Christine Smith's Blog

Christine Smith USTREAM Show-Friday, Feb 25, 3:00 pm Eastern…

You’re invited to tune in: Friday, Feb. 25, 3:00 pm Eastern; 2:00 pm Central; 1:00 pm Mountain; 12:00 Noon Pacific.

Interactive 30-min.show.
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/christine-smith

Live discussion during show available at:
http://smithchristine.chatango.com/

AUDIO-Radio interview-”Christine Smith on Liberty, Agorism and Voluntary Government”-the Rob McNealy Program

I invite you to listen to Rob McNealy’s excellent one-hour interview with me.

Christine’s New YouTube Channel

Christine’s YouTube Channel
http://www.youtube.com/user/ChristineSmithCOL?feature=mhum

Pueblo Chieftain article in which I was quoted

I was interviewed/quoted by Peter Strescino in the Jan.3, 2010 Pueblo Chieftain article “Advertising ban: Does it also ban free speech?”

Radio Interview (audio of the Nov. 24 interview)

I was interviewed by host Brent Johnson on the “Global Freedom Report” on November 24, 2010.

Show description excerpt: “The Global Freedom Report (www.globalfreedomreport.com) is a radio talk show featuring important guests speaking about significant issues of concern to all freedom-lovers around the world. Listeners are invited to call in to ask questions and share their views. The show also brings together international correspondents from the Czech Republic, England, New Zealand, Costa Rica, Argentina, Panama, the United States and many more countries around the world. Host Brent Johnson’s expertise in sovereignty and the U.S. Constitution, along with his ability to present workable solutions to complex issues in a clear and understandable format, has established a winning formula for this entertaining and informative radio talk show.”

My interview description: We discussed quite a bit in the brief 20 minutes, including my libertarianism, my rejection of political parties, living life with principles, the tyranny of the U.S. government and ways rights can be protected from the federal government persecuting individuals in states, the inefficacy of the “opt out” day and what instead we should be doing. I was invited on the show due to my recent blog about the TSA, but the host ended up asking me about several things including the TSA – so it’s a varied show which I enjoyed.

The audio of my interview is approx. 20 minutes in length.

I invite you to listen:

christineglobalfreedom

Sharing Liberty Ideas and Rejecting the Electoral Process & Political Parties

(Scroll below for details on the political path which brought me from minarchism to libertarian anarchism.)

For those who have recently inquired: I reject all the political parties. Not a one is about liberty. They're just about political games, internal and external.

From my own experience over several years, I have come to now reject the electoral process and political parties from my life, as I do not view them as an effective means to advance liberty. They are not worth wasting my time or money being directly involved with; there are far more effective activities (as well as organizations) to advance liberty.

The Libertarian, Republican, Democratic & other Parties

As for the Libertarian Party (LP), been there done that, it’s a bad joke; I’ve come to the opinion it’s no different (just smaller) than the Democratic and Republican parties. I’d no more be a member of the LP than I would the Republican or Democratic parties.

For those (myself included) who have called the LP “dead,” well, I now realize it was dead long before I ever joined it (as some libertarians who had left the party warned me when I joined). It exists not to advance liberty, but, like other political parties, to advance the egotistical agendas of a few (at the expense of those with true uncompromising libertarian principle). I don’t care how much it might grow, if it increases in size I think it’ll be as bad and statist as other political parties. There are, of course, many good libertarians who’ve joined the LP; I’ve met quite a few across this country, but the party itself is more than a waste of time, in my opinion, for individuals who truly are committed to libertarian principle and who desire to help others understand freedom ideas.

A number of people have been urging me for years to rejoin the Republican Party, as I thought about what they advised –Bring your values with you, but join a party that could help your involvement in politics– I went and read/scanned that platform – it disgusted me. Out of curiosity, as it has been years, I also scanned the Democratic Platform, and was immediately struck with its good-sounding words to help people when in actuality the outcome of policies it proposes hurts the very people it claims it wants to help. It’s also disgusting, and, of course, based on legalized theft (taxation), instead of voluntary charitable giving which is what I support.

As a number have said before me, there’s little difference at all between those two parties, and I’ll add the Libertarian Party into that observation as well. All other parties, likewise, have nothing to attract me for they are anti-liberty based.

Working Outside The System

As I thought more, and considered the entire electoral process and all its unjustness, and how political parties themselves are a part of it – I realized my place is not in working within such a system, but from outside of it. I don’t want involvement in politics for its own sake, I care only about advancing liberty. I am happiest and accomplish the most when I am sharing, quite joyfully, the things I have learned. That activity is where I shine, where I fly, and importantly to why I even do this: it is where I find the most receptiveness in audiences wishing to learn by reading and listening. I am enthused and zealous in sharing what I have learned, it as if the joy of awareness when I finally saw the truth is identical to the joy I feel when I am sharing those liberty ideas with others

Political parties, and the electoral process overall, is a relative dead end at this time due to the low state of spiritual consciousness in this country. They are an inefficient means to advance liberty. I care too much about integrity and principle to join with any organization whose leaders compromise with what the stated values and mission are about and/or who use the goodwill of its members to advance themselves, or which has an anti-freedom basis.

The people involved at every level of politics are for the most part people without regard for truth. It’s so bad that I care not to involve myself in any of it. I know there will be others (as I was) who will try to improve government and their political party through participation, but I believe, and I speak for myself, that it is an ineffective way, and I choose to use my time wisely. To be deeply involved in the current political electoral process which is not guided by principles and ethics is also extremely repulsive to an individual of integrity, because one does not share the premise they operate under. To even relate to such means much stress without little or no efficacy for the goal of increasing liberty. Many use the arena of politics for their own egotistical agendas. They want your help alright, they’ll say the right words, to get you to help them gain more power.

Cast Your Light Into The Darkness of Statism

I want nothing to do with hypocrites, nor those who primarily use the good cause of liberty merely to feed their social needs, and most especially I want nothing to do with those who would use the noble endeavor for liberty to evilly manipulate others. I despise liars, as I despise a system which provides only an illusion of representation, an illusion of a Constitutional Republic. I now personally view every political party and the current electoral process itself as unworthy of participation. (I am an unaffiliated voter, and vote only if/when there is a candidate, usually a local office, who I can be for (not simply against another) as I never vote for the lesser of any number of evils; and for those times there is something on the ballot affecting my life in which I want to cast a vote in favor of greater freedom (from say another tax or regulation this state/county wants to impose), often there is very little for me to vote upon, in which case I do not cast a ballot or leave many of the offices blank. The ballot box provides a most limited action, but at times, there may be an initiative or even a candidate for whom casting a vote for may to some degree increase liberty and decrease government oppression.) But when it comes to significantly affecting change, I realize the electoral process is a minor player at this time. Because for it to ever have a chance at being more effective requires more people waking up to what liberty is and to valuing their freedom, and that means a greater number of people educated to the core issues and the truth about them.

Want to make a difference? My advice: do it independently of political parties and out of the electoral process. Focus on educating others as to what you’ve learned. Share liberty. Expose falsehood. Stand for the truth every opportunity you have. Reach those in your life, and the public when opportunity arises (or make the opportunity), with your voice. Share ideas through books, magazines, and with true freedom groups and individuals that you trust who are consistent. Bring light into the darkness of statism by shining your light.

A Critical Mass of libertarians

Reaching the hearts and minds of individuals across this country is the key. When a critical mass of liberty-loving individuals is reached, the governmental tyranny in this country will be abolished.

Because before any significant change will occur, before the welfare/warfare state will be rejected, that critical mass must come into existence. That obviously will require many more people learning the truth. This means those of us who are libertarians must share what we know in a deliberate manner. You can reach people no one else can. Never doubt that your voice makes a difference, because it requires all of us who are true libertarians to be bold, courageous, and persevering in our outreach. There is something you can do. Commitment to libertarian principle requires wise action. Wise action can bring transformation. The “when” and “how” of wise action is for each individual to decide upon for himself.

I look at it this way: Considering the powerful tool of fear the government uses with the American people (which so easily manipulates their behavior), it is up to libertarians to appeal to the human spirit, the intrinsic spirit of independence, self-reliance, and the individuality and sovereignty of the individual. That, in the end, I believe is far more powerful when tapped and activated within one than even fear and all its feelings of seeking security provided by another. The spark that makes them an individual no matter how well covered with the years of propaganda and lies, still burns – though it needs kindling and then more fuel for it to increase. That’s where we as libertarians come in.

The basis of how so many people have lived for decades now is so far from that which founded this nation, that the fear of freedom rather than the demand that one’s freedoms not be infringed upon has become dominant. Speculations offer many possibilities: perhaps either the government and its empire will collapse from sheer economic fatigue from its costly welfare/warfare state and then those who have awakened will rebuild a society far more similar to our earliest beginnings, or perhaps the collapse will be avoided due to the sheer number of people demanding and forcing all in government to serve them (not the other way around). Either way or in ways we haven’t imagined, the more who have the libertarian perspective, who care about truth, the better all will be. Ideas of liberty and historical truth does appeal to individuals, it’s like giving them something they recognize and yearn for, and yet have had so little of it feels new, refreshing, and inspiring. Most people have disgust for an entity, as the federal government, once they remove their blinders and realize they’ve been manipulated by it.. Most, too, have a deep sense of wanting to be strong, to stand on their own, it was that which fueled the toil and risks taken to build this nation. I believe we need not know the final outcome, we need only focus on doing the good we can this very day. We must but stay on the right path.

My Path

For myself, all that I have experienced to this point has provided me with valuable lessons. I have learned much, and my path with its twists and turns, remains the same: my passion for sharing and increasing the liberty in the nation I call home is my direction. I will proceed as an individual (and join only with those who are consistent and uncompromising in their devotion and actions to the cause we share and espouse).

I want to use my abilities, talents, and gifts of time and resources thoughtfully, carefully. Thus, I choose to focus entirely on writing and speaking to share liberty ideas. That’s how I was reached years ago – from authors and speakers sharing true uncompromising libertarian principles. They were individuals who were lights in my life, illuminating truth which my heart and mind recognized and responded to. Now, I devote myself to being the same for others.

UPDATE
Note: Since writing this article, Christine has now rejected the electoral process entirely – including voting for candidates regardless of their platform.She recorded a video on March 26, 2011 addressing this conclusion and decision.Christine Smith addresses the electoral process and common objections posed to those who reject voting for political offices because of a belief in non-aggression. Talk was 22 min. Video edited to YouTube 15-min. length-
You may view her 15-minute video, Voting is Evil” HERE.

Bio:
Christine Smith is a freelance writer, author, speaker, and a liberty activist from Colorado. Her articles have appeared nationally and internationally covering a wide range of topics, including the arts, technology, business, politics, health, the environment, and human spirituality. She has also been involved in humanitarian work on behalf of prisoners, their families, and women/children living in poverty.

Christine is 43 years old and unaffiliated with any political party. She is an adherent of the Austrian School of Economics, and is is a little “l” libertarian, referring to one who cherishes freedom, loves liberty, believes in personal responsibility, the non-initiation of force, free markets, and private property. She rejects the control of economic and social affairs by the state, and believes people should be able to live their lives as they choose, as long as they do not harm others.
Christine has appeared as a guest on numerous national and international radio shows.She credits The Law by Frederic Bastiat with eliminating all political confusion, as it clarified the immoral and unethical basis for all forms of governmental socialistic intervention. Christine attended Cato University’s “Economic Crisis, War, and the Rise of the State” program in San Diego, California in July 2009, and the Future of Freedom Foundation’s “Restoring the Republic 2008: Foreign Policy and Civil Liberties” conference in Reston, Virginia in June 2008.Politically involved since her early teens (in 1980, at the age of thirteen she campaigned for Ronald Reagan, distributing literature door-to-door and organizing a political rally in his support), she has actively campaigned for local, state and federal candidates, as well as being involved in a variety of political issues.

As a young adult through her mid-twenties, she was a Republican thinking the party actually cared about fiscal conservatism, respecting people’s financial freedom, and protecting the nation. Then for a number of years she registered as a Democrat, wrongly thinking they cared about the poor and others. In her late 30′s, she realized there was very little difference at all between those parties since they were like one big political party — the party of big government, violating individual rights repeatedly.

Becoming a registered member of the Libertarian Party, she was a candidate for the Libertarian Party (LP) presidential nomination in 2008. During her campaign, Christine was gratified to receive support from many libertarians nationwide (including receiving a landslide victory over the other LP candidates in the California primary on Super Tuesday), and appreciated the opportunity to speak at LP conventions in eight states. [Winning the CA LP primary with 25.2% of votes cast for LP candidates, no other Libertarian candidate came close to the thousands of votes cast for Smith. There were 11 other Libertarian candidates listed on the California primary ballot. Smith's 25.2% majority was followed by Kubby (17%), Root (13.9%), Jackson (8.8%) ,Phillies (5.1%) (Information from CA Secretary of State). The remaining 30% of registered Libertarian votes were divided between other candidates/write-ins.)] She was also a candidate (Libertarian) for the State House (District 60) in Colorado’s 2010 election.

Flying – I’m Not “Opting Out”

Fly and walk through the full body scan? Sure I will.

What’s all the hullabaloo over the scanners implemented by the TSA in airports across the country about? Invasive? An unconstitutional violation of rights? Sure. Of course, it is! But no more so than the presence of the TSA in airports to begin with.

Aside from the possible health concerns, I wouldn’t give stepping through a body scanner another thought when flying. If I were flying frequently, I’d weigh the possible detrimental health risks, but for an occasional flight, including on the “opt-out” day, I’d still walk through a scanner for the convenience…and I’d walk through it knowing it was wrong for the government to require it, but no more wrong than what I and everyone else have been subjected to ever since the TSA entered the airports. What’s wrong is not the stupid scanners, but the fact the TSA is even there.

The degree of violation isn’t the issue – their existence is

To begin to focus on the degree of how invasive or intrusive it is misses the point: The federal government has no business being in the airport.

If you feel more secure with the showing of your ID to government workers, taking off your coat and shoes, walking through a metal detector, and now either being scanned or groped – then live in your costly illusion.

As for me, I’d opt for an airline without any government “security,” where the line is short, brisk, and I can settle in at my gate quickly. If any security measures were to take place, I’d want the individual airlines to do it, let me know what it entails in advance, and that would be part of my decision as to which airline to fly.

What about the value of civil disobedience?

The opt-out of flying or at the very least opting out of the scanning procedure strikes me as a most nonproductive manner of trying to change the situation. In reality, it only inconveniences you – and everyone else trying to get to where they’re going. It doesn’t make a dent in the federal government tyranny.

Now, if a large number of people opted out of flying all together, until and if the TSA were eliminated from airports completely, you might have something. But, a one-day protest hurts primarily only travelers, after all your time is wasted, and the expense incurred for the federal workers is at your expense – you’re footing the bill. I view much of this hoopla over the opt-out day as more of a social connection with others – many of whom I suspect hardly fly or wouldn’t be flying anyhow – to feel a part of something…as if seeing their name on a list with others who “opted-out” means something. Such people like to feel as if they’re doing something important, but it’s accomplishing nothing. Making a statement? Not hardly.

Anyone traveling this holiday likely has far better things, far more important matters, like visiting with loved ones than to waste more of their time with TSA agents.

Truth is, to whatever degree people use this form of “civil disobedience”, it will only make families and friends have less time together over the holiday, as more time was spent at the airport than otherwise.

Civil disobedience has its place, but its efficacy, as history shows, is achieved in consistency. A one-day event is nothing but a headache for travelers, and something to make the government grin. Airlines will adjust.

Ron Paul’s “The American Traveler Dignity Act”

There’s no dignity for the American traveler unless the TSA is abolished.

I view Paul’s HR 6416 as very weak. Why? Because it will do nothing to eradicate the problem of the TSA being there. In fact, it validates the TSA as if its presence is even legitimate in our airports. Now, what would be a bill I could respect and support, would be one which proposes the TSA be eliminated from airports. Slim chance of it passing, but nevertheless it would address the immediate problem in the airports, and direct the American’s people attention to the real solution. I can’t support a bill that simply wants to define or limit what they can do – because that in itself validates them – I would only praise a bill that would propose their removal. Fact is: the right way is to get the government entirely out of the airports, not define what they are permitted to do or not do to us.

As for me, when I want to fly, I fly and I’ll go through the scanners. If I wanted to make a statement, it wouldn’t be against the scanners, but against the TSA presence in what should be an off-limits area to the government. In that case, I wouldn’t fly. But, I see not flying as an ineffective means against the federal government, such an action would harm only my efficiency in my life. I’m not letting the government hinder my holiday or work plans.

Why does being viewed naked make people more upset than the other evils, many atrocious, this government perpetrates?

And while where at it, why are so many upset over this policy of the feds, when so many other unconstitutional policies came before which murdered (which I define as any unjustified killing), tortured, and persecuted people worldwide? If only the same energy, the same media attention and public attention, was given to the unjustified invasions and wars this government does perhaps something would change. But, no, what get’s people angry? Someone seeing their naked body on a scanner image. Talk about priorities being out of order.

I’m not complaining about people’s rejection of this violation, anytime people reject something the government does, I’m all for it. But the question beckons: why this and not so many of the other horrendous evils this government has perpetrated?

Other libertarians tell me that what “should” be in terms of rejection of previous behavior of the government is beside the point; that it’s good that people are mad about this intrusion. And though I cede the point that any rejection is good, I do not go as far as many seem to do in thinking this will amount to anything significant. If people don’t care about the government murdering people, but are upset and enraged about government workers seeing them naked, you can bet that once this little tempest is done with, they’ll all go back to their pathetic apathy.

For this scanner and groping matter is but a minor (though significant) assault on civil liberties when compared with the evil the U.S. government has committed. I have no reason whatsoever, regardless of how much connecting of the dots between empire building and the assaults on civil liberties here at home, to think it will change a thing, because even that point does not motivate people unless the violation takes a form they find particularly repulsive (like the scanners and gropings).

Unfortunately, I think the majority (with the exceptions of libertarians who oppose this and have openly opposed all other federal violations of liberty) will simply go back to their daily lives, without care of what the government is doing domestically and internationally, once they perhaps achieve a removal of the machinery and groping (which their taxes paid for) is gone. Unlike some of the more hopeful libertarians I know, I really do not think the emotion and outrage we now see on this issue will carry over much at all.

The reason: People will not be moved with their full might to reject the core of this problem: the federal government’s blatant disregard of the U.S. Constitution through its empire building, illegal wars and invasions, torture, civil liberty violations, and assault on the free market through its many welfare programs (which take a multitude of forms) until their spiritual consciousness is raised. To empathize with the suffering of others at the hands of the U.S. government, to fundamentally reject anything unconstitutional done by the government, would motivate a rejection of all this tyranny, anything less, is very limited. (Similar to many in the “Tea Party” movement whose focus on economic matters, to the exclusion of any core ethically based principle to guide them, is limited in any positive results because they limit themselves only to what at the time they don’t like.)

Try and make the connection for them, if you have the opportunity, that the fear they live under is one they choose by allowing the U.S. government to victimize people worldwide for decades. It’s a fear they choose, and thus they’ve chosen to have the same government provide “security” for them, all to keep the facade going that somebody, somewhere, hates them for their freedom. When, in truth, the hatred is from the government towards both the U.S. citizen and toward sovereign nations worldwide who do not comply with their agenda. I’ve made the point with some recently, but most seemed okay if the scanners are removed – they didn’t want to hear about the cause such as the foreign policy…just like many refuse to rationally listen to the truth about the cause of 9-11.

Simply becoming angry when oneself is affected by government tyranny will not likely result in anything significant changing. But rejecting the tyranny anyone is subjected to by this government can change things. To reject all wrongdoing, all evil, perpetrated by ones government both domestically and internationally, is the place the people must come to. Nitpicking over the things that only affect oneself amounts to nothing against this monstrous government. That’s why I see limited value, and no lasting value, in this current scanner controversy.

Can there be any effective security measures in airports?

For those who just need to see some type of security before they “feel” safe flying, you should consider the obvious fact that the government fails miserably time and again when it comes to your security. Think about it for a moment. From food safety, consumer safety of all sorts, to terrorist acts, don’t you see how many times they fail at doing anything well?

Want some real safety in the airport? Get the government out of it, and let the airlines provide private security. They have a real motive to protect you- a motive the government does not have -to provide safety procedures which would be effective as possible in a least intrusive and dignified manner as possible at the minimum expense. The profit motive – it works every time. You won’t see them likely wasting money on ineffective measures or offending their customers, they’ll do what they deem is effective both when measured by security and by the dollar, because they want to run a business. Then, you, can decide which airline you prefer based on what they offer and what you want (or don’t want) to be subjected to.

But the TSA has no profit motive. They can follow their orders which may result in embarrassment, harassment, subjecting people to radiation, and humiliation of flyers at will, without repercussions, for the most part.

The “opt out” is not a boycott of a private enterprise, because this is an enormous political issue far greater than scanners in airports. It is a political issue which the politicians have put into place, but an opt-out day doesn’t make the government, who is responsible, receive any consequences.

It’s not anything I can even consider real civil disobedience because it’s so small scale, extremely limited, and not on-going. It amounts merely to a waste of everybody’s time. Effective civil disobedience it is not, so much so, I can’t use that term for it with a straight face. (My only regard is for those who opt out due to their concern for health risks and do so consistently not just one day. And, I’d at least respect the choice of someone who opts out of flying completely – ever – as long as the TSA is there. Don’t think it will be a part of the change, I think it’s not an effective way at all to get the TSA out of the airports, so I wouldn’t inconvenience my life that way, but at least I would respect the consistency of someone who chose to do that.)

As for me, l will fly and get scanned before I’ll let some government worker put their hands on me. Main thing when I travel is getting there as quickly as possible – so I’m not letting some silly (since it’s ineffective) social activity of “opting out” change my plans by making the wait time even longer. Others may choose differently, each to his own, but I’ll not hinder my travel for something that I think will have little or no affect.

So, do your best, if you will, at educating others to the real cause of the problem.

But, meanwhile, why inconvenience yourself and your loved ones?

I’m not.

Synergy – Behind every good man… A look at John and Abigail Adams

“Behind every good man is a good woman,” a saying which can just as easily be reversed. Not to say, there aren’t good men and women who are single, of course, but the truth remains, having a solid beautiful relationship with one whose core values you share strengthens, encourages, and helps one to remain on the correct path whatever struggles and mistakes may be made. What a blessing to have another who, in their love, for you will help you, encourage you, and share a perspective with you perhaps no other could or will. Such was the case with John and Abigail Adams.

Our society has many more prominent men of note historically who are recognized as having significant impact upon this nation than it does woman. Some of that, certainly, is due to tradition and the society at the time, but these men did courageously advance this nation by establishing its founding principles, and for me, it is always good to learn of a man who achieved much good who was accompanied by a too extraordinary female.

This is why I’ve been most pleased to learn in the past couple years so much more about John and Abigail Adams, reading and viewing documentaries, film, and their writings, etc.

And, today, I want to recommend the PBS series “American Experience” episode “John & Abigail Adams: American Experience” which I just viewed a few nights ago.

A superb two hours, based heavily upon the correspondence between the two, expressing just what an extraordinary female to John Adams Abigail was. If ever there was a couple evincing the phrase “Behind every good man…” they are. And for a time when females weren’t looked to for political input, hers was astute.

John Adams alone would be a good man, but with his wife Abigail, he soared despite enduring much troubles (including his own personal weaknesses of character demonstrated in personality, actions, and his own self-doubt and other feelings of inadequacy) into achieving for us, as a nation, greatness from which all benefited. The strength his work required was buttressed by the love of his wife. Her strength helped his…and vice-versa.

That, to me, is the beauty of relationship. To help bring out the best in another, to encourage their talents and abilities, to focus on what they can do and the good of who they are…so that they, in their free will and conscious choice, can become all and accomplish all they set their sights upon. Teaching and learning from one another simultaneously – creating a synergy for themselves and consequently blessings others beyond what the two could do separately is a magnificent manifestation of what it means for the two to become one. Even in trying to achieve liberty, whatever the immediate appearances of the state of things, in the trying I believe much good is happening.

Male and female strengths and abilities differ…discernment, strategy, awareness, and so much more are different in us. To come together, in love, for a purpose is stronger than what one can do alone. This truth is demonstrated both in couples like the Adams, as well as friends and family. We as men and women are different, and we need and benefit from each other.

Even if you’re familiar with their letters, and the history, and may have viewed other films regarding his work and their marriage, I recommend this 2-hour PBS episode – it was done very well! Informative!
So, I recommend this film about this remarkable couple to you. Here is its Amazon page, John & Abigail Adams: American Experience.

(p.s. I also invite you to read a blog piece I wrote Jan. 28, 2009 about John Adams and the 7-part HBO miniseries which was another excellent story of them.)

My Independence Day essay & radio show

Sharing my Independence Day essay with you:

Independence Day – Part 1

Independence Day – Part 2

Radio show-16 min. audio:Independence Day is a great opportunity for libertarians to reach the hearts and minds of others. Here’s how to commemorate The Declaration of Independence and celebrate July 4th’s real meaning. It was a great interview! On Paul Molloy’s “Freedom Works!” show. Listen Here.

Two recommended articles for Memorial Day weekend

The Price of Freedom?
by Christine Smith at The Future of Freedom Foundation website

Dying for a Lie
by Laurence M. Vance at LewRockwell.com

What Rand Paul Supports – Thus, Why I Reject Him

With the recent primary win of Rand Paul exciting many libertarians, I recently wrote a blog piece entitled “Stupid libertarian hoopla over Rand Paul.”

Since then, I’ve found some libertarians to be ignorant of just how bad (from my libertarian perspective) Rand Paul’s political positions are. I view Rand Paul as a conservative, thus am amazed at the degree of libertarian support he receives.

Thus, I will share some of the most egregious examples of where I, as a libertarian, completely disagree with him.
Based upon his remarks/writings/website (see link at bottom of this blog),

Rand Paul:

1. Supports maintaining federal involvement (drug laws) on marijuana saying he “does not support eliminating all federal laws or penalties on marijuana…”)

2. Thinks a Congressional vote for a Declaration of War with Afghanistan should have been called for (saying he “would have demanded” such a vote and would have “voted for it.”)

3. Supports a moratorium on travel visas with what he calls “terrorist” nations “from about ten rogue nations or anybody that has traveled to those nations.”

4. Supports military tribunals for Guantanamo detainees (rather than charging them with a federal crime as the U.S. Code would have)

5. Supports the “securing” of borders including electric fence, helicopter stations, and construction of military bases to “protect” border.

6. Supports federal legislation which would end abortion and says on his website that he “will always vote for any and all legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion…” (note from C.Smith: it shouldn’t be a federal issue in my opinion)

7. Thinks “Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution,” and refers to detainees as “thugs”

In my opinion, such positions are as detached from libertarianism as they come on very important issues. At a time when libertarian ideas are becoming discussed more in the mainstream, the last thing we need is to become identified with another right wing conservative with stances so anti-freedom. The positions above I consider to be antithetic to limited government and respect for individual liberty.

To those libertarians who like to vote for a candidate who they say at least may be better on some issues and who “hope” maybe something good will come from it, I share what I have always said: I view the voter and supporter of a candidate as culpable for whatever an elected politician does, that is if there was ample evidence of who that person was and what they stood for, before the vote was cast.

Participation in the electoral process can be a part of achieving greater liberty in this nation, and voting important. But if an office has no candidate running who truly values liberty consistently, I see no value (only harm) in casting a vote for such a person. For all offices, in which I see no candidate whom I can, in good conscience, vote for, I cast no vote. Choosing not to vote in such common situations, in itself, can require more thought and integrity, than blindly (or contemptuously and reluctantly) casting a vote for any candidate who to a significant degree does not reflect your principles and values.

When I look at the field of candidates for an office, I I view it as a litmus test to a large degree. On the issues I consider to be most important a candidate must share my positions. Sure, it would be rare (but not impossible) for a candidate for any office to be someone I agree with wholeheartedly (I say it’s possible, because I can imagine such candidates based upon the fact there are libertarian writers, whose work has been consistent for many years; if such consistent individuals exists, it is feasible that such a candidate could present themselves- though that would be rare).

But, usually, there will be disagreement between any given voter and any given candidate – that doesn’t rule out my casting a vote for them. But on key issues – it does – the more of such issues of disagreement means I wouldn’t vote for them.I don’t care whether it’s a choice between voting between the lesser of two evils or the lesser of five, I will not cast a vote for any candidate who I believe doesn’t have a core dedication to liberty.

Political ideology lies upon a continuum, of course. I support only those who are predominantly liberty-based – not just apparently getting it saying it right on a few issues (as Rand Paul does on some economic issues).

Citing a few words or platitudes a libertarian would agree with doesn’t make someone worthy of my support (and even those apparent positions and rhetoric I wouldn’t trust any candidate to follow through on if do not believe them to be grounded in a dedication to and respect of freedom).

I am a libertarian not a conservative, so I will never support someone who is just another conservative using a few of our phrases to muster support. This is why I do not support Rand Paul, and is why I view libertarians who do as either gullible fools or simply people professing libertarianism with a shallow understanding of its core principles who are willing to compromise whatever it is they otherwise claim to believe in just to be a part of the herd.

I invite you to read my blog piece “Stupid libertarian hoopla over Rand Paul”.

(Visit Rand Paul’s website to learn in his own words what he stands for:
http://www.randpaul2010.com/2010/02/rand-responds-to-attacks/
and from above link, access his issues page for more on his abortion stance, “illegal immigration,” and “national defense.”)

Stupid libertarian hoopla over Rand Paul

Why are some libertarians so happy about Rand Paul’s primary win? 

Seems a lot of compromise is going on in order to feel good about themselves if this is what they get excited about.  Some libertarians remind me of Obamaheads – they don’t care about reality, they just want to live in illusion land.

Talk about desperation – so desperate to have something –anything– to proclaim as a “victory,” regardless of how much the person doesn’t reflect fundamental values of libertarianism, they herald his primary win like it means something of significance for them.  For him to have achieved it is a political victory – but not, I think, for any of the fundamental participles true libertarians believe. But having that last name seems is all it took for some libertarians to jump on his bandwagon. How shallow.

Sure doesn’t take much for some libertarians to fork over their support, which leads me to suspect their professed libertarianism isn’t very deep at all.  Compromise on important issues seems common among so many, and the herd mentality is something I see more and more of amongst those professing to be libertarians. They “pride” themselves on their individuality, being most vocal about it, yet they are so easily herded into stupid hoopla over someone who is, in my opinion, no friend of fundamental libertarian principle domestically or internationally.  Again, such desperation to have something or someone to celebrate, and such ecstaticism as they join together over nothing, reflects poorly on their rationality and objectivity.

Does the obvious need to be stated?  I guess it does.  Just because a perceived non establishment candidate defeats one of the establishment doesn’t mean it’s a win for libertarianism.  Oh, but I can hear libertarians who like him defending themselves now perhaps using phrases like “We can hope…” Oh, have we heard that one before somewhere?

I don’t care about a person’s political affiliation, I care about what they stand for.  In my opinion, Rand Paul stands for more of the same.

Giving them the benefit of doubt, I find this utter gullibility in some libertarians to be pathetic.  It’s hard not to think of those who are celebrating this as some sort of libertarian victory as just plain fools…just like all those peace activists who were so happy with Obama’s election.  Look at yourselves, what’s there to really celebrate of true significance in a Rand Paul victory?  Nothing in my book. 

Immigration Socialism versus Freedom and the Free Market – by Jacob G. Hornberger

This article says it all.  I highly recommend it! 

Immigration Socialism versus Freedom and the Free Market

by Jacob G. Hornberger

Film Recommendation “Five Minutes of Heaven,” and Thoughts on Righteous Indignation vs. Anger

Last night I viewed the film “Five Minutes of Heaven,” a powerful story of mistakes, immaturity and maturation, anger, vengeance, and forgiveness. Developed from the true event of the 1975 killing of Jim Griffin by Alistair Little in Northern Ireland, the story revolves around the fictionalized what-if of the killer meeting the witness (the brother of the deceased who was 11 at the time of the shooting) 33 years later.

The sadness and tragedy of the violent unrest between Catholic and Protestant in Northern Ireland is communicated well through this  incident, with its years of affect between those involved becoming the fictional continuation.

I found this well-made film and the fictional story which evolved from that tragedy to be thought provoking and engaging. I recommend it. Liam Neeson and James Nesbitt do a fine job.

The film illustrated well the peril and misery of accepting anger as justified, which in my opinion, always leads to more misery, harm, and sadness.

Again, I highly recommend the film “Five Minutes of heaven,” – it is a most interesting story and character study.  (Link to its Amazon page)

On a personal note, I distinguish between righteous indignation (and thus a devotion and commitment to justice or as close to justice as is humanly possible, which at times may never occur in certain human situations) and anger (which is allowing oneself to be controlled by emotionalism). I believe anger is never justified, as it is a feeling from the emotion of fear and leads to serious mistakes of conduct and behavior which though may seem justified at the time, can later in more rational and ethical examination, be seen for the mistake it was. Righteous indignation, on the other hand, is that intense call to action to stop an evil and to in whatever capacity we have to bring light into an area of darkness, to alleviate suffering, to expose what is wrong or corrupt, and to put a stop to it. It does not entail resorting to evil to fight evil because it is based in the strength of love.

Fear brings anger, hatred, and attack and rationalization of attack; love brings a strength to realize that revenge is never the answer regardless of the provocation. In fact, I believe those motivated and inspired from a spiritual basis of love are far more effective at achieving whatever justice is humanly possible than those who succumb to the baser feelings.

Allowing anger within leads us to the wild uncontrolled imaginations of our mind, but allowing love to make our decisions leads us to see what justice (if any) can be found without becoming that which we say we reject. Therein lies the difference between self-defense, for example, and offensive violence…or between stopping a person from harming another again and revenge which seeks to punish rather than halt more evil behavior. Evil does not justify evil.

Neither does relinquishing anger mean one must try to reconcile with the one who has wronged another, it simply means one does not seek to exact punishment, but when needed seeks only to prevent oneself or another from being harmed by the other again.

Resolution within and its inner peace is obtained when one relinquishes the feeling of revenge, which brings me to recommend a previous article I wrote addressing that common question of whether the end ever justifies the means?

In the many issues facing society, a common rationalization for committing wrong, immoral, unjust or unethical acts is that if the greater good is served the relative harm necessary to gain such a supposed good is justified. In essence, people say doing bad can result in good, thus they assert bad becomes good. This has become commonly accepted in politics (as well as within people’s personal and business lives).

Consider issues such as immigration, taxation, abortion, capital punishment, torture, and the use of military force. All present a multitude of possible scenarios and situations in which the use of force is argued or disputed. Must we, then, live our lives in a state of flux, constantly having to analyze each and every situation to determine what is ethical? Are there times when commission of a wrong act is the best choice because the result may be better for the majority? Is morality relative? Can an immoral or unethical act sometimes be the right thing to do if the outcome is deemed favorable?

I believe the final result of an action cannot and must not be the determiner of right or wrong, and I explore this point in my previous blog article “The End Does Not Justify The Means” which I invite you to read. 

My path to libertarianism – Interview

I was interviewed on the “Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock”morning show April 30, 2010. Jet Lacey (who fills in for Hancock on Friday) conducted an excellent interview with me – I enjoyed it. We discussed libertarianism and the path my life took to it. (One hour audio.)

You may listen
HERE.