Posts tagged ideology
Rise of the Libertarians, 10 reasons why Slate, Salon and the progressive media are afraid
Attached is an extremely well done article which lays out why it is that today’s political establishment, especially the “progressives” are so afraid of libertarianism.
Libertarianism is a logical evolution from statism. Statism is a 20th Century ideology based in the idea that systems were closed and if the right smart people ran society an egalitarian Utopia would bloom. If we could create an atom bomb with concerted government directed efforts why could we not also engineer the society (many) people wanted? In the dark days of a rising Soviet Union and expanding a New Deal, very few thought of the economy as a living breathing thing. Something which was alive and composed of billions and billions of exchanges and human decisions. Society was instead a machine, a factory. From this factory we could create the dream which had so long eluded humanity.
But this kind of thinking, contrary to what people thought at the time, was not a revolution against oppressive feudalism and the industrial revolution. Statism was and is an extension of it. Government as a massive corporation, nominally “owned by the workers of the world” but always controlled by a group of lever pullers who look remarkably like the group of lever pullers they replaced.
Libertarianism in contrast embraces an open source society. People, every day people, are valued as individuals. In a world where individuals are more educated than ever – and I don’t mean in the sense that people have more degrees than in the past, I mean in the sense that through the Internet people know much more about the world around them – individuals demand respect. People are not cogs to be placed in a machine by self designated social engineers. People are living entities who come together, or choose not to depending on perceived value.
Progressivism, statism, in contrast is about force. It is about a failed top down 20th Century religion based in the fever dreams of Marx and Hegel from the 19th Century. Seriously, it is a religion.
For those looking forward. For those who despise coercion. Who value human dignity. Who have faith in their abilities and a healthy fear of bureaucrats who say they know best when the data shows over and over that they don’t. For those who believe that each person should be given the chance to actualize his or her gifts to the maximum degree possible. For those who believe that society to the degree possible should be VOLUNTARY. For those who believe that they know how to manage their lives better than some government employee sitting in a stone building somewhere. Well, libertarianism has quite a lot to offer.
And to think Rachael Maddow said that the “era of small government was over” right after the government shutdown in October, and right before Obamacare blew up. And I think she honestly believed it, along with the rest of the establishment. Only 5 months ago.
For the record since this particularly sweet moment her ratings have tanked, though she does now have a wealthy new sponsor for her show, Exxon Mobile. Kudos to her on that.
So welcome to the (peaceful) revolution America and it’s just beginning. Welcome to ACTUAL CHANGE. It is an exciting time, and take absolutely nothing for granted.
8. Libertarians really don’t like crony capitalism. For all the lip service progressives pay to the “problem” of income inequality, they consistently back the most illiberal and inegalitarian policies. Is there anything fair about showering taxpayer resources upon this energy company or that—and making their CEOs’ wealth more secure in the process? Is there anything equitable about shoring up the U.S. banking cartel with permanent legislation like Dodd-Frank? And what chosen “one-percenters” are benefitting from the crony-infested Obamacare legislation, which rains goodies down on drug-makers, healthcare providers, and insurance companies in equal measure? On the other hand, while libertarians don’t mind the sort of inequality that comes from people successfully creating happy customers, wealth, and jobs, we really—no really—don’t like collusion between business interests and government power.
Image credit: http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org
About Nick Sorrentino
Nick Sorrentino is the co-founder and editor of AgainstCronyCapitalism.org. A political and communications consultant with clients across the political spectrum, he lives just outside of Washington DC where he can keep an eye on Leviathan.
Posted by Chris Rossini
Special Edition of The Robert Wenzel Show: Hillary Mann Leverett on U.S. Foreign Policy
Trying to make sense of the seemingly insane policies of those government run ( and others) schools and the agenda behind it all.
By Becky Akers
Vanessa Richardson tells me she is “a homeschool mom. My son” – and, presumably, her student – “and I made a video in regards to the insane over-reaction of school officials over toy/imaginary guns in schools.” Her video not only exposes the ideology behind Leviathan’s demonizing of self-defense but provides a powerful inducement to teach your children at home – all in only 6 minutes and 22 seconds!
A group of like-minded patriots, bound together by pride in American exceptionalism, plan on building an armed community to protect their liberty.
The group, named Citadel, intends to purchase 2,000 to 3,000 acres for the project in western Idaho. The community will comprise of 3,500 to 7,000 families of patriotic Americans who “voluntarily choose to live together in accordance with Thomas Jefferson’s ideal of Rightful Liberty.”
According to the Citadel website, Rightful Liberty means that “neighbors keep their noses out of other neighbors’ business, that neighbors live and let live.”
Citadel explains that residents in the community will be bound by the following:
- Pride in American Exceptionalism
- Our proud history of Liberty as defined by our Founding Fathers, and
- Physical preparedness to survive and prevail in the face of natural catastrophes –such as Hurricanes Sandy or Katrina — or man-made catastrophes such as a power grid failure or economic collapse.
Residents should also agree that being “prepared for the emergencies of life and being proficient with the American icon of Liberty — the Rifle — are prudent measures.”
Some of the benefits of the Citadel community include a safe, well-prepared, patriotic community where children will be educated in school, not indoctrinated.
The community will be protected by a perimeter wall that will be inaccessible to “tourists.” Each neighborhood within the community will have lower walls, dividing the town into defensible sections.
The website has a link to applications where prospective residents can sign up. According to Citadel, more than 200 families have completed applications, even before any land has been purchased.
While Citadel may sound wonderful to many who are reading this, the community has posted a warning on their home page:
“Marxists, Socialists, Liberals and Establishment Republicans will likely find that life in our community is incompatible with their existing ideology and preferred lifestyles.”
Citadel says that every patriot selected to live within the community “will voluntarily agree to follow the footsteps of our Founding Fathers by swearing to one another our lives, our fortunes and our Sacred Honor to defend one another and Liberty against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
By Joseph Beck
The message of liberty has proven to be stronger than “9-9-9,” “Yes We Can,” or any other empty campaign rhetoric that has been incessantly repeated in today’s election cycle. Unlike the others that merely pander to our base instincts of “Hope and Change” or our desire to have a Dr. Evil-style Moon base, there is substance to the liberty message.
Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) has been delivering the same message of peace, sound money, and limited government for over 40 years. His entire political career has been devoted to the preservation of liberty and truth.
As George Orwell rightly said, “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” Unfortunately, we are in living under a state apparatus that is built on lies. Bailouts, wars, and other state-sanctioned interventions are always necessary to keep us safe from the evil economy or the evil bogeymen who reside in evil caves.
A rather significant characteristic of the message is the way it has spread: through the internet, alternative media, and grassroots movements like the Dec. 17, 2007, Tea Party money bomb that raised over $6 million in one day. That day marked the beginning of the modern day Tea Party, before it was co-opted by Fox News demagogues like Sean Hannity and other so-called conservatives in the mainstream media. The alternative media has propelled this revolution to the front lines of political discourse in this country. Thousands of students come to see Ron Paul speak on a regular basis. Paul supporters, both young and old, male and female, become students of Austrian economics and the Constitution.
An entire generation of Americans have become politically aware thanks to Paul’s efforts.
So, why has the mainstream media missed out on this intellectual, ideologically positive revolution?
by John Nichols
John Nichols is the author of several books that examine the legacy of old-right conservatives such as Taft and Buffett, including Against the Beast: A Documentary History of American Opposition to Empire.
Ron Paul represents the ideology that Republican insiders most fear: conservatism.
Not the corrupt, inside-the-beltway construct that goes by that name, but actual conservatism.
And if he wins the Iowa Republican Caucus vote on January 3—a real, though far from certain, prospect—the party bosses will have to do everything in their power to prevent Paul from reasserting the values of the “old-right” Republicans who once stood, steadily and without apology, in opposition to wars of whim and assaults on individual liberty.
Make no mistake, the party bosses are horrified at the notion that a genuine conservative might grab the Iowa headlines from the false prophets. Already, they are claiming a Paul win won’t mean anything. If Paul prevails, says Iowa Governor Terry Branstad, “People are going to look at who comes in second and who comes in third. If [Mitt] Romney comes in a strong second, it definitely helps him going into New Hampshire and the other states.”
The party’s amen corner in the media is doing its part. Republican-insider radio and television programs have begun to go after Paul, the veteran congressman from Texas who is either leading or near the top in recent polls of likely caucus goers. Rush Limbaugh ridicules Paul on his radio show, while Sean Hannity’s Fox show has become a nightly Paul-bashing fest, with guests like former Education Secretary Bill Bennett trashing the congressman with lines like: “his notion of foreign policy is impossible.”
Actually, Paul’s notion of foreign policy is in line with that of conservatives used to believe. The congressman is often referred to as a libertarian, and he has certainly toiled some in that ideological vineyard. But the truth is that his politics descend directly from those of former Ohio Senator Robert “Mr. Republican” Taft and former Nebraska Congressman Howard Buffett—old-right opponents of war and empire who served in the Congress in the 1940s and 1950s and who, in Taft’s case, mounted credible bids for the party’s presidential nomination in 1940, 1948 and finally in 1952. In all three campaigns, Taft opposed what he described as the “Eastern establishment” of the party—the Wall Streeters who, he pointedly noted, had little in common with Main Streeters.
Taft was a steady foe of American interventionism abroad, arguing very much as Paul does today that it threatens domestic liberty. Indeed, just as Paul joined US Senator Russ Feingold in opposing the Patriot Act, spying on Americans and threats to freedom of speech and assembly in the first days of what would become an open-ended “war on terror,” so Taft warned during the cold war that “criticism in a time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government.”
“The maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country…more good than it will do the enemy,” explained Taft, who challenged President Truman’s attempts to use war powers as an excuse to seize domestic industries and otherwise expand what Dwight Eisenhower would eventually define as the military-industrial complex.