My fellow Americans,
Now more than ever our government needs our help. For centuries we have believed democracy to be the best form of government, without ever experiencing true democracy. Greed and corruption have infiltrated our government, and now Democrats and Republicans have become so hopelessly opposed and unwilling to work together that nothing is accomplished. Our “representatives” use their entire term to campaign for reelection instead of doing the work Americans want done. Our government is broken, but we can fix it, and we can fix it through participating in our limited democracy, ironically. There is hope for democracy – a new hope, a liberating hope, a Libertarian hope. The Libertarian Party must be America’s Party now, because a new choice is always more democratic.
Democracy, as defined by Merriam-Webster is “a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority; b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.”
Free elections are an illusion. For the majority of this country’s history, two parties have held a monopoly over campaign contributions and the vote. Either a Democrat or Republican has won every presidential election since 1852, and since 1804 the most electoral votes a third-party candidate has obtained is just 46 by George Wallace in 1968. That was the year Tricky Dick was elected the first time. Needless to say had we realized then what we have the opportunity to realize now we could have avoided putting a crook in office. But we have an opportunity to change American politics once again and bring about a more democratic democracy.
The United States political scene suffers from what Herbert Marcuse would call one-dimensional thought, which “militates against qualitative change. Thus emerges a pattern of one-dimensional thought and behavior in which ideas, aspirations and objectives that…transcend the established universe of discourse and action are either repelled or reduced to terms of this universe” (Marcuse 12). This one-dimensional thought allows for greed and corruption to flourish in our government because we, the people, have accepted it as simply a consequence of democracy.
Marcuse’s one-dimensional thought is ever-present in the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act. “The Republican and Democratic candidates who win their parties’ nominations for President are each eligible to receive a grant to cover all the expenses of their general election campaigns. The basic $20 million grant is adjusted for inflation each Presidential election year. In 2008, the grant was $84.1 million…A third-party Presidential candidate may qualify for some public funds after the general election if he or she receives at least five percent of the popular vote.” So the Democratic and Republican candidates get $84.1 million and the third-party candidate gets squat unless they grab 5% of the vote in the previous election. The laws governing these “free” elections are keeping third parties at a disadvantage to install an incumbent, ruling order that “militates against qualitative change.” Changing these laws is not an option at this point, so we must act within the system to bring about qualitative change, which is one-dimensional in itself., but no one in Congress is going to reform campaign finance laws when they’re running for reelection. “In the political sphere…the programs of the big parties become ever more undistinguishable, even in the degree of hypocrisy and in the odor of the cliches” (Marcuse 19). The Democrats and Republicans are false opposites. They clearly have the same goal in mind – to keep the power divided amongst themselves and the money out of the hands of people looking to change the status quo. That’s why it’s important that the Libertarian Party surpass the 5% popular vote benchmark in the 2012 presidential election, or we can expect more of the same from the White House.
“As the great words of freedom and fulfillment are pronounced by campaigning leaders and politicians, on screens and radios and stages, they turn into meaningless sounds which obtain meaning only in the context of propaganda, business, discipline, and relaxation.” We’re in the whirlwind of this media now and we can already smell the stench of propaganda permeating from the camps of Democrats and Republicans, but the Libertarian Party doesn’t have the money to compete on television and radio, and unless the Libertarian Party is able to poll at 15%, they won’t be able to compete on stage either. You see, third party candidates are withheld from nationally televised debates if they don’t reach 15% on CNN’s presidential election poll. Don’t let the propaganda fool you. There’s only one party looking to bring about qualitative change despite what President Obama’s campaign slogan may be.
Marcuse warns us that “the range of choice open to the individual is not the decisive factor in determining the degree of human freedom, but what can be chosen and what is chosen.” Having another choice on the ballot does not make us more free, but having a quality choice on the ballot will if we cast a quality vote. The Libertarian Party takes the social tolerance of the Democrats and mixes it with the fiscal responsibility of the Republicans, which proves to be a strong party in an election year expecting the most independent voters in history. We have a quality choice in the Libertarian Party. Now it’s up to us to cast a quality vote. Though Marcuse again warns, “Free election of masters does not abolish the masters of the slaves.” The American government is a democratic republic, and until we change the entire order of things, a very two-dimensional thought, we’ll have to deal with our “masters” for the time being, but we can operate the machine.
“We are neither in the amphitheatre, nor on the stage, but in the panoptic machine, invested by its effects of power, which we bring to ourselves since we are part of its mechanism” (Foucault 217). Michel Foucault’s Discipline and Punish insists that power is everywhere and we all can wield it. And he’s right. Despite our panoptic society, we are still the fuel that drives the machine. Under the current administration, the panoptic surveillance has only increased, as President Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act, which allows the US government to detain its own citizens indefinitely and without trial if they are suspected terrorists. All of this after our President said during his campaign that he’d close Guantanamo Bay. A clear example of Foucault’s power relations occurred quite recently, when only public outrage kept bills SOPA and PIPA from criminalizing file sharing and destroying the communicative, free structure of the Internet. We do have power, “against an extraordinary evil, power is mobilized; it makes itself everywhere present and visible” (Foucault 205). Internet activists used the best tool they had to defeat SOPA and PIPA – the Internet. They flooded Congress Twitter accounts with pleas to stop the bills. They shut down Wikipedia in outrage of the bills. And yes, some people hacked into bank websites and shut them down, but it was ultimately a success for the American people, though many people believe CISPA, a cyber-security bill passed by the House on Thursday, to be a way for the government to further monitor its own citizens. The oppressors always comes back with a power play of their own, but the Libertarian Party is strongly opposed to any legislation that allows our government to monitor our web practices. It’s a clear invasion of privacy and that’s why we need to keep fighting because “there is no risk…that the increase of power created by the panoptic machine may degenerate into tyranny’ the disciplinary mechanism will be democratically controlled, since it will be constantly accessible ‘to the great tribunal committee of the world’” (Foucault 207).
The actions of Internet activists are also a great demonstration of communicative action. “In modern, secular societies social order rests chiefly on the basis of communicative action (action coordinated by validity claims) and discourse, which together help establish and maintain social integrity – that is, they provide the glue that keeps society together.“ Jürgen Habermas is my kind of guy – a democratic socialist in the best sense. “Habermas argues that we can establish an ideal speech situation – a set of conditions under which democratic discussion optimally takes place – that can guide the way we set up group conversations on important community issues and decisions” (Brookfield 63). He would urge us to organize at a local level and discuss the issues of the day and arrive at a consensus that neglects no one and is not self-serving, which is difficult given Habermas believes human beings to be “essentially self-interested,” though the Internet has provided an opportunity for humanitarian efforts, as Clay Shirky makes clear in his book Cognitive Surplus. “The Internet is an opportunity machine, a way for small groups to create new opportunities, at lower cost and with less hassle than ever before, and to advertise those opportunities to the largest set of potential participants in history.” (Shirky 128-129). The Internet allows us to organize our efforts and communicate effectively, and I think Habermas is wrong to think “the electronic mass media of today is organized in such a way that it controls the loyalty of a depoliticised population” (qtd. in Brookfield 232). “For Habermas democracy is all about communication – the freest, least-restricted communication possible. In his view the greater the freedom of conversation that people enjoy, the higher the chance that true critical reason – reason employed to create a just, humane democracy – will emerge.” (Brookfield, 230). If the Internet is not the freest form of communication, I’m a little scared of what might be. I think now that Habermas knows Twitter is capable of keeping bills off the Senate floor, he may change his tune and urge us to use this “opportunity machine” to organize communicative action for liberty.
In organizing communicative action, Paulo Freire would urge “the oppressed must not, in seeking to regain their humanity…become in turn oppressors of the oppressors, but rather restorers of the humanity of both” (Freire 46). When the Libertarian Party does rise up and overcome our oppressors, it’s important to embrace those oppressors and help them to regain their humanity. We can’t simply leave the Democrats and Republicans in the dust. That would be selfish and ineffective. When the gay community finally achieves marriage equality, they aren’t going to live their lives oblivious to heterosexuals. We must help Democrats and Republicans realize their oppressive ways and install an active dialogue between the oppressed and the oppressors, and if we are to move forward, we must not fear freedom.
“The oppressed, having internalized the image of the oppressor and adopted his guidelines, are fearful of freedom. Freedom would require them to eject this image and replace it with autonomy and responsibility. Freedom is acquired by conquest, not by gift. It must be pursued constantly and responsibly. Freedom is not an ideal located outside of man, nor is it an idea which becomes myth. It is rather the indispensable condition for the quest of human completion” (Freire 48).
A heavy burden of responsibility is awaiting the Libertarian Party at the end of this election, regardless of outcome, and we must not shy away from this responsibility as the Tea Party movement has done. We must accept this responsibility and go about restoring legitimacy to our government through love, because bipartisan bickering and political pandering is how we got here in the first place. Paulo Freire, a civil rights activist himself, would be appalled by the unwillingness of both Democrats and Republicans to recognize the marriage rights of gay human beings. The Libertarian Party won’t allow Democrats and Republicans to continue ignoring the gay community. Marriage equality cannot be denied to these Americans simply because they’re not conducting a traditional, religious marriage. Marriage used to be as strong a social order as evangelical Republicans still believe it to be, but we all know marriage doesn’t mean the same thing it did 20 years ago. Marriage is a human right, a civil right, a right that shall not be denied to any human regardless of race or sexual preference, and the Libertarian Party will fight for those rights.
It’s clear the Libertarian Party has a unique opportunity to change American politics forever, but how can we bring about this communicative action? Well, by taking a page from Augusto Boal’s book we can “practice how the theater can be placed at the service of the oppressed” (121). Boal’s main objective, and this is the main objective of the Libertarian Party as well, is “to change the people – ‘spectators,’ passive beings in the theatrical phenomenon – into subjects, into actors, transformers of the dramatic action” (122). Boal’s Peru experiments provide a model for Americans looking to become more aware of other people’s hopes and “one will be able to physically ‘interpret’ characters different from oneself” (128). Only through understanding each other can we effectively govern ourselves. A thorough understanding of our fellow citizens isn’t all we’ll need to bring about change, though. They must also have a thorough understanding of us, and Boal offers an effective way to invite people to live in other people’s shoes. The medical marijuana debate is a perfect opportunity for Boal’s theatric experiments to be put to the test. Consider a hypothetical situation: a Libertarian who happens to be a medical marijuana patient in favor of legalizing marijuana meets a Republican or Democrat staunchly opposed to medical marijuana and legalization of any kind. Boal gives us a model for reshaping people’s subjectivities by allowing them to step out of their own heads and into someone else’s. The Libertarian calmly explains why she supports marijuana legalization and listens attentively to why the new friend is opposed to it. Aware of their new friend’s subjectivities, the Libertarian invites the new friend to step into her shoes. “I suffer from (cancer/post-traumatic stress syndrome/multiple sclerosis/degenerative disc disease/etc.), and I use marijuana to deal with the (pain/nausea). Without it my life is a living hell, and now my provider has been arrested by the DEA despite following the state medical marijuana laws, so I can’t even get the medication I need. Now, if you found yourself with (cancer/post-traumatic stress syndrome/multiple sclerosis/etc.) and a doctor told you this plant could help you live more comfortably, would you still support DEA raids of providers just looking to make a living?” Most folks can’t help but feel empathetic because they have actively experienced what the other person is going through. They were invited to consider their subjectivities in an alternate reality. They are no longer a spectator, but a “spectactor.”
Without action there is no theatre, and the show can’t go on without action. Boal urges us to get off our asses and act rather than watch, and the Libertarian Party urges you to do the same. We find ourselves in a participatory democracy in which the participants are unwilling to participate, whether it be due to poor choices on the ballot or simple laziness. We cannot allow this lack of participation define our democracy.
“The spectator is less than a man and it is necessary to humanize him, to restore him to his capacity of action in all its fullness. He too must be a subject, an actor” (Boal, 155). We must become actors, for without action we are forever stuck in constant oppressiveness. Volunteer to register voters in your community or on your campus and inform them of the Libertarian Party and where it stands on the issues. Don’t just register them. Educate them. Discuss these issues with your neighbors, and inform those who may be misinformed. Distribute informative election materials and signs around your community. There is so much more to a participatory democracy than simply voting, and in order for the Libertarian Party to be America’s Party we all have to participate more. “The poetics of the oppressed is essentially the poetics of liberation: the spectator no longer delegates power to the characters either to think or to act in his place. The spectator frees himself; he thinks and acts for himself! Theater is action! Perhaps the theater is not revolutionary in itself; but have no doubts, it is a rehearsal of revolution!” Life is all action, too, and until we act together we’ll accomplish nothing.
Brookfield, Stephen D. The Power of Critical Theory. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005.
Boal, Augusto. Theatre of the Oppressed. New York: Theatre Communications Group, 1985.
Finlayson, James. Habermas: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford, 2005.
Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish. New York: Vintage Books, 1977.
Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum, 1960.
Marcuse, Herbert. One-Dimensional Man. Boston: Beacon, 1964.
Shirky, Clay. Cognitive Surplus. New York: Penguin, 2010.
Tags: act, action, actor, america, american, augusto boal, boal, campaign, choice, communicate, communication, communicative action, Democracy, Democrat, election, foucault, free, Freedom, freire, gay, Government, habermas, Human, humanity, internet, Law, liberation, Libertarian, Libertarian Party, Liberty, life, marcuse, marriage equality, michel foucault, Money, one-dimensional, oppressed, oppressor, order, panoptic, panopticism, participant, participate, participatory, party, paulo freire, poetics of the oppressed, politic, Politics, Power, Republican, responsibility, Revolution, social, spectator, surveil, theater, theatre, vote
Today, while browsing around various debate sites, this article (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100127395/crony-capitalism-is-failing-lets-try-the-real-thing/) was brought to my attention by yet another right-winger trying to persuade me of the supposed virtues of ‘real’ or ‘free market’ capitalism. This was just one of many similar encounters I’ve had recently, in which the system we currently have is continually referred to as either ‘crony capitalism’ or more often, ‘corporatism’ – this is however an argument that is suddenly dropped when they want to talk about the ‘achievements/prosperity of capitalism’.
What many socialists tend to do in this kind of debate is accept their opponent’s stance as an advocate of ‘free market capitalism’ and debate that, usually from a moral perspective. I feel this is a mistake. While I totally agree that such a system would be unjust and wrong, this argument requires much more time, effort and more complex philosophical discussion – especially with establishing certain concepts, such as what socialists mean by ‘private property’. The much simpler argument to make is whether such a system as ‘free market capitalism’ is even possible.
Free-marketeers generally accept the problems of corruption, state-granted privilege, etc, that exist in the current system, but here the problems begin. Their solution to these problems is generally simply something along the lines of ‘get rid of them’ so that we could then have some sort of perfect ‘free market’. However, they have no real plans of how to do this. The few ideas that they do have generally involve working within the state system. Murray Rothbard, the founder of ‘anarcho-capitalism’, could come up with no better idea than to campaign for ‘smaller government’. In recent years, many on the ‘free market’ right, particularly in the United States, have taken up the cause of Ron Paul as the supposed answer to all problems, but there are many ‘anarcho-capitalists’ who reject even this weak way of trying to achieve a cause. Their reason behind not backing Paul or other ‘libertarian’ candidates is that they consider voting to be a mark of supporting the state, which is fair enough, but leaves them with precisely nothing in the way of strategy. Many of this group of pro-capitalists seem to be under the impression that simply being against the state and providing arguments as to why is somehow beneficial to the cause of liberation from the state.
But that’s enough about the advocates of free markets for now, let’s discuss their actual feasibility. There are two main proposals for their existence. The first is the type of society advocated by people such as Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises; a ‘minimal state’ that would merely handle law and order, while the rest would be left to the market with no state intervention. A cursory glance at history indicates no such society has ever existed or come close to existing. And it doesn’t take much to figure out why. Advocates of free markets are often very quick to tout the supposed miracles of the ‘profit motive’ and ‘risks of investment’, but fail to recognise that its exactly these concepts which cause state intervention in the first place – businesses believe certain state action will bring them greater profits, and view their contributions to politicians and media as investments. This business-state collusion has occurred all the way through history.
The second proposal for ‘free market capitalism’ is that proposed by Murray Rothbard and the ‘anarcho-capitalists’. They propose that the potential for the state to be corrupted, as highlighted above, can be removed by removing the state from the picture altogether. This is a less obviously problematic scenario, but it still has its problems. For a start, the market. As David Graeber in his fantastic book Debt: The First 5,000 Years, market economies historically originated as a result of certain state action, usually to do with having to have large amounts of professional state employees (usually soldiers). As he put it in an interview about the book on RT (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnOqanbHZi4), “Societies that don’t have states generally don’t have markets.” So a ‘free market’ stateless society seems unlikely.
Also, property. This is an endless source of disagreement in arguments about capitalism, but suffice it to say for now that there are certain forms of property relations that only occur within state societies. One of the pillars of capitalism, private ownership of land, is one of these. Stateless societies generally do one of two things with regard to land ownership:
1. Consider the land owned by either ‘no-one’ or ‘everyone’.
2. Consider land owned by certain individuals, but unlike in state societies, make no distinction between the owner of the land and the occupier or farmer of it.
With that in mind, ‘free-market capitalism’ would also seem to be impossible in a stateless society.
Earlier, I noted the problems of the strategy, or rather lack thereof, of the free market right. This may not seem too much of a problem to the anarchist movement – maybe ‘anarcho-capitalists’ and the like have got it wrong, but surely they can still be of use in the battle against the state? No, far from it. They fail to realise the power structures inherent in the state, preferring to see the state as some sort of unfortunate accident that humanity has stepped into. Many will indeed acknowledge that big businesses and the finance industry are in bed with the state, benefit hugely from state intervention and are huge supporters of the state. However, when the obvious next step that these business powers that prop up the state are just as worthy a target of our anger as the state itself, they suddenly jump ship and become apologists for big business. If we take that attitude, we can never hope to eradicate power.
Thanks for reading.
Craig Nicholls of The Vines
I have tickets to a show by electro-rocker Gary Numan for November 2 in San Francisco. Meanwhile, I’ve always been a fan of the rock group The Vines, despite not really taking to the neo-Brit rock wave that they swept in on. Apparently they are on some sort of Asperger’s wavelength, because after buying their albums and watching their videos (and even getting a Gary Numan themed tattoo), I found out that both Numan and Craig Nicholls, the lead singer of The Vines, have Asperger’s syndrome.
Both Nicholls and Numan have been ridiculed and ostracized by the music industry at large for their erratic behavior, disconnect from the industry at large and music that, to put it bluntly, does really sound like it’s being made just for themselves. Nicholls had several violent episodes that led to intervention by band management and Numan, while immersed in the bohemian world of 80s new wave, was an outspoken supporter of Margaret Thatcher, a move he has fully conceded alienated many friends and allies.
The dialogue on Nicholls has been rather silent for a long time but news stories from the time of his diagnosis do reveal alot that can be used to help others with the affliction:
Vines frontman Craig Nicholls has broken his silence over his diagnosis with Aspergers Syndrome, as the band return to action.
On the eve of the release of third album ‘Vision Valley’ , Nicholls told the Observer how he was diagnosed with the condition after a series of erratic live performances.
“I think it’s a mild case that I have,” he said. “I remember when I was 15, I spoke to a couple of psychologists. But I don’t think they diagnosed me with anything. So. Maybe it grew. Maybe it became more intense when I started in the band. But I’m not really sure.”
Of the decision to continue the band as a largely studio-based project, he said: “I feel comfortable writing songs. It’s a good outlet for me. Seeing as though I’m not that social, it’s a way to communicate.”
Nicholls also revealed that he gave up smoking marijuana nine months ago. “It just fit with my personality,” he said. “I never drank alcohol. (Smoking) was just the thing I did. It made me calm. But it started not making me calm at all. It made me edgy, so it wasn’t good.”
For those this immersed in this article, by now you may be wondering of what relevance this is to a politically geared anarchist magazine like Gonzo Times. Well, in order to understand our society, I have discovered, understanding the smaller cases and the cases of individuals and small communities reveals far more than analyzing the Machiavellian behavior in Washington D.C.
I have Asperger’s syndrome, and our curator PunkJohnnyCash has family with the affliction. In many ways, those with Asperger’s know especially the need for hybrid politics, something Gonzo Times has as its raison d’etre. Despite our staunch libertarianism, we are also socialists and think that the emancipation of the individual can best be achieved through voluntary communities based on shared respect, mutual concern and pluralism. This goes great with the life experience of Aspies, who often have people that care about them playing mutual roles as oppressive and emancipator, as tormented by others (as well as the tormentor) as they are liberated by them.
Voluntaryism is really the hope for humanity, between the collectivism that too often leads to state tyranny and the cutthroat market fundamentalism that masquerades as celebrating individual rights. For those with special needs, the more communities cluster around one another and celebrate one another’s absurdities and peculiarities, the better their future in life.
Man was meant to have close communities and that is where he best succeeds. Conflict arrives when those communities are forced together, clash or perpetuate themselves through dominance of one another. Most of human history has been communities of this sort.
I am a libertarian who is not pro-gun. To go even further I am an Anarchist who is not pro-gun or pro-violence. I am not a fan of any state regulation or power. I grew up in an NRA household. I spent 5 years in the USMC. I have seen enough guns in my lifetime and shot way too many.
I speak of the elimination of the state often and I want it to be clear that I see any use of guns and violence to do so as nothing more than perpetuating the crime of the state. If one chooses to use force and violence to start a new regime they are building this regime on the same foundation that makes the state detestable.
I acknowledge property rights from a more mutualist perspective. This would place guns under property. I also acknowledge a right to self defense, this does not default to owning firearms. Under those concepts I am not in a gun control group or an all-out anti-gun group. The one place I am most anti-gun is with the state. I do not support state police or military with arms in any way sort or form. I oppose this one hundred percent. This is because the state seems to always be exempt from non-aggression and those are often the authority a state uses. The only authority of a state is the basic law of the jungle, “do as I say or we will cage you and/or shoot you.”
In general I feel society is too obsessed with violence, guns and other forms of stereotypical masculine dominance. I oppose the dominance of one over another, and guns are often the tool to achieve this. There is truth in the old conservative saying ‘if you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have guns’ and that is not a reality I wish to face either. I do however see some solid stance with groups like Pink Pistols who promote the concept of arming people who are most often victimized. I see this as a valid concept for many groups not just limited to gender specific groups. In reality it should not be the victim, or potential victims responsibility to make sure you do not attack them.
It should not be the responsibility of the woman to carry a gun to make sure she is not raped. It should be the responsibility of men to end rape. Sadly this is not the case. The victims are often placed in the role of responsibility to keep themselves safe. Under that concept I am more friendly to guns, but with the realization it is to achieve something that they should not have to be achieving.
I will not stand up with a strong pro-gun stance. I reject the assumed authority of the constitution so I will not stand up for the second amendment as ‘rights.’ I will not speak out against guns in general as something the state should have power over, and I will never condone weapons in the hand of a state or any force that wishes to use a gun to obtain a government, revolution or any other political power.
Our society puts a great deal of emphasis on aggressive behavior. Entertainment pushes movies and music that glorifies shooting and attacking other human beings. Our biggest stars in Hollywood are often those who got big by looking cool carrying a guns around. Our TV shows glamorize police who run around shooting people. We have a male biases sexual saturated element that is dominate in media. All of these things must be evaluated. We live in a culture that praises the guy that can bust the most heads and exploit the most women at the barrel of his gun. Until we evaluate the values that we promote we will have little success in having the victim not be held accountable to defending themselves. These are values of hierarchy based on gender power and violence that we promote with entertainment that is protected by the copyrights granted by a state that allow major corporations to perpetuate hierarchy for gross amounts of profit.
We need to re-evaluate the values our culture is built on more than anything. The most dangerous element of our guns is that we promote such a society. We often praise the violent never looking at the victims. We seldom look at the trauma of violence. We seldom give voice, praise or hero status to those who have fallen prey to these hierarchical heroes. To the Libertarians I ask how can one promote personal responsibility when we won’t take that responsibility in the values we condone? If you want to fight to keep guns in the Police State controlled by the patriarchy and to make certain every uneducated hick with a hard on for Bruce Willis movies can pick up a rifle at K-mart then I most likely won’t be backing your view of gun rights.
As long as we are teaching our little boys that it is good for them to kill with their badge and uniforms we will continue to have issues. We must start by teaching our children that murder is murder if it is by a state or by Ted Bundy, it is the same action. Keep on feeding murder and violence to children and I don’t see how we expect anything but a culture based on human slaughter. They are brainwashed by their schools and media to extol the virtues of the state sanctioned killers. We need to focus more on disarming the state agents than stockpiling weapons.
Want to set up a Pirate Radio station so that you can ILLEGALLY broadcast the Liberty Radio Network in your own local area?
Want to set up a Pirate Radio station so that you can ILLEGALLY broadcast the Liberty Radio Network in your own local area? OF COURSE YOU DO! via @bradspangler
From The Liberty Radio Network
Run your own radio station!
Perhaps you are an existing program director or owner of a radio station (or internet stream) and would like to use LRN.FM’s programming on your station either in part or 24/7. Perhaps you’d like to start your own station, but aren’t sure what to put on-the-air. We humbly suggest LRN.FM! Here’s how to make it happen:
1. Choose your audio delivery method:
Pros: Our Ku-band free-to-air satellite channel goes everywhere in North America the internet can’t reach. Free-to-Air means all you need is an affordable dish and receiver. (Click to see a detailed signal map with minimum dish width for your location.) LRN.FM is sent with no encryption, so there is zero monthly cost. Satellite delivery is low-delay. (NOTE: Low delay is coming – we need to get some new equipment for the network studio first.)
Cons: Subject to rain-fade. Heavy rain will knock out your signal, meaning dead-air, though a larger dish may help remedy this in rain-heavy areas. (There are ways to detect silence and remedy that, but at this time it requires extra equipment. Ask in the forum if you are interested.)
Pros: Our broadband stream is as reliable as your internet connection. (We’ve got two connections at the network, so our stream is pretty reliable.) Affordable receiving equipment is available with backup options to prevent dead-air.
Cons: High-delay. Monthly costs for your internet connection.
2. Choose your receiving equipment:
Micro broadcasting can be done with a micro budget, but spending a little more on quality equipment can go a long way. Here are some suggested hardware options for various budgets (not including necessary cables):
A. Micro Budget
Satellite: Receiving equipment can be very affordable. New and used Free-to-Air receivers can be found for under $100. Here are some receivers at Amazon. You’ll also need a dish that is at least 30″ to receive Ku-band.
Internet: You can use an existing computer to receive our stream, but that requires running a computer 24/7, so a better idea might be a cheap internet radio which would consume less power and be dedicated to audio receiving. Operating system issues, reboots, or other such problems will not afflict a dedicated audio receiver.
B. Medium Budget
Satellite: You don’t need to pay much more to get a receiver with decent audio connections. At the time of this writing the rackmountable GeoSatPro DSR-R100 with balanced XLR outputs was only $185. Larger satellite dishes don’t cost much more and will collect more signal, meaning less chance of rain fade. (Though, even the minimum 30″ dish doesn’t tend to rain fade until very heavy rain, from my experience.) Also, you’ll need a larger dish if you are in the weaker signal areas shown on our signal map.
Internet: The internet radios I linked to in the micro budget section are good, but professional-level equipment doesn’t cost much more. As of this writing, you can get the Barix Extreamer 100 for $195 and free shipping. The Extreamer will feed audio 24/7 from our stream, and if for some reason our stream fails, it can fall back to other streams or a flash drive that you plug into the front of the unit loaded with MP3s. This nearly eliminates the possibility of dead air (unless the unit itself fails, which is highly unlikely as this is a professional, solid-state device). For the backup MP3s LRN.FM recommends using MP3s that are of an introduction-to-liberty theme. Here are some links to good MP3s, including audio versions of Wes Bertrand’s “Complete Liberty”, The Tannehills’ “The Market For Liberty”, Dr. Mary Ruwart’s “Healing Our World”Spooner’s “No Treason” (or this version from Mises), Bastiat’s “The Law”, and the Liberty Radio Underground. Wondering how to hook your Extreamer up via wifi? Read about one possible solution here on the Free Radio Forum.
C. Large Budget
Satellite: TBA – I haven’t found a better unit than the rackmountable GeoSatPro DSR-R100 with balanced XLR outputs that I describe in the medium budget section, so until I do, that will occupy this space.
Internet: In the medium budget section above I introduced you to the Extreamer 100. Well, Barix has now released the Extreamer 500, which you can purchase through Broadcast Supply World for just over $500. (As of this writing on 9/25/10, it is not listed yet on their site at BSWUSA.com, so you’ll have to call them.) The 500 is a more professional version of the 100 and includes the all-important balanced audio outputs, which are a big help if you have a professional-grade transmitter with balanced inputs. You’ll need to install the streaming client firmware available through Barix’s site to get it to tune in LRN.FM.
3. Choose your broadcasting equipment:
Here are some suggested hardware options for various budgets (not including necessary cables):
A. Micro Budget
Transmitter & Antenna: At the micro budget level, when you buy a transmitter, it usually comes with an antenna and cabling. I’ve heard good things about Hlly products, but have no experience with them. There are a few Chinese manufacturers offering transmitters on ebay besides Hlly. IMPORTANT NOTE: In order to be a good neighbor and broadcaster, you need to have a low pass filter in addition to your transmitter. Most of the “cheapie” transmitters do not have this part inside them, so you’ll need one separate from your transmitter. Here’s one from Ramsey Electronics available as a kit or assembled.
B. Medium-Large Budget
Transmitter: As mentioned above, HLLY and the other manufacturers on ebay sell a variety of tranmitters at different power levels. Plus, for REAL professional FM transmitters, see this thread on the Free Radio Forum. As noted above, please ensure your transmitter has a low-pass filter in it, or you’ll need to get one. The more you spend, the more wattage you’ll get, but watts aren’t the most important factor in FM transmission – the most important factor is antenna height.
Antenna: A good omnidirectional antenna is a 5/8 wave like this one from Ramsey. It can handle up to 200 watts and you can find a similar version from Comet for less elsewhere. You can of course find other antennas that can handle more watts and also are directional, if you are wanting to pay more.
4. Final Steps
A. Find an open channel
First, use this handy tool, then drive around listening to that station to make sure it is actually clear.
B. Install and configure your equipment.
Remember to tune your antenna for the frequency you’ve chosen or you will get poor SWR. NEVER power your transmitter up without an appropriate antenna attached! Also, make sure you are not over-modulating as you could potentially interfere with an adjacent channel and attract negative attention. Additionally, make sure to ensure that your neighbors can receive channels adjacent to yours and that you are not interfering. Take a cheap radio outside your home and check reception on other existing channels. If it’s clear in your yard, it’s probably clear in your neighbor’s home. If you know your neighbors, you can ask them if they’ve been receiving any unusual interference on their favorite stations. More useful technical information here at LibertyActivism.info and also on the Free Radio Forum.
C. Power it up!
Wait – you ARE using an Uninterruptable Power Supply, right? Regardless of your budget, this is an important tool to protect your investment. The more you spend, the more watts your UPS can handle, and the longer it will stay online during a power outage.
D. Let us know you’re out there.
If you’re using LRN for your station, please email LRN at LRN.FM and let us know so we can add your station to our affiliates list. Don’t forget to update us if you have a frequency change, pull our programming, or go off-the-air.
E. Join the Free Radio Forum.
Northeast Kansas City is pretty much just Democrats. Thank heavens there are few Republicans out there. I have lived in republican territory. I lived in the same area outside of Cincinnati Ohio that John Boehner represents. Oddly enough it was also the only place in the U.S. that I actually saw the KKK gather in a public park, and the only place where the KKK celebrates the holidays downtown with a burning cross.
If you have been following the site you know I have beef with some of the guys running in Kansas City. I was certain Will Royster was going to win the for the 40th House District. Everywhere I turned there were signs with Roysters’ name on them. The guys’ campaign seemed way more professional and seemed to spend way more money. I was certain he had bought himself power. I was bound and determined to at least try and block the guy.
I do not dislike Will Royster. He is a nice guy. He is friendly, and has a nice family, kind of that all-around “American Dream” life. My opposition to his candidacy was not as much a pro J.J. Rizzo thing as it was an anti SOAP/SODA thing and a disappointment in his stance and involvement. Will Royster, if you were a liberal democrat in the truest sense I would have no doubt supported you. I mean truly liberal. Maybe you should listen to some of the more extremely liberal people in the area that have quite a bit to say. I was not happy with the desire to control and lock up other people because some do not like what they are doing. I guarantee you that most of the women in prostitution in Northeast Kansas City do not like what they are doing either.
Voting is not too much unlike playing the lottery. You cast your ballot and just cross your fingers knowing the next day you will discover you are disappointed. I don’t think I have ever voted for a winning candidate. I am happy with that. I would hate to wake up and see that the guy I voted for was the one doing all this bullshit. Now that may be a possibility. I have lately been more and more attracted to the “Vote For Nobody” concept. But I went. I voted for Proposition C and I voted for J.J. Rizzo in the Democratic Primaries. I was beyond shocked to see that J.J. Rizzo beat Will Royster by 650 to 644. Literally six votes. I hope my articles didn’t persuade anyone, then his reign of power could be even more my fault. The blood is on my hands. I know they were read by more than 650 people which was the amount that actually voted for Rizzo.
J.J. Rizzo comes from another one of those powerful patriarchal families of Kansas City. So where does that leave Kansas City? No Republicans, thank God, just J.J. Rizzo vs. the Libertarian Sean O’toole. Here I am looking at a Man who is influenced by Rothbard vs. the Patriarchy perpetuating itself. Gee, that’s a hard decision. From everything I’ve heard from Sean O’Toole he does not seem to want the job. Here is an Austrian minded accountant. Gee, I wonder who gets my vote. This is the guy that wakes up and checks Lew Rockwell every morning.
Sean O’Toole doesn’t seem to have his future hinged on this race. He said that if he did win the first thing he would do is demand a re-count. Taking this job would be a step down for Sean. He seems to be doing this more to educate and reach people. Sean attended a debate between himself, J.J. Rizzo and Will Royster held by the league of women voters in KC. When he was given a chance to answer before the others the response from J.J. Rizzo and Will Royster was often the same. “Well, really Sean is right.” That, Sean said is what he wanted. That is what he was looking for.
I’m sorry Sean, I have to vote for you. In fact I think I may push to try and get some other votes for you. I couldn’t live with the thought that I may have helped elect this Republicrat by my vote. I may just burn in hell for that.
Too many will brush aside the Libertarian Party. Don’t let J.J. Rizzo get handed this election. Make him fight for it. We all know the democrats have this seat without question. I have no faith in our system whatsoever. I’m not fooled into believing politicians do anything for anyone but themselves and their careers. I do however feel that if J.J. Rizzo wants power over me I want him to work for it.
Your vote is not your voice. Your vote is an illusion that you are somehow getting a say in this bullshit, but I’ll be damned if I don’t at least see some competition in this. Just look at how many seats are uncontested. The power is being handed to the rich and powerful elite. Ideally I want to take their power away, but until then we can at least give some resistance. The game will not be won in the political arena. The system will not abolish itself, but in the end maybe we can make life a little more difficult and maybe we can block a few tyrants. How do I check “abolish” this office? Where is the vote for getting rid of the power over us? I get to choose my slave masters every blue moon when they are contested. It’s like winning the lottery, only in the lottery there is the obscure slim chance something good will happen. Here the outcome is bad no matter which slave master you choose. And this “If you don’t vote don’t complain” mindset is utter bullshit. What are people supposed to vote for? Most of these seats I see are uncontested. There is no choice! I want to see an option to get rid of an office or to leave it empty. Then maybe you might claim there is some other choice on the ballot itself. Republicans and Democrats are no choice just what we have in rule. The real choices and changes lie in education and direct action not politics.
UPDATE: In the heat of all this anti SOAP/SODA sentiment I shot myself in the foot. By picking up that democratic ballot I passed the Libertarian Party Ballot up. Here I wake up and see the only person I had any desire to see in office had lost. Cisse Spragins lost in the primary and I don’t think I can forgive myself at this point. I was certain she had it. I was wrong, sadly drastically wrong. I had just assumed when November came around she would be on the ballot and I would cast my vote. I have little desire to vote in November with her out of the race, she was the one thing that kept me thinking I may vote in November. I don’t know if I will or not at this point. Sean O’Toole would be the only other reason I would consider it at this point.
I’m very concerned about what I consider to be a blindingly obvious fact. There’s actually an argument right now about immigration. This is completely ludicrous. Worse yet, the argument is about how to curtail it and “protect our borders”. If this wasn’t so infinitely offensive it would be hilarious. I won’t go into the racism arguments because I honestly believe those are beside the point. No, I’m outraged by the sheer lunacy of the arguments being made on both sides.
The standard “anti-migrant” argument is that these people who come here and steal “our” jobs, destroy “our” property values, steal “our” tax money and commit horrible crimes against “our” people. The standard “pro-migrant” argument is, first of all, very few migrants do those things and secondly they bring with them valuable resources in the form of labor and cultural diversity. I stand dumbfounded by the idea that either side would even broach those subjects at all! Do people really believe any of that is relevant to the debate? Do you think so?
Let me explain why I find this so painfully laughable. What is “immigration”? It’s when one person moves from one place defined as outside an area to one place defined as inside an area. There are three things involved: the person, the “from” place and the “to” place. Why the hell is it that people on both sides of the argument only seem to want to look at one of those three things?
No, I’m not talking about ending welfare or stopping government regulations which make people want to ship jobs overseas or anything of the sort. I’m talking about the most fundamental right there is: the Right to Self Defense. Keep in mind that I believe “public land” is as much of a myth as “public goods”. All land is either private or un-owned. The Right to Self Defense includes the right to defend one’s property just as one’s property is a part of one’s self. The real debate on immigration is exactly that: a debate about property rights.
Either you own your own person and your land, or you are a slave. If you own a particular plot of land, then it’s beholden upon you to protect it and decide–hopefully wisely–who shall be allowed on to that land. Freedom of Association is part and parcel of the Right of Self Defense. If you do not own any land, then you have no say in the associations made by those who do. To suggest you do not have total say in who can and cannot come on to your land is to say you are not the owner of your own person and property. That’s the definition of a slave.
So before we even start to look at any of the logistical issues, let’s actually talk about the real question of immigration: Are we slaves or do we own ourselves and our property? Please, wake up and smell the distractions. Those who want you to argue about logistics are forcing you to ASSUME you are a slave. Don’t let people rope you into that complacent state!
The militarized police state is here, has been here and is reality. One of the best examples in the United States of Orwellian Double Speak is the term “Peace Officer.” We use this to define an individual hired to use aggressive force against the citizens and throw them into cages. Most accept this and do not perceive is as an issue. Many defend it’s presence and declare it a ‘necessary evil.’ By declaring it a ‘necessary evil’ you have already acknowledged it is evil. Now one must reject the idea that evil is necessary.
We all commit abstract ‘crimes’ against the state, some are just lucky enough not to be caught. There is a double standard which favors those in the state to this which I briefly mentioned in another article called “Not All Are Equal In The Eyes Of The Law.” The reality is that police are under no obligation to protect you. They are to serve the will of the state. They are the power the state uses to assert its power over you. This was validated by the Supreme Court in 2005 when Justices ruled that Police do not have a constitutional duty to protect someone.To even claim we need police for ‘safety’ is a complete misunderstanding in what their purpose is.
One can point to many abuses of power that have been caught on tape recently. Police are objecting more and more to being filmed. It is frightening that they wish to use aggressive force on citizens and not be held accountable for what is going on. What do they hide? Why is recording something they fear? The state backs them, like in Illinois where you can receive up to 15 years for filming a Cop. One thing that is essential is to film these people carrying out the states will. News reports of Children being slaughtered while they sleep like in the case of Aiyana Jones, violent abuse of citizens, murdering household pets and much more have been in recent headlines. Websites like Injustice Everywhere do a good job at collecting reports of the massive violations and criminal activity within these departments.
Military Surplus is being bought up in bulk by police departments for use against citizens. Often the true criminal activity taking place is by the Police Department. In the case of Joe Arpaio the power of the police force is used for self gain. Joe Arpaio is the criminal who is declared a national hero. Here we see business owners being forced to dump their resources into defending themselves against the allegations of the state. It does not matter if the business or individual is innocent or guilty, they have been crushed by court and lawyer fees attempting to defend themselves. The absence of conviction, or a declaration of ‘innocent’ does not serve as reparations to all the loss and damage. Some have opened their eyes now with talks about deploying drones and Army units on U.S. soil. The reality is that those are just minor concerns compared to what already exists.
There is the constant theft by the police of the citizens property. Not only are they the force necessary to maintain the extortion racket they call taxation, but they directly steal property. Civil asset forfeiture is the practice of seizing and keeping property that police claim was used in a crime. This property does not have to actually be used in a crime, only a claim has to be made. It can be the property of someone other than the individual the police stole it from.
In a system where people are detained in jail cells before being found guilty justice is a joke. “In jail awaiting trial.” Guilty until proven innocent is the American way. It is time we began to question the power of the government. ‘Big Government’ did not start with ‘ObamaCare’ or the ‘Patriot Act.’ The structure and foundation for the power of the state was accepted by giving up our liberty on what many perceive as a smaller scale by throwing that liberty away for what we were told was a little protection which in reality exists to defend and strengthen the state. Until we abolish this state ran monopoly they will continue to seize more power and trample on your rights.
I recently had the chance to ask Dr. Cisse Spragins The Missouri Libertarian Candidate for Senate a few questions. I am not one to put much faith or hope in achieving anything in government, but I still vote. I try to give my vote mostly to third party candidates, and I feel Dr. Cisse Spragins has a stance I can back.
Anarcho-capitalists should vote Libertarian, even though you don’t believe in government and even if the candidates are less than perfect. We are a long way from liberty right now. Yes, the establishment wants you to vote, but I am sure they DON’T want you to vote Libertarian. Voting Libertarian sends far more of a message than not voting, because not voting on principle is indistinguishable from not voting because you can’t be bothered. Votes will help attain or maintain ballot access which is an ongoing uphill battle. So vote Libertarian whenever you have the opportunity because it is truly sad to have no choice at all.
Check out the interview over at Break The Matrix.
Are you authorized to exist within the confines of the state? Have you been cataloged and placed in big brothers database? The right has gone on a rampage against migrants. The hypocritical belief seems to be that liberty and freedom should be afforded to those that are born into it seems to contradict many of their stances on the constitution. They will claim that the constitution should be followed except in cases of birthright citizenship.
Citizenship is now defined by what state authorized paperwork one holds. You must have a birth certificate to be entered into the system with the road monopolies of the state. The roads are used to regulate individuals. Your vehicle must have identification so the state can tell if you have not paid the appropriate state offices. The individual is licensed as a way to keep information and tabs on each individual. It is the campaign of the left and right to only allow individuals in the country that can be cataloged. You are simply cattle to the state.
The right continues to ridicule the president as they extol wars and migrant control. While the President seems to be the greatest defender of their violence and aggression and government inventory of human beings.
The “enforcement now, enforcement forever” policy of the Obama administration continues. The administration asked Congress on Tuesday for $600 million in emergency funds to hire another 1,000 Border Patrol agents, acquire two drones and enhance security along the Southwest border. This is the kind of conduct that provoked one commentator to observe that President Obama is the most anti-immigrant President since President Eisenhower, whose administration oversaw Operation “Wetback” in 1954. So far, President Obama has been even tougher on immigration than President Clinton, who brought the nation Operation Gatekeeper and similar border enforcement operations, signed into law the draconian 1996 immigration reforms and welfare reform, increased immigrant detention, and similar tough-on-immigrant measures.
Many Democrats have taken a slight pro-migrant stance in the case of improving their human inventory through the promotion of a national biometric ID. Even if we do not go the route of this biometric ID that has been rumored the same concept of human inventory exists with birth certificates, social security numbers and state drivers licenses’ and IDs’.
Many say it is the problem that the migrant can not get the right ‘papers.’ The problem is that we are forced to have papers in the first place. It is time we became critical of the accepted social norm of submitting to being human cattle and inventoried by the state.
Even the first lady is speaking to the children about making sure everyone has the right kind of ‘papers.’ Its’ not just the migrant that has to hold the right ‘papers’ but every individual under the regime. I am asking for migrant freedom not migrant catalogs just as I ask for human freedom as opposed to begging the bureaucracy to vilify my existence in their database.
Border control, ICE, State Police and many more work together to monitor and regulate the free movement of human beings. They demand payment to the state to be inventoried and monitored and if you do not pay the state to migrate or just to be able to drive to and from work they will inventory you in a prison system. One way or another they will have your movements under control. If you do not wish to pay the coercive state monopolies to maintain you like cattle or sheep you will be placed in cages or escorted out of the country.
British officer: You call yourself a patriot, and a loyal subject to King
George?Hawkeye: I don’t call myself “subject” to much of
anything.Hawkeye explains the foundational tenet of the American worldview to a self-important armed government functionary offended by the frontiersman’s principled defiance; from the 1992 version of Last of the Mohicans.
Marilyn Levias, a 19-year-old Seattle girl involved in a jaywalking incident during which a police officer assaulted another 17-year-old girl, displayed “a dangerous refusal to observe a cardinal rule that civilians simply must comply with instructions from police officers,” insists Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes.
For this, Miss Levias faces a gross misdemeanor charge of “Obstructing a Police Officer.” During the confrontation, Levias’s 17-year-old friend, Angel L. Rosenthal, intervened on her behalf and was punched in the face by officer Ian P. Walsh. As is typically the case when a Mundane’s face obstructs the trajectory of a police officer’s fist, the victim is the one facing criminal charges.
In announcing the criminal charge against Levias, City Attorney Holmes offered the mildest possible limp-wristed swipe at the Seattle Police Department by saying that the incident illustrates the need “for de-escalation training for officers.” Holmes also cited an observation by Judge Michael Spearman, auditor for the police department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, that “The use of force in a [jaywalking] situation as a best practice is questionable.
“Even this timid and tentative criticism was an unbearable affront to the delicate sensibilities of Rich O’Neill, president of Seattle’s Armed Tax-Feeders Guild.
“Force was not used in a jay-walking incident! Force was used because the individuals involved assaulted a uniformed police officer,” protested O’Neill.
The “assault” in question occurred when the teenage girls tried to free themselves from Walsh’s clutches after he had needlessly laid hands on them. They were uncooperative, not threatening.
Yet to O’Neill, who is apparently so Emo that his last name should be Philips, jaywalking occupies the same continuum as violent crime.
Accordingly, the use of overwhelming force is entirely appropriate: “Officers are trained to enforce the law and not to ‘de-escalate’ walk away simply because a violator objects to being stopped. That would simply lead to lawlessness.
“Indeed: If we don’t permit police officers to slug jaywalking teenage girls in the face, the terrorists will win.
There are evil axioms embedded in the statements of both Holmes and O’Neill. First of all, both assume that there is a dichotomy between police and “civilians” – which of necessity means that the former should be regarded as military, or at least para-military, in nature. Holmes reinforced that assumption by referring to the Mayor of Seattle as “commander in chief” of the city’s police.
As I’ve noted elsewhere, the idea that “civilians” are to render instant, unqualified obedience to any armed individual in a government-issued costume is the chief characteristic of the martial law mind-set.
Read the Full Article by William Norman Grigg: The Police State’s ‘Cardinal Rule’: The Mundane Must Submit by William Norman Grigg.
Since the Tea Parties have been in full swing I have found myself distancing myself from other so-called “libertarians.” It seems that the GOP lite has taken the term and ran with it. I already had issues with the Objectivists in some areas but that is to be expected considering their matriarch detested the anarchist strand that I proudly embrace. The one area I find myself still in agreement with few libertarians would be some Austrian concepts of economic realities. The modern American libertarian has become a defender of the state reading their constitutions as religious text. I recently had a conversation with an individual who considered themselves “libertarian” the whole while telling me that Jesus wrote the constitution. (seriously) This person believed the constitution was inspired by God.
Statism seems to be infused with a vile blasphemous conservative devotion to the state by some cult like worship of culture and the preservation of their traditions of the laws of men. The so-called libertarians I am running into lately have embraced war, migrant-control, anti-abortion and a plethora of other state powers. I am failing to see how this is any opposition to government.
I went to a local Tea Party when I first heard of it. I thought that an anti-tax protest sounded wonderful. Just like the anti-war protests of the Bush years I thought that maybe the people were truly fed up with the state. All I found there were anti-democrats. I heard speakers condoning war and preaching against migrants. I was appalled at just how much government these people were embracing. It was held at a state memorial to war, Kansas City’s WWI memorial. This seemed to be a badge of pride almost as if they wanted to say with nationalist pride “look at the great wars we had won.” They worshiped at the idol that was built to memorialize mass murder by the state. I stood there wondering how many Egyptians once gathered under their god king Ramses feet rallying the slaughter of their neighboring countries.
Conservative talk show hosts spoke of the mighty GOP and their rise. This was nothing but angry conservatives mad at the other side of the state. As if the pro-war sentiment wasn’t enough I got an interesting insight of why some people were there from an old man. As people began to clear out I walked up to their little “Boston Harbor” which looked more like a plastic bath-tub filled with burst tea bags. It looked unsanitary. An old man was standing there and decided I needed to hear how mad he was. Was he mad about taxes? No. Was he mad about the massive spending on murder in the middle east? No. The old man just sat there and complained about “those damn Mexicans.” I heard all about how they “need to go back home.”" I also got to hear how this was apparently some southern rednecks’ country and not the country of the “damn Mexicans.” I wanted to oppose taxation. I didn’t want to condone taxes to take the liberty of migrants, kill Muslims or oppress others.
This was my realization that the Tea Party was not a libertarian movement at all but simply angry Republicans. Then there was talk about the son of Ron Paul. They called him libertarian. I got excited. I began to look at him and was quickly disappointed. Here he was going on about “A strong national defense.” The guy was also embracing winning wars and blocking migration. What? Who’s liberty are these people concerned about? It was appalling. More and more so-called libertarians were coming out of the woodwork and it seemed all of them were nothing but GOP lite.
These libertarians began to preach to me about “the rule of law” and tell me that “we are a nation of laws.” What libertarianism is this they are following? It sure as hell isn’t Rothbard who would unashamedly oppose all government. Maybe it was Ronald Reagan. Some of the rhetoric was starting to sound like Joe McCarthy a little also. I heard a self-proclaimed libertarian tell me Joe McCarthy was a “great American.” What the hell was going on? Why even use the word libertarian if you are only going to defend the GOP party platform with it?
I began to question if I was even a libertarian anymore. If libertarian was this conservative nationalist movement then no I am not a libertarian. I will embrace the word I often attempted to not use, “anarchist.” The few I do agree with seemed to be focusing on just an anti-welfare concept. I detest this stance. As I said before I do not condone any government whatsoever, but if I did believe in government it would be one that took care of the needy and not the government that shoots us in the face. It seems that they are willing to stick with and even condone militarized police aggressively preying on the citizens as well as the massive slaughter around the world in order to end welfare. The logic here escapes me. If the coercive force of the state is abolished all welfare and other programs become voluntary thus ending any opposition one should have against it. These conservative libertarians still stand for the very power that enables the state.
Am I a libertarian? At times I would say yes. I base my philosophy on the libertarian non-aggression axiom. This is something many modern libertarians tend to never mention. They just talk about their constitutions, the law of the land they seem to embrace. What really makes that funny is that it is only used when it suits them. Even Ron Paul the great constitutional defender has spoken out against birthright citizenship. So apparently this constitution is not the all to end all they would like us to think, but simply a defense in arguments to defend the government providing the type of society they want to condone.
My belief tends to be one of mutualism for it seems that in a true free market one can not restrict voluntary communal interactions and syndicates. This leaves me jaded at the anti-socialist and anti-communist rhetoric of the right. At the same time I tend to be jaded by the anti-capitalist rhetoric of the left. There seems to be a completely polarized perspective which wishes to choose one over the other. I however am content with a pro-choice perspective on everything across the board that does not infringe on the libertarian non-aggression axiom. The initiation of force is what I oppose not how people wish to structure their economic models as long as it is non-coercively.
Oh, Uh-Merika you have complete devotion to that mass murder the state you so reverently worship. Oh you modern libertarians are nothing more than state apologists. How can you enter into an argument in defense of the government so often? That is what I keep running into. I will begin speaking to the so-called libertarians and they will defend government. If you have a habit of defending the state you may want to examine your views and perspective. The state has enough schools and guns to defend itself it does not need you.
Brown the establishment GOP candidate won in Massachusetts. Many are excited. Prior to the election, The Tea Party group was telling the Libertarian Party candidate to drop out so that the Democrat could be defeated. I am furious. They see this as some kind of great victory. I tell you it mattered not if the GOP or the DNC took that election. The GOP brought us here. If you really see salvation in the GOP you are somehow having selective amnesia.
Is this what the tea party was all about? Preserving a patriarchy and establishment GOP resurgence? Take it! You can have it! I am not always completely behind the Minarchy promoted by the Libertarian party, but it is at least not more GOP. The only wasted vote in this country are the votes thrown on those who hold power. Support the green party, communist party, constitution party, or the socialist party before you support those who hold power. This goes out to the left and the right. No change will come from this patriarchy that has stood for over 230 years. Do not support two party duopoly. It is time we stooped serving them. I will not pay my dues to the Republicrats! I am ashamed of every one of you who spoke of “small government” and supported the system with your vote.
Many say if you don’t vote you have no right to complain. Well I say if you keep voting for these Republicrats you have no right to complain! You are like a dog returning to it’s own vomit.
Mike Ferguson, the Libertarian spokesman sent out this letter today in regards to the MIAC incident.
Missouri Libertarian Party Welcomes Resolution to MIAC Memo Controversy
Regarding Third Parties, Commends MPS Director John Britt for Responding
Positively to Concerns About Political Profiling