Tag: Not So Crazy Libertarian Ideals

More Thoughts on CISPA

HR3523, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), which passed the House today, has been making news as of late. If passed into law, the bill would allow government agencies to share data with one another and allow private corporations to share data with the state without concerning themselves with any contractual obligations:

At that Committee meeting (1:01:45), the bill’s chief sponsor Chairman Rogers emphatically repeated his earlier assertions that CISPA wouldn’t breach private contracts in response to questions from Jared Polis:

Polis: Why wouldn’t it work to leave it up, getting back to the contract part, and I think again there may be a series of amendments to do this, if a company feels, if it’s voluntary for companies, why not allow them the discretion to enter into agreements with their customers that would allow them to share the information? …

Rogers: I think those companies should make those choices on their own. They develop their own contracts. I think they should develop their own contracts. They should enforce their own contracts in the way they do now in civil law. I don’t know why we want to get in that business.

[…]

And yet… for all Rogers’ bluster, CISPA moots private contracts—and House Republican leadership won’t fix the problem, even when five of their GOP colleagues offer a simple, elegant fix.

This is the same stubborn refusal to accept criticism and absorb new information that brought us SOPA, PIPA and a host of other ill-conceived attempts to regulate the Internet. It’s the very opposite of what should be the cardinal virtue of Internet policy: humility. Tinkering with the always-changing Internet is hard work. But it’s even harder when you stuff your fingers in your ears and chant “Lalalala, I can’t hear you.”

I think this brings up an important point that is often lost on people. As it currently stands most people rely on the service provider to protect their privacy. People who use services such as Gmail, Yahoo! Mail, Facebook, Twitter, etc. assume that those companies will prevent prying eyes from viewing unauthorized third-parties. This is a poor assumption for multiple reasons. First, most service providers make their money off of selling their customers’ information. There is an assumption that such information is anonymized to a point but there is no guarantee. I believe the conflict of interest is obvious. Reason number two is that even if a service provider does protect your privacy there is no guarantee that unauthorized third-parties won’t gain access by bypassing implemented security measures. The third reason is that customer information is often an asset that is sold off when a company becomes insolvent. If your e-mail provider were to enter bankruptcy they may be required to sell you information as part of their asset sale. Fourth, the state reserves the right to render contractual agreements irrelevant with the mere issuance of a subpoena. CISPA, ultimately, isn’t granting private entities the ability to violate their contractual agreements without legal consequences, it merely removes the requirement that a subpoena be issued before the contract can be violated.

The reason I advocate crypto-anarchy is because it’s a solution to all of the above mentioned problems. Imagine a world where everybody encrypted their e-mails. While the e-mails may be stored on an e-mail provider’s server the data would be unusable to them or unauthorized third-parties. The same applies to encrypted instant messages, web page requests, etc. Anonymizing tools can prevent service providers and anybody with access to their data from identifying your person or your location. Having encrypted data from an unknown person makes decryption difficult since you don’t know who to coerce the required keys out of.

Even if CISPA is passed there are many ways for your information to fall into unauthorized hands. Crypto-anarchy renders all of these threats irrelevant while begging politicians to not pass CISPA doesn’t. Solve all of the problems instead of a single minor one, use cryptographic tools today.

More Thoughts on the Bitcoin Crash

It appears that Bitcoin hasn’t hit the floor yet. This news has left many members of the Bitcoin community scrounging for a scapegoat. Reading various Bitcoin communities (although the /r/bitcoin subreddit has provided me with the most entertainment) it seems the recent devaluation of Bitcoin was caused by automated trades performed by bots, fake libertarians (I guess you can only be a libertarian if you invest heavily in Bitcoin), and a secret cabal of central banks. While the last scapegoat sounds the most plausible of the three (those central banks are ruthless bastards) I think the community is ignoring the most likely cause: Bitcoin is a new technology.

Bitcoin really is the first notable crypto-currency. Although previous crypto-currenciies have existed none of them enjoyed the prominence that Bitcoin enjoys today. Most people alive today have lived their entire lives using state controlled fiat currencies. Bitcoin is the opposite of what we call money today. It’s a decentralized currency that cannot be inflated past a certain point (only 21 million Bitcoin will ever exist). The decentralized nature of the currency means no single entity can wield monopoly control over it. It is also the first free-market monetary system that most of us have experienced. In other words, Bitcoin is a revolutionary idea and, like all revolutionary ideas, nobody can predict how it will, or won’t, change things.

Speaking in software terms the concept of Bitcoin (not to be mistaken for the network, clients, or services) is in the alpha stage of development. People participating in the Bitcoin community should understand that they are testers and should expect to find copious amounts of bugs that need to be worked out. Is Bitcoin vulnerable to Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks? If so, that must be corrected. Is Bitcoin too reliant on single points of failure? If so, that must be corrected. Is it too hard for the average person to acquire Bitcoin or use it in everyday transactions? If so, that must be correct. Growing pains are unavoidable when working with a technology that few, if any, understand the ramifications of.

Instead of playing the blame game I believe the Bitcoin community would be better served by noting the failure and thinking of methods to utilized the currency’s main features to overcome that failure. For instance, I’ve seen a lot of blamed aimed at Mt.Gox, the largest Bitcoin exchange. Bitcoin is a decentralized currency, why was one exchange allowed to gain so much influence over the exchange rate of the currency? Having a single point of failure is always a bad idea. Trusted members of the Bitcoin community should start developing more exchanges. More Bitcoin exchanges would mean more resiliency as it would be difficult for attackers to bring down or manipulate all of them simultaneously. Members of the Bitcoin network should put more work into developing easy methods for the average person to buy Bitcoin. In today’s world people like the convenience of credit cards. Credit cards, due to the ability of a purchaser to perform a charge back and the inability to recover sold Bitcoin, don’t work well for purchasing Bitcoin so some other convenient method must be created. The idea of Bitcoin Automated Teller Machines (ATM) is a good start, but they need to be located in high traffic areas such as grocery stores and gas stations. Until people can acquire Bitcoin as easily as they can buy things with their credit cards they won’t adopt the currency.

Another feature that should be leveraged more is the mostly anonymous nature of the currency. I’ve seen a lot of comments from Bitcoin advocates trying to refute the claim that Bitcoin is most heavily used in the drug trade. Stop that. Embrace it! Expound the fact that Bitcoin is used by drug dealers and purchasers because transactions cannot easily be tied to physical individuals. As the world governments continue to wring more and more money out of their people those people are going to look for a place to hide their wealth. A currency that is outside of the state’s control, can be used to store wealth in a mostly anonymous fashion, and allows individuals to perform transactions in a manner that that state can’t record for taxing or prosecution purposes should be huge and will be necessary as the state’s rate of expropriation increases. By denying that Bitcoin is used for “black” market purchases members of the Bitcoin community are downplaying its most valuable feature. Don’t try to control its image, let its image develop freely.

As an agorist and a crypto-anarchist I want to see Bitcoin succeed. In order to succeed I believe the Bitcoin community needs to understand that Bitcoin is a revolutionary idea, will have growing pains, and must be rid of state dogmas against the “black” market. Trying to shoehorn it into mainstream monetary and political principles will relegate it to always being an interesting idea that never gets widely adopted.

How About Those Republicans

Were I to listen to the most outspoken members of the gun rights community I would be lead to believe that the Republican Party believes in gun rights. For my sake I’m glad I don’t listen to them and recognized the Republican Party for what it is, the exact same thing as the Democrats minus their chosen party color and totem animal. Whenever I express this belief around other gun rights activists I’m almost always challenged by some dyed in the wool Republican. I’m lucky, little argument for my position is necessary as it is continuously confirmed by Republicans voting in favor of gun control:

un-control legislation survived its first key test vote in the Senate on Thursday, signaling that a bill will finally come to the chamber floor and setting up a bruising floor battle over background checks and gun and ammunition bans.

[…]

Sixteen Republicans voted in favor of the motion. Two Democrats — Mark Begich of Alaska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas — voted against it. Both are up for re-election in 2014.

I can already hear gun rights activists across the nation promising that they will work to ensure those 16 Republicans are voted out of office. I also know that, with very few exceptions, they won’t follow through with their promise. How do I know this? History tends to run in parallel paths. Whenever a Republican votes in favor of gun control gun rights activists say they will ensure that Republican won’t get reelected. By the time the election rolls around those very same gun rights activists will make up an excuse to justify supporting that candidate. Usually the excuse sounds something like, “I know his history on gun rights isn’t perfect but things will be much worse if the Democrat challenger gets into office!” Case in point, gun rights activists claimed they would do everything in their power to ensure Mitt Romney didn’t get another political position after he supported gun control as governor of Massachusetts. During the last presidential election gun rights activists supported Romney and demanded other gun owners support Romney because he was “better than Obama.”

So long as you fall for the false dichotomy inherent in our political system you will forever be suckered into supporting gun control advocates. This is because, in most cases, you’ll only be given the choice between an extreme gun control advocate or an apparently less zealous gun control advocate. Regardless of who wins you’ll lose. You might believe that one candidate will ensure that you’ll lose at a slightly slower rate but even that isn’t true because those less zealous gun control advocates will make deals with the more zealous gun control advocates in order to achieve other political agendas. In the political realm your so-called right to bear arms is nothing more than a bargaining chip used by political candidates to sucker you into supporting them and by politicians to trade trade with other politicians.

If you want to protect your ability to own a firearm then you need to take direct action. Direct action is the only tactic that has a history of delivering goods. As long as you rely on the political system you will find your ability of own firearms more and more restricted. After all it was the political system that robbed us of our legal ability to own machine guns registered after May 19th, 1986, mail order firearms directly to our homes, purchase new “assault weapons” and standard capacity magazines for 10 years, and own any firearms if the state labeled us felons.

Working Through the System

Those of you who are new to libertarianism or unfamiliar with the history of the libertarian movement may not be familiar with the name Samuel Edward Konkin III (SEK3). Although not the originator of counter-economics he was the first libertarian to express in detail how counter-economics, which he called agorism, could be used to topple the state. His strategy conflicted with that of another famous libertarian, Murray Rothbard. Instead of advocating counter-economics, Rothbard attempted to change the United States government by working within the political system through the Libertarian Party. Rothbard was a brilliant man when it came to economics and put forth a convincing ethics system built upon Austrian economics. With that said, I find it unfortunate that he was the one of the two to rise to prominence within libertarian circles. Konkin and Rothbard enjoyed, what I would call, a friendly rivalry. Rothbard would criticize Konkin and agorism and Konkin to rebut Rothbard and the political means.

I think history has demonstrated that Rothbard’s chosen tactic, the political means, failed miserably to establish a libertarian society. That being the fact most people new to the libertarian movement will be exposed to the political means and will only come across agorism if they’re fortunate enough to meet an anarchist in libertarian political circles or venture off of the beaten path to research the more radical side of libertarianism.

The two factions within the libertarian movement don’t always seen eye to eye. Libertarian working within the political system, who often refer to themselves as pragmatists, often vehemently oppose libertarians who use counter-economics as their means of fighting for liberty. During a debate Konkin explained the danger of libertarians who attempt to work their way through the system (the explanation starts at about the 11:50 mark):

And of course, the ultimate nightmare, which I’ve described in a few pamphlets for those of you who don’t remember it, the idea of a libertarian working his way through the system. Who arrests one of us counter economists, one of us people who go and break laws and things because we don’t believe in the government. And he takes us in front of a libertarian who works his way through the system as a judge and he takes us in front of a libertarian, you know he sentences us, and a libertarian working his way through the system as a bailiff, takes us to the jail where a libertarian working his way through the system as a turnkey. Holds us prisoner until eventually a libertarian working his way through the system as a court, or the prison priest, brings us up to the electric chair where a libertarian working his way through the system as a state technician is making sure it’s in good working order and a libertarian working his way through the system as a burly guard slaps us down on the chair and another libertarian working his way through the system as an executioner throws a switch and wipes out the one person who was, in fact, a libertarian not working his way through the system.

The danger of pragmatism rears its ugly head. A libertarian working through the system can be a frightening prospect because, as I explained in my post about the dangers of pragmatism, they often become willing to sacrifice their principles for political gain. This willingness to sacrifice principle can have a devastating effect on libertarians who choose to use counter-economics. By turning in agorists libertarians working through the system can gain favor from other statists, which they often believe will allow them to further their goal of advancing liberty.

My reason for poking fun at libertarians who work within the political system is because they can actually be a danger to us libertarians who work outside of the system (whereas us libertarians who work outside of the system are no danger to those working within the system). I wish Konkin was more popular than Rothbard because then, perhaps, a majority of new libertarians would participate in counter-economics instead of being sucked into the political machinery that has a habit of turning would-be libertarians into slightly less fascist statists.

The Myth Surrounding Slavery

One of the common myths surround slavery is that the institution, historically, was well received. With the exception of a few people slavery is reviled today (unless it’s state slavery, of course). What’s interesting is that many people that revile slavery believe that the institution was almost unanimously supported until the 1800’s rolled around.

This belief often manifests itself when one criticizes the Founding Fathers of the United States for owning slaves. Oftentimes that criticism is swept under the table by those who revere the Founders as demigods of freedom and liberty. They claim that it’s not fair to raise such criticisms because, even though slavery isn’t popularly supported today, it was during their time and we must look at their actions through the lens of that time. That claim is crap.

Slavery has always been fiercely opposed by great swaths of people. Even one of the Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, tried to include strong anti-slavery language in the Declaration of Independence. But, more to the point, the opposition to slavery primarily came from, as you can guess, the slaves.

How many people would support a system that forces them to perform hard labor for no pay? How many people would support a system where armed thugs would collect them if they left a specific plot of land? How many people would support having their children taken to be auctioned off to another slave owner? I can’t think of a single person who would support such a system and I’m guessing you can’t either.

The only people who supported slavery were those who directly profited from the institution. Slave owners, slave hunters, and politicians whose pockets were lined by pro-slavery lobbyists were the primary supporters of slavery. Slaves and the abolitionist movement strongly opposed slavery and remainder of the population likely didn’t give two shits either way.

Whenever somebody claims that the institution of slavery received popular support historically you need to realize that they’re, in all likelihood unknowingly, omitting the opinion of the slaves.

Paychecks Usually Trump Beliefs and Politicians Don’t Care What Anybody Thinks

A survey has started making its way through the gun rights community. Supposedly the survey shows that most law enforcement officers oppose enacting stricter gun control laws:

The law-enforcement support site PoliceOne.com has released the results of a massive survey in which “more than 15,000 verified law enforcement professionals” were asked 30 questions about current gun control proposals. The results may surprise you.

“Contrary to what the mainstream media and certain politicians would have us believe,” writes Police One Editor in Chief Doug Wyllie, “police overwhelmingly favor an armed citizenry, would like to see more guns in the hands of responsible people, and are skeptical of any greater restrictions placed on gun purchase, ownership, or accessibility.”

On the surface this sounds great because the police would be tasked with enforcing any new gun control legislation. Another apparently positive aspect of these results is that politicians often justify their support for gun control by claiming law enforcement officers support gun control. Many supporters of gun rights are using these results to imply that most law enforcement officers wouldn’t enforce new gun control laws and politicians may be less inclined to advocate for more gun control knowing that a majority of law enforcement officers oppose it. These implications ignore two major factors: paychecks usually trump beliefs and politicians don’t care what anybody thinks.

Law enforcement officers are paid to enforce the state’s decrees. If an law enforcement officer is unwilling to enforce the state’s decrees they are dismissed. Have you ever heard an officer say, “I’m just doing my job?” What they mean is that they may not agree with what they’re told to do but they will do it because that is the job assigned to them. It’s a cop out, a way of justifying an act that the person knows is wrong. When faced with the choice between enforcing new gun control laws or receiving a paycheck you can guarantee that a vast majority of police officers will choose the latter. We must always remember that the police are not our friends, their job is to take our shit and put it in the state’s coffers.

Politicians often claim that they support gun control laws because their police officers do. That is also a cop out. When a politician says his law enforcement officers support legislation they really means that the select officers they personally opted to seek advice from support the legislation. If the politician can’t get the opinion they want from the officers they selected they simply select different officers to advise them. Politicians don’t care what anybody thinks, they have an agenda and they seek the advice of people that will support that agenda.

I hate to say it but that survey is meaningless outside of being an argument against the claim that a majority of law enforcement officers support gun control. If the politicians want to pass new gun control laws they will and the police will enforce those laws just as they enforce every other laws.

Bipartisan Deals are a Myth

Have you heard? The Democrats and Republicans have come together to reach a bipartisan deal on gun control:

Two US senators have struck a bipartisan deal to expand background checks on gun buyers, boosting White House hopes for a firearms control law.

Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat, and Senator Pat Toomey, a Republican, unveiled their plans in Washington DC.

The proposal would expand criminal background checks for buyers to include gun shows and online sales.

I’m not sure why the term bipartisan is still used. According to Google bipartisan is defined as “Of or involving the agreement or cooperation of two political parties that usually oppose each other’s policies.” Bipartisan, by definition, assumes the existence of two political parties that usually support opposing policies. Besides the minor differences of party color and totem animal there are no notable difference between the Republican and Democratic parties. Both parties have the same goal: expand the power of the state. To maintain the illusion of choice the parties pretend that they have different strategies when it comes to expanding the state’s power but, in the end, they both want an all powerful state and rules over every detail of our lives.

Therefore it’s not an accurate statement to call this gun control deal bipartisan. The deal was brokered between two organizations within the same political party. The term is used solely as a mechanism to divide and conquer the populace. So long as the general population believes that there are two ideologically different political parties they will happily fight one another over meaningless details instead of focusing on the real enemy, the state.

The Danger of Pragmatism

As an anarchist who refuses to take part in the political system I’m often derogatorily referred to as a purist or idealist. Those calling me a purist usually consider themselves pragmatists. Pragmatists like to harp on idealists because, in their view, idealists bitch while pragmatists get things done. What pragmatists seldom see is the cost of, as they say, getting things done.

This rant was brought on by the recent death of Margaret Thatcher. For some reason many pragmatist libertarians love Thatcher because she reduced the political influence of public unions and privatized a great deal of infrastructure. I, on the other hand, don’t view Thatcher as a bastion of libertarianism who rode a white horse and delivered freedom to the suffering serfs of the United Kingdom. Because of my unwillingness to ignore the results of her actions I’m accused of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Unlike so-called pragmatists I would not support Thatcher were she alive and running for a position of power. The cost of her actions were too great.

Thatcher may have bitch slapped socialism back in the United Kingdom but she did so by replacing it with fascism. Under Thatcher’s policies the denizens of the United Kingdom suffer under a police state. Their every action is captured by Closed Circuit Television Cameras (CCTV) that rise above most street corners, their Internet is censored, and their every communication is recorded by the state. Thatcher’s advancement of the police state was the catalyst for these modern problems.

I already hear the pragmatists screaming, “But she privatized nationalized industries!” Privatization, as defined by the state, is another word for nationalization. Instead of the state directly owning an industry a crony, who is part of the state in all ways that matter, is given ownership over the industry. The state gets away with this practice by claiming the nationalized industries are natural monopolies. That claim fools many libertarians into supporting the state’s definition of privatization but the truth is natural monopolies don’t exist. Natural monopoly is a made up label used to sucker free market advocates into accepting the state’s transferring of ownership from one branch of itself to another. True privatization would require entirely deregulating nationalized industries so anybody wanting to compete in those markets could compete.

It’s also worth spending a few seconds looking at Thatcher’s foreign policy. One of the biggest criticisms libertarians aim at the current United States government is its interventionist foreign policy. The United States loves to go around the world and start shit with other nations. Thatcher also enjoyed this practice. I’m not talking about the Falkelands War, which a minarchist may consider legitimate as it involved Argentina invading a British colony. I’m talking about her insistence that the United States invade Iraq and her support of Pol Pot. While some may be willing to forgive her support of starting the Gulf War I don’t see how anybody can forgiver her for supporting a man who murdered an estimated 2 million Cambodians. Even the most flexible of pragmatists must admit that supporting such a murderer goes against everything libertarianism promotes.

Pragmatism is a term most often used by those who aren’t principled. By calling themselves pragmatists, people can claim the label libertarian without actually supporting libertarian principles. I understand why they do it, working within the currently established political system offers a path of least resistance. Using the political system to force your beliefs onto an entire population is much easier than leading by example and living your life in accordance with the principles you claim to support. I also understand why pragmatists berate idealists. When a pragmatists looks at an idealist they see everything they want to be but can’t bring themselves to be. In order to cope with the guilt of betraying their own principles they accuse the idealist of wrongdoing. Pragmatists blind themselves and, in so doing, end up working against the ideas they claim to support. They may, as they say, get things done but they get all the wrong things done.

Progressives Will Never Accomplish Their Expressed Goals Through Statism

Today’s political climate is so muddled with doublespeak and doublethink that it’s difficult to have any meaningful conversation. Consider the term progressive. The term indicates a forward movement for society that will hopefully mean a better future for everybody. People who identify themselves as progressives generally claim a desire to support the poor through government programs. They tend to advocate universal healthcare, a guaranteed living wage, welfare, and other programs supposedly aimed at ensuring everybody has the bare necessities of survival. In practice their goals tend to oppose one another.

One of the demographics often exploited by modern progressives is the homeless population. Progressives often claim that they want more government programs to help the homeless. Helping the homeless is a noble cause that I want to see society embrace. However, unlike progressives, I want to see voluntary methods used. Voluntary methods tend to avoid the hypocrisy that runs rampant in statist solutions. On the one hand progressives claim to want to support the homeless, on the other hand they support programs that make it difficult or impossible to help the homeless. There have been numerous instances where state officials used force to stop individuals from providing food to the homeless. Most of these instances were done under the guises of health safety. State officials claimed that there was no way to ensure the donated food met nutritional or safety standards. Instead of being allowed to partake in the generosity of giving individuals the homeless were forced to go hungry because some government thug in a city health department didn’t issue a stamp of approval.

Such an outcome in inevitable when medical costs are paid by the state. As I explained in my post about the state and its love of surveillance, the state has a vested interest in keeping its costs down. Programs that return little, no, or, worst of all, negative profit are either axed or retools to be more profitable. Military might, by allowing the state to expropriate from other states, and police, by allowing the state to expropriate locally, will always receive priority for funding. Healthcare, on the other hand, would normally cost the state money. In order to get around this issue states have done several things. First, most states that claim to offer universal healthcare also maintain an ever diminishing list of covered operations. Second, those states generally maintain a skeleton crew in the healthcare sector meaning the wait time for operations becomes great (and if you die the state doesn’t have to foot the bill for your operation). Third, and for this post most importantly, these states implement regulations aimed at reducing their healthcare costs. Any behavior that may incur healthcare costs by the state are made illegal. New York, being one of the most progressive cities in the United States, has continuously implemented prohibitions aimed at reducing the state’s healthcare costs. The most famous prohibition was the one placed on the sale of sugary drinks exceeding 16 ounces.

In addition to axing or retooling unprofitable programs the state also tries to shed itself of unprofitable population. A homeless individual, being without income and able to buy very little, is unprofitable for the state. They generally pay no income tax and very little, if any, sales or use taxes. Compounding the issue is their general lack of possessions. If you have a home, a bank account, or any other property you have value that the state can seize from you. Therefore you, in the eyes of the state, are profitable population. Just as a dairy farmer has an interest in maintaining the health of his dairy cattle the state has an interest in maintaining your health, so long as you’re not consuming so many of its available resources that you become unprofitable (in other words if you actually need a major medical operation the state would rather see you dead).

Here is where things come full circle. In the hopes of reducing healthcare costs the state ends up waging war against the homeless. In the state’s eyes donated food is a potential healthcare cost because it has set itself up to cover the healthcare costs of those who don’t have insurance or possession to seize. Homeless individuals don’t have insurance or possessions so the state is literally better off if the homeless are dead. Preventing the homeless of eating donated food reduces the state’s infinitesimal risk of caring for uninsured individuals who have nothing to steal. If homeless individuals end up starving to death the state has shed unprofitable population. In other words shutting down programs aimed at providing food for the homeless is a win-win for the state.

Herein lies the problem with progressives: their goals are mutually exclusive. By involving the state in healthcare progressives ensure that the state wages a war against the homeless. Voluntary methods of providing healthcare and helping the poor don’t suffer from such conflict of interests because the interests of the people involve is to help those in need. In other words those donating food to feed the homeless are doing so because they want to help feed the homeless. Since they’re not expropriating wealth they don’t suffer from helping those without wealth. I believe that most self-declared progressives mean well but their strategy ensures that their expressed goals will never be accomplished. Only through voluntary cooperation can people help one another. Once the voluntary component is removed costs will inevitably be faced by those who don’t want to face them. At that point the primary focus moves away from helping those in need to reducing costs.

Rand Paul isn’t a Libertarian

The hardest part about identifying as a libertarian is how poorly the general population understands the term. Here in the United States the term is generally applied to any self-declared conservative or Republican that pays lip service to small government, civil liberties, and the need for being fiscally conservative. Unfortunately the core of libertarianism, the non-aggression principle, is almost unknown outside of libertarian circles. This is why a man like Rand Paul gets called a libertarian:

Led by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), libertarians hope to become a dominant wing of the GOP by tapping into a potent mix of war weariness, economic anxiety and frustration with federal overreach in the fifth year of Barack Obama’s presidency.

I fail to see how a man who voted for the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the amendment to the NDAA that placed additional sanctions on Iran, provided funding for a neoconservative that stated women rarely become pregnant from rape and wants to based policies on said statement, introduced meaningless drone legislation, and endorsed Mitt Romney is going to lead libertarianism in any way. Heck, Rand Paul doesn’t even consider himself a libertarian:

“They thought all along that they could call me a libertarian and hang that label around my neck like an albatross, but I’m not a libertarian,” Paul says between Lasik surgeries at his medical office, where his campaign is headquartered, with a few desks crammed between treatment rooms.

Unlike his father, Rand isn’t a libertarian and we would all do well to stop referring to him as such.