War on Freedom

Commentary: Will there ever be a freedom loving majority? Do we even need one?

on . Posted in War on Freedom

By Joe Jarvis

October 24, 2018 - The good old days never existed.

People like to romanticize a time when Amerika was more wholesome; when everyone got along and put petty differences aside to fight wars and such.

A time when political campaigns were more civil, like in the presidential election of 1800.

That was when a pro-Adams newspaper said that “murder, robbery, rape, adultery and incest will openly be taught and practiced,” if Jefferson was elected.

The Jefferson supporters responded by claiming that Adams was more like a hermaphrodite than a man or woman.

If you think it got any better, think back to the classic daisy girl campaign ad that Lyndon B. Johnson ran in 1964.

It showed a cute little girl plucking petals off a daisy, before transitioning to images of a nuclear explosion. “Vote for President Johnson on November 3,” it said, “The stakes are too high for you to stay home.”

So instead of electing the “isolationist” Goldwater, and getting nuked, the people saw fit to elect Johnson.

Johnson quickly ratcheted up the Vietnam War and got 36,000 soldiers killed under his watch. 62% of all Amerikan Vietnam casualties occurred during Johnson’s presidency. This included the most deadly year in the war for Amerikan servicemen, 1968, with 16,592 deaths.

Voters are easily manipulated by fears and smears.

There was never a majority of freedom-loving honorable Amerikans.

People who believe in individual freedom and natural rights are a minority and always have been.

Trying to vote our way to freedom is not a sound strategy. There simply are not enough people who share these values. Really, most people have little or no values. They simply react to their surroundings.

It is too easy for bad actors to manipulate the unthinking majority. Just look at how everyone is encouraged to vote, even if they are entirely clueless.

Michele Obama recently said, “Voting does not require any kind of special expertise. You don’t have to read every news article to be qualified to vote. I’ve been voting since I was 18 years old, and trust me, I didn’t know nothin’ about nothin’ at 18 years old.”

So what exactly should you choose a candidate on if you know nothing? Skin color? Good looks? Party affiliation? Name recognition?

Votes in federal elections are extremely watered down as it is; your vote is diluted to the point where it really doesn’t count. Then add a bunch of ignorant voters tipping the scale randomly, or more likely, according to how media manipulate them.

Then factor in the people who are philosophically opposed to ideas of individual freedom; and remember that another whole subset will vote based on special interests that affect them. Will my benefits increase? Will I get “free” health care? Will I get special rights and privileges? Which candidate will benefit my industry?

It would be hard enough for these factors to align in your favor for one election. But for a sustained change, to build a government that respects individuals’ rights, this would need to happen election after election.

Now I am not strictly anti-voting. I think you should vote when it might increase your freedom.

For instance, when I moved to this county in Florida three years ago, stores and restaurants could not sell liquor on Sundays. I voted on a referendum to repeal that rule. Now stores and restaurants can sell liquor on Sundays.

That’s minor, but it removed some frustrating friction in my life. Why should the government tell me what I can buy and when?

On that same ballot was a statewide question for legalizing medical marijuana. Since I believe this is a step in the right direction to end prohibition, I voted. Florida legalized medical marijuana.

It’s not like my vote was the deciding factor on these issues. But as elections get closer to home, your vote really does count more, as a larger percentage of the deciding pool of votes.

So if anything, voting should not be focused on federal elections. We should be picking state-level politicians who are most likely to isolate us locally from the evils of Washington D.C.

But even then, you don’t need a majority to be free. Your freedom is not dependent on elections.

If it was, I can’t imagine feeling very free right now. But I actually do. I feel free.

Don’t get me wrong; there is plenty that should change. There are constant threats on the horizon.

But actions outside the political realm must be having an effect on the type of society I want to live in since the people in power hardly ever do what I want them to do. They quite rarely share my philosophy of natural rights and individual empowerment.

It stands to reason that individual actions produce freedom.

I’m a big proponent of voting with your feet. It is easier than ever to move, and this creates a market for government. Of course, it could be a much netter market if, for instance, there were 50 countries instead of 50 United States.

There is also a $102,000 tax exemption for those living overseas, plus an additional housing exemption.

There are places like Puerto Rico where you can take advantage of tax incentives like Act 20 and Act 22. These cut certain corporate and self-employed taxes down to just 4% and exempt most investment income from capital gains tax.

But it isn’t just about state or national governments.

In many rural places, you can basically get away with doing whatever you want. In urban areas, you will be subject to much more scrutiny by authorities. The more crowded, the more potential for conflict, and thus more rules are required for an ordered society.

Developing and using alternatives to government might be the most promising method for achieving personal freedom. Currencies are being experimented with to challenge the dollar, and apps like Uber and Airbnb challenge regulatory authorities.

More people are homeschooling and finding alternatives to public school. Seasteading and other “startup societies” are gaining steam, and could offer a real alternative with experimentation in government.

But these alternatives deserve an article of their own.

I understand wanting to counteract the march towards authoritarian government. But I am undecided on whether it is worth it to vote for the lesser evil.

Does voting help defend against destructive government policies, or does it give legitimacy and power to a corrupt system?

Eulogies

Eulogy for an Angel
1992-Dec. 20, 2005

My Father
1918-2010

brents dad

Dr. Stan Dale
1929-2007

stan dale

A. Solzhenitsyn
1918-2008

solzhenitsyn

Patrick McGoohan
1928-2009

mcgoohan

Joseph A. Stack
1956-2010

Bill Walsh
1931-2007

Walter Cronkite
1916-2009

Eustace Mullins
1923-2010

Paul Harvey
1918-2009

Don Harkins
1963-2009

Joan Veon
1949-2010

David Nolan
1943-2010

Derry Brownfield
1932-2011

Leroy Schweitzer
1938-2011

Vaclav Havel
1936-2011

Andrew Breitbart
1969-2012

Dick Clark
1929-2012

Bob Chapman
1935-2012

Ray Bradbury
1920-2012

Tommy Cryer
1949-2012

Andy Griffith
1926-2012

Phyllis Diller
1917-2012

Larry Dever
1926-2012

Brian J. Chapman
1975-2012

Annette Funnicello
1942-2012

Margaret Thatcher
1925-2012

Richie Havens
1941-2013

Jack McLamb
1944-2014

James Traficant
1941-2014

jim traficant

Dr. Stan Monteith
1929-2014

stan montieth

Leonard Nimoy
1931-2015

Leonard Nimoy

Stan Solomon
1944-2015

Stan Solomon

B. B. King
1926-2015

BB King

Irwin Schiff
1928-2015

Irwin Schiff

DAVID BOWIE
1947-2016

David Bowie

Muhammad Ali
1942-2016

Muhammed Ali

GENE WILDER
1933-2016

gene wilder

phyllis schlafly
1924-2016

phylis schafly

John Glenn
1921-2016

John Glenn

Charles Weisman
1954-2016

Charles Weisman

Carrie Fisher
1956-2016

Carrie Fisher

Debbie Reynolds
1932-2016

Debbie Reynolds

Roger Moore
1917-2017

Roger Moore

Adam West
1928-2017

Adam West

JERRY LEWIS
1926-2017

jerry lewis

HUGH HEFNER
1926-2017

Hugh Hefner

PROF. STEPHEN HAWKING
1942-2018

Hugh Hefner 

ART BELL
1945-2018

Art Bell

DWIGHT CLARK
1947-2018

dwight clark

CARL MILLER
1952-2017

Carl Miller

HARLAN ELLISON
1934-2018

Harlan Ellison