Tag: government coercion

The Distortion of Liberalism

Joshua D. Glawson | United States

 ‘Liberalism’ 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 tyranny of the majority 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 Non-Aggression Principle (or the Randian ‘Non-Initiation of Force’), and several other principles are what is core to libertarian values, and the principles of the Libertarian Party.

Libertarians recognize that every law established 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. Eric Garner was killed by police 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 that the freer people are, the more economic prosperity there is for the vast majority of people as opposed to other systems of governments 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!

Featured Image Source

Advertisements

Advocacy For Any Law is Advocacy For Violence

By Andrew Lepore | United States

You may have heard the term you don’t talk about politics at dinner. But why has political discourse become so hateful and volatile? Well, the answer lies in the system we have inherited.

Our system of constitutional republicanism is one of involuntary participation and involuntary funding. The debate will always consist of who is being coerced, who is in power, and who is required to fund it all.

Participation in our system is not like a voluntary organization or corporation, which has to convince you to voluntarily give up your money in exchange for a good or service that is provided by the corporation. If you don’t value the benefits as much as the cost, you aren’t required to give them your money or use their services. If they began providing shitty services at higher costs, you can no longer give them your business if you so choose.

Under our system, Politicians do not have to convince the populace that their programs are worthwhile; if you don’t like it well too bad. You don’t choose how much money you give, you don’t choose where your money goes, and you definitely don’t have the option to opt out.

People will say, “but wait, you have the right to vote and you have the right to have your voice heard!” People are so conditioned that they believe that is sufficient to expropriate you and your property. Using that as justification for the state taking your money is comparable to somebody saying “oh well it’s not theft if the burglar allowed you to argue your case why it is immoral for him to be taking your money.”

This idea of coercion and involuntarism applies to every person, every law, and every tax. When somebody is calling for the rich to be taxed, they are calling for the state involuntarily rob those who are more successful of the fruits of their labor because that’s what they want. If the “rich” refuse men with guns will come to punish them.

When somebody is calling for drugs to be banned, they are not only calling for sovereign individuals to be locked in a cage for consuming a substance which the state does not approve of, but they are calling for everyone else to be required to fund this prohibition.

When somebody is calling for assault weapons to be banned, they are calling for the state to forcefully prevent sovereign individuals from acquiring whatever means they wish to achieve the end goal of self-preservation. If they refuse to cooperate and are found to be in possession of an inanimate object which the state disapproves of, they will be punished by men with guns.

Now you can probably see why the talk of politics at dinner can get someone’s blood boiling. When you talk about politics, unless you are a libertarian, you are arguing who should be coerced, who should be robbed, and who should be thrown in jail. If this was debated in any other scope besides through the force of politics and government, it would be conspiracy to commit a crime. In what other sectors of our lives are we allowed to Decide who gets robbed and who gets coerced without it being seen as an egregious moral enormity?

As long as the mechanism of politics is thinking you know what’s best for the lives of others, and seeking to enforce your ideal with violence, the discussion will be rife with hatred and partisanship. The argument is who will be coerced and who will receive the benefits. It is who will be controlled and who will have the power.

In conclusion, this moral dilemma and injustice can only be resolved with a libertarian ideal of free, voluntary, and noncoercive society. When we talk about the betterment of society, it does not have to be through the immoral paradigm of force through government. When we talk about the betterment of society, it should be through the paradigm of peace, cooperation, and voluntarism.


Featured image source.