Should Religion be in Politics?


You expect some blogging and working man called “Libertarian Defense Atheist” to instantly say No, right? Well, actually, I feel like making a very elaborate No answer instead.

First Amendment

If you go to the iSideWith poll titled “First Amendment“, you notice that it asks about promoting separation of Church and State. Constitutionally, government of any level is not allowed to establish an official religion but is also not allowed to set limits to freedom of religion. How does one balance these things?


No, secularism is not Irreligion. It is, though, an Irreligious concept that prevents theocracy from happening. Secularism basically says that government institutions and religious institutions should always be two different kinds of institution. I agree with this concept in full. Not because I am the most devoutly and staunchly Irreligious person I know, which I am, but rather because secularism is the best guarantee to prevent government from legislating any religion in particular.

Politicians’ religious affiliations

They may not think so of us American civilians, but American politicians are human beings residing in the US to. Therefore they have exactly all of the same religious freedom that we have. Marco Rubio for example can be as Catholic as he wants as long as he is NOT signing Catholicism into law. He is the Republican presidential candidate who declared, in reply to a question to him by a fellow atheist, that

“Religious Liberty absolutely does include the right to follow no religion at all!”

Ted Cruz, on the other hand, is someone who we cannot trust to refrain from legislating his edition of Christianity. His pastor Kevin Swanson teaches Cruz to be a megalomaniacal  Christian Nationalist who says bigoted, ANTI-First Amendment nonsense like

“Any president who doesn’t begin every day on his knees is not fit to be president!”

The main point I am making is that politicians have all the exact same unrestricted religious freedom we have, but both for them and for us that freedom does not include the ability to sign one’s religion into law.


So my verdict is… Espousing organized religion should not be mandatory in politics. Espousing organized religion should be strictly voluntary and should not include the ability to sign one’s organized religion of choice into law.


Honestly – I sorta predicted I’d issue a verdict that prioritized the difference between compulsory versus voluntary. Also as someone who devoutly resents and rejects all religions as equally fraudulent, I believe wholesale all organized religions and all irreligious mindsets should be legal without any limits that don’t relate to the… yep, here I go again: Non-Aggression Principle. Thanks for the read,


My Country’s 2016 Elections make me want to move to New Zealand


So I read my favorite political blog on the internet, Mark Humprhys, and I would have to say that I agree with what he has to say about the 2016 elections of my nation, the US, and I have to say: This is the worst election ever. I may as well move to New Zealand. Why do I think these things, in my own words, including the new knowledge I obtained?

America Got Ruined by the four latest presidents

  1. George Bush Sr.
  2. Bill Clinton
  3. George Bush Jr.
  4. Barack Obama

None of these presidents were or are willing to do EVERYTHING mandatory to END Islamic Nationalist regimes and movements.

Screen Shot 2016-03-23 at 6.55.04 AM

Instead they adhered to nonsense Just-War-Theory and they decided it was “good” to go fully altruistic and spread Democracy:

Donald Trump and Ted Cruz

I am not going to have to elaborate on these two. I am just going to let Mark explain Trump and Cruz for me. Please, click the links. But I will speak for myself by saying that I have nothing against people who are religiously different than me [UNLIKE Cruz] and I also have held true to Neolibertarian ideology since the start of the second semester of my Sophomore year of High School, back in 2011, when I began applying my Paleontological style of thinking to political policy & theory. I was 16 back then, and I am 21 now and will be 22 this year. I have had an ideology for between five and six years, UNLIKE Trump.

Candidates I admired for reasons

Rand Paul

I share Rand Paul‘s fiscal conservatism and cultural liberalism. I admire his willingness to defend the entire Bill of Rights. I was really looking forward to making him Attorney General. And sure, I guess I can try writing him in during the general election.

Rand often said the First Amendment is about the right to be despicable. He also actually reached out to people of all demographics, regardless of race, gender, religion, anything. Rand is the guy that Martin Luther King would have wanted for GOP nominee if King were alive today! Why do I say this? Because King’s social equality activism was based on a very simple principle:

  • If a black person is violated over his skin color, that means whites, Asians, and Hispanics are also vulnerable
  • If a woman is violated over her gender, then that means men are equally vulnerable.

Marco Rubio

I may not agree with Marco Rubio of a lot or even half what he has to offer domestically, but he is the presidential candidate ready to get foreign policy done right. Or… was the one ready to get it done right. Yes, Rubio is the one I was looking forward to making president, as he understands how the world works on a whole.

  • Rubio knows that more American vigilance means more safety for the world.
  • Similarly to Rand Paul, Marco Rubio also proved to the world he cares about our military personnel and refuses to view them as expendable.
  • Quite a stark contrast to Bush, Clinton, Bush and especially Obama, right?

I will most likely write-in people

I am deciding perhaps I should write in the candidates Marco and Rand for respectively President and Attorney General. Not sure who I am writing in for other cabinet positions yet though…

Why I’ll move to New Zealand

Because New Zealand lately makes much more sense than any other Western Culture nation:

The only downside is that New Zealand needs to stronger defense to confront and defeat the religious nationalism I mentioned above. Therefore I need to register to vote there as one of the ACT Party. Policies include greater toughness on foreign affairs.


Yep. My nation was already being ruined when I was being born and growing up but I didn’t notice until five years ago. So I will have to move to NZ. Thanks for the read,


The only way to make Living Wage plausible


Yes, for all the economic freedom and free trade and free market policies I support, and for all the deregulation I support, I also support a Living Wage – but how would that be possible in an economy like the American economy in which I operate with 80,000 different legal restrictions on how business can and cannot operate and also with each regulation costing $100+ for annual compliance cost per employee? I am going to explain that factually, using mainly basic math, right now!

Step 1. Replace the entire Federal Register with a single legal restriction: The Non-Aggression Principle

The federal register is essentially the book of economic legal restrictions, both ones classed as “laws” and ones classed as “regulations”. I am therefore suggesting we disband the federal register, burn all copies of it, and make it law that the Non-Aggression Principle is the one and only economic regulation, what I mean is a law that says this:

“All employers and workers are equally obligated by law to never conduct any behaviors that are violent crime or are property crime, and also to never conduct acts of fraud or of coercion.”

And the one page can be filled to define what violent crimes are and what property crimes are. This policy would save employers very close to $8,000,000 in annual compliance cost per employee. The compliance cost would only be an annual $100 instead. And perhaps we should reduce this compliance cost to about $25 per employee per year. Granted, we would have to drastically increase harshness for law enforcement regarding this ‘one-and-only’, but that’s another topic.

Step 2. Replace all of Taxation in the United States, especially the IRS, with the FairTax

I have done some big talks about the FairTax before, but now I think I should explain how it is best for the economy:

  • This law would eliminate the income tax
  • This would jack up transparency by abolishing the IRS
  • Abolishing the IRS would also eliminate the ability of government to steal money from earning workers as it presently does
  • The FairTax would give We The People consumption allowances to give us reason to budget our money and not spend impulsively
  • This consumption allowance rounds to slightly under $12,000 per adult and slightly over $4,000 per minor, regardless of how many of each are in the household.
  • The consumption tax would be either 30% tacked on to price or 23% deducted from price depending on how things go the first full year of taxation, and the first year would be the 23% deduction.

This policy would allow workers of all sorts, from richest to very poorest, to keep absolutely all they earn monetarily. That way, We The People can afford not just to buy more but also to donate much more to Non-profit charities.

Step 3. Replace Minimum Wage with a Living Wage based on Nominal GDP Per Capita.

Now, with all the money-saving done through Deregulation explained above, can an employer afford to pay workers a living wage in an economy with only one restriction, a yearly restriction-compliance cost of $25 per employee, and the FairTax in place? Certainly! But of course, one must define what a Living Wage ought to be. My definition:

An entry level worker being able to afford a simple one-bedroom apartment ontop of being able to afford to set one’s own individual lifestyle, within consumption allowance as determined by FairTax, including their own food choices, their own personal-time clothing preferences, their interiordecoration choices [i.e. what the worker wants his/her apartment to be like internally], their school choices and other individual lifestyle choices.

So, using basic math, what would this mean? Would it mean setting Living Wage to be annually based on Nominal GDP per capita? Not exactly. Instead I propose that, after steps one and two are done, we set the Living Wage like this:

  • Take the $56,000 total Nominal GDP per capita
  • Subtract 23% [13,000] from that GDP number to account the FairTax
  • Divide the resulting $43,000 by fifty
  • You have the $860 I propose be the weekly wage for lowest-paying work.

Why? Because apartments go for about $800 to $900 per month for one-bed-one-bath apartments. At least in my state they do. Also because after the first $860 for a four-week period is spent on rent, the other $2,580 can be put to four months of consumption [2,580 times four would be $10,320 but times five or more would be over the annual consumption allowance for one adult. And this is all before knowing of the monthly rebate the FairTax comes with for spending allowance on needs for the apartment. The other eight moths of retaining $2,580 per month can go to charities, to college tuition, to savings, there are an enchanting number of things you’d be able to do with your own money in an entry level job under this system that requires ALL THREE steps to be met IN ORDER as written here. So I can remind what that is:

  1. Replace all of the federal register with the Non-Aggression Principle
  2. Replace all of taxation in this economy with the FairTax legislation
  3. THEN you can and should raise the minimum wage to a living wage


I think I have done a good amount of early morning policy ed. I have put much win-win thought into this proposal, and thanks for the read,


World Government vs Declaration of Independence


Yes, I am aware that the United States Declaration of Independence was about declaring American Independence from Britain. However, I would like to take time to elaborate about how the mere existence of international government institutions like NATO and the United Nations are not even remotely compatible with any nation’s Declaration of Independence, regardless of whose Declaration of Independence it is.

United Nations

This grave miscalculation we know as the United Nations is a blight on the concept of National Sovereignty:

  • Laws of War are not compatible with National self-defense
  • There are no historic examples of a intergovernmental institution being a healthy idea
  • There are no historic examples of United Nations doing any good as opposed to just doing policies that only FEEL good

The fact that this institution makes laws about how and when a nation can defend itself against a war of aggression all by itself proves with the non-aggression principle that the United Nations is itself an act of aggression.


North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Unlike the United Nations, this organization actually deserves some kind of respect from people. The only problem is that it epitomizes a policy pattern George Washington wisely warned against:

  • Permanent military alliances are not beneficial to foreign relations like diplomatic friendships are
  • Free Trade and Globalization, the latter being cultural exchange, have historically proven to be highly superior to war in terms of spreading human freedom

George Washington said we must not enter into permanent military alliances. And he is absolutely right. Permanent military alliances are not beneficial to our economy or to our culture.


Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Okay, this one is off the hook as there are no historic or current examples of this intergovernmental organization violating our national sovereignty. Instead this one is about free trade and globalization. The two things I just said are morally superior to war.

The OECD also helps members stay on track with how we’re [referring to US and other OECD members] getting our populations educated with this neat little thing to look at called the “Program for International Student Assessment”. It is how I know when I speak of domestic issues how we can smarten up out High School teens by radically reducing education spending – four times in every five higher education spending means less intellect among our teens and among our young adults.


Yep, sorry if you were hoping for something much longer. But this is just another quick little observational post. That’s all I got for today. Thanks for the read,


American Libertarianism Needs an “Empire Of Liberty” Foreign Policy


As readers of this online journal may know, I am a United States citizen whose political beliefs are aligned with Libertarianism in the United States. However, the fact that I favor a foreign policy that, in Wikipedia’s words, “promotes individual liberty and minimized government” somehow only puts me among 45% of my own movement on average, says Pew’s “In Search of Libertarians”. I am going to carefully break down what makes American libertarianism inherently in harmony with an “Empire of Liberty” foreign policy.

Empire of Liberty?

No, not literally an empire. Actually, quite the opposite of a traditional ’empire’: a global federation wherein every nation on the planet is its own autonomous hardcore-libertarian republic. A more literal title would be “Planet of Liberty” or “Federation of Liberty”.

Thomas Jefferson himself did not envision a single, unified empire. Instead, and in today’s world, nearly 200 nations would ideally maintain national independence for as long as they are lands of individual liberty and minimized government.

Support among fellow libertarians for Empire of Liberty

Remember the Pew report I linked to? Well, let us see what the exact data says:

Out of the 36 million of us in this country, 11% of the national population;

  • 54% of my political faction says America is better off paying little to no attention overseas. I myself am in the 43% who say America is best off being highly active in the world. 3% I am assuming just do not care what kind of foreign policy we have.
  • 46% of my fellow libertarians think American involvement overseas either usually or always makes foreign problems worse. I myself fit into the 47% who believe that foreign problems would be worse without American involvement. Once again, there is a neutral 7% of libertarians on the issue of US involvement overseas.
  • On average this makes only half of the libertarian movement to be the kind of passionately Non-interventionist mindset Ron Paul has. 45% favor an Empire of Liberty foreign policy. And I am only guessing that perhaps the remaining 5% on average just don’t pay enough attention to foreign affairs and defense issues to fully pick a side.

So it would seem that there is a 10 to 9 ratio of libertarians against Empire of Liberty to libertarians for Empire of Liberty. Among us Libertarians In The United States, I am one of 16 million who support an Empire of Liberty foreign policy.

What’s Your Format for an “Empire Of Liberty” foreign policy, Mr. LD Atheist?

How would an “Empire of Liberty” foreign policy differ from the jingoistic Democracy-building foreign policy of Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama? Well, as I write in my essay called “Democracy Vs Freedom“, the key to Peace On Earth is not to spread Democracy overseas but to spread Freedom overseas, and I even broke down how the ideals of Democracy Agenda and Freedom Agenda are radically different from each other.

  • Freedom depends not on how democratic a government is but on how limited a government is
  • Freedom is economically all on how free-market your economic policies are
  • Freedom is socially all on how free-society your social policies are.
  • Freedom can co-exist with Non-electoral or pseudo-electoral government, as is currently evident in much of present-day Western, Northern and also Southern Europe. Japan is also an example of monarchy being able to allow freedom to exist, thanks to its Constitution.
  • Freedom always needs a Constitution that gives freedoms in order to ensure the government abides by the principles of individual liberty and minimized government.

There is more to spreading freedom than just doing so militarily. There is also, and preferably, spreading freedom economically through free trade, and spreading freedom diplomatically through cultural exchange, also called globalization.

For tyrannies who are actually honest friends of the United States, who instinctively side with us in our fight against Islamic Nationalism; such nations are best reformed to nations of individual liberty and minimized government by means of us removing barriers on free trade and stepping globalization with them. Morally, free trade and globalization are preferable not just to fair trade and globalization but also to war. Most of America’s liberation of Europe from Christian Nationalism was done through free trade and cultural exchange. Little of this liberation, if any at all, was done through waging war. There are even hybrid regimes in Eastern Europe we as a nation should be stepping up free trade and globalization with by ending regulation of trade and renouncing protectionism. I can name a good amount of these Eastern European nations off my head. Point being foreign nations of any kind who are NOT dangers to the United States are the foreign nations we should bring individual liberty and minimized government to via free trade and globalization.

BUT, if some foreign tyranny is a threat to the United States, and proves itself so by sponsoring Islamic Nationalist and/or Marxist-Leninist guerrillas’ acts of malum in se against American people, and our intel-gatherers have undeniable evidence to prove this notion to be fact, then be ready and willing to use overwhelming, retaliatory scorched-earth warfare against that tyranny and the Non-regime malum in se guerrillas it sponsors, and be ready and willing to give no quarter to the tyranny or to any of those Non-regime guerrillas it gives aid, comfort and money to. Then, after swift and complete military victory, we need to immediately bring our troops home so that we the civilians can do free trade and cultural exchange with the foreign civilian population who, under this format, would have unconditionally surrendered over having lost their government and their government’s guerrilla style pawns, and over needing some civilian population to buy supplies from in order to start their own civilization, a civilization built on the Classical Liberal values of individual liberty and minimized government. How would prices be worked out? If you know me you know my answer:

  • Prices would be and should be set freely by mutual agreement between us American civilians and the newly liberated foreign civilians based on the realities of supply and demand, with said realities being free from any kind of government regulations or any kind of corporate monopolies.

This is a fine little sample of just how vastly I oppose Neoconservatives: They favor a PC policy of using limited warfare against enemy military, hitting an enemy government softly with Underwhelming military force, and they believe that the goal should be to build a Democracy via Long-time military invasion and occupation, whether the target nation is a danger or not.

I am among the people who favor a reality-based policy of using total warfare against enemy military, hitting an enemy government hard with Overwhelming military force, and we believe the goal should be to enable the civilian population to independently build their own limited government via free trade and globalization with us, but we only support war against tyranny-regimes who clearly and directly threaten our national population. Again, as for regimes of tyranny, or of any kind of governance, who are behaviorally true friends to the US, free trade and globalization with them from minute number one.

This format would also include preempting near-future wars of aggression and preventing far-future wars of aggression, but in both cases ONLY upon intel-gatherers proving beyond any reasonable doubt that a foreign nation’s regime is a clear and direct threat to American civilians. A long trail of Non-sequester Jingoistic gibberish by a presidential administration is not proof.

Speaking of presidential administrations, this format would not allow the President to declare any wars without the permission of Congress, this format would only allow Congress to wage war, but would not allow Congress to regulate US military strategists. The reasoning being that because Constitutionally only Congress can decide whether to wage war, not the Presidential Administration.


To close up, a foreign policy based on “Empire of Liberty” is really what Libertarianism needs in the United States. Not the “Empire of Democracy” rhetoric of Republicans, and also not the politically correct diplomacy rhetoric of Democrats. But also not the hardcore Non-intervention that permeates the Libertarian [Party] National Committee.

Thank you all for reading this,


Democracy vs Freedom: Which one to spread


When Thomas Jefferson created the foreign policy guidance theme called “Empire of Liberty“, he was not referring to Democracy Promotion. No, he was referring to Freedom Promotion. Further defining the purpose of government: To enforce freedom, security and equality for all Individuals. This is a post entry designed to highlight the key differences between Neolibertarians like myself have against Neoconservatives like George Bush.

Democracy Promotion

Now, just what might Democracy promotion be? Well, it is the idea of spreading electoral government to the world, meaning for example enemy nations can make their democracies as tyrannical as they want and as Anti-American as they want their democracies to be. I can objectively tell you “Look, this is a really, vastly bad idea. This is bad for America! Most libertarians, including me, do NOT support Democracy promotion!”

  • Democracy is simply rule by elections based on popular vote. There are many variants of Democracy:
    • Liberal Democracy is the variant the upholds the Liberalism of the Age of Enlightenment.
    • Hybrid Regime is a type of democracy wherein there are no social freedoms and there is no transparency.
    • Totalitarian Democracy is the kind that Iran and Pakistan have been since 1979 and 1956 respectively; and we have made the grave mistakes of making Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Egypt into in respectively 2003, 2001, 2011 and 2012; democracies where the only human right citizens are allowed is the right to vote, with even that being restricted.

Freedom Promotion

The spread of freedom to the world, on the other hand, is something that is far more based in reality:

  • The guarantee of protection of liberty, justice and equality for all is by freedom; not by democracy
  • There are plenty of monarchies AND democracies in Europe whose Constitutions prohibit them from infringing on freedom.
  • Britain for example has an officially Protestant monarchy yet is one of the economically freest, and socially freest nations on Earth
  • The current muslim Brotherhood government of Egypt is Democratically elected yet has managed to turn Egypt into a theocratic Authoritarian regime that murders my fellow Irreligious simply for being Atheists, Deists, Agnostics and Ignostics. But that regime does have democratic elections.

The other thing is that Freedom promotion typically happens best through free trade and globalization, the latter being the element of cultural exchange.

Lastly Freedom Promotion is fully compatible with libertarianism, knowing that libertarianism is an ideology of upholding liberty and freedom as its principle objective. Thomas Jefferson’s views by today’s standards would be most accurately summarized as libertarian, but he still created this theme “empire of liberty” to illustrate for us our job to spread, NOT democracy but rather FREEDOM, to the world.


Well, next time I post here, I am going to speak of how Libertarian Parties around the globe need a foreign policy that, in the words Wikipedia uses to describe libertarian instinct, “seeks to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association, and the primacy of individual judgement.” In the mean time thank you all for seeing this out,


Health Insurance vs Free Market Health Care


Today, I signed a petition to a pet insurance company demanding them to a better job with their insuring. It really made me ponder something I have already been thinking over: The non-compatibility of Health Insurance with legitimate health care policy.

Legit Medical Policy to me

Free-market healthcare

I support a health care policy that has patients buying their medical items and services directly from medical experts such as doctors and nurse-practitioners after freely setting a price by mutually agreeing on what price makes sense to both parties. I support health care wherein supply and demand is not hampered by government regulation or by health insurance monopoly. The latter will be the focus of this post.

My Solution offer: Abolish the Concept of Health ‘Insurance’

As far as I can tell from observation, and as someone who had to go to a hospital that’s affiliated with my workplace over my left leg twisting in my workplace, I can share with you from this experience that health insurance should not be an institution:

  • I accidentally twisted my left leg on my way to help other customers elsewhere in the front end of my workplace. Even though it fixed itself the second it twisted, I had to go to a hospital and my “insurance” saw to it I would need to follow up with a second appointment about the same incident. I went for follow up and, well… thank you health insurance for insuring that a giant crowd of fellow patients at the time stopped me from getting to the follow-up I needed to get to.

Health insurance, I say, should not exist….


….if health insurance did not exist, if free-market health care existed in its place, would any of you reading this invent it? Would any of you be all like, “Oh, this medical items and services thing is so beneficial, I cannot just work out with my doctor a legit price I have to get government and/or corporations controlling every aspect of medicinal policy in my nation!”, any of you?

Health insurance in general, as far as I can tell, makes health care extremely aggravating to wait for given long waits in crowded waiting rooms.

Health care should be addressed by patients going to their doctors about their medicinal problems, the doctors solving the problems, and then the two of them can sit and chat about a reasonable price for the doctor to charge and include details like if the patient is going to pay in weekly or daily increments or all of the price then and there.

Insurers’ Jobs?

They can go to colleges to learn to be actual medical doctors.


Sorry if this came off to anyone as an impulse, but…

  1. I legitimately believe this
  2. I do not feel like making a colossal post about medical policy

Thank you all for the read anyways,