Tag Archives: Libertarian Party

I Guess Libertarians Are Okay With This

23 Saturday Jan 2021

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on I Guess Libertarians Are Okay With This

Tags

, , , ,

After all, no force was used in this insidious scheme of spying on US citizens, presumably to include many Americans.

In a new document made public Friday, the nation’s top military intelligence agency acknowledged monitoring the location of U.S.-based mobile devices without a warrant through location data drawn from ordinary smartphone apps.

Sure, we used to have that Fourth Amendment thing, but it wouldn’t even apply in this case, in which the spy agencies used data purchased from common commercial sources. No warrant was or is required. No problem, right?

I’ve been thinking about the worship of the private business and privatization, of which I was once too guilty. This story made a great lede into the subject, a follow-up to yesterday’s deconstruction of the “Party of Principle [SIC].” Look around today and some of the worst abuses of freedom and privacy are committed by organizations that end with “Inc.” Google, Palpal, YouTube, Amazon, Twitter, Faceberg, etc. are all private companies, so what they do, even if concerning, if okay – because private. The libertarians (and many conservatives) cheered when the bulk of control over the US internet changed hands from a government agency to a private corporation.

The phenomenon goes far beyond Big Tech. Banks play political correctness policing and identity politics as do many other businesses from insurance agencies to big-box retailers. One business after another (generally of the larger variety) falls in line with anti-Western nonsense like LGBTVPC, BLM, baby murder, and more.

When anyone on the legitimate right criticizes one of these nefarious corporate decisions or statements, he is usually hit with the old, tired, and idiotic accusation that he is no better than a socialist.

Yet, what do all of these companies have in common? They are all “private” corporations. And corporations are merely fake “persons” created, as if by black magic, for the general purpose of avoiding liability. They are created, as if by black magic, by government sanctification. They are government entities. Let the marijuana smoke clear out and think about that.

What the libertarians, again, fail to grasp is the nature of observable reality. There is a definite and known nexus between government tyranny and woke corporatocracy. The means are slightly different if highly intertwined, but the ends are the same – oppression of real people and the suppression of real human rights.

In strong nations, comprised of solid, compatible demographics and where the governments answer to the people they serve, this isn’t a problem – for the people. Not long ago in Poland, IKEA came to town and opened a store. They employed a local Christian (not a rarity in distinct, coherent, Catholic Poland). A manager instructed the Christian employee to participate in a woke corporate worship of sodomy and degeneracy. The employee, citing Christian doctrine, declined. IKEA fired the employee.

In Amerika, that would be the end of the story, unless the mob piled on and harassed the Christian further. Libertarians would defend the satanic, government-entity corporation’s actions, because PRIIIIIVATE! A few decent people might boycott IKEA and find themselves labeled as intolerant bigots. But, most importantly, no moral lines would have been crossed because PRIVATE and because no force was used.

In Poland, as soon as the Christian informed his nationalistic public servants, people at IKEA were arrested and sentenced to prison for violating the rights of a Christian.

In the original story, I’m sure that many civil libertarians are genuinely concerned about the overreach or existence of the underlying spy agencies – and they should be. However, their defense of all things private, contractual, and free renders much of their protesting mute. And, because of their tendency towards the atheistic and the egocentric, they have a difficult time realizing the value of the person above the involved government-corporate machine. Again, if they could put down the dope, the proper order goes something like this: the individual is to be respected; the government is to assist the individual, and; the corporation, if it must exist (a large “if”), should be strictly limited by the government from abusing the rights of the individual.

A Bonus, regarding the LP’s statement on the peaceful protests of January Sixth: Why is it that the LP’s wimpy statement is precisely in line with those from the other political parties, the government itself, the media, and hordes of those “private” corporations? It’s because they are utterly confused, out-of-touch, and disingenuous. Peaceful protesting against corrupt governance is unacceptable violence, yet the murder of a million babies each year is a good-faith draw? Bullshit.

Here, again, their replacement or displacement of Christian morality helps them miss the greater point. What goes on in that Capital that so horribly violated by people who only wanted a fair election? Two days before the “riot,” the 2021 Congressional Session opened with a “prayer” from a dullard shyster (Awoman!) to a pagan demon, Brahma. No collection of criminals, so satanically possessed, can honestly clamor about the dangers posed by an “assault” by the very, generally God-fearing people they are supposed to represent in the first place. Where was the statement of condemnation about that?

It’s Christian Nationalism, or it’s chaos, slavery, spying, violence, death, and despair – with or without the alleged benefits of herbal intoxicants.

What Principle? Breaking Libertarian

22 Friday Jan 2021

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on What Principle? Breaking Libertarian

Tags

, , ,

I was once one, kind of. While I never joined their Party (or any other), I did for the longest time consider the libertarian philosophy superior to the perceived alternatives. What was I? A conserva-tarian? Something like that – a traditionalist who embraced freedom. In many ways, that’s still me and, in many ways, some libertarian values are still noble, virtuous. But, as a Party and as a core set of principles, the LP and the associated doctrine are both meaningless, misguided, and as dead as communism or conservatism.

The world is and has been a battlefield of good versus evil, as currently represented by nationalism v globalism. I recently described libertarianism as a friendly face for globalism as sold by and to stoners. That’s a little rough, but it is accurate.

Christian Nationalism is the only representative brand that makes sense to and for me, for my People. Former libertarian Vox Day has taken that path; recently, he heralded another former libertarian for also doing so:

Atheism is the bedrock of Libertarianism.

The iron clad belief that there is only the self and that there is no one to stand in judgement over your life but the self that you created. This is the foundation for that entire school of thought. Atheism is not an optional extra if you are a true capital “L” Libertarian, it’s required.

Thus we hit the fundamental flaw; if there is only the self…then why have children? The future belongs to those who show up and Libertarians breed like progressives. One child per couple leads to extinction in four generations.

And then there is the Libertarian mindset.

In general, he’s right about the atheism, which couples well with globalism, which is a soft selling of satanism. (If you just missed the “In general,” then pack up and leave my blog). It all goes the same way and serves the same master.

Let’s take a deeper look. Immediately after the January 6th peaceful protest against democracy theft and nation-wrecking at the Imperial Capital, the LP released this statement:

On Wednesday, January 6, as the U.S. Capitol building was being breached, Libertarian National Committee Chair Joe Bishop-Henchman issued the following statement:

“This is not patriotism. This is not protesting. This is reprehensible violence and aggression and needs to stop now. We hope safety for all those who work in the Capitol.”

Since the party’s founding in 1971, a core belief that has bound Libertarians together is the principle of non-aggression in the pursuit of political and social goals. To achieve membership in the national party, prospective members must affirm their pledge to such effect.

When all else fails, all legal avenues fail, what else is left but (peaceful, in this case) action? In honesty, the standard libertarian response is to smoke a joint. They shun action. But, then, there’s the hindering “pledge.”

“YES, sign me up as a member of the Libertarian Party. To validate my membership, I certify that I oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.”

No thanks. Such certification is unAmerican, anti-Western, and anti-Christian, in addition to being unmanly. The peaceful protest in question happened in a city named after a general who went to war against his own king. Would the LP have had Washington sit on the banks of the Delaware smoking dope? (Yes).

What do they, the LPers, say today?

The Libertarian Party (LP) is your representative in American politics. It is the only political organization which respects you as a unique and responsible individual.

Our slogan is that we are “The Party of Principle”, because we stand firmly on our principles.

Libertarians strongly oppose any government interference into their personal, family, and business decisions. Essentially, we believe all Americans should be free to live their lives and pursue their interests as they see fit as long as they do no harm to another.

– WHAT IS THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY? (ABOUT)

Missing the concept of nationalism, these otherwise decent folks miss the character of “Americans.” I hate to say it, but they are disingenuous in that regard: they know who the American People, the Posterity, really are. A look at the first picture on their Platform Page reveals as much – Libertarians are almost exclusively White Europeans, a little better off and softer in general than the average, though they will readily deny the same is true (“b-b-but, we have that one black kid!” – the fact of “that one” escapes them). This exclusivity helps explain why libertarianism is popular nowhere else in the world, another fact they would likely deny.

They roundly deny reality, even as many of their positions are universal and admirable. Some, however, are dead giveaways of misunderstanding or, worse, deception. Just a few terminal examples from the LP Platform:

1.5 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

Any person of conscience can just stop here. What “good-faith” is there on the side of those who murder babies? Only in the inverted sense of serving satan could such an argument continue. This fits well with the above observation about general libertarian atheistic, nihilistic solipsism.

2.0 ECONOMIC LIBERTY

Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.

“Free trade” sounds dandy and, if it were limited strictly to people of the demographics of the LP, then it might be doable. Here on Earth, however, it is now a proven failure. Things were outside the libertarian scope of understanding in 1971; they are completely different fifty years later. Were full free-trade implemented, then half of all people under the age of forty would have to move internationally in order to find ANY employment of any kind. This is globalism, the destruction of people, families, communities, and nations. By the way, communism is actually better in this regard because, while it seeks to control a nation, sometimes by very heavy-handed tactics, it does not intend to destroy the nation. This is why, after decades of Soviet communist control, Poland emerged as Poland. By comparison, the United States, after decades of globalism, emerges into mass, multi-party civil war with very little of the old American (British/Euro) Nation left in it. More along those lines in a moment.

2.7 Money and Financial Markets

We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Markets are not actually free unless fraud is vigorously combated. Those who enjoy the possibility of profits must not impose risks of losses upon others, such as through government guarantees or bailouts. We support ending federal student loan guarantees and special treatment of student loan debt in bankruptcy proceedings. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item. We support a halt to inflationary monetary policies and unconstitutional legal tender laws.

This statement, while simple, is admittedly better than anything from the Uniparty. However, while dancing around it, faithlessly, it completely misses the point. All usury is fraudulent. All usury is a sin, a form of slow, partial (or sometimes complete) murder. They can say “free” and “muh Constitution” all they like; there is no money at all in the dying USA, such having been replaced exclusively by fake debts based on nothing. As with abortion, do they find a “good-faith” view on this pro-murder side? According to Murray Rothbard and a few other, late libertarian leaders, the answer was “yes,” in that one may freely contract for things like student loan murder. That is as utterly wrong as their lazy, tactic defense of infanticide: fraudulent contracts are void, and one cannot contract legally for fraud and criminal activity.

3.4 Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.

Here we go again, with Free Trade, coupled with her hideous stepsister, migration. Mass migration is war. In fact, it is worse than violent open warfare, because it slowly, permanently changes or destroys the nature and character of nations. Someone made the distinct nations pursuant to His plan for mankind. We are assured they will even exist in Heaven. Those who actively seek to corrupt or destroy the separate nations seek rebellion against the will of God.

That rebellion is precisely what led the nation wreckers to change US immigration law in 1965, setting about the largest, least compatible movement of peoples in recorded history. It is only to be expected that there has been a marked decline over the past fifty-five years. Briefly put: some people are more compatible than others. Viewing the matter through the bleary-eyed rubric of libertarian economics, which ignores much else, similar European people are a slight benefit to the US. East Asians are likewise beneficial, or else a breakeven proposition. All others, constituting the vast majority of new arrivals, are a massive gross and net drain on the US economy.

More importantly, non-Westerns bring cultures and values that do not belong in the US and do not fit well (or at all) with those of the Americans (a “race” defined, by the way, in the Declaration of Independence, the Holy Constitution, the debates and discussions thereon, early naturalization laws, and the 1828 Webster’s dictionary). In short: import the third-world, become the third-world. This explains why the US now resembles the third-world.

By way of analogy, that it might be better to read sober – thus passing over most libertarians, it would be like the hyper-majority White LP membership with their “principles,” etc, being overrun by Black socialists, who upon obtaining sufficient numbers, then rewrite the LP’s Platform to exclude dope and mandate political violence. Here, I should mention the old adage that a libertarian is really just a Republican who wants to smoke dope. (Har, har!)

There’s much more, but most of it fits with the whimsical, reality-averse nature of the foregoing. The only paradigm that serves the West is one that honors the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. A first step would be to admit who and what “the West” is.

For all my libertarian friends, especially those who have recently announced their rerun to the big-L Party, please snuff out the doobies, sober up, and reread this piece. To my disaffected Republican friends, hinting of finding a greener political pasture, the LP isn’t it. To all, given what has unfolded during this election cycle, consider that (without resort to the use of force – or supernatural intervention) no political party outside the confines of the globalist Deep State is likely to ever again field successful national candidates or make policy. The days of free, fair, and honest elections and politics, are, like the American Nation and its monolithic, high-trust, homogenous character and values, things of the past.

Hey! In part, I was only kidding. You free-trading, free-loving libertarians go right ahead and light one up. You might as well.

A Statement and a Theory

16 Saturday Jan 2021

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on A Statement and a Theory

Tags

, , , ,

The pending collapse of the United States has many people fleeing and flying all over the place. Some drift towards the grand alternative to the Uniparty, the Libertarian Party. Some libertarian principles are great, I get that or those. But, as a unifying philosophy, it is as dead as liberalism, conservativism, communism, and so many more failures. As a whole, as represented by the LP, it completely misses the point, the competition between Nationalism and Globalism. In fact, it may officially do worse than that. Here’s the LP’s statement on the peaceful protests of January 6th:

On Wednesday, January 6, as the U.S. Capitol building was being breached, Libertarian National Committee Chair Joe Bishop-Henchman issued the following statement:

“This is not patriotism. This is not protesting. This is reprehensible violence and aggression and needs to stop now. We hope safety for all those who work in the Capitol.”

Since the party’s founding in 1971, a core belief that has bound Libertarians together is the principle of non-aggression in the pursuit of political and social goals. To achieve membership in the national party, prospective members must affirm their pledge to such effect.

In other words, they are in the same camp with the Democrats, the Republicans, and the fake news media.

Based on a new reading of the LP’s core beliefs, I have started working up a theory, which I may delve into later. By the way, barring a counter-coup this coming week, one might as well side with this or any other party one sees fit, as there will likely never be another honest election in the US again. Here’s the theory: Based on the totality of the stated positions and beliefs and on the overall circumstances of reality, I think big-L Libertarianism is a big, soft, smiley face for globalism as sold to stoners. It needs work, but that’s the working thrust of it. It might even be possible if you can believe this, that Libertarianism is ultimately worse, ideologically, and if ideology could be melded with practicality … than communism (if or as a front wing of globalism). Even without the Dominion arrangement, the Party was a dead letter. With Dominion, it is utterly pointless. Still, it has a way of providing comfortable deception and distraction for those prone to smoking dope and maybe a few others, most of whom tend to be decent people.

More on this subject if I can find the time or interest.

Feeling Left Out

01 Tuesday Dec 2020

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Feeling Left Out

Tags

, , , ,

Almost every Libertarian I have ever known has been good and decent. Here, a good and decent Libertarian writes a good and decent article about how his party was left out once again in the 2020 election (which the AP has called for Joe Biden if you didn’t know). Nothing from any big-L Libertarian would be complete without mentioning dope; this one does not disappoint.

Voters, “perhaps those with a libertarian streak, in red and purple states such as Arizona, South Dakota, Mississippi and Montana voted to relax their drug laws and reject the status quo,” Zachary Siegel noted for NBC News.

Libertarians “got almost everything they wanted,” Liz Mair wrote in The New York Times in a piece that anticipates Republicans holding the Senate.

The weed is legal! Hooray! Why the long faces about the grip of the Uniparty? When Tulsi Gabbard and Ron Paul have no places and little support in the mainstream, then, yes, libertarianism is dead on arrival. Light one up and chill out, maaaan. Or, understand that civil nationalism, R, D, or L, is dead too. If it’s us versus them, then it’s nationalists versus globalists. And the globalists still have everyone thinking in terms of right, left, and dope.

Only a Political Theory

14 Monday Sep 2020

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Only a Political Theory

Tags

, , , , ,

And not really a competent one at that. So much I noted this weekend in my impromptu discourse on the failure of libertarianism. Today, someone else almost agrees with my differentiation between the political and the cultural:

Libertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral, or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life.

The people in the LP have some almost (non) religious hangup about nonviolence. Their long list of anti-principles is great as to and between civilized people living harmoniously. However, that’s not the history of the world and especially not the current state of the dying US. A political theory that takes no stand, stands no chance.

Libertarianism, along with modern titular liberalism and conservatism, is an offshoot of the Enlightenment, a grand attempt to outwit God or to fool the people into believing that such a feat is possible – even good. All of it is now openly laid bare as a failure. As Karl Denninger noted on Friday, the age of reason is over. It has been for a long time.

We live in an age of witchcraft, driven by technology.

The age of reason has failed and we stand on the edge of a new Dark Age.

Read the whole thing. It’s most apropos that he frames the narrative in terms of the Hoax of 2020, which I’ve been all over from the start. Does anything that’s happening this year strike you as remotely reasonable? “Reason” isn’t because it has been delinked from the truth. The talk of a dark age is disconcerting but accurate: I’ve been making mention of the same for years, here for example in 2017.

Call the age what you will, fun times are here – with more on the way.

The Decline and Fall of the Libertarian Party

13 Sunday Sep 2020

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

I decided to make time to expound upon yesterday’s post. And, WP reminded me that, back in 2016, I made what was possibly my last exploration of the national LP alternative – a long shot then which, beyond the pondering, I had nothing to do with. And, back then, a friend, whom I’ll label as a neocon(?) pointed out that the LP’s platform was at best a pleasant fantasy. He was right.

Again, it was Charles Burris’s article at LRC that got me thinking about all of this.

The possible future viability of the LP ended in 1988. It blew it for both objective and subjective reasons. Objectively because of many missed opportunities related to the end of the Cold War and dynamic changes in American political culture during the Bush-Clinton-Bush years were ignored; and subjectively due to internal LP organizational disputes, poor leadership and the widespread delusion of selecting former GOP “libertarian sounding” congressmen or governors as presidential candidates would be the mainstreaming expedient to fast track electoral success.

But first, the almost-accurate joke version of what did the LP in – marijuana. Regardless of their other stated positions, the one thing almost all (L)ibertarians were (and are) after is the high of THC. Glassy-eyed, they speak of taxes, non-aggression, foreign policy, etc, and then always return to legalizing weed. Excuse me! Decriminalizing it. Big difference. I don’t know if they’ve been sober this century, but, the non-enforcing feds and just a couple of holdout states aside, pot is practically legal from coast-to-coast. Mission accomplished, guys! Great job. What else do you have? That’s right, nothing.

This, and a few other things, is what killed the Free State Project in NH. That’s where a libertarian, trans-whatever, satanic priest(est??) just got him/her/itself on the ballot as a Republican’t for Sheriff in Keene. Congratulations, again, pot-heads: you opened the gate, and the crazies and half of Massachusetts moved in. Good job!

Seriously, now: Burris is almost right about the causes. In fact, he is right tactically and in part strategically. However, he missed the logistical point. Like most LP national candidates, Hon. Ron Paul had no chance with only 46 states allowing him on the ballots and a 0.5% total vote tally. Even if he had won and became our 41st President – and wouldn’t that have been better than what we got??? – it most likely would not have made a difference. That is because RP (as great as he is) and the entire libertarian “philosophy” was wrong for the country, then and now.

We’ve been under attack as a people and a nation for, take your pick: 50 years, 100 years, 150 years, or longer. By 1988, the damage was done and it was time for emergency restorative action. This had very little to do with practical politics, economics, or smoking dope, which is what you-know-who almost exclusively focuses on. Excepting the green leaf, I made the same mistake for years.

But, the real issues, critical in 1988, and terminal now, are and were purely cultural and spiritual. There was no political fix, though back then, the right fix would have helped, given the honest people a chance to recover. And “right” means a return to Western nationalism, not libertarianism. The LP never even offered a glimpse of a realistic alternative.

What could have worked? Christianity, first and foremost. (I hear the calls that one cannot legislate morality. True, but one can legislate against immorality). The mass expulsion of non-Westerners would have gone a long way – including, and especially, those who gave us so much cultural degeneracy and usury. Terminating, by any means necessary, the debt-based economy. Retaking the besieged institutions and expelling the walking siege engines. If this sounds a little like a revolution, then it should be obvious that, even as they quote the rhetoric of the bold men of the 1776 original, the party with an oath against action was never the party for the job.

Neither, certainly, was the GOPDNC uni-party. Perhaps Carlin was correct when he said, “this is the best we can do…” The LP had no real answers. A pseudo-philosophy that only appeals to certain members of the dwindling Posterity was doomed from the start. If the demographics had adhered to those of the holiest and most-revered Constitution, the Declaration, and the laws, circa 1790, then said philosophy could have formed a potential basis for guidance (in my mind, so long as it was subordinated to a pursuit of Natural law in the exclusively Christian sense). But that, none of it, happened.

I imagine that I have at least a few ever-optimistic, possibly high, libertarian-leaning friends who would still say that the argument could be made that libertarianism is still the future savior of what’s left of the US. I’m not trying to be mean, but go to any preschool or a psych ward and one will hear all kinds of arguments being made.

If you’re a libertarian, with an “L” large or small, then know that, as with most people, what’s happened isn’t your fault – at least the majority of it. Should you want to do your part to salvage something out of the collapsing ruins, then: 1) cease and desist with the MJ!, and: 2) bend a knee to Christ and then rise, hard right.

The Third Party That Wasn’t

12 Saturday Sep 2020

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on The Third Party That Wasn’t

Tags

, ,

Charles Burris wrote an interesting piece at LRC, Why The Libertarian Party Failed. He’s certainly (mostly) correct about what he covers. I see more, and I may go further with this tomorrow or next week. This paragraph says much:

The possible future viability of the LP ended in 1988. It blew it for both objective and subjective reasons. Objectively because of many missed opportunities related to the end of the Cold War and dynamic changes in American political culture during the Bush-Clinton-Bush years were ignored; and subjectively due to internal LP organizational disputes, poor leadership and the widespread delusion of selecting former GOP “libertarian sounding” congressmen or governors as presidential candidates would be the mainstreaming expedient to fast track electoral success.

Can you guess why a 1988 LP victory would not have mattered or helped? Hint: contrary to all the decent, noble-sounding Enlightenment rhetorical talking points of the LP and libertarianism in general, the greater problem was not and is not the economy nor practical politics. Again, I might explore this further. Have fun reading regardless.

Mary Jane’s Athenian Pot Party

07 Friday Oct 2016

Posted by in Other Columns

≈ Comments Off on Mary Jane’s Athenian Pot Party

Tags

, , , , , ,

As sad as it seems I graduated from college nearly 20 years ago. A little education and a lot of experiences. This story involves one of the latter. It is such ancient history that any parts I have forgotten will be creatively embellished for a seamless narrative.

We’ll say it was 1994. Back then I was a right-leaning “conservative”, one of millions about to be suckered in by the Contract ON America. (Remember that?) I still listened to Rush Limbaugh who, at the time, was still entertaining. Per my stance against joining I had never affiliated with any political party.

The previous year I attended one debate between the campus Republicans and Democrats. I should say “debate” because it wasn’t. All I saw were two sides of the same coin arguing over which one was uglier. I being new, they asked me for my opinion once the show was over and I told them something similar to the previous sentence and left. I never went back.

That next year I found myself still interested in political comradery. A decent, seemingly informed classmate told me about the UGA Libertarians and implied I should visit a meeting. I knew my views were much more inclined to those of the LP than the GOP but I saw the former as too weak to make a difference. They still have the same problem. But, then, I decided to plunge in and take a look.

I don’t even remember what season or quarter it was but it seems like the event was held in the evening. (Maybe it was 4:20…) Intrepidly I ventured to the Tate Student Center, home of the pool tables and the corn-dog. I reported, as instructed, to room 107.

There I waited patiently as the room filled up. It filled with women. I was the only man present. Oddly, I didn’t feel all that lucky. These women were pleasant enough. There was a semi-wide variety. Some were overtly attractive. Most wore black and all of them exuded a strangeness that, at the time, I couldn’t comprehend.

Their leader arrived and commenced some sort of weird, hypnotic, arms-waving chant. The group responded in like fashion. I grew slightly nervous. I asked the black-clad, chanting young lady beside me if this was the UGA LP. She said, “No, sweetie. We’re the UGA Witches. This is room 107. You want 207.” Not wanting to be turned into a frog or something, I excused myself politely.

On my way up the stairs something told me to abandon the night. Somewhere in Athens a beer was waiting for me. I shook it off. I was no quitter. Liberty needed me. Uggghhh…

In room 207 I found a gathering crowd of pleasant, normal-looking, seemingly okay people. No chanting. No black. I confirmed with the first man I saw that this was in fact the campus chapter of the LP. I took a seat near the middle of one side of the large table which occupied the room’s center.

Very soon thereafter a large group was present. I still detected no unusual activity and I began to relax. That beer could wait.

The president or chairman or whatever took his place at the head of the table. He called the meeting to order, made some perfunctory remarks, and welcomed any newbies. Very orderly, efficient and polite. I felt genuinely welcome.

He then said the best way to kick off the affair was to have everyone state the main issue which attracted them to the LP. He started; his issue was the legalization of marijuana. The comments moved clockwise, to his left and towards me. By coincidence the next person’s main issue was marijuana. As was the next’s. And the next’s. Pot, pot, pot, pot, green, and weed.

The process came to me and I, looking around thoughtfully, said that I thought Americans paid too much in taxes. Taxes, I said, should be cut – dramatically. These remarks caused a stir in the room with many heads nodding affirmatively. In fact, the dude to my left, next in the rotation, acknowledged my sentiments. He said that if taxes were cut, then we would all have more money to buy pot. Pot was his central issue. The discussion rounded the table.

Pot, pot, reefer, green, pot, weed, pot, pot, MJ, pot, whacky-tobacky, pot… At last the floor again belonged to the leader. He seemed pleased with the direction of the discussion and avowed to keep it going. We should all, he said, explain our second issue of attraction. His was still marijuana. Pot, pot, pot, pot, pot and back to me.

Now, somewhat flustered, I thought hard. At the time I really didn’t care one way or the other about pot. I still don’t. Yes, I agree it should be legal. I had no problem with the opinions of my fellows, only with their redundancy. I thought for a second and said, “I like guns.”

More murmuring and many a nodding head. The man next to me became animated with delight. He declared that they had long needed “this guy”, meaning me. He said we would definitely need guns in order to protect our … pot…

Pot, pot, pot, pot, pot, pot …

I then knew this was an exercise in the futile. I asked the animated character to my left where the restroom was. He got even more excited. Leaning in, with a half-crazed look in his glazed eyes, he asked, “You going to smoke a joint?”

No I said. Gotta…number two. Big. One… I … I have to run. And I did.

I left and headed downtown. I did use the restroom – at a bar, though mainly to ask the mirror what the hell I had just been through. The beer and I finally connected. It turned out to be a good night.

And that was my defining experience with the LP. And with the witches of America.

nimbus-image-1475844515131

I still like and admire the Libertarians. Thereafter I went on to (lazily) support Harry Browne’s 2000 presidential campaign. He, you might recall, did not make it. I also paid for a dinner for a Georgia LP congressional candidate and his senior staff. He also failed to win office.

I no longer associate with politicians (or witches) – at least not in the formal, supportive sense. As I noted yesterday, the Pot Party is still the party of pot. Whatever else they may be, they are consistent on that issue.

They still want to toke and I still like guns. There is a constant in the universe.

Happy Friday, all.

Even The Pursuit Of Power Corrupts

06 Thursday Oct 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Even The Pursuit Of Power Corrupts

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Given Lord Acton’s observations I long thought that should the Libertarians officially come to power they would become willing participants in the system: corrupted and the very thing they were elected to combat. Now, it seems, their ascendancy isn’t even a requirement. John Bock wrote an intriguing piece suggesting the corruption has already happened. Or, at least, it has begun.

Today’s Libertarian Party is not the same party your father knew. The party known for promoting civil liberties, minimal government regulation (including ending drug laws), free market capitalism and the end of welfare seems to have wavered in its original mission. This election cycle, the Libertarians have enjoyed extra support with all of the early “Never Trump” talk. More people have looked into the Libertarians, but not everyone – especially gun owners – likes what they’ve found.

The article is gun-centered but so is freedom. There appears to be a lot to worry about.

I like the LP, theoretically, as an alternative to the current uni-party BS system. Many of my friends are Libertarians, many more libertarian with the capitalization. I never entertained joining the LP. I’ve never joined any party. Not a party person, so to speak.

Three problems have always specifically stood in between the LP and myself. First, there’s the aforementioned potential for decline. Second, the applications I have seen have a requirement that members declare they will not try to overthrow the government. I see no need for direct action as state’s usually do a marvelous job of committing suicide, unassisted; however, the option is nice to have in needed (see 1776, etc.). Third, I have found the LP, first and foremost, to be the party of pot.

I don’t use marijuana nor do I mind if you do. I think all drugs should be legal though I might never use them. But, it’s not my only issue. Mary Jane’s Stoned Green Grass Pot Party is not for me. I have a very funny story about my experience with the ravishing reefer enthusiasts but it can wait just a while.

Guns are another of my many issues so let’s return to Bock’s article.

Gary Johnson picked as his running mate a liberal Massachusetts gun-grabber. This makes the ticket no worse than the gun controllers offered up by the DNC and the GOP but it is no different. If there’s not a difference, what’s the point?

Johnson’s campaign in Delaware is chaired by Melissa Joan Hart, another celebrity telling you how to vote. She’s also a spokeswoman for Mom’s Demand Action (against you and your guns). She’s also easy on the eyes so I might let that one go, if it stood alone as an anomaly. It doesn’t.

nimbus-image-1475783653817.png

Hmmmm…

It seems even the venerable Cato Institute, bastion of libertarian thought in D.C., is at least willing to compromise on gun control. It’s not that bad, but it is a compromise and one that makes no sense.

By Robert A. Levy

…1. Assault rifles.

…That said, some weapons can be banned. For example, automatic weapons have, for all practical purposes, been banned since 1934. But banning popular semi-automatic rifles, merely because they have a military-type attachment that doesn’t affect their lethality, makes no sense. The task, therefore, is to identify semi-automatic weapons that are not commonly used and not needed for lawful purposes. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban went too far, but a more limited version might be viable.

2. High-capacity magazines.

…To my knowledge, no actual or potential (civilian) victim has fired dozens of rounds in self-defense. Perhaps that suggests a ban on magazines with more than, say, 20 rounds.

3. Universal background checks.

…It may be time to revisit and, if necessary, fine-tune Manchin-Toomey.

Robert Levy is chairman of the Cato Institute.

Boch immediately follows with a story of a citizen who used a scary assault rifle and one or more high capacity magazines to fight off armed thugs, none of whom I am sure, cared the least about background checks.

And Levy and company miss the point entirely. If the government has powerful weapons, it follows the people should have them also – just in case. It has nothing to do with shooting deer or fighting criminals in theory. (Although in practice the weapons do a great job with both of those issues).

Maybe this is in keeping with the LP pledge to tolerate any government. Maybe it’s a cave-in in an attempt to garner the mad mom vote. Either way, it isn’t libertarian, American, nor wise.

Just to show no hard feelings towards Libertarians – Legalize the Weed!

The Saner Side:2016 Libertarian Presidential Politics

28 Sunday Feb 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

By now even a blind and deaf man knows an election is brewing – the stench is overwhelming. The same old stupidity is on display from the two major parties. Under the watchful eye of the globalist banking masters the arrogant entertain the ignorant. Big statements and big promises for small minds. T’was enough to make a fish stare.

Team Democrat is preparing for the coronation of Her Magesty, Qween Hillary. The esteemed Mrs. Clinton soundly defeated the Old Commie Coot in South Carolina. Bernie should count himself lucky he hasn’t been found dead in a state park.

The Republican clown show rolls on. Donald Trump now looks so dominant the corporate handlers are considering a little science fiction in order to keep things interesting until the convention.

In three paragraphs I’ve just given the Republicrats more recognition than they deserve for their collective efforts over the past four decades. In terms of civil society they just don’t matter. Nothing they are or offer favors the free people or the notions of happiness and freedom.

Alternatives do exist, of course, for those still dedicated to the system. The Libertarian Party represents the biggest and best substitute for the lies and deceptions of big two. Theoretically the LP is the only viable option for Constitutional fidelity. It has but two drawbacks. First, at this late hour, it is pointless. Getting 1 – 2% of the popular vote is a lost cause, however noble. Second, the LP stands for organized government, albeit a smaller version. Government is never a good idea and it never stays small – consider our grand experiment of 1776. Still, if I voted, I would probably vote Libertarian.

The LP hosted a debate last night. I didn’t watch and I can’t find (easily) any transcripts. The best I could (easily) come up with is a record from the Massachusetts debate from last November. For laziness sake I’ll just focus on the first question: the role of the President and the roll of America’s military.

For comparison purposes remember that the Dems and the GOP view the military the same way. For them it is both the best way to forcibly advance the financial interests of their masters and the ultimate tool to silence dissent. Dems see it also as a jobs program, Republicans as a jingoistic rallying cry. All of this is fake. The last Republican candidate with any actual military service, Hon. Ron Paul, was effectively ridiculed out of the party.

The libertarian position is different, seeing the military for what it really is – a violent last resort against invasion, with not much legitimate use beyond.

Front-runner Gary Johnson did not attend the Mass. debate. His stance however mirrors those articulated. Also, winning the LP nomination is akin to winning the Par Three contest before the Masters. It’s fun but doesn’t count for the Tournament.

The military role …

Steve Kerbel answered: “As we all know, we should not be the police of the world. As we all know, many of the problems that we’re facing is because we intervened in other country’s sovereignty and so we need to stop doing that. And so, the way we do that with the military is that you start cutting expenses right off the bat.”

He concluded, “So, you know, it takes a reduction. It takes a focused effort. But it has to be towards liberty and staying out of everyone else’s business. That’s the best way to save money.”

The modern military costs A LOT of money. It takes money (from us) to make money for the Banksters (at our expense). Darryl Perry took Kerbel’s reduction concept further:

“In regards to how big should the military be, there should be no standing army. So ultimately, we would get to a U.S. military of zero people.” I’ll wait a second for my Republican readers to put their heads back on …

The standing army concept was greatly feared by the Founders. They wrote and rallied against it. The appropriation text of Article One of the Constitution was drafted to limit the existence of the military. Outside of wartime this is how the Old Republic operated for 150 years. Somehow, except for those wartimes, things were fine.

Marc Feldman continued: “The goal in my administration is to bring power back to the individuals. Admiral Mullen, retired former member of the joint chiefs said that we need to address the number one national security issue for the United States which is our national debt.”

These are all admirable and sane, if unpopular opinions. That, in a nutshell, is the LP – sane but far outside the mainstream. Such opinion is dangerous to the moneychangers. They stand to lose their lifestyle of easy domination if ever freedom and responsibility return to politics. Those who stand to gain the most, the American people, sadly just aren’t that interested.

My interest here is purely academic. For those involved just remember there are always other, better possibilities.

fearthetwoparties_zps8f6f1345

LP.org.