Tag Archives: libertarianism

Libertarian music is getting better

Megapuss – A Gun On His Hip and a Rose On His Chest.

That just made me want to pick up the Hammer of Truth and bludgeon some fascists and commies. “Hey bo diddly!” proclaimed victoriously, as we know the security state is one of constant fear! We see your hands shake when you lie. RUN AWAY LITTLE CHILD, I HAVE A ROSE ON MY…

Telling the truth is the best fuck you can give, and for some awesome reason it sounds best as a 50s surf song.

( -)-(- )Comments Off

Giving libertarians a bad name

It seems the past few years have seen an increase in the number of people calling themselves “libertarian.” Normally this would be excellent news for people who support a society in which the maximum role of civil government is the protection of life, liberty, and property.

It becomes a problem when people who call themselves libertarian begin advocating for a more intrusive government. Some so called libertarians support gun control, humanitarian wars, the continued us of foreign aid, higher taxes on “the rich,” universal health care, a massive welfare program, stricter immigration laws and many other non-libertarian policies.

Glenn Beck is among these unlibertarian-libertarians.

He is now claiming that he will be relaunching ‘The Blaze’ as Global Libertarian Network. The problem lies in the fact that Beck’s network will misrepresent libertarian ideals and promote his message of false-libertarianism.

reposted from FPP.cc

( -)-(- )4 comments

Julie Borowski addresses the lack of female libertarians

Miss Julie Borowski — the latest cute blonde “token” libertarian girl — has been slaving away in front of the YouTube audiences for well over a year and racking up over a million views in the process. I’ve stayed away from exploiting championing the females of libertarianism (mostly due to a jealous girlfriend for many years, c’est la vie), but I’ll have to hand it to her for this latest video.

In the video, Borowski rhetorically asks, “Why are there so few female libertarians?”

She quickly answers “It has nothing to do with our philosophy. It is because libertarianism is not yet mainstream and part of popular culture.”

Borowski has previously lamented the lack of women libertarians on her blog. She writes, “Women are more likely to visit popular culture websites and connect with their peers on social media. Men are more likely to look at “nerdy” websites that discuss views that are outside of the mainstream like libertarianism.”

It’s easy to diss on women’s magazines and celebrity gossip culture for their lack of enthusiasm for libertarianism (or fiscal responsibility in general, their advertisers would run away in droves). Yet when it comes to the male equivalent, it’s only fair to say that we have our fair share of extremely anti-libertarian, irresponsible role models to contend with as well.

As for a pop culture solution for libertarians. Well, watching Borowski apply gobs of makeup and go off on a libertarian rant is certainly an entertaining start.

( -)-(- )Comments Off

Ron Paul has left the House

His farewell speech is likely to be heralded as the most antipathy-filled since Eisenhower. Here’s the epic forty-eight minute video heard ’round ‘murica (but you won’t see this on TV):

The transcript can be found here.

TL;DW – Trust yourself, not the government.

Oh, and “the internet will provide the alternative to the government/media complex that controls the news and most political propaganda.” Yep.

( -)-(- )Comments Off

Libertarians: revenge of the nerds!

In my travels across this great land of ours, I’ve had the fun and sometimes not-so-fun occasion to stumble across this chasm of human oddity. In these travels, I’ve met more scientifically gifted minds in libertarian circles (computers, finance, world’s smallest political quiz takers, and for Carl Milstead the world’s most retro) than in government officials.

Anecdote: I once pub crawled with The Lakewood city fire chief whose one of many priorities was securing funds for a faster boat during the epic downturn of recent yore. He was a proper chap though and just wants to do his job as best as he understands the system presented to him.

Inappropriate Anecdote: Somewhere along the line at one of the seedier bars with stovetop shoved in a closet gigs, I had the worst urge to manifest porcelain and expel the terrible gut-wrenching fiasco of fully digested nachos and previous night’s round of beers. All without recourse to a proper bathroom. I truly felt bad for the stranger who walked in while the devastation of a slight buzz and lack of giving a fuck gave way to absurd relief.

Where was I, not on human oddity, but the libertarian nerd. see more…

( -)-(- )Comments Off

I ran away from sanctions

The US Congress has been considering tougher sanctions against Iran in “response” to Iran’s nuclear program; a nuclear program designed to produce energy, not to produce bombs. Though even if Iran were attempting to build a nuclear weapon, do they have a “right” to nuclear weapons? And who gets to decide?

This question is much more in depth than it may appear; thus giving an answer is much more difficult than may be expected.

Libertarians (and anarchs) generally believe that no groups of people have any more right than any individual. For instance, I do not have the right to steal your car. Thus, no group – regardless of size – has a right to steal your car; though groups known as government claim such an illegitimate right. In a similar fashion, every individual has an inherent right to defend themselves (including their friends, family and others from imminent attack) in any manner they see fit. That includes the right to own any weapon they believe is necessary to defend themselves.

Whether or not this right includes the right to own a nuclear weapon has been the subject of many debates. I believe that, as stated above, no group has more rights than any individual. Therefore, if any group claims the right to own a nuclear weapon, every individual has the same right to own said weapon. Though, I do not believe that anyone could legitimately use a nuclear weapon in a manner purely consistent with self-defense. Any discharge of a nuclear weapon would, no doubt, kill or injure someone not involved in any attack leading up to the supposed self-defense discharge of said weapon.

I realize this doesn’t exactly answer the question, but the subject needs a bit more explanation and historical perspective. Before the “Civil War” began in 1861, James Buchanan was criticized for not doing anything to prevent the southern States from seceding. Buchanan believed that while no State had a right to secede from the Union, the federal government had no right to prevent the State(s) from doing so. I take a similar approach in regards to nuclear weapons. While I believe that every person and group of persons have a right to own any weapon they believe is necessary to defend themselves, and I do not believe that any nuclear weapon can be used in legitimate self defense, I also do not believe that any person or group has the right to prevent anyone else from creating, building or owning such weapons unless the person or group attempts to use the weapon.

One final question that I will not answer: since the U.S. is the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon in war; why should that government be responsible for deciding who gets to own such a weapon?

( -)-(- )Comments Off

Ralph Nader: still way left, but right

Being a libertarian, I’m sure someone will engage in wiseassery and suggest that it must be the drugs. Or perhaps it is braggadocios to assume anyone actually cares enough about my ramblings to comment either way. But there are times I question reality. And no, not just because I still see fresh Obama stickers on high end, late model vehicles indicative of the driver’s financial success. People, as a group, no longer surprise me.

But certain individuals still possess the power to gobsmack; to make me wonder if I’m really awake. I know I’m a day late on this, but I had to fall asleep and wake up again to make sure I was truly conscious. And I’m only reasonably sure of the fact, still.

Ralph Nader’s hopeless devotion to unbridled socialism usually has the effect of me tuning out his gravelly inane sputterings. But yesterday—in an apparent attempt to fill some minuscule yet requisite quota of logic—Nader, appearing on Andew Napolitano’s Freedom Watch, heaped praise on the early Tea Party movement. And he nailed it, from inception to co-opting.

Asked whether he saw similarities between the Tea Party movement and the “Occupy Wall Street” folk, Nader told Napolitano:

“Well, before the Tea Party movement was hijacked by the corporatist Republicans, yes. They were very much worried about the Wall Street bailout, they were worried about the restrictions on civil liberties in the PATRIOT Act, they were worried about bloated military budgets, and criminal, unconstitutional wars of aggression. You remember those early days. But, you know, they were taken over by groups in Wall Street—Dick Armey’s group and others. And, uh, the Tea Party now is basically the corporatist wing of the Republican Party.”

Huh? That could have been something awaiting me in my inbox from Lew Rockwell this morning. If it were a mere quote, I would dismiss it as an error of ascription. I included the video link as a remedy to the disbelief of the reader.

He continued, as did my astonishment:

“Here’s what I think is going on with Occupy Wall Street: it’s basically a kind of visceral justice movement, dealing with unfairness of the bosses in Wall Street who have violated, when they crashed, the bosses of Wall Street crashed on the workers, on the investors, and on the taxpayers, starting in 2008, as everybody knows. This Occupy Wall Street effort is basically saying, it’s really saying, ‘Look you guys, you guys are running the show, Wall Street and Washington, running the show, you’re violating basic principles of fairness between human beings that are religious principles—the Golden Rule; ethical principles, legal principles, and Constitutional principles.”

While Mr. Nader has called countless times for government to use force to alter or eliminate things he himself opposes, and would likely, in possession of his druthers, add obscenely burdensome taxation to the profits of people and companies irrespective of any receipt of bailout money, simply for the crime of success. And it is likely that he would have injected some Leninist solution to the economic mess we’re in, given the chance. Toward the end of the above quote, I was squirming with feelings of pending doom, waiting for Nader to chop the head off any respect he had earned, with a demand for some sort of state-based “justice.”

And though he sneaked in a questionable reference to “fairness,” he didn’t lose me. And the seeming lack of reality continued.

As The Judge shifted gears to the President, Nader continued to get it exactly right. And I found myself in a continuing and confusingly bizarre political alliance with the man responsible for the creation of the leviathan NHTSA.

Asked about the executive branch’s unilateral decision to assassinate Anwar al Awloki, Nader nailed that, too:

“That’s not a President, that’s a dictator. That’s a complete violation of due process, separation of powers. You don’t put in the White House—and our framers, as you know so well with your books, the founders of our Republic refused I say refused, article one, section eight, to begin with—to put the power to exercise violence abroad, and plunge the nation into war, in the hands of the President. He has done that now. He has outdone Bush in his unconstitutional behavior. Not just with what you described, but he also attacked Libya without any War Resolution, never mind Declaraton of War from Congress, without any authorization or appropriation of money. That’s the way of a dictator. He tok a billion dollars, himself, and put it on the war.”

Angrily agreeing, Napolitano interjected, “And Ralph, like a potted plant, the Congress did nothing!”

Nader replied, and here’s where I bruised myself with a final pinch, “You wait and see what someone does in the Congress, pretty soon — Ron Paul.”

I harbor no illusions about the state of the Republic. It feels a lot like what I imagine did Rome’s final days: corruption reigning supreme, despotism growing, rights trampled, and the experiment failing from the legion of enemies within the walls.

How bad must things be for Ralph Nader to champion the Constitution, to praise what the Tea Party was supposed to be about, to damn the state for interceding in the economy, and to look to Ron Paul to stride into the House on a white steed and save us from the tyranny of government?

I must be dreaming.

But is my dream a pleasant one in which even those thought far too wrong to ever “get it” are awakening to the ideas of freedom? Or is it a nightmare in which the state has grown so despotic that even life-long liberals are frightened enough of a nearly omnipotent government that they are flirting with with the idea that the state is truly the evil gang it has become?

Update by Stephen VanDyke: Here’s the video by Nader where he makes more than a few spot on observations: see more…

( -)-(- )4 comments