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

 

 

Advertisements

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

 

Colton Everett: Endeavor for Enlightenment.

*Loud Music Blares*

A typical college party raves on through the night on the campus of a prestigious university. The house party is a common symbol of college life, with red solo cups, ping-pong balls, and beer cans strewn about. It is 2:34 am on a Saturday night, Colton Everett is a senior. He is about to graduate with a degree in History. Colton and his friends are celebrating their last days in college. Many of his friends have jobs lined up, but some do not. As for Colton, he has applied to a Master’s and Doctoral Program. Fortunately for him, he was accepted.

Colton Everett was born to an upper middle class family. His father Harrison Everett and his mother Emily Quinn, the father is a political lobbyist, the mother is a college professor. Colton is an only child, this meant his parents were able to lavish on him the best tutors, schooling and opportunities. Colton upbringing really propelled him through school into college. Moving forward through his Masters and Doctorate, Colton studied political science. He had aspirations to be a politician. This aspiration was not helped by his father or his mother. His father, Harrison Everett a political lobbyist found politicians to be disgustingly greedy after 20 years of dealing with them. His mother Emily Quinn, taught English, but her view of politicians was just as negative. Emily Quinn was born to  a poor family. She lived in a run-down apartment, overcrowded. Emily saw her parents struggle despite the efforts of the government to help. Colton wasn’t raised to smart, he actually possessed real intelligence. He rarely studied and was mostly a straight A student.

Colton knew that after he finished his doctorate, he wasn’t going to be ready for public office quite yet. He was still young at 29 years old. He had lined up and applied for just three jobs. Colton had his father reluctantly use his contacts to get interviews with three well-known think-tanks. Colton excitedly prepared for his interviews. Colton knew he would be starting off at the lowest level but surely work his way up the ladder.

Day of Interview 1

Colton takes the morning train to near the interview location. He stops by a nearby coffee shop. It’s a typical busy Monday morning. Hordes of people walk by, cars honk, and planes drone overhead. Colton drinks his morning coffee whilst reading the morning newspaper. He looks down at his watch; 7:49 am. It was time to go. Colton folds his newspaper, throws away his empty coffee cup. It was a short walk to the interview which was to be held on the 48th floor of a skyscraper. After pushing the up button, the elevator dings, and Colton enter. The 48th floor button is already pressed. Colton is wearing a black suit, white cotton dress shirt, and a silk red tie. The elevator lights are reflecting off his shiny black shoes. The elevator opens.

Colton walks out meanwhile looking at his watch, 8:05 am, and decides to ask the secretary where the bathroom is. “Its down the hall to the left” says the secretary. “Thank you, I’m here for an interview at 8:30am with Mr. Alexander.” Colton responds with a slight smile. “Hi, Mr. Everett, when you come back just wait here and Mr. Alexander will be with you shortly!” the secretary says with a smile. Colton smiles back and walks toward the bathroom. He enters the bathroom and looks in the mirror. Colton has strong jawline, evenly spaced eyes, a wide smile. He fixes his jet black hair which was rustled from the wind. He fixes his tie by wiggling it back and forth.

Back in the waiting area, he gazed out on the other skyscrapers. The cloudless sky and bright sun shining in the big window. After what seemed like an hour, Colton looked down at his watch, simultaneously reading the time: 8:29 am, and heard Mr. Alexander say “Send in Mr. Everett.”  “Will do sir, Mr. Everett, go ahead in.” replied the secretary looking up from her computer. Colton nodded and got up to walk into the office.

Mr. Alexander was tall man, he was bald with a full beard. Colton shook hands with Mr. Alexander. “Nice to meet you Mr. Alexander, I’m Colton Everett.” said Colton as he smiled genuinely. “Good to meet you, Mr. Everett, I’ve heard good things!” replied Mr. Alexander. “Be seated, please.” say Mr. Alexander as he took his own seat. Mr. Alexander lifted up a folder and shuffled some papers among them was Colton’s resume. Then Mr. Alexander began the interview:

“Mr. Everett, Why do you think your good fit to work at Solve-America Think-tank?” he said in a serious tone. Colton took a deep breath and replied: “I believe that I am a good fit for Solve-America Think-tank because I have a lot great ideas. My problem solving skills are only matched by my critical thinking skills. If I’m hired, I promise I won’t disappoint.”

“Sounds good but what if you make a mistake?” replied Mr. Alexander.

Colton smiled and said “If I make a mistake, it will be fixed before anyone can point it out.”

Mr. Alexander laughed and quipped back “Alright, I’m holding you to that.” He paused and continued a few seconds later, “An important aspect of this job will be to analyze problems and find real life, workable solutions. I’m going to present you with a simple one.” He paused slightly, “Then I’ll repeat the problem and you will have give me an solution as your answer. Sound good?” He asked.

Colton replied,”Bring it on, I’m ready to roll.”

Mr. Alexander took out another piece of paper and held it up covering half of his face. Then he cleared his throat and read the problem: “Imagine your given a budget of a city. They ask you to find a way to cut costs without raising taxes. It’s a city of 100,000 people, it has a city council, a mayor. If you need more information, ask me.”

Colton nodded his head and started to think quickly. This was a classic predicament of cost vs. spending. He knew exactly how to answer and took a breath then said it confidently: “I would suggest that cut non-essential city workers,  eliminate non-essential city programs that aren’t necessary to the operation of the city. I would suggest a slight salary decrease for city workers until the city budget balances. I might also suggest investing in infrastructure and other projects that could attract more businesses to raise money. Cutting spending is better than raising taxes anyway.”

Mr. Alexander cracks a smile. “Good answer, now suppose they refuse your plan on the basis of the government salaries getting slashed.”

Colton was expecting a few curveballs, so he took a second to collect his thoughts. “What else are they willing to cut?” he questioned. Mr. Alexander replied: “Nothing, they don’t want to give up anything. Convince them.” Colton shook his head in dismay. He then give his answer: “Your city will go bankrupt, you will all be force to take paycuts or lose your jobs. The people of the city will suffer under tremendous debt. There is no other options, take it or leave it.” he said as he maintain a serious look.

Mr. Alexander sat back in his chair for a good minute. His facial expression was blank. He then replied to Colton’s  bold answer: “Son, congratulations! We would like to formally offer you a job.” was followed with a big smile. Mr. Alexander stood up to put his hand out to shake. Colton instantly lit up and met Mr. Alexander’s hand over the desk with his own hand. Colton repeated “thank you Mr. Alexander” about 10 times. He wasn’t expecting to be immediately hired.

“Excuse me, I need to make a few calls, if you don’t mind.” Colton said to Mr. Alexander, he needed to call off the other interviews and tell his parents that he got the job. Mr. Alexander obliged and congratulated him again.

To Be Continued….

Thanks for reading!

Social Media:

Facebook: Garrett’s Life Experience’s blog

Twitter @gpslife12

PS: This is a new thing I’m trying, Its a fictional story that will be written in a series of blog posts. The themes will be history, politics with a focus on libertarian ideals, and of course human experience. Hopefully it will be a new and different way to deliver the libertarian message to everyone. 

Photo by The Roaming Platypus on Unsplash

Memes: The Idiot savant’s guide to Memes.

I don’t know if you can guess what this post is going to be about? Who puts a word twice in one title? A total Idiot? Its possible. Before I start with the real post, I want to put a disclaimer: THIS IS SATIRE. Its a JOKE. If you get offended please smash your phone or computer immediately. 

There is a joke going around the internet, you may have heard of it. The left can’t meme. This joke is often shared by conservatives, independents, and libertarians alike. They say stereotypes aren’t nice but almost always TRUE! Say what will about which political view memes the best, this is basically a guide on how to meme GREAT! To quote Donald Trump: I’m gonna make MEMES great again or MMGA. Stick that on your hat. Side Note: Isn’t Donald Trump the greatest meme treasure trove ever gifted to humanity. SO MANY GREAT MEMES! Thanks Donald, you might be a horrible president, worse businessman but at least your memes are straight FIRE. HA! Wow I just went in on Trump. Anyway, I guess a good starting point is with Trump memes. They are relevant. They are hilarious. Let’s make MEMES great again! MMGA!

Although memes can be on any subject material, I find that the funnier ones are involved with politics. Trump is known for his out of this world self confidence which leads to some great memes:

30706174_10156347864891468_8132415447061495808_n

I use this meme constantly especially if I’m proud of words that I wrote or if somebody shows any signs of being of human by using words. Memes are often sarcastic in nature. They naturally represent a picture with words but the meaning can have TRUTH to it. For example:

30728786_10156347865121468_664733772029100032_n

Evidence 101: Trump just bombed Syria. If you missed that post then here it is.

There are also others which are pretty sarcastic, usually like this one below, indicating you should get involved kinda of ironically.

30727056_10156347865251468_5177221963067686912_n

Ok enough Trump for today. He is funny but there are greener pastures with FUNNIER MEMES. I know I can’t contain my own excitement. In general, if I was rate the funniest memes in a supply and demand curve, I would say that Memes are more funny when they are more offensive. Therefore, the less offensive, the less funny. I don’t think there is an explanation needed for what is coming next:

30728285_10156347866931468_2130939313716723712_n

Again, if you are offended, its a joke.

If you laughed as you should, then here are some more hilarious memes:

30740107_10156347865776468_1947328422430638080_n

Its historical and funny. Memes can take many different forms and topics.

DbkerzKU0AAUoLA

Trump’s alleged best friend Putin is a great meme. I encourage a google search of these. I’m going to finish up this meme lesson with a gallery of sorts, of memes. Have a good laugh, get offended, and remember its ok to steal memes, Thomas Jefferson says so.

Enjoy!

DbhOuc0VQAEJXeXDbhPIj1VMAACcWhDbqwBvAU0AAkqth

I hope you had a good laugh. The last one absolutely kills me if you imagine reading in a British accent. I hope you have a better understand of Memes and the purpose is obviously to make people laugh and sometimes to prove a point about something in a funny way.  Just remember the LEFT can’t meme. Also while your still here check out my social media written below. ALSO CHECK OUT THE MEME FOR IT, you will love it. I promise.

Lizard Robot King Zuckerberg’s Private data mine (Facebook) Garrett’s Life Experience’s

Twitter (Liberal safe heaven) gpslife12

DbhO2suVMAACmUi

Lmao, just admit you laugh your fucking ass off!

Thanks for reading, Taxation is theft.

Tragedy of the Commons: Problem with Collective Policies

Have you ever heard of Tragedy of the Commons? Sound familiar? Tragedy of commons is typically associated with fishing. If fisherman go out to a popular fishing spot and catch fish at a rate that is more than fish reproduce, then that would be a tragedy of commons. Garrett Hardin came up with theory originally and applied it to biology or nature. There are many examples, but the basic principle is that demand overwhelms supply.  Just in case you fell asleep in Economics 101 or you happen to be Bernie Sanders then here is a little reminder of how supply and demand work:

main-qimg-7143dd32730266a174d9a0ffe02b2f3a-c

I want to talk about tragedy of the commons in the terms of political policies and platforms. It’s a topic that is hotly contested among Libertarians and conservatives. On the other hand, Liberals tend to completely ignore it. Its this ignorance of the tragedy of commons that might explain why collectivist policies that liberals tend to advocate are just really bad. Liberals and even Conservatives both tend to argue for MORE government regulation in the face of a tragedy of the commons issue. (I’ll try to keep it relatively brief, one or two examples, I have a lot to say)

Let’s take on healthcare for example, is a tragedy of the commons. Liberals advocate for a universal healthcare system. This system would in theory depend on the taxpayer (theft) money to help cover the costs of healthcare. However, this policy would extremely expensive due to the increased costs to private health providers. Also the service given by providers would be slower due to a heavy volume and probably less staff. Healthcare is a complex issue but a tragedy of commons exists in both the taxation for it and the availability of quick medical care by providers. For example, in Canada, they have universal healthcare and experience longer wait times, sometimes for very important life saving procedures. In some cases they come to the US for faster care.

In short, universal healthcare is a collectivist policy pushed by liberals that creates many tragedy of the commons. Unfortunately the conservatives are not much better backing single payer with a government agency running the show. Less tragedy of the commons here, but still not the best option. The solution for a tragedy of the commons is deregulation in most cases, concerning government policies. In nature, like the fishing spot, the solution would be to have fisherman stop fishing in that particular spot until there were sufficient fish. I want to clarify what I mean by collectivist. Collectivist is a term usually meaning something is done in or by a group.

My second example is one of the hottest issues because of a vote coming up, Net Neutrality. Naturally my position is repeal because Net Neutrality isn’t consumer protections, its just dealing with bandwidth and if companies can block or censor stuff. From what I’ve read the new rules after repeal will be that the companies will have to report whatever they throttle, block, censor to the FCC who will make it public. I also see no problem with Netflix and Amazon and Hulu having to pay more for bandwidth. They use a lot of it, its only fair. Naturally that will be passed to the customer. However, the good news of repeal is that companies will offer different packages specifically geared toward streaming services. Unlike now, where you get all one price and it might be good or bad.

The tragedy of the commons in Net Neutrality stems from the issue of bandwidth. There is only so much bandwidth that these companies can generate without losing money. Its interesting because if you look at bandwidth in a vacuum, it really highlights the problem. Watch: Let’s say Comcast and Verizon both offer 300 mbps of bandwidth under current Net Neutrality for an average price of 150 dollars. (Making up random numbers here). Let’s repeal those rules and see how prices and amount of bandwidth change. Under Net Neutrality, both companies would have similar prices and the max amount of bandwidth would be at 300, but of course you can pay less to get less. The problem with this is that the companies aren’t really competing. There’s very little variation because the going rate for bandwidth is 150 dollars for 300 mpbs. Everyone can gets to use that bandwidth to watch Netflix and play fortnite as much as they want. The companies might be struggling to keep all this bandwidth up with only 150 dollars per customer because their own business costs are going up.

If we repeal Net Neutrality, now Comcast charges $100 for 200 mpbs,  $200 for 300 mpbs and lets say $300 for 400 mpbs. Unheard of right? Well, Verizon charges $75 for 150 mpbs, $150 for 250 mpbs, $275 for 300 mpbs, $350 for 420 mpbs. Now you can see the competition as each company tries attract more customers. They may even offer a lower bandwidth but you get extreme streaming capabilities for an extra 100 bucks. Either way, the competition will naturally drive down prices. When supply goes up, demand goes down. In order to create demand you need to supply, but you also need to create an interest in your product and attractiveness or marketing.

The solution to the tragedy of the commons for nearly every aspect of Net Neutrality is deregulation. Let the consumers decide which companies will succeed and fail. Another positive aspect of net neutrality being repealed is that it will allow startups and other smaller companies to get into the market of internet.

I believe that through my two examples I have shown why some collectivists policies are broken due to the tragedy of the commons. I believe that the solution to tragedy of the commons is deregulation which means getting government out of our lives. This solution is the basis for the whole libertarian philosophy. If society is a tragedy of the commons then as libertarians we are for the deregulation and privatization of pretty much everything. Everything is harder in a large group. Its similar to when you ask your friends where they want to eat. Everyone has different opinion. Or when you ask your friends when they want to go out. Everyone is busy and has no time. Collectivism requires group-think and group decision making. Its not the most effective. Tragedy of the commons also tends to tread on the rights of the individual.

The rights of individual are the most important aspect in a free society. As Thomas Jefferson once wrote:

“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”

Thanks for reading!

Please Tweet me @gpslife12 or like my facebook page at Garrett’s Life Experience’s

What do you mean no Helicopters and McNukes?

In usual fashion I have come across some inspiring material to write my own article on. I’ve been thinking recently about what the ends of a libertarian party or movement would or should be. In this blog I consider the means of getting there. I’m always pushing steps toward a libertarian society. These steps seem to never make any progress. I have always viewed the libertarian society as an idealist notion. I think to some degree its true. On the other hand, I feel like its entirely possible that a libertarian society is achievable. The problems are numerous and the solutions are few. One main problem and probably the biggest one is the lack of education of outsiders on the libertarian values and beliefs. People tend to misinterpret or misunderstand what libertarians stand for and what we want to achieve.

I’ve recently said on social media that I believe I’m in the minority of libertarians that believe that achieving the ultimate goal of a libertarian society will come instantly once it happens. I feel that many libertarians, anarchists, anarcho-capitalists think that once we overthrow the current government then we can just easily transition to that libertarian society that we all agree is the goal. I don’t believe its so easy or fast. I think there is a number of factors to consider about means and ends of libertarianism.

The first and foremost is that the way to change the government is to vote for politicians who hold the same beliefs, values and morals as libertarians.  We can all agree politicians of this caliber don’t exist right now with the exception of Rand Paul, maybe. After voting for Gary Johnson in two consecutive elections I have realized that we are going too big. (Nothing wrong with him, just a walking meme.) We need to find libertarian congresspeople. I know of 3 libertarian leaning congresspeople, Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, and Justin Amash. Once we can turn the Congress into a majority of libertarians then we can work on the white house.

The second factor is education like I mentioned before. A lot of people have misconceptions of libertarians. Even I used to subscribe to these common myths. For example: Libertarians are both Republican and Democrat because they support a little of each. It might be true that we hold similar positions but we are actually against both parties. The two main parties are a snake with two heads. They don’t care about you. They care about their interests and their money! We need to educate the masses on libertarianism. The essential thing is liberty and freedom. The government shouldn’t play much if any role in our everyday lives. The government doesn’t need to over regulate and get involved in everything we do. The government doesn’t need to tax our hard earned income. For over 100 years, the US government collected no income tax. Who will build the roads? Private corporations that need to ship things by truck. Businesses that need to drive around. My point is that if we can educate people then eventually will lead to more people accepting and more importantly voting for libertarians.

The third factor of the means is simply cohesive-ness among libertarians. We have to unify our ideas. I know we all agree on certain things. But we have to compromise on other things. Example: Abortion. One of the hottest button issues because there is no stasis for argument. Pro Life or Pro Choice? For me, I’m torn between both because choice is guaranteed by the 14th amendment. Yet I’m also catholic so I can’t possibly support the killing of something that is alive. My position is Pro-Adoption. It gives a choice and saves the life of the baby. Also there are many parents out there who can’t have kids. My point here is that a compromise takes a little bit from each side and makes palatable to everyone. Compromise is something that our country was founded on. I strongly believe we should get back to that.

The forth factor is concerning the ends. I find it hilarious but helicopters and McNukes are a standard must have in any libertarian society. But lets all be honest its a little far fetched. I do believe that no taxes, open carry (guns), NAP and very small government are possible to have. I think we all have to be realistic about the ends. The ultimate goal is for everybody to live their life without the interference from government. But I think we miss the point that libertarian is also one of the most charitable types of societies. Its not fake charity like socialism and communism. In a libertarian society, you would give to the poor, give to the sick and give to government if you felt like it was worth it. Thats the wonderful thing about it, its your choice to give your money or not. Government is ineffective at helping people. But there is a million examples of where everyday people throw their support at something and get it done without government.

My conclusion is that we need to educate, vote, come together and be realistic about our ultimate goal of a libertarian society.  We can do it all once too. My inspiration was an article that basically said no more Libertarian party but we need a movement. In order to achieve a movement, we have to educate people on the benefits of joining this movement. We have to vote in politicians who reflect our positions. Its not going to be easy. The steps towards a libertarian society will be methodical. All I hope is that I see this libertarian society come to fruition before my time is up. I’m still young so I got hope.

Just remember kids, Taxation is Theft.

Thanks For Reading!

 

Hiatus Break: NFL Protests and Tax Reform

I have previous written about the original NFL protest by Colin Kaepernick. This post basically tells Kaepernick to put his money where his mouth is. He did exactly that. Now the protest has spread around the league. President Trump has tweeted, spoke and commented on the protest on multiple occasions. In apparent backlash, NFL ratings are down pretty significantly. The owners and players are seemingly at odds. (I’ll get into this more) I won’t just be talking about the NFL protest in this post. I also want to touch on tax reform which is currently the hot issue in Congress. I hold an extreme belief about taxes. I mean extreme by that its a position that isn’t possible in today’s circumstances. However, it doesn’t mean its not achievable eventually through some means. I will lay out my own set of tax reforms in the second part of this post.

I have been an NFL fan my whole life. Quite literally since I was in second grade I remember watching the Jets. I remember wearing Jets jerseys (I still have them). I absolutely love football. Although I never played in an organized manner. If I was athletically gifted I would be a Quarterback in the NFL. Generally I’m one of those people who doesn’t care to mix politics with anything but politics. So when Kaepernick started his protest I wasn’t that happy. Its not that I don’t care about the issues he is protesting or that I dislike him. Its just I watch football to watch football. I don’t care about the political leanings of the players or owners or coaches. Aside from that, they all get paid handsomely (Players) or are extremely wealthy to begin with (owners).

The problem with the protest now is that its gotten way out of control. At first it wasn’t too crazy. The craziest comes from a unlikely source in President Trump. Now Trump himself isn’t shy about creating controversy or saying incredibly inflammatory things. However, the President of the United States typically doesn’t pour gas on a fire like he did with the NFL protests. I basically have two issues here and the main issue is Trump’s position on this. Trump wants the owners and NFL to force the players to stand for the anthem. I think that many conservative thinking people probably agree. They think its disrespectful to the flag and the military. Which I don’t fully disagree.

However, the constitution has a bill of rights. In that bill of rights there is a first amendment. The first amendment is the freedom of speech. Over the years the Supreme Court has ruled that speech isn’t just talking, it can also cover symbolic speech and others. In this regard I have disagree with Trump, he or the government can’t make a law forcing them to stand. Its the players right to protest and there is nothing that Trump or the government can do. However, the NFL could do something like fire the players. But they won’t do that. Let me tell you why they won’t: Backlash would very bad for the NFL probably twice or three times as bad it is now. However, the NFL could force players to stand, its not a violation of first amendment rights. The reason is because the players represent the NFL as brand and the NFL has right to protect its brand from being unnecessarily tarnished especially by its own employees. The NFL also has a collective bargaining agreement which apparently does state that players must stand. If its true, then its over because the players agreed to that agreement and therefore would have to follow it or be fired.

In my opinion, I think that players should stand because of the ratings and money. I mean they are only affecting their own livelihood. If the owners still feeling the pinch then so will they. In the end, its better if they stand and try to protest in a different way or become an activist and use all those millions to do something about the problem. I don’t think anyone can deny that police oppression is real. However, I think the solution lies within criminal justice reform. I won’t get into this because I’m not an expert and I didn’t do any research yet. However, look out for future posts.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Tax reform is one of my favorite topics to discuss. Its because they are a lot of solutions to a problem that seems to never go away. I think one thing that is always missing from the tax reform debate is spending reform. You might say that’s a totally different reform! But actually taxes are based projected government spending.  For example: the government spends approximately 600 to 700 billion dollars on the military each year. In order to cover that they need to raise that in taxes.

Generally the federal government’s budget is anywhere from 2 to 4 trillion dollars. It is supposed to be a certain percent of GDP or gross domestic product. (I have a post dedicated to this subject of GDP) So my ideal tax reform in a perfect world would zero taxes. You may have heard taxation is theft. If you haven’t then its pretty plain what that means. Yes the government is stealing from us. This is a very extreme way to view taxation but its not as crazy as you think.

Originally the US government didn’t really collect taxes. In fact, the US government taxed products and used tariffs up until about 1913. So our government was able to run entirely without any income tax. Income tax is now the largest category of revenue of the US government. Its also the worst way to fund the government. Income tax really sucks. There will never a true, fair way to split up the weight of paying it. Its awful. However, there is no way the government could survive with 20 trillion dollars of debt and absolutely no tax income. That insane.

My proposal is essentially this get rid of the current tax format. Install a universal basic income (See this post). Then install a flat tax starting around 15 percent. No more brackets. No more loopholes. My plan does a lot of things but the two main things is that it cuts spending and will eventually lower taxes! So with basic income it would cut out most of social welfare programs and replace it with a government check to everyone over 18 and not a criminal. This saves approximately 200 million dollars a year. Each year for about 10 years you fix or pay off the debt. Plus the 15 percent over ten years would generate enough income to really pay off the debt and run the country. After ten years you lower the tax rate to 10 percent for another 10 to 15 years. Essentially the goal is to make the government so lean that it won’t need tax money. Its definitely possible over time.

This a simplified version which I think is good start. The details and actual numbers would have to be worked out by someone in a math oriented field. I can only hope that this tax plan eventually happens. Its not a popular one because usually conservative politicians advocate flat taxes. Basic income isn’t too popular either because it sounds a little crazy. But I feel like the two very different approaches really balance each other out. Also you can’t possibly say a flat tax isn’t fair. Its fair by nature. Also it still ensures that the poor pay less and the rich pay more. Which is why I don’t understand why people don’t like it. I guess they would rather get fleeced by the current system.

Thank you for reading! Have a awesome day!