Progression of a Conservative

                                       In this one I'm going to explain my political transformation, from a confused hypocritical republican, to a true minarchist/libertarian. And reasons why I stand to uphold moral standards.

To begin, I didn't follow politics, I didn't understand politics, I didn't care about politics. Whenever anyone spoke of politics I became nervous as I had no clue in the slightest to what they were talking about. (This also explains how I feel when watching anything from MTV) So I stayed away from it, rejecting all forms of news for the first seventeen years of my life, but once I turned eighteen, that changed everything. This meant I could vote, I knew I wanted to, it felt important, so I began learning about politics during Obamas second term run against Romney. (I think the fact my name was on bumper stickers "Romney/Ryan" is why I was a little more excited)

I remember I was with Mittens Romney, I didn't care for the direction Obama had taken the economy, which by the way, Obama did not take on Bush's bad economy, if Obama was doing the right thing we would have seen a turn around... And that he was infringing our rights, by stronger gun laws, increased taxes, more regulations on small businesses, the NSA (and yes, I am aware Bush signed the papers to allow this with the Patriot Act) Also the TSA, the militarization of the police force, are you aware that SWAT wear more protection that people in the military? Back to topic, Mitt stood for a smaller government, and a better budget. Then there was Ron Paul, someone I heard was crazy and a conspiracy theorist, I'll get into that later on.

Based on my list of likes and dislikes, I fell into the republican catagory, I was built up with the debates going on as well, it had me excited and ready to vote. However, it never really fit, I didn't see myself as a "republican", I had an identity crisis, much like Hilary Clintons identity crisis of sticking with a hairstyle... So the search began for a label, what was I? What did I stand for?

After taking a few political tests and doing some research, I was instantly attached and instinctively agreed with the libertarian party, I was a 100% libertarian, but kept it a secret as it felt wrong, I felt if you were outside of the two party system you were wrong, but then realized, that's the problem, the problem isn't that I was a third party, the problem was that this two party system rejected the idea of there being another party. So I now begun the search for libertarian speakers, and is where I found, Ron Paul. And made me question why there was such a hate for him. Then it all made sense, as before, its not that he is crazy, it's that he is breaking the mold of what's known to be "normal". Because he is someone in charge that dislikes government, there's a joke among libertarians that goes, "Whats the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist? About six months". So I now had someone to look to for good libertarian views, I had my party of choice, but what about economics? I still needed to find out where I landed in all areas of politics.

Growing up, all TV ever taught me was that capitalism was evil, evil rich white men control the world. Until I looked it up and saw it meant you keep your earnings...really... Even toddlers running lemonade stands understand the concept that if you make something, you deserve what you get in return for it! So a capitalist I was, which I then found free markets which again, the freedom to sell someone a product they will pay for?  Yeah, I'm definitely pro free market capitalism. From this, I saw hypocrisy, capitalism means keeping the property (money) you've legitimately earned. Where taxation is taking that property without consent... Isn't that stealing? Taking somebodies property by threats of force without their permission? Yep, that's stealing... This brought me to the NAP. The NAP, or non aggression principle is against all forms of force against peaceful, non intruding individuals. So free markets and NAP go hand in hand and stand by the moral code that no one is permitted to use violence to get their way. (Government is a guarantee that some will steal, kidnap & kill).

One massive point libertarians stand for is true equality. Not this give some people or business bailouts, that gives them an unfair advantage over the competition which is not fair. Libertarians say government should not be above the law either, its not right that by declaring a group of people a government, that then grants them the right to take your money without agreement, kidnap you and lock you in a cage if you disobey, take your property if you choose to not give them money that is rightfully yours, even giving them the right to declare war. At what point do those working in government become above the law and are given the right to control you? Government is only a group of people with an opinion that will threaten to harm you if you disagree.

If Obamacare were a Wal-Mart, the "99%" would be up at arms with them, forcing someone to buy their product? Why is it government is allowed to do that? By the way, there is no 99%, its us and government so please quit saying how wonderful the occupy movement was, you wanna know how great it was? they destroyed property, urinated on anything within genitals reach, closed public restrooms by leaving used needles everywhere and beating the life out of anyone that questioned. But forcing someone against their will to participate is morally wrong, this led me to voluntaryism. The idea that all transactions and interactions should be voluntary, this again, went hand in hand with free markets and capitalism, it was also something Ron Paul had spoke of, I was on to something. I then saw how regulations were forced agreements, so a regulation-free free market seems right, don't worry, I hear you..."WHAT ABOUT POLUTION??" This falls into the NAP, as a code of conduct that would be agreed upon in business to not allow harmful smog to hurt people. "WHAT ABOUT 1 DOLLAR AN HOUR COMPANIES?????" With open markets, people can freely and easily find other jobs, it would open a low pay job for homeless to make money to help them live. Or the business would shut down by lack of production. No regulation? Capitalism? I am now economically an anarcho-capitalist. Or an-cap.

Maybe anarchism is the answer? Well, not quite, we do need courts to maintain private property rights and uphold the NAP, we also should have police to maintain peace and offer help to the helpless. And a defensive military to help defend the location we inhabit, so extremely limited government to only protect the individual? That's minarchism, any famous minarchists? Ayn Rand. Sadly shes passed, however this Russian woman spoke of capitalism, free markets, minarchism and warned of statism back in the days of black and white TVs. Ayn had strongly disagreed with anarchism, as with zero order, a government could be created and end up with what we now have. Where minarchism however, has a set idea of government, and would not allow a controlling government to be built. Minarchism it is.

So that is my very long story of how I became what I am. Hopefully not too long, this was still enjoyable to write. To wrap up I'll say this, my views are based on a zero tolerance for hypocritical standpoints, (Such as killing is wrong, however abortion is good) my views also stand by a moral code, at no point does anyone have the right to act immorally. (Such as stealing is wrong, unless its called taxation)

So there is my conversion to a minarchist/anarcho-capitalist. I hope this wasn't too terribly long, I just enjoy writing. If you read this thank you for voluntarily spending your time, if you have anymore time to spend, please google "voluntaryism", its a concept I believe should be taught. Thank you for reading. Stay free.

Forced Views & Shared mistakes

Forced Views & Shared mistakes

 I have seen nothing but failure through the idea of one person running something. One man has one set of views, if he is in charge, he will force his views upon everyone even if they disagree, and when he makes mistakes, we all face the failure he has brought, even if we chose to not participate. No matter how you look at it, the presidency is against some people, and I think we've reached a point in history where exclusion by majority vote is no longer acceptable. Everyone should have a voice, and everyone should have a voice that's heard, not weather the majority agrees or not.

Think of it like this, right now we live under "the greater good" theory, the idea that if it hurts some people that's too bad because the majority is getting their way. We live in a way where the individual falls through the cracks and is forgotten, even if they had a better idea than the rest. Living under the idea of the greater good does nothing but hurt the minority, if drivers lived by the greater good code, in driving, if two cars are waiting at a stop sign to turn right, but there's seven cars waiting to go straight, under this idea, the two cars should never be allowed to go because there are more drivers wanting to go another way, forcing the lesser drivers to find another way to reach their goal. That is the idea of a majority vote presidency.

Voting for one man is no longer a reasonable plan, one man cannot properly run a nation. He may be intelligent when it comes to economics, but lacking when it comes to foreign policy. No on is good at everything, one man cannot do the job properly, its time we find a new method. I suggest the idea of having multiple presidents. All of different political parties to prevent a one party view, each with their own opinions and strengths. We would also have each president to pick from for each situation. This way we have a chance to vote on each problem.

Imagine four or five people in charge. When a problem like Syria arises, each president gives a speech on what they think is the best solution, then the people vote on their favored idea given, then the winner is in charge of handling that issue. And if he screws up, the one with the second most votes takes over, so we are not trapped with the choices of one man, and the people have a voice in each problem, the majority is divided into sections per problem, that way the majority is nearly non existent.

However each state would vote up who they want to run, and we would run an elimination process for everyone, creating more involved and informed voters, but instead of ending with two where we must pick one, dividing the country in half,but in charge by the peoples votes. No more "I have a pen, and I have a phone" garbage, these presidents would create a solution speech for each crisis we must take care of, then they present it to us, and we all vote on who has the best idea, its near fool proof. This way each individual has a voice in each problem, we are no longer trapped under one man for many years, so when something goes south, the next with highest votes would take over and correct it before whatever the problem is worsens.
the top four or five would then be in charge,

That was my two cents on the idea to curb majority rule (for the most part) and destroy the one man rules without the peoples voice concept. Which brings back the true form of government, a government that works for the people.

Thank you for reading, when you have a moment of time, please Google "voluntaryism", because forcing someone to give you money is wrong, being in government does not make it right. Don't forget to right up a draft email for the NSA to read thanking them for protecting us from terrorism...April fools... Stay free.
-Ryan