It’s not just that he screwed up and said something stupid because he’s so committed to a purist fancy. No, it’s worse than that. Libertarianism itself is what’s stupid here, not just Paul. We should stop tip-toeing around this belief system like its adherents are the noble last remnants of a dying breed, still clinging to their ancient, proud ways.

Now, to be clear, before continuing: there are legions of brilliant individual libertarians. [Dave] Weigel himself, for example, is a great writer and reporter, and a true master of Twitter. We’ve never met, but by all accounts, he’s also very much a stand-up fellow. But brilliant, decent people can think silly things. And that’s what’s going on here. It’s time to stop taking libertarianism seriously. [...]

Think about the New Deal. Although libertarian ingrates will never admit it, without the reforms of the 1930s, there might not be private property left for them to complain about the government infringing on. Not many capitalist democracies could survive 25 percent unemployment, and it doesn’t just happen by good luck. [...]

The government didn’t just help make the “free market” in the first place — although it did do that. It’s also constantly busy trimming around the edges, maintaining the thing, keeping it healthy. The state can think ahead and balance competing interests in a way that no single company can. [...]

The libertarian who insists that the state has no place beyond basic night-watchman duties is like a teenager who, having been given a car, promptly starts demanding the right to stay out all night. Sometimes, someone else really is looking out for your best interests by saying no.

And that’s why the best rap on libertarians isn’t that they’re racist, or selfish. (Though some of them are those things, and their beliefs encourage both bad behaviors, even if accidentally.) It’s that they’re thoroughly out of touch with reality. It’s a worldview that prospers only so long as nobody tries it, and is too unreflective and self-absorbed to realize this. In other words, it’s bratty. And that’s bad enough.

Of course this is after Rand Paul made his comments on the Civil Liberties legislation, which is a different discussion for a different day. What surprises me is that Mr. Winant’s take on the “Free Market.” He states that without the government there would be no free market. How this makes sense eludes me. The fact that the government passes regulation on the private sector eliminates the term “free market.” The fact that the government prints currency at super speeds and adjusts value of this paper and adjusts the intrest that these papers can collect completely destroys the principles behind the “free market.” Its a disgrace that people think that we have ever had a “free market” especially since the establishment of the Federal Reserve. If anything that line should read that “The government didn’t just hurt the “free market” in the first place, it destroyed it — It is constantly busy regulating, getting in the way of innovation, messing up the thing, making is sick with disease. The “FREE MARKET” can adjust to the current times and balance competing interests in a way no government can.”

The metaphor he gives to compare the governments duties and to that of a teenager acquiring a license to operate a motor vehicle doesn’t even fit. While the Government would love more than ever to have a parent child relationship with the citizens of the nation, it does not. All the gov’t is supposed to be is the night watchman, who defends in country. It is none of the states business how enterprise and industry provide money and wealth to society. There is not one line written in the constitution about gov’t and business. Any person who advocates that gov’t be in control of enterprise and industry are those who are already holding office or those who do not trust themselves to make decisions for their own lives. These people also love to tell people what to live like and how to live this way.

How about the fact that in the 1920′s credit was so easily available, it created a false boom just like today, and then it collapsed because of gov’t intervention and thus we had the great depression. There was a major crash in the economy in the 1921, and since the gov’t just left it alone and allowed the market to handle it, this depression lasted all of a year. A vast contrast to the great depression, where gov’t intervened and let to mass unemployment and a serious cut in living standard. The gov’t cannot do anything successful because the people who sit in their offices have no one clue about the issues they pass regulation and laws on. They like to think they do. But they don’t. Look at whats happening today with unemployment rates.

True unemployment rates are approaching that same 25% that is was in the 1930′s and how is the great government handling it today? By forcing regulations on the private sector to “stimulate” job creation. It sure is working! Ask people how easy it is to get a job today, in todays market. These regulations shut the door on job creation, no business is hiring because they simply cannot afford to hire or do not have the tools to make sure they match these requirements and regulations. So the government creates some public works project to build some useless bridge out in the middle of nowhere to create 500 jobs that last 6 months-1 year, and lauds it as some success, while the factory that produces a small part to an aircraft has to close up shop because the 20 people he was going to hire were given the bridge job, that in the end provides nothing to economic growth. This factory now needs to shut down because it does not have the man power, now the aircraft manufacturer needs to go to China, Japan, India, Mexico to get the part to produce the crafts. He runs the risk of paying more per part due to regulations on foreign importing and trading of goods set up by the government, and he also risks that the quality of the part that he has used for the past 20 years might not be the same quality as the part made from foreign plants and businesses.

You cannot go attacking the “free market” because you feel its attackable due to what one Rand Paul stated. You need to do research and think things through before you post your verbal assault on how bad the “free market” is and how it would not exist without the governments watchful eyes and constant pruning. Until we have a true FREE MARKET in this country, one cannot assert that it will not correct government created problems and those that fall under corporatism.

I will start by saying that I normally don’t “do” these types of articles, but I feel compelled to share with you my thoughts on a topic that supersedes gaming, technology or the occasional picture or YouTube post.

Democracy has been forced to the masses since the Greek golden age in history. It has been viewed as the fairest, most efficient way of allowing a populous to come together and make decisions, laws and to appoint leaders to carry out said decisions and laws.  Each man has a vote and with that vote he gets to decide what suits him the best out of a handful of options presented to him. Then the votes are counted and the majority wins. I ask is this fair? Is this efficient? More so I ask you is this just? Not really, not in a long shot.

Democracy’s main issue is that the power of the (country, land, state, etc.) is simply leased to those that the populous chose to govern, the leader has NO direct investment in the control of the land and state. Thus the leader can wield his/her power in any way that they see fit and merely brush the shortcomings off on the next leasee. Thus this only benefits the elected leader and his/her comrades that they appointed to various positions in the government.  You might say that this is handled with a system of Checks and Balances. Much to your disappointment, it is not, because these people who need to keep a check on the other elected officials are still just leasing power, that has been given to them by the people. The Check to these officials is the people, however since we have foolishly given the officials power, we the people remain powerless under a democracy.

Heres a scenario: We all came together and voted, and “Person A” won the majority of votes and is now president of the state. Then president “A” appoints people who share similar views to various posts in the government, he is now able to write laws and make potential life altering decisions at the behest of the country, who is to stop him? The current minority? Not a chance. Now imagine president “A” feels that the state would be safer if we increased our defence and protection services. He and his cohorts write a bill, given that he has the majority, it passes into law and within 30 days we have 2x bigger defence and protection services. Now you person “B” does not like this one bit, in a democracy what can you do about it?  You can stand up and protest. You can write your “Representative.” You can find others who share your opinion on the matter. However in the end, you are powerless because you are a member of the minority. So you and a group of people start a protest, but because of what senator “G” earmarked in the current defence and protection bill, you are now labeled a threat to the citizens around you and are then punished. Ergo, because of Democracy you are now punished. I really do not see how democracy is so great. I would venture to say that a legit Monarchy works better and is potentially a better society to live in than a Democratic society. How so you ask? KEEP READING!

Now a monarchy and the concepts behind it are simple to understand. We have a king or queen who own a large chunk of land and control all the day-to-day operations of the land. The king then employs the common man to build a castle, walls, gates and smaller dwellings and buildings on said land.  How this is better than a democracy? It is fairly simple to see that the current monarch has a DIRECT investment in the kingdom. He is not leasing power like an elected official is. The current monarch if he remains lax in the upkeep of their kingdom will directly suffer, the kingdom could be invaded or the subjects could simply leave the kingdom, essentially leaving the monarch with nothing. It is in the monarchs best interests that he maintains a prosperous, safe and blissful kingdom. If the monarch starts charging high taxes to its subjects he risks said subjects to rise up and potentially harm his investment. However, if the monarch provides basic necessities of life to its subjects and asks them simply to do an assigned job (e.g.. Gardening, tailoring, defence services, butcher). This allows the king to maximize his investment all while keeping the subjects happy. Imagine that you are living under a monarchs rule, and they provide you a home, that is already being paid for by the kingdom, all the monarch asks you to do is maintain the royal gardens. Seems like a fair trade. There is only one problem with this system. While being better than a democracy, where power is not abused and where majority rule does not destroy the opinions of the minority. A monarchy lacks personal freedom, which is the ultimate prize.

Why should we the people be forced to accept the views and values of others? Can it be possible that we would be able to govern ourselves with no established government? I believe so. It is no ones job to force anyone to live by a certain standard. The most powerful force in this world is the Free Market, a TRUE free market, not the imaginary one that the Neo-Cons claim to support and the one Democrats brand as the enemy. With a stateless free market it allows all the issues that are constantly being tossed back and forth by our elected officials to be handled in a fast and efficient and better yet FAIR way. How so? Lets look at the controversial Stem Cell issue that is a hot topic of our time. In a stateless free market if a group wants to get together and support it, they can, if a research center wants to study stem cells they would be able to. Heres the kicker, because there would be a DEMAND for cures to common illnesses that plague us. As long as there is a demand for something in a free market that demand will be met. With a government in the way to write laws and pass regulations its is impossible for there to be breakthroughs in various fields of study, industry and life. Since the majority does not find it to be ethical to study stem cells, the minority now has to stop researching a potential life altering method of curing the masses.

This can be applied to any issue. With a stateless free market, there would be no force on the individual to conform to any legislation or monarch rule. By infringing on others right to privacy and property the aggressor only harms himself. If you are allowed to protect your property, and someone transgressed the boundaries of your property, they (the transgressor) is more than likely going to get seriously hurt. The way a democracy would handle this would be, they vote to establish a domestic defence bureau, they then force the citizens to pay taxes to upkeep the defence bureau and the facilities to detain criminals, some of which are beyond rehabilitation, and in the end because of earmarking, corruption and coercion there is little to no progress in effectively dealing with crime, yet you the citizen are forced to pay for it. Under a monarchy crime is handled as the monarch sees fit, you still pay taxes and in the end it is up to the monarch what the process of dealing with crime and criminals are. Under the process chosen there is potential for you to be directly effected in a negative way. Since this is a monarchy, you the subject are powerless to do anything about this decision. There are limitless examples that can be discussed as to how a Monarchy is superior to a Democracy and how a stateless free market is superior to all political systems.

While it is hard to comprehend and even I do not have all the answers, I can without hesitation say that democracy is the system that failed, and it is unfortunate that through this system your liberties are trampled without you knowing it. Will it ever change? I cannot see it happening soon. Can steps be taken to move towards a system that works? Of course. There are a group of individuals who have discussed this very topic before me. One way would be to elect officials who want to reduce the size and power of government. The best place to start is educating yourself, go and listen to these individuals, read their books, change starts with you. Hans-Hermann Hoppe wrote a whole book on this very topic: Democracy: The God That Failed. If my small write-up has intrigued you, I suggest you check out his work. It is basically this write-up just more detailed and provides more evidence on the matter.

Heres another quote by Hoppe that in short explains why democracy fails: “As for the moral status of majority rule, it must be pointed out that it allows for A and B to band together to rip off C, C and A in turn joining to rip off B, and then B and C conspiring against A, and so on.”

I really had to think about this one; to imagine I had the power to write an amendment and have it pass instantly, or change one of the current amendments to the Constitution is pretty heavy.  After a round of brain debate I couldn’t make up my mind between the two options I arrived at.  I explained both to my friend, and they agreed with me.  Lets see if you the reader agree as well.

I would instantly add freedom of information to the first amendment.  This one word INFORMATION means the world to you and I,  instantly we would gain a vast amount of power over all three branches of government and anything/anyone involved with the government.  Not only would we be ENTITLED to information it would be required by law that we have a freedom to it.  This one addition would guarantee that items like Ron Paul’s HR1207 would be passed without hesitation, as auditing the Fed would provide you and I information on where our hard earned tax dollars are going and provide REAL TRANSPARENCY to the US Government.  This does not only apply to government, as all information would be a freedom, there would be a surge of learning and mental growth among the population.

The second would be an amendment would be to finally write into law a free market economic system, think Austrian School economics.  With this addition we would instantly gain economic freedom and not be forced to submit our hard earned money to the government.  Which in turn allows the government to fund programs, wars, and policies that are unnecessary, foolish and at times unconstitutional.  Why should we the people submit our money to fund a disorganized, highly polarized, and extremely volatile corporation like the US government.  By passing this into law we instantly curb Corporatism and Statism.  Since we would go back to the gold standard and in turn rid this horrid, nightmare fiat system that we currently have in place.  There would be no excuse for bailouts, corporate lobbying, and most importantly high taxes and fees that only go to failed programs and policies.  This alone would End the Fed, and the Fed is a different story for a different day…

There are several more options I mulled over, but ultimately one of choices would be the one I would go with.  Both are equally important to me so I found myself in a conundrum trying to chose just one of them.  I wish the question allowed me two chances to make/change amendments.  I would love to hear your feedback.   If YOU had one opportunity to add an amendment or alter a current amendment, what would you do?

The second order of business is the first and LAST time I will ever talk about these next points.  I like to call these points: Emotion Issues.  These are the issues that DO NOT BELONG IN POLITICAL DEBATE, DISCUSSION OR CAMPAIGN.  Such issues are abortion, drugs, religion, etc.  These are all based on emotion, and EMOTION CAN NEVER BE POLITICAL.  The government’s sole job (originally) was to provide for the common defence and make sure that all contracts are abided by.  IT IS NOT governments job to tell you how to live.  It is my belief that if you want to smoke cigarettes, and studies prove that they do harm, and YOU STILL smoke; it is not my job as the government to stop you.  The government is not a nanny, parent, guardian.  AND IT NEVER SHOULD BE!  It is your choice what you do with your property (your body) and your life,  IT IS NOT YOUR CHOICE TO FORCE YOUR DECISIONS AND BELIEFS ON OTHERS!  That simple statement is the definition of liberty.  It was a main point in the creation of this country that church and state shall NEVER mix,  yet when I see Jesus being forced into the health care debate, it makes me worried.  No where in the constitution does it say Jesus shall always be a center piece in the government, nor have I seen anything about health care being a right in the constitution either.  All these issues that are the focal points of the American political lens are emotion based and should be ousted from the halls of capitol hill, the white house and the supreme court.  These are PERSONAL matters that you have a right to have YOUR OWN opinions on.  There is no law that condemns you from hating marijuana or from being pro-choice for abortion, however these issues should not be a part of the governments agenda.  As stated above: The government is not your nanny, parent, or guardian.  Nor should we give it the power to take on these roles.  Everyone is entitled to life, liberty and happiness.  And in no time what so ever should we submit these basic rights to anyone.  And in no time should any individual or group impede/trample these basic rights.

So in closing, I would implore you to get emotion out of politics/government, and to get out there and make a change because we need one about now.  Remember it is the basic rights talked about above that have made us “a land of the free, and home of the brave.”  There are many potential senators/representatives that believe in protecting these rights.  All you have to do is support these people, regardless of Republican/Democrat.  The problem is that the government has gotten to big and its time to put it on a rather large diet.  Get rid of these career politicians, allow us economic freedom, and most importantly reinstate the constitution!