The Humble Libertarian original

I know, I know-- that's getting a little ahead of ourselves, but I had hardly hit "Publish" on Grant Davies' excellent open letter to Ron Paul , in which he suggests in a post script that Ron pick Rand for VP, when a reader commented to agree with this statement from Grant's letter: PS --- Pick your son Rand as your VP. Do it soon. People want continuity when they sign on to a vision. They have their antenna up for what they perceive as cynical choices for geographic electoral advantage. You are 76, they want to know that they will still be free if you cannot continue. So pick Rand. It's bold and it will work. (He's going to be President someday anyway, might as well get him started now.) Thoughts? Rand Paul for VP, yes or no? Any other good picks for a Ron Paul 2012 ticket? Wes Messamore , Editor in Chief, T H L Articles | Author's Page

Back on the Sunday of Memorial Day, I lead the music at my church in the Chicago suburbs. During the transition between music and preaching, a pastor came out and asked those who had served or were currently serving in the Armed Forces to stand, so we could publicly thank them for their service. Now, if I had been sitting down in the congregation at that moment, I could have inconspicuously remained motionless, and gained a smug sense of satisfaction in my private rebellion against international conquest. On stage, I felt obligated to applaud. I know that as a libertarian, I'm not required to be a pacifist. I can more than empathize with Ron Paul's "just war" philosophy. But I caught myself looking around the room, trying to gauge the ages of those standing, and determine my personal objection toward the different conquests they were a part of. Help me out here. What should my response be toward these undeniably brave and sacrificial Americans? Eric Olsen , ...

Opponents of liberty are quick to point to mistakes in judgment that some of the leaders of the movement and draw broad judgments from them. What mistakes you ask? Some of these are part-truths and some may well be urban legends. I'll address some of the most common of these concerns and break down what is often referred to as the "fly in the punch bowl" fallacy. That being the common notion that if there is a fly in the bowl of punch then whole contents of the bowl is tainted and undrinkable. This mentality is used to deride the accomplishments of people's entire lives based on one or two things they did wrong. As I will explain, a more appropriate analogy is that of the fly in the ice cube tray. If there is a fly in one of the ice cubes then the rest are more than likely fine. "I think that we should follow the Constitution", we say. Often the zombie-like answer is, "The Founding Fathers owned slaves!" This objection is saying that because some o...

Hey guys- I'm on the road to see my college roommate get married and then if I'm lucky I might even manage to make my way up to Kentucky to volunteer for the homestretch of the election up there. So I apologize for no other posts than this today, but I am excited to announce that I have hired an Assistant Editor for The Humble Libertarian whose job it will be to make sure that excellent content gets up on this blog every single morning (during the week) like clockwork! It's finally time I humbled myself to realize I need a lot of help to keep this blog running and growing- I just can't manage it all myself and continue to write more and manage my other enterprises. You will get to meet the new Assistant Editor in an update to this blog next week! (Though I can't promise whether it will be Monday or Wednesday.) In the meantime, please use the comment thread below to discuss and debate your predictions and analysis for the mid-term election Tuesday! Wes Messamore , E...

Weekend thread: Is there such a thing as left libertarianism and right libertarianism ? Why or why not? And if there is, what are they and how are they distinct (and is one better than the other, and why?). This discussion is important to defining libertarianism itself. Have at it!

Weekend thread: Who is going to win the GOP nomination to challenge Mr. Obama for the White House in 2012? And secondly, who would you like to win? These are of course, distinct questions. Discuss/debate away! W. E. Messamore , Editor in Chief, T H L Articles | Author's Page

On last week's post about the Supreme Court 's decision to strike down campaign-finance laws like McCain-Feingold, the discussion centered on the nature of a corporation and whether a libertarian could support its existence. I'll say truthfully that I'm not entirely sure what I think about this issue and have some reading up / thinking to do. I would absolutely like to explore it some more and determine what I believe with more certainty. For this purpose, I'm re-posting a comment I left and would love to hear your thoughts and arguments. Links to other good resources on this issue are certainly welcome too: As for the origin of corporations, I don't see why as a matter of voluntary cooperation and by means of contractual agreements made on a free market, individuals could not pool together their savings to provide capital for a business, voluntarily agree to rules governing risk and liability in the event of bankruptcy, and appoint managers to run the business-...

Discussion Point: Will the States have to unite to fight against the tyranny imposed on them by corporate interests in Washington, or could a single, determined state (like Texas, Alaska, or New Hampshire) successfully assert its sovereignty and right of Constitutional interpretation and nullification of Federal laws? Last month, guest author Daryl Luna ( In Defense of the Constitution ) wrote an excellent piece entitled Nullification: Friend of Liberty . On it, commenter J Petrovsky left this comment: "Nullification is an interesting idea, but it is not likely to meet with success unless the states act en masse--in which case, it could hardly meet with failure. The question is how to get the states to see that acting in this manner is in their interests. They cannot even presently tear their faces away from the federal teat. There needs to be a process of strengthening the states generally, of feeding their egos, and giving them actual power to make their wills and desires known ...

Discussion Point - 10/18/09: Should the U.S. Census Bureau allow illegal immigrants to participate in its census? A recent Tennessean article by Phil Valentine addresses the controversy: There's a move to keep illegal immigrants from participating in the census. I know, most of you didn't even know they were allowed to participate, but currently there's no law prohibiting an illegal immigrants [sic] from filling out a census form and sending it in. Mr. Valentine outlines some of the important issues at stake. Some people for instance, charge that not allowing illegal immigrants to participate is racist. Valentine contends that allowing them to participate warps our political process because census data is used to apportion congressional districts and illegals are not citizens. When the U.S. Constitution was written, major slave-holding states insisted that slaves be included in district apportionment though they weren't citizens, while states with fewer or no slaves ...

Discussion Point - 10/3/09: Should true patriots abandon the American flag in favor of an alternative? Left: A photo depicting the "Flag of the Second American Revolution." Click the photo to see its source. A follow-up question would be: Does even asking the question make you an intolerable nut-job on the fringe of the resurgent center-right freedom movement in America? Or is it a perfectly fair one to ask? This blogger raises the question, citing a recent article by Chuck Norris calling for an alternative flag to set true patriots apart from the rest of Americans who are running this country into the ground. Please set aside for the moment, Mr. Norris' conception of an ideal American patriot who he sees as someone who "will serve God and the republic as the Founders did." For our purposes, let's just say "Americans of all kinds who want to severely reduce and limit the size, role, and influence of government." Should such Americans fly a differ...

Okay- discussion point for the week: should American libertarians [1] work within the confines of the two party system and operate through the Republican Party for instance, in order to achieve an ideal government? Or should we seek out third parties like the Libertarian Party and Constitution Party? Or ought we to stay entirely outside the purview of partisan politics altogether and simply focus on educating people about the principles they have forgotten (or- more likely- have never been taught)? [1] Note the small "l" - I use this word to denote those who believe in the principles of liberty, whether they style themselves liberals, conservatives, or something else altogether)

Here's our discussion point for the week: how can we start a real conversation about liberty? We have two sides yelling at each other rather than talking to and with each other, it would seem. Partisan politics seem angrier and more polarized than ever. Worse, both "sides" seem to live in entirely different realities altogether. If you're on one "side," two million people descended on Washington just one week ago, and if you're on the other you barely noticed when "the 60,000" people showed up in D.C. -an insignificant blip on the radar. We live in such different realities because we don't trust each other. We don't trust each other because we suspect the motives on the other side. If the liberty faction in this country wants to make a difference it is going to have to address and refute the notion that we are angry birthers, racist rednecks, and paranoid survivalists. Let's have a brainstorming session right here, right now on this...

Point of discussion for today- is taxation theft? You see the signs at the tea party rallies, and now and then, even t-shirts or bumper stickers that say it: " Taxation is Theft! " But not all libertarians feel that way. For some libertarians , taxation is a necessary evil, for others a positive good when exercised correctly, and for others a completely unjustified act of aggression that has no place at all in a civil society. Where do you stand on the issue and why? Is taxation theft?