Libertarianism is a political philosophy maintaining that all persons are the absolute owners of their own lives, and should be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property, provided they allow others the same liberty. Broadly speaking, there are two types of libertarians: consequentialists and rights theorists.[1] Rights theorists hold that it is morally imperative that all human interaction, including government interaction with private individuals, should be voluntary and consensual. They maintain that the initiation of force by any person or government, against another person or their property — with "force" meaning the use of physical force, the threat of it, or the commission of fraud against someone — who has not initiated physical force, threat, or fraud, is a violation of that principle. This form of libertarianism is associated with Objectivists, as well as with individualist anarchists who believe opposition to the State (i.e, government in general) is consistent with this principle.
Consequentialist libertarians do not have a moral prohibition against "initiation of force," but believe that allowing a very large scope of political and economic liberty results in the maximum well-being or efficiency for a society - even if protecting this liberty involves some initiation of force by government. However, such governmental actions are limited in the free society consequentialists envision. This type of libertarianism is associated with Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, and Friedrich Hayek. Some writers who have been called libertarians have also been referred to as classical liberals, by others or themselves. Also, some use the phrase "the freedom philosophy" to refer to libertarianism, classical liberalism, or both.
Libertarians generally do not oppose force used in response to initiatory aggressions such as violence, fraud or trespassing. Libertarians favor an ethic of self-responsibility and strongly oppose conscription and the welfare state, because they believe coercing someone to provide charity and military service is ethically wrong, ultimately counter-productive, or both. Apart from some very basic principles favoring personal freedom and free markets, there is not a canon of "official" libertarian beliefs. Libertarians may disagree with other libertarians over specific issues.
The central tenet of libertarianism is the principle of self-ownership. To libertarians, an individual human being is sovereign over his/her body, extending to life, liberty and property. As such, libertarians define liberty as being completely free in action, whilst not initiating force or fraud against the life, liberty or property of another human being. This is otherwise known as the non-aggression principle.
Libertarians generally view constraints imposed by the state on persons or their property (if applicable), beyond the need to penalize infringement of one's rights by another, as a violation of liberty. Anarchist libertarians favor no governmental constraints at all, based on the assumption that rulers and laws are unnecessary because in the absence of government individuals will naturally form self-governing social bonds, rules, customs, codes, and contracts. In contrast, minarchist libertarians consider government necessary for the sole purpose of protecting the rights of the people. This includes protecting people and their property from the criminal acts of others, as well as providing for national defense.
Libertarians generally defend the ideal of freedom from the perspective of how little one is constrained by authority, that is, how much one is allowed to do, which is referred to as negative liberty. This ideal is distinguished from a view of freedom focused on how much one is able to do, which is termed positive liberty, a distinction first noted by John Stuart Mill, and later described in fuller detail by Isaiah Berlin.
Many libertarians view life, liberty, and property as the ultimate rights possessed by individuals, and that compromising one necessarily endangers the rest. In democracies, they consider compromise of these individual rights by political action to be "tyranny by the majority", a term first coined by Alexis de Tocqueville, and made famous by John Stuart Mill, which emphasizes the threat of the majority to impose majority norms on minorities, and violating their rights in the process. "...There needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them..."
Some libertarians favor Common Law, which they see as less arbitrary and more adaptable than statutory law. The relative benefits of common law evolving toward ever-finer definitions of property rights were articulated by thinkers such as Friedrich Hayek, Richard Epstein, Robert Nozick, and Randy Barnett. Some libertarian thinkers believe that this evolution can define away various "commons" such as pollution or other interactions viewed by some as externalities. "A libertarian society would not allow anyone to injure others by pollution because it insists on individual responsibility."
The 1973 Arab oil embargo interrupted the flow of oil causing severe gasoline shortages and long lines at gas stations. The embargo exposed America's growing oil dependence and gave the American people their first warning of the price they would pay for continued dependence on imported oil. The 1979 Iranian revolution interrupted the flow of oil again — this was the second warning, signaling the urgent need for American Energy Independence. The 1991 Persian Gulf War was a military intervention to stop one dictator from taking control of Middle East oil — this was the third and most severe warning. Failure to make energy independence the nation's highest priority after the Gulf War demonstrated that the United States did not have the political will to free itself from dependence on foreign oil.Today, the world consumes over 80 million barrels of oil every day (over 30 billion barrels per year); the USA alone consumes over 20 million barrels per day (over 7 billion barrels per year). At an average price of $60 per barrel, the global petroleum industry is a 1.8 trillion dollar a year business. Development of alternative energy to free the world from oil will create a seismic shift within the economic foundation of the world. Energy is not oil. Energy can be taken from other natural resources. Oil is merely a convenient source of energy. With the help of new technology, America's energy needs can be obtained from sources other than petroleum.American technology has put a man on the moon, mapped the human genome, and successfully landed robotic exploration vehicles on Mars. It seems reasonable to believe that American scientists and engineers could also develop environmentally safe alternative energy technology that would free America from oil dependence.Unfortunately, some people want to discourage investment in alternative energy, arguing that oil is cheaper than other sources of energy; therefore, they argue, alternative energy will not be competitive in a free market economy. When the rules of the free market undermine the security and prosperity of the nation, the American people need to change the rules. A free market is the engine of prosperity and economic growth, but unrestrained greed can hurt people; for example: Enron. Unrestrained greed, dishonest executives, foreign oil monopoly, the added expense of protecting the country from terrorism, and the fact that the Global Economy is far from being a level playing field, all work together to undermine the security and prosperity of America. It is time for America to lead the development of new energy technology that will free the world from dependence on oil. Freedom from oil dependence will cut-off the flow of oil money to the Middle East and put an end to the financial support of militant Islam. Cost of the Iraq war could surpass $1 trillion Compare with The Cost of American Energy Independence
When in the Course of human events it becomesnecessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the Repcratics and Democins partys, is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.They has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.Repcratics and Democins have forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.Repcratics and Democins have refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.Repcratics and Democins has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with Their measures.They have dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.Repcratics and Democins has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.Repcratics and Democins has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.Repcratics and Democins has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.Repcratics and Democins has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.Repcratics and Democins has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.Republicen and Democratics has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures(police Nationat Guard).Repcratics and Democins has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.Repcratics and Democins has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these ColoniesFor taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.Repcratics and Democins has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.Repcratics and Democins has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.— John Hancock
Amazing how well Repcratics and Democins fits; and yes Repcratics and Democins, either way its the same thing.....
Self improvement is masturbation. I've watched the movie "Fight Club" probably close to 100 times, and I never quite understood the meaning of that quote. The other day, it slammed me fully in the face like a sledgehammer. Through this rough time that I've gone through, full of pining and self pity, I never once stopped going to the gym. Going to the gym is my habit, that I do almost every day, rain or shine, feeling shitty or feeling great. Why? Because I want to look good. Because it makes me feel good. It makes me feel great. Improving myself, improving my body. Self improvement is masturbation. Masturbation feels so great, but why? What are you really accomplishing, other than beating your dick raw? For some reason, this revelation of a time consuming but ultimately futile endeavor has disturbed me. I've still been going to the gym, but I'm a little bothered as to the why. I always thought I knew ... hell. Suddenly I realize it was all so I could get my ego nice and hard. It's a kind of realization that chips at you, slowly. Narcissism. Like everyone, it's repulsive ... unless it's about me. Who doesn't want to be considered healthy, vibrant, attractive? Who wouldn't give everything to be all those things? For whatever reason, I decided to shave all the hair off my body. Not concerned with the smoothness of the shave, I took the guard off my electric hair clippers that I use to also cut my own hair, and did the deed, tufts of hair everywhere in the bathroom. Rather gross. I stood there, appraisingly, pleased, and not pleased. Itchy, thinking about various Greek and Roman statues, and the new idealization of male beauty. I looked at my bare, cleanly shaven forearms ... I could see a bunch of paper thin scars, as well as the round indentation of where I had put a cigarette out on my own forearm. All of these wounds were self inflicted when I was younger. Now I consider myself a good person, but I suddenly realized that I didn't even know who I was in the slightest. I couldn't fathom what kind of idiot kid would put a cigarette out on his own arm to try and feel tough, but yes, six years ago, that was me. I was that idiot. I was the kid with long hair, going through different phases, trying to experiment and "find himself", and figure out who I was and where I was supposed to be. I feel like I did a lot of bad things in that time period, and I still feel guilt when I look back. A lot of guilt. Things I can't talk about, ever ... dark things. Is everyone like this? How do you find your own identity? I thought I knew who I was, but then I do things and say things and feel things that I don't understand, that I can't account for and suddenly I don't know who I am anymore. Am I the good person I try to be, or the destructive vandal that seems to live within me? I'm torn between wanting to be Superman, and wanting to be Tyler Durden. It sounds hokey. I've never felt more pressure than the directions I'm being pulled, like a literal battle between good and evil, right and wrong. I'm starting to think the road to true self destruction isn't about destroying your body with alcohol, killing your brain with drugs, or becoming lazy and apathetic about the world at all. It's about continual self improvement.
Blind to everything else. (not me but I can relate)
It was with the Industrial Revolution, as society plunged ever more eagerly into the conquest of material riches and bent all its energies to the accumulation of goods, that material poverty became a major problem. Obviously, this meant abandonment or downgrading of spiritual values, virtue, etc. To share or not to share in the increase of the collective wealth—this was the Number One question. It was the desire to acquire wealth that prompted the poor to start fighting. And the rich were hypocrites when they accused the poor (who were no longer interested in "spiritual values") of materialism. For the rich had given the example and set society on the acquisitive path. The great business of the whole society and therefore of all its members, was to increase consumption of goods. But obviously, the moment this is the first objective, the ideal, lack of goods, is the principal drama.
blank
angry
infuriated
discontent