Many Topics in One Post

Dark Lord of Freedom

This random nonsense picture choice is because I am touching a different interest of mine per headline.

Starting with news in politics

Hey everyone! I have opened up my news analysis hub Pro-Defense News to the world, and I am welcoming various assorted neolibertarian, objectivist, classical liberal and sometimes minarchist and even geolibertarian voices to author over on PDN. But if you wish only to subscribe then it is $10.75 per month but for every 1000 paying readers I get, I pledge that I will very happily take a dollar off the monthly price until I am charging only 75 cents per month.

Oh, and I joined my state level Libertarian Party as encouraged to by Austin Petersen, and I am considering becoming a dues paying member by the end of this year and then do all this for the national level party during the year of 2019.

And now news in Games Workshop and Middle-earth

I have watched this amazing video in order to better understand the Games Workshop hobby legion I play as. The Easterlings in the LOTR Strategy Battle Game. Without the video I would likely have been over-using the Black Dragon upgrade, and indeed I would have been making other tactical errors in my first actual play of this game too.

Meanwhile, my Battle for Middle-earth II modification is going to be worked on bit by bit and I am hoping to be able to upload it onto ModDB by the day of my 24th birthday which will be May 6th of 2018.

Turning to my love of the meats

Even though I am trying to lose 50 pounds before my 23rd birthday, I seem to be losing a lot more slowly than I need in order to have a girlfriend in the summer. But I am still trying to stay carnivorous, too; meaning I may easily have to be very picky about what meats I eat. For this means white meats often, very rarely red meats, taking deli style cold cut meat in total and utter replacement of ground meat of any kind (yes, even chicken and turkey).

What about Mountain Dew?

I only drink Diet Dew now, for reasons mentioned under the “Turning to my love of the meats” headline. But I will allow myself some Baja Blast as an occasional and/or summer treat. I still know all about what the flavors are and how, and can make a post entirely about that if you want.

Brandy or Whiskey, which is it?

Both, actually. But I still enjoy Stouts and Porters, I just happen to have added brandy and whiskey to my personal list of enjoyed alcoholic drinks.

And I think that’s it! Thanks for tuning in and if you could sign up to a $1.75 per month subscription I would show vast gratitude, please;
“Subscribe

~LDA

To Topple the Democrat-Republican Duopoly of America, the US Libertarian Party Needs to Drastically Change Its Foreign Policy Agenda.

demopublican

Hey US Libertarian Party, want to get rid of the morbid system mocked by this image? Then come over to reality on foreign policy and national self-assessment!

Foreign Policy and National Self-Love are two things the US Libertarian Party needs major reform on.

I am happy to be registered to vote as a Libertarian Partier, and I am happy to score an 86 with how libertarian I am on both the Libertarian Purity Test and the iSideWith self-assessment quiz.

However, the US Libertarian Party and broader libertarian movement absolutely disgust me to the point of insanity on foreign policy. Mainstream libertarian opinion wrongly merges a severely paranoid Anti-Americanism with a naive Pacifism. A pacifism that truly believes that America will be best off if it just retreats from everywhere militarily and talks to the world through diplomacy alone.

No, I am not trying to abolish the LP, I would never allow that to happen. I know I would very much rather move to another Earth-like planet than see the LP dissolved.

Who Should the United States Respect Overseas?

Only other free societies. True friends will respect each other’s independences while also being eager to defend each other without needing such a contract as a military alliance.

Unilateralism dramatically more often demolishes other free societies’ respects for America than builds, but the LP should absolutely not promote negotiation and diplomacy with tyrannies. Instead the LP should be promoting the idea of America negotiating multilaterally with other free societies on solutions to problems caused by tyrannies.

The United Nations is an abysmal example of a multilateralism club, and the Libertarian Party is totally right to want the US to evict the UN from our dimension. However, the US Libertarian Party should absolutely not be opposing clubs like OECD and NATO, which aside from Turkey consist of nothing but free societies.

In fact, Pew Research Center finds that 77% of American voters find NATO and OECD friendships to be beneficial.

Differentiate Which Foreign Regimes are Libertarian and which ones are Statist

When this country was having its Declaration of Independence into effect in 1776, Thomas Paine had got to publishing the non-fiction book Common Sense. In this book, he noted that tyrannies will go to war out of pride in situations wherein free societies will not. He also made other notes about how peaceful free societies are as a general rule.

Perhaps my favorite example to name off is Israel. Out of all of the entire Greater Middle East, Israel is the only free society. Turkey was a free society from the start of the Digital Age to the time Erdogan took power, whereas Israel has remained a free society from its 1947 founding year to now. Arab League members, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan will go to war out of pride in situations in which Israel (and recently Tunisia) will not, by the logic of US Founding Father Thomas Paine. 54% of Americans agree with this logic-based conclusion, only 19% would disagree, so the LP needs to stop catering to the 19% and get on board with the 54% instead.

Stronger U.S. Military Means More World Peace

There is plenty of historic facts of life to point out in regard to the US military’s presence abroad being mandatory to preserving a world wherein free trade is the default tool of any free society’s foreign policy.

Remorsefully, mainstream libertarian opinion ignores these particular facts of life, in favor of impulsive and venomously feelings-obsessed calls for all troops to come home from all places. Most libertarians around this one (me) even have the naivety to call for the US military to be downsized.

When the US Military Shrinks and/or foreign Tyrannies Get Respected, Earth Gets Deadlier for Millennials Like Me to Live On

Well, this is going to be quite the element for me to explain. So basically you have the two Koreas, right? And historically the Korean War from 1950 to 1953 ended in stalemate, on one hand. But on the other hand, 28,000 US troops being stationed in South Korea has resulted in North Korea having lost interest in annexing South Korea. Therefore South Korea has emerged into a fellow free society that’s got more economic freedom with more personal liberty than most of the world around it.

US military presence overseas also allows the US military to respond in short order whenever a tyranny is propping a menace. Stationing US troops in our OECD friends’ lands (Israeli and Turkish land) allowed the US military to defeat the Saddam Hussein regime after a speedy travel in both Iraq Wars. To have to fly US troops over from US soil would have required our 500 MPH troop carrier planes to fly 7000 miles and take 840 minutes to get there. That’s compared to flying 800 miles in 96 minutes and 600 miles in 82 minutes from Turkey and Israel, respectively.

Grant you, America or any other free society should only use war for Self-Defense and Defense of Others and never as the aggressor. But when a tyranny is sponsoring terrorism or conducting genocide, US troops need to be stationed in the geographically closest free society to that tyranny. This way US troops will be ready to defeat that tyrannical regime very quickly.

Define US National Interests?

A National Interest is defined as a country’s goals and ambitions in the world, wether economic, cultural or military. I look at US Libertarian Party rhetoric echoing Thomas Jefferson’s phrase about ‘peace, commerce, and honest friendship with foreign countries and alliance with none’. And every time I do I get the impression that the USLP defines US national interests economically as free trade, culturally as honest friendships, and militarily as abstinence from alliances. So as far as I am concerned the US Libertarian Party already knows what US National Interests are.

But very regrettably, the Libertarian Party does nothing to advocate defense of these Jeffersonian-defined Interests. Instead the USLP promotes Far-left, Anti-Americanism and hatred of doing anything visibly mandatory for defending these Jeffersonian Interests.

What the USLP should do is accept the painful reality that War is frequently the only answer to attacks on the US interests of “Peace, Commerce & Honest Friendships but No Alliances”. While also reminding the American People that American military must only ever wage war to defeat tyrannies who attack the US interests of free trade and friendships with other free societies. Or threaten said interests with future attack. Regime Change, Democracy Promotion and Cultural Imperialism endanger America by blinding America to its own cultural, economic and military goals in the world. This is the argument the USLP should be making against these three behaviors, not that they harm enemy governed citizenry, not that they put foreigners at risk of senseless death. There should not be indiscriminate world policing or nation building.

Conclusion

This was twice as long as I wanted it to be, but I do hope I got the idea across. Thanks for reading,

~LDA

Properly American Style And Purpose of the Federal, State & City Governments

online_privacy_and_the_founding_fathers

Yeah, I don’t think any of the Founders had any interest in spying on everyday America.

Government has both a purpose and a style to fulfill

Yes, I am still a libertarian, that simply means I favor a free-market, small-government, secular-humanist republic. And a republic is government by elected individuals who abide by the rule of law. And I am going to show you exactly how the style of American government in general is supposed to be a constitutional secular humanist republic. But I will also cite evidence of the purpose of America’s constitutional secular humanist republic, which is to provide defense and to hold all of humanity to the same moral standard.

Style of Government

Libertarians must examine, in deciding what American foreign policy and domestic policy should be, what the style of American government is to be.

According to James Madison, and citing the Constitution as evidence, American government in general is set to be a republic, as are the state and city governments. Article Four Section Four is what says this claim about this country.

Concerning my claim about secular humanism, there are two elements of evidence to support that claim. The first is Article Six of the Constitution which forbids making organized religion a qualification for public office.

The second element is something Thomas Jefferson said, with influence from Thomas Paine. As a deist, Jefferson despised clerics and said that “America is on no account a Christian nation.”

Role of Government

The purpose and role of government in America is, according to the constitutional Preamble, to provide for the common defense of people.

Just as well, the Declaration of Independence establishes legal equality for humanity, and entitled it to free trade and to freedom from slavery. See this very simple source here.

Misuse of Government

Let us list what US government is not supposed to be.

  1. It’s not to be a Judeo-Christian theocracy
  2. It’s not to be the corporatist nonsense it currently is
  3. It’s not to be the Alt-right absurdity Donald Trump might make into
  4. It’s not to be the democratic socialism like Bernie Sanders wants it to be
  5. It’s not to be any kind of power-hungry empire thing like Clinton, Obama and both Bushes make it to be
  6. It’s not to be the sort of porcupine-defense republic Ron Paul and the LP want it to be

It is supposed to be a constitutional, secular humanist republic that militarily provides for common defense and diplomatically stands for all humans to have free markets and civil liberties.

Which leads us right into what government is not to do.

  1. It’s not to force democracy on all foreign countries everywhere
  2. It’s not to dump free food on countries who are having famines
  3. It’s not to bribe foreign governments to behave a certain way
  4. It’s not to build schools and holy temples such as churches or mosques on foreign soil
  5. It’s not to force Judaism, Christianity or other organized religion onto atheists and deists like with Creationism and with Abstinence-Only Poisons

It is supposed to provide for common defense while advocating for all humans to have free markets and have civil liberties.

Conclusion

I think I have clarified to the world what the style and role of US government is supposed to be, lawfully. Thanks for the read, readers;

~LDA

A Young Adult Atheist’s Idea of How Non-Interventionism Stupefies the Non-Aggression Principle

Introduction

Every time I read about foreign interventionism on Wikipedia, I see a sentence like this, and yes I am going to paraphrase a tiny bit:

  • “The non-aggression principle holds that war of aggression is inherently immoral, but permits war to be waged in self-defense and defense of others.”

Is that so, Wikipedia? Well, if that is the case then I guess Non-Aggression Principle has room for foreign interventionisms that focus on self-defense and on defense of others. But allow to verify this before anyone calls this a judgement.

Non-Aggression Principle

Let us get a basic knowing of what the NAP is before we dig into this. Apparently it is a moral stance that forbids any behaviors that violate Western libertarianism’s norms of property rights and of human rights.

Human rights and Property rights are guarded by most fellow libertarians using the Non-Aggression Principle as a protection from behaviors that are Malum In Se.

Self Defense And Defense Of Others

Since it is evident in privately owned but publicly known facts of Foreign interventionism that the Non-Aggression Principle allows Defensive War to be waged, but not War of Aggression, that sounds like the NAP’s morality of war is to only wage war to defend innocent lives. Or at least it sounds this way to me.

But of course, for every libertarian idea that this libertarian (me) can agree with some views of though not all views, there has to be one with no positive traits. This for me is where Non-interventionism comes into play.

According to Non-interventionism, a free society should only wage Defensive war to defend its own people, and even then only within its borders. Defending soil is (or comes off to normal people and to me as) valued in place of defending people in Non-interventionist foreign policy.

‘Humanitarian intervention’ is the most common phrase for Defensive war waged to defend innocent lives on foreign soil, as far as I can tell. It sits well with the most basic, simple form of the Non-Aggression Principle I think because the NAP allows deadly violence to be used for self-defense and defense of others, and Humanitarian intervention is about nothing but the ‘defense of others’ component.

Does Preventive War Sit well with the NAP?

I say it depends on what the warring nation is trying to prevent, if its to prevent aggression it is NAP-abiding, if its to prevent defense it is NAP-breaking.

But objectively, a tyrannical nation wages preventive war to try to prevent a free society from defending itself or from defending others, as was proven to us by Imperial Japan with the Pearl Harbor attacks.

Meanwhile, a free society only wages preventive war in, you guessed it, self-defense and defense of others. And that is only if most of its Legislative Branch votes in favor of allowing the Executive to do so. This is evident in every time a free society has ever cooked up a preventive military action since World War II, and before that Global Conflict as well.

Preventing a free society from defending itself breaks the NAP, while preventing a tyranny from sponsoring a terror attack obeys the NAP. Or at least, thats how I look at it from the most honest & simple angle I can put together.

What About Regime Change?

I would say that regime change can morally only be done by a free society to a tyranny. But I do think there is no job to do regime change.

Tyrannies by nature are national-scale and often planetary-scale violations of the Non-Aggression Principle and so logically by the NAP viewed the way most libertarians view it, respecting tyrannies’ sovereignties is breaking the NAP.

Of course I do not want any Western country, not America not anyone else, nation building. I would like to see policies of defensive posture put in place. History reveals that nation-building, unilateralism, and letting formerly enemy-ruled citizens set up any kind of democracy they want no matter how despotic it is; all foster chaos and empower the rise of threats like the Salafi Movement and its various sponsors.

But how is this logic not the mainstream of libertarians? I am guessing the libertarian label has been stolen by hipster anarchists. Let me explain why I think that.

Libertarian History

Libertarian ideals were first promoted to the values of a culture in Western Culture with the writings of John Locke. He wrote about the libertarian principles of civil liberties, political freedom, rule of law, republic, economic freedom and laissez-faire in enough different pieces of literature that in the 1690’s the first ever Western libertarians were revolting against and overthrowing Political Christian monarchies and changing their own regimes into republics that abided by libertarian ideals. Nine decades later the United States would be another one of these Western libertarian republics, born out of forcing the UK out of the North American continent, much the same way Canada was born in the early 19th century.

Bottom line, the old-school libertarians forced libertarian values onto Christianity, Judaism and innumerable other organized religions around the world up until 1950. They waged Liberation War in self-defense and to some degree defense of others. As my one of my favorite authors ever, Keith Farrell, puts it:

  • “The truth is liberty is a rare thing in the world, and has only been the norm where and when people had killed to establish it.”

And yes, this is a fact of life that I can see being on-par with the NAP but most libertarians don’t for reasons I personally don’t classify as reasons.

Summary

Non-interventionism stupefies the NAP by convincing libertarians that a free society’s right to defend whoever is very limited and that the reasons for limits are infallible and should not be challenged ever. This I know is how the stupefying occurs as I remember the behavior of most of my fellow libertarians, even very recently with the allegedly “Libertarian” Party violating the civil liberty and Libertarian Ideal of Freedom of Expression by banning one of its own candidates, Austin Petersen, for disagreeing with them on whether the NAP has any viability at all.

That’s at least how I suspect Non-interventionism munches and crunches away at libertarian understanding of Libertarian Values even if that understanding is simply courtesy of Webster Dictionary and/or Wikipedia.

Conclusion

I think it is rather obvious that Non-interventionism makes an airhead out of the Non-Aggression Principle. I also think every form of libertarianism has its own form of the NAP. Matter a fact no two libertarians who support the NAP have the same idea of what it is beyond an ethical barrier meant to guard human rights and property rights.

No, I have not stated my opinion on the NAP. I just know though that when it comes to taxes and regulation for example, and in this topic how much there is to the NAP, I tend to be kind of an ultra-minimalist. Anyways, thanks for the read

~LDA

Defense Doctrine, LDA’s proposal for a Libertarian Foreign Policy Doctrine

Introduction

Hello. I, the Libertarian Defense Atheist, did some reading about the Bush and Obama Doctrines on Wikipedia. And I have thought well about developing an alternative to both that has Free Trade and Free Migration as pillars while focusing on Defense, specifically Self-Defense And Defense Of Others. I am going to break down my proposal for the liberty movement in foreign policy, my alternative not just to the Bush and Obama Doctrines but also alternative to mainstream libertarianism’s current foreign policy of Non-interventionism as well. Civilization cannot survive on a humble foreign policy of diplomacy and trade alone.

Defense Doctrine

(Pillar 1) Free Trade

Foreign policy should seek to emphasize free trade as the best form of global interaction for the domestic economy. Free trade, meaning no taxing of imports or exports and minimal regulation that’s only for upholding basic human rights, is mutually prospering between nations. Republics like the US and other Western world countries are much more interest in trade than in conquest, most Monarchies on Earth were changed into Republics across America’s first full century of independence by free trade. US Foreign policy reform for the best economically means tearing down all legal barriers to overseas trade and reducing regulations to just a simple and cosmic norm of human rights.

(Pillar 2) Free Migration

Individuals need to be able to freely travel and move to anywhere they want and still have economic freedom and personal liberty. This notion is known as free migration, but can also be called freedom of movement. The most prominent advocates of free migration are, you guessed it, actual free market capitalists who have nothing to do with corporatism. Freedom of Movement and Free Migration, like Free Trade, must also be ruled by the Congress as Ninth Amendment Rights for every American.

(Pillar 3) Defensive Militarism

Yes, this is a thing. Defensive militarism basically means the idea that one’s nation should have a strong military defense and should be prepared to use it ruthlessly to defend the lives of innocent individuals from their attackers. Agreeably, Aggressive militarism like in North Korea and other Monarchies is inherently wrong, yes. But defensive militarism on the other hand highlights a similar difference to the moral difference between Defensive War and War of Aggression. I put the phrase here ‘defensive militarism’ to promote Right of Self-Defense for all Republics.

And yes, I am using ‘republic’ and ‘monarchy’ as synonyms for ‘libertarian regime’ and ‘authoritarian regime’, respectively.

(Pillar 4) Honest Friendship with Fellow Republics Only

Diplomacy is another key component for a legit libertarian foreign policy, at least according to my Defense Doctrine it is. The US needs to seek to only be friends with other Republics, which currently means only be friends with European and other Westernized nations. Again, this is only pragmatic diplomacy, as honest non-alliance friendship has the common ground with stable alliance of only being possible between republics and republics. Never between republics and monarchies and also never between monarchies and monarchies. Republics must seek to be honest friends with each other at all times, for all time. Republics must also seek to avoid attempting friendships with Monarchies, as monarchies are historically proven to only be interested in conquest and slaughter.

Just let me explain the pattern I am getting at here: Thomas Paine noted in 1776 with his nonfiction novel Common Sense that republics never take innocent lives and only wage war sparingly and even then only to defend innocent lives. He also noted that monarchies inherently are proud to be addicts to murdering innocent people and waging wars of conquest out of egotistical pursuit of their religious fanatic agendas. Then nearly two centuries later Rudolph Rummel, a political scientist, tested Paine’s claims with political science and found Mr. Paine to be indisputably right about these points of his.

(Pillar 5) Telling Stable Apart from Unstable in Alliances

Based on the Washington Doctrine of Unstable Alliances, this pillar is all about knowing exactly who a Republic’s real allies are. Monarchies are just not capable of Stable alliances. Which is exactly the kind of alliances libertarians should be advocating, Stable Alliance with all Republics, and No Unstable Alliances (aka alliances with monarchies) ever. Republics can trust each other to both be stable allies and to be truly non-alliance friends in the same way city police departments can trust each other. And monarchies can only be stable ally and legit non-alliance friend to themselves in the same way local gangs can only trust themselves to be honest friend and/or stable ally. Here is a history lesson about monarchies not being capable of honest friendship or of stable alliance: Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, whose ‘kings’ were respectively Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin, singed a non-aggression pact with each other in the early parts of World War II to ensure honest friendship but not alliance of any sort. But then a few years afterward the Nazi monarchy… invaded the Soviet monarchy and killed lots of Soviet-enslaved civilians! Even today, making friendships and/or alliances with monarchies like Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Pakistan, United Arab Emirates, or the Palestinian Government is like making friendships and/or alliances with drug cartels or slave-trader hordes: one year they act legit, like Saudi Arabia was to us, the next year they sponsor the deadliest violent crimes on your property’s recorded history, like Saudi Arabia did in providing 15 of the 19 perps of 9/11.

Summary

  1. Prioritize Unrestricted Free Trade
  2. Free Migration & Freedom of Movement
  3. Collective Right of Self-Defense
  4. Know how an Honest Friend treats you
  5. Know how a Stable Ally treats you

Conclusion

That took me some time to think through carefully. But of course I know there will be both people who agree with me and people who don’t. I just am thankful you read this top to bottom,

~LDA

Many Shades of Non-interventionism Being Ridiculous And Absurd

Introduction

Okay, so you are likely realizing this is just me flying off on foreign policy against the mainstream of my fellow hardcore libertarians again. But I actually want to call out Non-interventionism on both its basic definition and on how many fellow libertarians take it profanely way too far off the base we refer to as ‘humanity’.

The Premise

Non-interventionism is the premise that one’s nation should avoid all alliances – stable and unstable alike – while still having diplomatic friendships with all nations, and should also not have troops outside of one’s borders and should not have them fight wars that are not exclusively about defending one’s soil.

I can dissect the problems I have with a foreign policy of this premise for everyone who reads my stuff.

Firstly, the idea that no alliances should ever be made. Yeah, I see no evidence of alliances with other free societies not being mandatory to maintaining free trade and diplomatic friendship with them.

Speaking of diplomatic friendships, Authoritarian governments, who we can just call monarchies, are by behavior not capable of diplomatic friendship, diplomatic exchange, or diplomatic anything.

And lastly the whole thing about defending national soil instead of defending national people. Um… suppose you were a leader of a republic. You had some monarchy threaten to attack your people both on your soil and on foreign soil alike. Which would you rather defend – your people or your soil? Let me break it down:

  • Soil is not all that legit without people to do stuff with, for, or to it
  • People are the only animals who will get creative with what an animal ought to do with soil, which is why civilization itself started up in Mesopotamia.
  • People are also the animals who practically invented things like empathy, liberty, property, philosophy and defense.
  • Soil may provide certain resources for economy, but who’s to say humans can avoid harvesting them and still have a free market? And still create civil liberty & social equality?

There you go, roughly three ways already in which Non-interventionism is illogical from start to finish.

Ways Libertarian Doves Take Non-Interventionism Way Too Seriously

1) Valuing Peace Over Freedom Overseas

Okay, Webster Dictionary. What’s the definition of a libertarian like me?

  • A person who believes that people should be allowed to do and say what they want without any interference from the government

And also… what are the Libertarian Principles exactly (asking myself)?

  1. Individualism
    • Civil Liberties
    • Equality of Opportunity
  2. Rule of Law
  3. Economic Freedom
    • Free markets
    • Free trade
    • Low taxes
    • Minimal regulation
  4. Freedom of Conscience
    • Freedom of Speech
    • Freedom of Press
    • Freedom of Religion
    • Freedom of Association
  5. Political Freedom
  6. Republicanism (not the GOP, but rather favoring a republic)

Okay, so how does a libertarian get behind casting all 6+ of these aside in foreign policy? Just so one can worship peace like it is some kind of sacred messiah? I have got a painful fact of life for people who say they’re libertarian and yet take non-interventionism so far as to sideline freedom for the sake of peace: Peace on Earth absolutely MANDATES freedom on Earth, which requires an Earth of NOTHING BUT Western-cultured liberty republics.

2) Restricting Self-Defense and Defense of Others

Ugh… I cannot think of a more anti-libertarian direction to take Non-interventionism in America than to impose legions of limits to the right of a free society to use warfare to defend one’s own people or to defend another’s people against an aggressing/conquering tyrant.

War is a Last Resort” is basically empty rhetoric to me, a proxy filth used to attack the idea of making the legal theory of “Self Defense And Defense Of Others” to be one’s foreign policy, or of including it in one’s foreign policy agenda. I get half nauseous every time I hear someone refer to Defensive war in particular as either Not The Answer or as The Last Resort. As the absurdly painful fact of life is that Defensive War is provenly the ONLY ANSWER in defeating an Initiator of Aggression.

I absolutely agree War of Aggression is inherently wrong, but as for Defensive War I am totally convinced every Free-Society Republic has a right to put up a Deadly Defense against ANY Tyrannical Monarchy.

Humanitarian Intervention is perhaps the best known example of waging Defensive War in Defense of Others. It means waging Defensive war to defend the lives of a foreign people against their government over their government doing genocide to them. I do find it sickening that humanitarian intervention is not popular with fellow minarchists. The reason I do is about that smug, self-hating attitude that permeates American libertarians in particular. And it is because I have yet to see a single argument against humanitarian interventionism that does not ignore or call for tolerance of a monarchy doing a genocide.

By modern terms, and by modern mainstream perception of why it happened, the American Civil War was in fact the American North’s humanitarian intervention into the American South to put a stop to Southern slavery; for example.

3) Ignoring the Defensive Abilities of Preventive Force

One big defensive option every free society has a right to is to use preventive force to retaliate against threats of future attack or against other forms of violently coercive blackmail.

Preventive and Preventative basically just means, according to Webster:

  • Undertaken to forestall anticipated hostile action

In other words, it makes no sense to call preventive war aggressive can only make sense if it is waged to prevent a foreign entity from defending innocent lives, and historically Preventive War was only used as an act of Initial Aggression ONE TIME. By Imperial Japan against Franklin D Roosevelt’s America to prevent FDR from doing humanitarian intervention in defense of the mainland Chinese people’s lives (Imperial Japan was conquering and murdering China during the 1930’s and 1940’s until 1945).

All other acts of Preventive War were either a republic or a monarchy getting Defensive against some other monarchy blackmailing them.

But yet, many of my fellow libertarians will ignore the idea of preventively defensive war. Instead many of my political brethren tend to think there is no such thing as using defensive war to prevent conquest or prevent terrorism. They think defensive war can only be used after a massacre has already been done to Americans on American soil.

Sorry to say, but… Preventing aggression does not count as aggression, Preventing defense on the other hand does count as aggression. Not to mention, only Free Societies can do it to Tyrannies, objectively.

4) Confusing Right to Liberate with Duty to Liberate

Actual neoconservatives, vastly unlike me, will claim it is the duty of America alone to unilaterally impose liberty on all societies, that it is a mandate. Such thinking I agree is myopic, but I do not join the mainstream of my fellow libertarians in claiming there is also know right for any free society to invade and liberate any slave pen.

In fact, I think every Western culture nation – or in other words every Free Society aka every Republic – has a total right to free any foreign slaves it wants to, even if it means crippling the government who owns them.

Regrettably to me this is not the mainstream of libertarians. Instead many of us tend to think that free societies should just let foreign tyrannies keep farm all the slaves these tyrannies want to farm, as long as it is on foreign soil and not US soil (or for example in the case of UK libertarians not on UK soil).

Question to Non-interventionists: Why do you act like it is moral for any country other than our own to rule over its people like sacrificial livestock? If acting this way is not your intention then do you consider it moral for any nation on the planet, whomever it is or why ever it is ruling as it rules, to rule its people like sacrificial livestock? I do not think there is a moral mandate to liberate either, but objectively I think free societies have a moral option to liberate any enslaved people a free society wants to liberate.

5) Acting Like Minarchist Regime Change is Democratic Regime Change

Just what is minarchist regime change? Well, from what is known from the historic last step to defeating Nazi Germany, that final step in was in 1949 and was to draft a minarchist constitution for Germany to rebuild itself on. This constitution was used as the terms of the unconditional surrender by Germany at the time, and thus Germany worked its way for 55+ years into what it is this century.

This is not democratic regime change, as democratic regime change means keeping the troops in former enemy land to go on a nation-building crusade of long-time, ultra-expensive occupation, as Iraq and Afghanistan proved democratic regime change to be.

Minarchist Regime Change on the other hand is the more holistic and proven and historic way to address having just militarily defeated a foreign aggressor. Free society militarily defeats a tyranny in retaliation for that tyranny’s aggression. Then as framework of former tyranny’s unconditional surrender, Free Society drafts a constitution modeled on Minarchist vision of governance and makes it the entire terms of former tyranny’s surrender. Former tyranny signs on to the terms, and then it gradually becomes another free society. And Germany was not the only one in the 1940’s America, Britain, Canada and Australia multilaterally did Minarchist Regime Change to. Imperial Japan got the defeat of it wrapped up in 1947 by the same process as well: Minarchist-natured constitution, use of it as surrender terms, Japan signed on, Japan became a free society gradually.

Libertarians, many of my fellow hardcore ones, ignore this history though, acting like the only examples of regime change are all in the Cold War or in the War on Terror, because all of those were legit failure. Do not get me wrong, those were abject failure. But the reason they were abject failure is because none of them had us doing everything mandatory to ending the aggressors’ logistical and mental capacities for tyranny and aggression. Also none of the recent interventions had us drafting minarchist constitutions for the liberated peoples to base any sort of independently-built republic on.

Short of it, no, Democratic regime change and Minarchist regime change are in fact not synonyms. Democratic regime change is exemplified by recent campaigns like in Iraq, while Minarchist regime change is exemplified by Western Victories against Nazi Germany and against Imperial Japan.

Summary

So, all the problems colorfully explained that I have with non-interventionism are:

  1. Free societies can and need to make Stable Allies with each other to preserve free trade
  2. Honest Friendship as promoted by Thomas Jefferson is only possible between Free Societies
  3. Defending one’s People is vastly morally superior to simply defending national Soils
  4. Libertarian does not mean peace over freedom, it means freedom over everything else even as a requirement for peace
  5. A free society’s rights to self-defense and defense of others must be sacrosanct and must not be limited
  6. Preventive War can be and has been used defensively and was only used as initial aggression Once in civilizational history
  7. There may be no job to invade and liberate slave pens but objectively every free society is entitled to liberate any enslaved people
  8. While democratic regime change as favored by actual neocons is all wrong, the alternative called minarchist regime change is historically proven to be a necessity for complete victory over an initial aggressor

So in total, eight reasons why I oppose the non-interventionist mainstream of libertarians. As a libertarian myself, my opposition to non-interventionism comes not just from grounds of accepting that it is not isolationism, but mainly from grounds of favoring liberty as a requirement for peace. Also on grounds of strong opposition to pacifism and to Just War Doctrine.

Conclusion

Finally got this out the most intellectual way I can. I have always wanted to do an essay like this but never exactly had the knowledge necessary like I do now. Thanks all,

~LDA

A Millennial’s Guide For His Generation To How Free Market Policies Grant Them Monetary & Economic Sovereignty

Introduction

Hello, fellow millennials. I am posting this today to explain how exactly libertarian economics are the best for your independence from giant, elderly corporations in terms of how you make money. How fiscally libertarian policies create opportunity for you, the rest of my generation around me, embolden you to be creative about how to work yourselves gradually to being rich people.

Taxation

Let us begin with explaining how fiscally libertarian tax policies make our generation very able to grow our wealths independently.

Fiscally Libertarian tax policies consist of Minimal Taxing and Non-Tax Revenue.

Minimal Taxing

For explanation purposes, minimal taxing means charging low tax rates, but can also mean charging very few different kinds of tax, or only charging one kind of tax.

I would estimate that 20% and lower percentages constitute low tax rates, nationally. On State-by-State basis and also Locally I would cap it off at 5% and lower.

Of the two most used variants of taxing, income tax and sales tax, I would say sales tax is far superior. Not charging income tax and being minimalist about sales tax means that people are not just incentivized to work better but also to save more money for survival necessities like edibles and attire.

But what about property tax? One might ask. Well, people, property tax is actually what New Hampshire charges as their one and only tax and it is well below 5% at an exact rate of 2%, and refuses to charge any other taxes and seeks to instead rely on Non-tax revenue such as concessions to farmers and breweries and such.

The result is New Hampshire people have the most Fiscal Independence from state level government of any of America’s 50 different state populations. Because New Hampshire is the ultimate minimalist with its taxing. Also people in New Hampshire have the most capacity for self-employment income of any state population. My state of Connecticut is out of control with its taxing and therefore myself and other Connecticut people have the 7th lowest capacity for self-employment according to Cato Institute’s “Freedom in the 50 states” reports, category Fiscal freedom.

Non-Tax Revenue

Government can easily use non-coercive means of attaining revenue. The most used examples government owns of this are toll booths on roads, the road-building business, and almost every airport you’ll come across. For government to rely on Non-Tax Revenue alone would very likely increase voluntary tourism as people would not have to owe any taxes and would therefore be substantially more able to afford recreational travel. And then government would charge money for toll road use and airport use and for other travel means it might own businesses in.

Another type of non-tax revenue is concessions for royalties. Making deals with small businesses and independent merchants that they can operate anywhere in the world they want as long as they give 20% or smaller share of their profits to the government whose nation they are a citizen of. Or 5% or smaller share to the state or local government they are a citizen under.

Private Sector internet giants like YouTube already do this: allowing users to monetize their videos as long as they allow 45% of their revenue to go to YouTube’s corporate employees.

Regulation

A Small, simple regulatory burden of 10 to 30 laws across up to eight pages is what’s necessary for a regulatory burden. What we have in the US economy is 87,282 regulations spanning across many hundreds if not thousands of pages.

Lightweight regulatory burden is fiscally libertarian as it keeps the rules for economic acting simple, and straight to the point so everyone from little kids to elderly people can know what they mean. Heavyweight burden leads only to poverty and unemployment.

A very simple set of rules that is designed with human rights in mind is all that’s needed to regulate business to the extent needed for a true free market that is immune to corporatism.

Minimalistic regulatory burden benefits people who wish to prosper on their own as then they will know exactly, in less than half an hour, everything they can and cannot do and have a ton of freedom in terms of how they can conduct their online or other small business. If you have hundreds to thousands of regulations for a regulatory burden, then poor and middle class are forced to go work for some giant business that has been around for longer than the internet has been around for.

Who To Vote For Then?

Basically keep in mind that parties are nothing more than vehicles and vessels and ignore the party affiliations of candidates, firstly. Don’t mind a candidate’s party affiliation until you know full well that their economics are dominated by a free-market, fiscally libertarian economic policy agenda. Why so simple? Well…

Fiscally Marxist candidates may want to make millennials totally independent from giant, elderly companies but Fiscally Marxist policies (high tax rates, huge diversity of tax types, hundreds if not thousands of different rules for how individual merchants can and cannot operate, hundreds to thousands of different legal barriers to global trade) actually force us millennials to work on outdated jobs from the 20th century.

In contrast, Fiscally Libertarians tend to have differing intentions per candidate, on an individual basis. But what is collectively a fact of them is their policies (low tax rates, little to no diversity of tax types, small enough regulatory burden to fit into a personal diary, or an even smaller burden than that) which are the policies of granting our generation the sovereignty to create Digital Age jobs.

Conclusion

Yes, I am that simple in this post. I just wanted to get this off of my brain-stem. This is all I got for now, just a rundown of how fiscal libertarianism embodies the economics my generation urgently needs. Thanks everyone,

~LDA

Evan McMullin: Unelectable Nobody or Right Human for the Job of 45th President of America?

Introduction

Okay, so – I just retook the iSideWith online quiz. And I refuse to vote for Gary Johnson as I wanted Austin Petersen to win the LP nomination, and as I put principle before party.

I think I may vote for this Independent, or in my residency of Cheshire CT “Unaffiliated”, by the name of Evan McMullin.

According to my results, I side with McMullin on 81% of the issues. And half the answers he plugged in for his official answers are totally his own words.

Endorsement

Yes, I am endorsing and voting for Evan McMullin, fellow Independent (as I am an Independent at heart), for President Of The United States. This is for the following reasons:

  1. He knows national security and military defense far better than any of the Partisan candidates ever will
  2. His take on the US military actually has legit Honor to it, i.e. he thankfully opposes downsizing the military
  3. Economically he wants to cut taxes and regulatory burden by majority percentages, same with government’s Non-defense budgets
  4. Academically Evan wishes to return educational sovereignty to being shared between parents, teachers & college ‘kids’ (actually Young Adults) where he & I agree it belongs
  5. Mr. McMullin knows exactly what America means to the world, and the unique role in keeping it away from risk of World Wars level conflict
  6. Pro-Military and Pro-Israel are two of the sentiments this Evan guy shares with me, the Pro-Israel thing being something I heavily applaud him for
  7. Obama Care is something Evan and I agree should be replaced with a free-market health care system where doctors and patients are the central components of the system
  8. Despite my vast opposition to fossil fuel, this Evan guy knows all to well the value of deregulating energy so the free market can allow the People to voluntarily switch to Green Energy as polling data proves most of us Americans want to do
  9. Government Accountability to Evan McMullin requires taking the US Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution around it to its puritanical form, and I very strongly agree
  10. He has the same Pro-Life Ethic Austin Petersen has, something I totally respect McMullin for as I respected Petersen for
  11. Working Opportunity and Private Charity are two things Evan and I can make common cause in supporting
  12. Concerning Free Trade, Evan knows all to well the necessity of America competing economically across the globe
  13. I may not fully agree with Evan on immigration but I can totally respect the economic side of where he comes from in his opinions on the immigration arena
  14. He personally can’t make sense of Gay Marriage but is so respectful of the liberty-driven obligation to not force his opinion onto others that he is okay with preserving the Summer 2015 national legalization of Gay Marriage
  15. He is also perfectly fine with gay married couples adopting and nurturing children despite his personal-level belief that spiritually straight married coupled are more able
  16. Like me Evan McMullin also seems to not care what women wear in terms of clothing, as long as they are not imposing their fashion senses onto other women. Such is mentally identical to how I feel about women wearing clothing I would choose never to wear if I was a woman.

So yes, knowing what I know from Austin Petersen about how being a libertarian means fiscally self-controlled and socially open-minded for the sake of limited government. And combining that with what I know about Evan McMullin’s opinions on most of the issues including foreign policy, social issues, economics, the Bill of Rights, etc; he seems very vastly to me like a fellow neolibertarian. Evan McMullin demonstrates all of the vital qualities of a neolibertarian like me:

  • Strongly Pro-military
  • Favors Ending Regimes who Sponsor Terrorism
  • Deeply Pro-Israel
  • Fiscally Self Controlled when managing civilizational finances
  • Socially Open Minded as in he’s totally okay with a permissive society whether his individual morality is or not
  • Free-Market minded on economic policy
  • Constitutionalist minded on government power and on Civil Liberties
  • Very into Economic Freedom & Personal Liberty across the domestic policy board
  • Treats Human Rights as the prerequisite to Peace in foreign policy

Conclusion

Anyone who thinks I am only endorsing and voting for McMullin because I suspect hes the same ideology as me needs to re-read this post. There is dramatically more to it than that. But for people who read in full all the reasons I am backing him as my final offer, thank you for reading this! And please – Vote For Evan McMullin! Unless you think someone else is the ‘right one’ for the job, which really – should we really elect someone with a Party Affiliation?

~Libertarian Defense Atheist!

A New Guide to Libertarian Republicans And Libertarian Independents

Introduction

As someone who aims to avoid New York Times except for when someone I know emails me a dinosaurs article that NYT did, I found this generally amusing interactive because of some change someone made to ‘libertarian Republican’ on Wikipedia.

I thought I would respond to this NYT interactive by doing a contrast between the Libertarian Party and the libertarian Republicans. I am basing these claims I am making on “Libertarian Porcupine” data from iSideWith while basing the “Libertarian Elephant” and the “Libertarian Human” data on Pew Research Center findings.

Demographics

According to a 2011 survey of libertarians, 28% of US libertarians are Republicans and 63% are Independents. Based on how many are registered to vote as Libertarian according to Wikipedia; 2% of libertarians are within the LP.

Foreign Policy Divergence

Pulling data from a foreign policy survey of Americans in general, including Independents and GOP libertarians but not the LP, libertarian Republicans & libertarian Independents are similar but different on foreign policy. However they both vastly diverge from the LP platform in astronomical ways on foreign relations & battle tactics & defense strategy.

While 72% of the Libertarian Party acts like ISIS is a limited threat, 76% of libertarian Independents and 88% of libertarian Republicans say ISIS is a critical threat. And yes, I do have my own color-coding for what level of threat some tyrannical regime somewhere in the world is to the American People. Limited, Moderate, and Critical be colored green, amber and red, respectively.

And while 57% of the Libertarian Party pledges to dramatically the downsize the US military by 60%, libertarian Independents are massively against shrinking the military (71%) as are libertarian Republicans (84%).

Just as well, while 72% of the Libertarian Party disapproves of the US military campaign against ISIS, 66% of libertarian Republicans approve as do 57% of libertarian Independents.

Concerning the Arab-Israeli Conflict and the fact that the Arab League started it with Israel as the retaliatory side of the conflict, there are differences in who these liberty movement factions side with, remorsefully. An appalling 57% of the LP sides with the Arab League, but thankfully the libertarian Republicans and libertarian Independents side with Israel (65% and 52%, respectively).

Looking at honest friendships and stable alliances, 66% of the LP sees US membership of NATO as a bad thing, while 75% of libertarian Republicans and 78% of libertarian Independents say exactly the opposite.

Drones being the tools that they are, 60% of the LP opposes Drones while 88% of libertarian Republicans and 69% of libertarian Independents support Drones.

What’s the best approach to defeating Regimes Who Sponsor Terrorism? 56% of libertarian Republicans say overwhelming military force is the best way to defeat such regimes, libertarian Independents are almost evenly divided between those who agree and those who don’t, and the Libertarian Party overwhelmingly says no to this idea.

Conclusion

As you can tell, this is simply debunking NYT on the notion that libertarians are all just pacifistic isolationists. I just wanted to get this out there quickly. This is all I got on this topic, thanks readers!

~LDA

How Much Economic Regulation Does An Economy Truly Need?

Introduction

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