George H. Smith, a very good anarchist spokesman, republishing an excellent article on the philosophical reasoning for anarchy. It’s fairly long, and skipping over won’t help!
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.
Jack Perry: “I suppose we’ve all overdosed on hearing “Freedom isn’t free!” for the past few days. Your humble scribe is pleased to report that freedom actually is free. It’s government that isn’t free. Yes, there is a difference. Even the founding documents of this nation agree that freedom isn’t bestowed upon us by the government via human sacrifice in some orgy of blood and violence, but from God. My Bible does not say that God received a purchase order from the United States government that sets them up as a vendor to sell freedom to us….”
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 article appeared in my search for education in the early days of America, my source for this post. At that time there was virtually no such thing as “public” education, from Colonial days all the way up to the mid-19th century. Among other articles found included Thomas Jefferson supporting(!) public education in Virginia, not […]
The objective of both our foreign policy and our military should be straightforward: To protect us from harm and to allow the exercise of our freedoms.
Looking back over the past couple of decades, it is difficult to see how the wars we have waged, the interventions we have conducted, the lives sacrificed and the trillions spent on the other side of the globe have made us safer. The chaotic, reactive military and foreign policies of the past two Presidents have, if anything, created an environment that has allowed real threats to our safety to flourish.