Mediaboss Marketing

The full Libertarian Party UK 2017 Manifesto content can be read below, or download the PDF version (975kb) by clicking the front cover.

INTRODUCTION

This General Election is allegedly being fought on the interests of giving a clear majority to carry through Brexit. We believe that it is in fact a panic measure with the Conservatives facing a damaging rerun of up to 21 seats following Police Investigations into alleged electoral fraud in the 2015 General Election leading to a loss of the Conservative majority in Westminster.

From 1945 to 2006 there have been only been six petitions to overturn elections, in 2017 alone there could be five times that amount. This is not in the interests of the people of the United Kingdom. It shows a broken system that does not deliver Representative Parliamentary Democracy.

Labour is fighting on the basis of public sector privilege in the NHS and Trade Union power over our lives. It has very little else it can credibly fight a campaign on, especially having Jeremy Corbyn as its Leader.

The Liberal Democrats have cynically painted themselves as the only pro EU, Anti-Brexit Party. Thus showing they are neither Liberal nor Democratic in relation to the result of the Brexit referendum.

The Libertarian Party believes that the main issue that is not being addressed is that of the Constitution, we still need to have a Constitutional Convention and accept that the United Kingdom is rapidly heading for a de facto Federal Kingdom. People are grown up, they want more of a say, and referenda Swiss style should be the norm on both national and local issues, not the exception.

This included membership of the European Union, the final vote showing the political classes were completely out of touch with public sentiment. The Libertarian Party supported and campaigned for Brexit. As a Party we are confident that a new European settlement will be reached for Free Trade without the need for ever closer union.

It is time we moved from a Representative Democracy to a Direct Democracy where every vote matters. First past the post (FPTP) is no longer just or sane. All schools of political thought should be heard in Parliament.

Finally the D word has to be addressed our national debt of 1.4 Trillion has to be paid down, either through a specific Tax the Gordon Brown Tax or by a much reduced State.

Switzerland and other countries have in their Constitutions a prohibition on the State borrowing above a certain limit. We need to enshrine this into our Constitution and have it codified.

Adam Brown LPUK Party Leader

+++++

BALANCING THE STATE

The Libertarian Party is aware that for many people the State is an unfeeling, unresponsive animal. When things go wrong, its first instinct is to cover up. The NHS, HMRC and others are state institutions where state employees enjoy a virtually entrenched immunity from prosecution other than by the very rich. This has led to declining standards of civic behaviour.

The Libertarian Party is committed to:

Making Misconduct in Public Office a statutory criminal offence.

Compensation for those injured by the State.

Ensuring the State makes compensation to the individual by implementing the Law Commission Report 322 on Administrative Redress: Public Bodies and the Citizen.

Restoring the impeachment process for public servants that abuse their position including Ministers of State.

A recall system for MPs whose standard of behaviour brings Parliament into disrepute, by local referendum.

The Libertarian Party will establish local tribunals or Ombudsmen made up of lay citizens elected to the position, with a legal advisor to assist to ensure that complaints about public servants and public bodies are heard quickly. Each complaint is to be heard within six weeks before referring to a Judge to decide whether the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) will be directed to prosecute on the citizens behalf.

The Libertarian Party is committed to a written Constitution that protects the individual against the State and to have the Magna Carta and other documents codified into a single Constitution. The rights sought from Magna Carta down to the 1951 European Declaration of Human Rights have been continually usurped.

The party takes as its model the Swiss Constitution of 1999.

A Constitutional Court would be established.

The Monarch under law would be the head of State, but subject to the Constitution.

Switzerland is a stable country with a devolution of power to its diverse cantons with different languages, religions and Cantonal Tax rates as our preferred model. England, alone out of the United Kingdom is disenfranchised amongst the home Nations, not having a Parliament of its own. The Libertarian Party is committed to an English Parliament not based in London.

There would be a Federal Parliament for the United Kingdom in that we would adopt either the traditional counties with multi seat constituencies with proportional voting as being the only rational way for the country to have representative government. Alternatively, the return of the 1,000 year old seven English Saxon kingdoms as the basis of public administration together with Ulster, Wales, Scotland and Kernow, emulating the German Lander or Swiss Cantons. Each would determine and have its own tax raising powers that will be devolved from Whitehall.

The House of Commons would be by popular election. The Libertarian Party would terminate the House of Lords as an anachronism that allows hereditary and unelected members along with the Clergy to influence public policy.

The Libertarian Party would immediately abolish the requirement for paying any deposit to the State to stand for any elected office. Democracy should be on the basis of ideas not cash.

Westminster would only deal with Defence and Foreign affairs. The House of Commons would be reduced to two hundred members and shall only sit from September to December each year, on the basis that the less time Parliament is sitting, the less interference in the life of the individual citizen. Exceptions would be made in a time of national emergency.

The Military and Police would swear allegiance to the Constitution.

No clergyman from whatever faith shall have the right to a seat unless elected. There will be a complete separation of Church and State.

All public honours and decorations other than proven military service shall be set aside. No public servant shall receive an honour as a matter of course for doing a job that they are already paid to do. The honours system has become a degraded and corrosive form of patronage.

The Libertarian Party would establish Commercial Tribunals with experienced business people sitting alongside specialist Commercial Judges to hear commercial disputes in the interest of speed of resolution and competence.

Disbarment from holding commercial Directorships will be removed from the Civil Service to such Tribunals.

DEFENCE THE ONLY LEGITIMATE ROLE OF THE STATE

The Libertarian Party follows the Jeffersonian line of Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.

Following the Crimean War disaster in 1856, the British Army was overhauled by Edward Cardwell Secretary of State for War in 1868, determined on a programme of reform to overcome the incompetence and maladministration of our armed forces.

At a time when we have more admirals than ships and aircraft carriers with no supply of aircraft to land on them, together with there being more civil servants working in the MOD than full time soldiers there is a requirement for a Cardwell 2.

Our aim is to ensure a strong, independent, sovereign nation. This requires a well funded, trained and equipped professional Armed Forces (both full time and Reservist), geared for the defence of our nation and shipping, a policy to be called Armed Neutrality.

National Defence is one of the few legitimate reasons for the State to exist. This is different to mounting wars in support of other nations and invading other sovereign nations on the command of the Prime Minster exercising the Royal Prerogative.

Our Armed Forces need to be able to make an enemy think twice, so must have the ability to project force rapidly, globally and flexibly in focused ways, e.g. submarines, amphibious assault, Marines and Special Forces.

To protect supply lines and commercial shipping and fisheries from piracy and other interference will require a suitably sized fleet of corvettes, frigates and associated support craft.

Reformation of Volunteer Yeomanry on a county basis for 18 to 25 year olds wishing to enlist as part time soldiers with no requirement to serve overseas and to be paid. This based on the Swiss Militia system.

Maintain membership of NATO while in the National Interest.

Maintain strong ties with non-aggressive Commonwealth countries.

Any nuclear deterrent to be made truly independent, retained, maintained and eventually replaced in the foreseeable future.

The establishment of a separate military pension over and above the State pension for those that have served in the armed forces.

The establishment of separate military hospitals for those servicemen and ex-servicemen and their families.

The establishment of a living wage for the armed forces.

A programme of demolition of old housing and building of modern accommodation using the disposal of MOD assets.

This is to establish real substance to the Military Covenant which should be on the Statute Book.

Military Pensions by the State should be seen not as entitlements but as rewards for actual service, and to benefit dependants of those killed on active service.

IMMIGRATION

Our immigration policy will be points based whilst the State provided Welfare System exists. The core tenet is that there should be free movement of peoples. Anybody arriving in the country should have no expectation of being supported by the State, subsidised housing or any benefits of any kind.

The state will not issue any National Insurance (NI) numbers to anybody not born in this country, or has made not less than five years contribution in payments to an NI approved scheme.

Anybody granted a residency permit will be obliged to demonstrate that they have adequate medical insurance.

In parallel, we will establish bilateral agreements with countries to enable free flows of people.

Longer term, and in conjunction with the shrinking of our unsustainable current Welfare System, we are committed to pursuing an open borders policy towards those who would wish to come to the United Kingdom in order to contribute to our economy and share our values.

Totally free movement of people into the UK is not practical whilst we have a large welfare state and other countries are themselves not broadly Libertarian in nature.

A free flow notwithstanding, any Libertarian government will reserve the right to eject or refuse entry to foreign nationals convicted in a court of law as part of the Governments prime role in protecting the population and maintaining Rule of Law.

The UK shall have full control over its immigration policy, with any right of final appeal remaining within the UK jurisdiction.

Asylum Seekers must present at a UK border or at the British Embassy of a neighbouring country to their own, otherwise their claim shall not be accepted.

Those refusing to declare originating country and accept that the failure of their application will result in their return shall be denied entry, and any right to seek asylum will be refused outright without appeal.

Asylum seekers to be held air side while their case is heard as swiftly as possible, meaning weeks, not months or years. This shall not apply to children under the age of 15.

End automatic access to education and resources for any child who presents itself to the authorities, i.e. vouchers will not be available.

We believe any concept of a mass amnesty, actual or de facto forgiveness for illegal immigration undermines the Rule of Law and as such will not be entertained.

The policies above are strict but are drawn up in regard to those who approach the process lawfully and follow the rules, not those who try and bend the rules or bootstrap their way in.

Acceptance into the armed forces will be dealt with by the Ministry of Defence.

The Libertarian Party fully supports the CANZUK proposal, for a free trade zone including Canada, Australia, New Zealand and United Kingdom having shared legal and cultural heritage.

THE RULE OF LAW

Freedoms won for us by the blood of our ancestors have been seriously eroded over the decades, and this erosion is gaining speed and must be halted and reversed. It is a core responsibility of the State to enable the citizens to go safely about their lawful business without let or hindrance.

A central tenet of Libertarianism is that we are all equal before the Law from the mightiest to the poorest. This is the Rule of Law. The failure to hold former Prime Minister Tony Blair to account before a Court of Law undermines Law and accountability.

We have car insurance, we have life assurance, yet so few of us carry Legal insurance. Going to Law to protect an interest or to defend yourself is frustrating and seriously injurious to your wealth.

The Libertarian Party will advocate an insurance scheme to balance out the individual against the State or the wealthy abusing the legal system.

County prosecutors elected at the same time as MPs will defend the individual or prosecute the powerful and the State on behalf of the individual, paid for by this insurance scheme.

Unenforceable Law is bad Law, the Libertarian Party will advocate that after thirty years each Law on the statute book is reviewed and has a sunset on its provisions.

Law that is clearly not understood by the Layman is bad law. It should not need a thousand pages of Civil Procedure Rules to enable any citizen to obtain both Justice and redress.

The Libertarian Party wants less Law and regulation, replacing it with enforceable Laws. This is on the basis that which is not proscribed is free to do, rather than the State giving freedom or licence to carry out an activity.

The Libertarian Party will reaffirm the Nine Peelian Principles:

1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.

3. Police must secure the willing cooperation of the public in voluntary observation of the Law.

4. The degree of cooperation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force.

5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.

6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.

7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.

9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

Police Chief Constables to be locally elected, and given a greater amount of autonomy.

Drastically simplify and reform Police/CPS targets, now the remit of the Chief Constable, and to remove the desire to prosecute innocent parties.

A reduction in paperwork to enable more beat officers to remain on patrol for as long as possible.

We will undertake a review of the Police Community Support Officers (PCSO) concept, with the potential to recruit those capable in to the main police force, and to disband the remainder.

Limit retention of DNA only in the event of a conviction, and to discard after that conviction is spent.

Futhermore:

Disorder to be handled via the courts, not on-the-spot fines, which we believe are unconstitutional as laid out in the 1689 Bill of Rights.

Original post:
Manifesto 2017 | Libertarian Party UK

In the long-run, capitalism will always triumph for one reason: It actually responds to peoples desires even the people who call themselves enemies of capitalism and want to see it torn down.

My favorite case-in-point of this phenomenon is the famous and ubiquitous Che Guevara t-shirt.

Spend some time walking down a major city street anywhere in the country, or stroll through a college campus on a summer day, and you are bound to see some guy or gal sporting the likeness of the famous communist revolutionary. Che has been an enduring symbol for leftist activists, despite his bloodthirsty record of violence and inhumanity.

Ive heard plenty of libertarians and other advocates of liberty lament the continued popularity of Ches image; they list off his atrocities and hideous social views with aplomb.

But anger at the endurance of the Che t-shirt misses a crucial point: That it represents the ultimate power of capitalism.

It is the power to transform the most potent symbols of opposition to itself, into commodities that can be bought and sold in the marketplace. In other words, capitalism has turned its foe into another product to be sold within its own system.

The market does not have feelings and does not care about what the symbol of Che represents (if it represents anything). Symbols are just signifiers, brands even, and those can be bought and sold.

Every time some armchair leftist or college brocialist dons the image of Che, they are in fact neutering the ideology they purport to believe in.

When the young people, who Che might in another time have tried to galvanize to violent rebellion, buy shirts and other paraphernalia with his visage they are tacitly buying into the capitalist system. When Che and his ilk became fashion symbols, rather than political symbols, they were utterly defeated. Better than killing them or reducing their monuments to rubble, turning them into pieces of memorabilia was the ultimate insult and final defeat.

That is the beauty of the free market: It can transform an intractable enemy into harmless kitsch.

Supporters of liberty and the free market might understandably be irritated by Americas youth running around with the image of a monomaniacal war criminal blazoned on their chests, but they should bite back their bile and instead rejoice.

As Che has become a popular image, the image of the revolutionary has lost all the symbolic power it once might have claimed.

A couple of generations ago, radical socialism was a common part of the zeitgeist of the American youth, with college campuses serving as breeding grounds for genuine radicalism and acting as the chief apologists for the totalitarian regimes of Cuba, the Soviet Union, and China.

Today, a lot of leftishness is still there, but it has been beaten into a feeble identity politics that is hopelessly incapable of achieving anything of substance.

People on the political right often rail against the liberal bastions of academia, and they are not completely wrong to do so. To be sure, the political products of the academic world, such as President Obama and Senator Elizabeth Warren, serve as cautionary tales to voters thinking about giving real power to the scions of the ivory towers. But they are nowhere near as threatening as the sorts of firebrand spokespeople produced by the hallowed halls of academia only a few decades ago.

Socialism in America, and around the world, has had to respond and adapt to the overwhelming power of the free market. In the marketplace of ideas, socialism is outdated and doomed to go out of business. In response, socialist thinking has shifted, softened, and come to accept at least parts of the capitalist system as essential to maintenance of prosperity.

We should call that a tentative victory for liberty, if not a total one. Even the most entrenched socialist parties around the world have had to accept the reality of markets.

Capitalism is the only serious game in town. Whats left of true radical leftism is just empty and deflated symbols, like t-shirts featuring half-forgotten political dissidents.

This post was written by John Engle.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

John Engle is a merchant banker and author living in the Chicago area. His company, Almington Capital, invests in both early-stage venture capital and in public equities. His writing has been featured in a number of academic journals, as well as the blogs of the Heartland Institute, Grassroot Institute, and Tenth Amendment Center. A graduate of Trinity College Dublin, Ireland and the University of Oxford, Johns first book, Trinity Student Pranks: A History of Mischief and Mayhem, was published in September 2013.

Like Loading...

Continue reading here:
Why I Love Che Guevara T-Shirts - Being Libertarian

EB White once said, Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half the time.

This is the belief that a simple majority can rule over the rest of society, and it is an extremely flawed logic. The reasoning that one, with the support of many, is able to make decisions for the populous is extremely hypocritical and should no longer be a trend in society today.

Reasons disregarding democracy include religious regulation and free speech restrictions. Although some happen to believe both systems can co-exist in governments around the world today, they forget to realize that democracy can limit republicanism, but republicanism cannot limit voluntary democracy.

One example of republicanism over democracy is religious regulation. One must realize that in a democracy, or perhaps our democratic-republican society, this idea is hypocritical with one of the founding principles of our nation religious freedom. We established the country to separate ourselves from British colonial oppression, high taxes, and the right of a monarch to govern us.

In the system we established, religious liberty was promoted, secular freedom was allowed, free speech was for the first time truly established, and the ability of a person to do as he or she pleases without infringing on another person was created. In this, no one person (with the support of a collective) was able to say that they didnt believe in a right established, and thus needed to be removed.

If it did happen, or is to happen in a democracy, this opens up the possibility for anything to change.

The thought in itself is terrifying, as anyone, with the support of a majority could restrict the free practice of religion of anyone and in any aspect. This is infringing upon the rights of another, and subjects both sides (liberals and conservatives) of the political spectrum to hypocrisy, showing flaws in their logic.

Another example of republicanism over democracy is found in free speech restrictions. Liberals and conservatives both happen to be at fault in this, but for the majority of the time, it is the leftists in this scenario.

Liberals enjoy fighting for the rights of the oppressed, minorities, and others, but fail to realize they are practically yelling hypocrisy when they say such. Liberals proclaim to fight for minorities, such as the African American communities, but when they limit the hate speech towards a group, they are infringing on basic rights to speak. Though the speech might be horribly offensive, one has a right to say it because no one else has a right to restrict you from doing such. If you restrict this, one could say the same thing back at the other; that African Americans dont have a right to say anything bad towards whites. This has no correlation to racial slurs that people might say towards African Americans, but under democracy, if one feels infringed, one can change anything, therefore, proving it to be ludicrous.

Although many believe both systems can co-exist in governments around the world today, they forget to realize democracy can limit republicanism, whereas republicanism cannot limit voluntary democracy.

It is important to realize that supporting a democracy does not mean you are a Democrat, or that supporting republicanism does not mean you are a Republican although it used to, but the ideologies have changed since then.

In this nature itself, when one can restrict the other, they simply cannot co-exist.

Though all these hypothetical situations listed throughout this article have low probabilities of occurring, it is important that we consider under democracy, they actually could. If you cannot promote speech that some might consider hateful freely, without being punished by law, that is the effect of democracy, anything can be changed.

If you can promote what some might consider hateful speech, this is what freedom is about because true tolerance accepts all values (not just the ones you agree with) even if they might be hateful.

You can personally disagree with many hateful things there are, but you legislatively should not be able to tell someone else they are unable to speak about something because it could offend someone. If this narrative is applied, anything could be restricted.

The problem of democracy yet again is in the belief that the reasoning by a majority is ultimately the best for society, and that we need to force those ideas on the rest of the people.

As Ive emphasized, anything could take this form.

The reasoning for republicanism is that, though one person believes in the right to do something that doesnt harm others, even if it is completely against everyone in society, they are allowed to do whatever it is as long as it doesnt infringe upon the basic rights of anyone else.

Therefore, republicanism does not promote hypocrisy; neither does it restrict the rights of anyone. It promotes the tolerance that liberals preach, religious freedom that conservatives want, and allows all freedoms that libertarians want.

* Jacob Tabb is a minarchist libertarian committed to ideals of republicanism over democracy, freedom to the utmost extent for all, and ending government corruption which prevents liberty in the forms of social and economic terms. He is the owner of an independent news company called UBC News and has been facilitating and expanding its content for over two years now.

Like Loading...

Read this article:
Why Democracy Fails and Republicanism Succeeds - Being Libertarian

From the time we are born, we are conditioned through force and manipulation to comply with just about everything dictated by figures of authority. Is it any wonder then, why so many of us believe everything we are told by our government?

The fact is that compliance and discipline are necessary skills to survive in our society. Without knowledge of the rules and tools necessary to function successfully a person will never get the chance to become successful because the various systems of enforcement will make it impossible.

Your parents protect you against physical hazards by teaching you to avoid them. This is compliance with basic common sense. Dont put your fingers in a light socket, that makes sense. Dont eat rat poison, this too makes sense.

Soon enough youre off to school, where rules become the focus. Be on time. Do your assigned work. Be reliable. These ideas condition you to be successful at a job. If you are not timely and reliable, you will not succeed at your job, thus they are important skills, imperative to success.

But what happens when the information disseminated to you, from sources that are supposed to be trustworthy, is false or inappropriate, but you have been taught to accept the veracity of everything you hear from these sources?

What happens when your teacher spreads information that is blatantly false? If you fail to answer test questions that include this false information in the way you were taught, there is a penalty. Your grades will suffer. You may be disciplined. You eventually come to the conclusion that compliance makes your life easier and brings better results.

I suppose I was always a fighter.

As I began writing this essay, I remembered something that happened to me in the 7th grade.

My teacher created a program called IALUAC, which stood for, I am lovable, unique and courageous, sounds innocent enough.

Part of this program included a requirement to write a five paragraph essay that told the teacher about your biggest problems. Even at this young age, I felt that my problems were none of my teachers business. So I wrote the paper, making up silly meaningless problems and in the conclusion I said something to the effect of my biggest problem was coming up with problems to put in that essay.

Essentially, I said that my personal life is none of your damn business! This did not go over well. Between the repeated summons to counselors, my parents being called in to school, and what seemed like a month of harassment, I was taught not to think for myself and instead to comply.

The system was created to beat us all into compliance with authority. This is why the abuse of authority is the most unforgivable crime.

Enter President Richard M. Nixon, a prime example of the abuse of authority.

President Nixon was prosecuting a war in Vietnam, a war which was extremely unpopular. He saw that some of his harshest critics were Hippies and People of Color. Nixon clearly had a problem with being challenged, so he felt it was appropriate to attack his critics as his aide John Ehrlichman states in this 1994 quote, We knew we couldnt make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communitiesWe could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.

If we study the effects of this example of abuse of authority the trail is mind boggling and fraught with decades of carnage.

The anti-drug campaign was part of all of our lives. Millions of people still believe what they were forced to believe for Nixons personal benefit. In school, we were taught and taught again of the dangers of drugs unsanctioned by the state, while some of us took the legal equivalent of methamphetamine just to make us conform to the system.

We wrote essays, prepared skits, and so much more that parroted back the dangers of certain drugs. I did avoid the use of drugs, but that had nothing to do with school, that was due to a combination of efforts from my Mother and the fact that I really was not interested in trying them to begin with. I was not an addictive personality, so drugs were never an issue to me.

I do not make the argument that drugs cannot be harmful, but it is well known that many more people die from legal drugs under the supervision of a doctor than illegal drug abuse.

The government sanctioning of a substance does not guarantee its safety, and the illegal nature does not mean it is unsafe. I would prefer that drugs were not abused, regardless of their legal status, but this is not the world we live in.

So, as Nixon wanted, the war raged on and he won office and was re-elected. His little white lie started landing people in jail and ruining their lives, this mushroomed into what we have today millions of Americans with criminal records who harmed no one and over a trillion tax dollars spent on a War on Drugs that did not decrease usage at all; forty years of misinformation, and for what? So that a dead president that resigned in disgrace could keep his job.

This is why abuse of authority in government is far more treasonous than the actions of a person such as Edward Snowden, whose only crime was telling the American people that the NSA was violating the constitution and abusing their authority.

If you were to expose a lie from a dictator, that dictator would have you killed. If you expose a lie or violation of your government, your government will try to do the same: ask Mr. Snowden, who is exiled to Russia instead of being able live at home and receive the congratulations of the people who are grateful for the risk he took in exposing the truth.

Compliance is paramount to government. If you fail to comply with their requirements, you will pay a severe penalty.

So, how can we solve the problem of abuse of authority vs. the necessity of compliance? Comply with the realities of the world, but dont bury your head in the sand and ignore what is really going on around you. Pay attention to what is really happening. Dont let drug-war-style brainwashing blind you to certain realities that government has used to bolster their revenue, power and control over you; thus solidifying their grip on power and job security as Nixon did so long ago.

Consider a few conventional items required by government today and you may notice that these are also abuses of authority. These abuses of authority may not be as egregious and destructive as Nixons War on Drugs, but they are still violations of your rights and some are out right theft.

If you make the connection that you have been manipulated, through the system, to believe what you are told by your government, you will never make the connection that these things really do happen. They are wrong and are designed to strengthen governments grip on you. You are more likely to believe that these were done in the interests of protecting you than to see the truth:

Can the people overcome this combination of forced indoctrination of the activities of government; combined with misinformation about their abuses of authority? I fervently hope so.

What plan can I offer to allow for the discipline necessary for survival to be part of us, without the brainwashing that results in most of us not seeing reality? This is the $64,000 question.

It is a given that government controls the schools. It is a given that government controls the curriculum in those schools. It is a given that people who speak in opposition to the lessons crucial to sustenance of the power of government are punished. It is a given that the people are forced to accept lies with respect to the abuse of government authority or pay the consequences.

The media is a willing partner as well. Mass media is used for the purpose of reinforcing any lies that cover up the motivation of the abuse of authority as well. We are constantly bombarded with false and manipulative information from all angles. It appears that there is nothing we can do.

Believe it or not, the answer to this is twofold social media and the closure of the Department of Education.

The closure of the Department of Education is pretty obvious, in that the decentralization of control of education would allow for less central control of curriculum. The effect of social media is why the fake news propaganda is swirling around in Washington D.C. There is an inconvenient barrier to complete control of the news media and it resides in the first amendment to the constitution. That barrier is Freedom of the Press. The fake news campaign is a precursor to an attack on freedom of the press.

If we remain steadfast to the protections included in the Bill of Rights, which our government sees more as a hurdle than a barrier, I see the pendulum swinging back in the direction of the people.

Heres how:

While mainstream media (MSM) still reports what they are instructed to report, and while schools still disseminate the same, it is social media that allows the people to interact with each other on a large scale. The people are not happy, and while the MSM encourages them to blame another political party that actually works in concert with their own, they really do not know why the people are so unhappy. I believe that most people smell a rat and are looking for the truth that is being shielded from them.

Social media, as long as it is allowed to operate freely, is the leader in the dissemination of truth (as long as the reader has the ability to filter out the crazy stuff).

This is fact: mainstream media may indeed succumb to the misinformation provided to it by our government, but they are in business for profit. If they are forced to choose between losing money and ceasing to exist or continuing to disseminate lies, they must choose survival.

As the people learn more of the truth of the current situation and make the connection that they are being lied to, they will seek out alternative sources of information. While many people prefer to hear lies that support their views, I believe that more people want to know the truth, because the truth en masse can lead to better decisions and a better life.

As this truth is uncovered, they will make decisions to stop electing politicians who believe in mass manipulation as the way to achieve their personal goals while in office.

The people will demand truth from mainstream media at some point in time, and if they fail to provide what their customers demand, these entities will fail and their new competitors will soar.

So as wacky as social media may seem, it is a vital key to freedom.

This post was written by Steve Kerbel.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

Steve Kerbel is a businessman, author, and former Libertarian Party candidate for President of the United States.

Like Loading...

Follow this link:
An Unexpected Key to Freedom - Being Libertarian

Skin color aside, what makes a white person? What makes a black person? If skin color magically disappeared the next morning, along with major physical differences, would you be able to determine who is white, black, Asian, and so on, based on their behavior or living conditions? You could make guesses based on generalizations and averages, but would you be one hundred percent correct? In order to better understand race and its importance, we should see whether or not it is more accurate to judge someone by their race or their individuality. Throughout this essay I shall argue that looking at people as individuals and upholding values of individuality is not only more ethical but more accurate than looking at people as merely members of a collective based upon their skin color. Is race just simply skin color, or is there a much larger picture which involves different behaviors or traits? Is race at all even relevant? In order to answer these questions, we need to establish what race is to begin with.

Definitions involving race seem to heavily emphasize physical differences with no mention of culture. For instance, Merriam-Webster defines race as any one of the groups that human beings can be divided into based on shared distinctive physical traits (Merriam-Webster). Does this definition fit what we commonly view as race? How about if it fits how we commonly view white people or black people? Are we able to identify white or black people based on their physical differences or behaviors? Oxford defines race as Each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics. Again we see the same situation. Professor Ian Haney-Lpez has a somewhat different definition:

I define a race as a vast group of people loosely bound together by historically contingent, socially significant elements of their morphology and/or ancestry. I argue that race must be understood as a sui generis social phenomenon in which contested systems of meaning serve as the connections between physical features, races, and personal characteristics. In other words, social meanings connect our faces to our souls. Race is neither an essence nor an illusion, but rather an ongoing, contradictory, self-reinforcing process subject to the macro forces of social and political struggle and the micro effects of daily decisions.

Professor Lopez does note physical traits but seems to also include what he says are personal characteristics. What are these personal characteristics though? Is he just repeating himself when talking about physical features, or does Professor Lopez mean something entirely different? Is he referring to behaviors or actions? What behaviors would you describe as white? What behaviors would you describe as black? What are the characteristics of a Latino person if you excluded skin color? What makes a white or black person besides skin color? Perhaps these personal characteristics that Lopez is referring to can be found in the socially significant elements of their morphology and/or ancestry. When discussing socially significant elements were really talking about society, but is society the same globally? A black person in the United States who moves to Sri Lanka is still physically black, regardless of the different society and culture. Even if the country or geographic region were constant, society is always changing. So, will Lopezs definition hold the test of time? Imagine a utopian future where race has suddenly become irrelevant. Does Lopezs definition hold? Unfortunately not. We require a more consistent and universally applicable definition, which is why Id go with those laid out by Merriam-Webster and Oxford Dictionaries. Lopezs view of race embodies a social justice bias that has crept into his definition. We will further examine current social justice views on race as this book goes on.

So, what is race? To put it simply, it is a group of people only held together by physical differences. This is not to mention that these physical differences, which seemingly unites a group, is very diverse as well. There is no one true shade of black or white. There is pale, tan, moderately pink, light brown, dark brown, chestnut. There are large noses, short noses, medium noses, wide noses, thin noses. There are slanty eyes, wide eyes, small eyes, big eyes. Race can only tell us generally what the physical appearance of an individual is. It does not tell us anything about an individuals history, personality, work ethic, or interests.

Here we see a clear divide when it comes to an understanding on race: collectivism versus individualism, a rivalry that isnt limited to just race. Those who view people as members of collective races instead of different individuals also apply different traits and preconceptions about such members. Historically speaking, these could be those people who thought blacks were genetically inferior, and used this stance in order to justify slavery. There are also those who currently fight in the name of social justice, who champion ideas about white people being inherently privileged and people of color being members of an oppressed group. The white supremacist who thinks their race is superior to blacks uses the same lens as the social justice activist who thinks white people are privileged and people of color are oppressed. I shall refer to these people as racial collectivists.

An individual who views race as irrelevant views all races equally. There are people who look past the color of ones skin in exchange for more valuable information about an individual. Personality, intelligence, work ethic, religion, political leanings, all these are significantly more important than race to these people. Race is almost, if not completely, irrelevant. I shall refer to these people as racial individualists.

A libertarian theory on race would be a theory based upon individualism, one that takes into account the complexity and diversity of individuals. A libertarian would look past race in order to view the true beauty that is individuality. This makes libertarianism aligned with racial individualism. This is not surprising, seeing how many on the left tend to align more with the racial collectivists. The link between economics and race is present. Racial collectivism, interpreted by social justice advocates, is simply an application of Marxist class theory when applied to race. There is an oppressed class (people of color) and an oppressor class (white people). Libertarians are concerned with each individual within society, meaning an absence of one race representing oppressors and another representing the oppressed. This is all very well summed up by former libertarian congressman Ron Paul:

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called diversity actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.

In order to make the case for racial individualism or a libertarian theory on race, we must first examine different issues necessary to build a foundation for the principles of individualism when applied to race. The following are different topics which I believe will help us better understand this theory.

What is racism to begin with? The answer may seem easy but the definition has been tampered with in order to fit the political agenda of racial collectivists, more specifically, social justice advocates. Social justice advocates use a definition influenced by sociologist David Wellman, who claims:

The essential feature of racism is not hostility or misperception, but rather the defense of a system from which advantage is derived on the basis of race. The manner in which the defense is articulated either with hostility or subtlety is not nearly as important as the fact that it insures the continuation of a privileged relationship. Thus it is necessary to broaden the definition of racism beyond prejudice to include sentiments that in their consequence, if not in their intent, support the racial status quo.

This definition has prompted many social justice advocates to believe that racism is prejudice plus societal power. This stands in contrast with many objective non-biased dictionary definitions that state that racism is, according to Merriam-Webster: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race Just to prove that normal non-biased definitions show a different picture, I will provide another from Oxford: Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that ones own race is superior So, whos right, the objective unbiased definitions or the sociological definition used usually for political advocacy?

In order to see, lets consider a thought experiment.

Youre walking down the street and you see a group of rich black individuals calling a runaway, homeless white child racial slurs. The child is in tears and the wealthy black group continues to taunt him. Do you intervene? If you abide by Wellmans definition then no. According to social justice advocates, this is not racism because even if the black individuals are wealthy and dressed in nice tuxedos and ball gowns they are still members of an oppressed class. This also means the runaway, homeless white child is a member of the oppressive class. This then simply becomes an issue of the oppressed standing up to the oppressor. Does this seem right? A better way to look at the situation lies in the lens of individualism. What we then see is rude, racist individuals taunting someone because of their race, which is racism. Which makes more sense as an analysis of this incident? The argument could be made that this is a hypothetical situation and rarely happens. Is this an adequate response to the criticism against a social justice definition of racism? Absolutely not. Definitions must have universal application and if all it takes is for one individual instance for your definition not to apply then your definition is broken. We will explore this idea of rare examples more closely in the next section.

Can empiricism be used to justify the stereotyping of individuals of different races? Consider the following two interactions I partook in.

I once had a conversation with a self-proclaimed white supremacist. I asked her to try and legitimize her views, and she listed off a bunch of empirical evidence involving crime, IQ, wealth, and productivity, all leading her to the assumption that whites are superior to blacks. Before you think up your criticisms with this reasoning, please consider another interaction.

I had another conversation with a social justice advocate who claimed all white people were privileged. After asking her to legitimize her views she listed off a bunch of empirical evidence involving wealth, incarceration, police shootings, and so on.

Do you see a connection? Both of these individuals were racial collectivists and used the same methodology, yet reached very different conclusions. Many libertarians who are familiar with the Austrian School of Economics already have their critiques of empiricism, but should we be equally as skeptical when empiricism is used to justify racial collectivism?

Lets start with what empiricism can do. It can tell us generalizations and averages that can explain certain phenomena. For instance, when people say that the disproportionate amount of blacks shot by the police is due to racism, we can better understand this situation by looking at empirical evidence involving crime rates that lead to police encounters instead. This explains the situation without placing blanket statements over an entire group of individuals connected only by their race. So if someone is asking why race a is more likely to be subject to [condition] than race b, we can explain this situation by looking at empirical evidence that shows that race a does more [action] that leads to [condition] than race b. Explanations are all empirical evidence. Evidence is no good when it comes to race unless the sample size includes every single individual member of a race and results in a 100 percentage. Such a thing is impossible, so lets disregard empirical evidence except in the instance of explaining phenomena involving a percentage of members of a race.

Going back to my two encounters, does empirical evidence justify their views and the acts of stereotyping different individuals that arise out of it? Absolutely not. To do so would be both illogical and unethical. Lets consider the first case. The white supremacist listed a bunch of empirical evidence involving crime, IQ, wealth, and productivity. If her assertion that whites are superior are true, then we would have to look at all the individuals involved. Are there people of color who dont commit crimes? Are there no white people who dont commit crimes? Are there no people of color who are smart? The same goes for wealth and productivity. The fact of the matter is that there are white criminals and black criminals, wealthy whites and wealthy blacks, and while the numbers may vary, race is not a sufficient way to look at it. 100 percent of wealthy people are wealthy, what percent of whites are wealthy? Definitely not 100 percent. Same goes for the other issues brought up by the white supremacist.

The social justice advocate is the same exact case. Just because there is empirical evidence that suggests more whites are wealthier than people of color, this does not mean that all white people are wealthy or all people of color are impoverished. The same goes for victims of police shootings and racism. As weve earlier established, white people can be victims of racism. The idea that white privilege is dangerous more dangerous than the ideas of the white supremacist is because its being masqueraded around as an anti-racist term. Most white supremacists know theyre racist and are proud of it. They mostly understand their ideas are going to be hated by the majority of people they encounter. This does not apply to the concept of white privilege. Its being used by social justice advocates to fight racism when whats ironically happening is theyre furthering racism by using the same methodology and collectivist lens that their white supremacist counterparts use. Not all white people are privileged, just like not all people of color are oppressed. Empirical evidence could suggest trends, but it does not provide a substantial assessment about entire groups of individuals connected only by the color of their skin. This makes the concept of white privilege illogical, unethical, obsolete, yet still dangerous.

Culture has been used as justification that there are some inherent differences between races that are not just related to physical differences. This has led to terms such as black culture or white culture. This assumes, going off a racial collectivist analysis, that it is impossible for a white person to be integrated into black culture or that a black person would stray away from black culture. An individualist does not deny culture and its importance, but an individualist more specifically a racial individualist would recognize that cultures arent inherent to certain races.

Think about this geographically. Asians are spread all throughout the world, in North America, Latin America, Europe, Africa, Australia, and obviously Asia. Do all these Asians follow the same culture simply based on the color of their skin? To say so would be ridiculous. For starters, there are different cultures based off of specific countries. Chinese culture is very different from Japanese culture. If they have the same culture why are have the Chinese and Japanese had historical conflicts? Within the country is different cultures as well. For instance, if we were to look at China, the Jiangshu province is much different from the Qinghai province in terms of culture. I shouldnt even have to explain the cultural differences that lie within the Tibet Region and Inner Mongolia. To claim that a culture is inherent or belongs to a certain race is geographically ridiculous.

This also assumes that its impossible for a member of a race to not identify with a common culture. Is there now no such thing as outliers or outsiders? Are there absolutely no Egyptians who follow an Egyptian culture? Do these outsiders not exist? What if these outsiders come in the future? Do we have all the relevant information to accurately say that ones race must obligate them to a culture? We dont, and to say otherwise would be to claim you know every single individual personally on the planet currently, as well as every single individual who has ever lived and ever will live. Many social justice ideas fail when we consider what relevant information is necessary to validate these beliefs, but the idea that a culture is inherent to a race is just one of them.

All of this refutes the famous term used by racial collectivists known as cultural appropriation. Although this concept is used mainly in social justice circles, I will admit it has found its way into unbiased organizations as well. The Cambridge Dictionary even has a definition for it: the act of taking or using things from a culture that is not your own, especially without showing that you understand or respect this culture. So how then does one obtain a culture? Do you have to be Asian in order to eat sushi? Do you have to be Mexican in order to wear a sombrero? The fact is that no individual can own a culture, regardless of their race, and at the same time no individual can be prohibited by a force of nature from taking part in a culture regardless of their race. The concept of cultural appropriation fails because it tries to claim the impossible: that a race made up of diverse and complex individuals somehow claim ownership to a culture.

Diversity of race is something that many have strived for, but why? It would make sense ethically to strive for diversity of race if there is clear racial discrimination, but why do people strive for diversity just for the sake of being racially diverse? Consider what this means. Striving for racial diversity implies that there is something inherently different between a white person, black person, Latino person, etc. What gets accomplished with racial diversity? More representation of people of many races, sure, but what is fundamentally different about them besides skin color? The most famous attempt to force diversity is the implementation of affirmative action programs in colleges across the western world. Individuals are being either penalized or benefitted, not for any merit, but rather due to a physical feature they have absolutely no control over. All in the name of what? Many have argued that there is a point of view and story involved inherently within a race, so therefore you would in turn be supporting diversity of opinion. The problem with this is that not all people who share the same race share the same story. Suppose the argument is made that black people go through financial struggles more than white people, therefore affirmative action must be put in place in order to get that perspective included into discourse between students. What then if an odd coincidence occurs in which the only black students who were admitted to University A were wealthy and well off? Its a very rare thing to see but not impossible. Would you then claim that University A was diverse?

I believe diversity is something to strive for, just not the racial diversity that social justice advocates advocate for. Diversity of personality, thought, religion, and political ideology is all much more important than diversity of race. When we focus clearly on diversity of thought instead of diversity of race, we can better accomplish the goals of a more well-rounded, knowledgeable society. There is nothing inherently different about a white person or a black person besides skin color.

What is the beautiful infinity? Ive coined this term to highlight the complexity and diversity of individuals. There are infinite types of individuals and no one individual can fully understand them all, let alone one. There are many of these individuals who are pushing ideas in the name of social justice. These racial collectivists just use the same methodology as racial collectivists of the past, such as white supremacists and the Ku Klux Klan. What is essentially being done is lazy; instead of looking at all these complex and diverse individuals, racial collectivists are lazily grouping people together based on their skin color, a physical attribute they have zero control over. Personality, intelligence, history, geography, and psychology, all tossed aside in the name of laziness and racial collectivism by social justice advocates. Individuals do make up a beautiful infinity. You will never find two individuals who are 100% identical; there are individuals who may act the same, grow up the same, and live the same, but there will always be a difference. The human mind is complex and has led to a history full of diverse individuals, and will lead to a future of the same. To group them based on skin color and then proceed to make assumptions about them is unethical, illogical, and frankly lazy. I shall conclude with a 1973 quote by Austrian economist Friedrich A. von Hayek:

I am certain, however, that nothing has done so much to destroy the juridical safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice.

* Stuart Clayton Lee is a far-right anarcho-capitalist who is currently attending college in Washington state. His favorite political philosopher is Robert Nozick, even if he disagrees with him on many issues. He finds himself most in agreement with Murray Rothbard. He is also a contributor to Liberty Hangout. He is currently studying economics and is pursuing knowledge personally in Austrian economics.

Like Loading...

View original post here:
Beautiful Infinity: A Libertarian Theory on Race - Being Libertarian