Earlier, I saw a story from Chicago that struck a chord. So again, I want to demonstrate a little skepticism.
I want to stress that the people in the story are acknowledging the tragedy in Connecticut as horrific, and are not trying to downplay it in any way. But they are also correct that we don’t hear nearly as much about violence in Chicago among young black youths as we do when tragedies like the one in Newtown occur in white communities. Why is this happening, and is it racism?
First: are there any mass school shootings in Chicago? I don’t recall, nor did a simple Google search reveal anyone recently murdering a large group of children and teachers in a Chicago school. If it has happened, then I am terribly sorry for not acknowledging the lost—I am truly ignorant of such an occurrence. If I am correct however, then we don’t have an apple to compare to an apple.
I believe that most shootings in Chicago involve a violent youth, often gang related, settling a score with someone. As so often happens when public shootings occur, innocent people are caught in the crossfire, and that often does make the news. However gang-on-gang violence is simply too common to report.
The number of murders in the state of Connecticut for 2011 with a population of 3,580,709 were 128 . Conversely, the murders in the city of Chicago with a population of only 2,707,120 were 433 . If we do some quick math, Connecticut has a ratio of 1:27,974 vs Chicago’s 1:6,252. This means you are approximately 4-1/2 times as likely to get murdered in Chicago as you are in Connecticut. That’s pretty alarming when you consider that there were less deaths in Afghanistan among our troops at 418 in the same year.
So why do I believe these stats are relative to the topic of discussion? There are a number of issues. The shooting in Newtown was a single incident; the second largest school shooting in American history in a state that ranks 37th in murders. Compare that to multiple incidents throughout the year in a city that is in the top 6% of the country’s most violent.
So what makes something newsworthy? It’s not whether something is violent or not—people are murdered every day in America. Something is newsworthy by virtue of how atypical it is. The more atypical, the more newsworthy. So I would argue that the issue isn’t about race, it’s about the rareness with which an occurrence such as the one in Newtown happens compared to the frequency of those in Chicago.
So are these people crying wolf? Let me say that there are unfortunately people who make a living out of exploiting racism. I won’t mention any names, but people should always be skeptical of those who make a living off of “raising awareness.” If racism were eradicated, such people would be out of a job. Therefore, if there isn’t any overtly racist acts to report, these types often look for something that could be construed as racism, and move forward with the assumption it is in order to remain relevant. Sadly, it’s a living.
But in this case, these are just average Chicagoans speaking out, so their claim isn’t one borne out of exploitation, but instead justified disappointment in the lack of concern for their losses while many mourn the loss of others. It’s a fair argument.
So what do I believe the issues regarding Chicago are?
Chicago is one of the nations most violent cities, yet the people can’t properly defend themselves thanks to over-restrictive gun laws. We have heard that one of the strongest deterrents for most criminals is fear of the homeowner they’re about to invade being armed. Thanks to laws in Chicago, those fears are somewhat allayed. They tried these gun laws to reduce crime, but in 2012, there are 488 murders and counting. Stats show gun laws don’t help, but I suspect reports of intruders routinely getting killed sure would.
Another problem I believe is that teacher’s unions have destroyed Chicago schools. Even the fairly left-wing mayor Rahm Emanuel had to go to battle with them, and he’s someone who is traditionally a union supporter. They cost far too much for the poor results they produce, and had no intention of improving their quality. Instead, they simply fought for higher wages—and sadly won! When you have a sub-par education system, children come out of schools, often sans diplomas, to either obtain low paying jobs or join a gang and make big money. For them, it’s a sad but easy choice.
I also believe that like many inner cities, Chicago needs better parenting and adult role models. Parents need to spend more time teaching their children that education is important and that gangs are a dead end—literally. I’ve seen far too many parents glorifying thug-life, encouraging their kids to be hard instead of smart, and not working with their children to make sure they’re actually learning. I’ve personally known many single parents, of varied races, who seem to be more concerned with going out and getting their drink on, than being a proper parent.
Being a libertarian, I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that legalizing and regulating vices like drugs, gambling, prostitution, etc., has historically proven to reduce violent crime. Free people rarely war with each other.
Lastly, I think Chicago needs people who have the courage to take action to reduce the crime in their city. People have made depraved indifference an art form. All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing, yet people would sooner film a violent act with their cell phone than use it to call the police.
So is the coverage of the school shooting in Newtown vs the lack of coverage for Chicago racist? I don’t think so. If I am to believe the people making this claim, I would have to believe that the directors at NBC, CNN, Fox, et al., all sit around and say, “Don’t bother with the deaths in Chicago, they’re just black people.” If someone thinks that’s how white people think, they should consult their mirror for evidence of a racist.
The fact is, the tragedies of Chicago, by volume alone, outweigh the tragedy in Newtown. It kills me inside to see all of the people dying in the inner cities of our country, no matter what color their skin is. Why it’s not so often talked about in the media however, is merely a result of typical occurrences in Chicago versus an atypical massacre in Connecticut. It’s not racism—just rarity. I have no doubt, that if someone were to replicate the Newtown incident in Chicago, it would be talked about just as much; let’s hope we never find out.
Your humble correspondent fancies himself a decent golfer with a higher than average passion for the game. While I live on a modest income, I am a bit of a golf snob. I have Perrier tastes on a well-water budget, but whenever I get a chance, I drop a dime or 700 on a nice round somewhere.
As I was growing up in a modest income household, I was ingrained with the idea, by family and friends, that rich people got rich by taking advantage of the poor. Thurston Howell from Gilligan’s Island may have been fictional, but as a young and highly ignorant boy, for all I knew, that was basically how rich people were because that’s what the populace painted them out to be. Growing up in the 70’s; gays, blacks, and women were painted out to be a certain way too unfortunately. There’s a lesson here, but more on that later.
Thurston Howell III played by Jim Backus
As I started getting into golf, I had a boss invite me to Heritage Golf Club in Hilliard Ohio. I was a little nervous, but I wasn’t going to pass up the chance to play at my first private club. So off I went, in my nicest golf apparel, having spent hours at the driving range getting my swing in peak form so as not to get scoffed at by what was surely going to be a group of scratch golfers.
As I walk in, the staff treat me like royalty. It’s not that they knew me, I was a guest not a member, but that didn’t matter. A private golf club is like any business. They don’t get paid to exist, they get paid by keeping membership up. They do that by treating guests as if they’re all Tiger Woods in hopes that those guests will return, or better yet, join. Yay for capitalism!
But here’s the other thing. The members we played with were incredibly nice also. Most members were what I’d call “doing well” but not rich, and it turns out their golf skills were about average like anywhere else. This was a sub $10,000 a year club, not one for the richest of the rich, but it still got me thinking—every member here makes more money than I do, yet no one looked down on me. I was nervous for no reason!
Heritage Golf Club
So as I continued to get better and meet people in the local golf community, I happened to befriend someone who was a member at New Albany Country Club. It is a Jack Nicklaus designed club, with grass tennis courts, a croquet court, an immense clubhouse, an incredible 27 holes laid out among million dollar homes, and a membership that requires you liquidate yourself of approximately six figures to join.
He invited me to play, and off I went. So here comes your humble correspondent, rolling up like Fred Sanford through Beverly Hills, in a 20-year-old rust colored Acura Legend. Not painted the color rust mind you, but a 20-years-of-driving-in-Ohio-winters shade of rust. As I pull into the parking lot, the high-school kids of members are driving two-year old BMW 3-series, and the adults were driving Porsche’s, 6-series BMWs and other highly exclusive cars. I was clearly out of my element.
As I pull up, the boy working the bag drop walks up, offers to take my clubs, sets me up with a cart, and off I go for my round. Again, everyone from the staff to the other members were as polite as can be with no hint of snobbery to be found. They could see I had a passion for the game, a decent swing, and a respect for the course. They didn’t care about my social status, they cared about my character. Imagine that.
New Albany Country Club
My point to all of this being; we all know that bigotry against a race, sex, sexual orientation, or religion is wrong. These days, you’re quite likely to get looked down upon for any such behavior. Yet somehow, those on the left get away with lies and bigotry every day about the affluent among us. Bigoted hate is wrong, no matter who it is directed at, yet somehow class warfare is the one form of hate that is still widely accepted and that has to change.
My favorite quote that I repeat often is from Martin Luther King stating that you should judge someone by the content of their character. It turns out that while he may have added, not the color of their skin, I believe he understood bigotry in any form is wrong.
Are there bad people in the rich, poor, black, white, Hispanic, gay, straight, female, male, etc. communities? Of course there are. Should we assume that one of them is a certain way because they’re in that community? Only if you’re a bigot.
Martin Luther King Jr.
Many people try to speculate why America is such a great nation. But like most things in life the answer to that question is quite complicated:
We have an amazing constitution which gives the government power from the people, not the other way around.
We have an amazing military that assures that anyone who comes after us will have a rocket shoved up their rectum and sent to the moon.
We have an amazing geographical location with a wealth of different climates to support many different industries, power generation, and farming.
Despite leftist agendas, we still have unalienable rights.
But the one thing that I think makes America truly amazing, is our diversity.
From state to state, city to city, region to region, you will find natural citizens, non-natural citizens, and guest workers from many walks of life. Most have a great story to tell, and with the exception of those of us already born here, most are here in order to make a better life for themselves. People motivated to be great, make us a great nation!
So do me a favor: If you’re someone who has hate in your heart for someone you haven’t even met yet, try a social experiment. Say hello and strike up a conversation with someone you would otherwise avoid. Thurston Howell might turn out to be just a cool dude with a great idea that made him rich. Unless someone is part of a hate group like the Black Panthers, et al., you’ll likely find what I did at the private golf clubs: good people exist in all walks of life and everyone should be judged solely by the content of their character—period.
Let me start off by saying that I love the sound of a glorious V8 bellowing out its sonnet of horsepower as it kicks tire dust at the econo-boxes on the road of life. Conversely, there is nothing awesome about the silence with which a vehicle, not running on thousands of awesome explosions per second, goes about its business. If I were a spy or a serial killer, I could see the advantage of the silence an electric vehicle affords, but there is just something about the sound of suck, squeeze, bang, and blow that pulls at every emotional cord I have attached to me that a quiet whoosh will never fill.
Corvette ZR1
However, the other thing that I am passionate about is science and technology. So much so, that this whole electric vs. combustion thing has me in serious turmoil. So with that in mind, let me try to put any rhetoric aside and talk about this new-fangled technology objectively, from a scientific point of view, but at the same time, dispel some of the nonsense along the way.
I hate to do it to you, but let’s talk about physics. In order for something to move from point A to point B, Sir Isaac Newton says that a force must act upon it. The greater the mass, the greater the force required. So a Toyota Prius, if it dumped its batteries, electric motor, and all their relevant components, would lose several hundred pounds of weight, which would lead to a significant decrease in energy needed to move it. So why add the electric motor at all?
Toyota Prius
Well, the hybrid does something that appeals to my inner scientist, and should appeal to everyone—it uses something all other cars waste. Normally when you hit the brakes, what happens is you are turning kinetic energy from your moving car, and converting it to heat by clamping the brake caliper’s pads onto the brake rotors. That is what we will call “wasted energy” as that heat does nothing useful.
Some brilliant folks long ago came up with an ingenious idea to put generators on the drivetrain, so that when you apply the brakes, instead of pads clamping down on rotors, a generator is activated. That generator then creates added resistance making it more difficult for the wheels to roll, which slows the car down, but in doing so, it generates electricity at the same time. So the kinetic energy that was once wasted, now gets put into batteries for later use. No scientific minded person can argue with the beauty of turning waste into wattage.
Now that we’ve explained how hybrids generate electricity, who are they good for? If you drive 30 miles to work each day, and it’s mostly highway driving with little to no braking, yet you decided to buy the Prius in order to save the planet, you’ve not done your homework.
Hybrids are only beneficial for people who do most of their driving in stop and go situations where they can take advantage of the energy that regenerative braking creates. If you’re not using your brakes, you’re just carrying around a large mass for the gas engine to transport and burning more fuel doing it. You should have bought a Volkswagen diesel, or something of that nature, instead.
I won’t go into the studies that have shown that hybrids have a larger carbon footprint than a SUV because of all the extra carbon created in shipping the materials for that battery, their assembly before ownership, and disposal thereafter. For now, I’ll just discuss the merits of owning one to the user, not its impact on the planet as a whole.
Unfortunately, the best merit is that hybrid consumers are simply helping to subsidize the advancement of technology in this area. In theory, if the vehicle were purely electric, it would be a much better car. But the technology simply isn’t there to achieve this for one simple reason; batteries.
As we discussed, weight is the enemy of efficiency, yet all hybrid-electric cars have a gas engine attached either as a generator, or a 2nd drivetrain, which of course, is quite heavy also. So why not dump the gas engine? Because battery technology quite frankly is lacking.
Without the gas engine, the range in a hybrid is going to be severely less than a gas-burner, even if you didn’t turn on the radio, A/C, and lights. If you need to use such accessories and suffer from leadfootitis, you’ll be lucky to get 50 miles before you need more juice.
But the problem with the batteries isn’t just their limited range. The other problem is that batteries simply don’t recharge fast enough. The plug-in electric vehicles must generally be plugged in for approximately 12 hours to achieve a full charge.
So to recap; if you were to buy an electric car using today’s technology, without a gas motor attached, you would be able to drive around 70 miles or so, then instead of pulling into a gas station for 10 minutes and refueling, you park it, plug it in, grab dinner, go to sleep, get up, eat breakfast, and it should be just about done refueling and ready to go—another 70 miles.
However, technology and free market capitalism continue to drive technology at an amazing pace, and when battery technology catches up to the rest of the technology, we’ll have an amazing product on our hands.
Being a huge proponent of nuclear power, I believe nuclear powered electrical plants providing power to practical electric vehicles is likely the way of the future, leaving gas combustion engines for weekends and racetracks. The two can certainly coexist on this planet. But for now, I’ll keep my Corvette, and you can subsidize the electric vehicle technology as it strives to attain practicality. I don’t like being a guinea pig, and don’t like rolling up in stealth mode.
So my honest analysis. If you’re purely an in town driver, logging 20-30 miles a day, and doing plenty of braking throughout; then a hybrid or electric will be a decent car for you. Especially since Uncle Sam has seen fit to rob us in order to provide you with a juicy tax credit instead of letting free markets advance the technology at its natural rate.
But if you’re logging 100 miles a day, mostly highway driving, and need longer range; I promise you will hate yourself more than that time you woke up after a drunken bender next to a goat and an empty bottle of Jack Daniels.
Straight people being opposed to gay marriage makes as much sense as someone who is on a diet being upset that the person next to them is eating a doughnut. ~ Anonymous
I love the simplicity of this quote. Because I am heterosexual, the gay-marriage issue doesn’t personally affect me, but as a libertarian who considers liberty the single most important thing mankind should have behind food, air, and water; I am furious when people think it’s their right to dictate the behavior of others; especially when that behavior doesn’t infringe on their own rights in any way.
United States Constitution
The U.S. Constitution, to an atheist patriotic libertarian like me, is the closest thing I have to a bible, as it ensures my freedom.
The religious-right wing of the GOP have proposed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Republicans present themselves as the party that loves the Constitution, and many prominent Republicans even carry around a miniature copy in their pocket to consult whenever the desire strikes them.
Kudos to them for loving the Constitution—it’s a pretty amazing document. What concerns me is they don’t seem to comprehend or understand the sentiment behind it. There’s an underlying theme in our constitution that is often lost on people proposing such changes.
The U.S. Constitution was specifically drafted to establish a government, then restrain it. Let’s look at the 1st amendment for instance:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It says, Congress shall make no law… not The people may…
This distinction means that the Constitution is a set of limits to government as demanded by the people who have the power, not permissions granted to the people by a government that has the power. Our rights are ingrained within us, not given to us by government.
Our forefathers were all oppressed by their respective homeland’s monarchies, something modern day Americans have had the good fortune to not know (Thanks veterans!), and they weren’t about to let such oppression happen here. We the people should never tolerate a government that feels it has the right to tell us what we can do. We the people decided that we wanted to create a system of government solely to protect our rights, and that’s it.
Aside from prohibition, which we rightly fixed later, the Constitution has never placed limits on the people, only the government.
So the idea of a Constitutional amendment defining marriage is specifically out of character for that document—a polar opposite to the rest of it.
Republicans complain about losing the White House; many claiming it’s because people want free stuff and are willing to vote themselves handouts. While this is certainly a part of it, Republicans also lost because many of them are mired in religious ideology that a majority of Americans, including many Christians, think the government shouldn’t be legislating. We are not a theocracy, and those wanting to legislate religion-based morals scare reasonable Americans.
The issue is much bigger than this proposed amendment however, as Government shouldn’t be in the business of marriage in the first place. Let’s go back and think about what marriage is.
Long term, it’s a commitment between two people; a contract of love, which is generally followed by a ceremony among friends and family to celebrate that union.
I defy anyone to name one good reason why government needs to be involved in any of this. The process should be pretty simple.
Unnecessary nonsense in a free country: AKA Marriage Licensthe process should be simple.
Two or more people decide they want to commit to each other.
They find a venue willing to perform a ceremony of their choosing.
They sign a contract with terms that they all agree to.
Done.
The only thing the government should do is enforce the contract in the event of a dispute. Meaning, if someone breaches that contract, leaves the union, and the parties can’t come to terms on how to settle their assets, a court settles it for them.
Some of you might be thinking I’m crazy—I’ve been called worse. But guess what; everything I’m proposing is already legal. It’s just that we don’t call it marriage. I could rent a hall somewhere and perform a “Love ceremony” or something like that, then enter into a contract with someone where we give power of attorney to each other and agree to some sort of legal partnership. This is basically what a marriage is, and the law will enforce that contract as it is written. The only thing I’m proposing is that the government has no business requiring you to get a license to do it, and subject you to regulations, if you want to call this contract “marriage.”
All that being said, to be fair, there should also be similar protections for the various religious entities (churches, mosques, etc.) that do not wish to perform such ceremonies, so that they indemnified from legal action if they decline to perform the service.
If the couple wants liberty, the church must have it too; otherwise it’s a hypocritical infringement of rights on the church instead of the non-traditional wedding party.
So when someone asks me whether I support legalization of gay marriage? To me, it’s just an illogical question. Government and marriage have no business being married in the first place.
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. – US Constitution 9th Amendment
Imagine a family of ten children. Nine of them are very good-looking but not all that bright; however, the average looking one is the brainiac of the family with a 150 IQ. All the others will get attention for their beauty and elegance even though the ugly duckling, that is often ignored, should be the star of the show because they bring the most value to the table. This is how I feel about our Ninth Amendment.
I always clarify that I have never used, nor have any desire to use, recreational drugs. But as a libertarian, I feel that many of them should be legal. I was debating this with someone and he asked me to make a case as to why they should be legal. There should never be a conservative among you that makes a constitutionally based argument against legalization because it is fundamentally wrong, based on the Ninth Amendment.
The generally accepted meaning behind the Ninth Amendment is extremely important. The framers wanted to ensure that the Constitution wasn’t a document that granted rights to the people, but instead a document that limited the powers of government over the people. We the people have the inalienable rights, and we the people decide how we wish to be governed. The Ninth Amendment is saying, in essence, that one should assume they have the right to do something unless there are laws specifically forbidding it.
So, when asked by my friend to defend legalization, my response was that it was not my burden to make such a case in a free country. It was his burden to explain how and why a specific drug’s use by one person infringes upon the rights of another and thus should be illegal.
Marijuana Harvest
I’m not trying to make a case here for drug legalization specifically—he might have made a good case, so we’ll save that argument for another day. Instead, what I implore of every legislator is to employ the paradigm the framers of our Constitution did when they envisioned this great nation—the idea that all actions should be legal by default and should only be outlawed once a proper case has been made to do so.
Our Declaration of Independence indicated we all should have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution replaced pursuit of happiness with property. So a proper argument for making something illegal should be restricted to actions which deny those rights accordingly.
For example, If I drink and get inebriated at home, it is not a crime since no one else is being harmed. If I drink and drive my car, however, I’m putting the lives of others at a scientifically demonstrable greater risk due to my impaired ability, which potentially infringes upon their right to life. Thus, it is rightfully illegal.
I think it’s easy to put any proposed law up to that light and realize that, if it is limiting someone’s right to life, liberty, happiness, and/or property, and it is not protecting one person from another person, then it has no place being a law and should be voted down no matter how well-meaning its intentions may be.
Morality is a relative term. For instance, I think facial cosmetic surgery is immoral for doctors to perform (accident victims excluded) and utterly stupid. One look at Mickey Rourke, Jerry Jones, Joan Rivers, and everyone else who has had it done that now looks like a side-show attraction should be a lesson to everyone to accept what nature gives you. If I had a loved one wanting to do it, I’d want to shake the stupid right out of them. Why would a doctor who has sworn first to do no harm, take a reasonably good-looking person and make them look like they’re skydiving horizontally 24/7?
Mickey Rourke
However, proponents often feel there is improvement gained from these procedures and the victims, oops, I mean patients, are occasionally pleased with the results. So what I think is immoral, some think is perfectly fine and good. While I will vigorously encourage anyone I care about not to do it, do I think the government should make cosmetic surgery illegal? Of course not! I hope you wouldn’t either. Morality is best regulated through social and peer pressure, not government regulation.
So how are vices, which are almost always victimless crimes, any different? I’d sooner argue that one look at Mickey Rourke indicates he’s a victim before I’d argue that you or anyone else is a victim as a result of a pot smoker’s indulgence. I defy anyone to argue differently.
My argument was intended to be humorous, but the fact is that morality varies from person to person. Any time you try to legislate personal behavior for the sake of morality, you’re infringing on someone’s right to the pursuit of happiness. You’re saying that they have to be more like you BY LAW whether that makes them happy or not. It has little to do with public safety no matter how loud the left and some social conservatives say so. Does that really sound like freedom and liberty to anyone?
One of America’s greatest attributes is its diversity. Victimless crimes curb that diversity by trying to get everyone to conform to the majority. We have a republic, not a democracy, because our Constitution protects the minority from the majority. A victimless crime, by definition, should be unconstitutional. So please stop trying to make people exactly like you and, instead, just enjoy the freak show. It’s not hurting anyone, and you might have a little fun!
“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.” ~ Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan
I believe that libertarians are simply the staunchest of conservatives. We want the government’s role to be limited more than any other faction, even more so than your average Republican. Where they often differ is the legislation of morality such as the war on drugs, gambling, and prostitution laws, etc.
From the time I was 16 and became interested in politics; largely thanks to Reagan, I considered myself a Republican. In recent years, I gravitated towards libertarianism. The distinction feels somewhat misplaced to me. because to me, they should be the same party. Ron Paul is and Gary Johnson was a Libertarian running as a Republican after all.
Someone dismissively referred to me as a “Paulbot” for saying I was libertarian. Never mind that my first choice would be Gary Johnson, not Paul. I believe Reagan was the best president in my 40+ year lifetime and probably the 3nd best president of all behind Lincoln and Washington.
George Washington
A recent survey shows I’m not alone. Sadly, many in the Republican Party often talk about libertarians with the same dismissive attitude that the liberal elitists use to talk about conservatives, which is troubling. Just because we embrace libertarianism as Reagan sometimes did, doesn’t mean that we have no brain and cannot think for ourselves. Referring to us as Paulbots has no place in adult-like political discourse.
Stereotypes are the work of fools. Republicans AND libertarians should strive to be better than these figures, yet many on radio and TV sadly can’t be bothered to be better. We both promote personal responsibility, which is part of acting like an adult. So let’s lead by example.
“Paulbot” implies one is a mindless robot that agrees with whatever Ron Paul says. The insulting nature of this statement is obvious, and it’s arrogant and stupid to think you understand someone solely based on their party affiliation. I disagree with Ron Paul and Gary Johnson on more than one issue, but I don’t let it push me away from men who are the most like me, that are contending for the presidency.
Ron Paul
The reason libertarians seem so fanatical is because we’re passionate about liberty, freedom, and the Constitution. We don’t believe government has the right to tell someone how to live their life, and we get upset when people try to take that from us. If I said I was going to take away your freedom, you’d get pretty passionate too.
The left isn’t completely stupid though, they rephrase these positions using words like fair share, regulations, and protections for the consumer. Republicans use phrases like public health, responsible behavior, etc. Sorry folks, it all means “government control and loss of freedom” no matter what you call it.
The Libertarian Party does have a platform on their website. I defy many of you to find a considerable amount in there that you disagree with. As a Republican, I used to dismiss Libertarians myself. After I read their platform, I couldn’t help but think, “Why are we fighting when we generally want the same things?”
Libertarian Party Logo
Many people think libertarians are anarchists. It’s like saying all Democrats are socialists. While many Democrats champion social policies, few of them actually advocate making everything property of the state. Most Libertarians reject anarchy too, I assure you. It’s another incorrect stereotype that needs to be quashed. Judging the majority of a party by its fringe is simply irresponsible.
So with that being said, I’ve come up with Gary’s three roles of government that I think we all can agree on:
• The government should protect me from OTHERS that would do me harm, but NOT from myself.
• Do the things that need to be done for the common good (such as infrastructure), but ONLY if the private sector cannot or will not do it themselves due to a lack of financial incentive.
• Get the heck out of my way!
Most conservatives generally espouse those principles. Libertarians just emphasize the third one more, and adhere to them more strictly.
I understand that conservatives are often times religious, and things like gambling, assisted suicide, marijuana use, gay marriage, etc. are things they think people should not do. On occasion, we agree with you.
Gavin McInnisGavin McInnes stated it perfectly on an episode of Fox News’ Red Eye when he said that just because we want to legalize it, doesn’t mean we endorse it. He’s right!
I personally think recreational marijuana use is irresponsible behavior. But it’s not the government’s role to protect that person from themselves. It’s a free country and you should have the freedom to be an idiot, irresponsible, and foolish, up until the point you become a danger to others.
Someone else said about gay marriage that opposition to gay marriage by a straight person is like someone being mad at you because you’re eating a doughnut while they’re on a diet. At some point, we simply have to recognize it’s none of our business how others live their lives as long as it doesn’t affect us.
Republicans and Libertarians should unite just as Romney and Paul seem to have done during the election by largely avoiding pot shots at each other, and realize that either is better than Obama. But please stop with the mischaracterizations of us being mindless anarchists. It’s utter nonsense.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
How many times have you heard people cite this passage, or at least the “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” bit, as part of our constitution? If you’re anything like me, you’ve heard it often. However, also if you are like me, you know this is NOT part of our constitution. It’s actually from the Declaration of Independence. But for this discussion let’s disregard that distinction, because, although they are not one in the same, they are both doctrines outlining our framers’ intentions.
Even if you are not an American historian I think we can logically assume that the founding fathers were not at the local pub watching the Washington Redskins while sauced on mead when they suddenly decided to write some rebellious nonsense on a napkin in twenty minutes which now hangs in the National Archives. I think it’s fair to assume they spent time pouring over every single word carefully.
Many proponents of greater government intervention tend to ignore this. In doing so, they miss a very important distinction—the word “pursuit”. Notice how it only comes before the word happiness and it’s actually there in the first place? This was not an accident.
Had they meant for you to only be able to pursue life and liberty, it likely would have been written, “The pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness”. Conversely if they felt like you had a right to be happy, they would have omitted the word altogether.
Proponents of a government-managed economy argue that the role of government is to ensure that all its citizens should be happy in some governmentally-induced Utopia. Yet in the history of mankind, such a Utopia has never really existed. When tried, they’ve usually failed miserably, collapsing under the weight of a tax and spend mentality. Socialism-supporters seem to believe that we have the capability, and the “filthy” rich have the money to do just this. Even if they were right, it was clearly not what our forefathers intended based on that little word “pursuit”.
America was founded on the understanding that without risk, there can be no real reward. Many of us try and fail, some do so to a perilous end. This is unfortunate, but even so, safety nets are not in the American DNA. Let other nations go broke pursing that pipe dream; we should stick to the formula that has served us so well thus far.
The First Amendment
How many times have you heard the term “Separation of church and state” as a Constitutional argument? My guess is thousands. Again, these words are not in our constitution. What people do all too often is further their agenda by modifying the 1st Amendment which reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
I’ve confessed before that I am a science and skepticism advocate and have no active belief in any religion, so one would suspect that I want to further the atheist cause, but I don’t. America is largely Christian, and attempting to diminish that because one is an Atheist is no more proper than Christians trying to force me to become part of their faith.
A recent example was the 9/11 cross; a remnant from the original towers destroyed on that tragic day. It was two I-Beams left standing that formed a cross after all the wreckage began to clear. Many Christians considered it a sign, and the cross was taken to a local church during the clean-up process at ground zero. Now that the new structure is being built, the church has returned the cross to the government-owned memorial site. Atheists are citing separation of church and state issues and crying foul.
So my question to them is this—looking at the amendment it says, “Make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. Where is the law being passed in regards to them displaying a remnant from 9/11 that looks like a cross? I find this behavior embarrassing to responsible non-believers such as myself who know the Constitution’s intent and limitations.
On the flip side, as a Libertarian, many laws which by their very nature are promoting religious beliefs such as most everything your local vice squad would enforce are based on Christian philosophy and therefore are indeed unconstitutional. One needs only be denied the ability to buy liquor on Sunday to understand why we get upset. There is no reason for such a law except with Christian influence, yet they affect all of us. The church has its laws, the Ten Commandments, which all Christians are to adhere to. For the rest of us, they mean nothing, and our forefathers didn’t intend for us to be encumbered by them
A Libertarian, like many Republicans, will be for the smallest governmental-intervention possible, and we believe our forefathers intended as much with every fiber of their being. It’s why Ron Paul and Gary Johnson run as Republicans. But unlike many in the Republican Party, we take the Constitution and the Declaration a little more seriously. While we don’t necessarily condone and/or endorse the use of the myriad of vices, we feel that by passing such laws, Congress is preventing free expression and denying a pursuit of happiness to those of us who are non-believers.
I’m not necessarily asking for Christian Conservatives to side with me on this, they shouldn’t based on their beliefs. But a little understanding and respect for the opinions of us non-believers and Libertarians would sure be appreciated, and you have my solemn promise that I won’t try to take nativity scenes off display at Christmas, remove “In God We Trust” from the dollar bill, or any other nonsense that doesn’t violate the verbiage of the Constitution. If the majority want these things that do not infringe on my rights, they’re welcome to them with my blessing.
log·i·cal: capable of reasoning or of using reason in an orderly cogent fashion lib·er·tar·i·an: an advocate of the doctrine of free will; a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action
![gun-violence-vigil[1]](https://logicallibertarian.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/gun-violence-vigil1.png?w=300&h=224)
I want to stress that the people in the story are acknowledging the tragedy in Connecticut as horrific, and are not trying to downplay it in any way. But they are also correct that we don’t hear nearly as much about violence in Chicago among young black youths as we do when tragedies like the one in Newtown occur in white communities. Why is this happening, and is it racism?![zumanewtownwide[1]](https://logicallibertarian.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/zumanewtownwide1.jpg?w=300&h=200)
So what makes something newsworthy? It’s not whether something is violent or not—people are murdered every day in America. Something is newsworthy by virtue of how atypical it is. The more atypical, the more newsworthy. So I would argue that the issue isn’t about race, it’s about the rareness with which an occurrence such as the one in Newtown happens compared to the frequency of those in Chicago.![No_gun[1]](https://logicallibertarian.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/no_gun1.jpg?w=300&h=300)
![36508_490192697685638_337128855_n[1]](http://www.sonsoflibertytees.com/patriotblog/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/36508_490192697685638_337128855_n.jpg)
![drunk-driving2[1]](http://thenewswheel.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/drunk-driving2.jpg)
![maxresdefault[1]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/faaaehUklME/maxresdefault.jpg "Gavin McInnis")
The Logical Libertarian™ 