Politics and religion are highly interesting topics; but unlike other interesting topics, such as science, we don’t need to appeal to authorities when defending our basic beliefs in these fields. We can think for ourselves from the ground up in politics and religion, and when we do—when we actually take the time and effort needed to arrive at reasonable beliefs in politics and religion—the results may qualify as legitimate accomplishments in which we should take pride.
Politics is the theory and practice of government. It concerns itself with how force should be applied in controlling people, which is to say, in restricting their freedom. It should be analyzed on that basis. Since freedom is indivisible, it makes little sense to compartmentalize it; but there are two basic types of freedom: social and economic.
According to the current usage, liberals tend to allow social freedom, but restrict economic freedom, while conservatives tend to restrict social freedom and allow economic freedom. An authoritarian (they now sometimes class themselves as “middle-of-the-roaders”) is one who believes both types of freedom should be restricted.
But what do you call someone who believes in both types of freedom? Unfortunately, something without a name may get overlooked or, if the name is only known to a few, it may be ignored as unimportant. That may explain why so few people know they are libertarians.
Having been a registered and somewhat active Libertarian for over 40 years now, that has been increasingly disappointing. Gary Johnson sounded better 4 years ago, but garnered only 1% of the vote. Today he’s polling much better, but has obviously lost his way, leaving us with nobody worth voting for… that’s right, NOBODY!
There was a time when the LP was based on Principle, but those days are long gone. Today’s Libertarians are scattered all over the philosophical map. Very recently I read the Arizona’s Libertarian Platform, https://www.azlp.org/platform.php — reading that was a SHOCK! Nothing within that suggests that Mises and Rothbard might survive. That platform seems both obsolete and awful,.
All that leaves me feeling both “homeless” and hopeless. The problems, which run throughout this platform is that, rather than addressing the problem by using the Libertarian ways of free enterprise and free markets, a myriad of solutions are proposed, almost always having GOVERNment do things in different ways, which always demand more “laws” and “better” punishment.
Posted on Personal Liberty August 12, 2016 by Bob Livingston
The Obamacare deathcare system is dying and it may be completely dead before the next president is sworn into office.
As The Hill reported Thursday, two major insurers in the last month – Aetna and Anthem – both reversed course on their plans to expand in the marketplace. The five largest insurers say they are losing money on Obamacare. Several other high-profile insurers are raising concerns about the mix of consumers (not enough young, healthy people and too many old and sick people are signing up) and whether they can continue selling Obamacare plans.
By Walter E. Block July 4, 2016, article at LewRockwell.com It is all the government’s fault. It is always the government’s fault. Pretty much every bad thing is the government’s fault. The government mulcts almost half of the GDP if we count federal, state, county, and city taxes and fees. A significant proportion of these […]
Article by Bob Livingston at PersonalLiberty.com 27 June 2016
The gun grabbers tell you they want more gun control in order to keep you safe. But that is the Big Lie.
If they really wanted to limit guns used most to murder people they’d target handguns, which are used in almost half of all homicides. Of 8,124 murders using a firearm in 2014, handguns were used 5,562 times. Rifles were used to murder someone only 248 times. And the dreaded “assault weapon” the politicians make such a kerfuffle over is a subset of rifles, so the number of people killed by those is much lower.
Brandon Smith: The mainstream narrative demands that we argue over gun control, multiculturalism, more government and better vetting of potential terrorists. While all these issues are vital for various reasons, none of them confront the greater problem. If Americans are not interested in methods to protect themselves, then all else is futile. Each individual must decide his or her potential safety margin.
Liberals will generally concede the right of every individual to his “personal liberty,” to his freedom to think, speak, write, and engage in such personal “exchanges” as sexual activity between “consenting adults.” In short, the liberal attempts to uphold the individual’s right to the ownership of his own body, but then denies his right to “property,” i.e., to the ownership of material objects. Hence, the typical liberal dichotomy between “human rights,” which he upholds, and “property rights,” which he rejects. Yet the two, according to the libertarian, are inextricably intertwined; they stand or fall together.
Ever since Sen. Ted Cruz suspended his campaign and Donald Trump essentially secured the Republican nomination, certain elements of Conservative Inc. have been flailing about attempting to promote the idea of a third party challenge to Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton that would more precisely reflect movement conservative pieties. So far, their efforts have not exactly caught fire.
This should perhaps have been the first in this series, but too late now! We will be turning this from theory to reality. “Home” for us is Apache County, Arizona, one of the poorest and least populated counties in the USA, located in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains at an elevation of over 6,000 feet. Our community is unincorporated, being in a rather remote location with a few thousand people scattered an area of perhaps 600 square miles. In talking with the people here, NOBODY wants this area to become part of some incorporated town (which would mean a GOVERNment)! Thus we seek to build a better community within a Voluntary system, in which all are Sovereign Individuals, in which each can fulfill his perceived needs and goals in concert with others who share those same. Neither GOVERNment nor Rulers are necessary to accomplish such goals; this is OUR Path to True Liberty!