Category Archives: General / Other

Learn the Truth: Liberty Classroom

By | |
Leave a comment

lc

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” – Thomas Jefferson

Naturally, as a teacher, you would all expect me to emphasize the importance of learning. My career is built on just such an emphasis.

Most of us also understand that a huge problem is that many sources for historical information are skewed. Textbooks are framed in a politically correct, if historically incorrect, understanding of the world that pushes an agenda supporting the progressive movement (the movement that looks to government, mainly central, as the key to social and economic progress). Why else would you find textbooks explaining the 2nd Amendment as established primarily for self-defense in an unruly countryside where an effective state-sponsored police force had not yet been established? (It was established to deter government from becoming tyrannical. They didn’t need an amendment to the federal Constitution to protect gun ownership for the sake of self-defense; that was a given. They would only need the 2nd Amendment if they were concerned about the nature of power as inherently susceptible to abuse and tyranny. And now I’m getting off on a tangent…)

As many of you know, the 2nd Amendment is an easy rally point for conservatives, and most in my experience understand it.

But that’s only the beginning. Textbooks—even many conservative ones, if you can find them—teach that the Gilded Age monopolies were bad and government regulation fixed that.

They teach that child labor was the result of capitalism gone awry and government bans on child labor saved our children from terrible deaths in the factories.

They teach that World War I was the great war for democracy, and that without U.S. entry with the Allies, the world would have descended into greater depravity.

They teach us that without government inspection of our food, we’d all be living to the ripe old age of 43.

False. False. False. False.

Yes, I know for some of you, that seems like a pretty bold case to be made.

I’ve spent the last several years using what little “free” time I have to study and learn history, economics and political policy—I’ve committed hundreds of hours to studying.

“Well, you’re a history and government teacher. Of course, you would,” comes the reply.

Well, yes. You do have a point.

Stick with me for a minute? The fact of the matter is, especially in light of a presidential election year, our understanding of these topics is very important. Do we really understand the implications of the candidates’—and now, specifically—Trump’s policies (the ones he has clarified)? The fact of the matter is, there are so many subtly (and no so subtly) taught misconceptions and bold-faced fallacies.

The best place I have found for true, substantial learning of this material is Liberty Classroom.

courses-preview

Courses Preview (see full list below)

Do not think Liberty Classroom is a gimmick. If you ask my wife, I tend to be very tight-fisted; I don’t spend money easily. I spent months of debating it and four hours of research before buying a $60 mp3 player. So I promote Liberty Classroom boldly and without reservation. It has been one of the best educational expenditures I have ever made (yes, I did go to college).

The teachers on Liberty Classroom are not just bloggers with passion (yes, I am aware of what I just said). They have Ph.D. level education (some have multiple Ph.D.’s) and years—if not decades—of teaching experience in universities and elsewhere. They are experts in their fields.

Courses List (more courses added regularly)

Courses List (more courses added regularly)

They cover a myriad of topics. Tom Woods’, himself having a Ph.D. in History and years of teaching experience at the college level before spending the recent decades in educating the public through books (he is a New York Times bestselling author), speeches and other content (like Liberty Classroom), has been forging this online learning source with accuracy and professionalism.

Yes, this is a plug…as if you didn’t notice! This weekend, November 25 (today) – Monday, November 28, Liberty Classroom is offering their best prices of the year: $5.16 a month for Basic Membership (though you pay in lump sum) if you buy today, and then just $5.42 a month through Monday night. You probably spend more on just Netflix, just Spotify or just Redbox in a month—for entertainment. Can I suggest you spend less than Netflix for some of the best education in history, government and economics that you could get (with the goal of keeping my integrity, I say that whole-heartedly).

And I also know that some of you will think it’s going to be Libertarian Party activism like that exposed by media. False, again. Entirely false. To repeat, the teaching here is professional and the professors are experts on their sources and subjects.

I do earn commission on this, but I’d promote it even if I didn’t (yes, yes; they all say that). If you know me, however, you know that I certainly would not promote something unless I was really behind it.

Check out and sign up for Liberty Classroom through my affiliate link here (or click the “Join Now” image below to take you to their home page; just scroll down on the home page for the three levels of membership and pricing).

And for your viewing pleasure,  below is a favorite video of Tom Woods in his “Interview with a Zombie” on his book and the issue of nullification, followed by his promotional video of Liberty Classroom.

Remember: BEST PRICES today! Discounted prices END MONDAY NIGHT. Click here:

Click here to go to LibertyClassroom.com

Click here to go to LibertyClassroom.com

Thanksgiving in Perspective

By | | , ,
Leave a comment

hith-pilgrims-eMany of us were raised with a romanticized rendition of the story of the Pilgrims, a story that still brings back my childhood memories of Indians and Pilgrims placing fish in the ground with corn seeds, smiling and gathering around a large table with the cornucopia and all the trimmings that adorn Thanksgiving tables today. (There are many misconceptions about the “first thanksgiving” that I am not going to be addressing. A fellow blogger has done an excellent job of that here: “The First Thanksgiving?“)

And while it wasn’t the first thanksgiving celebration ever to be celebrated, and romanticized exaggerations aside, most of us haven’t the faintest idea what it would have been like. Finding themselves increasingly at odds with the Anglican clergy and legal system in England, the small group of Separatists had moved from Scrooby, England to Holland, where they found themselves remarkably accepted. Nevertheless, opportunities for making a living were somewhat limited, the lure of Dutch culture for very conservative English was a presumed threat from parents, and the outbreak of the 30 Years’ War threatened Holland with another invasion from Catholic Spain.

So they left again.

This time, to settle just south of the Dutch colony of New Amsterdam at the mouth of the Hudson River (modern-day New York). Still, the land they hoped to settle on was still within what was claimed as British Virginia.

When a plane takes us across the Atlantic in four to five hours, we can’t fathom weeks of sea travel amidst the tempestuous whims of the weather.

When our legal systems protect our expressions of faith, by and large, we can’t imagine what it was like to have to meet in secret for not sharing the common denominational association as the church prescribed by king and parliament.

When we drive five minutes to pick up as much food as we can eat—and then some—for any meal, let alone Thanksgiving, we have no hope of empathy with those who only ate what they themselves planted, nurtured and harvested.

When we can “bump up the heat” because we’re uncomfortably cold at 70 degrees Fahrenheit, there is not a chance that we can put ourselves in the shoes of those who lived exposed to the cold and knew that it may well take their lives.

When we can run to the clinic for a quick diagnosis and cure, lost to our memory is a time when a simple flu could just as likely kill as not.

In 1620, 102 Pilgrims landed in what would later become Massachusetts, five-hundred miles off-course, in land not particularly claimed by anyone. Given poor conditions, they couldn’t sail right up the coast a little ways to New Amsterdam for supplies.

That first winter, 45 people died.

At your family gathering this Thanksgiving, imagine half dead in 6 months. I apologize for the morbidity, but I am guessing you can’t. I can’t. Or, at least, I won’t.

So maybe instead of that disheartening image, understand that we are far more blessed than we can ever imagine. We have a standard of living that far exceeds any other known to any other group—poor, middle class or rich—in the history of the world.

The Pilgrims understood thankfulness. Do we?the_first_thanksgiving_cph-3g04961

A series of studies published in what has been known as the Happiness Literature conducted in recent years shows something that might otherwise be considered common sense: that people become accustomed to their standard of living, and that becomes a baseline for expectation. In essence: we become accustomed to what we have, and take it profoundly for granted.

So how can we be thankful? It has to do with expectations.

Thankfulness can only be truly derived from accurate expectations and accurate perspective. If I expect to be fed well on Thanksgiving Day, my thankfulness for that meal will be nominal. All the more if I expect it will be provided to me because I deserve it.

True thankfulness understands our blessings in perspective.

Much-needed perspective.

In December of 1621, Edward Winslow was able to write, “by the goodness of God, we are so far from want….” Ninety natives joined the Pilgrims for three days of feasting. Almost every single person there had lost someone–more probably several–they loved in the previous year. And yet, they were thankful. Let me rephrase: therefore, they were thankful. They understood the true blessing of what they had.

cornucopiaDo we?

Addendum: Let me make one more observation, if I may. Thankfulness reveals more about a person’s character than many other expressions or attitudes. Gratefulness is an attitude of maturity.

May you and yours have a blessed and thoughtful Thanksgiving.

(Don’t have time to read it? Enjoy the audio below. And please forgive small hiccups; this is my first time to record a post.)

Church & State

By | | , , ,
Leave a comment

Worldview. A word that somehow seems to understate its own purpose. A word that often gets tossed around in clichéd nuance.

crown-of-thornsI believe in a world in which mankind is inherently bent toward sin, a bent that cannot be revoked from anything within him. Because I believe that God is ultimately sovereign and that His very nature is perfectly righteous, any departure from that perfect righteousness on our part renders us bound for judgment. The only means of reconcile is a perfect sacrifice. I believe that God as perfectly good and perfectly just must fulfill both qualities, and does so in Christ Jesus, who was fully God and fully man. He met the just standard for our departure from God’s perfection, allowing us therefore to be, in legal terms, acquitted, upon reception of His offer of this grace.

And I believe in a view of History that understands God’s hand to be at work throughout. I won’t dare to enter the debate many Bible scholars have had on the issue of free will and God’s sovereignty; this is not the place for that. But because many will argue that it necessarily precedes any discussion of nearly any topic, I will comment only that I believe God is both sovereign, and has somehow delegated free will to man, nevertheless. I cannot perfectly understand this paradox, but I must accept it. For what other reason would God give Adam and Eve the option to do wrong in the garden, if but to allow them to choose to do right?

And on this premise, I believe that God has a strategy in history, and “energizes all things according to His will” (in Ephesians 1:11; the Greek word Paul uses here is energio, literally rendered energizes). But I also believe that there is an active enemy of God: Satan, or the devil, who also strategizes in history. And I have no doubt about the ultimate victor. Victory lies in the One who is ultimately sovereign. The culmination of history to the believer is quite clear.

And therein lies a premise of my worldview: the lens through which I view the world and history.

At first glance, this particular worldview may not be glaringly apparent in much of what I have so far discussed. It is not void altogether, and neither will it remain void. I could not, in good conscience, depart from what I believe for merely what might be considered utilitarian ends: the goals that bring the most usefulness, or happiness. I don’t advocate for a society rooted in liberty because my ultimate goal is that people be happy. The implications of eternity are far more severe.

And certainly, some have made the point that it was not in free societies, but in those where Christianity was and is restricted, that it has grown the greatest. The Way, as Christianity was called then, spread like fire throughout an increasingly antagonistic Roman empire. Some evidence suggests that the growth of the church in current China is unmatched.

I concede, and do so readily.

Does that suggest I should argue for a less-free society or even for a society where liberty is quenched?

That is the easier of the questions I face, as it will be less asked than this objection: To advocate liberty to the full extent you have so far suggested will leave the nation without its vital moral underpinnings.

Let me return the apparent dilemma: Has the power of the state been able to truly anchor any morality in our nation? Can legislated morality transform a person’s heart?

I would suggest several key points that I will leave with you.

First, the power of the state cannot dictate the morality of the people it rules. There will beold-bible-with-swordthumbnail
several common objections raised to this. One will argue that I am flat-out wrong in some cases. Certainly, the state can limit certain activities on threat of punishment, but many such activities continue unhampered nevertheless.

A second and perhaps more difficult objection to answer will be that by advocating the repeal of laws that ban what Christians consider immoral is advocacy for those activities. That is simply not true, but before I argue my case on this one, allow me to present my other points.

Second, if the state manages to limit certain activities that it considers to be immoral, then it has also gathered to itself the power to alter its decisions. The common objection here will be that this is precisely why we need to get Christians to the polls: to vote in people who will legislate on behalf of our beliefs?

But let me ask you: what happens when the government begins to use the power given it by the electorate to make decisions that some among that electorate approve of, and then begin making decisions antagonistic to that end. For example, Christians have applauded the government’s decisions to define marriage as between a man and women. But if we have conceded to the state the power to make this definition, then we have also conceded the power for it to define marriage as whatever it likes. And despite the protest that more Christians just need to vote, this isn’t having any particular long-term impact. And this leads me to my third, perhaps more potent point.

kings-landing-churchthumbnailThird and finally, by assuming that the political process is an important means of maintaining a nation based on Christian moral ethic, it undermines the influence that the church should have. Where the church sees politics as a means of what should be done through love, truth and evangelism, it tends to surrender its passion for proclaiming what it believes to be true.

If the church believes that gay marriage is wrong, it should proclaim that boldly on the foundation of the Gospel. If the church believes that prostitution is wrong, it should be stepping up to provide for those who see the sale of their own bodies as their best (and often only) means of income. For those who enjoy the practice (which I believe is deplorable), no government regulation will stop them. The statistics bear that out.

You see, if liberty is preserved and the non-aggression principle upheld, the church would have no alternative but to influence change through its right to proclaim boldly what it believes to be true.

Let me turn this in to a plea for my Christian readers. If you don’t like the trends of society, then be bold in your witness of truth. Don’t surrender your assertiveness by relieving your conscience by voting for the candidate who claims to be a Christian. In a society built on the liberty I have suggested, it is your right to speak and say whatever you like, just as it is the right of every other to scorn you for it (without aggression).

Do not surrender to politics what the church is called to be.

And by church, I do not mean the organizations created by the leaders of local churches; I mean the members of the church: the people who otherwise go to work, get home, watch TV and go to bed. You see, the church has a profound calling in culture, but it cannot coerce anyone to its ends. It can only win through truth and love built on the Gospel of Christ.

Government does not change culture. Government cannot establish moral standards and transform the hearts of those who abide under their rule. At its extreme, an attempt to do so has resulted in nothing less than the Inquisitions of Rome and Spain and the Spanish colonies. Even if the apparatus were in place to ensure nothing of immoral activity was permitted through the most invasive violations of privacy, the most it could do is create a nation of hypocrites who hated both the church and the state.

And our government, because of its quasi-republican nature, is more prone to following the trends of culture than a dictatorship would be (you already know I don’t advocate for a dictatorship). And culture has, by and large, demanded that we walk a fine line of political correctness that readily bashes free speech that argues against things like gay marriage, while demanding we advocate for these things. And slowly but surely, law is following suit.

(There is a lot more than can be said about this and its many facets that could emerge in debate. I will touch on them from time to time, but let me for now direct you to the Libertarian Christian Institute, where you can continue to explore their content and their primary video explaining that position, which you can view by clicking here.)

I will say it once more: do not surrender to politics what the church is called to be. Do not be a church that seeks to coerce, but one that transforms through loving word and deed, not shrinking back from truth by stopping by the polling station. (I know I will have readers who immediately think I am suggesting you don’t vote, or that you don’t care which leaders are Christian or not. I’ll have a post refuting this in time, so for now, know that this is not the case.)

That is why I advocate for liberty, but I also advocate that Christians take advantage of that liberty, to be a transforming influence around them, as the early church was in Rome (while there was yet liberty, and even more so when the persecution truly began in earnest). It was after Constantine mandated Christianity as the religion of the state that the politics began to rot much of the church.

The Politics of Liberty: The Principled Argument

By | | , , ,
3 Comments
moe

(Copyright Bill Watterson, Calvin and Hobbes)

Kindergarten. That’s where we learned the basics of libertarianism. Don’t hurt people and don’t take their stuff.

It’s a basic ethical principle that most readers will readily nod in agreement. We want our children to live by that basic standard. Treat others as you would want to be treated. That’s the stuff of elementary.

Libertarianism, notwithstanding the agenda of the party’s eccentric activists, is a political philosophy based on that very idea. The distinction is that the libertarian will advocate that the state should not treat anyone in a way that we would not want our neighbor to treat us. Or our child to treat another in school.

If it is wrong for me to take my neighbor’s money, then it is equally wrong for me to utilize—yes, we’re coming back around—a monopoly on force to take their money and give it to me instead, or anyone else, for that matter. The government should not aggress—initiate force—against any otherwise peaceful person. And don’t get this confused The threat of force sufficiently qualifies as aggression. Nobody would consider a 200-lb bully taking the toy truck of the much smaller peer to be okay simply because the smaller boy does not defend himself and therefore avoids a losing battle.

Please don’t get me wrong. I am not of the mindset of Irwin Schiff, who died in prison for refusing to pay his taxes. It is much like the 25-mile-per-hour speed limit on the quiet road on the edge of town. I may not always like the speed limit, but I will follow it as a matter first of integrity and respect (both of which I find a fundamental part of what I believe to be a transcendent standard of morality), and second because I do not want to be out the hefty chunk of cash that I will otherwise be if caught going faster.

But maintaining my integrity on matters such as paying taxes and acquiescing to the state’s regulations, I can still advocate for the basic principles of liberty and argue that they ought to apply to the apparatus of the state. What gives officials who have a monopoly on force—and for most of us, merely the threat of force—a right to do what the average person cannot do to his neighbor?

And yes, I am aware of the abundance of arguments that are raised in opposition. “We must all pay our fair share for the protections and benefits they afford us,” is the most common raised. To sort every nuance of that out in this post would require a book (which is one reason I have a blog), so let me introduce a couple of key ideas to keep in mind, the second following from the first.

First, if you agree to the basic principles of liberty that I have stated in the previous few posts, then the burden of proof falls on you to show me why the state has a right to violate it, if indeed you think it does. Many will argue that the state is given exemption due to the legitimacy that it gains by our republican system. Let’s see if that holds up.

John Locke, an Enlightenment thinker and social contract theorist. Also a key theorist of natural rights to "life, liberty and property."

John Locke, an Enlightenment thinker and social contract theorist. Also a key theorist of natural rights to “life, liberty and property.”

Many Enlightenment thinkers of the 17th and 18th centuries adhered to a somewhat abstract argument called social contract theory. Their held that everyone is duty bound to the state because, by involving themselves in society, they are submitting to a “social contract.” In this contract, they implicitly agree to do this submission, or at least, to the submission of society as a whole under whatever form of government they considered legitimate.¹ There are significant holes in this theory, most of which I do not have time to debate here, but the most significant is worth noting: why? Because I happened to be born into society, I have implicitly agreed to its terms of governance? Note that the monarchs and parliaments of the era loved this theory: it helped to justify their authoritarianism.

I know that many of my Christian readers will argue that governments are established by God, and that in itself gives the state its right to exemption from the basic principles of liberty. Romans 13:1-7 is a common place to refer to. A more holistic study of Scripture gives a more of a complex view, which again, after the fashion of relatively short posts, will not fit here. For now, I will offer one prime example. When Israel asked Samuel for a king, God’s warning was clear: the king will violate the liberties you have enjoyed by taxing you and forcing your children into labor and military service. The Lord viewed this rejection of His sovereignty with anger (Samuel 8:1-18).

Back to my previous point, social contract theory breaks down because it simply justifies the use of force by nature of people being united in society. Hardly a satisfying argument against the principles of liberty. (Incidentally, the greatest test of this argument is the state’s response to anyone choosing to not adhere to their rules. If social contract is binding by voluntarism, then ought it also allow someone to opt out? It’s almost a silly argument, further exposing the flaws of social contract theory.)

But still,” come the rebuttals, “our system of governmental approval is better. We may not like the laws, but we agree to them because we believe in the legitimacy of our lawmakers. We have elections, after all.”

Certainly, I could get into the myriad of regulations designed and enforced by the un-elected bureaucrats alone. But I don’t even need to do that. We may follow the laws because we believe in the legitimacy of those that pass them; not a poor argument, to be sure. But are elections that appoint the person that 51% of voters choose (or in some cases, even less, when a plurality alone is needed) enough on its face to justify allowing the state the exception to the basic principles of liberty?pillars-of-law-and-order2

And if you argue yes to that question, then we get to our second point that I will leave you with. If legitimacy alone, whether by elections, inheritance, or a belief in the divine right of kings (that kings have a right to rule because they are appointed by God, commonly held during the early Enlightenment period, as well as its modified rendition in dictators like Hitler) is enough to give a state the right to violate the basic principles of liberty, then a state naturally has no limits that it must follow, no measure of authoritarianism it cannot pursue. If given the exception, what ethical principles can bind it?

“But we have a Constitution!”

Yes, yes, indeed we do. So the Constitution is supposed to allow the government to violate these principles only minimally, and then bind them, as Jefferson hoped it would, beyond that? If the Constitution validates the legitimacy of the government by limiting our exposure to abuses, then it must still be judged on the merits of that canon. How well has it worked?

Is the Constitution our standard of liberty? Now, once again, don’t get me wrong; in context, the Constitution was one of the greatest protectors of liberties the world had yet seen to that point. I would happily argue that we return to a strict adherence to the Constitution from an originalist standpoint; it would be far better than what we have now. But was it a paradigm of upholding these principles? Not entirely, and while many of the Framers were fundamentally dedicated to the preservation of liberty, there were a great many other questions surrounding the creation of the document. The Constitution was a creation of men and politics as much as it was of principle (or, probably, even more so). (In the coming months, I will begin a series on the creation of the Constitution and understanding it from an originalist perspective.)

I apologize for a somewhat longer post. Still, I find it important to understand that if you agree with the principles of liberty for the average person—that you don’t hurt people and don’t take their stuff–or do not aggress against an otherwise peaceful person—and then also disagree that the state is bound by the same principles, then the burden of proof falls on you to justify the exception. And if justify you think you can, then an even more challenging burden of proof falls to justify why it is exempt in some cases and not in others.

I say, let’s return to elementary.

“But enough of principle,” you might say. “What you implicate is a total void of any government. Surely, if we went that far, chaos would erupt.” Certainly, theory is a rather useless argument on its own, and needs to go hand-in-hand with its cousin, pragmatism, right? I’ll tackle that one next time.

¹Yes, I am aware of my oversimplification of this theory. Still, I think the essence and implications of it are not lost in my explanation.

 

On What Basis Liberty? Part 3: Non-Aggression

By | | ,
2 Comments

non-aggression-222And all this brings us naturally to our final post on the two basic principles of libertarianism: the non-aggression principle.

Incidentally, I’ve already explained this in the previous two posts. This post will merely offer a tidy conclusion and clarification.

If people have a right to themselves—a right to life and property—then it naturally falls that nobody has a right to take these away from them. See? I’ve already made this argument. You could look at it in reverse, as well. If nobody is given a right to deprive someone of their life or property, then this forms the basis of property rights. This is a rather unnecessary, in my opinion, chicken or egg argument. Either way carries the same circular implications.

This is what is called the “non-aggression principle”: nobody has a right to arbitrarily aggress against another person, that is to say, initiate aggression (defined as force or the threat of force) against an otherwise peaceful person. I cannot take my neighbor’s truck, or lawnmower, or life. I cannot force him to mow my lawn. I cannot randomly knuckle-punch him just because I am angry.

(Note that there is a qualifier: you should not initiate force against an otherwise peaceful person. To claim that liberty never allows for aggression is inaccurate. There are allowances for self-defense, as well as the defense of the victims of aggression. This is only logical.)

And this is exactly why libertarianism is rooted in ethics. The non-aggression principle is an ethical principle.

Matt Kibbe puts it in the simplest terms: “Don’t hurt other people and don’t take their stuff.”

It’s the basics of elementary school. It’s what we all learned as kids. It doesn’t go away as adults. At least, it shouldn’t.

On What Basis Liberty? Part 2: Property Rights

By | | ,
Leave a comment

private

After my previous meandering into a brief discussion of inalienable rights from a Christian perspective, I ended the previous post with the claim that libertarianism is based on two basic principles: 1) property rights and 2) the non-aggression principle.

In this post, I will discuss the first: property rights.

To reiterate something I said in the previous post: libertarianism is a political philosophy.

Now to throw an apparent contradiction into the discussion: libertarianism is both amoral and, at the same time, based in ethics, paradoxically.

Libertarianism is amoral in the sense that it does not argue for or against any particular set of moral principles. Anyone’s moral principles will be necessarily derived from a standard (or lack thereof) outside of the libertarian principles. As I made clear in my post, “Ethics on the Continuum,” my standard of ethics is rooted in the Bible.

At the same time, libertarianism is based entirely on ethics. I’ll leave you hanging a little bit with this one, but tie it all nicely together by the end of the next post.

Fundamentally, libertarianism is based in and on property rights, starting with self-ownership. For my Christian readers, regardless of where you fall in relation to the discussion in the previous post, people have a right to their own body. Again, to make sure I close the gap against the expected counter-argument, I believe this strictly in relation to other humans, not in relation to an all-powerful God. We might more readily call this a right to life. Nobody else has a right to harm or kill me. Nobody has a right to make me a slave, or force me into labor. That is what we mean by self-ownership.

And that is the basis of property rights.

All other property rights are an extension of self-ownership. What I make with my body is an extension of me, and accordingly, my property. And if I choose to sell what I make (or service I offer) to an employer by mutual consent, then the profit for that product or service becomes my property.

And the argument can proceed from there. If I am given something as a gift, it becomes my property. If I purchase something by mutual agreement or consent with income or a product that I have fairly earned, it becomes my property. I do not have a right to take anyone else’s property, and nobody else has a right to take my property.

It’s really that simple.

And the natural extension of this is the non-aggression principle. See you for the next post!

On What Basis Liberty? Part 1

By | | ,
2 Comments

declaration-of-independenceFor those of my readers who are originally from or live in the United States, we understand the rich rhetoric that praises a heritage of liberty, from the extravagance of 4th of July celebrations to an anthem that climaxes with “over the land of the free, and the home of the brave” at every major sport’s event.

Attempts to inspire patriotism aside, what I will talk about here and in the next few posts are the foundations and basics of the ideas of libertarianism.

True enough, libertarianism has been presented as a range opposite authoritarianism, and this holds. Still, libertarianism is a political philosophy that is based on principle. Many readers will be familiar with these ideas, which I acknowledge with an attempt to assuage possible insult. This and the next two posts are largely for those who may not have otherwise heard these ideas.

The evangelical Christian (of whom I am one) will frequently claim the language of the Declaration of Independence: “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator certain unalienable rights, that among these are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” They will reference that these rights, foundationally, come from the fact that we are created in the imago dei—image of God.

As a bit of a necessary discussion for my Christian readers, let me present an argument within a Christian worldview. I enjoy posing this question to my students in class: do we really have inalienable rights? In the Christian context, this question is often split along two lines of argument. First is that mentioned above: that because people are made in the image of God, the affirmative is correct. The opposite is that because we are bent toward sin and inevitably sinful, we have forfeited all rights. An interesting debate, to be sure! But not one that requires a full dissertation here. Why?

Let me make my case on this issue quickly before going on: If you believe the first of these arguments, then you are in alignment with the remainder of my arguments in this and the next post already. If you are of the second argument, then may I propose that by concluding that people are not endowed with inalienable rights in no way allows for the inherent right of some to dominate others. To claim this is to adhere to a logical fallacy. In other words, whether or not people have inherent rights as those created in God’s image, there is no basis on which some can claim arbitrary power over others. I cannot make my neighbors my slaves on the basis that they don’t have rights. To say I have a “right” to do so is entirely incompatible with the original argument that we have don’t have rights in the first place.

Either way you fall with this argument of inalienable rights still logically leads to advocacy of liberty: in the first, you cannot rule over me because I have an inherent right to liberty, and in the second, you cannot rule over me because you have no inherent right to do so.

(Why bother following that tangent? I believe it is a legitimate discussion, and one that some readers may raise as I go on. But regardless, I believe the key importance of the debate is related to the implications it holds for what the proper response to authoritarianism and power is. If my neighbor enslaves me, to what extent am I allowed to defend myself? Or if the government chooses to enslave me? Or merely chooses to tax me?)

That is a different discussion for a different day. For now, I merely wanted to lay to rest that there is a solid argument to be made in favor of liberty either way you fall on the question of inalienable rights. This allows for the clear connection to basic libertarian principles.

And what are these basic principles?

First, property rights.

And second, as a natural extension of the first (or what we might also argue is the basis for the first), what is often called “the non-aggression principle.”

More on those in the next two posts.

 

 

Authoritarianism vs. Libertarianism

By | | , ,
Leave a comment

So far in our analysis, we’ve framed up a continuum with the extremes at either end: the absolute totalitarian state at one end and a void of any state at the other: anarchy. In the last post, we modified the terms to accommodate how this applies to state control over the economic arena.

In this post, I’ll modify the terms a bit more to describe the control of the state more generally over society at large:

Authoritarianism v. Libertarianism

Okay, so it’s self-explanatory enough! But allow me, if you will, to offer a bit of commentary. Let’s start with authoritarianism.

Authoritarianism, in essence, is related to totalitarianism. Combining various definitions and descriptions of the terms and my own study of history and policy, I define a condensed definition of authoritarianism as dominance of the state over the individual and society (duh!). A basic Google search of the term offers this definition from Wikipedia: “a form of government dominated by strong central power and limited political freedoms.” A key finding of my study into the various different political applications of the term is a lack of accountability on the part of the state.

This, too, operates on a range. As the state becomes increasingly dominant over individuals and society, it becomes increasingly authoritarian (especially as it loses accountability and increasingly limits political opposition).

Now for libertarianism. At some point in the near-term, I certainly intend to offer a more detailed specification on the history of libertarianism (especially how, if you lived in the 1700s, the modern day libertarian would have been regarded as a liberal), but for now, a few basics must suffice. Libertarianism, contrary to the views many readers will have of pro-gay, pro-abortion, pro-marijuana activists, is merely related to the term liberty. As states have less and less dominance over individuals and society, that society becomes increasingly libertarian. In essence: more free.

Complicated? Not a bit, of course! But I would be remiss if I did not offer a quick description of these terms and include them in our fundamentals.

Now, this does not preclude the idea that libertarianism is most certainly a strict ideology based in property rights and holding the belief that government should be as minimal as possible in all areas and functions (and certainly, the ultimate extent of this is debated among those of the libertarian ideology). But it is often important to understand generalized terms prior to understanding the specific ideologies that adopt those terms as labels.

 

Liberal vs. Conservative?

By | | , ,
Leave a comment

Democrats-VS-Republicans

As readers have probably already gathered clearly enough, I hardly fit into the left vs. right paradigm as the media world and talking heads of today would like me to, I am sure.

Let’s take a bit of a step back and see if we can get a bit of clarity in the midst of the Democrats vs. Republicans, liberals vs. conservatives framework that we’re supposed to fit into. Now, I will grant you, not all Democrats are liberal and not all Republicans are conservative, and to even suggest a correlation, which on some level certainly is true, ignores a vast number of nuances of the terms liberal and conservative that need to be addressed. I will not hit on them all here, but look for those in the coming blogs.

This post will merely deal with the basics, and to that end, a few quick summaries are in order.

What is a liberal? Well, in a strictly apolitical sense, to be liberal is to generally advocate change, advancement (whatever that looks like) and progress (again, whatever that looks like). In many respects, it is to go against the norm. In the United States, we often substitute the term progressive for liberal.

The broad description of the apolitical conservative, then, serves as the benchmark for what a liberal is. To be conservative is to adhere to what has been, to advocate tradition, to “conserve” the ways things are or have been.

Now, clearly these terms have far wider meanings that are hardly confined to their apolitical descriptions, but that basic understanding will be important to recall as I proceed through upcoming posts, and seems appropriate to deal with now before we proceed. In fact, modern day adherents to the fundamentals of libertarianism would once have been considered liberals, and I’ll make sure to clear up that odd change in the future.

Now, to get to our current, generalized understanding. Liberals (or progressives) are those who tend to desire a greater involvement of the state as regulator and enforcer of strict economic policy. They tend to favor higher redistribution of wealth from higher income earners to lower income earners, and generally higher taxes to that end. They tend to favor the enforcement of anti-discrimination law (in today’s society; this was the opposite until the 1960s). They tend to favor the relaxed regulation on what might be considered moral or ethical issues, such as abortion and same-sex marriage. Much of their rhetoric is focused on ensuring “equality” – economically, socially, et cetera.

Conservatives, alternatively, tend to favor less government enforcement of economic policy, at least in rhetoric. They tend to favor lower redistribution of wealth, but maintain that it must, as a general rule, remain progressive (as opposed to flat, though that idea has gained tiny following). They tend to favor tighter regulation of what might be considered moral or ethical issues. And much of their rhetoric is focused on ensuring “fiscal responsibility” and “a fair playing field.”

Two reactions can immediately result from these summaries:

First, there are far more stereotypes that can made and that I abuse both groups by their exclusion.

Second, that I abuse both groups simply by attempting to force them into stereotypical boxes.

Liberals will jump up and say, “We are about helping the poor and middle class, whereas all the conservatives want to do is make the rich richer!”

Conservatives will likewise react, “You forgot to mention our insistence that we maintain our military strength instead of the way liberals undermine our national sovereignty!”

Either abuse, it makes no difference to me, and that is exactly my point. I feel more obligated than desirous to try and create some relative similarities with the current understanding of each group.

It is not that these generalities are not altogether without merit, but that the media and establishment information-promulgators all around us try to force us into a framework that understands politics within it. Well, I won’t have it. I get that part out of the way so that I can readily move on. But that’s for the next post.

 

Introduction to Blog Content

By | |
Leave a comment

So what can you find here?

In my last post, I addressed key areas that I intend to pursue in this blog: politics, economics, finances and history, and not necessarily in that order of importance.

No, I’m not going to be the political commentator who rambles about the rigged elections or uses the blog to voice my personal frustrations with the political process and/or our political “leaders.” (Well, perhaps I should offer myself an out with this one and clarify: that will not be my usual purpose.) Namely, this will not be a soap box.

Rather, it will be my attempt to shed much-needed light on topics that desperately need to be understood in the context of today’s world and current events. As a school teacher by profession, my angle will be educational, writing posts that build on each other, drawing on sources and people who are experts in the areas discussed and attempting to relay and explain these topics with clarity.

Such as…

  • Why is understanding human nature so important to understanding the topics addressed in this blog?
  • How can we break out of the “left” vs. “right” paradigm?
  • What is libertarianism (classical liberalism) and why do I agree with its principles? How can it be compatible with Christianity? Isn’t libertarianism all about promoting prostitution and marijuana? (Answer: far from it, though much of current mainstream party activists would make you believe otherwise.)
  • Did you know two of our key Founders wrote the fundamental doctrine of Nullification—the idea that states are the ultimate authority on the constitutionality of federal laws? In light of that, should the Supreme Court really be the final say on the Constitution?
  • What in the world is the Austrian school of economics? Did you actually know that it espouses the only viable theory for business cycles and the reason behind the 2008 financial crisis? And that this is the only theory on the business cycle (don’t worry; I’ll clarify this too!) that won one of its founders a Nobel Prize? Did you also know that Keynesian economics has dictated economic policy in much of the world since the 1930s?
  • Is it really worth holding some of your wealth in gold or silver? Dave Ramsey says to never invest in it! So why would you consider buying it?

Start to see the range of topics? I will be as broad as the theories of a liberty-based society and sometimes as detailed as providing the numbers of the unfunded liabilities of Social Security.

Recall: I feel a deep obligation to relay truth, not a recitation of the evening news. As Thomas E. Woods Jr., an indispensable voice for liberty (and a source I will frequently reference), often says, I intend to challenge “Fashionable Opinion” where it has gone awry. And awry it has gone! I’ve certainly got my work cut out for me.