Category Archives: 2016 US Presidential Election

Can a Voluntaryist Vote?

voting_stations

This presidential election has found me pensive on the matter of voting. There is something of a debate within voluntaryism as to whether voting is an immoral activity, or one strategy to be used in the fight for liberty. The anti-voters claim that voting is “supporting the system” and provides legitimacy to The State. The pro-voters assert that voting for whatever policy or candidate that results in the least amount of aggression is a positive (although not very effective) way of bringing about a more free world.

The most serious objection to voting is that it qualifies as an act of aggression. The reason the objectors believe this is that voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil, and that voting is authorizing immoral and horrible government power. This is patently false because the government exists, whether people vote or not! The State is just giving it’s slaves the option to choose between evils — it will force evil on the populace even if no one votes! If you have an option to vote on a ballot that  will legalize marijuana even if with high taxes and regulations, that clearly isn’t authorizing aggression (which is impossible by definition), but only a selection for the reduction of government power. The same would go for voting for a Libertarian candidate, voting for a reduction in taxation, voting to reduce regulations, etc., etc.

The far more convincing argument against voting is the one which states that voting is a complete waste of time, is irrational behavior, and is focused more on exercising your “civic duty” and partaking in the sacraments of the State than it is on achieving libertarian goals. Notice that this is not so much about the morality of voting as it is about the effectiveness or strategic value of doing so.  While it is absolutely true that a person has a greater chance of getting into a fatal car accident on the way to the booth than influencing the outcome, voting is still a way of reducing government power. Even if the odds are small that you will affect just a little amount of good, why wouldn’t you take advantage of every opportunity to oppose the State and minimize the amount of aggression in the world? After all, filling out an absentee ballot is positively easy and takes virtually no time or hassle — you’re not even  herded into a little enclosure or made to stand in line!

Then there is the argument from those concerned with libertarian strategy that voting results in greater perceived legitimacy. However, voter turnout doesn’t have anything to do with “legitimacy”, and no one really cares how many people voted or pays any attention to those numbers, they show up to the polls because they’re passionate about what’s being voted on, not because of perceived legitimacy! I think the results of a vote matter more to people than which people didn’t vote (or why). If a Libertarian candidate gets elected, doesn’t that expose the libertarian philosophy to a large number of people, as opposed to only having the Republicans and Democrats in office? Doesn’t a Libertarian or a libertarian (non-Libertarian Party libertarian) getting lots of votes gather interest in what it is that they stand for? Besides, these people/ballot measure getting elected/passed really do make a difference – all those states that passed marijuana legalization measures are perfect examples of libertarian voting making a freer society.

In conclusion, voting is perfectly moral, doesn’t (necessarily) support the State, and can even be a somewhat effective tool to combat it. As a voluntaryist you should be doing everything you can to make a voluntary society — so go ahead, register as a Libertarian and vote without feeling like you’re doing something wrong! And, in case you were wondering, I supported Gary Johnson in the election, with Donald Trump ranking second on my preference scale, Jill Stein third, and Killary Clinton ranking last.

If you enjoy this content make sure to upvote and follow me on Steemit.

The Antiwar/Non-Interventionist Movement: Making Progress!

Popular support for war is astoundingly low. This is a trend that the media is trying to cover up and reverse. At the DNC a large group of people started shouting “NO MORE WAR!” during a warmongering speech by Leon Panetta, resulting in Panetta having to temporarily stop his speech. Here’s the video:

Donald Trump, the most non-interventionist Republican candidate, got the nomination. Gary Johnson, the (mostly) non-interventionist Libertarian candidate, is getting a massive amount of support (the most recent poll I found put him at 13%) for a third-party candidate. Trump has criticized NATO and said that we were lied into the Iraq war. Fifty-two percent of those interviewed in a Pew poll say the United States “should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own.” Just 38% disagree with that statement. It’s so encouraging that so many people are waking up to the reality that the USG’s foreign policy is immoral and destructive (both economically and in terms of lives lost). Most people don’t even know that non-intervention is an option, yet they instinctively are drawn to the common sense of the position when asked.

Meanwhile, the war machine keeps on going, with the Washington Establishment doing everything it can to make sure that they don’t get crushed in the rising tide of public outrage against the military-industrial complex ripping them off. There is a complete disconnect between the corporate and political elites and the majority of the public. War propaganda is on the news 24/7 while big-wig congressmen and Pentagon officials are talking about “Russian aggression”, the need to “rebuild” the military, and the “fight for freedom” in the Middle East. Sooner or later, the warmongers will be defeated, either when the government has gone completely bankrupt, and/or when public opinion will be so against war that the Washington Overlords will be so scared of the masses that they will have to end their foreign policy of interventionism. This massive antiwar sentiment that so many people have worked to achieve shows that fighting for liberty can and is making a difference.

Interesting Articles #1

My interesting articles article will be a weekly post in which I share several articles from various places on the internet, and offer a short commentary on them. I will usually post these every Sunday. Let us begin:

Ron Paul: Don’t Reform the Fed, Fed-Exit! and The Path to Fed-Exit

These articles by Ron Paul describe the damaging effects of central banking and lay out the case for “seceding” from the Federal Reserve while outlining a method of accomplishing this.

While Americans Focused on the RNC, the US was Provoking War with China

This important article from thefreethoughtproject.com exposes the unnecessary increasing hostility and the very real possibility of war between the US and China. A US ex-admiral just made the recommendation to a Senate panel to “defend” the Philipines against the Chinese, and a source close to the PLA in China has said that the Chinese military is possibly going to set up an air defense identification zone (ADIZ) in the South China Sea due to US provocations. These malicious interventions made by and for the military-industrial complex are going to impoverish clueless Americans while getting a lot of people killed. This is something that the establishment doesn’t want you to read.

Calling Things by Their True Names

This is an excellent and amusing article that tells it like it really is. My favorite is the one that says we should replace “because its the law” with “because violent people say so”.

The Criminalization of Everything

I was going to write an article about why it’s immoral to be a cop, but instead I’m just going to ask my readers to take a look at this article and then remind yourself that its the police that are enforcing these immoral, unjust, and wrong pieces of legislation. There are, of course, many other laws that stand as reason for the police being immoral. It would be impossible to list all the victimless crimes and regulations that are simply acts of aggression perpetrated by the police.

Can Bombs Win the War on ISIS?

Fantastic.

Verizon-Yahoo Deal Shows Once Again the Need to Remove Intellectual Property Rights

It is a very little-held view that so-called “intellectual property rights”, or, as I like to call them, intellectual monopoly rights, don’t exist, so it is very refreshing to hear this view espoused.

It’s Our “Freedom” They Hate — US Coalition Air Strikes Kill 77 Civilians, Including Children

This fantastic and much needed article sheds light on some of the horrific crimes of the US military while showing the true source of terrorism.

BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules Warrentless Forced Blood Draws For DUI Unconstitutional

Finally! Some great news.

Wikileaks Just Revealed Mainstream Media Works Directly With Hillary, DNC

Exposed! Corrupt Clinton manipulates media!

The Saudi 9/11 Coverup

Once again, someone (this time Roger Stone) beat me to it: I was going to write an artcle called The 28 Pages, the Saudis, and Hillary Clinton. No one mainstream (for obvious reasons) is talking about this and connecting the dots.

Police Retaliate, Arrest Man Who Posted Video of Cops Killing Alton Sterling — the Next Day

Shows how corrupt police are, silencing anyone who dare to oppose and speak out against their crimes.

French Officer Claims Interior Ministry Made Her Alter Nice Attack Report

Very suspicious. No police were there, but made attack report say they were. Were the police just trying to make themselves look better, or is it a coverup — maybe a false flag?

More Blowback in France

Jacob Hornberger calls the Nice attacks what they are: blowback, and makes the case for a non-interventionist foreign policy. We need more people writing and reading articles like these.

US-Backed Rebels: US Must End Syrian Airstrikes Because They are Helping ISIS

Shows that US massacre of people in the Middle East is causing many in the region to support ISIS, and draws an accurate comparison between the reactions in the Middle East to US bombings and the terrorist attacks in the West.

In Dallas, Drone Wars Just Came Home

Explains the dangerous precedent set by the killing of the Dallas shooter by drone, and warns of the increasingly totalitarian police state we’re living in, a police state in which there is no due process, only execution.

That’s all for today, folks!

 

 

Which Candidate to Root For?

     In the 2016 presidential race we are faced with yet another election in which all who are running are statists. The only question that needs to be answered is this: who is the most libertarian, or the least worst libertarian. Due to the nature of the presidency, and the deadly and destructive effects of an interventionist foreign policy, the primary focus when determining who would be the best president is on having a non-interventionist foreign policy, or at least the most non-interventionist foreign policy, as explained in this article.

     In the Republican Party, we have Donald Trump. Trump most likely won’t go to war against Russia and he says that he could get along with Putin and doesn’t want to defend Ukraine, yet wants to pick a fight with China, calling them an “enemy” and says he wants to “get tough with China”. Trump has said that he wants to “bomb the sh*t out of ISIS”, but at other times implied that the US military should leave it to Russia to fight ISIS. Trump has said that he doesn’t want to get “bogged down” in the Middle East, and that the US shouldn’t support rebel groups in the Middle East, but wants to provide financial assistance for the creation of a “safe zone” in Syria and have a closer alliance with Israel. When asked “Would you pull out of what we’re doing in Syria now?” Trump responded with “no, I’d sit back.” Trump is also supportive of sanctions against Iran and China, which could cause blowback in the form of wars and terrorism. Trump may support some kind of intervention against North Korea – this is particularly dangerous because North Korea has expressed a willingness to use nuclear weapons. Trump has said that it would be better to have strongmen in power than chaos in the Middle East. He’s said a lot of good things on foreign policy, but he’s also said a lot of bad things as well. Many times he contradicts himself.

     In the Democratic Party, there’s Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is the worst serious candidate running. I don’t think there is a country on earth that she doesn’t support intervening in to spread American goodness – while inciting blowback, bankrupting our country, and causing disgusting amounts of death and destruction. Hillary is responsible for the catastrophe in Libya – we know this for sure because of her released e-mails. Libya is now in total chaos, with ISIS and Al-Qaeda taking over after they were armed by the USG(United States government) to overthrow Moammar Gaddafi, the (former) ruler of Libya. Clinton strongly supports one world government, and has been an advocate for the United Nations and voted for the expansion of NATO. She wants the USG to spend billions in foreign aid to third-world countries, and wants the USG to aggressively intervene in other countries for “human rights” including possibly China and definitely Russia. Hillary supports the USG establishing “safe zones” in Syria, thinks that the USG should pay for Israel’s military, thinks that the US showed to much restraint toward Iran’s former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s reelection in 2009, said that we abandoned support for Egypt’s head of the secret torture police, Hosni Mubarak, to be ruler of Egypt, and wants to fight Russian forces in Syria. Hillary Clinton is an imperialist and a globalist, is the candidate that is most likely to get America into a World War, and is one of the greatest threats to America. Bernie Sanders is better than both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, though is probably the worst on domestic policy. Bernie Sanders supports “humanitarian” interventions, like sanctions against Burma, Iran, Russia, possibly China, and, back in the 90’s, supported the sanctions in Iraq that resulted in the deaths of half a million children. Sanders generally does not support war but does support sanctions if diplomacy doesn’t work, and supports war if sanctions aren’t effective at accomplishing his objectives. He was against the war in Iraq, and wanted to end the Afghanistan war soon after it started, but supported the Kosovo war and supports the airstrikes in Syria. Bernie is supportive of massive amounts of foreign aid, and the UN. Bernie Sanders says that war should be a last resort, and is against the use of torture. Overall, Bernie Sanders would be less hawkish than Hillary or Trump.

      In the Libertarian Party, the presidential candidate is Gary Johnson. Johnson has said that he wants to cut military spending – something that the prospective nominees of the other parties want to do the opposite of. Johnson wants to eliminate foreign aid, with the exception of aid that supports “American interests,” a position better than Donald Trump’s, which is to reduce foreign aid. He is generally against war, but is not against humanitarian wars and interventions in severe cases of rights violations in other countries (which is not libertarian). Although Johnson wants to end the (still ongoing) Afghanistan war and all further military interventions in Afghanistan, he has stated that he would not be opposed to having an American military base open there. He seems to be against using drone warfare at the present time, but not on principle, saying “I would want leave all options on the table.” He says that there are no current threats to the United States, but wants the USG to have a military presence in the Middle East, but was unclear as to what that would mean; I’m guessing from his statements that Johnson wants US bases that the official governments have allowed in the Middle East to fight terrorists. Gary Johnson opposed the USG’s interventions in Libya, but supports military attacks against ISIS. His support for (some) intervention is strange coming from a man who recognizes blowback as a serious phenomenon. Gary says that he wants to shut down military bases in Europe and in the Far East. Gary Johnson is hardly a libertarian, but his foreign policy and desire to cut the military budget is miles better than Trump’s, Clinton’s, or Sander’s because he (seems to) only supports wars and foreign aid to fight terrorist groups – not to remake other countries by backing rebel groups and regime changes.

      In the end, Donald Trump’s and Bernie Sander’s foreign policies are approximately equal, Hillary Clinton’s is the worst, and Gary Johnson’s is better than any of them. Therefore, libertarians should support Gary Johnson. I suggest that all my readership make a Facebook post, like Johnson’s page, tweet in favor of Gary Johnson, and perhaps get yard signs and a Gary Johnson 2016 t-shirt – anything in order to get the most libertarian candidate there is recognized. This election has some of the most polarizing candidates in the history of the United States, which provides a unique opportunity to get the LP (and Gary Johnson) support, with one poll saying that about 55% of voters would be both unhappy with a Trump-Clinton race, and would be willing to vote for a third party candidate. If Gary Johnson wins, or even gets a large percentage of votes, more people will discover libertarianism, and there will be less foreign interventionism.

Sources and Further Reading

OnTheIssues: Hillary Clinton’s Foreign Policy

OnTheIssues: Donald Trump’s Foreign Policy

The Daily Caller: Gary Johnson’s Strange Foreign Policy

A Libertarian Future: Gary Johnson’s Libertarian Solution to ISIS

Reason Magazine: Gary Johnson Interview

Gary Johnson – ISIS is Today’s Nazi Facism

OnTheIssues: Bernie Sander’s Foreign Policy

Bernie Sander’s Campaign Website: War and Peace

An Anarcho-Capitalist’s Case for Gary Johnson 2016