What is a right? I think Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are the only rights. What people call “rights” I feel fall under one of those three. So in basic terms I will tell you what I think is a “right.”

The liberal left wishes to make things like education and healthcare a “right.” I believe that nothing that can only be achieved at the expense of others, cannot possibly be a “right.”

Life- No one has the right to injure a human being in anyway, be it kill you, or otherwise physically injure your “life.”

Liberty- Owning your own work and property. I feel the second amendment also falls under liberty being that it is the right to own a means of protecting one’s self and protecting our right to form militia’s. The 4th amendment also falls under liberty as that insures you are allowed private property without unreasonable interference from government.

Pursuit of Happiness- No one can take away your rights to live life as you please so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others. This includes allowing you to use damaging substances, or participate in homosexual activity(or similar frowned upon yet harmless acts) so long as it is consenting. I also believe the rights listed in the first amendment fall under this category.


A bit on gender issues

Recent laws have stirred the political community including I saw, with the store known as “Target”.

I recently saw that they “welcome” transgender employees and consumers, and encourage them to use the bathrooms of their own choosing.

Well you may be thinking great(or ‘eww’ I guess), they support LGBTQ so what? Well, that’s not all. The surprising thing I saw, was thousands of comments about how people will never shop there again.

Again i have no problem with this. But I feel that of all the Liberals who replied with “Why not????D:” They would have noticed, and I’m surprised more libertarians didn’t notice. This is a great example of free market success. Interweaved into those comments were things like “Yipee this makes me really want to shop at Target!”

Anyways regardless I don’t care either way about Target’s opinion its just a good example of why discriminatory laws are pointless and people can just go to another store.

Now as far as Trans-gender goes, I am in full support for the community. I am not trans but I have friends and family who are. They are not faking it, they simply feel out of place in their bodies. The same as anyone would feel if they woke up with the wrong genitals.(If this offends anyone, I am trying my hardest to explain in a way relate able to most people.)

This also leads me to point out the shear stupidity that the anti-trans bathroom people use. People simply don’t fake being trans to rape people. It doesn’t happen. It is way to much trouble with just the same consequences, a trans-female (the parts of a man and the identity of a woman for those not familiar with the vocabulary) is going to get the same treatment in a court for that of a man, rape is rape.

What stops a normal man from walking into a bathroom and raping someone as compared to a trans-female? Nothing. If you really wanted to rape someone in a bathroom. You would simply walk into the girls bathroom. And especially since the law is for government run buildings. What is the point? When was the last time you heard of a court house rape?

There is another very serious issue with this law. It also counts for schools. The trans community has an outrageous suicide rate. With the hormones of the teen years, and school life coupled with the fact that you dress like a man all day and act as one, and are one(or the opposite trans-female of course face these issues) you now need to walk into the woman’s room.

This immediately outs you or forces you to not go to the bathroom. Other students might not know about you, but the teachers enforcing this rule do and I doubt in big schools they give a damn about keeping your identity. That is humiliating. And making these people de-legitimize themselves forcing them to use the facility they feel naturally out of place in, is cruel.

In my opinion we shouldn’t even have government run schools but so long as we do, there should be no restrictions based off of certain groups individuals. Be it for, or against them. This is also my approach to all laws. But for government run schools, it’s even more important.

And what if a man accidentally goes to the woman’s room? Would they be punished? No? How would you prevent them from being punished? I guess this just adds to the growing law book, where anyone can be arrested for anything.

Which brings me to another issue. How will this be enforced? Are we suppose to report it as we see it? How would you even go about telling? If you see them on the way out, its clear they harmed no one, so why shouldn’t they be allowed to continue on with their day. And what if they pass as the opposite gender to what is on their birth certificate?

You cant expect to have people asking you to pull your pants down every time someone suspects you might be trans. Most trans people learn quickly how to mask their birth sex, but it isn’t easy. And a lot succeed, at least somewhat enough to cause speculation, and possibly confusion. But, what if they aren’t trans?

But one thing seems to bug me the most, is why do people care? The people who appose the law, want laws in the opposite direction. Either way it imposes on the freedom of the individual.

The recent law in North Carolina covers the grounds of government run facilities, I feel so far as government facilities go they shouldn’t be allowed to restrict anyone. Business wise, I feel it should be up to the one paying rent on the building housing the toilet, and the one paying for the water that flushes down it: the business. And risk the chance of repercussions in the market.

Regardless of who they let use their bathroom. In the end the free market decides. You decide, right alongside the rest of the American people.

Please feel free to comment! I’d love some feedback.

Corporate Welfare. Awful Idea.

Corporate welfare, is when the government gives monetary assistance to a corporation. Reasons they might do this include: encouragement and propping up of organizations they agree with. Be it for any reason, though usually under the guise of good behavior(environment, social treatment, etc.). Allowing the government to cherry pick what business fails and succeeds.

This action is nothing but harmful for economy. It harms the very thing that encourages healthy economy. Competition.

Competition for large monopolies stem from growing small businesses. But if you subsidize one company allowing it to reach the top, while no other company can advance against its superior economic situation.

But what we want is good product. But with corporate welfare, the product doesn’t matter. There is no other big business offering a better product, because they could never get big in the first place. This means the business no longer has to continuously put money towards bettering the product. That or the money they do put towards bettering it is the money they are getting welfare wise.

If a business can’t succeed without welfare, that business shouldn’t be around. Because, that means that in the end the money going towards its welfare never actually comes back out anyways. Waste is a killer in economy. And waste is what you get without competition.

As such we should simply allow businesses to compete with each other in a free market. And allow them to each do things there own way.


Libertarian Nominees?!

Gary Johnson:

Gary Johnson, entrepreneur, and CEO of Cannabis Sativa, Inc. A legal marijuana company. He advocates for smaller government and balancing the budget. I agree with him on most things. Though I feel when it comes to free market issues of discrimination where he feels we should ban religious discrimination. That I disagree with making him my third choice.

John Mcafee:

Anti-virus innovator. He is against war, and pro-choice. He opposes the death penalty calling it “barbaric” which I agree with fully. I have no issues with him and he is my second choice.

Austin Peterson:

A strapping young man, CEO, and Journalist running the Libertarian Republic, and a fighter for liberty. He wants less government, smart spending, and lower taxes. He wishes to abolish the death sentence. He does however contradict with most libertarians with his pro-life standards. These standards are also made under the context that smaller government would make birth control easier to obtain and reduce the need for an abortion, I am on the fence with this issue. I do feel that Austin Peterson would do best as president, with his suave and his drive to expand the movement.

Jury? Nullification?

A jury is a group of 12 people, chosen to determine the punishment of the accused. The jury in the United States, was established in order to prevent tyrannical punishment(and laws in general) from being carried out by the government.

Nullification was used through history in order to protect whats right. Not what is factual. This was used against the Fugitive Slave Act, and against Alcohol Prohibition. It was not (contrary to what most judges “inform” their juries) to base just on facts in comparison to Law. It is to judge the law itself and consider its wording, fairness, situation, and your opinion on the law itself.

The organization “FIJA” is dedicated to spreading knowledge and informing the public(future jurors) of their rights. There message: “FIJA works to:
• Inform potential jurors of their traditional, legal authority to refuse to enforce unjust laws
• Inform potential jurors that they cannot be required to check their consciences at the courthouse door
• Inform potential jurors that they cannot be punished for their verdicts
• Inform everyone that juror veto—jury nullification—is a peaceful way to protect human rights against corrupt politicians and government tyranny.” Is up on their website and can be found here.

This organization also has ties with the Libertarian Party. Including its founder Larry Dodge who is a former  Chair of the Montana Libertarian party. It was first made up following its discussion at the National Libertarian Party convention in Philadelphia in 1989, where 44 people attended. And Dodge and Don Doig, formed FIJA National.

Big Government? Small Government?

Big government is the use of a large scale government to impede on the lives of the people’. Usually, it is under the premise of protecting them.

Small government, however is the use of minimal and restricted government to allow the flow of people’s life to go unimpeded. Usually controlled by the people in response to misuse of power by a big government.

Big government can benefit in adding and insuring equality in all areas of life. At the lose of privacy and economic freedom. It also raises the risk of misuse, and using the power for individual gain and to attack people, be it an intentional or misguided abuse of power.

Nazi Germany is an example of the misuse of a big government to do great crimes. Under the promise of a better world and prosperity for the Arian peoples, millions were killed. Quickly and effectively under big Government. But not just that of others, but also themselves. Radio’s and media were controlled by the government and the right of the normal man to speak, restricted. Under this great promise, the peoples lives were impeded on.

The United States is an example of big government being used to impede on peoples lives do to misguidance. The big government regimes are voted into power by the people. There however is little promise towards greater life. Instead the promise of socialization in private organizations with the promise of it being used for the ‘greater good’.

In the end, that is one thing that all big governments have in common, they promise to interfere on its peoples lives only for the benefit of this ‘common good’.

But, what is the ‘common good’? To work towards the common good, is to work towards the betterment of everyone. But in the end it leaves those that the system doesn’t  fit with in the dust. The majority rules, leaving the wolves in charge of whats for dinner.

History Books? Real history?

Today I saw a history book at school. I couldn’t resist looking through at its vague, obviously oriented opinion. I have never learned much from these, though I have more knowledge of history than most my age. How is this? Well I like history, and the books aren’t enough.

I learned history all on my own, I would read a book, saw a movie, played a game. And when one of these had vague information that I was interested in, I looked it up. I enjoy looking them up and knowing random facts, and reasons most don’t know about. And I enjoy repeating those facts.

These “History” books are nothing more than a tool to make people think they are being taught what happened. When in actuality your getting a basic list of events, and then a vague reason why, usually a misguided vague reason why.

Such as this book I have here at my school for independent studies. I noticed that on the section on the Pacific War (The WWII fights taking place against Japan) and the “Main Idea” is listed as, “In order to defeat Japan and end the war in the Pacific, the United States unleashes a terrible new weapon, the atomic bomb.” They don’t seem to include that we provoked them, through rerouting all of their oil, or false flag operations. Or the odd formation of ships in Pearl Harbor making it a great target, the fact that many were not fully staffed, and the ships were obsolete. It also fails to mention in this book, the camps we set up for Asians in the US.

So in short these books are nothing more than a way to make people feel educated, and to convey the opinions of the writers. Not to mention we learn the same events every year of middle school and history before that, we read the simple version, slightly more complex, complex. So in short I love history, and hate my history books.

State of Jefferson

What is it? Well, it’s a movement in the northern counties of California to create the 51st state (to be named Jefferson after the former president and signer of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson). The movement is driven by the lack of government representation due to the law population of northern California and the high population of the incredibly different environment of southern California.

Their claims. Are legitimate the state is massive and most of its population is found in the south end, which due to the high population dictate what happens  all over the state. They make laws, tax hikes, increased spending. And all sorts of things that simply has nothing to do with those in the northern area of the state.

Though I doubt the movement will ever get anywhere. As, all the power required to make it happen is found in the southern half. And they don’t want to split up as that would cause water complications and with the record drought they would never agree to anything that could destabilize the states water any farther. And since the North has no government power over the south, it doesn’t look like we will be getting any new states any time soon.

That being said I personally like the idea, and hope that if the time comes, that northern California gets its proper representation. And to be honest I think that to actually get that they would need to create an armed revolt, but that would (like the Oregon situation recently) would be quickly stamped out. Not to mention armed conflict over something like that would be a waste of lives money and time.

So in the end. Is it a good idea? Yes I think so. Is it doable? No I don’t think so no matter how you go about it. So there my two cents, not going to happen no matter how much we want it, sort of like a libertarian society. But eh, whats the fun in a libertarian society, then we would have nothing to complain about. All jokes aside I think that something should be devised at least that could spread the power to the northern region, I’m just not sure what could be done.

Private Prisons?

As a libertarian, I of course want as many things privatized as possible. This, however, is not one of them. Now I do realize and for most things this would dictate my opinion, that they are the same product for cheaper. But for this, I don’t think we should risk the lobbying of lawmakers to increase crime, and thus decrease overall liberty for everyone.

Now lobbying would work both ways regardless, public or not, as workers unions at prisons would still lobby for more laws and more arrests, because public or not they would make more money with more prisoners. I think that if we had a more limited government that was more restricted on what laws they can pass, than I wouldn’t mind it privatized. But for as long as the government can make laws on just about anything, I don’t think that the private sector should be dealing with prisoners.

I of course want less prisons and less prisoners via the elimination of existing laws and restrictions on what kind of laws can be passed, especially regarding drug laws and the war on drugs. As prisons are expensive to maintain as are the lives of the prisoners. So with everything accounted for I’m leaning towards the Public Sector, but I’m still a little torn due to them being cheaper private and also more limiting of government power even if its something only intertwined with the lives of criminals.

Now as far as the average libertarian view it seems to be leaning towards private including that of one of the 2016 candidates for the libertarian presidential nomination, former governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson. In an article written on WTVM discussing Johnson’s prison views among other things. Quoted from Johnson in the article is “I think good government is offering goods and services at lower prices,” Johnson said. “In the case of New Mexico, where we privatized half the state prisons, it was the same goods and services delivered for two-thirds the cost. In my opinions, that’s good government.” For this very reason, I am a bit torn as to which I’d rather have.

When you take into consideration the cheaper prices,the possibility of lobbying on either end, I’m just not sure which I would personally choose from. But I’m leaning towards Public Sector on this particular issue. I think involving profit with crime rates should be avoided as much as possible in the current law heavy and growing police state.

Public Education, Issues?

I am a highschool student, and like most. I hate school with a burning passion. Unlike most however, I don’t like school for the implication, and the fact that it shows that the government considers it okay to force people into something, just because its “for your own good.”

And the fact that people willingly put what we think, eat, how we speak, what we read, what we believe! In the hands of the same people who start our wars, tax our people, and restrict our freedoms. Not to mention if I were to say….. Skip school for three weeks? Simply walk off of school grounds as soon as I’m dropped off, my parents would be fined. That’s ridiculous, that they should be punished because I decided I didn’t want to be forced into an institution. Now this is just a hypothetical, I go to school and will continue to go to school but if I did decide to do such a thing, it isn’t like my parents can force me, I’m six foot tall and weigh 250 pounds, if I didn’t want to go to school how are they supposed to make me? Call the police every morning? It simply doesn’t make sense to me that our parents be forced to make us do things against our will, and sometimes against theirs.

Now I am not however against the idea of having semi-mandatory (with the ability to opt out of course readily available to parents after a very early age which would be decided by someone other than me) and state (not federal) funded education to teach our children writing, and basic math and math concepts. I am not in the education system nor am I knowledgeable enough of its workings to make a complete plan for how it would work. But it should be something like stopping school around the age of 10, and starting on paths to learn things of the child’s choosing, and to learn about real world workings, and hook children up as they reach their early teens with internships at actual businesses, and it would be as simple as meeting once a week with an education councilor. Its a simple and incomplete plan I’ll admit, but I think something along those lines would be more than capable of producing a literate and business skilled, flexible, encouraged, and learning ready work force than forcing everyone to learn the same crap as was just spooned onto the plate of the child cramping up in the seat next to you. It would also limit government influence on our children and allow them to be free thinking individuals with opinions and a voice.

But I am of course just a highschool student, but I would like to see major education reform and the removal or near removal of government from schooling. I would of course be open to the idea of privatizing schooling, as that would produce great standards through competition, and of course the pursuit of profit.