Freedom of the Press does not mean what most people think it means

In the Bill of Rights, added to specify certain rights that exist that the government of the United States MUST abide by, there is noted in the very first amendment,  the right to freedom of the press.

Mist people think this refers to journalism.   They are wrong.  Yes, journalism and "The Press" as it refers to news reporters and journalists is included.  As usual though, we in this modern day do not stop to consider what the founders, the authors of those founding documents really were referring to. 

To put it bluntly, it refers to the ability to make information publicly available and able to be taught or communicated to others without being repressed by the government.   This is not necessarily the same as the freedom of speech, though they are related.

Consider that prior to and at the time of the invention of the printing Press, what was made public information and taught openly was entirely controlled by those who could afford to pay for it.  This made it largely accessible only to the monarchs and the wealthy upper class who decided what information could be made openly available to the masses.

Also consider that literacy, the ability to read and write, was largely limited to these same people and those they employed.  Everyone else, the vast majority of people,  were illiterate and dependent on others to tell them or teach them what "needed" to be known as determined by those who were in positions to decide such things.

What we take completely for granted here in the Western world is not recognized in many other places even in this day and age in many other places.  Consider being told you were not allowed by law to read or write nor learn to do either.

Consider the modern ability to write a book an any subject you choose and self publish it and have it distributed and made available to anyone who wants to obtain it.

This situation did not exist here as we know it now prior to the American revolution.   The King of England and those in positions of government made the decision as to what could be written, printed, taught and made public information.   Illiteracy was still over 60% of the whole population. 

People by large, were told and taught what the ruling class wanted them to know and made making anything else available a crime.

Benjamin Franklin,  George Washington,  and Thomas Jefferson to name a few were some of the most adamant of the founders that government and any wealthy self imposed "ruling class" here should not be able to impose upon the people, at large, any more.

Not only in printing, publishing, and journalism,  but in keeping people illiterate as well.  They wanted a person to be able to make information public that they chose to do so.  By newspaper, book publishing, even in the classrooms.  The government and so called "ruling class" should not be infringing upon that.

Thomas Jefferson championed public education emphatically to support this.  The more people who could be made literate and openly and freely educated and informed,  he believed,  would keep the fire in the people to protect and preserve these rights.

In these modern days, socialists and communists openly advocate for limiting what is published and taught publicly to what they think.  It's a ruling class comprised if those who believe in tyranny of the majority.  Where no individual can be outside of what is deemed proper and ordinary by the majority.

They campaign publicly now to "cancel" and ostracize anyone who publishes, prints, teaches or makes information available that is contrary to their message.

Absolutism and Collectivist Thought Make You Dumber

People, human beings that is, are social animals.  We tend to see the world in collectivist representations.  Us, we , them, those pelple, etc... are all terms that just about every person is familiar and comfortable with in identifying and observing other people.

It's never just "that person".  It's "One of those people."  We associate with others in like minded and shared need/want/admired groups because we don't like feeling lonely or being alone much, if not most, of the time.  We become Team members, partisans on just about anything we can use to differentiate ourselves while still being part of a collective.

We take pride in our willfull associations and lament but still own the collective associations that are thrust upon us.  There is no victimhood like shared victimhood.  As we get older, we often get more comfortable in our collectivist associations.  We fear losing our place or even status within said groups even while being unsatisfied with having been a part of it.

Fear is one of the greatest factors in collective association.  Safety in numbers, being left out or "birds of a feather", etc...  

But, at the same time, when we can an individual for just themself, we can see something much more than the caricature we created of them in our mind that reflects the collective we initially mentally associated them with.  When we not only stop seeing others as just a skin color, a nationality, a sexual preference, a culture, and stop projecting ourself as simply one of those, hiding behind them, we start to see and be much more than an absolute reflection of something generic.

No one is actually an absolute representation of an ideology, a racial group, a physical presence.  Yet and still, we let our tendency to collectivize others set them up to be the the best or worst of them.

Look for, SEE the individual.  Make the effort, BE the individual.  Stop just being one of many. Stop allowing yourself to be nothing more than a shallow reflection of what others want to see.  Stop being the person that sees shadows and sees the person for who they actually are.

The Misunderstanding About A Right To Life

Far too many people misunderstand either deliberately or through ignorance, the discussion of a right to life.

The different aspects of that discussion are important.  There is a right to life via organic means.  This refers to "natural" childbirth and natural causes of death.

There is the issue of the State or another person forcing a birth or death upon an individual.  This is a real thing, consider "test tube" babies done without consenting biological sources that have been done in labs around the world.  Also consider state sanctioned capitol punishment.

Now, in the case of rape, there is usually no "considered" consent on either part.  The victim has not consented and the perpetrator has likely not even taken it into consideration to be considered as "consent" to actually "making a baby".  There are are the odd cases but even with intent to cause pregnancy, there is still no consent by the victim.

Obviously the "baby" to be resulting from said unconsented act cannot consent or not on its own behalf.

Among the rights recognized in the founding documents is the Right to life (, Liberty, and Pursuit of happiness, among others).  This considered right is as much that others (chief among those being the State or government) do NOT have a right to involuntarily terminate one's life as much as an individual DOES have the right to have their life endure or end at their own determination.

However, there are NO guarantees or right to any quality of life of duration of life as pertains to natural or organic means.  This is to say, there is nothing to rightfully ensure that one lives forever, stays "healthy", or is exempt from the naturally terminal results of accidents, poor decisions, or I teraction with the world in general.

Life is itself inherently risky.  By choosing to not terminate or own life, we accept the risks of being alive.

Take for example this Covid19 coronavirus pandemic.  People are making the incorrect statement that if one even possibly might be sick or carrying the irus while being unknowingly asymptomatic that he or she is somehow responsible for passing it on to others who may or may not experience none, some, or extreme symptoms.

This is wrong morally, ethically, and factually.  Unknowing carriers of ANY virii, bacteria, etc... include everyone.  There are so many virii, etc... that people and animals carry and transfer unknowingly that it cannot be prevented or even known in the vast majority of cases.  The carrying of virii and bacteria, etc... is part of the everyday risk of life because it is so common as to be "normal".

Now, a person does not have the right or the moral or ethical position to knowingly and intentionally pass on diseases, virii, bacteria, etc... to others without making serious effort to mitigate, eliminate, or otherwise prevent transmission.that is tantamount to causing physical harm or even manslaughter, if not outright murder.

But to say that simply because someone may or may not be in contact or carrying a virus that generally is noted to have a largely high non-lethal or even troublesome symptoms, is not an intrusion upon or violation of another's right to life.  Its part of the common risk of living.

The Wrong Oath

Many people, those who take positions in government, in the military, etc... take an oath to uphold the Constitution.  Meanwhile, the document and principles laid out in the Declaration of Independence which led to the creation of the Constitution is given short shrift and little to no recognition as a legal document.

The fundamental problem has been that in primarily defending the Constitution, people give their allegiance to the wrong things.

Instead of holding true to the underlying principles which are the foundation and the reason for the Constitution, they hold themselves dutybound to the vehicle and not the driver.  Thus now when we see government and citizens upholding the laws which have become twisted because it protects a collective over the individual, there is no real recourse to address it because they worship not the reason but the resultant action taken.

The Constitution is a representation of a nation, a set of political boundaries and the laws that make it operational.   When taking an oath to uphold the Constitution, one holds that higher than the purpose it was created to serve.

Ultimately, American libertarians are those who personally pledge not to uphold and defend the Constitution, but the principles and beliefs described in the Declaration of Independence.  For that is what is the real reason and purpose of the Constitution and it has been corrupted.  

Nationalists, socialists, and populists hold true not to the reason, but the collective, the herd, that the Constitution created.  They are wrong.

Don't Confuse Duty With Honor

There are those who seem to think that it is obligatory to feel a sense of duty as part of a sense of nationalism.  They cannot escape a need in themselves to feel compelled to serve out some role as part of their gratitude for living in a society that gives them their rights.

Of course they're wrong. Not that duty as a concept is wrong, but that people should feel obligated to serve as required to some overblown idea that the political boundaries one lives within automatically and inherently commits one to servitude to the government of that society within.

These are quite often people who have become convinced of the idea that there is some "greater good" in society and that placing a majority of numbers of people above individuals is somehow morally right.   Historically speaking,  that usually ends up in genocide but hey, whats a little tyranny and mass murder as long as the people doing it felt morally superior, right?

Here's where populists and socialists get libertarian principles wrong, usually on purpose. Populists and socialists think that numbers and mobs rule.  That 10 is greater and more valuable than 1 or even 3.  They use simplistic math and reduce a person's value to one of many.

The libertarian way of seeing it is that any and every individual can be exponentially valuable entirely on their own.  They also don't believe that grouping individuals (voluntarily, of course) is as simple as 1+1=2.  No, we believe that in incredible ways, putting individuals together can add up to much more than the sum of their parts.  1+1 can indeed equal 3 or maybe 5, or 2.  You get the idea.

The value of any individual is not and cannot be simply reduced to one of many and that by preserving many and sacrificing the individual or the minority is in any way morally superior to herd preservation.  

A sense of duty and obligation to any collective that does not value the individual  or minority is misguided at best and suicidal at worst.  This is what individuals like Thomas Jefferson understood that many seem not to fathom.  It is our sense of duty to hold ourselves to principles and ideals which hold individuals with their inherent individual responsibilities and rights that prevents mob tyranny and holds socialist/populist dominance at bay.

If we must be honorbound and be obliged to duty, that duty is to uphold and defend not the Constitution but the principles which brought the Constitution to be made and a nation formed that were described in the Declaration of Independence.

Failure Is A Feature

One of the biggest bones of contention between libertarians and altruistic is the failure of people.

Altruists cannot abide allowing anyone to fail because that suggests that society has failed and they conflate society with people en masse.

The libertarian accepts that individuals must be allowed to fail because failure is intrinsic to personal improvement and as a consequence for bad judgement.

The libertarian view does have room for a "safety net".  It's generally called insurance and philanthropy. Insurance allows an individual, of their own choice, to secure a backup for when things go FUBAR.  Philanthropy allows individuals to voluntarily support causes and interests in both public and private situations.

Altruism insists that safety nets must be both public and mandatory.  Again, telling individuals that they are subject to society.

Both insurance and philanthropy are important to failure.  Indeed, they exist in anticipation of failure.  Insurance and philanthropy can be participated in without an individual personally caring if another, particular person fails or not.  It might be participated in out of sheer profit interest, or it could be participated in because they truly are concerned about others well-being.  It allows for a multitude of possible motivations to exist and reasons to participate.  Therefore, it allows for a greater spectrum of people to voluntarily participate and create and sustain the bigger, better, safety net.

Altruism demands that all, or as many people as possible must be forced to participate.  They claim this forced participation creates the largest net and that by nature of being largest, is conflated with being best. 

The problems with that are multiple.  First, bigger is never a guarantee to be better.  Second, it ignores the history of human nature in that when people are forced to do something, especially if they don't like it or are actively opposed to it, they not only do not give their best, they will often intentionally and actively work against it and drag their feet.  Certainly not having the effect of having it be the best.

History has shown, so many times it can't be counted anymore, that when people voluntarily choose to participate, they put in anywhere from a generally moderate effort to their maximum effort.  When a person is invested in something, they generally are active to defend it and improve it.  They give their best efforts more often than not.

Failure Is inherent to risk.  Risk is a part of everyday life.  No person lives without risk, potential for failure.  Failure Is a motivator to be more careful, to plan better, to be more considerate in one's actions.  

Failure Is a teacher.  It allows us often to see where plans and designs went wrong and to improve on them.  

Becoming better requires in many, if not most, cases that one fail and learn from that.

Yet and still, altruism thinks itself as the better concept because it appeals to shared or assumed responsibility away from the individual to society.  People, as social animals, tend to look for safety in numbers, even if there may be a greater risk of getting run down in a stampede.

Ultimately,  libertarianism is a philosophy for individuals that accept responsibility for themself because that responsibility comes with autonomy.  Failure Is accepted, expected, and used to achieve success.

Altruism is a philosophy of self sacrifice in the hopes of temporary safety and reduced responsibility for oneself.  Failure Is not an option, it is denied, and ultimately it leads to failure anyway.

Being libertarian is not being A Libertarian

There is much discussion as to the definition of libertarian.  The problem is that, while well intended, most of that discussion is wrong.  As in, incorrect.

Being libertarian is not an affiliation with a political party.  In fact, I disdain all political parties.  Why?  Primarily because political parties seem to participate in mob rule.  Indeed, the running joke of the Libertarian Party is that it wants to take over the world to leave everyone alone.  The problem is, its not a joke and they would not leave everyone alone.

Most people think being libertarian is about the practice and exercise of individual rights and liberty.  That is only half of it and unfortunately, it is the least important half.  Individual responsibility is the whole othervhalfvand indeed it is the more important.

Individual responsibility is directly and inexorably tied into individual freedom and liberty.  It wholly encompasses those.  In fact, you cannot have them without individual responsibility.

Each person has a responsibility to see to our means of living.  We have a responsibility to see to our health and ability to stay healthy in order to make a living.  We each have a responsibility to our immediate family as we are the reason, at least in part, that family exists or are a direct result of that family being created.

I have the right to keep and bear arms because I have a responsibility to protect, defend, and sustain myself and my family.

I have the right to freedom of speech because I have a responsibility to communicate my needs and be informed enough to make decisions for myself and my family.

Do you see where this is going?  I am an individual, I exist not at the will or whim of any government, social or religious group or any other individual.  They do not bear the responsibility for me or my life therefore cannot interfere or infringe upon my right and abilities to do for myself that which I determine needs to be done.

Society is not the reason or source of my life nor does it bear the responsibility for me.  I bear the responsibility for my life.  The only "Greater Good", if there be any at all, is that which enables, upholds, and defends the liberty, rights, and freedoms of the individual to meet their individual responsibilities as they themselves determine them.

There are far too many self described "libertarians" who focus on having rights and freedoms but do not exercise the responsibility for which those rights and freedoms exist to serve.

No one is owed a job

The rise of the industrial age also gave rise to a new experience of entitlement.  "That's my job."

People have jealousy and with zealotry, been not just protective of jobs, but fiercely competitive about who is allowed to do them.

Even before there were machines competing for jobs, there were trade unions which tried to tell people what kind if people could do a certain type of job.  Often regardless of what the employer had to say about it.

Jobs have fallen into classism and reinforced it for centuries.  Always telling people they are good enough, or only people from that particular group could have a certain job or level of job.

Enter the machine.  Now people aren't just competing with other people for some jobs, they are competing with, and losing to, machines.

The first machines took the jobs of the "lower class" because they were complex enough only to perform the most basic and menial of tasks.  Greater society didn't pay too much attention because, well, lower class.  Though people considered as lower class certainly noticed.

Enter smart machines, computers.  Computers came to do the repetitive, soul sucking work of the number crunchers first.  Then they moved into other areas where they became a work multiplier, making one person so efficient with the aid of a computer to her able to do the work of three or four people without.

Now enter robotics.  Robotics are aimed at blue collar jobs initially, but the potential for them to reach into the white collar world is imminent.  Now the upper classes are sitting up and paying attention.

Of course, for reasonable, rational, and thinking people, robotics are an obvious win.  The problem is that most people are too busy feeling offended that robots are taking their jobs.  That is the entitlement mentality.  They assume that jobs are meant for people.

Not so.  When someone, anyone, starts a business, there are several things that need to be done.  The business owner decides which they can and should do and those things remaining become jobs needing to be filled.  But by whom?  Or maybe what?

To the business owner, it really doesn't matter if a person or a machine/robot does a job.  Cost, effectiveness and reliability are most important to them.  If a robot can offer the best solution to doing the job for less, done as well or better than a person could and more consistently, then the robot is the obvious choice.

The business does not owe any person a job.  The owner is not obligated to humanity to provide a means to make a living.

People are despondent about what they will do to make a living now if jobs go to robots.  The answer is easy but has been unnecessarily complicated by government, as usual.

The answer is self-employment.  People have been self-employed for a very long time.  However, our government has decided to make self-employment a nightmare by creating ridiculous regulations and expensive, largely unnecessary licensing that prevents many perfectly capable people from making their own job.

The "gig" economy and the "uberization" of many markets is leading change to make self-employment less of a difficult thing to do.  As a society, we became dependent on large companies and government doing everything for us.  Things like insurance, retirement savings, paid vacations and many other things we now take for granted began as perks and incentives used as a means to attract more and better potential employees to businesses.

Over time, labor unions, government bureaucrats and politicians stamped their feet and made such a fuss as to make these perks and bonuses into requirements.   That's all most people know now.

And now that is all changing.  The economy and markets are changing.  Technology has created the potential for an "at-will" society in which more people aren't locked into career paths just for the money.  People, with some retraining and imagination, can begin to do things as a means of making a living that is more fulfilling to them and within their interests.  We just need to get government and self-appointed authoritarian do-gooders out of the way.

When did we stop believing in American exceptionalism?  American exceptionalism is based on capitalism.  Free people with the liberty and opportunity to build, invent, create and do business in a similarly free, open and respectfully competitive marketplace that encourages one to go above and beyond in order to attract customers and clients.

I would guess that we stopped believing in that when we began accepting cronyism and restricting markets in order to prevent competition and reduce the monetary and social skill expenses to get and keep those customers and clients.

It became easier to justify restrictive and "regulated" markets that allow for monopolies and boorish, lazy efforts at customer service because they now have government working to protect them in the name of jobs and the economy.

No one has to be exceptional anymore in order to stand out.  With the right connections and enough money, the public and marketplace can be brought to heel for you.

As self employed small business owner myself, I firmly believe in and engage in trying to be exceptional and to exceed customer expectations.

To me, that is part of my American heritage.  To not just do something.  To do what I choose to do, how I choose to do it, in the style I select to do it in.  There is no half-assing it.  All out, full on, put everything on the table, go above and beyond effort.

I will have it no other way because I am an American and that is in my American heritage.

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.