Genuine Libertarians As Opposed To Fake Ones

There are quite a few people out there today who identify themselves as libertarians when asked where they stand along the political spectrum. Libertarianism is of course a political philosophy, but how is it that there are so many different flavors, designations, sub groups, and philosophies within this larger political credo that is already well defined by logical, objective, and irrefutable facts of the natural order. To stray away from the central and core principles of libertarianism is to be something other than a libertarian. Some groups have hijacked and reinterpreted libertarianism to mean something else as a means to justify some ideologically dogmatic political ends and others just do not take libertarian tenets to their valid conclusions. This will be discussed in the subsequent paragraphs but first we must define what libertarianism is and then use that definition to explain why there is only one way to be a real libertarian. Libertarianism is a political philosophy that is built on the non aggression principle (NAP). This means that no one can initiate or threaten force against an individual or his private property. This does not include self defense. The use of justifiable and reasonable force to defend your body from physical harm or your private property from theft or destruction, is an objective natural law which preserves the inalienability of one’s own self ownership in their body and their rightfully acquired property through human action. To deny a person the right to defend themselves against unprovoked aggressors, would deny them their right to live and to pursue their goals. The true libertarian adheres to pursuing his own interests as long as he does not violate the NAP. Libertarian law allows for all behaviors even if they are self destructive or morally inferior with the understanding that the initiation of force is absent. Libertarianism is not a fully developed moral philosophy, however, murder, theft, rape, assault, fraud, broken private property contracts amongst other things, are all violations under this axiomatic philosophy. So who are genuine libertarians and who are the frauds?

The United States is home to contemporary libertarians who usually align themselves with the ideas of limited government and minarchism. It is a blatant oxymoronic statement to say that you are a constitutional libertarian. The State uses force to collect taxes and has a monopoly on this power, as well as, ultimate decision making power over a geographic area, and legislative power. This all violates the NAP and is why The State is illegitimate. Anyone who supports an entity that uses force to grow at the expense of sovereign individuals is not a libertarian. Even if the powers are enumerated in a constitution, it still does not justify the use of coercion and violence to fund the military, public courts, or local police services. Government can never remain minimal and taxation is theft with the very real threat of violence always present, which can result in murder, if these tyrannical types of laws are ignored by individuals. This is not libertarian. People like Glenn Beck who support the military industrial complex, and worship tyrants like Abraham Lincoln, along with the promotion of religion with tax dollars are not libertarians. John Stossel is fine with a fair tax and he does not think gigantic bureaucracies like the NSA spying on private individuals while invading private property is that big of a deal. This is not very libertarian. Milton Friedman was a monetarist and supported The Federal Reserve. Although I strongly support Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism, she is unquestionably wrong when it comes to politics. Rand was a limited government apologist, in other words a statist, and never considered herself a libertarian. Groups like Freedomworks and The Libertarian Party all support the political process that asks you to vote for one of two masters and they want a constitution to be enforced that allows for war, taxation, and unrestrained powers that are perpetuated by the incessant passing of harmful laws, dictatorial executive orders, and approval by the unchecked judicial activists known as The Supreme Court. The power mad government gets to decide whether its laws are constitutional. The absurdity in this system is just mind numbing. None of this has anything to do with libertarianism.

Now let’s move on to the left libertarians. These libertarians are also known as anarcho communists, anarcho syndicalists, and libertarian socialists. They abhor private property, capitalism, and individualism while lauding collectivism, egalitarianism, social justice, and social movements (feminist movement, labor movement, occupy). There are some agreements among pure libertarian anarchists (anarcho capitalists) and anarcho communists or left libertarians. They are both anti war and are also highly critical of The State and the government media complex. Besides that, there is nothing in common and the term libertarian socialist is a major contradiction. To disregard private property rights is a violation of the natural order. When someone identifies as a socialist they are advocating for the redistribution of private property, whether it’s wealth, land, or earned income. How is this in line with freedom and individuals pursuing their objectives and values. Left libertarians are also in favor of hedonistic, alternative, and abnormal lifestyles being a major factor in this irrational philosophy. Now as long as these lifestyles are done voluntarily and in private communities, that is fine, however, culturally conservative private property anarchists and free market anarchists have a right to exclude unwanted behavior from their private property. The NAP clearly says you can be a filthy prostitute, an unproductive leech and a vagrant, a religious fanatic, a spurious collectivist, a bug saving hippie environmentalist, a feminist, a drug addled low life, or a flamboyant homosexual that chooses non traditional values, but that also gives other private property owners the right to exclude these people from their property. In fact, the most successful and peaceful libertarian anarchist communities will be the ones that embrace objective morality and have conservative ethical standards for entry. The ones that disregard private property and embrace deviant and abnormal behavior will be impoverished, laden with criminals, and will ultimately self destruct and will collectively fail as a society. This is just an irrefutable unbreakable argument. Left libertarians also have no clue when it comes to economics. They are more concerned with making every single person equally poor, equally uneducated, and equally hopeless. Why should workers in a factory own the factory and not the entrepreneur or factory worker? Anarcho syndicalists think that the workers have ownership rights but they are not the ones that raised the capital and took the risk to start a business that employs people who have high time preferences and brings goods and services to the market that people demand. If we take away private property from the economic means of production there will be widespread shortages. There has to be private ownership of the factors of production so resources can be allocated in the most efficient and cost effective manner. This is what allows for accurate pricing and prevents shortages or waste. Either is inevitable without private property laws, it just depends on the circumstances.

Who gets to decide how this property is allocated? If property is owned by everyone, then does each person have to ask every single other person before he homesteads unused land? This is unfathomable. Left libertarians advocate for democracy without The State. This is just of course mob rule and leaders always emerge. Someone or a group of people have to decide how property and resources will be distributed or redistributed and that just brings us back to the illegitimate State. The major contributors to left libertarianism are Noam Chomsky, Peter Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, and Rudolf Rocker. There are more I left out but that gives you an idea. The more popular and mainstream left libertarians would include people like Bill Maher (who is actually a progressive liberal) and Russell Brand. They both have a number of misguided political opinions that are mainly based on emotion as opposed to reason. I do find some of Chomsky’s ideas and writings enlightening but it’s limited to anti war sentiments and his stance on the Israel-Palestine Conflict. These people are mostly pseudo academics and the ideas they espouse are antithetical to libertarianism. Anyone who vilifies private property and voluntary exchange but cherishes a collectivist society of robots living in misery for the sake of social equality is not a libertarian. Corporatism is a tyrannical system that is very oppressive, however, it can only exist symbiotically with The State. Monopolies and totalitarian corporate structures can not exist in a pure capitalist and stateless society. Finally, employment is voluntary. The notion, propagated by left libertarians, that wage earners are slaves is just ridiculous. There is no such thing as involuntary unemployment in an anarcho capitalist society.

So then who are the real, pure, and genuine libertarians? The legitimate intellectuals and freedom lovers in a choppy sea of imposters. The real libertarians are the ones who unwaveringly stand by NAP and hold private property rights to be non negotiable. They support individualism, human action, freedom of association, freedom to discriminate, voluntary exchange, pure free markets, self governance, capitalism, and the natural order. They are more commonly referred to as anarcho capitalists, free market anarchists, private property anarchists, libertarian anarchists, and advocates for a private law society. The major contributors to this philosophy include Murray Rothbard, Hans- Hermann Hoppe, Walter Block, Lew Rockwell, David Friedman, Stephan Kinsella, Ludwig Von Mises (Austrian Economist), and many others. So there is only one type of libertarian. The sooner people realize that the better off we will be as a free people.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/09/hans-hermann-hoppe/smack-down/

Advertisements

Western Foreign Policy Combined With Violent Religious Doctrines Creates Jihadists

There is a fiery ongoing debate that is taking place across many media outlets and around the globe as to what causes violent religious fanaticism that has been recently exhibited in many parts of the Muslim world and beyond. Commentators,  pseudo-intellectuals, and pundits on the left believe that most of the violence the world is seeing in various parts of the globe is due to the organization of extremist fringe groups that have hijacked a peaceful religion and have reinterpreted it to wage an ideological and political war against the West and non believers. Conservatives and right wingers think that Islamic extremists are at war with American values and freedom and that the U.S. is a kind liberator and a gentle peacemaker that has not instigated any of these movements or has had a hand, indirectly or directly, in giving birth to these murderous organizations as a result of a foreign policy of meddling and interventionism. That is of course not the truth and most mainstream Libertarians believe that the foreign policy of The West has been the major contributing factor to the threats we now face as individual human beings living normal lives in mostly civilized societies. The chaos across the Middle East and The Islamic Holy Wars that threaten freedom and natural human rights around the planet are a product of both an interventionist, overbearing, and murderous, U.S. and European foreign policy coupled with a religion that has an extremely violent history of conquests, human rights violations, deep unresolved political, social, tribal, and religious conflicts that go back centuries, along with genocidal missions that are all guided by scriptures and religious doctrines.

The Jihad, or Holy War did not start a few months ago. In fact it has been going on for over fourteen-hundred years since the birth of Islam in the 7th Century CE. The use of force and the waging of wars goes back to the conquest of Syria in 637, the conquest of Armenia and Egypt in 639, the conquest of Southern Italy in 827, and to the authoritarian and blood thirsty reign of The Ottoman Empire from 1299-1918 which includes the genocidal slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians in 1915, shortly before the collapse of this hegemonic super power. After World War I the violence in The Middle East was not as prevalent, however, U.S. Foreign policy, with the help of other Western nations, would change that in a dramatic way.

The recent acts of terror and ultra violence can be directly linked to the policies of Western governments that have continuously meddled and forcefully inserted their presence in Arab and Muslim affairs. The British had control over Israel-Palestine after WWI until 1948, when the United Nations, with U.S. support, voted for and established a Jewish State which would ultimately lead to misery and despair for hundreds of thousands of Palestinians which still continues to this day. Zionism along with political backing from The West has put Palestinians in a hopeless situation. They now live in what is commonly referred to as “an open air prison” after they were thrown off their land and out of their homes and this has sparked disdain and strong hatred toward America and other European countries for their role in this seizure of property titles. There are other defining moments involving the U.S. government that have shaped the current geo political state of affairs and which gave birth to jihadist organizations that are continuing to emerge and spread through all hemispheres. Here are other examples of interventionism and wars that have had an impact on The Middle East

1953: The Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddegh, is overthrown by the U.S. CIA and British intelligence which puts The Shah in power. He is eventually overthrown by the Ayatollah Khomeini and a theocracy is put in place in this country. These events planted seeds of hatred against America which have grown into giant trees with very strong and deep roots.

1980s: The U.S. supported The Mujahideen against The Soviets. This later created blowback since we armed the pernicious and murderous jihadists of Afghanistan which was used against America years later.

1990-1991: The Gulf War in support of Kuwait. This further inflamed the region and is a major reason Bin Laden waged war against the U.S. and other countries. This maniac said over and over that he was strongly opposed to Non-Muslims on holy lands and he put emphasis on the fact that innocent Muslims were being killed by the Americans. This does not excuse Bin Laden and his followers for the acts of terror they committed across the planet. This barbarian used religious ideology to fight political grievances and he should be condemned for all time. Nevertheless, western wars to spread democracy and the ongoing entanglement in foreign affairs of Muslim nations, causes blowback and it must be discussed to show this obvious correlation.

From 2001 until the present The West has been involved in some major military conflicts including the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. The torture of captured “terrorists” has been widely publicized and drone attacks are in the thousands, which include the slaying of innocent civilians. Wars for oil, removing dictators, propping up dictators, military aid to Israel, arming rebels, and placing sanctions also adds to the animosity and hatred flagrantly evident in the hot bed of The Middle East and Northern Africa. Does any rational person think that these Western policies of military interference in the business of other countries does not have a direct effect in creating angst and hostility towards these western nations that claim to be fighting terror but are actually creating an army of jihadists? It is not advisable to kick a hornet’s nest repeatedly and then expect a benign and delicate reaction. With all of that being said, it is important to fuse Western foreign policy with religious scriptures and texts to have a complete understanding of why blood is being spilt everyday in every corner of the world by fanatical Jihadists. Sam Harris does a great job of discussing the shortcomings of Islam and he obliterates The Young Turks’ Cenk Uygur in this long but engaging and enlightening video on religion and Islam

I think it would be highly disingenuous to say that all Muslims are violent extremists. That is simply not the case. There are many hardworking, peaceful, and wonderful Muslims all over the earth and it is important to recognize their presence. There are 1.6 billion Muslims and unfortunately a substantial portion of the faithful are not peaceful and humane. There are different estimates of the breakdowns but I think it is accurate to say that 10% (160 million) adherents to this religion are jihadists or potential jihadists with the propensity to kill in order to spread their beliefs and create a worldwide Caliphate. They belong to groups like al-Qaeda, Al Nusra, Al Shabaab, Boko Haram, and ISIS, along with many others.  Another 10% (160 million) are Islamists which means they do not engage in violence directly but they wholeheartedly and vocally support Jihad, Sharia, a Caliphate, and executions for crimes against the religion, which include drawing cartoons of the prophet, adultery, and being homosexual, along with the death penalty for committing apostasy. The largest percentage are the conservatives or orthodox believers and they represent 70% percent (1.1 billion). They mostly support Sharia Law in various forms and use a fairly close interpretation of the holy books in their everyday lives. Largely non violent, but nevertheless, they hold extreme views and consistently adhere to stringent moral codes that translate to the inhuman treatment of women along with rigid obedience to religious customs and practices. It must be pointed out that denominations in Christianity ( Polygamous Mormon cults) and Judaism (Chasidism/Hasidism) also mistreat women of their religion, however, is it not widespread throughout the Christian or Jewish faiths. The remaining 10% (160 million) percent are moderates who live peacefully amongst everyone and have largely cherry picked the best parts of their religion to live by and these are the people who are also threatened by the more extreme believers. They are very open to living Western lifestyles and often support liberal democracies. They do not force their beliefs on anyone and they just want to live normal peaceful lives.

The major monotheistic religions like Christianity and Judaism have had checkered and violent histories. Christianity has been responsible for some of the most evil events in human history and some of the verses in The Old Testament are so wicked and destructive it is hard to see how it is used as a basis for morality. The one major difference is that these two religions have undergone major reformations. I do not adhere to any religious dogma and do not affiliate with any religious churches, faiths, or institutions. The most rational position is to be a freethinker and base ideas and morals on logic and reason, not statements and scriptures that need blind faith with no evidence to back up absolutely improbable claims. The whole world is not going to stop believing in the faith they were coerced into believing as youngsters over night. That is just wishful thinking. It would be uplifting to know that all the major religions could be reformed and inhuman and primitive acts would no longer be tolerated. This is just an optimistic outlook for a pessimistic reality.

In conclusion, it is not just a few thousand extremists that commit jihad and it is not only foreign policy that brought the world to the present crisis we all face. It is a combination of a belligerent and nefarious foreign policy mixed with a religion that is long overdue for a reformation.

Sources and Notes:

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/globalconnections/mideast/questions/uspolicy/