Dropping the Veil

The past week or two has been a little crazy for me, a family emergency disallowed me to write my weekly post. As for the blog, it means I really didn’t give much thought into any of my numerous ideas. I’m finally back and this week, I have a mixed bag of different things. But I believe I can relate them all into one conglomerate post.

Let me start off by introducing the various subjects I’d like to touch on during this post. There are two subjects that I got inspiration directly from social media over on Twitter. One of them is the reaction of Biden voters to the drone bombing in Syria. The other is a thread about MMT. (Modern Monetary Theory) I will link the thread here so you can read the cringe. Also the reaction of Biden’s administration killing the 15 dollar minimum wage increase.

Bombing in Syria

To the surprise of nobody who actually follows politics and isn’t completely brainwashed, Joe Biden decided to start bombing Syria. Again. Well this isn’t exactly breaking or exciting news, it got quite the adverse reaction on twitter by normie Biden supporters. It appears that many of them thought that Biden wouldn’t take such a advanced step in a war that was thought to be winding down, at least with regards to US involvement. There was a gold tweet where someone literally said “Biden handled the bombing with class, he doesn’t trash talk on twitter, he’s like an adult”, (paraphrasing here) I find this reaction very interesting to take in. It actually caught me by surprise because I knew normie Biden voters were deluded, but NOT this deluded.

Here is thing about Biden and his bombing of Syria: It was expected. Biden is your moderate left center candidate. He is the picture of establishment, hold the line, continue the regime kind of guy. He’s been that guy for 40 years. He wasn’t voted in office to buck the trends. He was picked to be maintain the status quo. For anarchists and libertarians this means, he will continue the endless wars and increase the burden of taxes and decrease the value of money. For normies they were mistaken in thinking he represented the changes they were promised in election season.

There is another interesting angle I found today, apparently some people think Biden is good at diplomacy. This person didn’t understand diplomacy at all. Here is that exact tweet: “Diplomacy is acknowledging a wrong, maintaining integrity, and continuing to move in the best interest of the country. Biden checks all the boxes”. To this I quote tweeted ” No diplomacy is doing bad things then secretly bribing everyone else to look the other way. Biden is an below average statesmen, brings nothing exciting or new to the political world.” This person obviously didn’t understand what diplomacy is, at least in the context of today’s global politics. Fortunately, my background in 20th century history has given me a solid understanding of exactly how diplomacy operates. If you’d like learn for yourself just study the correspondence of different statesmen during World war 2 or the Cold War.

The basic premise of diplomacy is nearly exactly as I said in my quote tweet. I would just add that diplomacy is quite complicated because there are a lot of moving parts. Often times, the leader is just dictating a point to an underling who relays the message. Diplomacy now a days in especially tangled bureaucracy. President Obama was also weak in foreign policy. I never felt like Biden helped prop that up which why I say he’s a below average statesmen. Don’t get me wrong, Trump is below average too but for me, he grades out just slightly better for having balls to call China’s bluff. Although it was stupid thing, a good statesmen is almost always outspoken. Just look at men like Winston Churchill, Josef Stalin, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Their dynamic during the war involved a lot of posturing and bluffs. In one of Churchill’s bibliography, he recounts the multiple occasions on which he sparred with Stalin. My point here is that diplomacy nearly always takes a backseat to the agenda. I’m sure you already know that the military industrial complex is pulling the strings. (Raytheon employees on the cabinet should be proof enough here)

Modern Monetary Theory (Emphasis on the Theory)

I encourage you to read this thread. I just want to point out how its literally all government propaganda. At every turn this Columbia professor just spews propaganda. If you aren’t already familiar, the MMT comes from the Keynesian economic wing. I feel like I’m beating a dead horse with keynesian economics and minimum wage on this blog. However, its a recurring stupid ass take. Even though I’d usually take this thread line by line and reject it, I’m just going to attack the whole theory. The crux of Keynesian economics is that the economy operates on the assumption that specifically government can use the supply of money to control the economy. Keynesians heavily depend on interest rates and supply side economics to gauge economic success. The main problem is that economies don’t function on money. Money is not THE economy. I can prove this by simply pointing that barter systems don’t need money and can still operate although at a basic level.

My other beef with keynesian economics or MMT is that inflation is not a good thing for literally anyone but the government. You have to understand the reason why the government can lend and print money is because of its triple AAA credit rating. The money isn’t backed up to anything (gold standard used to be a thing). This means that inflation can actually destroy the value of money. This keeps the government loans cheaper to take out. It will happen eventually if you push the debt far enough. Now as an anarchist or libertarian, none of this is a problem because we know a collapse of money will lead to the full glow up of Bitcoin.

My point about this professor’s thread is fairly simple, MMT is a load of horseshit. Its just government manipulation of money through the federal reserve. The government needs a high inflation rate in order to keep the lending of money cheaper. Thats why interest rates are so important. Also I just want to reinforce the fact that economies are just the voluntary transactions of individuals, businesses and groups.

Conclusion- Biden HATES the poor

The blue congress and Biden failed to pass a minimum wage increase to 15 dollars federally. Obviously this is a win for people who know this wouldn’t be a good thing. But a huge L for those who think raising minimum wage will help anyone. People forget that money is not a pie chart. There might be so much money in circulation but if the demand goes up then more money can be actually generated. Therefore, if you raise the base level wages the prices for everything will have to raise as well because those costs are passed onto the employers then to consumers. So in the end, its a net-zero. We should also note that big corporations like Wal-Mart and Mcdonalds are oddly silent on the issue. Like they don’t care at all. Well, they don’t because it won’t affect them. Good luck.

I think what I’ve learned this week is that progressivism has dropped its veil. This week has proven that Biden isn’t much different from Trump. I don’t care either way but until more people wake up and realize we are just living the same nightmare every four years, you will ALWAYS be disappointed. So I hope you enjoyed this random rant filled post. I have two ideas in the works. One I previously mentioned in another post about how the supreme court has affected the constitution. Another idea is a Baseball CBA negotiations post. Both require research on my part, so time permitting I hope I can get to it. Thanks for reading!

Check out my Social Media links/List page.

Hit the follow button below! 

Government by Subscription? Pragmatic Solution for “Libertarianism”

I’ve come across a number of random ideas some bad and some brilliant. Ever since I heard Thaddaeus Russell in “Monopoly on Violence” a pro-anarchy documentary, talk about Government by subscription. I’ve been intrigued. Its about six months since I first watched that documentary. I think I’m finally ready to explore my thoughts on it, in writing. Russell describes Government by subscription as this idea that you could opt-in or opt–out of any government. He always states a long held belief that government must be tied to some contingent of land or area. In his vision of government by subscription the ties to land would be done away with, instead you would have a choice of any government without geographic restriction. There is also the implication that you would have a choice to opt-out completely. To be fair, I will state immediately that my preference would be to live under no government. Don’t let that make you think this is a bad idea. Let me explain further:

Question: There’s always a gap between ending the current system of government and how it will function if individual rights comes to the forefront of society? Many libertarians and anarchists struggle to answer very specific questions about how society will deal with a potential power vacuum. I don’t think that the power vacuum will be as dramatic as some critics try to claim. We have to remember that overthrowing government would be voluntary and cultural. So if you don’t want to associate with or take responsibility for your own self ownership, there are options.

Well to be fair, there is just one other option and that’s to continue to live under a government. But I think it would have to change slightly especially given that anyone could choose self ownership in any territory.. Throughout history, government by in large has been connected to territory, a specific territory. What’s even more weird is that in height of the British empire, the Kings and Queens during those times, ruled from London, England. It work semi-fine if you consider the slowness of communication at the time. The historical implications to me seem to tell us that governments can operate without being near their subjects. But there are other problems such picking to live unmolested by government but still getting molested.

Government’s bullying individuals who choose to live freely could be problem but I think the attitude of the cultural and social factors will be play into this more than anything. Lately, I’ve hearing from other libertarians both big name and unknown that we need to try to change the cultural mindset. We have to use tactics from the left to get the cultural behind us. “Libertarians” are more than often the most book smart people you’ll encounter. But I think socially, we tend to ignore the importance of being relevant in the culture. Many critics of “libertarians” throw the same generalized criticism of utopian on the whole philosophy. Often times, and in my own past, we are unapologetic about what we think should happen within a proper “Libertarian” society. All I am suggesting here is that if “Libertarians” especially big name, influential ones, adopt a more pragmatic solution like government by subscription, we might gain more credence.

I think by giving what many “minarchists” and Rand Paul type conservatives their basic government services model that could grab a bunch of dejected former Trump supporters. Remember one of Trump’s many slogans was “drain the swamp”. Of course, he did nothing of the sort but I think in 2016, many conservatives saw that government was far overreaching its bounds and need to be trimmed back. All of this is to say this idea of government by subscription might be a way to centralize power especially among moderate normies in both left and right camps. It might even persuade some fringe groups to jump in. The reason is because there is really no “rules” except the idea that each individual has a right to self ownership. In that vain, each person can choose to participate in government.

For those of you who would choose to live under a government and are worried this is some anarchist con, you don’t have to worry. I would imagine that if you choose to live under a government, you would pay taxes, get a “vote” if your system of government does that, and receive benefits. For you minarchists out there, it might be low taxes with police and fire protection. I think there would be one slight change in how services are delivered. I would imagine that each government would send money to all the necessary local services to serve its citizen or citizens in that particular area. Similar to what the government does now except it might have to be more honest with that tax money. (otherwise some citizens are getting left high and dry) As for us pesky anarchists, we would just pay out of pocket when we need police or fire protection, and etc etc.

To conclude I just want to mention that government by subscription really allows everyone to choose along ideological lines under which system of tyranny they’d like to experience. It gets rid of the geographical restrictions. We have to remember that most war occurs over territory. Plus with the likely diaspora of citizens across the world, a government might have trouble finding an enemy. But most importantly, it allows for the greatest degree of individual freedom and it doesn’t leave a power vacuum. It doesn’t give anyone a reason to fight with anyone else. It will force politics become a mostly local thing. It will force governments to be fiscally responsibility or risk losing their citizens. You might be still asking how do we bring this about? Well, start on social media. Start pitching the idea. Let’s get this cultural revolution started.

Let’s make government optional. Let me know what you think about it?

Thanks for reading!

Consider following the blog.

Social Media

Twitter: GforAnarchy12

Facebook: Garrett’s Life Experience’s Blog

“Libertarian” Class Theory

In a Pete’s Free Man Beyond the Wall episode, Aaron mentioned “There’s not really any class theory in libertarianism” (talking about radicalization) Honestly its not wrong , however I think there is, if you look hard enough. This reference only spurred my thoughts further, because I was already thinking about hierarchies in “Libertarian” society. My main thoughts in regards to hierarchies has been the “Libertarian” and ancap treatment of corporations in relation to societal hierarchy. Now let me preface this whole thing with the fact that I used to believe genuinely that corporations might actually take the place of government. I really never considered that corporations might be aided and allied by government. I will expand on this later in the post.

Before I actually get into the class theory part of this post, I want to talk about why its important to discuss something like this. I think that people like Pete and Aaron and others are onto a very important issue in the “libertarian” movement. They have identified the reason why LP can’t get more than 5 percent of the vote. Its because they are not willing to centralize power. Its ironic because LP wants power in public offices yet they aren’t willing break the one principle not allowing them to achieve it. The non aggression principle or NAP. Here’s the thing about NAP, and yes I do believe in NAP. However, I think NAP applies to each individual. Its up to each person to follow it. Also NAP allows for self defense. As far as I know the NAP doesn’t apply to groups or collective action. Let’s suppose you follow NAP while applying force (not violence) to certain politically motivated movements towards the goal of gaining power. I also heard another really good tidbit from Pete’s show on the difference between force and violence. My opinion on this is I can’t see why using force for a positive change would be a bad thing. I really think as “Libertarian” we need change the framing of force. We can still be against government force, while also using force to help bring about the change we want to see. Anyway, back to the difference between force and violence, its not the same thing. Force is making things happen regardless of opposition. Violence is exactly what Antifa does. I’m still formulating how as “libertarians” we can use force as positive change to gain power, and what that might look like. Once I figure it out, I will gladly lay it out for everyone to use.

The basic class theory in libertarianism/anarchism doesn’t look much different than now. You will still have rich, middle class and poor. I think the main difference will be a lack of a ruling class and a distinct lack of corporate class. It should be noted that in today’s American society the ruling and corporate classes are inseparable. You can see this in the “revolving door” theory whereby corporate executives and elected or appointed officials switch between private and public life. I think class theory brings up another point about any government free society in that big corporations just won’t exist like they do now. A lot of libertarians/ancaps reject this notion because of the “privatized everything” mantra. But think about it, if big government isn’t there to regulate, set wage floors, and generally stamp out competition while also propping up failing “giants” and giving large tax cuts, then how do big failed corporations survive? They either: A. Change to be profitable or B. go out of business.

Class theory also brings out hierarchies as something that will inevitably exist in any society. But I get the sense from a lot libertarians and especially anarchists that hierarchies would be all but eliminated. I disagree with this notion of hierarchies being eliminated because I recently read Carlyle which opened my eyes to prevalence and necessity of them. Of course, class theory is literally about hierarchy of society. Ive been thinking about it and its hard to nail down who might be at the top. We already know the poor will be bottom. Economics especially free market economics, enlightens us on the fact in order to have a strong economy you need a lot of lower wage workers. Keep in mind as well that big corporations won’t be as prevalent because it’s truly the consumers wallets that make that happen in a world without government.

I think the “Libertarian” Class theory could be briefly explained like this:

“An economic and socio-cultural order where the culture determines who is at the top. Economics determines the rest of the order in a rational way. The natural highest class is the wealthy following middle class (working) and at the bottom the lower class (poor)”

You might be wondering why for example I said socio-cultural instead just social or culture? The reason is simple because naturally the social will always help in determining the order. But I think without a central overlord government to select elites, it will be left to the cultural of that society to select who influences the top. I don’t think its an overstatement to say that the only class that matters in any class theory is the one with the most influence. If we look at Marx’s class theory he thinks its the workers who will hold the most influence. The problem is I’m not sure that the workers will be most influential. I also don’t believe there will be a class struggle because class mobility will be higher than any society in history. The simple reason is there is no government to hold you back. Perhaps the most influential will be the consumers, which means the wealthy or business owners might highest in terms of money attained, but still subserviently to the consumer classes. (middle and lower) We can also think of consumer preference as culture in a way, because culture certainly can influence what any given society might choose to buy.

In conclusion, I really like the idea of a “Libertarian” Class Theory. I think one of things necessary for seeking power is to know who should really hold the power in a society. Class theory is useful for identifying which class or group should be the most powerful. Unlike other class theories, I think that a “Libertarian” one doesn’t seek to destroy or deconstruct any particular class except any leftovers of the government elite class. But my next post will examine how the desire to be ruled by government might be satisfied in a perfect “Libertarian” class theory situation. So stay tuned

Also thanks to @PeterRQuinones for his amazing podcast episodes lately and @gfyFEMAr1 for being a horrible communist. (Its a joke…I’m not explaining it.)

Thanks for reading

Social Media

Twitter: @GforAnarchy12

Facebook: Garrett’s Life Experiences Blog

Critique of Democracy: Chartism by Thomas Carlyle

Before you even start reading this, I would recommend that you read three other things before. The first is these two articles by Mencius Moldbug. The first one here, explains how Carlyle fits into libertarian thought. The second article here, gives you a nice guide to what Carlyle is all about. Next I will recommend that you go to google books and download the PDF version of the book: Chartism by Thomas Carlyle.

I found this particular author and set of books through former twitter user known as @FoAnimated. He linked me those two articles. To my surprise, I was pleasantly happy to read that Carlyle had yet another view on democracy that seemed to be accurate. As you will find out, Carlyle isn’t the end all, be all of libertarian or anarchist thought. (I wouldn’t classify him in either philosophy) He’s no Mises or Rothbard or even Hoppe. However, his description and criticism of democracy really made start to rethink everything. In this post, I want to talk specifically about his critique of Democracy in Chartism. I will also touch on his hierarchy theory which he only writes a few sentences in Chartism. Carlyle has at least 4 books and they are all available on google books. In the coming weeks, I’m going read all of them. Due to my busy schedule, I’ll try to write about each if I have time.

Chartism was written in the 1840, and Carlyle writes about England mostly. His focus is twofold, he focuses on the Poor Law Bill in England and the history behind revolutions and differences in classes. After reading it, I literally told @FoAnimated that Carlyle was like Karl Marx but not fully retarded. Carlyle focuses on the changes in expectations from the lower classes of the aristocracy. I want to talk about this later because the first thing that stuck out to me was two quotes. Both quotes would put Carlyle solidly in the Libertarianism philosophy. The first quote refers property rights:

“That Society ‘exists for the protection of property’. To which it is added, that the poor man also has property, namely, his ‘labour’ and the fifteen-pence or three-and-sixpence a-day he can get for that. True enough, O friends, ‘for protecting property; most true: and indeed if you will once sufficiently enforce that Eighth Commandment, the whole ‘rights of man’ are well cared for; I know no better definition of the rights of man. Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not be stolen from: what society were that” Page 59 (Emphasis was Carlyle’s)

It seems here that Carlyle believes that property rights are the basis of any decent society. But this alone can’t possibly be enough to make me write about Carlyle. The most profound quote to me, was on democracy. I feel like Carlyle perfectly sums up what happens in Democracy:

” Democracy, we are well aware, what is called ‘self government’ of the multitude by the multitude, is in words the thing everywhere passionately clamoured for at present. Democracy makes rapid progress in these latter times, and ever more rapid, in a perilous accelerative ratio; towards democracy, and that only, the progress of things is everywhere tending as to the final goal and winning-post. So think, so clamour the multitudes everywhere. And yet all men may see, whose sight is good for much, that in democracy can lie no finality; that with the completest winning of democracy there is nothing yet won– except emptiness, and the free chance to win. Democracy is, by the nature of it, a self cancelling business; and gives in the long run a net result of zero.” (Emphasis mine) (Page 53)

I really love this whole paragraph. But I think the best is the last one, the one I made bold and italic. I can see exactly what he means. Democracy has made no actual gains. Anytime a democracy makes some of kind of progress it gets set back. I think you can see this throughout American history. The most stark example might be after World War 2. At the end of World War 2, America was the most powerful nation in the world due to the fact that our country was completely destroyed by bombs. America also had the enviable position of creditor. Within about 15 years of the war ending, America got into a pissing match with the Soviet Union. The policy of containment of communism lead to costly proxy wars. By the end of the Cold War, America went from being the world’s most powerful nation to a nation with a lot of debt. The American democracy allowed the American government to waste all of its resources on a war that resulted in very little reward for the people.

These two quotes really made me think that Thomas Carlyle might be a closeted libertarian or anarchist of some kind. The majority of this book on Chartism is dedicated to historical nature of the working man. All very interesting but not worth going into depth here. Throughout the book, Carlyle drops hints about a theory of hierarchy. This was probably the most intriguing part of the book. If the quotes on democracy and property rights got my attention, then the hierarchy kept me reading. I want to start first with a quote about freedom and nature. This quote you need to think of in the context of working class being guided by aristocracy. Carlyle’s Hierarchy is framed in this context that the aristocracy has historically guided the lower classes. He correctly points out that during feudal ages it was the aristocracy governing and leading. Then throughout the book he shows us that European especially the English government is using a lassiez faire approach to governance. Near the end of the post, I’ll explain what he means by Chartism. Without further ado, here is that quote:

“Surely of all ‘rights of man,’ this right of the ignorant man to be guided by the wiser, to be, gently or forcibly, held in the true course by him, is the indisputablest. Nature herself ordains it from the first; Society struggles towards perfection by enforcing and accomplishing it more and more. If Freedom have any meaning, it means enjoyment of this right, wherein all other rights are enjoyed. It is a sacred right and duty on both sides; and the summary of all social duties whatsoever between two.”

This quote at least to me is the outline to his hierarchy. Carlyle believes in a natural order that relies on social, political and class elements. He believes there is a range that goes from order to disorder. You might ask where does he put something like democracy? Well, it seems from what I’ve read that he places it in disorder. There is basically a whole page in the book, a combination of page 36 and 37. On the bottom of page 36, he goes into a discourse about how humans have to deal with fate of death.

“He must revenge himself; revancher himself, make himself good again–that so meum may be mine, tuum thine, and each each party standing clear on his own basis, order be restored. There is something infinitely respectable in this, and we may say universally respected; it is the common stamp of manhood vindicating itself in all of us, the basis of whatever is worthy in all of us through superficial diversities, the same in all.” (Page 36, 37)

This quote about finding the quality of life as a human is universal. No matter what color, race, ethnicity, political view; everyone can related to be a human being. The struggle of life to find something worth living for. Carlyle deems this to be order in a way. The next paragraph on page 37, continues with disorder:

“As disorder, insane by the nature of it, is the hatefullest of things to man, who lives by sanity and order, so injustice is the worst evil, some call it the only evil, in this world.” (page 37, Carlyle’s emphasis)

The rest of his hierarchy which I believe he writes more on in the other books. I think an important aspect of it is the expectations between classes as I mentioned before. On page 58, Carlyle makes an interesting observation. Instead of quoting it because its a lot, I’m going to paraphrase. Carlyle says that basically the old aristocracy were guides to the lower classes. The governed with their ‘happiness’ because “in struggling for their own objects, they had to govern the Lower Classes, even in this sense of governing”. In other words, the Lower Classes looked up to the aristocracy as the guide for living. I think this isn’t too far, its like today where people often look up to celebrities and rich people. (Although I think today there is more hatred of the rich and more envy of celebrities due to the crazy 24/7 news cycle.) The strangest observation which I still don’t know how to process exactly is Carlyle’s observation on “Cash Payment”.

Once again paraphrasing, Carlyle says that without “Cash Payment” the aristocracy expected something else (he doesn’t say what) from the lower classes. He calls “Cash Payment” the sole nexus of man to man. My best guess is that if you took away the exchange of money from the classes then you would be left with the leadership and inspiration that aristocracy gives to the lower classes. In return the lower classes will perform the grunt work that is so necessary for the existence of the aristocracy.

I think you can see why this is almost very Marx like. But mind you, on page 59, the next page, is where Carlyle writes about how property rights are the definition of the rights of man! Carlyle is really making a ton of sense here. Allow me to organize in a coherent fashion, the Carlyle Philosophy that we’ve seen thus far:

The hierarchy of society is a natural order which enforces property rights. Democracy cancels itself out because the progress leads zero net gains. The relationship of the aristocracy and the lower classes is such that the lower class looks to the aristocracy with inspiration and leadership. The reality of the relationship is that “Cash Payment” defines what would otherwise be just a admiration from the lower classes. We’re just missing one last thing, what is chartism?

Carlyle doesn’t offer a succinct definition of Chartism but its clear if you read the whole that Chartism is an attitude by the ruling class. The reason why he focuses so much on the Poor Law Bill and the history of the working man is because he is trying to show that the English government has no idea if the Poor Law bill will be actually effective. This is despite the fact that the English government is using statistics as proof that will. I was thinking that in sports, you can use statistical analysis to put together the best team. Especially in baseball, the analytic side can be really effective. The difference between using statistics in sports and in politics is that politics has more variables. Economic statistics, social statistics are either not well kept, inaccurate or both. There is no way to meet all the diverse needs of every single person. Statistics matter but in reality you will never get the most accurate social and economics statistics, because its always changing.

Now combine this with his observations on the relationship and expectations of classes which something this Poor Law Bill brings up specifically. Carlyle basically presents evidence that laissez faire governance isn’t working because of those same gaps in statistics I was just talking about. Now he doesn’t go so far to say a solution or as far Mises or Rothbard or whoever your favorite libertarian/ anarchist philosopher would go. But I think he’s identify something that is prevalent especially in today’s government. On page 89, he gives the most succinct summary of chartism:

“Food, Shelter, due guidance, in return for his labour; candidly interpreted, Chartisms and and all such isms mean that; and the madder they are, do they not the more emphatically mean, “See what guidance you have given us”

In conclusion, I will say this Carlyle presents us with some very interesting observations. It seems that he is ahead of his time. His critique of democracy is spot on. His view on property rights seems to be in line with most libertarian thought. This is just an introduction to Carlyle. I’m still reading and learning about him. Eventually, I want to apply his theory to more modern day applications. I hope you enjoyed this post.

Thanks for reading!

Check the Social media:

@GforAnarchy12 Twitter

Garrett Life Experience’s Blog Facebook

@gpslife12 Minds, Gab, others.

Identify yourself: Labels become meaningless.

The recent drama on social media at least in my view has been over the use of political identifying labels. Many such accusations, many such occurrences of labels being fought over. This fight stems from comments by President Trump who incorrectly identified rioters as “anarchists”. The irony being that none of the rioters were anarchists rather just opportunists, seeking some free shit. I’ll get into the rioters and protests later. This post will be a mixture of recent events and also some philosophy regarding the self proclaimed and given labels that people tend to take when positioning themselves within a political sphere.

I’ll be honest, I use to take part in this labeling system. You can scroll back in this very blog and find posts about becoming a “libertarian”. You can also see that my view of “libertarianism” was much different a few years to right now. Like many others, I started out believing the “libertarian” movement was a middle ground. As I learned more, I started to realize it was actually above and completely separated from actual politics. Its unfortunate that “Libertarian” Party still maintains the centered position of an in-between or third party option. Right now, I don’t actively support or discourage support of the “Libertarian” party. However, I do believe their platform and their way of promoting it is off-based. Its almost misleading because the LP acts like they would maintain government just smaller. (here’s the issue, government never gets smaller or reduces power) Anyway, my point is I can understand the approach because I once supported that.

Lets get it back to those current/recent events, when Trump called out “anarchists”, he really meant those creating unrest and agitating an already tense atmosphere. I know that rioters aren’t real anarchists because a real anarchist wouldn’t attack private businesses, they would head to the Federal Reserve or Congress. Thats where the real enemies live. I think its fairly common knowledge that the groups who protest and riot like Antifa and Black Lives Matter are deep state funded psyops. George Soros has been linked to both groups on various occasions. (Just do some research) These groups are not in any matter of speaking “anti-state”. In fact, they don’t want to get rid of the state, just make it more tyrannical and worse than it is already.

I’ve written before that Black Lives Matter in particular, bases their whole agenda off of flawed numbers. If you look at actual numbers of people shot by police, it would show the number they point to as unacceptable is a lower percentage than other races. Meaning more white people are shot by police than black people. Granted, it doesn’t negate the need to get rid of police or prove racism isn’t real. If you want to read about fixing the police, I wrote something on that here. As for the racism point, unfortunately no amount of laws and training will fix that. Its up to you and only YOU to fix that. If you as an individual decides to treat everybody equally regardless of their skin color then that will eliminate racism more effectively than any government could do.

So what does any of this have to do with labels? Well, like I was saying in the third paragraph, that those rioters that Trump called “anarchists” aren’t really so. It was this comment that made me and a bunch of other people go “wait a second, I don’t want to be associated with them, I don’t condone violence”. The same line of thinking could be applied to the LP and their behavior, sort of toting the line between “we’ll actually reduce government” and “we’re just republicans lite”. All of this plus some controversy on the legitimacy of agorism as a means for political change. If you don’t know agorism is merely the voluntary exchange of goods and services without government intervention or oversight. Many liberty minded people identify as agorist. (which presents little problem to me, personally)

Now whether or not agorism will bring about the political change necessary to actually change society is a question too far out of this scope. However, a lot of the arguments that surround labels also involve the actions taken. Its not just the words, but its what you do under those words. Language can multiple different meanings in various contexts. The complexity of language is the fact that all the features and different meaning of any given word can be attributed to culture, time, place, people, events..etc. For example, the word “anarchist” was first attributed to the leftist philosophies. During the french revolution just after the American one, many of the agitators were anarchists who were actually seeking overthrow the regime. Anarchist didn’t become associated with voluntarism and personal freedom until later on in the 19th century.

The thing about labels is that you can’t stop anyone from taking one and nobody can stop you. The question remains how do you stop a label from being co-opted into a philosophy that is diametrically opposed? I truly believe there is no way to stop it. Therefore, it comes back to actions. In respect to actions, I think there is importance in how you treat others who do use a label you find disgusting or associated with a bad philosophy. (political/economic philosophy) For me, personally I give each person a chance to prove their worth. If you can offer sound ideas and evidence then its cool if you want to be a “constitutional libertarian”. The problems occur with “Socialist Libertarian” because unless you know nothing of philosophy, those two philosophies are the opposite of each other. Its an oxymoron. It seems that the most consternation is between “anarchists” , “libertarians”, “agorist” and “hoppeans”. Libertarianism is known for its infighting which what I suspect most of this label madness comes from. Rather than trying to figure who’s right or wrong, I’m going dedicated the rest of the post to things you can do sans label and forward the process of removing the state.

There’s the stuff I always advocate for like not voting, agorism ( I mean actually voluntary exchanging goods and services, not just the label), educating others on good economic policy. There is another popular and controversial take: Cryptocurrency. Its not a subject I’ve dedicated much time to writing about. But a conversation on twitter got me thinking about a future post on budgeting and investing. I think that Cryptocurrency especially big name ones like Bitcoin is an fascinating and interesting way to fight the state. As everyone should know the government’s control of money translates into control over many aspects of your life. (This is why real anarchists burn the federal reserve)

Bitcoin is basically the anti-fiat currency. It has a fixed source amount which means only so much Bitcoin is available at any certain time. The limit quantity means that Bitcoin maintains its scarcity. This compares with the Federal Reserve’s ability to print as much money as it wants. Bitcoin is also easy to use because its fully digital. Bitcoin isn’t by any stretch of the imagination, a perfect medium. (I know a few people who will disagree but listen, I’m not hating) Some of my personal criticisms of Bitcoin are that it lacks that wide acceptance that fiat has by default. I believe this can easily change when society realizes fiat is terrible. I know that some people dislike the lack of physical and tangible bitcoins. I can understand why and don’t see why with wider acceptance, a physical bitcoin could be put into use. I think the another problem with Bitcoin is that it gets a bad rap because of its wild shifts in value and volatility. But this is as much due to fiat currency being manipulated against us as does the soundness of Bitcoin.

I think that in a real world system with Bitcoin, other currencies would have to exist as competition. You might be wondering well how the heck would competing currency improve Bitcoin? Well first off, imagine if you had a few different currency to choose from. Each one has a different value or buying power. Some might be digital only, fiat only or both. Which one would you choose? Probably the one with the best buying power. But you might choose differently depending on your use intention. Competition also means exchange rates. Even in today’s world, investors and governments often use exchange rates to get the best value on their money. I have a good example of why exchange rates are so important. I read a book once called “The Euro: How a Common Currency Threatens the Future of Europe” by Joseph Stiglitz. In this book, Stiglitz describes the failure of the Euro which was meant to unite the European Union. One of problems with the Euro was that it eliminated exchange rates between the different member countries of the EU. The problem become apparent when the recession hit in 2008. Countries that were in trouble such as Greece couldn’t leverage exchange rates in loans from better off countries like Germany.

So my point is that cryptocurrency seems like a legitimate option. I think even with the obvious flaws, as the Bitcoin extraordinaire Rollo says “Bitcoin fixes this”. As for labels, I have personally decided to remove all such labeling from myself. However, if asked I will say that I believe in “Libertarian philosophy”. I think the co-opting of words lacks any defense and therefore its a waste to time to even try. I rather put out what I believe and allow others to label me however they see fit. You can do the same or take a label. But you should be aware that its meaningless to most everyone except you. Its painfully clear on twitter and other social media that many people adopt labels of which they know nothing about.

Thanks for reading! Stay tuned, I hope next week to write that budgeting/investing post that I reference earlier. Keep your principles and morals in tact.

Social Media

@GforAnarchy12

Facebook: Garrett Life Experience’s Blog

Woke Professional Sports: Ruining Professional Sports Enjoyment

I’ve been a professional sports fan since before I even cared about politics. I have always thoroughly enjoy watching games on TV and going to them in real life. I’ve been numerous professional sport events ranging from Major League Baseball to the National Football League, in addition to both the National Basketball Association and National Hockey League. I never remember much politics being involved within the sports environment. The high political action was usually done at the beginning of the game with the national anthem. But nowadays, almost every league is quite literally cancelling games in the name of political action. I’ve written about Colin Kaepernick before when he first took the knee. I wrote about it again when Kaepernick settle his lawsuit with the NFL over allegations of purpose blocking him from getting a QB gig. (If we’re honest, his QB skills weren’t up to par when he last played.) It seems that Kaepernick’s attitude has spread throughout the leagues.

In my personal opinion, politics and sports do not mix. I think they each serve different purposes. Politics serves to fill the greed and self interest of politicians who don’t give an actual fuck about you. Meanwhile sports is supposed to be wholesome competition and entertainment. Whether or not you enjoy sports, I think everyone can agree that sometimes activities are best without weird and unnecessary interruptions like political movements. Imagine if you’re favorite activity got cancelled for a political movement. You would probably feel the same way. You might be thinking “ok dude, but aren’t athletes allowed to have opinions and thoughts off the field, plus what if I agree with them?”

Yes, athletes can believe whatever they want, they can hold opinions and thoughts without any of my criticism. However, keep those political opinions off the field or court of play. Let me be clear: I don’t care if any particular athlete is communist, democrat, republican, BLM… it doesn’t matter. Just don’t push your philosophy on me in the sport you play. I don’t watch sports to get politically assaulted by politics that I do not partake in nor want to hear propaganda for. Play ball and keep your politics off the field. Sports is purely entertainment so if you aren’t gonna play sports then go retire to do politics. I really DON’T care.

So I haven’t addressed what exactly I’m referring to when I say “woke sports”. Recently the NFL, NBA and MLB all have adopted the policy of allowing players to take a knee and wear political messages on jerseys. In the case of the NBA, there have been games cancelled. The next logical question about all this is why is it such a problem now? I think woke sports has come about for two main reasons and one lesser reason. The first reason is money. Professional sports is a trillion dollar industry. Nearly every league makes billions of dollars. The owners of the teams are extremely wealthy. Professional sport garners huge TV contracts and billions in advertising revenue. Having all this money involved means it comes from somewhere. In this case of the NBA, the money comes from China which is a huge market share. Its the reason why you see Lebron James bending over for Chinese political interests. The second reason is influence. Nowadays, professional athletes have more influence than they ever have. They have social media platforms with millions of followers. They are on TV which can be streamed anywhere and anytime. There is a third lesser reason which is the background of these athletes. Many of them grew up poor and struggling to just survive. This garners a lot of empathy from public. The last ingredient that brings all the money, influence and empathy together is the political climate today.

We know that politics has changed recently into being much more toxic. I believe this is due to people adopting politics into their personality. It also has a lot to do with the technology that brings us news and happenings instantly around the clock. I’m on twitter and every time something crazy like riots happen, I literally can’t look away. Every event is being politicize and instantly streamed or uploaded to social media. Its a real shame that access to events and information is used the complete wrong way. Instead of accessing useful information to help make informed opinions, people would rather just react and give uninformed opinions. I think that sports was insulated from the politicizing of events until Kaepernick starting taking that knee. He was the Trojan horse. Every league had (yes had, in the past tense) rules against political messaging and political protests on the field. Now every league is bending to mob mentality over fear of being cancelled or losing fans who pay the money.

To conclude this post, I think the only and very unfortunate way to help sports league get the message that some or possibly a lot of people don’t like their politics in sports, is by not watching or buying jerseys. This will be really hard for most of us, including myself. But I think if fans are unhappy. we should vote with our wallets and viewership. If the political messaging bullshit stops, I would gladly tune back in. Sports is for entertainment. Politics is toxic and stressful. In all honestly, the ruining of sports by woke makes me blame the government even more. There no reason why we need a president for people to protest. Self ownership and voluntarism could easily replace the current system if people actually realized its never going to change.

Thanks for reading!

Check the social media

Twitter- @GforAnarchy12

Facebook- Garrett’s Life Experiences Blog

What We Can Learn from the Murder of George Floyd

By now, you have probably heard the news out of Minneapolis, Minnesota where the local police took a knee on an innocent black man’s neck. He ended up suffocating to death. This tragic murder by police, has once again incited more tension and racial divide. It is not the first either, there have been thousands like George who were murdered in cold blood for no reason at all. Rather than type some angry tirade about how the police are murderers and the riots that have followed, I will instead outline somethings we can learn from this situation. There is a certain way to act in times like these, and the way you respond to anger triggering events tells me a lot about who you are as a person.

All Cops Are Bad 

I think this lesson still hasn’t sunk in. The nature of the job of being a police officer makes it impossible to be a good cop. You have to realize that police are not “protecting and serving” your community. The police don’t work FOR  you or your community. They work for the State. They are employed and paid by the state to enforce laws. In a Supreme Court case Warren vs. District of Columbia, the court ruled that “the duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists”. This means that police have no duty to protect individuals. But more importantly, this case brings up another point about the morality of laws.

If the police aren’t legally bound to protect you then that means they are bound to enforce laws. Obviously, the law doesn’t hold them equally accountable, because the officers who murdered George Floyd haven’t been indicted for murder yet. However, let us look at the bigger picture here. There is a distinct difference between morals and laws. How does one weigh which is worse: Rape or Murder? Stealing and Rape? Murder and Stealing? Of course, the law puts a value to each crime, typically the “worse” crime gets more years in prison and heavier fines. But when you examine crimes in a moral lens without considering what the law says, I think you find that all crimes equally bad especially when they hurt or kill others. Its an important qualifier because state also has punishments for victimless crimes like speeding tickets.

Eliminate Need for State funded Police

I believe that the solution for innocent people getting murdered by police is a combination of the elimination of state funded police departments and community action to help people who are in trouble. For example, rather than arresting drug addicts, we should be helping rehab these individuals. There is evidence for this working as a solution. Portugal tried a program where it instead of jailing drug addicts, it had them rehab by slowing weening them off the drugs. Here in America, we have rehab centers but often they are cost prohibitive. This is where charity could play bigger role. If you care about people then you will donate your money to help them. We don’t need government to do anything.

As for the elimination of state funded police departments, this will only work if we put into place community/neighborhood watch programs. Every community and every neighborhood should voluntarily fund their own security force. If the security force does something that the community doesn’t like, they can just stop funding it. The funding would be tied to performance. Also rather than being bullies for the state, the private security officers would be members of the community or neighborhood they patrol. So they would have a vested interest in actually keeping people safe.

Also just remember that there are no perfect or blanket solutions.

Conclusion: Looting Isn’t Justified

One last thing, I want to clarify that seems to be controversial is about looting. As a normal course of action, the people of Minneapolis started looting in anger against the police. But my problem with looting of the private businesses is:

1. They didn’t murder George Floyd
2. Morally; stealing and murder are the same in that they hurt somebody else
3. Although most of the businesses that were looted are big corporations, they will recover. However, two wrong don’t make a right.
4. Violence against the police is fine, Violence against innocent people or businesses makes you just as bad as the police. Also it turns people off  and away from the actual serious problem of the police murdering George Floyd.

I think the Martin Luther King JR. said it best about the use of nonviolent methods to achieve your goals:

“Violence as a way of achieving racial justice is both impractical and immoral. I am not unmindful of the fact that violence often brings about momentary results. Nations have frequently won their independence in battle. But in spite of temporary victories, violence never brings permanent peace.”

Thanks for reading

Check the Social Media

 

Introduction: Theological Argument Against “Human” Government

You might be wondering how the heck I decided upon this particular topic for my next series. Well, a simple explanation is that I just finished an 12 part series marathon on Nihilism. (Click Here to start reading that) This topic is nihilism adjacent or I guess more accurately opposing nihilism. Current events have personally forced me to look to a higher power for answers. I am religious so I often seek guidance from above. But more than that, my series on nihilism got me thinking about how the actions of Jesus were not in support of government but rather despite it. Also the rejection of God is completely ludicrous because without a higher power, how does one justify that which can’t be justified in earthly terms? This new series will focus on the theological view of government.

As always I have a source that I will be relying on, its a book by David Lipscomb. Its called “Civil Government: Its Origin, Mission and Destiny, and the Christian’s Relation to It”. I would recommend reading it especially if you are a christian. In this series, I won’t go into full depth on every single bible verse that Lipscomb cites in his book. Rather, I will use his arguments in the support of Anarchy. Before I go in too deep into the topic, I need to define for you some terms that I will be using. Also let me be clear that Lipscomb isn’t arguing for Anarchy specifically, but he is arguing that as a Christian, there is precedence that you should not support, aid or associate with “civil” government.

Vocabulary Lesson

Like I said, we need to define terms in order to attain a better understanding of what I’ll be discussing. It will be easier if I just put these in a list with definitions. This way you can always come back and refer to them:

Civil Government: Government built by and run by Humans

Divine Government: The belief of God and living through him.

Anarchy: Without Rulers (A form of Self-Governing)

Self Ownership: The ability of individuals to rule themselves without Government

Theology: Study of Religion

Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

I think these terms will suffice for now. As this series is meant to be educational, so I will try to define terms if I find it necessary for a deeper understanding. Unfortunately, academia is flooded with government lackeys who are expert sophists. In other words, they use false arguments to deceive their opponents or would be opponents.

Why Theological Argument?

While classic liberty philosophers give us a lot of great economic reasons to be against Government, it stands to reason that those philosophers often fall short because they don’t appeal to the average person. Unless you have a sophisticated understanding of economics then you probably don’t care much. In addition, many people reject anarchy and libertarianism on the basis that its just a “sheep in wolf’s clothing” either for Republican or Democratic fronts. You also can’t forget the state apologists who will defend the state no matter how illogical or irrational the position they take may require. I think the theological argument can work to fight off every counter-argument because it doesn’t come from a human point of view. It comes from above. God merely uses humans to illustrate his point. As we shall see, the civil government is used to punish those rebellious sinners who support and aid civil governments.

If you read my piece on the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God in the Nihilism series, then you can see why the theological argument is less prone to counter-arguments. First off, any counter argument will have to admit the existence of God. You cannot possibly argue with logic and language that was given to you by God against God. Your argument would be circular and self defeating. If God doesn’t exist then how can you claim that your logic is true?  Second off, there is no pragmatism in the divine government. Pragmatism is an approach that assesses the truth of meaning of theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application. The divine government doesn’t exist on earth, but rather it exists in the hearts and minds of its believers. So one cannot possibly judge the success of the divine government. This is also shows the flaws that are inherent built into civil government. You can judge a civil government on its actions, because they are tangible.

Anarchy and Divine Government mix?

The sharper minds will discern a bit of a hypocritical relationship between Anarchy and Divine Government. Surely there is no way that any government and anarchy can get along? They have to be the antithesis of each other! Let me explain why its actually not hypocrisy.  You’ll notice that one of the terms I defined above was self ownership. The ability to rule over yourself without government. I believe that self ownership is a prerequisite to being a believer in God. I think you have to be able rule over yourself before you can even start to do the work of God. I think that even though God has already plotted and planned your life, you still have the ability to make decisions on your own power. The decisions you make will ultimately play into God’s plan for you. In this way, I think once you can “self govern” then you can participate in the divine government. A big part of believing is maintaining faith. You maintain faith by living a moral life.

Of course, this brings another question like: What is moral? Obviously there isn’t a straight forward answer. But I believe that Lipscomb helps us discover what morals means in relation to serving the divine government over civil governments. This series will show you how civil governments are corrupted and immoral. It will show us how God uses civil government as teacher, to teach sinners  a lesson about rebelling against the divine government. One of the more important points in Lipscomb argument is that of peaceful, non-violent actions against civil governments. Lipscomb uses evidence from the bible to support that Christians shouldn’t overthrow the civil government with violence but rather with the belief in God.

This directly intersects with the Anarchist application of NAP. In my piece on Objective Morality, I wrote about how NAP was misunderstood. I think that Lipscomb forms a basis for NAP that actually gives anarchists a reason to follow NAP without objections. The whole idea that Christians should overthrow government through merely the belief in God plus the fact that Christians should be uninvolved in civil government. It should also be noted, that the Church can be tainted by involvement with the civil government. 

Conclusion

I’m not sure how long or how many parts this series will take up. But I’m hopeful that I can do shorter pieces and more parts. I know that my Nihilism series had long posts with far too much reading for the average internet reader. I hope that you will be interested in reading more about this even if you are not strictly a “christian”. This series is less about convincing anyone to believe in god, and more about defining anarchy through a legitimate medium of logic. I think that liberty/libertarianism/anarchism movement lacks a cohesive foundation for our united goal of achieving a truly voluntary society where personal freedom remains untouched by government tyranny. We can all unite our foundations on the absolute truths given to us by God. Then through God we can all achieve that self ownership that we claim so often to be the ultimate sign of freedom.

Join me.

Thanks for reading!

Check the Social Medias!

 

 

 

Series: Nihilist of Destruction! What is Nihilism?

I would ask you to please read all parts of this series linked here: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6. Also please check out NIHILISM : The Root of the Revolution
of the Modern Age by Eugene (Fr. Seraphim) Rose because it is the basis of this series.

Journey to Nihilist of Destruction

Believe or not, this stage of nihilism is the least complex and easiest to explain. Of course, we’ve had to go through six different posts about nihilism to get here. If you have read all the posts, then you will have a grasp on the journey to this point. The journey begins with philosopher Frederich Nietzsche and the history of the theology behind nihilism. You should also understand that the primary basis of nihilism is the denial of truth. Truth is made up of presupposed notions like logic, language and math. These presuppositions come from God. The nihilist denies these and instead goes on a kind of arch from indifference to the truth to full out violence seeking to destroy any truth. As Rose prescribes, there are stages of nihilism which match this imaginary arch. According to Rose’s framework, I’ve created visualization of words to help you dear reader to fully grasp how nihilism progresses itself.

Liberalism: Indifference

Realism: Hostility

Vitalism: Restlessness and Rejection

Nihilist of Destruction: Violence

In each stage, the nihilist becomes more aggressive in their denial of the truth. In addition to this arch and the denial of truth its important to remember Nietzsche writings. His writings and philosophy specifically focusing on truth the creation of value are the building blocks of nihilism. This post will be shorter because like I aforementioned, this stage has less to it. With that extra room in mind, I’d like set out a path to the end of this series.

The Series Path: End in Sight

I’ve written six posts consisting of nearly 2,500 words per post coming out around 15,000 words so far. You might be asking, my goodness Garrett, what could you possibly write more about? (Short answer: A LOT!) Well, there is indeed an end to this series. The next post will be about historical events that perpetuated nihilism in real life. In the post about liberalism (Part 4) I discussed how the Great War (WW1) was indeed a nihilist cause to destroy the divine kingdoms of Europe. In this historical post, I will examine a couple events like the Bolshevik Revolution, World War 2, and even the Vietnam War. I think all these events have contributed to nihilism. My focus will be on how they furthered the nihilist cause rather than on the event itself. After writing the historical post, I will switch gears.

My comfort zone and expertise is undoubtedly history. The next part will be on theology. More specifically, on the Transcendental Argument for God or TAG. This post will be quite deep and interesting because it will almost certainly trigger atheists. This part might also lead to another part, because Rose discusses at length the theology behind nihilism. I think that understanding the theological basis is just as important as knowing the history. Nihilism is such a complex and confusing concept, it requires an deeper, multi-faceted understanding across many disciplines. So you can count on theology being minimum 2 posts.

The very last part of this series will be purely my own analysis of everything. It will include my own opinions on nihilism. In addition, I will include some conclusions that fit into our modern day system of politics. I think the most relevant and prominent example of nihilism is the surge of Marxist based ideologies spewed by politicians on the left most especially. Rose also focuses on Marxism as one of the main carriers of the nihilist revolution.  Hopefully this post will give a modern perspective, and if you haven’t seen nihilism in today’s world, you definitely will start.

Nihilist of Destruction

It sounds like a great screamo metal band. Screaming about nothing at all. (I joke, haha) All jokes aside, let start with what Nietzsche says about the ultimate end of the nihilist. This will give us a sort of starting point to work off and see how the nihilist of destruction works within the framework of the nihilist revolution. Rose writes:

Nietzsche proclaimed the basic principle of all Nihilism, and the special apology of the Nihilism of Destruction, in the phrase, “There is no truth, all is permitted”; but the extreme consequences of this axiom had already been realized before him.

Of course, we already know that God is dead and there is no truth. However, what in the world does “all is permitted” mean? In the next sentence, Rose references Max Stirner, who some of you might know, a popular anarchist philosopher. Stirner and Nietzsche were alive and writing at the same time. Its possible that Stirner had influenced Nietzsche writings as well. Again this is very speculative information. But more importantly, Stirner had similar ideas especially in regards to nihilism. Rose explains that Max Stirner

declared war upon every standard and every principle, proclaiming his ego against the world and laughing triumphantly over the “tomb of humanity”–all, as yet, in theory. Sergei Nechayev translated this theory into practice so perfectly that to this day he seems a creation of myth, if not a demon from the depths of Hell itself, leading a life of unprincipled ruthlessness and amorality, under the pretext of total expediency in the name of the Revolution

This quote shows how the Nihilist of Destruction will embrace anything but the truth. If you were to re-word this quote into a statement about what the ultimate goal and actions to get to that goal of the nihilist, it would look like this. The Nihilist of Destruction takes all values dictated by God and destroys them. He harnesses his hostility and amorality to fight against that corrupted morality so often accepted by humanity. The nihilist of destruction seeks to make a new man, based on creation of new values that reflect the earthly affirmation of existence. 

It should be noted that these “new values” are actually based in nothing at all. We have to understand that Nihilist of Destruction is a mentality. Its in the psyche of its holders because of the arch from indifference to violence it becomes deeper part of the personality. Rose gives us a good example of this mentality:

  Michael Bakunin, who fell under the spell of Nechayev for a while, only to discover that the consistent practice of Nihilism was a quite different thing from its theoretical exposition, wrote under this spell a “Revolutionary Catechism” that provided a chilling apology for Nechayevism. while proclaiming, “our task is terrible, total, inexorable, and universal destruction.” The sentiment is too typical of Bakunin to be explained away by his momentary fascination. He ended his Reaction in Germany, written before Nechayev was born, with the famous appeal, “Let us put our trust in the eternal spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unsearchable and eternally creative source of all life. The passion for destruction is also a creative passion!” Here Vitalism mingles with the will to destroy: but it is destruction that triumphs in the end. (emphasis my own)

Pay close attention to those bold parts. You might recognize some of the language from previous posts. The part after ‘our task’ describing the kind of destruction that the nihilist wants to do. The nihilist of destruction sees no light at the end of tunnel. As Nietzsche says “God is Dead”.  The second highlighted part is the perfect description for nihilism. The ‘eternal spirit’ isn’t referring to anything godly but more Satanic. Its a sophist term. You can see how the nihilist will characterize their passion for destruction and how its a “creative passion”. This takes us back to Nietzsche and his writing how about the creation of value. Value is relative to desires. So in this case, the nihilist of destruction desires destruction therefore finds value in it. At the very end of the highlighted sentence: ‘Here Vitalism mingles with the will to destroy; but it is destruction that triumphs in the end’. Notice that Vitalism or Restlessness and Rejection mingles with violence. This means that once a nihilist hits this stage, their search ends with violence because they destroy anything that truth might be in.

Rose also gives some historical perspective here, he mentions the Great War, likes of Hitler and the Bolshevik revolution in the paragraph before. These events are a part of the revolution. The revolution is meant to destroy. However, its not common for all nihilists to be such prolific destroyers:

Only a few have been capable of such pure Nihilism, and it could easily be argued that they do not belong to the main stream of modern history, but to a side current; and less extreme Nihilists condemn them. Their example has been, nonetheless, a most instructive one, and it would be a mistake to dismiss this example as mere exaggeration or parody. We shall see that destruction is an indispensable item in the program of Nihilism, and further that it is the most unequivocal expression of the worship of Nothingness that lies at the center of the Nihilist “theology.” The Nihilism of Destruction is not an exaggeration, it is rather a fulfillment of the deepest aim of all Nihilism. In it Nihilism has assumed its most terrible, but its truest form; in it the face of Nothingness discards its masks and stands revealed in all its nakedness.

This is sums up in certain words what nihilism means in the end. The nihilist of destruction ultimately ends up in the abyss. They end in the abyss because they destroy truth, they destroy humanity as we know it. The restless search for affirmation of earth existence turns into violence of destruction ending with nothing of value except the desire to destroy. This pretty much wraps up all the stages. I will come back to some of this particular quote in another post. So stay tuned.

The End.

I think its pretty clear that nihilist of destruction is exactly as its name advertises. The arch of the nihilist ends here. The violence that occurs because of destruction is what see in historical events like the Great War, Bolshevik Revolution and World War 2. This is why history will be my next post as I explained earlier. I definitely want to cover the Worship of nothingness because its an important aspect based in a sort of parody theology.

Thanks for reading!

Check the social medias!

 

 

Thomas Jefferson: A Real Libertarian?

I recently was doing some thinking about Thomas Jefferson. I can’t pinpoint a specific thing that triggered my thought. However, a few months ago I read a biography on Jefferson. He is such an interesting historical figure. I would recommend reading about him because his personality, his actions and writings are all worth examination. Jefferson was a complicated figure because on the one hand, he advocated against the strong federal government wanted by Alexander Hamilton. On the other hand, he owned hundreds of slaves. Jefferson was an intellectual and his ideas didn’t necessarily fit neatly into one side of politics. Typically no one harbors ill-feelings towards him at least in our modern times.

In this post, I don’t want to give you a biography but rather I want to ask a question. The question is: Was Thomas Jefferson a libertarian? It is a yes or no question, however I will present some arguments for why yes and why not. With all the knowledge I have about him and history, I would say that ultimately (Spoiler) he is not libertarian but rather his philosophy has elements that in hindsight would make him libertarian. Let us start with why he isn’t a libertarian.

Not A REAL Libertarian

When it comes to Jefferson, one of his most known facts is that he owned a lot of slaves. He owned over 600 slaves in his lifetime. I believe it is a given that owning another human being is not conducive to being a liberty-minded individual. Although, to Jefferson’s credit, he did treat his slaves very well. In comparison to poor white farmers at the time, his slaves would have been better off despite the lack of freedom. But even this cannot excuse his slave owning. A good analogy is the logic used by Socialists: I’m willing to raise taxes and pay more to help others. The reality is that when taxes are raised, it steals money from those who need it too. Much of time that tax money is wasted on inefficient programs. In the end, rather than raising taxes its better to give to charity. So for Jefferson, it would have been better to release his slaves. This never did happen. Jefferson understood human right were innate but couldn’t get past the thought of the day that held blacks to be inferior.

The second reason why I feel Jefferson wasn’t a libertarian is the Louisiana Purchase. Obviously buying land as a private citizen is fine. But you have to remember that Jefferson was only the third president. The constitution didn’t spell out explicitly what power the president had or didn’t have. From a constitutional point of view, Jefferson didn’t break any laws. However, Jefferson significantly expanded the president’s power. He showed that any savvy politician could negotiate the checks and balances to attain nearly any power. I personally feel that Jefferson as a libertarian wouldn’t have unilaterally tried to negotiate the land purchase Although, he did have the senate approve the treaty. The goal of libertarianism is to keep the power of the government as little as possible. Unfortunately, this precedent he set made it easier for his predecessors to exploit the lack of constitutional guidance.

Jefferson’s Libertarian Ideals

Now in contrast to his very unlike libertarian actions, we will look at what makes Jefferson considerably more libertarian than almost any other founding father. The most obvious place to start is with the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson was the writer of and came up with the famous line “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. Of course, Jefferson wasn’t the first philosopher to come up with this. Earlier in the 18th century, John Locke came up with the idea that life, liberty and property were natural rights. Jefferson’s idea that all men were created equal is probably his most libertarian view. In this light you can see why his slave owning is such a big deal.

Jefferson gets a lot of credit for his anti-federalist campaign among many libertarians. I believe this is where Jefferson gets most of libertarian credit from. He was advocating against Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist system. Jefferson wanted a constitution more similar to the Articles of Confederation. He wanted the power to concentrate with the states and more importantly with the individual rather than with a strong central government. Although, he never explicitly says anything about individual rights. We also have to remember that his anti-federalist campaign came in the years after the writing of the declaration of independence. So its probably fair to say that Jefferson did believe in individual rights because unalienable rights roughly means the same thing.

Final Answer

I have presented two reasons why Jefferson was not a libertarian and two reasons why Jefferson was a libertarian. I think that both sides hold weight when trying to answer the question. The reality is that you can’t in good conscious pick a definitive yes or no. I think that answer lies along the lines of Yes, philosophically Jefferson believed in individual rights and freedom but his actions give us evidence that he was not actually libertarian. Those actions being owning slaves and expanding the power of the president through the Louisiana Purchase.

With all that being said, who cares what I think because we need a definitive answer. So I unironically turn to the opinion of strangers because nothing screams validity like a poll on my echo chamber social media account.

I did a poll starting yesterday asking if people consider Thomas Jefferson a libertarian? I got a pretty good turnout of 149 votes.  Approximately 49.7 percent or nearly half of the voters consider Jefferson to be Libertarian.  Approximately 38.9 percent appear to be correct according to my evidence.

Sadly about 11.4 percent or about 17 people don’t know who Thomas Jefferson is. I hope you aren’t American if you chose that. And if you are, then shame on you. Disgraceful behavior. (kidding)

Thanks for reading!

Check out the Social Media!

 

 

Bordertarians: Wall Worshipers

Cue the #BuildtheWall chants and Pepe memes because we’re going to be discussing walls at length. In all seriousness though, this post is centered around borders as they are enforced by the State. Of course, a wall is now the preferred method of protecting such a border. Now this particular article is not aimed at those conservatives (Statists) who support having such a wall. This article is aimed directly at those “libertarians’ who justify a state enforced border because they don’t understand it or don’t believe that society can exist without it. Also these people label themselves as “Libertarians” because they don’t believe in the government doing anything else except that border. Hence the name “Bordertarians”, which I will refer to them as.

Pro and Cons of Borders 

Obviously, I am going acknowledge that borders have at least one pro but it has nothing to do with the State. They make a good organizational structure in which to view world. Borders do have their place within the context of individual’s property rights which I will get to later. The cons of borders are many, you can see it right here in America. People will cross them illegally. The border is expensive to maintain, with border patrol agents, surveillance, and potentially walls.  The border can also create a lot of unnecessary violence especially when trying to enforce it.  Yes, some of these cons do exist even without the State being involved, its just the nature of a border.

Cognitive Dissonance: Give meLiberty or Give me Walls.

My biggest problem with bordertarians is that they won’t admit to being closeted Republicans at worst, at best they are minarchists. Hear me out: It doesn’t matter what your other beliefs are, but if you justify anything with state backed laws or power then you aren’t really a libertarian. The same goes for borders. I’m not saying you have be totally against borders. You have to be against STATE enforced borders. This is what many bordertarians fail to grasp is that anything the STATE enforces is a form of statistism. That being said there is a way to be for borders without the state which I’ll get to in a second. The other issue often brought up with borders and walls is that of the welfare state. Some bordertarians advocate that cutting the welfare state would fix the border problems. Obviously, not handing out free money is a good start. However, typically people will flock to a prosperous economic country with jobs. As you can imagine, a country without a welfare state probably has a decent economy or at least it should in theory because otherwise everyone is dying. My point is that the state should always be eliminated in every aspect and facet of society.

Private Property: Real Borders 

Now let me discuss an acceptable form of borders which all true libertarians should support. Bordertarians justify the state to enforce imaginary borders that have no real backing behind them. The real case for borders is via private property. Individuals have the right to own property which is including but not limited to themselves, land, other possessions. This means that individuals have “borders” and in this case  it means natural rights. The individual’s property is their natural rights. Other individuals should not and cannot violate the “borders” or natural rights of other individuals. These are the only borders that libertarians support.

Conclusion: Just the Tip: NOT EVEN ONCE

The point of this post is to say that support of anything state enforce is not true libertarianism because the whole point is to reduce government to nothing. We can’t keep giving the government MORE responsibility it can’t handle. Let’s face it, the government does a poor job of handling the border. There are 11 million illegal immigrants in the country and counting. The problem is that government would rather illegals come here than actually help the one’s that do the process legally. Its very frustrating to see because of many of the legal immigrants are harder working than Americans. We don’t need state enforced borders, we need private property rights and the right to defend it. That will work better than any state run border.

Thank you for reading!

My Social Media

Twitter @gpslife12

Facebook: Garrett’s Life Experience’s Blog

Last Post here

Libertarianism IS NOT Centrism.

***This post is dedicated to D.M Mortem, please scroll down to the bottom***

I’ve recently come across a growing number people who will claim to be centrists and in that same sentence will say “I’m basically libertarian”. This statement fills me up with a passionate rage. Before I explain why I rage over this seemingly harmless statement, let me give you a little history about my own political bearings.

When I turned 18 years old, I was bleeding heart red conservative, born into a rural small town in upstate New York. My town has almost no diversity, 96 percent white. I voted for John McCain in the 2008 election. I don’t regret my upbringing but my politics were at best ignorant, and at worst just blindly following my parents. I went off to college and discovered diversity which started to open to my mind. About midway through college, I was introduced to libertarianism. I had friends who were libertarian so I decided after hearing what it was that I would join in. At first, my libertarian views were essentially centrist. I didn’t reject the state, I believe that I was fiscally conservative (somewhat ironically) and I was socially liberal. In fact, if you go back to the beginning of this blog there is a post that espouses these views. Now a days, I’m full anarchist with a total rejection of the state.

If you are curious here is the post: Become a Libertarian, Today.

If you have not figured out what my point is yet then let me lay it out simply for you: centrism is not libertarianism, in fact the two ideologies are complete different. The difference is quite simple too, centrism does not reject state. Libertarianism does reject the state. You can’t possibly argue that two ideologies based on different foundations are the same thing. However, this is exactly what centrist do. Sometimes they will refer to themselves as “radical centrists” as if radical means anything in political terms. Usually just refers to how crazy you are.  The best way to see the difference is for me to centrism and then I’ll explain why people think this way.

Radical Centrism: The Borrowing Fence Sitter

The best way to describe centrism is the borrowing of left and right ideologies to create a new “radical” center ideology.  Centrism still requires governments to enforce government to enforce it. For example, typically at least when I was in this political ideology it takes a conservative stance on economics meaning free market and other conservative economic policies. (I won’t go into detail its a whole other post) On social issues like abortion, marriage and others you would take a liberal stance. Again there is nothing that is anti-government about centrism or radical centrism. If you want to read in more detail then here is a start point. Despite my rage for radical centrists conflating libertarianism with a statist ideology, I do understand where the misunderstanding comes from.

Libertarian Party: Ruining actual libertariaism.

I’m not saying that LP is fully responsible for this trend, however I do believe that they market the Libertarian values completely wrong. I remember when I followed them on facebook, they would often post these graphics. There was few of them and they would depict liberal, conservative and libertarian views of each platform issue. However, the two mistakes were that libertarian was in the middle, and that libertarians agreed with some of each the views of liberals and conservatives. This is a falsehood, we don’t agree with state intervention in any issue. I found two examples you can see what I mean below:

The picture above is definitely just as bad or worse than this one below. Libertarianism is not in the center of left or right…..

This sort of marketing really pisses me off because now people believe you can embrace the state while being libertarian which is objectively the opposite goal of libertarians. Now you can argue that Minarchists embrace a small government but if you’re realistic you know government will always grow itself.

Conclusion: Stop Conflating Radical Centrism and Libertarianism 

I want to say again: Centrist is not anti-state, Libertarianism is anti-state. This is the main difference between the two ideologies. If you see anyone try to say otherwise just point this out. The biggest problem with conflating the two is that you are watering down what libertarianism means. Libertarians, anarchist, anarcho-capitalists are all trying to get rid of government because it can’t be trusted, its not effective or efficient. We all believe in the ends of a voluntary society. It wouldn’t make sense for a centrist to say “taxation is theft” because they still support government. My goal here in this post is try to keep the ideologies straight and separated especially when they are totally different. On this particular subject, I can understand why centrists identify as libertarian, especially with LP graphics basically marketing to that specific population of centered ideologies. We have to keep fighting to keep Libertarianism about overthrowing the oppressive yoke of government.

Happy July 4th everyone! Just remember true freedom is drawn from inalienable rights not from pieces of paper or government.

Thanks for reading!

My Social Media

Twitter: @gpslife12

Facebook: Garrett’s Life Experience’s Blog

One of my good friends on Twitter D.M Mortem is going through a rough patch. He is about to be homeless and needs some help to get back on track. If you could either donate or share his gofundme page that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! 

Help D.M Now 

The Collectivist Mindset: Government is My Babysitter

One of my biggest pet peeves is people who think that the government knows what’s best for them. I swear that these people are mentally ill. In what demented, delusional world do you live in? Alright, so I won’t just be roasting fools for the whole post although these types make it real easy. I’ve realized over time and looking back at the 2016 election that there is a growing number of people who actually embrace full government control. This is insane to me. It makes no sense. But then I think about it logically and I start to wonder if its really as surprising as I think.

Government Mistrust 

I wasn’t alive when John F. Kennedy was sworn into office, in fact I wouldn’t be born for another 29 years. It was around this time in history that Americans actually started to mistrust government. Of course, just a few years earlier Dwight D. Eisenhower gave his military industrial complex speech. The mistrust in government continued to grow especially after JFK was shot, and London B. Johnson came into office, only to escalate the Vietnam war against popular opinion, The sad part is that an unjust war is what it took to unearth mistrust. Now a days, we laugh because unjust wars are just the normal.

Fast forward 40 years; Socialism is acceptable

How did Americans go from Red Scare with Joe McCarthy to pushing socialist and idiot savant Bernie Sanders to runner up in a national election? Honestly I can’t answer that question fully but here is what I think the answer is: Entitlement. I think that Americans have become addicted to welfare. If you don’t believe just go look how much money we spend it on. Obviously its still far behind what we spend on war but that is an whole other post. Welfare in America costs about 700 billion dollars a year according to most current data from 2015 or 2016, If i remember correctly. All this welfare has led to a disease called entitlement. Everyone thinks their entitled to something. Personally, I know that I don’t deserve shit. I haven’t done anything useful. I’m basically a water bag with the emotions of rage and laughter. Anyway this sense of entitlement has some dangerous side effects.

Entitlement: Not to be confused with Ambien 

Yes, in case you were  wondering Rosanne Barr took ambien and wrote a racist tweet and she got fired then blamed it on ambien. According to Doctors, racism isn’t a side effect. Unfortunately entitlement is much worse than Ambien. Entitlement causes communism, socialism, racism, sexism, ageism, pretty much every –ism possible. But you may ask me; How is this possible, what is more humane than giving people help they deserve? Wrong, most of the degenerates on welfare don’t deserve it. Its unfortunate because its suppose to help those actually in need. But its abused by those who could work or could do something for themselves. Entitlement isn’t just the receiving of benefits from government (taxpayer subsidized) handouts, its also a mindset.

Collectivists mindset: Cancerous bullshit

The mindset of entitlement is the same that plagues boomers, millennial who support socialism, and people who justify welfare as helping others. Entitlement is a mindset of theft. It is always through the means of taxation which is theft and the ends are always to help people. The problem is that helping people with other people’s money is peak virtue signaling. What could be less helpful than stealing from the productive to help the lazy? The Government is enforcer of entitlement mindset, it rewards those who support it. There is a reason why is you speak out against entitlement, a rush of government bootlickers will come to your twitter or Facebook and write nasty comments or tell you that your heartless.

Breaking the Habit

So the question remains: How we do fight entitlement? How do kill off this collectivist mindset? Well there is no one solution but the easily way to kill the source is to get rid of the government. These brainwashed bootlickers who endlessly fight for more entitlement will die off with the government. The concept of charity and goodwill is way over their simple heads. Fortunately, Libertarianism or anarchism can be helpful for fighting against this toxic ideology. We can’t let these muppets ruin society forever. We must fight back. My suggestion is that we collapse the government, give these entitled retards a taste of what they want. A massive welfare state will always collapse on itself, it has throughout history. It sounds counter-intuitive but its honestly the best solution to the problem. Show people why this mindset is so deluded and dangerous. Government’s natural end is tyranny. Therefore, we need a socialist tyrant to show these idiots that actually entitlement is a dangerous source of power for government and shouldn’t be allowed in society.

Thanks for reading! Vote Bernie 2020

Twitter @gpslife12

Facebook: Garrett’s Life Experience’s Blog

 

Libertarians United: Individual Rights

Everyone makes a joke now and again. In fact, I probably make way too many. Many of them cross them line of commonly socially acceptable topics. Joking is fine but I think there is something to be said for serious discussion. Often lost in the laughter is the actual points of my joke. I only use parody or satire because it gets the point across much quicker than frank discussion. You probably read title and thought you got rick-rolled? Don’t worry. I’m getting there. My last blog post was about the names that libertarians call themselves. Click here. I want libertarians, anarchists, ancaps to all unite. I believe that we can. I don’t mean in a collectivist way but in a united front. We are ALL natural allies. I think there is many things that we all agree on to some degree. But one of the things that we all agree on without much debate is individual rights.

Why Individual Rights?

If there is one thing the founders got right, it was individual rights. Thomas Jefferson wrote it in the declaration of independence, however, he meant white land owning men.  The constitution had it amended in the Bill of Rights which outline 10 specific individual rights. We all know that individual rights go much further than just the 10 in our constitution. Individuals are the smallest minority. Individuals make up groups. Individuals determine their own path in life. Of course, you have influences and different societal restrictions. But in the end, its the individual that decides who they want to be associated with and what they want to do. Individual rights isn’t divine. It stems from property.

Property Rights are the basis of individual freedom

The right to own property is the basis of individual rights. Why? The answer is simple its because when you own property it allows you to do whatever you want on that property. Its your own private island. Let’s face reality though, government today controls much of what we do on our private property. Its wrong. This is why when Anarcho-Communists argue for public property what they actually mean is, I want the government to own everything. If everything is owned by everybody, then taking whatever you please is not considered theft. But the reality is if you take somebody else’s things then its theft whether or not they actually own it or not. You didn’t ask permission. An-coms brings to another important point, the NAP.

Non-Aggression Principle

Whenever you try to argue with someone about a society with no government they always try to bring up some magical power void. My response is, well I see a giant power void in your brain. In a voluntary society, there won’t be government however, there will be one rule. NAP. The non-aggression principle basically means do whatever you want without violating the individual rights or freedoms of others. It means that you won’t do anything that could be a crime today. Many crimes like murder, burglary, extortion are crimes against others. Other victim-less crimes like selling drugs wouldn’t be a violation. The reason there won’t be a power void is because NAP doesn’t just say you have rights. You also have the right to enforce those rights with guns. This is why there is no power void because each individual is empowered.

OK Genius but I disagree.

Hold on, I got one point to make! Minarchists seem like a friendly ally but beware. I’ve recently learned that they actually tend to lean into statism more than I like. I can’t blame them it took me awhile to go full no government. But the more I look at the government in the US and UK fuck up everything, the more I think to myself imagine what life could be without it.  Minarchists believe in a limited government. Just the basic level services. But the problem with it is that government can’t help but grow itself. The problem is that human beings are self interested and greedy. Government is the avenue of power on the road to corruption. It masks itself in goodwill, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. We can’t possibly trust government, it’s like trusting your spend-happy spouse with an American Express Black Card. You know your wife can’t help herself in a Louis Vutton store. Government is worse, 21 trillion dollars in national debt.

My Point: Lets rally around Individual rights

If there is one thing that we (Libertarians, Anarchists, Ancaps) can argue for as united front, it is individual rights. We don’t always have to agree on everything. In fact, I’m a big proponent of debate. I thrive on argument. Granted, changing my mind is hard but if you present a persuasive fact-based argument, then I’ll agree. Anyway, if libertarians want to be taken seriously unlike the LP then we have to present some form of consistency. Our ideologies are very similar. We have to give up our stubbornness and actually try work toward a common end. The means of getting there is up for debate. But the common goal is to achieve a voluntary society.  If you don’t believe in the ends then you might not belong, which is OK. We’re supposed to tolerate everyone except Communists. Be focused on principles of libertarianism and there is no disagreement that can separate us.

Taxation is Theft. Thanks for reading.

Social Media

Twitter and Discord: @gpslife12

Facebook: Garrett’s Life Experience’s Blog

 

 

A Name to Unite “Libertarians”?

As usual twitter hijinks has lead to an debate about confusion in libertarian circles. Nothing new to see here. The confusion comes in part from the fact that many “libertarians” have different names they like to go by. For example, I prefer to be known as a Libertarian. But I know others who like: Anarcho-Capitalist, Voluntaryist, Anarchist,..etc. The whole concept of naming your political affiliation is nothing new because everyone does it. The central question of this post is to figure if finding a common name for “Libertarians” would actually unite us or do we need to look deeper at our principles to unite us rather just a name.

Different Names for the Same thing

So I don’t  know the saying exactly, sue me. My example on twitter was this: If you call a flower, a “shit plant” it doesn’t change the fact that its a flower. On the other hand, if you call a piece of shit, a “flower” it doesn’t change the fact that its a piece of shit. With that being said, Do I think a common name could help unite us?  Maybe. Here is why I think it could: One of my twitter friends, suggested the name #Anarchasm. Which I thought was a pretty good one. I think a common name would better in terms of marketing. It would help cohesiveness among all libertarians. I think the arguments against are much stronger. Re-branding is something that collectivists do. Just because you rename your movement doesn’t necessarily translate into success. Also if you look at libertarian party which I do support in elections, they are a mess. The party markets itself wrong because it tries to equate itself as the middle of Democrats and Republicans. The reality is that libertarians are outsiders. We don’t believe in any government or any political parties. I would argue that each individual is a political party of one because individual rights are the only ones that matter.

Principles are too Important to be ignored

The most important aspect of this debate is whether the name we choose to go by, actually represents our common beliefs. If libertarians are to be successful in changing society to be more like our voluntary system then we need present the same goals and arguments. On twitter, its likely you will see debates about politics. Typically when multiple Libertarians get into a debate with a statist, they will disagree with the statist. However, some of them will disagree with each other, which doesn’t help the argument they are making. We have to follow our principles of voluntary exchange and voluntary action in marketing our beliefs. If we don’t follow our principles then we are no different than the statists. Don’t get me wrong: open debate about ideas is a good thing. However, debate in private, don’t present debate to the people whom you are trying to convert voluntarily. They will be LESS likely to join if they see we can’t even agree with each other.

What principles should we all have? 

I think its obvious that all we believe in capitalism as main economic engine. I think we all believe that the government is always evil. We all known that taxation is theft. We all believe that communism and socialism don’t work. Its important to note also, that principles are not just right and wrong. Principles of libertarians are merely guidelines for living your life. Your own morality is responsible for actual judgement what is right and wrong. If we all follow the same guidelines, then individual rights will flourish, and nobody will do wrong because as the Non-Aggression Principle states that you can’t deny or break anyone else’s rights. The individual rights are clearly defined by the Bill of Rights. However, its not a comprehensive list. Individuals have unlimited rights there is nothing that government or other individuals can take away legally.

The Debate will Continue: 

This blog post serves as an opinion of a debate that needs to take place within the libertarian circle. It is my firm belief that as libertarians we need to unite based on principles in order to successful launch our society of individualism. If we don’t, and if we try to re-brand under name with still fractured goals and arguments, we will fall into the collectivist mindset.

Keep pushing for liberty, keep debating, keep your mind focused on the goal of libertarianism which is total freedom. Drive the narrative, don’t let it drive you.

#Speakout

Thanks for reading. Comments and Criticism is appreciated and welcomed.

Social Media

Twitter: @gpslife12

Facebook: Garrett’s Life Experience’s Blog