Neoliberalism doesn't exist

I have decided that I really do have to break with most of my fellow online Leftists and agree with Casual Historian that Neoliberalism isn't actually a thing.  But it's not just a talking point of self described Socialists and Communists but also of Progressive Liberals, Centrist History YouTubers and even some online Conservatives.

Now it is true that the Republican and Democratic Parties are really just variations of the same basic Economic ideology, that ideology being Free Market Liberalism, no Neo prefix necessary, and they exist alongside various other variants.

The Neoliberalism narrative typically goes like this. 

Milton Freidman developed the Chicago School of Economics in the 1970s and influenced the Economic Policies of Chilean Dictator Pinochet.  Sometimes a claim that his ideology is just a slight modification of Ayn Rand's is thrown in.

Then in the 80s Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher applied Freidman's ideology in the U.S. and U.K. overthrowing the prior Keynesian status quo.  

Finally in the 90s under Bill Clinton and Tony Blair the parties that were supposed to oppose those parties just caved and became just as Neoliberal and really still disagreeing with the other party only on Social Issues and sometimes maybe Foreign Policy.

I'm going to work backwards here, but I can only really comment on the U.S. since I don't have the lived experience of growing up in the U.K. during the 90s.

The core ideology of the mainstream Democratic Party is just as Keynesian as it ever was.  The destruction of Cash Welfare during the Clinton Administration wasn't spearheaded by Clinton himself, it was a consequence of the Republicans taking control of the House under Newt Gingrich.

Since then the Democrats have never had enough control necessary to undo all the Reagan era damage.  Even when controlling the White House and both Houses of Congress they've never had a Filibuster Proof Majority.  The last Presidential Election to ever be a true landslide was 1984.  We've been in a fairly perpetual stalemate for a Generation.  In my opinion to deny the Obama administration was Keynesian is as absurd as denying he was an born in Hawaii.

But another reason people fail to see Keynesianism in the modern Democratic Party is that some people waxing Nostalgic for the 50s have overstated just how Progressive Keynes actually was.  He was not anywhere near the Social Democracy of Bernie Sanders, he didn't want Nationalization of Industries and he wasn't even as big a fan of Welfare and Unions as you probably assumed he was.  If anything it might be possible to argue that modern Democrats are actually closer to Keynes then FDR or Kennedy were.

Now it is true thar Milton Freidman was an influence on Reaganomics, he was an advisor to Reagan and other Republican leaders, but he wasn't their only advisor, regular old William F. Buckley style Conservatives were the far greater influence.  And the U.S. Government becoming more fiscally Conservative actually started under Carter.  Opposition to Social Programs and Government hand outs for the Poor had been a part of Burkean Conservatism since Edmund Burke himself in Thoughts and Details on Scarcity, Reagan didn't need the Chicago Boys to get the idea.

Milton Freidman wanted the Federal Reserve Abolished, Decriminalization of Drugs and Prostitution and no Minimum Wage.  The last of those is indeed something Republicans want but simply aren't getting.  But the Republican Party as a whole never even began to flirt with even mild criticism of The Federal Reserve until after Ron Paul made his big impact in the 2008 Election.  And Friedman's opposition to the Federal Reserve was not some minor issue you can deem expendable, it was a core pillar of his ideology, as long as we still have the Fed you can't claim Freidman won.

Ron Paul was an outlier within the Republican Party, and even he wasn't a Chicago Schooler, he was Austrian School like Murry Rothbard.  Milton Freidman hated both Rothbard and Ayn Rand, and Rand hated all Libertarians from either school.

Frankly I feel Neoliberalism discourse is parallel to the old Neoconservatism discourse I remember from my Ron Paul supporting youth.  I've never seen anyone self describe as either Neoliberal or Neoconservative, and after watching some videos from a Trotskyist deconstructing the Trotskyism-Neoconservatism pipeline narrative I'm pretty sure it too isn't a real thing.

Neoconservatism was a boogeyman invented by Pacifist Conservatives to justify their denial that War Mongering has always been a part of the Conservative Tradition, but it has from William McKinley to how Joseph McCarthy became Senator.  Likewise I think the Neoliberalism narrative began among Progressive Liberals who wanted to deny that the problems of the last 4 decades are innate to Market Economies.  Then a bunch of those Liberals became Socialists after jumping on the Occupy Wallstreet or Bernie Sanders bandwagon and that's where Breadtube comes from.

I've also seen it suggested that Neoconservatism should maybe be considered an Antisemitic Dog Whistle, from the claimed Trotsky connection to the claimed Henry Kissinger connection to the sometimes claimed association with William F Buckley's Zionism.  And the way they would often be depicted as behind the scenes manipulators "Neocons don't win elections, they attach themselves to winners" was a quote I remember.

And since it's Milton Freidman and Ayn Rand who's actual influence on the current status quo is being massively overstated, and a WASP Gentile who's continued influence is being denied, maybe Neoliberalism should be considered an Antisemitic Dog Whistle as well.

Update: Here's an interesting Twitter Conversation I had after sharing this.

https://twitter.com/afran90/status/1689419942964199424

Another Update: John Todd

John Todd was in the 70s a Right Wing Evangelical Christian Conspiracy Theorist, one of the first to claim to actually be a former member of the Illuminati who left, before Warnke or Schneoblen made that a trend.  He specifically claimed that Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged was the Illuminati Blueprint for a Satanaic Take Over and even specifically predicted 1980 would be the year of that take over.

In other words the Neoliberalism Narrative actually claims the predictions of a 70s Conspiracy Theorist were essentially right, simply minus the accusing them of worshiping Satan.

Capitalism is Atheistic in Nature.

Economic Liberalism is what I mainly mean by Capitalism for the purpose of this post, the current Justifying Ideology of Capitalism.  But that being the title of the post is problematic because too many Americans don't know what Liberalism means.

Adam Smith is often called the "Philosopher of Capitalism" as if he is to Capitalism what Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels are to Communism. Adam Smith was also an Atheist, there is some dispute about this technically, some try to argue he was more a Deist (which was basically Atheism with plausible deniability) but from my research he was definitely an Atheist.

Before Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations he wrote The Theory of Moral Sentiments which was basically an attempt to explain the development of morality naturalistically.  His Economic Philosophy was built on this secular moral philosophy.  David Hume was an English Economic Philosopher who came just a little before Smith and overlapped with him, in some ways his ideas are more inline with the beliefs of modern Apologists of Capitalism them Smith's and he was even more of an Atheist.

A French laissez-faire Economist contemporary with Hume and Smith was Paul d'Holbach who was also an Atheist, as was Denis Diderot and Jacques-Andre Naigeon, meanwhile Voltaire and Montesquieu were Deists and also didn't speak much on Economics directly.  The Physiocrats were also definitely Secularists though exactly what they believed about Religion I can't pin down.  And don't think you can pretend Voltaire could have bene a socialist, he was a Bourgeoise intellectual who "never intended to enlighten shoemakers and servants".  The only Socialist among the major French Philosophs was Rousseau who was also the most Christian of them.

The most actually religious Economist of the late 18th early 19th Century was Thomas Malthus, but while some of Malthus's most well known ideas were influential on future Capitalist Economists he himself was not one, he was critiquing the rise of Capitalism from a more old fashioned late Feudalist perspective.

Later in the 20th Century a woman named Ayn Rand would develop a philosophy that is essentially Capitalism in it's purest most unrestrained and unapologetic form.  She was also a rabid Atheist who was frequently enraged at seeing American Christians try to co-opt her ideas to serve their Christianized Capitalism.  Rand was also a stated influence on the philosophy of Anton Levy the founder of the Church of Satan, which is exactly the Satanism people mean when they say Satanists are actually Atheists and Satan is just a symbol to them, their Satan is a symbol of Capitalist Individualism.  Another inlfuence on Levy was the 1896 individualist text Might Is Right.

Between Smith and Rand it continued to be Atheists making vital contributions to Individualist philosophy, from the Atheist Existentialist Philosophers cited in Josh McNamee's Man of Steel video, to Charles Bradlaugh to Nietzsche and Social Darwinists like Herbert Spencer, to H.L. Mencken, Charles Lee Smith, James Hervey Johnson and Irving Fisher.  John Stuart Mill was also an Atheist though this wasn't publicly known while he was alive, between Mill and Smith were Jeremy Bentham, Francis Place and James Mill.  And to more specifically look at mid 20th century Economists, whether you're looking at the Austrian School, the Keynesian School or the Chicago School, secularists like Milton Friedman, Keynes, Murry Rothbard and Hayek are always at the center.  

Capitalism as a Mode of Production was very much forming already before we reach Hume, d'Holbach and Smith, but that happened because of economic developments that were not exactly pre-planned or premediated.  The Philosophers of Liberalism who came before them were not thinking much about economics but mostly focusing on what they and the Socialists had in common, opposing Absolute Monarchy.  The 1640-1660 English Revolution was Socio-Economically speaking an internal dispute within Feudalism as it had been operating in England for Centuries, the only group involved in all of that who were calling for a total reworking of how society is Economically structured were the Diggers lead by Gerrard Winstanley who were Anarcho-Communists, and they were basing their ideas on The Bible.

John Locke is the one commonly cited exception to all that, he is frequently given the credit for truly innovating the modern Capitalist notion of Private Property.  But James Tully in A Discourse on Property: John Locke and his Adversaries showed that what Locke actually said is more compatible with Socialism.  David Hume was actually quite critical of Locke, the problem is Locke's Labor Theory of Value would be co-opted by d'Hollbach, Smith and their followers.  The Labor Theory of value is often associated with Capitalism because of it's association with Locke and Smith, but the truth is only Socialists and Communists believe in it unconditionally, Capitalists keep needing to qualify it.

Nicolas Barbon was another Christian Whig who contributed to economics, but he was mainly advocating for Paper Money which in the short term Communists are more supportive of then Austrian School Liberals.  John Law continued his work in that regard.  Their ideas were first put into practice in a Proto-Capitalist context but still not necessarily inherently Capitalist.

Some people both for and against it like to tie the origins of Capitalism to the "Protestant Work Ethic", and yeah to a certain extent early Primitive or Proto Capitalism emerged in Protectant parts of Europe earlier then it did in Catholic countries.  You could even parallel different forms or elements of Capitalism to different forms of Protestantism, Lutheranism was it still mixed with late Feudalism, Arminianism the hyper Individualism, Calvinism would be Fascist-Capitalism, and then Britannia is where they all mixed together before being transported to her Colonies.   

But it's important to remember that during the first 2 or 3 centuries the Reformers really wanted to be seen as more rationalist then the Catholics and rejecting of their superstitions, that's why Cessationism was invented by the Reformers and why for a long time they didn't do Exorcisms.  

And that in turn is why a lot of things Atheists believe in are partly protestant in origin but simply taking the next step.  A lot of the bad history New Atheists perpetuate began as protestant myths to demonize the Catholic Church, the Hypatia and Library of Alexandria stuff came form Edward Gibbon (as does many bad ideas about how and why Rome fell) and the comparative mythology stuff started with Alexander Hislop, and the Christmas is actually Pagan stuff started with the Puritans.  As I've said on this blog before, Existentialism is basically Atheistic Arminianism, and others have called Objectivism Prosperity Gospel for Atheists.

All that said I also have a lot of skepticism of the "Protestant Work Ethic" thesis.

A lot of Internet discourse over the last decade or so has been tied to how the Skeptic Community on YouTube and other New Atheists revealed their true reactionary colors (Christopher Hitchens' Legacy is lucky he passed away just before all this started, because if you look into him you'll see he'd absolutely have been with them), and that came with them being bold evangelists of Capitalism, seeing Capitalism along with Democracy as a great Enlightenment accomplishment of Secularism overthrowing the "Dark Ages" of Feudalism which they incorrectly blame on religion.

Atheists on the True Left still exist, but people making Atheism the first thing they care about, the core of their identity, are even when trying to distance themselves from the Reactionary New Atheists usually Social Democrats at best.  

New Atheism isn't actually new, Antitheists co-opting Gibbon's bad history began with Voltaire.  And then during The French Revolutions the immediate successors of d'Holbach were the Hebertists who showed a lot of Proto-Fascistic tendencies with their forced Dechristianization campaign and helping send many of the Communists (called the Enragés at the time) or even just Liberals who wanted to Redistribute Property like the Girondins to the Guillotine.  

Even the Antifeminism that started the 2011 downward spiral was already there in how they Martyred early Feminists like Olympe de Gouges, she was beheaded 7 days before the Festival of Reason and she was later used specifically as an example to silence other women by supporters of the Dechristianization campaign.

Then in the 19th Century Bruno Bauer began popularizing the absurd thesis that Jesus did not exist which went hand in hand with his well known opposition to Karl Marx.  You see Marx and Engels were Atheists but like sane Atheists they believed Jesus existed and that the Early Christians were ancient Proto-Communists and thus part of his thesis of all history being Class Struggle.  So to Bauer refuting the very existence of Jesus was an attack on the Marxist understanding of History as much as it was mainstream Christianity.  Bauer was also the Anti-Semite who wrote The Jewish Question.

And speaking of the Marxist understanding of history, every time a New Atheist talks about Wars being caused by Religion, that is fundamentally incompatible with a Marxist analysis of history which always looks for the economic causes and sees them as the primary cause.  And in turn Evangelical/Conservative Christians seeking to "debunk" the notion of Religious Wars by emphasizing the Economic Causes are unwittingly engaging in Marxist analysis.

Max Stirner was another Atheist Individualist Philosopher who connected Christianity and Communism in his opposition to both.  

Another problem with letting yourself get lost in the nominal Anti-Religionism of Marx and Engels is that Marx actually had a lot of good things to say about Capitalism, he considered it an improvement over Feudalism and a good contributor to Human advancement that was simply now beginning to outlive it's usefulness.  Contemporary Christian Socialists like Philpe Buchez, Edward Vansittart Neale and Frederick Denison Maurice were actually more Anti-Capitalist then Marx was though sometimes they did have their own problems, I have come to believe there's a lot Christian Communists can and should learn from Marx and later Marxists, but I still disagree with Marxism on some key issues.

Marx and Engels "Opiate of the masses" quote is misunderstood, at that time no one thought of Opium mainly as a harmful addictive drug but rather it was still most well known for it's medicinal use.  Neither meaning of "Opiate of the masses" fits how New Atheists view Religion however, they see it as Crack.

Honestly I'm growing skeptical of Marx and Engels even being as Atheist as they seemed. After all Liebknecht family tradition says they were Karl Liebknecht's God Parents at his Baptism at the St. Thomas Lutheran Church.

Christian Capitalists exist because since we became the Mainstream Religion of The West we've made it possible to force anything to be compatible.  But when it comes to Socio-Economic Systems it's always been clear Capitalism is the most difficult to make fit given everything The New Testament says, the truest Reactionary Christians inevitably give away that they really want to go back to Feudalism where the ruling class had some incentive to at least pretend they cared about those beneath them, Noblesse oblige.

There are degrees to how much various kinds of Christians in the modern era have embraced Capitalism.  Megachurches and the Prosperity Gospel are Capitalist Christianity at it's worst, to me they are the modern Laodicea.  But I find it interesting how many Christians on YouTube seeking to preach agaisnt them are unwilling to straight up say or admit that Capitalism is the root of the Problem, like a Secular Centrist they don't want to admit that you can't separate that extravagant Greed from our Socio-Economic Mode of Production, everything about how the world works encourages it, they are people eager to condemn the most egregious symptoms but unwilling to address the root cause of the Disease.

Then maybe you'll have some willing to go a bit further then that.  They might say "Christians shouldn't be Capitalists but the world is certainly less evil under Capitalism then it is when it's COMMUNIST".  Or maybe they'll say "yes Capitalism is bad but that doesn't mean we should support SOCIALISM".  The problem is opposing Capitalism without supporting Socialism leads to Fascism, Nazism or Neo-Feudalism.  You need to also promote the good alternative.

And there is also the way that these people preaching agaisnt Laodiceanism will focus on it's Aesthetics just as much if not more then the Substance of what's wrong with them and wind up tying their Social Conservativism into it, including the Sexual Morality that comes from Plato not The Bible.

The branding of Communism as Godless and Capitalism as Godly was the result of Cold War Propaganda. Communism was inherently Christian for 100% of it's history until The French Revolution when some Communists started borrowing from the Atheism of the Liberals they were fighting alongside against the Monarchy and Feudalism.  Capitalism is what wouldn't exist without the Secularism of the Enlightenment, and now thanks to the Climate Crisis the entire world is paying the price for the Godlessness we embraced.

The YouTube Channel Praxis & Theodicy has a series on the Sin of Usury and how Capitalism as a system is dependent on Usury.

Update August 2023: I rewatched a bunch of the Anime Tanya The Evil recently and that show is kind of aware of what I'm arguing here, the main character absolutely connects their Atheism to their "Free Market Principals".

You should also check out the sister post to this The Reformation and The Resurgence of Democracy.

https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2022/05/the-reformation-and-resurgence-of.html

I'm not a Libertarian anymore but I'm still willing to vote for one.

I would prefer not to settle for that, I'd rather a Socialist run in the Republican Primary and somehow win.  I made a blog post on how that is plausible then you might assume.

I mean the American definition of libertarianism here, I am a Libertarian-Communist.  I also a wrote a Blog post about why I call myself a Libertarian.

But here is my controversial statement.  If a Libertarian can win the next Republican Primary and thus the two viable options in 2024 are Biden/Harris agaisnt a Libertarian, I'll vote for the Libertarian.

So many Breadtubers when they acknowledge Libertarians only want to focus on the ways they are Economically even worse then the Republicans, which they are, they are arguably the only true pure Economic Liberals.

The thing is Economic Issues aren't the only thing I vote for.  I agree they should be ideally the top priory, but if the furthest left either option is willing go economically is still refusing even Universal Healthcare or a Basic Income, then no one is gonna get my vote for Economic Reasons.

But I do also care about ending our Interventionist foreign policy, and the War on Drugs, and also decriminalizing Sex Work and Gambling.  And guess what Libertarians even have some redeeming qualities Economically, many want to end Copyright/Intellectual Property laws, and they tend to oppose corporate bail outs.

And the thing is the bad things they want to do Economically are things a President would need congressional support for.  While what I like about them are largely things the Executive Branch can act on unilaterally.

I will however only ever again vote for an American Libertarian if they get one of the Major party nominations.  I'm only gonna vote 3rd Party for Socialists ideally, and maybe be willing to settle for Social Democrats or the Green Party.

If the Republican Nominee in 2024 is an Establishment Republican or Trump again or someone like Ted Cruz, I'll maybe go for a 3rd Party Candidate but probably not vote at all.  But a Libertarian I will vote for without hesitation.

A True Leftist should try running in a Republican Primary

That sounds like an insane proposition, but hear me out.

First of all it simply is easier for a grassroots campaign to win the Republican Primary.  If the Republican Primary was nearly as rigged against populists as the Democratic one is then Trump would not have been nominated in 2016, even in the primary he didn't get 50% of the popular vote.

The Republican Party has far more ideological diversity within it.  I know Sanders supporters feel like the difference between him and Biden is night and day, but from the outside all internal Democratic party disputes look like merely a mater of degrees and methods. And even then that is only two opposing camps.

However the Republican party even to outsiders looks like a pretty chaotic coalition, Libertarians and John Birch Society style Paleo-Conservatives, Neo-Cons, Dominionist Evangelicals who practically openly want to create a Theocracy, Rockefeller Republicans, the Tea Party and most recently the Alt-Right.

In 2008 lots of Republicans voted agaisnt the Bank Bailout, there is plenty of room within the Republican party for resentment of Wallstreet types.  Eisenhower ran on upholding the New Deal in 52, Nixon created a lot of programs Progressives like and Regan defined himself as an FDR Democrat.  The Rockefeller Republicans were the ones Goldwater most wanted driven out of the party.

Casual Historian did a YouTube Video on how the Republican Party has always been a single issue party, only one issue actually unifies all these otherwise diametrically opposed ideologies, it's just that what that issue is has changed over the decades.

Currently that issue is lowering Taxes.  And because of how unrealistically simplified Taxation disputes have become in America that makes Progressives and Socialists seemingly the only people who can't join the Republican coalition.  But during the French Revolution it was the Left who argued for abolishing the oppressive taxes that the Monarchy had burdened the peasantry with.

Today a Leftist, especially one more Anarchist rather then Marxist leaning economically speaking, is ideally placed to expose how the Republican party has never lowered Taxes for the working class in any meaningful way.  We can propose implementing a Wallstreet Sales Tax as a way to replace the Income Tax on Hourly Wages.  Or at least promise not to raise any while focusing on lowering the payroll tax.

The original founding issue of the Republican Party was opposing Slavery.  A Leftist can point out how that battle isn't over, that the Thirteenth Amendment's loophole makes our Prison System a slave system.  And our position on the Free Trade Agreements puts us in line with the Protectionist phase of the Republican Party as well.

I do think the only kind of Leftist who would win in a Republican Primary is one with Karl Marx's position on Guns, Anarchists are also fully prepared to go to the right of moderate Republicans on the Gun Rights issue.  And when justifying why they're running as a Republican instead of a Democrat just be honest about why and add how the Gun issue alone makes winning a Democratic Primary impossible for them, Sanders can't even get slack for this being the one issue he's slightly moderate on.

We could appeal to a lot of Libertarians by stressing our non-Interventionist foreign policy, and desire to end the the War on Drugs and also legalize Prostitution, as well as being Pro-Choice and for abolishing Copyright Laws.

If we do this during a cycle when there is no Democratic Primary and the sitting DemPres is a "moderate" Neo-Liberal, which will be 2024 if Biden somehow wins this Election, then this Leftist Republican candidate can combine this internal coalition with alienated Progressives and Leftists joining open primaries.

What Specifically does being Libertarian mean?

In the United States of America the term Libertarian tends to refer to people that are hyper Capitalists, Anachro-Captialism, often overlapping with adherents of Randian Objectivism or Paleo-Conservatism.  In Europe however it tends to be associated with very Anti-Capitalist ideologies like Anarcho-Communism and Anarcho-Socialism.  The latter definition is in fact the older one, it was them who first coined the term Libertarian in early 19th Century France, chiefly Joseph Déjacque.

I am someone who used to be a Ron Paul Libertarian but has since starting this blog become a Progressive to the Left of Bernie Sanders and an advocate of Christian Communism.

The reason I still like to call myself a Libertarian is because of what I believe these seemingly diametrically opposed ideologies have in common.  Because for the most part all I've really changed my mind on is Economic Policy.

What being a Libertarian refers to in my mind is being for the decriminalization of Drugs, Prostitution and Gambling, as well as defending the individual's right to own guns.  The principal that no victimless crimes should actually be illegal.  That everyone should be allowed to live however you want if you aren't hurting anyone.  That prohibition only makes whatever you're trying to stop worse.  It also helps that both kinds of libertarians tend to be Anti-War and and for abolishing Copyright laws and are usually though not always Pro-Choice.

When some American Libertarians try to say "most people are Libertarians they just don't know it yet" their basis for that is how most Americans feel on these issues, that same silent majority is not as garunteed to support AnCap Economic Policy.

In America it's well known that not all Capitalists are inclined to be with me on those things.  Conservatives like making "immoral" things illegal and Liberals want restrictive Gun Laws, meanwhile both want interventionist foreign policy simply disagreeing on where to drop the bombs.  But sadly other Communists fail to be Libertarian as well, some want to keep Prostitution illegal because it's "exploitative".  And Peter Coffin who I'm a fan of in one video complains that Loot Boxes in Video Games should be illegal because of how they qualify as Gambling.

In general, Libertarian or Anarchist Socialists are the Communists who don't like to be called Marxists even if they do respect some  or even a lot of what Marx said.

My Libertarianism is my Core, my "Origin" to put things in Nasuverse terms.  It's my views on Economic issues that have changed and may continue to change because frankly the Economy is complicated and difficult to understand.  But I doubt I will ever go back to being a Capitalist because of how strongly I now consider Capitalism incompatible with True Biblical Christianity.  And because I now view access to Food, Shelter and Healthcare as among those individual rights I consider so important.

Freedom of Speech is meaningless if it's conditional

This post is going to be another online rant about how people of every political ideology tend to be hypocrites in their attitude towards Freedom of Speech, supporting it if they agree but opposing it if they disagree, and then making excuses for that hypocrisy.

But first, there is something I want to clarify, because the words "Freedom of Speech" in America have a tendency to cause an assumption I'm citing something I did not actually cite.  So let me be clear.

I ultimately do NOT care what the First Article of Amendment to the United States Constitution says.  Freedom of Speech, like the other rights mentioned in that Amendment, is a concept that existed before then.  It is to me a moral value more so then a civil one.  So a Constitutional Lawyer's opinion on what this archaic document legally protects is irrelevant to my moral position on Freedom of Speech.

There was a time in the past when I was a Constitutionalist, but thankfully I am not anymore.  Frankly I think the Constitution is a wicked anti-democratic document.

So I get sick of seeing rants about how "The First amendment only means the Government can't do something", to defend corporations and internet websites choosing to censor their users/employees.  Especially when it includes seeing Liberals making what is usually a conservative argument, the same argument conservatives will use to say the state shouldn't get involved when a bakery doesn't want to make a cake for a Gay wedding, or a restaurant that doesn't want to serve Black People.

But even if I wanted to make this rant Constitutionally.  The fact that the Constitution technically is only restricting Government goes for ALL of the rights that make up the Bill of Rights, including the parts that protect our privacy and due process.

And the fact is originally the notion that it only restricts Government applied even more specifically to the Federal Government.  Before the Civil War many state laws openly violated the Freedom of Religion clause by pretty much codifying The Ten Commandments, and were upheld by the courts because the Constitution only restricted the federal government.  Then after the Civil War the 13th through 15th Amendments were passed, and it came to be understood that the state also has a responsibility to protect people from others who would violate those rights. 

So when I see people okay with YouTube taking down controversial videos so long as they're videos they disagree with.  I see that as dangerous, I see it as dangerous to their own agenda in the long run because that same abuse of power they are setting a precedent for may be used against them later.

So I don't care how offensive it is, If you won't stand up for the Freedom of Speech of those you find offensive, you forfeit the moral right to cling to it to protect your own speech.

Pewdipie is an idiot, he stupidly said the N word during a live stream.  A form of idiocy not uncommon now days.  Deciding because you find that word offensive to support people trying to use the DMCA to take his videos down sets a very dangerous precedent, because trust me lots of Liberal videos on YouTube could be threatened by the DMCA just as easily, like FeminsitFrequency.  (I could go on a separate rant about how I find Copyright law itself to be inherently wrong.)

I've had this rant in my head since long before this recent controversy even happened.  Via my awareness of more obscure incidents of YouTubers being taken down.  I don't generally find MumkeyJones funny, and I find his videos directed at Islam really ignorant.  But at the end of the day all shutting down stupid Islamphobic channels does is make a martyr out of them, and thus only further reinforces the worldviews they and their followers hold.

Meanwhile YouTube is also labeling videos as age restricted for simply talking about LGBT issues.  Or the user being openly LGBT.  And people on the right aren't getting involved on that issue because they think it won't hurt them.  Or when it does decide they don't mind their videos being for adults only.

All of this is a threat to Freedom of Speech.  Being selective on when you stand up for it will only weaken your credibility in standing up for it when you do.

You can't have Private Property without Government.

There are people out there who consider themselves some form of Anarchist, particularly Anarchro-Capitalists, who also support the idea of Private Property.  These people tend to also consider themselves Libertarians of some sort.

How do you enforce Private Property without Government?  You can't, Private Property is a Government mandated monopoly.

I have a Playlist on YouTube of videos against Copyright and Intellectual Property Laws.  At the moment most videos on it, and they will probably always be the start of it, are from Libertarians arguing against it from a Libertarian POV.  I suspect they qualify as Anarchro-Capitalists as well.  On at least one of those videos there was a comment about how all these arguments against Intellectual Property can be used against any form of Private Property.

It is mainly Land Ownership I care about here.  I'm against having a government mandated monopoly over control of a portion of The Earth itself.

I am among many who reject the idea that Communism is compatible with Socialism, because true Communism is Anarchistic.  If I have a political ideology at all, it is a form of Libertarian-Communism or Anarchist-Communism.  To us Socialism is not an alternative to Capitalism, Socialism is Capitalism where the State is the Capitalist,, that goes for the USSR, China, North Korea and Cuba.

Many Libertarian Communists make a distinction between Private Property and Personal Property.  But the key issue is we believe that the means of production should be shared.

 The members of the Society of the Friends of Truth, founded by Nicholas Bonnevile included men like Condorcet and his wife Sophie, Sylvian Marchel, Francois "Gracchus" Babeuf, and Olympe de Gouges.  Their contemporary kin in the English speaking world included Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine (and John Oswald).  But in Germany strangely enough included some members of the controversial Bavarian Illuminati, chiefly Kingge.  I'm still a conspiracy theorist, but one who's come largely to view the hype around the Bavarian Illuminati as a distraction.

Marco di Luchetti has made an English Translation of one of Bonneville's books.  And in the introduction talks at length about the ideology and politics of the group. on things like Property and Taxation.  He is wrong in how he massively overstates Bonneville's connection to the Illuminati, and in confusing Iluminism with the Illuminati, Terry Melanson is a better historian on The Illuminati.  Bonneville like Jefferson publicly defended the Illuminati but there is no evidence he was a member, if he'd been recruited by Bode it would be mentioned in Bode's memoirs of his trip to France which we still have.  But he's very good at describing the different political factions of the Revolution.

Upon reading Marco di Luchetti's book, I definitely still have areas of disagreement with Bonneville and Brissiot, chiefly their Preemptive War policy.

Robespierre was a Demagogue and a Statist.  In truth he was more a Monarchist then the Royalists, but wanted himself to be the Dictator.  The marriage of Communism and Socialism began with Buonarroti.  He was a follower of Robespierre, and has also been claimed to be an Illuminati member though there is no documentation that he was.  He was an important figure in the history of the Carbonari and Italian Freemasonry.  Mazzini then carried on his mantle in a more militant and Nationalist form leading to Italian Fascism. And at the same time Bounarroti influenced Karl Marx and Engels.

So I don't have an exact model of how I feel Libertarian-Communism should look.  But this is all stuff I feel Libertarians need to start rethinking our assumptions on.


Post Script:

This isn't the first post on this blog more about arguing a belief of mine from a Secular POV.  Many people I'm talking to here might be put off by the very title of this blog.  Yet I don't feel like it would fit on any of my existing blogs.  Should I start a new one?

I've already argued for Libertarian-Comunisim from a Biblical Perspective in my post The Bible and Private Property.  Much of this was copied/pasted from there, but not the opening paragraphs.

The Christian position on Walls

Ephesians 2:14

For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us

Trump signed an executive order sinking the TPP

Given the post I made after Trump was elected it would be remiss of me not to mention this.  Especially since I criticized TYT for acting like they never predicted Trump would pass it.

Still, as long as NAFTA and CAFTA still stand I'm not truly impressed yet.  And there is always the risk he may try to re-brand the TPP under a different name.

But of course none of that would take away everything Trump is doing that is horrible.  Continuing Drone Strikes that kill civilians in Syria and Yemen.  The Ban on letting people come to America from Muslim countries his company hasn't done business with.  And he seems to be going through with building the Wall.

So in-spite of doing one thing I like Trump is still getting a big fat F- from me.

Here is my message to Donald Trump

As someone who didn't vote for you but is from the region chiefly responsible for your victory (Racine Wisconsin to be specific) my message is this.

If you are only going to keep only one of your campaign promises.  It better be ending the Free Trade Agreements, like NAFTA and CAFTA and the TPP, and stuff directly related to that.  Your strong turn out in Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota was chiefly because of people who voted for Bernie in the Primary (I voted for Bernie) and you in the general because they voted chiefly on that issue.  Because we are the most hurt the ramifications of those agreements.

They don't care if you build the Wall or even necessarily want that.  Or about your Muslim Ban, or defeating ISIS.  And certainly not any of the typical Republican positions you espoused.

I was unwilling to vote for because I didn't trust you on this, given how your businesses have themselves benefited from those agreements.  And because I was offended by the Xenophobia you appealed to.

IF however you actually do keep this promise, and the fears Mexicans and Muslims have of your turns out to be unfounded.  You might, just maybe might win my vote for 2020.

But if not, you don't keep that promise, you will lose the people who chiefly gave this victory and have no hope of reelection.

The second promise I personally care about (in the sense of would like you to keep it) is legalizing Marijuana.  But for that I see no evidence many people voted on that.

The Libertarian Party seems to be the only third party making any effort to do more then just Presidential election

That is something I've noticed as I try to look into state and local elections.

The Green Party seems to naturally want the President to solve everything on their own.  But it's funny that the Constitution Party is the one that most preaches the value of states rights, based on their Paleo-Conservative interpretation of the 10th Amendment, but they are making no no effort to win State elections.

I happen to live in Paul Ryan's congressional district,  So this November I'll have the opportunity to vote for Jason Lebeck for Ryan's Congressional seat, and Phil Anderson for Senate.

August 9th (this Tuesday) will be the Primary for those elections.  And I'm considering voting for Paul Nehlen just to further stick it to Ryan.  If by some chance Ryan lost the primary, the chaos that would create would further open the door for Lebeck.  Wisconsin is an open Primary, so if you're going to vote for a not Republican no mater what, take the opportunity to stick it to Ryan.

For the Senate primary however, Ron Johnson has no Republican opposition, and the not establishment pick Democrat is Scott Harbach, who is frankly what I call a Trump Democrat.  So don't vote for him, make your Protest vote a write in, Incitatus always works for Senate.

Returning to Third Parties.  When Third Parties became major parties in the 1800s, it was from gaining ground up success and support in Congress first.  The desire to put all efforts into just the Presidency is part of what current ones are doing wrong.  Even the Libertarian Party to an extent.

Vote Third Party for President, but support any Third Party running locally too.  We need to break this system.

In places where the Libertarians are the only Third Option.  I know my Liberal friends despise the Economic and Gun policy of Libertarians, but they are the true Pacifists on Foreign Policy, and do not compromise on individual Liberty, things like LGBT rights and ending the Drug War, and they can be trusted more on those issues then Democrats.  So yes vote Green Party if you're a progressive and it's an option, but if not vote Libertarian, you have much to gain and nothing to lose.

Immigration and Abortion are the two most notable issues Libertarians are divided on.  And sadly it seems the above mentioned Wisconsin candidates seem to lean to the right on those (while Gary Johnson and Weld themselves are Liberals on those issues).  But they will still be much more reasonable on those issues then a Republican party lead by Trump.

Petition to add Gary Johnson and Jill Stein to the Presidential Debates

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/request-commission-presidential-debates-allow-gary-johnson-and-jill-stein-presidential-debates

I've already signed it.

Right now there is a war between Two Enemies of Freedom

One side wanting to take our Second Amendment rights and the other First Amendment rights.

One side taking advantage of irrational fear of guns and the other of irrational fear of Muslims.

Make no mistake that both sides are equally wrong.

Just say no to giving up Liberty for Safety and Security.

Cannabis in The Bible

I've already mentioned how The Bible proclaims no Plant Life unclean.  Thing is the Cannabis plant is mentioned in The Hebrew Bible as a plant used in the Worship of Yahuah.

The common view is that the word Cannabis is Scythian in origin, but it seems the Scythians had a decent amount of contact with Ancient Israel and Judah, they are refereed to in The Bible as Magog after all, and a Hebrew artifact was once found in the grave of a Scythian warrior woman.

Cannabis comes from combing the Hebrew words Qaneh (Strong number 7070) three times rendered in the KJV Calamus, and Bosem (Strong number 1314).  Qaneh on it's own could also be a reference to the plant in question, but Bosem just means sweet smelling or fragrance.  The actual Calamus plant does not have the qualities The Bible describes this plant as having.  Two other KJV occurrences render it Cane.

The usually cited first appearance is Exodus 30:23.

Take thou also unto thee principal spices, of pure myrrh five hundred shekels, and of sweet cinnamon half so much, even two hundred and fifty shekels, and of sweet calamus two hundred and fifty shekels,

This is from the instructions for The Tabernacle given by Yahuah himself.  This is probably one of the incense refereed to in Exodus 30:8-10.

Then there is the Song of Solomon 4:14.

Spikenard and saffron; calamus and cinnamon, with all trees of frankincense; myrrh and aloes, with all the chief spices:

Definitely not a negative reference.

Next is Isaiah 43:24

Thou hast bought me no sweet cane with money, neither hast thou filled me with the fat of thy sacrifices: but thou hast made me to serve with thy sins, thou hast wearied me with thine iniquities.

Another clear reference to it being an incense offered to Yahuah.

After that is Jeremiah 6:20.

To what purpose cometh there to me incense from Sheba, and the sweet cane from a far country? your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet unto me.

A negative passage, but still clearly consistent with it being an incense used in The Worship of Yahuah.

Finally is Ezekial 27:19.

Dan also and Javan going to and fro occupied in thy fairs: bright iron, cassia, and calamus, were in thy market.

It's part of the Prophecy of Tyre's destruction, referring to it as a plant Tyre traded.  Remember much of what was used in Solomon's Temple was available via his trade partnership with Tyre.

And this is the Dan and Javan verse I so often refer to.  Perhaps Dan is a factor in how the Scythians came to use the same term for the plant.

Most others discussing this topic think these five are the only verses.  Basically directly correlating to when the KJV renders Qaneh either Calamus or Cane.  Now the Strongs does have a tendency to classify things as the same word when they're really different forms of the same root, so it can be complicated, clearly many uses of 7070 seemingly are not a plant or herb.  Like when it's used of the Branches of the Menorah in Exodus 25.

Only three of the five also use Bosem ("Sweet" in the KJV).

It's actual first occurrence is in Genesis 41 where it is twice translated "stalk", in reference to Corn Stalks.  The Canibus plant also grows on stalks.

There is also 7071, a river in Israel called Kanah.  Mentioned in Joshua 16:8, 17:9 and 19:28, in the land allotted to Ephraim.

Now a lot of religions out there want to use these Biblical references to the plant for their own agenda.  It's important to note none of these references seem to refer to recreational drug use.

The point is, don't let anyone convince you Cannabis is an evil plant.

There are also possibly references to Hemp.

HEMP
(Cannabis sativa, Linn.)
“Thy raiment was of fine linen.”—EZEK. 16:13.

THE Hebrew word shesh or sheshi, translated “fine linen,” occurs, according to Royle, twenty-eight times in EXODUS, once in Genesis, once in Proverbs, and three times in Ezekiel. This fine linen was spun by women, as mentioned in Exodus 35:25, where it is said, “All the women that were wise hearted did spin with their hands, and brought that which they had spun, both of blue, and of purple, and of scarlet, and of fine linen.” Ezekiel says of Tyrus, “Fine linen with broidered work from Egypt was that which thou spreadest forth to be thy sail” (Ezek. 27:7). The material of which this fine linen was wrought is considered by many to have been the produce of the hemp plant. This is rendered probable also by the similarity between shesh and the Arabic word haschesch, which is applied to hemp. Hemp consists of the fibres of Cannabis sativa, a plant belonging to the natural order Urticaceæ or nettleworts. It is a native of Persia, and is now extensively cultivated in Europe as well as in India. The variety cultivated in India is sometimes called Cannabis indica, and is remarkable for its narcotic qualities. The dried flowering tops of the female plant from which the resin has been removed are used to form a medicinal extract and tincture. The resinous matter covering the leaves is called churrus; and the names bhang, gunjah, and haschesch, are given to the dried plant in different states. It seems likely that the hemp plant was cultivated in Egypt in ancient times as well as the flax plant; but accurate information on the subject is still wanting. The Hebrew word bad is also translated “linen.” Thus it occurs in Exodus 39:28, where it is said that they made for Aaron and his sons “a mitre of fine linen, and goodly bonnets of fine linen, and linen breeches of fine twined linen.” The Hebrew word butz or buz is also translated “fine linen” and “white linen,” as in 1 Chronicles 4:21; Esther 1:6; Ezekiel 27:16, etc. In the New Testament the Greek word byssus is translated “fine linen,” as in Luke 16:19; Rev. 18:12, 16, and 19:8, 14. (See also Flax.)
--

Balfour, John Hutton. The Plants of the Bible. London; Edinburgh; New York: T. Nelson and Sons, 1885. Print.

Update May 29th 2020: There seems to be some new News related to this issue archaeologically.
 https://twitter.com/MichaelDPress/status/1266369067499180038
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/world/tel-arad-shrine-israel-cannabis-study-scn/index.html
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03344355.2020.1732046
https://phys.org/news/2020-05-reveals-cannabis-frankincense-judahite-shrine.html

The notion that the Democratic and Republican parties switched

Modern democrats, and Liberal independents who still cling the notion that the Democratic party is the "lesser evil", deal with the affiliation of the Democratic Party with Slavery and establishing the Jim Crow laws by insisting the two parties switched at some point in terms of which is Liberal and which is Conservative.

First of all the definition of what is Liberal or Progressive means and what Conservative means has changed.  Modern American Conservatives say they believe in Small Government, but in 19th Century France the Conservatives were the Royalists.  The United States Constitution was by definition a Progressive document when it was made, but today it's Progressives who want to ignore it and Paleo Conservatives who are fundamentalists about it.

And both major parties have always had different factions with not entirely compatible ideologies within them, which usually comes to the surface during the primaries as w'ere seeing now.

To suggest that Racism is inherently incompatible with Liberalism, means modern Liberals would have to renounce their intellectual descent from Enlightenment philosophers like Voltaire who were Racist and Anti-Semitic, and Sexist.

The American Democratic and Republican parties have changed a lot, but not in the basic principles, including the main things I object to about both.  Both parties were Racist, and both parties still are Racist.  Back in the old days that Racism manifested differently, but they've changed today to be different only in their rhetoric.

The Republican party that opposed Slavery was at the exact same time fighting Polygamy in the Mormon territories, on the grounds that "The definition of Marriage is 1 man and 1 woman".  Does it sound like they've changed their view on that?  BTW there often was Homophobic subtext in the anti Polygamy propaganda, I'm sure you can guess where.

The ugly fact people try to ignore is that, not all, probably not the majority when you get down to the common people, but many of the powerful influential white people leading and supporting the Abolitionist movement were no less Racist then Slave owners, maybe more Racist, they didn't want Blacks in the country period.

This includes Lincoln himself who is quoted as saying he did not believe in Racial Equality, and as saying Whites and Blacks can't co-exist together, and to have supported Colonization, that is sending all the Slaves either back to Africa, or to some Colony somewhere else like in South or Central America.  Now it's claimed he had a change of heart on this very late in life after so many Blacks fought bravely for the Union during the Civil War, I would hope that's true but it doesn't change my point here, because he ardently opposed Slavery all through his life which is why the Civil War happened largely.

This goes back to to the Abolitionists among the Founding Fathers.  David Barton is famous for manipulating quotes of the Founding Fathers to make them sounds more Evangelical Christian then they really were.  But his Wallbuilders site also has a lot of good information documenting opposition to Slavery among the Founding Fathers.  What he leaves out there is the other quotes that show those same people also did not believe it possible for Whites and Blacks to coexist.

There was also a lot of Anti-Semitic conspiracy rhetoric in the Anti-Confederacy propaganda of the Union, largely directed as Judah Phillip Benjamin.  And anti Catholic bigotry too, Conspiracy Theories that the Jesuits killed Lincoln linger to this day.  Back to anti-Black Racism, Civil War propaganda also expressed outrage that Southern women would let Black slaves nurse their White babies.

Yes there was also outrage against inhumane treatment of African slaves.  But for many that was equivalent to outrage over mistreatment of animals.

And the same Democratic party that supported Slavery under Andrew Jackson was also just as anti Wallstreet (or the same New England elite businessmen and bankers who would become Wallstreet) as Benrie Sanders is.  Jackson considered destroying the Central Bank his greatest accomplishment.  And the supporters of Slavery accused the Abolitionist movement of being supported by those rich New England elites, because it was.

Things haven't really changed.  The Republicans still wish African Americans weren't here, and Democrats still support Slavery.  But they use the same means to achieve these different goals, a privatized Prison System, War on Drugs, draconian crime legislation and an Income Tax on hourly wages.  While often the two parties rhetoric on those issues may seem different, the end result is both are equally culpable in using those same evils to oppress African Americans and other minorities.

The Republican Party's "Southern Strategy" of the 60s is what people will most often point to as where the switch happened.  All that changed was which racist party the southern racists voted for.  Because Southern Racists did not want Slavery anymore, they just wanted those Negros gone.

The same modern Progressives trying to make this political realignment argument praise FDR, who refused to accept Jewish refugees when Hitler only wanted to kick them out of Germany, and then rounded Japanese Americans into internment camps.  Then his hand picked heir apparent Truman committed the greatest War Crime in human history, twice.  Truman is known to have said some racist things.

Also the head of the KKK endorsed Hilary Clinton.  David Duke is a former Klansman, he's more dangerous then the Klan because he's more eloquent at hiding the malice in what he believes.  But it still annoys me that the mainstream media only talks about his endorsements of Republicans because that fits their narrative better.  That the real Klan still loves the Democratss they ignore.

My position this election

I may have to violate my old value of never voting for a Major Party candidate because of how uniquely frighting this election is.

I've ranted about this informally on my Tumblr.  I was perhaps a little overly hyperbolic there on a few things.

But the fact remains I'm willing to vote Bernie Sanders.  But I'll never vote for Hilary.

I'm frighted of Trump.  The small part of me that thinks maybe his anti establishment pretense is real also thinks he may be the only thing worse then the Establishment.

But Ted Cruz being so strongly tied to Dominionism frightens me far more then anything else however.  And that the Liberal media is mostly giving him a pass on all of that really shocks me.

But still with Trump I feel Godwin's law has officially become the Boy who cried Wolf.

Hitler comparisons have been thrown out by both parties extremists every election cycle, but especially the Left.  To the point where they just got tiresome

But Trump's movement has truly specific legitimate parallels to Hitler, Mussolini, Napoleon and Cromwell, with the bizarre combination of Populism, unapologetic crony capitalism, Xenophobia, and openly threatening the military will obey him even if they morally object to his orders in last night's debate.

But because that comparison has been so casually applied to absolutely everyone up until now, it can't be taken seriously anymore.

I'm deeply saddened by the failure of the Ron Paul Revolution.  Even though I no longer agree with Ron Paul as much as I did in 2012 or 2008, I still believe he was a truly honest man with enthusiastic supporters who were enthusiastic for the right reasons.

In hindsight he couldn't win either of those elections.  But his torch could have been past on to a younger candidate to build on it and win in the future.  And Rand Paul was positioning himself to be that, but he blew it when he sold his soul to Mitt Romney.

Now the kinds of conservatives who Ron Paul used draw into a movement of Love are being suckered by Trump into a movement of Hate.  And the Anti-War people who see Obama as the war monger he is are going for Sanders.

Now the legacy of the movement rather then creating a Libertarian Wing in the Republican Party, is unwittingly creating a Socially Conservative wing in the Libertarian community that is killing it's potential appeal to young voters and anti establishment liberals.

The State, The Church, and Marriage

This Podcast plays a series of 3 lectures on the issues of Incorporated Churches and the 501c3 status.  I'm unsure if all 3 were actually done by the same person, they're similar voices at least.  It's a very good insightful informative lecture.  I like how he does not defend those Churches that are incorporated yet try to act like they're not.

I just have 3 objections to it.

He makes reference to House churches early on.  But when talking about the issues surrounding having a church building and property for it, how to legally do that and pay for it.  Everything he does say is very good, but he doesn't bring up House Churches.  The New Testament Church never met in church buildings, they met in each other's houses. Church Buildings did not begin to exist until the 3rd century.  Interestingly the oldest still standing church building was already engaging in Idolatry under the Catholic excuse for it.

Secondly, in the third lecture he talks way too much about pastoral authority.  The "under-shepherd" may have been a thing in near eastern shepherding, but it's not acknowledged in the Biblical imagery of the Church as a flock of sheep, Jesus is the only Shepherd, he doesn't need to delegate like a human shepherd would.  His logic essentially says if you're a pastor you're not another of the stupid sheep, you're above them.  That is the heart of what the Doctrine of the Nicolations is.  For both of the first 2 of the pictures of The Church he discussed he was effectively folding the pastor into the role of Christ, and it seemed he was thinking along the same lines for the third also.

The role of the Pastor is to proclaim God's Word, but he's not infallible in interpreting it.  What an individual chooses to do is between him and the Holy Spirit.

Finally, he spoke a lot on Homosexuality and Gay Marriage, mostly at the end.  Clearly he's part of the "we need to oppose legalizing Gay Marriage" crowd.  All that talk about how conceding the State authority over the Church by even using the court system. Yet he can't apply the same logic to Marriage.

My view is not just that you are conceding the state authority over Marriage by even getting a legal marriage license from the state.  Or as a church by seeking for your pastor the right to legally marry people in his church.  But you're also conceding it by caring whether or not legal marriage expands to include same sex pairings or polygamy or whatever else and going out of your way to politically oppose such things.  If you're afraid of being forced to perform a marriage you don't approve of, then you shouldn't have sought that legal responsibility from the state to begin with, and should now give it up.

Some "conservative" Christians may try to respond to me with "I'm denying the state the authority by not allowing it to do what it doesn't have the authority to do".  It's a self defeating logic, you're still conceding that the state can have authority over marriage by thinking how they define it matters at all.

Some may insist that it looks like Marriage is a legally recognized institution in The Law of Moses.  I could possibly do an in-dept explanation of how the kind of legal status marriage had in ancient Israel or any ancient civilization is quite unlike in the modern United States.  Main point is that OT legal marriage still did not involve permission slips from the government.

But that would be besides the point.  That was all in the Old Covenant, which was always imperfect and has now been done away with.  The New Testament says a lot about marriage, largely about it as a picture of the relationship between Christ and The Church.  And there is nothing in anything it tells us about seeking to have our marriages recognized by the state.  Likewise there was no state to marry Adam and Eve, it was just between them and God.

The lecture talks about how all the advantages of a legal incorporated Church are a repudiation of God and lack of Trust in Him.  Well, I think Christians should view the advantages of legal marriage the same way.

So as a Christian, I view the Legal status of Marriage as irrelevant to it's Sanctity.

As a Libertarian, I've decided unlike when I was a younger Libertarian not to seek Legal Marriage being ended altogether, that itself implied my caring to much, let the people who want to bring the state into marriage do it.  But I want people educated.  I saw a movie once where some cops told a woman because their marriage wasn't legally recognized the state could take her child.  I can see the state trying to pull that, but it's really the opposite, it is by getting a legal marriage licence you are conceding the state authority over any products of that marriage.

I have sought in the past to convince fellow libertarians they should support legalizing Gay Marriage.  Perhaps my logic there was flawed, I'm uncertain, but it's a delicate issue.  Many have responded to that by explaining how since they oppose the state having that authority to begin with, expanding who can get married only expands the state's power.

I may update that post, to say how I feel in this context legal marriage should just be viewed as a type of legal contract allowing more then one individuals to share their property and assets, one more binding then most such contracts.  And that those contracts should not be offered only to certain people on primarily religious grounds.

I recently made a post in a Facebook group where I said the following.

"I too would prefer Marriage have no legal status at all.   

But I want to explain here one reason why many Homosexuals feel having a legally recognized marriage is important.  

Many Homosexuals have attempted to do things independent of Marriage like leaving their Same-Sex Lover the sole or primary beneficiary of their Will, or give them the legal authority to decide what to do if they're ever hospitalized without the ability to make decisions on their own. But then their relatives who were disapproving of that relationship when it came to enact such a Will attempt to challenge it in court and have often been successful. Marriage seems to be the only legal contract immune to this problem.  

So many Homosexual partnerships feel they need legal marriages to even have the basic rights straight couples have without it."

I apologize if that felt poorly communicated, I didn't go though more then one draft like I do here.   I got some interesting responses.

It seems that the laws need to be changed to favor individuals rather than marriages. Laws need to be fewer (MUCH fewer), more functional, concise, and fair. As I see it, we have a severe problem with stupidity of laws in this country. Making new stupid, unfair, rambling, open-to-interpretation laws won't fix that.

 Except that marriage is not immune to it. Wills and other legal documents are challenged all the time for undue influence and other reasons even in marriage.

So I don't fully know the answers to how to deal with these issues.  It's something Libertarian minded people need to talk about.

Now, going back to the trilogy of lectures I referenced at the start of this.  It helped clarify to me why I as a Libertarian do not feel Anachro-Capitalism (or Ayn Rand) is true Libertarianism.  I've talked here about my disagreements with most fellow American Libertarians before.  But now I know that even the logic that Corporations are separate from the state is wrong,  Corporations are by definition state regulated affiliations.

How should Libertarians approach Gay Marriage?

Obviously all or at least most Libertarians agree that we ultimately are uninterested in legal marriage altogether.  It should be just between the individuals being married, and if their religious then they're God or possibly Church. Mosque, Synagogue, Temple ect.  You shouldn't need a certificate from the Government at all.

The question is as long as we do have legal marriage, should we not care about the what kinds are allowed?  Some Libertarians seem to take that approach and focus only on the ultimate goal.  And I feel they do this largely to try not to alienate social conservatives and Christians.

But I believe we need to firmly hold that as long as it is a legal institution there should be no restrictions on it.  Gay Marriage, Polygamy, Polyandry, Polyamory, Group Marriages, ect.  Anything between Consenting adults.  I believe it's taking away the state's ability to restrict it that will cause legal marriage to crumble.

We're not gonna get our goal over night.  Just as a full end to the drug war begins with legalization of Marijuana.  So the war against government control of marriages has a beginning fight too.

I know some feel like expanding legal marriage is only expanding government power.  I feel in this context legal marriage should be viewed just as a binding contract more them more then one indivdual, and and eligibility for that contract should not be limited.

As I said before a desire to not alienate "conservatives" is why some Libertarians don't want to say that.  Problem is I feel the Ron Paul campaign of 2008 and 2012 won us all the converts we're gonna get out of the right for the time being.  It's that the Left sees us as merely a variation of Conservatives that we need to counteract in order to grow our movement.

At any rate I've elsewhere on this Blog I've laid groundwork for how to convince Fundamentalist Christians to be ok with legal Gay Marriage, whether they morally approve of it or not.

Response to Al Mohler

I've done prior posts about being a Libertarian Christian.  I saw a Video on YouTube I want to respond to against Libertarian Christians.

Others have responded to this too.

It contains a lot of strawmen and misconceptions.

The interviewer keeps putting Abortion at the top of his list, Abortion is an issue Libertarians are divided on, even secular libertarians (yes secular Pro-Lifers exist).

The whole "all the Government does is enforce morality" thing is stupid.  Yes everything that even the most hardened Libertarians agree should be illegal is also immoral.  But correlation does not equal causation  Those things are immoral for the same reason their illegal, (because their harmful to another person's life liberty or property).

He makes traffic laws his example, yes it is immoral to drive like a psychopath with no concern for other people's safety.  But that's not why it's illegal, it's illegal for the same reason it's immoral, because it endangers other people.  But also traffic laws don't exist just to restrain those nuts who won't care about them anyway.  They're also there to help the people with good intent know how to drive safe.  Because if different people had different ideas on the correct thing to do in certain situations then harm could happen with no willful Sin being committed at all.

He eventually gets to the Sexual Morality.  He mentions Incest, first of all many Libertarians do oppose Incest laws.  But those that do not do so only because of the perceived harm to the child that could be conceived of it.

All libertarians are internally consistent in their belief about Vicitmless Crimes.  Or the "Non aggression Principle" a term I generally prefer not to use.  But like within any other large philosophy there are debates about certain grey areas.  And those disagreements are purely on whether or not there is a victim in a given situation, no true Libertarian knowingly allows exceptions to this principle.

He calls it Idolatrous, I think opposing Libertarianisim is Idolatrous.  It makes the State your Idol.

He does a guilt by affiliation thing with Ayn Rand who was vocally anti-Christian.  Lots of beliefs of socially conservatives Christians have ties to dangerous secular ideas too.

I’m growing more and more unsure I qualify as a Libertarian

I’m growing more and more unsure I qualify as a Libertarian.  I ultimately don’t care if I’m a “True Libertarian” or not.  I’ll continue to be an ally of the Libertarian movement because I certainly identify with them more then I do either Democrats or Republicans, “Liberals” or “Conservatives”, Occupy Wallstreet or Tea Partiers, ect.  And ultimately more so then I do other Third Parties like the Green Party or the Constitution Party, but I certainly still respect those more then I do either major party.

In theory the Constitution Party should be perfect for me, because I am a patriotic American who thinks the United States Government should have to follow the United States Constitution, in a lot of ways that overlaps with Libertarian ideals, but not always.  Problem is they have too many “Social Conservative” tendencies when it comes to issues like Drugs and Gay rights and Marriage and so on.

Now I know the Constitution isn’t perfect, but that’s why it includes a process by which it can be amended.  There are Amendments I’d like to make to the Constitution, starting with repealing the 16th, but also on issues like Term Limits (for Judges and Senators) and Common Law rights (not all of them are enshrined in the Constitution which surprises people) especially Jury Nullification.  But I would go through the proper procedures to Amend it, not simply ignore it as both Democrats and Republicans do when the Constitution doesn’t fit with their personal agenda.

I identify as a Libertarians mainly because I believe in individual rights.  I believe all victimless Crimes should be legal, each individual person, regardless of gender, ethnicity, religion, or personal preferences should be allowed to do whatever they want so long as it doesn’t threaten the Life, Liberty or Property of another individual.  This makes me “Liberal” on drugs, prostitution and gambling laws, as well as Gay Rights and Marriage, but “conservative” on Gun Rights and Hate Speech laws and Property rights.

Where I differ from a lot of fellow Libertarians is I don’t consider the State to be the only threat to individual rights.  Corporations/Employers and religious institutions can be just as big a threat, even more so sometimes.  If you have the Money and/or charisma you can make your own personal army or police force just as powerful as any state sanctioned one.

So the thing is, to me the State in addition to being restrained from violating our rights, I also believe has an obligation, as the only institution that is owned by the people(or is supposed to be) to protect it’s Citizens from other institutions that threaten their rights. That doesn’t mean I’m like a “Liberal” who thinks the state should provide for us and take care of all of our needs.  It just means I believe other institutions, like other individuals, should be restrained from abusing their power just as the State needs to be restrained.

So when Lew Rockwell said in his recent article.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/03/lew-rockwell/what-libertarianism-is-and-isnt/

Yes, we do believe in unfashionable things like the abolition of antidiscrimination law. If we didn’t, we would not be libertarians.

Well if that’s his definition of Libertarian then I don’t fit nor do I want to.  I do support the Civil Rights act and Voting rights act, though there may be details in them I don’t like.  The Federal Government is given authority on those issues by the 13th-15th Amendments.  To respond to other things in the article, I am a “Feminist” in it’s truest original definition, as I feel all Libertarians should be, we want Women to have the same rights as Men.  Crazy people on the far Left have hijacked the term, so we should try to hijack it back.

There is one other institution that is popular to hate in Libertarian circles today almost as much as the state, and that’s Unions.  But rather then simply being concerned with their abuse of power they become like radical “Conservatives” who think they shouldn’t exist.  I believe in Checks and Balances and Unions are an important check on the power Employers have over their Employees.  One of my arguments for legalizing Prostitution is that I’d like to see Prostitutes Unionize to protect them from Pimps.

I’m also not entirely against Safety Nets like Food Stamps.  But under the 10th Amendment I feel they should be handled by State and Local governments, not a once size fits all policy.

Basically I’m not an Anarchist or an “Anachro-Capitalist”.  True Capitalism means a Free Market, but a True Free Market does NOT mean NO regulations

"There can be no Freedom without the Law"-Charlton Heston as Moses in The Ten Commandments.

The Regulations the Democrats advocate for aren’t the ones that will solve any problems.  But breaking up Monopolies is important, and yes I know the lame argument that “the Government is a Monopoly” well unlike any corporation it’s supposed to be ran directly by us.  And under the U.S. constitution we do have a degree of competition between the various State and Local Governments.

I am always distrustful of Government, but that’s distinct from wanting to abolish government.