As a constitutional libertarian, if I were to run for president of the United States, Here's what I would propose how to deal with immigration and citizenship.
First, I would submit an end to the concept of citizenship. The founding documents quite specifically set forth that this is a country established to protect and be a steward of natural rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness among others for everyone living here.
If someone declares residence here, and signs an affidavit signifying their acceptance of and agreement to abide by the founding documents of the U.S. and the state they live in, they are "covered" for as long as they reside here. When and if they move into another state within the U.S., they must agree to abide by that new states constitution. All residents in any state within the U.S. may move at any time to and take up residence in any other state only needing to sign the local state affidavit.
Any person may give up residence in the U.S. and move to another country without penalty or question as long as there are no outstanding legal issues having to do with causing harm to others, infringement of other's rights or breach of contract.
In relation to my position on government entitlement programs or other government subsidized programs, no one shall receive entitlements or subsidies because there will be none. The federal government will be focused in my administration to the stewardship and protection of individual's rights and ensuring the general welfare by making sure that all people have equal access to necessary natural resources. My administration will work to make sure that people will be able to make a living according to their self determined best interests without unnecessary interference from the government, religious or social organizations or other individuals.
My administration will not guarantee anyone's success or failure. I will not encourage the federal government to engage in choosing winners or losers. By taking residency in the U.S., responsibility for each individual's success, safety or protection from one's own decisions is assumed by that individual.
My administration will defend every individual lawfully taking residence within the U.S. and will defend and protect said individuals from threats from foreign countries, organizations and individuals who would threaten or violate an individual resident's life, safety, rights, or property.
Wednesday, November 23, 2016
The most insidious ism of all
People get caught up fighting or engaging in racism, sexism, age-ism, etc... but those are all just symptoms of a greater problem.
There seems to be some deep seated need in people to see themselves and everyone else as only part of some group. Collectivism is the most degrading, destructive and demeaning ism of all. It preys upon humanity like a parasitic mind destroying, self consuming virus.
We seek to define ourselves as unique individuals yet only seem happy if we are comfortably lumped into some collective consciousness.
We seem determined to be protective of our grouped units and comfiest as part of a collection of those we seek validation from the most.
How often do we as people find ourselves in situations of our own creation where we have become polarized in "us vs them" scenarios that don't really even need to exist except for our desperate clinging to be part of the group.
If you choose to define yourself or allow others to define you by your appearance, your value or belief system, your geographical or political affiliation, the problem lies within yourself.
Can we share common beliefs, ideals, values, culture, etc... and be influenced by those? Most certainly. Must we allow those things to define us as individual people? Absolutely not.
Ultimately, our lives are individually our own. We must ultimately make the decisions for how to live or die, on our own.
You are you, we can be we, but I must only be the me-est me I can be.
There seems to be some deep seated need in people to see themselves and everyone else as only part of some group. Collectivism is the most degrading, destructive and demeaning ism of all. It preys upon humanity like a parasitic mind destroying, self consuming virus.
We seek to define ourselves as unique individuals yet only seem happy if we are comfortably lumped into some collective consciousness.
We seem determined to be protective of our grouped units and comfiest as part of a collection of those we seek validation from the most.
How often do we as people find ourselves in situations of our own creation where we have become polarized in "us vs them" scenarios that don't really even need to exist except for our desperate clinging to be part of the group.
If you choose to define yourself or allow others to define you by your appearance, your value or belief system, your geographical or political affiliation, the problem lies within yourself.
Can we share common beliefs, ideals, values, culture, etc... and be influenced by those? Most certainly. Must we allow those things to define us as individual people? Absolutely not.
Ultimately, our lives are individually our own. We must ultimately make the decisions for how to live or die, on our own.
You are you, we can be we, but I must only be the me-est me I can be.
Office holders and term limits
The brouhaha about if the POTUS-Elect is accepted as "my" or "your" president not only is an example of immaturity and unsportsmanlike conduct on the part of people who we should all expect better of, it is a case of missing the point entirely.
The U.S. Constitution created offices in which office holders are elected by various means to carry out the duties of said office. The authorities and "powers" to carry out said duties are inherent to those offices. Each person we elect to offices wield the powers of the office while in office but do not retain those abilities after no longer being in office.
What this illustrates is that any representative we elect is not "our", "my" or "your" president, congressperson, senator, etc.... as much as they are "the" officeholder. They personally do not have any more or less power or authority than any other person. Everything they are able to do is a power of the office.
One thing to keep in mind is that being only human, it is so easy to make easy assumptions especially the longer one is in such a position to wield such power. Such assumption often leads to an inflated sense of entitlement. People who spend too much time in office begin to think of themselves and associate with others who look upon them as the embodiment of the authority and powers of the office. They use terminology that assumes personal possessive ownership like "my" and "your".
It is because of such conflation of concepts such as being an officeholder and a personal ownership of power that makes the concept of term limits attractive to the electorate. Wielding power for extended periods of time, especially when little to no "real" challenge is posed not only corrupts but is intoxicating and addictive as well.
Few people are seen as strong enough to let go of power when it is time. The character of someone to willingly relinquish it is often considered ideological but rarely achievable. Thus, because though we say ideologically that term limits, thus limitation of individuals usurping powers of office, lies with the electorate making responsible choices, constitutional limits on terms is often thought to be the more realistic and practical approach to reducing or trying to eliminate corruption and usurping of the powers of office.
Personally, I am idealistic enough to think that there shouldn't be a need to impose such restrictions such as constitutional term limits on officeholders. I am also pragmatic enough to accept that far too many people lack the strength of character to hold themselves and others to such ideals.
The U.S. Constitution created offices in which office holders are elected by various means to carry out the duties of said office. The authorities and "powers" to carry out said duties are inherent to those offices. Each person we elect to offices wield the powers of the office while in office but do not retain those abilities after no longer being in office.
What this illustrates is that any representative we elect is not "our", "my" or "your" president, congressperson, senator, etc.... as much as they are "the" officeholder. They personally do not have any more or less power or authority than any other person. Everything they are able to do is a power of the office.
One thing to keep in mind is that being only human, it is so easy to make easy assumptions especially the longer one is in such a position to wield such power. Such assumption often leads to an inflated sense of entitlement. People who spend too much time in office begin to think of themselves and associate with others who look upon them as the embodiment of the authority and powers of the office. They use terminology that assumes personal possessive ownership like "my" and "your".
It is because of such conflation of concepts such as being an officeholder and a personal ownership of power that makes the concept of term limits attractive to the electorate. Wielding power for extended periods of time, especially when little to no "real" challenge is posed not only corrupts but is intoxicating and addictive as well.
Few people are seen as strong enough to let go of power when it is time. The character of someone to willingly relinquish it is often considered ideological but rarely achievable. Thus, because though we say ideologically that term limits, thus limitation of individuals usurping powers of office, lies with the electorate making responsible choices, constitutional limits on terms is often thought to be the more realistic and practical approach to reducing or trying to eliminate corruption and usurping of the powers of office.
Personally, I am idealistic enough to think that there shouldn't be a need to impose such restrictions such as constitutional term limits on officeholders. I am also pragmatic enough to accept that far too many people lack the strength of character to hold themselves and others to such ideals.
Wednesday, November 16, 2016
Constitutional libertarianism
Ahhh, libertarianism. It encompasses so many things. At it's heart, it holds that people should not be forced or coerced into doing things they don't want to do or that will harm them. Just like any other ideology out there, it spans a range of ideas that go from one extreme to another. In the case of libertarians, one extreme is that of accepting or tolerating government to some degree. The opposite extreme is to accept or tolerate no formal government of any kind.
Also like any ideology a great majority of it's adherents operate somewhere in between.Speaking for myself, I cling to what is called "Constitutional Libertarianism". Yes, it does lie closer to the tolerating government side of the spectrum. However, personally, I think that the U.S. founding documents are probably the most inspired and inspiring approach to people living and working together in a shared society where some type of government is unavoidable but is the best way to the stewardship and defense of individual's natural rights. Perfect? Nope, never gonna happen. As close as imperfect and fallible people can get? Most likely.
I used a phrase above that I think ultimately describes the Constitution and founding documents as well as the concept of constitutional libertarianism. It is about a shared way of living and working together in a society that creates government specifically for the primary task of being a steward and defender on individual natural rights.
The point is to make sure every person is able to equally AND equitably practice those rights and protect them from ALL threats foreign AND domestic. Possibly most so domestic.
I look at the government as, if doing it's job the way it is supposed to be done, as making sure individuals, social, religious and even governmental groups cannot or do not interfere with any individual getting on with their life, as they see it, as accepted and defined by them, the individual.
The role of government is NOT to protect people from themselves. In actuality, it's not to protect people themselves at all. It is to protect people's rights. That is an important distinction. When the Constitution talks about providing for the general welfare of people, it is not talking about doing anything "for" people such as feeding, clothing, educating, sheltering, etc... It is talking about making sure that people are able to do those things for themselves, in the way they choose to do it, IF they choose to do so voluntarily without others interfering or infringing on their rights and ability to do so.
The Bill of Rights, while the argument has been made that it should be necessary, does exist and taking the good and bad potential of it, essentially spells out how the stewardship and defending of those rights is to be handled.
For example, the First Amendment essentially ensures that people can speak their mind, hold their own beliefs and follow the pursuits they deem right for them.
The Second Amendment ensures that people are able to protect and defend their life and at the same time sustain their life. Keep in mind, the Second Amendment relates to all weapons, not just guns though that too often gets lost in the discussion.
You get the idea. The intent of the founding documents is to make sure people can have their natural rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, among others (like ownership of property which is actually part of the right to liberty. From liberty people are automatically assumed to own themselves. Our life is our own thus we have have the consequential rights to freedom, we have the right to own not only our life but the things we do or make in our life which is the crux of the right to own property.
Capitalism is at it's simplest form, free trade. People have the right to free trade in order to sustain their lives by obtaining products and services that they own and can own in order to have shelter, food, clothing, education, and any number of things that contribute to their right to pursue happiness in their own life. We can't always make or do everything ourselves so we need to have ways to obtain those things we cannot do or make ourselves in order to attain or achieve success in survival, self improvement and advancement, etc...
Again, speaking for myself, I believe wholeheartedly in the U.S. founding documents. I believe that they exist and are designed to create and maintain a system that acts as a steward and defender of individual natural rights. I believe that the government, as sated in the Constitution, is meant to be delimited to specifically those activities and pursuits and otherwise is meant to stay out of people's lives as much as possible.
Yes, I know people are often corrupted and that many people try to cheat and game the system for their own personal gain and advantage. It is a system based on an ideal and implemented by imperfect people. It is bound to fail from time to time. Just because it is bound to have failure and that people will fail to live up to the standards doesn't mean it isn't a worthwhile pursuit.
I admire my anarchist fellows within the libertarian spectrum who insist that government is not necessary and that society should be able to function with people living up to their best potential. However, I also believe that people not being perfect can be counted on to not live up to their best potential and due to that, there needs to be a system to defend the defenseless and help keep things moving according to the principles laid out in the founding documents.
That's just my two cents.
Also like any ideology a great majority of it's adherents operate somewhere in between.Speaking for myself, I cling to what is called "Constitutional Libertarianism". Yes, it does lie closer to the tolerating government side of the spectrum. However, personally, I think that the U.S. founding documents are probably the most inspired and inspiring approach to people living and working together in a shared society where some type of government is unavoidable but is the best way to the stewardship and defense of individual's natural rights. Perfect? Nope, never gonna happen. As close as imperfect and fallible people can get? Most likely.
I used a phrase above that I think ultimately describes the Constitution and founding documents as well as the concept of constitutional libertarianism. It is about a shared way of living and working together in a society that creates government specifically for the primary task of being a steward and defender on individual natural rights.
The point is to make sure every person is able to equally AND equitably practice those rights and protect them from ALL threats foreign AND domestic. Possibly most so domestic.
I look at the government as, if doing it's job the way it is supposed to be done, as making sure individuals, social, religious and even governmental groups cannot or do not interfere with any individual getting on with their life, as they see it, as accepted and defined by them, the individual.
The role of government is NOT to protect people from themselves. In actuality, it's not to protect people themselves at all. It is to protect people's rights. That is an important distinction. When the Constitution talks about providing for the general welfare of people, it is not talking about doing anything "for" people such as feeding, clothing, educating, sheltering, etc... It is talking about making sure that people are able to do those things for themselves, in the way they choose to do it, IF they choose to do so voluntarily without others interfering or infringing on their rights and ability to do so.
The Bill of Rights, while the argument has been made that it should be necessary, does exist and taking the good and bad potential of it, essentially spells out how the stewardship and defending of those rights is to be handled.
For example, the First Amendment essentially ensures that people can speak their mind, hold their own beliefs and follow the pursuits they deem right for them.
The Second Amendment ensures that people are able to protect and defend their life and at the same time sustain their life. Keep in mind, the Second Amendment relates to all weapons, not just guns though that too often gets lost in the discussion.
You get the idea. The intent of the founding documents is to make sure people can have their natural rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, among others (like ownership of property which is actually part of the right to liberty. From liberty people are automatically assumed to own themselves. Our life is our own thus we have have the consequential rights to freedom, we have the right to own not only our life but the things we do or make in our life which is the crux of the right to own property.
Capitalism is at it's simplest form, free trade. People have the right to free trade in order to sustain their lives by obtaining products and services that they own and can own in order to have shelter, food, clothing, education, and any number of things that contribute to their right to pursue happiness in their own life. We can't always make or do everything ourselves so we need to have ways to obtain those things we cannot do or make ourselves in order to attain or achieve success in survival, self improvement and advancement, etc...
Again, speaking for myself, I believe wholeheartedly in the U.S. founding documents. I believe that they exist and are designed to create and maintain a system that acts as a steward and defender of individual natural rights. I believe that the government, as sated in the Constitution, is meant to be delimited to specifically those activities and pursuits and otherwise is meant to stay out of people's lives as much as possible.
Yes, I know people are often corrupted and that many people try to cheat and game the system for their own personal gain and advantage. It is a system based on an ideal and implemented by imperfect people. It is bound to fail from time to time. Just because it is bound to have failure and that people will fail to live up to the standards doesn't mean it isn't a worthwhile pursuit.
I admire my anarchist fellows within the libertarian spectrum who insist that government is not necessary and that society should be able to function with people living up to their best potential. However, I also believe that people not being perfect can be counted on to not live up to their best potential and due to that, there needs to be a system to defend the defenseless and help keep things moving according to the principles laid out in the founding documents.
That's just my two cents.
A bookcase, not a book
One of my favorite mental images of how the founding documents and the U.S.government are supposed to work is as a bookcase.
The founding documents and the government could be seen as a framework, a structure to ensure things that are important and that need to be accessible have a home.
I think of the founding documents as the owner's manual not only for putting the bookshelf together but the job description of the librarian.
The government is the bookshelf. Our elected representatives are the librarians. The books on the bookshelf are our rights and the rule of law we establish to protect those rights.
The people (citizens) own the bookshelf. The books were given to us (natural rights) by a mysterious and anonymous library founder and patron. We have added books of our own that are derivative of those original books.
The people hire the librarians to make sure that everyone has access to those books. Think of the library board as our elected office holders. Think of the government employees as the folks pushing the carts between the bookshelves, tidying up, organizing, putting everything in it's place so the next person can access it.
I love libraries and books. I love the idea of going in, and looking for I want to read and know about and do. On my time, at my place, in my own interests.
There are the library and librarian rules so that I don't interrupt or interfere with others using the library as well. Libraries are sacred places where individuals can all come to get but be focused on their own interests and concerns. Where we respect each other's study and research though we may not choose to read the same authors or books.
As a people, it is our responsibility to ensure the library stays open. It is our responsibility to ensure that our representative board members are engaged in following the instructions and making sure that everyone has access.
When the board gets out of line, creating new rules that overstep their job description or not paying due diligence to the job they were sent to do, it is our job to replace them with someone who will stay within the job description and not be lazy or abusive.
Everyone loves and appreciates a well cared for library that is inclusive and accessible. It's easy to turn a blind eye and let someone else handle the oversight of the board and the library.
The ultimate responsibility of, for and to the library is us, the people. We are the oversight committee of the library and the board. If we do not pay due diligence and know what the instruction manual says to keep the bookshelf in good condition and that the books are properly shelved and the lights stay on and the doors stay open and that everyone can get their own library card. If we the people do not do that job, then it is us who have failed the library.
It is us who have wasted such valuable gifts that gave us the instruction manual and the place to build the library and the resources to get everything needed to run it.
The instruction manual and the gifted resources are not at fault. It's those of us who decided we don't need to read the manual and just ignore it or try to redesign it for our own purposes as opposed to being there for everyone in the community.
I love our library. I'm willing to read the manual, know how it's supposed to be put together and work. I will be active in the oversight of the library board and trying to keep the library open and accessible for the whole community.
The founding documents and the government could be seen as a framework, a structure to ensure things that are important and that need to be accessible have a home.
I think of the founding documents as the owner's manual not only for putting the bookshelf together but the job description of the librarian.
The government is the bookshelf. Our elected representatives are the librarians. The books on the bookshelf are our rights and the rule of law we establish to protect those rights.
The people (citizens) own the bookshelf. The books were given to us (natural rights) by a mysterious and anonymous library founder and patron. We have added books of our own that are derivative of those original books.
The people hire the librarians to make sure that everyone has access to those books. Think of the library board as our elected office holders. Think of the government employees as the folks pushing the carts between the bookshelves, tidying up, organizing, putting everything in it's place so the next person can access it.
I love libraries and books. I love the idea of going in, and looking for I want to read and know about and do. On my time, at my place, in my own interests.
There are the library and librarian rules so that I don't interrupt or interfere with others using the library as well. Libraries are sacred places where individuals can all come to get but be focused on their own interests and concerns. Where we respect each other's study and research though we may not choose to read the same authors or books.
As a people, it is our responsibility to ensure the library stays open. It is our responsibility to ensure that our representative board members are engaged in following the instructions and making sure that everyone has access.
When the board gets out of line, creating new rules that overstep their job description or not paying due diligence to the job they were sent to do, it is our job to replace them with someone who will stay within the job description and not be lazy or abusive.
Everyone loves and appreciates a well cared for library that is inclusive and accessible. It's easy to turn a blind eye and let someone else handle the oversight of the board and the library.
The ultimate responsibility of, for and to the library is us, the people. We are the oversight committee of the library and the board. If we do not pay due diligence and know what the instruction manual says to keep the bookshelf in good condition and that the books are properly shelved and the lights stay on and the doors stay open and that everyone can get their own library card. If we the people do not do that job, then it is us who have failed the library.
It is us who have wasted such valuable gifts that gave us the instruction manual and the place to build the library and the resources to get everything needed to run it.
The instruction manual and the gifted resources are not at fault. It's those of us who decided we don't need to read the manual and just ignore it or try to redesign it for our own purposes as opposed to being there for everyone in the community.
I love our library. I'm willing to read the manual, know how it's supposed to be put together and work. I will be active in the oversight of the library board and trying to keep the library open and accessible for the whole community.
Monday, November 14, 2016
American equitability in rights
Last post I talked about the equitable observance of individual voting rights regarding the electoral college. This one I want to explore equitability a little more across the board.
Again, the first role of this government and the purpose of being a republic as opposed to a simple democracy is for the purpose of ensuring that the natural rights of every individual are ensured and not unfairly infringed upon.
Note that I said "unfairly" infringed upon. As a society, we have determined that there are circumstances in which an individual is to have their natural rights infringed upon mostly based as a societal repercussion for causing harm to others or for infringing upon other individuals rights.
Supposedly taking such infringement VERY seriously, removing or infringing on any individuals rights is not something to be considered lightly or trivially, we have instituted in our system of representative government checks and balances to try to ensure that when we do find it socially important to infringe on an individuals rights, it is done with great consideration and equitably.
To that end, we have things like the electoral college to keep the majority from infringing upon the minority. We have trial by jury and we have placed the burden of proof on the prosecuting side because we believe in the value of presuming individuals being innocent until being proved guilty. In the same legal system we also have it so that an individual cannot be tried for the same crime twice. Again, protecting the minority from a mob thirsty for blood by any means necessary. We romanticize vigilantes for taking action in the face of a corrupt or shackled justice system but our laws exist to prevent just anybody from using their own personal judgment to deny or infringe on another persons rights. The vigilante may be well intentioned, but their intentions or personal value system does not get to infringe on other peoples natural rights. No matter how popular they may be.
All of these things reflect on a system of not just equal but also an equitable enforcement and defense of every individuals natural rights.
In America, our government exists not granting rights to people but to identify and recognize people's inherent rights. To ensure that people are able to exercise their rights and to defend every person's ability to exercise those rights from any threat foreign and domestic.
That threat could be a foreign government insistent on conquest and it can just as easily be a religious, social or governmental force within our own borders trying to impose their values on others against their will.
The Declaration of Independence identifies and recognizes those natural rights, the Constitution sets up a government intended to be a steward and defender of those rights. If we are to make sure every individual person has such protections, then we must be certain to look to both equal AND equitable observation of carrying that out.
Again, the first role of this government and the purpose of being a republic as opposed to a simple democracy is for the purpose of ensuring that the natural rights of every individual are ensured and not unfairly infringed upon.
Note that I said "unfairly" infringed upon. As a society, we have determined that there are circumstances in which an individual is to have their natural rights infringed upon mostly based as a societal repercussion for causing harm to others or for infringing upon other individuals rights.
Supposedly taking such infringement VERY seriously, removing or infringing on any individuals rights is not something to be considered lightly or trivially, we have instituted in our system of representative government checks and balances to try to ensure that when we do find it socially important to infringe on an individuals rights, it is done with great consideration and equitably.
To that end, we have things like the electoral college to keep the majority from infringing upon the minority. We have trial by jury and we have placed the burden of proof on the prosecuting side because we believe in the value of presuming individuals being innocent until being proved guilty. In the same legal system we also have it so that an individual cannot be tried for the same crime twice. Again, protecting the minority from a mob thirsty for blood by any means necessary. We romanticize vigilantes for taking action in the face of a corrupt or shackled justice system but our laws exist to prevent just anybody from using their own personal judgment to deny or infringe on another persons rights. The vigilante may be well intentioned, but their intentions or personal value system does not get to infringe on other peoples natural rights. No matter how popular they may be.
All of these things reflect on a system of not just equal but also an equitable enforcement and defense of every individuals natural rights.
In America, our government exists not granting rights to people but to identify and recognize people's inherent rights. To ensure that people are able to exercise their rights and to defend every person's ability to exercise those rights from any threat foreign and domestic.
That threat could be a foreign government insistent on conquest and it can just as easily be a religious, social or governmental force within our own borders trying to impose their values on others against their will.
The Declaration of Independence identifies and recognizes those natural rights, the Constitution sets up a government intended to be a steward and defender of those rights. If we are to make sure every individual person has such protections, then we must be certain to look to both equal AND equitable observation of carrying that out.
The Dreaded P Word
I'm not a fan of the idea of partisanship. Partisanship tells us that those involved are representing the interests of a specific group of people rather than the bests interests of the electorate they are supposed to be representing. The point of running to be an elected officeholder is to represent the best interests of the people in the region or district that is electing you.
I dislike the idea of bi-partisanship even more. It goes further to say that you are negotiating based on the specific group's platform instead of your electorate but you recognize only a specific other party as legitimate. This completely undermines the purpose of the people of each district, state or country having a voice that represents specifically them and whomever they send to office will only be recognized or cooperated with if they are a member of one of two parties. The people of a particular electorate no longer have a unique voice for them but now are essentially forced into participating in a pre-determined voting block that may or may not represent that particular electorate's issues and needs.
Party politics undermines the American election system using democratic methods of participating in the republican form of government. Simply put, it is "gaming the system". It assembles people into general voting blocs that address many issues regardless of the need or importance of local relevance.
It's an abuse of the democratic process which leads to "mob rule" or domination of minorities by simple majorities. The U.S. founding documents are founded on the ultimate minority, the individual. Allowing "mob rules" or simple majorities to infringe upon the rights of any individual is an affront to the concept of individual natural rights.
I dislike the idea of bi-partisanship even more. It goes further to say that you are negotiating based on the specific group's platform instead of your electorate but you recognize only a specific other party as legitimate. This completely undermines the purpose of the people of each district, state or country having a voice that represents specifically them and whomever they send to office will only be recognized or cooperated with if they are a member of one of two parties. The people of a particular electorate no longer have a unique voice for them but now are essentially forced into participating in a pre-determined voting block that may or may not represent that particular electorate's issues and needs.
Party politics undermines the American election system using democratic methods of participating in the republican form of government. Simply put, it is "gaming the system". It assembles people into general voting blocs that address many issues regardless of the need or importance of local relevance.
It's an abuse of the democratic process which leads to "mob rule" or domination of minorities by simple majorities. The U.S. founding documents are founded on the ultimate minority, the individual. Allowing "mob rules" or simple majorities to infringe upon the rights of any individual is an affront to the concept of individual natural rights.
Sunday, November 13, 2016
Elected Officeholders, Not Divine Selection
The elected offices of the U.S. government have been laid out in the Constitution. The office holders don't get to just show up and do anything they like, whatever they want. They have a duty to perform independent of their personal interests.
I don't look at any officeholder such as President, Senator, Congressperson or even Supreme Court Judge as "My" whatever. They are "The" whatever. I judge their performance according to how well they perform the duties and tasks as set for their positions as laid out in the Constitution.
If any elected officeholder cannot set aside their personal interests and preferences to do the job as specified on behalf of ALL Americans, they are not doing their job and they do not deserve support or re-election. Period.
Now, a candidate or elected officeholder can come to the table with an idea of how they best see to address or approach one of the tasks and duties of their office. There are often a variety of different ways to do something, some more effective others less. Some more in line with the founding documents, some that are riding the fine line and others that go way outside the line.
For many people, the use of "My" and "The" is functionally irrelevant because we share the same understanding of the context of officeholders doing their jobs as defined by the Constitution. For others who either are obtuse to the context or intentionally take things out of context in the effort to re-define and re-purpose ideas so as to change those understanding that officeholders are supposed to be limited by the Constitution in the carrying out of their office's duties, then it becomes more of an important part of the discussion.
FACT: The elected officeholders in the government have pre-determined duties of the office that is their first and primary concern and cause to be in said office.
FACT: Elected officeholders are elected as representatives of ALL those in their electorate, not just those of a shared party, religious or social affiliation.
The first duty of the government and all elected and appointed officeholders as well as employees is the stewardship and defense of the natural rights identified and recognized in the Declaration of Independence. That is the purpose of the Constitution. The Constitution specifically details the delimiting restriction on the government to carry out only that which is necessary to conduct the business of the Federal government while acting in the role of Steward and defender of every individual's natural rights and all rights derivative of those.
Nothing more, nothing less.
I don't look at any officeholder such as President, Senator, Congressperson or even Supreme Court Judge as "My" whatever. They are "The" whatever. I judge their performance according to how well they perform the duties and tasks as set for their positions as laid out in the Constitution.
If any elected officeholder cannot set aside their personal interests and preferences to do the job as specified on behalf of ALL Americans, they are not doing their job and they do not deserve support or re-election. Period.
Now, a candidate or elected officeholder can come to the table with an idea of how they best see to address or approach one of the tasks and duties of their office. There are often a variety of different ways to do something, some more effective others less. Some more in line with the founding documents, some that are riding the fine line and others that go way outside the line.
For many people, the use of "My" and "The" is functionally irrelevant because we share the same understanding of the context of officeholders doing their jobs as defined by the Constitution. For others who either are obtuse to the context or intentionally take things out of context in the effort to re-define and re-purpose ideas so as to change those understanding that officeholders are supposed to be limited by the Constitution in the carrying out of their office's duties, then it becomes more of an important part of the discussion.
FACT: The elected officeholders in the government have pre-determined duties of the office that is their first and primary concern and cause to be in said office.
FACT: Elected officeholders are elected as representatives of ALL those in their electorate, not just those of a shared party, religious or social affiliation.
The first duty of the government and all elected and appointed officeholders as well as employees is the stewardship and defense of the natural rights identified and recognized in the Declaration of Independence. That is the purpose of the Constitution. The Constitution specifically details the delimiting restriction on the government to carry out only that which is necessary to conduct the business of the Federal government while acting in the role of Steward and defender of every individual's natural rights and all rights derivative of those.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Saturday, November 12, 2016
Equal AND Equitable
People need to understand that the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights is not just about equality but about equitability at the same time.
For those unsure, equal means to be divided similarly. For example, if we allow the privilege of driving on roads in automobiles, then everyone equally should have the opportunity to apply to do so. If we say that everyone has a right to vote then is it enough to just say that every individual vote must count equally? Not necessarily. At least, not according to our founding documents.
We in the U.S. hold as a value the concept that every individual has certain basic natural or god given rights. When it comes to those natural rights, it isn't enough to just ensure equal applicability of them. We must recognize them equitably as well. Thus we are not a simple democracy. In a simple democracy in which a total tally of votes is taken the majority rules and the minority is over run.
However, there is something called "the mob" because people are often and more often than not, easily, manipulated into forming a voting bloc specifically for the purpose of creating a voting majority. This is what we now often think of as "gaming the system". The vote is supposed to ideologically represent a collection of individual votes based on each individuals values, beliefs, knowledge, etc... When you have groups that try to manipulate people into making their vote based on affiliation with a group or political party as opposed to independent thought, you have an unethical manipulation or "Gaming the system".
Not only that, but the founding documents that establish this country are bound to ensure that every single citizen's natural rights are protected. That no majority can collude to infringe upon or deny those basic natural rights from any one person, let alone a group of people with shared ideas or values. In that alone, being "equal" is not enough. We need to be very on top of what then is equitable or the "fairness" of the enforcement, defense, and application of laws and especially government practices. Simple majorities in that case are not recognized.
Take for example the current examination of the electoral college after this election. People claim that the popular vote was won by one candidate while the electoral college was won by the other. Well, this is why the U.S. is not and never has been a simple Democracy. It is a Republic because we do not allow a majority to hold sway over certain things that could or might likely interfere with or infringe upon individual's natural rights. The representative government first role is supposed to be the stewardship and defense of every individual's natural rights. This is why the Declaration is WAY more important than a lot of people want to give it recognition for. The Constitution exists and the government formed therein specifically for the purpose of ensuring and defending those natural rights identified and recognized in the Declaration.
That means equitable as well as equal. Those representatives and the government's first task is to protect the individual from the fickle majority.
Urban areas collect a lot of people densely into geographically small areas. Rural areas are often more widely dispersed and more sparely populated. In terms of being equal, because there are more people in urban areas, a majority is very easy to be attained. However, just because of the nature of easily formed majority of numbers into specific area, that does not mean those more widely and sparsely distributed areas have any less importance or value to their votes. In a popular vote only the majority counts and urban areas notoriously win those because of sheer numbers. The mob rules.
To be equitable, or to be fair about counting or valuing more individuals votes respectively, The electoral college seeks to level the playing field, so to speak, so that those people in those rural and less densely populated areas are represented as best as can be in such a large geographic area such as the U.S. covers.
The people wanting to do away with the electoral college only care about being equal in that everyone got to vote but don't care one whit that everyone's vote counts or is represented equitably. They believe that popularity must equal "right". That's not how it works here. History has taught us nothing if not that large groups of people can be led into making bad decisions. Remember our mothers words to us as children. "Just because "Everyone" seems to be doing it doesn't make it right. It only means that it is popular."
Is the electoral college the perfect way to ensure equitability? No, but then, as people, we are fooling only ourselves if we seriously think we will ever accomplish anything perfectly. As a matter of fact, the more people involved only increases the likelihood that it will go less perfectly.
So, very sorry to burst any bubbles out there, but in the U.S. your majority does not matter when it comes to making sure the minority does not unfairly have their rights infringed upon.
I hate to say it, I voted for Johnson, but the pun cannot be ignored... Equitability "trumps" popularity when it comes to defending individuals natural rights.
For those unsure, equal means to be divided similarly. For example, if we allow the privilege of driving on roads in automobiles, then everyone equally should have the opportunity to apply to do so. If we say that everyone has a right to vote then is it enough to just say that every individual vote must count equally? Not necessarily. At least, not according to our founding documents.
We in the U.S. hold as a value the concept that every individual has certain basic natural or god given rights. When it comes to those natural rights, it isn't enough to just ensure equal applicability of them. We must recognize them equitably as well. Thus we are not a simple democracy. In a simple democracy in which a total tally of votes is taken the majority rules and the minority is over run.
However, there is something called "the mob" because people are often and more often than not, easily, manipulated into forming a voting bloc specifically for the purpose of creating a voting majority. This is what we now often think of as "gaming the system". The vote is supposed to ideologically represent a collection of individual votes based on each individuals values, beliefs, knowledge, etc... When you have groups that try to manipulate people into making their vote based on affiliation with a group or political party as opposed to independent thought, you have an unethical manipulation or "Gaming the system".
Not only that, but the founding documents that establish this country are bound to ensure that every single citizen's natural rights are protected. That no majority can collude to infringe upon or deny those basic natural rights from any one person, let alone a group of people with shared ideas or values. In that alone, being "equal" is not enough. We need to be very on top of what then is equitable or the "fairness" of the enforcement, defense, and application of laws and especially government practices. Simple majorities in that case are not recognized.
Take for example the current examination of the electoral college after this election. People claim that the popular vote was won by one candidate while the electoral college was won by the other. Well, this is why the U.S. is not and never has been a simple Democracy. It is a Republic because we do not allow a majority to hold sway over certain things that could or might likely interfere with or infringe upon individual's natural rights. The representative government first role is supposed to be the stewardship and defense of every individual's natural rights. This is why the Declaration is WAY more important than a lot of people want to give it recognition for. The Constitution exists and the government formed therein specifically for the purpose of ensuring and defending those natural rights identified and recognized in the Declaration.
That means equitable as well as equal. Those representatives and the government's first task is to protect the individual from the fickle majority.
Urban areas collect a lot of people densely into geographically small areas. Rural areas are often more widely dispersed and more sparely populated. In terms of being equal, because there are more people in urban areas, a majority is very easy to be attained. However, just because of the nature of easily formed majority of numbers into specific area, that does not mean those more widely and sparsely distributed areas have any less importance or value to their votes. In a popular vote only the majority counts and urban areas notoriously win those because of sheer numbers. The mob rules.
To be equitable, or to be fair about counting or valuing more individuals votes respectively, The electoral college seeks to level the playing field, so to speak, so that those people in those rural and less densely populated areas are represented as best as can be in such a large geographic area such as the U.S. covers.
The people wanting to do away with the electoral college only care about being equal in that everyone got to vote but don't care one whit that everyone's vote counts or is represented equitably. They believe that popularity must equal "right". That's not how it works here. History has taught us nothing if not that large groups of people can be led into making bad decisions. Remember our mothers words to us as children. "Just because "Everyone" seems to be doing it doesn't make it right. It only means that it is popular."
Is the electoral college the perfect way to ensure equitability? No, but then, as people, we are fooling only ourselves if we seriously think we will ever accomplish anything perfectly. As a matter of fact, the more people involved only increases the likelihood that it will go less perfectly.
So, very sorry to burst any bubbles out there, but in the U.S. your majority does not matter when it comes to making sure the minority does not unfairly have their rights infringed upon.
I hate to say it, I voted for Johnson, but the pun cannot be ignored... Equitability "trumps" popularity when it comes to defending individuals natural rights.
Saturday, October 29, 2016
What Makes A Credible Candidate
As a registered Independent voter and a libertarian philosophy having person, I am very interested in hearing from all credible candidates running for elected office. That is, in fact, my first criteria to my taking a candidate seriously, to be credible.
What then, to me, is a credible candidate? First it's someone who has done the legwork to be able to be identified and recognized as a candidate. Someone who as gotten their name as a candidate for whatever office on the ballots of all the involved voting locations.
Want me to take you as a credible candidate for state senator? Then make sure you have done the footwork to be identified and listed in the counties within your chosen constituency. President of the U.S.? Then if there are 50 states (and there are) then you should have done the necessary footwork to be on all 50 states ballots.
For me, this shows that you take the job seriously enough to make sure everyone is informed and able to identify you as a candidate. To show up and not have done the work to accomplish that most basic step indicates to me that you don't take this serious enough yourself. You're playing at it. If you don't take it seriously, I sure won't take you seriously.
The next thing for me to take someone as a credible candidate is to make the effort to inform people about your candidacy and be accessible to potential voters, ALL potential voters. If you're just talking to the people you prefer or the ones who can give you statistical advantages then I see you as just trying to game the system. It's more about you than it is about the job you're trying to do.
Be consistent in your message. The biggest red flag of someone who isn't credible is that they say whatever they have to to pander to who they are talking to at the time even if it contradicts what they said to someone somewhere else. Again, this points to it just being about you and trying to game the system. If you really have a position on something, stick with it. People may not agree with you on it but they will likely respect you for standing firm on a principled position. People like to see that their elected representatives have a backbone and won't abandon their principles at the first chance.
If you won't or can't do the footwork, f you aren't making yourself accessible to as many people as possible and if you aren't putting out a consistent message then I don't see you as a credible candidate and I won't bother to pay attention to you.
What then, to me, is a credible candidate? First it's someone who has done the legwork to be able to be identified and recognized as a candidate. Someone who as gotten their name as a candidate for whatever office on the ballots of all the involved voting locations.
Want me to take you as a credible candidate for state senator? Then make sure you have done the footwork to be identified and listed in the counties within your chosen constituency. President of the U.S.? Then if there are 50 states (and there are) then you should have done the necessary footwork to be on all 50 states ballots.
For me, this shows that you take the job seriously enough to make sure everyone is informed and able to identify you as a candidate. To show up and not have done the work to accomplish that most basic step indicates to me that you don't take this serious enough yourself. You're playing at it. If you don't take it seriously, I sure won't take you seriously.
The next thing for me to take someone as a credible candidate is to make the effort to inform people about your candidacy and be accessible to potential voters, ALL potential voters. If you're just talking to the people you prefer or the ones who can give you statistical advantages then I see you as just trying to game the system. It's more about you than it is about the job you're trying to do.
Be consistent in your message. The biggest red flag of someone who isn't credible is that they say whatever they have to to pander to who they are talking to at the time even if it contradicts what they said to someone somewhere else. Again, this points to it just being about you and trying to game the system. If you really have a position on something, stick with it. People may not agree with you on it but they will likely respect you for standing firm on a principled position. People like to see that their elected representatives have a backbone and won't abandon their principles at the first chance.
If you won't or can't do the footwork, f you aren't making yourself accessible to as many people as possible and if you aren't putting out a consistent message then I don't see you as a credible candidate and I won't bother to pay attention to you.
Monday, September 12, 2016
Spotting the libertarian
There's a lot of talk about what is a "real" libertarian or not. Gary Johnson is alternately called a liberal or a conservative but even among so called libertarians, he gets told that he's not libertarian or not enough.
So how does one spot a real libertarian? Is it all predicted on political policy? I would venture to say no. Here's why...
I've often maintained here that being libertarian is not necessarily the same thing as being a Libertarian. The capital "L" Libertarian is a political animal, focused primarily on politics and policy. A lowercase "l" libertarian is more often than not concerned with applying libertarian principles to their own life first then advocating for those principles both as a role model and by education.
A libertarian, or libertarian minded person, believes in individual liberty obviously. That includes being a responsible person and being a person with integrity. Being libertarian means that you look to yourself to do what's right, you don't"need" a third party authority to make you do the right things or follow agreed upon rules or abide by contracts and agreements you enter.
A libertarian is always making the effort to be self-sufficient, self-disciplined, and self-motivated. A libertarian has ideals, goals and objectives they try to live up to. A libertarian believes in the ability of people to be able to be all of those things.
Because libertarians believe that all people have the capacity to be all of those things, we tend to look at people as capable individuals first, essentially giving the benefit of the doubt until we have evidence otherwise. A libertarian is not racist or sexist or most other "ists" because we don't judge people as part of a group but as individuals.
A libertarian does believe in order and rules and laws as long as those rules, etc... are agreed upon and/or are sensible and work to achieve the most individual liberty while minimizing negative impact up others liberty, well-being, etc...
A libertarian believes in science, the scientific process and using fact based evidence. Being rational, logical and practical are usually very important to libertarians. Because of this, most libertarians tend to try to interact with others rationally, calmly, even respectfully because to do otherwise is to not be in control of yourself very well.
You don't see most libertarians being unnecessarily rude or making personal insults or being an overall"jerk" for the most part. This hails back to being rational, respectful and believing in being ethical and living up to certain values rather than engaging in undisciplined and generally not being in control of yourself.
When looking for a "real" libertarian, look for the person who is doing the things we expect of libertarians. They are being self controlled, not forcing their ideas and beliefs on everyone else while not letting others walk all over their own at the same time.
They aren't engaging in name calling in a discussion or argument because they know that if you get to that point, you've already lost. In fact, most "real" libertarians I have seen would rather "kill you with kindness" because again, it shows self-discipline and keeping one's mind focused rather than becoming overwhelmed by emotion.
As a matter of fact, most libertarians I know are usually pretty quiet people until you put them on the spot. They are usually too busy and focused on getting on with their business and their lives to go meddling in other people's affairs.
They are usually the ones who help stranded motorists and help others pick up dropped bags, etc... Why? Because they have a degree of self respect and believe in being a good person in general. They don't believe in going out of their way to get attention for helping when they do because again, attention and publicity isn't the goal. Their own values and beliefs are what motivates them.
A "real" libertarian walks the walk more than they talk. They are focused on doing, accomplishing, achieving.
Brow-beating, lecturing and being an emotional bully is usually not a libertarians style.
When I grow up, that's what I want to be. A libertarian. Someday I'll get there, until then, I'll keep practicing and working toward being that kind of person.
So how does one spot a real libertarian? Is it all predicted on political policy? I would venture to say no. Here's why...
I've often maintained here that being libertarian is not necessarily the same thing as being a Libertarian. The capital "L" Libertarian is a political animal, focused primarily on politics and policy. A lowercase "l" libertarian is more often than not concerned with applying libertarian principles to their own life first then advocating for those principles both as a role model and by education.
A libertarian, or libertarian minded person, believes in individual liberty obviously. That includes being a responsible person and being a person with integrity. Being libertarian means that you look to yourself to do what's right, you don't"need" a third party authority to make you do the right things or follow agreed upon rules or abide by contracts and agreements you enter.
A libertarian is always making the effort to be self-sufficient, self-disciplined, and self-motivated. A libertarian has ideals, goals and objectives they try to live up to. A libertarian believes in the ability of people to be able to be all of those things.
Because libertarians believe that all people have the capacity to be all of those things, we tend to look at people as capable individuals first, essentially giving the benefit of the doubt until we have evidence otherwise. A libertarian is not racist or sexist or most other "ists" because we don't judge people as part of a group but as individuals.
A libertarian does believe in order and rules and laws as long as those rules, etc... are agreed upon and/or are sensible and work to achieve the most individual liberty while minimizing negative impact up others liberty, well-being, etc...
A libertarian believes in science, the scientific process and using fact based evidence. Being rational, logical and practical are usually very important to libertarians. Because of this, most libertarians tend to try to interact with others rationally, calmly, even respectfully because to do otherwise is to not be in control of yourself very well.
You don't see most libertarians being unnecessarily rude or making personal insults or being an overall"jerk" for the most part. This hails back to being rational, respectful and believing in being ethical and living up to certain values rather than engaging in undisciplined and generally not being in control of yourself.
When looking for a "real" libertarian, look for the person who is doing the things we expect of libertarians. They are being self controlled, not forcing their ideas and beliefs on everyone else while not letting others walk all over their own at the same time.
They aren't engaging in name calling in a discussion or argument because they know that if you get to that point, you've already lost. In fact, most "real" libertarians I have seen would rather "kill you with kindness" because again, it shows self-discipline and keeping one's mind focused rather than becoming overwhelmed by emotion.
As a matter of fact, most libertarians I know are usually pretty quiet people until you put them on the spot. They are usually too busy and focused on getting on with their business and their lives to go meddling in other people's affairs.
They are usually the ones who help stranded motorists and help others pick up dropped bags, etc... Why? Because they have a degree of self respect and believe in being a good person in general. They don't believe in going out of their way to get attention for helping when they do because again, attention and publicity isn't the goal. Their own values and beliefs are what motivates them.
A "real" libertarian walks the walk more than they talk. They are focused on doing, accomplishing, achieving.
Brow-beating, lecturing and being an emotional bully is usually not a libertarians style.
When I grow up, that's what I want to be. A libertarian. Someday I'll get there, until then, I'll keep practicing and working toward being that kind of person.
Friday, September 2, 2016
Much ado about rules
There are some basic truths in life. Rail against them if they must, people need to understand that some aspects of life are as inevitable as gravity.
One of those things is rules or laws. People don't always like laws. It's not hard to understand why. Rules inhibit us, especially when we don't want to be inhibited.
However, at their most basic purpose, rules serve an important role in helping groups of two or more people to avoid unnecessary endangerment and help maintain order.
Now, rules come in two flavors, authority enforcement or self enforcement. Self enforcement is when two or more people voluntarily agree to rules to conduct actions and relationships.
Essentially, self enforcement is a contract in which everyone agrees to follow the agreed upon conditions.
Now, in a society, perhaps as few as two people or as many as two billion, we like to think people can be held to their agreements. However, we then run into another truth of life, people are not perfect. People can be corrupted, lazy, selfish, in denial, envious, etc... These human conditions lead people to lying, cheating, sneaking and outright rebellion. It happens. It always has happened, it always will happen.
Not everyone, not all the time, but it could be anyone at any time.
What then when one or more people party to an agreement, subject to conditions, decides they do not want to abide by those rules anymore or at all?
If it happens enough or has negative enough ramifications to other parties, all to often an authority is established. A person or body of people who are tasked with or assume the role of law enforcement.
These folks have power. Whether given or taken. Whether tacit or implied. They have power in their authority to reconcile broken rules.
Let's toss out some platitudes. With great power comes great responsibility. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Those in power never willingly give up that power.
What has human history taught us again and again about authorities? It teaches us that in virtually every human society ever documented bodies of authority grow and bloat until society itself implodes and eliminates that authority. Then they do it all again.
This is said to be the very definition of "stupid" to do the same thing over and over, expecting different results every time. If not stupid, certainly naive.
Yet, it is one of those human conditions to seek out something, someone, to make things "fair". Even when we should know how it's going to end up, we simply can't help ourselves. It's built into us.
As humans, we seek safety and order. We know that if everyone follows the rules, like drivers taking turns at a stop sign, everything can get done with the least amount of damage and in the best (relatively) amount of time.
That's what it all boils down to. Let's do things so as not to unnecessarily endanger others or ourselves and do it in a way that is considered fair.
Two teenage guys, best friends since grade school. They make a rule, an agreement with each other. Don't let a girl come between us. Purely voluntary, entirely self enforced. Yet a rule all the same.
Essentially, this is the same thing as person one telling person two that they will do a certain service for them if person two gives person one something they find valuable in trade or compensation. The basic contract. It can cover exact details of the service provided, the exact price, the time frame, the consequences if things aren't performed as agreed or compensated as agreed. It's still a contract.
It's not a libertarian ideal to have no rules. No safety or no order. Libertarians just seek self enforcement any and every time it's possible. They wish to avoid authority enforcement if at all possible to prevent the inevitable power struggles that come with it.
If there is a need to bring someone else in, we want to be the ones who make that happen voluntarily. This is why libertarian minded folks prefer arbitration over government courts. We determine the authority figure specifically. It is there to meet a limited and specific need then that authority is removed from the scenario.
We would rather hire a contractor to enforce basic conduct rules like traffic laws and crime prevention and intervention. A contractor because then they too are bound by voluntary agreement to specific conditions and beyond that, their authority, on behalf of the other parties to the agreement, is null and void.
Can contractors be bribed or corrupted? Can they abuse their position? Only if they are human. If they are human then they can be subject to the same emotions, desires, impulses, irregularities, defects and deficiencies and impairments that every other human is subject to.
This is why libertarian minded people are often optimistic yet cautious. Hoping and working for the best but preparing for the worst.
We believe in concepts such as faith in our fellow people, but we keep a weather eye on them anyway. We believe in trust and promises made but we don't take them for granted. Trust must be earned. Promises are observed tentatively.
We believe in rules because we know that rules are necessary if not inevitable to successfully living with each other. But just because we know there must be rules doesn't mean we have to just shed the responsibility and expectations of self enforcement. Self discipline, self esteem.
By holding ourselves to a higher standard, we expect the same of others. But just because we have our heads in the clouds doesn't mean we can't watch our steps at the same time.
One of those things is rules or laws. People don't always like laws. It's not hard to understand why. Rules inhibit us, especially when we don't want to be inhibited.
However, at their most basic purpose, rules serve an important role in helping groups of two or more people to avoid unnecessary endangerment and help maintain order.
Now, rules come in two flavors, authority enforcement or self enforcement. Self enforcement is when two or more people voluntarily agree to rules to conduct actions and relationships.
Essentially, self enforcement is a contract in which everyone agrees to follow the agreed upon conditions.
Now, in a society, perhaps as few as two people or as many as two billion, we like to think people can be held to their agreements. However, we then run into another truth of life, people are not perfect. People can be corrupted, lazy, selfish, in denial, envious, etc... These human conditions lead people to lying, cheating, sneaking and outright rebellion. It happens. It always has happened, it always will happen.
Not everyone, not all the time, but it could be anyone at any time.
What then when one or more people party to an agreement, subject to conditions, decides they do not want to abide by those rules anymore or at all?
If it happens enough or has negative enough ramifications to other parties, all to often an authority is established. A person or body of people who are tasked with or assume the role of law enforcement.
These folks have power. Whether given or taken. Whether tacit or implied. They have power in their authority to reconcile broken rules.
Let's toss out some platitudes. With great power comes great responsibility. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Those in power never willingly give up that power.
What has human history taught us again and again about authorities? It teaches us that in virtually every human society ever documented bodies of authority grow and bloat until society itself implodes and eliminates that authority. Then they do it all again.
This is said to be the very definition of "stupid" to do the same thing over and over, expecting different results every time. If not stupid, certainly naive.
Yet, it is one of those human conditions to seek out something, someone, to make things "fair". Even when we should know how it's going to end up, we simply can't help ourselves. It's built into us.
As humans, we seek safety and order. We know that if everyone follows the rules, like drivers taking turns at a stop sign, everything can get done with the least amount of damage and in the best (relatively) amount of time.
That's what it all boils down to. Let's do things so as not to unnecessarily endanger others or ourselves and do it in a way that is considered fair.
Two teenage guys, best friends since grade school. They make a rule, an agreement with each other. Don't let a girl come between us. Purely voluntary, entirely self enforced. Yet a rule all the same.
Essentially, this is the same thing as person one telling person two that they will do a certain service for them if person two gives person one something they find valuable in trade or compensation. The basic contract. It can cover exact details of the service provided, the exact price, the time frame, the consequences if things aren't performed as agreed or compensated as agreed. It's still a contract.
It's not a libertarian ideal to have no rules. No safety or no order. Libertarians just seek self enforcement any and every time it's possible. They wish to avoid authority enforcement if at all possible to prevent the inevitable power struggles that come with it.
If there is a need to bring someone else in, we want to be the ones who make that happen voluntarily. This is why libertarian minded folks prefer arbitration over government courts. We determine the authority figure specifically. It is there to meet a limited and specific need then that authority is removed from the scenario.
We would rather hire a contractor to enforce basic conduct rules like traffic laws and crime prevention and intervention. A contractor because then they too are bound by voluntary agreement to specific conditions and beyond that, their authority, on behalf of the other parties to the agreement, is null and void.
Can contractors be bribed or corrupted? Can they abuse their position? Only if they are human. If they are human then they can be subject to the same emotions, desires, impulses, irregularities, defects and deficiencies and impairments that every other human is subject to.
This is why libertarian minded people are often optimistic yet cautious. Hoping and working for the best but preparing for the worst.
We believe in concepts such as faith in our fellow people, but we keep a weather eye on them anyway. We believe in trust and promises made but we don't take them for granted. Trust must be earned. Promises are observed tentatively.
We believe in rules because we know that rules are necessary if not inevitable to successfully living with each other. But just because we know there must be rules doesn't mean we have to just shed the responsibility and expectations of self enforcement. Self discipline, self esteem.
By holding ourselves to a higher standard, we expect the same of others. But just because we have our heads in the clouds doesn't mean we can't watch our steps at the same time.
Tuesday, August 23, 2016
A libertarian view of Rights
First of all, We need to recognize the difference between Rights and Privileges.
When we talk about Rights, we are usually talking about Human Rights. Meaning, those things referred to in the U.S. Declaration of Independence which are given to us by a force beyond the reckoning of mankind, thus, no man or group of men can deny or deprive those rights to any other person because they are "only" human, not having that power from whence those Rights are given.
Privileges are those earned by a variety of ways or even given for some participation or recognition for association or reward usually. Join a social club, members have certain rights that non-members do not have though non-members may have certain privileges by being guests of members that uninvited guests will not enjoy.
You do not have rights just because of your geographic origin or nationality in the U.S. You do not have rights because of your skin color or a language you speak. You do not have rights because of a disability that is recognized as debilitating.
You have Rights because you are a human, for no more and for no less a reason than that.
For the libertarian minded, we don't really care where you are from, what you look like, how you get your freak on, what genitalia you have, etc... to have your human rights recognized and respected. Those rights, to us, are indisputable.
When someone is denied or deprived of human rights for any reason, we oppose it. You don't have to prove to us why you like to get some kinky freak on or how you look the way you look or what happened to you to disable you, etc... We don't care because to us, it doesn't matter why. You are human, you are entitled to have your human rights recognized and respected. Period.
However, the moment you try to force acceptance of your personal preferences or how you have adapted in society as a result of your color, disability, who you prefer to have sex with, how you see yourself, etc... well now, we can revisit that 1st Amendment which says that you can express yourself how you like but you cannot "make" or force others to buy it, accept it, or believe it.
By forcing acceptance, all you really accomplish is alienating people who otherwise wouldn't really have given a rat's patoot but now you are violating the "Do what you want just don't get any one me" principle. I may personally find what someone does with their life disgusting, stupid and/or reprehensible. As long as they aren't harming anyone else or forcing someone else to live their life according to their own values and choices, then I will defend your basic human rights as vehemently as I would someone I favor greatly.
Human rights don't get to be played favorites.
If people could get that through their heads, we wouldn't have all this nit-wittery going on about rights for abcdefg, etc...
The libertarian minded folks don't necessarily get into stopping suppression of human rights because we support a lifework or skin color or whatever. It's not about being Pro whatever. It's about being AGAINST the violation of any basic human rights for whatever reason.
Don't mistake our support for human rights as support for your cause, condition, choice, etc.... In the end, we of the libertarian mentality really don't care about that. We just care that human rights are recognized and respected for ALL people.
When we talk about Rights, we are usually talking about Human Rights. Meaning, those things referred to in the U.S. Declaration of Independence which are given to us by a force beyond the reckoning of mankind, thus, no man or group of men can deny or deprive those rights to any other person because they are "only" human, not having that power from whence those Rights are given.
Privileges are those earned by a variety of ways or even given for some participation or recognition for association or reward usually. Join a social club, members have certain rights that non-members do not have though non-members may have certain privileges by being guests of members that uninvited guests will not enjoy.
You do not have rights just because of your geographic origin or nationality in the U.S. You do not have rights because of your skin color or a language you speak. You do not have rights because of a disability that is recognized as debilitating.
You have Rights because you are a human, for no more and for no less a reason than that.
For the libertarian minded, we don't really care where you are from, what you look like, how you get your freak on, what genitalia you have, etc... to have your human rights recognized and respected. Those rights, to us, are indisputable.
When someone is denied or deprived of human rights for any reason, we oppose it. You don't have to prove to us why you like to get some kinky freak on or how you look the way you look or what happened to you to disable you, etc... We don't care because to us, it doesn't matter why. You are human, you are entitled to have your human rights recognized and respected. Period.
However, the moment you try to force acceptance of your personal preferences or how you have adapted in society as a result of your color, disability, who you prefer to have sex with, how you see yourself, etc... well now, we can revisit that 1st Amendment which says that you can express yourself how you like but you cannot "make" or force others to buy it, accept it, or believe it.
By forcing acceptance, all you really accomplish is alienating people who otherwise wouldn't really have given a rat's patoot but now you are violating the "Do what you want just don't get any one me" principle. I may personally find what someone does with their life disgusting, stupid and/or reprehensible. As long as they aren't harming anyone else or forcing someone else to live their life according to their own values and choices, then I will defend your basic human rights as vehemently as I would someone I favor greatly.
Human rights don't get to be played favorites.
If people could get that through their heads, we wouldn't have all this nit-wittery going on about rights for abcdefg, etc...
The libertarian minded folks don't necessarily get into stopping suppression of human rights because we support a lifework or skin color or whatever. It's not about being Pro whatever. It's about being AGAINST the violation of any basic human rights for whatever reason.
Don't mistake our support for human rights as support for your cause, condition, choice, etc.... In the end, we of the libertarian mentality really don't care about that. We just care that human rights are recognized and respected for ALL people.
Saturday, August 20, 2016
A libertarian approach to science
To put it simply, the science is NEVER settled.
Most people I know who identify themselves as libertarian minded greatly appreciate scientific research, advance and the scientific process in general.
Something that we will not, perhaps cannot, abide is a close minded approach to science. The words "the science is settled" are some of the worst words we know.
Why do we abhor that mindset? Mostly because we know that science is indeed a process but it is a dependent process. It depends on objectivity, honesty, integrity, and a dedicated commitment to advancement.
We distrust the scientist who is not objective. We distrust human nature and the fallibility of mankind in being swayed by fame, fortune and self promotion.
We know that science is directly tied to technology. Our research and data is only as accurate as the tools and methods we use to collect them.
We know that 1,000 years of seemingly incontrovertible evidence can be overturned in a single day by using a new, more powerful and advanced tool to observe and measure than was available the day before.
We know that perspective can influence our methodology and by applying different approaches and concepts from sometimes seemingly unrelated areas, we can fundamentally change how something is understood.
Question everything. This doesn't mean be rude or confrontational. It just means be willing to consider that anything used previously to study something may change at any time. Be willing to pursue possibilities.
Any scientist or business or politician who demands that the science can not be questioned renders themselves immediately untrustworthy to the libertarian minded observer.
We see them as egotistical and potentially motivated by monetary or political influences.
The science is NEVER settled and must always be questioned. Every aspect of it. From the formation of the first hypothesis to the tools and methods in how it is tested, observed, measured and documented.
We trust the "pure" scientific process as it allows for being questioned and being objective as a built-in feature. We do not trust human nature to be counted on to always get it right.
Most people I know who identify themselves as libertarian minded greatly appreciate scientific research, advance and the scientific process in general.
Something that we will not, perhaps cannot, abide is a close minded approach to science. The words "the science is settled" are some of the worst words we know.
Why do we abhor that mindset? Mostly because we know that science is indeed a process but it is a dependent process. It depends on objectivity, honesty, integrity, and a dedicated commitment to advancement.
We distrust the scientist who is not objective. We distrust human nature and the fallibility of mankind in being swayed by fame, fortune and self promotion.
We know that science is directly tied to technology. Our research and data is only as accurate as the tools and methods we use to collect them.
We know that 1,000 years of seemingly incontrovertible evidence can be overturned in a single day by using a new, more powerful and advanced tool to observe and measure than was available the day before.
We know that perspective can influence our methodology and by applying different approaches and concepts from sometimes seemingly unrelated areas, we can fundamentally change how something is understood.
Question everything. This doesn't mean be rude or confrontational. It just means be willing to consider that anything used previously to study something may change at any time. Be willing to pursue possibilities.
Any scientist or business or politician who demands that the science can not be questioned renders themselves immediately untrustworthy to the libertarian minded observer.
We see them as egotistical and potentially motivated by monetary or political influences.
The science is NEVER settled and must always be questioned. Every aspect of it. From the formation of the first hypothesis to the tools and methods in how it is tested, observed, measured and documented.
We trust the "pure" scientific process as it allows for being questioned and being objective as a built-in feature. We do not trust human nature to be counted on to always get it right.
Sunday, August 14, 2016
The Logical Case For God In The U.S. Founding Documents
First of all, this isn't a discussion to promote the religious concept of a grandfatherly deity. This doesn't presume to insist that anyone needs to even have a religious affiliation or even believe in any deity by any name.
What it does do is to point to conceptual agreement that in order for men, in the "human" context, to appreciate that no other man has the ability to hold dominion over others because the rights of all men come from a source that is above and beyond the ability of men to overrule.
To use the term "God given Rights" as presented in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, is to say that some authority is the source of said rights that cannot nor should not be interrupted by other men.
Call them "Natural" rights if the terminology "feels" better but give respect to the idea that there is a recognized source of those basic human rights that no government, religious or social organization or any conclave or individual man can interfere with.
Be atheistic, agnostic, spiritualistic, religious all you want, but recognize that neither you or any group of people, regardless of majority, can cancel, veto or negate any individual's basic human rights. They inherently lack the authority to do so.
For many, if not most, people there is an acceptance of some type of supernatural relationship to a sentient, intelligent creator or force typically referred to as "God" or many other names.
Lacking any supernatural recognition, it is still reasonable to accept that wherever or however mankind has come about, the general force of Nature in and of itself has provided that each person is born their own person and that no one has an inherent right to dominion over any other. For convenience and discussion's sake let's call that force "God" it serves the same purpose of identifying a source beyond that of mankind.
Personally, I don't give a rat's patoot what you refer to that source as, as long as it is fundamentally recognized. Without that recognition and acceptance, there cannot be liberty.
What it does do is to point to conceptual agreement that in order for men, in the "human" context, to appreciate that no other man has the ability to hold dominion over others because the rights of all men come from a source that is above and beyond the ability of men to overrule.
To use the term "God given Rights" as presented in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, is to say that some authority is the source of said rights that cannot nor should not be interrupted by other men.
Call them "Natural" rights if the terminology "feels" better but give respect to the idea that there is a recognized source of those basic human rights that no government, religious or social organization or any conclave or individual man can interfere with.
Be atheistic, agnostic, spiritualistic, religious all you want, but recognize that neither you or any group of people, regardless of majority, can cancel, veto or negate any individual's basic human rights. They inherently lack the authority to do so.
For many, if not most, people there is an acceptance of some type of supernatural relationship to a sentient, intelligent creator or force typically referred to as "God" or many other names.
Lacking any supernatural recognition, it is still reasonable to accept that wherever or however mankind has come about, the general force of Nature in and of itself has provided that each person is born their own person and that no one has an inherent right to dominion over any other. For convenience and discussion's sake let's call that force "God" it serves the same purpose of identifying a source beyond that of mankind.
Personally, I don't give a rat's patoot what you refer to that source as, as long as it is fundamentally recognized. Without that recognition and acceptance, there cannot be liberty.
Tuesday, August 9, 2016
Barter is Better
I have no faith in "money".
I don't care what kind of money it is. I don't even trust bitcoin.
Why? Mostly because it boils down to someone else trying to tell me what I should find valuable. Other people, groups, businesses, governments, pre-determine the value of money before you even see it. That includes bitcoin.
Barter however, let's me decide what is valuable to me. You may find something not very valuable because you have no use for it. I may see that thing you have no need or want for and think it is the very thing I have been looking for.
I may be willing to barter or trade something I have, make or do that you find valuable in order to have that thing you do not think of as valuable as I do and call it fair.
I decide what is valuable to me. You decide what is valuable to you. No one else is involved.
Only barter allows for that. Money does not. It cannot. It's value has already been determined.
I tolerate money because it is the currency of society. Yet I barter every chance I can. That way I get to decide exactly what I think is a fair value for myself.
I don't care what kind of money it is. I don't even trust bitcoin.
Why? Mostly because it boils down to someone else trying to tell me what I should find valuable. Other people, groups, businesses, governments, pre-determine the value of money before you even see it. That includes bitcoin.
Barter however, let's me decide what is valuable to me. You may find something not very valuable because you have no use for it. I may see that thing you have no need or want for and think it is the very thing I have been looking for.
I may be willing to barter or trade something I have, make or do that you find valuable in order to have that thing you do not think of as valuable as I do and call it fair.
I decide what is valuable to me. You decide what is valuable to you. No one else is involved.
Only barter allows for that. Money does not. It cannot. It's value has already been determined.
I tolerate money because it is the currency of society. Yet I barter every chance I can. That way I get to decide exactly what I think is a fair value for myself.
Idealistic Yet Realistic
Libertarians can maybe be boiled down to this;
We are idealistic enough to believe that people are capable of self control, self discipline and being a good person that we should not need a government to babysit and be overseers.
We are realistic enough to know that despite our potential, people are also irrational, unreasonable, unmotivated and undisciplined for a variety of reasons ranging from biological and mental disorders to some people are just assholes.
Because of that, we are willing to tolerate an objective third party to be an impartial referee when conflicts between individuals and groups of people arise.
We know that much as we can't hold our breath on it, we have to give some level of trust to this third party to step in and keep things right.
However, we can't help but be disappointed time and time again when that third party forgets it's place and goes too far, betraying the trust we give them.
Being idealistic still, we have to believe that somewhere out there are the most consistent rational, reasonable, disciplined people who can be counted on to do things the way they should be done. So, we sigh, shrug our shoulders, and try again.
Libertarians know what the best is that people can be. We also know that people are not perfect and far too many people don't even make the effort to be the best person they can be.
It's frustrating to be so idealistic about people's potential and so painfully aware of the likelihood of failure of people and government run amok at the same time.
But, to give up our ideals and stop believing in the potential in people is just not something we can settle with. We want to believe people don't "need" government, yet we can't deny that people can't always be counted on to be in control of themselves enough to not need at least a minimal government.
But even in a world where no people were selfish, lazy, greedy or just plain assholes, people still suffer from insanity, chemical imbalances, anger, desperation, dire circumstances out of their control (drought being one example), and other things we are prone to dealing with as human beings.
We complain about the state and the seemingly inevitable problem of "who polices the police". Yet when given a situation of just a bunch of people doing things cooperatively and privately, we still have the same problems of favoritism, nepotism, racism, sexism, etc that pit people against people.
Who steps in as a private sector third party to address those things that will not be corrupted to back their buddy or their son or play favorites, etc...?
Be it government or private sector, these are human problems and hating on government as though it solely is vulnerable to these things is being in denial of reality.
We, as libertarians, can only keep working to educate other people about self ownership, free association, and other ideals that motivate people to be self controlled, disciplined, responsible and respectful.
We need to have our ideals to give us goals and something to work for and be hopeful for.
We need to be realistic and practical and honest with ourselves to hope for the best but prepare for the worst.
It's a balancing act to be a libertarian. Just enough idealism and just enough acceptance of reality.
We are idealistic enough to believe that people are capable of self control, self discipline and being a good person that we should not need a government to babysit and be overseers.
We are realistic enough to know that despite our potential, people are also irrational, unreasonable, unmotivated and undisciplined for a variety of reasons ranging from biological and mental disorders to some people are just assholes.
Because of that, we are willing to tolerate an objective third party to be an impartial referee when conflicts between individuals and groups of people arise.
We know that much as we can't hold our breath on it, we have to give some level of trust to this third party to step in and keep things right.
However, we can't help but be disappointed time and time again when that third party forgets it's place and goes too far, betraying the trust we give them.
Being idealistic still, we have to believe that somewhere out there are the most consistent rational, reasonable, disciplined people who can be counted on to do things the way they should be done. So, we sigh, shrug our shoulders, and try again.
Libertarians know what the best is that people can be. We also know that people are not perfect and far too many people don't even make the effort to be the best person they can be.
It's frustrating to be so idealistic about people's potential and so painfully aware of the likelihood of failure of people and government run amok at the same time.
But, to give up our ideals and stop believing in the potential in people is just not something we can settle with. We want to believe people don't "need" government, yet we can't deny that people can't always be counted on to be in control of themselves enough to not need at least a minimal government.
But even in a world where no people were selfish, lazy, greedy or just plain assholes, people still suffer from insanity, chemical imbalances, anger, desperation, dire circumstances out of their control (drought being one example), and other things we are prone to dealing with as human beings.
We complain about the state and the seemingly inevitable problem of "who polices the police". Yet when given a situation of just a bunch of people doing things cooperatively and privately, we still have the same problems of favoritism, nepotism, racism, sexism, etc that pit people against people.
Who steps in as a private sector third party to address those things that will not be corrupted to back their buddy or their son or play favorites, etc...?
Be it government or private sector, these are human problems and hating on government as though it solely is vulnerable to these things is being in denial of reality.
We, as libertarians, can only keep working to educate other people about self ownership, free association, and other ideals that motivate people to be self controlled, disciplined, responsible and respectful.
We need to have our ideals to give us goals and something to work for and be hopeful for.
We need to be realistic and practical and honest with ourselves to hope for the best but prepare for the worst.
It's a balancing act to be a libertarian. Just enough idealism and just enough acceptance of reality.
Sunday, August 7, 2016
The Libertarian Party is not this libertarian's party
The Libertarian Party is a political party whose purpose is to get people elected. Like any other party, they have a party platform which details the ideals, motivations, goals and objectives of the party and what they expect of the people they endorse and assist in getting elected.
Also like any other political party, it is a collection or generalized umbrella for a wide spectrum of people ranging from one extreme to the other in how they see, interpret and put into practice their libertarianism. It is all inclusive, like every other party in order to get as many people involved in pushing the people they endorse into elected office.
There are the total extremist whacking who naturally get all the attention because of their outlandish antics and seemingly nonsensical comments. These range from the anarchists wanting no government or "State" whatsoever to the "near-beer" constitutional republicans.
Most of the people are likely regular, average, reasonable and practical people looking for someone to represent their views in the place they live. They just want to have more individual liberty, freedom of association, minimal, if any, unnecessary government intrusion or dictation.
More than likely, most of the "average" libertarians" are not affiliated with the Libertarian or any other political party because they want representatives who represent all of the people in their district, state, etc... and not just one group of people.
This is where we hear about "lowercase l" libertarians vs "uppercase L" Libertarians. The uppercase L Libertarians are those affiliated with the Libertarian political party. Lowercase l libertarians usually have no political party affiliation and see libertarianism as a lifestyle more than a political ideology.
I, for example, am a lowercase l libertarian. I have never registered for any political party let alone the Libertarian Party. I never will. I hold the ideals of free will, individual liberty, personal responsibility and self determination too close to my heart to say my libertarian values were merely political.
Please don't make the mistake that the Libertarian party is reflective or representative of all or even most libertarians or libertarianism. It is a political vehicle only and far too often and too easily compromises it's proclaimed values in the effort to get someone elected with a capital L next to their name.
Also like any other political party, it is a collection or generalized umbrella for a wide spectrum of people ranging from one extreme to the other in how they see, interpret and put into practice their libertarianism. It is all inclusive, like every other party in order to get as many people involved in pushing the people they endorse into elected office.
There are the total extremist whacking who naturally get all the attention because of their outlandish antics and seemingly nonsensical comments. These range from the anarchists wanting no government or "State" whatsoever to the "near-beer" constitutional republicans.
Most of the people are likely regular, average, reasonable and practical people looking for someone to represent their views in the place they live. They just want to have more individual liberty, freedom of association, minimal, if any, unnecessary government intrusion or dictation.
More than likely, most of the "average" libertarians" are not affiliated with the Libertarian or any other political party because they want representatives who represent all of the people in their district, state, etc... and not just one group of people.
This is where we hear about "lowercase l" libertarians vs "uppercase L" Libertarians. The uppercase L Libertarians are those affiliated with the Libertarian political party. Lowercase l libertarians usually have no political party affiliation and see libertarianism as a lifestyle more than a political ideology.
I, for example, am a lowercase l libertarian. I have never registered for any political party let alone the Libertarian Party. I never will. I hold the ideals of free will, individual liberty, personal responsibility and self determination too close to my heart to say my libertarian values were merely political.
Please don't make the mistake that the Libertarian party is reflective or representative of all or even most libertarians or libertarianism. It is a political vehicle only and far too often and too easily compromises it's proclaimed values in the effort to get someone elected with a capital L next to their name.
Voluntary vs Volunteer
Far too often, people who for whatever reason don't "get" being libertarian, feel the need to bash the very notion of it because of misunderstandings of terms like "voluntary" as related to "volunteer".
When libertarians talk about voluntary, we are talking about something being a choice without coercion or force. We do something because we choose to do it of our own free will or we choose not to do something of our own free will.
This is obviously not the same thing as volunteering to do something as opposed to being conscripted, drafted, enslaved, given few or no other options. No one should be picked up off the street, tossed into a truck and forcibly taken to a military induction center.
For example, our military is a voluntary military. That means that people join the military by their own choice. People who have joined the military are not volunteers though because they are being paid to do the job. As opposed to being told that they have to do everything with only the basics provided but with no pay or other compensation.
There can be are frequently are things people do which are both voluntary and volunteer. For example, say you join a local beekeeping club and when the opportunity comes up to be part of an unpaid team to regularly maintain a property used for keeping "training hives", you participate in that project.
You have made a voluntary choice to join because no one made you, forced you, corrected you into agreeing to participate in that project. You are participating as a volunteer because the only compensation you receive is for your personal satisfaction and sense of community.
Often it is lamented that people nowadays are neither very interested in voluntary association nor volunteer participation. Quite frequently, inducements have to be made to incentivize participation or in some cases, threats and negative consequences.
Here is where the idealistic libertarian contrasts to a progressive or conservative. A libertarian is involved because they see something they want to see done isn't being done, and so because they want it and don't mind sharing, they do it. They will usually do it until one of a few things happens.
The progressive believes something "should" be done but doesn't want to do it alone or themselves. There they make the effort to "make" others participate even if against their will.
Conservatives also believe something "should" be done and that everyone should do it or others should be made to do it as well because of tradition or nationalism or some religious doctrine demands it, etc...
Libertarians figure that people shouldn't have to be bribed to do something they "should" be doing. They also shouldn't be forced to do those things either. If people don't want to do the work, they take the risk of missing out on something they might need or want.
Progressives and Conservatives think that if something is important enough to a majority of people or even to enough of the "right" people, then it's justifiable to "make" everyone or certain groups of people do that.
That is the guts of talking about voluntary vs volunteer. Libertarians believe in voluntary association and we believe in letting people take the consequences related to their free will choices. Whether those consequences are "good" or "bad" is something the person making the choice should have taken into consideration when making that decision.
That of course leads us into ensuring that people have the necessary information available and accessible to make an informed decision. Another discussion for another time.
When libertarians talk about voluntary, we are talking about something being a choice without coercion or force. We do something because we choose to do it of our own free will or we choose not to do something of our own free will.
This is obviously not the same thing as volunteering to do something as opposed to being conscripted, drafted, enslaved, given few or no other options. No one should be picked up off the street, tossed into a truck and forcibly taken to a military induction center.
For example, our military is a voluntary military. That means that people join the military by their own choice. People who have joined the military are not volunteers though because they are being paid to do the job. As opposed to being told that they have to do everything with only the basics provided but with no pay or other compensation.
There can be are frequently are things people do which are both voluntary and volunteer. For example, say you join a local beekeeping club and when the opportunity comes up to be part of an unpaid team to regularly maintain a property used for keeping "training hives", you participate in that project.
You have made a voluntary choice to join because no one made you, forced you, corrected you into agreeing to participate in that project. You are participating as a volunteer because the only compensation you receive is for your personal satisfaction and sense of community.
Often it is lamented that people nowadays are neither very interested in voluntary association nor volunteer participation. Quite frequently, inducements have to be made to incentivize participation or in some cases, threats and negative consequences.
Here is where the idealistic libertarian contrasts to a progressive or conservative. A libertarian is involved because they see something they want to see done isn't being done, and so because they want it and don't mind sharing, they do it. They will usually do it until one of a few things happens.
- They get burned out trying to do it all by themself and it's simply too much for one or few people.
- They get what they want out of it and there is no one else come forward expressing interest in the same.
- Enough other people participate that the project can keep going without them to "keep it alive"
- Their interest or need wanes.
The progressive believes something "should" be done but doesn't want to do it alone or themselves. There they make the effort to "make" others participate even if against their will.
Conservatives also believe something "should" be done and that everyone should do it or others should be made to do it as well because of tradition or nationalism or some religious doctrine demands it, etc...
Libertarians figure that people shouldn't have to be bribed to do something they "should" be doing. They also shouldn't be forced to do those things either. If people don't want to do the work, they take the risk of missing out on something they might need or want.
Progressives and Conservatives think that if something is important enough to a majority of people or even to enough of the "right" people, then it's justifiable to "make" everyone or certain groups of people do that.
That is the guts of talking about voluntary vs volunteer. Libertarians believe in voluntary association and we believe in letting people take the consequences related to their free will choices. Whether those consequences are "good" or "bad" is something the person making the choice should have taken into consideration when making that decision.
That of course leads us into ensuring that people have the necessary information available and accessible to make an informed decision. Another discussion for another time.
Friday, July 22, 2016
Taking small steps towards liberty
Yes, I agree, Gary Johnson is a "softball" libertarian. Not the ideal face for libertarians. Certainly not as good as Rand Paul.
Having said that, in this election, there is no one more qualified to bring a "more libertarian" position to the executive office than Gary Johnson. He will bring a much more liberty oriented presidency than either of those representing the dems or reps.
Look at it as taking "small steps" toward a more libertarian approach giving people a chance to see how much better it can be than the slight "taste" they get with Johnson.
It could be just the catalyst for a Rand Paul or even an Austin Petersen the next time. Meanwhile, we are still worlds better than with the other candidates.
He may not be the ideal libertarian but then ideals are just that. They are something to strive for, work toward. Johnson is only the most likely first step in a journey to more liberty.
I would rather vote for Gary Johnson representing those first steps toward more libertarian representatives than vote for, or even against, the others up against him.
Having said that, in this election, there is no one more qualified to bring a "more libertarian" position to the executive office than Gary Johnson. He will bring a much more liberty oriented presidency than either of those representing the dems or reps.
Look at it as taking "small steps" toward a more libertarian approach giving people a chance to see how much better it can be than the slight "taste" they get with Johnson.
It could be just the catalyst for a Rand Paul or even an Austin Petersen the next time. Meanwhile, we are still worlds better than with the other candidates.
He may not be the ideal libertarian but then ideals are just that. They are something to strive for, work toward. Johnson is only the most likely first step in a journey to more liberty.
I would rather vote for Gary Johnson representing those first steps toward more libertarian representatives than vote for, or even against, the others up against him.
Saturday, July 9, 2016
On Being Libertarian
Personally, I see there being affiliated with a political party called Libertarian and living one's life being libertarian as two sometimes very different things.
"Liberty" is defined as not having government, religious, social, cultural, etc groups dictate how you live. Each individual has the natural, God given right to live their own life and make their own choices.
Being libertarian is to apply the ideal of liberty to your life. You take the initiative to be educated and informed and to make the best choices and decisions in your life, letting no one one take that away from you. You make every effort to not control other people's lives.
To be a Libertarian is to affiliate with a political party supposedly to encourage the principles and ideals of individual liberty for everyone. I say supposedly because political parties being what they are, often find themselves compromising those principles and values far too much in order to gain public attention, funding and to push for people to get elected. That is the reason political parties exist, is to get people elected.
For example, I see myself as libertarian but not as a Libertarian. I do not participate in or affiliate with political parties.
While I fully support everyone's efforts to be libertarian and to have the freedoms associated with Liberty, I cannot, being libertarian try to force anyone else to live their own life similarly. There are people who personally believe in sacrificing liberty and it's associated freedoms for safety, surety and security. That's their choice. If they can find someone willing to provide that for them, knock themselves out for all I care. As long as it's voluntary. They should have chosen that relationship not have it forced or coerced on them.
Examples of that kind of lifestyle are those who live in monasteries and dedicate their lives to service in a religious or other group that offers a communal, shared life.
Have at it, I say. Just don't get any on me or mine.
"Liberty" is defined as not having government, religious, social, cultural, etc groups dictate how you live. Each individual has the natural, God given right to live their own life and make their own choices.
Being libertarian is to apply the ideal of liberty to your life. You take the initiative to be educated and informed and to make the best choices and decisions in your life, letting no one one take that away from you. You make every effort to not control other people's lives.
To be a Libertarian is to affiliate with a political party supposedly to encourage the principles and ideals of individual liberty for everyone. I say supposedly because political parties being what they are, often find themselves compromising those principles and values far too much in order to gain public attention, funding and to push for people to get elected. That is the reason political parties exist, is to get people elected.
For example, I see myself as libertarian but not as a Libertarian. I do not participate in or affiliate with political parties.
While I fully support everyone's efforts to be libertarian and to have the freedoms associated with Liberty, I cannot, being libertarian try to force anyone else to live their own life similarly. There are people who personally believe in sacrificing liberty and it's associated freedoms for safety, surety and security. That's their choice. If they can find someone willing to provide that for them, knock themselves out for all I care. As long as it's voluntary. They should have chosen that relationship not have it forced or coerced on them.
Examples of that kind of lifestyle are those who live in monasteries and dedicate their lives to service in a religious or other group that offers a communal, shared life.
Have at it, I say. Just don't get any on me or mine.
Take the initiative and treat people right
It's fairly common to hear people say that they treat people based on how the other person treats them first. That if someone wants to be treated respectfully, they must show respect to them first.
On it's face, that is correct. However, it puts the first person in a reactionary position. They are depending on someone else to dictate their own behavior.
Let's consider some truths about the human condition.
If you treat someone as incapable, eventually they will behave as incapable.
If you treat someone as a criminal, eventually they will behave criminally.
People become that which they are treated.
Yes, people should earn respect by being respectful. However, it is something that shouldn't be used as a criteria of initial judgement by one person of another.
By automatically assuming that someone must demonstrate respect you you before you to them, you have effectively placed a value on yourself that a supposed that you are more important or special or valuable than the other person and somehow, the other person must earn your good graces.
If all people are created equal, then we should assume no homage is due us before we behave in what we already know to be the right way.
In other words, we should each take the initiative to act right and treat other people right in the effort to show the world that you do indeed deserve respect based on your own display of behaving with respect.
No one inherently owes another person anything. That is because no one is born more or less valuable than another person.
While I personally find police departments to be suspect and tools of government oppression, the individual people who become police officers, by and large, are people who believe they are being good people doing a job that inherently deals with other people at their worst behavior. An unenviable position to be sure.
Not all cops are crooked or racist or abusive of power. Not all people of various races, ethnicities or skin colors are criminals or hateful or beneath dignity.
For me, being libertarian means having ideals. It means that I expect people to behave themselves and to be capable of behaving themselves as capable, responsible, reasonable, rational, good people.
We know, if we pay attention to life experience, that people will behave as they are treated and expected to behave. Demanding that others must prove themselves to you before knowing anything about them is not a very libertarian way to be.
On it's face, that is correct. However, it puts the first person in a reactionary position. They are depending on someone else to dictate their own behavior.
Let's consider some truths about the human condition.
If you treat someone as incapable, eventually they will behave as incapable.
If you treat someone as a criminal, eventually they will behave criminally.
People become that which they are treated.
Yes, people should earn respect by being respectful. However, it is something that shouldn't be used as a criteria of initial judgement by one person of another.
By automatically assuming that someone must demonstrate respect you you before you to them, you have effectively placed a value on yourself that a supposed that you are more important or special or valuable than the other person and somehow, the other person must earn your good graces.
If all people are created equal, then we should assume no homage is due us before we behave in what we already know to be the right way.
In other words, we should each take the initiative to act right and treat other people right in the effort to show the world that you do indeed deserve respect based on your own display of behaving with respect.
No one inherently owes another person anything. That is because no one is born more or less valuable than another person.
While I personally find police departments to be suspect and tools of government oppression, the individual people who become police officers, by and large, are people who believe they are being good people doing a job that inherently deals with other people at their worst behavior. An unenviable position to be sure.
Not all cops are crooked or racist or abusive of power. Not all people of various races, ethnicities or skin colors are criminals or hateful or beneath dignity.
For me, being libertarian means having ideals. It means that I expect people to behave themselves and to be capable of behaving themselves as capable, responsible, reasonable, rational, good people.
We know, if we pay attention to life experience, that people will behave as they are treated and expected to behave. Demanding that others must prove themselves to you before knowing anything about them is not a very libertarian way to be.
Wednesday, July 6, 2016
libertarian idealism
I have often and frequently said that the biggest disagreement that I have with anarchists is that I think they are too idealistic that people can be counted on to not have a "government" designed to play the objective" and neutral "referee". Too many times, due to the nature of the human condition, people cannot be counted on to maintain rational, reasonable and responsible conduct.
We are creatures of to many hard to control inputs. Biological chemicals course through us, affecting our thinking. Emotions too easily override rational behavior. Hormonal imbalances can impair our reasoning.
It's not that I think that people in general are too stupid or incapable of the level and degree of self control necessary to have a society without government, just that there are too many ways that people find themselves not in full control of themselves and to accommodate for that, we need to have a body that can take action to deal with the person or groups of people who would intentionally or unintentionally violate the safety and well being of everyone else.
Having said that, I also believe that just being libertarian requires a certain amount of idealism as well. For the "everyday" libertarian, we have basic expectations we place first on ourselves and secondly those around us. These expectations are ideal in nature.
We minimally expect people to support themselves to the best of their abilities and not just expect society to do it for us on default.
We expect people to respect property rights. The old saying that if it doesn't belong to you, you keep your hands off it. Ask before you "borrow", don't steal from others. We shouldn't have to nail or chain everything down or lock it up for fear of it being stolen. An ideal for sure, but not an unreasonable one.
We also generally hold the ideal of making the effort to be our best. We believe in setting the "bar" pretty high as a goal to reach and always work, train, practice, etc... to reach the goal. Once the goal is achieved, we raise the bar again.
Ideals are the bar, the goals we set to be better than we are. To be the best we can be. Will we always reach or achieve those goals and ideals? Because of the human condition I mentioned earlier, the answer is definitely not. However, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't make the effort. It is always worth the effort to strive to be our best.
I doubt anyone will argue that ideals are of little to no value or not worth having and making the effort to achieve. We should hold to our ideals. It is our ideals that make us who and what we are as a person.
However, we need to be reasonable and realistic about our ideals and the practicality of them. It's great to set a high bar, but if it's physically not humanly possible to reach that bar, then the ideal is impractical. Essentially by setting the bar too high or having ideals that simply cannot be realized, we set ourselves up for failure from the beginning.
To me, the primary difference between libertarians and anarchists is that anarchists set the bar too high. Both of us value idealism, personal responsibility and individual liberty.
We are creatures of to many hard to control inputs. Biological chemicals course through us, affecting our thinking. Emotions too easily override rational behavior. Hormonal imbalances can impair our reasoning.
It's not that I think that people in general are too stupid or incapable of the level and degree of self control necessary to have a society without government, just that there are too many ways that people find themselves not in full control of themselves and to accommodate for that, we need to have a body that can take action to deal with the person or groups of people who would intentionally or unintentionally violate the safety and well being of everyone else.
Having said that, I also believe that just being libertarian requires a certain amount of idealism as well. For the "everyday" libertarian, we have basic expectations we place first on ourselves and secondly those around us. These expectations are ideal in nature.
We minimally expect people to support themselves to the best of their abilities and not just expect society to do it for us on default.
We expect people to respect property rights. The old saying that if it doesn't belong to you, you keep your hands off it. Ask before you "borrow", don't steal from others. We shouldn't have to nail or chain everything down or lock it up for fear of it being stolen. An ideal for sure, but not an unreasonable one.
We also generally hold the ideal of making the effort to be our best. We believe in setting the "bar" pretty high as a goal to reach and always work, train, practice, etc... to reach the goal. Once the goal is achieved, we raise the bar again.
Ideals are the bar, the goals we set to be better than we are. To be the best we can be. Will we always reach or achieve those goals and ideals? Because of the human condition I mentioned earlier, the answer is definitely not. However, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't make the effort. It is always worth the effort to strive to be our best.
I doubt anyone will argue that ideals are of little to no value or not worth having and making the effort to achieve. We should hold to our ideals. It is our ideals that make us who and what we are as a person.
However, we need to be reasonable and realistic about our ideals and the practicality of them. It's great to set a high bar, but if it's physically not humanly possible to reach that bar, then the ideal is impractical. Essentially by setting the bar too high or having ideals that simply cannot be realized, we set ourselves up for failure from the beginning.
To me, the primary difference between libertarians and anarchists is that anarchists set the bar too high. Both of us value idealism, personal responsibility and individual liberty.
Thursday, June 23, 2016
The Second Amendment, A Closer Look
First of I'd like to go back to an earlier post here and point out that the Rights we refer to in the Constitution and consequently the Bill of Rights are not granted by the government. These are Natural or God given rights that the founding documents recognize as inherent.
This is extreme important in understanding the context of the Constitution. First thing I want to point out is that the 2nd amendment refers to the right to "keep and bear arms". "Arms" is broader than and inclusive of "firearms". That means that guns, firearms, are just one type of arms or weapons that people are understood to have the right to have.
Arms also includes blades, spears, bow and arrow, etc... These are all weapons, or arms, that are readily and universally identified. So the Second Amendment shouldn't be construed as limited to guns.
Let's get back to identifying context again. If the Constitution is based on recognizing natural or God given rights, how does that relate to arms? Because the Right to Life MUST include the means to defend it and sustain it. The natural or God given Right to Liberty MUST include the ability and means to defend it and maintain it.
Arms are a, if not THE, primary means to accomplish those things. To deny the means, tools and know-how to defend and sustain/maintain our God given Rights is to deny that we have those natural or God given Rights to begin with.
So, the Second Amendment says;
"Because we need people to be ready and able to fight for their Right to live in freedom, to be able to defend that freedom, we want to make sure people have the means to do that and nobody will get in the way."
Because we have been told by the authors of the Constitution in their own words (see the Federalist Papers as just one example as well as the personal journals and letters of those people who go into much greater detail) the Militia referred to are the people themselves. There is no greater fighting force on Earth than one who is armed and ready behind every door. The Emperor of Japan figured this out the hard way.
Now, again, using the context which is provided by both the Declaration of Independence and by the framers, this is not exclusive to firearms thus it is not delimited to specific types of firearms. That would be ridiculously out of context.
As many have pointed out, arms are no more defined and delimited by the Second Amendment than the means of communication are by the First Amendment. The example of guns being limited to the technology of the time would then mean computers and advanced printing technology, 3D printers for example, would be unusable by the citizenry as well.
Remember people, the founding documents are founded on individual rights. Each individual has the God given rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, among others. Each individual thus has the correlating responsibilities for exercising those Rights.
To put it short and sweet, "Do what you want as long as you don't get any on me." The responsibility we have pertaining to having and exercising our God given Rights is to do no harm to the next individual.
Rights do not come without responsibility. It is NOT the government's place in this country to grant us our Rights nor is it the government's place to dictate or deny our responsibilities.
I will end this the way it began.
"The Rights we refer to in the Constitution and consequently the Bill of Rights are not granted by the government. These are Natural or God given rights that the founding documents recognize as inherent."
This is extreme important in understanding the context of the Constitution. First thing I want to point out is that the 2nd amendment refers to the right to "keep and bear arms". "Arms" is broader than and inclusive of "firearms". That means that guns, firearms, are just one type of arms or weapons that people are understood to have the right to have.
Arms also includes blades, spears, bow and arrow, etc... These are all weapons, or arms, that are readily and universally identified. So the Second Amendment shouldn't be construed as limited to guns.
Let's get back to identifying context again. If the Constitution is based on recognizing natural or God given rights, how does that relate to arms? Because the Right to Life MUST include the means to defend it and sustain it. The natural or God given Right to Liberty MUST include the ability and means to defend it and maintain it.
Arms are a, if not THE, primary means to accomplish those things. To deny the means, tools and know-how to defend and sustain/maintain our God given Rights is to deny that we have those natural or God given Rights to begin with.
So, the Second Amendment says;
For those not understanding the nature of contractual writing, and the Constitution IS a contract, this says that
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
"Because we need people to be ready and able to fight for their Right to live in freedom, to be able to defend that freedom, we want to make sure people have the means to do that and nobody will get in the way."
Because we have been told by the authors of the Constitution in their own words (see the Federalist Papers as just one example as well as the personal journals and letters of those people who go into much greater detail) the Militia referred to are the people themselves. There is no greater fighting force on Earth than one who is armed and ready behind every door. The Emperor of Japan figured this out the hard way.
Now, again, using the context which is provided by both the Declaration of Independence and by the framers, this is not exclusive to firearms thus it is not delimited to specific types of firearms. That would be ridiculously out of context.
As many have pointed out, arms are no more defined and delimited by the Second Amendment than the means of communication are by the First Amendment. The example of guns being limited to the technology of the time would then mean computers and advanced printing technology, 3D printers for example, would be unusable by the citizenry as well.
Remember people, the founding documents are founded on individual rights. Each individual has the God given rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, among others. Each individual thus has the correlating responsibilities for exercising those Rights.
To put it short and sweet, "Do what you want as long as you don't get any on me." The responsibility we have pertaining to having and exercising our God given Rights is to do no harm to the next individual.
Rights do not come without responsibility. It is NOT the government's place in this country to grant us our Rights nor is it the government's place to dictate or deny our responsibilities.
I will end this the way it began.
"The Rights we refer to in the Constitution and consequently the Bill of Rights are not granted by the government. These are Natural or God given rights that the founding documents recognize as inherent."
Tuesday, June 14, 2016
Rights are not "rights"
It seems as though we have a lot of people who are either ignorant of the founding documents or are willfully ignorant or just in plain denial.
Always going back to the basic point that we don't just take the Constitution on it's own but in the context as provided by the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration tells us "why", the Constitution tells us "how". We need to remind those ignorant of history that the rights we have are not granted by government.
In the U.S., the rights, actual rights, not to be confused with privileges, are not granted or given to people by the government. They are given to people by God (A higher authority than people and identified in that way) and recognized by government.
Rights belong to all people, privileges belong to a membership. As identified in the Declaration of Independence, people have the God given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (among others). The government cannot interfere with those rights. It can NOT legislate in ways that exclude people from those rights.
The first amendment is very much tied to the right to liberty. Free speech, free press, religion, assembly, and petitioning the government.
The second amendment is very much tied to right to life. You have the right to defend your life and to sustain your life. (Defense and hunting at the least).
So, for all you that talk about repealing these amendments as if they are nothing more than clubhouse rules, you are incorrect. These are representative of the God given Rights of each person and the Constitution exists to uphold those rights from the popularity swings of a mob majority that would deny those same recognition of Rights to minorities.
They are not the majority's Rights to give or take, they are not the government's Rights to give or take and they are no individual person's Rights to give or take from anyone else.
Get over yourselves.
Always going back to the basic point that we don't just take the Constitution on it's own but in the context as provided by the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration tells us "why", the Constitution tells us "how". We need to remind those ignorant of history that the rights we have are not granted by government.
In the U.S., the rights, actual rights, not to be confused with privileges, are not granted or given to people by the government. They are given to people by God (A higher authority than people and identified in that way) and recognized by government.
Rights belong to all people, privileges belong to a membership. As identified in the Declaration of Independence, people have the God given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (among others). The government cannot interfere with those rights. It can NOT legislate in ways that exclude people from those rights.
The first amendment is very much tied to the right to liberty. Free speech, free press, religion, assembly, and petitioning the government.
The second amendment is very much tied to right to life. You have the right to defend your life and to sustain your life. (Defense and hunting at the least).
So, for all you that talk about repealing these amendments as if they are nothing more than clubhouse rules, you are incorrect. These are representative of the God given Rights of each person and the Constitution exists to uphold those rights from the popularity swings of a mob majority that would deny those same recognition of Rights to minorities.
They are not the majority's Rights to give or take, they are not the government's Rights to give or take and they are no individual person's Rights to give or take from anyone else.
Get over yourselves.
Saturday, June 11, 2016
More Honey And More Money
Did you know that you can get bees to make more honey by only putting 9 frames into a honey super box instead of the 10 that usually fit in there? I can illustrate a libertarian point about voluntaryism with this example.
There are less frames, but the bees then take advantage of the extra space in between those frames to draw out. The end result of having thicker, deeper cells per frame? Heavier, more honey-filled cells. This little "trick" has been used for at least a century now in conjunction with the Langstroth hive. It's no secret.
How does this relate to the libertarian concept of volunteryism? People give more when it is their choice to do so. after centuries of government mandated social program participation, there is plenty of evidence to show that people who are coerced or mandated to participate end up giving only the minimum demanded of them for the most part.
The result? It takes more people to generate the same numbers as the amount that can be generated by fewer, voluntary participants who give more because giving was their decision in the first place.
People who are libertarian minded are not against helping their fellow man. They are not against the idea of social nets to help those who fall through the cracks or fall on hard times. They are opposed to being forced to give what they have earned to people who they never chose to give it to.
Ayn Rand used the terms "selfish" a lot. She was not advocating only thinking and doing for yourself and to hell with everyone else. She was making the point that people must be able to live their own lives, make their own choices for their own reasons and participate as they choose to do so. There is nothing wrong and everything right with living your life as you determine. It's in the Declaration of Independence it is such an important concept.
Look at all the facebook memes. See how many people post things about how not to let other people control you. Do the work you love and want to do and not let society or your Dad or anyone else make you be someone you don't want to be.
How many of the people who post those things are also the same people who will turn around and scream that "there oughtta be a law" to make people do things like participate in a government run safety net that is easily abused by those not in need, but find it easier to do the minimum to be taken care of by the government. Those people do exist and the libertarian just wants to decide for themself who it is they donate to, if they do donate.
The government cannot and will not make better decisions about how to live your life or spend your money than you can. You might suck at doing those things too, but trusting the government to do it is just letting the blind lead the blind,
Libertarian voluntaryism and making more honey on 9 frames. Sometimes less really is more.
Saturday, May 28, 2016
Imperfect People Making The Effort To Live Up To Idealistic Expectations
The first thing we need to keep in mind is that people are not perfect and we know it. We are capable of learning and understanding how and why something "should" be. We, as imperfect people, lack the capacity to consistently live up to the expectations, ideals and standards that we identify.
That's just the reality of not being perfect. We WILL screw things up. Sometimes unintentionally, sometimes on purpose. Regardless, if it can be screwed up, humans will find a way to do so, sometimes spectacularly.
The founding fathers knew this. They counted on it. They took it to the bank. They knew they were imperfect and that all other people are as well. That's why they recognized God in the founding documents and attributed the natural rights of people as coming from God. No imperfect person is then in a position to nullify or deny those natural rights from God because, they are imperfect and thus cannot over-rule or countermand what God has put in place.
They also spelled out that the U.S. is a land of law. No person is above the law and the laws are (supposed to be) based on protecting those natural rights. The laws are written high up on the wall for everyone to see, so to speak.
The Declaration of Independence and Constitution are the ideals and expectations that citizens here should expect of each other and make every effort to live up to themselves. Will we fail in the effort to do so? Of course we will. However, what's important is that we continuously make the effort to do so.
That's why those rights and laws are taught so that we learn them and we are continuously reminded of them so that even if we fail at some point in our efforts to meet them, we know what we need to do to get back on track.
Did those imperfect people who set those rights, rules and expectations on paper live up to them themselves? No, they did not. Why? Because they were imperfect but as long as people kept learning and understanding them, then in the long run, as long as we keep making the effort, we we continue to get better at meeting those expectations.
This is why the people who think these documents are "living" and flexible are dead wrong. It is the intent that each individual makes the changes in themselves to meet the expectations, not change the ideals to accommodate imperfections.
Each of us is supposed to make the effort to meet those expectations and ideals of American liberty, freedom and accountability for every individual.
We keep trying our best to change ourselves to be the people we know those documents tell us we can be. It's up to each of us to make the effort all day, every day.
That's just the reality of not being perfect. We WILL screw things up. Sometimes unintentionally, sometimes on purpose. Regardless, if it can be screwed up, humans will find a way to do so, sometimes spectacularly.
The founding fathers knew this. They counted on it. They took it to the bank. They knew they were imperfect and that all other people are as well. That's why they recognized God in the founding documents and attributed the natural rights of people as coming from God. No imperfect person is then in a position to nullify or deny those natural rights from God because, they are imperfect and thus cannot over-rule or countermand what God has put in place.
They also spelled out that the U.S. is a land of law. No person is above the law and the laws are (supposed to be) based on protecting those natural rights. The laws are written high up on the wall for everyone to see, so to speak.
The Declaration of Independence and Constitution are the ideals and expectations that citizens here should expect of each other and make every effort to live up to themselves. Will we fail in the effort to do so? Of course we will. However, what's important is that we continuously make the effort to do so.
That's why those rights and laws are taught so that we learn them and we are continuously reminded of them so that even if we fail at some point in our efforts to meet them, we know what we need to do to get back on track.
Did those imperfect people who set those rights, rules and expectations on paper live up to them themselves? No, they did not. Why? Because they were imperfect but as long as people kept learning and understanding them, then in the long run, as long as we keep making the effort, we we continue to get better at meeting those expectations.
This is why the people who think these documents are "living" and flexible are dead wrong. It is the intent that each individual makes the changes in themselves to meet the expectations, not change the ideals to accommodate imperfections.
Each of us is supposed to make the effort to meet those expectations and ideals of American liberty, freedom and accountability for every individual.
We keep trying our best to change ourselves to be the people we know those documents tell us we can be. It's up to each of us to make the effort all day, every day.
Wednesday, April 13, 2016
Doing Things The Way They Should Be Done
Keeping things simple, one of the basic disagreements between Progressives and others is that Progressives are seen to be willing to change how things are done, often simply for the sake of change. Regardless of whether change is necessary or not.
A common excuse, perhaps the most common, given for this is to "keep up with the times". This is tantamount to "Keeping up with the Joneses". Which is also a very common excuse we see given for wanting needless change. For example, see this election cycle's focus on how other countries are addressing issues and proclaiming that the U.S. should change it's ways to match those of the others countries held up as the example.
It boils down to doing what is popular, sometimes easier, instead of a more appropriate way that may be older or less popular. A phrase I like to use a lot myself is to "Work smarter, not harder." While this is good advice in a great many things, it can sometimes backfire when the "harder" is meant to be there. At those times, we just need to suck it up and get it done because in the long run, it is the best or "right" way to accomplish said task.
I think for most libertarian minded people, this amounts to what we call "Common Sense". There is something called the "Serenity Prayer" that goes as follows;
In the typical "Progressive" view though, everything should be changed simply because it can be to accommodate people who are trying to avoid rising up to a challenge or, goodness forbid, having to meet expectations of us.
There are a number of things that can be changed with little to no real consequence because new technology becomes available or because a situation has irrevocably changed that forces adaptation. The change either had to happen anyway or it can have a satisfactory result in a variety of ways. This is the case for perhaps the majority of things we deal with in life. There is more than one way to do something and as long as we meet the "do what you want, just don't get any on me" philosophy, all is good.
However, There are times when things are best done a particular way and using any other method is not as satisfactory in results. Sure, it can be done, half-assed, as it were, but if it's meant to accomplish a specific result, then the half-assed way just won't cut it and we need to step up and get it done the right way.
The "Conservative" view would have traditional means and methods followed simply because "That's the way it's always been done". Also an unreasonable position because it too would deny the times when change is warranted or harmless.
As a beekeeper I can tell you that a great many things in beekeeping fall into the "harmless" differences anyway. Ultimately, the bees don't give a rat's patoot how a hive box is painted or what type of hive box you put them in. Bees will do what their natural biology and behavior dictates them to do. If it bothers them enough, they will leave. Which throws out the Vegan view of beekeepers holding bees as "slaves". Slaves can't escape. Bees come and go as they please whether the beekeeper likes it or not.
In a very few areas, directly related to bee biology and natural behavior (those things they are compelled to do through genetic memory and learned through situational adaptation) beekeepers will find there are few things they can change to suit the bees. For example, a hive must provide defensible shelter and be able to maintain a dry environment. if it is or becomes indefensible or weather invades it easily, they will "Abscond" meaning that all the bees just up and leave for greener pastures. Not a goodbye note to the beekeeper or anything. So, whether we beekeepers like it or not, we MUST provide a minimal acceptable hive to the bees or we won't have bees very long. That means we have to do a certain amount of work or expense to get a hive that meets those minimum demands.
Sure, I could slap together some sloppy job of a hive but if it gets leaky or allows predators to easily invade then my desire to go the "easy" route gained me nothing at all.
Sometimes, we just need to do things they are supposed to be done.
A common excuse, perhaps the most common, given for this is to "keep up with the times". This is tantamount to "Keeping up with the Joneses". Which is also a very common excuse we see given for wanting needless change. For example, see this election cycle's focus on how other countries are addressing issues and proclaiming that the U.S. should change it's ways to match those of the others countries held up as the example.
It boils down to doing what is popular, sometimes easier, instead of a more appropriate way that may be older or less popular. A phrase I like to use a lot myself is to "Work smarter, not harder." While this is good advice in a great many things, it can sometimes backfire when the "harder" is meant to be there. At those times, we just need to suck it up and get it done because in the long run, it is the best or "right" way to accomplish said task.
I think for most libertarian minded people, this amounts to what we call "Common Sense". There is something called the "Serenity Prayer" that goes as follows;
God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference. Reinhold NiebuhrReligious connotations aside, this is a great example of knowing when one should change and when to accept that change is not what is called for, but acceptance instead.
In the typical "Progressive" view though, everything should be changed simply because it can be to accommodate people who are trying to avoid rising up to a challenge or, goodness forbid, having to meet expectations of us.
There are a number of things that can be changed with little to no real consequence because new technology becomes available or because a situation has irrevocably changed that forces adaptation. The change either had to happen anyway or it can have a satisfactory result in a variety of ways. This is the case for perhaps the majority of things we deal with in life. There is more than one way to do something and as long as we meet the "do what you want, just don't get any on me" philosophy, all is good.
However, There are times when things are best done a particular way and using any other method is not as satisfactory in results. Sure, it can be done, half-assed, as it were, but if it's meant to accomplish a specific result, then the half-assed way just won't cut it and we need to step up and get it done the right way.
The "Conservative" view would have traditional means and methods followed simply because "That's the way it's always been done". Also an unreasonable position because it too would deny the times when change is warranted or harmless.
As a beekeeper I can tell you that a great many things in beekeeping fall into the "harmless" differences anyway. Ultimately, the bees don't give a rat's patoot how a hive box is painted or what type of hive box you put them in. Bees will do what their natural biology and behavior dictates them to do. If it bothers them enough, they will leave. Which throws out the Vegan view of beekeepers holding bees as "slaves". Slaves can't escape. Bees come and go as they please whether the beekeeper likes it or not.
In a very few areas, directly related to bee biology and natural behavior (those things they are compelled to do through genetic memory and learned through situational adaptation) beekeepers will find there are few things they can change to suit the bees. For example, a hive must provide defensible shelter and be able to maintain a dry environment. if it is or becomes indefensible or weather invades it easily, they will "Abscond" meaning that all the bees just up and leave for greener pastures. Not a goodbye note to the beekeeper or anything. So, whether we beekeepers like it or not, we MUST provide a minimal acceptable hive to the bees or we won't have bees very long. That means we have to do a certain amount of work or expense to get a hive that meets those minimum demands.
Sure, I could slap together some sloppy job of a hive but if it gets leaky or allows predators to easily invade then my desire to go the "easy" route gained me nothing at all.
Sometimes, we just need to do things they are supposed to be done.
Monday, April 4, 2016
Libertarian Expectations (Or, What I expect of fellow libertarians)
Americans are actually very idealistic people. We don't just "hope" for the best, we expect it The question is, what is it that people think is "best"? If you call yourself a libertarian, it's probably first and foremost anything that promotes, encourages and calls for individual liberty before anything else.
More and more it seems that people who align themselves with political parties have some sort of expectation of the government to do something for them. Especially things that people can and most likely should do for themselves.
Something else that has become an issue is that people have become confused on the difference between "rights" and "privileges". I expect any individual liberty concerned libertarian to know the difference. I expect self identified libertarians to be better educated than the "average" voter. Why do I expect that? Because libertarians, as people who live for the pursuit of individual liberty, understand that there is an expectation of individual responsibility that goes with that individual liberty.
To have individual liberty means that we are responsible individually for those decisions and actions we make. That means, if I am going to use my individual liberty to vote for a representative in a representative government, I have not only the right to do so, but the responsibility to make sure I have learned enough about all the candidates to make a rational, reasonable and responsible choice.
I expect that of myself and I expect that from others who claim they believe in individual liberty as a priority. It is a rational and reasonable expectation. To expect anything less from a self identified libertarian is to "let them off the hook" for wearing the uniform but not doing the job.
Unlike anarchists, libertarians do not have have an unwavering faith in their fellow man to conduct themselves reasonably and rationally enough to not have some degree of government, knowing that having any government is like raising a wild animal and expecting it to be a docile pet that only does what it is directed to do.
No. We know people will have moments of irrationality and being unreasonable. Of not being in full control of their civil behavior. People, besides having the capacity to be unmitigated asshats, can experience medical, emotional and logical deficiencies requiring intervention by others on behalf of the community as a whole.
We can't trust everyone but we have to put our trust somewhere and hope that trust is well placed. We know that. We are uncomfortable with it, but that's reality. All we can do is accept reality and learn from it.
Libertarians believe in raising the bar and that people should make their best efforts to reach that bar or fail spectacularly in the effort. We can appreciate spectacular failure as long as it's in the pursuit of achieving those goals, ideals and expectations we set for ourselves and each other.
We also know that there is truth to the phrase that "membership has it's privileges". Being a member of this community and of American society is voluntary. Even if you are born here and with American citizenship, there is nothing, no law, rule or regulation, to force anyone to keep it or attain it. You are free to not be a citizen. You are free to come and go. You are a voluntary citizen.
By choosing to be a citizen and being a member of the "U.S.A. Club", so to speak, there are certain perks and privileges that go with that. Note, the U.S. Constitution recognizes that all people have certain natural rights but then goes beyond those rights to add extras into the package.
We know we have the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Being financially wealthy, having an abundance of material belongings, being socially accepted despite your behavior (or hygiene), those are example of privileges.
Owning a car and driving it is a privilege. Being able to say you think the presidential candidates are all crooked and in collusion to keep people ignorant is a right and the government cannot imprision you, fine you or otherwise punish you for saying so in public.
I expect libertarians to know this and to expect it from other libertarians. I expect libertarians to call out those who wear the uniform but don't do the job. Have high expectations of ourselves and each other. We will not get the best until we ourselves, individually, start acting our best.
More and more it seems that people who align themselves with political parties have some sort of expectation of the government to do something for them. Especially things that people can and most likely should do for themselves.
Something else that has become an issue is that people have become confused on the difference between "rights" and "privileges". I expect any individual liberty concerned libertarian to know the difference. I expect self identified libertarians to be better educated than the "average" voter. Why do I expect that? Because libertarians, as people who live for the pursuit of individual liberty, understand that there is an expectation of individual responsibility that goes with that individual liberty.
To have individual liberty means that we are responsible individually for those decisions and actions we make. That means, if I am going to use my individual liberty to vote for a representative in a representative government, I have not only the right to do so, but the responsibility to make sure I have learned enough about all the candidates to make a rational, reasonable and responsible choice.
I expect that of myself and I expect that from others who claim they believe in individual liberty as a priority. It is a rational and reasonable expectation. To expect anything less from a self identified libertarian is to "let them off the hook" for wearing the uniform but not doing the job.
Unlike anarchists, libertarians do not have have an unwavering faith in their fellow man to conduct themselves reasonably and rationally enough to not have some degree of government, knowing that having any government is like raising a wild animal and expecting it to be a docile pet that only does what it is directed to do.
No. We know people will have moments of irrationality and being unreasonable. Of not being in full control of their civil behavior. People, besides having the capacity to be unmitigated asshats, can experience medical, emotional and logical deficiencies requiring intervention by others on behalf of the community as a whole.
We can't trust everyone but we have to put our trust somewhere and hope that trust is well placed. We know that. We are uncomfortable with it, but that's reality. All we can do is accept reality and learn from it.
Libertarians believe in raising the bar and that people should make their best efforts to reach that bar or fail spectacularly in the effort. We can appreciate spectacular failure as long as it's in the pursuit of achieving those goals, ideals and expectations we set for ourselves and each other.
We also know that there is truth to the phrase that "membership has it's privileges". Being a member of this community and of American society is voluntary. Even if you are born here and with American citizenship, there is nothing, no law, rule or regulation, to force anyone to keep it or attain it. You are free to not be a citizen. You are free to come and go. You are a voluntary citizen.
By choosing to be a citizen and being a member of the "U.S.A. Club", so to speak, there are certain perks and privileges that go with that. Note, the U.S. Constitution recognizes that all people have certain natural rights but then goes beyond those rights to add extras into the package.
We know we have the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Being financially wealthy, having an abundance of material belongings, being socially accepted despite your behavior (or hygiene), those are example of privileges.
Owning a car and driving it is a privilege. Being able to say you think the presidential candidates are all crooked and in collusion to keep people ignorant is a right and the government cannot imprision you, fine you or otherwise punish you for saying so in public.
I expect libertarians to know this and to expect it from other libertarians. I expect libertarians to call out those who wear the uniform but don't do the job. Have high expectations of ourselves and each other. We will not get the best until we ourselves, individually, start acting our best.
Thursday, March 31, 2016
Libertarian "Dictates" 1, The Free and Open Market Can Be Ethical Too
Ya know. I have self identified as a libertarian in the past year mostly because it seems to agree with most of my thinking (notice the use of lower case "L").
I believe in free and open markets. I also believe in ethical behavior expectations. When these are combined, I suppose I would say that I do not encourage trading or doing business with producers/traders who employ unethical practices.
I am not even saying to exclude them from the marketplace per se, but that by saying we are a supporter of ethical practices, we should choose to not do business in any market with those who use unethical practices.
Take China for example. they are participating in free and open markets but they also condone or at least "unobserve" unethical working practices.
So, as a libertarian, i say don't "ban" them from the marketplace, but be a discriminating buyer and make the choice not to do business with folks who do those things we say we find unethical anymore.
In a free and open marketplace, there is nothing wrong with using one's own ideals and values to base business decisions on. Though there are some I have seen of late who under the guise of libertarianism and even anarchism who seem to making the argument that as long as the "price is right" then choosing to not do business with them based on ethics is "not" libertarian.
BULLSHIT.
Being libertarian does not mean giving up ethics simply because they would affect your marketplace decisions.
That's like saying a someone who doesn't want to eat at McDonalds anymore because of their position on the whole minimum wage issue is somehow preventing McDonald's from doing business in the marketplace.
It might be an unreasonable or even illogical position they have, but as long as they are personally choosing to not do business there and not trying to shut Mickey D's down completely, there is no problem.
If enough people choose not to do business with an unethical market participant, then eventually the participant in question will either change it's practices to be more palatable to buyers or they will stop doing business because they have no one to trade with. That's life in a free and open marketplace.
Too many people have the incredibly wrong idea that libertarians are cold, heartless people who will put a dollar before people every time and that is simply untrue. Libertarians just want to do as they will and let others do their own thing as well.
Supporting trade partners who do not recognize individual liberty and suppress that is unappealing to libertarians in general. Of course, the same people who think of libertarians as cold and heartless are usually the same people who don't understand the difference between Capitalism and Corporatism.
The so called Libertarian dictators who want to tell others how libertarian they are or aren't based on their own views can go take a long walk off a short pier.
I believe in free and open markets. I also believe in ethical behavior expectations. When these are combined, I suppose I would say that I do not encourage trading or doing business with producers/traders who employ unethical practices.
I am not even saying to exclude them from the marketplace per se, but that by saying we are a supporter of ethical practices, we should choose to not do business in any market with those who use unethical practices.
Take China for example. they are participating in free and open markets but they also condone or at least "unobserve" unethical working practices.
So, as a libertarian, i say don't "ban" them from the marketplace, but be a discriminating buyer and make the choice not to do business with folks who do those things we say we find unethical anymore.
In a free and open marketplace, there is nothing wrong with using one's own ideals and values to base business decisions on. Though there are some I have seen of late who under the guise of libertarianism and even anarchism who seem to making the argument that as long as the "price is right" then choosing to not do business with them based on ethics is "not" libertarian.
BULLSHIT.
Being libertarian does not mean giving up ethics simply because they would affect your marketplace decisions.
That's like saying a someone who doesn't want to eat at McDonalds anymore because of their position on the whole minimum wage issue is somehow preventing McDonald's from doing business in the marketplace.
It might be an unreasonable or even illogical position they have, but as long as they are personally choosing to not do business there and not trying to shut Mickey D's down completely, there is no problem.
If enough people choose not to do business with an unethical market participant, then eventually the participant in question will either change it's practices to be more palatable to buyers or they will stop doing business because they have no one to trade with. That's life in a free and open marketplace.
Too many people have the incredibly wrong idea that libertarians are cold, heartless people who will put a dollar before people every time and that is simply untrue. Libertarians just want to do as they will and let others do their own thing as well.
Supporting trade partners who do not recognize individual liberty and suppress that is unappealing to libertarians in general. Of course, the same people who think of libertarians as cold and heartless are usually the same people who don't understand the difference between Capitalism and Corporatism.
The so called Libertarian dictators who want to tell others how libertarian they are or aren't based on their own views can go take a long walk off a short pier.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)