Please excuse the construction. Or sit back and enjoy it.

Then and Now



Just weeks before the Tea Parties started, I kicked off this website just thrilling with all the libertarian energy I could feel in the air.

I knew something big was about to happen in Feb '09 as I watched Rick Santelli's CNBC rant.



Later that month I went to the first round of nationwide Tea Party protests in Nashville.

I wrote a Tea Party manifesto and tea bagged Obama and Pelosi. (Yes, MSNBC, we knew what we were saying and yes it was very funny.)



I defended the Tea Party from critics over and over and over, again and again and again.

Less than a month after Obama's inauguration, I warned that he was shaping up to be Bush 2.0. By 2011, I was able to create a popular list of 100 Ways Barack Obama Is Just Like George W. Bush.



In Obama's first month I noted the lack of promised transparency in his administration.

I also took jabs at outgoing President Bush, criticized his foreign policy legacy, denounced his auto bailout, and made it clear that Bush was no libertarian.

I opposed welfare. And welfare for corporations. I helped raise the alarm over inflation. I fought the massive February 2009 stimulus package over and over and over again, and offered libertarian alternatives.



I was a very early supporter of Rand Paul's US Senate candidacy, and in May 2009, when Paul was still in the early exploratory committee stage and before long-time incumbent US Senator Jim Bunning announced he would be retiring and leaving the seat open, I conceived, launched, planned, promoted, executed (successfully!), and publicized the very first Rand Paul money bomb ever, raising Rand Paul's fledgling exploratory committee $25,000 in a single day.


Now and Hence



The Medium

You're going to see The Humble Libertarian transform from a blog into a monolith to liberty.

What does that mean?

You'll see...

The Message

In my unwavering quest for liberty I've come to a conclusion that has shattered my paradigm for understanding how to achieve it:

It is much harder to slow down the government's growth than it is to speed up everything else...

What does that mean?

You'll see...

If you haven't already, subscribe for updates below:

SUBSCRIBE


Libertarian Resources


(The individual columns above scroll down in place.)

Sunday, March 16, 2014

This is seriously how it works. Anybody object?

I saw you without your seat belt on, so...


Saturday, March 15, 2014

Colorado Recreational Marijuana Tax Revenue Hits $2M in First Month


"This week the Colorado Department of Revenue released tax figures for the state’s first month of legal recreational marijuana sales and they are already comparable to tax receipts from alcohol sales, delivering on the promises of marijuana activists that legal marijuana could mean big revenue for state governments."

Read my entire article at IVN.us: Colorado Recreational Marijuana Tax Revenue Hits $2M in First Month

Wednesday, March 5, 2014

Congress Less Popular Than Toenail Fungus According to Public Policy Polling

No, this is not from the Onion.

It's a real scientific poll conducted last fall by Public Policy Polling.

In the survey, PPP actually asked 502 registered voters what they have a higher opinion of, Congress or toenail fungus, and toenail fungus came out on top with 44% of respondents holding it in higher esteem than they do Congress, and 41% saying they have a higher opinion of Congress.

Toenail fungus' slight lead over Congress may be due to the fact that unlike Congress, you can now actually get rid of toenail fungus with laser treatment.

Sorry, there's no such thing as a laser therapy that can sterilize your budget and freedoms from unwanted intrusion by moldy CSPAN characters.

The survey also found a number of other things voters regard more highly than Congress:

Respondents had a higher opinion of dog poop (47%) than Congress (40%), probably because dog poop creates more shovel-ready jobs.

Voters also prefer hipsters (42%) to Congress (33%).

Hey, how many hipsters does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

You wouldn’t know, it’s kind of an obscure number.

How many congressmen does it take to screw in a light bulb?

Five hundred and thirty-five, but only if the following conditions are met: The light bulb will not be changed in an election year. A committee will study the light-bulb situation for at least a year. Taxes will have to be raised. A fair and proportionate number of the light-bulb changers will be from minority groups. No Social Security funds will be used to change the bulb. Each state and congressional district will share in the benefits of changing the light bulb. The blame for the failure of the present bulb will be assigned to the other party. The new bulb will be twice as bright as the old bulb. Because the new bulb is twice as bright as the old bulb, it will cost 130 times as much. A Blue Ribbon Panel will investigate the light-bulb failures and issue a mega-page report to the congress. A fact-finding trip to all countries known to produce light bulbs will be made by most congressmen and their wives. The CIA will investigate the Russian light-bulb-changing system. And finally, each and every congressman will send every one of his constituents a newsletter describing how he managed to get the light bulb changed almost single-handedly.

Voters were especially excited to rate Congress (31%) lower than hemorrhoids (53%), perhaps because you can at least experience mild relief from hemorrhoids, but there is no cream soothing enough for the kind of pain in the ass Congress is.

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Louis CK, Fox News, And Hitting Children

Brilliant take down of baby hitters by Louis CK.

Fox News guy at the end that seems compassionate because he doesn't hit is still taking the easy, non-thinking, bullying way out and not teaching his child one of the most important skills you will need as an adult in this world: negotiation.

nsfw



Fist bump: Stefan Molyneux

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

The Digital Privacy Movement's Battered Woman Syndrome


"No one is coming to save you." --Nathaniel Branden

A woman discovers her controlling boyfriend has secretly bugged her cell phone, placed hidden cameras in her bedroom, and been reading her private emails. He refuses to admit wrongdoing and apologize. He even tells her he's doing it for her own good: "Honey, I'm doing this to protect you. I'm doing this because I love you."

She should just tell him this is unacceptable and trust him to stop after she confronts him about it, right? Obviously wrong. Anyone who'd rather not end up putting the lotion on its skin before it gets the hose again would move apartments, get a new phone, change passwords, file a restraining order, and start carrying a Smith & Wesson. I'd probably adopt a couple pitbulls too.

Spearheaded by digital privacy activists, today is The Day We Fight Back against mass surveillance. By "fight back" they mean do the literally most useless thing they could possibly think of: make a phone call to nag one of the 435 most fictional characters on TV.

The banner ad they want you to put on your website to support the effort says: "Dear Internet, we’re sick of complaining about the NSA. We want new laws that curtail online surveillance." But that's exactly what they want you to do: complain about the NSA to Congress.

New laws? How is that going to work any better than the old laws we already have to curtail this kind of activity? Do I actually need to make a list of all the times the Washington regime has broken its own laws or is that finally common knowledge by now?

The regime has a prolific record of breaking its own laws, and when it does there are no repercussions other than some nagging phone calls and sign waving.

Passing one more won't do a thing to stop the NSA from continuing to break the law and lie to the public and Congress about it. How many times do our abusers have to prove this to us before we stop trusting them to end the abuse and do something about it ourselves?

Do not lobby your oppressors to grant you the freedom and privacy you want. They are obviously not interested in your freedom or privacy. Do not expect laws written on paper to protect you. Look instead to the laws that already and inexorably govern the universe: the laws of mathematics which provide a vast and wild terrain in which you can seek shelter from prying eyes and thieving hands.

Cryptography can lock the NSA out if only we have the will to implement its solutions. Ignoring the abusive regime and its completely untrustworthy promises is a shortcut to harnessing this will because at this point in history there can be no denying that nagging Congress to pass a law is not an act of defiance, but the most ultimate form of resignation, apathy, and submission.

Monday, February 10, 2014

#MusicMonday - "Subdivisions" by: Rush



This one goes out to all the students grade slaves who had to start a new week of school today. You are beautiful and worthy and good, and if you feel lonely or alienated or looked over or not understood, all that confusion and angst isn't your fault. You're feeling it because you're good and you know intuitively that all the crushing weight of the rigid system around you and the bullshit social pressures are not the way life should be or has to be. I love you and I think you are wonderful.

"Subdivisions" Lyrics

Sprawling on the fringes of the city
In geometric order
An insulated border
In between the bright lights
And the far unlit unknown

Growing up it all seems so one-sided
Opinions all provided
The future pre-decided
Detached and subdivided
In the mass production zone
Nowhere is the dreamer or the misfit so alone

[Chorus:]
(Subdivisions)
In the high school halls
In the shopping malls
Conform or be cast out
(Subdivisions)
In the basement bars
In the backs of cars
Be cool or be cast out
Any escape might help to smooth the unattractive truth
But the suburbs have no charms to soothe the restless dreams of youth

Drawn like moths we drift into the city
The timeless old attraction
Cruising for the action
Lit up like a firefly
Just to feel the living night

Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights...

[Chorus]

Sunday, February 9, 2014

People DO Change Their Minds About Political and Religious Issues: Here Is a List of Times I've Changed Mine


I didn't watch the recent Bill Nye debate, but I've seen several commentators remark that debates about religion and politics are fruitless and never change anyone's minds.

This got me thinking about all the many times throughout my life that I've drastically changed my mind about religion and politics. I know I can't be the only one.

In my short lifetime of fewer than three decades, I've gone from the Baptist evangelical Christianity in which I was raised to nearly becoming a Methodist, to getting baptized into the Eastern Orthodox Church (about as radically different from the Baptist churches as you can get within Christianity), to suspecting that God might be one of my worst enemies, to abandoning belief in God altogether.

During this time, I also went from neoconservative Republican (never was an official member of the party, just identified with it more closely than the Democrats), to libertarian Republican, to just plain old libertarian and sick as hell of electoral politics.

Philosophically, I haven't moved around much from the Aristotelian roots I put down in high school and college, but hey, I've never read Nietzsche and a lot of the people I'm hanging with these days seem to like him, so we'll see what happens.

People do change their beliefs about big questions. At least this person has. For me, debate played a major role in allowing me to make these transformations. In high school, I was captain of the debate team and it was pretty much what I lived for at that time in my life.

Will someone watch a single debate and instantly change their minds the second the debate is over because of it? Hell, I don't know. It was a more drawn out process for me with my major shifts, but participating in debate imparts a way of thinking, a methodology for approaching big questions that requires reason and evidence.

It's this approach that has made me capable of changing my beliefs when reason and evidence so compel me. Maybe the people who say no one ever changes their minds because of debate are just speaking for themselves.


Friday, February 7, 2014

When you unplug from the Matrix, you don't just see past its illusions...

...you stop feeding your energy into maintaining the illusions.

Put another way: You don't just stop drawing from the Matrix. You stop feeding it. This is important.



Thursday, February 6, 2014

How Compulsory Schooling Causes Broken Hearts and Emotional Wounds

Saw this on Davi Barker's Facebook page last night:

"We've heard a lot about how compulsory schooling harms the natural enthusiasm to learn, as well as the unspoken lessons of the Prussian system. I've heard a lot of people discuss how forced association leads to bullying. But I have never heard anyone discuss to effects of compulsory schooling and forced association on broken hearts.

Think about a highschool from a biological standpoint. It is for practical purposes a cage in which society throws people who are biologically, and by any pre-modern standard, adults. They are trapped there for six hours a day, locked in a room with 30+ other adults, arbitrarily selected by age. They are at the peak of their emotional and hormonal volatility. And they are told to devote their undivided attention to education.

This is very bad chemistry. Inevitably relationships form, adding more volatility. Love, lust, jealousy, rage. Explosive emotions, probably experienced for the first time. And they are told to sit still and be quiet in the same room in 1 hour intervals. Normal adults talk it out, but they are not permitted. Normal adults need space, but they are not permitted. Normal adults disassociate from one another, but this too is not permitted. These adults are cut off from most healthy means of processing these emotions.

Is it any wonder teen suicide and teen pregnancy is a cliche?"

Wednesday, February 5, 2014

Prediction: Rand Paul becomes president in 2016. At the end of his eight year tenure...

...government will be bigger than ever. Just like it was at the end of Ronald Reagan's time in the White House.

And you will have given millions of dollars to Rand Paul along the way, who will spend it on ads to get elected, ads in the mainstream media outlets that teach people not to be free.

This is how libertarians unwittingly subsidize a message that makes theirs incomprehensible to the people they are trying to enlighten. You'd be better off spending your political donations on some good books.

Tired of Endless War? There's Only ONE Solution, and I Would Have Never Guessed


This free audiobook, The Origins of War in Child Abuse-- written by Lloyd Demause and read aloud by libertarianism's greatest living orator, Stefan Molyneux-- is a uniquely incisive work of historical scholarship that examines how human history was experienced by children, and why their experiences have created a society prone to the self-destructive frenzy of war.

If you are anti-war, this book delves into the root causes of war in a way that no other has, and reveals so many interesting facts about the lead up to specific wars it will make your head spin. Demause makes a compelling case that war is not primarily an economic nor political phenomenon, but a psychological one.

Demause's investigation into the history of war concludes that each war is an episode of mass hysteria centered on self-destruction and human sacrifice, and that the psychological motivations for war can only make sense to a society of people who were abused as children.

If this is true, the one and only way to end future wars is for parents and other adults to stop abusing children.

Give it a listen!

If You Thought The God of Christianity Was Libertarian, This Video Might Change Your Mind


The Bible simply and clearly gets this very easy human rights question utterly wrong.

And dear heavens, did the angels in this cartoon make me laugh! And so did the depiction of "the LORD" from his opening question about haircuts to the hilariously perfect last six words of the video.



Tuesday, February 4, 2014

The Inner and Outer Worlds


Libertarianism as I have experienced it focuses 99% or more of its attention on the outer world. Peruse just about any of the most popular libertarian websites and you'll find discussions about politics, economics, culture, and history.

You'll find very little about psychology.

It's a curious, maybe even suspicious gap in libertarian thought. For a political philosophy that characterizes itself as the champion of the individual, there doesn't seem to be very much reflection on the individual and the inner world of individual human beings, which are considered by libertarians to be fundamental and prior to society.

Most popular libertarianism focuses on issues that can be formulated as the following stock headlines:

Congress Passes Another Bill That Limits Your Liberty

The President Issues Another Edict That Limits Your Liberty

How This [State, Congressman, or Activist] Is Working to Stop [Government Agency] From Limiting Your Liberty

But if the freedom of the individual human being is the primary concern of the libertarian, why is there such little examination of the individual human being?

Why strive so mightily for a marginally healthier military-industrial-corporatist-police-state-complex-thingy and not for substantially healthier individual human minds?

Isn't the inner world of the individual at least equally worthy of libertarian attention? Can we begin to explore the question: "How do human beings constitute themselves as subjects?"

Since I began to seriously explore the question (as one stumbling in the dark and unsure of what I was exploring) in 2012, I am more convinced now than ever before that: "we are acted upon most effectively by power relations internal to our own sense of ourselves" and that "the fundamental exercise of power over individuals is their own confessional interpretation of themselves" (link above).

What the hell does that mean?

Here's just one exploration of the topic at The Last Psychiatrist:

In Django Unchained, evil slaveowner Leonardo DiCaprio asks a question. Sorry, back up: why does everyone call him an evil slaveowner? As far as I can tell, he was a pretty average slaveowner, I'd even say he was "kind", in the sense that all his slaves "like" him, and he rarely "tortures" anyone and by the use of quotes you can see I'm hedging, my point here is how quickly people have to broadcast their indignancy. "He's evil." So what you're saying is you're against slavery? Thanks for clarifying.

This explains the near-universal anxiety over the movie's frequent use of the word nigger, and someone asked Tarantino if he thought he had used it too much in the movie, and his response was perfect: "too much, in comparison to how much it was used back then?" Nigger, and the violence, was all anyone was upset about. Terry Gross, NPR's mental Fleshlight, asked Tarantino her typically insightful and nuanced questions: "do you enjoy violent movies less after what happened at Sandy Hook?" Sigh. So there's the Terry Gross checklist for reviewing Django: gun=bad and saying nigger=bad. Check and check. You know what no one thought badworthy? When the white guy asked to have a certain slave sent to his room to try out her ample vagina, and the prim white lady of the house happily escorted her up. "Go on, do what you're told, girl."

I'd venture that Terry Gross and and the gang at HuffPoWo would rather be whipped than be-- that's rape, right?-- but that scene didn't light up their amygdalas, only hearing "nigger" did. I find that highly suspicious, or astoundingly obtuse, or both.

Anyway, perfectly ordinary slaveowner DiCaprio asks a rhetorical question, a fundamental question, that has occurred to every 7th grade white boy and about 10% of 7th grade white girls, and the profound question he asked was: "Why don't they just rise up?"

Kneel down, Quentin Tarantino is a genius. That question should properly come from the mouth of the German dentist: this isn't his country, he doesn't really have an instinctive feel for the system, so it's completely legitimate for a guy who doesn't know the score to ask this question, which is why 7th grade boys ask it; they themselves haven't yet felt the crushing weight of the system, so immediately you should ask, how early have girls been crushed that they don't think to ask this? But Tarantino puts this question in the mouth of the power, it is spoken by the very lips of that system; because of course the reason they don't rise up is that he-- that system-- taught them not to. When the system tells you what to do, you have no choice but to obey.

If "the system tells you what to do" doesn't seem very compelling, remember that the movie you are watching is Django UNCHAINED. Why did Django rise up? He went from whipped slave to stylish gunman in 15 minutes. How come Django was so quickly freed not just from physical slavery, but from the 40 years of repeated psychological oppression that still keeps every other slave in self-check? Did he swallow the Red Pill? How did he suddenly acquire the emotional courage to kill white people?

"The dentist freed him." So? Lots of free blacks in the South, no uprisings. "He's 'one in ten thousand'?" Everybody is 1 in 10000, check a chart. "He got a gun?" Doesn't help, even today there are gun owners all over America who feel that they aren't free. No. You should read this next sentence, get yourself a drink, and consider your own slavery: the system told Django that he was allowed to. He was given a document that said he was a bounty hunter, and as an agent of the system, he was allowed to kill white people. That his new job happened to coincide with the trappings of power is 100% an accident, the system decided what he was worth and what he could do with his life. His powers were on loan, he wasn't even a vassal, he was a tool.

This is not to minimize the individual accomplishment of a Django becoming a free man. But for the other slaves, what is the significance?

Of course Tarantino knew that the evil slaveowner's question has a hidden, repressed dark side: DiCaprio is a third generation slave owner, he doesn't own slaves because he hates blacks, he owns them because that's the system; so powerful is that system that he spends his free time not on coke or hookers but on researching scientific justifications for the slavery-- trying to rationalize what he is doing. That is not the behavior of a man at peace with himself, regardless of how much he thinks he likes white cake, it is the behavior of a man in conflict, who suspects he is not free; who realizes, somehow, that the fact that his job happens to coincide with the trappings of power is 100% an accident... do you see? "Why don't they just rise up?" is revealed to be a symptom of the question that has been repressed: "why do the whites own slaves? Why don't they just... stop?" And it never occurs to 7th graders to ask this question because they are too young, yet every adult thinks if he lived back then, he would have been the exception. 1 in 10000, I guess. And here we see how repression always leaves behind a signal of what's been repressed-- how else do you explain the modern need to add the qualifier "evil" to "slaveowner" if not for the deeply buried suspicion that, in fact, you would have been a slaveowner back then? "But at least I wouldn't be evil." Keep telling yourself that. And if some guy in a Tardis showed up and asked, what's up with you and all the slaves, seems like a lot? You'd say what everybody says, "look wildman, don't ask me, that's just the system. Can't change it. Want to rape a black chick?"

"Why don't the slaves just rise up?" is a psychological question.

Libertarians will frequently remind you that you are a tax slave. "Why don't you just rise up?"

Against what?

Against Obama? He's just a character on TV that's never laid a finger on you.

Against the tax man? What constrains you more than a tax collector who lets you keep enough of your income to buy far more than a 19th century laborer who worked much harder than you?

If individuals exist prior to society, then the government of the outer world that lives in Washington DC is merely a shadow cast by the government that lives in the inner world of our individual minds.

If individuals exist prior to society, then a police state exists in the outer world because one exists in so many of our inner worlds.

If individuals exist prior to society, then abolishing external tyranny must be spearheaded by a psychological project to dismantle the tyranny that is inherent to our own confessional interpretations of ourselves.

The state is not the reason we are not free. That we are not free is the reason that the state exists.

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

The Five States Most Likely to Legalize Marijuana Next (Four of Them Might Legalize This Year!)


Doing the research for this article was really encouraging.

Read and you'll see why marijuana legalization seems inevitable and not very far away:

The Five States Most Likely to Legalize Marijuana Next

Regulators at Tuesday's Cryptocurrencies Hearing...

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Would This Show Be Called "Homesteads"?


Saw this meme today and I can't be sure about this, but I've got a feeling that if we were all truly free to spend all of our money exactly how we want, things like that ugly hunk of cement and metal above would never get built.

Why not something more like:


Monday, January 27, 2014

For your enjoyment: Presenting #RandPaulQuotes as PhilosoRandPaul Memes


So I made these PhilosoRandPaul memes to present actual Rand Paul quotes as a parody of Philosoraptor, who has made some good political points himself:


Check out all the Rand Paul Memes at IVN.us.

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

Gotta Love It: Nancy Grace Debates Nancy Grace on Marijuana

However bad marijuana might be for your brain, it couldn't be worse than watching cable news:



Monday, January 20, 2014

Walt Williams Lecture: How Much Can Discrimination Explain?



Walt Williams presents a different way of thinking about issues related to racial discrimination by offering a rigorous analysis of the assumptions that: 1) discrimination leads to adverse effects for racial minorities, 2) that statistical differences between races imply and measure discrimination, and 3) that statistical differences would not rise nor persist in the absence of racial discrimination.

On Being White

Writes The Last Psychiatrist:

"Is there anyone who can speak frankly on matters of race? Yes: Louis CK.

If you haven't heard this before, pay close attention to your reaction to this clip; and then pay even closer attention to how it does/does not change at 1:30. Also think about how this would all be different if you were surrounded by whatever race you're not."