Are Libertarians the New Communists?

by Dr. Gerard Emershaw

Orange is the new black. Tropes are the new memes. And libertarianism is the new communism. What? Statists Nick Hanauer and Eric Liu have recently published a Bloomberg piece entitled “Libertarians Are the New Communists.” Hanauer is a venture capitalist and Liu is a former speechwriter in the Clinton White House. Given that both these individuals depend upon big government and corporatism to make their bones, it is no surprise that they would decry freedom.

Hanauer and Liu rightly claim that wherever communism was adopted, it has led to “misery, poverty and tyranny.” They then argue that if “extremist libertarians” ever came to power, the results would be the same. They refer to these “extremist libertarians” as “nihilist anti-state libertarians” who are allegedly aiming to shut down the state. They identify the Koch brothers, Grover Norquist, Ted Cruz, Ron Paul, and Rand Paul as such libertarian nihilists.

Creating a straw man by relying upon a tortured interpretation of Ayn Rand’s objectivism and applying it to all libertarians, they claim that radical libertarianism “assumes that humans are wired only to be selfish.” They also argue that radical libertarianism “assumes that societies are efficient mechanisms requiring no rules or enforcers, when, in fact, they are fragile ecosystems prone to collapse and easily overwhelmed by free-riders.”

They further contend that not only would radical libertarianism be a disaster if it ever became the philosophy of the leaders of the federal government, but that radical libertarianism would in fact be impossible to apply to a functioning society. In their fevered imaginations, they see: “A President Paul [who] would rule by tantrum, shutting down the government in order to repeal laws already passed by Congress.” Of course, these unoriginal thinkers could not possibly write a hit piece on libertarianism without playing the Somalia card: “It is in failed states such as Somalia that libertarianism finds its fullest actual expression.”

Hanauer and Liu’s solution is uninspiring and unoriginally communitarian:

The alternative to this extremism is an evolving blend of freedom and cooperation. The relationship between social happiness and economic success can be plotted on a bell curve, and the sweet spot is away from the extremes of either pure liberty or pure communitarianism. That is where true citizenship and healthy capitalism are found.

True citizenship enables a society to thrive for precisely the reasons that communism and radical libertarianism cannot. It is based on a realistic conception of human nature that recognizes we must cooperate to be able compete at higher levels. True citizenship means changing policy to adapt to changes in circumstance. Sometimes government isn’t the answer. Other times it is.

Hanauer and Liu do say something correct about libertarianism. It is “the ideology that holds that individual liberty trumps all other values.” This is undeniably true because all other values are dependent on freedom. Unless one is an autonomous and has the ability to exercise natural rights to life, liberty, and property, then no other values can take root, let alone be enjoyed. Natural rights are possessed by human beings in virtue of their humanity. The government does not grant natural rights and may not take them away. To deny the existence and paramount nature of natural rights is to deny humanity itself.

Is it impossible for “extreme libertarianism” to be the governing philosophy of the nation? It certainly was not impossible for the first century of the existence of the Republic when by and large the federal government was a minarchist state—particularly when compared with the bloated warfare/welfare “communitarian” state so loved by corporatist statists like Hanauer and Liu. With minimal federal regulations, no welfare state, and no income tax, the United States grew from a weak agrarian former British colony into the world’s greatest economic power. How had libertarians such as Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe managed not to turn the United States into a failed state? There was hardly “misery, poverty, and tyranny.”

The radical libertarianism of the individuals named by the authors is a form of Constitutional minarchism. Those such as Ron Paul seek to shut down only the parts of government that are unconstitutional. This is akin to an oncologist treating a patient with cancer. Such a physician is anti-cancer cells, not anti-healthy cells. Not all libertarians are objectivists and most do not hold that psychological egoism is true. Statists such as Hanauer and Liu believe that the only kind of cooperation that is possible is collectivist “cooperation” at the barrel of a gun. Coerced cooperation is not cooperation at all. Coerced altruism is not altruism at all. The idea that libertarians do not believe in cooperation is the most disingenuous variety of straw man argument. Libertarians believe in the freedom to cooperate with those whom one chooses to associate. This is the very backbone of civil society. Libertarians accomplish things by forming businesses, PACs, nonprofit organizations, and all manner of informal cooperative and voluntary associations. Libertarians are anything but solitary dog-eat-dog Hobbesians or Social Darwinists. The kind of cooperation that Hanauer and Liu have in mind is no doubt phony forced cooperation—draconian taxation and regulation, corporatist wealth redistribution, Nanny State “nudging,” etc.

The notion of President Paul (whether Ron or Rand) ruling by tantrum is ridiculous. Unless, of course, “ruling by tantrum” is what the cool kids are calling ruling by the Constitution these days. President Paul would likely veto many unconstitutional or wasteful bills. It is also likely that President Paul would refuse to enforce some legislation passed by Congress. However, the President takes an oath to defend the Constitution. This oath is violated if he or she enforces unconstitutional legislation. Would Hanauer and Liu wish the President to enforce laws that brought back slavery or segregation? Laws that made homosexuality into a capital federal offense? Hopefully not, but perhaps if these racist and homophobic laws were for “the greater good.”

The old Somalia canard hardly deserves addressing. However, here goes. Somalia is anything but a libertarian state. The organization Freedom House ranks the Somali government as among the most repressive in the world. While perhaps it is a weak despotic government, it is despotic nevertheless. A minarchist libertarian government would be a limited government that safeguarded the natural rights to life, liberty, and property. It would be far closer to the early American government minus the racist scourge of statist slavery than it would to the government of Somalia.

What Hanauer and Liu fail to understand is that the communitarian “sweet spot” of which they fantasize is a pipe dream. If government is given an inch, it takes a million miles. The government they worship is the one which supported slavery, herded Japanese-Americans into concentration camps, experimented on African American men without their consent, and spies on each and every American citizen as if they are traitors and criminals. Ultimately, freedom wanes unless centralized government is chained down by the people using the Constitution. But the truth is that such statists do not fear the government. What they fear are the people. This is indicated by their disdain for the concept that “societies are efficient mechanisms requiring no rules or enforcers, when, in fact, they are fragile ecosystems prone to collapse and easily overwhelmed by free-riders.” They clearly must believe that human beings are evil and require a police state to rule them when in fact all evidence is to the contrary. They view others as “free riders” when it is the progressive corporatists and courtiers who are the true “free riders.” What they are suggesting is an Americanized version of fascism. 

Can Libertarians Make Free Markets Cool?

by Gerard Emershaw

Social freedoms are cool. It is not hard to get Americans of all backgrounds to cheer for social freedoms. When reading books such as Nineteen Eight Four, Brave New World, or It Can’t Happen Here or when watching movies such as V for Vendetta, Brazil, A Scanner Darkly, The Hunger Games, Equilibrium, The Handmaid’s Tale, The Running Man, Serenity, or Soylent Green, it is natural for any American to cheer the freedom loving and oppressed protagonists and jeer the totalitarian antagonists. However, economic freedom is another thing entirely. Many lovers of the natural rights to life and liberty scratch their heads at the idea of the right to property or even scoff at it.

For whatever reason, many just do not consider free markets and economic freedoms to be sexy. In fact, many on the left—especially Millennials—consider free markets to be a bad thing. They view them as oppressive, racist, sexist, classist, etc. It does not help that pop culture and art offer little compelling entertainment which does for economic freedom what something like The Hunger Games does for social freedoms. One might point to Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. However, while a devoted group of readers practically worship the novel, many are daunted by its length. While the novel’s concept is undeniably original and intriguing, many readers are put off by its flat, one dimensional characters, its pretentious dialogue, and its clunky prose. It does not help that the first two of a planned trilogy of movie adaptations of the novel have been massive critical and commercial failures. While the novel certainly deserves better, these films are low budget disasters which look like they ought to be direct to video. Making matters worse is that the cast has changed in each of the films. Imagine if different actors had played Luke, Han, Leia, and Darth Vader in the original Star Wars trilogy. It would not have been a compelling inducement to see the films.

So, how can people be educated about the importance and necessity of economic freedom? There is a mountain of empirical evidence that shows that the freer the economy of a nation, the wealthier the people of that nation. Unfortunately, this does not seem to convince the skeptics. They will always have a Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, etc. to point to as models of how they think the American economy ought to be structured.

It is often difficult or a libertarian to understand why so many Americans are unimpressed with the idea of the free market. How can anyone be truly free if he or she is not economically free? Even if a nation has every social freedom that one can imagine, if that nation has a centrally controlled economy, then there is no freedom. If the government can control the economy, it can control every financial transaction that each individual makes. It can take away any individual’s assets. It can starve any individual. Just as one is a slave if he or she does not have social freedom, one is also a slave without economic freedom. This is not a matter of simply being a greedy economic royalist who does not wish to pay his or her “fair share.” But how can libertarians convincingly spread the idea that free markets are a necessary condition for true freedom?

Can Libertarianism Appeal to Hispanics?

by Gerard Emershaw

Hispanics make up an increasingly large and increasingly important part of the American electorate. If libertarianism is going to continue to grow in influence over politics in the United States, it is imperative that more Hispanics are won over by the message of liberty. Currently, the vast majority of Hispanic voters support the Democratic Party. In the 2012 election, 71% of Hispanics voted for President Obama. This does not bode well for libertarianism.

What issues concern Hispanics in the United States the most? According to a June 2012 Gallup poll, the four issues which concerned registered Hispanic voters the most were: healthcare (21%), unemployment (19%), economic growth (17%), and the economic gap between the rich and the poor (16%). Surprisingly, only 12% considered immigration policies to be important. The libertarian approach provides the best solutions to each of these problems. While Obamacare has been a disaster for the ages, a free market approach to healthcare in which insurance companies could sell policies across state lines would be beneficial. Unemployment would decrease and the economy would grow if the federal government would follow libertarian ideas of cutting spending, cutting taxing, and eliminating draconian business regulations. These policies along with eliminating the Federal Reserve would shrink the growing gap between the rich and poor as well.

In a March 23, 2013 interview with NPR, Gary Segura, co-founder of the polling firm Latino Decisions, was asked what it would take for Hispanics to vote Republican. While mainstream Republican policies are not that consistent with libertarianism, there is a growing match between the two thanks to the work of Ron and Rand Paul. Therefore, considerations which might make an Hispanic individual more likely to vote Republican might also make him or her more likely to embrace libertarianism. According to Segura, Hispanics increasingly favor gay marriage. This is not a problem for libertarianism. Hispanics also favor progressive taxation. They typically consider it just for the rich to pay more than the poor. While libertarians oppose income tax in general, it is true that the wealthy and well connected often escape paying their fair share under the current corporatist system. Eliminating the IRS—as many libertarians suggest—and replacing the current inefficient and unjust system of federal income taxation with a different model could be attractive to these voters. In truth, there is nothing at all just about the current progressive model of taxation. When combined with the Federal Reserve’s “inflation tax,” the current system is nothing if not a reverse Robin Hood. Seguara also says that Hispanics are very entrepreneurial, so freeing small businesses from unfair regulations might appeal to them. Libertarianism is very concerned with the health of small business in the United States, so this could be where the movement could begin a fruitful dialogue with the Hispanic community.

While immigration may not be the most important issue to Hispanics, it is obvious that the demonization of Hispanics that is common among Republicans does not please Hispanic Americans. In reality, the illegal aliens are not the true problem. The welfare state is. If entitlements were not at a level where they will one day collapse the American economy, then immigration in general would not be a problem. In addition to the expensive and counterproductive welfare state, stifling taxes and regulations on business shrink the size of the American economic pie and shrink the number of available jobs. When such a job shortage is created, unemployment grows. When unemployment grows, immigrants are scapegoated. The kind of free economy endorsed by libertarians is the kind of economy that would produce ample jobs. In such a robust economic climate, immigrants do not become scapegoats. Therefore, a free libertarian economy is the kind which would most benefit Hispanics in general and Hispanic immigrants in particular.

If the GOP is going to continue to be a party of RINOs, then it will increasingly become a regional party. If it continues to follow the ideas of xenophobes such as Patrick Buchanan, then Hispanics will eventually vote for Democratic Party candidates at the same 90%+ levels that blacks already do. If the GOP wishes to attract more Hispanic voters, becoming more libertarian in its policies would not be a bad place to start.

Why Haven’t More College Liberals Become Libertarians?

by Gerard Emershaw

Libertarian Republican Senator and 2016 presidential contender Rand Paul of Kentucky recently gave a speech on civil liberties at California’s notoriously liberal Berkeley. This prompts the question of why college liberals have not become libertarians. The Obama neo-progressives in the Democratic Party are on the wrong side of most issues that traditionally liberal college students care about.

1. War

College students in the United States have traditionally been anti-war. It was, of course, the universities and colleges of this nation which spearheaded the anti-war movement during the Vietnam War. Despite having been strangely—and prematurely—awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, President Obama is not a man of peace. He has continued the War on Terror which he inherited from President George W. Bush. In fact, President Obama has escalated wars. He has continued the Afghanistan War. He sought unsuccessfully to continue the Iraq occupation, thwarting only by Iraq’s refusal to grant blanket immunity to American troops. President Obama has also waged war—er, “kinetic military action”—against Libya, conducted a bloody drone campaign in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen, and zealously attempted to gin up a war with Syria. If traditionally liberal college students are still anti-war, then libertarianism with its axiom of non-aggression and its non-interventionism is the true doctrine of peace.

Perhaps the fact that there is not an active military draft is the reason that college students have seemingly become apathetic about war. If they cannot be drafted and their friends and relatives cannot be drafted, then perhaps it does not matter to them anymore. If volunteers are instead risking their lives in these wars, then maybe most college students just do not care. Though one would hope that these students do care about the innocent people who are suffering due to President Obama’s warmongering zeal. With the exception of President Jimmy Carter and unsuccessful candidates such as Eugene McCarthy, the Democratic Party has been a bloodthirsty war party since President Woodrow Wilson. It is unclear why college peaceniks have supported the progressive cause for so long given this violent streak of the party.

2. Civil liberties

Libertarians are champions of the Bill of Rights. While college students mostly seem to be indifferent to the Second Amendment, they have traditionally cared a lot about the First and Fourth Amendments. Libertarians like Senator Rand Paul support Constitutional rights over the growing despotism of the state. In contrast, President Obama smiles like a villain as he allows the NSA and other American spy agencies to violate the privacy rights of Americans and treat them like they are all criminals. The Democratic Party has long since stopped being the champion of civil liberties. So why do college students continue to support the party? Is it because President Obama is allegedly cool? Was he cool when he wore his “dad jeans” when throwing out a first pitch at a baseball game? Is he cool when he is on the golf course like any typical square politician? Is he cool when he allows the NSA to spy on everyone’s communications?

3. Drugs

It is no secret that many college students like to smoke an occasional bowl—or bong— of Mary Jane. Even those liberal college students who do not use drugs tend to disagree with the War on Drugs. Libertarians favor ending drug prohibition. The Democrats have had ample opportunity to end the War on Drugs, but they never do. President Obama has the power to pardon every single nonviolent drug offender languishing in federal prison. He has not. How can college students support a party whose leadership is okay with throwing people in cages like animals simply for using or selling drugs? Do they believe that these individuals deserve to be put in cages with murderers simply because they choose to use or sell substances which are like prescription drugs, alcohol, or cigarettes in many ways yet are not approved of by the powers that be? Do these college students believe that drug offenders should suffer just because the alcohol, tobacco, and pharmaceutical industries do not want the added competition? Really?

4. Race

Liberal college students have long opposed racism. “Color blindness” when it comes to race relations has long been practiced by these students. Just because the leader of the Democratic Party is black, it does not mean that the party is not racist. Continuing to prosecute the War on Drugs—which disproportionately harms minorities—should be evidence enough that the Democratic Party is racist. If it is not enough evidence, then the welfare state should provide more than enough evidence. The idea of the welfare state—as well as related programs like affirmative action—is that blacks and other racial minorities are not equal to whites. They simply cannot compete. Welfare programs make racial minorities and everyone else enrolled in the programs into dependent wards of the state. If these programs worked, then one would not expect poverty rates to be so high among blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians. The truth is that these programs do not work. Most likely, they were never intended to work. They were intended to make obedient and dependent citizens who will not dare question authority. In that regard, these programs are a success.

Libertarians, in contrast, support free market and economic opportunity. They support the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. They defend the natural rights of human beings regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, age, etc. The same is true regarding gay rights. Libertarians do not believe that it is the business of government to worry about, let alone discriminate against, people on the basis of their sexual orientation. The Democrats, in contrast, have only recently begrudgingly begun to support gay rights.

5. Economics

College students are inevitably anxious about their economic futures. They often carry a lot of debt for their educations. Student loans cannot be discharged in bankruptcy, so it is often imperative that college students be able to get well paying jobs to support themselves and pay for their loans. President Obama’s Neo-Progressive Democrats are crony capitalists who support the status quo. As long as their friends on Wall Street and in the “Green” sector do well, they care not about anyone else. In fact, the more people who fail economically, the more people who go onto welfare. The more people who are on welfare, the more people who are dependent on the government. Economic failure creates more potential voters who will support the Democratic Party.

Libertarians, on the other hand, favor ending the Federal Reserve, cutting government spending, cutting taxes, and cutting federal business regulations. These things will promote the growth of the economy. If college students want a bright economic future, then why are they not libertarians?

Cass Sunstein and Conspiracy Theories

by Gerard Emershaw

Cass Sunstein is at it again. The disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 has created an avalanche of conspiracy theories on the Internet. Was the plane hijacked by terrorists? Did its pilot fly it to some deserted island? Is it going to be used as a weapon in a future terrorist attack? Did it fly through a wormhole? Apparently any time that Americans choose to use their First Amendment rights to think outside the box and suggest alternative theories outside the mainstream, Cass Sunstein is going to use it as an excuse to get up on his soap box and preach about the alleged irrationality of conspiracy theories. Some conspiracy theories are irrational. No doubt. However, a statement is only true or false in virtue of empirical facts. While Ockham’s Razor—the doctrine that the simplest explanation is most likely to be true—is a good intellectual rule of thumb, sometimes complex explanations far outside the norm turn out to be true.

While Sunstein uses the phrase “false conspiracy theories”—implying that there are also true conspiracy theories—and lists a few such theories such as Watergate and MKUltra, as usual, he seeks to lump most so called conspiracy theories together. In the course of his recent Bloomberg piece, he lumps together such theories as the belief that the United States was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, that the United States government created the HIV virus, that vaccines can be harmful, that Princess Diana was murdered, that the Apollo moon landings were faked, and that Osama bin Laden was already dead when his compound in Pakistan was raided.

Sunstein begins his argument by claiming that some people are predisposed to believe in conspiracy theories. Thus, he claims, if one believes that the government faked the moon landing, then one will also be inclined to believe that the government was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Notice his strategy. He begins with the most ridiculous example imaginable and then ties it into a conspiracy theory, which while unlikely, is still plausible given how inadequate government investigations of the 9/11 attacks have been. What he is saying is that if you believe any conspiracy theory—which is to say if you ever dare question the government line about any event—then you are a tin foil hat wearing crazy person who thinks that Capricorn One was more of a realistic docudrama than silly sci fi B-movie.

Next, Sunstein claims: “Remarkably, people who accept one conspiracy theory tend to accept another conspiracy theory that is logically inconsistent with it.” The example he provides are:

People who believe that Princess Diana faked her own death are more likely to think that she was murdered. People who believe that Osama bin Laden was already dead when U.S. forces invaded his compound are more likely to believe that he is still alive.

Notice his strategy. He is using the Osama bin Laden example to again reinforce his not so subtle point that daring to question the official government story makes one a good candidate for a padded room and straitjacket. Apparently, anyone who wonders how a man who was possibly terminally ill with kidney cancer could have lived for so many more years is automatically a psychotic to tends to hold two opposite opinions at the same time. While the conspiracy theory that Osama bin Laden died prior to the Navy SEALs raid on his compound in 2011 is likely not true, it is not at all crazy to question the government’s official story on the matter. Why have the photos not been released? Why was the corpse buried at sea so hastily? Questioning the federal government and vetting any and all “conspiracy theories” about it is just due diligence in this day and age.

Next, Sunstein discusses the relationship between conspiracy theories and social networks: “If one person within a network insists that a conspiracy was at work, others within that network might well believe it.”  This is consistent with Sunstein’s totalitarian belief that the government should send agents onto the internet and “cognitively infiltrate” groups espousing conspiracy theories. It is one thing to send undercover agents to break up a dangerous terrorist group or organized crime family, but to waste such resources to infiltrate groups whose only crime is exercising their First Amendment rights? No conspiracy theory here, folks. Sunstein came right out and suggested this. What Sunstein is doing here is playing the guilt by association card. Some of your friends and family may be crazy and dangerous people who question the government. Ostracize such people at once!

Sunstein next discusses the concept of confirmation bias. When a belief is strongly held, one tends to give additional weight to evidence which supports that theory while giving less weight to evidence which conflicts with the belief. However, this works both ways. Those who believe in a conspiracy theory are no more or less likely to be victims of confirmation bias than those who believe in the conventional story. No matter what the belief, each person must be careful when evaluated evidence. However, someone who believes in one of Sunstein’s preferred conspiracy theories—such as global warming—are just as likely to give undue attention to evidence that supports the theory and ignore evidence which counts against it. This is just a human tendency which has nothing to do with one’s particular beliefs.

Sunstein concludes by stating that while most conspiracy theories are harmless, some are dangerous—such as the belief that vaccines are linked to autism. Furthermore, he warns that attempts to provide evidence against a dangerous conspiracy theory may only make the belief stronger: “Efforts to establish the truth might even be self-defeating, because they can increase suspicion and thus strengthen the very beliefs that they were meant to correct.” It is odd that he does not mention the weather here. It seems that any time there is evidence that global temperatures are not increasing, that evidence only makes global warming conspiracy theorists like him more inclined to believe.

Some conspiracy theories are false and some are true. Some are more rational to believe than others. However, conspiracy theories—like any theories—must be put to the test of empirical evidence in order to confirm them or falsify them. In the case of conspiracy theories concerning the government, the government’s track record of lying means that any conspiracy theory involving the government has some chance of being true. While Ockham’s Razor should be the first tool employed, there is no substitute for due diligence. There are just too many government conspiracy theories that turned out to be true to make it rational to dismiss all government conspiracy theories without investigation. See this link for a list of such theories.

Natural Right to Ricin?

by Gerard Emershaw

Daniel Harry Milzman, a 19-year-old Georgetown University student, was recently arrested by the FBI for possession of a biological toxin when he was caught with ricin in his dorm room. Ricin is a deadly toxin which is produced from the castor bean. There is no known antidote. There have been several incidents involving ricin over the last several decades. Ricin entered the pop culture zeitgeist when it was involved with several key plot points in the AMC television series “Breaking Bad.” Last summer Shannon Rogers Guess Richardson of Texas was arrested for mailing ricin letters to Mike Bloomberg, President Obama, and a lobbyist in an attempt to frame her husband.

In the case of Richardson, a crime was clearly committed. Mailing poisoned letters is an attempted deadly attack. However, in the case of Milzman, there was no attempted attack. It could be that having ricin in a dorm room constituted a clear and present danger. However, let us change the case a bit. Assume that someone like Milzman manufactured ricin and kept it in a secure location. Should there be a crime there or does a human being possess the natural right to possess ricin? Guns are no less deadly, and yet there is clearly a natural right to bear arms which is protected by the Second Amendment. Perhaps ricin is not as effective a means of self-defense as is a handgun or rifle. But so what? One can still envision situations in which one used poison in self-defense.

In addition to being a deadly poison, ricin has potential therapeutic use in fighting tumors. As such, scientists who register with the government are allowed to have small amounts of ricin.

If one is not using, planning, or conspiring to use ricin or the like to harm another human being, whose natural rights have been violated? Where is the victim? Why should it be a crime? There are countless substances which are potentially poisonous. If each were to be criminalized, the nation would be deprived of a large number of useful chemicals. So, where should the law draw the line? My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. If I do not swing my fist at your nose, should the government ban my fist?

This issue becomes even more difficult. Does a human being possess a natural right to own chemical weapons? Mustard gas? What about radioactive materials? Does a human being possess the natural right to own an atomic bomb? While it would be ridiculous to claim that a person in the suburbs is going to use a working replica of the Fat Boy atomic bomb to protect his or her white picket fenced 2 ½ bathroom home from burglars or home invaders, why assume it is for self-defense at all? Just assume that this person wishes to own an atomic bomb. Most would no doubt not even be willing to entertain this possibility. A libertarian is willing to give it some thought. Some libertarians may even conclude that there is a natural right to possess an atomic bomb. Most likely the federal government would claim that there is no way that members of the general public could safely control either ricin or nuclear devices and that such things represent a clear and present danger. But can the federal government use this to allow its national defense function override the exercise of freedom?

As long as Americans continue to be arrested and thrown into prison for merely possessing narcotics, the nation is far from the point where it needs to genuinely consider decriminalizing ricin or atomic bombs. However, it is far past the time when victimless crimes should be dropped from criminal codes. Human beings possess a natural right to use drugs. They have a natural right to engage in prostitution and to gamble. Do they also possess the natural right to possess ricin or an atomic bomb? Maybe. Let us end the War on Drugs and other ridiculous Puritanical crusades which violate natural rights by criminalizing consensual and victimless activities. Then we can continue this discussion.

The Millennials and the Future of Libertarianism

by Gerard Emershaw

The long-term future of any contemporary American political movement is largely dependent upon the attitudes of the Millennial generation, whose members are currently 18–33 years old. Libertarian ideas have had a resurgence in recent years thanks to politicians such as Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Justin Amash, television pundits such as John Stossel, Judge Andrew Napolitano, and Kennedy, and fictional pop culture icons such as Ron Swanson, Stan Marsh, and Kyle Broflovski. Oh, and also because libertarian ideas happen to be correct. The question is whether the burgeoning libertarian movement is going to be killed in the cradle as a result of Millennials having no interest in it. Is libertarianism a dinosaur or a dodo bird?

The results of a Pew Research study released in early March of 2014 provide interesting data which can be analyzed to give a picture of what kind of future libertarianism may have in the United States. Compared with earlier generations, Millennials are less likely to be affiliated with a particular religion or political party. Nearly 30% of Millennials are not affiliated with a particular religious group and half consider themselves political independents. Given the stranglehold that the two headed collectivist welfare/warfare party known as the Democrats and the Republicans has over politics on the national level in the United States, more independents mean potentially a greater likelihood of having libertarian ideas embraced on a wider scale.

Another encouraging sign is that Millennials are far less likely to trust others than are members of earlier generations. Only 19% of Millennials say that, generally speaking, most people can be trusted compared with 31% of the typically cynical Generation X, 37% of the Silent Generation, and 40% of Baby Boomers. One would think that this would mean that Millennials would be less likely to trust the government. Although it may not always seem like it, the government is made up of people. Hold that thought.

Millennials are also less likely than earlier generations to see any real difference between the two major political parties. 26% of Millennials see “hardly any” difference. This is another positive sign for the future prospects of libertarianism. If one in four see little difference, then that means that potentially that one in four can be swayed to a new party or a new wing of an existing party.

Unfortunately, Millennials seem to approve of President Obama. 60% of Millennials voted for him in 2012. 47% of older Millennials (born 1981–88) and 50% of younger Millennials (born 1989–98) approve of the job that the President is doing. However, these numbers are not incredibly high even when compared with the President’s current Gallup approval rating of 42%.

Millennials are more likely to support gay rights (51%), less likely to be religious (36%), and less likely to identify themselves as environmentalists (32%). These are all positive signs from the libertarian perspective. Unfortunately, fewer than half of Millennials (49%) identify themselves as patriotic. Not a good sign unless the Jingoistic nationalism that still often carries over from the Bush days has made them rightfully jaded.

The most interesting result is that the potential for libertarianism among Millennials breaks down according to race. Only 34% of white Millennials approve of the job that President Obama is doing compared with 67% of non-white Millennials. Even more interesting is the view of Millennials on the libertarian litmus test of government size. Only 39% of white Millennials would like a bigger government which provides more services compared with 52% who would prefer a smaller government which provides fewer services. This is consistent with the overall Millennial mistrust of others. If you cannot trust John Doe or Jane Doe, then why would you suddenly trust these two when they get government jobs and suddenly wield potentially despotic power over you? However, 71% of non-white Millennials would like a bigger government which provides more services compared with only 21% who would prefer a smaller government which provides fewer services. Given that the Millennial generation has a larger percentage of non-whites and that future generations will include even larger numbers of non-whites, this should be troubling for libertarians. In an earlier post, I puzzled over why there are so few black libertarians. The same question is no less puzzling when it comes to Hispanics or Asians in the United States. How has government been a friend to these ethnic communities? On immigration, the federal government has not been kind to Hispanics, allowing illegal aliens to be exploited by leaving them in a legal no man’s land. The federal government has surely never been kind to Asian-Americans. The internment of Japanese Americans during World War II is all that one needs to consider to come to that conclusion.

Therefore, in conclusion, it seems as if white Millennials are excellent candidates to embrace libertarian ideas. Libertarians must, however, reach out to non-white Millennials (and all non-white Americans in general). Freedom would benefit non-whites as much if not more than it would benefit whites in this country. Therefore, it is essential that those who espouse libertarian ideas—such as Senator Rand Paul when he spoke at Howard University—engage non-white Americans and expose them to libertarian ideas rather than acting like libertarian versions of Patrick Buchanan.

Libertarian Songs (Part 2)

by Gerard Emershaw

In the previous post, ten Libertarian songs were featured. This post will feature another ten songs that liberty lovers should consider putting on their playlists. Like the first list, these songs are listed in no particular order.

1. “Who’ll Stop the Rain” Creedence Clearwater Revival (1970)

John Fogerty’s Creedence Clearwater Revival was always difficult to categorize. They originated from San Francisco in the 1960s but rather than play folk music or psychedelia, they defied expectations by playing a bluesy form of slightly countrified southern rock. Instead of singing about free love, drugs, or the hippie culture, CCR sang about the mighty Mississippi and the bayou, selling over 25 million records in the process.

Politically, John Forgerty has also always been complex. While bothered by gun violence, he is a gun owner and hunter. Fogerty, like many artists in the late 1960s and early 1970s, opposed the Vietnam War. However, unlike many antiwar protesters at the time, Fogerty also opposed the welfare state. He identifies himself as a Democrat, but said in a 2013 interview: “I’d still loosely call myself a Democrat, but you know, I realize I’m probably a lot more like some kind of libertarian or something.”

The greatness of “Who’ll Stop the Rain” is its simplicity. A two and a half minute acoustic folksy number with a long thirty second fade out, the lyrics of the song succinctly critique government:

I went down Virginia, Seekin' shelter from the storm.
Caught up in the fable, I watched the tower grow.
Five year plans and new deals, Wrapped in golden chains.
And I wonder, Still I wonder Who'll stop the rain.

The “tower” of government grows bigger and bigger, and its effectiveness is seen as a “fable.” The rain—symbolic of social problems—cannot be solved by big government. “Five year plans” has a very totalitarian ring to it, evoking images of the Soviets or Maoist Chinese. “New deals,” of course, evokes images of progressive politics and FDR’s welfare state. Despite all its promises, all that government provides, in the opinion of CCR, is “golden chains.” This suggests something beautiful which winds up enslaving. The words of statist leaders are always beautiful, but their promises inevitably just end up taking more freedom away from the people.

2. “Get Up, Stand Up” Bob Marley and the Wailers (1973)

 

Many immediately think of marijuana when they hear Bob Marley or even when they hear reggae in general. While there is no denying that Mr. Marley occasionally liked to partake of cannabis, “Get Up, Stand Up” is not a song about drug legalization. The song is instead a rousing anthem about the importance of theists taking political action to defend their rights. Many religious believers—e.g. Christian fundamentalists—are so concerned about the hereafter that they wind up embodying a kind of learned helplessness in which they refuse to stand up for their earthly rights. Tyrants often take advantage of this. For example, Hitler urged Christian leaders in Germany to preach about Romans 13:

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. ² Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. ³ For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil.

In essence, if believers can be convinced to accept what governments do—no matter how harmful or evil—and to focus solely on getting into heaven, then tyranny will inevitably thrive.

Marley, who was part of the Rastafari movement before being baptized a Christian shortly before his death, warns about ignoring earthly tyranny by focusing solely upon heavenly deliverance:

Most people think,
Great God will come from the skies,
Take away everything
And make everybody feel high.
But if you know what life is worth,
You will look for yours on earth:
And now you see the light,
You stand up for your rights. Jah!

Regardless of one’s beliefs on the topic of religion, one must stand up for his or her rights. Marley explains that human beings have a right to life and that they must tirelessly defend it:

Get up, stand up! (Get up, stand up!)
Don't give up the fight! (Life is your right!)
Get up, stand up! (So we can't give up the fight!)

Not only is Marley aware of how obsessing about the hereafter can adversely affect the here and now, but he also realizes that religion can divide the people:

We sick an' tired of-a your ism-skism game -
Dyin' 'n' goin' to heaven in-a Jesus' name, Lord.
We know when we understand:
Almighty God is a living man.
You can fool some people sometimes,
But you can't fool all the people all the time.

When the people are divided according to religious ideology, tyranny will always triumph. Thus, people of all religious creeds—and also of no religious creed at all—must “get up” and stand up for their natural rights to life, liberty, and property.

3. “Minority” Green Day (2000)

Many punk purists have scoffed at Green Day since the pop punk band first made it big with their album Dookie in 1994. However, when it comes to anti-authoritarian anthems, few punk songs are as successful as “Minority.” In the song, Green Day celebrate individualism despite the fact that it often entails standing alone. The song embraces individualism against the authority of the state and the democratic tyranny of the majority:

I want to be the minority
I don't need your authority
Down with the moral majority
'Cause I want to be the minority

The song celebrates individualism not for the sake of anything but simply for its own intrinsic value:

I pledge allegiance to the underworld
One nation underdog
There of which I stand alone
A face in the crowd
Unsung, against the mold
Without a doubt
Singled out
The only way I know

According to Green Day, it is only the individualist who can inspire and create in a world that is often filled with darkness:

One light, one mind
Flashing in the dark

Ultimately, it does not matter that the unique and visionary individualist is such a “minority” because such a strong person needs no corroboration for his or her ideas:

A free for all
F@#$ 'em all
You're on your own side

4. “Another Brick in the Wall (Part 2)” Pink Floyd

 

What more can a libertarian or a music fan in general ask for? An anti-authoritarian anthem with a disco beat and a school choir by a psychedelic band turned prog rockers? What is not to love? “Another Brick in the Wall (Part 2)” is about students who protest against their abusive teachers. The song is part of The Wall—a concept album about isolation. Lyrically, the song consists of but one verse sung by Roger Waters and then repeated in full by a group of Islington Green School students:

We don't need no education
We don't need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teachers leave them kids alone
Hey teacher leave them kids alone
All in all it's just another brick in the wall
All in all you're just another brick in the wall

When many hear the song, they wrongly interpret the first lyric as meaning that students do not need education. This is incorrect. The lyric means that the children do not need “education” when what is meant by that is indoctrination. This “education” is “thought control” rather than the kind of knowledge and skills than enrich a person. Such propagandists disguised as educators should “leave them kids alone.” The Department of Education should have this song blasted outside its offices on a continuous loop from now until the day that the unconstitutional bureaucratic body is abolished. The “education” that such social engineers provide constitutes yet one more part of the alienation which threatens to isolate human beings.

5. “Liberty” Interrupters (2012)

To many libertarians, Aimee Allen, the lead singer of the punk/ska band Interrupters, is best known as the songstress who wrote and performed “The Ron Paul Anthem.” However, there is far more to Aimee Allen. A chameleonic talent, Allen is as skilled in acoustic folk pop as she is in snarling punk. “Liberty” is two minutes of punk perfection. Well, 1:55 anyway. The lyrics need no interpretation:

Drones in the sky
Government lies
Keeping an eye out
Tell me why they violate rights
Blue and red lights
Billyclub fights on my street at night

Where did my liberty go?
Now they're taking over and they got complete control
Where did my liberty go?

Poverty's high
Barely get by
They want you to suffer before you die
There's no movin' up
Too many mouths to feed
Take all they want from the ones who need

Better quiet down
Don't speak your mind
Nod your head like everything's fine
Don't verbalize it
Cause if they hear you
They'll hunt you down and disappear you

They took it away, they got complete control
Where did my liberty go?

6. “Long Haired Country Boy” Charlie Daniels Band (1974)

 

When one thinks of country music, it is easy to think of a right-wing statist attitude. However, Charlie Daniels has always been a unique individual. Politically, Daniels has been all over the map, supporting Jimmy Carter in 1977 and defending George W. Bush’s Iraq Policy in the early 2000s. Regardless of where he may stand, his song “Long Haired Country Boy” is a delicious country fried slice of libertarian individualism:

Daniels sings of the judgments that society makes about those who do not fit the mould:

People say I'm no good, and crazy as a loon
'Cause I get stoned in the mornin', I get drunk in the afternoon
Kinda like my old blue tick hound, I like to lay around in the shade
And I ain't got no money, but I damn sure got it made

However, since Daniels is not asking for society or for the government to take care of him, he states forcefully that society has no right to bother him:

'Cause I ain't askin' nobody for nothin'
If I can't get it on my own
If you don't like the way I'm livin'
You just leave this long haired country boy alone

Daniels also recognizes how many religious leaders abuse their position and use the alleged authority of God to enrich themselves:

Preacher man talking on TV, puttin' down the rock and roll
Wants me to send a donation, 'cause he's worried about my soul
He said, "Jesus walked on the water.", and I know that it's true
But sometimes I think that preacher man, would like to do a little walkin' too

In the final verse, ole Charlie gives one last insult to drug prohibition:

A drunkard wants another drink of wine, and a politician wants your vote
I don't want much of nothing at all, but I will take another toke

The timeless libertarian message of “leave me alone” has never been delivered in quite the way that Charlie Daniels delivers it.

7. “I Won’t Back Down” Tom Petty (1989)

Those who espouse liberty and refuse to be enslaved by the government or any other powers-that-be will always face potential bullying. Tom Petty’s 1989 rock classic from his first solo album is the ultimate vow of perseverance:

Well I won't back down, no I won't back down
You could stand me up at the gates of hell
But I won't back down

Long before that kid who used to be on “Degrassi” said YOLO, Tom Petty understood that human beings have but one life. He also recognizes that the world is always going to attack those who stand up for their beliefs:

Well I know what's right, I got just one life
In a world that keeps on pushin' me around
But I'll stand my ground and I won't back down

The life of truth and of liberty is always difficult, but like Petty, we should all stand our ground:

Hey baby there ain't no easy way out
Hey I will stand my ground
And I won't back down
No, I won't back down

8. “Cult of Personality” Living Color (1988)

Charismatic leaders can inspire the people. This is true whether that leader has nefarious intentions like Hitler or saintly ones like Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. Such charismatic figures inspire because they experience—or at least simulate—empathy:

Look in my eyes, what do you see?
Cult of personality
I know your anger, I know your dreams
I've been everything you want to be
I'm the cult of personality
Like Mussolini and Kennedy
I'm the cult of personality

The following song lyric is frighteningly prescient:

Neon lights, Nobel Prize
When a mirror speaks, the reflection lies

Charismatic leaders often become so beloved by the people that these leaders are still beloved even when they exploit the people:

I exploit you, still you love me
I told you one and one make three
I'm the cult of personality
Like Joseph Stalin and Gandhi

Unfortunately, even those who know better tend to praise charismatic leaders who seek to increase their power. Dull and colorless American Presidents such as Harding, Coolidge, Cleveland, and Tyler are dismissed despite how they stood up for Constitutional sized small government while charismatic tyrants on both sides of the political spectrum like Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR are lionized. As lovers of freedom, we must resist giving away our freedom to anyone, regardless of the justification and regardless of the hypnotic charisma that that individual may possess:

You gave me fortune
You gave me fame
You gave me power in your God's name
I'm every person you need to be
I'm the cult of personality

9. “Uprising” Muse (2009)

In 2009, the veteran British rock group Muse delivered a conspiratorial bass thumping anthem aimed right at the heart of the New World Order. In just a few words, “Uprising” begins by setting the listener in a dystopian society:

Paranoia is in bloom,
The PR, transmissions will resume
They'll try to, push drugs that keep us all dumbed down
And hope that, we will never see the truth around

As Orwellian and fantastical as this sounds, it is far more real than we might like to believe. The mainstream media at this point hardly gives unbiased news anymore. Now it is really nothing but government “PR” that is given to us electronically in “transmissions.” And with fluoride, Ritalin, and countless psychiatric medications that have proliferated, it is easy to see how we are all being dumbed down.

In addition, the government encourages consumerism. Shop, shop, shop, or the terrorists win! It also keeps the truth from us with bureaucratic red tape. Unless one is willing to jump through all the hoops to successfully file a Freedom of Information Act request, one is unlikely to be able to learn anything about the government’s machinations. And when a whistleblower dares to tell us the truth, he or she will invariably wind up imprisoned or exiled.

Another promise, another seed
Another, packaged lie to keep us trapped in greed
And all the, green belts wrapped around our minds
And endless red tape to keep the truth confined

In this growing technological totalitarian age, a patriot must be awake and must be willing to sacrifice and fight for his or her freedom:

Interchanging mind control
Come let the, revolution takes its toll
If you could, flick the switch and open your third eye
You'd see that, we should never be afraid to die

Unlike many dystopian works of art, “Uprising” is optimistic that those espousing truth and freedom will prevail:

Rise up and take the power back
It's time the, fat cats had a heart attack
You know that, their time's coming to an end
We have to, unify and watch our flag ascend

A rousing alternative rock cross between the theme from “Doctor Who” and Black Sabbath’s “Children of the Grave,” Muse’s “Uprising” inspires:

They will not force us
They will stop degrading us
They will not control us
We will be victorious
So come on

10. “War Pigs” Black Sabbath

 

Popular music is filled with war protest songs. Many of these were written by hippie types during the Vietnam War. None of these can match the unadulterated power of Black Sabbaths' “War Pigs.” The opening track from their debut album Paranoid created a chugging heavy metal analogy between war and black magic:

Generals gathered in their masses,
just like witches at black masses.
Evil minds that plot destruction,
sorcerers of death's construction.
In the fields the bodies burning,
as the war machine keeps turning.
Death and hatred to mankind,
poisoning their brainwashed minds...Oh lord yeah!

It is amazing that nobody prior to Geezer Butler had compared generals to witches at black masses. The truth of the matter is that while “witches” who were tortured and executed were innocent women who were scapegoated by misogynists, militarists who sacrifice the lives of others for their own narrow and selfish aims are the true Satanic forces. These violent despots sacrifice the lives of others while never putting themselves in danger:

Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor

Time will tell on their power minds
Making war just for fun
Treating people just like pawns in chess
Wait `till their judgment day comes, yeah!

The song concludes with Ozzy presenting the warmongers as damned creatures who will finally face judgment for their evil deeds. Unfortunately, this metaphor, while attractive, is only a metaphor. The only way that the War Pigs can be defeated is by refusing to give them the power to wage their wars. Unfortunately, Congress has unconstitutionally given the President power to wage war like an Emperor and the people have willingly allowed this by ignoring this when the President was from their favored party. When President Bush was acting like a dictator, Republicans yawned. Now that President Obama is doing it, Democrats are yawning. Unless the people put principles ahead of party, then “War Pigs” will continue to triumph.

Now in darkness, world stops turning,
as you hear the bodies burning.
No more war pigs of the power,
hand of god has struck the hour.
Day of judgment, god is calling,
on their knees the war pigs crawling.
Begging mercy for their sins,
Satan, laughing, spreads his wings...Oh lord, yeah! 

(For a detailed discussion of an array of libertarian issues, read my new book The Real Culture War: Individualism vs. Collectivism & How Bill O’Reilly Got It All Wrong. Available now on Amazon in both print and Kindle.)