Skip to main content

Libertarians Burned at the Stake

How many times have you heard libertarians proclaim with thoroughly ego-pleasing self-righteousness, "We never compromise our principles," using such refusal to compromise as an excuse for allowing their values to be compromised by those who are smart enough to really not let their principles be sabotaged?

Principles only exist to serve values. Your spirit's highest value is the fullness of life. Your ego's highest value is your destruction and ultimately your death. So facing every decision, wondering if a principle applies, a question must be asked: does following this principle in this instance serve life or death?

It is believed Joan of Arc refused to compromise her principles. It is said her fate of being burned at the stake was due to her uncompromising stance. So was death her highest value? Or did she maybe fail to question whether there might be an even deeper principle she wasn't seeing, or whether her ego was tempting her to inflexibility in order to destroy her?

Individuals become libertarians because they are sensitive enough to be in-touch with their natural soul-level urge to experience freedom from being ruled by the ego-vested interests of others, which is the same as saying libertarians feel strongly the deep inner desire to experience life in it's fullness.

It is not logical and hardly life-serving to worship principles in and of themselves, divorced from the context of one's highest goal. When faced with a decision, does adhering to a particular principle serve life or death?

Let's imagine in our modern American context a Democratic Party candidate unabashedly favors dictatorship by his favored class of elitists. He justifies his stance by believing that it serves "every one's highest good." But he nonetheless clearly favors dictatorship. This Democrat is unashamedly a "dictator at heart."

Meanwhile, a Republican Party candidate, for all her faults, despite her seeming inability to take the Democrat's worship of dictatorship seriously, is obviously not a "dictator at heart." She may have a split mind confused by conflicting values and issues, but she would not support dictatorship if someone or some circumstance jolted her into seeing clearly.

These two candidates are polling evenly at about 48 or 49 percent each. One of them is going to win the election and rule.

Given this context and imagined scenario, a libertarian is faced with a choice. He can refrain from voting and wish the threat of dictatorship would magically go away. He can vote for a third party candidate "on principle" and hope that the election will not be won by the "dictator at heart." Or he can cast a vote in self-defense knowing that in such close elections sometimes the "dictator at heart" will actually be defeated with the help of votes like his.

If he chooses the third alternative, is he voting on principle? What if there is a principle that says, "Given the existing context in which I live, I will do whatever I can reasonably do to keep a 'dictator at heart' from winning an election and ruling my life!"

What if there is a principle at work in the electoral universe which says if libertarians fail to do everything within reason to keep dictators from winning ... then enough dictators will win to firmly establish their dictatorship?

Maybe libertarians need to ask themselves: "Would I rather discover the deeper underlying principle, or would I rather let myself be burned at the stake?"

To understand the insane psychology of modern "liberal progressives," read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged."

"God's laws will keep your minds at peace, because peace IS His Will, and His laws are established to uphold it. His are the laws of freedom, but yours are the laws of bondage. Since freedom and bondage are irreconcilable, their laws CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD TOGETHER. The laws of God work only for your good, and there ARE no other laws beside His. Everything else is merely lawLESS, and therefore chaotic." -Jesus Christ in A Course in Miracles

"I think of myself as a freedom zealot."


Popular posts from this blog

The Libertarian Way: So Much More Than The NAP!

How often do we hear the word "libertarian" being used in contexts relating to politics or some kind of political understanding? Even most dictionary definitions of "libertarian" emphasize political implications.

Yet libertarians will never experience the full personal benefit of their libertarian impulse, and never be completely successful in any political activism they undertake, unless they understand the Libertarian Way is much deeper and more basic than concern with political conditions.

Before there is politics ... before there are relationships ... there is life. When human beings feel their deepest-rooted inner desires (as opposed to addiction to intellectualism for the purpose of avoiding the depths of their being), they sense inside themselves a yearning for the fullness of life to shine forth and be experienced.

"Fullness" is the key. Liberal-progressive dictators will tell you their programs and agendas help people have a better life, but th…

Lifting Others Up To The Libertarian Way

Probably everyone has experienced moments of the fullness of life: the enthralling love that radiates from our heart when it seems we have met our destined soulmate, the joy that explodes out of our being when at the very last split second our team scores the improbable win of the century, the peace that flows from the depths of our soul when the sunrise suddenly bathes our mountain fishing lake and all seems momentarily "on earth as it is in heaven."

The fullness of life is within us, but doesn't too often emanate from most of us because our minds employ many devices for closing down our being. Yet there is a Way which leads us to constant heart and soul opening and nearly uninterrupted experience of the fullness of life. In common street language this Way is often called "live and let live." Although this encompasses all areas of life, when practiced in the context of people's political interactions it is called The Libertarian Way.

Notice that when we a…

Jesus Christ Does Not Favor Taxation

Heading into midterm election season in America we are faced with an illusory alternative: Caesar in Democratic Party clothing, or in some districts Little Caesar in Republican Party clothing. Apparently what makes the illusion saleable is the mistaken idea (used by Caesar as propaganda) that Jesus Christ was a socialist who supported taxation.

Fascists, communists, and progressives (all three branches of socialism), even after all the misery they have created the world over in the last 100 to 150 years, even now still aim a loud speaker toward us blaring the long broken record of their propaganda mantra: “Jesus was a socialist,” by which they try to convince us that Jesus advocated using government force or threat of force to redistribute wealth.

We’ve addressed the "socialist" issue in the past (See Jesus Christ's Love vs. Obama Style Socialism)

Nonetheless, the illusion could not be sold to the public if it were not for modern conservatives insisting that Jesus supported…