom Through Memedom – The 31-day Guide to Waking Up to Liberty in November 2017. It reached #4 in the Libertarian Section on Amazon. He has spoken at Liberty Forum in Manchester, New Hampshire and is one of the Executive Producers on the documentary, “The Monopoly on Violence.” Contact him at pete@libertarianinstitute.org

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Jo Jorgensen: ‘Requiring People To Vaccinate Their Children Is One of the Most Egregious Things That the Government Can Do’ – Reason.com

Posted by M. C. on October 19, 2020

The Libertarian ticket is campaigning against lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and the World Health Organization, in addition to the usual taxation, prohibition, and war.

https://reason.com/2020/10/16/jo-jorgensen-requiring-people-to-vaccinate-their-children-is-one-of-the-most-egregious-things-that-the-government-can-do/

Matt Welch |

As the Libertarian Party has established itself as the most electorally successful third party in the United States, voters have grown accustomed to the group’s radical messaging against taxation, prohibition and war. One of the party’s top 10 presidential primary finishers in 2020, after all, had his name legally changed to “Taxation Is Theft.”

Less broadly known, though on full display in a streamed interview I conducted last night with presidential nominee Jo Jorgensen, is the party’s antipathy toward international institutions, pandemic restrictions, and vaccine mandates.

Jorgensen last night volunteered the latter as an example of the type of “personal decision” best left to individuals, rather than determined via the political process. So I asked her whether, philosophically, she considered it wise for public schools to require children be vaccinated as a condition for enrollment.

“I think it is immoral,” she responded. Then, after noting that she personally has chosen to vaccinate her family, Jorgensen contrasted vaccination policy with the types of prohibitions Libertarians have long opposed—on drugs, gambling, vaping, consensual sex transactions, and so on.

“All of these are laws that the government is telling you what not to do,” she said. “Vaccinations, on the other hand—we’re talking about somebody forcibly putting a substance into your body. I am just shocked that that’s even a question in our country that is supposed to be free. And even though I have chosen vaccinations, and I’ve chosen vaccinations for my children, I would never use the excuse of herd immunity to force other people to put something into their bodies that they don’t want to.”

This is not a majority opinion—82 percent of American adults favored school-based vaccines in 2016, according to Pew Research. But Libertarians are hardly a majority party (Jorgensen is polling at around 2 percent nationally), and old movement hands can tell you how outnumbered the party used to be on positions such as legalizing marijuana.

Still, the vaccine mandate issue divides libertarians, too, as illustrated by Reason‘s 2014 debate “Should Vaccines Be Mandatory?” Meanwhile, the COVID-19 pandemic has not only put such once-esoteric philosophical discussions on the political front-burner; it has given what many Libertarian candidates see as their opening.

The Libertarian gubernatorial candidate making the biggest splash in 2020 is Indiana’s Donald Rainwater, who has polled between 6 percent and 24 percent in a three-way race. “Indiana Libertarian candidate for governor targets voters upset by COVID-19 mandates,” went the headline this week in The Indianapolis Star.

“I don’t think it’s the government’s responsibility to tell people how to take care of themselves,” Rainwater told the paper. “I think this all goes back to the idea that I get to choose what I do to keep myself safe. I am against mandating vaccines, too.”

The other Libertarian gubernatorial candidate likely to make Election Day waves—Montana’s Lyman Bishop, who is polling within shouting distance of the Republican-Democratic margin—is also campaigning against pandemic mandates.

“I have said from the beginning, asking people to stay home is one thing. Telling people they have to stay home is something else altogether,” Bishop recently told Montana Public Radio. “The same logic applies to any other precautionary measure. In the face of any threat, our liberties an individual rights must come first. If they do not then everything we have fought for and built over the last 200 years will be meaningless….The pending collapse of our economy and the steady growth of tyranny and authoritarianism in our country is of the utmost importance and supersedes all other issues. If we cannot address these issues there will be nothing left for us to discuss.”

Jorgensen last night singled out Rainwater when talking about notable Libertarian campaigns this year. “He’s talking about the same things we’re talking about, with masks,” she said. “This is a free country, and we should be able to make our own decisions.”

Rather than merely defund the World Health Organization, Jorgensen wants to the U.S. to completely withdraw from it—and from other multilateral institutions, from the World Trade Organization to the United Nations to NATO. (Her go-to foreign policy line is to have America become “one giant Switzerland.”)

This summer, Libertarian Party messaging seemed to be clustering around the George Floyd protests, with the party touting its longstanding commitments to dismantling the country’s prison-industrial complex. As we approach the finish line, the radical limited-government party is reacting more and more to big-government pandemic policies. The politics of face masks, it turns out, is not a strictly bipartisan affair.

You can watch my whole Jorgensen interview below:

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

The Vindication of Harry Browne… Again – Antiwar.com Original

Posted by M. C. on August 25, 2020

That last sentence is where we get our Harry Browne moment. In nearly two decades we have not got our defense on track to oppose whatever ragtag band might strike us, or so Mr. Hanlon worries. To paraphrase the slogan from the XYZ affair, trillions for offense, not one cent for defense.

We have thrown sums beyond counting at the Military Industrial Complex and nothing has come up that keeps us safe except for keeping 5,000 troops there forever.

https://original.antiwar.com/?p=2012340801

On January 27, 2000 in an email during his 2000 campaign for the American presidency, the late Libertarian Party candidate Harry Browne wrote,

“Today we have a strong national offense (the ability to blow any country to smithereens) and a weak national defense (the inability to defend against any two-bit dictator who gets his hands on a nuclear missile). We should have just the opposite. When we do, we will have a much more efficient defense-with a much smaller cost & a much less complex system.”

583 days later, Browne would be vindicated for the first time, sadly so. Despite all the billions (it was only billions back then) spent on the American military, 19 men came to America and hijacked planes to destroy the twin towers of the World Trade Center in the capital of finance. They also attacked the Pentagon and were foiled in one other action. True, it was not with a nuke, but horrible enough.

Browne did not predict the events, but they happened as could have been expected. We had been intervening in places in a way that was not to the liking of the people there and some actors noticed that there was an opportunity afforded due to the strong offense/weak defense situation.

Because Osama bin Laden supposedly launched the idea in Afghanistan, we invaded that land as he was not extradited. We did not go there because the Taliban struck NYC, they didn’t.

No matter, we have been there ever since and no one really gives a reason. Some give a mealy-mouthed rationale, but no one tells us why the Republic will fail if we leave. On February 2, 2019, Scott Simon gave a soulful little monologue on NPR about how women’s rights was a reason, well, rationale, sort of.

In essence, it seems we are there because we’re there.

Still, sometimes someone says something that makes sense in a way, even though it doesn’t. On Thursday, August 13, 2020, Michael E. O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at The Brookings Institution, specializing in defense and foreign policy issues, had an article at Brookings, with the title, Rightsizing the Afghanistan Mission.

Finally, we are going to get it right, or so he hopes. Some may remain skeptical, but the most interesting paragraph is this:

“Many will lament that the “forever wars” would continue under such a policy. But a mission focused on training Afghans and conducting counterterrorism operations, costing perhaps $10 to $15 billion and entailing 10 to 20 American fatalities a year (if the recent past is a guide), is a far cry from the clear, hold, and build operations conducted largely by U.S. ground forces a decade ago – with American fatalities reaching as high as 500 a year and costs exceeding $100 billion annually. Compared to the alternative of an American homeland again possibly at risk from extremist attack hatched in the land of the Hindu Kush, it is likely the least bad choice.”

That last sentence is where we get our Harry Browne moment. In nearly two decades we have not got our defense on track to oppose whatever ragtag band might strike us, or so Mr. Hanlon worries. To paraphrase the slogan from the XYZ affair, trillions for offense, not one cent for defense.

We have thrown sums beyond counting at the Military Industrial Complex and nothing has come up that keeps us safe except for keeping 5,000 troops there forever.

He means it, as the first sentence makes clear, but recently, the idea of “forever wars” has been getting a bad press, if only because they are forever, which does imply little purpose.

The man thinks it’s all a good bargain. “10 to 20 American fatalities” per annum, forever (it is after all a forever war) is a price he is willing to pay. One might guess they think that statistically insignificant at Brookings. Then again, nothing is really statistically insignificant if you are the statistic. Fortunately for Mr. O’Hanlon, he does not have much to worry about in that department though he has probably made field trips there.

The estimate of “perhaps $10 to $15 billion” a year may not seem too steep either, given inflation, but could not that money be better used by the sinecuricrats at the foundations? Could they not come up with a plan so that intelligence agencies could counter all those bad guys who feel offended at being helped by our internationalism without sending troops to poor mountainous countries? Kind of begs the question of why do they call them “think” tanks anyway?

“Tank,” however, makes sense as in “in the” tank. Who would donate all that moolah to such institutes unless an interest is served?

So, as the years roll on, we shall continue to have a garrison in the “graveyard of empires,” but as another 911 anniversary approaches we should remember the late Harry Brown; presidential candidate, author, economist, libertarian and, as it turns out, prophet.

We have to fight them over there so we don’t have to think about it too much over here.

Richard Morchoe is a columnist, book reviewer and article writer for a regional monthly magazine in Western Central Massachusetts. His email address is rmorchoe@ymail.com.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

a-liberal-because…

Posted by M. C. on October 12, 2019

https://pics.onsizzle.com/a-liberal-because-cnim-pro-choice-except-for-schools-guns-21187622.png

https://pics.onsizzle.com/a-liberal-because-cnim-pro-choice-except-for-schools-guns-21187622.png

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Justin Amash

Posted by M. C. on August 18, 2019

Because congressional leaders live in terror of spontaneity among the led, hearings designed to generate publicity are tightly scripted, which is why, Amash says, such hearings are “an elaborate form of performance art” and members “often look as though they are asking questions they do not understand.

Savior this moment. George Will blesses a close approximation of an antiwar, Libertarian.

Follow the link below to view the article.
Amash’s independence shows voters they have choices
http://erietimes.pa.newsmemory.com/?publink=1f428afab

George Will

It is difficult to discourage and impossible to manage Justin Amash because he, unusual among politicians, does not want much and wants nothing inordinately.

He would like to win a sixth term as congressman from this culturally distinctive slice of the Midwest. He does not, however, want it enough to remain in today’s Republican Party, which he has left because that neighborhood has become blighted. Amash, 39, a founding member of the House Freedom Caucus, also has left that  faction because he does not define freedom as it now does, as devotion to the 45th president.

He is running as an independent, which might accomplish two admirable things: It might demonstrate that voters need not invariably settle for a sterile binary choice. And it might complicate President Donald Trump’s task of again winning Michigan’s 16 electoral votes, which he did in 2016 by just 0.2 percentage points.

With a city named Holland and a college named for John Calvin, West Michigan’s culture reflects its settlement by Dutch Americans, who set about vindicating Max Weber’s connection between the “Protestant ethic” and the “spirit of capitalism,” a spirit incubated in 17th and 18th century Amsterdam.

Distinguished Michigan denizens of Dutch descent have included Peter De Vries, America’s wittiest novelist.

Local Christian schools drummed into Amash and other young sinners fear of a particular moral failing: pride. His one-word description of his constituents — “modest” — suggests an aversion to vanity, vulgarity and ostentation that has an obvious pertinence to the leader of Amash’s former party. Amash compares West Michiganders — culturally, not theologically — to Mormons. Trump carried 16 states by larger margins than he carried Utah, and won only 51.6 percent in Amash’s district, which traditionally has been the epicenter of Michigan Republicanism. “I think,” Amash says dryly, “the Trump people are confounded by this area,” where Trump held his final 2016 rally.

A few hours after Amash declared his independence from the husk of the Republican Party, he marched in several Independence Day parades where “I got an overwhelmingly positive feeling.” This might indicate increased negative feelings about Trump, who carried Michigan by just 10,704 votes out of 4,799,284.

In Amash’s single term in the state legislature, he cast the only “no” vote on more than 70 measures. In 2013, he had the gumption to vote against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act for no better reason than that there was no reason for it, and it was inimical to federalism: It “created new federal crimes to mirror crimes already on the books in every state.” His average margin of victory in four reelection contests has been 15.1 percentage points.

Amash, the son of a Palestinian refugee who arrived in West Michigan in 1956, is philosophically unlike Grand Rapids’ most famous son, whose philosophic interests were few and did not include Amash’s favorite Austrian economists (Von Mises, Hayek). Amash, however, shares Gerald Ford’s devotion to the idea, if not the actuality, of Congress. Ford’s pipe, loud sport coats, decency and legislative seriousness validate a famous judgment: “The past is a foreign country: They do things differently there.”

Presently, Congress is rarely a legislative, let alone a deliberative, body. Two years ago, when Republicans controlled the House, a Republican congressman defended a committee chairman accused of excessive subservience to the president by saying: “You’ve got to keep in mind who he works for. He works for the president. He answers to the president.” Pathetic.

Because congressional leaders live in terror of spontaneity among the led, hearings designed to generate publicity are tightly scripted, which is why, Amash says, such hearings are “an elaborate form of performance art” and members “often look as though they are asking questions they do not understand.” Congressional leaders’ stern message to potentially unmanageable members is to pipe down and “live to fight (for spending restraint, entitlement reform, open House processes, etc.) another day.” Amash’s campaign slogan should be: “Vote for someone who is as disgusted with Congress as you are.”

The Libertarian Party might ask Amash to take his — actually, it’s the founders’ — message to the nation as the party’s presidential nominee. He does not seek this — he has three young children — but does not summarily spurn the idea of offering temperate voters a choice of something other than a choice between bossy progressivism and populist Caesarism.

Or he could become the first non-Republican the Grand Rapids area has sent to Congress since 1974.

Be seeing you

Libertarians have the highest IQ's - Mad In America

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »