The Mind of the Neolibertarian


I want to lay all myths about my particular kind of libertarianism to rest. I am going to carefully explain every neolibertarian principle we have had since 2003 and that I have adhered to since 2011 when I was a 16-year-old High School Sophomore in Second Semester and was just beginning to learn how to properly analyze politics and geopolitics. These Principles were defined in 2003 by Dale Franks.

The policy that maximizes individual freedom is the best policy

Neolibertarians believe, as I have believed since second semester of my high school sophomore year, that the first and last and every priority of social policy and of cultural policy should inherently be individual freedom and free-society policies. Wikipedia as of just last year even says that we support “freedom of choice“. This means we are typically if not Pro-Choice not just on abortion but also on…

  • Voluntary Euthanasia
  • Contraception
  • Gay Marriage
  • Large Sugary Sodas
  • Energy Drinks
  • R-rated movies
  • M-rated games
  • Revealing fashions
  • Trans fatty Meats like beef
  • Gun Ownership
  • Recreational Drugs
  • Voluntary Prostitution
  • Consenting Adult Porn

Me, individually, I am pro-choice on all of the above.

The policy that offers the least amount of government intervention or regulation is the best policy

As neolibertarians, we believe in a very minimalist-minded government. We basically say “Let the government handle domestic infrastructure, emergency services, foreign policy, and military defense; but nothing else”. The one-word label for this kind of government, NOT to be confused with Monarchy, is in fact a “Minarchy“.

Now, a minarchy can be either a presidential or parliamentary republic, or it can be a constitutional monarchy that limits its royal family’s powers with the rule of law. My nation, the United States, is perhaps the best-known example of a presidential republic, although senseless expansions of government power make us currently NOT a minarchy, very regrettably.

The policy that provides rational, market-based incentives is the best policy

Fiscal libertarianism is colossal in neolibertarian logic, we believe quite strongly in the science of supply and demand and we say that government management of the economy is a bad idea and that corporatism, the destruction of the free market and replacement of economic individualism with corporate monopolies, is also heinous. Typically us neolibertarians support free-market healthcare and endorse the enactment of school vouchers. Usually, neolibertarians like me espouse the idea that tort laws against damage by fossil fuel are the only energy policies that can make positive results. This belief is called free market environmentalism. The most consistent of us, including me, also endorse free trade policies that have nothing to do with fair trade and even less to do with Donald Trump’s walled-border and muslim-banning ideas.

A foreign policy of diplomacy that spreads liberal democracy and individual freedom and abolishes authoritarian states

Plenty of people here on social media sites will lie about us neolibertarians by claiming our foreign policy is identical to neoconservative foreign policy. But when you look at our fourth core value, you immediately notice many things wrong with that claim:

  1. Neoconservatives believe in using nothing but unilateral military force to spread democracy, but they never support spreading individual freedom like we the neolibertarians endorse.
  2. Neoconservatives think that multilateralism and diplomacy are inherently forms of appeasement, they are very black-and-white about foreign policy options whereas neolibertarians like me see innumerable shades of gray in the middle, those of us in public offices would carefully examine diplomatic options to ensure they are not one-sided.
  3. Neoconservatives tend to be okay with a corporatist economy, as opposed to capitalist, and socially they are okay with Jewish and/or Christian religious conservative legislation. Neolibertarians like myself are very much NOT okay with these things. With us, domestic policy entails individual freedom and economic individualism and also secularism.
  4. Neoconservatives, according to their actions under George W. Bush, think that liberal democracy is inherently the only kind of democracy possible, whereas neolibertarians like me realize that democracy is normally characterized by mob rule and that there are roughly 30+ different variants of democracy.

A military policy of using defensive war at the sole discretion of Congress, but only against nations who clearly & directly endanger America or its friends

Yes, I did link ‘friends’ to Wikipedia definition of friendship, to once again parent Congress about what a friend is. Friends are absolutely not prolific sponsors of enemy movements. Friends also do not ever regard religious nationalist enemy movements as heroes first and as villains later.

But that is not the point of this section. The point is that neolibertarians like me only support military force against nations who are very clearly direct threats to America or to its friends. A friend of America has individualism [including economic individualism], pluralism, and social equality as values in common with America and uses these values as reasons to instinctively side with America against any and all initial aggressors, and sponsors NONE of the wars of aggression against America.

Finally putting all that friendship stuff aside, and focusing on types of war, defensive war is basically the opposite of war of aggression, of which the latter is war for the sake of conquering. Examples of defensive war include:

  • Retaliatory war to punish a very recent assault of people of America and/or peoples of nations who are sincerely America’s friends
  • Preemptive war to end a clear and direct threat of immediate war of aggression
  • Preventive war to end a clear and direct threat of developing future war of aggression
  • Humanitarian war to punish the perpetrators of some recent or current Post-nazi Holocaust against the people of an honest friend like Israel or Ukraine

What do all of these have in common? They all involve exertion of what is known in legal theory as the Right of Self-defense. Click this link to Wikipedia and you will learn it has a bunch of other names. Neolibertarians like me believe in the right of self-defense applied to military policy, but only when there is indisputably a war of aggression being waged against America or against any of the US’s most sincere friends. This is once again how we differ dramatically from neoconservatives in terms of when it may be justified to use war. We believe war needs to only be used in direct defense of America or its friends, as for bringing Western Culture values to the world neolibertarians like me claim we need to rely primarily on free trade, globalization and civil diplomacy.


Perhaps I have done at least a decent job of debunking myths about neolibertarians, and perhaps now people can learn how pretty much all of us, including me, think. Thank you all for the read,



“Voting for Individualism” Part One, Why I Am An Independent


Welcome to the first in a planned trilogy of WordPress entries based on discussion of where my political activisms lie and why.

This entry focuses on why I refuse to affiliate with any political party on the planet. Forget about all that Democrat vs Republican stuff!

What kind of Independent voter I am…

Well, pretty much every valid internet self-quizzing toy if you will that I have ever played around with tells me I am one kind or another of ‘libertarian’, and I am going to show you how that now:

  1. When I took the World’s Smallest Political Quiz, My results came out as 80% on Personal issues and 90% on Economic issues, meaning I am a libertarian of some sort
  2. When I took the Political Compass quiz from Britain, rounding fractions up I came out four points rightward [economic individualism] and five points downward [social individualism], making me economically center-right and socially libertarian according to people in the European continent
  3. When I took the Libertarian Purity test, I came out with a score of 84, which is one of the closer ‘medium core’ numbers to ‘hard core’ libertarian
  4. Hello Quizzy had this thing called “The Politics Test” to offer, and my scores were 81% on individual freedom and 86% on economic freedom, getting myself labeled “radical libertarian”. More on this in Part Two.
  5. HQ also had something else to offer to me – The Foreign Policy School Test. And this other thing, based on my answers to it, labels me a “classic neocon”. More on this in Part Three.
  6. Lastly, this is the one that is relevant to this Part, some site called “Find 45” gave me this quiz and my result was “true Independent”

I frankly refuse to ever trust a government that only gives me two options. I stand on principle that polarizing rhetoric is not where real people are at – in the politics of ANY nation on Earth, really. And apparently my fellow millennials are right here with me in refusing to give into to polarizing nonsense of “Puritanical Leftist vs Puritanical Rightist”.

I additionally refuse to affiliate with any political party because, aside from the ACT party of New Zealand, no other Party on Earth shares my core values. And I do not live in New Zealand so I do not live in a nation wherein any party shares my basic political virtues, so I cannot ever truly declare a Party.


Well, I say that my reasons for voting as an Independent are similar to those of many Independents. My school of libertarianism of choice, neolibertarianism, is far more popular among Independents like me than it is among any political party in the United States, but I will get deeper into that in the next two parts.

The LDA’s perfect dream party?


I am a true Independent, but if there would be a party I could identify with, there would be some things about it.


My ideal theoretical perfect dream-party’s platform would be:

  1. Individualist; Pro-choice, Pro-Marriage Equality, Free Expression Purist, libertarian feminist
  2. Minarchist; Secularist, US Constitution Literalist
  3. Capitalist; Pro-free market, Pro-free trade, Pro-globalization, Pro-immigrant
  4. Empire of Liberty” minded; Pro-Israel, Pro-Western Culture, Idealist in foreign policy context, Pro-Liberal Regime Change, Anti-Democratic Regime Change
  5. Big Stick Policy” minded; Militarily Voluntaristic, Pro-Prevention, Anti-Aggression, Anti-Sharia, Pro-Right of Self-Defense, Pro-War Against Islamic Nationalism, Willing to Savannah Campaign fascist governments into permanent oblivion, Willing to end entire despotic militaries and despotic guerrilla groups

Why does such a party not exist?


I suppose one can say that making such a Third Party will only be practical when corporatism is evicted from American politics. In the mean time, thanks for the read,


Just War Theory Vs Empire of Liberty


I somehow rarely post here of late. So I figure I need to contrast two very different approaches to foreign policy: Just War Theory as developed by Thomas Aquinas, and Empire of Liberty as developed by Thomas Jefferson. If you look at the section “Alternative Theories” of the JWT article I linked to, you notice that Empire of Liberty is not on the Alternative Theories list. I am going to demonstrate how it belongs on there in this post.

Empire of Liberty as Foreign Policy Theory

The theory of Empire of Liberty based on spreading individual freedom, minimal state and economic freedom to the world; from what I can gather by learning the Monroe Doctrine; appears to hold that the use of Preventive policies like Big Stick Policy is justified against Nations of Tyranny who militarily prepare to wage Wars of Aggression. Additionally, if an Empire of Tyranny is sponsoring tyrannical guerrilla movements to spread itself across the globe, then Defensive war is justified against both that Empire and its legion of movements. Thirdly, if a despotic government has already very recently done severely violent damage to individualists and minarchists anywhere on the planet, then Liberation war is what to do. Therefore, in any of these cases, Nations of Liberty must use everything that is authorized by their respective National Constitutions to fully destroy the despotic governments, the despotic establishment militaries, and the despotic guerrilla groups, all at the mutual source. After this, we must spread individualism, minarchism and free-markets and not simply let foreign populations set up any kind of new despotism they want for as long as their new tyranny has election cycles.

Difference from Neoconservatives?

Neoconservatives stand on the simplistic, Neolibertarians like me stand on the holistic. “Neo-cons” believe it is very much perfect to just remake an enemy regime into a Democracy, no matter how Totalitarian or Collectivist that democracy is, and then keep our troops overseas without them really doing anything useful over there, all to pretend as if they are spreading freedom to the Earth. “Neo-libs“, like myself, recognize that the thing to do with enemy regimes is to remake them into Minimal States that breathe Individual Freedom and Economic Freedom. We objectively size up the policy of simply letting foreign populations set up any kind of Totalitarian Democracy they want and say “Yo, this is a really, vastly, BAD idea! This is bad for Empire of Liberty, we do NOT support this policy!” They look at the policy and say “Oh, don’t mind that there are no historic examples of simplistic policy being smart and holistic policy being dumb, just have faith that it is infallible policy!”


Jefferson was not at all one for warring at the first sign of danger, but the theme he was getting at with “Empire of Liberty” is that individualism is well worth fighting hard and well for, no matter where on Earth you live. Thanks for the read,