Hillary is Corrupt and Russia is a Distraction

Hillary is scarily corrupt, and the email leaks revealed that truth. She:
1. Used the DNC to rig the primary against Sanders.
2. Used her media allies to rig the Republican Primary IN FAVOR of Trump (thinking he couldn’t win the general).
3. Used her media allies to rig the election debates and get the questions in advance.
4. Deleted e-mails that were part of a criminal investigation against her.
5. Convinced the media to engage in mass hysteria about Russia, purely to distract from her own corruption and lies that were uncovered in those leaks.
If Hillary didn’t have so much corrupt control over the media, she would have been facing off against Rand Paul in the general election, and would have decisively lost. Instead, she stole the primary from him and handed it to Trump because she thought Trump would be an easier opponent.
Hillary engineered this entire election right down to the tiniest detail. She took away all of our better choices, and it all blew up in her face because she forgot about the electoral college. With that kind of control over the media, it would have been terrifying if she became president.
So if it was Russia who gave those e-mails to wikileaks, we should be giving Putin a fucking medal, not sanctions.

Here’s How Liberty Wins

Understandably, we liberty-minded folks are depressed about Rand Paul having to suspend his campaign in the Republican primary. He represented our best shot at reshaping the Republican Party in our image and having a liberty-minded president by 2017.

However, it’s important not to lose perspective. We may have lost this battle, but we’re still winning the war. We can still win this. Time is on our side.

The Trends

The United States is still trending libertarian. Not in policy, but in the opinions held by the majority of people. Trust in government has reached historic lows. New technologies and cultural phenomena, ranging from social media, to 3D printing, to Kickstarter, to Uber are continually decentralizing our society and empowering individuals to create and be heard. People have more powerful ways than ever before of becoming politically informed.

The evidence of the effect this decentralization has upon our society is evident in the difference between Rand Paul’s supporters and everyone else. Rand Paul’s supporters are some of the most vocal political advocates on social media. Paul has more Facebook likes than Cruz or Rubio, and he was a consistent winner in online polls not yet “adjusted” for demographics. In Iowa, Paul won 13% of the under-age-40 vote, but only 2% of everyone else. The divide here is clearly between the young and those too old to adjust to new technologies.

The Goal

The way in which Rand Paul was sidelined in the GOP primary makes it very clear that the Republican Party cannot be a vessel for anything radically new. This party is overwhelmingly dominated by the elderly, the hateful, and the out-of-touch. Indeed, Ted Cruz’s message appeals to their base more than Rand Paul’s because of how similar it is to Donald Trump’s hateful rhetoric. The reason these two win in the Republican Party is the same reason they cannot win the general public. Remember, the goal is not to keep the Republicans in power, regardless of how badly they mistreat us! If the Republicans want our votes, they have to earn it by nominating a real libertarian, like Rand Paul. If Cruz becomes president, a real libertarian has no shot in that party until 2024 at the earliest!

For Liberty to truly succeed, we need to build a new coalition, not burdened by Republican baggage. Any attempt to compromise our values in order to gain more supporters will only be seen as “selling out.” The Democratic Party works because it is united around a single principle: Government should have an active role in improving our lives. We need to build a party round the principle that we’re better off when the government leaves us alone. There is an existing party that is united around this principle:

The Libertarian Party.

The Strategy

If the trends are ever in our favor, then why hasn’t the Libertarian Party even come close to winning a major election yet? Well, it’s because of the “lesser of two evils” hypothesis. This hypothesis suggests that even if we agree with a 3rd party more, we always have to vote for one of the two major parties, because they’re the only ones who have a chance of winning, and it’s better to vote for the lesser evil than “throw away your vote” on a 3rd party. However, your odds of swinging an election between the two giants are astronomically small. For your vote for the Democrats or the Republicans to truly matter in a presidential election, you would have to live in a purple state, that purple state would have to swing on a single vote, and the electoral college would have to swing on that one state. Your vote truly doesn’t matter.

That is, unless you vote 3rd party. You see, 3rd parties desperately need each and every vote they can get. For the Libertarian Party, every vote has a significant chance of pushing them above the symbolic 1% threshold. Every vote pushes them ever closer to the 5% they would need to be included in the national debates. Every vote gives them a higher chance of being declared a “spoiler” for one of the two major parties.

But if we “spoil” the election, isn’t that a bad thing? Well that depends…is media attention a bad thing for a young, unknown political party trying to break out?

We can learn something from Donald Trump’s unexpected success. He broke out in the Republican primary by harnessing the “outrage factories” inherent in some of our new forms of media. By saying obviously outrageous things, he ensured that people rushing to express their hatred for him would dominate every single second of airtime in the political coverage around the country (and indeed, even around the world to some extent). When you’re trying to make a name in politics, as in show business, no publicity is bad publicity.

So here’s how we win:

  1. Support the Libertarian Party.
  2. The Libertarian Party starts looking like a spoiler in the polls.
  3. The Republicans, outraged at their potential loss, complain about the Libertarian Party.
  4. Stand strong! Give no ground! Let everyone know that the Liberty Coalition resides within the Libertarian Party. They can join it, but we’re not leaving it.
  5. Impressed by the unshakable principles of the Libertarian Party, more than 5% of voters begin supporting them.
  6. Mostly so the other parties can try to knock us down and steal our voters, the Libertarian Party is allowed in the national debates for the first time.
  7. The major parties’ scheme backfires.
  8. The Libertarian Party surpasses the Republicans in support.
  9. A national political realignment occurs, in which voters are divided by whether they are libertarian or authoritarian, rather than “liberal” or “conservative.”
  10. The Libertarian Party wins.

There’s no telling how much of this can be accomplished within the time frame of a single election campaign. But no matter how long it takes, remember that our movement is a growing flame, and we can no longer be ignored. As said by Mahatma Gandhi:

First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.


The word “liberal” is not used in the US the same as it is in Europe, and this undoubtedly has created some international miscommunications. Europeans still use “liberal” to describe people who favor freedom from government intervention. Americans use “liberal” to describe people who favor MORE government intervention and components of socialism. The American usage is nonsensical, because the word “liberal” derives from and used to refer to the philosophy of liberty.

So when Rush Limbaugh screams about how liberals are going to destroy society, he’s talking about people who are more similar to Europe’s Social Democrats and Labour parties. When the BBC complains about how liberals are going to destroy society, they’re talking about people who are more similar to America’s Libertarians.

This reversal of meaning in the US has its roots in the early 20th century, when Americans who sympathized with more socialist policies found that using the word “socialism” made them very unpopular. Hence, they tried to manipulate public perception by saying that they “still support liberalism, just a more socially progressive form of liberalism.” They then argued that anyone who doesn’t support this “progress” towards socialism is “conservative,” even (especially?) when those “conservatives” actually favored greater liberty. These progressives started winning elections, and cemented their incorrect “liberals vs. conservatives” terminology into American political discussion.

In order to resolve this confusion and avoid further miscommunications, I would recommend the following rules:

  • Americans stop using the term “liberal” altogether, unless you specify very clearly that you’re referring to “modern American liberalism.”
  • Most modern American liberals are okay with being called “progressives,” so you can use that term pretty much everywhere you would have previously used the term “liberal.”
  • The more extreme ones (think Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and anyone else who talks about the “fair share” that “the rich” need to pay) can be referred to as social democrats or democratic socialists.
  • If you want to refer to the belief in reduced government intervention in people’s personal or professional lives, then you should refer to that sentiment as “libertarian.”

Europeans, I suppose, could carry on as usual (since you use the correct terminology to begin with), but you may achieve more productive conversations with those across the pond if you adapt to use the word “libertarian” in place of “liberal.”

The Separation of Commerce and State

The principle of the Separation of Church and State has done wonders for religious freedom, and has brought impressive levels of interpersonal harmony and general prosperity. Why? Because this principle removes the mechanism of violence from religion, making the proposal in explicitly harmonious terms.

Unfortunately, a new kind of violent, crusading morality has taken its place, in the form of economic progressivism. Progressives believe that certain kinds of economic transactions between people, though completely voluntary on all sides, are immoral, and thus must be violently suppressed. This has created, on economic matters, the same kind of heated partisan discord that once divided British Catholics and Protestants. In the less civilized corners of the world, the economic crusaders have employed corruption and military strength to gain a permanent advantage over their opponents, establishing socialist dictatorships.

To restore harmony on economic matters, and ensure that violence is never used for the sake of overly-intrusive, moralistic crusading, what we need is a principle of Separation of Commerce and State.

I believe this principle would function the way the Separation of Church and State has, becoming shorthand for the plea to maintain civility through the enforcement of “live and let live” on economic matters. In other words, you may not agree with the contracts that I agree to, but I am free to make my own choices according to my own economic beliefs, and so are you. Certainly, the progressives will object to such a principle, arguing that the people are too stupid to know what’s best for themselves, just as religious crusaders have continued to do, centuries after the introduction of the Separation of Church and state. Yet, I think the formalization of this concept in parallel to the language that protects religious freedom will take a giant leap forward in protecting economic freedom, with far more success than general pleas for liberty (which are often difficult for the uninitiated to understand).

So, have I made my case? Are you ready to start framing the debate over economic liberty in terms of “Separation of Commerce and State”?

Obama Administration Debates Dying Cancer Patient

Obama’s senior adviser, Dan Pfeiffer, just called a terminal cancer patient a liar, blaming her insurance company for being driven out of business by Obamacare.

At least Obama wasn’t lying when he said, “I’m really good at killing people.”

Shutdown Lies

Q: Isn’t this government shutdown the fault of the Republicans because they refused to agree with Obama or Harry Reid unless they could get everything that they want?

A: No, the House bills do not give the Republicans everything they want. That’s a complete lie. All of the House bills funded the government. None of them gave Republicans everything they wanted (which would necessarily include a complete repeal of Obamacare). They each did something different:

1. Defunded Obamacare completely.

2. Delayed the Obamacare individual mandate for a year.

3. Repealed the medical device tax and introduced a “conscience cause” allowing businesses to opt out of providing contraception coverage.

4. Eliminated the government employee “exemption” from Obamacare.

Harry Reid could have agreed to any one of those four proposals, and the government would remain funded. But he didn’t. Is it really reasonable to shut down the government just to keep government employees exempt from the costs of Obamacare while the rest of us suffer through it? Harry Reid and Obama wanted this shutdown to happen. They did everything they could to make it happen, and are continuing to do everything they can to make it as painful as possible. They have even rejected every proposal to fund the government piecewise or temporarily to minimize the pain while negotiations continue. The President and his party are holding this country hostage, and none of these Democrat lies are going to change that.

The Biggest Corporation

I’m going full populist today. :iconimcoolplz:

Imagine a corporation that possesses monopoly power over all of its services. Its CEO is immune to any form of accountability (aside from a massive regulatory agency which is too inept and internally-divided to do anything), and there is no direct, external oversight. This corporation also maintains an arsenal of weapons, which it uses with impunity to support its own interests, often to force you to buy its products and muscle competition out of the markets. Pretty horrible and scary, right?

The worst part is, this corporation actually exists. It calls itself your government.

We all are the regulatory agency that has the power to hold the CEO accountable for his crimes and break up this massive monopoly, if only we could agree to do it. So why do so many people seek to defend this corporation from oversight, and repeatedly fall on their swords in support of its power-hungry CEO? Isn’t a free, competitive market better than one single, massive, monopolistic, unaccountable conglomerate dominating us all?

The same company with the power to judge us and throw us in jail should not be allowed to participate in any other industries. It’s just too open to corrupt abuses of power.