Just in case some of you do not follow me on Facebook or Twitter I have started a new blog called The Rabyd Libertarian. In large part this is an expression of being an educator but it also fulfils a part of my aspect of being a leader. Leaders need to know how to educate people in simple ways that are truthful. If your interested in libertarianism and libertarian politics, The Rabyd Libertarian is a good place and will hopefully become a great place over time.
This of course gives me two blogs of importance but seeing I am using one to express my Theology and the other my Politics, I feel it will work out. It is after all time for me to embrace the fact that I don’t think God has called me to just ministry alone and there are other things that need to be done. The Theology and Politics dichotomy that exists in my life simply needs forms of expression.
The Spirit Rundown:
Leader – In addition to the new blog, I am running for local school board again, trying to be involved on the MOISD Board and at the same time trying to advocate voting for Gary Johnson the Libertarian Party candidate for President. I am seriously thinking of running for office under the Libertarian Party banner in two years.
Ministry – I fell great when I am preaching, praying, teaching in my bible study and praying with my prayer group. Outside of that I feel like I am climbing uphill all the time. The church’s ministries struggle and we need change in a big way. Part of it, I think is that we need to achieve something real and not just be active.
Theologian – I have about three Sermon Redux posts to write to get caught up plus I am trying to find a theological theme that I can write about these days. Fiction writing on this blog is slow because of the theological footing. It will come but school is coming and then it will be harder for me to pull that off.
Blessings and Cheers!!!
I do apologize for talking politics one day before Easter. The problem I am having is not that people back candidates, that is part of the democratic process. My problem is the difficulty in talking to anyone about their particular candidate in an objective manner. There seems to be a lot of blind allegiance this time around and it bothers me that you cannot even insinuate that a particular candidate might not have it all together without a whirling dervish of that candidates supporters coming down on your head. I understand the importance of loyalty but I don’t ever think loyalty to a particular person is necessary beneficial. I believe in being loyal to my principles of how this nation should be governed and how much government should be involved in my life. That is libertarian principles actually meeting small government ideals.
This means I don’t care who the person is as long as they fight for those ideals. That said they must have those ideals first. Gary Johnson has the ideals I am looking for, but I have found him at times short on fight for the party. Even this year when Rand Paul was still in it, he basically said that if Rand got the nomination libertarians should back him. Well that’s nice, but does that not show a lack of desire to win and thus saying that the other guy is a better candidate than you. He does however have a track record of blocking bad legislation with veto power when he was governor of New Mexico.
The other problem with Gary is the presentation of libertarian ideals. The basic slogan he has used is “Right on Economics, Left on Morality”. Now, I understand what he is saying but that kind alienates people who personally might not agree with this statement but still believe in libertarianism. I like the party slogan better: “Minimum government, maximum freedom”. It actually hits the heart of what most libertarians actually believe in and have in common with most of us.
I don’t know but the alternative is to vote for one of the following: An egomaniac, a guy who might be a republican version of Bill Clinton, a pathological liar, a socialist who might fall over dead at any moment and a guy who is still running even though the math says he can’t win the nomination. Yeah, Gary Johnson it is.
Blessings and Cheers!!!
I have long looked to see if there is a viable third part option anymore. Since Ross Perot ran back in 1992 there really hasn’t been a viable third party candidate although Gary Johnson did finish third last time around. The problems I have had with the two-party system are legion. I think it is part of the problem of why this country struggles so much is the two-party system where we are told we only have a choice of right or left. The problem is both mainstream parties real only promise to use the guns and handcuffs of government against different people. They are both about forcing groups of people to do what they don’t want to do. The Republicans want to force a social morality on people and not everyone wants it, and the Democrats want to force and economic system on everyone that is justified theft through taxation. Both sides seek to use the power of government to force things on the American people and this is highly disturbing to me.
That said the Libertarian Party in my mind shoots its own foot on this and I want to show why this is so. The above interview is pretty typical of when you see a libertarian talk to the media and part of the problem is the talking points for the libertarian party don’t necessarily appeal to everyone who has libertarian leanings. My short list of why the libertarian party does not make ground.
1. The expression “Libertarians are right on economics and left on social issues” is a bad slogan. Here is my point, the basic philosophy of libertarians is the non-aggression principle (more on that in a moment) so it is not so much right or left but a unique viewpoints on how government should be run. This slogan seems to just make the libertarian party nothing more than a group of people who are nothing more than some form of Frankenstein’s monster when in truth they have a very unique viewpoint and philosophy. For instance, I am pretty much a social conservative but my difference with my Republican (and Christian) brethren is that I don’t think the government should be involved in pushing a social agenda – that is not the proper purpose of government to me. Social conservatism should be advocated but not enforced by the government’s guns and handcuffs. So saying that libertarians are left on social issues kind of alienates me a little. The point is Libertarians have a broad spectrum of belief on what is the best way to live, if they have a common element they just don’t believe government should be used to force any belief of how life should be on others. This slogan that I hear so often does not reflect this reality which is why I think some people even though they are libertarians vote for the red or blue instead.
2. National Defense is problematic if you don’t believe in intervention. I think the libertarian party loses a lot of ground on this issue because of the notion that the reason everyone is mad at us is because we keep attacking them. It casts Americans as the bad guy and I don’t think Americans believe this is true . I am not so sure this is always the case as long before we did attack other nations we had Islamic leaders calling us the Great Satan. There is also the argument that could be leveled which is based on the non-aggression principle. Many libertarians would say the force of government should be used to stop rape and murder, why then wouldn’t the force of government also be used to stop another country from being raped and murdered. The Non aggression principle in some cases states that force could be used to prevent someone for harming you or OTHERS. The moment libertarians make the switch to foreign policy, they seem to forget the OTHERS part. The libertarian party to some then looks soft on defense because they don’t seem to be as concerned about the rights of liberty for others as much as they say. It makes the party looked self-centered instead of concerned for liberty.
It is difficult with such a policy to maintain allies in the world as well for the purposes of defense. My opinion is that we have seen a non-aggression type policy in Barak Obama and it has not stopped people from hating us or attacking us. I think libertarians need to recognize that there are aggressive nations that don’t care two dingoes kidneys about your non-aggression principle and should look to their history. History says the best way to stop an aggressive country is to stop it quickly and in the beginning before it becomes a real problem.
3. I will give a nod to the fact the two big parties work very hard to keep third parties out in a blatant attempt to keep their power. I hope the lawsuit by the Libertarian party goes well. Gary Johnson is dead on when he says the one’s that should be allowed in the presidential debate are the ones who have their name on the ballot in enough places to win the electoral college. It means the Libertarian Party and Green Party would be on stage with e Republicans and Democrats which would give America a real decision to make instead of what they are often presented with instead.
My problem in the realm of politics is that I might want to run someday for something bigger than school board. The problem is that means aligning myself with a party and I don’t see a lot of good options out there. The Republicans are trying to force a moral position down people’s throats that many find distasteful and is that really where government should stick its nose. The Democrats are into Socialism which is more government intrusion into the private lives of people. The Green Party is nuts and the libertarians keep shooting themselves in the foot with what I have stated above. It makes this libertarian wonder where to turn.
Blessings and Cheers!