My name is Tyler. I am a radically moderate, non-dogmatic libertarian espousing radically moderate, non-dogmatic libertarianism.

  1. The New York Times misnomer: Is Obama truly shrinking the army?


    Despite the New York Times article that is going viral, the article is only telling you half the story. The Times article starts out with this misleading introductory paragraph:

    "Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel plans to shrink the United States Army to its smallest force since before the World War II buildup and eliminate an entire class of Air Force attack jets in a new spending proposal that officials describe as the first Pentagon budget to aggressively push the military off the war footing adopted after the terror attacks of 2001.”

    The misnomer arises when defining the United States Army. In World War II, the Pentagon did not have Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) capabilities. UAV’s will continue to be purchased by the military. To get a full understanding, one must go back to the “government shutdown" in 2013 (also a misnomer). With the threat of another possible sequestration, a deal had to be reached between Barack Obama and Congress. This deal was met in December of 2013. Within this deal was cuts to military spending, but not as radical as some might think.

    The budget for the Pentagon is roughly over $500 billion if you include the money for Afghanistan & Iraq (which are considered separate from the Pentagon budget). This bodes well for very many defense contractors (many of which are in the top 5 of federal government contractors). Northrop Grumman build’s the drone called the Global Hawk. The Air Force was set to retire this drone fleet due to operating costs, but was forced to keep them.

    This provides evidence of things to come. After President Obama signed into law the new budget, the Department of Defense released the “Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap”. Here is some revealing information:

    Here we see that budgets don’t seem to be falling for unmanned aerial vehicles. In fact, in the long term, they are growing significantly when looking at the aggregate.

    Unfortunately this only talks about budget. However, drones are becoming very, very economical regardless of the kind that the Air Force was desperately trying to get rid of.

    If we are to define the United States Army purely based on the amount of living human beings, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is being completely honest. If not, he may need to make way for a younger generation that is informed enough to know that drones don’t just spy anymore, they kill.


  2. What Privatization Is & What It’s Considered


    Privatization has both negative & positive connotations depending on the political affiliation. Republicans generally see it as cheaper & better managed while Democrats see it as poorly managed , and depending on what is being “privatized,” Democrats think that these shouldn’t have a vested monetary interest. Both Republicans & Democrats are wrong in their thinking.

    Privatization is a misnomer for what it really is. Take, for example, the Orlando-Sanford International airports opposition to the TSA’s intrusion of privacy. Their only other solution was to let a private organization do it. This doesn’t solve anything. The problems are the laws that force the TSA as well as the private security firm. Does anybody really care if they are being fondled by the TSA but no one else? It isn’t about WHO the person works for. It’s about somebody doing it at all. So we see here that there are cases in which privatizing something doesn’t really matter because the problem is actually Congress & the president. How then is it possible to privatize security? A real privatization of security in airports? You allow the airports to create their own rules on security. This means that they can respond to the consumers requests rather than have to deal with bureaucracies or political pressures. It also means they can pass along the responsibility over to airlines. This is not a strong argument against what is known as “privatization” but it surely does shed light on the problem of that government has the monopoly on force. This monopoly leads me to my next point.

    When government “privatizes” something, they are just handing down their roles to whomever they choose. This is not privatization in the capitalistic sense. It is generally recognize that governments have a monopoly on what they do. Examples would be police, fire, security, etc. When a government “privatizes” something they are simply just granting a private company a monopoly over whatever it is the government has “privatized”. When government subs out their duties to a private company, they are just giving that corporation a legal monopoly. This isn’t always based on merit but usually political influence or favors. So while corporations may have to compete to get the contract, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s going to go to the best corporation nor does it mean it’s truly been privatized where companies have to compete.

    Undoubtedly, handing over a government duty to a private corporation is much cheaper, as seen by privatizing jails. However, this still lacks actual competition. These private companies are exempt of competition once the government has contracted out their duty. 

    Now it’s abundantly clear that the Republican sense of privatizing something is not the capitalist sense. Democrats, on the other hand, are criticizing something that isn’t true privatization. We also see that there are two main problems; laws that force private businesses to do what the general public opposes and “privatizing” something is merely a government granted monopoly. That is not subject to market forces.


  3. The Intellectually Dishonest & the Call to Arms


    I am sitting in my chair with a cigar (not quite, really.. just a big pretzel rod) in my mouth, feeling like a boss, feeling like a board of director member who has been running smear pieces on Ron Paul on my national media channel. Why so smug, you ask? Well, quite frankly, I am feeling like a boss because of the fear struck Democrats and media. I am not going to write anything new or profound but I will share some old rhetoric.

    After I did some nightly reading, I decided to hope on Tumblr for some good times and especially good laughs. Boy, did I find some. Paul, if he hasn’t already been considered an internet sensation already, solidified that position when I saw him being used as an internet meme. Yes, you got it, he was Scumbag Steve (because that, of course, represents him best, right?!) While I laughed, I couldn’t shake the feeling that maybe some of these things were supposed to be taken seriously. After all they were written by half-witted, ignorant, tumblr famous liberals (such as the user; Moron Paul.. which I always like to correct it to: Mo’Ron Paul). I just sat for a minute in disbelief. I feel bad for these people. Not just these self-titled socialists or café revolutionary liberals, but many in the respected field of journalism (this, of course, includes the neoconservatives that are on Fox News). They are only left with two options: they are either intellectually dishonest (but it’s okay to blast the other side for being dishonest! But never themselves, OOOHHH NO) or they are really just that dumb.

    What I am mostly referring to are the attacks on Paul for the things that he’s explained himself over and over and over again. For die hard Paul fans, that’s gotta start getting boring to watch after awhile. You know the answers. You know his responses. And you know most of his rebuttals, if not all, deserve, at least, SOME merit. For instance, the Civil Rights Act stories are overplayed. People are either ignorant to his views (which they will deny) or they are just ignorant (which they will deny). Unfortunately, those are the only two options that are left. Neither of which are really all that appealing. However, because bad news sells, these, either dumb, ignorant people or liars still get to have a voice that reaches people.

    This is good news. One, which again, they won’t admit (ever considered some type of politics anonymous for these delusional people?!), they are scared to high hell that Paul is making strides. If we got them scared, especially the media, we are doing something right. I can bet my life that Rupert Murdoch is beginning to hate the internet for its independent media outlets that are battling his enormous eroding brain child he calls Fox News. But the same goes for CNN, which just the other day had an article on the front page that barely fell short of calling Paul a bigot. What’s even more hilarious is how the GOP is responding. The GOP have become the greatest opportunists of our time. They refuse to help with Ron Paul unless they actually think he’s going somewhere. When he does, I guarantee you, he’ll all of a sudden have many more GOP “friends”. What a bunch of shit. I hope to hell that these jackass, back-stabbing, no-rights respecting, fake conservative, assholes get the hi-hat come next re-election. The GOP base is crumbling because the youth is standing up to them and, lets be honest, they don’t like it one bit. Sorry assholes, you’re no longer in charge. And, at the risk of sounding rude, we can’t wait till you’re retired so we can finally have the country back.

    The most important thing that we can do is to continue to clearing up all the bullshit that people are saying about him. This laughable notion that he is a racist. That he hates gays. All of these other bullshit, made up stories about him. It’s pretty pathetic when the media has to conjure up and attack Paul as a PERSON because the amount of baggage he has politically is so tiny. Anyway, keep fighting guys. We’re doing a great job. If you can join his phone from home campaign, that’d be awesome. If you have a Young Americans for Liberty chapter around your university or a Students for Liberty chapter around your house, team up with them because many of those people are Paul supporters and can really use your help. You guys are awesome. Hopefully, today with a win in Iowa, we can finally get the peaceful revolution we’ve been waiting years for. 


  4. Yo liberty lovers


    I’ve had about enough of the mainstream media. I would assume that you have, too. That’s why, along with the opening of my new wiki-website (which you can learn about here), I have also decided that it may be a good idea to create a new website dedicated to independent news. I am not quite sure how it will run yet, I will be looking into it. It will, again, be run on donations and possibly advertisements. I am a little sick of the media treatment of Ron Paul and a lot of other propaganda. Is this something you’d be interested in reading? Donating? Participating in? Please let me know. If you have any suggestions, that would be awesome.

    Also, as for the new wiki-libertarian website, it should be up and running around February. I am meeting with my partner in Florida in the upcoming weeks. The name is leaning towards something like Liberty Archives. Please let me know if you want to participate and help out! All the help would be greatly appreciated!


  5. Modern day Republicans & their roots with the left


    The following history may shock many of the Republicans of today. neoconservatism (the majority of the modern day Republican party) is the most widely accepted belief system that Republicans have today. Their stances are supportive of military expansions, maintaining cultural and social norms, middle-of-the-road economic policies, and foreign aid. Sounds familiar? Each Republican on the stage of the GOP debates have adhered to these philosophies (minus the outcasts, Ron Paul or Gary Johnson). It isn’t a far stretch to say that, not only the Republican representation, but many of the Republican voters. These ideas are products of a man who was influenced by Marxist ideologies at a young age, Irving Kristol.

    It is Irving Kristol who is coined the “godfather” or even “father” of neoconservatism. Kristol advocated Neoconservatism to disregard political ideologies built on axioms. He stressed the importance of history. If only neoconservatives today looked at Kristol’s past. Kristol grew up in Brooklyn and later became apart of the New York Intellectuals, a group advocating Socialism and Marxism but rejecting Communism. Along with Sidney Hook and Norman Podhertz whom helped the neoconservative movement with Kristol. Hook later rejected Marxism but only on the grounds that it led to totalitarianism but not policies. Kristol then rejected Marxism but carried on concepts over to neoconservatism. Mostly the expansionism, sympathy to the welfare state, blind nationalism, and interventionist (middle of the road) economic policies (although he falsely gave cheers for Capitalism, he supported an economic policy which supported the Federal Reserve rather than free markets).

    So, what of the history of neoconservatism itself? It is said that neoconservatism had a small push in the wake of World War Two. Originally Democrats, they swayed to the right and supported the Cold War. The big push came in the 1960’s. neoconservatives rejected the Democrats antiwar stance against Vietnam. This made a large push for the Republican party. However, they kept to their roots. In 1972 and 1976 they supported Democrat Senator Henry Jackson for his anticommunist stance. It wasn’t until they supported Ronald Reagan for his anticommunist stance that they made their big move to the Republican party. However, in the 1990’s they were left unrepresented by George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. They pushed for policies that were not very well implemented. Even going into George W. Bush’s first term the neoconservatives felt unrepresented. Bush ran on a foreign policy that was very resistent to the idea of nation-building and spreading democracy. This, of course, changed in 2003 when Bush, highly influenced by the Project For A New American Century (which was co-founded by Irving Kristol’s son, William Kristol) attacking Iraq. It was then he garnished support from the neoconservatives. The neoconservatives were very critical of Barack Obama but have since, and this should alarm Democrats and Republicans both, supported him and his efforts in Libya (as a side note, for the Democrats, Obama has many cabinet members that are neoconservatives

    Is This The Representation Republicans Want?

    It could be argued that this is an argument purely based on semantics. However, the argument that the neoconservative roots are from the left are undeniable at this point. This most certainly will not change the mind of the average Republican reading this. They may say, “well, regardless of semantics, these are still my beliefs. Call me a Democrat if you will, my stances remain the same.” This may all be true, however, the question that should be asked is if this is the leadership wanted from the Republican party. Is it desirable? Take another glance at the neoconservatives. Irving Kristol stressed the importance of religion. He considered it a way to get more votes for neoconservatism and not a way of life. He himself said that neoconservatives are “pro-religion even though they themselves may not be believers.” It was not a clear cut answer whether Kristol was a Christian or not but he surely saw Christianity as a catapult for his ideas. Leo Strauss, a philosopher who influenced Kristol, talked about an old philosophical idea called “noble lie”. A noble lie is when a politician tells a lie or myth, usually in a religious context, in order to keep or maintain social harmony. Michael Lind. a former neoconservative, said, “For the neoconservatives, religion is an instrument of promoting morality. Religion becomes what Plato called a noble lie. It is a myth which is told to the majority of the society by the philosophical elite in order to ensure social order.” This is not the only time in which Krisol has been shown to only care about his own ideology, by his own words he says, “Among the core social scientists around The Public Interest there were no economists…. This explains my own rather cavalier attitude toward the budget deficit and other monetary or fiscal problems. The task, as I saw it, was to create a new majority, which evidently would mean a conservative majority, which came to mean, in turn, a Republican majority - so political effectiveness was the priority, not the accounting deficiencies of government…” The average Republican needs to ask themselves if this is the kind of leadership that they want. This is the grandfather of the movement in which they adhere to.

    Perhaps that’s simply not enough. Maybe the modern day Republicans believe that there is a crises against Islamic fundamentalism or that American culture is in jeopardy. These are, of course, the biggest concerns for neoconservatives. The neoconservatives are a very influential and powerful group. The main concern for neoconservatives today, is taking out dictators and spreading democracy at all costs. Kristol believed that deficits were natural and necessary for military purposes. Their primary concern is to spread democracy. There is a difference between spreading democracy and protecting a country. The current wars, Libya not included, were all based on the falsehood of protecting America. This was the goal of the Project for the New American Century. It had absolutely nothing to do with national security but everything to do with spreading democracy. It was not successful with Bill Clinton but once George W. Bush entered, he brought in many neoconservatives with him. Neoconservatives are very open that protection of Israel does not stem from religious beliefs at all. Kristol writes, “Barring extraordinary events, the United States will always feel obliged to defend, if possible, a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces, external or internal. That is why it was in our national interest to come to the defense of France and Britain in World War II. That is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today, when its survival is threatened.” Neoconservatism is full of misdirection and hidden agendas. They masquerade and lobby individuals based on reasons they do not themselves even believe. However, their power stems from many think tanks that are heavily in bed with government officials. This is how they are easily able to sway people into their favor. Using politicians to garnish the support from the public. Why are neoconservatives so influential? It’s not because they speak the truth, it’s not because they’re honest with the American people, it’s because they own many of the politicians in Washington, and are fluttered throughout the American media. Perhaps this is one of the “noble lies” they believe. Maybe the registered Republicans disagree with neoconservatism but most of their G.O.P. presidential candidates are neoconservative. Maybe neoconservatism is for you but do not be fooled into thinking that it’s the original conservatism.

    Paleoconservatism

    The question that must be next asked is, “What, then, is the original kind of conservatism?” Surely no one would argue that conservatism has evolved into neoconservatism if there are others who still believe in the traditional conservatism! First, though, what is the original kind of conservatism?

    Nowadays they go by the name of paleoconservative. Paleoconservative was not always their name. It used to just be conservative but once the surge of neoconservatism came about, paleoconservatives found it important to distinguish themselves because of the tremendous differences. Paleoconservatives have the traditional approach. They are very fiscally responsible. Ardent supporters of gun ownership, states rights (which neoconservatives rarely even acknowledge), the original intent theory of the Constitution, oppose abortion, support capital punishment, and do not want the government micromanaging families. The biggest difference is foreign policy.

    Paleoconservatives are by no means pacifists. They take their tradition from the likes of as far back as Thomas Jefferson to more recently Pat Buchanan and William F. Buckley, Jr. Paleoconservatives rightly point out that these types of interventionist foreign policy, in which we attack whoever, whenever, for whatever reason, will lead to the destruction of this country. They are not in support of attacking countries like North Korea or Iran, unless there is reason to believe of Outspreading the military all over the world and leaving Americans more vulnerable to higher illegal immigration (their general immigration policies revolve around putting troops at the borders), more terrorism, growth of government, and out of control fiscal policies. They cite Rome as an example where imperialism can destroy a country. neoconservatives sold the American people their brand of misdirection and lies while paleoconservatives rejected it outright.

    Aside from foreign policy, Paleoconservatives typically quote from the likes of, as mentioned before, Jefferson, Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater, while neoconservatives have criticized them both but praised Democrats such as, Harry Truman, George Marshall (the military advisor to Franklin D. Roosevelt), and Hubert Humphrey (the Vice President to Lyndon Johnson). The differences between the two are obvious; one has an agenda, and they support whoever, Democrat or Republican, that supports their cause. They have no intention of telling the truth and every intention of lying to the American public, such as long as it is a “noble lie” and it supports their cause. Paleoconservatives on the other hand, they stem from the original conservatism. They care enough about the country to not overstretch its military resulting in a fiscal meltdown and destruction of this country.

    Paleoconservatives are not saying that terrorism is not an issue but rather, America should be careful to not attack countries unnecessarily for false reasons. Over stretching our military could have disastrous effects. That’s some crazy idea, however, the neoconservatives write that paleoconservatives are anti-semitic and unpatriotic. This definition of “patriotism” may as well blur its line with blind nationalism. What seems more patriotic is caring about the country enough to not bankrupt it.

    Is there hope?

    Is there hope for traditional conservatives? Are they represented at all? The answer is, of course, yes. Ron Paul seems to be the only G.O.P. candidate that is a paleoconservative (Gary Johnson more closely relates to Libertarianism). It’s unfortunate that a man whose consistency and true conservative ideology is often overlooked as kooky, nutty, unpatriotic, etc. He seems to be the only one consistent. Whereas the other G.O.P. candidates are stagnant, at best. with their belief system. Nowadays, though, it seems like the neoconservatives have launched a successful media campaign and political dogma to win the hearts of modern day Republicans. neoconservatives do not deserve the name of conservatism, rather they deserve to be called the “Old Left” or, instead of neo-cons, simply just “cons”.



  6. Fact checking the "Fact checks" on Ron Paul. →



  7. Modern day Republicans & their roots with the Left →

    My lastest article on Viewshound exploring the history of Neoconservatism and its direct ties with Marxists thought & Democrats.



  8. Comparing Bush & Obama On Civil Liberties, War →

    Has Obama kept true to his pro-civil liberties stance? Words say yes but his actions tell us a different story.



  9. Babysitters & Parents Now Have Regulations To Abide By In California If This Bill Passes →



  10. How "Consumer Protection" Hurts The Poor →

    John Stossel explains that costs of licensing hurt the poor.