united states of libertarians

the picture above is not a statue of liberty. it's a confederate statue too big for antifa to take down. the statue is a gift from france as a token of our partnership in raping haiti. i thought it is a sin to own slaves. it turns out the sinner is the slave because france asked haiti to pay reparations for setting themselves free.

slavery and racism are against libertarian principles and many US presidents from george wasington and thomas jefferson up to the 19th century were shockingly racist (https://time.com/5638676/history-racist-presidents-trump/, https://mronline.org/2009/12/26/history-of-us-rule-in-latin-america-resistance-to-the-coup-in-honduras/, Noam Chomsky's Interpretation of George Hegel). here's an excerpt from chomsky:

" ..... I mean, Benjamin Franklin for example. Actually, Franklin thought that we shouldn't allow immigration of Germans and Swedes because they're not white enough. They're kind of a little off color. But we the pure anglo-saxons just carry civilization forward. It's incredible the history of it, I won't go through it, but Hitler looks mild in comparison. In fact, Hitler used this as a model."

but it's never black and white in the real world. it's always a grey area. i worked for 20 years in america and was never a victim of racism. i arrived in america with only $300 in my pocket and 20 years later, i owned 5 rental properties. i retired at age 39 to enjoy freedom and liberty for the rest of my life. i guess the picture above really is the statue of liberty.

if i was in canada, i wouldn't have been able to buy rental properties because of high taxes. but if i was in canada, the government will take good care of me when i retire. that bodes well for a lot of people who don't have the competence to save and invest. but this system is heavily dependent on the government not being corrupt. there are no right and wrong answers. what's wrong is when democrats think republicans are evil or when republicans think democrats are control freak communists. conservatives are simply airing in the side of caution while leftists and liberals are willing to take more risks.

there is always room for improvement even if the system seems to be working. that is the role of the chomsky and the activists - reveal the kinks in the system so society will continue to improve. therefore every libertarian country needs a healthy doze of leftist activism to hold a mirror on our faces so we can see our atrocity pimples and keep our morality in check.

i won't talk much about conservatives or right-wingers because as far as i know they are not trying to abolish separation of church and state and they are not trying to ban porn. gay marriage is already the law of the land and it seems to me they have given up trying to repeal this law. besides even if i was gay the gay marriage law would not matter to me because i would still be able to have a live-in gay partner even if gay marriage is not legal.

US atrocities can be linked to conservatives, but at least limbaugh is not saying we should support the massacre of innocent people. i'm sure hannity will not celebrate in front of a tv camera when innocent people are being massacred.

in contrast, there are troubling youtube videos of the king of the left chomsky declaring corporations should be dismantled (Noam Chomsky on Capitalism, Property, Technology, Government and the Social Order 1997). he doesn't make it clear that the dismantling should be voluntary as a result of enlightenment. i can't find a video or article where chomsky talks about the importance of the non aggression principle (NAP).  heck even stuart mill was a NAP kind of dude. forceful dismantling of corporations violates libertarian principles. chomsky is even advocating for libertarian socialism (libsoc) which takes away our right to own property. the left idiotically ignores that the freedom or liberty to own properties is very dear to the hearts of americans and normal human beings all over the world.  those responsible for the US atrocities will celebrate every time chomsky and the left advocates for libsoc. sometimes i feel the powerful elites hired chomsky to intentionally marginalize dissent. if i was a dictator with a brain that's exactly what i would do.

it's perfectly fine to have a society where nobody owns properties as long as it's voluntary as a result of enlightenment and not because a gun is pointed on our heads. i'm not sure where chomsky stands on this. chomsky gave a thumbs up to the libertarian socialist revolution of 1936 catalonia spain which took over factories instead of building their own. they even burned churches and executed priests. it makes me cringe thinking about it because my mom goes to church everyday and i'm sure she would rather burn than leave church. i guess chomsky supports taking away our rights to own properties through aggression.

leftists are great artists and teachers. i prefer having a leftist friend over a fellow libertarian. i want a leftist to marry my sister. if you don't read chomsky, you are misinformed. but if you don't listen to libertarian opinions, you are also misinformed. my major complaint against leftists is they don't include the libertarian arguments that would give the complete picture and allow their audience to make a more informed decision. this means chomsky is also guilty of engineering our consent.

chomsky is never wrong from a purely moral perspective. but it's like he is saying smoking can cause cancer. nobody would argue that. but it's like he is also saying smoking should be completely banned. he never says explicitly that people don't have the right to own property. he can talk for 2 hours about libertarian socialism but the one thing matters most to most people he never says it because he knows people with common sense won't agree with him. that's called manufacturing of consent. 

i think idealistic concepts such as pure libertarian and true democracy don't really work in the real world because humans have too much imperfections. the core argument between the left and right is on the assessment of human nature. the left believes human nature is good enough for a true democracy. the right believes humans are too imperfect for a true democracy. there is no science or logic that can prove who is right or wrong. although the left shoots themselves on the foot by saying america is very racist and religious which contradicts their rhetoric that america is good enough to be socialist or a true democracy.

note that capitalism or corporatism is not good. it's just the lesser evil. this gives the leftists a bottomless pit of criticism that makes you feel like our capitalist system is no different than hitler's nazi germany.

true democracy after the russian revolution allowed stalin's evil state tyranny to easily hijack the system. it resulted in millions of death and suffering. leftists have a good sense of humor. i laugh every time the left says true socialism or true democracy in russia would have worked if it wasn't taken over by stalin's state socialism. that's like saying we would have won the basketball game if we scored more points. that's exactly the problem with true democracy. the majority is not competent enough to keep the evil elements at bay. we need the competence of the psychopaths who attend davos. the powerful elite's greed and self interest forces them to protect our freedom and liberty because someone needs to fly and maintain their private jets. they need to protect the environment so they can enjoy their personal submarine in the great barrier reef. they need farmers so they don't have to plant their own food.

we libertarians believe freedom is a basic human virtue. i never hear a leftist say this so maybe they believe it's just a human desire. they even believe it's an evil human desire. there is no science or logic to prove who is right or wrong. arguing about it would be like arguing which color is more beautiful.

democracy is just a subset of freedom. freedom to choose. freedom is a more primal feeling compared to democracy.  songs and poems have been written about freedom but none about democracy. it's only a few intellectuals crying democracy now !!! i know both concepts are broad and complicated. but the bottom line is, all my life, i've heard my friends and family always talking about wanting to start a business or dreaming of working for a corporation. i've never heard anyone express their wish to work at a workplace democracy. i've never heard a corporate worker envious about coop workers or school teachers. it's all about inborn personality. corporate workers are like people who chose to give up their freedom in exchange for the gratification of raising kids. the left idiotically ignores our diverse inborn personalities.fortunately for the left, they can always blame it on propaganda (https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/06/propaganda-scapegoat-of-the-left.html).

liberty means freedom. freedom to do whatever you want as long as it does not harm the freedom of others. pardon me for pimping my ideology, but freedom or liberty has always been the top american virtue. a true libertarian party would be redundant because libertarians virtually win every election. the concept of liberty is too broad and complicated so there are conflicts. the competition between democrats and republicans is just a manifestation of these conflicts.

example with the abortion issue, there is no science or logic to determine if the fetus in the womb is already human or not. therefore a libertarian who believes the fetus is just like the appendix would be pro-choice while a libertarian who believes the fetus is already a human being would be pro-life. saying pro-choice people are murderers is stupid because removing an appendix is not murder. saying pro-lifers are taking away women's rights is also stupid because no one has the right to kill another human being. we should just vote and accept the consensus.

another conflict is you can't be given the freedom to drive a car that produces too much smog because you will violate the freedom of others to breath clean air. the democrat vs republican theater is just a healthy rivalry to find that perfect balance between government regulation and freedom. i think the accidental competition is a blessing in disguise because maybe it's the best way to achieve that balance. i feel it's like the stock market where the bulls and bears battle it out resulting in the best possible valuation. of course it does not always work out and mistakes can be disastrous as evident by america's periods of economic depressions and recessions. but it's the best option we got. the other alternatives have been proven to not work (https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/05/socialism-demystified.html).

i witnessed a live demo on the downside of too much government regulation when my uncle abelardo pages lost $50k of his hard earned money because the democrat's fascist regulations caused his nursing home business in california to fail. if he was in texas his business would have succeeded with maybe just regular inspection from the state to make sure the patients are not being abused. the most amazing thing is he is still a staunch democrat.

i agree with the left that we are making a lethal mistake by not doing enough to address climate change. but i strongly believe libertarian corporations are best suited for addressing climate change because corporate capital and it's breakneck competitive nature have been proven to be more successful. just take a look at tesla and first solar. state innovation is only suitable for technologies that require secrecy and motivated by fear of an imminent communist invasion. otherwise it will be a disaster like what happened to healthcare.org. the problem with climate change is that it's not imminent and the apocalypse competes with our own personal apocalypse. meaning we would die of old age anyway. so instead of making drastic changes to our system, we just need to do a better job educating society - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/03/my-new-deal.html.

we can't leave it to leftist because when people see their youtube videos advocating for dismantling of corporations and taking away our right to own properties people will run the other direction towards robert mercer and the koch borthers. the climate change issue is suppose to make me glad america has leftists. but instead the leftists made me furious when i learned their anti climate change deal includes free college and a whopping tax increase for the rich. that's like begging for your life and a sirloin steak. they might be able to spare your life but they can't give you the sirloin steak so they end up killing you. free healthcare might be a good idea if it saves us money but i think free college education is stupid (https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2017/10/education-racket.html). i'm sure the koch brothers jumped up for joy when they saw the green new deal when they saw the free college clause. leftists would rather allow the entire human civilization to be wiped out if they don't get free healthcare and free college. reminds me of the republicans in the past when they were so concerned with gay marriage even if our debt and budget deficit were spiraling out of control.

it think leftists are stuck in the 50's and 60's when we had global economic hegemony and everyone in the world bought our soaps and toothpastes so the powerful elites still made boatloads of money even after paying 90% tax. also at that time our james bonds can easily manipulate and overthrow governments to give us cheap access to natural resources because the world was still ignorant and indebted to us for saving them from nazi and japanese imperial tyranny. corporate elites owed their windfall earnings to our powerful military, so it's just fair they paid 90% tax. nowadays , those advantages are gone and increasing taxes for the rich can cause our talents and businesses to move to tax havens like ireland.

leftists believe a corporation is totalitarian (https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/05/tony-stark-has-a-heart.html). i strongly disagree because employees are free to leave anytime. they can start their own business or join a cooperative where there is a workplace democracy. of course corporate rules can be totalitarian but it's just like marriage. you give up a lot of freedom when you get married but in return you get something more valuable.where it really matters the most, leftists are the true totalitarians because they don't want us to own properties and freely do contracts with one another.

the corporate elites of the republican party are just tapping into the pro-life votes. they are not necessarily pro-life. the same way they are tapping into the racist votes. they are not necessarily racists. the democrats also help the corporate elites. they kowtow to healthcare, consumer staples, and alternative energy industries while republicans serve the oil and defense industries. abortion is just cosmetics but when it comes to real issues that affects freedom and putting food on our table, republicans and democrats belong to same party (business party). this is good for stability so it bodes well for libertarians who just don't want someone else meddling with their personal life.

if you read about elections in europe you will notice their countries have a labor party while america doesn't. i'm not sure if a labor party would be considered libertarian. i think freedom to form unions and negotiate is libertarian as long as they don't kneecap someone who reports to work during a strike. it's probably a blessing in disguise we don't have a labor party because it will just be hijacked by the jimmy hoffas. corporate executives are safer and more benevolent than the jimmy hoffas. vegas is now much more spectacular, fun and family friendly since the corporations took control from the bugsys and meyer lanskys. maybe there's no need for labor party because workers can already topple absolute and accountable power steve wynn for allegations of sexual misconduct. if they really want workplace democracy, they are already free to create or join cooperatives. leftists make me laugh when they say working for coops is what people really want and our desires are just being manipulated by corporate propaganda. but there are already thousands of coops and millions of coop workers yet i can't find videos in youtube of people saying how awesome it is to work in a workplace democracy compared to corporations. i see a michael more video promoting coops but it only has 8k views. i even have an awful video of me fixing my car that has 38k views -  replacing the sway bar bushing. my car broke because of the US government's strategy to increase GDP by not fixing roads so people will have to fix their car or buy a new one.

it's not automatic the labor leaders will look out for the workers, just like the social democrats in greece who were addicted to financial capital instead of the more sustainable industrial capital flowing in. they were happy taking in unbacked money as long as it funded the welfare state and got them re-elected (https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/04/dont-greece-the-hand.html). in america, the important thing is workers are always free to form a labor party and even create their own press and publication. the fact they are not making these efforts probably means they are already content. which means the system we have is probably good enough and it's not worth the risk to make drastic changes. just like the slaves of the 18th century who were more content than the slaves of the 17th century therefore there really was no reason to abolish slavery. i support dinesh's advocacy to bring back slavery.

the goal of CNN and msnbc is to convince you that the non libertarians in the republican party composes the entire republican party. they don't say it directly but their goal is to fool you into believing that white nationalists make up the entire republican party. on the other hand, the goal of fox news is to trick you into believing that communists and anarchists make up the entire democrat party.

a big conundrum for the freedom loving americans is that a libertarian politician or leader is actually an oxymoron because state or government is the antithesis to freedom. libertarians are like children who wants to do whatever they like. the cruel conservatives are like your father who tells you what you can do for your country. the kindhearted leftists are like your mother who tells you what your country can do for you. that's why leftists usually focuses on healthcare and education like a mother who enrolls her kids in school and makes sure they get their vaccinations. the conservatives usually focuses on fiscal responsibility, national security and foreign affairs like a father tightening the purse strings, protecting the home and implementing the monroe doctrine. liberals are like transgender parents who can't decide. example they want to allow strangers to come in their house but at the same time they also want to protect their children.

because freedom is a complex concept, the conservative and liberal politicians can manipulate it for their own political and personal gains. libertarians hate war, so the neo-cons had to mislead the americans about the weapons of mass destruction. and although the pre-existing conditions clause in obamacare was socialistic, the liberals had to mislead the americans by hiding it in a very complex and confusing healthcare law that promised free market system (a libertarian principle).

if it's clear that free healthcare will save us money and therefore there is no need to raise taxes, libertarians will support free healthcare. although maybe not because government corruption would still be an issue. we don't know if americans are as competent and selfless as the scandinavians. again, the argument always boils down to human nature (https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/06/politics-for-dummies.html).

politics is usually just theoretical stuff but i got to witness it in the flesh. during obama's first term, it was very easy to rent out my houses in vegas to section 8, which is a government housing assistance program. i enjoyed the relatively high rent and it was easy to find section 8 tenants. then came the libertarian tea party movement and republicans took control of congress. all of a sudden, my tenant who was young and healthy was stripped off her section 8 eligibility. until now i still couldn't find a section 8 tenant to rent that house. i'm currently renting it out to a regular tenant which is a hassle because i have to collect the rent. unlike section 8 where the rent automatically goes in my checking account. however, my section 8 tenant on the other house (1124 nassau drive), rosie morris, retained her section 8 eligibility until now because she has a disability. it may sound evil for libertarians to reduce government welfare spending but from this experience, it looks like libertarians are just curtailing the abuse of the system. libertarians still want to help but only those who truly needs help. i realized the tea party were not just a bunch of evil morons that CNN portrayed them to be.

the left wants to help the poor. but i think the reason why leftists don't have that much power is because they tend to ignore the fact that we have $20 trillion in debt, which is about 100% of our GDP. they ignore the possibility that it would be the future generations, our kids and grandkids, who might have to suffer if the debt spirals out of control. the left is so active in pointing out our country's numerous problems but they never mention our national debt even if everyone knows it's a serious problem. the people in greece are literally suffering because their national debt went out of control.

the left claims america is spending too much on defense and giving too much to the corporations. but libertarians believe the government's primary job is national defense and corporations provide jobs. the key is to avoid a nanny state where people become dependent and lazy. the left idiotically complains that america is already a nanny state to corporations. another example of the left's idiotic desire for theoretical purity. normal people with common sense knows there is a big difference. a human being dependent on government lowers productivity while a corporation dependent on the government secures jobs and maintains productivity. innovation might become an issue if a corporation is dependent on government. however, chomsky claims lockheed martin is a beneficiary of the nanny state and we all know there is no shortage of innovation in lockheed martin because we have the most advanced weapons.

our advanced weapons is another thing that baffles me about the left. a normal person with common sense is suppose to be happy if his/her country has the most advanced weapons but it's something that leftists disdain. a normal person with common sense might agree with the left's stance on US atrocities and imperialistic policies but will be baffled by the left's lack of enthusiasm about our advanced weapons. this is another thing that ruin's the left's credibility.

i was dumbfounded when CNN and the democrats demonized trump's proposal to cut the after school programs. i was really turned off when CNN was interviewing kids in after school programs to show the importance of the program. when this kid replied "i meet new friends here", the CNN reporter acted as if "you see you evil donald trump you are taking away government funds that gives opportunity for children to meet new friends". CNN is living in a bubble. they don't realize how ridiculous that was. they don't realize you don't need government funding for kids to meet new friends. this is why many common sense people will rather vote for an instinctive practical dumb republican over a super smart idealistic candidate.

other signs that america is currently libertarian: marijuana and gay marriage are now legal. we even have a president who hits on transgenders:

contrast this to the previous president who was opposed to gay marriage (joke). the following video is proof america is becoming more libertarian. in the video, obama says, "i believe marriage should be between a man and a woman". i have to download it because youtube regularly takes down videos that contain hate speech. google should update their AI algorithm by adding an obama exception rule.

despite 8 years of obama, taxes are still low and it's still legal to own an assualt rife. can you imagine obama was one of the most popular presidents in history yet was too afraid of the libertarians or NRA to even try to change the gun laws?

under obama, illegal immigrants were still being deported (this video also keeps getting taken down and it's very difficult to find so i just downloaded it instead of providing the link):

big government spending is anti libertarian. obama and bush were big spenders but they had to hide it from the american people. during elections, both candidates had to promise they will cut government spending and reduce our debt. then senator obama condemned bush for increasing our national debt by 4 trillion. yet when he became president, he increased the national debt by 8 trillion. i also remember bill clinton's speech to congress saying "the era of big government is over". the following video shows obama kissing up to libertarians by condemning bush for overspending. this is proof that libertarians win every election because the 2 candidates try to show off who is more libertarian.

i'm a libertarian. but i'm aware of the pros and cons. freedom is good, but the bad side effect is inadvertent cruelty because the incompetents will have to depend on the voluntary benevolence of the competents. the upside is it will force the incompetents to work hard. of course there has to be balance. all the political battles are really an effort to seek that balance.

i also believe in the theory - a rising tide lifts all boats, or the incompetents will get a smaller piece of the pie but the pie gets bigger so the incompetents will still end up with more pizza. this has been proven time and again throughout history. the downfall of communism shows that the more you move away from libertarian values, the more chance your society will fail. what's amazing is there have been small and brief pockets of success with communism like 1936 catalonia and paris communes but they were libertarian communists. and their success could be attributed to a honeymoon aberration. maybe people are always in a selfless cooperative mode after a revolution, just like couples during their wedding night. even soviet state socialism prospered in the soviet union for 10 years. and the fact that they were easily and immediately wiped out by external forces proves that state capitalism that allows libsoc entities such as coops is the best way to go. i even see libsocs in youtube admitting it does not stand well against aggression. this is exactly why libertarians don't mind having an inflated defense budget.

i also have a theory that liberals and conservatives are closet libertarians. i mean, who does not like freedom? who likes to pay more taxes? liberals support open borders and helping the poor because it's cool but in reality, they don't want a homeless to live in their property and any level headed person knows that if the borders are opened, america will collapse into chaos. PC hollywood celebrities squander their wealth on unnecessary material things even if there are people around the world who are starving. al gore cares for the environment but he also loves his private jet and heated pool (this comes from supposedly left leaning abc news  - http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalWarming/story?id=2906888&page=1). neo-conservatives wants to look patriotic so they support the war on iraq but in reality, they are horrified at the 4,500 US soldiers who died in the war and the $3 trillion in cost.

another reason not to get too riled up about democrat vs republican rivalry is that perception or rhetoric is not always reality. the perception is that obama is too PC and weak on defense but the reality is bin laden was killed during his term.  obama used drones to kill our enemies even at the expense of innocent civilians. that's the extreme opposite of PC. guantanamo was not closed even if it was part of his campaign promise. the stocks of defense contractors skyrocketed even if obama's election promise was to cut defense spending.

the perception was that obama was anti-wall street socialist but many of his base actually accused him of being in bed with goldman sachs - Obama Working for Goldman Sachs? , Max Keiser Slams Goldman Sachs - Paulson and Bernanke Guilty of Treason Part 1of of 2

that's why i don't like it when 1 party controls all branches of government. if republicans control congress, i like a democrat to be president. if democrats control congress, i like a republican to be president (checks and balance).

but even if the republicans control everything, even if trump withdrew from the climate accord, solar energy and electric cars won't stop growing, coal continues it's downward spiral, and your car will still need to have a smog check every 2 years. corporations won't just go around destroying the environment willy nilly. republican policies are less friendly compared to the democrats but it's also possible the environmental effects won't be significantly higher compared to obama. the irony is oil and gas had a renaissance under obama through fracking, which democrats believe is very disastrous to the environment. http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/08/20/cuomo-wont-accompany-obama-at-fracking-hotbed-sites-in-upstate-ny/  , http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/23/fracking-obama-new-york_n_3805779.html  . http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/27/obama-fracking-support_n_3510651.html

if you protect the environment too much with over the top regulation, this can hamper economic growth which could lead to economic recession and make the country more susceptible to corruption and bribery from evil corporations to violate the environmental regulations. this is why even if the people of india took control of their country through socialism, the government ignored the externalities and their rivers makes you barf by just watching them in youtube. meanwhile in america, unregulated and unaccountable corporate tyranny is better in addressing the externalities. maoist china and the soviet union's record on the environment was just as bad as that of america. if over regulation and corruption ruins the economy, there would be less money to protect the environment. there would be less activists guarding the environment because they will be too busy just trying trying to find their next meal.  however, environmental pollution or disaster can also defeat the purpose of economic growth. what's good with driving a ferrari when the air you breath is toxic anyway? there has to be moderation or balance.

the solution to climate change is already in people's hands. we don't need executive actions and congressional laws. solar roof and electric cars are already affordable. i'm disappointed at the left and climate change activists for not teaching the public on the things we can already do. of course we should continue to fight for government subsidies and regulations to curb climate change. but it always baffles me how the solution of the left has to always be the government when the entire history of mankind clearly shows that government sucks on everything. the left will gain more credibility with this 2 prong approach.

you might be worried trump and republicans have symbiotic relations with white supremacists. but remember obama's pastor rev wright also made anti-semitic remarks. michelle obama used to be a member of black panthers. although nazis are way more immoral, my point is the differences between candidates are not really what you think. it's obvious to me donald trump has lots of emotional issues but so far i think they are just cosmetics and what really matters is his economic agenda is not that crazy and might even work. that's why the democrats are not so critical of his economic agenda. anti trump business owners in the country agree that if we are to do something about china's unfair trade practices, now is the best time to do it.

and keep in mind that cities like detroit and chicago have been under democrats for half a century. i'm not saying democrat policies are to blame. i'm just saying democrats are not magicians who can solve difficult problems. you might say those places would be worse under republicans, but new york used to be a mess, and when a republican (guilliani) took over, new york had a dramatic improvement. although the improvement could have been caused by the economic boom and programs set in place by his democratic predecessor and not because of guilliani's leadership genius.

a common reaction is when democrats win, the republicans think america is heading towards big govt welfare state and bankruptcy and if the republicans win, the democrats think there will be lynching of blacks and minorities and the environment will be destroyed. fear not because these are against libertarian values and america is libertarian.

just think that although america has been prosperous under many democrat presidents, america has been also prospered under many republican presidents - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2017/08/its-not-the-president-stupid.html

(for more of my knowledge bombs, click the "ian's knowledge bombs" banner at the top of this article and choose any article in the table of contents that piques your interest)