I wanted to come back after a long hiatus and discuss a few implications of my new political stance of libertarianism as I test it for the first time in this coming election cycle.
Before this cycle I largely considered myself a liberal, which lasted from 2000-2005 (this was mainly because I was unaware of libertarianism at the time). The only sticking point that I ever had is that I wanted a redistribution of wealth, at least once in our country's history, and still do, but I realize now that a truly free market is the only way to achieve these things with respect to free individuals (where corporations are not recognized as legal individuals, and thus won't receive market protection from government, plus a reform of our copyright and patent laws, to allow more open competition).
There really wasn't much of a test of my libertarianism in 2006 because the only feasible goal at the time was to achieve divided government, which I am quite thankful we accomplished.
And I wanted to mention this today because I do believe that socialism is beginning to fade more in this country during the current political climate, and that libertarianism is beginning to rise with this country's youth courtesy of the open communication available to us through the internet, and I wanted to share some of my reactions as I experience this cycle as a libertarian.
Keep in mind that I agree with Markos that libertarianism is the future of the Democratic Party, which is why I do believe it is appropriate to have this discussion here.
First, I wanted to discuss one of the interesting responses I received to the first essay of my series on libertarianism. That essay dealt with the concept that centralization of the people's power in government is destructive to the people, because it keeps the people from using their power individually to make the best choices they visualize will help the world.
In my estimation, decentralization of power from government is a necessity for Americans to make their lives and the lives around them better.
The response I received was that decentralization is somewhat of an evil because race-based hate groups would be empowered by such a thing.
But, I have a problem with that reasoning.
Consider this:
"All media should be centralized in the hands of a few individuals. (Rupert Murdoch, and a few international corporations).
or
The media can be decentralized so we can each be empowered to report the news as we see it and experience it. Decentralized blogs, newspapers, netcasts, videos... what have you."
"We should each run thin clients that connect to a mainframe, not have any local storage, and rely on that mainframe to give us our requested data.
or
We should be able to purchase a computer with its own local storage, software, and self-contained running capacity. It can connect to a network, but only if we choose to, and the connection is made under our own individual terms."
"Centralized things are better because we can all control the central location to do our bidding (if we have a majority of support) and to hell with the minority. Of course, we might end up with an outright dictator at the controls with a psychotic mass-murdering tendency, but we can live with this because we get to do what we want when it's our turn.
or
It is better to be decentralized because we can each make individual choices which will effect our lives directly, and can represent ourselves whether or not we are in the majority. Of course, now we might be subject to seeing other free people exercising their freedom, and possibly hate groups, but we'll be able to see them and know exactly what they're up to so we can easily marginalize them, because they are no longer hidden in the minority."
All of which I'm mentioning because through our computer use, we have moved towards decentralization from government and corporations, and we have found a remarkable amount of power with that act.
In a very remarkable way, we've seen the return of mass participation in political dialog and personal media/expression that we haven't likely seen since the founding of this country.
And you have seen and will see many times where the politicians try to take that power away again, to put the genie back into the bottle. The time has passed for that, and people enjoy being empowered again.
Second, I firmly oppose communism as defined by a centralized government that uses force to make citizens comply to its demands.
But, I strongly believe in the concept of community, as free people join together for a common cause they approve of. Dailykos is such a community. It isn't mandated nor controlled by government, and we come here of our free will.
Many people continually attempt to tar people like me with the phrase "selfishness" because I'd rather make my own choices for myself rather than have disconnected elites in buildings far away from my locality making decisions for me.
But their is no selfishness in wanting to be empowered to make my own decisions, as I want the power to chose which community programs or organizations I want to be a part of. I don't need government to dictate to me which organizations are good or bad, as I'm more than capable of making that choice for myself.
I do not want to continue to fund the murder of innocent civilians with my tax dollars. In essence, I am a slave without a choice of whether my effort will result in the death of a human being.
But, I would like to put that money towards helping others in my own community to get through their day.
But maybe this comes from my background here in Ohio, living near the Amish, who I've seen utilize the power of freedom in their own lives to do some remarkable things. If you've never seen free people come together before to achieve something remarkable, then you should be sure to see a barn-raising at least once in your life.
This was a concept I was very pleased to hear Wes Clark support during his run for the presidency where he discussed volunteer community groups to help deal with community needs (basically a community service you would do by choice, not as a punishment for a violation).
But that is where the larger part of my libertarianism comes from. The power of free people making choices for local action in their and their neighbors interests.
I believe this is the direction the country is actually much more likely to take with coming generations, as we know the defici is being racked up astronomically, and we know we will be responsible for benefits others will receive that we will not. These generations believe in personal responsibility, and respect the freedom that responsibility brings, or I should say requires. Socialism will soon begin to fade, and I couldn't be happier to see it go. It is nothing but hatred of the human spirit through the force of government.
Finally, I have decided beyond a shadow of a doubt that even if she claims the nomination, I will never vote for Hilary Clinton. I simply will not vote for a person who has to check with every single special interest of theirs before they can allow themselves to say anything at all. I'm tired of political answers. Just answer the questions and speak from the heart or don't speak at all. The art of dodging questions is dying a very public death due to the internet, but hilary continues to be the forms greatest cheerleader.
But not only is she a globalist with socialist intentions, she's also the least authentic person in this race.
So, even though I will support Ron Paul all the way to the general election if he runs 3rd party or what have you, I think Obama will be my choice if Paul doesn't run in the general.
I won't even be tempted to vote Republican unless Hilary is the nominee, but if that were to occur, I suppose I either won't vote for the presidential race at all, or I'll write in Markos.
If the choice comes down to Clinton vs. Guiliani, I'll vomit for three weeks and then move to Estonia.
Update: I decided to add some interesting definitions from wikipedia for discussion.
Socialism
Libertarianism