Progressive Libertarian aka a Liberal Pretending Not to be.

I make no excuses for my fight in the name of liberty, I am and always have been a Goldwater (l)ibertarian.

Freedom is not a form of populism (democracy) where the majority gets to impose it’s will on the minority.  It is the right of the individual to “pursue their happiness” without government interference. Even the right to be a total asshole. But more on that latter. Everyone who knows me knows I am very active in the freedom movement, trying to restore the “Constitutional Republic” we once were.  So in one of facebooks political forms  (Free For All Partisan Brawl) I posted the following Democrats push Obamacare ‘public option’ after two thirds of health co-ops fail, with the comment that the modern left was doubling down on stupid. Of course I was bombarded with the typical leftist crap about how I hated minorities and poor people blah blah blah.  I was shocked when a so called libertarian chimed in saying I was indoctrinated and didn’t have a clue.  He was pushing “medicare for all” of course I assumed he was one of those “Libertarian Socialist” To which he said absolutely not, he was not a socialist.  He also believes in the welfare state, but he believes that it should be run by the private sector through “government grants”. His words:

This is why I’ve identified myself as a “progressive libertarian”. I believe in free markets, free and open government, and free society. Social welfare should be provided through a free market, and government should secure access to that market through direct subsidy. Programs like food stamps, tuition vouchers, Medicare and even Section 8 housing aren’t “socialism”, they’re simply good ideas (in principle)

A Progressive Libertarian believes that, in order to preserve and secure individual rights, government has an obligation to assist people directly–to respond to disasters, to minimize pollution, to prevent starvation and homelessness, to guarantee our health, education and general welfare.”

On his personal web page he writes:

I am not an anarchist, and I most certainly believe that democratic government is better than serfdom.

 In this sense, I am also a progressive.  In order for markets to be truly “free”, they must be secured.  Civil protection, infrastructure and social welfare are primary considerations of government spending.
To finance government, a debt-free currency controlled by Congress alone would free our nation from the current plutocracy.  And while I support a “tax shift” away from labor and toward land, pollution and severance taxes, I would demand that any income tax be Simple and Fair.
We don’t need less government, we need better government!

I pointed out the fallacies of his arguments. that the only way to achieve those goals was in fact limited government found in the founders “constitutional republic” and asked who these angels were that were going to create this imaginary “better government”. I pointed to Milton Friedman taking down Donahue with his “greed comments”

He immediately dismissed Milton as an extreamist “neoliberal who promoted state capitalism”  Ignoring the fact that we got to where we are because of  “crony capitalism” and that subsidizing private welfare would end up the same corruption as the so called subsidies would go to political allies just as the corporate subsidies and regulations do.  In a sense in one of his writings he admits as much.

“Let’s get real here. There are powerful, political forces that run our government. These can be viewed as pro-Corporation and pro-Bureaucracy. The final result of right-wing discourse is to support state capitalism. The final result of left-wing discourse is to support state bureaucracy. We need a third option, and it’s not going to come from “conservatism”.

To the common television viewer, the word “progressive” implies policies that would help average, everyday people… that a good government is one that “cares” about you. The final result, however, is to garner public support and acceptance of more bureaucracy.

But there’s a downside to bureaucracy, in both form and function. How many regulators go off to private jobs in the industries they were supposed to regulate? MMS? Dept. of Interior? We’ve all heard the stories. We call it “corruption”. And this corruption is implicit. State bureaucracy and state capitalism are two sides of the same coin. They both claim to care about you, but in the end they only care about themselves.

Well thank you Vernon L. Etzel for proving Milton’s point.

But again you are wrong. The limited government crafted by the founders forbade the government from creating a “state capitalist” society (fascism) and as usual you are wrong.  That was the progressive “third way” crafted by socialist.

When I told him that I was and am a Goldwater (l)ibertarian he immediately started with the racism comments, as Goldwater opposed the “public accommodations” portion of the civil rights act on constitutional grounds.  Goldwater was right and those who passed it were wrong.  The Jim Crow laws violated the same constitution that the public accommodations portion of the civil rights act.  Namely freedom of association (first amendment). And regulatory taking of private property for public use (fifth amendment). Further I stated that forcing anyone to work for someone else against their will was and is involuntary servitude (slavery). I don’t think in today’s America that there would be very many people who would patronize a business that was blatantly racist. And that’s not the point.  The point is that the whole idea of the constitutional republic was to protect the minority faction from the tyranny of the majority.  The bill of rights was not written to protect a populist view.  It was to protect the minority from the majority.  It protects individual rights, even the right to be a total asshole. Case and point. I defend this total POS’s right to freedom of speech and would defend it to the death. But if he were a businessman in the restaurant business I would not step foot nor give him any of my business.

So why would any rational black person demand David Duke prepare them a meal knowing he hates their guts?  Why do gays demand christian bakers or photographers demand the government force them to work for them. The founders fought for freedom from government force.  It’s as simple as that.  From the Declaration of Independence.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Read those words, pursuit of Happiness, free from government force.  Not forced acceptance,  you’re free to pursue happiness.  That’s no guarantee you will achieve it or that it will be accepted by society. That’s up to the individual to decide, not the government, at least not in a free society.  Not to mention that the whole concept of “protected class” flies in the face of equal protection and smacks of Orwellianism, from animal farm:

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

In the case above King Samir Shabazz called on blacks to kill some crackers. He is obviously a racist. But if he was a white racist intimidating voters with a club, he would have been jailed. Either you believe in equal protection under the law.  Or you don’t believe in equality. Protected class is not equality. It grants the protected group more rights. Not to mention we have seen the regulatory taking lifted to a new level in the modern progressive era. We see smokers treated with the same Jim Crow type laws and progressive Eric Holder boasting about how the same tactics ought to be used against gun owners.

Is that freedom?

Now the same fascist/progressives call on jailing “global warming deniers”

I could go on for hours on how the modern left and especially the “progressives” of all stripes are anti-freedom. But the final straw with pseudo-libertarian Vernon L. Etzel was when he made the claim that the founders were “progressive libertarians” who believed in democracy. I of course laughed. and said there was nothing progressive about them and cited Benjamin Franklin’s take down of the welfare state. With which he shot back then why did Jefferson and Madison call their party the Democrat Republican party. I quickly pointed out that Jefferson would be abhorred by the progressive taxes and the sin taxes in the name of social engineering. He also was ardently against any form of double taxation. And no where in either the Declaration of Independence or the constitution were the words democracy even uttered.  As a matter of fact most of the founders including Madison were against democracy as it was the “tyranny of the majority” and stated the only cure against such tyranny was in republicanism as he wrote in federalist 10. 

I was immediately blocked.  How tolerant of him and how typical for a progressive.


About Marshall Keith

Broadcast Engineer Scuba Diver Photographer Fisherman Hunter Libertarian
This entry was posted in Libertarian and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s