Archive for the ‘Libertarianism’ Category

I started writing this several months ago when gas prices started rising again and everyone was complaining about the oil companies and their huge profits. The topic was spotlighted again when President Obama made his recent remarks that apparently credited the mere existence of roads for all successful businesses in this country. His comments added a new angle to the favorite trump card argument of every Big Government type, “what about the roads?”. Enjoy.

Most people that I talk to aren’t aware that there is a Federal excise tax imposed on every gallon of clear diesel or gasoline purchased by consumers in this country, there are also variable state, county, and municipal fuel excise taxes. This excise tax is not a sales tax. It is also quite sizable…..

“The United States federal excise tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon (cpg) and 24.4 cents per gallon (cpg) for diesel fuel. On average, as of April 2012, state and local taxes add 31.1 cents to gasoline and 30.2 cents to diesel for a total US average fuel tax of 49.5 cents (cpg) per gallon for gas and 54.6 cents per gallon (cpg) for diesel.” – courtesy of Gas Price Watch.com (emphasis added)

These excise taxes supposedly exist for the purpose of building and maintaining roads. They are essentially usage taxes that are intended to fund the roads and infrastructure that your vehicle needs to operate on.

If you have ever argued with a big government type about the elimination of income and property taxes they immediately whip out their go to argument, “what about the roads?!”. Clearly, they are not educated in the way that the taxes they advocate are intended to be allocated.*

I assume that if you read this blog regularly and were not previously aware of this fuel excise tax, you are most likely not shocked to hear of its existence. (After all, isn’t everything taxed?)

Now that you know the Federal, State and local Governments in America make money off of every gallon of gas sold you have to question why Big Government types argue for federally mandated higher MPG standards for cars when higher MPG’s mean less fuel used. Logically if less fuel is bought then less fuel tax is collected.

Isn’t this a direct contradiction?

I have to ask these people, “What about the roads?!”.

They obviously don’t see that supporting Federally mandated higher MPG standards will reduce the government excise tax revenue thus depleting funds available for road work and repair. Unfortunately in this scenario there are likely just as many cars on the road as before, but there is less money coming in to maintain the roads. This inevitably leads to the unchecked degradation of infrastructure.

This same consequence can of course occur naturally in a free market as well. Let’s assume MPG standards are not artificially set by the Federal Government. We can also safely assume that the price of fuel will fluctuate as a result of supply and demand and other market factors.

When fuel prices trend upward the demand for inefficient vehicles goes down. As more fuel efficient vehicles take to the streets the consumption of gasoline goes down. (additionally due to higher prices people will car pool, drive less often, etc., further reducing consumption) As the consumption of gasoline goes down the tax revenue from fuel excise taxes goes down as well.

In this scenario, the reduced tax revenue for road maintenance is offset by the fact that less cars are on the road traveling less miles. As a result, less maintenance and construction is required due to less wear and tear.

The major difference between the government regulated MPG scenario and the free market MPG scenario is that:

The reduction of consumption is artificial when Federally mandated MPG standards are imposed – The market did not influence auto makers and buyers to have higher MPG’s, government regulation did. This can negatively effect the price of vehicles as well as artificially diminish tax revenue for road construction and maintenance.

Vehicle Prices:

With MPG mandates imposed on auto manufacturers the price to produce a vehicle goes up artificially. The automaker is required to invest more dollars into each unit it produces in order to meet the new mandates. To recoup these additional costs, the manufacturer must raise the selling price of each unit. In some cases the new high MPG vehicle may be a flop because the market does not demand it, in which case the automaker suffers a huge loss from manufacturing a vehicle that nobody will buy. (See the Chevrolet Volt)

Without MPG mandates if the market demands vehicles with higher MPG’s then the producers are capable of selling vehicles at a higher price that the market is willing to bare because they are supplying a demand for higher MPG’s. Higher demand with lower supply means that each unit is worth more (scarcity). This increased price per unit justifies the additional expense of each unit on behalf of the producer. (See the Toyota Prius several years ago as an example)

Excise Tax Revenue: The MPG mandates cause excise tax revenue to decline as described earlier in the post.

To combat the diminishing tax revenue resulting from lower consumption and better MPG’s the government in all of its wisdom is mulling creating a mileage tax. That’s right not only will you be taxed for buying your car, owning your car, and buying your fuel; you will get the pleasure of being taxed for driving your car! Eventually the mileage tax will lead to a limit on miles that can be driven. Because once the government tracks how much of something you are doing, they ultimately want to be able to tell you to do it less or face the consequences.

What is the point of all this?

My point here is that when you advocate less tax there are “intellectuals” who quickly attempt to paint you as a hypocrite over issues such as the funding of public roads. The goal is to claim that you take advantage of what you rail against, as a result your argument is invalid in their eyes. It is the typical strategy of discrediting the messenger and avoiding the message.

Typically, the people who rush to call me a hypocrite because I want less tax but drive my vehicle on the road are the same people seeking to limit the funding of roads through unnecessary and harmful Federal mandates such as higher mpg standards, mileage taxes, etc.

Aren’t they the hypocrites?

Yes they are.

What’s more troubling about the Federal Excise Tax on fuel in particular is the blatant disregard for making prudent spending decisions and complete lack of financial oversight. (Surprised?)

As usual government takes your money for one purpose then just uses it for whatever the hell they want, mostly funding the bureaucracy. According to Wikipedia, in 2007 Transportation Secretary Mary Peters stated that 60% of federal excise tax collected went toward the funding of road projects. The remaining 40% went toward earmarks. (I could not find statistics from the current administration)  The following are a couple of earmarked projects from the 2005 Highway Funding Bill.

– $8,000,000 to build a parking garage at a hospital in Harlem, New York

– $223,000,000 for the “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska.

The above examples are just a drop in the bucket of Government waste and fraud. I believe it has become clear that Government will not keep itself in check. Without the vigilance of the public to keep them honest and responsible the Federal Leviathan will undoubtedly continue on its path to totalitarianism….but at least we will have roads.

For a stunningly comprehensive analysis of the downfalls of Federally controlled road projects click here.

* I do not believe that government agencies are either the best or cheapest method of building and maintaining roads. When private firms compete for the work the taxpayer benefits drastically.

LIKE” Less Than Unique On Facebook!

Advertisements

The psuedo intellectual left is applauding President Obama’s recent remarks toward people that own businesses. The quote although much longer than what I have here can be summed up in one sentence, “If you’ve got a business you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

What?

Clearly this man has zero business experience or common sense if he is making statements like this in public.

The point of his remarks seemed to be that nobody goes it alone, somewhere along the line everyone receives a helping hand from someone else, even in the business world. Sure they do. But Im afraid this fact doesn’t prove what he is trying to make it prove. The real driving force behind Obama’s remarks is to put a damper on the individual liberty movement. The President is reminding us all that we are a collective which is interdependent on one another. Which to an extent is true, but again the President has an approach that is completely wrong.

See, as a proponent of individual Liberty I believe that each person has the right to life, liberty, and property without the infringement of those rights by another individual. In that basic explanation you can see the respect that is placed toward the collective. As an individual you respect the collective by not forcing your beliefs, values, or desires onto another individuals life, liberty, or property. In fact individualism greatly benefits the collective. The encouragement of things such as the specialization of labor and self determination foster a strong foundation for our society.

When an individual can stand on their own they are more likely to lend a hand and voluntarily help another stand too. But when our legs are all bound together like we are in a giant gunny sack race it is more likely that we will all fall when a few lose their balance.

Back to the President’s comments.

Can you imagine the news coverage if someone like Mitt Romney came out and said, “If you’ve got a diploma, you didn’t earn that. Somebody else made that happen.”

The psuedo intellectual left would be up in arms! “How dare you degrade our education! How dare you imply that all of my hours studying, taking notes, listening to lectures, researching, writing, and reading were not how I earned my diploma! How dare you imply that the guidance of my professors and text books are responsible for my success! How dare you imply that the scholarships I received are responsible for my success and not me!”

Can you draw the parallel yet?

Go back to the previous paragraph and replace, “studying, taking notes, listening to lectures, researching, writing, and reading were not how I earned my diploma” with “working overtime, doing the work of 3 people, accounting, marketing, networking, and finding suppliers were not how I built my business”.

Go back and replace, “guidance of my professors and text books” with ” guidance of my business partner and lawyer”.

Go back and replace, “scholarships” with “small business loans”.

Am I being clear now?

There is a hatred toward businesses and business men from the left and it is out of total ignorance of what it takes and how it is done. As a small business owner and having grown up with 2 generations of business owners before me I have lived the life I am discussing, I have seen it first hand.

With that said, I am not a paleontologist and have basically zero knowledge of how they do their job….but that doesn’t mean that I should tell everyone I see that Paleontologists are greedy bone hoarding jerks that carelessly move dirt and sand to get what they want and have no regard for the surrounding ecosystem. 

This is basically what Obama and the intellectuals on the left are doing. They are out marching around with their 99% signs blaming business for all that is wrong in America. They are attempting to “prove” that individuals can’t be successful in business without government aid. Their comments go without scrutiny from the Big Media Presstitutes and all logical arguments are ignored. The hostility of the left toward businesses is blatant and unapologetic.

So I ask: Mr. President, don’t try to take away someones hard work and achievement because it wasn’t hard work and achievement in your preferred manner. Respect the sacrifice and determination that many people have put into their work. Most of all, don’t forget who butters your bread. Business is a part of everything, even the school system. Government would not exist without businesses footing the bill.

My friend Kyle Herron, who wrote the previous post “Do We Really Need A Leader” for Less Than Unique, recently gave a speech to a local “Rock The Vote” event. Kyle was kind enough to pass on the text of this speech to share with the Less Than Unique readership.

Thanks Kyle.

“The biggest threat to a tyrannical government is a well-informed public.

I have spent the last few years of my life traveling to different countries around the world and spending time in their cultures. A common theme in most of these countries is a lack of individual liberties and an overbearing government. You see, the most important reason our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and enabled us to vote was to protect the liberties of every individual.

Each and every individual in this country has liberties that are endowed to them and cannot be taken away. We do not get our rights by being a certain race, religion, or the member of some group.

So where do we get our rights? Many will claim it is from a benevolent creator, and that may be a fact. But what about people who are not religious? Do they have rights?

The Declaration of Independence states that we are endowed with our rights by our creator. We all obviously exist so we were created by something. It could be nature, God, or our parents for that matter.
The simple fact is that we are all given those rights by being individual human beings.

While I was traveling the world I had several incidences where I was judged because of the group I belonged to whether it be Caucasian or American. Once I was forced to go to the back of the line in an airport and wait for all the native people to board before me, when I got on board I had to wait until the native people had been seated before I could sit in a less desirable seat.

These discriminatory tendencies are allowed in those countries because they believe that they received their rights based on what group they belonged to, not as individuals. These policies are great for the group that is in favor but not so great for those being held back. Don’t get me wrong I am not denouncing all governments, and I understand that government has a role that it must fulfill. But government must be under the close watch of an informed, and active citizenry.

Governments have the ability to, and the track record of attempting to fool their citizens into blindly following the leadership of the current administration. Sometimes those lies and propaganda have deadly consequences.

The Soviet Union forced millions of its citizens into forced labor camps where many of them died.  By the end of their rule they had murdered 61 million of their own people.

The Communist Chinese government murdered 35 million citizens.

We all know the stories that have come from WWII and the terrible death camps. Were you aware that it was not just the Jews who were persecuted? All of the German citizens were forced to wear armbands to identify them with a certain group. They also persecuted Jehovah witnesses, Gypsies, Homosexuals, and almost anyone with a mental illness. By the time the Nazi reign was over it had murdered 11 million innocent humans in an attempt to clear the earth of GROUPS of people.

Have any of you noticed a trend here? Powerful centralized governments murdering millions of people.

There is a reason the founding fathers set the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances into place. Many of the genocides took place under authoritarian governments where the people had little to no voice to speak out.

But the right to speak out and be heard is not something that can be taken away, it is something that is given up by the individual out of fear or in an attempt to gain stability. Martin Luther King Jr. once said “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”

All of these murders were aided by lies put out by the government and dressed up in propaganda campaigns. All of these could have been prevented if people understood that our rights are not given to us by the government, and the government has no right to take any of them away from any individual.

Being informed about bills and amendments being passed by your government is the first step in keeping  government in its proper role. I served overseas in two wars and I can tell you from first hand experience, ALWAYS QUESTION THE OFFICIAL STORY!

It blows my mind how people will shut down their train of thought as soon as the “Official story” has been produced. It is like they refuse to accept that our government is not all knowing. Our government has its own track record of lies and enforcement of unjust laws.

Slavery was only possible in America because government wrote it into law and enforced it through the barrel of a gun. After slavery had been done away with government enforced Separate but Equal laws and enforced them across the land. Even now to this day government continues to use race as terms to get a loan, a job, or an education. 

Haven’t we seen it time and time again? A government official dresses up the facts in front of congress, he gets called out on the lies he made to the American public and they brush it off like its nothing. Then American citizens laugh it off and say “all politicians lie.” The only reason politicians lie and get away with it is because we allow them to. It is our responsibility to hold them accountable. Why is it okay for a Politician to lie to its citizens, but it is a felony to for a citizen lie to Congress?

The only way to truly stop bigotry is to stop looking at people and associating them with groups, we must look at them for their individual qualities. We cannot continue to allow ourselves to be sectioned off into groups. We must force everyone to look at us as individuals who have certain inalienable rights given to us at birth.

We all know about SOPA and the attack on internet privacy.  Our elected officials are slowly trying to take more and more rights away in the name of security. The attack on the privacy of the internet is far from over, just because SOPA did not pass that does not mean they will not try again. Just look up the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) How many of you have heard of the NDAA? More specifically sections 1031 and 1032.

Did you know that your government now has the ability to detain you indefinitely without a trial if you are suspected of being a terrorist? Did you know that the U.S military is now authorized to operate as Law enforcement inside of U.S borders now? Where do they get the authorization to do this? Not from the Constitution that is for sure.

They are able to do these things because we allow them to.

We allow them to do so by our silence on these issues. I hear a lot of people talking about how slow congress operates, or how it takes too long for our government to effect change. Though some people refuse to believe it, this is actually how our government was designed to work.
When governments are allowed to enact programs on the spur of the moment they are most often based purely on emotion.

Our founding fathers set procedures in place to slow our government down to prevent overreacting to the problems. The overreaction to a problem and the implementation of ill thought-out programs will lead to unintended consequences.

“Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. This is the interrelated structure of reality” Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

You will have people who tell you should trust government, and that having distrust of government is just paranoid delusions . Nothing could be further from the truth . Not keeping a watchful, objective eye on your government is what leads to the slow decay of your rights as a citizen.

I ask you to look into each candidate that you plan to vote for. Fight bigotry and tyranny at home by voting for candidates who understand that you are an individual and that you cannot be grouped into the masses. You are special in your own way. With your own tendencies different from any other. Relish in your culture, enjoy your history, but embrace your individuality and let no one take it from you.”

From time to time I hear someone say that the institutionalized segregation of Black and White Americans ended as a result of the passage of the “Civil Rights Act”. To me a statement like this is similar to celebrating the government for ending prohibition……they created it in the first place!

I will concede that there were most likely some businesses that did feel compelled to desegregate as a result of the legislation rather than face penalty. I can’t argue that sometimes a law, no matter how overdue it is, can have the results it is intended to have, at least to some extent.  I do however argue that crediting the government with ending institutionalized segregation is wholly inaccurate and deeply disrespectful, I will elaborate later in the post on these statements.

I also believe that all individuals in this nation are equal, thus, they should be treated equally. The law cannot treat one group more favorably than another. It is this fact that determines the responsibility of the law to protect any individual from being discriminated against for being different.

With these statements made, I am going to offer my opinion on the Federal Government’s participation in segregation and desegregation in the USA.

To say that the United States Federal Government is responsible for desegregation is inaccurate and disrespectful. Millions of Black Americans risked their lives, risked their families lives, and peacefully fought to end institutionalized segregation in this nation. To credit government legislation for ending segregation is to discredit the efforts and struggle of those Black Americans.

What was accomplished by the Black Civil Rights Movement was monumental and unparalleled in American history. Similar to the American Revolution, this group of people was fighting for their right to exist as equals and not be subservient to any other group. Unlike the American Revolution the Civil Rights Movement was mostly peaceful. Sure, violence and bloodshed occurred, but the vigilance and determination of figures such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. guided an overwhelmingly peaceful revolution. The successful desegregation of America was not done by government, America was desegregated by a motivated, organized, and intelligent movement of oppressed individuals who wanted to change things to embetter their lives.

I firmly believe that desegregation would have occurred sooner if it hadn’t been for the Federal Government. Terms such as “seperate but equal” were created at the hands of government. Laws and regulations perpetuated the problem and gave those practicing inequality a legal leg to stand on. The system was set up to allow for the oppression of Black Americans.  The apathy and racist tendencies of the majority allowed for the legal plunder of the minority, the exact problem that a Republican form of Government is intended to prevent. “The tyranny of the majority” is a side effect of democracy and was a key reason for the United States founding fathers adoption of a Representative Republic over a Democracy.

Bureaucrats capitalize on the struggles and successes of the oppressed to further their own agendas. They ride the coat tails of the real heroes and loudly credit themselves for the achievements of others. While they frequently fail to admit that they themselves or their uncontested counterparts were the origination of the oppression being fought.

Please, credit the revolutionaries, not the bureaucracy. People make the changes not government. Angry people who can’t suffer through government sanctioned intolerance any longer. Oppressed people who refuse to continue to be held down. Awakened people who defy the lies and propaganda they had been lulled to sleep with.

You can’t regulate appetite.

We continue to hear that greed is the cause of our nations problems. Am I wrong when I say that greed is a basic human instinct?

We are individuals that want and desire things to improve our lives, entertain us, or satisfy any appetite that we may have be it nutritional, sexual, vanity based, etc.

This yearning to satisfy our appetites does not only hold true on the individual level, it applies to our family units, workplaces, sports teams, etc.

Consider, we feel bad if the family down the street loses their house but every person thinks, better them than me. Our businesses compete to get the most and best customers at the expense of our competition. We cheer for our sports teams to win at the expense of all of the fans of the other team who will lose.

We are greedy, we want what is best for us as individuals and as groups of like minded individuals.

Sure there are caveats to each of those situations, we may raise money to help the family down the street or let them stay in our extra room for awhile, but we don’t trade them places. We may not intrude on another businesses turf simply out of respect for the man operating it, but if their customer comes to us we take them. We’ve all been preached to about good sportsmanship. But still we seek what benefits us and satisfies our appetite whatever it may be.

I suppose it is obvious that there is a form of greed that is bad and negatively effects the lives of unwilling participants. I would call this merciless greed. People engaging in merciless greed are actively pursuing what they want and desire with the knowledge that they are infringing on the life, liberty, or property of others in doing so. They are criminals of natural law, and violate said law for the embitterment of their own lives.

With all of that said, why does our government pass laws and regulations attempting to engineer behavior and regulate appetite.

Drug laws have not stopped drug usage.

Illegalizing prostitution has not stopped prostitution.

Taxing cigarettes has not eliminated smoking.

Banning smoking in private establishments has not stopped smoking.

Illegalizing the sale of alcohol on Sundays didn’t ever stop people from drinking on Sundays, it just made them plan ahead a day.

Not allowing homosexuals to get married has not kept homosexuality from existing, it is an infringement on the liberty of that group.

People who want to do harmful things to themselves will always find a way to satisfy that appetite.

This is true regardless of government imposed rules and regulations, why are our prisons full of repeat drug offenders? If the system of drug law and imprisonment worked, they would never come back a 2nd, 3rd, 4th time…..

The law is intended to protect an individual or groups life, liberty, or property from being negatively effected by the actions of another individual or group.

Any infringement of their life, liberty, or property is punishable by the enforcement of law. Where does this cover self destructive behavior? Or, immoral or religiously unsatisfactory behavior between consenting adults?

The reason for the existence of law is not to tell people what they can and can’t do to themselves.

People as an individual or as a group should be able to freely practice whatever they want as long as it does not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of another individual or group of unwilling participants.

You can’t legislate behavior.

Our nation has begun to legislate based on principle and morality and begun to shy away from the basic rights of natural law. Principle and morality are virtues that an individual or group instills in its children or members. In my opininon, these virtues should be carried through life and applied to daily activities right alongside natural law. But, it is not up to government to enforce morality or principle on citizens, as some may not share the same morals or principles. This enforcement of virtues is a perversion of the law that is not effective for government and is counterproductive for fostering morality and principle in the population.

This is not a fact based post, this post is my assessment of current conditions. If you disagree with me please help me understand a different viewpoint. I encourage respectful and courteous discussion.

This writing came from a Facebook page that I follow. I found it to be right on the mark. People are accusing Libertarians of being satanic, this is the perfect counter. The writing is on the same order as my post about Bastiat’s “The Law”, it is titled “Legal Plunder” read it here.

This is libertarian philosophy from a Christian perspective.

“I hold this truth to be self-evident, that the entire human race is equally created in the image of God, and that we have been endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights. We, the entire human race, have the right to our lives, liberty, and our property. With this statement, it should become evident that my secular libertarian views are firmly laid on the foundation of my faith and belief that we are created.

On life

As a Christian, I believe that ALL human life is sacred. God’s commandment, “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13) is a law that applies to all. I believe that the only being in all of existence with the moral authority to take human life is the author of it. Therefore, I am opposed to abortion, unjustified war, and the death penalty. While I do believe that we have the right to defend our lives with violent force, if necessary, I do not believe that it is morally justified to take a life for any other reason. If it is immoral to take human life, then it follows that it is equally immoral to support a government that engages in the immoral act of murder.

On liberty

I believe that the only being in all of existence with the moral authority to govern the lives of man is man’s creator. This understanding has led me to the conclusion that neither I, nor anyone else, is morally justified in dictating to another how he or she may live. How one chooses to live is a decision that is between that individual and God, and God Himself has given us free will that we may be free to choose to accept Him or not. As C. S. Lewis states in Mere Christianity,

“God created things that had free will. That means creatures which can go either wrong or right. Some people think they can imagine a creature, which had no possibility of going wrong; I cannot. If a thing is free to be good, it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata-of creatures that work like machines-would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that, they must be free” (52).

Some argue that because man is imperfect it is necessary to use coercion, backed with the threat of violent force, to ensure a stable society. However, there is a hole in this argument. Arming human beings and granting them the authority to use coercion and violence does not magically transform them into morally superior beings. In fact, the historical evidence proves just the opposite. It is in the nature of man that once having gained power, he seeks to expand it and will not stop at oppression, violence, and tyranny in violation of our God given rights to achieve that goal. Because I believe that the only being in all of existence that has the moral authority to govern the lives of man is man’s creator, I cannot support a government of men, who will always seek to violate the right to life, liberty, and property of other human beings.

On property

It is one of the tenets of my faith that theft is immoral. I believe that it is self-evident that there is no one who is exempt from the commandment “Thou shalt not steal,” (Exodus 20:15) whether they are in a position of power or not. Theft will always be theft regardless of who engages in the activity and, it will always be wrong. When the threat of aggressive violence is used to take from someone that which belongs to him to give it to someone else, it cannot, in any way be justified. Even when theft has been legally sanctioned, it is still theft, and in fact, as the threat of violence is used, it is worse; it is robbery! Everyone has the natural right to be the sole decision maker regarding what will, or will not be done, with the fruit of his labor. As God is the only being in all of existence with the moral authority to govern man, He is the only one with the right to require us to part with the fruit of our labor for the benefit of others. No state can exist apart from the exploitation of the people. Government must be funded to exist and government does not produce anything to fund its own existence. The argument in support of government is that it exists to protect the rights of the people that it governs. However, as government cannot exist without violating the property rights of the people, the existence of government actually contradicts the stated purpose for its own existence. Therefore, it would be immoral for me to support the existence of government that can only exist by exploiting the very people that it governs.

In my relation to my fellow man, I believe that I am completely sovereign over my own life and the only being who has any sovereign authority over my life is God. As I believe that only God has the moral right to govern our lives, I am a firm believer in the sovereignty of the individual. No human being has the right to require anything from another human being. The only morally just expectation that anyone may have of another is that he NOT violate the rights of life, liberty, or property of anyone. Beyond that, it is God’s to govern.

To suggest that libertarian philosophy is Satanic, is completely absurd.”

Samantha – A Christian libertarian

(Taken from a Facebook post by “I bet Ludwig Von Mises can get more fans than John Maynard Keynes”)