Gay Marriage Goes to The Supreme Court – What Libertarians Say

Once again the debate is on the table regarding gay marriage because the majority has squashed the rights of the minority (the minority not just being gays but the 16 states left who favor gay marriage). This time the debate will happen in U.S. Supreme Court. all because once again the majority is being allowed to legally show brutal disdain to the minority. Legally !! Unbelievable !! We still haven’t learned our lessons to look out for the minority so they won’t get crushed. 16 states have given rights that legally bind gay couples who have come together and the only way those agreements can be binding is that they MUST remain in the state that they were married. We can marry in Massachusetts but our legal arrangement with the state will only be honored there. Our marriage means nothing Michigan. So much for land of the free. Thank you America. You are clearly showing what “freedom” means to you.

The truth is there are really not even 16 states that gays can actually have the legal rights of marriage in. There are only 9, Conneticut, Iowa, Main Maryland, New Hampshire, Vermont, Washington , the District of Columbia and finally New York . The other 7 are simply civil union, domestic partnership allowances . California gays fought a very hard fight for gay marriage but lost the battle when Prop 8 was instituted. They later had a rematch when a the federal court found it to be unconstitutional. That court ruling is being repealed and awaiting a ruling now by the U.S. Supreme Court. Wow!! Somebody really hates the idea of gay people being allowed the freedom to marry.

So ….either today (Friday) or Monday, the Supreme Court is going to look at some of the things that have gone on with the issue so they can determine how to move on. 1 state is petitioning them to determine whether the over turning of prop 8 was legal . 8 states are petitioning them to determine whether DOMA -The Defense of Marriage Act put in by President Clinton is constitutional (and the gay community sees this man as a champion for gay rights. Yet he along with the Democratic Party instituted the very bill that federally confirms all gay marriages null and void. I understand why the gay community at large doesn’t support the Republican party but I’m not getting this great love at all for the Democrat party when no Democrat President has ever DONE anything to support gay marriage. Libertarians have supported gay marriage since its inception).

At any rate the Supreme Court is scheduled for a pre-hearing to determine which of the 10 petitions set before them they will look at OR … if gays that are already legally married should have federal rights as gay couples. If the repeal to the over ruling of Prop 8 is thrown out, its been been said the ruling could be huge and thereby either overturn anti-amendments all around the country or go as far a ruling out all gay marriages that have been deemed legal. Its hard to imagine either way. The hearing coming up today or Monday is only to determine which of the marriage issues the U.S. Supreme Court will entertain, Which ever one is decided will then be the topic of Supreme Court discussion sometime around March 2013.

My libertarian take – First let me say this: Libertarianism is all about the individual rights we all individually have as humans. As a libertarian I stand behind everybody’s individual right to believe whatever they want to about marriage. If a person is against gay marriage they have that right to be against it and not support it. Thats what liberty is all about … being free as an individual to believe whatever you desire. In the same way however that a person has a right to be against it, people should also have the right to favor it BUT when laws are made that don’t not allow people to favor it, it infringes on their individual rights. This is not simply about marriage rghts its about all of our INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS . You don’t have to allow a gay couple in your house. You can be against it. Your church has the right to preach against it . Thats what freedom of religion is all about.Thats YOUR INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. Your church should not have the right however to stop another church from favoring it. Thats THEIR INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. You can call that church a heresy or whatever you’d like. Thats YOUR RIGHT However in the same way you have the right not to endorse it, others should also have the right TO endorse it and to legally deny that right, takes away THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS of others. The Lord never denied Adam the right to choose what he wanted, even though he disagreed with Adams choice. He did not intervene and we should follow his example. Keep in mind: If you take away someones individual rights trust and believe …their going to come after you and successfully take away rights you currently enjoy. “Whatsover a man soweth that shall he also reap”.

This country was founded on freedom, actually freedom of religion as those who came here came so that could practice what they believed in, which was not allowed where they came from. That kind of freedom should still be allowed. Denying individuals freedoms to believe and practice what THEY believe (especially wen they are not harming others) is not what this country is all about.

Libertarianism is not about fighting for the rights of gays but about fighting to keep INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS FOR ALL.

Celebrating the 1st Anniversary of The Repeal of DADT – A Christian Libertarians View on Gays in the Military

Today was the 1st anniversary of the military law of D.A.D.T. (Don’t Ask Don’t Tell) being repealed. DADT was initially instituted by the Clinton administration in 1993 to keep the military from booting people out of it who were known to be gay. The thinking was that if the military couldn’t ask and gays didn’t tell , those who were gay could not be booted out because no one would know. The problem is, keeping it from public knowledge would mean you could be gay in the military but would have to remain closeted. If gays were in gay marriages they couldn’t be known. If they frequented gay places (clubs ect) it couldn’t be known, and straight people who who didn’t want to serve next to gays would never know because with DADT it was not to be revealed. If it were ..someone could get the boot. Democrats set this up, Republicans were determined to keep it going and after almost 20 years of Democrats instituting this descriminating policy they were finally coaxed into withdrawing it and September 20th 2011 it was finally repealed.

Libertarians in office and libertarians running have fought Congress tooth and nail for this repeal for years because Libertarians are all about standing up for individual liberties, where everyone is allowed to live their lives the way they want without government interference as long as the way the individual lives does not hurt or effect anyone else. DADT was wrong because it effected gays in several ways. They couldn’t share about their proud family lives as other men and women in the military were able to share. They could not introduce their partners to others they served with, the way that others could. They had to be secretive about where they were spending their time off duty, and always ran the risk of being discovered, ridiculed and ultimately booted out. With DADT finally being repealed, they are free and “the boot” could not happen, at least not because they were gay.

Of course a lot of people (even some Libertarians) were upset when DADT was repealed last year because they say that it endorses a chosen “life style that they don’t agree with”. A lot of gay people would argue thats its not something thats chosen and I agree. But let’s just say for this discussion that it IS chosen. Is it right to take away someones right to choose what they want? For those who believe in the bible, you KNOW that God doesn’t take away freedom of choice. He specifically told Adam and Eve, for instance, that he didn’t want them to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but even though he disagreed he placed it there FOR THEM TOO CHOOSE. He could have just not created the tree, and flat out JUST TOOK AWAY THEIR RIGHT TO CHOOSE in the same way that DADT took away people choices to live openly, but He didn’t. He let them choose. God always says ” I set before you life AND death, blessing AND cursing; therefore CHOOSE life that both you and your seed shall live. (Duet 30.19). More than anybody, believers should endorse everybody’s right to choose EVEN if they think the choice is a bad one, because God endorses choice. Libertarians believe in every individuals right to choose as well, as along as their choices don’t hurt or interfere with anyone else’s life. With DADT being repealed the choice for gays to live openly and honestly is now an option, before it wasn’t

In the fight for getting DADT repealed, 1000 military soldiers signed a letter claiming that repealing it would have a lot of negative outcomes.  However, one year later a study has just been published by “Palm Center” a research branch of the Williams Institute at University of California Los Angeles Law School, and it found that there has been “no overall negative impacts” at all in the military aas a result of the repeal. I believe those fears were there because there are so many negative stereo types promoted of what a gay person is, and how he or she generally acts, that their ability to be effective soldiers in military was totally being overshadowed. One proof that gays are just as effective in the  military as anyone else is seeing Army Colonel Tammy Smith who was promoted to Brigadier General. She was one of the first to come out as gay since the repeal last year. She’s gay and made it all the way to General yawl !! Had the law not been in effect she would have never come out and had she revealed it just 1 year earlier, she would have never been promoted even though she was found well qualified. Congratulations General Smith.

So Happy Repeal Day to everybody and to all of you who are libertarian and the libertarian minded, keep fighting for individual freedoms. Vote for your local Libertarians. Vote for our libertarian candidate for president Gary Johnson…and whether he makes it or not remember he and the rest of us are out here all out here fighting so there will be liberty and justice for all.

We’ve Got To Stop Them From Their Continually Dissolving of Detroit Police: A New Libertarians Thoughts on the DPD Situation

Pic of a Vacated Police station

Anybody paying close attention to our city can clearly see police departments in the Detroit area slowly dissolving. The other day on the radio I heard a story of a man in Detroit who shoot 4 men, two whom died. Seeing no police came and there was no nearby police station, the man turned himself into the fire department and even though the fire department themselves called the police there was no police available to arrest this man. Keep in mind Detroit residents pay higher taxes than any other city in the state and all its current local government has allowed them for their continual support, is a continual dissolving of a police department and while its being diminished the citizens have no say. This would not be allowed at all if Detroit would begin to bring in libertarian leadership as Libertarian philosophy sees protection as the one “proper” function of government. Providing police to protect its citizens from criminals, an army to protect them from foreign invaders and courts to protect their legal rights in disputes over property and contracts. Anything else, libertarians see as excessive in government. Its very obvious however that safety and protection is not a main priority to Detroit’s current administration at all. If it were, then where are the works and plans this administration is implementing to ensure it?

What kind of local government would demand higher taxes of its citizens and then think they don’t have to show any improvement in the services they provided with the money they’ve already had. Thats exactly what the Democrat elected officials in Detroit have done once again. This summer Mayor Bing, and his appointed Police Chief Godbee proposed yet another millage, a new tax on the citizens of Detroit once again promising to improve its police force without ever showing any improvement at all in the services they’d already given. If they couldn’t effectively use what they had, then why should they expect more. The principle of Jesus states it best,… when you are “faithful over a little; THEN I will set you over much” (Math 25:23). A grantor won’t even grant money unless the requester has shown he’s done well with what he has. This administration has not done well in even giving its city a “false’ sense of security let alone a real sense of security. And now the Mayor wants to coerce the citizens to even pay more through a tax? How unfair!

Detroit pays the highest taxes in the state now, yet the higher the taxes they pay, the less services its seems to be able to provide . Why does Detroit keep electing a party who can’t even show its sees police protection as a main priority. Its police departments budget was just slashed $75 million, with 10% in cuts to their current salaries, and now their current staffs (who’s pay has just decreased) will now have to INCREASE their work-shifts to 12 hour work days. How do you make service better for the citizens by paying its police department less and then require that same police department to provide more service? Its not even logical ! Is Detroit just going to keep bringing in a party that continues to do things like this?

IT’S TIME OUT !! Its time for an administration who believes police protection should be the city’s MAIN PRIORITY and a government who can get it done quickly BEFORE EVERYBODY HAS BEEN SCARED AWAY.

Unlike Democrats , Libertarians always seek ways to reduce city taxes, so rather then “coerce” Detroit citizens to pay more to develop DPD, a libertarian would institute something like a regular lottery specifically to fund the police department. With a lottery the citizens are not coerced in aiding (so often when they can’t afford it). They can participate voluntarily whenever they’d like, if they’d like, on whatever level they’d like. Everybody would be encouraged to participate (even folks outside the city) not only because of the incentive of winning but because they know is designated to provide them the best police protection possible. Money would be coming in from the citizens who are participating at their own free will. No new taxes. No new city fees. Nobody is angry for participating. and the city doesn’t have to beg the Feds. Everybody’s happy! But we’ve got to get some different ideas in their to get this and other libertarian ideas going. The other party’s will never think out of the box because they’re only committed to do things the way that its been done and unfortunately the way its be done is slowly bringing the development of the Detroit Police Department to a halt.

More than a couple of times over the past couples of years the Democrat leadership of Detroit has laid off its police officers and cut DPD’s budget. Now as a result criminals now feel they own the street. What can we do to stop it? Detroit has got to start looking at getting a different kind of leadership. In looking I recommend it start looking at the Libertarian party, a party with a strong philosophy, and a ton of ideas. Detroit needs leadership like Libertarian leadership. A leadership that will work to reduce citizen taxes. A leadership that will come in with ideas to help citizens …”Live Free”.

Thousands Forced Out of Marriage And Neither Presidential Candidate Says Anything. -A Libertarian Response to Gay Marriage

Pic of the constitution and a gay rainbow ring

Governor Romney is VERY clear that he will do nothing to stop gays from being forced out of marriage and while President Obama says he’s supportive of marriage equality, he has been pretty clear that he, just like Gov. Romney, will do nothing as well to institute it . He says” let each state decide”. That in turn means ‘ whatever each state decides, I’m good with it. If Michigan wants to force gays out, they can I don;t care’. Yet Democrats are backing away from him because he has expressed support for gay marriage, even though he’s stands behind every state that votes to reject it. What kind of support is that. Its risky for his campaign yet it appears clever in that it “says” to the gay community ..” I support” yet he has done nothing or has even expressed on record any kind plan to do anything at all.

There are plenty of things he could do if he was really supportive of gay marriage. He could approach it from the federal end and repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which he hasn’t. He could see that a policy is instituted that would protect the rights of ALL to marry around the country instead of the rights of one party or one special interest group. You don’t have to believe in gay marriage to do that. You can say “I don’t believe in gay marriage but its a free country and I won’t stand in the way or pass any laws against of those people who do”.

The Defense of Marriage Act is cohercive and forces gays out of rights and benefits in marriage that are now given only to a select group and right now about 37 states are still passing laws that force gays out. A President who has no plan to do anything about , is simply saying ..”Oh well, they’ll just have to deal with it”. Thats a person who doesn’t care at all about liberty or rights of individuals, and thats a clear description of both major presidential candidates. Thats why neither of them has done nothing to deserve my vote.

I believe in “live and let live” and thats the libertarian way. I could only vote for a candidate who believes in that as well, a candidate that has a plan to stand up to support the individual rights of all. The only person I see like that is the Presidential Candidate of the 3rd largest party in America, Libertarian nominee for President, Gary Johnson .

In one article that I read he said ”People of different faiths and different beliefs are free to follow those beliefs when it comes to embracing or opposing same-sex marriage within those faiths and beliefs. However, it should not be the purview of government to impose one set of beliefs over another. And government absolutely should not sanction discrimination against gay Americans who choose to marry.”

Thats my position as well. I have the utmost respect for those who promote that they believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. I cannot respect those however, who make laws that STOP OTHER PEOPLE BY LAW from promoting what THEY believe as well. They want their beliefs respected in the constitution, but they don;t want others to have the same respect. Its the same kind of kind of religious hypocrisy that Jesus railed about that the Pharisees and Saducee’s displayed when he walked here. Jesus was vehemently against that kind of religiousity and I stand against it too.

Just an opinion of a new libertarian

Mayor Rahm Emanuel Penalizes People of Faith: A Libertarian Stand For Gay Marriage!

Mayor of Chicago

Before we get into this article let me say first I am huge supporter of “the freedom to marry” and thank God everyday that the U.S. Constitution says we have the right to worship God according to the dictates of our own faith. That means, IF A FAITH (any faith) encourages same-sex marriage then the constitution says that faith has the freedom to do it. However if a faith encourages its people to speak out against gay marriage, our constitution ALSO says that that faith has the freedom to do that as well. Its a constitution that supports liberty for all and that is what the Libertarian Party is all about. Mayor Rahm Emanuel (pictured above) wants to take that liberty away.

In case you haven’t heard this story,Lauren Silich, who owns a Chick-fil-A had plans of opening one of its franchises in Chicago. After an anti-gay marriage statement made by its company’s head Dan Cathy in the Chicago Tribune, Alderman Joe Moreno, supported by Mayor Emmanuel began to work to put a block on the Chick-Fil A effort. In response to Mr Cathy’s statement, Mayor Emanuel said “Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values,” He said “They disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents.”

When I heard this all I could think was …WHAT?? Now we have GOT TO HAVE the same values as …now we have GOT TO HAVE the same beliefs?? Where is the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech that everybody is always always reminding us about? Its one thing to say gays should be allowed to marry, I agree 100% . But to PENALIZE people who don’t agree and hold “different” beliefs and values by blocking their efforts to do business in the city, is flat out unconstitutional. How does taking a way a freedom that another group has always had .. promote liberty . Also is the whole company going to be penalized just because of statements of its owner. Liberty, in our country is not to be just for some …it is suppose to be for all.

The LGBT community has done so well and fought so long for the freedom to marry and are seeking to have that same freedom all over the country that so many are having all over the world. The moment that that freedom begins to intrude on freedoms of others who believe differently though, is the day “freedom for all” in country begins to stop. Mayor Emanuel , Alderman Moreno, If your goal is to work with the gay community in promoting the freedom to marry, just know … you won’t be able to ever do it… by taking the freedoms of others away. Please don;t send us 20 years back to start all over again by legally penalizing the Chic-Fil A franchise. We have come to far on this issue. One of the main beliefs of Libertarianism (which I’ve supported throughout this blog) : No one should authorize another person to violate someone else’s rights.

One nation, Under God. With Liberty, And Justice – FOR ALL

Just a opinion of another libertarian

They Haven’t Hurt ANYONE, So Why Are They in Prison? : One Libertarians Take On Ending the Drug War

Gary Johnson Libertarian nominee for President of United Sates said ““I’m going to be the only candidate that doesn’t want to bomb Iran. I’m going to be the only candidate that wants to get out Afghanistan now—and the wars. I’m going to be the only candidate that wants to end the drug war. I’m going to be the only candidate that wants to bring about marriage equality, believing that it’s a constitutionally guaranteed right.” Thats all stuff that I want to hear particularly the part about ending the war on drugs. To me if things are going to change , especially here in Detroit, that has got to happen. It seems though that the only political party that understands this and sees it as a priority are Libertarians and its one of the mains reasons I recently decided to become one. Its a party thats about standing up for ‘”individual” rights, the rights for individuals to be free to to able to live their lives HOWEVER THEY WANT as long as what they want as individuals DOES’NT HURT ANYONE ELSE. Its not just about promoting what society wants as a whole, its about what the different individuals want, as sometimes what society wants and what a individual wants, is different.

Take drinking alcohol and smoking weed or some other drug, for example. They are all things that a lot of people like, but for me as an individual, its never been anything that as an individual, I wanted to see in my life. My father was an alcoholic, died of cirrhosis of the liver. I’ve seen people become totally different people when they’re high (from alcohol or whatever). They fight and argue, hurt people, say things they shouldn’t. Seeing all this growing up made me realize if people want this life they can have it but as an individual “..this is not the life for me”. So now as an adult I don’t allow any of it in my home ever not even when I entertain. I don’t hang with people or go places where its done in excess. It doesn’t excite me and Its just not my life. That doesn’t mean however that I think other people shouldn’t have it in their lives. Whatever people do in their homes, in their circles of friends is alright with me AS LONG AS it doesn’t interfere with my life . Thats what libertarianism is all about.

Unfortunately most people don’t think that way. Their thinking is ” I don’t want it in my life, its bad,(and here’s where they cross the line)”and nobody else should be able to have it in there’s”. How arrogant is that? Whats worst is ..then they’ll go out, form groups and get people to pass laws to make sure it doesn’t happen, ultimately taking away somebody else’s individual freedoms. Somebody who is not doing anything to hurt THEM at all. They might be hurting themselves, but they are NOT hurting us or forming groups to take away OUR freedoms. Yet people are working to take the freedoms THEY enjoy, away .Then when laws are passed against what they do, it classify’s what they do as “criminal activity” and ultimately for that activity (which hurts no one else) gets them locked away. Yet they never did anything in that crime that hurt another. The laws calls them “non-violent” offenders and they already make up 60% of the United States prison population which cost our country billions and the goal is pass laws to get more of these NON-VIOLENT offenders put away. Wow!! Unbelievable! They are not killers, they are not brawlers, they are not rapist, they are not robbing stores or banks. They have done none of those things but they are locked away with people who have done those things. 25% are in simply because they purchased a drug for themselves that they wanted with their own money …and somebody who didn’t like it passed a law and made that illegal and now theres a war thats costing our country billions to get as many of these NON-VIOLENT PEOPLE LOCKED UP. Whats more, the states that have the most of them locked up are all crying “BROKE” . Thats because they are spending billions of dollars for things like this that we don;t even need.

A lot of people ask today what would Jesus do? What would he say to people like these folks with these drugs who know they are blatantly breaking the law. Would he want the law enforced. Well, the woman caught in adultery, didn’t just sin she committed a crime and blatantly broke the law of the land (John 1-11). The law said she was to be stoned, just like the law says these folks should be locked up,. Well Jesus, rather than make her pay the price simply said to her, just don’t do it. I think we should do the same. Instead of just working to see that people pay these sever penalty’s who crimes that are actually harming no one, I think we’d come out more on top just telling them not to do it and why. No, it’s not going to necessarily stop them from doing it. If what they’re doing is not hurting you, why do you really care how often they do it anyway. If its because you love them then do like Jesus did and just tell them. Why be bent on making them pay a price, especially if they have hurt no one.

Don’t I see how buying and selling these drugs are bad for people? I definitely see it. But I also think drinking any kind alcohol is bad for folks but I’m not going to get out and start a war against alcohol and so that everybody that likes to drink gets locked up and INCREASE the prison population. If we did that, that would mean we’d be gunning for almost every guy we meet to get locked up because 9 out of 10 guys that we meet has a beer every now and then. I don’t think drinking is a good thing, but I don’t think there should be laws against adults who do it either, especially if they drink responsibly. Why would I feel any different about people who buy or sell drugs. Its only a disgraced community because we made laws against people who do it. If we’d stop passing laws against it we’d look at people who smoked weed the same way we look at people who drink wine because taking away the laws would take away the disgrace. Thats exactly what happened in the 1920’s in Prohibition when alcohol was legalized. It took it out of the black market, made it legal and legalizing it took away the shame. Now most don’t look at people who drink beer or wine as evil because now what was once illegal is now legal. When alcohol was legalized all the killings associated with it decreased as well. The same thing will happen if we can get this war on drugs to stop the way we did Prohibition

Half the prison population could come out and start helping raising their family’s. People could start now operating legitimate “drug” businesses and employ people legitimately with out shame. It’d save our country billions of dollars and once its made legitimate it’d be taxed like everything thats sold and purchased too. According to studies of the Cato Institute the State and local savings: would be $25.7 billion. Federal savings: $15.6 billion. Savings from legalizing marijuana: $8.7 billion.Savings from legalizing other drugs of addiction: $32.6 billion. As far as tax revenue the projected revenue from taxing marijuana would be $8.7 billion.Projected revenue from taxing other drugs of addiction: $38 billion. Yet making laws and locking up non-violent people is somehow more attractive than having this additional income. I wonder why all of this is?

Prior to coming into the knowledge of the Libertarian party this year I never realized how much money our government waste’s on so many things we really don’t need. Everybody cries “deficit” and “broke”. One of the reason we’re there is because of this unnecessary war we have going on right here in our own country against our own people on drugs and minorities are the the main people who are getting hurt in this war. It needs to end and the only political group that seems to have it at the top of their agenda are Libertarians

Just an opinion of a new Libertarian

Non Intervention Does Not Mean You Shouldn’t Engage in War: ONE Libertarians Perspective on Foreign Policy

A few months back now I, learned that the first element of libertarian foreign policy was “neutrality” or as some call it “non-intervention” and when I heard that, I was 100% with it. I think it originated in libertarian philosophy from its idea that no individual, NO GOVERNMENT, anywhere has a “moral” RIGHT to INTERVENE in my private, personal, “INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS” , as long as my freedoms are not interfering with another’s freedoms. Thats what the libertarian concept of non-intervention is all about. I was with that concept UNTIL I LEARNED that in regards to war and military action, many libertarians were interpreting non-intervention to mean that our country (or our country’s government) should never engage itself in a war, with OR “on behalf of” another country for ANY reason. My immediate thoughts were, I could never stand with anyone who believed in something as strict as that. To me its impractical and a contradiction to the universal laws of non-intervention (which I’ll explain). It also totally ignores the fact that war is sometimes a very necessary evil and I’m sure many libertarians don’t agree and thats quite alright.

Almost ever libertarian I had seen blogging and preaching libertarian philosophy online up to the time I heard this, all seemed to be anti-war (against engaging in war) and total pacifists, carrying this same belief. It also seemed like any libertarian who supported war at all (like Gary Johnson) was somehow considered not “really libertarian” by other libertarians. Being so new and seeing that my own personal beliefs on this issue were turning out to be so very different than the people who prreach this philosophy , I thought it best that I stop publicly documenting my walk here and what I was learning and how I’d apply the principles, until I got a better handle of where I’ stood on what seems to be such a mainstay regarding foreign policy.[Other than two post back in March I haven’t documented anything here in over 5 months -thats how strongly I felt about no longer identifying as libertarian]. After months of pondering and study and knowing how frimly I believe in all the other libertarian principle’s , I am now back, and ready to start posting weekly again about my personal journey and ideas as a new libertarian and an avid believer of the concept of non-intervention. I just now have a very different perspective of it than most and its taken me all of these last 5 months to develop where I stand on the issue.

I see it this way: Non-intervention, in my personal opinion (for whatever its worth) is a universal law of nature meaning … lets see … when I say universal law I mean … a concept which which must be upheld, and whether its understood or not, honored or dishonored, it almost always initiates some consequence in a persons life, be it a negative or positive. Whenever or wherever the law of non-intervention is dishonored or violated the intervenor violating it almost always gives an account or will find themselves with continued unsolicited intervention. It’ not a written law. It is a universal law of nature though, just like “cause and effect” and “sowing and reaping” and almost always brings about some consequence when violated and applies to every man, woman, boy, girl, old or young. Where the law of non-intervention is not upheld it almost always breeds unsolicited intervention. So to benefit from this law, it must be honored and one truly honoring it will hold intervenor’s accountable, as, where intervenor’s are not held accountable, unsolicited intervention is always invited, whether consciously seen or not. Its a universal law in nature.

The biggest believer in this concept of non-intervention is God himself according to scripture. You see it very early in th Genesis where he did not intervene in bad choices to be made by Adam and Eve. He did not intervene in Cains “plan” to murder Abel , BUT when Cain actually intervened in Abel’s life and ended it, God intervened in Cains life and held him accountable. God is a big believer in the laws a non-intervention . He would not have ever intervened in Cains life had Cain not violated the laws of intervention and INTERVENED in the life of Abel … and for that … Cain had to give an account. You see God upholding the laws non-intervention all throughout scripture. He ONLY intervened where the law of intervention had been violated and in Ephesians 5 :1… it says we are to “be imitators of God “. I believe that means we are to honor the laws of non-intervention in the same ways that God does himself and our honoring this law will ALWAYS work to protect our individual freedoms AS LONG AS as intervenor’s are held accountable. Its the “holding intervenor’s accountable” in honor of non-intervention, that so many folks can’t get with. However, how can value be given to a policy of non-intervention if intervener’s are never held accountable and allowed to continually intervene.[This is the only kind of non-interventions policy that I myself will personally ever support …one which will esteem the value of non-intervention and see that intervenor’s are held accountable for intervening ]

I am not an expert in any way or fashion AT ALL regarding any of the wars we are in, are contemplating or have been involved in but as a laymen, new libertarian and now strong believer in the concept of non-intervention, I have formed some surface opinions about some of them.

War in Afghanistan: Regardless of the many different opinions there are regarding who or what triggered that war, on September 11, 2001 there , we were not warring nor had anytime “recently” been at war with Al Qeada terrorist when they came in and broke the law of non-intervention killing hundreds and hundreds of individuals here in our country. As result of their disrespecting the law of non-intervention and being able to hide out in Afghanistan it was inevitable that they had to give an account for that and had they not been allowed to hide out there, the war wouldn’t have been there. So in order to wipe out them out … that war there WAS very necessary. The Talliban or no one else there surrendered them them accountable. We did. The question is … since they have now so long ago been wiped out, and we’ve killed its leaders, why are our troops still fighting there … years later?

War in Iraq: SAME.We were not warring with them at the time this last war began and yes it was communicated that there were “weapons of mass destruction” there which brought along paranoia. Truth is though …. even if we had found their “weapons of mass destruction” we were not warring with them and they had not been interfering with us AT THE TIME, so there was no need for our country to violate the law of non-intervention and make anyone there give an account. So then since we’ve also now killed their leader too who we thought was the threat at the time, and have realized that we were wrong about the WMD , WHY did we stay on?

Comtemplated War in Africa: Joseph Koney Head of the Lord Resistance Army over in Africa has, and is infringing on the individual freedoms of thousands of defenseless women and children there continually raping and killing them for years now and no one over there or anywhere is making him or his army of thousands give an account for their actions. Many say its not our affair but I say it should be an affair for all who honor Non-Intervention as if that army is not made to give an account, it will become empowered and found continually in unsolicited intervention situations that I believe, if continually is gone unchecked, will spread throughout all Africa and other parts of the world. This army is boldly violating what I believe is the universal law of non-intervention and it should be brought down.

Libertarianism to me is all about protecting the freedoms of all individuals and those who value that freedom will stand against those who violate the laws of non-intervention and will work to make them to give an account. No, we are not the worlds police but as libertarians we all should be fighters for individual freedom.

Well …this is a first for me … I have the rest of my life to see if this is a theory I can stand by.

The thoughts of a NEW libertarian on non-intervention.