How I Became A Libertarian - Caleb Jones

I’ve received several questions from readers in the past of how I became a libertarian.

As I talk about in my primary book, most people tend to form their political opinions from their parents. They either copy their parents, or they over-react to their parents and adopt the precise opposite opinions in an effort to not be like them.

In both cases, these are highly irrational, Societal Programming-based reasons to form opinions that are not conducive to long-term happiness. Political opinions, if you have them, should come from rational, dispassionate analysis, not from whatever feelings your family or social circle shoved into you when you were a child or in college.

That’s how I became a libertarian: analysis.

I was raised in a largely left-wing family in a left-wing part of the country (Portland, Oregon, USA). My parents at the time were mostly political moderates and had no strong opinions either way. My dad was a very moderate Democrat and my mom was a very moderate Republican. (Today they are both extreme left-wingers, bordering on outright socialist, but that evolution happened long after I moved out of the house.)

As such, I was not raised with any noticeable political influence either way, left or right.

When I was a teenager during the late 1980s, it was the “cool” thing among the teenage tough-guy subculture to be right-wing Republicans who loved Reagan, loved capitalism, hated the Russians, hated communism, and hated hippies. As a dumb kid who didn’t know any better, I fell into some of that. While I never self-identified as a “Republican,” I indeed self-identified as a “conservative” from age 19 until about age 26 or so.

I never really liked Republicans because they never seemed to have any new ideas. Moreover, they always were clearly statists and insiders. Even as a young, dumb kid I realized that political insiders wouldn’t be the ones you could rely on to actually reform anything. Reagan, George Bush Senior, Bob Dole, I never liked any of these guys despite the fact I disliked left-wingers a lot more.

So although I called myself a conservative, I voted for Ross Perot in the 1992 and 1996 presidential elections, mostly because I thought a businessman would make a better president than a politician, but I was still happy with Republicans getting elected over Democrats. I did things like listen to Rush Limbaugh on the radio frequently and found myself agreeing with most of what he said.

Around my late 20s, I slowly started to realize that Republicans and conservatives were completely and utterly full of shit. They would talk as if they wanted government to be smaller, but they clearly didn’t mean it.

I always disliked left-wingers since they were clearly insane. (You guys want to be less free and more socialist? Huh? A multi-trillion dollar a year government isn’t big enough for you and you want it even bigger? WTF?) Yet, at least the left seemed honest. They wanted bigger government, and their actions actually reflected that. I slowly started to realize that this was not the case with the right.

One day, when I was about 27(?) I gave a speech at my Toastmasters group regarding economics and politics. Afterwards, a woman came up to me and said, “Are you a libertarian? Everything you were saying was libertarian.”

I knew the word “libertarian” but didn’t know what it meant.

“Libertarian?” I said, “Aren’t those the guys who always run for office and lose every election?”

She laughed and said, “Often yeah, but I’m a part of the Libertarian Party and you should come to one of our meetings. Everything you said in your speech was 100% libertarian, down the line.”

I didn’t go to any of her meetings, but I thought hard about what she said, and immediately started researching. I read a few books (Ringer, Browne, Hayek, Hazlitt, etc) and started doing a lot of research on the internet (such as it was back then).

Most of I read, not all, but most, made sense. Unlike the Disney crap espoused by the left, the libertarian stuff I read actually matched real-world economics and history. Even better, unlike the right who were clearly liars, libertarians were actually serious about this stuff; they actually wanted government to be smaller instead of just jerking off about it and lying about it like the right.

I was super impressed. The more I read, the more it made sense.

She was right. I was never a real conservative. I was just an ignorant and confused libertarian.

The stuff I heard on the right got worse and worse. I once listened to Rush Limbaugh bitch and moan for ten minutes about how “these Republicans suck” and how Republicans always promise smaller government while giving us bigger government whenever we elect them. I nodded my head in agreement as I listened to him. But then he gave his answer to this problem. He said the solution to this was to vote for more Republicans.

What the hell?

I turned off the radio. That was the last time I ever listened to Rush Limbaugh. Or anyone like him.

Then came the nail in the coffin: George W. Bush. He ran on a platform of making government smaller and not spending taxpayer’s dollars on nation-building. Well, you how that worked out. He gleefully proceeded to do the exact opposite, becoming the biggest big-government president in American history, as well as launching multiple Roman-like wars that will probably never end. I still remember in 2002 (or 2003?) when his budget increased government spending by 24% and 80% of that had nothing to do with the war in Iraq or the war on terror. Under the Republican President Bush, government grew like it was on steroids.

What was the right’s response to this? “Yay! What a great president!” He was easily re-elected.

Right-wing conservatives LOVE big government. Every time they espouse small government, they’re lying to you. Every time.

I was not one of them. I never was. I’m a libertarian. By the early 2000’s I knew for sure.

That doesn’t mean there aren’t a lot of irrational weirdos in the libertarian world. There are. There are extreme anarchists with some really weird ideas. There are libertarians who worship cryptocurrency like it’s some kind of god. There are activist libertarians who actually think they can get a majority of voters to vote for them on a national level. (Ha! Stupid. Human beings hate small government. Libertarianism will never catch on.)

Sorting through all of this, I then identified what kind of libertarian I was. Anarcho-capitalists are the extreme libertarians who think we should have no government at all. I love these guys and sympathize. In my emotional heart, I am an anarcho-capitalist. I think that would not only be great, but doable in a high-tech, modern society. Regardless, it’s a utopian belief like communism. In the real world, if you waved a magic wand and made all governments disappear, the very next day humans beings would, unfortunately, start forming governments again. I hate that, but that’s how humans are.

So given that reality, that means I’m a minarchist libertarian. This means that I (reluctantly) believe government is fine provided you keep it as small as you can for as long as you can, while keeping it mostly local and decentralized. If you want to pay taxes to your local city so it can pay for roads and cops, I don’t love that system, but I’ll take it. But if you’re forced at gunpoint to pay for the health care of some lazy asshole who doesn’t want to get a job and who lives 2,000 miles away from you, now we have a very serious problem.

Today, the right-wing is even worse, giddily voting with excitement for Republican candidates who will clearly increase government spending if elected, like Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and many others. And of course, the left has lost its mind too… but like I said, the left has always been insane.

Libertarian means the government stays small (but not zero) and leaves you alone. Run your business any way you want, marry whomever you want, smoke whatever you want, pay only a tiny amount of taxes, buy your own shit (instead of relying on the low-quality services government provides), and live your life.

Nobody wants this of course, except for the tiny percentage (around 2-3%) of the population who are libertarians.

Which is fine. I stopped giving a shit a long time ago. 🙂

If you find the content on this blog helpful, you should join the Alpha 2.0 Community where there’s even more. We have over 650 members who help each other with their financial and woman lives and building an Alpha Male 2.0 lifestyle. I also have community-only podcasts there that aren’t available anywhere else. It’s free to join. Just click here.

27 Comments on “How I Became A Libertarian

  1. In my emotional heart, I am an anarcho-capitalist. I think that would not only be great, but doable in a high-tech, modern society. Regardless, it’s a utopian belief like communism. In the real world, if you waved a magic wand and made all governments disappear, the very next day humans beings would, unfortunately, start forming governments again. I hate that, but that’s how humans are.

    I’ve come to that epiphany as well. At my core I’m an AnCap but its not realistic given our nature. Which sucks, and for years I’ve been screaming that anarchy is not only possible but good (I was an anacho communist before anarcho capitalist so I never liked statism) but I wasted lots of time and energy trying to convince people of something that they were too scared of.

  2. Great post Caleb! Been intrigued about this libertarianism since I’ve been reading your thoughts about it. I was wondering if you have some recommended books that you could point me at? Think would be a great blog post too “The Best Books about Libertarianism” or whatever. Looking forward to your reply!

  3. Off topic.

    Caleb, do you think joining a Toastmaster Group in your-past 20s worth it?

    If yes, how so?

  4. Ron Paul did it for me.

    I was the opposite of Caleb in thinking I was a liberal, but in truth was always a libertarian in almost everything I did and said.

    Murray Rothbard is pretty consistent in my view.

    I also like mainstream guys like John Stossel and Judge Andrew Napolitano.

    I also like Justin Raimondo from Anti-War.com.

    I appreciate the Reason types and I appreciate the Lew Rockwell types.

    I agree with Caleb it will be a hard challenge to get people to vote big on a national level.

    You would need someone with some serious celebrity power (say like, the Rock if he was libertarian) with the balls of Trump!

  5. I’m a minarchist libertarian.

    Based on everything you just described, I’m a libertarian as well, but you refuse to acknowledge it.

    With minor exceptions, the only place in which we differ is that I’m a nationalist libertarian, whereas you seem to be a globalist libertarian. You want open borders, free trade, and a culture-less America where we may not even have the English language in common. In other words, you want America to be nothing more than a verbal expression of physical geography and a piece of neutral dirt.

    By contrast, I think libertarianism should be limited exclusively to American citizens. If you’re not a citizen, you are just a guest on our private property (America). And as owners of the property, we Americans are your absolute dictators until you become an owner (citizen) yourself. Don’t like it? Become a citizen in order to gain access to libertarian freedoms, or just leave!

    To disagree with this (which you seem to) is to be a Marxist in the sense of believing that America is public land that is owned by anyone who sets foot here and we have no right to control our borders because America is NOT the private property of its citizens. That’s what you seem to believe, and that’s what the current Libertarian Party believes, which is a Marxist belief in my opinion.

    America belongs to us, not some third world savages who broke in here like thieves without our permission.

    In my emotional heart, I am an anarcho-capitalist.

    All forms of anarchy violate human rights because you’re saying that all crimes, including murder, child molestation, etc…, should be legal, like the Purge. Anarchists are hypocrites since they think the government shouldn’t be allowed to use force, and therefore, shouldn’t exist, but individuals should be allowed, including murder.

    Murder is murder, regardless of whether the government does it or an individual. Anarchists believe the individual should have the right to do it. I believe that neither the individual nor the government should, except in self-defense, or as punishment for a human rights violation.

    This is why we need government – to protect human rights (domestic policy) and secure our borders/national sovereignty (foreign policy).

    marry whomever you want,

    Marriage is a government function, and therefore, illegitimate in a libertarian society, unless by “marry whomever you want” you’re referring to privatized contracts, a la “limited liability family.”

     

     

  6. Caleb, is there a reason why I now have to constantly re-type my screen name and email every time I post? The blog used to just remember it.

  7. I think you mean “small” instead of big.

    Fixed.

    I was wondering if you have some recommended books that you could point me at?

    Start with Economics In One Lesson by Hazlitt.

    I’m a libertarian as well, but you refuse to acknowledge it.

    Because you’re not a libertarian. You want to pass laws stating employers can’t fire employees for things they do off-hours, and you want to pass laws making it illegal to talk over someone else, as just two of the many big-government things you want.

    you seem to be a globalist libertarian.

    Incorrect. I am utterly against globalism and always have been.

    You want open borders

    Incorrect. A nation should have strong borders protected by its military. Read this.

    And as owners of the property, we Americans are your absolute dictators until you become an owner (citizen) yourself. Don’t like it? Become a citizen in order to gain access to libertarian freedoms, or just leave!

    I don’t disagree with any of that.

    All forms of anarchy violate human rights because you’re saying that all crimes, including murder, child molestation, etc…, should be legal, like the Purge. Anarchists are hypocrites since they think the government shouldn’t be allowed to use force, and therefore, shouldn’t exist, but individuals should be allowed, including murder.

    And individuals should be allowed to kill murderers. But I’m not getting into an ancap debate today. I’m a libertarian, not an ancap, for the reasons I stated above.

    Marriage is a government function

    Incorrect. Marriage is a religious function. It only became a governmental function for the typical person about 200 years ago. Government should have nothing to do with marriage. It should be a religious and civilly legal function only, which is what it originally was. Government has corrupted and destroyed marriage.

    is there a reason why I now have to constantly re-type my screen name and email every time I post?

    Yes. Because your browser sucks.

  8. Yes. Because your browser sucks.

    My browser is the same. This just started happening today.

  9. You want to pass laws stating employers can’t fire employees for things they do off-hours,

    Correct. As a libertarian, I believe in laws against theft, including “time theft.” A person being involuntarily controlled by his boss on his own time when he is being paid nothing is involuntary servitude. A person must respect his boss’s time, but the boss must respect his employees’ time as well.

    I don’t see why the theft of a man’s time can’t be criminalized in a libertarian society.

    and you want to pass laws making it illegal to talk over someone else,

    Incorrect. We already have laws against interrupting people when they’re trying to make a formal speech. It’s called “heckler’s veto” and it is illegal (1) on government property (2) when someone is trying to give a formal speech. Yes, I support that already existing law. Heckler’s veto violates the human right to Free Speech of the person who is being heckled.

    I don’t see why laws against heckler’s veto or “obstructing speech” violate libertarian principles. Quite the opposite.

    Incorrect. I am utterly against globalism and always have been.

    And yet you support free trade agreements, forcing Americans to compete with non-Americans for jobs.

    Incorrect. A nation should have strong borders protected by its military.

    Uhhh………Caleb? I read the article you linked to and it shows the exact opposite. Are you sure you meant to link to that post and not another one? In the post you linked to, you wrote this:

    Next, open your borders wide and let anyone come in. That’s right. Anyone who wants to come in can. They can just walk right across the border and visit or even live in your country.

    That’s the exact opposite of “having strong borders protected by our military,” isn’t it?

    But you also say that you wouldn’t give any welfare to the immigrants, which is a moot point since even citizens shouldn’t have welfare.

     

  10. What about pollution from the point of view of a libertarian? If everyone is free to do what they want, won’t that turn the US into another China with polluted rivers and smog filled cities?

  11. Ron Paul did it for me.

    Same here, I remember a decade ago when the 2008 election was coming up and having completely given up on all things political, Paul was like the one diamond that actually made sense. Was gonna vote for him, but nah. I’m too AnCap for that. Voting to me is a statist macro aggression. By macro aggression I mean a form of direct moral subjugation pushed by the state as well as trad cons and progressives to make large amounts of people guilty for not being statists: “Don’t vote? Then you’re a bad person!” That kind of thing.

    Good. Baby steps.

    I’ve done been this way. But I’ve retained the same AnCap (formerly AnCom) ideals for about 20 years, since I was high school. But I don’t have the time and energy to be like Adam Kokesh and go around telling people about being AnCap while getting arrested over 9000 times just to get a meh following. External solutions (including the ones you are pursuing, JOTB) are a tragic waste of energy. Just cuz my ideals make me happy doesn’t mean they will make others happy. You know, the whole live and let live thing.

    It IS getting too fun triggering people online with my AnCap arguments, however…

    All forms of anarchy violate human rights

    “Rights” are a statist invention, including “human rights” (A Marxist term, btw). I’m not concerned with human rights. I am only concerned with natural rights. If we lived like the animals we truly want to be, there would actually be much less violence and maliciousness, because only those who are smart enough to not mess with anyone’s shit would survive.

    What about pollution from the point of view of a libertarian? If everyone is free to do what they want, won’t that turn the US into another China with polluted rivers and smog filled cities?

    We’ve been engaged in heavy industry for nearly three centuries. Where were these polluted rivers and smog filled places in the 1830s when the west wasn’t Statist central? Or are you going to deny like everyone else that the corporatism that the New Deal accidentally gave birth to wasn’t responsible for this?

    Yes. Because your browser sucks.

    Same thing happened to me. Happened on the BD Blog as well…

  12. And yet you support free trade agreements, forcing Americans to compete with non-Americans for jobs.

    I support free trade about 85% of the time. Free trade is not globalism. Globalism is a one-world elite running everything along with international law. I oppose this.

    I read the article you linked to and it shows the exact opposite. Are you sure you meant to link to that post and not another one? In the post you linked to, you wrote this:

    What I wrote is not the opposite to having no borders. A country must have a border that is clearly defined and strongly defended by the military against military attack or invasion. At the same time, peaceful travelers should be allowed through, both ways, with minimal hassle, and non-citizens visiting that country have zero access to any welfare dollars and limited rights.

    What about pollution from the point of view of a libertarian? If everyone is free to do what they want, won’t that turn the US into another China with polluted rivers and smog filled cities?

    Not if you have a correctly run legal system. Read this.

    “Rights” are a statist invention, including “human rights” (A Marxist term, btw).

    Correct.

    I’m not concerned with human rights. I am only concerned with natural rights.

    Even natural rights are a false invention of humans. If an alien dissected you, they would not be able to find “rights” of any kind.

    I am for natural rights, very much so, because that’s the least-bad way to run a society, but I don’t bullshit myself into thinking they’re real in any way.

  13. @ Pablo Zabala-

    I would highly recommend Murray Rothbard’s-Libertarian Manifesto, Ayn Rand’s Virtue of Selfishness, and pretty much anything Ludwig Von Mises. Also take a look at the work of Tom Woods. Spend some time watching Tom woods speak for the Mises Institute on Youtube. He is a fellow with the Mises Institute and has a background in History and Austrian Economics and is an incredibly good speaker.

    He worked for Ron Paul as his Economic Advisor. Speaking of Ron Paul, any of his books are fantastic as well.

    For a super deep dive, try The Constitution of Liberty by Friedrich Hayek (That one is pretty hardcore, I wouldn’t start there if you are 100% fresh to the economics/ political economy field of academics).

    Youtube all of this if you are more visual. Enjoy the Ride!

  14. If we lived like the animals we truly want to be, there would actually be much less violence and maliciousness, because only those who are smart enough to not mess with anyone’s shit would survive.

    That’s delusional. Animals *will* mess with others’ stuff if they can get away with it, and some will. Nature is not harmonious, it is cruel, messy and inefficient. We should obviously copy what works in it, but not naively emulate it. It won’t reduce “violence and maliciousness”, which are themselves naturally evolved traits, just like altruism.

    Even natural rights are a false invention of humans. If an alien dissected you, they would not be able to find “rights” of any kind.
    I am for natural rights, very much so, because that’s the least-bad way to run a society, but I don’t bullshit myself into thinking they’re real in any way.

    Good point. Human-centered constructs all the way. We’re just obliged to pick some in order to have a functional society, but it’s good to stay lucid about it.

  15. Politics always starts a religion-like debate.  Mine is the only/best way.  Few ever listen and change their minds.

    I believe humans are ungovernable because of genetic flaws like greed, violence and a hoarding instinct.  We have big gov’t because everything needs to be protected from thieves or vandals.  Everything has to be policed or some jackass will break into your house or car, computer, store, etc.  The uber hoarders will grab all the earth’s resources so they can have $100 billion that they can never spend.  They will pollute everyone else’s air and water, with no regard to anyone else.

    Because humans are so flawed, small gov’ts will always become big over time.  It is all wasted on level after level of security against the small number of jackasses.  Then there are the sociopaths who crave power.  We need an ever modernizing military to guard against them.

    Small gov’t will never happen until biologists find a way to fix the basic human.  Eliminate the instinct for greed, violence and hoarding and 90% of gov’t would not even be considered.

  16. What do think of Alex Jones being systematically banned by YouTube,Facebook,Apple,and Spotify all at the same time?

    Chilling precedent set? Or “private” companies allowed to ban whomever they want?

  17. What do think of Alex Jones being systematically banned by YouTube,Facebook,Apple,and Spotify

    Troublemakers being a threat to revenue?

  18. What do think of Alex Jones being systematically banned by YouTube,Facebook,Apple,and Spotify all at the same time?

    I’ll have a post about that on Sunday.

  19. Politics always starts a religion-like debate.  Mine is the only/best way.  Few ever listen and change their minds.

    That’s because Politics and government is based in religion. And religion is based in collectivism. Theocracies existed for centuries before democracies did. So with every “advance” we make, we’re just adding to that core.

    I believe humans are ungovernable because of genetic flaws like greed, violence and a hoarding instinct. 

    Exactly. But we CAN govern ourselves. Trouble is, self government (whether it is AnCap or AnCom, admittedly, AnCom would be one ounce better) is not possible in a massively large population.

    Everything has to be policed or some jackass will break into your house or car, computer, store, etc.

    Until the same people who protect you from that kind of thing will then begin breaking into your personal property themselves. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    Small gov’t will never happen until biologists find a way to fix the basic human.  Eliminate the instinct for greed, violence and hoarding and 90% of gov’t would not even be considered.

    I agree with that, but greed, violence, and hoarding are natural rights. So there will never be a simple solution. Which is why I stay away from external solutions. Too complicated.

    What do think of Alex Jones being systematically banned by YouTube,Facebook,Apple,and Spotify all at the same time?

    The religious right was doing the exact same to silence psychotic Commies and Marxists in the 70s and 80s, so all it tells me is that narrative has changed and now the Commies and Marxists have become the religious right. Meh, I’m not surprised and it doesn’t affect me any. Alex Jones had all that coming.

    Again, people who cling and clutch to collectivism and external solutions (of any kind) don’t deserve to be taken seriously anyways.

  20. I support free trade about 85% of the time. Free trade is not globalism. Globalism is a one-world elite running everything along with international law. I oppose this.

    You’re an economic globalist and a civic nationalist. Whereas, I’m both a civic nationalist and an economic nationalist. Free trade has been a disaster for America and sets the stage for civic (political) globalism.

    That’s why I’m a conservative isolationist when it comes to foreign policy (including immigration and free trade) and an individualist libertarian when it comes to domestic policy within the larger framework of civic and economic nationalism.

    What I wrote is not the opposite to having no borders. A country must have a border that is clearly defined and strongly defended by the military against military attack or invasion.

    Good.

    At the same time, peaceful travelers should be allowed through, both ways, with minimal hassle,

    Disagree. You have a very narrow definition of “invasion.” The invading army is already here, thanks to globalist immigration policies. But the soldiers aren’t coming with guns and tanks, but with smiling faces and barrito supremes. They’re doing what an invading army would require weapons to do if we had the self esteem to defend ourselves. But since we don’t, no violence is necessary; just garbage talk about “love and diversity, amigo.”

    That’s why I support both physical and psychological warfare against these bastards. Snatch their children from them at the border, deport the illegals while placing their anchor babies in American homes with American parents, and leave the invaders psychologically broken. And build that wall and place landmines on the borders as well, of course.

     

     

  21. “Rights” are a statist invention,

    Horseshit! “Rights” are the opposite of “statism.”

    including “human rights” (A Marxist term, btw).

    Who gives a shit? Do you know what else is a Marxist term? Racism! The words “racism” and “racist” were invented in the 1930s by the American Communist Party. Analyze the message, not the messenger.

    I’m not concerned with human rights. I am only concerned with natural rights.

    I use those terms interchangeably. When I say “human rights,” natural rights is what I mean.

    If we lived like the animals we truly want to be, there would actually be much less violence and maliciousness, because only those who are smart enough to not mess with anyone’s shit would survive.

    LOL!

    It is the job of government to protect that which is transcendent – the natural sovereignty of the human individual against those who would threaten said sovereignty. And yes, that includes the government, which is why we need to enforce a strong system of checks and balances, separation of powers, and have a strong list of human rights which the government is legally prohibited from violating.

    Government is only a legitimate entity when it defends individual rights and national sovereignty. In other words, its only job is to protect and facilitate human free will. Everything else that the government does, like provide free stuff, is precisely a violation of human free will and private property rights, thus making the government a human rights violator, just like any other criminal which it opposes, which turns the State into a paradox unto itself.

    Only libertarianism resolves this paradox.

     

  22. I am for natural rights, very much so, because that’s the least-bad way to run a society, but I don’t bullshit myself into thinking they’re real in any way.

    I disagree with every fiber of my being!

    Human rights, or natural rights, are truths which are self-evident. Every human being is created equal. As such, equal rights logically follow, since violating someone’s free will, without wanting your own to be violated, suggests a superiority which you don’t have in nature.

    Even the Constitution was written in a way which suggests that human rights are preexisting.

    Just two examples:

    The First Amendment:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, or to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

    Notice how the Amendment does NOT say, “the people shall have the right to free speech, a free press, etc…” No. It says that the right to free speech, press, peaceful assembly, etc… shall not be abridged. This suggests that these rights are preexisting and the First Amendment is simply a legal guarantee that they will not be violated.

    Also, see the Second Amendment:

    “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    It doesn’t say “the people shall have the right to keep and bear arms” as if they don’t already. It says that the preexisting human right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by government.

    Human rights are preexisting. The government may respect them or it may not. But even amidst the most unspeakable tyranny, the government can never give them, withhold them, create them, or destroy them.

    This is why the United Nations’ “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” is a sickening and totalitarian piece of pure filth! I wanted to vomit when reading it.

    UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 3:

    “Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.”

    As distinguished from:

    “The right to life, liberty, and security of person shall not be infringed by any government.”

    UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 4:

    “No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all its forms.”

    Notice the word “shall,” as if freedom is a declaration instead of a recognition of preexisting reality! As distinguished from:

    “The natural right of the people to be free from slavery shall not be infringed by any government.”

    Everyone is drooling over the UN Declaration of Human Rights and saying how beautiful it is. But it’s a totalitarian piece of trash! It confers rights upon the people, instead of promising to not violate preexisting human rights.

    The UN is setting itself up as some kind of god.  Yet another reason to be a nationalist!

    Death to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights!!!

    Death to globalism!!!

     

     

  23. I believe humans are ungovernable because of genetic flaws like greed, violence and a hoarding instinct.

    What are you, some kind of socialist?

    Greed is good, not a “genetic flaw.” Violence is good when used for justice. The “hoarding instinct” prevented our extinction for thousands of years. Saying that these natural things are flaws is to say that nature is flawed, which suggests you are a god.

    We have big gov’t because everything needs to be protected from thieves or vandals.

    A.K.A. The hoarding instinct, which is good because it protects us from thieves.

    Small gov’t will never happen until biologists find a way to fix the basic human.  Eliminate the instinct for greed, violence and hoarding and 90% of gov’t would not even be considered.

    LOL! This flower power crap is why we need government – to protect me from you! You want to remake human DNA? By force? I can’t imagine a worse violation of human rights.

    It is dangerous ideas like yours that created monsters like Hitler and Stalin, as well as totalitarian forces like the United Nations and globalism.

    Greed, violence, and hoarding are the only things which protect us from tyrants. If everyone were selfish, slavery would be impossible, because all tyranny depends upon a selfish few and a generous majority with low self esteem and unselfish programming.

    Want world peace tomorrow? Give every country a nuclear weapon.

    Want peace in your neighborhood? Give everyone a gun.

     

     

     

  24. If everyone were selfish, slavery would be impossible, because all tyranny depends upon a selfish few and a generous majority with low self esteem and unselfish programming.

    Note: This is precisely why societal programming demonizes the rich as selfish scum. Who’s pushing this propaganda in our schools? The elites! Why? To give the poor delusions of moral superiority, thus maintaining the powerlessness of the masses via “greed is bad” nonsense, which discourages competition with the powerful.

     

  25. “”But I don’t have the time and energy to be like Adam Kokesh and go around telling people about being AnCap while getting arrested over 9000 times just to get a meh following”

    @joelsef hahahahaha, this is literally the best description of Kokesh ever

Leave a Reply

To leave a comment, enter your comment below. PLEASE make sure to read the commenting rules before commenting, since failure to follow these rules means your comment may be deleted. Also please do not use the username “Anonymous” or “Anon” or any variation thereof (makes things too confusing).

Off-topic comments are allowed, but Caleb will ignore those.

Caleb responds to comments in person, but he only does so on the two most current blog articles.

Related Posts

Begin typing your search term above and press enter to search.