Liberty: It is not that complicated!

I really dont know how Ron Paul does it, arguing with idiots all day and somehow managing not to go ape shit on them for their ignorance. I can not express how frustrating it is to have such amazing ideas that could so thoroughly revolutionize the world, be so uniformly misunderstood. What I am about to say is an extremely EXTREMELY basic principle, and it is not that complicated.

Libertarians believe in personal liberty and freedom. This does NOT mean they agree with the actions of everything they think should be legal, or that they do not support something simply because they do not feel it should be government funded. They simply believe in a very very small, limited government, that doesn't really play a role in people's day to day lives, and has very little power outside of the justice system. (Other parts of the "liberty movement" believe in no government at all.)

Gay Marriage
 With all the hoopla that went on about Phil Robertson saying his comments on gays, many who are incapable of thoughtful analysis and principled concepts, took my support of Phil Robertson to mean I think the government should be involved in marriage and tell gay people they "should not be allowed to get married."

Do you really think on that shallow of a level? Because if so, that is scary. You do realize you could be a GAY PERSON and still support Phil Robertson's right to speak freely without being publicly chastised?  You can also be the most gay hating person in the world but still understand the dangers of allowing the government into something as private and personal as marriage, and because of that believe gays should be allowed to get married.

Just because you morally oppose something doesn't mean that you think it should be "illegal" is that really so hard to understand? Libertarian Christians especially understand the dangers of allowing the government into our churches, the same power they use to stop gays from marrying could be used in a short amount of time to stop Christians from marrying... No thank you!

Likewise, you can HATE prostitution, heroin, gay marriage and alcohol yet still think the government should not be involved in criminalizing those things due to the infringement on our personal liberty such laws would create.

DUI Checkpoints: 
Another often misunderstood example; DUI checkpoints. I am morally opposed to DUI checkpoints because they are an infringement on the right to privacy of every person the police question throughout the night. This is not Nazi Germany. We should be able to go from point A to point B without getting harassed and questioned by police, especially without probable cause. Because of my stance on this issue I have had people act as though I want people to drive drunk and kill people!

 NO, just because I do not think the police have the right to stop old ladies coming home from bingo on Friday night does NOT mean I support people getting wasted and endangering/violating the rights of everyone they jeopardize with their irresponsible and reckless behavior.  All I am asking for is a respect of our basic human decency and rights as individuals. If someone is driving like a moron swerving drunk all over the road, by all means pull them over and kick their ass while you are at it! But no, I do not care who you are, NO ONE, especially not a police officer, has the right to stop people at random, force them to roll down their window, and answer questions without you being a suspect and there being a damn good reason!

Government Run Public School System:
Many believe that because libertatians do not support a public school system or a welfare state, they are "against education" and "want poor people to starve and die." You do realize countries with the largest welfare states have the most impoverished citizens right?

I LOVE education, and when I say love it I mean I LOOOOVE it. I spent my evenings after school and homework reading "a book a day" (most of which were well over 100 pages) throughout grade school, and volunteered to do 12 page projects on the solar system "for fun".

 In middle school  I agonized over writing plots in English, submerged myself in reading,  and poured my heart into my paintings in art class. In College I became obsessed with current events, social issues,  economics, and Geo-politics. After all nighters in the library, I would head to Barnes and Noble, to get as many books as I could afford on the subjects just because I wanted to better understand them. I'd have lively conversations with my professors, and chase them down after lectures just to pick their brains, talk philosophy, and discuss ideas. I am currently working toward my Graduate degree in English, not for a job, but simply because I love learning, I love writing, and I love literature. 

With all that said, I do not think the government should have a role in the public education system, because I do not think there should be a government run "public education system" It is nothing more than a co-ed prison system for children to go to during the day. They are all taught the exact way, to think about the exact same subjects, all taught not to question, all taught to sit still, all taught to be the same cookie cutter version of each other. There is no diversity, the learning is shallow, it teaches children what to think, not HOW to think, not how to question. Because it is government run, it instills in children, a dependence and trust of the government that is neither deserved or warranted. Thus, resulting in the apathy we see today, as people across the country do not bat an eyelid or even mind as their privacy is violated, as their information is stored, as their freedom is stripped away by their "beloved and just government". 

"Well if there was not a government education system, wouldn't there be many kids from poor families who would never get an education?"

The answer is "Far less than there are today!" Churches would offer educational programs, charities and non profits would take donations teaching those whose parents can not afford tuition. The internet would make education easily accessible and affordable for everyone. The number of families homeschooling would quadruple, children would be taught by their own parents, with the values their parents believe are right, taught in ways their parents deem acceptable, not what some stranger government worker deems acceptable. Diversity would thrive, as children from all different cultures and belief systems would be able to cultivate their unique talents, and foster the uniqueness of their cultures. Ideas would flourish, because they would be given the freedom to flourish, without the burden of making education "one size fits all" We would regain a sense of community, compassion, and care for our neighbor, because there would no longer be the "government safety net" that took 40% of the money we would have shared if we had been given the chance. How it would look on the outside would be very similar to what we have today. There would be large institutions paid for and run by charities and non profits open to all ( just as government run public education is open to all) , some children taught at home, some at specialized schools, but it would be a VOLUNTARY exchange. One that allows education the freedom it needs to thrive. As someone who loves education, that is pretty cool!

Is this really so complicated? We should live our lives FREE of the government. Meaning there will be things we disapprove of but due to individual rights we still believe the action we find immoral should be legal. There can be many things we think are WONDERFUL such as charity, education, and feeding the poor. Yet even though we support these things 100%, we believe they should not be government supported. This is because of individual freedom and the freedom that would be taken from the individual by taking their property (ie wages via taxes)  to subsidize such programs. Taxation is theft, as it is money taken from business owners and individuals by the government against their will for things they possibly do not even consent to. Regardless of if they do or do not consent,  the government still takes this money, ie this "property". We believe the government should have nothing to do with even "moral" causes or social programs. At the same time we can  disagree vehemently with things like prostitution, drug use, and gay marriage, yet believe they should remain legal.

We have the freedom to choose how to live our own life. We have the freedom to fail and the freedom to succeed, we have the freedom to starve or gorge. We have the right to decide what we put into our own bodies, We as individuals have the right to decide how and in what way we want to educate our children. We have the right to our own property, we have the right to our own privacy. We have the right to keep the fruits of our own labor. We have an obligation to help our neighbor, and we should, but no government, no man on this earth, has the right to steal from one to give to another as he deems fit.

Restore rights to the individual, restore power to the people. Let us be the governor of our own lives. With freedom and liberty there is responsibility.

Duck Dynasty and the War on Christianity in the Marketplace of Ideas

 Unless you have been living under a rock, you have probably heard the news that A&E indefinitely suspended Phil Robertston after giving his opinion on homosexuality for an interview with GQ Magazine. linked here: GQ Interview with Phil Robertson

You have probably also heard that as of yesterday, a mere 9 days after A&E announced their decision, leading to what can only be described as all hell breaking loose, they retracted their decision, and have since allowed Phil Robertson back onto the show, and plan to resume filming, with all cast members included as normal.

I suppose I really shouldnt be surprised by this sort of thing anymore but I truly can not get over the hypocrisy, oppression, and "group think" of the liberal mafia. Does a company have the right to hire and fire whoever they want based on their beliefs; of course. I believe companies should be able to hire, fire, serve, or not serve whoever they please. I believe very strongly in that because I believe in property rights. The issue is more than that, who needs a government to silence the population when we have a culture and a media that silences, vilifies, and minimizes all those who do not "fall in line", or anyone who has an opinion outside of those force fed to us in public schools?

I didn't really care if A&E reinstated Phil or not, seeing as if they did not allow him to return, another network would simply pick up the show. I absolutely support Phil Robertson, and even joined the facebook group to boycott A&E unless they reinstated him, but regardless of their decision, I knew the family and show would be fine and simply move on to bigger and better things if it was infact cancelled (due to the fact the family would not continue the show without him), I believe Phil has every right to say and express his beliefs, just as A&E has every right to hire and fire whoever they please. my issue was more so with the demonization and hatred hurled at him in the subsequent days following the interview for speaking basic christian beliefs. 

Liberals and the LGBT community have a free pass to say whatever they want. They are applauded by the mainstream media as "heros" while bashing christians, calling them bigoted, hateful, and speaking about how  christians destroy society and culture. Yet the one time a christian respectfully and lovingly shares their view, they are demonized. I have never even seen people react so violently to one man's opinion. If you claim to be a christian, and believe the bible in regards to homosexuality, these people literally want to destroy your life!

They want you fired and ostrasized from your job and any potential employment, by this, I mean, they want you living on the streets begging for a penny!

They want your friends to disown you

Your kids to hate you

Your wife to leave you

and for you to die alone and miserable covered in boils.

What is wrong with these people? 

Not only is the LGBT community the most falsely "oppressed" group I've ever heard of, (although feminists claiming all the injustices done to them by men are a close second) but they stand for zero diversity in ideas.

This reminds me of Carrie Prejean, (The Miss USA contestant) who simply answered a question when asked about her opinion on gay marriage. She was clearly a very classy and respectful woman, and the media truly wanted to destroy every aspect of her life. They dug in her past and released sex tapes of her, pundits spouting diversity and "tolerance" went on national media calling her a whore and a bigot. She was robbed of her title and called every vile utterance known to man. - This is the LGBT activists idea of "stopping hate"?

Why would it matter anyway? People are far more than a few opinions they may have. Even if there is a horrible belief someone has for example: A man raised in a super health conscious family having a disdain for fat people and expressing that.  - Do you really believe because of his one opinion he deserves to die by knife wound to the heart? That same man could be a loving husband, father, a great provider and brilliant thinker.

Even if Phil Robertson believed something horrible such as racism, so what? Trust me I hate racism more than almost anyone you can think of, and plan on adopting children from both Africa and Asia, but I am certainly not going to hate a sweet old man, simply going along with the way he may have been taught. Many racists are that way because it simply was what they were taught growing up. They can still be loving husbands, providers, thinkers, and loving kind people. They just have a backward world view of some issues. What is wrong with people that they would attack someone for a belief that most in his demographic and age range hold? There is no tolerance here for other backgrounds or beliefs, no compassion for humans, no human dignity.

How can we evolve and solve problems like war, famine, racism, and debt, when the politically correct police seek to destroy anyone who dares to have the "against the grain" thinking that could solve many of our problems?

When Natalie of the Dixie Chicks spoke out against the Iraq war in its onset, she was destroyed for her belief. She  only wanted to see an end to killing and war, and didnt want innocent people dying for unjust reasons, and yet because she stood for peace her record sales dropped, she was banned from radio stations and Dixie Chick memorabilia was burned at the stake (literally).

What if instead we had just let her hold her view, giving others the strength and confidence to hold their own without fear of reprimand or chastisement? We probably would have woken up to the disgusting nature of the United States military much sooner, and hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved. Women who are now widows and children who are now fatherless would have their husbands, and fathers at the dinner table with them right now.

It is very apparent these groups don't even care about the cause they claim to care for so dearly. If they truly cared, they would be open for discussion, they would want opposing viewpoints to be heard, because discussion is a way that leads to the truth. These people do not stand for truth.  Their true cause is to see the death of Christianity and everything wholesome, pure, and productive that has led our nation into prosperity. Their support goes instead to everything that has led our culture to the morally bankrupt, vapid, debt ridden country we see now.

Why would A&E feel as though it even has to consider removing the words "In Jesus" from the family prayer? - We are not even to mention the name of Christ? The culture and media has made it top priority that so much as the very confession of being a Christian should be deemed as "politically incorrect"

What is most appaulling is that his statements really were not even controversial, he simply stated that to him the fact that a man can be attracted to another man doesnt even seem logical, because women are so much more desirable to men.

wow - Scandelous!!!

I am pretty sure any man who is not gay feels that way, otherwise they themselves would be gay because they would find men more desirable. People all across America are probably sitting at home thinking "wait, Im a christian, I agree with what he said, wow, I didnt realize my beliefs were so controversial and offensive, I better never share them."  The media and the left are sending a message, and using Phil Robertson as their example. "Fall in line, deny the bible, agree with us, abandon your convictions, or be destroyed."

This truly saddens me, especially because this country was founded so people could have freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the ability to believe what they want.You would think the result would be a culture who cherishes diversity and unpopular opinion. The mainstream media is so out of touch with the demographic of society that goes to church and has family values that they don't even realize we exist. I think they thought all of America would jump on the bandwagon, at the evil, bigoted, racist, mean, christian Phil Robertson being "exposed" as the scum he is. I imagine groups such as Boycott A&E Until Phil Robertson is Returned to Duck Dynasty came as a complete shock to networks, for generating over 1,700,000 likes, 1,000,000 of them within the first 24 hours.

Now the media is trying to turn the knife on this guy, they must somehow turn him into a villian, because anyone who is a christian and doesn't support homosexuality has to be painted as a "bad guy" He is not only being painted as hateful and ignorant, but now also as a racist. Reporters take simple statements such as this:

“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

And turning it into statements about his character such as "He is claiming to know exactly what the black experience was like during that time" or " I didnt realize he was an expert in the experience of blacks"

wtf?

The message is, if you are Christian and believe the bible,  you are ignorant, arrogant, racist, and a horrible person who needs to be "told" (For things you more than likely didn't even say)

When did he claim to be an expert in anything besides duck hunting? He was just talking about what he witnessed in his youth. This is him claiming to be an expert?  His words are manipulated and twisted by media outlets to make it appear as though he said things he simply did not say. Hell even if he had claimed to "know the black experience", even if had said a diatribe of "ignorant" things, who cares? Why are you getting mad at and bullying someone who very clearly is a loving, gracious, and kind person - something the author of the GQ article himself even recognized.

Anyway, after the Robertson family released their statement, saying they would not continue the show without Phil, and after the ratings dropped, A&E made the decision to bring him back on.  :The Robertson Family's official statement

I suppose this is a somewhat "happy" ending to a story that serves to show how marginalized and hated Christianity has become in modern culture. Let this be a reminder to us to brace ourselves, hold on, and stay strong.

"The fact that the Illuminati and the mainstream media mind controllers hate Christians, Jesus, Conservatives, Christmas and Family Values, speaks volumes about their Satanic agenda and why we should oppose these demons with all our strength". - Mark Dice