Suicidal Foreign Policy Actions and Exempting Healthcare from Freedom of Choice ~ A Donald Trump Update

maxresdefault

Been a while since I genuinely cared what this cult of personality was or is up to! What is new?

After seeing this video [warning; some mature language; if that’s not for you then the video is not for you]…

…I decided to craft my own perspective on the three things that were touched on there. Firstly, Donald Trump recently revisited his travel ban from seven different Greater Middle East nations. Secondly, Trump is selling $35 billion of weapons to Saudi Arabia per year for ten years. Thirdly, his replacement of Obama Care with Trump care is being skewed even by the video as mandating coverage denial. Okay, so allow me to break these down from my own unique angle.

Part One; Travel Bans vs Freedom of Movement

Okay, so unlike CNN, Politico provides actually impartial reporting on the travel being partly in effect until October. Apparently the only reasons people from Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Syria, Iran, and Yemen are allowed to travel to America are education and family. For example, they are not allowed to travel here for business trips or to visit musicians who perhaps visited them first.

Now from a foreign policy perspective this makes no sense at all, because the state sponsors of 9/11 are not on the list. That is; Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, Egypt, and Afghanistan are, in order from biggest degree to smallest degree, the state sponsors of 9/11 and of ISIS. So if the idea is to stop travel from nations who have sponsored 9/11 and as of 2011 are sponsors of ISIS, then why ban a random slew of nations who has little if anything to do with 9/11 or with ISIS?

As for the immigration perspective this is against the 9th and 14th amendment rights to respectively freedom of movement and equal treatment under the law. Now, I am not denying the negatives of Europe having adopted total open borders, what I am going to say to you is this. That’s not a lesson in how there is anything good at all about nationalism, which spoiler alert there is nothing right with nationalism. Instead, this is a lesson why we need to merge total freedom of movement with the historic Ellis Island vetting system. Basically that means medical exam, moral exam, English class, Civics class, done. And by done I mean “free to formally apply for citizenship”. It has nothing to do with Amnesty because from what I know, amnesty is being arbitrarily granted citizenship without having to fill out any kind of application. And I speak that as a 3rd side of the immigration and refugee debate, a side that says exactly as I do. The libertarian and objectivist hybrid side of the refugee debate.

Part Two; The Weapon Sales To America’s Enemies

Ugh— why exactly are we selling weapons to the biggest-time foe of the seven I singled out above? Seven countries who are known to sponsor Al-Qaeda and the Taliban but nowadays mainly ISIS! Far as I’m concerned, the Hamas and Hezbollah sponsoring nations of Iran, Syria, and Iraq are really just secondary targets of American Self Defense. But selling weapons to those who should be our primary targets is nothing short of suicidal.

And we are selling them $35 billion of annual weaponry for ten years! That will basically be enough for Saudi Arabia and its six fellow ISIS-sponsors to put ISIS up to a massive domination if not destruction attack against the American People. One that will make 9/11 look in comparison like a matter of 3000 people stubbing their toes all at once.

A proper policy with regard to the Greater Middle East, to me, is an instant and soulless ending for the primary foes. Meaning the total destruction of any and all Legit Military Targets under Saudi, Pakistani, Qatari, Emirati, Lebanese, Egyptian, and Afghan control. Not only this I also say include any and all political establishment actors and institutions in those nations as legit military targets. After these regimes are destroyed, we need to bring most of the victors home and leave a few thousand behind to allow a free society [aka capitalism] to take root.

Part Three; Still no freedom of Healthcare choice!

Anyone who interprets me honestly knows I am very into the notion that total freedom of choice is the answer to every question in standard of living. But medically, no, instead We The People have to settle for what I call “Reducing Normal Obama Care to Diet Obama Care”. And here is what TJ who did the video I opened on linking to is saying. He is saying that people are going to be forced to give up their health insurance under this new bill.

Two problems I have hearing this from someone I have my atheism and my live & let live outlook on lifestyles in common with. One; wasn’t TJ very against Obama Care for being, in his words, “A mandate to buy private insurance” and “Essentially just a gift to private insurance companies“? What it really does, from what I can gather, is it gives up on forcing Americans to buy private insurance. And in essence it is the revoking of that corporatist approved gift to private health insurers. And the new bill does this by ending the individual mandate, from what I can read from Wikipedia who TJ screen capped from. No, I am not defending the bill, I am just pointing out features that I don’t think were pointed out in the video. I accept that generally it is not the healthcare reform we need. What is needed?

To me, the answer is in four words. Total Freedom of Choice. Basically this means I think the answer is to pass a bill that has nothing to do with Obama Care or Diet Obama Care, one that does something totally different. One that motivates market competition for insurers to provide the best health insurance possible for the lowest prices that Supply And Demand will allow. That way, consumers will not need to stick to plans where the health insurance companies can treat them anyhow as the companies will get consumer money no matter what. Instead, health providers will only get their monthly profits by treating their communities like family. And that ethic will be for the same reason as the prices: Lack of Subsidies.

Thanks for reading!

~KSP Perkins

Advertisements

Donald Trump’s Despotic behavior, and how it will impact libertarians like this Independent Voter

screen_shot_2016-11-14_at_10

Mr Garrison as Donald Trump in South Park.

Now that the Donald is our president, I will make predictions for America and for Liberty.

No, I did not bother watching the inauguration myself, I just read this linked article about it instead. As you may be able to tell from the excerpt, I have backed three different people against him over the course of the 2016 race for the White House.

First came Marco Rubio whose views I shared 78% of, then Austin Petersen who shares 95% of my views, and lastly Evan McMullin who shared about 82% of my views; all of this according to the site I discovered them through: iSideWith.

What Will a President Trump mean for the United States?

As far as I can tell there are good aspects and then there are bad aspects, but seeing as I am an optimist I would like to address what I see as negatives first and then dig into what I see as positives.

Negatives:

  1. I can see the Donald’s use of tariffs costing us enormous outputs we have never had to give up under most of presidents 1 through 44 in turning profits from exports into new small businesses with 10 to 500 jobs each.
  2. I can see the Donald’s building of a border wall and deportation of 11 million non-citizen residents will damage the economy by massively reducing employment in low paying, somewhat outdated Industrial Age jobs.
  3. I can see Trump’s aspiration to ‘briefly’ ban non-citizen Muslims from entering or exiting the nation doing irreversible annihilation to the First Amendment
  4. I can see Trump’s desire about bringing back Draft being the death of absolutely all morality and all honor that took the US military 24 decades to build for itself.
  5. I can see Trump’s wishes to overturn the Summer 2015 Gay Marriage ruling defeating any purpose of myself or other libertarians calling for marriage privatization.

Positives:

  1. For every new regulation that gets proposed by the Congress, two old ones will have to go; this I predict will bring about tremendous economic growth!
  2. Constitutional Amendment to get mandate Term limits to Congress; this I know will deter corruption much better than the relevant Articles and Sections to this topic have with their House and Senate limits of ten years and six years respectively
  3. The fee for hiring of new federal employees and refusal to apply them to public safety guys and military guys will get rid of many not-needed bureaucracy.

What will a president Trump mean for the libertarian philosophy?

By this, I am referring not to the Libertarian Party that was set up in 1971 but rather to the libertarian philosophy that this nation was founded on in 1776. Libertarianism is not a party to me but rather it is an ideology, and of course now we can speak of what can potentially happen because of the presidency of Trump.

Of course in the United States the Libertarian Party from 1971 obsesses on trivial crimes by the US federal government instead of severe crimes by Sharia based governments in the GME. Not to mention, the LP is in general obsessed on the disproven mythological fiction that the US federal government as the only source possible of tyranny, and ignores any form of tyranny that does not come from US government.

Therefore the Libertarian Party can only get 400,000 libertarian voters out of the 15 million there are in this nation to register to vote as capital-L Libertarians. In other words, the refusal of the LP to recognize America is at least one of the best behaved societies on Earth along with a few better behaved ones, and their refusal to give the US military any credit for any of its heroism, is most of why 97% of America’s libertarians boycott the Libertarian Party.

However, there’s plenty of Pro-US-military, Pro-America & Pro-Empire-of-Liberty libertarian Small-Ls like Mike Lee, Dana Rohrabacher, Jeff Duncan, Scott Perry, Louie Gohmert, Mike Enzi, Ted Cruz (believe it or not), Mo Brooks, Scott DesJarlais, and Scott Garrett. There are others I can list based on Liberty Index scores between 90 and 100 paired with their views of American exceptionalism, Military expansion, and Foreign involvements as recorded at OnTheIssues.org.

What all of these and various others outside of government have in common is that Donald Trump will terrorize them out of the Republican Party to be as tyrannical and animalistic as he possibly can about his new position of power.

The result, I predict, will be that of the 97% of American libertarians (97% of 40 million = 38.8 million), the 39% (meaning 15.6 million) who generally support a Pro-Defense, Pro-America and Empire-of-Liberty foreign policy will all come along dumping themselves either into the American Capitalist Party, or into a third party of their own creation. Currently the Capitalist Party has so few members it’s probably a two digit number somewhere in this nation, but imagine 15.6 million like-minded people of different religious affiliations and such dumping into the CP? Or a totally new third party?

Closing Words

Thanks everyone for reading this post! Yes, I am predicting a mix of good and bad under the Donald.

Plus if you like what I have to say, or even if you can understand it or respect it, please rove that by signing onto donating $1.75 per month below.
“Subscribe

~LDA

A Reflection on the 2016 Presidential Candidates I Know About, And What Their Tax Plans Would’ve Done To Me

democrat-republican-1

No worries these two are not the only parties I will be comparing. I will look into the top two LP candidates Austin Petersen and Gary Johnson as well.

Suppose one of the other Republican or Democrat or Libertarian Party Candidates were 45th president…?

Comparing the 2016 Presidential Tax Reform Ideas, I would have to say that most of the GOP options and either of the LP options would have been a better 45th than Trump.

And I can say that as someone who makes roughly $12k per year, the very first thing I notice between the two major parties is a majority of the GOP hopefuls would have been a better 45th than Trump for GOP nominee.

But before this let’s look at what I am predicting will be how Trump changes my tax burden. I am predicting Trump’s tax plan will reduce my federal income tax burden from $2k per year down to $1.5k per year, meaning I will save about $500 annually. Now let’s move on to what the alternatives would have been all like… singling out ordinary individual income, the only income I currently make off my activity in the economy TBH. However I am going to single out the three candidates I have supported, two of which I have to pull from their official sites; Marco Rubio, Austin Petersen and Evan McMullin.

Under Marco’s Tax Plan

Marco Rubio would have reduced income brackets to there only being three of them; 15% and 25% and 35%, meaning I would be in the category wherein my tax burden remained unchanged. This is why I do not agree with Marco on taxes, because what I think we need is a flat tax model in place of current wildly complex tax code.

Under Austin’s Tax Plan

Austin Petersen seemed to be willing to carry on the Rand Paul tax plan of taxing all American incomes 15% equally and raising standard deduction to $15,000 meaning a difference of $9000 for standard deduction, subtracting my current 15% tax burden I would be saving $7.2k every year whether it was Austin Petersen propping this up or Rand Paul. I know both of these were bent on demolishing current tax code and starting over again and I am totally with both there!

Under Evan’s Tax Plan

Evan McMullin had a somewhat better tax plan than Rubio but not nearly as good as Petersen, I believe. He wanted to impose a new tax plan that would only differ from Trump’s by making 33% the highest of three rates rather than 28%.

Who Had the Best?

Assuming that he wanted to import the Rand Paul tax plan into his LP nomination run, Austin gets my nod for best plan of these three (or these four if you factor in the Donald), entirely because whichever of the two got up to implementing it, either way the fiscal benefits would be spectacular.

The 15% flat tax with $15k/yr standard deduction hybrid reform would have been poised to grow the $18 trillion size of America’s economy by 13%, meaning grow it to $20 trillion by creating 4,300,000 new jobs. The downside of the ‘Rand or Austin’ tax plan as I call it is it would add $1 trillion to the national debt, but $750 billion of debt would be avoided by the job creating. But compared to what other adds are going to be, or would have been, made to the national debt by others’ tax plans; the Rand or Austin plan is the least harmful.

As closing, thanks for reading this reflective article and please buy a subscription which is only $1.75/month every month.
“Subscribe

~LDA

US Military Security Needed At The Inauguration of Donald Trump!?

ap_17013649949198_wide-8b28ad63746252a84fff3859bdc6075a060fad54-s1500-c85

Homeland Security manager Jeh Johnson explains why the US military may need to be a part of Inaugural security on January Twentieth.

From seventy eight hundred National Guard soldiers to tens of thousands of town police department members!

Sounds to me like Homeland Security Department manager Johnson (speaking into mic above) is going to have to recruit some US military personnel! Not just a few thousand US Army, but rather many thousands of US National Guards, along with various police officers, legions of cement armored trucks and a national population’s worth of other security entities.

Are We The People, of the United States of America, really this damning crazy and hellishly evil in the heads that we need the director of the HSD to use American military might to protect us from ourselves!? Or is this just some very specific barbarians on the Far Left that this guess applies to with an indubitable Yes answer?

Where was I in the 2016 Election Cycle?

I must admit… while I have managed to stay civilized and stay culturally American in my behavior, I have been dismayed at the progress of Trump in three ways.

First came my switching over from the Libertarian Party to the Republican Party in middle 2015 because I took the iSideWith quiz and at the time came out with the LP as number one party match at 88%. As for candidate match, a Florida Senator who loves the Digital Economy and understands the world around America as much as I do, called Marco Rubio, was number one candidate match at 78% and Trump and Clinton both near rock bottom. And then I saw the ‘people’ of Florida voting for Donald Trump instead of this Senatorial promoter of free enterprise in Digital Economy context, the very kind of free enterprise promotion that libertarians like me need to do! But no, Marco is not a libertarian but rather a Center-Right conservative human being.

Then in February and March of 2016 I revisited iSideWith and it told me about another candidate in the LP that was exactly as articulate with similar but different principles in comparison and contrast to Marco Rubio. This LP alternative was of course Austin Petersen, who I can relate to 98% politically, so I directly endorsed him via Gmail and when he thanked me and asked for a phone number I instantly gave him my personal phone number. But when it came for the Libertarian Party primary, I thought there was no Connecticut state ballot access on April 26th for the Libertarian Party. If I had known about the ballot access it would have been because I directly asked the Cheshire CT handler of voter registrations, and then went to go vote for Austin Petersen. Sadly the LP delegates chose a complete hypocrite over this incredibly intellectually advanced Austin Petersen nomination candidate.

Lastly I went to backing and endorsing Evan McMullin, an Independent candidate who came off to me as more of a Pro-Defense Pro-America libertarian (with tiny conservative leanings), than as any kind of conservative that he was marketing himself as.

But when I noticed that Gary Johnson (the complete hypocrite on Liberty Movement principles) was going to be my most politically relatable option, I very reluctantly voted for this stoner and watched him get his ticket Trumped by the Donald.

What barbarians do I speak of?

Many people on the Far Left, the Anti-liberals who I am absolutely done with seeing referred to as “Liberals“, are irreversibly convinced that moral good has nothing to do with physical behavior and everything to do with political opinion. Reality is that empathy confirms exactly the opposite; which is that moral good has nothing to do with opinions in any topic whether the topic is politics, Middle-earth, dinosaurs, sports, or whatever else; and everything to do with physical actions.

These backward primitives are the people I can easily guess to try to launch the most barbaric siege attack they can on the ceremony we are discussing here, but I hope I’m fully wrong about this. As an atheist, I personally hope to the attendees of the inauguration and to the inaugural security that the security will not need to open fire on anyone.

Okay, I think I am done with this assessment. Thanks everyone and please buy a subscription which is only $1.75 per month!

“Subscribe

~LDA

Socialists Confuse The Distinction Between Libertarian And Anarchist.

online_privacy_and_the_founding_fathers

“Okay, why exactly are these trolls calling us Anarchists!?”

Libertarians differ from Anarchists by favoring very minimalist amounts of government, regulation and taxes.

But that is not the only way. There are plenty of ways, looking at the histories of anarchism vs libertarianism, that libertarian and anarchist are in fact not synonyms.

Anarcho-Capitalism, for example, is not a form of libertarianism but rather a form of anarchism. And this is the one thing I as a neolibertarian heavily disparage this article, that I otherwise love, on. It’s author even takes what should not be called ‘libertarian socialism’ at all and calls it that anyway. Instead we ought to call that ideology left-wing anarchism, just as Anarcho-Capitalist is right-wing anarchism. But on to the differences!

1. Just Because We Want A Minimalistic Republic does NOT mean we don’t want government.

This is the very first heinously false piece of info that socialism and progressivism are total addicts to spitting out about libertarians. The very first way these two confuse us with anarchists is they claim we don’t want any level of government at all.

Just because we are skeptical of the government’s ability to do anything beyond defending human beings’ lives, liberties and properties does not mean we want to abolish or even privatize the entire government. Rather, we want to stringently limit government to abiding by a clear set of classically liberal, SMALL-D democratic principles. And we libertarians call this kind of documentation of supreme law of the land a ‘Constitution’.

We the Libertarians differ from They the Anarchists in that we actually want a Western-cultured, Freedom-defending Secular Humanist Democracy. One that is required to stay Western, Permissive, Secular, and Democratic by a constitution.

Which is why the only legit ‘ism’ to lay onto is Libertarians is “Constitutionalist”. Not Anarchist, only constitutionalist. See the definition here.

2. Just Because we want people to be so free that initial aggressor force, fraud and theft are the only illegal moves does not mean we don’t want any regulation at all.

Here is heinously false piece of info number two. Libertarians do not want to abolish all regulation of anything. Totally a wrong claim, the factually honest claim is to say we want to limit government power and regulation to just what’s necessary to deter force, fraud and theft. For example, the regulation we want imposed on force goes something like this.

  • In a Digital-Age Western Democracy, force can only be justified when used to defend oneself or others from initial aggressor force.

Furthermore, when fellow libertarians and I say “theft” on this list of things worth banning, we really mean Property Crimes in general.

3. Just Because we want low taxes and to limit government budgets to just deterring fraud, force & theft does not mean we don’t want society to have any other societal functions.

Perhaps the best-known confusion between libertarian and anarchist made by progressivism is this third one right here. The fact that we want taxation to be at low rates and to match or outweigh spending. And the fact that we want spending to only be on programs that are specifically for protecting life, liberty and property from fraud, force and theft. Neither of these translates to hatred of other societal functions.

For example, neolibertarians like me believe that national government should stick stringently to defending life, liberty and pursuit of happiness from force, fraud and theft on a foreign policy level. And also that all domestic protection of these three rights from those three wrongs should be done by state and local governments. Lastly, we agree with the other schools of actual libertarianism on letting all other societal functions be handled by private forces. By this we mean individual humans, small businesses, organized religions, secular morality clubs, political activist clubs, other kinds of mutual thought & action clubs, and of course volunteer charities. Even private schools like that Quinnipiac University thing that is conveniently located one town south of me (I’m in Cheshire CT, QU is in Hamden, CT) are examples of private entities that can provide high quality education.

Conclusion

This is all I can really name, at least all the biggest. Thank you all for reading this my readers,

~LDA

US Millennials: A Neolibertarian People?

3379683-12

As millennials are today’s adults, I think I’ll point out the Founders of America were Young Adults.

Roughly Six in Ten Millennials Seem to fall right in line with Pro-American, Pro-Defense Libertarianism.

Two years ago, Reason Magazine and Cato Institute did polling opinion of American Millennials in regard to respectively domestic policy and foreign policy. But first let me address the title choice, specifically a word in the title.

So there is this term in the title ‘neolibertarian’, but what does it even mean? Well, allow me to explain.

A neolibertarian is a Moderate Independent who endorses greater economic freedom; meaning low taxes, minimal regulation of commerce, and rule of the world by free trade; and greater personal liberty; meaning no nanny laws, no exceptions to the US Bill of Rights, and the only blanket-ban in place being a ban on violating real people in real life.

However, neolibertarianism leans much closer to reality than mainstream libertarianism leans. Specifically, the neolibertarian judgement of America is to espouse a hyper-critical, but hyper-loving, basically ‘tough love‘ for America as a nation.

Not only this, but also neolibertarian sentiment differs from mainstream libertarian sentiment on foreign policy. While neolibertarians agree with mainstream libertarianism on free trade and free migration; they call for the US military to stay Earth’s strongest military, advocate a balance of using ‘soft power’ and using ‘hard power’ overseas, support humanitarian interventionism, and will always side with Israel regarding the Arab-Israeli war of 1948 to now.

Majority Opinions held by US Millennials

Polling data from all three sources I linked to, and including also data from Pew Research Center, confirms that majority sentiment among US Millennials can be most accurately branded ‘neolibertarian’. Unsurprising, as millennials want big cuts to government power economically and even bigger power cuts culturally, while mostly loving the US and mostly walking the same fine middle ground between neocons and mainstream libertarianism that neolibertarians live to walk. So let’s get to the numbers.

Cultural Policy

An average of Seven in Ten millennials, based on numbers from Reason; favor legalizing online gambling, allowing the recent hobby of vaping to replace the addiction to smoking without government laws, permitting women to wear revealing clothing in public, and letting chefs sell their food via food trucks.

Economic Policy

Reason Magazine numbering confirms that 57% of American millennials want profits and wages to be based on work ethic and not on any opinion on income inequality. Also there is the fact that 64% of millennials prefer free markets over government management of the economy.

American Pride

While it may be true that Seven in Ten millennials believe America has shameful flaws worth apologizing for and fixing, it’s equally true that EIGHT in ten still love the US more than any other nation on Earth.

Foreign Policy

Cato Institute’s particular findings are that two-thirds of my generation (yep, I’m a millennial) endorses use of military force to disrupt or preempt a genocide, which is what humanitarian intervention is. They also find that the two most popular forms of interventionism among millennials are ‘high cooperation, high force’ (30%) and ‘low cooperation, low force’ (also 30%). Furthermore, Pew Research Center finds that significantly more millennials in America side with Israel (43%) than with the Arab League (27%). However, I am having a hard time finding exact numbers for my generation on defense spending so I am forced to apply full population stats to just my generation. This means that I suspect (based on available stats) that 40% of millennials are satisfied with current defense spending, 35% want it to go up and 24% want it to go down. This means three in four millennials oppose defense spending cuts.

Conclusion

I seem to be seeing an intellectual obligation to answer the titular question with the following word: Mostly. Thank you for reading this, says the neolibertarian and millennial that I know I am,

~LDA

A Libertarian Case For Loving, And Wanting To Improve, America

fc8a3eb0-400c-44d9-9378-d95b7a2e94ac

I absolutely adore my country, that’s why I want to make the free society it is drastically freer. That’s also why I want to do this WordPress diary entry today.

America is a monstrously beautiful country, but I think it could be a lot more beautiful than it is.

The United States of America has severe flaws that need to be addressed pragmatically, I agree. But every libertarian should keep that in mind while still cherishing America as the most lively, most liberating, and most optimistic society on Earth.

Which means it gets me medically ill hearing anyone acting like the United States is such a terrible society. Whether it’s mainstream libertarians like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson or it’s left-wing people of any political philosophy.

[1] America Was Bred By Libertarians

Yes, indeed. The Founding Fathers were libertarians in the context of people who want a free society to exist as a constitutional republic.

One of them, Thomas Jefferson, wrote the US Declaration of Independence to assert that the entire human species has individual freedoms of life, liberty, property and happiness. Another, James Madison, wrote the US Constitution and the US Bill of Rights to be a blueprint for future free societies like 19th century Britain and 1920’s Ireland and 1950’s Israel to model themselves on.

Thomas Paine, another US Founder, wrote the 1776 book “Common Sense”, and in one of the pages spoke of free societies being inherently drastically more interested in peace than tyrannies.

[2] America Sits Very High In Basically Everything Libertarians Desire a Free Society That Sits Very High In.

Now I am going to show you indexes. Every single one of them grades nearly every nation on the planet – including America in all of them – on something that libertarians generally hold dear. Every one of them holds that the US is either near or at the top in almost everything libertarians want for society.

And most of these link to PDF files, so if you’re reading this on a phone or tablet you’ll be downloading stuff by clicking most of the links.

America has the 16th freest economy on Earth, meaning 141 economies are worse than ours, Cato Institute finds. The US trade policies also make for our economy to have the 15th freest trade on Earth according to World Economic Forum.

What about Thomas Jefferson’s vision of democracy and how consistent nations currently are with that vision? Oh, yes! America is 16th on Earth out of the Democracy Ranking of 113.

Property rights are beloved by libertarians, am I right? If so, libertarians should love that the US is 15th out of 129 in the world for Property Rights.

What about cleanliness of government, as opposed to corruption? The fact that America ranks 16 means we have one of the top 20 least corrupt governments on Earth.

Freedom of Speech and the Press? United States scores a 21 out of 100, meaning one of the freest free speech and free press setups on the planet.

Turning back to economy, we are 7th in the world out of 189 studied in how easy it is to do business. America is also the world’s largest economy by a long way.

Americans are also the smartest people according to the Nobel Prizes index. Top of the world in reliable scientific sources (unlike Wikipedia) as well. America is also the country that internets better than anyone else on Earth by a very long way. America also has the world’s largest number of individual billionaires, including charity givers like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates.

And seeing as most libertarians welcome immigrants with open arms, I’ll stop my case here: America hosts the largest number of global immigrants. Also check the World Index of Moral Freedom to see where the US ranks in freedoms of religion, bioethics, sexuality, and family/gender.

Conclusion

I willfully began my case with the arenas wherein there’s room for improvement, to demonstrate the pragmatism of my case. But then I closed with what America is closest on Earth to perfect at. 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

What Is A Pragmatic Libertarian Policy Regarding Foreign Aid?

boxcutout_se

Value of foreign aid summarized. Got this from a British website, according to Google Images.

Foreign Aid Does Not Always Do Good, Its Results Vary By What Nations It Goes To

I decided to explain my beliefs and policy offer about foreign aid some hours early. Let me begin by saying that contrary to many opinions, foreign aid is not exactly charitable. Either it goes to a foreign government or it goes right to lands where much of it gets snatched up by enemies of liberty. Or at least this is how I see it. It really seems to me like foreign aid is a feel-good policy that does not inherently do good.

Foreign aid going to nations who overwhelmingly despise us is simply not pragmatic policy, at all. My argument is that foreign aid from the US should cease, except for in those rare cases of foreign aid being used to help with defending individuals from physical coercion.

Why I Argue This

My rationale is that US libertarian foreign policy ought to be one of free trade, freedom of movement, self-defense and defense of others. And so then, American actions of any kind abroad, including in this case foreign aid, should reflect this goal.

There is no evidence in history of foreign aid having resulted in the giver earning the respect of the receiver. Free trade is what allows foreign nations to respect each other, and not foreign aid. The 19th Century is the time during which free trade was not just building respect between nations but also what was liberating the world.

Also there is no such thing historically as successfully bribing foreign countries to install freedom of movement as their official immigration policies. I have spent a large amount of time on Google looking for just one example. Could not find one.

Lastly, we come to the defense component, Self Defense And Defense Of Others. Our foreign aid giving for the past 15 years has proven itself to be anti-defense. Self-murdering, as for example every nation in the Greater Middle East we give foreign aid to, with Israel as the only exception, has so far used our foreign aid to direct or to sponsor physical coercion against individual human beings, including citizens of the United States of America. As for North Korea, we have been giving them foreign aid for many years and they still aspire to murder us with nuclear weapons.

What Do I Say We Do Then?

My suggestion is that we stop giving foreign aid to any nation that is not a Western world nation, firstly. Specifically I say we stop giving Non-Western countries money, weapons, or anything else. Because every logistical supply we pour into any nation outside of Western Society ends up getting snatched by truly hardened directors and sponsors of physical coercion.

As for nations within Western Society, including ones like Japan, South Korea and Israel who are heavily Westernized, we need to only give those nations foreign aid when they ask for foreign aid, which is rather rarely. And even so we must only give them the kind they ask for.

For America to be giving any foreign aid to any other trans-national culture, even one unopened bottle of water, or one $5 bill, or one 9mm bullet, is nuts! It’s suicidal.

Western culture is the only culture built on everything US libertarians of all different types can all agree is good, hence my emphasis on reserving aid for other Western countries.

Conclusion

Perhaps next page needs to be my page explaining my thoughts on why I see Western society as the uniquely libertarian society. Thanks for the read my readers;

~LDA

Guidance for NYT to the Republican Herd’s Libertarians

libertarian

A Libertarian Elephant?

New York Times Could Use Some Intellectual Help On Assessing Libertarianism

So I looked up libertarian Republican on Wikipedia one time and I added awesomely brain-cooking info I added from Pew Research Center with info about GOP libertarians and GOP conservatives being similar but different on foreign policy.

Then some sleazy someone came along and replaced it all with a four year outdated New York Times citation. I clicked the link and it lead to a very amusing but again very outdated article about the different factions of the US Republican Party.

Why I am bringing this up and making a move to educate these NYT analysts is to prove to them that libertarians, including GOP libertarians, are not ‘fiercely isolationist’. But yes I will give them praise where credit for factual accuracy is warranted.

What They Got Right

Knowing people react better when you ease them into the spiky stuff, I am going to do the praises for truths first and then constructively call them out on what is false that they say.

Firstly, the idea that every three libertarians is two guys and one gal. Absolutely statistically correct. 15% of American men are libertarians as are 7% of American women.

Secondly, the idea that libertarians are pro-business and anti-government. Mostly true, for what true libertarians favor is free market capitalism in a republic that sticks to the rule of law. So, NYT, there is a kind of government libertarians are favorable to. That kind is a constitutional republic with very limited power.

Thirdly, the idea that are the sort of secular humanist faction of the party as far as religiosity goes. As an atheist, I respect NYT for pointing out this fundamentally true difference between libertarian and conservative. Here are some screen caps of this from a 2011 survey.

libertarian-religiosity

Libertarian religiosity

conservative-religiosity

Conservative religiosity

What They Did Not Get Right

As with every article from a source that began as a news paper, there are few intellectual dishonesties here and there. What NYT did not get right is, as the intro indicated, foreign policy. It wrongly brands the entire libertarian movement as ‘fiercely isolationist’.

I have some facts I would like NYT to learn, even if I am teaching this to them four years later than would have been more relevant. And even if some are just facts about me as a libertarian myself.

  1. Most libertarians, very remorsefully, promote Non-interventionism which differs from isolationism only by having room for free trade, freedom of movement, and diplomatic friendships. Three things that I am very much in favor of.
  2. Those of us who retain sanity by rejecting Non-interventionism, myself proudly included, are the libertarians who are in favor of a strong military and an objective foreign policy.
  3. I myself actively promote an objective foreign policy of self-defense and defense of others and Western cultural supremacy as a pragmatic alternative to the Non-interventionist humbleness of mainstream libertarianism.
  4. But you will never witness me confusing non-interventionism with isolationism as conservatives I’ve witnessed or talked to in person routinely to.

Remember that ‘similar but different foreign policy’ article I linked to? Yeah, here is what NYT and journalists in general need to know about (most) libertarian Republican foreign policies:

  1. libertarian Republicans want the US to let foreign nations solve their own problems
  2. libertarian Republicans want the US military to stay the strongest military on Earth
  3. libertarian Republicans are split between wanting more military spending and wanting no change in military spending
  4. libertarian Republicans want to send ground troops to destroy ISIS and also believe that overwhelming defensive force is the only way to destroy state sponsored terrorism.
  5. libertarian Republicans are adamantly Pro-Israel regarding the Arab-Israeli Conflict
  6. libertarian Republicans vastly favor NATO membership
  7. libertarian Republicans widely prefer multilateralism over unilateralism, much like I do as a libertarian Independent myself.

Conclusion

And so I have just explained to NYT and all its readers about what a libertarian Republican is like in full detail. Thanks readers,

~LDA