Hello. I've noticed a recent animosity here to the libertarians who have taken Markos's offer to cross sides and vote for Dems in the 2006 election. It seems very clear to me that many here do not know much about libertarianism or what it means as a philosophy to people like myself who believe it is the only way to a free and just society.
I've decided to begin a series of diaries discussing the core beliefs of my libertarianism to help others understand my various positions on issues, why I don't care for Party nomenclature in the least, and why I think it is essential to reform our political system to be reflective of the free will of individuals over the tyranny of the majority for decisions which pose no harm to anyone other than the person making the choice.
I decided to begin this series with one of the core understandings of this philosophy which has always appealed to me. It's very simple and isn't hard to explain, but unfortunately it is very hard for most people to believe.
No initiative that moves towards centralization is more beneficial to any individual than an initiative which moves towards decentralization.
The reason being is that any centralized source of power is weak to be corrupted, as it is typically centralized away from the individual, thus they have less incentive to keeps their eyes on that centralized location, because they are primarily focused on the reality of their current condition in the place where they are.
Also, once an initiative becomes centralized, that centralized item develops its own culture, and eventually comes to believe it must defend itself from the prying eyes of any individual, lest any individual comes to realize that they are being screwed by the centralization process.
Of course, once the protections are created, the people within the centralized culture operate to guarentee it has the right to do whatever it wishes at any time, and in fact create dictates they say they hold the power, always held the power, and that individuals were never "granted" the power they originally had. They then offer that power for sale to any bidder who will lobby for that power, which you must remember was originally the individual's, and will sell your power to whatever special interest which creates the best offer.
The final step process is for the people within the centralized culture to then open themselves up to the sunlight, and continue afterwards to perform their injustice to the individual in plain site, as a final sign of disrespect.
Of course, this is the bitter core of both of the "Major" political parties. They have thus far both been criminal in action and intent.
Of course, decentralization empowers every individual as it restores whatever power or "freedom" they had before any initiative took that power away.
Of course, the Constitution includes the "Bill of Rights", the good ones of which essentially take certain items off of the table so that they may not be centralized, at least legislatively, by the government. These rights should always be interpretted to be a power (freedom) which remains with individuals at all times, and should never be allowed to be centralized in accordance with that constitution. There is an amendment process included in the constitution so that we may include any other power which we deem necessary to take off the table from the government at any time in the future.
Of course, we have some excellent decentralization mandates already. Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Arms, Privacy, Due Process, Fair Trial, Abolition, Vote, and thankfully we have the right to drink alcohol when we see how these enumerated rights, and our non-enumerated rights are constantly encroached upon by Democrats and Republicans alike.
Of course, I believe in the power of decentralization, as it is the basis of our freedom, and it is essential to me as a free individual to see that we continually press any imposed limit on any of these powers ti guarentee that they remain decentralized... as this is the greatest responsibility we hold, not only for ourselves, but also for the future of this country.
If it is deemed that we need to decntralize something else, we must ccreate an amendment for that. Keep in mind that these are powers which belong to the people, not rights which are being "granted" to us by the government.
Of course, I also believe that we should remove amendments that have taken power from us and centralized it in the government. That at this time includes the income tax, which is the key to the abuse centralized systems have utilized over time, as it has enabled our power to be sold to lobbyists. Yes, our wage is our power and freedom, and we should have the right to direct it as we want. I for one would have directed my money directly to a needy family that I verified needed help after Katrina, than had that money stolen from me to purchase thousands of trailers from a special lobbying interests which were left to rot unused. I would gladly divert some of my own cash to my relatives or friends if they fell on hard times, rather than have that power stolen from me to purchase bombs and bullets from special lobbying interests which murder innocent civilians around the world.
It is my belief that the Democratic Party will always be corrupt as long as they openly support the corrupting income tax, as it is a haven for their lobbyists.
And at core, this is probably why I am a libertarian on all of these issues, as I know centralized systems are easily cracked and corrupted.
Keep in mind that when I say "libertarian", I am not talking about "The Libertarian Party". I am talking about libertarianism as a philosophy, because I do not believe that parties ever create anything more than centralization of power for special interest lobbying. That doesn't mean that I don't think that free people like myself can't use the political "Brand Names" of the two "major" parties to bring about the just goal of decentralization.
I will end this with a quote from an individual who recognized most of this over 200 years ago (yes, it is a shame he wasn't as prescient on the issue of slavery), George Washington, from his Presidential Farewell Address:
I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
By the way, I will not be replying to any comment in the comments section of this diary as some "special interests" have brought it on themselves to attempt to auto-ban my account... I know, I know... "big surprise!" I will reply to anything I feel intrigueing as an update to this diary.
Thank you for your time.
Update I: Democratic Luntz, what I wanted to make clear is that income taxes, wages being taken out of the hands of free people, centralizes that cash in a place where it is corrupted by politicians to be sent out for subsidies to corporations and the building of "bridges to nowhere". Lobbyists know exactly where the ball of cash is, in other words. So does the military-industrial complex, its contractors, and its contractors lobbyists.
Update II: Sallycat, I have no fear of responding, but I won't be the target of troll raters attempting to auto-ban someone they disagree with. Income taxes have only allowed revenue for corruption, and I will argue in a future that it would be much cheaper for tax payers if organized in decentralized collectives outside of government directly with our own good intentions (which have to perform or they won't receive our funding). In the current system, the government forces us to provide them our wage even if we disagree with what they do with it, in my case the Iraq War, the bridge to nowhere and other pork, and enforcement of the police state of non-violent/political acts.
Update III: Simplify, I am not promoting anarchy of any sort, (which I find to be a convenient derrogatory term for "Freedom"), but I support the Constitution and a Constitutional government that would serve in the purpose of decentralization, and the defense of individuals for the preservation of their powers, but I think that is done more effectively on a local level to the needs of a community, not by a centralized promotion of power as it typically leads to abuse of our freedom/power.
Update IV: Sallycat, I will be dealing with all of those issues in this series. Of course, we will be looking at the fact that the Public Education system is doing a horrible job of educating our children, especially in urban areas, and that millions of seniors get absolutely poor healthcare every year. Having experience in both of those sectors, I'm absolutely surprised that you would suggest that government does a good job of it at all.
Also, read these quotes from the DKos FAQ:
The battle for the party is not an ideological battle. It's one between establishment and anti-establishment factions. And as I've said a million times, the status quo is untenable
The majority of people posting here fall on the liberal side of the US political spectrum, however people of conservative views are welcome to come and debate. If you are polite, you will be treated politely.
And this from Markos interview with reason magazine:
Reason: Your readers have occasionally used the "libertarian Democrat" idea as a piñata—they think, correctly, that we fundamentally disagree with liberals on substantive economic issues. If libertarians joined the Democratic coalition, would we be welcome?
Moulitsas: There will always be critics. This is a big enough party to accommodate a healthy debate about the proper role of government in our society. And unlike the GOP, where dissension is squashed—ask Rep. Ron Paul—the Dems are, to a fault, permissive enough to allow that debate to flourish.
I intend to continue my polite engagement here for the foreseeable future.
Update V: It is quite late here, but I encourage everyone to actually respond to the contents of my diary. I will respond with a fresh diary tomorrow answering substantive challenges and looking at another aspect of my libertarianism.
I heartily encourage any other libertarian or independent wanting to take up for our shared opinion not to do so below, as those who can't handle debate will attempt to target you for an autoban. Eventually we'll carve out a space and following to represent ourselves here without those kind of threats. I think tomorrow I'll talk about partisan purists and how they unfortunately uphold the establishment which abuses them.
Update VI: One final comment for Thurman Hart, unfortunately, the centralized government, and its Supreme Court judges ruled for segregation in Plessy v. Ferguson, which caused the legal attrocities of Jim Crow laws. This created the government enforcement of segregation, which in my opinion broke many un-enumerated, not to mention enumerated, rights that belonged to the people.
Update VII: Ron, thanks for representing the true value of honest discussion this and future diaries are meant to support. I certainly hope someday I can comment back and forth with you in a proactive open discussion once a niche is carved for the respect of libertarian thought on this site.