ThinkSquad Interviews The VL

ThinkSquad was so kind as to pretend I was running for President this election and asked me ten key questions.  I decided to compile them into an interview for everyone to get a general idea of where I stand on some of the biggest issues. Enjoy!

Are you a minarchist? If so, which government programs will you keep? How will they be funded?

A Minarchist is essentially the most common form of a Libertarian, for those of you that aren’t familiar.  Google it! 

I do consider myself a Minarchist.

The powers given explicitly to the federal government by the Constitution enable it to regulate commerce with foreign nations, regulate commerce among states, regulate immigration, to constitute lower courts, to declare war and to raise, support, and regulate an armed force, to regulate the acts, regulations, and judicial proceedings of the states, and to make laws necessary and proper for executing powers delegated to the US government, etc.

The purpose of the Federal government is essentially national defense and regulation of foreign and state commerce and judicial proceedings.  I would keep a much-reduced military for national defense purposes only and continue regulation of the states legislative, police, and judicial proceedings.  The government’s job is to essentially referee the proceedings in its country and use the absolute minimum amount of force possible.  

Where do you stand on the Death Penalty, and how would you handle the prison population?

Personally, I am against the death penalty.  However, I will be honest and say that if a loved one of my own were killed in a terrible manner by someone I might feel differently.  I might want what I feel to be “justice”.  But just because I feel that bringing the death penalty on the guilty is justice doesn’t mean it really is.  This is why the law handles the sentencing in a murder case and not the family of the victim.  

The federal government is not given any right to necessarily outlaw the death penalty, but I do believe the purpose of the government is to protect the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of its citizens.  If the majority of the public through their elected representatives in Congress wanted to pass an amendment outlawing the death penalty, I would allow it because it is the people’s will.  I do believe that to an extent the ending of another’s life despite guilt violates their right to life.  
Libertarians believe in the non-aggression principle and that violence in only justified in self-defense.  In a murder case, the guilty individual, if not killed, will be locked up for life.  He is not in a position to harm anyone else and the act of killing him would be a violent one not justified by self-defense, but by reparation.  With that in mind, there is really no justification to kill him other than what some might determine as revenge.  The law aims to punish those guilty and some feel that the taking of one’s life is a valid punishment.  That’s debatable.  Unless the majority of the represented people wish to nationally outlaw the death penalty, it is an issue left up to the states.

As a President, you are elected and entrusted the position under the terms that you represent the desires and best interests of the people of your country.  As President, I would abide by the Constitution without any leniency and my decisions within my bounds of powers would reflect the desires of the American populace.  Outside of what is Constitutionally void and I am compelled to reject, I would support what the people support.    

As far as the prison population, I would release all inmates with drug-related charges.  The War on Drugs is a war on the people and a war on minorities.  It must end.  The United States does not have the largest population on Earth, but it has the largest population of those incarcerated by a huge margin.  This is disgraceful and an insult to the idea that we aim to be one of the freest countries on Earth.  
Outside of that, I believe that a reform in federal laws abolishing any and all laws that violate the stated rights of the federal government in the Constitution would subsequently influence dramatic changes in all aspects of American politics and life.  The NDAA is an abomination and an insult to sovereignty, as well as many laws across the nation.  I believe that the only valid crimes persecuted are those that infringe harm on another person or his property.  All non-victim crimes are not crimes and those offenders should be released or given trial under the new, Constitutionally-abiding, government I would demand.

Libertarians get this bad wrap that they don’t care, whether it be the poor, or whomever the society sees on the losing end of the stick. Obviously you do care, but tell us why libertarians do care.

This is a HUGE discussion.  I am going to try to keep it as simple as possible.

Libertarians, along with Conservatives, are considered heartless and cruel because we don’t support social programs.  That is simply why.  When someone says “I don’t believe in government-funded welfare”, the response is that we “don’t care about the poor people or those with less opportunities given them in life” and this is because we “were born with privilege and don’t want to spend our money on helping those less fortunate”.  

I am no conservative, but the facts reveal that conservative individuals regularly contribute more to charities than liberals.  A perfect example are our current two-party candidates; as Romney contributed 15% of his income and Obama only 1%.  Liberals and people that scream for social welfare are not actually the more giving people- they are less willing to give up their own hard-earned money to help those in need.  They are proponents of government laws forcing all of those around them to contribute to what they deem necessary too.  I believe that the people who are willing to contribute their own time and money to helping those fortunate are the people who really care; not those who are willing to limit freedom by forcing others to pay up for failed social programs.

Failed social programs.  This leads me to my next point.  Libertarians don’t support social welfare programs because they are not a power given to the federal government and they are against our beliefs as Libertarians.  We do not feel we have the right to take someone else’s money and use it how we see fit.  It it theirs, they have earned it.  That is again, probably more compassionate than taking other people’s money, even if for a “good cause”.  But further, we don’t support social programs because they don’t work. 

The War on Poverty has been an utter failure.  Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and is going to leave the younger generation without protection despite having paid into the scam.  We have already seen with the healthcare bill a raise in costs on the individual of $3,000.  We need to learn from our mistakes that government programs aimed at combating social ills do not serve their purpose.  Instead, people call for more funding, more taxation, and more regulations in these programs.  We grow and grow a policy that is failed no matter how much money we throw at it.

The biggest misunderstanding is thinking that Libertarians are calling for NO charity in society for those less privileged, when in fact we are calling for voluntary and effective charity.  We believe in the proven successes of private charities, local organizations, community involvement, and state and local laws combating their specific issues.  

We, like anyone else, want to see our communities and those that live in them thrive and have equal access to the opportunities everyone else has.  We simply see that the way to achieve this is not through government intervention, but private activism.  

How do you feel about taxation, you recently posted an article about a “Flat Tax” Is this your belief? Do you believe that a flat tax is fair, or any form of taxation is fair?

I am a supporter of the Fair Tax.  If we are to live under the law of the Constitution, the Federal Government has the right to collect taxes.  The Fair Tax is the least corrupt form of taxation.  As a Libertarian, we acknowledge that all government is corrupt and therefore aim to limit its size, spending, and power.  This mentality also applies to taxation.  

In theory, taxation is not “fair” morally if one has no choice but to pay for something they don’t believe in or don’t want to contribute to.  Unfortunately we cannot fully escape this risk under our form of government.  We can, however, limit it as much as possible.  

Most people are against paying taxes under our current system because they feel they are being taxed too much and for services the government provides that they don’t agree with.  The stated rights of the Federal government are far more limited than they currently exercise.  If the Federal government was truly limited to its power explicitly stated in the Constitution, it would require a drastically lower amount of taxes to run.  Its decision-making ability would be far more limited and we would be much less-likely to be taxed by the Federal government for programs and powers we don’t agree with.  The majority of these issues would be determined on a state level where we have much more ability to influence, stop, and revise laws and programs.  We would also have the freedom to opt out by moving to a state whose laws we prefer.  

Another idea I am partial to is the idea of opting out of taxes.  This could begin by being tackled on a state-wide level.  With a Constitutionally-bound Federal government, the states would handle any government programs, welfare, or liberty-infringing policies.  A state could vote into place the legal ability for an individual to opt out of their state-wide taxes if they morally are against the laws.  They might be required to pay a flat amount to receive services from public safety programs like the fire or police departments.  Ron Paul has also proposed this type of system on a national level.  

When should a nation go to war?

Libertarianism embraces the right to self-defense.  There are several  requirements I believe must be fulfilled in order for a government to declare a justified war:

-The war must have a just origin.  Aggression is the only proper occasion for self-defense.  If there was a direct physical assault by an invading force we would be at liberty to respond immediately with a direct and violent response in self-defense.  If the self-defense were enacted later, it would be handled through the legal process of prosecuting those responsible for the assault.  

-The war must be declared against a proper enemy and by the proper authority in our government.  We can only declare war on those who were clearly responsible for the act of aggression.  

-The participation in the self-defense must be voluntary by all individuals involved.

-We must respect and accept the difference between combatants and civilians.  To kill innocents in the act of self-defense would become an act of aggression on those harmed.  The war would be against the individuals responsible for the assault and not the innocent civilian population of their home country.  No weaponry or methods of defense could be used that would kill or harm an innocent.

-A war should only be declared if no lesser acts of defense can be applied to the situation.  

With this being said, most people would debate if a war could ever be justified under such terms.  I would hope that is the case. 

 Why a small government over no government?

We have to be realistic that we are not going to go from our current situation to a stateless society without some type of transition.  Our entire cultural mindset is one based on dependency, entitlement, and statism.  I believe that by steadily lessening government involvement and control, our country will begin to prosper more.  The people in our country will continue to see this success and begin to believe more and more in their own ability to manage their lives and their communities independent of a federal government.  So, in response, I am not choosing small government over no government.  The choice right now is big government or small government.  Once we have small government, we can begin to explore voluntary societies and privatization of all government responsibilities.  I am in no way opposed to moving towards having no government, but that will require a true change in our entire society and the way they view themselves, others, and the government.  I believe that by first implementing small government, we can introduce them to this different way of life and begin moving towards smaller and smaller government.  I also believe in the value of the Constitution and would like to try to actually run this country on the premises and in accordance with the way the Founding Fathers saw fit.  I would love to see how the system would actually work if the government operated within its means and given powers.  Once we have reached that point, we can re-evaluate our situation and decide whether we want to maintain the smallest government possible or move towards total privatization.

Under your administration, how will you handle foreign aid?

End all foreign aid.  Our government receives a portion of our income to provide us with services we deem them responsible for.  Our income should not go to foreign countries to allow government officials to influence their economies, politics, or banking systems.  Sovereign countries are sovereign for a reason.  They don’t pay into our taxation system and therefore should not receive payment out of it.
Finally, foreign Aid is not a right given to the Federal government by the Constitution.  

If you had to have a running mate and select cabinet members just from the people you know on Tumblr, who would they be?

My VP would probably be VoluntaryExchange.  He is a wealth of knowledge and much better versed on economic and foreign policy issues than I am.  He also knows me well and I think he would be very supportive to have at my side.  

I don’t know if the taxpayers need to pay for me to have a cabinet. Overall, I don’t like that holding an office in politics is a paid position.  If I could work as President without the income I would do so.  So if I was able to avoid having any paid advisors, I would.  

Outside of that, I am trying to refrain from listing favorite blogs or bloggers.  Their content and quality is always changing and new ones are always arriving on scene.  If anything, I would probably find ways to communicate with as many regular people as possible through town halls, etc.  When it comes to the biggest and most complex issues I would turn to the elected representatives of each state.  It seems wrong to take advice from people I choose when I am making decisions for the people I am representing.  

You have made it clear where you stand on abortion, will that be the stand you will implement for the entire nation?

No.  The government should have no involvement in limiting or funding abortion. 

How do you feel about the two-party system?

The two-party system was something our Founding Fathers warned us about and even went so far as to claim it would be the end of the success of our government.  I agree with this wholeheartedly.  The two-party system is a scam: both parties are essentially gangs that hold the power in our electoral system.  Their parties have massive amounts of funding from specific companies and organizations that they then cater to when their candidates are put into office.  Both parties essentially run on the same ticket; we just don’t realize it.  It’s called the Goldman Sachs ticket.  Regardless of what they promise on that podium, when in office they are accountable not to those who elected them, but to those who funded their campaign in the first place.  Both parties agree to avoid truly controversial issues and distract the public with things like Big Bird.  They ensure that they are not asked the hard questions and that the media doesn’t ask them.  I think it’s a very successful oligarchy on our election system and we have truly seen their “rule” in this campaign season as they did everything in their power to ruin the reputations of, dismiss, hinder, and even outright break rules to keep contenders to their presidency out.  (Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, and other smaller parties)  I believe that at some point in our history each party did represent a truly opposing political view, but both have become watered down from their original stances and refilled with statist agenda.   

The most important concept I think we need to understand is this: in our current government and in every government, the choice between right or left is a lie: both are simply offering you a different mixture of more government overhaul, more corruption, more taxes, more programs, etc.  They each cater to different types of people but both ensure that the same result is brought about: larger government.  George W. Bush grew the government outrageously and so has Obama.  Both signed away our civil liberties.  Both entered us into unnecessary and corrupt wars.  Both sustained the wars on our people with prohibition of drugs and welfare programs.  The real two opponents are the State vs. the People.  Once we begin to view it in this way, it doesn’t matter what party a candidate is from: what matters to us is whether or not they are there to grow the state or limit it.  We have to accept that all forms of Statism are corrupt in nature and will not benefit us or our communities.  The right and left foot are on the same body and together they are suppressing and even feeding off our individual successes as people, families, and communities.  

This goes along with why I am voting for Gary Johnson: I realize he will not win.  But my vote is not wasted.  A wasted vote would be one playing into the same two-party system that is simply going to continue on the same path, unchallenged, growing like a virus in our country.  I will not condone the wasteful spending and government overreach of either party.  Instead,  my vote is essentially a vote of defiance.  A big “NO” in the face of both the democratic and republican parties.  I don’t care which party my vote “hurts”.  I want both of them weakened.  By voting for a third party in this election, and the next, and the next, we will continue to empower alternative candidates for the people that are not funded by corporations and banks.  My vote is one small step in the way towards more liberty.

Much like in a free market, we need multiple choices to keep the candidates competing for our support.  And we need to not give them our vote based on promises of programs and money, but on the promise Gary Johnson is giving: elect me and I will do as much as I can to get the government the f**k out of your life.