“Without any doubt, we stand before turbulent and also dangerous times, but we hold an historic trump card in our hands. It consists in the fact that the other side does not act according to the rules of reason but strives out of motives of greed and power and therefore, cannot do anything other than bring itself into ever greater difficulties. We should use exactly that (weakness) and always keep in view, that the other side likes more money, more property and additionally, to have available all the weapons in the world. But their power is not based on their money, nor on their possessions or their weapons but relies solely upon one factor: And that is the ignorance of the majority of people. i.e., the majority doesn’t understand the evil game that this minority are playing with them.” — Ernst Wolff, August, 2021
The official Covid narrative has collapsed despite the world of lies created by the whore media and Western public health officials, but the effort to destroy human freedom continues. Dr. Robert Malone, one of the brave medical doctors who was demonized because he fought for Covid truth, names government officials, media, and tech company executives who, as acolytes and operatives of the World Economic Forum, orchestrated and sustained the “Covid pandemic” as an attack on civil liberty and human freedom. Here are some of the worst mass murderers of human history:
Politics and policy: White House coronavirus response coordinator Jeffrey Zients, lobby group #Masks4All co-founder Jeremy Howard, California Governor Gavin Newsom, 2020 presidential candidate and U.S. Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, Chelsea Clinton, Hillary Clinton confidante Huma Abedin, former U.S. ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley, former U.S. ambassador to the UN and USAID administrator Samantha Power, Eurasia Group founder Ian Bremmer, U.S.-British financier Bill Browder, Jonathan Soros (son of George Soros), Human Rights Watch director Kenneth Roth, economist Paul Krugman, former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, Black Lives Matter co-founder Alicia Garza, Ivanka Trump, and former U.S. Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii).
Legacy media: CNN medical analyst Leana Wen, CNN chief medical correspondent Sanjay Gupta, Twitter personality Eric Feigl-Ding, New York Times financial columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, ABC News commentator George Stephanopoulos, Fox CEO and News Corp co-chair Lachlan Murdoch, Bloomberg columnist Justin Fox, and CNN commentator Anderson Cooper.
Technology and social media: Microsoft founder Bill Gates, former Microsoft CEO Steven Ballmer, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page, Tesla and SpaceX founder Elon Musk, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, eBay co-founder Pierre Omidyar, Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, and Pfizer VP Vasudha Vats.
Dr. Malone introduces us to a presentation in August 2021 by Ernst Wolff in which Wolff explains how the digital-financial complex is working to exterminate human freedom. Digital money will destroy all dissent from the elite agenda by terminating the dissenters’ financial, and thus physical, existence.
Canada’s prime minister Trudeau, having proven himself a ruthless operative against civil liberty, is regarded by the WEF’s Klaus Schwab as a true fellow Nazi.
Western peoples, hoodwinked by an orchestrated “health crisis,” have demonstrated to the ruling elite that they will sacrifice their freedom for the illusion of safety. As Benjamin Franklin said, those who will give up liberty for security will have neither liberty nor security. In the entirety of the Western World, champions of liberty hold no power positions. With the media totally in the hands of the elite, how do people become aware of the challenge that they face?
In his 1961 farewell address to the nation as President, Dwight D. Eisenhower predicted with illuminating and disturbing clarity the exact predicament we find ourselves in today, sixty years later.
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peace time, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. Th Aboute total influence-economic, political, even spiritual-is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been over shadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
During the 70 years that the Soviet Union existed, Ukraine was an integral part of the nation. Yet this geographic and political reality posed no threat to the United States. A Russia and a Ukraine, both inside the USSR, was an accepted reality that was seen as no threat for the seven decades that they were united.
Yet, today, because of a month-old war between Russia and Ukraine, over who shall control Crimea, the Donbas, and the Black and Azov Sea coasts of Ukraine, America seems closer to a nuclear war than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. Why? Time to step back and reflect on what is at stake.
Exactly what threat does Russia’s invasion of Ukraine present to us that is so grave we would consider military action that could lead to World War III and Russia’s use of battlefield nuclear weapons against us?
Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly hinted at the use of such weapons, should NATO intervene in the Ukraine war and Russia face defeat, or in the event of an “existential” threat to the Russian nation.
We hear from our moral elites that morality commands us to intervene to save the Ukrainian people from the ravages of a war that has already taken thousands of Ukrainian lives. But what would be the justification for U.S. military intervention in Ukraine, absent a congressional authorization or declaration of war?
Consider. The year the Liberal Hour arrived in America with the New Deal, 1933, a newly inaugurated Franklin D. Roosevelt formally recognized Joseph Stalin’s murderous regime as the legitimate government of a Russia-led USSR.
FDR met personally with Soviet Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov even as the Holodomor, the forced starvation of Ukrainian peasants and small farmers, the kulaks and their families, was far advanced. Walter Duranty, the New York Times reporter in Moscow, won a Pulitzer for covering up that crime of the century with its estimated 4 million dead.
The question remains: When did the relationship between Russia and Ukraine become a matter of such vital interest to the U.S. that we would risk war, possible nuclear war, with Russia over it? How did we get here?
We got here by exploiting our Cold War victory as an opportunity to move NATO, our Cold War alliance, into a dozen countries in Central and Eastern Europe, up to the borders of Russia. Then, we started to bring Ukraine into NATO, the constituent republic of the old Soviet Union with the longest and deepest history with Mother Russia.
Thus, while Putin started this war, the U.S. set the table for it. We pushed our military alliance, NATO, set up in 1949 to contain and, if necessary, fight Russia, 1,000 miles to the east, right into Russia’s face.
In the 1930s, when Britain’s Lady Astor was asked if she knew where Hitler was born, she answered: “Versailles.” At the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, which produced the Versailles Treaty, millions of Germanic peoples and the lands they had inhabited were severed from German rule and distributed to half a dozen nations across Europe. When we get back on our feet, we will take back all that we have lost, said Gen. Hans von Seeckt of the German General Staff.
We hear warnings that if Russia uses chemical weapons in Ukraine, NATO will react militarily. But if no NATO ally is attacked, why would NATO respond to a Russian attack on Ukraine?
Though outlawed today, chemical weapons were used by all the major participants in World War I, including the Americans. As for atomic weapons, only Americans have used them. And while we did not introduce the bombing of cities—the British and Germans did that—we did perfect the carpet-bombing of cities like Cologne, Hamburg, Berlin, Dresden and Tokyo.
The Ukrainian war, now a month old, has demonstrated the utility of nuclear weapons. Putin’s credible threat to use them has caused the U.S. and NATO to flatly refuse Kiev’s request to put a no-fly zone over Ukraine.
And as Russia’s threat to use nuclear weapons has deterred NATO from intervening on Ukraine’s side in this war, other nations will not miss the message: Possession of nukes can deter even the greatest nuclear powers.
The longer this war goes on, the greater the suffering and losses on all sides. Thousands of Ukrainian soldiers and civilians are already dead, with 10 million uprooted from their homes, a third of that number having fled into neighboring states of Eastern Europe.
The longer the war goes on, the greater the likelihood Putin resorts to indiscriminate bombing and shelling to kill off the resistance, and the greater the possibility that the war expands into NATO Europe.
Meanwhile, in the secure American homeland, 5,000 miles from Kiev, There in no shortage of foreign policy scholars beating the drums for a “victory” over Putin’s Russia and willing to fight to achieve that victory—right down to the last Ukrainian.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever and a founding editor of The American Conservative.
“The Army this week admitted it was having problems recruiting and announced an unprecedented reduction in its numbers that would shrink the active duty Army to its smallest size since World War II.” [Breitbart]
Destruction of the American military is deliberate. We are an occupied country. The Biden regime is doing EXACTLY what the Chinese Communists or Russians would do, if they invaded the US and took over the government. The ignorant, evasive, virtue-signaling sycophantic fools who applaud and support it are to blame.
In our latest “Draw My Life” video – “My Name is Ukraine” – we travel back in time with our protagonist, whose bounty born of fertile soil “attracted trade from the west and north… but also envy from the east….Mongol hordes invaded, leaving not just ruin, but a poisonous idea, of a strongman to rule and own everything and everyone is his realm.” Later, under communism: “They collectivized my farms, starving 4 million of my people in the Great Famine. Led by the New York Times and Marxist apologists, many in the West stood by, denying this atrocity, but one woman spoke out.”
“Ayn Rand’s family had taken refuge in my Crimea, before she eventually escaped to America, ‘the first society whose leaders were neither Witch Doctors or Attilas, a society led, dominated and created by the Producers.’”
After the fall of Communism, a new Attila consolidated power in Russia, Vladimir Putin: “His Witch Doctors were the Russian Orthodox Church, and philosophers who wove conservative nationalist visions of a Greater Ethnic Russia.” While the West obsessed over climate change, Putin focused on regime change, invading Ukraine in early March.
This latest video, launched last Friday, was produced in record time – from conception to scripting, to art, to music, to voiceover and production in two weeks. In the weeks ahead, we’ll continue to feature different perspectives – including strongly divergent ones among our own faculty. One thing that makes The Atlas Society unique is our tolerance of strong intellectual disagreement – even on hot-button topics like the proper US response to the war in Ukraine. If you are interested in hearing how our scholars diverge regarding Ukraine, check our Events Page, where, as you’ll see, Professor Jason Hill will host a two-part series on why “Defeating Russia and Defending Ukraine is in America’s National Interest,” while Professor Richard Salsman is scheduled for a couple of talks on “why Russia legitimately fears NATO, and Ukraine does not deserve U.S. help.” You may also want to check out Professor Stephen Hicks and Robert Tracinski’s previous Current Events panel on Ukraine. We’re adding an additional webinar to allow our scholars to debate, and allow YOU to hear their different arguments, and make up your OWN mind.
Watch Ukraine’s story HERE, the latest addition to our growing Draw My Life library, whose 30 videos you can explore HERE. And stay tuned for our next video release: “My Name is Karl Marx.”
Lots of startling changes yesterday. Russia announced, apparently, a gold-backed or gold-related ruble. I haven’t had time to think about all the implications. Information is hard to come by, because the US blocks Russian news in order to control the Ukraine narrative and war propaganda. The Bretton Woods system collapsed when the West seized Russian central bank reserves, and it seems that the gold ruble adds to the end of the US dollar as world reserve currency under Bretton Woods. The implications could be vast, and the Washington idiots might very well wish they had left the Russians alone. I told them over and over that Russia had had enough of them, but the arrogant idiots didn’t listen. The sanctions, it seems, have brought about regime change in the West, reducing its power and influence.
Another big development is that apparently Ukraine has agreed to be a neutral country, no NATO, no foreign bases, no nuclear weapons, and accepts eastern Ukraine gong its own way. We will see if US puppet Zelensky is permitted to sign what Ukraine has agreed. Meanwhile, Russia has stopped its assault on Kiev, and is focused on clearing the remaining Nazi militias out of the Donbass region. I think the low-intelligence governments in Poland and Romania will get the message, and the US missile bases in those countries will be closed before too long.
These are major developments with many large implications. The World Economic Forum’s “reset” has likely been replaced by a Russian-Chinese reset.
Present generations of Americans will not recognize their country. Rivers, mountains, streets, schools, public spaces, even towns are losing their names and acquiring new politically correct names. Normally, this is what outside conquerors do to a country, but we are doing it to ourselves. A country that destroys its own monuments and history is lost.
My conclusion is that the days of the West are over. The West is drowning in accumulated mistakes and degeneracy. The moral fiber in the leadership ranks is gone.
While U.S. presidential elections are held every four years, U.S. senators serve a six-year term, and members of the U.S. House of Representatives are elected every two years. A midterm election is an election where the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate are up for election, but the president is not. These elections always occur two years after a presidential election. As they gear up for the midterm elections in November, Democrats have three problems: a historical problem, a retirement problem, and an image problem.
The Democratic brand
Historically, the political party of the president does poorly in the midterm elections. Since 1946, the average midterm loss for the president’s party is 25 seats. Democratic presidents Harry Truman and Bill Clinton both began their first term with Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress, only to see Republicans take control after the midterm elections. Republican president Dwight Eisenhower likewise began his first term with Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, only to see Democrats take control after the midterm elections. Democrat Barack Obama presided over a devastating loss of Democrats in the House in his first midterm election and in the Senate in his second midterm election. Republican president George W. Bush lost his Republican majority in both Houses of Congress during his second midterm election. Republican Donald Trump saw his Republican majority in Congress evaporate when Republicans suffered a crushing defeat in the House in the midterm elections of 2018. According to the American Presidency Project, only two presidents — Bill Clinton (1998) and George W. Bush (2002) — have seen their party gain House seats in a midterm election.The libertarian brand is known for its simple, consistent, and principled perspective on the issues. [Click to Tweet]
Democrats also have a retirement problem. As of the end of 2021, one Democratic senator and 19 Democratic House members have announced that they will not be seeking reelection. Democrats are currently tied with Republicans in the Senate and only have a nine-seat majority in the House. This is troubling for Democrats because congressional incumbents had a 96 percent win rate in the 2020 election. Thirty-eight states had a 100 percent win rate in congressional races.
Indeed, wide name recognition, usually coupled with coffers full of cash, means that few things in life are more predictable than the chances of an incumbent member of Congress winning reelection. Even though Democratic voters now outnumber Republicans by nine percentage points — the largest Gallup has measured since the fourth quarter of 2012 — some Democratic strategists are already predicting a shellacking in the midterm elections. According to Gallup, “President Biden has lost more public support during his first several months in office than any U.S. president since World War II.”
But what Democrats really have right now is an image problem. The Democrats have always been the party of liberalism, progressivism, collectivism, socialism, paternalism, abortion on demand (at taxpayer expense for low-income women), organized labor, public education, universal health care, higher taxes on “the rich,” anti-discrimination laws, affirmative action, the welfare state, environmentalism, government-funded child care, increased government regulation of the economy and society, income-transfer programs, and alternative lifestyles. However, over the past few years, the Democratic Party has also embraced the social-justice movement, defunding the police, the transgender movement, critical race theory, cancel culture, wokeism, and, most recently, lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccine mandates.
The Democrats last year were also embroiled in an intra-party feud over a bipartisan infrastructure bill and the size, scope, and cost of a massive legislative package of social spending priorities. Then they suffered humiliating losses in the “off-year” state elections in Virginia and New Jersey. In analyzing why they lost the Virginia governor’s race, Democratic Party strategists — as pointed out by David Siders, national political correspondent for Politico — discovered that “the Democratic Party’s entire brand was a wreck.” According to Douglas Schoen, a political consultant who served as an adviser to President Clinton, “It’s clear that Americans are turning against a Democratic Party that they feel has become more attuned to the priorities of progressives and less focused on addressing the concerns and frustrations of the broader American electorate.”
The New York Times editorial board even opined: “A national Democratic Party that talks up progressive policies at the expense of bipartisan ideas, and that dwells on Donald Trump at the expense of forward-looking ideas, is at risk of becoming a marginal Democratic Party appealing only to the left.” New York Times columnist Ezra Klein has said that Democrats need to recognize that swing-state voters “are not liberals, are not woke and do not see the world in the way that the people who staff and donate to Democratic campaigns do.” “I think what we have to do as a party is battle the damage to the Democratic brand,” said Democratic National Committee Chairman Jamie Harrison.
Speaking on PBS NewsHour, longtime Democratic strategist James Carville blamed “stupid wokeness” for his party’s disaster in the off-year elections. He termed the “defund the police” idea “lunacy” and suggested that progressive Democrats “need to go to a woke detox center” and “get rid of this left-wing nonsense, this claptrap I hear.”
The Republican brand
Before examining the libertarian brand — which is far and away the best alternative to the Democratic brand — it might be a good idea to briefly look at the Republican brand. This is because most Americans believe that the Republican Party is the polar opposite of the Democratic Party, at least on most issues. Republicans have cultivated this image and maintained this façade by using libertarian rhetoric. The truth, however, is that Republicans are philosophically not much different from Democrats, regardless of how often and how loud they recite their conservative mantra about the Constitution, federalism, the free market, limited government, traditional values, free enterprise, a balanced budget, individual freedom, free trade, property rights, and a strong national defense.
Republicans believe that some Americans should be forced to pay for the health care of other Americans through Medicare and Medicaid. Republicans support refundable tax credits that give some Americans tax refunds of money paid in by other Americans. Republicans support the government taking money from those who work and giving it to those who don’t by means of unemployment benefits. Republicans support federal subsidies to certain occupations and sectors of society. Republicans believe that some Americans should be forced to pay for the education of the children of other Americans. Republicans support the government taking money out of the pockets of Americans who “have” and giving it to other Americans who “have not” via Social Security, WIC, TANF, SSI, food stamps, and Section 8 rent subsidies.
In a nutshell, although Republicans may disagree with Democrats on the amount, they believe that the government should take money from some Americans and redistribute it to other Americans. They have no philosophical objection to government income-transfer programs. No one should ever think that the objections of the Republican brand to the size, nature, scope, and efficiency of government programs is based on any real principles.
The libertarian brand
Contrary to the Democratic and Republican brands, the libertarian brand (not necessarily the Libertarian Party) is intellectually rigorous, moral but not moralist, philosophically consistent, simple without being simplistic, and a bulwark of liberty, property, and peace. “Libertarianism,” as concisely stated by Future of Freedom Foundation president Jacob Hornberger, “is a political philosophy that holds that a person should be free to do whatever he wants in life, as long as his conduct is peaceful.” This means that, in a libertarian society:
people are free to engage in any economic enterprise or activity of their choosing without license, permission, restriction, interference, or regulation from government as long as they don’t commit violence against others, violate their property rights, or defraud them.
people are free to accumulate as much wealth as they can as long as they do it peaceably and without committing fraud.
buyers and sellers are free to exchange with each other for mutual gain any product of their choosing for any price, without any interference from the government.
charity, relief, and philanthropy are entirely voluntary activities.
people are free to pursue happiness in their own way, provided that they don’t threaten or initiate violence against the person or property of others.
people are free to live their lives any way they choose as long as their conduct is peaceful.
the voluntary, private, peaceful activity of consenting adults is none of the government’s business.
The libertarian brand is known for its simple, consistent, and principled perspective on the issues.
Welfare. All welfare programs should be abolished, from food stamps to job training to unemployment compensation. All charity should be private and voluntary.
Education. All public schools should be closed. Education should be completely separated from the state. All schools should be privately operated and privately funded.
Gun control. All gun control laws should be eliminated, the ATF should be abolished, and the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) should be shut down. Every American has the natural right to possess any weapon on his own property or the property of anyone else that allows such weapons.
Free trade. All Americans should be able to freely engage in commerce with foreigners without being hindered by tariffs, quotas, barriers, regulations, restrictions, or dumping rules. Free trade needs no trade organizations, trade agreements, or trade treaties.
The free market. The free market is not truly free unless it is completely free of government regulation and interference. Laissez faire is natural, just, and moral.
The minimum wage. The minimum wage should be eliminated. All wages and benefits should be negotiated between employers and employees without any interference whatsoever from the government.
Medicaid and Medicare. Both programs should be abolished. The government should have nothing to do with health care and no American should be forced to pay for the health care of any other American.
Social Security. Not only should Social Security not be saved for future generations, it should be eliminated for current beneficiaries. It is immoral to take money from those who work and give it to those who don’t — even if the government does the taking.
Victimless crimes. Because every crime needs a tangible and identifiable victim who has suffered measurable harm to his person or measurable damages to his property, there should be no laws against prostitution, gambling, pornography, or drug possession, use, and distribution — unless such actions involve violations of the personal or property rights of others.
Foreign aid. No country should receive foreign aid from the U.S. government in any amount, at any time, or for any reason. Like domestic charity, foreign charity — including for disaster relief — should be entirely private and voluntary.
The income tax. The income tax doesn’t need to be reformed or made flatter, fairer, or simpler; it needs to be abolished. All Americans are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor and spend their money as they see fit.
Family leave. Government should not mandate that any company provide paid or unpaid family. All benefits should be negotiated between employers and employees without any interference whatsoever from the government.
Farm subsidies. Not only should the government not subsidize farmers (or any other sector of the economy), it should have nothing to do with agriculture. Farming should be treated as any other business.
Foreign policy. The United States should remain neutral and not intervene militarily or otherwise in any country. All U.S. bases on foreign soil should be closed, and all U.S. troops should be brought home. The military should only be used for defensive purposes and should never fight foreign wars.
Anti-discrimination laws. Since discrimination — against anyone, on any basis, and for any reason — is not aggression, force, coercion, threat, or violence, the government should never prohibit it, seek to prevent it, or punish anyone for doing it.
The Constitution. The federal government should strictly follow the Constitution. Although others may say this, only libertarians have the courage to point out that this would entail a 95 percent cut in the federal budget.
These libertarian principles and perspectives are unchangeable and nonnegotiable. They cannot be compromised without doing irreparable harm to libertarianism.
Harming the brand
Democratic and Republican smears of libertarians are common and to be expected. Libertarians are said to be naïve and utopian. They lack compassion for the poor. They are isolationists. They are libertines and hedonists. They don’t believe in moral absolutes. They disdain organized religion and reject traditional values. They are materialistic. They celebrate greed and selfishness. These are all misconceptions, fallacies, caricatures, or falsehoods.
Some individual libertarians might be, believe, or do some of these things — just like some Democrats and Republicans might also — but they have nothing to do with libertarianism qua libertarianism. Libertarianism has nothing to do with one’s lifestyle, tastes, vices, sexual practices, traditions, values, religion, social attitudes, or cultural norms. Libertarianism is not “rugged individualism,” “unrestrained freedom of speech,” “survival of the fittest,” “unfettered capitalism,” “every man for himself,” or “dog eat dog.” Libertarianism has nothing to do with anarchy, nihilism, relativism, antinomianism, or hedonism.
The libertarian brand should be associated with individual liberty, private property, peaceful activity, voluntary interaction, laissez faire, personal freedom, financial privacy, individual responsibility, free enterprise, free markets, free speech, free thought, free association, freedom of conscience, and a free society.
Unfortunately, it is often libertarians themselves who harm the libertarian brand. Some libertarians have simplistically defined libertarianism as socially liberal and economically conservative. Others have implied that libertarianism is a particular social attitude or lifestyle. Some insist that libertarians must be in favor of same-sex marriage and abortion. Others maintain that libertarianism is incompatible with religion. Some supported the draconian government response to the COVID-19 “pandemic” in the name of “public health.” Others have defended U.S. military actions overseas in the name of “national security.” Some are nostalgic for Ronald Reagan, even considering him to be “an honorary libertarian.” Others have called for a universal basic income.
There is one issue, though, that most libertarians who deviate from libertarianism have in common: support for “school choice”; i.e., government-funded vouchers for students to use to pay for education at a school of their parents’ choice. Vouchers are touted as a way to rescue children from dangerous and failing public schools and put them in private schools where they can be educated instead of indoctrinated. Although I am not the least bit interested in defending public education, there is nothing libertarian about government educational vouchers. There is nothing special about the business of education that necessitates that the government be involved in it. Parents have the choice right now where and how to educate their children. The fact that they may not have the money to pay for their choice does not mean that the taxpayers should pay for it. Giving one group of Americans the choice of where to spend other Americans’ money to educate their children is immoral and unjust. If vouchers were used for anything but education, they would be denounced as an income-transfer program and a subsidy to private industry. Once government vouchers for education are deemed to be acceptable, no reasonable or logical argument can be made against the government’s providing vouchers for other services. Education should be completely separated from the state.
A plea
Libertarianism need not and should not be fused with any personal preference, school of aesthetics, or extraneous ideology. It should not be complicated by imposing a slate of approved opinions on top of the core teaching of our philosophy. We simply need plain old libertarianism, with no labels, no caveats, and no apologies. Libertarians need to be consistent and present a united front against statism in all its forms.
