What forgiveness means to a libertarian

Religion doesn't have a lock on forgiveness.   Not to say libertarian folks aren't or can't be religious or spiritual.   Forgiveness doesn't just exist in the realm of the divine.

People are inherently flawed.  Again, not just from a spiritual point of view but biologically and mentally as well.   We have literal biological faults within us that cause us to do things irrationally or entirely out of our control.

Mentally,  our thinking is affected by education, emotions, again biology, and beliefs.

Forgiveness for libertarians is the ability and willingness to recognize that no one is perfect, all people fail and that just because people fail doesn't necessarily make them a bad person.

It means being able to say, "I've done plenty of things I'm not proud of in my life and I expect to do things in the future that are wrong, maybe bad, and yet I intend to continue to make the effort to be a good person."

If you can admit that you yourself will fal, aren't perfect and hope that people can see the good person you mean to be regardless,  then you will be more likely to do the same for other people.

To forgive is to identify,  accept, evaluate, and address.  To forgive myself and forgive others.  It's not something that requires a deity or a priest  in day to day life. 

I would love to be my ideal self.  Patient, tolerant, wise, forgiving, concerned,  empathetic.   I'm almost never all those things at once.  I'm rarely some of those things ever.  I try to be as many of them as much as I can.  At least, most of them.

I really lack concern and empathy for others.  I know, I know...

But I forgive myself and I forgive others.   I have bad days, I "slip", I can be mean and ugly especially when I don't feel good. 

Sometimes people say things they don't mean in the heat of things, I can forgive that. 

Sometimes people don't have all or the right information and argue anyway, I can forgive that. 

Sometimes people take shortcuts under stress,I can forgive that.

There re lots of things I can forgive in myself and others.   When it comes to things I can't forgive. I am hardest most especially on myself.  I try to hold myself to certain standards,  when I violate them, I find it hard to forgive myself.    Sometimes I don't.   Sometimes I just have to suck I up and use that experience as motivation to not let it happen again because of the grudge I bear, even against myself.

Ultimately,  forgiveness is relating to others and knowing we share the state of being known as imperfection.

Inherently Human

I don't believe that people are inherently Good or Evil.  Do I believe that humanity is inherently anything?  Yes, as a matter of fact, I do.  There are certain "quirks" of humanity that are explained better by having this understanding.

For example, I do believe that humanity, in general, is inherently lazy.  We are naturally drawn to follow the path of least resistance.  In some ways, this helps make us more creative and inventive. It has motivated people to make new products and methods to be more efficient and productive with greater safety and reduction of costly labor.  In other ways, it tends to collect a lot of "bottom feeders".  People who do nothing more than wait around for scraps.

I also believe that people are inherently curious.  Of course this causes many to strive to understand the world around them better.  It spurs discovery and exploration.  It can unfortunately also emanate as being nosey and intrusive.

Talent.  Talent is taking a beating lately.  People are being less generous with crediting natural talent in favor of skill and determination.  I firmly believe that skill and determination make up the most of success.  However, talent is that natural ability to take to something and find it "easy" where it costs others much more frustration to achieve.

Having talent, being talented, is easy to take for granted.  Talented people frequently don't appreciate or understand the degree of effort to achieve similar results and say, often tend to diminish or dismiss others who must work to achieve said skill.

I believe most people have a talent or natural aptitude for something.  It may take a long time and unusual circumstances to discover some of them.  For some, those talents may not be discovered at all.  I think it's sad to see people so easily dismiss natural talent.  Though for those who have been scorned by those deemed talented, I understand the feeling of resentment they may develop.  I don't necessarily agree with it, but I understand it.

There seems to be a growing resentment and denial towards anything considered "naturally" inherent.  Whether that be talent, genetics, or rights, it's an unfortunate and close minded approach to life.

Doing libertarianism

I don't care what you personally think, feel, or believe.  It doesn't matter if I care and those things about you don't matter as much as what we actually do.

Of course those things are important personally to you, as mine are to me.  But those things take backseat to the actions we take.  Obviously our actions can and are influenced by our thinking, our feelings and our beliefs.  However, we being people have the ability to our personal considerations aside and actually do things that may not reflect them.

Being objective is being able to see past your personal preferences and influencers.  It's being able to understand that it's not all about you.  Either pushing what you want on others or that everything others do is personally specific to you.

Now I'm not saying you don't have to or shouldn't care about others.  I am saying that what any one person thinks, says, feel, etc... is not more important or valuable necessarily than any other individual.

It's more about what we do.  I can say I believe in God.  Great, wonderful.  Yay me.  That doesn't have to mean anything to anyone else.  Just because I believe doesn't mean anyone else should have to.  What do I do about my belief?  I mostly keep it to myself.  I do not vote or try to make others believe the same thing or follow my belief related practices.

See what I mean here?  I do keep my personal beliefs to myself and I do exercise self control by not trying to make others through, force, intimidation, coercion, etc to believe, think, feel about it the same way I do.

I can offer to educate and make a persuasive argument to anyone sufficiently willing to have such a discussion.  I cannot make others follow my personal beliefs.

You don't have to care what I think, feel or believe.  You might just be able to appreciate the things I do to respect individual liberty and freedom though.

Create Opportunities, Not Jobs

One of the worst things, in my opinion, a politician can do is promise to create jobs.

It's not the government's place or area of responsibility to create jobs.  It's not even private businesses responsibility to create jobs.  Job creation in business is a consequence of achievement.

A business does not create jobs to get people working.  A business creates jobs because it has things it needs to achieve to make a product or effect a service for which purpose it is doing business.

As a matter of fact, the jobs the business can create to accomplish the most results is the ideal.  Fewer employees getting more done is more efficient and profitable.    Which is, of course, one of the main reasons to be in business, to be profitable.

Businesses do not "owe" people jobs.  Government is not obligated to create jobs.  In actuality, the fewer employees the government has, the more cost effective and efficient it is.  The government is obligated to do only what is absolutely necessary to achieve the tasks designated to it by the Constitution.  Anything beyond that is up the the private sector.

So, if businesses are not obligated to create jobs and government is not obligated to create jobs, then who is?  Each individual, that's who.  Every one is responsible for finding or creating their own means of making a living.

That can be by way of self employment or by making yourself useful in a particular desirable skill set to those who have businesses which require hiring people to achieve goals and meet customer demand.

If a politician is going to promise anything, it should be to help create marketplaces open and accessible to everyone, reduce, eliminate unnecessary regulations and enforce legitimate contracts, agreements and being an impartial referee to ensure that unethical business practices are reduced or eliminated.

Currently, the government actually makes things harder for people to be self sufficient.  Unnecessary regulations obstruct achievement.  Licencing is a means to support crony capitalism, enables monopolies and prevents access and competition in the marketplace.

Politicians and the government need to focus on ensuring free markets access, opportunities for people to employ and sustain themselves and be a defender and adjudicator of ethical business practices.

Don't create jobs, create opportunities for individuals to achieve.

Free Market Capitalism vs Crony Capitalism

In Capitalism, people who create, produce and own things are able to buy, sell, trade or barter with other people in the marketplace.

In a Free Market, anyone is able to bring their offering to the marketplace.  If it is a competing item with what someone else offers, both parties must up their game, offer better in the form of quality, quantity, service, support, etc... in order to continue being present and profitable in the market.

In Crony Capitalism, competitors use their relationships and connections with bureaucrats to use laws and regulations to prevent and remove competition instead of having to up their game.

It is a misconception that a Free marketplace is unethical as decried by socialists and others more interested in privilege and entitlement.  The free market corrects itself over time.  It need not be a limited or restricted market by disallowing potential competitors and new vendors from participating.

In fact, by allowing for open and free competition , producers and vendors become more creative.  They become more innovative and motivated to continue improving upon their original offering.

Some suggest that disallowing a market presence to "outsiders"  that local economies are protected and supported.  Others suggest that by disallowing access to those using unethical and poor quality, service and practices, it creates a more "fair" marketplace.

Truth be told, regulations on a marketplace tend to stifle competition, make vendors lazy and de-motivate creators and vendors.

Regulations do not keep producers and vendors ethical.  Government cannot legislate morality or ethical behavior.  Consumers and buyers in a Free marketplace take their ethics with them.  By making it clear that the buyer will not negotiate with a producer or vendor engaged in what the buyers see as unethical practices, vendors have to either change or risk being unprofitable and unsustainable in the marketplace.

The market "corrects" for unethical behavior because buyers demanding ethical practices will enforce it, not a government or bureaucracy.

The only regulatory action necessary in Free Market is that which prevents or interrupts harmful practices, materials or things otherwise known or most likely to cause actual harm via use,  production, contractual or deceptive marketing.

Free Market Capitalism offers opportunity for anyone to is willing to take acceptable risks for themselves and attain what they choose to achieve.  Whether it is status, wealth, or anything else.

The hidden "I" in Libertarian

I'm seeing a lot of things posted online by people referring to themselves as "Libertarians".  A lot of calling out of others, heavy handed criticisms and outright verbal attacks.

There are some people who love to push the line of liberty, especially as related to the first amendment.  I also note how frequently these criticisms and verbal attacks focus on groups of people and generalities.

My fellow libertarians, those who concentrate on individual application of libertarian philosophy, I ask you to consider a few things before engaging in vitriolic character assassination.

Being a person focused on libertarian philosophy, our objective is to first and foremost focus on how libertarian principles are able to be applied by ourself.  I am much more concerned with how I am able to be and do with myself in my life before I get involved with how others go about their own ways.

Before I go off on another person, especially for what they do as part of a group, I want to get an idea of what they as a person, an individual, are dealing with.

It's easy to say, "All politicians are crooks.", or "All soldiers are jack-booted thugs."  That does such a huge injustice to the individuals represented in those associations though.  I do not believe"all" politicians are crooks.  I do not believe "all" soldiers are thugs, jack-booted or otherwise.

If I am going make it public that I am libertarian, then it behooves me to understand the other individuals around me.  Not just by their associations, but by their own individual thoughts and actions.

We risk, in being hasty to demonize and call out those we disagree with, losing sight of the individual themself.  What is their situation?  Are they being coerced, misguided, oblivious, etc...?

We don't know until we talk to each individual.  It's easy to get caught up in gross characterizations.  As libertarian minded people, we are obliged to consider each individual first.

Lashing out at other people without considering their individual positions only puts people on the immediate defensive.  It's hard enough to carry on meaningful and respectful discourse as it is.  Putting people on the defensive makes it nearly impossible.

It's fine to be critical.  It's fine to call out injustice and wrongdoing.  It ill serves us to make things personal and hide behind libertarianism as though it makes all things right.  Being libertarian does not mean we can be offensive with some moral superiority stick shoved up our ass.

Everyone is an individual.  Everyone has the natural right to be seen and treated as an individual.  These are the things that I want and know.  It's only reasonable that every other person says "I want", "I think", "I feel", etc... and has the right to be recognized as an individual.

I don't come down on politicians.  I criticize that person who is a politician.  I don't call out military service people or veterans.  I call out a person who is a military service person or veteran.

There is a difference and it is well worth the effort to respect others individuality as we want our own individuality respected.

The Co-op vs Socialism

A co-op or cooperative is a voluntary association of people working together with a profit motive.

For example, a few local gardeners and small scale producers with chickens, cows, bees, etc...  want to sell their products in a marketplace but none has the means to do so individually.

By forming a co-op, they can work together to combine all their products, share responsibilities and work, and share profits among themselves.  The end result being that a need was met by voluntary collaboration as opposed to assuming risks too great for any one of the members or no one getting anything worthwhile by trying to do it all on their own.

In a co-op, there is often a financial shared investment and a labor investment as well.  Co-ops are often known for the flexibility off working with "sweat equity" to allow those with less financial resources to contribute more labor or product in exchange for the value of the financial investment.

Some key concepts expressed in the co-op a the fact that it's voluntary and that it has a profit motive.  That sets it apart from socialist endeavors immediately. Socialist setups are almost always mandatory participation or start voluntary and end up mandatory.  The main reason is related to the not having a profit motive.

Without a profit motive for each individual participating, the incentive to fully vest oneself in the effort is limited if not lacking.  History has time and again given us examples in which when given the opportunity, most people only do as little as necessary to claim their portion of the guaranteed return.

Risk and reward work together as incentives.  Reward is obvious.  Do the task, achieve the result.  Risk is the potential.  Risk not only allows for the possibility of no reward, but to tentatively relate the investment to the reward.  Greater investment usually results in greater reward.  However, there is a possibility that even with investigator money or sweat, the reward will no happen or will not be commensurate.

Rick influences us to invest more effort to get more reward.  It also pushes us to invest more creativity and planning so that if the probability of losses become too great, it only can we work harder and/or  invest more money but adapt and modify as well.

Without risk, we lose so much of all of that.  We indeed may as well be automatons without risk.  Socialism eliminates or dramatically reduces risk.  It ensures a set minimum reward which is also all to often the only reward able to be achieved.

Inherent rights vs Induced rights

Inherent rights are those which every individual is born with.  They are often referred to as inalienable and bestowed upon us by a creator source or as part of reasonable observable natural conditions.  Regardless of the source of these inalienable rights, they are inherent as we begin our individual lives.

Induced rights are those created by societal incursion into individual's lives.In situations where due to societal impacts, perceived rights become expected.  For example, a society makes a law mandating that everyone must purchase something.  There is an Induced right to access or assisted access to that purchase.

Healthcare services have become increasingly seen as an Induced right.  The government continues to make specific demands on what and how to treat certain medical issues.  By doing so, there are those who insist that an Induced right to medical services now exists.

That condition only exists though because of enacted rules or laws forcing expenditure of assets and other resources related to the issue.  Remove the compelling laws and you no longer have a need for the induced compliance.

This is perhaps most observable in medication and access to it.  The government has decided to tell people what appropriate medicine is and isn't.  Government has also taken actions to compell and coerce people into what and how to access medicines.  Government has created a situation that creates dependencies.

However, speaking for myself, I have in my history been able to provide most of my own medical care.  I have stitched myself or had a friend do it.  I have treated wounds, burns and other concerns of various degrees satisfactorily.

I only have needed to access doctors, hospitals and pharmaceuticals in situations beyond my individual ability to diagnose and treat myself.  Every time that happens, I am confronted by regulatory coercion to inhibit access to necessary treatment and medicine that leaves me without access or being forced to go into debt or beg assistance to comply.

The answer is not to create an Induced right to access.  It is to remove that which creates the bottleneck so to speak.  Change or remove the laws and regulations that create bottleneck dependencies.

Laws and regulations were made to create them, laws and regulations can be changed or removed to eliminate those same dependencies.  Demanding an Induced right is not the answer, it only makes the original problem bigger.

You'll note that physicians and pharmacists are people providing a service.  In the U.S. people cannot be coerced or compelled into providing services and products against their will.

Making access to medical and pharmaceutical services an Induced right essentially forces those people to provide services and products against their will and potentially at a loss.  That is a form of slavery.  It is illegal and immoral.  It is not the answer.

The answer is not to create need for Induced rights to begin with.

 

The Entitlement Trap

For the most part, libertarian minded people see life as that no one owes you a damn thing.  We come into this world as one person with inherent natural, God given rights.  The only thing we are owed and owe to others, if anything, is to not infringe on any individual's inherent rights.

But no.  There are a number of "truths" of the human condition.  One of those is that we easily and often allow petty emotions and selfish concerns take over our thinking.  That is what entitlement thinking really is, selfish and petty feelings.

What lies behind entitlement thinking?  Greed, envy,  and laziness, among others.  These petty feelings make us confused and think things aren't "fair" and that if it seems like"everyone" has something we want, especially those we perceive as better off and what we are wanting is something we consider valuable, we think those things are somehow owed to us.

There's nothing new or even anything wrong with wanting more and better things.  It's part of how we improve our lot in life.  Those desires motivate us and give us goals to reach for.

What is wrong is thinking that we are owed those things we want and are yet unable to obtain ourselves.  When we convince ourselves and try to convince others that these things should be "free" or provided to us by someone or some entity.

A truth of life...  Life is not "fair".  It never had been, it never will be nor is it even possible.  No one owes us anything but for that which we have earned.

For me, I look at the world with no expectations of being given anything.  When I am given anything, I find myself very grateful and appreciative for it.  I do not expect it though.

I'm a libertarian minded person, I also have a strong appreciation for the founding documents of the U.S.  particularly the Declaration of Independence.  Our country is like no other country in the world because in that Declaration, it was established that our reason for being a separate and distinct country is to create a society based upon the individual as a sovereign being that is not owned or secondary to the collective.

The Declaration sets forth that our society exists as a free association of individuals.  The government intended and established to recognize the sovereignty of each individual and to ensure that the collective does not determine the outcomes for individuals.

The Constitution spells out a specifically limited government to ensure a basis for states within the union to ensure that essential and basic recognition then make of their place what they will given those constitutional foundations.

Entitlement thinking has no place in a society established upon those founding documents.  We are a place where we are owed nothing but the respect of our inherent rights and what we earn.

So many people are so far disassociated from that concept as to effectively be living somewhere else.  We are not owed healthcare services.  We are owed only the inherent right to care for our health as an act of maintaining and sustaining our right to life.  Not the same things at all.

We are not owed an income.  We are only owed the ability to make our own decisions and choices of what to do with our lives, our means of sustaining ourselves.

In other words, what we are owed is Life, Liberty and Pursuit of happiness.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Libertarian Principles in Practice

So many people don't really"get" libertarianism.  It is often misrepresented as well as misunderstood.  Let's not forget to include misapplied.

So many people are under the misguided notion that libertarianism is about rebellion and rejection and is based on being selfish.  They couldn't be more wrong.  Libertarianism is about principled thought and behavior based on individual freedom.

What libertarianism really boils down to is the application of individual Free Will.  All libertarians agree that every individual inherently has Free Will.  As to the source of it, some say it's bequeathed upon us by a deity, others say it's incidental to birth.  Either way, we cherish Free Will above all else.

From Free Will we are able to directly trace those natural rights as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

Free Will gives us the right to have our life.  The right to defend our life and the right to maintain or sustain our life.

Free Will gives us autonomy in thought and action.  From Free Will we have Free association, freedom of speech, freedom to organize and gather as we choose.

All Libertarians understand that with all these freedoms and rights comes responsibility.  We have the responsibility not to interfere with others people's freedom and rights.  We have the responsibility to not cause harm to others through irresponsibility or deliberately.

So naturally, libertarians are extremely skeptical about not just government, but any group that attempts to restrict or restrain individual Free Will or those rights derived from that.

Freedom of association is a biggie for us because it translates not only into who we spend our time with and whom we allow to influence us but how we allocate our resources.  Freedom of association is directly tied to how and where where spend our valuables.  Whether it be in the form of trade, barter or precious metals and gems or currency.

This leads us to markets.  How we involve ourselves in the marketplace.  For example, government thinks it should continuously intercede and interfere in the marketplace.

This occurs primarily through establishing standards and regulations based on those standards.  Libertarians contend that we don't need the government involved in setting standards or meddling in the marketplace.

You don't need regulations to have standards.  You don't need to enforce standards at gunpoint.  Take the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval for example.  People have used it as a standard bearer for decades.  Many businesses will not make a change in products or services offered unless they are certain it will meet and achieve the Good Housekeeping seal of approval.

All voluntary.  No government involvement whatsoever.  Yet people and companies adhere to those standards without regulatory action except by Good Housekeeping themselves awarding or not awarding this coveted seal of approval.

This is applied libertarianism in practice.  It works very well.  Libertarianism is optimistic.  It has expectations that people can and should be able to achieve for themselves, on their own terms and in ways that respect freedom for and of all people.

Libertarianism believes that "the greater good" is ensuring that the individual is protected and defended in their freedom and rights.  That as long as every individual is protected this, then any and all persons are so protected.  We disagree that the "greater good" is founded in collectivism.

Integrity in governance

Integrity.  A simple definition is the trait or quality to stay "true" to what one beelieves is right regardless of what or opposed to how many others do or is popular.  To do what one says they will do reliably.

Integrity is hugely important to those of the libertarian persuasion.  To someone such as myself who consider myself a Constitutional libertarian, it is perhaps the most important quality in a person.

Integrity was of vital importance to the authors/framers and signers of the founding documents.  For them, the founding documents are the "right" way to do things in  to run a country.

We see this high value on integrity called into play often but perhaps most significantly in elections and taking office protocols.  It is required of people taking office to pledge to uphold and defend the Constitution.  In describing election process, requirements of office and the character or quality most referred to or described is being faithful or "true" to the Constitution.

Integrity.  Our leaders and representatives elected from among us are expected to uphold the Constitution as what is Right.  They are tasked with upholding and defending the Constitution even when, especially when, it may seem popular to disregard the Constitution.

To hold an office such as President, Representative or Senator, among others, there are no educational or occupational requirements to meet.  But they are supposed to be able to take that oath and have the integrity to fulfill it. It shouldn't matter if one was a farmer or a lawyer.  Their skin color, being male or female, national origin of them or their families etc... shouldn't even matter.  What matters is that they have the integrity to uphold the Constitution as what is Right and do their job accordingly.

When we study candidates for elected office, it is,  as citizens, our duty to elect those who have said integrity as opposed to those with questionable or lacking integrity to uphold the Constitution and perform the tasks and duties of that office.

As libertarians, by nature idealistic people who believe in integrity as a highly valuable characteristic in a person, I think it is our place to to hold candidates and office holders feet to the fire in regards to having the integrity to champion the U.S. Constitution especially in it's purposes to limit government and ensure individual rights.

What we have today is a crisis of character in our elected representatives and in our citizens.  Integrity in upholding the Constitution is seen these days as being obstructive to what is popular and not being a good team player.

As libertarians, we should be encouraging and supportive of those who show the quality of integrity to the Constitution.  Without that integrity, we might as well just be a "mob rules" place where the desires and whims of the masses overrule and dictate over the individual.

Oh wait, we're libertarian.  We're supposed to have the integrity to stand up for individual rights.