Earlier this month, a UK government minister called for the institution of compulsory voting. According to Mirror.UK, it is a ploy to increase voter turnout, but it also seems to be politically motivated. The politicians pushing this policy (nearly all of who belong to the labor party) are highly concerned with low Brexit vote turnout. They speculate that if only voting numbers were up, they would have come out of the decision as victors. But with the seemingly endless Brexit debacle, a conversation about voting has been opening up in the UK. Should a civics exam be mandatory to vote? Is it okay to let felons vote? And famously, should voting be compulsory?
Joshua D. Glawson | United States
originally meant a system that recognizes the freedom of the individual while ‘liberating’ them from the chains that bind them. Modern liberalism has gone far past this idea of freeing the individual from systematic oppression to what we see as the found in democracy. Modern liberalism suggests that whatever the newest idea of oppression is, it should be fought against at all costs, even when the data and evidence does not hold up, such as “women make less than men,” “ban straws,” “force businesses to trade,” and almost every other idea that constantly changes on an almost monthly basis. This does not mean their intentions are bad, or that everyone who is a modern liberal is ignorant. Rather, it is of the Kantian philosophy that suggests a government should pursue what is deemed noble, no matter if the outcomes are constantly terrible and oppressive in their own right. Modern liberals are willing to advocate the oppression of one group in order to suffice the needs and wants of another group. This perpetuates votes and a false sense of confidence in order to gain votes.
Simple Libertarian Concepts:
- If your friend needs money to survive, is it moral for you to coerce others with the threat of violence and death in order to pay for your friend’s needs?
- If theft is immoral for one person, it is just as wrong for a thousand people, a million people, or a billion people, etc. to steal from one person as it was for the one person to steal.
These Aristotelian principles, along with the(or the Randian ‘ ’), and several other principles are what is core to libertarian values, and the principles of the Libertarian Party.
Libertarians recognize thatestablished by a government is backed by the threat of force, while understanding non-compliance can escalate the violence up to the point of death.
E.g.because he was supposedly selling cigarettes on the streets of NYC, and he denied the allegations and was trying to talk to the police as they began arresting him. The officer was not charged, although choke-holds were also deemed ‘illegal’ for police officers to use on people.
Libertarians also realize thatfor the vast majority of people and economics.
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!
By Nate Galt | United States
Timothy McVeigh has been a controversial figure in the contemporary history of America. Some argue that he was a patriot, trying to defend his country from a tyrannical federal government. Most, however, recognize that he was a terrorist whose actions were unacceptable.
Why did Timothy McVeigh Murder?
Many of McVeigh’s defenders point to certain measures such as the USA PATRIOT Act and state that this is an example of what McVeigh meant to destroy. Instead of destroying tyranny, his infamous Ryder truck fertilizer bomb destroyed the lives of hundreds of families. His actions killed 168 people, including several children, and injured hundreds more.
The Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City had a daycare inside. Under no circumstance is blowing up a daycare center moral. McVeigh’s co-conspirator, Terry Nichols, said that he and McVeigh knew that a daycare center existed inside the Murrah Building and that neither of them cared. The two knowingly blew up the children inside. How could that possibly be okay? No matter how righteous he claimed to be, he had no right to destroy property or kill innocent civilians to prove a point.
No Better than the State
Of course, the government does the exact same thing in many situations. Recently, they blew up a school bus in Yemen, killing dozens of children. Moreover, the state institutionally taxes its citizens under punishment of imprisonment or death. Surely, it acts coercively in many situations. But Timothy McVeigh’s actions, equally coercive and destructive, were not any better.
Furthermore, the deaths of those innocent 168 people simply antagonized people towards his beliefs. Does the liberty movement need more people drawn away from it because of its members supporting a terrorist?
Practice what you Preach
Currently, many say that the Libertarian Party and other libertarian-leaning political groups need to get more votes. Its members supporting the actions of a man who killed 168 will never achieve that goal. Similarly, they should not support other violent figures in the modern era.
Without a doubt, peacefully advancing what you think is right is the only just method. McVeigh claimed to stand for American liberty and thought himself to be a part of the liberty movement. But, people who advocate for freedom must universally recognize John Locke’s concept of the natural rights of a human being regardless of any factor: the right to life, liberty, and property.
McVeigh took the lives of 168 men, women, and children and destroyed property on April 19th, 1995. This is anathema to everything that liberty advocates stand for. Indubitably, he clearly violated the civilians’ rights to their lives and property. Thousands mourned the loss of their relatives and friends. Timothy McVeigh’s actions were absolutely immoral, devastating, and reprehensible.
There is a fine line between understanding someone’s motives and supporting their actions. Someone partially agreeing with McVeigh on gun rights is different than them supporting his despicable actions. While his position is understandable, his deeds are not. How could any person consider themselves moral yet go on to commit mass murder?
Rejecting Violence in All Forms
No matter their position on gun rights, constitutional infringements, or the federal government, liberty advocates as a whole must reject Timothy McVeigh. In the eyes of the American public, McVeigh is a murderous terrorist who took the lives of 168 innocent people. His deeds on that April morning of 1995 will never be forgotten. Thus, the liberty movement’s members should try to advance their cause by supporting peaceful people, not violent individuals.
Get awesome merchandise and help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy by donating to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!
The libertarian argues that the state is based completely on violence. From its starting point, it is a violent institution and has violated the rights of individuals in a coercive manner. When the state taxes, it is stealing, and there are no exceptions to this.
By Ian Brzeski | United States
On countless occasions, I have either seen or heard that Jesus is a socialist. I see it through memes, I hear it through others. It’s complete and utter nonsense.
Let’s spot the differences in these two cases. In the first scenario, let’s say that you are walking down the street and a man comes up to you asking for money. He says that he runs a charity to help out the poor, and you decide to donate because you feel that it would be beneficial towards his cause. In the second scenario, you decide not to give the man any money at all. The man is upset at this and decides to pull out a gun, forcing you to donate to meet the threshold he needs to raise. In both of these scenarios, the man got the desired money and was able to help the poor.
The differences are clear. In the first scenario, you voluntarily gave up your money whereas, in the second, the man coerced you to. Objectively, the way the man acted in the second scenario is immoral, even though he gave the money to the poor.
Now, why is it different when the government takes your money through taxation? The government sets up programs for the poor, asks you for money to help fund the programs, and if you don’t give them your money, they throw you in a rotting cell for the rest of your life. That sounds eerily similar to the second scenario that I presented. The government uses a form of coercion in the same way that the man coerced you. Andrew Lepore writes a fantastic article which really delves into why just because you or somebody else benefits from taxation doesn’t mean that it’s morally justifiable in any way whatsoever.
Now let’s get to why Jesus is not a socialist. First of all, Jesus preaches about helping your neighbor and caring for the sick and the poor. He tells you to spread the Good News. It seems to some that socialists preach the same, but this is simply not true. Jesus never said that you can force somebody else to live by your values.
You should hope that people want to give back to their community or to the poor out of the goodness of their heart. You have every right to tell somebody that they should give to the poor, and to spread Jesus’ message. However, there’s a reason that Jesus never says that it’s okay to force somebody to live by His message. If somebody is going to hoard all their money, then they are well in their right to do so. You cannot, in good moral standing, throw somebody in prison on the premise that they are a subjectively bad person. The only just reason to do so is if they infringe on someone else’s rights. Not giving money to somebody else is not an infringement of their rights.
I urge people to not be that guy. I urge people to live by Jesus’ message even if they don’t believe in his divinity. The majority of people in this world are good. There are plenty of people who will give back to their communities; many celebrities already do. Ellen DeGeneres, for example, loves giving money to people who need it. Whether those people directly need it or are raising awareness for a cause, she will provide. There are plenty of other examples of celebrities giving back to their communities. There are millions of everyday normal people who give money and time to charities and other organizations and may even be incentivized to give more if the government didn’t already steal their money.
Socialism requires the government to use a coercive force to redistribute the wealth among everybody even if the majority of the people did nothing to deserve that money. It is completely immoral as it lines up with the second scenario I presented to an even bigger extreme. When Jesus tells somebody to go out and take care of the sick and the poor, he is saying for you to go out and voluntarily do it, and not to have a governing body force people to do it. If anything, Jesus is way more of a voluntaryist than a socialist, as the latter requires force which he opposed.
To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.