Trump’s Appalling Ultimatum to Our Troops

By Ryan Lau | @agorisms

On arid plains across Iraq, Afghanistan, and many nations, troops lay still on burnt sands. Strong sunlight shoots down onto non-moving forms, just yards away, additional infantry attack opposing combatants. Many will not walk away from such an ugly fight, but still, participants roll in as thousands turn to millions. Though a minority may find it a worthy clash, many do not hold such an opinion. Still, skirmish upon skirmish continuously occurs.

Trump’s Appalling Ultimatum

Naturally, an obvious justification is in troops’ minds, though not moral or just. Simply put, Donald Trump and his military bark commands, and poor troops comply. Sadly, so many, as a conclusion to living, slip away from this world. This appalling ultimatum is not distinct to Trump, nor to any prior man of high authority. Nay, it is just a quality of authority of this kind; and thus, such authority may hold no just claim to subsist.

At this day, all of our military groups fight unjust wars across many parts of this world. Most notably, conflict in Syria and Libya sustain through hours and far past. In fact, this full part of our world, spanning Afghanistan to Somalia to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, has had an addition of U.S. troops far past any just and moral amount. Such an amount, to stay at all just or moral, must always fall to nil.

But, U.S. individuals of high authority, both military and not, do not follow this basic logic. As wars only go up in both human and fiscal cost, individuals who must stop inhumanity fall short. Now, diplomacy has a vast following in public opinion; at minimum, such opinions occur towards war in Afghanistan. But, a growing gap holds public inclination and policy conclusion apart.

Military Support for Anti-War Politicians

Fittingly, it is typically troops, both past and today, that support individual politicians who do not favor war. Most notably, Gary Johnson actually was in first in many military polls against Trump and Clinton by a solid margin. In fact, this was an additional 27% in contrast to his support among public polls. Why is this? Simply, Johnson, in contrast to Trump and Clinton, did not favor war. U.S. troops, without a doubt, favor not dying in unjust conflicts. Thus, military individuals show support for anti-war politicians.

Additionally, Ron Paul got donations from troops far surpassing that of any opposing politician in 2012. His $113,739 from troops is colossal against opposing politicians, who got donations totaling around 10% of that. Again, Paul was not in favor of war, and was a harsh critic of continuing unjust war, in particular. As such, military individuals support Paul, Johnson, and additional politicians who will not march troops off to war.

Can Troops Simply Not Comply?

Agonizingly, it is no straightforward task to not comply in a military situation. As soon as an individual signs up for it, a crippling bind falls down. This, naturally, is a command to follow instructions from individuals in positions of authority. Don’t want to kill an opposing human? Sorry, but if a commanding authority instructs such an action, it is mandatory to comply. Think that a particular action is not moral or just? Sorry, but an individual moral compass is no qualm to a commanding authority.

Don’t want to comply anyways, at risk of going back on your oath to follow instructions? Your moral compass is outwardly strong, which is intrinsically fulfilling. Still, atrocious but common disciplinary actions will follow. At minimum, such a moral individual will pay a grand sum, and much of it will go towards continual wars. Probably, that individual may wind up in prison for a backwards, unjust wrong of non-killing. At maximum, such a paragon may find his own, lawful assassination.

Military action is a vicious rotation. Starting with Trump and individuals of high authority, commands flow to troops. Basically, Trump’s commands say: “Hurt if I say, or I will hurt right back”. Killing honor and impartiality, such a command is a colossal thorn in tranquility’s back. Without an ability to not comply, any aspiration for a moral and just military slips away into a dark land of blind authority.

Without a doubt, Trump’s choking grip of authority is difficult to crush, but it is not without its limits. Just as I can affirm such truths without an Anglo-Saxon Idiom’s fifth symbol (following “d” but prior to “f”, I solicit you to hunt for but a singular utilization of that symbol in my composition), his military can find morality through an option not to comply.

Top Photo Origin

New Bill Would Authorize Drug Tests for Congressmen

By Dane Larsen | @therealdanelars

Republican Congressman Clay Higgins represents the Third District of Louisiana in Washington. He claims to be defending his said morals of “smaller government, less bureaucracy, free markets, [and] a strong national defense”. This past week, Rep. Higgins composed H. Con. 135, better known as the “Exposing Congressional Drug Abuse Act”. If Congress passes it, the bill would establish randomized drug tests for United States legislators.

What Would the Drug Tests Look Like?

Applying to both the House and Senate, the bill describes the drug tests as concurrent to another resolution, which would make the tests mandatory for all members. However, neither bill has outlined punishments for those who test positive. The Committee of Ethics, on the other hand, would have the responsibility to deal with those who refuse to take the periodic tests. Possibly, they would also manage the penalties for those who fail them.

Much like the case of any other government drug tests, members will not receive advanced knowledge of them. They also will not, at least legally, occur on any grounds of “individualized suspicion”.

Political Implications

Rep. Higgins is not gaining vast support from Louisiana citizens. It appears that the idea has harmed his chances at re-election more than it has helped them. With the upcoming potential “blue wave” in the 2018 midterms, Higgins is up for reelection. His opponent, Mimi Methvin, is quickly gaining traction in the race. Methvin and administrators in the Louisiana Democratic Party, including Stephen Handwerk, the executive director, have criticized Higgins for creating this bill. They believe it to be merely a publicity stunt in order to garner some greater attention before the November election.

At this point, it is unclear whether good motive of personal gain back his intentions for drafting the bill. But regardless, it is not evident that it will have an overarching effect on the members of Congress. The finalization of this bill and open voting will occur later this month. The vote count currently is about even between Democrats and Republicans. Generally, it appears to be at least capable of garnering some bipartisan support.

“Elected officials in Washington D.C. should be subject to the same kind of random drug screenings that blue-collar, working-class Americans have to endure. Congress shouldn’t get to live by a different set of rules. This effort is about maintaining accountability and ensuring sober service to We, the People.” -Rep. Higgins

Get awesome merchandise. Help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy. Donate today to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source

The Free Market is a Better Alternative to Government

By Josh Hughes | United States

Most libertarians believe that, to an extent, the “free market” is superior to the government. But is this really true? Can private enterprises and consumers completely and voluntarily fund the services that are enjoyed today? If so, are they capable of producing such services at a more efficient and cost-effective rate? The answer, in theory, is always yes.

Can the Market Do Everything That Government Can?

Think of any service that is offered by the government. There are dozens, ranging from something as simple as the post office and sanitation services, to more complex and serious things such as domestic and foreign defense. Simple, everyday tasks that people are accustomed to being carried out by government employees can just as easily be done in the private sector. Private schools, for example, perform the same job as public schools but are done through completely voluntary means. In many instances, the quality of education is higher as well.

But some services just can’t be provided by the free market, right? Many cite defense and legal dilemmas as areas that need government control or interference. This simply just is never necessary. An example that many are fond of is illustrated by Llewellyn Rockwell, Jr. in his anarcho-capitalist manifesto, Against the State. In it, one is asked to consider for a moment that shoes have been provided to children until the age of 18 by the government for as long as anyone can remember. Since society has become so used to this, and the market has never had the ability to compete, one naturally finds it foolish to question the government’s provision here. It can be assumed that many people would actually become quite defensive when the question of “Can the market do it better?” arises.

This is the case with every single service society enjoys. People don’t consider how the market and private individuals can better provide a service because it’s never been attempted.

“But Who Will Build the Roads?”

This is a challenge often brought up when taxation or government abolition is brought up. The answer is simple. The same individuals that politicians contract will build the roads. Your neighbors and peers who are civil engineers and construction workers will still build the roads. “But who will pay for it?” Private citizens will still fund the projects, just as they already do now. Instead of the violent coercion the government forces, however, it will be in the form of voluntary transactions such as tolls or user fees. Domestic defense will still be provided by private individuals, except now instead of an all-powerful police force, it will be a subscription to a privately regulated enterprise. This is true for everything. It will all be paid for and provided by the same individuals that pay for and provide it now, only this time it will be done voluntarily in the form of subscriptions, user fees, and tolls. No more will you be forced to give your hard-earned money to an agency of men in Washington, D.C. that decide where they feel it will be best spent. In the ideal society, you the individual know where to spend your money best.

Other Counterarguments


Another question often raised is “What happens when a company establishes a monopoly over a service, then proceeds to extort its users?” This is a very tough, but solvable, dilemma. An answer would be responsibility of the market. Individuals must not be put in the situation where they can be exploited and must provide competing services themselves. If this is unavailable, then the market must pressure the monopoly and force them to either break up or not extort consumers by refusing the monopoly and its workers service. The market will always regulate itself.


“What happens when a business decides to discriminate against a group of people, whether on the basis of race, religion, gender, or orientation?” In this instance, individuals and the market will again regulate itself. Minorities are more empowered today than they have ever been before. Through advances in technology, avenues such as social media and sites like Yelp will spread the decisions of businesses. Say, for example, a restaurant refuses service to an African-American woman because of her race. She can then go to Instagram or Twitter and share her experience, where it can then be seen by thousands of people. The business will suffer the consequences, as now people will refuse to go there and instead opt to go to a restaurant that serves all people.


Another main issue is environmental regulations. The EPA currently sets the standards for businesses to follow when it comes to regulations, but without a government, who will do that for us? Again, the answer is the market. Similar to the case of monopolies, other businesses and individuals will set sanctions against or boycott companies that practice in ways that are detrimental to the environment. This pressure will force the companies to change their ways or to shut down.

The Market Will Prevail

If you’ve paid attention, you have noticed that the same phrase has been repeated many times. “The free market will solve the issue.” This is the main philosophy behind most libertarian thought. The free market will solve any and every issue, and can better perform every service offered by the government. The untouched market has competition whereas the government is a monopoly. The market has drive and incentives while the government is lazy and incompetent. The market is voluntary and free, a stark contrast against the government who is coercive and aggressive. The market can and will solve every problem presented to society without the need of the government.

Get awesome merchandise. Help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy. Donate today to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source

Nikki Haley Resigns as U.S. Envoy to the United Nations

By Eli Ridder | United States

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley will leave her post at the end of the year. United States President Donald Trump announced the news Tuesday as he accepted her resignation.

Ms. Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, will depart the envoy role after representing the United States on the Security Council since January of 2017.

Nikki Haley shaking hands with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Betanyahu
U.S. Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Nikki Haley meets Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at his office in Jerusalem, June 7, 2017. (Source: US Embassy in Tel Aviv)

The move comes not long after several stories were published about questionable private flights and accepting large gifts.

Many describe Haley as a fierce presence on the Security Council. In her position, she typically works on everything from North Korean sanctions to the Syrian civil war.

Some have reported that her resignation was prompted by her aspirations to run for President. Haley has since responded that she intends to vote and campaign for the President in his 2020 reelection bid. However, the previously mentioned scandals may serve as a bit of a roadblock in her effectiveness as a campaigner.

Axios first reported this news.

More To Follow

Get awesome merchandise. Help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy. Donate today to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!


Does the Government Actually Keep You Safe?

By Manuel Martin | United States

Government is commonly believed necessary to restrain men with conquering ambitions. However, the state is the essential mechanism which men use to execute said ambitions. Think you’re free? Try building a house without paying extortion money first via permit fees. Try keeping your income, for that matter. The state will quickly send men with guns to secure your compliance and your income. Don’t like going to war to kill? Now, you’re a “draft dodger” and will go into a cage for your crime of non-murder.

The discomforting truth is governments don’t keep you safe. On the contrary, one’s obedience to the government directly threatens your safety and security. How many millions of human beings have died because of society’s willingness to follow murderous orders? How many more need to perish before something changes? Individuals must come to realize that governments alone have promoted and funded mass murder, spinning it into the socially acceptable jargon of “war”.

Politicians brand mass murder “war” to hide reality. The state does not keep you safe; it divides the world into lethal, warring tribes. The government has marketed their murders so well that countless young men across the world line up to take part. With the soothing excuse of democracy, these groups have slaughtered, mutilated and starved hundreds of millions. Politicians will always use war to enslave the masses so long as the masses accept their legitimacy.

We live in a terrifying, fantasy-like dichotomy. In order to secure our safety from people with power, we elect people to positions of power. Then, these people use their positions to monopolize violence, plunder resources, and start wars, often to the great disbelief of the nominally peaceful citizen. Finally, the people in power boldly assert they are necessary to prevent war, and people buy it. Is it really surprising that politicians, who we elect to maintain order and safety, create wars? When the wars threaten order and safety, there is a greater demand for the politician to restore order and safety.

Politicians use the money they steal (tax) from you to fund aggressions that put your life in danger. You are supplying the funds for the wars you fear! Humanity directly takes those who desire control and gives them million-man armies and warships. This is painful to think about, and one of the most regressive ideas in human history.

If one person should not have access to instruments of mass destruction, it is the politician. Politicians campaign on the promise of using the state’s gun to control society. One should never give guns and armies to a person who wishes to use them to control humanity.

If you want peace, and I think nearly all do, the first step is to not give guns to politicians; they are the very individuals who promise to use them against you.

Our culture needs to evolve past this regressive idea of electing politicians for protection. Government-created wars and famines purposefully murdered over 262,000,000 in the 20th century alone. How many individuals did free market actors like Walmart, Chevron, Ford or Microsoft kill in that time? I’m going to guess: around 262,000,000 fewer.

To be safe, we must rid our culture of government, taking the power away from those who move men like chess pieces on a board covered in blood and bombs.

Politicians and their hired guns can’t keep you safe. The government simply cannot prevent a person from walking out of their house and committing murder. The state cannot stop someone who suddenly snaps, points their vehicle to the sidewalk and murders innocents.

The best defense you have against another human being is that his or her ethics and culture have taught him or her to act peacefully. A culture that reinforces the use of persuasion over coercion in all aspects of life will be far more peaceful than a culture that uses violence (taxes) to prevent violence.

Without a doubt, we need to end government and usher in a culture of persuasion over coercion. In this new culture, freedom and self-determination unite all in pursuit of happiness and fulfillment. Already, we are halfway there; the overwhelming majority of Americans currently use persuasion in their everyday lives. How many people walk into Starbucks, point a gun at the barista and coerce them for some coffee? Almost no one does, because our culture will not reward this form of violence with happiness and abundance. Unfortunately, it still does reward the same violence when the perpetrator represents the flag.

Free market interactions promote peace and prosperity, as everyone must interact voluntarily to maintain productive and beneficial relationships.  The government, on the other hand, is the systematization of mass coercion. They enforce every tax, fee, regulation and law with the implicit threat and ultimate use of violence.

Many state officials use disruptive coercion backed by gun violence as the basis for human interactions. Outside of government, though, the vast majority use peaceful, voluntary interactions as the foundation for relations. Government is a cancer: stagnating mankind’s ability to live in peace and prosperity.

So long as the state exists, humanity will divide into factions and war to exercise power. Forever disturbing peace and prosperity, they will use the power of the state to coerce the masses. I want to end government because I’m a true progressive. It is time, at last, to move our culture towards more voluntary interactions, not fewer. By doing so, we may finally progress as humans and expand the human experience, seeking peace. Attempting to centralize human autonomy away from the individual and into the hand of distant politicians is the most regressive policy imaginable.

Lives and prosperity are going to waste because the ability to control lives is at stake. If you want peace, reality demands that you end coercive societal structures like government. Government is orderly subjugation enforced by violence; safety, harmony and prosperity cannot spring from violence.

Democratic government is that great hypocrisy of history. Attempting to prevent pilferage by organizing plunder, secure justice by monopolizing inequality, and establish peace by promoting division, it thus has no place in a peaceful, just society.

Get awesome merchandise. Help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy. Donate today to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source