The Free Voluntarist: 2014

Wednesday, November 12, 2014

Koch and Soros, A Duel?

Long have we known that money has influenced our political debates; our wars, and conflicts: even at home.

Though, other than self interest billionaires, and laws that restrict free people, there are few coming to the charge in support of, at least some, free ideals; Ideals of individualism and what some call "moral collectivism". Needless to say, this is not a battle of ideology, but more of an observation of something interesting happening, and something worth noting.

The lot of us libertarians/and liberal-republicans have been accused of being associated with the likes of the Koch Brothers (founders of Koch Industries), though vice versa with the Liberals and democrats with George Soros (Soros Fund Management). We can go, on and on, about our discourses between associations, labels, and oppositions by ideology, but one thing we cannot miss is this:

These two behemoths, one of the coal industry leaders, the Kochs, and an investment banking leader in his field, George Soros, have both invested heavily in Healthcare, and minority growth; both are also proponents of gay marriage equality and the repeal of marijuana abolition, as an example.

I think, generally, we can agree in some part to their pushes for freedom, although, of course, most of us may not agree, including not agreeing with violence caused by such revolutions. Koch's stand more on the economical side of liberties, of course, give or take, because they do influence politics to favor their businesses as well; likewise, Soros does the same, except limiting economic freedom, yet excelling at personal liberties; on the basis of egalitarian virtues, not individualism...

Both sides have made great strides, but have been called out by their oppositions.

What do you guys think? Do they deserve the negativity portrayed at them? Does one deserve more negativity than the other?

Tuesday, November 4, 2014

Florida 2014 Elections for Governor Results

With the election day behind us, Florida can now rest soundly from the remembrance of FanGate; With a voter turnout of about 6 million, its hard to forget. Rick Scott, Charlie Crist, the front runner's, while third party candidates trail behind, confidently.

It's not often we get to hear of these third party candidates, mostly because of private debate rules, respectively they have campaigned greatly in their districts and across the state. In a national trend of demilitarisation, pro civil liberties (gay marriage, recreational/medicinal drug use), the people seem to not be able to escape the clutches of 'bipartisan' rule.

It is no question, we all feel betrayed by our parties, or our ideological idols, though I cannot help but notice we are committing into the same behavior. The republicans and democrats have had quite a long running for over 100 years nationally; I believe it is time to promote change.

The Election Results for Florida Governor, 2014
Rick Scott 48.3%
Charlie Crist 46.9
Adrian Wyllie 3.8%
Glenn Burkett 0.7%

What about Amendment 2, 2014?
To amend the Florida State Constitution the legalization of medicinal marijuana.
Needed a 60%, aka super majority:
No: 42.5%
Yes: 57.5

Saturday, October 4, 2014

Economic Freedom Is Personal Freedom, What Can We Do For The Poor?

Trading, purchasing, borrowing, giving; The want for economic freedom? What is economic freedom;

Quote from EconomicFreedom.org
"It’s the freedom to choose how to produce, sell, and use your own resources, while respecting others’ rights to do the same"

Many times though quite a lot of people have a problem with 'economic freedom'. These are the same individuals that call for compulsory taxation; Arbitrarily being forced to give up funds in order to fund a government, who most of the time shares none of our best interests. The same ones who call for the imprisonment of nonviolent offenders. Yes, the very one's claiming that people who support keeping their hard earned money in their pockets are soulless, banksters, and drones of the rich, ("Kochsucker"- funny because my income level, just myself, is under the rate of national poverty).

Economic freedom extends more than just about money, or stocks. Absolutely, it's entailed into everything we do, everyday. We have the economic freedom to purchase the very device you are using right now. Food in your fridge, we have the economic freedom to either grow our own (depending on local statutes), or shop at the store or the farmers markets. This freedom compliments personal freedoms absolutely, and if there is no economic freedom there is no personal freedom.

Whatever You're Just A Capitalist Shill

However you see it, though take this into account. Marijuana has been on the news lately (and other drugs/herbs), and has even been coined with the LGBT movement as today's 'Civil Rights Movement'. What are people advocating for, the removal of prohibitionist laws in which Marijuana can be bought, sold and traded at different degrees of quality and potency for multiple uses (not just medical and recreational), thus improving economic freedom; It gives you the opportunity to earn your purchase... It extends personal freedom because now you're not going to jail for a plant in your possession, nor paying fines, or medical bills (from police brutality).

Bisexuals, gays, lesbians, transsexuals, polygamists etc., what are they advocating for? The freedom to be looked upon and become approved by the government in holy matrimony (through government registration); what will come of this exactly, the joint of your credit scores, and assets in order for you to increase your credit limit, so then you can purchase grander items and pay them over time. That sounds a lot like economic freedom to me (per se), not only that but the wedding, reception, parties, and the alcohol. Somebody's paying for something. I wonder if it's not considered freedom if the government is involved... :)

Absolutely.

If You Don't Pay Taxes You're Against The Poor

Well let's see, the poor, specifically minorities are the ones who get pushed around the most for victim-less crimes especially drugs, and forms of violence (which stems from the Drug War). They are beaten, and fined, many times seeing imprisonment that leads to the break up of families, the removal of children from their parents, etc. Which then fosters this ideal in the local communities psyche of further resentment of government (rightfully so), which they will instead opt for separate oppressive powers in that of mafias, gangs, and drug cartels (which is the alternative for many young teens). If say drugs were legalized, we wouldn't be making them poor by taking their money on a personal choice they made, which harms no one except themselves, in a super majority of cases.

Which then goes to my next point about gun control, I'm not the one trying to prevent good poor communities from protecting themselves from inadvertent violence caused by the regulation of drugs (Thanks government). Gun control is a huge hamper on the poor, the one's truly calling for gun control are people who already have a nice house, or filthy stinking rich (such as Bloomberg), they possibly have no idea what it's like to live in poor communities riddled with drug related violence. To further add, the pharmaceutical companies make billions on over priced 'drugs' thanks to prohibition from researching and trading said illicit drugs, if other drugs were legally available, there will be cheaper alternatives and it will open the gate to great competition in practically a government run monopoly (The FDA).

Health regulation, and the prohibition of personal choices results in the poor being poor in the first place. Which goes on to paying taxes; for instance the majority of my tax dollars are being used to bomb poor people in other countries (in search of 'terrorists'). There is the issue with Social Security in that it is practically pointless when 401k's and other retirement plans have a much higher return rate, yet it is mandatory to pay into Social Security, regardless, if you have a much better service (which is practically all the time). Then we move onto health insurance, and the idea that now full time employees (especially near or at minimum wage jobs) have had their pay or hours cut into part time due to the markets reaction to terrible policy (The Affordable Care Act).

Semantics, I Want Historical Facts!

Economic freedom is what we should advocate for, personal and economic freedom are not one in the same, but taking history into account, the rise of democracies came after the fact that the countries decreased their regulations and privatized their nationalized businesses. A good example of a rise in democracy, a rise in economic freedom, and quite a fair amount of personal wealth growth on the news today would be Hong Kong (a partitioned city done so by the Brits on China's soil), the freest economy in the world. The USA when it was Classically Liberal and favored a mild approach of free market capitalism (of course with crony capitalism involved; Railroads, automotive, oil.) in its early years when separating itself from the clutches of English Rule. We also have the fall of the Spanish Monarchy, and removing of dictatorships in South America in favor of democratically elected officials freeing up the markets. Where now actually some "socialist" nations in South America are experiencing abysmal inflation due to social liberal policies, Venezuela for example.

Some Interesting Videos:

Monday, July 14, 2014

The Constitution: It Does Not (supposedly) Only Limit The Government, It Limits Choice

The Constitution:
It Does Not (supposedly) Only Limit The Government, It Limits Choice
OPINION - The only way I can see The Constitution being viable (regardless of government aggression), is in its early years from the time of its inception, where the people are passionate of such a doctrine, only because of their right to survival and freedom. If the people who grow old, who once fought for the document, die out so will their children's beliefs of what the document was fought for in the first place and continuing through the generations. The people become indoctrinated either purposely or naturally through psychological experience (or lack thereof). They don't understand the meaning of certain freedoms granted within the Constitution of the United States and eventually are willing to throw it away.

This has happened to many countries in history, even in religion and we are witnessing this across the world. It is the want for something more, even when, supposed, 'morality' is lost in this generation and they opt for progressive-authoritarian virtues. This generation, in general, however, is growing its resentment towards the government, rightfully so.

Blood must be shed in order to keep a Constitution, that is the inevitable truth. Blood is shed for the want of a government and not for the want of freedom. That is not who we are, this is not who this generation is; we just want to live our lives freely and be accepted.

...(speaking for myself).

In my belief, The Constitution is beyond irrelevant today, it served a purpose at the beginning, though now we must fight for even more freedom, the freedom from the government itself, not just one oppressive regime, but all of them. If the people naturally cared less of such a doctrine, then why do we continue to fight for it, and not "something better?", is my question.

It failed because the people failed it, why? The people grew up from past generations' beliefs. This is the result, that even in The Constitution states that the government can manipulate the free market; If you manipulate the market, then you inevitably manipulate the people. That is the power granted in the Constitution as well; The Commerce Clause in conjunction with the Supremacy Clause, also with the Necessary and Proper Clause.

The Constitution is a document of manipulation of both the Government and The People.

I wonder as to why people believe The Constitution only limits the government, it does not, ignorance is OK but to flat out claim that it restricts this government and not the people is rather silly.

Today many things are a hot topic; Immigration, Drugs, Healthcare, etc. Looking at it from a purely economic point of view, we are being restricted by this government, going through many problems and decreasing our wealth which otherwise would not have happened if we allowed the free market to operate as it should. The Constitution can be relevant once more but we need a modern constitution that protects civil liberties, economic liberty and our rights from the clutches of the government.

Friday, June 13, 2014

What It Means To Be A Libertarian

Libertarianism is considered today, in politics, as a trigger word for both major political parties. Delved in ignorance by politicians themselves, and then rehashed as propaganda by the media. What does it really mean to be a libertarian?

Understanding Libertarianism

Before we can delve into my subjective opinion, we must understand that libertarianism, like liberalism/conservatism, is a broad ideology. Different flavors, different beliefs, you'll probably be surprised to find a communist and a capitalist both claiming they are libertarians, though this is the norm for most libertarian philosophers and young enthusiasts. Some are anarchists, or some believe in small government; 'Course you'll probably never see a libertarian for big government.

Now, specifically here in the USA there are also the "Big 'L' Libertarians", and the libertarians (aka little 'l') just to add to the label games. Big L pertains to the +Libertarian Party, where as, libertarianism just includes the general community whom are, or are not tied to a political party.

What It Means To Be A 'l'-ibertarian

From a libertarian's perspective... It means adhering to non-aggressive actions. Some also take into account the golden rule, but most libertarians come back to one general concept. Don't steal, don't hurt someone, don't destroy any one's property; Let bygones be bygones and negotiate peacefully, Voluntarily.

The Non-Aggression principle

This simple moral standing is the main principle that libertarians agree on.
Definition by Mises.org:

The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, or the anti-coercion or zero aggression principle or non-initiation of force) is an ethical stance which asserts that "aggression" is inherently illegitimate. "Aggression" is defined as the "initiation" of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property.

What It Means To Me

Libertarianism is the idea that we can all live peacefully, through civilized voluntary actions. One's who follow should not cause harm to anyone or anything, without being provoked to do so, of course leaving violence as a last resort. People are capable of committing peaceful acts without violence, and we should promote such ideals through educating our children and to me that is the meaning of being a libertarian. It is the idea of peaceful progressions of our societies character and virtues through community.

Tuesday, June 3, 2014

Welcome To The Free Voluntarist

Welcome to The Free Voluntarist blog, we will be posting up a range of issues from news to theories on general libertarian, free-marketism, and voluntarist (voluntaryist) ideals. Hopefully, as we grow larger with the community, we shall be asking any of you all to come and guest blog for us on any range of topics (of course in relation to this blog).

This blog was created and is managed by Luis Rosales.

Creative minds and grand theorists who have influenced this blog (a '+' indicates Google+ profile):