The Vitality of Pragmatism to Libertarian Causes And Future

tumblr_static_tumblr_static__640

Pragmatism is a scientific way of observing and/or solving problems that is based on facts of life in place of ideals or theoretical thought process.

Libertarians Cannot Overthrow the Democrat-Republican Electoral Duopoly Without Using Pragmatism.

So… I debated someone I know on health care the evening before doing this page. The topic at hand was the Affordable Care Act, and I was unable to make a fiscally libertarian argument for replacing the ACA with something truly legit.

This I now know this is because I forgot a key component of neolibertarianism, my one of the ten types of libertarian. Even the article I just linked you to ignores this key component of neolibertarian thinking:

Pragmatism.

Emotionalism is not working well at all for the Libertarian Party and not for the wider liberty movement either. Factoids, Pragmatism and The Scientific Method will bring about far better political results for American and other Western-society libertarians than Passion, Emotionalism and Name-Calling Games. This is something I should have remembered for all my life as a neolibertarian and as an atheist. My preference for pragmatism over emotionalism is what drew me into secular humanism in 2007 and to neolibertarianism in 2010.

Healthcare Example of Pragmatic Libertarianism

Allow me to give an example of what’s the neolibertarian approach to American healthcare reform.

So I don’t buy into the LP’s rhetoric about how getting government out of healthcare entirely will make American healthcare the best it’s ever been. Pragmatism gets me checking out the world’s other Free Societies and say “Where are the Best healthcare systems at balancing pragmatism and constitutional libertarianism?”

And in my Googling and my Wikipedia research I find that my fellow libertarian Independent Craig Berlin (he’s classical liberal, of the ten different types) wrote this thing about how there are fiscally conservative models and policies of Universal Health Care.

Being no surprise to me, the three biggest success stories of win-win healthcare policy are Israel, Switzerland and Australia which are all astronomically free-market-leaning in their domestic economic policy norms. Australian, Swiss and Israeli healthcare are structured in such a way as for public and private insurance to both be options, for healthcare to not be a free handout, and for government to spend a third or less of what we spend on healthcare as percentage of government spending. The result of these and other factors is Australians, Israelis and Swiss are among the top ten healthiest peoples on Earth. Even British healthcare is such a joke as for them to only rank 21st Globally.

Conclusion

There are plenty more examples of this kind of pragmatic thinking that epitomize exactly how libertarianism needs to think. Thanks for the read,

~LDA

Either Libertarians Are With Israel Or They Are Objectively Not Libertarian

pro-israel-libertarian

Israel is a tiny little Free Society surrounded by Twenty Six different Barbarian Tyrannies

Israel is the only Middle Eastern country worth US Libertarianism’s support.

Perhaps I can already guess what people are going to say to this essay, many of the mainstream libertarians are going to call me statist, but no. That’s not exactly a valid thing to call someone as no one genuinely wears the label of statist. In addition, it is not neocon rhetoric that Israel is the only Middle Eastern country built on values US libertarians hold dear, it is simply organic observation.

Israel is at the Top of the Middle East in almost Everything US libertarians cherish

Here is the basic stuff of a free society that puts Israel above the entire rest of the Greater Middle East around it. Economic freedom, Ease of Commerce, Religious and other Moral freedoms, Jeffersonian governance, and Freedom of the Press among other things.

Economic Freedom of the Middle East

Out of 26 neighbors Israel has, libertarian Cato Institute finds that only five of these neighbors are freer-market economically than Israel is. That means 81% of the Greater Middle East is economically more marxist than Israel. In fact, Israel sits with its economically freer enemies in the ‘most economic freedom’ quadrant, right there with good ole US of A.

Free Trade to & From the Middle East

World Economic Forum has found only two years ago that Israel has some of the most freeing and liberating trade policies in the entire Greater Middle East. Only three of Israel’s enemy neighbors have freer trade than Israel, making Israel more into free trade than 85% of the Middle East.

Freedom of Religion

For the next five sections, starting with this one, I am going to be citing the World Index of Moral Freedom, linking to a PDF file.

Israel is, legit, at the top of the Middle East for freedom of religion. Must I go on?

Bioethical Freedom

To briefly define, Freedom of Bioethics includes stuff like reproductive rights, stem cell research, and voluntary euthanasia.

Israel is 4th out of a region of, in total, 27 nations as I said earlier. Israel stands near the top of the Middle East in Bioethical freedom, which most libertarians agree is a legit freedom, in particular for women.

Freedom of Sexuality

Most libertarians, myself happily included, believe sexual freedom to be a ket component of a free society. To us, sexual freedom is a liberty that is all on consenting adults.

And Israel has so much sexual freedom that only Tunisia tops Israel in this particular aspect of being a free society.

Gender and Family Freedom

From women’s rights and unmarried romance to gay marriage and transgender people’s status, gender and family freedom with these examples is self-explanatory.

And once again, Israel is at the top of the Greater Middle East in Gender & Family Freedom and no other Middle East nation qualifies to claim to have Gender & Family Liberty.

Ease of Doing & Starting Business

Of all of Israel’s enemy neighbors, only the United Arab Emirates sits above Israel in Ease of doing business. As for starting a business, Israel is third only to Morocco and Afghanistan in how easy it is to begin a business. Evidence for that courtesy of World Bank Group here.

Number of Internet Hosts

The CIA World Fact Book is a legit source for certain facts of policy, and their Internet Hosts list reveals Israel is second only to Turkey in Middle Eastern internet hosting. But given Erdogan’s current reign over Turkey, Israel might as well be the regional leader in internet hosting.

Openness to Immigration

Using the United Nations report on immigrant demographics in sovereign countries, one will find that Israel is 8th in the region on freedom of movement when it comes to immigrants. That means only seven countries out of twenty-seven (only 26% of the region) are better at welcoming immigrants than Israel is.

Freedom of the Press

Freedom House published this piece ‘Freedom of the Press Report‘ which proves Israel to be at the top of journalist freedom in the Middle East.

Jeffersonian Governance

Israel is at the top of the Middle East for closeness to Thomas Jefferson’s vision of morally legit government, according to economist Intelligence unit. This unit grants us the Democracy Index, and based on how the index works I suspect they are using the term ‘democracy’ as in ‘Jeffersonian Democracy’.

Conclusion

Basically all the above are the reasons libertarians should inherently be Pro-Israel on Middle East policy discussion. Thanks for the read;

~LDA

Frequently Ignored Facts About The US Tea Party Movement

Patient X tried the electric shock treatment when he was bitten by his pet rattlesnake.

The Rattlesnake was the symbol of the Tea Party while it still had rallies, but why?

I was never interested in being in the Tea Party, but I am always interested in Facts Over Feelings.

Having frequently listened to the podcast “The Freedom Report”, specifically “Who Killed The Tea Party?”, I have decided to make this page about all the facts about the TP.

The reason I am doing this is to debunk every single myth every leftist buys into or promotes about the Tea Party. This I’ll do without expressing any interest in being a Tea Partier myself.

Religious Affiliation

Many on the left will tell you there was and is no such thing as a Tea Partier who is not a straight white male Christian evangelical. However, it’s been found back in 2010 that:

  • 15% of the Tea Party were Secular Humanists like me
  • 4% of the Tea Party followed Non-Christian religions like Judaism
  • Just 36% of the Tea Party matched the white Evangelical, Christian-conservative narrative.

By the way this education being mostly directed at the left does not imply support for the political right, readers. Just because I am mostly calling out the left does not make me a rightist, as one must understand that both the left and the right were the original ‘lol-cow’.

Political Viewpoints

The Tea Party was unified quite well on economics and on constitutional liberties as found in the entire Bill of Rights. But half the Tea Party was libertarian and even its origins were libertarian. Numerically, libertarians made up roughly 44% of that movement while conservatives made up exactly 50%.

Agenda-wise, the Tea Party movement never had a single uniform agenda, apart from a few objectives that at least stood out to me:

  1. Restore the primacy of the Bill of Rights
  2. Apply the laws of Supply and Demand to the entire economy
  3. Restore the primacy of the Articles of the Constitution
  4. Sever all ties between corporation and state
  5. Force a balanced budget plan onto Congress

Evidence suggests that Tea Party movement groups had a sort of heavily decentralized character, there were tons of groups. Another fact of life regarding Tea Party groups was they agreed to disagree on social issues while focusing almost exclusively on economic and constitutional issues.

I must also say there did exist Tea Partiers who favored right to abortion (34%) and Tea Partiers who favored legalizing Gay Marriage (26%).

Foreign Policy

Ah yes, this foreign policy nerd of the libertarian and atheist communities is now going to speak of Tea Party foreign policy.

Everything that can be gathered about Tea Party movement foreign policy is talked about by the Walter Russel Mead article “The Tea Party and American Foreign Policy“.

When the Tea Party grew to the giant size it did in 2011, its foreign policy endorsed American Exceptionalism. This is the idea that America inherently differs from all other nations by having been founded on civil liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, republic, democracy and laissez-faire. Tea Partiers combined this fact-based ideal with opposition to world policing and nation building.

Tea Partiers only supported going to war to directly defend American citizens and our individual rights. But whenever a foreign tyranny did attack these, Tea Partiers preferred ‘total warfare’ for the unconditional surrender of the aggressor on the aggressor’s soil instead of the Just War Theorist approach to conducting warfare.

There were two mindsets within this, the ‘Paulian’ mindset and the ‘Palinite’ mindset. Paulians passionately sought to engage the world almost entirely with free trade and friendly diplomacy. Palinites, while on board with the Paulians in preferring trade and diplomacy over war, were very passionate about preventive self defense posture.

Conclusion

I never thought I would promote truthful assessment of the Tea Party of all political factions. Thanks for reading this piece,

~LDA

My Very Own Views And Opinions, All In One Page

Domestic Policy me

These are the results I have on the Hello Quizzy politics test, to give some ideas of what I believe.

A Time for Clarifying what political points I hold as facts as an Independent

Many may not be exactly clear about individual political agendas, half because of Hillary Clinton and half because of Donald Trump. What these two have done to our nation is made it severely polarized, so it’s time I made my own platform clear to my peers.

Laissez-Faire Economics

I am an outspoken promoter of the laissez-faire economics of such geniuses as Adam Smith, Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. I believe very strongly in Fiscal Libertarianism, which means I favor free trade, low taxes, and minimal business regulation. When I say low taxes I refer to only letting government get enough tax money for the following:

  1. Emergency Services
  2. National Defense
  3. Courts of Law
  4. Prisons
  5. The 3 branches of Constitutional Republic

And when I say minimal business regulation I mean only enough regulation to ban and punish behaviors like violent crimes and fraud that are blatant human rights violations.

I donate to private charity where and when possible, and I call for the wage standard to be about dollars per 1000 joules, not about dollars per 1 hour. This joules thing I will explain coherently in its own post. I also believe in welcoming immigrants to give labor and also welcoming anyone who asks for work to do work they are physically and mentally fit to do, even if the voluntarily aspiring worker is half my age (I’m 22) or whatever else.

Fiscally I’m in favor of balanced budgets, and spending up to but never more than one-half of what is made off tax revenue.

Secular Humanism

As an atheist, I also openly abide by an individualist morality known plainly as secular humanism. This means I believe that reason, ethics, modern science and the secular philosophy of naturalism should be used for teaching self and posterity morality and self-control. That’s as opposed to organized religion, pseudoscience, superstition and mythology as fuel for morality and self-control.

The result is if I have posterity of my own, which I presently think is disputable as to whether I will. If I have a kid though, I will teach him or her self-control and morality by filling his or her head with secular humanism.

Secular humanism, it appears to me, is the mindset of having better morals, than any religion.

Constitutional Republic and Free Society

Governmentally I call for every government on the planet to be a constitutional republic, and a free society at that. A geopolitical collection of individuals ought to have their individual freedom and individual sovereignty defended by a large posse of elected individuals who each have four powers or less.

Furthermore, a constitution ought to exist to keep the republic in line with the protection of the individual freedom of the geopolitical collection of individuals. Basically to retain the status of a free society

And a free society is one wherein people are allowed total freedom of speech and unconditional freedom of religion, including the right to follow secular humanism as one’s choice of religion. I am one for personal independence and freedom of choice.

Foreign Policy and National Defense

Most of this WordPress diary you are reading a page of right now gets me globally known (to some degree) for the intellectual work I do here on US foreign policy and what it ought to be. As such I will break this into sections “American Foreign Policy”, “Saudi/Salafi Empire”, & “National Defense”.

American Foreign Policy

The number one priority of American foreign policy, according to me, should inherently be two number ones: Free Trade & Freedom of Movement.

Free Trade, from what I can gather, appears to me to have liberated a mammoth amount of different nations across a handful of different human cultures during the 19th century AD.

I advocate an American foreign policy that’s passionately interested in free trade and freedom of movement. This includes protecting it by having honest friendship and stable alliance exclusively with other free societies.

I favor eternal shutdown of the United Nations as it’s whole design was and remains to force moral relativism on the entire human species. But I also favor making honest friendships with and only with other free societies through diplomacy, and military alliances with and only with other free societies as well.

As for freedom of movement that’s the stuff that makes unlimited immigration with Ellis Island style border security the perfect border & immigration policy to me.

Saudi & Salafi Empire

I wised up and became a libertarian roughly in 2010. When I did I realized the Salafi movement exists because it wants to create a despotic religious monarchy over the entire world, and does not care if its enemies have freedom or not. This is both as opposed to claiming they hate our freedom and as opposed to claiming they hate us for not being puritanical non-interventionist doves.

Research I’ve done leads me to think The Salafi movement is built overwhelmingly by Saudi Arabia and the Arab League through state sponsorship of movement.

Since wising up and becoming a libertarian I have repeatedly offered ‘Salafi’ as the term people are looking for to describe the nauseating way the Salafis fight. As in “Salafi Way of War”, in example.

To some degree I have undergone some changes in belief about overall American foreign policy but my understanding of the Arab League and its role in the Salafi movement still grows, therefore my thoughts stay the same.

National Defense

Since wising up and becoming a libertarian, I have worked rather slowly on thinking up a unique morality for a potential ‘libertarian way of war’.

With military spending, we certainly do need a very huge and strong military with high budget, but only in the context of a balanced budget which sadly we don’t have presently.

My thoughts on warfare are like this: When America goes to war, it should only be to retaliate against foreign aggression thrown at Americans and their property. And that’s if the Legislative declares it. That said it’s on the military to do everything mandatory for quick decisive victory, by using overwhelming defensive force, concerned only about military necessity and not using means malum in se.

If taking no prisoners and putting down all of the initial aggressor’s infrastructure embody the determination required to punish the aggressor’s war of aggression, then I am for it. The specific goal of this retaliatory war should be to severely crush the capacity of the aggressor for war of aggression.

From 2013 onward, I did and do believe that the Salafi regimes of the Greater Middle East (GME) need to be severely attacked to stop their state sponsoring of Salafi Jihadism.

After learning about Saudi (and other GME nation) roles in the September 11th Attacks, I did and still do insist that Saudi Arabia be the primary target for United States retaliation for that atrocity. The secondary targets being the other Arab League states and tertiary targets being Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

As for Israel, I believe they are the only nation in the Greater Middle East capable of honest friendship or even capable of stable alliance.

Conclusion

What a long page, this felt more like two pages to me as I was typing it. But thanks for now knowing what I as one Independent voter think on the issues;

~LDA

Just War Theory vs Libertarian Defense Policy

shutterstock_262713128

A Free society has every right to defend itself or its friends, and this right to self-defense should not be infringed. Just War Theory infringes this right of self defense.

Just War Theory has Minimal compatibility with Libertarian Standards of Right Of Self Defense.

So, let me begin by saying what Just War Theory is. It’s a doctrine popularized in Western Culture first by Thomas Aquinas when he was trying to formulate an alternative to both pacifism and militarism. What he brewed is the absolute least compatible war-morality with libertarianism ever possible. And forgive me for making this post have the word count of two or three pages.

Criteria of Just War Theory

Pre-War criteria:

  • Just Cause
    • This is not libertarian because it forces the free society to be selfless and sacrificial about why it launches defensive war
  • Comparative Justice
    • This is hotly anti-libertarian because it forces free societies to never do more damage to their assailants than their assailants have done to them
  • Competent Authority
    • Okay, this one I’ll class as libertarian because there is the fact that the Legislative Branch is the branch most trustworthy to refrain from waging war of aggression.
  • Right intention
    • This one I will say is disputable whether it is Pro- or Anti-libertarian, as libertarians should favor defense of people but should also favor defense of property as well.
  • Likeliness of Success
    • This criterion is disturbingly anti-libertarian because it forces the free society to appease its assailant if extreme hardcore violence is required to successfully avenge its wounded self. That’s anti-libertarian.
  • Last Resort
    • This criterion makes exactly as much sense as a violent crime victim actually defending herself as a ‘last resort’. Because it demands the free society to appease its assailant in every way possible first. Meaning this’s anti-libertarian
  • Proportionality
    • This criterion callously disregards the inherent right of the free society to defend itself by forcing the free society to pretend as if evil is possible against a fascist dictatorship. That’s anti-libertarian.

War-Era criteria:

  • Distinction
    • This criterion forces the free society to make feel-good (NOT do-good) discrimination between the soldiers who conduct the dictatorship’s aggression and the politicians who tax for and spend on it from the rear. It also forces the free society to let the fascist tyranny heal its wounded, and this criterion is anti-libertarian for these reasons.
  • Proportionality
    • This piece forces the free society to value the feelings of its assailant’s civilians in place of the lives of it’s soldiers. US troops actually died all over the Middle East as a result of George Bush imposing this criterion on them.
  • Military Necessity
    • This is one War-Era piece of Just War Theory that can be called libertarian. And that’s because it teaches the free society to focus on what is militarily mandatory to destroy for defensive victory.
  • Fairly Treating Prisoners of War
    • Anti-libertarian, this criterion is, for demanding the free society to be benevolent to enemy troops who surrender or get captured, even though those enemy troops murdered many of the free society’s citizens.
  • No means Malum In Se
    • This is the only other Just War Theory piece that I will allow to be called libertarian-minded. And that’s because it bans things like terrorism and sexual violence, tactics that are inherently aggression no matter the motivation of the war behind the tactics.

Properly Libertarian Defense Policy

Pre-War policy:

  • Legislative Branch
    • A truly libertarian regime will be a constitutional republic, and a well-built constitutional republic will have at least three branches: executive, judicial and legislative. And that’s in order from least to most powerful. A properly declared war has to be declared by the Legislative Branch and carried out by the Executive, with the Executive being subservient to the Legislative, ignoring party affiliations.
  • Defensive Intention
    • A truly libertarian regime, a free society constitutional republic, will only wage war to defend people or property. It will never wage war to conquer land or to terrorize civilians; only a fascist, marxist or Salafi monarchy will wage wars of aggression. Also do not go to war just to spread capitalism or to spread constitutionalism or whatever else.

War-Era policy:

  • Military Necessity
    • A free society must and will train its troops on targeting military targets and doing everything mandatory to demolishing those military targets. Instead of worrying about collateral damage, a free society whose government properly exerts its only power (defend individuals and property from violent coercions) by stringently training its troops to willfully focus on trying to kill militant and military enemies by any means required.
  • No means Banned by the NAP
    • I am personally neutral about the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), but this criterion is as legit as the ‘No means malum in se’ from JWT, because it’s the same law with a different name. Also most libertarians support the NAP, and the first foreign policy related trait I notice about the NAP is it differs from pacifism (and in this case it also differs from Just War Theory) by permitting violence in defense of people and property.

Conclusion

So there we go. Only four parts of Just War Theory truly sit well with libertarian theory of right of self-defense. Thanks for the read;

~LDA

A Cheshire libertarian’s Thoughts On The 7-Election Trend at 7-eleven

7-election

Exactly what is this? Free markets and free expression? Or…

I’m a Millennial who seeks to get some Independent perspective out there on the 7-election trend.

Fascinating, though not exactly productive except at growing jobs, the 7-election thing is something I think is worth me posting my own thoughts about online.

Now, let me make it clear: I have only one cup I keep to myself, and that I have painted a ‘Pro-Israel Libertarian’ logo onto, and it does not leave my house for any reason.

I am very much an Independent, and the only reason people have to ever call me ‘Republican Leaning’ is because iSideWith tells that I side with the GOP 56% and the Democrats 17%. My biggest party there is the Libertarian Party at 77%.

Is It Freedom of Speech To Me?

Yes. The right to express one’s opinions freely is being used by the workers and merchants of 7-eleven to express the opinion that Democrats, Independents and Republicans should all have coffee cups just for them every four years.

And my commentary on it here is me using the right to express one’s opinions freely to promote personal opinion on this idea.

Is It A Free Market Element To Me?

Yes. Free market means an economy wherein prices and wages are based on competition between small businesses and individual workers and not controlled by government. In other words, a free market is an economy wherein the government only steps in to enforce basic human rights, such as those found in the US Bill of Rights.

Free markets are fueled by the law of supply and demand, yes. But they are also fueled by creativity. And 7-eleven’s salesmen and workers are being creative by doing this 7-election trend every four years in time for general elections.

Any Issues With it?

Yes. I think that the deepest flaw of 7-election is that it does not account for third parties like the US Libertarian Party. But that could be the fault of the LP for not getting real about foreign policy, maybe.

Conclusion

No, really. This is all I got on this trend and what to make of it. Thanks for reading and knowing this,

~LDA.

A Foreign Policy False Dichotomy For Neolibertarians And Objectivists To Unify Against

ayn_rand

Objectivism’s founder Ayn Rand, although currently deceased, is also currently a massive influence on libertarians economically, and in the case of neolibertarians like me she’s inspirational on foreign policy ideas.

There’s a False Dichotomy on Foreign Policy that Objectivists and Neolibertarians have enough common ground to unite them against.

One thing there is to be very wary of, is the binary black and white thinking out there on foreign policy. Or, as Yaron Brook called it, false dichotomy.

There are roughly ten different tribes of the libertarian movement, although Objectivists profess as uniquely their own movement.

I am listening to the Austin Petersen podcast “The Freedom Report”, specifically the episode about the meaning of Trump’s movement, as I write this page.

And it gets me thinking, there has been a false sense of binary thought on foreign policy for quite some time. And a political alliance is needed!

The Non-intervention Side

There are two sides of this false dichotomy, which I will simply call Non-interventionist and Neoconservative.

Among the liberty tribes, the Non-interventionist side includes Anarcho-Capitalists, most Civil Libertarians, most Classical Liberals, most Fiscal Libertarians, Geolibertarians, Left-Wing Anarchists, nearly all Minarchists, and Paleolibertarians.

Outside of the liberty tribes, the Non-intervention side includes the Bernie Sanders and other ‘Democrat Insurgent’ types as well as a majority of the Ron Paul and other ‘Republican Rebel’ types.

Non-intervention side’s agenda on foreign policy basically looks like this.

  1. Bring every troop home from every nation on Earth
  2. No more alliances with any nations at all
  3. Puritanical Non-interventionism in preach and in practice
  4. Humble Engagement with the world through trade and diplomacy alone
  5. Everything bad about humanity is the US military’s fault
  6. And human nature is inherently infallible

The Neoconservative Side

Even though myself and other neolibertarians may have some common ground with actual Neocons, we are not on their side of this dichotomy I am highlighting. We’re also not on the Non-intervention side just so everyone knows.

But the Neoconservative types include establishment Republican types like George W. Bush and John Kasich and Chris Christie as well as establishment Democrats like the Obamas and also the Clintons.

This latter group’s agenda looks like this:

  1. It’s our moral obligation to fight to spread democracy to the world
  2. It’s our moral obligation to give up on the Bill of Rights in doing national defense
  3. It’s our moral obligation to use protectionism against certain regimes for them not being democracies
  4. It’s our moral obligation to send free money, free food and free water to economically poor nations at tax payer expense

What Do Objectivists and Neolibertarians Stand Together On?

Applying the legal theory of self-defense and defense of others to foreign policy, that’s what. The theory of self-defense and defense of others based on individualist moralities like ethical egoism (which’s officially the Objectivist perspective) and humanism (which I’d argue is the Neolibertarian perspective).

This theory as defense policy holds that the use of constitutional regime change, Western cultural imperialism and preventive strikes are justifiable actions, but not moral obligations, against tyrannical regimes who callously break the Non-Aggression Principle.

In addition, if a tyrannical regime attacks the individual citizens or national interests of a free society, it’s up to that free society to do everything tactically and strategically mandatory for a supremely quick victory.

See here on the Ayn Rand Lexicon:

  1. Foreign Policy
  2. Dictatorship
  3. Self-Defense

There’s more terms relevant to foreign policy there. The number-one priority Neolibertarians like me have in common with Objectivists is free trade. As free trade spent almost the entire 19th century liberating most of the globe, birthing free societies.

Conclusion

On foreign and defense policies, I as a neolibertarian say us neolibertarians ought to unify intellectually with Objectivists against the false dichotomy I have been explaining this whole page. Thanks for the read;

~LDA