Sunday, May 1, 2011

Maximum Individual Responsibility - Minimum Government

To many people, the Libertarian Party's slogan, “Minimum Government – Maximum Freedom,” sounds like a feel-good hybridization of the “anarchy” and the “free love” movements. This interpretation, not an uncommon one based on conversations with others about Libertarianism, belies the major principle underlying the goals of the Party. It is time to make a shift in our message in order to clarify our message.

Libertarianism is indeed about freedom; however, it is not based upon freedom. Rather, freedom is the natural result of the basic tenets of Libertarianism and not a tenet unto itself. “Freedom” taken as a tenet is best compared to “free lunch” (TANSTAAFL!)

If we wish to be taken seriously and to become a major party, we must resist the temptation of continuing to appeal only to the low-hanging fruit: those who are intellectually attracted to the principles of Libertarianism and those who think freedom is a result which a party, of any ilk, can deliver and preserve. We must broaden our appeal.

If freedom should not be the stated goal of this Party, then what should? What is it that the human spirit cries out for? “Liberty,” yes, but isn’t that just another word for “freedom?” What do we mean by these words? I believe that the cornerstone of Libertarianism is “individual responsibility,” without which there can be no freedom. We hold the individual to be responsible for their own lives, and we work to promote governments at all levels which interfere minimally with that responsibility.

Today, our Republic is nearly lost under the combined weight of laws and restrictions imagined by the liberal and conservative movements to expropriate individual responsibility from the people and to place that responsibility on government. Every step these people have taken to relieve individuals from their responsibilities has removed a slice of our liberty, until a large portion of that which remains is merely superficial. Further, in taking on these responsibilities, the size and scope of government at all levels has swollen unchecked, bursting beyond any reasonable boundaries and threatening to destroy liberty once and for all.

I believe the goal of the Libertarian Party is better expressed by the slogan: “Maximum Individual Responsibility - Minimum Government.” In the Republic envisioned by our Founding Fathers, each individual is indeed responsible for their own profession, their own family structure and activities, their own religious beliefs, their own sustenance, their own happiness, and their own freedom. If we want the freedom envisioned by our founding fathers, then we must first and foremost promote the acceptance of the level of individual responsibility that they envisioned!

Thursday, April 7, 2011

AARP, You're Fired!

Dear AARP,

This is the third “Membership Reactivation Form” letter with shiny new membership cards I have received since I fired you. I compliment you on your creativity, especially the part that says:

“We are fighting for your American Dream. AARP is encouraging policy makers and leaders to strengthen Social Security, Medicare, pension and retirement benefits.”

With all due respect, that is a crock! You may be fighting for Karl Marx’s dream, but you sure as hell aren’t fighting for my American Dream. My American Dream is about opportunity, not federally mandated Ponzi schemes that suck the life out of the economy.

You may be fighting for the Utopian ideal of everyone living in peace and harmony, under the full control of a benevolent, efficient, all-powerful government. My American Dream, however, is one that emphasizes limited government and individual responsibility.

I notice you are no longer crowing about your successful support of the federal healthcare takeover. Perhaps you have noticed that most Americans think the federal government will only screw that up like they have everything else. Well, you are stuck with it. I will never return to your membership rolls, no matter how many big government handouts you promise to try to get for me.

With great disdain,
David Rogers

Sunday, March 27, 2011

Tolerating Islam as a Religion or as a Political System

My question of the day is, "How can one be true to the concept of freedom of religion without admitting the risks implied by the political nature of Islam?" Islam as a religion is not an issue for most Americans; however, Islam carries within it a political system which is an anathema. The most troubling aspect of Islam for Americans is the apparent structural connection between these two facets of the Islam belief system.

Whether political power is granted to Caliphs or to Imams by the Quran is a source of internal debate within Islam - but either way we have a conflict with the principle of separation of church and state. (I acknowledge that this conflation of Church and State is not limited to Muslims. We already have ongoing battles pitting religious beliefs against Liberty most apparently within the Republican Party. However, that is another issue.)

On the surface, it appears to me that one has to choose between tolerance for the religion with the associated risks of appeasement for the politics, or intolerance for both. Since, as a belief system, Islam is intolerant of our traditional belief systems, both religious and political, it seems the choice has already been made for us, since tolerating intolerance in the name of tolerance is a fool's (or a saint's) bargain.

David

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

It's the Constitution, Stupid!

I believe the Libyan affair is truly a fight for Democracy; one which demands the immediate and passionate involvement of the People of the United States. Obama’s acts of war under the pretense of a United Nations Resolution constitute a direct assault on our United States Constitution and must be countered.

Our Founding Fathers did not establish a kingdom, where one man could carry out war in the name of the American people or, worse yet, under the banner of a foreign agent. I call upon all freedom loving Americans to demand action from their Representatives in Congress, and I offer the following letter as a suggested communication:


Dear Congressman Reichert,

I call upon you today to live up to your oath of office and to defend the United States Constitution from those forces which seek to undermine and usurp its authority in our affairs of state.

President Obama has initiated acts of war against a foreign power without any declaration of war from Congress, under the guise of a United Nations Resolution approving such actions. This is a direct violation of Article I of our Constitution.

I call upon you to sponsor or to co-sponsor a Resolution establishing Articles of Impeachment against the President in this affair. Should you be unwilling to honor your oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States," I call upon you to resign your office.

Sincerely,

David Rogers
Bellevue, WA

Sunday, March 13, 2011

Regarding the Messages of Intolerance in the Koran

RE: Bill Maher Debates Islam with Democratic Muslim Congressman

Bill Maher is not exactly an advocate for religion, but you couldn't say he is biased toward one or another. Between his comments and those of his guest, the point is made that most Muslims do not espouse the messages of intolerance present in the Koran - yet, those message are clearly there in spite of the denials.

That presence of mixed messages is often defended by pointing to mixed messages in the Christian bible. The problem with the Koran's mixed messages is that the hateful and intolerant material comes after and supersedes the more wholesome spiritual material found earlier. The exact opposite is true in the Christian bible. The difference is significant!

The seeds of hatred and intolerance of others (infidels) are there and are cultivated by the passages in the Koran having precedence. A key question is whether one can then believe, without engaging in delusional thinking, that those seeds will fail to produce their bitter fruit in the long run.

Saturday, March 12, 2011

The Defense of Marriage Act is Worth Wasting Time and Energy Over?

Wednesday, House Republican leadership lead by John Boehner voted to defend DOMA (the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.)

Let me get this straight, Boehner: You can't rustle up the will and resolve to pony up much more than a single week's federal spending - in budget increase reductions (much less actual budget CUTS.) Yet, you have the unmitigated gall to divert precious time and energy (THE PEOPLE'S TIME AND ENERGY!) to this sort of misanthropic micromanagement of people's lives in America?!?

You are a disgrace to your office, and to the oath you took upon entering your office!
You are a big-government charlatan, and you deserve to be swept aside with the rest of the big-government charlatans. You obviously didn’t hear the message in 2010, let’s hope you hear it loud and clear in 2012.

Monday, February 28, 2011

Obama Administration's Decision to Ignore DOMA

I found a great quote in my in-basket today:

"The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy." --Benjamin Franklin, Emblematical Representations, 1774

Those who are wasting their precious energy attacking the Obama administration for deciding to ignore the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" would do well to ponder the meaning of those words.

There are bigger fish to fry. Focusing on anti-Gay Marriage and anti-abortion positions serves only to dilute the energy we can direct at working toward a more limited government.

Yes, there is a lot of heat around these issues, however, there is precious little light. For example, quoting the Old Testament in a land of predominantly Christian believers is disingenuous and unhelpful.

One might almost wonder if these issues continue to be brought to the forefront in a calculated attempt to keep the anti-socialist and libertarian memes, so dear to most of us, from taking hold and taking over the political landscape of the Right.