What It Is/What It Isn't - Libertarianism

I think it's fitting to start off my school marm suite with the number one question I hear from people: What is Libertarianism?

Now when I answer this question with spoken words, I tend to keep things general to avoid ruffling the feathers of those are deep into the right or left. This leads to either a puzzled expression or some form of scoffing. Yeah. Not good. So I'm taking the opportunity here to explain a little bit more concisely the idea of liberty and what the LP stands for. The plan is to not only create a resource for others but for myself as well since writers have a way with the written word only. Trying to form a complete sentence whilst under pressure (and after my brain has been melted by two pregnancies) is a surefire way for me to forget how to English goodly.

At the end of this post, I'll also provide links to some resources to help further your research and understanding.

So what is this libertarian thing anyway?

The Libertarian Party was founded in 1971 by David Nolan

Not this guy.

This guy.

The party and its ideals were born in Nolan's living room in response to the Vietnam War and Richard Nixon's fascist moves on the economy. 

In the 45 years since the LP has grown from just a handful of disillusioned Republican defectors to over 327,000 registered voters. Keep in mind this number is just based on registration numbers. There are plenty of liberty-leaners who register as independent or no party affiliation (like me). If the 2016 presidential election was any indication, the tides are shifting towards a desire to protect individual liberties. 

While Gary Johnson and Bill Weld are not the best examples of what the LP has to offer, they did snatch up roughly 4 million votes with an even split between male and female voters. Not too shabby. 

The basic principles can be summed up into a few basic points:

1. Self-ownership and individual responsibility are at the core of the values.

2. Adhere to the Non-Aggression Principle. The use of force to achieve any gains personal or otherwise is verboten.

3. Focus on a free market economy

4. Advocates a small federal government that works within the constraints of the Bill of Rights.

5. (Income) Taxation is theft.  

6. Voluntarism and charity > government programs

While this by no means is all of them, these points are the simplest and most universally agreed upon in the liberty circles. 

There is also a need to buck the outdated (and corrupt) two party system in favor of allowing the people more choice in the political arena. The 4% (about 5 million people) of votes for third parties in 2016 is evidence of this. 

The primary focus is to shift the national thinking from, "the government need to regulate/control/pay for/be involved in everything" to "allow the public to make their own decisions/vote with their wallets/be in control of their own lives." With the number of federal regulations on everything from education to economics to whether or not we can collect rainwater on our own property, growing exponentially every year, our freedoms are being eroded. Some would say that having personal belongings rifled through or a thorough pat-down at the airport is worth it for security, but where is the line? Giving up our individual liberties is not the path to security, prosperity, or anything else. History has shown (over and over) that such power is guaranteed to be corrupted. We are the frog in the proverbial pot of water. The government is slowly turning up the heat (taking our freedoms) and it's only a matter of time until We The People boil to death.

The common perception is that because of the LP views on small government and focuses on individuals, that we are a selfish lot. Thus the libertarian principles being twisted to fit a narrative. There are many, but I'll go ahead and debunk a few here.

"Libertarians don't care about poor people."

By wanting to shift the focus on to charity and voluntarism rather than subsidies and handouts. The idea is to not only rev up a more local/community minded people but to allow the poor/underprivileged/low skilled to maintain not only their liberties but also their dignity and humanity. Don't confuse this with, "pull yourself up by your bootstraps." That's not what this is. It's encouraging people to use their time and money for good rather than have the federal government do it the most inefficient and expensive way possible.

"Libertarians are supporters of big corporations and crony capitalists." 

That is a big negative there. The LP places value on a free market and a more laissez-faire approach to the economy. Keep the government from meddling in the affairs of the market. By allowing for the open exchange of goods and services, the small business owner is more likely to be empowered and successful. Thanks to the federal government, the larger more corrupt corporations have more leeway to throw their weight around and smash the little guy. Let's not forget that larger business entities are also political lobbyists who keep political palms greased in their favor. The LP is rather against that. In a free market model, products and services that serve a purpose and are good quality would be allowed to succeed whilst poor quality and lousy service would close a business down. There is no "too big to fail" and no Goliath trying to take David out. Remove government regulations that strangle smaller businesses and watch what happens. 

"Libertarians are atheistic libertines."

Nope. While the party is much more welcoming of an atheist viewpoint than say the Right, the LP is not inherently anti-religion or anti-spirituality. Being supporters of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, the LP supports the right to practice your own religion as dictated by your dogma. What is NOT okay, is trying to force your beliefs on others or to cause violence because of them. Because of the need to uphold the NAP there is a built in code of morals and ethics that comes along with that. Ending drug prohibition doesn't mean everyone should get to run around wasted. Driving while intoxicated is still dangerous and should be a punishable offense. Same goes for drugging children and non-consenting adults. If you are a grown adult giving your consent to partake in something not good for you, party on. There are clinics where an addict can exchange dirty needles for clean in order to stop the spread of disease and a push for rehab over jail time for users. By ending the Drug War, the hope is to be rid of the drug lords, gangsters, and violent crime that goes along with it.

"Libertarians are materialistic and pro-rich guy."

I think this stems from the "taxation is theft" mantra. By wanting a worker to keep what they make and doing away with income tax (and in conjunction, the IRS), the LP has developed a reputation for being greedy. It's really quite the opposite. The Left-wing cry for wealth redistribution and higher taxes could be described as being as such because those people did not work and earn the money they want to take. Therefore, they are wanting to take a portion whether the other party agrees or not (taxation = theft. Get it?). Wanting an individual to keep the money they worked hard for is not greed because nobody wants to take it. There are infrastructure and some things that tax dollars are necessary for and for that, there is a lot of support for the Fair Tax. A tax collected on consumables rather than on income. This way, the money is only taken based on what an individual chooses to spend their money on and evasion is nearly impossible. This is the simplest way to guarantee that everyone "pays their fair share". Since the rich make and generally spend more, they will end up contributing more. No loopholes, no cronyism, everyone participates. 

"Libertarians don't believe in climate change"

I'll admit, there is a healthy amount of skepticism here, but not for the reasons you'd think. The issue isn't about alternative energies, eco cleanup systems, or saving the whales. The first issue is the gleeful jumping in and the subsequent growth of the federal government. History has shown over and over again that when a governing body gets involved in something, then the results are minimal at best and an expensive disaster at worst. The second issue is that climate change/global warming/global cooling/whatever you want to call it is a natural phenomenon that the planet cycles through on Her own (fossil and geological evidence has shown this). Some just aren't sure how much of in impact man has had in our brief time on Earth (don't jump on me, this is from discussions I've had with others, not necessarily my personal opinion). With that controversial tidbit said I can say this: the LP will always support free market solutions to issues. The greatest innovations in the history of man have come out of someone's garage or basement. An individual sees a problem or a need and develops technology as a solution every time. A governing body cannot say the same thing. In fact, they can usually boast the opposite in suppressing "greener" energy sources. Therein lies the source of the hesitation to jump on the climate change bandwagon. 

I hope I was able to give some clear, basic information to start you on your liberty journey. There is really only so much that can be published into one simple blog post, but I hope I've managed to at least, garner enough interest for you to continue your research.

For more information:

The Official National Libertarian Party website

David F. Nolan

Myths About Libertarianism

Green Energy Info - The Orion Project

Ron Paul Institute

Niskanen Center

Podcasts:

Libertarianism for Normal People

Freakonomics Radio

Penn's Sunday School

Mail Service: The Free Market at Work

To start, let's define Free Market since I'm not sure I've actually gone into that here.

Free market refers to an economy where the government imposes few or no restrictions and regulations on buyers and sellers. In a free market, participants determine what products are produced, how, when and where they are made, to whom they are offered, and at what price—all based on supply and demand.

In the US, the majority of blockage to a truly free market comes from the government. They forbid producers from polluting, pricing below cost, or being a monopoly. In addition, they often require minimum safety standards, the disclosure of ingredients, licensing of certain professionals, and protection of original ideas, to name just a few. They even control the money supply to minimize the negative effects of natural economic expansion and contraction.

Some of these things may SEEM like a good idea. We all want the market to thrive, but time and time again it has been proven that the market thrives best, when it is left alone. When there is competition, consumers will choose the best available option for their goods and services needs. Factors such as time, distance, ease of use, customer service etc all effect companies well being in a buyer's market. When the government interferes with the market, buyers lose control. Here in the United States, there is a lot of favoritism for government sponsored programs that are supported by taxpayer dollars that would NOT survive in a free market.

The best example I can think of is USPS. Now, I don't know how your local postman treats you where you live, but I've gotten mail at 5 different addresses over the last 3 years. I can say with certainty that amongst the big 3 delivery services: UPS, FedEx, and USPS that USPS by far has the least reliability and the worst customer service. When I ship something with FedEx or UPS, it gets where it's going within the time frame I am quoted or in rare cases where it does not, I get a partial or full refund.

At my last apartment (the last one I'll live in, at least for the next 30 years, thankfully) USPS failed to deliver 6 packages in the short 9 months we lived there. When we called to talk to them, they insinuated that it was OUR fault, for not being home to receive the package and therefore it had to be rerouted. However, none of those packages required a signature. They could have left them at our door.

FedEx and UPS are typically a great deal cheaper than USPS, they have better customer service, a higher overall rating by consumers, a lower failure rate and from my experience, much nicer employees. So why does the USPS still exist? If overwhelmingly, the buyers PREFER other companies that provide the same services one would assume that they would take over the market. So why isn't that happening? Why do USPS employees continue to exist to complain about their employer (rightly so) on the internet?

Because they are supported by the US government. Because even though they have operated at a deficit for YEARS we continue to finance them out of our tax dollars. So, not only is the IRS stealing money out of my paycheck, they are stealing it to support a company that I purposefully DONT shop at due to rude employees and overall incompetence.

Taxation is NOT the same as charity.

by, Meghan Beverly

I have seen a lot of memes and implications from the left that seem to make those in favor of limiting welfare and other entitlements look like uncaring, greedy pigs. Somehow having money stolen from their pay and redistributed amongst those less fortunate makes those same people feel somehow superior. Morally righteous even. What these people don't understand is that forced distribution is not the same as being charitable.

The ridiculous logic that taxation is the answer, makes it difficult to use the rational argument that if allowed to keep their own money and spend as they will, the population will give to those who are needy because they can. To have the means to actually maintain a standard of living as well as having the freedom to give as one sees fit is a beautiful thing. I believe there is a general good in the world and that the majority of Americans want to help. If you pay attention, you can see it everywhere. It can be as simple as buying a coffee for the next person in line or giving a coat to a homeless person all the way up to running fundraisers and volunteering time. Look at how many pages of crowd funding have been fulfilled for cancer patients and surgeries are out there. In general people are good and do good.

Taxation =/= Charity.

But if one was to believe the liberal rhetoric, it would seem that we were really quite the opposite. The American people can't be trusted to "do the right thing" so therefore, need to be forced to. It's important that the government intervenes to make sure that everyone gets their "fair share". It makes them feel righteous to know that the feds are taking money from hard working people every week to fuel whatever that agenda may be.

It's time to wake the hell up!

Charity is voluntary. That's the part that makes a good person. One actively seeks out a cause and participates thus making a difference. A good person doesn't hesitate to give money, food, or clothing to someone who needs it. They also do it for zero praise and want nothing in return. What makes someone inherently good is the drive to make the world a better place without the threat of force.

Once more for those in the back: Taxation =/= Charity.

This is the problem with the left-wing agenda and socialism as a whole (and likely why so many are running away screaming from the party) decent and potentially generous people are being taxed to the point where taking care of themselves and their families is becoming difficult. They find themselves will little to no room to help in the way they like. In the meantime, the pious, self-serving tax mongers are patting themselves on the back for a job well done, when all they've done is take money from hard working people. It's not the mega rich that's hurting, it's your neighbor.

There is also the point that the government hurts and inhibits far more than it helps. Stories come out regularly in the news about a cosmetology student offering free haircuts to the homeless. The guy is being investigated for practicing without a license. Or how about the BBQ competition in Kansas City that had the donation food bleached by the health department. 3000 people went hungry because of this.

Frankly, there are too many instances where government on every level shut down acts of decency and kindness. Churches get fined, volunteers are arrested; I guess it isn't truly help unless the government does it. Until the self righteous pull their heads from their collective asses and stop vilifying those who are actually decent, we will never really know the true potential of the American people.