How Much Economic Regulation Does An Economy Truly Need?


Hey, readers! I know I have not posted here in forever but that’s mainly due to me writing for both this and as an author for The Libertarian Republic. So in essence I multitask on WordPress now. But that is not what this post is about, the title indicates.

This post is about the economic regulatory burden and how I would fix the problems it causes if I were US president or even just CT governor, being elected on the Libertarian Party ticket of course.

The Burden Sizes

I am not sure about the state by state regulatory burdens, but I do know the federal count stands at 87,282. Yes, this is focusing on the American economy and its 50 different state economies. I am guessing the least regulated states simply adopt federal regulatory burden, and that the most regulated ones have hundreds of thousands of regulations apiece.

How to Fix the US Economy and 50 State Economies

Individually, I say we abolish the entire regulatory burden and set up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the entire regulatory burden. Why this document that would make for a burden of 8 pages with 30 regulations? Because…

  1. American government was founded to be a minimal state
  2. Minimal state means the regime only exists to enforce a cosmic law of human freedom, and to treat it as a requirement for a truly free-market economy
  3. Minimal state also means a very tiny government that acts either like a democracy or like a republic
  4. No economy on the planet needs thousands or even hundreds of limits to economic, societal, moral, political or cultural freedom.
  5. However every nation does need something as simple as this 8-page thing of 30 articles of freedoms to Secure Liberty.

Yes, if I were Connecticut state governor for example, I would replace the entire CT regulatory burden with just the UDHR alone. Plus I would invoke the 10th Amendment as my warrant to resist the 87,000+ federal regulations and to treat UDHR as the only regulation that matters.

Does this idea have flaws?

Why, yes it does. Some may argue I should be calling for the US Bill of Rights to be the entire regulatory burden instead of the UDHR. But who is to say which one to apply to the necessity we refer to as total free trade?

Perhaps I would invoke the 10th amendment to allow the Connecticut people to decide which document of individualism to replace the entire regulatory burden with, including to replace acknowledgement of federal regs with refusal to obey anything outside of.

Conclusion & Question

Thanks for reading this readers, and I hope you will at least notice my articles for The Libertarian Republic as better written than anything I post here.

One question though:

  1. Would my US readers rather replace the entire regulatory burden with the Bill of Rights or with the UDHR? Cut 87,282 regs down to 10 or cut 87,282 down to 30?

~Libertarian Defense Atheist


What Must the US Libertarian Party Do for Foreign Policy?


I am going to answer a question that I predict some in my party, the LP, might ask me if ever I was to challenge the current LP establishment of pacifism-until-US-soil-gets-hit at an LP rally or something.

American Foreign Policy

The Libertarian Party is totally into reality on everything except for what to adopt and act on a foreign policy of, the one reality they seem unable to grasp is:

  • American foreign policy needs to be a policy of US Constitutionalism that cares exclusively about defending the Bill of Rights for every American civilian even if some American civilians are overseas for any reason.

Other than this, the LP is right in solid reality. Although… I must say foreign policy, on top of being my favorite political topic, is also something countless fellow American voters are heavily worried about. Almost every poll states that Foreign Policy and Warfare is the second most important political topic to everyday America to only Economic Policy and Jobs.

Who Majorities Truly Trust

The LP needs to wake up to the reality that Americans have a very simple but principled taste in Allies. Americans know all to well the difference between a Stable alliance and an Unstable alliance, and the LP should alter their rhetoric on alliances (and on non-alliance friendships) according to the American People’s taste in allies.

  • Canada is seen by the American People as an ally (+93)
  • Australia & New Zealand are seen by the American People as allies (+91)
  • Britain & Ireland are seen by the American People as allies (+85)
  • Germany is seen by the American People as an ally (+77)
  • Japan is seen by the American People as an ally (+70)
  • India is seen by the American People as an ally (+55)
  • France is seen by the American People as an ally (+54)
  • Israel is seen by the American People as an ally (+47)
  • Greece is seen by the American People as an ally (+34)

Now we name the nations the Libertarian Party needs to pledge to abolish US alliance and US friendship with:

  • Saudi Arabia is seen by the American People as an enemy (+12)
  • China is seen by the American People as an enemy (+15)
  • Cuba is seen by the American People as an enemy (+20)
  • Libya is seen by the American People as an enemy (+41)
  • Iraq is seen by the American People as an enemy (+47)
  • the Palestinian Authority is seen by the American People as an enemy (+53)
  • Syria is seen by the American People as an enemy (+55)
  • Pakistan is seen by the American People as an enemy (+66)
  • Afghanistan is seen by the American People as an enemy (+68)
  • North Korea is seen by the American People as an enemy (+69)
  • Iran is seen by the American People as an enemy (+77)

On top of this, South Korea is far more trusted by The People to be a true ally (+37) than Jordan is (+17). Yemen is seen by The People as an enemy (+35).

Think of the differences with the ‘+’ signs like this:

  • 10 to 30 means slightly ally or enemy
  • 30 to 60 means moderately ally or enemy
  • 60 to 80 means strongly ally or enemy
  • 80 or higher means extremely ally or enemy

Libertarian Party candidates often speak of listening to the American People far better than either major party is willing to. How about spinning that rhetoric into becoming a reality by listening to the American People’s wishes without abandoning the principle of a proactive foreign policy of Constitutionalism.

Most Voters Don’t Want A Smaller Military

In all fairness, the same polling suggests that most voters do not want a bigger military, either. In mathematical sums:

  • 69% do not want a bigger military
  • 60% do not want a smaller military

So the most electable agenda for catering to both of these majorities would be to pledge to keep the military at current size, and to allow the Pentagon to get the military budgets they ask for in full but in return require the Pentagon to submit to auditing. Auditing the Pentagon every year is key to justifying the US military’s current size.

Identifying Enemy’s Motives

The LP needs to drop its mix of paranoia against all US interaction overseas with naive pacifism that truly thinks if America is totally polite and kind to all foreign regimes and reaches out exclusively with discussion then the human nature will become perfect.

The world does not work this way.

Reality in identifying the terroristic militias and regimes who started war against Western countries in 2001 is that the LP needs to confront the idea of calling the enemy “terrorism”. The Libertarian Party needs to confront this idea by pushing to instead refer to the enemy as “Islamic Statism”, and needs to define Islamic Statism as “The movement that pushes to force the planet to become a global, despotic theocracy that’s based on a purist view of Islam that includes hatred of Anti-statist muslims”. Because that’s exactly what the Islamic Statist movement and ideology is about.

The Libertarian Party then needs to open the American People to the history of Islamic Statism including how it started shortly after the Prophet Muhammad passed away.

Next the LP ought to say similar stuff to what Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute says, about how America is not waging Defensive War against terrorism, but rather is waging Defensive War against Islamic Statism.

In regards to North Korea, the LP needs to study and precisely identify that ideology that motivates the Kim Jong-Un regime to be as it is: Juche.

Approach to Warfare

The LP agenda on the US military’s style of warfare should read like this:

  • When the United States goes to war, it should only be due to a declaration by the Legislative Branch, and even so the Legislative should only declare war against a significant or critical threat to the American People & the Bill of Rights. When this is the case, the military needs to do everything in its tactical intellect to defeat the threat at the source.

The Libertarian Party does not necessarily need to push for unlimited warfare, in fact such warfare tends to be more often impulsive. Instead the LP should push for the US military to learn their style of warfare from nothing but Sun Tzu’s The Art Of War. The US military ought to base its exact strategies and tactics on the lessons they learn from Sun Tzu, even if some controversial tactics are required for defeating the initial aggressor at the source.

Trade, Migration & Travel

Libertarians have the policy pledges totally right on regards to trade. Roughly three-fifths of America according to NBC strongly support Free Trade, Freedom of Movement and Free Migration. The Libertarian Party needs to regard Free Trade, Right to Travel, Right to Life, Freedom of Choice and Right to Privacy as Ninth Amendment rights while calling Right to Security the Fourth Amendment right of every American Citizen, which is generally true.


Well I think I am done proposing reform to the LP platform for now. Thanks all for reading,


Defining and Explaining Islamic Statism


Merging two well-known terms to create a term as the US feds should have done from day one of the War on “terrorism”. Instead of calling the enemy Terrorism, our government should have called it Islamic Statism, as the terrorists we face and the regimes who sponsor them have an ideology in common: Islamic Statism

What The Term Means

This term I propose and encourage use of refers to two things:

  • A type of government called an Islamic State
  • Advocacy of a government to exist which is called Statism

In the case of the context I promote use of this term in, an ‘Islamic Statist’ is one who calls for a government to be totally based on purist application of the Koran as one’s regime’s constitution.


This is another short, heat-in-the-moment press of mine. I just wanted to get the coining of a two-word term out there. Although I am not sure if this term was already coined by someone else. Thanks either way,


How to Fund Government Exercise of Enumerated Powers without Taxation


Before I get into this, no this is not a tutorial but instead a list of proposals to implement all of at once and yes, I am aware I will have to list the Enumerated Powers and define them first.

Federally Enumerated Powers

All the federal government’s powers are granted to the Legislative branch and not to the executive and are granted in Article One Section Eight of the Constitution. They are as follows:

  1. The Power to raise money and spend it on exerting other powers
  2. to make rules for warping immigrants into American culture
  3. to print money, coin money, and make a monetary base policy
  4. to provide post offices and build roads
  5. to promote modern sciences and provide & defend copyrights
  6. to enforce the Law of Nations (which as of 1945 refers to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
  7. to start wars on foreign aggressors, to post bounties on foreign aggressors, and make rules for treatment of POWs
  8. to build a military and make rules for the US military’s way of war

This article of my online journal will be about ways to raise money without bleeding workers’ incomes and families’ budgets (insert number here)% dry.

And yes, I am doing this from a mixed perspective of American Libertarianism and American Constitutionalism. I am going to pull my ideas from Wikipedia’s list article “Non-tax Revenue” and simplify them in my explanations.

Voluntary Donations to Government

I highly doubt any American will go along with this one given how government currently treats the American People, but this basically refers to when people willfully choose to give money to the government. This I think would only be done by the 39% of the American People at most, which currently constitutes 125 million out of 320 million. But if every one of those 125 million gave the government a $20 donation every week, which amounts to $1040 per year, that would be a $130 billion donation for the year of 2016.

User Fees for Public Services

User Fees are money charged by government from people who use sanitation, fire hydrant use, public parks or other government-owned services. User fees in essence are government equivalent to, for example, a waitress charging you tip money for her service to you at a casual eatery.

Permit Fees

As someone who had to pay a permit fee on July 25th 2014 for my Driving Learner’s Permit (which doubles as a state ID) over in the Connecticut DMV of my small town in New Haven County, I can use that as a personal-experience example of how this is a government revenue method that differs from taxation by having moral legitimacy; meaning ID cards are needed for public service providers to know off that bat that you are who you say you are. Its comparable to how private amusement parks check IDs and also how Medical facilities check IDs as well, so checking IDs is a matter of evidence-based security.

Passports are another permit fee means of generating government revenue. American individuals who want to travel overseas know that foreign governments are not going to be any different than American government in requiring passports in order to enter a nation. The result is people will readily buy passports voluntarily, even if it means saving up for a few months for one for some workers.

Civil Fines

Now this one is non-voluntary revenue source, but in a proper Free Society this happens whenever someone commits a crime that is malum in se, is tried and proven guilty, and then has to either pay a fine and/or go to jail. Fines are expensive, but the good news for golden rule-abiding people is that Fines do not bleed golden rule-abiding peoples’ finances dry.

Rents and Concessions

Charging people money per month for their property, making deals with individual merchants that turn government services over to them if individual merchants agree to give minorities of their profits to government, and charging individual merchants and collective businesses a share of the profits according to what role government plays in making the profit possible.

All of these behaviors have something in common: They are all things government ought to do to raise revenue in place of taxing. Because lets face it; concessions, contracts that make royalties to the government something demanded as reward for supplying the individual merchant the unlimited right to sell to who ever she wants to sell to (I go to ‘she’ by default even though I am a dude, why I do is because I always ask myself “but… the single mother?” when I do these economic advocacies of mine); differ from taxation in that concessions are not theft. Concessions explained better here.

Concessions allow people to sell stuff hindered only by natural law and the golden rule, while allowing government to profit off having agreed to not regulate the individual merchant (who’s also a single mother in her late 20’s in pretty much every hypothetical I will ever post here) beyond requiring her to give government a small share of every dollar her merchandise makes.

Meanwhile, government charging rent is something they can charge in place of ‘property tax’, and in fact Rent is someone charging people in their jurisdiction money for the people to live within that jurisdiction. And while that someone is not always government, for government to start charging rent for private rental would be a non-thieving alternative to property tax.

Government Item Sales

You know what governments and businesses have in common? Both are entities made up of people who may happen to have individual talents that relate to the work of the entity.

The result is I declare that something we ought to have in place of taxation is a public atmosphere of government selling items that directly relate to the purposes of government.

For example, if someone is really good at authoring books can make fiction and nonfiction literature (or lit for short) about warping immigrants into Western culture, they can sell their books and government can make revenue off, in example, a 30% share of that author’s profits and then spend much of those profits on assimilating immigrants into Western culture and the remaining profits on keeping a balanced budget to stay debt-free at all times.

Government Officers Setting Up Their Own Regime Sector Businesses

Individualism. I am so into it that I am ready and proud to suggest that individual politicians can set up their individual businesses based on their individual talents and then commit their profits to funding the government services their talent directly connects to.

To give an example: A politician who is a veteran happens to be great at forging plastic replicas of Medieval & Fantasy weapons and armor that are otherwise totally on point to the specifications laid out by the most faithful source materials available. She uses this talent to sell these replicas and commit a large share of her profits to defense spending by the government.

Compensation Money from a militarily defeated foreign aggressor

Anyone know all that stuff I post about how imposing a free-society constitution onto a militarily defeated tyranny is far better than long-time nation-building occupation?

Well, here is another History Lesson from the same source but on an economic topic.

After World War Two, Nazi Germany as well as Imperial Japan were so severely devastated by their defeats they had to agree to whatever America, Britain, Canada and Australia set forth as a team for terms of German and Japanese surrender.

Nazi Germany owed these four a combined total of $23 billion dollars, which due to inflation is 308 billion of today’s dollars. Same amount of money had to be paid by Imperial Japan for compensation for its initial aggressor behaviors, just as well.

Thus, when waging a Defensive war, the one objective any free society should care entirely and zealously about is crushing the ability and will of the tyrannical regime who waged war against the free society to initiate aggression, and within this objective should be two postwar goals:

  1. impose a free-society, minimal-state constitution onto the defeated nation
  2. charge the defeated nation reparations money for the aggression it initiated

Every free society has a Right to defend its people or any society’s people, including from tyrannical government. Authoritarian Regimes, by definition of them and of Law of Nations, are outlaws and cannot claim any rights legally, morally, or genetically; not even the right to life. Any libertarian regime has a right to overthrow any authoritarian regime, but the only Duty to any libertarian regime militarily is to defend its own people by destroying foreign aggression at the source.

And to keep us on topic I must say any libertarian regime has the right to charge any authoritarian regime as behemoth of an amount of money as the libertarian regime wants to charge for it having militarily defeated the authoritarian regime.


Another big one, and of course this is my statement of opposition to taxes. But to be fair, we can start a path to Non-tax revenues with Income tax removals like the FairTax proposal of 1999. Thanks readers,


Warming Up To And Voting For Gary Johnson (And Endorsing Him)


If you look on Gary Johnson’s Political Positions according to Wikipedia, you’d think he is softer on foreign terroristic regimes than either of the two reckless excuses for candidates the Democrats and Republicans are offering.

But then a month and a half ago, Brian Doherty for Reason Magazine wrote about Gary Johnson’s growing understanding of how the world works here in real life. Article here.

Endorsing Gary Johnson & Bill Weld

Now that I clearly know that Gary Johnson is clearly not a naive person any more, I endorse him for the following reasons by policy arena (numbered by importance to me):

  1. Foreign Policy
    • Gary has removed half the naivety of his plan for military spending (In 2012 he wanted to cut it 40% but here in 2016 thankfully only wants to cut it 20%).
    • Bill recognizes that the initial removal of Saddam from power was a necessity but also recognizes that Iraq War turned into abject failure entirely due to Bush’s handling of it.
    • Gary has willfully declared that Political Islam is a serious threat that is best defeated by working multilaterally with Congress and with Stable allies
    • Gary knows that “serious discussion about how to defeat this threat has not happened”.
    • Gary wants to use diplomacy to get the North Korean regime destroyed by one of its fellow East Asian countries (although I despise that Gary picked China instead of picking Japan).
    • Gary opposes the Iran deal and will rid our reality of it as one of his first foreign policy actions
    • Gary recognizes Iran as “categorically proven to sponsor terrorism”.
    • Gary then goes on to say “Iran’s the number one financier of Political Islam’s terrorism”.
    • Gary wants to do an approach to Iran that freezes Iranian government assets while opening up free trade with Iranian private sector.
    • Gary knows how there is no validity to judging actions from several decades ago like those in WW2 or in WW1.
    • Gary proposes using Letters of Marque and Reprisal, instead of War Declaration and also instead of doing nothing, to put stops to genocides happening in Uganda or in Sudan or elsewhere.
    • Gary has a military policy of only waging war if Congress declares it, and even then only if it is declared to defend The American People.
    • Gary is adamantly Pro-Israel and supports it right to exist, and wants to end financial aid while holding on to military alliance with Israel.
    • Gary is the only Pro-free trade, and therefore the only Pro-prosperity, candidate of the top three running up, along with Bill.
    • Gary has recently come out in support of the US military’s actions against ISIS
    • Gary recognizes the need for America to be a member of NATO
  2. Economy
    • Gary was the most prosperity-bringing governor of all state governors in all of the 1990’s
    • Gary’s tenure, located in the state of New Mexico, consisted of him bringing about a $1 billion surplus by halting taxation for six of his eight years, vetoing 47% of state-level bills to be vetoed, replacing Medicaid & Medicare with the private sector alternative called Managed Healthcare, and rethinking his 1st-term education policy with school vouchers during his second term, which improved schooling in New Mexico
    • Gary takes a legit middle ground on Labor Unions, saying that their demand for all workers to be treated the same is the only bad thing about Labor Unions, and also believes that generally Labor Unions do help in theory but should not be making campaign contributions.
    • Gary rightly blames the Federal Reserve’s incessant printing of money for inflation, unemployment, and increased debt.
    • Gary not only accepts the reality of man-made climate change but also accepts the equally truthful reality of replacing fossil fuel with green energies to be the job of the private sector and not of the government.
    • Bill’s economic record is almost identical except for Bill’s economic record took place in Massachusetts and not in New Mexico
  3. Bill of Rights
    • Gary Johnson and Bill Weld have always applied the First Amendment in its fullest to the internet and have recently applied it to private businesses
    • Gary and Bill can agree that the only compatible campaign finance with the 1st Amendment is mandatory transparency
    • Gary has always been favorable to the Second Amendment, and I am guessing Gary is the reason Bill has recently become Pro-2nd Amendment
    • Gary and Bill have not needed to say anything about the 3rd Amendment due to there having never been any attacks on the 3rd Amendment
    • Gary has always known the Patriot Act to be an enemy of the 4th Amendment from day one of his political engagement, and he seems to have convinced Bill Weld to accept this fact
    • Gary & Bill know the necessity of Presumption of Innocence and other Due Process components as assembled and mandated by the 5th Amendment
    • Bill Weld and Gary Johnson both know why the 6th Amendment guarantees of public trial and jury trial must always be applied simultaneously
    • When it comes to the 7th Amendment, Gary and Bill so far appear to both equally know why it is institutional corruption for courtroom questions about civil cases to be based on feelings, laws, or anything else that is not purely facts (Findings Of Fact)
    • Gary and Bill know the Death Penalty is not a necessity in the slightest, and also they respect the need to take the 8th Amendment puritanically
    • Gary and Bill tend to see the Social issues that I personally see as almost irrelevant through a 9th Amendment perspective
    • Gary & Bill see the 10th Amendment as a matter of state-level powers being given and taken by the state-wide popular vote.
  4. Social Issues
    • I am not going to state what reasons I have in this category for supporting Gary and Bill. I already summed it up because Ninth Amendment.

And I think that is it


I am voting for Gary Johnson and Bill Weld this election year. Yes, I was hotly against them in the Libertarian Party debates and primaries. I did want Austin Petersen, but in the end it seems like Gary and Bill are who I am going to vote for. But I am very happy to vote for them. And to all 125 of my readers I know I have in foreign countries thanks to my dashboard, if Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton becomes president instead of Gary Johnson, none of you can blame me for any garbage Clinton or Trump do overseas. For I will vote Gary Johnson & Bill Weld, and if they win I will be happy and if they lose I will regret being registered to vote. Thanks readers, American and Non-American alike,


Atheism, Religion, Moralities and Economics.


So Facebook spends the nine years I have been on it for knowing me to be an Atheist, with the exception of 2013 and 2014 of time of me being a Deist (hence why the URL for this site didn’t change, also why I won’t likely be changing my YouTube name which is what this site’s URL is named for). And then five minutes ago Facebook suggest to me a very obviously radical Christian-Right fundamentalist page.

The page calls itself “Atheism is a Religion that leads to Nazism”, I think, and the fact that exists is not what bothers me. What bothers me is that Facebook proudly invites any atheist who is not a flagrantly Far-Left Social Justice Warrior to like that page, and knows, but does not care, what realities they are contradicting.

Now I know from this experience that I totally need to give this blog of mine a break from promoting libertarian politics and from promoting foreign interventionist policies of American Constitutionalism, and talk some time about Atheism and Secular Morality

Atheism the Personality Trait

One belief all by itself cannot pass off as a religion. One belief alone can only ever be labeled a personality trait. Atheism is totally one belief alone:

  • Every single god and goddess ever conceived is a fictional character.

How much simpler can summing up atheism get?

Moving on to the next pointer

There Are Atheistic Religions

If you read the Wikipedia link above, you are going to learn about a great many lines of atheistic thought including in Christianity. Christian Atheism is something I had no idea was a thing until I geared up for this WordPress article, for example.

And the people behind that Facebook page will deny that it ever existed or that it exists or that it is even plausible, but such is to be expected from Christian Nationalist ASPD cases.

There are Secular Moralities in Real Life

Secular Moralities are typically formed on an individual basis, not just in atheist heads but also in deist heads and agnostic heads and ignostic heads.

Secular moralities, as far as I can tell, are diverse in not just what political ideologies they are built up for but also in how they teach their adherents to generally behave.

Here is a list of secular moralities that are entirely possible in our cosmos:

  1. Free Thinking
  2. Consequentialism
  3. Secular humanism
  4. Utilitarianism
  5. Golden rule (secular context)
  6. Non-Aggression Principle (libertarians’ favorite secular morality)

Out of all of these, I adhere to secular morality number 5. But yes I do believe in total Right of Self Defense. Otherwise why would I be nicknamed ‘libertarian defense atheist’? Most in my political faction prefer secular morality number 6.

Most of us Refuse to be Totalitarians

A minimum of 50% of us would much rather be Minarchists than be Totalitarians. 42% or fewer are the totalitarians. Most of us prefer a minimal state that exists entirely to defend human rights for all of its citizens.

Most of us have the behavior resulting in free market mindsets to. Economics of Religion is the evidence of this. Some nations are missing from the graph pic, so for the nations not on the graph:


So, it appears from what I have educated you into with this post, readers, that anger has worked to a positive outcome! Funny to you? I have nothing against you if it is not. But, still, I have calmed as I have gotten closer to finishing this post. Thanks readers,


How Do I think Politically And Who Can I relate To among Political Pundits?


Legit, this is going to feel to some of you like something I have done 4 million times. But this time I would like to include a list of people, living and deceased, that resemble how I think whenever politics is the thing most on my mind.

Grant you, it is rare for me to have anything other than the three source materials of my original fantasy comics (Middle-earth Saga, Warhammer Fantasy setting , Elder Scrolls lore) as the number one thing on my mind, but this 2015 to 2016 era is an election cycle that could potentially make indisputable change to what kind of country my country America is in terms of, for example, level of government respect for the Bill of Rights.

Many weird things happened, so it is time for me to describe my views and labels again and then explain which political figure-heads I think like and in which arenas.

I am Middle Ground, not Right Wing, also not Left Wing.

Many of the views I hold I know will get me falsely accused of right wing thought, and then there are views I hold that will get me falsely accused of left wing thought. Truth is I am Middle Ground in terms of which “wing” I am under. Meaning I am not under either wing.

Also known as Argument to Moderation. But knowing moderate and centrist are not exactly philosophies, which political philosophy fits me?

Well, to answer that question, I will have to show you readers my online self-quizzing results.

On the Advocates for Self-Government quiz of 5 social questions and 5 fiscal questions, found here, I answered as to be marked 80% in favor of Personal Freedom and 90% in favor of economic freedom, putting me in the libertarian quadrant of the Nolan Chart.

In the United Kingdom, there is a website called PoliticalCompass, which allows you to self-quiz with 60 or so questions to answer, and I came out as economically +4.25 putting me on the economic capitalist side of the X-axis, and also as socially -3.59 putting me on the social liberal side of the Y-axis, and in my country of the United States that of course means Libertarian.

Lastly I took the Libertarian Purity Test and came out with a 92, making me a hard core libertarian, but not so hard core as to oppose pragmatic domestic policy and especially not so as to oppose proactive foreign policy.

I am a Libertarian, not a conservative, not an illiberal progressive, and not a liberal either

To be frank about my taste in policies, I am in favor of:

  • economic deregulation
  • free trade
  • payment according to work ethic
  • abolition of rent control
  • repealing of zoning laws
  • privatizing medicare & medicaid
  • privatizing social security
  • school choice in place of public schooling
  • open immigration
  • house choice in place of public housing
  • government raising revenue from land sales to its citizens
  • replacing worker safety laws with a single worker safety training mandate
  • drug liberalization
  • replacing occupation license with occupational liberty
  • privatizing higher education
  • abolition of the Federal Reserve
  • legalizing marijuana
  • legalizing all consenting adult sexually-motivated activity
  • total freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press and freedom of association
  • freedom of conscience for all private clubs
  • abolishing all forms of draft starting with the Selective Service Act
  • replacing taxes with non-tax revenues for the government
  • putting a stop to government spending on any program that’s not on the Enumerated Powers list
  • abolishing all regulatory agencies
  • repealing anti-trust laws
  • privatizing public schools and universities
  • replacing welfare with private volunteer charity
  • privatizing public lands
  • Decentralizing the fire, ambulance, police and other non-enumerated powers of government (handing these over to the state governments, not privatizing)
  • replacing FDA and medical licenses with medical liberties
  • freezing the monetary base with a gold standard to stop inflation
  • striking down economic regulation under the Ninth Amendment as Unconstitutional
  • legalizing recreational drugs as well as medicinal
  • signing the policy of free banking into law
  • legalizing vigilante justice as an example of the Second Amendment right to Self-Defend and/or to Defend Others
  • replacing all legislation with the Tenth Amendment right of the American People to directly vote for or against policy initiatives they support or oppose, even if it means that I will individually be on the losing side on half of the issues.
  • opposition to entangling unstable alliances like we have with Pakistan and with pretty much every Arab League member.
  • propping up a purist application of the US Bill of Rights

But on the other hand, I have opinions which hold very minimal fame yet tons of infamy among mainstream libertarians, these opinions in my case are:

  • opposition to dropping stable alliances, like we have via NATO and via OECD
  • opposition to downsizing the US military
  • opposition to pulling US troops away from Stable allies like South Korea and Germany
  • support for full exertion of the Enumerated Powers list
  • support for minimal-state Western Democracy
  • support for an approach to war that cares purely and only about destroying foreign aggression at its source
  • support for utilizing every tactical prerequisite for total victory in regards to heat-in-the-moment combat
  • the belief that Congress should only declare war to defend the Bill of Rights for all Americans against tyrannical governments who callously disregard the US Bill of Rights in their treatment of visitors from the US.
  • support for counting freedom of movement and free trade and the right to safely do charity overseas as Ninth Amendment rights of the American People as a rule of American foreign policy
  • support for a very huge & strong military
  • devout opposition to Just War Theory and everything it teaches except for its rule against ‘means malum in se’
  • devotion to making No Means Malum In Se the only part of Just War Theory I will ever support or take seriously
  • refusal to believe that judge-made law is any better morally than unilateral Supreme Court legislation

I am a “Neolibertarian”, of all possible kinds of libertarian.

10 Types of Libertarian according to

  • I am fiscally libertarian, as I support free trade, replacing the Federal Register (economic regulation) with the golden rule, and replacing taxes with non-tax revenue incomes; from royalty shares of private sector profits to a small fee for every dozen miles of highway use by every citizen. Also as I endorse combining the gold standard with free banking.
  • I am classically liberal, as I believe in Thomas Jefferson’s The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution and Bill of Rights as James Madison first wrote it, for example I support invoking the Declaration to justify enforced equal due process for all individuals.
  • And I am a minarchist, as I favor the Enumerated Powers list (Article One Section Eight) and as I believe the Tenth Amendment should be invoked to leave all the Non-economics issues that James Madison did not mention in the Constitution for the American People to decide by directly democratic vote.
  • But my emphasis is on a strong military and on toppling terroristic and genocidal tyrannies, and given that Marco Rubio had my endorsement until he dropped, I can see how that grants me a little but of common ground with neoconservatives. Thus the most applicable one of the ten to me is Neolibertarian.

Major Schools of Libertarian according to and what it pulled from Wikipedia in Spring of 2008 (somewhat paraphrased)

  • Back then Wikipedia used to say “Neolibertarianism is a post-9/11 ideological offshoot of libertarianism that adopts neoconservative doctrines on foreign policy, including the use of preventive war.”
  • then goes up to say ‘Neolibertarianism is far more common outside the LP than in it, and most neolibertarians despise the LP for obsessing on its anti-government impulses and Vietnam-era Pacifistic impulses. Many LP neolibertarians are members of the current Libertarian Defense Caucus, whose statement of principles states that “The LDC believes a global war on terrorism exists.”‘
  • What Wikipedia presently says neolibertarianism is.
  • I got accepted into the Libertarian Defense Caucus in February of this year

I support foreign policy doctrines that embrace the role American military might has in keeping various foreign nations free societies, and that embrace the Constitutional obligation to destroy foreign aggressors against the American People and against the US Bill of Rights at the source land of the foreign aggressors.

I totally oppose foreign policy doctrines of pacifist-until-attacked and of Just War Theorist when attacked.

I also advocate a foreign policy that treats free trade, freedom of movement, the right to set up dual-citizenships, the right to life, the freedom of choice, and the right to freely and safely do tourism and/or charity overseas as unconditional Ninth Amendment rights of every American Citizen, as I have said earlier.

Should Congress Have A Warrant To War?

Yes, according to me they should, but let us examine what would warrant a formal declaration of war by Congress.

What would warrant a declaration of war by Congress is if all sixteen members of the American Intel Community say at the highest probability levels ever possible that:

  • An attack against the American People and their Bill of Rights liberties is known to be planned and the threat of attack has indeed fully materialized but can be preempted.
  • An attack against the American People and their Bill of Rights liberties is known to be planned and the threat of attack has only started to materialize but can be prevented.
  • An attack against the American People and their Bill of Rights liberties has very recently happened and the perpetrator is (insert tyrannical nation’s name here) and that is who to retaliate against for the attack.

Basically I do not believe in doing military warfare overseas unless it is to defend the American People and the US Bill of Rights by demolishing the threat at its source.

Defensive Proactivity, not World Policing, not Nation building

Something I have a really easy time disagreeing with neoconservatives on is the question of whether to keep our troops overseas for a decade or more of occupation and nation building. My answer, the neolibertarian answer, is no.

We should instead deliver a devastating defeat to an enemy and then have the formerly opposing force unconditionally surrender to a minimal-state constitution that we create for them. This style of swiftly and totally defeating an initial aggressor and then making them agree to a Western-democratic constitution is what Abraham Lincoln applied to winning the American Civil War, and what Franklin Delano Roosevelt applied to winning the Second World War.

Plus I do not think we should do blanket policing of the entire globe, we ought to stick to defending the Bill of Rights for all Americans, whether they are on American soil or serving overseas as ambassadors and as part of a diplomatic presence.

Speaking of diplomacy, the diplomatic engagement is what to spread freedom across the world through. Policy of Diplomacy that promotes Individual Liberty and Minimal State and opposes Dictatorship.

Which Commentators Do I Think Like in Political Discourse?

Deceased (arenas in brackets):

  • Thomas Jefferson (Civil liberties, Vision of Government, Foreign policy)
  • James Madison (Civil liberties, Vision of Government, Foreign policy)
  • Adam Smith (Economy)
  • John Locke (Civil liberties)
  • Voltaire (Civil Liberties, Religion)
  • Friedrich Hayek (Economy)
  • Ayn Rand (Foreign Policy)
  • Milton Friedman (Economy)

Living (arenas in brackets)

  • Austin Petersen (Economy, Civil Liberties, Vision of Government)
  • Yaron Brook (Foreign Policy)
  • Larry Elder (Foreign Policy, Economy, Civil Liberties, Vision of Government)
  • Keith Farrell (Foreign Policy, Economy, Civil Liberties, Vision of Government)
  • Mark Humphrys (Foreign Policy, Economy, Civil Liberties)
  • Elan Jourano (Foreign Policy)
  • John Stossel (Economy, Civil Liberties, Vision of Government)


Basically I am my own man. I choose my opinions, and my labels, on an observational basis. I am 22 and my thinking includes self-correction upon learning new facts. Thanks readers,


How do 16 Percent of American libertarians look up to Marco Rubio?


According to the PRRI, 16% of libertarians in the United States were supporting Marco Rubio this year until he gave up on his campaign. Given that Gallup poll data shared by Cato Institute indicates that one in five Americans are libertarians, and there are 320 million people in America, this means there are 64 million Americans who are libertarians.

So, knowing that 16% of that refers to 10 million U.S. libertarians, let us look at the other Center-right ideologies factored in:

  • Of the 12% or 40 million Americans who are Tea Party, 18% or 7 million also backed Marco Rubio until he quit
  • Of the 25% or 80 million Americans who are conservatives, 13% or 10 million backed Marco until he quit.

So… how exactly, I ask as a former Marco Rubio backer turned Austin Petersen backer, did Marco Rubio manage to have an easy time until the Florida GOP primary uniting libertarians and conservatives? And could there have been a “Rubio coalition” if Americans would wake up to the REALITY that anger will not replace Regressive Left despotism with Constitutional originalism? The REALITY that anger will not topple SJWs from the legislative stage as anger did not topple Evangelical Far-right science-attackers from the legislative stage during the George W. Bush years? I shall explore these questions as I plug my research and answers into this WordPress writing of mine.

1. Rubio has a Pro-Liberty voting record in the Senate

According to the GOP libertarian electoral grading system of Congress folks, called Liberty Index, Marco Rubio voted in favor of purist application of the Enumerated Powers list and of the Bill of Rights eight times out of ten. His personal-level social conservatism attracted conservatives, and his Voting Record of directly defending the rights of classical liberals like myself to contradict him on social issues attracted libertarians, myself included. Remorsefully this Index has a Nolan Chart for House but not for Senate. So I took the Liberty of making my own version of their graph just so I can chart where Marco’s voting record stands:

Marco Rubio Liberty Index

Marco Rubio absolutely and totally does not identify individually as a libertarian, and the behavior of some of my fellow libertarians makes me respect why – but his Senatorial voting record very much appears to be a mostly libertarian tenure! Perhaps one of the rights he defends is my Fair Use right to use this modified copy for educational purpose.

He also has as you can tell an almost-all-the-time amount of support for the free market economics of Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek.

2. Rubio adores the Internet’s impacts on the economy

Whether it is him peppering his speeches with praise of, or his support for use of Uber and AirBnB, or his promises of market-based incentives for taking online college courses instead of going to college in person. Something is very obvious:

Marco Rubio knew how to pull millennials, myself included, into his team: promise and take action to ensure people are able and willing to take full advantage of the creativity opportunities that the internet has invented room for when it got started in the very late 1990’s.

Also in his method from what I remember and from what I can gather from a Time Magazine article is he sparks pragmatic optimism in people while Donald Trump thinks only to spark violent anger in people. I cherish and always practice pragmatic optimism.

In Marco’s words (I am paraphrasing), the center-right “is about hope and optimism, and having a set of core values, mainly free markets and small government”.

Rubio also knew all to well the need of massively deregulating the internet to plow up room for aspiring millennial merchants, 55% of millennials according to Reason Magazine, to create their unique little businesses.

3. Rubio’s intellectually honest on a majority of foreign policy topics

Marco Rubio is known to support a strong military and a foreign policy of fixation on human rights. He’s also been known to be very spot on about a large majority of foreign policy realities, including at least half of the painful realities.

He recognizes that Israel is the only nation in the Greater Middle East that has the common ground with America of applying individualistic policies that create opportunity for lifestyle liberty and economic prosperity. He’s been adamantly Pro-Israel since he first learned about it in… long before I did that’s all I know for now.

Rubio also actively embraces the reality that is the vital role the US military plays in guarding the currently seven-decade-old order of free trade, free migration and total right to travel. Rubio understands very well the vital role the US military plays in overseeing this current world order and in what my fellow libertarian and favorite political Radio host Larry Elder calls Defensive Posture.

In example, his “Rubio Doctrine” included for its number-2 pillar defense of the global economy, which really is the bi-product of this element called e-commerce. But then again open trade and open tourism were the world order long before internet happened. The invention of eCommerce in 1979 simply made this trade-and-tourism world order the only world order ever possible. Frankly that’s what internet does: it makes tyrannical changes mostly impossible.

When it comes to understanding how human nature works on a fundamental stage, Rubio has it the best of any of this year’s Republican contenders.

As for recognizing the needs of the US military, Marco’s first and last priority in defense policy is ensuring the US military can confront and defeat the threat at the source and overwhelmingly win. This characteristic I can tell was totally missing from the Bush Doctrine of 2001 to 2009. Marco also can tell when a foreign tyrannical regime or militia is of dire & vile threat to the American national interests of free trade, open tourism and human rights. He can quickly tell apart an imminent threat from a foreseen threat from an unstable ally from a stable ally just by analyzing the behavioral record of a foreign nation objectively and arriving at his own conclusions.

Tactically Marco Rubio knows the necessity of keeping his tactics between himself and the US military, something Sun Tzu would probably applaud him for. This was demonstrated by Rubio when he said “When you tell ISIS where you will and won’t fight them, you have told them where they can and cannot hide.” in a TV interview that was, to some degree, about battle tactics against ISIS.

4. Rubio had the most personality of all the Mainstream (D&R) candidates

Whether it is him having a sense of humor, him having a taste in music, him having family loyalty to his wife and kids, him having intelligence with wisdom, or him having the most empathy and most reason of all the D&R people, Marco certainly had the most personality of all the mainstream candidates of 2016.

Marco’s personality traits according to his behavior, as I have observed it, are as follows:

  • optimism
  • sense of humor
  • taste in music
  • empathy
  • factual thought
  • wisdom
  • intellect
  • religious morality
  • determination
  • loyalty to his family
  • loyalty to US voters
  • patriotism against most of his fellow Feds

These are of course the traits I see as positives. So let me own up to bias right now: I am puritanically biased toward skepticism against regular society’s popular narratives. And in this blog I am biased toward skepticism against mainstream libertarianism’s popular narratives.

There Could Have Been a Rubio Coalition

Yes, I am answering that question now. Of course people will think this is named for Raegan Coalition, and while it is, keep in mind I despise Raegan’s record on drugs and other social issues but still think he was on the right side of foreign policy and to a lesser extent on economy, meaning his economic rhetoric was superior, in my view, to certain policies of his.

But anyway – this Rubio Coalition could have been as follows:

  • Conservatives
    • Christian Right
    • Paleoconservatives
    • Neoconservatives
    • Fiscal Conservatives
    • Secular Right
  • Libertarians
    • Classical Liberals
    • Paleolibertarians
    • Neolibertarians (like me)
    • Minarchists (minimal state activists)
    • Conservative Liberals
  • Right wing Populists
  • Center-right Egalitarians
  • Free-market Anarchists

This could have been the Coalition that took back America and restored American constitutionalism and could have kicked the Anti-liberal Progressives off the legislative stage without resorting to the Storm-front craziness that Trump is inspiring.


I do sincerely hope that Austin Petersen can inspire a Liberty Coalition of the sort in the bulleted list above. Presidentially, I do hope Gary Johnson can make a “Johnson Coalition” of the sort laid out by the bulleted list above, but I doubt Gary could make the sort of impacts that Marco made or that Austin made. Thanks all and all,


A Simpler List of Libertarian Principles


Every time I look at the platform of the party I am registered to vote in, the Libertarian Party, I see it is rather lengthy and detailed for huge swathes of voters to get behind.

Allow me to create a simpler libertarian platform not just for the LP but for Western-world libertarianism in general.

Libertarian Principles

Individual Freedom

Libertarianism was founded on a belief in individual freedom, meaning libertarians emphasize the moral worth of the individual from a political, philosophical and social perspective. Therefore libertarians should be consistent about individualism, and thankfully libertarians are, and this have nothing to change here.

Economic Freedom

Free Markets, free trade and private property under Laissez-Faire law is economically the libertarian tradition. This is due to the prosperity and peace they bring to individuals where and when applied. Supply and Demand, the norm wherein the more produced items and services are the more affordable items and services, is the norm of a free market’s determination of price, wage and profit margin.

Natural Law

The only legitimate function of government, according not just to libertarianism but also according to the US Declaration of Independence, is to enforce natural law. But we must define natural law in order to understand this one and only legit function of government.

  • Natural law is the norm wherein human rights are inherent and can be universally understood through scientific reasoning.

In other words, natural law is the norm wherein government cannot interfere in the day to day lives of citizens except to uphold basic human rights.

Minimal State

As has been said in the Natural Law plank directly above, government is only for defending natural law and defending human rights. Limited government managed on the principles of a democracy and/or a republic and abides by a set of rules called a Constitution. Which leads us right into the next plank….


Human beings have a right to build their government based on a mutually agreed upon constitution, that’s what our Founding Fathers did for America’s Constitution.

Constitutionalism ought to be a universal Libertarian Principle, something even social conservatives can get behind as of very recently.

Social Centrism

Centrism is about opposing political changes that would sign left-wing liberal opinion or right-wing conservative opinion into law. On social issues, true Libertarians are, according to me, centrists on social issues in terms of not wanting to legislate any kind of social morality in particular. But this should not and I am happy that it does not stop libertarians from individually choosing what ideologies to espouse personally. For example, I am into both Irreligious atheism and Market liberalism at the same time. The irreligion part means I adhere to a secular morality that says people need to be allowed to chase their own self-interests in ways that do not break the Golden rule. The market part means I favor keeping government out of social issues and letting the economy grow and shrink the markets for controversial social and individual choices according to supply and demand. But I have no problem with people disagreeing with me on my Irreligious atheism or on my Market liberalism.

That is what social centrism be like as a libertarian principle. It be like personally choosing a social philosophy on personal level, and then defending the right of social philosophies you disagree with to exist.


Yep, I legit have nothing more to say. Thank you for reading my libertarian movement reform proposal,


Libertarian Principles


I am doing this post to remind the globe what libertarian principles are as of the Age of Enlightenment. I believe it is of paramount importance to remind the world what libertarian ideology is supposed to stand for globally.

Also this is so I can remind the entire globe that if you fight against these principles in any form or to any extent, or if you stay indifferent to these principles in domestic policy and/or in foreign policy, then you are NOT a libertarian.

The Real Concept of Libertarianism

People living in the Old World wrongly claim that libertarianism is socialist anarchism and claim that liberalism is the ideology of the stuff I am about to peg libertarianism for. The reality is liberal and libertarian were synonyms until the rise of Marxist Leninism.

Allow my readers in the Old World and in the rest of the New World around the US to re-learn true Libertarianism!


To fully understand libertarian ideology, we need to understand the attitude it was founded on: Individualism.

According to Webster Dictionary;

  • Individualism is the idea that the desires of each person override the collective desire of authority or of demographic.

Individualism is the idea that you own yourself, and that only you can decide what is right for you in terms of personal choices.

Personal Responsibility

Wikipedia aptly says that ‘moral responsibility is the status of morally deserving praise and reward for doing good or blame and punishment for doing bad’.

Personal responsibility means basically you deserve good reactions to you doing good stuff, no one to credit but yourself.

It equally means you deserve bad reactions to you doing bad things, no one to blame but yourself.

Equality of Opportunity

No, this is not equality of outcome. Equal opportunity means creating an equal starting point for all workers and all merchants and all scientists etc. and letting them advance according to individual talent. Equal outcome means distorting that starting point in a desire to force everyone to have the same outcome no matter their individual talents.

Equal opportunity is the foundation of the economic policy of true Libertarians, which foreshadows the addressing of economic policies of true global libertarians.

Rule of Law

Rule of Law is the ideal wherein all citizens of a nation, including ones involved in governing, abide by the same set of laws or the same constitution. Meaning that a nation’s constitution applies equally to all citizens of that nation.

Double Standards absolutely cannot exist under rule of law, the social anarchism that Old World people falsely accuse libertarian of meaning has nothing to do with real libertarianism anywhere on the globe.

Search & Seizure

This principle refers to the fact that it is libertarian to call for the police to be required by law to get a warrant signed by a judge before searching someone’s records, and even then only ask the judge for such a warrant in reply to that someone behaviorally provoking suspicion.

Due Process

From deeming the accused innocent until proven guilty to allowing all involved in a legal case to retain human rights, due process is this exact standard of exactly how a legal case needs to be handled.

Public Trial By Jury

When it comes to how actual libertarians across the planet want trials to go in courts, we favor a trial that is conducted by a team of analysts called a jury and is very open for the general population to debate and discuss. That is what public trial by jury is about.

Questions of Fact

From what I can gather, Age of Enlightenment libertarianism of the West is supposed to be all about questions that are baed on facts and neither based on laws nor based on feelings when it comes to what questions are allowed to be asked in a trial in court.

Banning Cruel/Unusual Punishment

First let us understand what cruel and unusual punishment is. It is the inflicting of punishment on a prisoner that is morally worse than the crime that prisoner is a prisoner for having committed. No human can ever support cruel and unusual punishment and be a libertarian, so that’s why this principle is about banning these kinds of punishments.

Economic Freedom

Economic freedom is the ability for individuals to freely work, buy, and sell in an economy.

Free Markets

That socialistic anarchism many of you in the Old World claim is libertarian economics? Wrong again ~ free market is the true libertarian economic policy everywhere. Free market is this:

  • an economic system wherein private businesses and independent merchants can freely compete with each other while prices, wages and profits are decided according to supply and demand, the three basics of which are:
    1. If less of something than people want is made, it costs a high price
    2. If more of something than people want is made, it costs a low price
    3. If as much of something as people want is made, it costs a medium price

Free Trade

Total free trade with no conditions except for the very simple two of ‘do not harm each other’ and ‘do not damage each other’s property’ is the default trade policy of libertarians, wherever on Earth you live and are reading this from.

In economics terms free trade means no tariffs or treaties are made about imports or exports.


Far as a government interference with economy is concerned, laissez-faire means there are no privileges, no tariffs, no subsidies, no bailouts and no stimulus plans and only enough regulating to uphold human rights, and only enough taxing to fund enforcement of human rights. That’s the libertarian idea of a legit economic set of rules.

Freedom of Thought

Freedom of thought is the idea you can believe whatever you choose to believe.

Freedom of Expression

The total right to express one’s opinions freely

Freedom of Religion

The right to practice and preach any organized religion or secular morality one wants to submit to

Freedom of the Media

The right for journalists to report the news freely

Freedom of Association

The right to freely make friendships or romances with whomever one chooses as long as the chosen individuals are on board with it

Political Freedom

Knowing politics rather well, and being a libertarian myself, political freedom means, at least to me, the right to engage in politics in any peaceful way one chooses to.

Right to Petition

The right to make a documented list of signatures to address a problem those signing on share with an aspect of politics or other life arena

Right to Lobby

The right to work as a team to sway the government to act a certain way on a certain public policy issue

Freedom of Assembly

The right to assemble a group such as a 527, aka a grassroots PAC, or a think tank on behalf of interpreting public policy discourse


Not to be confused with monarchy, but rather a minarchy is a minimal state, meaning a government that is limited to defending human rights and enforcing natural law and bolstering the golden rule against acts of malum in se.


The idea that government needs to have its power limited to a short list of different powers in a constitution.

Western Democracy

A government of free, fair, and competitive elections between many distinct political parties; sharing of powers between three or more different branches of government; and equal protection of human rights for all citizens.


The refusal to allow anyone to be crowned king, sultan, shogun, caliph or whatever else; and the insistence that the head of state should be an elected parliament and/or an elected president.


That’s all I got. I want to keep this brief so the entire globe can know precisely what libertarianism was founded on and what it is to stand for. And yes, I do check where in the world people are reading me in addition to readers I get in the US. Thanks for seeing this,