My Revised Final Reply to the Facebook Group "Rand Paul 2016" Over Why I Will Never Vote for Sen. Paul to be President
Disclaimer, please read now before choosing to proceed: These are my opinions, explained in full and based upon research I carefully conducted and explained in a very lengthy blog entry provided again for anyone wishing to read below. As most of the enormous volume of feedback I received and apparently still am and have yet to check the latest replies are not only negative, but derogatory and insulting my intelligence and those who agreed with by claiming I am or that my supporters are "stupid", or what I wrote was "stupid" simply because it was done and said nothing else, only reassures me the more I read how similar to socialists and communists on the Far Left behave when one who might see an obvious paradox in the ideological thought dares to question the logic. Anyone choosing to reply to me again, whether in agreement or vehement dissent, may do so and I encourage all my readers to reply in any manner you choose. However, when you insult me as being "stupid" or can only provide me with a list of sometimes a dozen different articles or online books and pamphlets and upon glancing at the titles, I have read several of them and I note how the lone line that is actually written by the replier is "Such-and-Such refuted the claim that a social contract is necessary", you only prove to me one very disturbing trend that is common among the general public regardless of political affiliation: you do not know what you believe because when you tell me that Ludwig von Mises favored Rothbard's claims that the state must be abolished, you never read the articles or if you did, you did not pay attention or grasp how Mises is a classical liberal in the tradition of John Locke's standard for modern Western political thought, espoused that the state is a necessary evil and only should serve to protect the rights to own property and the liberty to simply live freely. In the end, if you are only willing to read the second line of my blog and inform me how stupid I am but never read the one before it nor anything that followed, I now wonder to my horror how you ever graduated past high school English or read any literature beyond the children's books akin to Dr. Seuss or Clifford the Big Red Dog. It really is a tragedy not only that you did not bother to read it at all before you commented on it, but also after the second line you skipped past the first to cry foul that I actually do have an opinion based upon reading and research, you insist that because I write my blog entries the way I was trained in my college history and political science courses that I am "arrogant" and "condescending" and tell me you do not understand my vocabulary choices nor the sentence structures that are correct per every professor I ever had, perhaps you will be best served to do what my high school AP U.S. History teacher told my class numerous times when I was in the 11th Grade (junior): quit being lazy and grab a dictionary and thesaurus rather than using incorrect words we were taught to be called "malapropisms." It is not becoming for someone to cry foul at someone who worked hard for his grades and degrees in college for researching and writing the way he was trained, only to insist I "dumb down" what I do write rather than you yourself raising your game to at least meet me halfway. If I am arrogant, what does that make you aside of a street-dwelling vagrant who simply yells about what upsets you, but no one seems to understand if you are speaking actual English or in some variation of foreign tongue or Pig Latin? At the end of novella, you are still the same pigs who started on four legs and claimed death to all humans, then as the opportunity arose and you met old Mr. Jones upon his secret return to the Manor Farm, all animals to you are still equal, but you then twist the logic to insist that some are more so than others. What then did you ever champion that was consistent with the concept of Ronald Reagan warning us to always "Trust but verify"?
Remember well this admonition: You are more than welcome to reply however you choose. However, whatever you say can and will be used against you as if this is to be a court of law, only instead to characterised as one of public opinion. In this, if you choose to disagree in a civil, respectful manner with either me or those who mostly are in agreement, I laud and will go out of my way to ensure how much I appreciate and respect you unconditionally for your thoughtfulness and willingness to discuss our differences and to see if perhaps you and I do have some common ground for understanding. If, however, you insist in assassinating either my character or others who reply agreeing with my position, you will receive a very directed response from me treating you with the absolute equal level of respect and in spades. I always see and listen to people proclaim to believe how if their ideas or perhaps an ideology could be utilized or any concept at all applied to improve a given situation, but few actually act on their designs. As I am not a politician, this is my way of expressing opinions or teaching history as I was taught in college and on my own time as I read constantly. There are few things I am unwilling to condone even among the most disgusting of human behaviors; I will not tolerate intolerance to others rights to freely speak their minds, and you will receive a very heated, direct reply, free of cursing per my best attempts, that will be aimed to place you personally in your rightful place. Read between the lines every last word I wrote if you cannot understand wholesale, and I believe you will understand very clearly what I mean and will act in doing exactly what I say I will do. It might help too to grab your dictionary and thesaurus. I will never lower my standards.
In recent weeks, United States Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) have engaged in a political talk show circuit carousel proclaiming their desires for what amounts to an American military sweep of the Middle East and cornering of Vladimir Putin's Russian forces in order to implement a harsh arbitrated measure of peace. Having read transcripts of recent interviews on shows similar to Meet the Press on NBC or CBS' Face the Nation, their interpretations of Reagan's "peace through strength" foreign policy that toppled the Iron Curtain have been devolved by both senators into an abject bastardization of the doctrine since no massive military offensives were launched against the Soviet Union nor a single shot directly fired from the barrel of our guns across the Iron Curtain at our foes. As Ron Paul did for so many years proclaim that at the cost of America losing its exceptionalism and risking our own national security, he would never vote for any measure that would place American military personnel in harm's way, and he nearly followed through with this following September 11, 2001's attacks on our soil by al Qaeda when he begrudgingly voted in favor of shipping our armed forces to Afghanistan to take down Osama bin Laden and the Taliban government harboring and collaborating with him, his own staff read his charade of utilizing the idea "non-interventionism" as the clever repackaged deception of what he really means to this: pre World War II/Cold War-era isolationism that can never again be implemented due to what our history has now forced us into the position as the leaders of the free world and arsenal of democracy versus tyrannical diffusions of an evil empirical order. This is my reply to that group, slight revised to correct typographical errors and accidentally-omitted key terms, and is the last one I ever intend to write as I have posted a handful over the past two months in opposition to a platform from both Pauls I for years favored and yearned to see come to fruition. Sadly, I have learned how I have been fooled into believing what pretends to be a platform for absolute liberty in the interest of peace is in fact nothing more than a cult which preys most fervently than either socialism or conservatism upon misinformation and blind indoctrination. When libertarians you speak to in disagreement of their platform can only direct you to as many as six to ten hyperlinks over Facebook, Twitter or on my own blog but not discuss why they believe Ludwig von Mises refuted Rothbard and the idea of the necessity for a social contract, it reeks of a lack of foresight, undereducation, but most frighteningly at how these people did not read any or much of what they forwarded me since Mises never supported the total abolition of the state as I have read a great many of the articles and books, either in total or in parts, of what was written. In essence, what Rothbard, the founder of libertarianism, cited to be a crucial component to its eventual achievement and diffusion - a tacit dissolution of personal responsibility by way of destroying all measures of a social order, including the family unit and the religions faiths each may or may not choose to base its moral ethics and principles upon - is supportive of the terms behind women choosing to have abortions perform: the fetus is an invader, or rather, a parasite that destroys her right to live a life of liberty. Why would Ron and Rand Paul disagree or posit disparaging remarks? Rand Paul has, but whether he would seriously choose to work to destroy Roe v. Wade would be akin to predicting how Obama pledge to leave alone the Second Amendment and avoid the gay marriage issue. The president lied whether or not you choose to support or revile his actual policies or attempts to subvert legal convention and authority. And in the end, Rand Paul, like his father, is still a politician, and power even at its lower common denominators still corrupts.
As his father demanded on the surface a manifestation of a Utopian peace at the cost of our own security from decades of historical foreign policy positions and initiatives never exactly the same between any two presidents, only to attempt a radical rewrite of history consistent with the founding platform of libertarianism's founding father, Murray Rothbard, Rand Paul, the junior U.S. Senator from Kentucky, is supporting President Obama's decision to withhold any measurable deadly force and even disapproves advisers deployed to Baghdad to assist with the government's military to retake or aid in reacquiring what the president lost that took eight years and 5,000 dead troops to secure. Sen. Paul has, in fact, gone on record, not blaming Obama virtually at all for what has happened, but rather supporting and echoing the president as if a parakeet in blaming George W. Bush and his father more than a generation ago for the collapse of the status quo which had been achieved and entered into the Obama presidency as a continual work in progress.
As George W. Bush was in no way a perfect president - I long have disapproved and am growing to despise more by the day most principles behind neoconservative polity - he has twice within the past month been vindicated for deciding to invade Iraq, to topple the longstanding dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, and to finally locate and secure the deadly caches of weapons of mass destruction classified as chemical warfare agents and nuclear weapons in order to avoid their falling into the hands of potential terrorist cells and militant subversives or insurgents. As none were located in Iraq during Bush's presidency, he became among the most reviled presidents in American history. Today, what to him was an endeavor that had to be undertaken at no matter the cost in funding and lives sacrificed despite how unpopular within two years his choice to invade as a conviction and gut instinct metastasised, he has now been vindicated twice within the past month as the Islamic State of Iraq, Syria (ISIS) have been reported by international news agencies such as Reuters as capturing a factory with a large cache of chemical warfare agents, and within the past 36 hours or so, nuclear warfare agents that currently are capable of building dirty bombs, to be transferred globally and to be eventually be developed into far deadlier weapons of mass destruction. As Sen. Paul alongside his father continue to ignore what has been reported widely within the global media for more than a month, what is true for Barack Obama is now far more inconvenient for the Paul family and exalted to far more dangerous extreme: peace through isolationism rebranded as "non-interventionism" is as I have said for years - impossible due to our role dramatically changing in the postwar era as a result of our victories over two major fascist empires in two different hemispheres. Victories in achieving not only geopolitical liberty from the chaos wrought upon it by fascism not only granted to the U.S. the spoils of victory, but the responsibility to shoulder the load for standing tall against the onslaught of Soviet global designs to expand communism and an eventual toppling all free people living in democratic states as part of the Domino Theory. America is Atlas, and as the Statue of Liberty in New York harbor is emblematic of this fundamental truth per Ayn Rand, the Greek god that America symbolizes, we cannot shrug at responsibility or upon necessitating how we must be who finds geopolitical solutions to global crises when threats to world destabilization and ultimate destruction is now not only destroying our allies capacity to live without fear of invasion, each of whom we are bound by decades' old alliances to support militarily and economically or by our own domestic laws as with the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 or through Unconditional Surrender agreements with Germany and Japan, but now in disputation with Ron and Rand Paul's insistence publicly to obey and enforce the rule of law now that it no longer is convenient to support such a position, we cannot ignore what we must enforce as part of our legal obligations to uphold our constitutionally-based principle to provide what will ultimately become our common defense.
Whether we bargained in favor of this role or not, we now are truly the arsenal for democracy regardless, the nation the world looks to for guidance and leadership. Instead of serving as the bedrock for economic stability with our dollar now devaluing rapidly by the day and our reputation over the past five years declining more precipitously than under any president in our nation's history, we still have the responsibility to shoulder the load for maintaining global stability in what today is the most unstable geopolitical environment since the waning years of the Cold War. The Cold War was won despite massive and draconian arms races between the United States and the Soviet Union and the stockpiling of untold thousands of nuclear weapons that served in terms of its own begotten deterrent the lone reason the peace was maintain for more than 45 years. At this time, however, I cannot safely state that this is true since more than half a century following the height of the fear of such awesome, globally-destructive weapons that cold fall into the wrong hands of secretive terrorist organizations not recognized globally as sovereign states have now officially been realized, now reported by the global media for over a month, while the majority of our domestic news outlets have either barely printed a word about these events or refuse to do so publicly. In reading news daily from Texas of continual cries for assistance at stopping the deluge of illegal immigrants from creating the anarchy Murray Rothbard championed and directly quoted into a United States of America that no longer exists, Fox News Channel so far as I have read is the lone domestic major news source to have dedicated measurable resources or minimal time to reporting these events. As more news media members in America come forth to reveal how their coverage of the administration's most controversial activities have resulted in their termination of their jobs or the manifestation of a hostile working environment as with Sharyl Attkisson, formerly with CBS, we live in dangerous times both domestically and globally while CNN President Jeff Zucker complains about the network and the GOP, and pledged two months ago his family of networks would not cover the Benghazi investigation and hearings, while stating his intention to rebrand the network's formatting for "more shows and less newscasts", while stating in a peculiar irony "the Republican Party is being run out of News Corp. headquarters, masquerading as a cable channel."
At no point during my lifetime have I felt less secure as an American. Sadly, my father, who lived through the the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Vietnam era, barely escaped the draft, has said as much too. And today, with very little difference between the Democratic Party and the GOP showing to be evident, so too does it appear that between all media outlets - with CNN and MSNBC publicly committed to seek "progressive viewers" as their primary audience - Fox News Channel's serving as the lone major cable media outlet now outperforming both her cable news counterparts in ratings combined continues to be singled out and attacked for achieving a monopoly when in fact the reasoning for its success is because its audience has chosen who it wants to watch: a network that insists it must report the news, not simply engage in non-current events' related programming.
Link provided by Rand Paul 2016: Rare: Want to know just how crazy John McCain and Lindsey Graham are on foreign policy?
Link to Reuters report of ISIS capturing a stash of nuclear-based weaponry: Reuters: Exclusive: Iraq tells U.N. that 'terrorist groups' seized nuclear materials
Link to my blog article about libertarianism: Conservatively-Speaking: A Conservative-Libertarian Blog on Today's Issues
Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham may in fact be warmongers, but they do not pretend to be what they really are not. They state upfront how they will always shoot first and ask questions only if someone is not already dead. As for hardline libertarians, well, the idea behind Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism, when you read further into the theory, is the principal foundation for pure libertarianism by the founding father himself (Rothbard), citing the necessity of the eventual total abolition of the state and all social infrastructures that would deter the evolution of humanity from a moral state of flux into one where amorality absolves all people as individuals of the responsibility to behave responsibly for themselves, in interpersonal interactions, nor even to stop in a state of anarchy one from not grasping the concept of right from wrong in property disputes which do not illegally turn deadly since the law as arbitrated by the presence of a third party in the state would no longer exist in his state of nature.
He favored human iconoclasm, which only means that as there are no third party arbiters that would exist to determine who owns what staked parcel of land to be partition from his neighbor's, nothing at all would stop an aggressor demanding more acreage in any or all directions from simply killing his neighbors and taking their property as a measure for expansion. It is the most grotesque departure from John Locke's principles espoused in Second Treatise of Civil Government (1789) which founded the world's two oldest functioning democracies in Britain and the United States for a social contract to be agreed upon by a society to protect the liberties to life and property; these were also the fundamental differences which drove a wedge between Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises, and why most especially Rothbard feuded with Ayn Rand during their lives in the public spotlight. And since every global revolution dating to the storming of the Bastille on July 14, 1789 utilized anarchists who were mobilized by secret societies as the Jacobins - social elitists who organized their lawless violence via clandestine means to incite mob riots to achieve bloody, unorganized measures of insurrections to topple a centuries' old absolute feudalistic monarchy in favor of short-lived oligarchies that were non-elected - they slaughtered French citizens so indiscriminately that it guillotined its own collaborators within the Committee on Public Safety before Maximilien Robespierre himself was executed for his own bloodthirsty excesses at the blade's end by decree of the Directory. Ironically, too, the inventor of the actual guillotine, before in 1799 the revolution ended ignominiously when an obscure Corsican artillery general having risen through the ranks of an established military in an otherwise anarchic state named Napoleone Buonaparte threw a coup d'etat of the Directory's last vestige to form a Pan-European empire, the French experiment in the world's first left-wing revolt of militant anarchy - again, run by affluent social elitists - merely foreshadowed why libertarianism is as political and sociological ideologies are concerned the single deadliest cult in human history, more so than the ideals behind communism and fascism; the single largest handbasket of lies by the most egregious example of a charlatan the modern world has ever known since libertarianism in its synonymity with anarchy created world history's secular totalitarian regimes over the past 225 years, most of which have been toppled by true pro-liberty movements by people demanding popular democracies, to have a say in who governs their nation of common peoples rather than to live under the threat of imprisonment in a Soviet gulag or Nazi concentration camp.
And while democracy is not at all a perfect government, it was as Winston Churchill stated below:
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
- WINSTON CHURCHILL, speech, House of Commons, November 11, 1947.—Winston S. Churchill: His Complete Speeches, 1897–1963, ed. Robert Rhodes James, vol. 7, p. 7566 (1974). (Courtesy of Bartleby.com)
Read further how the Russian, Chinese Revolutions and the fascist and Nazi revolts in the Weimar Republic and Italy toppled unstable governments to form out of established traditional orders the world's most grotesque collective of totalitarian regimes in human history, using Rothbard's founding principle of the eventual devolution of society into anarchy as he advocated mankind having no reason to even be constrained by the concept of personal responsibility nor social partitions or interpersonal contact with others at its most fundamental level that simply would allot for or stop the destruction of the family unit or organized religion since pure libertarianism in its synonymity is incompatible with the idea of faith in a deity; and, ultimately, transhumanism's fate of the total eradication of mankind in favor of the final global mechanization, which China is experiencing today according to political analysts as the state's mass mechanization is gradually replacing the human presence in their workforce, humanist philosophers and geopolitical economists have observed. Like any strong communist or fascist state dictator, Rothbard as a theorist advocated aggressive historical revisionism. What did not work for him and his agenda was a matter of his simply rewriting or eradicating the details entirely from the historical record. And today, as Barack Obama is being more and more heavily funded by the likes of the world's wealthiest man in Bill Gates (worth some say in excess of $70 billion) and Warren Buffett, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, George Soros and CNN's President Jeff Zucker, the vast majority of the entertainment industry and like Gates, most of the technology industry including Silicon Valley, and still of course major militant labor and trade unions which still are crippling our industries and have finally achieved the federal declaration of bankruptcy of Detroit and the growing number of our corporations being absorbed as nationalized industries, of course the fact that Joe Biden's son Hunter, who is one of the primary executives the Burisma Holdings, the largest private oil corporation in Ukraine, has completely compromised our position among our historic NATO allies in the Russian onslaught and invasion of the Crimean Peninsula and now the growing likelihood of a full onslaught attack on not merely the western range of the former Soviet republic, but well into Eastern Europe where Poland, among others who are also member of the European Union and NATO, have pipelines that are operated and in dispute between its two eastern neighbors in danger of their governments and territories being toppled and absorbed into what Sen. Graham himself stated is the inevitable formation of a new Soviet Union-style of Pan-Slavic state Russia has historically sought to achieve since the Romanov Dynasty alongside the occupation of the Black Sea (which it has now achieved) and eventually the Bosporus Strait and Turkey itself. In essence, history is repeating itself. Obama has openly embraced it, and so too tacitly have Ron and Rand Paul.
I am through with Ron and Rand Paul; I am finished pretending to espouse any previously-learned "principle" and lie of pure libertarianism because as an ideology, it has never been intent upon forming a more liberal government based upon liberty, but rather to be used as the means to topple old traditional orders using anarchy's recipe of indiscriminate militant violence to achieve their measure of a harshly arbitrated peace in the form of statism. Libertarianism like so many hundreds of students at the University of Tennessee during my second stint as a student who ignorantly and proudly donned Che Guevara and Mao Zedong t-shirts as they dressed akin to communist militants, did so the same way with Ron Paul. Libertarianism, like the communism that a group of students approached me to join or attend its next organizational meeting while I was preparing to attend a speaking engagement conducted by Black Panthers principal founder Bobby Seale in October 2011, is a cult, pure and simple, like SOTT. Ironically, while Mr. Seale frequently spat profanity-laced rants and tirades against true democracy and capitalism itself, sold cookbooks and his autobiography in the Carolyn Brown University Center hallway directly outside one of its auditoriums in which he spoke, always sure to let his captive audience know that he would be signing autographs; he wanted to let us know that as his organization forcefully entered the California state capitol building at Sacramento with their assault rifles and pistols, during a legislative session, they never shot anyone. Not coincidentally, the Black Panthers were engaged in anarchist-style of behavior, or at least in how they feigned what they brandished.
I am never voting for Rand Paul if he runs for the presidency since his own father was content to not merely watch America burn on September 11, 2001, but only voted to send our armed forces to Afghanistan to track down al Qaeda and topple the regime harboring them because his staff threatened to mutiny and resign if he did not. He is still spending considerable amounts of time further revising how he believes George W. Bush conspired with Osama bin Laden to bring about the war on terror through that terrible day's attacks on our soil; so too did Michael Moore, who is intent to profit mightily upon the deaths in Newtown, CT, as his wife who recently filed for a divorce has testified in court. Ron Paul is anti-Israeli and anti-Zionism, and while Rand Paul claims he is siding with Netanyahu over the Gaza Strip's recent crises, the apple in the end does not fall far from the tree, and have read very little commentary by him on the war being waged in the Gaza Strip. And now that George W. Bush has been vindicated for his decision to topple the regime of Saddam Hussein since in the past three to four days, the Islamic State of Iraq-Syria, Levant (ISIS) has captured in Mosul a contingent of nuclear weaponry materials already capable of assembling dirty bombs and as the UN Ambassador from Iraq reported to Gen. Sec. Ban Ki-moon, can be transferred internationally and formed into far deadlier weapons of mass destruction, Rand Paul, like Obama, is content to let the world burn, including America as we face the deluge of illegal immigrants over the Rio Grande alongside known Hamas-linked terrorists which have been detained, Mexican gang members and now Mexican military forces who have crossed over our border to attack Border Patrol agents ill-equipped to stop them, which is another issue I am still searching for several statements by him that as a person who reads news media from across the globe - including China, North Korea and Iran - I have not yet seen much from him. Neither Rand nor his father have publicly acknowledged so far as I have read to date how these caches of weapons of mass destruction in Tikrit and now Mosul have been reported by Reuters, but still are accompanying President Obama in ignoring what the rest of the world knows today while the average American is totally oblvious since it has almost completely is being ignored.
I am never voting for Rand Paul if he runs for the presidency since his own father was content to not merely watch America burn on September 11, 2001, but only voted to send our armed forces to Afghanistan to track down al Qaeda and topple the regime harboring them because his staff threatened to mutiny and resign if he did not. He is still spending considerable amounts of time further revising how he believes George W. Bush conspired with Osama bin Laden to bring about the war on terror through that terrible day's attacks on our soil; so too did Michael Moore, who is intent to profit mightily upon the deaths in Newtown, CT, as his wife who recently filed for a divorce has testified in court. Ron Paul is anti-Israeli and anti-Zionism, and while Rand Paul claims he is siding with Netanyahu over the Gaza Strip's recent crises, the apple in the end does not fall far from the tree, and have read very little commentary by him on the war being waged in the Gaza Strip. And now that George W. Bush has been vindicated for his decision to topple the regime of Saddam Hussein since in the past three to four days, the Islamic State of Iraq-Syria, Levant (ISIS) has captured in Mosul a contingent of nuclear weaponry materials already capable of assembling dirty bombs and as the UN Ambassador from Iraq reported to Gen. Sec. Ban Ki-moon, can be transferred internationally and formed into far deadlier weapons of mass destruction, Rand Paul, like Obama, is content to let the world burn, including America as we face the deluge of illegal immigrants over the Rio Grande alongside known Hamas-linked terrorists which have been detained, Mexican gang members and now Mexican military forces who have crossed over our border to attack Border Patrol agents ill-equipped to stop them, which is another issue I am still searching for several statements by him that as a person who reads news media from across the globe - including China, North Korea and Iran - I have not yet seen much from him. Neither Rand nor his father have publicly acknowledged so far as I have read to date how these caches of weapons of mass destruction in Tikrit and now Mosul have been reported by Reuters, but still are accompanying President Obama in ignoring what the rest of the world knows today while the average American is totally oblvious since it has almost completely is being ignored.
If the rule of law for Barack Obama is obviously a mirage of smoke and mirrors designed in the end to topple our own government and destroy the America I was raised to understand by my parents and teachers prior to Common Core that I could live here freely compared to other nations where the people live in fear of their authorities, at least he knows the Constitution exists as a former constitutional law professor to manipulate, and we as the general population are well-aware today and for more than five years of graduated usurpations this is true. Rand Paul, as an opthamologist, only knows professionally how to manipulate what the human eyes can see, and he is doing a rather fine job of conveying the lie of libertarianism's commitment to peace since he is supporting Obama and his usage of corporate-funded anarchy we are seeing in Texas and across our southern border with Mexico this minute. And at least with Obama, we know what he stands for as the tyrant he has displayed publicly. At least the ever-evolving Democratic Party of 2014 dangerously to the far-left stands for something. Libertarians are content to lie about this and are now displaying their true colors as if a peacock brandishing its feather in fighting another male to mate with a common female; at heart, they do not believe in liberty because they do not condone in any form of social order or structure which teaches civil virtue, charity and ethical codes of conduct, nor most importantly how to observe liberty by acknowledging any variety of personal responsibility. In essence, libertarianism demands amoral iconoclasty at the cost of the forced total abolition of the state and traditional social order only to form their own measure of totalitarianism.
The adjectives "voluntary" or "coercion" become rather indistinguishable under the penalty of law forcing the libertarian means for using anarchy to apply it upon its subjugated peoples to be free according to Jean Jacques Rousseau, whose landmark treatise The Social Contract (1762), while the standard bearer for the implementation of a state-run society has been the most broadly interpreted and applied in different measures. It was also the inspiration behind the Jacobins to launch the French Revolution, the world's first experiment at totalitarian statism and the launch of the scourge of left-wing class warfare the world has yet to destroy and continues to grow more imperiled each generation as it continues to radically evolve in the post Soviet world. And when you read the immortal final paragraph to Book I; 7. The Sovereign, attempt among each of you to arrive at a consensus as to what Rousseau truly meant. So far as I read or discussed this with fellow students who were either History or Political Science majors years ago, no one really did.
In order then that the social compact may not be an empty formula, it tacitly includes the undertaking, which alone can give force to the rest, that whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free; for this is the condition which, by giving each citizen to his country, secures him against all personal dependence. In this lies the key to the working of the political machine; this alone legitimises civil undertakings, which, without it, would be absurd, tyrannical, and liable to the most frightful abuses.
No thank you to libertarianism, never again. I'll stick with John Connor and fight the machines. I'll take my chances. As for the announcement, ladies and gentlemen, it is this: I am altering the title of my blog. The word "Libertarian" will be removed. This is a purely conservative platform today. Since Ludwig von Mises is classified as a classical liberal of the modern times, he is no libertarian, and neither too was Ayn Rand, both of whom came into conflict with Murray Rothbard over Mises insisting as did Locke that it is crucial that the state only exist to protect the rights to property ownership and the liberty to simply live. Rand believed strongly in a national identity and was very much pro-American as the standard bearer in world history of representative democracy and the best, even if flawed, applicator of free market economics and a small government compared to our European allies and most certainly her native Russia. She called her ideology Objectivism, but as far what Rothbard claimed his ideas behind anarcho-capitalism, well, he simply chose to apply stealth to it by defiling the root word "liberty" and repackaged it disingenuously as "libertarianism."
+Fist+Pump.jpg)
