Description

Whether it be Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, or a large swath of their wooden tongued followers, the refrain is the same, “Your liberty makes you weak and vulnerable. Sacrifice it for the greater good and your lives!”

For shame on you would be masters!

See More See Less

Subscribe

Leave us a review, comment or subscribe!

Meet the hosts

discussions

  • As I was browsing through the members of Liberty.me to see if there were people whose names I recognized and might have been acquainted with from other domains or activities, I was struck by the proportion of names that seemed like pseudonyms or other ways in which the real person might not be identified. In one way, given the number of stories that have circulated about identity theft, abuses, cyber stalking, etc, this isn’t surprising, but I’m wondering if there might be other motives, especially in this domain. Are some people, particularly those who haven’t registered their real names, or complete names, with or without a photo afraid that they might be subjected to some kind of ostracism, persecution, discrimination or other treatment that they’d like to avoid? What about people who are already well known as out-spoken critics of the government, the status quo and other aspects of our modern life who have registered under their real names.  Have these people experienced any serious threats to their well being that they might have wished to avoid, had they been able to? What are the real risks of taking a stand for what libertarians believe in, or what they are perceived to believe in by people who are against their ideals? And, finally, if there are important risks which one faces in standing up for these ideals, how might the dangers be avoided, minimized and/or combatted?

    Jump to Discussion Post 7 replies
  • Decades from now, when the leading political figures of this era are dead or dying and will thus not be prosecuted for anything, classified information from this era will be released. This will show that Ambassador Chris Stevens either knew something, did something, or was about to do something that the Obama regime hated. Killing one’s own ambassador would be political suicide, but when violence broke out in Benghazi, Obama, Clinton, and the rest chose not to let a crisis go to waste.

    Jump to Discussion Post 0 replies
  • The Drone Papers The Intercept has obtained a cache of secret documents detailing the inner workings of the U.S. military’s assassination program in Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia. The documents, provided by a whistleblower, offer an unprecedented glimpse into Obama’s drone wars.

    Jump to Discussion Post 1 reply
  • Are any of man’s philosophies so different from liberty that they are incompatible? I contend the idea of making such a judgement in itself is unethical. !!! Blog Vs Blog !!! Some say Islam is incompatible with Liberty: http://beingclassicallyliberal.liberty.me/2015/01/10/basic-human-freedoms-are-not-compatible-with-islam I say such assertions themselves are incompatible with Liberty: http://afh.liberty.me/2015/01/12/islam-fear-hatred-intolerance-incompatible-with-freedom/ What do YOU say?

    Jump to Discussion Post 14 replies
  • After reading Jon Beauchemin’s article ‘Practical Anarchy is All Around Us’ and comments to my question of the funniest/dumbest arguments against a freer society and it became even more clear how many of them are based in fear. Some like ‘muh roooads’ are fear of inconvenience or fear of the loss of freedom to travel easily, but for some reason the TSA is an acceptable invasion of privacy when flying. Which is truly surprising, since flying is also the answer the the ‘who would build the roads’ question. Answer: anyone, and who cares? We could fly!?! But I digress. It seems fear is behind almost every objection. One of the biggest objections being that the physically strong, rich and/or influential would have to much power, and a government must restrain them. Ignore for a moment that this argument defeats itself – we need strong people we have little control over to protect us from strong people we have little control over – and note what this fear really means. These people likely agree with us that they would like a freer world, but they are terrified that without government people as prone to lying as Pelosi might control a delivery company. Someone as vacuous and backpedaling as Boehner would run and insurance company.  Or someone as formerly popular as Obama might become an arbitrator of contracts. These are terrifying thoughts! Politicians would be in the market, and think of all the evils they might perpetrate then, you know, when you and I actually had to deal with them. Now while we know that the market would force these people to be relatively good actors(no one buys a shit-sandwich just because their competitor is a douchbag), most people have never thought this through. The reality of the situation is, the vast majority of our interactions with government are mostly just inconveniences. Violations of our rights to be sure, but imagine for a second you have not focusing on educating yourself about markets, and freedom, and your rights, but are a typical citizen. Imagine how terrifying an image it would be to have politicians running companies, charities, or preaching in your churches. Letting these sociopaths, psychopaths, and megalomaniacs run around outside of D.C. and state capitals is a terrifying idea. So how do we convince people that their biggest fear, is not of not having very limited(or no) government, but of having to interact with people currently in government?

    Jump to Discussion Post 1 reply