Why I'm a Classical Liberal

Classical liberalism (what used to be called liberalism) is what made America Unique. It's pretty much what every democrat president was from Thomas Jefferson down to Grover Cleveland.  Then progressivism happened, and the democratic party turned progressive.  When the term progressive became unpopular, they stole the term liberal to make their game look good.

So now we have to call what we are classical liberal, a.k.a. libertarian conservatism.  It's limited government, strict constitutionalism, and following the rule of law.

Here's why I am a classical liberal.

1. You can't spy on me
2. We can't have these never ending wars
3. You can't just throw me in jail without a trial
4. You cant kill me without a trial
5. You can't make laws that fine me for not doing something, such as not wearing my seat belt, or not eating the foods you think I should be eating, or not living a healthy enough lifestyle.  
6. You can't make me buy health insurance, or car insurance, or any insurance
7. You can't force me to participate in a social security program
8. You can't tell me I can't smoke cigarettes or sell marijuana or take hormone pills or experimental medicine 
9. You can't tell my kids they can't pray in school
10. You can't take away our public nativity scenes if that's what we choose to display at our courthouses or schools.

Grover Cleveland: the last classical liberal

Grover Cleveland (1837-1908)
President (1885-1889 & 1893-1897)

Grover Cleveland was the last classical liberal, which means that he believed in securing liberties by limiting the size and scope of government.* He was the last president to truly respect the Constitution by not pushing forth legislation for political gain.

Stephen Grover Cleveland was born in Caldwell, New Jersey, 1837, to Reverend Richard Cleveland and his wife.  He and his four brothers grew up in a well-disciplined household, although there was always time to play at the end of each day.  His disciplined and Christian upbringing would later play an integral role during his political career.

Called "Big Steve" when he was little, he would take a job at a law firm in Buffalo, New York, that he would use as a launching platform for a brilliant career.  He spent many hours reading books and studying law.  He also worked hard at the age of 19 to help Democrat James Buchanan become president.  Little did he know at the time that the next democrat president to be elected would be 28 years later, and it would be him.

He entered politics in an era where many politicians tried to use natural disasters and charities for political gain, and where politicians used their positions to advance their own careers and the careers of their friends.  In 1870 he was asked to run for Sheriff in Erie County, and on January 1, 1871, he became Sheriff at the young age of 33.  He used his free time in this position to study law, but he also took his position very seriously.

His secretary would put papers on his desk and he was expected to sign them.  Instead of just signing them as his predecessors would, he read them all over carefully.As noted by Betsy Ochester, "Grover Cleveland: Encyclopedia of Presidents:"

He began examining th record of past sheriffs.  He learned that the companies that supplied food, firewood, and other supplies to the jail were connected to political leaders and that they were cheating on their deliveries.  They billed the county for a large quantity, but delivered only a fraction of that amount.  Cleveland began counting each load of wood and each bag of coats in a delivery to make sure he received as much as he paid for.  If he got shortchanged, he complained publicly, whether the supplier was a Republican or Democrat.  

After a year on this job, the hard working and honest lawyer and politician returned to practice law until he was asked to run for Mayor of Buffalo, New York.  He was nominated on January 1, 1882, at the still young age of 44.  He immediately set out to clean up the city of Buffalo.  Many bills crossed his desk, and when he thought a bill was unfair to the populace, or if he thought it infringed on their natural rights, he vetoed it, thus earning him the nickname "veto mayor."

According to Robert Higgs of the Independent, Cleveland was "A lawyer who lacked a philosophical temperament or education.. (and) derived his devotion to the limited government from his reverence for the U.S. Constitution. An honest man—an extraordinarily honest man for a politician—he took seriously his oath to 'preserve, protect, and defend' that document."

While many people today believe that something must be done to solve problems, Cleveland believed the opposite was true.  And his efforts as an honest, hard-working, natural rights protecting, the mayor made him the ideal candidate to run against the republican candidate for governor of New York in 1882.  He won a landslide election and was nominated on New Year's Day 1883.

As with the city of Buffalo, there was a lot of corruption in the New York City government, and it was hoped that an honest and hard working politician would clean up the mess.  That is exactly what Grover Cleveland did.  He immediately detailed a plan for reform, cutting useless government positions, and cutting unfair taxes.

One story has it, as told by Rochester, that Cleveland opened his office to all...

...People streamed through the door steadily.  Faithful Democrats came expecting government jobs, but Cleveland was determined to fill jobs on the basis of merit, not to reward past service to the party.  If a person suggested he wanted a political reward for a contribution to the campaign, Cleveland would narrow his eyes to slits and say in an icy voice, "I don't know that I understand you."

As when he was mayor of Buffalo, whenever a bill came to him that he believed infringed on personal liberties, he vetoed it, earning him the name "veto governor."

His success as governor earned him national attention, and he was asked to run against republican presidential candidate James G. Blaine in 1884.  Cleveland was thought to be the ideal candidate to run against Blaine because Blaine was suspected of being involved in corrupt dealings during his long career.

In the end, Cleveland won in one of the closest elections in history, gaining only 200,000 more votes than Blaine, although he won the electoral college by a score of 219-182.  He was inaugurated president in March 1885, becoming the first democrat president to be nominated since James Buchanan 28 years earlier.

Higgs said that Cleveland believed "governmental expenditure should be kept at a minimum, and only to carry out essential constitutional functions,  He cut tariffs that had been raised by republicans, and he scaled back 'phony pensions' that had been created for political gains.  He said, 'When a man in office lays out a dollar in extravagance, he acts immorally by the people.'"

During the late 1870s, minors in western states were digging up excess amounts of silver.  Certain members of Congress wanted to allow the U.S. Treasury to purchase some of this surplus.  At the time money was backed only by gold, but the idea was that if they could also back it with silver the supply of money would increase, thus making it easier for individuals and businesses to borrow money.

In 1878 the Bland-Allison Act, which required the U.S. Treasury to buy between $2 million and $4 million of silver each month, passed Congress and was signed by then president Rutherford B. Hayes. Rutherford opposed this action tooth and nail, although, once president, he didn't think it was his role to become involved in such matters, so he stayed out of the debate.

What he did get involved in was trying to fix problems with the pension program for veterans who fought in the Civil War.  Many congressmen were presenting thousands of private bills to Congress asking that the pension is granted, and most were signed based on emotion for political gain without ever having been read.

Cleveland believed this was wrong.  In fact, rather than just sign, he made sure to read each pension closely, refusing to sign any that he thought were dishonest.  In fact, one pension was for a person who broke an ankle prior to the Civil War, and so he vetoed it without question.

He once again became famous for vetoing many bills that he believed violated constitutional restraint, therefore earning him the nickname 'veto president.'  He would end up vetoing 584 bills, and only seven were overridden by Congress.

What he did do, however, was become the first president to acknowledge his respect for the labor force, noting that Congress should have respect for "the welfare of the laboring man."  He would later sign a bill into law making trade unions legal.

His respect for the labor force was made clear in his opposition to high tariffs, or a tax on imported goods. Republicans believed high tariffs were essential to protecting American businesses from foreign competition. They argued that high tariffs were "protective," meaning that they raised the prices of foreign goods to encourage the purchase of American goods.

Democrats such as Cleveland, on the other hand, believed high tariffs only encouraged foreign nations to raise their tariffs, and they also increased the cost of goods for Americans, making it so they couldn't afford to purchase essential items, such as sugar.  So they preferred tariffs to be lower in order to reduce the cost of goods in order to benefit consumers.

This issue was not resolved prior to the election of 1888, and this failure was partly to blame for his loss to Benjamin Harrison in 1888. While he won the popular vote by 100,000, he lost the electoral vote by a score of 233-168.

During the next four years Cleveland enjoyed life in the private sector, but he continued to pay attention to what was going on in Washington.  He was paying attention when Harrison signed the McKinley Tariff Act of 1890, which raised tariffs.  And he was also paying attention when the president signed the Sherman Silver Purchase Act that same year, which required the Treasury to purchase $4.5 million in silver each month.

Also concerning Cleveland was that Congress was trying to pass a bill authorizing unlimited coinage of silver.  Cleveland was advised not to complain publicly about this for fear that it might negatively influence is future political ambitions.  But Cleveland was a man of principle, and instead of staying silent, he dismissed the warnings saying, "I am supposed to be a leader of my party.  If any word of mine can check these dangerous fallacies, it is my duty to give that word, whatever the cost may be to me."

He would send an article that was published in newspapers across the land and became known as the "Silver Letter."  In it, he predicted disaster if "we enter upon the dangerous and reckless experiment of free, unlimited, and independent silver coinage."  Cleveland was happy to hear that the bill failed.

So in 1892 Cleveland was primed for another run against Harrison, thus making the presidential election of 1892 the only time in history between two candidates who had both served as president.

Cleveland would once again win the popular vote, this time by a margin of 500,000.  He won the electorate by 277-145, thus making him the only president to be elected to two non-consecutive terms, and also making him the only president counted twice when the presidents are listed in order.  The victory also allowed democrats to regain control of both chambers of Congress.

Almost as soon as he was nominated for a second term, the Panic of 1893 occurred, leading to the depression of 1893-95.  Despite pressure on Cleveland to take federal action to fix the economy, President of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, at a Senate Committee in 1893, said:

I believe in general that the government is best which governs least, and that interference with trade or manufactures is very undesirable. Yet I recognize the fact that evils may and do exist which require correction by the force of law.

Almost everyone believed the cause of the panic, and ensuing depression was the Sherman Silver Purchase Act.  While it initially created an economic boom, it resulted in an economic downturn and the Panic of 1893.  Also blamed for the economic recession was the McKinley Tariff Act.  Since Cleveland was opposed to both of these from the beginning, he had no problem repealing them.

Despite public pressure to sign legislature that would help the unemployed and reboot the economy, he took no further executive action.  Regarding this inaction, historian Joy Hakim, in her series "A History of Us," said:

President Cleveland didn’t believe it was his job to do anything about the unemployed. Most leaders agreed with him. Employment and working conditions were thought to be the responsibility of business.

In 1894, Ohio Businessman Jacob Coxey arranged an "Industrial Army" that marched into Washington to protest Cleveland's inaction.  He championed for laws protecting the labor force and even recommended a program that would create government jobs for the unemployed.

During the Civil War, Lincoln signed a bill imposing an income tax on individuals to help pay for the war. In 1872, Ulysses S. Grant allowed this tax to expire. By 1894, that national debt had grown so high that Cleveland worked with Congressman William Wilson on a Revenue Act that would reduce tariffs by 15%. The bill made it through Congress.

However, he had trouble getting this bill through the Senate, where democrats held only a slight majority. Arthur Pue Gorman, a Democrat Senator from Maryland, would end up working with James Jones, a Democrat Senator from Arkansas, and introduced a version of the Bill that became known as the Wilson-Gorman Act.

This bill would end up having over 600 amendments. It made it so that only wool and copper were on the free list, meaning there was a tariff on all other imports. It did, however, reduce the McCinley Tariff to 42%, although this was only a 6% reduction. The bill also called for a flat income tax rate of 2% on income greater than $4,000.

Cleveland was an ardent champion of lower tariffs. In fact, this was his campaign pledge, and one of the reasons he was elected by the people to a second term. He was disgusted by changes made in the Senate and read a letter to Congress hoping to get them to reconsider. He said that such opposition was "party perfidy and party dishonor."

Still, Gorman stubbornly resisted making any further changes. Cleveland refused to sign the bill. However, he did not veto it either, because he considered it better than the McKinley Tariff Act that it replaced.

This was considered a triumph for Gorman. It was considered a huge defeat for Cleveland.

However, the bill would ultimately be challenged in a case that was called the Pollock -vs- Farmer's Loan And Trust Company. It made it all the way to the Supreme Court and was ruled unconstitutional in 1895 (which is good, because it was.). At this time, the Federal government did not have the Constitutional right to impose taxes to increase revenue. The only way it could raise revenues was through tariffs.

Even while he was a pro-consumer president, Cleveland believed it was the role of government to help the unemployed and not the government.  And he was not alone, as this was the common perception at the time.  It was mainly for this reason that most of Jacob Coxey's ideas were essentially ignored until FDR was elected president in 1933.

It was also for this reason that the Cleveland depression lingered on, and by 1896 public opinion of Cleveland had soured.  This caused a public riff within the democratic party,  leading to a rejection of Cleveland and the nomination of William Jennings Bryan (at age 36, he was the youngest presidential nominee in history), a leading voice in the populist movement.

While Cleveland left office an unpopular president, history vindicated him somewhat as his popularity rose after his death in 1908, but the overwhelming consensus by most historians is that he was not one of the best presidents.

Yet considering the evidence presented here, historians are not always right. Grover Cleveland was a "veto president" who championed for protecting personal liberties (natural rights) by ardently respecting the Constitution.  For this, we ought to respect Grover Cleveland as one of the great presidents of all time.

Oh, and I must add one more thing. Grover Cleveland's lai zzz-fair approach to government worked. Shortly after William McKinley's inauguration, the economy started to come around again. Yet it was too late to save the classical liberal approach.  No longer did presidents sacrifice their political ambitions for the good of the nation and the protection of personal liberties.

*The term classical liberal is a modern term to describe the movement that championed for securing liberties by limiting the power and scope of government from colonial times until the 1930s.  By the 1930s the term "liberal" remained popular, although the movement (or faction) had ceased to gain hold of any political party, moving aside in favor of the populist and progressive movements.  After the progressive movement started to lose popularity in the 1940s, leaders of the movement adapted the more popular term liberal.  Since the term "liberal" had been absconded, modern "liberal" or "classical liberal" factions were forced to use terms like "conservative" "Tea Party" and "libertarian."So while liberal traditionally means defending freedom through limited government, it now means pretty much the opposite.  

Two things that shaped my life

Two things happened to me in the past six months that have made me a happier person, at peace with the world around me.

1. A priest telling me to read the prayer of Saint Francis
2. My decision to become a libertarian

The prayer of Saint Francis has given me a purpose in life.  As I read it every morning, it makes me aware that in order to walk in the steps of Jesus I have to put myself aside and think of the other people I will influence my the actions I take during the course of the day.  For instance, even as I write this I am making a difference.

For instance, many times I have wondered why I even bother going to work because doctors frequently order me to do that of which I think is pointless. However, Saint Francis makes me realize that my actions are making a difference in the lives I touch.  

Saint Francis made me aware of the fact that, in order to walk in the steps of Jesus, my job is not to be understood, but to understand; my job is not to be loved, it is to love; my job is not to doubt, but to have faith.  

My decision to become a libertarianism has allowed me to clean my slate of opinion and look at the world around me in an open, subjective, nonjudgmental state.  

This has helped me to reshape many of my opinions.  For instance, I was once adamantly opposed to gay marriage on the grounds that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin.  But upon review I have decided this is a complete misinterpretation of the Bible.  

Moses wanted his people to be clean and pure in order to prevent the spread of disease.  He was aware that abstinent and monogamous persons were less likely to spread disease, and so he preached these actions.  It was a purely preventative measure, not an excuse to abhor your fellow men who live different than you.  

In order to protect that natural rights of men, or the freedoms and liberties we are born with, no majority should be allowed to make laws to take away these natural rights from the minority.  

This means that government, be it the legislature or the Supreme Court, should neither make a law, nor defend a law, that forces abortion on the people, nor takes away the right.  The decision should be left to the people, or the states to decide, as it was prior to 1972.  

Libertarianism makes it so easy to form an opinion.  Basically, what you do is let the people decide, while the government steps aside.  The people are allowed to make individual choices, and the government lives with the chaos that results.  

However, it is by this chaos that the best ideas are formed.  It is out of this chaos that Thomas Edison was allowed the opportunity to invent the light bulb.  It was out of this chaos that allowed Bill Gates to start a business of of his garage that would advance the world to what it is today.

(Written 6/21/14)

Update:  I have to add a third thing to this list: Republicans winning the mid-term election.  This has made politics worth reading about again, giving me hope the progressive onslaught on our Constitution may finally be slowed and hopefully stopped.  

Marijuana: Government should educate, not ban

As a libertarian I am not an advocate of laws that tell people what they can and cannot do, as this is the job of parents and teachers.  However, I am a champion for education and personal responsibility and accountability.

I do not believe the majority in power should be able to make laws taking away the rights of the minority.  That does not mean that the majority shouldn't try to educate the minority.  I believe this type of system would be best for everyone.

Consider the relationship between a dad and a son.  The dad tells the kid that he has to go to the University of Michigan to become a doctor, and the kid gets annoyed and decides not to go to college at all.

Consider the dad who tells his son that, under no circumstances, are you to drink alcohol.  The son goes off to college, gives into the pressure, or is under a lot of pressure, and drinks a six pack of Miller Lite.  He finds that such behavior takes the edge off the stress of life, and goes on to enjoy a beer or two every day.  

While these are facetious examples, they show that no person in power should in any way try to force his views on others.  However, that does not mean that a parent, or a government, should not try to educate.  In fact, a wise parent or government would do just that.

Consider how much better off society would be today if, instead of the Supreme Court deciding the way it did in the Rowe-V-Wade case, had it simply said that it is not up to the government to decide, it's up to the people.  

If you think of it, telling those who do not support abortion that they have to accept it only created more animosity.  It actually strengthened the pro-life cause, and made the pro-choice cause more arrogant and condescending. It actually helped to create the current partisan divide most people say they hate. 

While I believe that smoking marijuana is a poor behavior that increases the risk for worse behavior later on in life, it's not my place to tell people they cannot smoke it.  However, I certainly can educate people about the facts.  In the process, I might learn something myself.  

For instance, South Dakota State University reports that smoking one marijuana cigarette is equivalent to smoking 16 tobacco cigarettes in terms of damage it causes to the body.  It can cause memory loss, impair judgement, and affect a person's performance at school, work, and in the car.  

Other side effects are noted by the National Alliance on Mental Illness:

• Increased risk of chronic lung disease
• Increased risk for lung cancer
• Increased risk of problems with menstruation in women
• Increased risk of development of breasts in males
• Increased risk of dental problems
• Increased risk of cardiovascular concerns in older patients
• Increased anxiety and depression in people with those disorders

Forbes.com reports that even light marijuana smoking may be linked to neurological changes, and this is especially significant in young people whose brains are still developing and less so in older smokers.  

Realistically, however, while there are side effects, many claim marijuana is a relatively harmless drug.  Perhaps so, but those who use it should still be aware of the facts, just as those who smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol should be aware of the facts. 

You see, I've been the victim of an attack on cigarette smoking and alcohol drinking my entire life.  Since the time I was in the second grade people people have been telling me I should not smoke or drink for this reason or that reason. 

Noting these risks, I choose not to smoke.  But, likewise noting the risks, I enjoy alcoholic beverages when I choose to drink them.  Yet I believe the rewards from drinking responsibly are well worth the risk of side effects.  I drink alcohol knowing the advantages and disadvantages.

So it would be hypocritical for me to tell my kids they cannot drink.  In fact, I would be somewhat disappointed if, some day in the future, I could not have a drink with my children.  

At the same time, however, while a puff of tobacco might calm my agitated nerves, the potential risks far outweigh this benefit. 

You have a right to smoke, but your right stops where my right to breathe fresh air starts.  So there needs to be some laws to protect my right to breathe fresh air (especially the rights of innocent children and infants to breathe fresh air). 

I feel the same way about marijuana: it should be legal, people should be educated of the risks, and it should not be encouraged.

Meaning that people who live in the State of Washington should not be on Facebook flaunting about their purchase of marijuana and how they smoked it and made pot cookies.  All this type of behavior does is decondition people to the dangers associated with a nation of pot heads, including a malaise behavior that results in people who lack concern and motivation toward reality (hey, man!).

As noted before, no majority should have a right to vote away the rights of the minority.  That does not mean we, as parents and responsible adults, should not educate and encourage good behavior, because we should.  

Why am I could be a libertarian?

Most people don't realize this, but most presidents prior to Teddy Roosevelt were

Why did I make the decision to become a libertarian?  Because I believe that people have a general inclination to be smart, to make wise decisions, and most people don't want to be told what to do.

I don't want to be told what to do or how to do things.  Generally, when people try to control me a feeling of resentment and anger brushes over me.  I see this often in children when we adults try to force our methods and views upon them.  

I think that, as a nation, there is a general resentment of government when the people in powerful positions think they know what's best for the people and decide for them on critical issues.

Roe versus Wade is a perfect example.  Here the Supreme Court somehow found a way to rewrite the Constitution and forced abortion on everyone.  The result was resentment and anger by the people who believe abortion is murder, and that by doing it we are taking away the natural rights of the baby; or the right to breathe and to live.

If the opposite would have occurred, if the Supreme Court have decided that abortion was illegal and banned it in the United States, there would have been, and still would be, an outcry from those who believe abortion is the choice of the mother. 

I think that there should be an amendment to the Constitution that simply says:

No law shall be made by the majority that takes away the natural rights or liberties of the minority, unless the actions of the minority impede on the natural rights of others. 

That pretty much sums up my political views.  If this were law, no person in Washington could decide what foods you can and can't eat, and no one would force you to buy healthcare.  No one would tell you you have to pay for contraceptives.

No small group in Washington would be able to pressure the Atlanta Braves, or the Washington Redskins, into getting rid of their logo because they think its offensive.  All this results in is resentment.

Libertarians assume people are smart.  We allow people to make decisions on their own and take responsibility for their own actions.  Surely there will be risk and chaos, but there may also be great rewards.

A libertarian, therefore, would allow the people to decide for themselves, rather than have experts in Washington decide.

When every decision made has the same results, as would be the case when every person does things the same way, the results will all be the same.  In this way, greatness will never be achieved.  Greatness can only be achieved when individuals are provided the high risk, high reward options of personal choice.

The reason is quite simple: I believe that people are smart, and left to their own devices, can make better decisions, with better results, than the collective would make.

Also see why I'm a libertarian conservative. 

Liberty is freedom; progressive is sacrificing liberty

I think that a sense of liberty has been lost in the United States.  As our nation was formed based on the idea that a government was absconding personal liberties, America was founded on the idea of liberty.

So, what is liberty? Liberty is the natural right to exercise human rights in any manner a person chooses so long as it does not interfere with the exercise of the rights of others.  This means keeping the government out of our lives, as so to protect our personal liberties, i.e. natural rights.

History has proven that this is the only successful method of unleashing human energy and creativeness that build prosperous nations and protect people from systemic violations of human rights.

This was the definition of liberty accepted by Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, John Adams, James Monroe, James Madison, Ben Franklin, John Hancock, Alexander Hamilton, Charles Carroll, James Wilson, John Witherspoon, Benjamin Rush, Francis Hopkinson, George Washington, William Penn, along with a vast number of others.

The founding fathers, therefore, believed in the liberal philosophical system, republicanism, and capitalism.

Liberty, therefore, requires, if not demands, a responsible, limited government. The founders made this possible by creating a system of checks and balances, and through the creation of the founding documents that limit the scope of government, telling what it cannot do, not what it can do.  The idea here was to protect personal liberties, and make it so no government shall trample on natural rights, or the rights we are all born with.

In the early 1930s the term liberal was absconded by the progressive movement to shed a positive light on their movement.  This change was necessary to shed a positive light on their otherwise unpopular agenda.

The liberal movement continues to this day, although the progressives teach that it is controversial as opposed to common.  Yet, as we all know, it is progressivism that is controversial, not liberalism.

To believe in liberty is not to believe in any social or economic outcome, which is what progressivism does.  It requires acceptance of the disorder that results from the personal decisions that are made when the government does not intervene.

Progressives (a.k.a socialists, liberals, Marxists) believe in a dream.  They believe in a Utopia; a world where everyone has equal outcomes, which mainly refers to an equal share of the wealth.

In a progressive world, if your neighbor makes more than you, he must give you the difference no matter how hard you work. This is called redistribution of wealth.  In essence, progressives believe laws must be made to make this perfect world possible. They believe you must sacrifice some of your liberties for the good of the collective.

It is for this reason that Congress has succeeded at making laws "for your own good" requiring you to put money aside for retirement, healthcare, welfare, and charitable donations to causes that most people would not donate to.  This is what progressivism does. They do not care about your personal liberties, so long as you are sacrificing it for the general good.

However, in order to move the liberty movement forward, the name liberal could no longer be used.  Modern terms for this movement are conservative, libertarian, and tea party.

Liberty is not being watched everywhere you go. Liberty is being able to choose to drink soft drinks instead of milk, and being able to choose the size you sell or purchase.  Liberty is being able to decide for yourself what insurance policy you want to buy.  Liberty is being able to send your kids to the school of your choice. Liberty is being able to pray in school if you so choose, and being able to dress as you want, and voice your opinion without being stymied by a Fairness Doctrine.

Liberty is equal opportunity to succeed, yet not equal outcomes.  Liberty is the rich being able to keep what they earn. Liberty is being able to donate to the charities of your choice, not the charities of Uncle Sam's choice.  Liberty is the opportunity to rise into a better state of living, not creating for someone a better state of living at the expense of others.

Liberty can only be taken away by the government, and that is exactly what the progressive ideal is.  Liberty is what all people yearn for, and what millions of people have died for.  Liberty is also very fragile, as the success of the progressive movement has so openly shown.  Liberty is not runaway spending and personal debt.

When liberty is under attack, everything we hold dear to us is at risk. Governments, by their very nature, notoriously compete with liberty, even when the stated purpose for establishing a particular government is to protect liberty. Governments trample on liberty, and therefore progress, creativity, and prosperity.

In the past 100 years, progressives have been slowly, by the process of assimilation and a great public relations campaign, succeeding at taking away our personal liberties.  They have done this by making laws that tell them what they have do do, and by increasing the scope of government.

Thus, in order to protect liberty, we must limit the power and scope of government.  The simplest and most effective method of doing this is to teach our children the true meaning of liberty, and that it is a natural right that can only be extracted by government.

Our children must be constantly reminded of the thousand year struggle to learn and understand liberty, as for 99% of our history only the top 1% enjoyed the benefits of knowledge at the expense of the other 99%.  This is what makes America so exceptional, as it reverses this trend.

Our children must be taught not to be deceived into believing that government can make them safe from harm, provide fairly distributed economic security, and improve individual moral behavior.

History has shown over and over again that when governments are given a monopoly on the use of force to achieve these goals, that this power is always abused.  Perhaps there are no better examples of this than the collapse of democracies in both ancient Greece and Rome.

Perhaps most important, our children need to be taught to love and respect the founding documents which are intended to protect and preserve liberty.

Today, the seeds of progressivism that were planted in the early 19th century have grown to a full and flourishing tree, and an all out assault on our personal liberties.  We are, therefore, in need of a new revolution, only this time not to create a free nation, but to preserve one.

Is Google violating our personal liberties?

I love Google.  I have a Google Chrome book, use Blogger, use Google Word, I use Google web browser, and use Gmail.  One day, however, I noticed that there were a bunch of libertarian and conservative books advertised on the right side of the computer screen.  I thought, "Is libertarianism gaining in popularity?"

Then I realized, "No, they are marketing to me.  They know I love liberty."

So they know, from what I search for, or what sites I go to, what I'm interested in. If I'm Googling shoes, I might get an ad for shoes "even while I'm in the store."

I suppose this could be good in a way, but it is a violation of my liberties.  It is a violation of my right to privacy.  Because I know that in order for those ads to appear, Google is selling my information.  They are getting rich by selling my information, and all I get out of it is an ad.

I'm sorry to say this, but I think this is a scary thing.  If my information is that available to advertisers who want to profit off me, then it's probably also available for governmental officials to spy on me (If I was offered a choice, I wouldn't be so concerned.  If I was offered the option of payment, I might consider).

The only way to get people to stop tracking you is to stop using Google, stop using your iPhone.  But Google makes everything they offer free.  If I want to keep blogging, I have no choice to use Google.

I suppose, in a way, the fact it is free is Google's payment to me.  On the other hand, the fact it is free also traps me into the system.  It's similar to the government offering free schooling so they can use that platform to brainwash our kids.  It's scary.

For all the privacy I have lost while being on the web, I wouldn't give up what I do for anything.