A New Liberty Renaissance

I believe we are on the verge of transitioning into a New Liberty Renaissance. This Renaissance is not just political. A New Liberty Renaissance includes rejection of the pharmaceutical and medical establishment, a resurgence of the source of true physical, emotional and mental health, a new understanding of core individual rights, an abhorrence of the mainstream bought and paid for media, phoenix rising of absolute free internet speech and alternative media, a building doubt in the Keynesian model of economics including the Federal Reserve and a common knowledge of the global power structure that wants to control all aspects of life on earth, among many more.

Everywhere I turn, the striking and fiery ideals of liberty and the mentality of the Founding Fathers is shining through. Whether people identify themselves as mainline Democrats, Republicans, Neocons or Leftist, each pick and choose certain liberty ideals that fit their narrative. While I agree it is all or nothing, it is a start. In a conversation with a random assortment of individuals, I can mention the Federal Reserve and many people know what it truly is and a portion of those people agree about how detrimental it is to our economy.

Besides all the people that have not or may very well never transfer completely, I am absolutely shocked by how many people identify themselves as Libertarian, true or establishment Tea Party, Ron Paul supporters, Constitutionalists, Voluntaryist, ect. No one can deny, our numbers are growing and we are gaining traction. The snowball has been packed and is rolling down the hill.

How can I be so sure? I go to Ghandi: "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." We have been ignored for a long time. Ron Paul has been screaming up and down the halls for Congress for 30 years. He would know more than anyone. We have been ridiculed and to a large extent still are, but the same old lines have been played out by the naysayers. All the quick go to's have been extinguished. "So everyone should just be left to DIE if they don't have money for healthcare?!","So you are AGAINST roads and bridges then?!","Who will run MY life if government doesn't do it for me?!" Ok, ok, the last one was a bit of a hyperbole but it is the true root question that is posed when limited to abolished government is presented as a solution. Now that they can not win with the same old "gotcha" questions, they are resort to fighting. As you can see, just recently I have come under personal attack just for advocating my point of view. For the record, I never initiated or retaliated with name calling and attacks. Truth and personal responsibility for your own life is scarey, I know, but no need to attack me, sirs:

So all we have to do is sit back and win now, right? I wish it was that easy, but we have a long fight ahead of us. When the ridicule doesn't work, the fighting doesn't invoke a violent response, and we allow logic and liberty to dominate the narrative, they will not just back down. The attacks will become more vicious and less rational. It is already started to be filtered down from the high ranks of the establishment. If you do not like big government, gun restrictions, socialized healthcare, welfare, warfare, and the nanny state, you are a racist, a terrorist or too mentally ill to understand how great the socialist collective model is.

We are meeting resistance from sharpy defined opposition who seem to have a majority. How can I possibly think a Renaissance is near? Every counterculture revolution meets majority resistance. Many products and people involved with the European "Renaissance Era" were abhorred by the Church. At the same time, this Renaissance marked the end of the "Dark Ages". From the Renaissance Era to the American Revolution to the Hippie counterculture and Civil Rights Movement, all met majority resistance but emerged victorious to change society for the better. 

So how do we go from "on the verge" to a full blown Renaissance? Do exactly what you are doing now, but turn it up 1000%! I thought I was an informed Libertarian big boy just for being a Ron Paul/Founding Fathers fan. Once I started diving into the true meat and potatoes of what Libertarianism really means and where it came from, I knew I had just begun my journey! Start reading works by Rothbard, Rand, Mises and others. Start understanding what being a Libertarian really means. 

It is always darkest before the dawn and the fact that we are being attacked and being resisted means that we are having an affect. Continue to eat healthy, organic foods and reject GMO. Continue to reject the mainstream narratives pushed from the highest ranks of the power structure. Continue to stand up for the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Continue to point out the inherent insidious nature of collectivism and corporatism. While we may disagree to the extent that government should be limited, all of us agree it needs to be drastically reduced. We need to continue to join hands and resist tyranny. Millions are coming together for one steady drum beat of Liberty.

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." - Thomas Jefferson

-The Slavic Libertarian
My Twitter
My YouTube Channel

My Facebook Response to Marriage Equality

I was recently criticized for my view on Marriage Equality in this country. The criticizer was your stereotypical Christian views and responses. I won't post exactly what she said but it was to the effect of "Marriage is ALWAYS between a man and a woman","Marriage has ALWAYS been secular","I don't hate gays but they should not be allow to have marriage".

My response. By the way, she had nothing else to say:

The government decided to define a legal contract binding two individuals together as "marriage", thus granting those individuals over 2000+ rights. The government could have called it "Legal Partnership" and it would still grant the same rights. The government has an obligation to be fair, unbiased, non-discriminatory and have separation of church and state. What the government defines as "marriage" has no bearing what so ever on religious organizations, what they believe or what they practice. Thus should be the same the other way around.

Government mandated that interracial couples could not be married, and they were obviously wrong. The same goes for this situation. While the term of "marriage" may be religious when used within the church, as to defined the christian ceremony of marriage. The government does not impose any such belief and only defines it as two persons linked together legally.

Like it or not, this is the NEW civil rights movement. Get over the fact the the government calls this "marriage" because they do not care if it is done in the Christian faith, Muslim faith or any other for that matter. All the government should care about is that two legally eligible consenting adults wish to be legally linked and have the same rights as others who have engaged in such a contract.

-The Slavic Libertarian
My Twitter
My YouTube Channel

Challenging the Libertarian Stance on Abortion

Challenging the Libertarian Stance on Abortion:

It seems that the general narrative of a person that is a Libertarian is also pro-choice. While there is some dissension in the ranks on that issue, it seems that most are pro-choice. A core belief of Libertarianism is ultimate free will, as long as it doesn’t harm or infringe upon the rights of others. But is having an abortion harming another and robbing them of their right to life?

I want to challenge that frame of mind with my own thoughts and opinions. And I will admit, I still am struggling with this issue and still try to reconcile with both sides.

Everyone focuses so much of the debate on when life begins. Based off that, the person makes their stance for pro-life or pro-choice. Some say you must look at it at a biological stand point. That once the egg and sperm merge and start to duplicate, you have a separate form of life. Others take the spiritual or moral ground that a soul is not inside of a person until the child leaves the mother.
Regardless of all those debates, whether its life at conception, before three months its ok but not after, or you can abort up into the baby is born. I think everyone agrees once the baby is born, it is a human.

Based upon that, consider this:

IF the abortion had NOT been performed, wouldn’t the child or embryo or fetus be a full-fledged human being? You go into the clinic and decide to abort, the child never exists. However, if you back out and go through with the pregnancy, a person is on this earth(excluding the cases of miscarriage).

The Libertarian Party’s “Statement of Principles” [LP.org] it says that: “We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives.”

When having an abortion, are you not robbing a person of life before they even have a chance to grasp it? If you let a person eat an apple, but then you pump it out of their stomach, they still are robbed of its sustenance. Did you still steal the apple from them? Even though they technically ate it?

I think that most Libertarians believe that animal cruelty, abuse and neglect is wrong and should be against the law. But a dog is not a person, it has no rights, it is the property of the owner in the eyes of the law. Is it within government’s power to dictate what you can do with your own property? What of stray or wild animals with no owner? If you abuse them, you are not harming anyone’s property. Where do you draw the line?

In contrast:

The “Statement of Principles” goes on to say: ‘the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.”

Is an unwanted child in the womb a person forcibly interfering with the rights of the mother? Is the right of a mother to have complete control over her body override the right of an embryo to the chance at life?

Ayn Rand, the Libertarian Philosopher, seems to think so [Ayn Rand on abortion]:

“An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).”

This point of view makes sense. She assumes that life starts at birth and advocates that the rights of someone indisputably “alive” should not be trumped by an unborn human. She does on to make it clear that according to Libertarian philosophy, every person has a right to dictate their own bodies. This fact is undisputed. But when the right to your body destroys the body of another, whether you believe alive or soon to be alive, is a fact that needs to be carefully examined.

She goes on to say:

“Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months.”

Let’s say you get a bacterial infection. Apart from the first bacterial cells that entered your body to make you sick in the first place, all the bacteria after that formed inside your body. On a cellular, biological standpoint, is this not the same as getting pregnant? Apart from the sperm entering the female in the first place, the egg and the duplication beyond that all formed in her body. Do we not have the right to take antibiotics and destroy the bacteria making us sick? Isn’t the fetus essential a growth that ultimately ends up being a vessel that a human spirit can inhabit?

As you can tell, I can see it from both sides of the debate. I think it comes down to it though, the LP’s statement, specifically on abortion, is correct:

”Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.”

Regardless of the right of a woman to dictate her body, personally I believe it is a sad act of desperation. In my humblest opinion, if you do not want the child, at least see it through to give that future person a chance a life.

Give your child up for adoption, because who knows, he or she may be the next Dave Thomas, Steve Jobs, Faith Hill or Ray Liotta(All adopted as infants).

-The Slavic Libertarian
My Twitter
My YouTube Channel