What is your identity?

 

    The dictionary describes Identity Politics as "a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics."  In our current political climate we find most voters could care less about the issues and more about which candidate their social group has backed.  People do not want to take the time to listen to the candidates position on issues, look at their voting records, listen to past speeches, and actual try to find which candidate would best help move them forward.  Instead people turn to the media for sound bites and video clips, which can obviously be manipulated to fit the stations narrative.  A lot of times if you find the speech transcripts or actual full speech you realize that what you saw and took as fact was one sentence of a much larger statement that said nothing even close to the sentence you had heard.

    I was listening to Quake on Sirius XM a little while ago and his panel was discussing Donald Trump.  For those who don't know who Quake is he is a black male comedian.  His panel that day was entirely black people as well.  In this discussion he said, I am paraphrasing, "Donald Trump's economic policies allowed me to pay off a debt my business has had for years and helped my bottom line." HIs panel then said it sounded like he was going to vote for Trump in 2020 to which he responded "Fuck that guy!"  This shit right here is something I cannot understand.  The policies and bills Trump has pushed for and signed helped him pay debt that he was never able to pay with Democratic/Obama policies but because he is a black man he feels like he has to vote Trump out of office.  Since when did your bottom line getting better and you having more money become secondary to what political letter was behind a Presidents name?  To me I am concerned with my financial success and the ability I have to get rid of debt and support my family.  I don't really care who is in office as long as the policies put in place benefit my goals and ambitions.

    The Democrats and left have made a business out of identity politics.  They have consistently kept the African American community at a disadvantage.  The Democrats began the KKK, made welfare a career option, destroyed once beautiful cities like San Francisco, and done little to reduce crime due to lax policies.  They also brought drugs and liquor stores into the inner cities to decline the health of the people in that community and get them addicted.  If you look at our current situation across the US where thugs and rioter are destroying cities and demanding no police a vast majority of them have been Democratically run for decades.  Cities like Detroit, Chicago, LA, New York, Seattle, Portland, and many others have been financially destroyed and left to rot.  Flint has been without clean water for years and Michigan is run by the Democrats!  The politicians in these cities demand federal funding to pull them out of financial ruin and that is not right for states being properly run.

    Every single election year we see a rise in the liberal media of encouraging racial divide and showing how Republicans do not support the black community.  This furthers the racial and identity politics.  The only time we hear about Americans as a whole and passing laws and bills to help all Americans is from the right and Republicans.  Democrats have convinced the poor and ethnic communities when they hear "Americans" it mean rich white people and corporations.  This is 100% incorrect.  The Dems make a point of promising increases in welfare, free phones, free health care, free money, and other free things that appeal to those struggling.  What they fail to point out is to pay for all the free they are going to raise taxes.  Of course they say only on the rich people but in reality it is on everyone who is employed.  Every worker has to pay more taxes and support those people receiving free.

    So why stay blind to the obvious?  Why would people stay in the dark and just trust what the Rich White politicians are saying?  The reality is lifelong and career politicians do everything they can to keep the poor people poor and create more through their policies.  They do everything they can to skew the system to increase their wealth.  They care about their bottom line ahead of yours.  There are a few who do not, Trump is one of them.  HE has yet to take a paycheck for doing the job.  He donates every single pay he receives to a charity.  No other President has ever done that.  So I think term limits are a great solution.  Get rid of politicians who spend their entire life in politics.  Force them to live as common people by not providing a lifetime retirement regardless of their years of service.  Only when we open our eyes, vote on the issues, read and learn about the records of the politicians, and force them to work for us will we begin to succeed.  Until then you have to decide What is your identity?

Movements of inequality

     

    In this era of people demanding they be heard and represented we have seen the destruction of science, the rise of re-segregation, and the destruction of masculinity as we know it.  We have seen the rise of movements which claim there are thousands of genders, African Americans are still enslaved and hunted by authorities due to racism, women have never been nor are they currently equal to men in the work force, and schools are where your child should be taught morals and values and you as parents are to uneducated to properly teach them.  I thought I would cover these movements today and why we need to get back to some form of normal.

    Lets start with what I feel is the most outrageous and scientifically inaccurate "movement", there are more than two genders.  When I was in school I learned that there were two genders, men and women. As of an article dated Dec 2019 there are 64 terms to describe gender identity and expression.  The term Gender Neutral pronoun is often used to describe what a person feels they are and that is not just male or female.  Some of these pronouns tell you what to call yourself if you feel like a robot, alien, car, dog, cat, etc.  The list is thousands of terms deep and it is absolutely ridiculous.  I recently heard that we are no longer aloud to use the term woman to describe someone who should get cervical exams and can give birth.  Instead we are supposed to use the phrase "person with a cervix".  Here is my biggest problem with this one, ONLY women have a cervix, can give birth, and need cervical exams for cancer.  This movement is a mental disorder and we need to put a stop making it normal.  I am asking anyone out there if you have any scientific evidence to refute the fact there is only 2 genders/sexes please let me know and I will gladly change my opinion.  That evidence cannot start with the phrase "They feel like....."

    In the most recent movement, which I wont call outrageous or unnecessary is the Black lives matter movement.  What I will say is outrageous is the organization itself.  The organization has pushed for a re-segregation of college dormitories and spaces to create "black only" bathrooms, dorms, and rec spaces.  They are also pushing for the defunding of police.  The problem there is defunding or disbanding the police will negatively impact the black community the most.  Rich people will not be hurt by this as they can afford walls, private security, and other forms of protection that poor and impoverished people cannot.  We saw this play out in the CHOP zone in Seattle.  Police left and the area was turned over to a rapper names RAZ who brought in his own security forces with zero oversight.  Crime increased and within mere days the zone was in chaos and people had been beaten, robbed and murdered.  The civil rights movement fought hard to rid the US of segregation and make us a more united people.  This organization is trying their best to divide us.  That is the biggest problem with it as I see it.

    We have also been taught recently that women make far less than their male counterparts in the work place.  In 2018 we were told women made .82 for every dollar a man in the same position made.  What the proponents fail to take into account is the education, work history, time in position, or seniority in the company.  When those things are taken into account we see that regardless of gender the pay for the person with fewer of these factors is less than someone meeting more of them.  There was a time where women were not provided the opportunity at certain positions based solely on their gender and we have taken steps to rid or workplaces of that.  The gender wage gap movement would have you believe more qualified women are being paid less simply by what is in their pants.  This itself is wholly inaccurate.

    Finally our education system has been affected by a movement as well.  It is a movement to teach our kids a false history of our country, of biology, and most of all of that the parents know nothing and they need to teach them.  I have personally witnessed our history being removed and replaced.  My oldest son came home when he was in third grade with a poster he made about Abraham Lincoln.  He was so proud and showed us what he made.  The only positive things were he was the 16th President and freed the slaves.  The latter point was immediately followed by the statement "But it is important to remember he and other founding fathers owned slaved too" while accurate is that really what he should be remembered for?  I remember the same fact but when I went to school we were taught he had slaves but treated them well and after emancipation many of them chose to stay and continue working for his family.  All our youth are taught today is how terrible our founding fathers are, how they were slave owners, how they were terrible people who did nothing to help anyone other than white men.  In biology class they are being taught gender is fluid, a man can be a woman and vice versa, and if you want to play with dolls or wear your moms high heels than you are gay.  They push gender reassignment surgery on kids as young as eight.  Math has been changed to common core making it impossible for parents to help their kids with homework.  English is being transformed and no longer holds to the tenants and rules we were taught about proper English.  All of this prevents parents from taking active roles in their kids education.  And last but definitely not least they have banned the reading of a bible in class but teach about Islam and other religions.  All of that should be learned at home by the parents.

    Most social movements in their inception are started for a purpose.  Along the way the movements get taken by radicals and transformed to create inequality the other way where equality was needed.  Then at some point the formerly majority class is marginalized and demonized until they themselves become the minority and the group that is unequal.  The movements of inequality will never stop because there will always be people who feel they deserver more and others deserve less.  The benefit of our society is we have the freedom to speak up and attempt to change what we see as unequal.  I am all for equality across the board for valid reasons.  Creating reasons to be offended, creating genders, and removing our history does not create equality, it destroys what allows for equality to thrive!

His Wallet, His Choice

    

Enough with the introduction posts!  Time to ruffle feathers and start some fun.  So I figure the first major issue I would tackle was one which could not be more controversial, ABORTION!  Ok I hear the groans and see the eye rolls but bear with me and you might be surprised.

    So as it stands in America the choice to have an abortion is 100% the decision of the woman who is pregnant.  Most people have one of three opinions, 1. Pro-Abortion 2. Anti-abortion 3. Pro-choice.  The people who are pro-abortion feel as though it should be a constitutional right to have an abortion and us tax payers should pay for it.  The anti-abortionist think abortion is murder and want it banned completely.  The pro-choice crowd want the choice to be there but in most cases does not want it funded by tax dollars.  All sides makes good points and bad points.  The last point of contention is the fact it is 100% the woman's choice.  We hear the slogan repeated often, her body her choice.

    Pro-abortionist want it legalized and supported by government funding.  They believe the baby is a human from the moment of birth, not conception. The positives here are that for any reason the mother can choose to end the life of their child.  She also would not have to find a way to pay for it as tax dollars would provide the service.  They also would like businesses to pay for the abortions in the form of mandated health care by the govt.  While that all sounds very loving and compassionate there are problems with this stance as well.  First of all it allows a mother to end the life of her child for any reason at all, even her poor choices leading to the pregnancy.  The next problem is tax dollars paying for the service.  This is a problem because that tax money comes from supporters and non-supporters alike.  Thus making anti-abortion advocates pay for a service they oppose.  The last issue is forcing all businesses to include the service in their employee health care.  Even if the business is against abortion, such as Catholic or Christian run businesses.  As you can see the issue is contains a lot of grey area and leaves a lot of room for debate.

    The anti-abortionists want the whole process banned entirely.  To them the baby is an individual life from the moment the egg and sperm meet.  One of the big pushes in recent years is to make abortion a crime that could send the mother to prison.  The good things about this position are 1. It saves innocent lives. 2. Tax dollars are not used to support the service. But here the bad out weigh the good.  The bad in this case is preventing someone from making a choice which impacts them as much at their child.  It also sends a woman to prison for making what is considered the hardest decision in her life.  Taking away our personal freedoms is not something I support at all.  In this scenario there is no room for debate.  They claim abortion is murder and by definition it is, but once again there is a lot of grey area that is not taken into account.

    The last group is the pro-choice group.  On first glance this would be the best option.  It allows the freedom of choice, makes payment for service the responsibility of the woman or her employer, and gives a much broader brush for abuse of the service.  This group is divided on two main points 1. payment and 2. when it should be allowed.  The payment we have covered, it is split between govt or private funding.  The second point we haven't really touched on, reason for the abortion.  One side wants it to be her choice for any reason.  The other side wants it allowed only in the cases of rape, incest, or birth defect.  All of these points are very much up for debate and this category is where most Americans fall in.

    The last part of this debate comes in the form of the choice itself.  As of now the father of the child has absolutely no right to stop an abortion.  He gets to participate in the fun and if she wants to keep the baby he is required to pay child support for the child.  On the other hand if he wants to keep his child and she doesn't then he has to suffer the loss of a child and deal with the emotional damage done.  The father of the child having zero say in the decision made it where I have my biggest problem.  Every pregnancy is half the mother and half the father.  There is no reason his choice should not be considered or allowed.  Under current law the father is required to pay for the child for 18 years, even if he did not want the pregnancy to continue, that to me is unfair.  But the response to this is "He had a choice before they had sex and choose to not wear protection so he has to step up to his responsibility" this is true 100%.  But the other side is she also had the same choice and chose not to have protection either.

    My solution for this is, in my mind, a simple one.  I am ok with the choice being 100% the mothers.  If she chooses to abort, she pays for it.  Her body, her choice in this case.  If she chooses to keep it and the father wants it aborted then he pays no child support.  His wallet, his choice in this case.  This situation makes the decision the mothers completely.  But the choice must be made knowing if the father does not want the child they will receive no support.  The father in this case would be offered emotional counseling for the loss he suffered, at his cost.  I think this solution is fair to all parties involved.  I would personally not choose to ever abort my child but I also think it isn't my place to force a woman to carry a child that is not mine if she does not want it.

    Please let me know your thoughts and I look forward to all of our future debates!

Liberalism is the politics of the poor

    

A few weeks ago I was listening to a podcast and the host made a very interesting observation.  When discussing the policies of Democrats and Republicans he said "Democrats are the party of the poor and Republicans are the party of the rich".  He went on to elaborate that because of this it influences the policies of the political parties.  Mainly that for Democrats to be elected they need to enact policies that keep a large enough population poor to allow them to continue to win elections.  Republicans on the other hand tend to want people to gain wealth and prosperity and become rich.  Thus both parties pass laws which allow their voter base to thrive.  So why is this important?  In my view I want to become wealthy.  I want to be able to retire and live comfortably.  I want to keep a large portion of my income and limit the amount that gets taken from me.  With that in mind why would I support Democratic or Liberal politics?  I don't see the benefit of keeping people poor and desperate.  Yet we see liberal policies which encourage people to rely heavily on the government for their own sustainment.  Liberals tend to push sweeping government programs that give the down and out everything they need instead of helping them grow out of that need.  Conservatives tend to pass legislation which enables people to have support while also gaining skills and knowledge to stop using govt assistance after some time.

    Covid-19 has given us a very real look at these policies in action.  As more and more people were furloughed from their jobs due to the lockdowns we saw a huge rise in the need for welfare, food stamps, etc.  The main problem with the CARE act is a lot of people that were approved for assistance found they were making more on the govt aid than they were making working full time at a job.  President Trump this past weekend signed four separate executive orders.  One of these reduced the unemployment payments from $600/week to $400/week.  This is important because that $200 difference will encourage people to get back into the workplace and stop relying on govt assistance.  The Liberals and Democrats were pushing for an increase in this payment to something above $600/month.  That would have made going back to work for a large majority of Americans less economical and thus keeping them at home.  Nothing about Covid-19 is easy as far as decision making goes.  Of course as a conservative I want people to earn their pay and thrive economically.  I also as an independent want to show charity and make sure people are supported and have the things they need with minimal risk of catching the virus.  So what is the solution?

    The last thing I wanted to take a look at is the conspiracy that the Covid-19 virus, lockdown, and continued debate was created by people who support all Liberal positions.  Meaning they support higher minimum wages, more welfare support, and most of all the removal of Donald Trump and all others who oppose their views.  For three and a half years we have seen the left wing politicians like Pelosi, Schumer, and others try to find any reason to get Trump out of office.  Immediately after he won the election several prominent Democrats stated they had enough for an impeachment, not sure how as impeachment usually is for actions taken while in office.  Then it was Russian collusion, turns out the Russians were working with the Obama Admin to aid Hillary.  Then they pivoted to Ukraine.  A phone call which in the end tuned out to be a dead end.  Then came racial unrest at the beginning of this year.  All of which I feel were done or being done to get Trump out.

    As a country we need to Unite as Americans.  The things I have seen Trump do don't divide us they have been done to unite us.  His twitter posts most definitely should be vetted prior to being posted but on the world stage he has made us stronger than we have been in a long time.  I am all for policies which enable more of us to become wealthy and enable people to get off of the reliance on big daddy government.  The more power we as Americans give to them the less ability we will have to take it back.  A govt which keeps the poor down to further political ambitions is a govt which will ultimately fail.  In all countries where socialism or communism has been tried it has failed.  Not because it wasn't done right but simply because the system only works when the rich elites stay in power and create a destitute population who doesn't know anything other than the govt putting food on their tables.  If anyone doubts that is the case I say find someone you know who comes from Cuba, Argentina, or any of the many socialist nations and ask them about their experience. I am going to guess a majority if not all of them will say that system and the system currently being pushed by Liberals and Democrats is not the way to go.  Once again I ask Why would I go with a system which is the politics of the poor aka Liberalism?

What exactly is a Libertarian Independent Pt 3- The Finale!

    

We have reached the last of a 3 part series of posts which have laid out the Libertarian platform and what I agree and disagree with.  I thought this approach would allow anyone who reads it to better understand the platform and exactly why I called my blog The Libertarian Independent. So without further adieu here is the final section of the platform!

3.0 Securing Liberty

The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments.

3.1 National Defense: We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

As a former member of the military I support this statement.  We for too long have been drawn into conflicts around the world to help maintain peace.  More often than not we get labeled the bad guys and are often told we are not wanted.  I don't feel we should put our men and women in harms way if it is not to ensure our countries safety.  

3.2 Internal Security and Individual Rights: The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens. The Constitution and Bill of Rights shall not be suspended even during time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government’s use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law. We oppose the use of torture and other cruel and unusual punishments, without exception.

I agree with everything here except the end point.  I think interrogations are useful and allow us to further protect our country.  My biggest issue with this part is who is it tat defines torture?

3.3 International Affairs: American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.

So this point is what some would classify as Nationalism, and I support that.  I think we need to pull back and take care of our country and our people first.  We cannot spread ourselves as thin as we do without leaving a huge hole for more acts of terrorism like 9/11.

3.4 Free Trade and Migration: We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.

I tink restrictions on trade should be lighter but not gone al together.  I am not sure the best course of action for this as I am not as educated on trade as well as I should be.  

3.5 Rights and Discrimination: Libertarians embrace the concept that all people are born with certain inherent rights. We reject the idea that a natural right can ever impose an obligation upon others to fulfill that “right.” We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should neither deny nor abridge any individual’s human right based upon sex, wealth, ethnicity, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference, or sexual orientation. Members of private organizations retain their rights to set whatever standards of association they deem appropriate, and individuals are free to respond with ostracism, boycotts, and other free market solutions.

I absolutely agree with this statement.  Private organizations should be allowed to set their own standards and it is our responsibility to either associate with them or not.  

3.6 Representative Government: We support election systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state and local levels. As private voluntary groups, political parties should be free to establish their own rules for nomination procedures, primaries and conventions. We call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns. We oppose laws that effectively exclude alternative candidates and parties, deny ballot access, gerrymander districts, or deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives. We advocate initiative, referendum, recall and repeal when used as popular checks on government.

I am happy with the way our system works except for the fact we don't have voter ID and some people without the right to vote have been voting regularly.

3.7 Self-Determination:

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty.

I agree in part.  I think people should hae the right to change the govt as they wish.  But this should be done through proper voting and such.  Violent overthrow is not something I will ever support.

And with that we have reached the end.  The next post will be looking at actual issues/stories of the day so I am excited.  Please share the blog if you dig it and help get my readership up!

What exactly is a Libertarian Independent Pt 2!

    Back for part 2 of the Libertarian platform and why I call myself a Libertarian Independent!  So part 2 of the Libertarian platform is all about economic security.  As with Part 1 I am going to post the sections and then agree or disagree with all or part of each one.  There are 3 sections so 3 parts to this series of posts.  BUt the blog itself will not be at all like this, I am simply laying the foundation so those who may read future posts can understand where I am coming from.  So here we go! 

2.0 ECONOMIC LIBERTY: Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.

The main thing to take away for the original statement here is this "The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected.  And I definitely agree that redistribution of wealth is improper in a free society.  Nobody should take from another and give to someone else.

2.1 Property and Contract: As respect for property rights is fundamental to maintaining a free and prosperous society, it follows that the freedom to contract to obtain, retain, profit from, manage, or dispose of one’s property must also be upheld. Libertarians would free property owners from government restrictions on their rights to control and enjoy their property, as long as their choices do not harm or infringe on the rights of others. Eminent domain, civil asset forfeiture, governmental limits on profits, governmental production mandates, and governmental controls on prices of goods and services (including wages, rents, and interest) are abridgements of such fundamental rights. For voluntary dealings among private entities, parties should be free to choose with whom they trade and set whatever trade terms are mutually agreeable.

So I agree here.  The govt has no place to tell someone what they can and cannot do on their own property as long as the activities do not infringe on the rights of others or do harm to others.  The govt should not be allowed to take ones property unless the person has violated these terms.  Yearly property taxes are complete crap, when you purchase a home you pay taxes, that should be it.

2.2 Environment: Competitive free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Governments are unaccountable for damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights and responsibilities regarding resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Where damages can be proven and quantified in a court of law, restitution to the injured parties must be required.

I think this is true.  Private land owners most definitely have a vested interest in maintaining the natural resources.  The govt has a terrible track record and should be held accountable if proof of wrongdoing is there.

2.3 Energy and Resources: While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.

I also agree here.  The gas prices are a perfect example of how prices are more influenced by govt regulation than the actual market.  

2.4 Government Finance and Spending: All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. We support any initiative to reduce or abolish any tax, and oppose any increase on any tax for any reason. To the extent possible, we advocate that all public services be funded in a voluntary manner.

So this one is a little more complex for me.  while I understand that taxes are needed to help fund our govt I do not agree with the current tax system.  As it stand now a majority of Americans pay no taxes, meaning people pay taxes to the govt all year and then get a fat tax return come tax time.  Leaving the govt funding to the small percentage who cannot get a tax return.  I believe in a 100% flat tax.  This means 100% of workers pay a flat tax of say 10-15%.  No one gets a return.  By doing this the govt would have more than enough funds to handle their business.

2.5 Government Debt: Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a “Balanced Budget Amendment” to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.

We should require the govt to give us a balanced budget for all the spending.  Why should we as citizens be forced to budget to survive?  The govt should be held to these standards as well.

2.6 Government Employees: We favor repealing any requirement that one must join or pay dues to a union as a condition of government employment. We advocate replacing defined-benefit pensions with defined-contribution plans, as are commonly offered in the private sector, so as not to impose debt on future generations without their consent.

I am completely against unions.  I think when they were created there was a need.  But now they are so corrupt the only people that benefit are the higher ups in the unions.  The everyday workers get screwed from them and the employer in most cases.  I also agree with the idea of forcing govt workers to have a private retirement account.  Mostly we see this with upper govt like congress, a congress person get a lifelong pension even if they only serve a small amount of time.

2.7 Money and Financial Markets: We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Markets are not actually free unless fraud is vigorously combated. Those who enjoy the possibility of profits must not impose risks of losses upon others, such as through government guarantees or bailouts. We support ending federal student loan guarantees and special treatment of student loan debt in bankruptcy proceedings. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item. We support a halt to inflationary monetary policies and unconstitutional legal tender laws.

Not too much for me here as I haven't dealt with any of this so I have no stance.  The one aspect I do agree is the govt falsely inflating our currency.  That is only good for the govt.

2.8 Marketplace Freedom: Libertarians support free markets. We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of entities based on voluntary association. We oppose all forms of government subsidies and bailouts to business, labor, or any other special interest. Government should not compete with private enterprise.

100% agree here.  Businesses should thrive or fail on their own.  NO bailouts for anyone.

2.9 Licensing: Libertarians support the right of every person to earn an honest and peaceful living through the free and voluntary exchange of goods and services. Accordingly, we oppose occupational and other licensing laws that infringe on this right or treat it as a state-granted privilege. We encourage certifications by voluntary associations of professionals.

So I disagree with the idea of banning occupational licensing.  Those regulations keep people safe and are needed.

2.10 Sex Work: The Libertarian Party supports the decriminalization of prostitution. We assert the right of consenting adults to provide sexual services to clients for compensation, and the right of clients to purchase sexual services from consenting sex workers.

As I stated yesterday I think this should be allowed.  The only caveat would be the mandatory health screening to prevent spreading of disease.

2.11 Labor Markets: Employment and compensation agreements between private employers and employees are outside the scope of government, and these contracts should not be encumbered by government-mandated benefits or social engineering. We support the right of private employers and employees to choose whether or not to bargain with each other through a labor union. Bargaining should be free of government interference, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.

This is how business should be done.  If you agree to work for a certain amount of money then do it.  We see some people find out others who do the same job get paid more and then voice discontent and demand higher pay.  Lack of negotiating skill is not a valid reason to demand more.  If a business underpays employees they will lose employees and eventually lose their business, that is the free market.

2.12 Education: Education is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality, accountability, and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Recognizing that the education of children is a parental responsibility, we would restore authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. Parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children’s education.

When it comes to education I think a parent should be free to send their child to a school of their choosing.  School vouchers would help less economically privileged kids get to better schools.  Failing schools should be allowed to fail and close.  Standards for teachers should be higher and they should get paid more for those skills.  I also feel the classroom is not a place for political teaching, unless it is a government class!

2.13 Health Care: We favor a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want (if any), the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. People should be free to purchase health insurance across state lines.

So let me start by saying health care is not a right.  Here the statement "the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want (if any)" is absolutely correct.  I also agree purchasing across state lines should be allowed and it would encourage a more equitable system.

2.14 Retirement and Income Security: Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. Libertarians would phase out the current government-sponsored Social Security system and transition to a private voluntary system. The proper and most effective source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals. We believe members of society will become even more charitable and civil society will be strengthened as government reduces its activity in this realm.

We have already seen the social security system fall behind as far as support for seniors.  The govt has used those funds to fund other things and taken it away from those who paid into the system.  I would support the idea of phasing out the system and moving toward a more equitable private system.  I also agree if we became more charitable as a society the need for govt programs will be reduced over time.

    So there it is part 2 of the positions and where I fall with them.  Tomorrows post will be a lot shorter but cover very interesting things.  I appreciate those who are reading and participating, most of all I appreciate everyone being so respectful!

 

What exactly is a Libertarian Independent PT1

     

My oldest son and I had an interesting discussion the other day after I posted my last blog.  He noted that he wasn't sure I was a Libertarian as much as a Conservative.  So I of course dove into research on the Libertarian platform.  So this blog and the next few will be covering the Libertarian platform and which ones I agree with, disagree with or partly agree with.  I am hoping by doing this I can give you all a good insight into my viewpoints as many of my blogs will most likely sound very conservative.  But for those who may not be aware Conservatives and Libertarians are not too far separated from one another.

    So for this blog I am covering the Preamble and part 1.0 of their website, https://www.lp.org/platform/.  Here is what the preamble says:

"As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty: a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and are not forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others. We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized. Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power. In the following pages we set forth our basic principles and enumerate various policy stands derived from those principles. These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands."

Now in this I agree with the statement "a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and are not forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others."  I firmly believe it is our values that make us who we are.  If we are forced to compromise our values and beliefs as to not offend someone then what is true individual freedom?  The other part I wanted to highlight is "we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings."  As long as what you are doing is peaceful and honest then you should be free to do as you see fit.  Peaceful assembly is a right granted to us in the Constitution and should be protected at all costs.  Now a major part of that is that your activities are peaceful and do not infringe on the rights of anyone else.  The freedoms we are guaranteed in the Constitution allow for diversity.  To me that is diversity of thought, actions, relationships, etc.

Section 1.0 of the platform is all about Personal Liberty.  

1.1 Self-Ownership: Individuals own their bodies and have rights over them that other individuals, groups, and governments may not violate. Individuals have the freedom and responsibility to decide what they knowingly and voluntarily consume, and what risks they accept to their own health, finances, safety, or life.

I agree with this in its entirety.  We do own our own bodies and must accept the consequences of decisions we make about what happens with them.

1.2 Expression and Communication: We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation, or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.

Again I agree. Freedom of expression is one of our primary rights.  As for religion I have never been able to comprehend why people hate those who do or do not worship.  Personal choice in this is just that, personal.  I oppose censorship and believe parents should be responsible for what their kids are and are not watching, listening to, or doing!

1.3 Privacy: Libertarians advocate individual privacy and government transparency. We are committed to ending government’s practice of spying on everyone. We support the rights recognized by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, property, and communications. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure should include records held by third parties, such as email, medical, and library records.

I agree 100%  Self explanatory I think.

1.4 Personal Relationships: Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration, or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, promote, license, or restrict personal relationships, regardless of the number of participants. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Until such time as the government stops its illegitimate practice of marriage licensing, such licenses must be granted to all consenting adults who apply.

Here is one I think my son was surprised about.  I do agree with this.  I think marriage should not be something the govt is involved in.  It began as a religious institution and should go back to that.  I think whatever adult relationships you are in are you business.  Now along with the govt butting out I also believe people should not be forced to support any relationships they may disagree with, see the Colorado baker who would not make a wedding cake for a gay wedding as he did not agree with gay marriages.  Capitalism evens all of this out based on community actions.  If the baker in this case was known to have these views and lost business which closed his shop then so be it.  Conversely if his community supported him in light of that his business should succeed.  This cancel culture we are developing does nothing but destroy others who disagree with you and needs to stop.  If you don't agree with a business or individuals opinions don't associate with it, period. 

1.5 Abortion: Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

I also agree here.  Every single situation is different and the decisions made by the woman or couple is theirs alone.  If it was my relationship and decision I personally would not as I believe life starts at conception.  At the same time I do not think the govt should be involved in the decision at all.  

1.6 Parental Rights: Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs, provided that the rights of children to be free from abuse and neglect are also protected.

ABSOLUTELY!  As long as the children are not being abused or neglected the government should leave them alone.  Parents need to reassume responsibility for raising their kids.  The parents alone know what their kids need or not.  

1.7 Crime and Justice: Government force must be limited to the protection of the rights of individuals to life, liberty, and property, and governments must never be permitted to violate these rights. Laws should be limited in their application to violations of the rights of others through force or fraud, or to deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Therefore, we favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as gambling, the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes, and consensual transactions involving sexual services. We support restitution to the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. The constitutional rights of the criminally accused, including due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must be preserved. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law. We oppose the prosecutorial practice of “over-charging” in criminal prosecutions so as to avoid jury trials by intimidating defendants into accepting plea bargains.

This one is a little more complicated for me.  I will start where I agree.  I think the laws should be limited to violations of the rights of others, which actually covers most crimes.  I think prostitution should be allowed, oldest profession in the world right.  But with that STD testing and such should be mandatory. I support restitution to the victims at the violators expense.  Constitutional rights must be preserved and I support the abolishment of "over-charging" to avoid trial.  I think there should be no plea bargains and stricter repeat violator consequences.  I do not agree with the the idea gambling and drug/alcohol use are victimless crimes.  While the action is only performed by the person doing it there are other people who are affected through actions before during or after the "crime" happens.

1.8 Death Penalty: We oppose the administration of the death penalty by the state.

I actually disagree entirely.  I think the death penalty should be more strongly enforced.  I think death row should not be a lifetime appointment.  I say give the convicted 2 appeals.  If they both fail they receive a date for execution.  This date will be within 30 days.  Maybe if we make the death penalty an actual threat criminals will be more concerned with getting there.

1.9 Self-Defense: The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. Private property owners should be free to establish their own conditions regarding the presence of personal defense weapons on their own property. We oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, registering, or monitoring the ownership, manufacture, or transfer of firearms or ammunition.

And lastly I agree 100% here.  Our second amendment rights were not given to us to allow the government to monitor us, track our arms, and restrict which ones we can have.  They were given to us to allow us to protect ourselves from any form of aggression, governmental or personal.  This is a right we should protect at all costs because as Benjamin Franklin said "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety".

    That is the end of the first set in the platform.  I think you will find a lot of my ideas and thoughts on current and future events follow the beliefs I have laid out here.  Tomorrow we tackle the second section which is about economic liberty.  Please take time if you dig the blog to comment, share, and give your opinions!