I have heard the argument made that in LibPar, the services made by government employees would be filled by the FreeMarket™.  I wholeheartedly agree with that position.  The reason why I believe that, is that I believe people are generally good and would love to help each other...when not prevented by the government (see cases like where senior citizen went to jail for feeding homeless).
    But why wait for LibPar?  There actually are real world cases right now.  And those cases of non-government oversight is fairly common.  (I can already see smoke coming from the Statists' brains as they say rooooaaadds).  If you look at these instances, you can understand what LibPar might look like based on how things really are now.
    1. Water and Sewer.  I have a private well and my own septic tank.  This system requires little maintenance and keeps our property self-sufficient.  Everyone in our area has their own well and septic.  Pretty common, actually.  No water department over here.  In LibPar?  No change.
    2. Fire Department.  We have a 100% volunteer fire department here.  The fire trucks, equipment and building are paid for with county taxes (property), and the firemen receive a $1,000 per year stipend for maintaining their equipment (boots, outfits, uniforms, gloves, etc).  These guys have full time jobs, but answer the call when the radios go off.  In LibPar, financing would be through fundraisers (hog roasts, fish fry, donations, etc). Small change.
    3. Schooling.  Right now, there are plenty of alternatives to public school (or charter schools funded by tax dollars).  Homeschooling, unschooling, private schooling are all valid options that operate as they would in LibPar.
    4. Police Department.  This is where LibPar usually gets a great disconnect to separate current standards from paradise.  With any instance of police corruption or violence, LibPar advocates say "private security would replace that".  That is true..to an extent.  

     But let me tickle your brain here for a moment.  What about a voluntary police force.  You know, like the volunteer fire department.  Instead of paying police a salary, they would receive a $1,000 year stipend to pay for maintaining their uniform (boots, costume, etc).  Like the voluntary fire department, you would need to provide equipment (tazers, cars, radios, vests, etc).
      Do you think it would work?  Well, of course it would.  Because it already does.  That exact scenario already plays out in a number of communities as it has for many years.

     In fact, I  interviewed with such a department for a 'reserve' position.  In this small town, there are more volunteers than paid staff.  The reserve officers are on call, but also run regular scheduled shifts.  They have the same uniforms and 'authority' of the paid officers.

     As you can imagine, the officers are more involved with the community and maintain positive relations.  The Town Marshall (equivalent of police chief) assured me that all of the officers issue tickets..at their own discretion.  They do not maintain quotas of any kind.

    They still deal with unpleasantries, like: domestic abuse, trespassing, theft, and car accidents.
    But in LibPar, I would envision the LEO to be more like this than private-contractor-security.  So are we closer to Libertarian Paradise than we thought?

 

On Feb. 2nd 2013, a former Navy Seal by the name of Chris Kyle was killed in Texas. Chris Kyle's claim to fame is that he has been referred to as "the most lethal sniper in American history" with 160 confirmed kills. He was nicknamed the "Devil of Ramadi" for his work in Iraq and even had a bounty of $80,000 put on his head. One thing that I want to point out and make very clear is that US Navy Seals are the real deal. They are among the most deadly people that have ever existed on this planet and Chris Kyle was at the tip of that spear.

A point-of-interest is that in 2008, Chris was in Sadr City, Iraq (which is a suburb of sorts of Baghdad) is where he made his longest successful shot. It killed an "insurgent" that was poised to attack a US Army convoy at a range of 2,100 yards. The reason why that is a point-of-interest, is that in 2007-2008 I was deployed to VBC (Victory Base Complex), Baghdad, Iraq. My unit's mission was to run convoy security throughout the Baghdad area, and we traveled to and through Sadr City. I bring this up not to pat myself on the back at all, but I want you to understand that I realize there is a possibility that Chris Kyle's longest shot, or maybe even some other unknown shot that he took saved my convoy from attack. Maybe this theoretical shot saved my life, this is an understanding that I have and you should remember while reading this article.

Dr. Ron Paul had tweeted during the media frenzy after Chris Kyle's death and said that "Chris Kyle's death seems to confirm that 'he who lives by the sword dies by the sword.' Treating PTSD at a firing range doesn't make sense." I decided to write this article after being in multiple online debates over this topic in the few days after the incident. So let's take some time and dissect what Dr. Paul said.

First of all, Dr. Paul is quoting the Christian Bible from the book of Matthew, chapter 26. It is a passage where men had come to arrest Jesus. One of Jesus' followers had taken his sword out and cut the ear of one of the men who came to arrest Jesus. Jesus then said, "Put your sword back in it's place because he who lives by the sword dies by the sword." What I believe Dr. Paul was saying by quoting this passage, was the same thing that he was trying to beat into everyone's head while he was running for President: that the problem is our Nation's long history of international interventionism.

What is interventionism you might ask? A quick definition is "sticking your nose in other people's business." Dr. Paul believes that the reason that people and nation's around the world hate the U.S. is not because we are free, but because we keep going all of the world trying to make other people and sovereign nations do what we want them to do (to which the consequences are referred to as ‘blowback’). Dr. Paul was also saying that it is because of our nation's interventionist policies that we have generations of young men and women like Chris Kyle and like Eddie Ray Routh that are dealing with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Some of these individuals who are completely debilitated by this disorder and millions of lives ruined because of these failed policies.

Dr. Paul goes on with his statement and says that "Treating PTSD at a firing range doesn't make sense." Nydailynews.com said in their article on this situation that "Kyle… brought Routh to the range at around 3:15 p.m. Saturday as a form of treatment to help him cope with a crippling case of PTSD."  

If the assumption is that what NYDailynews.com wrote is accurate, that Kyle took Routh to a shooting range to deal with a "crippling case" of PTSD, is that really the smartest thing to do? Routh has been in and out of jail, mental institutions and had made threats of violence against his family. Is it really the best idea to take someone who is dealing with COMBAT related stress that has destroyed his life to an area that could quite possibly make him relieve those stressful times or even give him "flashbacks?" Is it then really out of line for Dr. Paul to say that "Treating PTSD at a firing range doesn't make sense?" I do not think that is an unreasonable statement, in fact, I agree with it!

Like I said in the beginning, I have been in numerous debates dealing with this situation in the days after this tragic incident occurred. One of the things that was brought up to me was that "what Dr. Paul said was insensitive," and that could very well be true. One of my Facebook friends had made the comment to me that what Dr. Paul said was like him(my friend) going to my funeral and telling my mother in reference to her dead son (hypothetical example) “if you eat like a pig you'll die like a pig." What I am trying to get at here is that he has every right to do just that! Is it insensitive? Yes, but the First Amendment doesn't protect all but insensitive speech. It protects ALL SPEECH!!!

One of the problems that I see with our country is that we feel that we have the right to not be offended. That is false. The First Amendment grants me the right to say whatever I want, regardless of who is offended. If you don't like what I am saying then you have the right to walk away or block me. My right to free speech does not impede on your right to not hear me (but that does NOT mean that you have a right to trespass onto private property and say a single word..so the funeral example is really in bad taste as that private setting isn’t for: Facebook friends, ex-girlfriends, or random strangers).

The whole reasoning and meaning behind this article is to say that regardless of what you think of Chris Kyle he was one bad "mamba-jama" who was a pro at his skill (which is killing people). And regardless of what you think of Dr. Ron Paul, there was reason and solid logic behind what he said. This entire thing goes back to our natural rights, the rights that our founding father's  wrote about in our Constitution. If Ron Paul doesn't have the right to say what he said, if Pastors cannot speak about the sanctity of life at the pulpit, then we have no 1st Amendment, and a nation without the freedom of speech is a scary place.

Everyday more people "wake up" to the fact that they have been duped.  Even if you can't put your finger on it, you just KNOW that something is off.  Whether it has been broken campaign promises by some fork-tongued politician, or they realize that the cute stories in school about history/economics/sociology are just plain wrong.  

So we made this podcast to have an open dialogue about it. We aren't going to pull the mainstream media line on this.  That means: no superficial 'stories', facts before conjecture and emotion, tangible nuggets of information for you to digest and grow on.
Sure, you partake of Twitter, Facebook and lamestream media ALL DAY.  But are you really informed..or merely 'entertained'.

Twitter is great for telling the world about your dinner or bowel movements.  Facebook is great for pictures of kittens with cute quotes.  Mainstream television is good for amusement (meaning: to suspend the thought process).

Forget that noise.  We want tacit information.  We want to engage the brain and jack you into the Matrix.
Stick around and participate in the conversation and see just how far down this rabbit hole goes...

     I believe 100% in freedom, liberty, the Non-Aggression Principle, and personal responsibility.   So if you want to know how I feel about something, ask yourself this: "will what is being done give freedom or take it away?" Now with these ideas of freedom, we understand that people are going to act stupidly and make poor choices.  But as long as your actions are not bringing force on another person, that is your right to make those poor choices. Some people will say, "Well Libertarians think you should be able to beat your wife and rape your kids!" As outlandish as this sounds, these very words came from my own extended family.  That example that they used is an inaccurate depiction of liberty and freedom. Yes, people do have the rights to: read, write, say, think, own, ingest whatever they want.  BUT, the moment they bring uninitiated force on another person, their action has become illegitimate and must stop. I believe that as long as one subscribes to the Non-Aggression Principle, which is "a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate" then the government has no right to tell me what to do in any regards. If I am adhering to the Non-aggression Principle, then any time that the state (government) tries to tell me what size soda I can drink or what I can put in my body, or what I can read or say, my freedoms and liberties are being denied and I am living in tyranny. 

      Many of you might be asking where I personally stand on the "Liberty Spectrum".  It wasn't that long ago that I shed my statist skin (much to the chagrin of my family) and converted to Libertarianism.  From Libertarianism, I continued the journey and study of freedom. After a few weeks of research, listening to the Bad Quaker and the Freedom Feens podcasts, I realized that Anarchism was a better fit for me.
     I have always been a very "rule oriented" individual.   Whether it was because I was too scared of the consequences or just had respect for human life. That's just how I was.   It might seem odd to think that now I subscribe to an Anarchist political belief;  but truthfully it's really not that odd.  I haven't shed my life of rules; I just subscribe to new rules. I subscribe to rules that were written by God and nature, not some egotistical man who lies and steals for a living! As for my stance on Liberty I am in-between a Minarchist and an Anarcho-Capatilist(An-Cap). There are two minarchist beliefs that are keeping me from being a full on An-Cap. Firstly, I do not believe that a Militia (now known as the National Guard) is capable of delivering an adequate National Defense.
     I had served in the Indiana National Guard and was deployed to Iraq during my enlistment, during this time I found that the Active Duty component of the military referred to the National Guard as "Nasty Girls", in an attempt to put them down. I will say that my time in the military showed me that the Active duty component is much "better", meaning better trained and more professional than the National Guard, and it isn't the Guard's fault,  it's just the nature of the beast. Active duty trains full time when the Guard is only part time, and Active duty gets far more money and far better equipment to perform the job.
    With all of that said, I still believe that the military needs to be drastically cut.  We should still have a standing army, only for national (federal) defense. With that belief, and with all of the setup I just did, I do not believe that the National Guard (modern day militia) is up to the task, or could even adequately perform the task of national defense if America came under a direct attack.
   My second minarchist point is that, as Christians, we know that the world is a broken and fallen place. We know that people are born with sin and some people are just plain evil.  Even though I feel that most police officers are just trying to throw their weight around and bully people into doing what they want (for various reasons). What if our police officer's got back to being true Peace officers and were relieved from having to enforce victimless crimes? They would now be able to function in a far more appropriate way than we have now. If utilized in this role, the police would be protecting us instead of policing the two or three infractions that they have memorized to gain tax revenue for the state.

     This mission of promoting liberty that many of us have been called to is a journey. It does not happen overnight.   One does not simply make the change from communist democrat or fascist republican to anarchist without serious thought, exploration, and prompting. For me personally, I did not begin to change my school of thought until I saw the injustices around me; they may have been affecting others, but I had to wonder how long it would be before they began affecting me. I had to ask myself "how much longer until they come for me?" "how many rights will they take?" "how free will I be allowed to be?"

    I had to act because I didn't like the answers I came up with. The moral of my story is simple, do not be afraid to speak up and do not give up hope, continue to share liberty minded information, quotes, pictures, facts, and share them wherever you can because people are listening and they are being impacted.