We ARE MOVING!

Yes that’s right we have moved over to our own self hosted site. The URL is

rightsofliberty.com

So come by and take a look!

Advertisements

Petition For Dr. Ron Paul To Be Nominated For The Nobel Peace Prize

The Nobel Peace Prize’s very name was diminished when Barack Obama won it in 2009. At first I didn’t feel so strongly but after four years of bombing innocent Muslims cowardly with drones, I became rather against The Nobel Peace Prize, seeing it now as promotional tool used by politicians as opposed to an award given to worthy individuals who through their efforts were strong proponents of peace and positive human evolution.

After awarded to Obama how could anyone possibly see the awards merit anymore? The award was given to him due to his promotion of nuclear nonproliferation and a “new climate” in international relations fostered by Obama, especially in reaching out to the Muslim world. This appears truly absurd if one looks at the President’s track record of “war on terror.” He took over the “war on terror” after George W. Bush only to surpass Bush when it came to assassination and bombing of and in the Muslim world – the same world he was awarded for promoting peace to.  (more…)

The Time Traveling Contrarian

One question I’m positive the majority of you are familiar with and have been asked, I will visit now in a somewhat contrarian way, which I hope someday soon will be a view shared by the majority. In one way or another the question which begs for the suspension in belief about time travel, “If you could travel back in time knowing what you know now, to the summer of 1939 and to be fortunate enough to be alone in a room armed with Adolf Hitler, would you kill him?” I will make an approximate guess that roughly nine out of ten people would answer yes, with very little hesitation. I will now alter the nature of that question with another similar one. If you could travel back in time to around May of 1889 and found yourself alone with the infant one month old Adolf Hitler, would you kill him? I imagine the answer the majority would respond to this alteration of the original question, after a pause for contemplation, with the answer no. No one of sound mind would want to be a baby killer regardless of the baby (short of Rosemary’s).

In reference to my stating how I will visit this question in a contrarian way, I mean this by stating that I wouldn’t kill Adolf Hitler in either scenario and wish to explain my reasoning. Coming from angles of economic theory, political science, philosophy and neurobiology I can explain my contrarian position. In recent studies mostly put forth by acclaimed neuroscientist and philosopher Sam Harris, free will has proven to be impossible. Every decision we make as human beings comes from neurological processes that deal both with physiology and psychology. Our brains operate uniquely from person to person. Someone with the genes and brain patterns of a serial killer (i.e. the serotonin needed for rational behavior of response isn’t produced enough in the frontal cortex) can turn out not to be a serial killer and instead a rather pleasant human being. This being due to their past experiences and environment that they were raised in. If for example a person with this disease* is raised in a loving family with good relations with both their parents and their siblings this can possibly, and has been proven to in some cases, alter their genetic programming ( not necessarily altering exactly but rather countering) and train their behavior to be responsive in a similar way as the average person who does not suffer from this deficiency. (more…)

Sen. Rand Paul and the Truth Behind Anti-American Sentiment

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul recently addressed the Senate on the topic of foreign aid and anti-American sentiment in an excellent speech. He brings forth many true stories about the dangers of foreign aide and global policing. He brings up solutions to diplomatically deal with foreign nations. I would possibly bore you if I listed them so allow Senator Rand Paul to explain everything in his honest speech.

Refuse to Vote?

There’s no denying that between Libertarians exists barriers. Some Libertarians are more Anarchists or Anarcho-Capitalists; while others consider themselves to be Classical Liberal or Constitutionalists.  My heart is with those who are idealists, while my hands work for those who are realist [subjectively speaking of course] who are not apathetic to politics and the processes thereof. I’m addressing those who have been involved with the Liberty movement when I say: we all have freedom of choice here, the choice to opt out of voting, to be apolitical, to vote Libertarian Party, to infiltrate Republican Party, to switch back to the Libertarian Party, etc. I preface by saying, we are Libertarian because we hold a common credo: The Non-Aggression Principle.

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” These words were spoken by Edmund Burke, a supporter of the American Revolution. Samuel Adams and The Sons of Liberty did not choose to opt out of the system. They organized, from the taverns to the farms, from the piers to the courthouse, and they fought the system! The founders of this country were not apathetic to the blatant tyranny, they required no approbation from the British crown; they used violent force which is only justified in the defense of life, liberty and property. They were the first society that believed in self-governance.  So why should we give up today? Especially as government continuously grows in power and exercises force wherever possible. (more…)

Principles of a Free Society

In a truly free society there are a few principles we should live by. These truths have become very evident in the recent years on interventionism by the U.S. government in policies, laws and the policing of the world. I guess it doesn’t surprise me that they are not clear to the masses due to the extreme conditioning we citizens have gone through since our childhood.

If these simple principles were at the forefront of our political beliefs we would see prosperous longevity in our economy and in our happiness as a whole. And as opposed to many other attempts at sound policy these principles cost the country absolutely nothing. I wish to outline these principles.

As a government we should refrain from forcing issues upon others because with every force there is a counterforce. Nor should we defeat enemies by force of arms for even when violent actions are well intentioned at first these actions always rebound on ourselves. This has been evident in recent years with our various entanglements with the Middle East. It does no one good economically nor does it any good for national prosperity.

In dealing with the issue of violence it should be of only the last possible resort for survival. In victory over the enemy we shouldn’t rejoice and declare victory as a triumph but instead with our heads held low in despair. While yes we may have found ourselves in a situation with only one option of survival we shouldn’t be proud of our victory because then we are also proud of the confrontation. This is a sign of men hungry for power. (more…)

Peace On Earth

World peace, everyone and their mothers, even grandmothers from the dawn of Miss America pageants have been wishing for world peace. What does this mean? Is it attainable? Do you really want to know? Do you really want it or are you too jaded now?

I can’t answer the last question but I can safely bet there are many of us whom are jaded. Looking at the roots behind the various wars in our history, do you think we can do with out them? Of course we can. One great tactic to get to the truth of things is to remove its mask. Once we do that it’s naked and seems like a waste of energy, money, and lives. I’m not going to go on an anti-war rant here today, although I could very well do so. However I will answer the first two questions from the paragraph above. First, What does this mean? World peace is it subjective? In a few ways it is subjective. People define it as unrelenting peace and love for one another. This definition is much harder to achieve due to it’s constant coming back to science (neuroscience) dealing with human behavior. Another more realistic definition due to our painful human condition is that it’s a life where we are protected from harm while we have all the rights to decide on how we want to live our lives, how we wish to earn a living, how we raise our children and love our spouses, to not have our earnings taken from us from a centralized organization for the claims of the greater good (save law enforcement, schools, and a few other operations that provide a safe existence to protect us from the evil side of the aforementioned human condition), and to be given the option to decide on how successful or unsuccessful we can be with our life choices. (more…)