My Libertarian View Vs Average Conservative View: Federalism And Social Issues

Introduction

I am neither a liberal nor a conservative, I am a libertarian, and thus I have a federalist view of how geopolitical jurisdictions ought to be ruled.

Similarly, most conservatives have a federalist view of regime power in a nation. As a libertarian my federalism differs from conservative federalism by valuing freedom over tradition, while conservative federalism, as far as I observe, gives priority to individual freedom only on the economic side of the domestic policy ‘coin’ if you will, but not on the social side.

National Government

I believe that the national government should be limited to handling border security, assimilating immigrants into Western culture, building a volunteer military, hiring private-sector mercenaries to quell foreign terrorist threats, managing diplomatic friendships, holding and printing money according to a Gold Reserve, and upholding free trade, that’s it.

State & Local Governments

I believe that state and local governments should be limited to providing emergency services like police, fire fighters and ambulance; providing justice system elements like courts, prisons and rehabilitation; and building infrastructure and producing postal service.

Private Sector

I believe that all economic issues like minimum wage, welfare, healthcare, education, overtime pay, offshore banking, BitCoin, pensions, and so on need to be handled on a private sector level by Main Street production, also called Small Business, and the handling should only be limited by three factors:

  1. Supply and Demand
  2. Individual Freedom
  3. The Bill of Rights

Unlike conservatives who believe state and local government should handle social issues, I as a libertarian believe all social issues like gay marriage, gun policy, drug policy, abortion, voluntary euthanasia, science policy, Planned Parenthood, and so forth need to be handled on a private sector level by Main Street production, and this handling should only be limited by three norms:

  1. Supply and Demand
  2. Individual Freedom
  3. The Bill of Rights

Free-market liberalism is the name of the game as far as I am concerned, and I think that the force of Supply and Demand, with the force of Individual Freedom, should be the two and only forces regulating the dealings of everyday people on economic and social issues.

The Founders and the Polls

The U.S. Founding Fathers were libertarians, and set up our country and our Constitution on the idea that national government should only provide a small roster of national public services. Also state & city governments should only provide similarly small rosters of local public services and that nearly all services should be provided by the free market, laissez-faire economics which give priority to individual freedom. Looking at the ten types of libertarian, the styles of libertarianism the Founders founded America on were fiscal libertarianism and classical liberalism, and according to present day polling data most American commoners, including me, are domestically on board with the Founders’ hybrid of fiscal libertarian and classical liberal, many simply don’t know that yet.

Even majorities of my fellow millennials are hard-core classical liberal along with soft-core fiscal libertarian, according to the Reason Magazine report “Unclaimed Generation”.

So, indeed, this is my domestic policy platform, in short summary post.

Conclusion

That’s all I got for today, just wanted to talk about federalism for a bit. Thank you readers,

~LDA

An Irish Atheist Libertarian’s Ideological Self-Reflection

Introduction

I watched an episode of this YouTube show “The Rubin Report”, wherein the host Dave interviewed a very intelligent libertarian radio pundit named Larry Elder. They were having conversation in this episode that got me thinking: perhaps I must reflect on myself ideologically.

So without further holdup, I give to you my self-reflection.

Mini-Biography

I was born in a city hospital in the southwest edge of New Haven County of CT. I will not say which city or which hospital here on WordPress, because I am not yet ready to. I was raised for the large majority of my life entirely in a town on the north edge of the same County, and I spent the first six years of my life going through mental training/processing to radically reduce the autism in my brain to be so minimal as to only be a trivial handicap to some of my understandings of certain sociological realities. In other words, the first six years of my life I spent getting heavy reform to become able to mostly think and act like most of my fellow millennials.

After this training, age 6, I discovered my love for science and my plans to become a paleontologist in my 30’s, and I first learned the necessity of scientific reasoning and to some degree of moral freedom.

Then at age 9 I had seen the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy and from that I learned not just my fascination with the LOTR human legion known as the Easterlings, but more importantly I learned my desire to make a Medieval-like fantasy saga of my own and merely three years later I became an active collector, modeler, painter and gamer in context of Games Workshop’s Middle-earth product line. My passion for Games Workshop stuff began to some degree my understanding of the necessity of economic freedom.

When I was a teen, I made ideological changes of mind like abandoning Catholicism for Secular Morality in my early teens, and abandoning the naive worldview I was raised on for an “Empire of Liberty” worldview in my middle teens, and lastly adopting the labels “neolibertarian”, “republitarian”, and of course just plain “libertarian” in my late teens to describe my politics. All of this before I registered to vote when I was seventeen.

Nowadays, I am acting on my aspirations in ways like improving my work ethic at my front-end grocery store job with no shortfalls at all, getting essential documents for college mailed to my chosen colleges, and admitting to flaws of mine like the biggest obstruction to my aspirations at this time: Writer’s Block.

Can You, the LDA, Be Called Conservative?

I may be a very moderately rightist kind of guy, but I can never be called liberal or conservative. Instead the popular thing to call me out of honesty is libertarian. I support limiting federal government power to what’s in Article One Section Eight of the Constitution, and limiting state and local government power to just emergency services, courts, prisons, rehabs and infrastructure; and I advocate reimposing Gold-Standard monetarism on our currency.

All of such issues as healthcare, gay marriage, voluntary euthanasia, drug policy, education, abortion, wage standards, charity, gun policy, paid temporary leave, labor unions, offshore banking, Bit Coin, pensions, overtime pay, gender identity, science funding, environmental policy and Planned Parenthood should be decided on a private sector level by a free market economy with no monopolies and that is subject only to three norms:

  • Supply And Demand
  • Individual Freedom
  • the Golden Rule

Simple as that despite me pouring so many words into this section.

Have You Supported Rand Paul?

You know, I heavily admire Rand Paul on nearly everything economically and on a slim majority of things socially, but his foreign policy and defense views are his father’s out-of-touch naivety on diet pills, put it that way. I did have times when I was considering backing him…

But for most of 2015 and until February 2016, I was backing Marco Rubio because I believed at the time Rubio had the foreign policy and defense positions that were legit for spreading freedom to the world, or in other words for the Empire of Liberty.

But then he dropped his campaign and it just so happened that the Libertarian Party was advertising several candidates including a guy called Austin Petersen I could relate more to politically than I could to Rubio (93% compared to 82% according to my memory of taking the iSideWith online quiz), because Austin Petersen had more in common with me domestically than Rand Paul did and Petersen may not share Rubio’s support for Empire of Liberty but Petersen shares the trait of not being pacifist and favoring a strong national defense (Petersen and Rubio have somewhat differing ideas of strong national defense, it would seem though, at least to me).

Which leads me right into the nausea I always get from remembering that the default overseas doctrine of countless libertarians, though not of mainline libertarianism, is something like this:

  1. Anti-Defense
  2. Anti-America
  3. Anti-Israel
  4. Pro-Cultural Relativism
  5. Pro-Respecting Tyrannies
  6. Anti-Empire of Liberty

As for me I happen to think it is properly radical libertarian to have the total polar opposite six-pillar foreign policy doctrine:

  1. Pro-Defense
  2. Pro-America
  3. Pro-Israel
  4. Anti-Cultural Relativism
  5. Anti-Respecting Tyrannies
  6. Pro-Empire of Liberty

So… Can You explain these planks?

Absolutely I can, with great happiness. I will explain one plank at a time.

Plank 1 = Pro-Defense

I believe very strongly in a bigger volunteer national defense with absolutely no drafting at all, i.e. get rid of selective service, with somewhat higher spending, in contrast to what is presently the case with America’s uniquely honorable military.

However, these reforms when I call for them come with low-price equipment fixations attached. For example, Petersen mentioned he wanted to abolish the F-35 Lightning planes as they are remarkably expensive compared to the better-performing A-10 Thunderbolt planes and I am fully with him on that.

It was this reform proposal of Petersen’s that got my brain gearing; i.e. I apply this fiscal conservative logic to handheld firearms, by calling for the $1120 M4A1 carbines to be abolished for extra room for more of those $673 M16 rifles which are similar in almost every way performance wise.

I also believe any free nation (one with acceptable to high moral freedom, hybrid-democratic to fully democratic political freedom, and moderately free to fully free economies) has the moral right to have a drone program included in it’s national Right of Self-Defense.

Lastly, I support replacing all drafting and all selective service with expansion of the roster of qualified volunteers by offering optional military training and/or war studies classes in high schools and colleges alike.

Plank 2 = Pro-America

Despite what we hear from many libertarians about America, the United States is actually a top-notch 7-or-more-out-of-10 performer in almost every arena that a nation ought to be 6 or more out of 10 in to be considered a ‘libertarian regime’, if you will.

Like here are the scores to the nearest integers out of 10:

  • Human Development = America scores a nine
  • Democracy = America scores an eight
    • Political pluralism = America scores a nine
    • Government functioning = America scores an eight
    • Political participation = America scores a seven
    • Political culture = America scores an eight
    • Civil Liberties = America scores a eight
  • Economic Freedom = America scores an eight
  • Moral Freedom = America scores an eight
    • Religious Freedom = America scores a ten
    • Bioethical Freedom = America scores a nine
    • Sexual Freedom = America scores a seven
    • Family/Gender = America scores a nine
  • Abstinence from Slavery = America scores a nine
  • Infant Mortality = America scores an eight
  • Gender Equality =  America scores a seven
  • Inter-racial Tolerance = America scores a ten (says this map)

How can any libertarians ignore this at all? This is something also that makes Austin Petersen far better than one like Gary Johnson: Petersen loves America, and so do I.

Plank 3 = Pro-Israel

Out of all the entire Greater Middle East, Israel is the closest nation in the region to a ‘libertarian regime’, so to the huge portion of libertarians who are anti-Israel:

  1. Israel has the highest human development of any GME nation
  2. Israel is a ‘flawed democracy’ drastically close to full democracy, all other nations in the GME is just a barbaric, authoritarian blood-hole
  3. Israel has the most religious freedom of any nation in the GME at five times out of ten, all other nations respect religious liberty four times or fewer out of ten, if ever
  4. Israel may not be world leader in Bioethical freedom (America has that honor), but they are certainly the second highest in bioethical liberty in the GME. Only Tunisia currently stands higher.
  5. Israel is also second only to Tunisia in sexual freedom when it comes to the Greater Middle East, but put it this way: In Israel, bioethical freedom and sexual liberty are old. In Tunisia, these ideals are new.
  6. Israel leads the rest of the Greater Middle East in Family freedom and Gender liberty by a vastly long way: The next-highest is Tunisia who has half the family/gender freedom Israel has, statistically observing.
  7. Israel is the Greater Middle East’s leading enemy of Slavery, says Global Slavery index
  8. Israel is the best in the GME at keeping newborn infants alive, and even stands to some degree above the United States!
  9. Israel leads the rest of the GME in Gender Equality according to Global Gender Gap Report

I doubt there is a single scientific-minded fellow libertarian who will be anything on Israel other than very strongly Pro-Israel after fact-checking the above notations.

Plank 4 = Anti-Cultural Relativism

I am very much against cultural relativism, the fiction that all cultures are somehow inherently equal and good. That’s not how humanity works:

  • Western culture stands on top of all other cultures in anything my fellow hard-core libertarians generally agree is good:
    1. Human Development = Western culture
    2. Democracy = Western culture
    3. Economic freedom = Western culture
    4. Moral freedom = Western culture
    5. Abstinence from slavery = Western culture
    6. Women’s property rights = Western culture
    7. Women’s physical security = Western culture
    8. Legal Equality for Gays = Western culture
    9. Legal Equality for the transgendered = Western culture
    10. Infant Mortality = Western culture
    11. Opposition to Child Labor = Western culture
    12. Ratio of overall Gender Equality = Western culture
  • Western Civilization is inherently better-behaved than any other multi-national civilization in the entire species of Homo Sapiens.

Western culture is sort of a revolt against human nature, which is grounded in millions of years of “kill or be killed or steal” brand of animalism.

And libertarians are oftentimes fascinated by civil revolt, aren’t we? In this case I applaud Western culture as a civil revolt against Traditional human nature.

Plank 5 = Anti-Respect for Tyrannies

I cannot say libertarians are good at being “freedom believers” (libertarian is Latin for freedom believer) if most of my fellow libertarians are calling for America and other Western-world countries to refuse to defend parliamentary libertarians and small-government constitutionalists everywhere and demanding Western culture to just let tyrannical cultures run rampant.

Which is why I believe in a foreign policy like this:

  • Peace, commerce and honest friendship with free nations, entangling alliances with none
  • Mutual respect between libertarian republics
  • Giving compassion to tyranny is inherently the stuff of mental instability

I cannot say it is radically libertarian or extremist libertarianism to treat tyrants as anything other than hunting targets, but I must point out there are other tools in the hunting toolbox besides military warfare:

  1. Letters of Marque and Reprisal
  2. Diplomatic Westernization
  3. Economic Retaliation
  4. Free-migration policies of Assimilating refugees into Western culture

I believe about tyrannical societies as Ayn Rand did, but I am paraphrasing here:

  • “A Tyrannical Society is a Gang Regime and can therefore morally claim absolutely no rights to life, liberty or independence whatsoever.”

Plank 6 = Pro-Empire of Liberty

Thomas Jefferson was on the entirely right track morally when he devised his theme of “Empire of Liberty”. Sickening to me to know it is only a minority of libertarians (43%) who favor Empire of Liberty policies. But thanks to this theme, I know to favor the spreading of freedom to the world, not the spread of democracy, but instead:

  • The spread of free-market capitalism
  • The spread of free-society liberalism
  • The spread of parliamentary republicanism
  • The spread of small-government constitutionalism

Just as America was founded on the ideal of a libertarian country, Empire of Liberty was thought up on the ideal of a libertarian planet, and according to the following notion from Thomas Jefferson maybe a libertarian cosmos:

  • “Where this progress will stop no one can say. Barbarism has, in the mean time, been receding before the steady step of amelioration; and will in time, I trust, disappear from the Earth.”

Many major exponents would exert Empire of Liberty long after Jefferson’s passing, some correctly according to the results as known from history, some not so much.

Point being that many libertarians oppose Empire of Liberty for reasons that make my brain violate itself, after finishing 10th grade and espousing the label and ideology of ‘libertarian’ I have never opposed Empire of Liberty.

Any Specific Triumphs of Empire of Liberty You’d Like To Bring Up?

Sure, let me make a list:

  1. American Revolutionary War
  2. The Barbary Wars
  3. American Civil War
  4. World War 1 (Middle Eastern front only)
  5. World War 2 (European front and Japanese front alike)
  6. Cold War (in Eastern Europe and in South Korea)

Those are the biggest successes of this Empire of Liberty theme I advocate for, so it has marvelous potential in the current War on Salafism.

Conclusion

Well, that was a giant one. Thanks to all of you readers for reading this post,

~LDA

Libertarian Principles Ending Saddam Was Morally Good Under

Introduction

Neolibertarians like me are often described as supportive of the Iraq War of 2003, but I must ask: what do the people describing us as such mean by that? And what libertarian ideals could possibly justify having blasted down the Saddam regime in 2003? I am going to name off those grounds here.

Ground 1: “We Should Only Wage War To Directly Defend America Or Her Friends”

This is basically the phrase-line of basic military Non-intervention. Considering America’s friends, who were and are America’s friends during the 1980’s, 1990’s, 2000’s and 2010’s? Well, in order from slightest to strongest friend, they were and are:

  • Lebanon
  • Turkey
  • Israel

You’ll notice Israel is our strongest friend in the Greater Middle East, but I’ll be honest: we don’t need to be militarily allied to them for us to be doing free trade and open immigration and freedom of association and freedom of movement with them. There is a nuance between militarily allied and honestly a friend. Israel is a parliamentary republic full of political freedom and a mostly free economy but its only moral suffering is from insufficient moral freedom, including its heinous and unwarranted military drafting: the legion that fights voluntary fights the hardest and smartest by libertarian estimation.

That said, what was Saddam Hussein doing to Israel that made militarily collapsing his regime the right way to open space for the creation of a parliamentary republic of civil liberties, political freedom, and economic laissez-faire (NOT simply a democracy like we ended up pushing to create)? Put it this way:

  • Saddam was firing SCUD missiles into Israel
  • Saddam was a prolific sponsor of Salafi champion Yasser Arafat and Arafat’s Salafi legion the Hamas.
  • This combo of prolific sponsorship and direct missile fire resulted in Hamas carrying out numerous barbaric assaults against Israel, and in every single case Israel had every moral right to retaliate harder than it did.
  • Article about Saddam’s murderous barbarity toward Israel HERE.

Ground 2: “Maximum Freedom ~ Minimum Government!”

I don’t think I need to explain how the LP’s own motto is perfectly libertarian reasoning for destroying the Saddam regime, I am just going to let Wikipedia do it for me (Individual freedom in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq – there was none. And Saddam’s government size? Colossal).

Ground 3: “End All Barriers To Free Trade”

Behaviorally, Saddam’s Hussein’s repeat use of genocide, famine, state terrorism, and mustard gas to force his insanity onto the Fertile Crescent was the biggest barrier in that region at the time to unrestricted free trade: He was making free trade a dangerous idea, and at the time it was either free trade gets killed by restrictions to trade or free trade gets emboldened by the ousting of Saddam.

Ground 4: “Free Market Capitalism is inherently better than Socialism of any sort”

You know what, mainstream libertarians, I agree! And the Saddam Hussein barbarism was motivated by a brand of socialism called Baathism, which traces its origins to anti-libertarian academics in France in World War II era. Baathism holds that a centrally planned economy is the key to bringing Arab nationalism to the state of world norm. This therefore got Saddam interested in killing and ordering violations of his fellow Iraqis in the name of central economic planning.

Conclusion

Indeed, I will stop here. My point in doing this post was Saddam was on no account an enemy of Salafism and he was on no account a counterbalance to any interests any Western world libertarian might have had now or at the time as Rand Paul thinks Saddam was. So, thanks for the read everyone;

~LDA

Keith Farrell invites libertarians to reality

Introduction

So…. I googled “pro-military libertarian” and the very first result I find that is actually grounded in science and history, in what it says, is predictably a Libertarian Republic article. This wonderful article showed me to someone named Keith Farrell who wrote this wonderful article I will link you to here.

Not only do I realize the default Pro-whatever label to attach to a libertarian of my style of libertarianism is not pro-military but instead Pro-defense, but also I know now that my presidential hero for the 2016 elections who I am writing in, Austin Petersen, has a member of his website who may very well be ideologically with me on most foreign policy issues, more so than Petersen himself.

To reward this author Farrell for his article, I am going to introduce him to the two words he might be looking for:

Republitarian

This term is more often used to refer to libertarians who vote Republican, but very often can be used to refer to someone who follows Petersen’s domestic example of exerting incrementalism, the ideal of solving problems in small steps rather than large ones, and a genuinely Pro-defense and Pro-America foreign policy.

Neolibertarian

Indeed the bigger word with the more stigma to it, thanks to the pacifist “libertarians”, this term is entirely about a foreign policy of bringing freedom to the world. Not much else for me to say to explain it.

How I’ll brand myself

Due to how disgusted by normal Americans for blind worship of candidates like Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, and how nauseated I am by much of my generation looking at Bernie Sanders as some kind of revival of Jesus, I cannot call myself Pro-America, but I will very gladly call myself a “Pro-Defense, Pro-West libertarian”. And by “West” I’m referring to all Western world nations and all Western minded nations, which sadly for at least four years are going to be leaderless. I don’t like it that way and I don’t want it to be that way, but it is that way.

In case anyone’s wondering, the Western world nations are the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the 12 other Oceanian countries, and every European State (on the linked-to map in green) except for Belarus.

The Western minded nations are Israel, Lebanon, Turkey, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, South Africa, Philippines, Hong Kong, Singapore and a really small nation I only recently heard of called Macau.

Conclusion

So, yes, people, please read that article, it is absolutely amazing, but be warned there are various ads on that site. Thanks all,

~LDA

Should Atheists, Deists, & other Irreligious all be republitarians?

Introduction

I am going to explore all the different Irreligious mindsets known to humanity, including atheism, the one I am into. Irreligion is the absence and rejection of organized religion, it is adherence to secular morality.

This post, after professionally defining and explaining all the styles of irreligion, I am going to speak about whether or not all irreligious should inherently throw their political lot in with the libertarian wing of the Republican Party, and if so then why they should.

Atheism Is…

The idea that every single god and goddess ever thought up, from Jesus to Allah to whomever else, is purely a fictional character.

Atheists like myself tend to be tremendous fans of scientific studies like paleontology and astrophysics and tend to be big fans of science documentaries like “Cosmos; A Space Time Odyssey” and the “Walking With” saga. In fact most irreligious are, but I think atheists tend to be the biggest followers of present-day science.

Here in America, atheism makes up 9 million of this country’s 74 million Irreligion psychographic. That’s 12% of a psychographic that takes up 23% of America’s population, meaning Atheists are 3% of the 320 million American People.

We are the people you can expect to hear saying that the universe started with the Big Bang in the year 13 billion BC.

Deism is…

The idea that one or more gods made the cosmos in 13 billion BC and were, are, and will always refuse to interfere in the events of the cosmos.

Unlike atheists like I was in 2008 to 2010 and in 2015 to now, deists like I was in 2013 to 2015 believe divines are real-life beings who happen to never interfere in the internal workings of the cosmos.

Deism was the ultimate irreligion during the Age of Enlightenment, from the late 17th century to the late 19th. It was also the Irreligious mindset that all of our Founding Fathers were subscribers to, and they were all also subscribers to the secular republic libertarianism of John Locke. Not too surprising, as the Founders were adamantly clear on the importance of freedom of religion.

Nowadays, deists are the majority of American Irreligious: 68% of the psychographic, meaning 50 million Americans are deists. Also this is 16% of the American People. My favorite metal musician for 2008 to 2015 David Draiman is in this category of Irreligion.

Agnostics are…

People who believe that the question of whether gods are real or fictional is not a possible question to answer. These guys and gals make up 17% of Irreligion in America, meaning 12 million Americans are agnostics.

Agnostic irreligion is often known to atheists and deists as “fence sitting”, due to its refusal to call the God question a knowable question.

Honestly, I don’t know what else I can say about this mindset.

Ignostics are…

People who differ from agnostics by calling the God question “meaningless” instead of calling it a question to which the answer is “unknowable”. Ignosticism is all about thinking the term “god” has no theologically neutral definition.

The appeal of Ignosticism to me from 2010 to 2013, so almost my entire high school phase, was its natural refusal to argue about God’s existence without first learning a strictly theologically neutral definition of God.

Well, allow me, an atheist, to give such a definition to the ignostics:

  • A being that uses magic to create new pieces of the cosmos.

SBNR stands for…

Spiritual But Not Religious, people who have spiritual beliefs that happen to be derived from a secular morality of some sort, whether it’s the Golden Rule or Ethical Egoism or whatever else. Not much else to say from me.

Secular Humanism?

This style of irreligion is basically about using reason and secular ethics to advance human rights and human development. Often the one-word term for this is: Naturalism.

Republitarian Politics

Ideologically, and only capitalizing the R if a sentence begins with this term, republitarianism is all about a right-libertarian republic domestically, and a genuinely proactive foreign policy of free trade, national self-defense, open immigration, and Empire of Liberty.

In Partisan terms, with the R being capitalized every time the term is used, it refers to a voter who espouses libertarian ideology while siding more often with the US Republican Party over the US Democrat Party.

How republitarianism is the organic political ideology of Non-religion and of Anti-religion alike

Yes… I figured this out long before my return to atheism: irreligion and republitarianism are mutually brotherly to each other.

Think about it:

  • Both are all out for Individual Independence
  • Both are widely espoused by big supporters of free market capitalism
  • Both are (normally) motivators of logical paths into each other
    • republitarians oftentimes are lead by their politics to espouse irreligion
    • irreligious are often times lead by their commitment to scientific thought process to eventually espouse republitarianism
  • Both have all the admiration and respect ever possible for present-day science
  • Both allow for differing stances on nearly-meaningless social issues like abortion and gay marriage within themselves
  • Both are genetically secular thought processes in terms of whether government should be secular or a theocracy
  • Both greatly value moral freedom and the permissive society
  • Both have reason to plea and push for the freedom of irreligious overseas
  • Both have generally a view that all people need to have freedom

Starting to see a pattern? If not, I will name the pattern for you:

  • The Pattern Of Irreligion and Republitarian being all about freedom & independence within their arenas (theology and politics, respectively)

Conclusion

Well, I may have made a brief argument for irreligious being republitarian, but allow me to put the “icing on the cake” with questions:

  • Should the Far Left Progressives’ push for mass censorship elements like “trigger warning” and “safe space” mandates make the Democrat Party’s entire Science and Non-religion base want to leave for the Republican Party and to be libertarian Republicans instead of conservative ones?
  • Should the Far-Left make Science & Irreligion minded Democrats want to flee to the GOP’s libertarian bloc by opposing the idea of belligerence to theocratic regimes who murder millions of Irreligious every week by removing their heads and stoning them to death and by calling for friendliness to such regimes?
  • Should libertarian Republican principles against the War On Drugs and against Homophobic and/or Transphobic legislation make Science & Irreligion minded voters interested in the libertarian-wing “Republican Liberty Caucus?”
  • Should the libertarian Republican openness to influence by Objectivist movement academics like Yaron Brook make the RLC resemble at least some kind of healthy meaning to Science & Irreligion minded individuals? That Brook himself is one of?

Just four questions of food for brain. Thanks all,

~LDA

Libertarian Atheist Explores and Analyzes Sun Tzu’s Art of War

Introduction

It appears as though Sun Tzu is heavily changing my mind on how to truly destroy the Salafi movement, including ISIS, and on how to exert the “Empire of Liberty” globally.

I can easily say good-bye to Ayn Rand’s and Yaron Brook’s insights into how wars ought to be conducted. I am still in favor of a huge and dynamic US military and I am still in favor of the War On the Salafi Movement, and I am still in favor of Liberation war. But this link is really phenomenal at showing me how the US Congress and US Military should conduct its War On the Salafi Movement! It endorses brains over ruthless force, and it opens up intellectually how to win wars at minimal self-sacrifice!

Fits Better With My Thinking Style

Here is the link I am reading The Art Of War through. I am seeing ideals that I think will make me a much healthier person in the head not just in discussing politics but also in my strategy battle gaming with my Games Workshop miniatures!

I am a factual and science-minded person, and so it is only natural for Sun Tzu to change my mind on how a free society’s military should conduct a Liberation war, now that I actually read a university’s online copy of his “The Art Of War” book.

Conclusion

I know I am going to finish reading it soon, and I think I will be reading this Art Of War thing once per week or per month, maybe. In the mean time, I still think Yaron Brook is a genius on foreign policy, but I think Sun Tzu is just the wiser genius to turn to. Thanks all,

~LDA

Choosing a Shorter Label: republitarian instead of neolibertarian

Introduction

I do like the idea of neolibertarianism, and I even subscribe to neolibertarian ideology, but for the longest time we have had supporters criticize us for one thing above all else: Our ideological label is too long and needs a shorter alternative.

Well, fact is we have had a shorter word for as long was we have been our own political psychographic for [2001 to now] and that label is republitarian:

  • A portmanteau of the words
    • ‘republican’, label for someone who supports a government by elected leaders who obey the rule of law; and
    • ‘libertarian’, label for someone who believes people should be both socially and economically free to do and say what they want with only enough government interference to deter violent crime & to deter property crime.
  • Radio talk host Larry Elder first coined the label ‘republitarian’ in probably 2001 or maybe in the 1990’s as early as 1996.

The Letter Counts

Neolibertarian = fourteen letters

Republitarian = thirteen letters

Not that much shorter, but the good news is if I were to, for example, start an online small-business of selling variably themed tees and one of those themes was republitarian tees, then using the term with one less letter to it would save me $900 per year off the cost of printing the label onto numberless stacks of fifty tees per stack. I don’t make much, so it would be too late for me to switch words by the time I’d be [theoretically] able to afford that fourteenth letter.

Primary Meaning

Many, including Elder who coined the term, may say that republitarian mainly refers to Americans who are registered to vote as Republicans or have at least slightly more in common with the Republicans and support policies that expand moral freedoms and economic freedoms alike. Can I consider this to be only fair to say if one capitalizes the opening “R” every time the label is thrown around? Sometimes:

  • I am not registered to vote as a Republican but I do find plenty of appeal in the GOP’s libertarian wing.
  • Most GOP libertarians fit into the republitarian and neolibertarian definition

GOP Libertarians vs LP Libertarians

If you’ve read the opening of the Wikipedia article of “libertarian Republican”, then you know that republitarians have a similar platform ideologically to the Libertarian Party platform but differ in regard to strategy. However, it is also a fact that most “libertarian Republicans” differ from most “Libertarian partisans” in a grand list of ways in foreign policy, military defense, and geopolitics.

  • While most Libertarian partisans favor a military so small and static it cannot defeat clear threats to the U.S. at their sources, most libertarian Republicans favor a large and dynamic military that is capable of confronting and defeating action-proven enemies of the American People at the homelands of the enemies.
  • Most libertarian Republicans are also in favor of Congress declaring war on ISIS and on the the State Sponsors of Jihad militias like ISIS [other state sponsors of Jihad marked in dark green and explained here], most Libertarian partisans oppose Congressional declarations of war against these sincere threats to the American People.
  • Libertarian Republicans are Pro-Israel by a huge majority, while Libertarian partisans are mostly Israel-indifferent and the larger minority are Anti-Israel
  • Concerning the issue of Drone strikes against ISIS and its State Sponsors, most libertarian Republicans favor the use of drones, most Libertarian partisans oppose the use of drones
  • With regard to the NSA spying, most libertarian Republicans think America should only spy on foreigners and most Libertarian partisans favor abolishing the NSA, but majorities of both groups oppose the Patriot Act
  • The question of whether Guantanamo Bay prison should be closed off and its prisoners put into continental U.S. prisons is answered by Libertarian partisans with a resounding “yes”, while the majority of libertarian Republicans oppose this policy idea and call for the Geneva Convention to be used to end the use of torture instead, as GOP libertarians differ from GOP conservatives by seeing torture as wasteful and ineffective.
  • Just War Theory to the point of almost pacifism is the dominant thesis of defense and military policy among Libertarian partisans, while the dominant thesis of defense and military policy among libertarian Republicans is the Theory of Self-Defense based on the principle that Golden Rule-abiding free societies are best off operating for their national self-interest.
    • This self-defense theory teaches GOP libertarians and I that free societies are morally able to retaliate against barbaric Dictatorships who callously disregard the Golden Rule. It also teaches GOP libertarians and I that if any free society ever finds itself under attack by a dictatorship, then it is morally mandatory for that free society to use everything at its disposal to severely destroy that dictatorship for waging or sponsoring war on the citizens of the free society.
    • GOP libertarians mostly {and I unanimously} adopt this view due to reading essays on Ayn Rand Institute written by its director Yaron Brook, and fueled by its ideology of Objectivism.
  • Libertarian partisans generally have no glossary of geopolitics, foreign policy, & military defense terms outside of their nearly-pacifist, Just War Theorist agenda; while most libertarian Republicans are likely to use the Ayn Rand Lexicon as a glossary of geopolitics, foreign policy & military defense terms as I use that lexicon for.

If you look at what majorities of every day Americans want in foreign policy and defense policy according to Polling Report Index, then you’ll know which faction of U.S. libertarianism has more in common with American regular society.

Conclusion

It is not only clear I need to start getting used to calling myself ‘republitarian’ and my politics ‘republitarianism’, but it’s also clear that the classical John Locke 1680’s and 1690’s libertarianism is far better reflected by Modern Whig Partisans and by Libertarian-Base Republicans than it is by the Libertarian Party.

Because the John Locke libertarianism was very strongly built on prioritizing support for a parliamentary republic domestically, and an ethically egoist foreign/defense policy based on free trade, free migration, friendship with free societies, Thomas Jefferson’s “Empire of Liberty“, and Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War“. But of course the hipster “libertarians” of the late 1970’s stole the label ‘libertarian’, so now I ought to call myself ‘republitarian’ with a small R, especially these days to distance myself galaxies away from the that blond guy whose only good trait is his acceptance of the fact that political correctness is inherently wrong but who otherwise reminds me of Mr. Garrison in Season 19 of South Park.

But anyhow, thanks for the read readers,

~LDA