This article will discuss the forgotten man as it applies to foreigners that suffer from war and occupation by other countries, in this case, the United States.

In the United States, we are exposed to media coverage of war that will talk about who is winning, what the strategy should be, how many troops should be involved, and a whole host of other details. We may also hear about the number of U.S. soldiers that have died and also of the wounded.

But there is something we don’t often hear about and if we do, it is a brief mention of a number from one incident. That is the people who live in the countries that are being destroyed and occupied by the U.S. government. The government does not keep track of the number of foreigners that die in attacks in Iraq. There are some estimates that put the number of dead Iraqis at over one million.

It seems that every man, woman, and child living in war-torn countries are forgotten. And yet, this is the most outrageous thing about war and occupation.

There are a lot of reasons to be against war. It costs a lot of money that could be better spent. It infringes on our civil liberties here at home. It causes others to hate us and ultimately may cause blowback at home. We also hear of the dead and wounded U.S. soldiers, as well as soldiers from other countries. It also causes a great burden on many families that have to worry about their spouse, their parent, their child, their relative, or their friend while he or she is deployed. And that is hoping that they will also not be mentally disturbed if they return physically unharmed.

But the biggest reason to be against war and occupation is a moral one. It involves the forgotten man. While every death of a U.S. soldier is tragic, these soldiers had to voluntarily enlist at some point and they also could have defied orders and not participated in war. They would end their career in the military and they would probably end up in jail, but at least there is a choice there, even if it is a bad one.

The foreigner who has their country invaded and blown to pieces has fewer choices. They were sitting there innocently and had done absolutely no harm to anyone. If they are lucky enough to survive, they see their families get wrecked, their houses destroyed, their businesses destroyed, and their whole life turned upside down.

One might say, in the case of Afghanistan, that we were attacked. But the innocent people that are dying there had nothing to do with September 11, 2001. It is not their fault. And if they are to be held accountable for what others do in their country, then how can anyone criticize the terrorists that committed the horrific acts of September 11, 2001? Were they not holding innocent people responsible for the crimes of their government?

If there is a crime committed in a town and the criminal runs to the other side of town to escape, does anyone ever advocate dropping bombs on the other side of town? If the criminal runs into an apartment complex, should the police start firing their guns into the building, hoping to kill the criminal?

If Person A kills Person B, it does not give anyone the moral authority to kill Person C just because Person A happened to be in the area. What the government refers to as collateral damage is really murder.

Every single man, woman, and child that lives in these war-torn countries has a story. Just as every U.S. soldier has a story, so do the unseen faces on the other side of the world. Why do so many people in the U.S. ignore this? If they saw the horrors of war up close, they might think differently. If they saw a child who lost a parent, or a young baby that lost an arm, perhaps many would no longer ignore these unseen faces.

The reason that so many soldiers go through post-traumatic stress disorder is because they are genuinely good people who are asked to do bad things. They have been told by society and by their government to do something that conflicts with their own morality. If they don’t follow orders, they are seen as a traitor and a disgrace by their friends, their families, and by the media. If they do follow orders, they are forced to commit horrible acts that they never would have thought possible. Imagine if you felt responsible for purposely killing another innocent human being. Most people would be disturbed to say the least.

It is time for the American people and people all around the world to recognize that when the U.S. goes to war, it kills people and wrecks people’s lives. As a society, we need to stop looking down on people that are called "deserters." Instead, we need to treat them as courageous. These are people that choose not to hurt others and instead choose peace. Even though it ends their career in the military, sends them to jail, and subjects them to ridicule, they still have the courage to do what is right and moral in their heart.

If we start praising and respecting those that do not blindly follow orders, then we will see more soldiers resisting orders and wars will come to an end.

Remember, every individual has a story. Perhaps they don’t look like you. Perhaps their lifestyle is different than yours. Perhaps they wear different looking clothes. But these are innocent human beings that feel pain. We should not forget them.

Geoffrey Pike [send him mail] currently resides in Florida. In his spare time, he enjoys sports, music, investing, and studying libertarianism.

The Best of Geoffrey Pike

I think we need to open up the debate and start exposing the evil homeowners insurance companies that are greedy and always looking for a big profit. These companies don't actually do anything except charge premiums and then occasionally pay out on claims. The difference is excessive profits that benefit the executives.

We need to make homeowners insurance affordable and available to everyone. No one should have to go without it. First, we need mandates on these insurance companies that say they can't discriminate. These greedy companies think it is okay to discriminate if you have a pre-existing condition. There are people who have had major fires or floods that have severely damaged homes and now they are being prevented from buying insurance. This is pure discrimination and we should not allow this to happen as a society.

The next thing we need to do is to get state legislatures to start mandating that these insurance companies cover more things. There are millions of homeowners with leaky faucets and stained carpets. They should not have to live like this. Insurance policies should cover these things. It is not right that some should have to walk around with a stained carpet while rich people can get new carpet on a regular basis. The insurance companies should be forced to cover such things in their policies. You should also know that when you get your free carpet cleaning, covered by your insurance, that it could only be done by a government-licensed professional.

Now we must discuss unfair competition. We need states to enact laws that prevent people from buying homeowners insurance from other states. It is ridiculous that someone from Florida can buy insurance from some company in North Carolina. This hurts the people of Florida by exporting jobs. Florida residents should be forced to buy homeowners insurance from companies within Florida that benefit the workers of Florida.

It might be argued that the federal government should override this using the Commerce Clause in the Constitution. We must remember that the Commerce Clause provides the federal government the power to do anything. But in this particular instance, the federal government should respect states' rights and not interfere.

Hopefully, buying your own homeowners insurance won't be an issue anyway, since you should be provided this as a benefit from your employer. It would make perfect sense for the federal government to set up the tax code and other regulations that encourage businesses to provide homeowners insurance coverage to their employees. These businesses can afford it and people should not be expected to go out and have to shop around for their own policy.

If all of these measures are not enough and some homeowners are still without insurance (although, how could that be, since these measures would surely lower costs), then the federal government should step in and provide a government option. People will be mandated to have homeowners insurance or they will pay a fine or else go to jail. But don't worry, because the government option will help those in need. After all, what is the government for if it is not to take care of people?

We are a compassionate and caring society with a lot of wealth. We should care for our fellow human beings. In our times, nobody should go without homeowners insurance. Let's get state governments and the federal government to fix this problem. They have done such a great job with our healthcare that we should give them a chance to provide universal homeowners insurance.

Note: This is a purely sarcastic piece and is not meant to give any bright ideas to any bureaucrats or politicians.

Geoffrey Pike [send him mail] currently resides in Florida. In his spare time, he enjoys sports, music, investing, and studying libertarianism.

DIGG THIS

The
2008 presidential election should serve as a good lesson for the
Libertarian Party (LP). Bob Barr, a former Republican congressman
(who ironically many Libertarians helped defeat in Congress), received
about 0.4% of the total vote. Barr was chosen as the nominee back
in May at the LP convention. There were many candidates and it took
several ballots before it came down to Bob Barr vs. Mary Ruwart
for the Libertarian Party's nominee.

Mary Ruwart,
author of Healing
Our World in an Age of Aggression, is a radical, principled,
and long-time Libertarian. She was narrowly defeated by Barr for
the nomination, with Ruwart receiving about 44% of the vote on the
final ballot. The 2008 presidential election might have played out
much differently had she been the LP's nominee. It probably would
not have changed Obama winning the election, but it could have conceivably
advanced liberty at a much greater pace.

There seem
to be three different groups that make up most of the Libertarian
Party these days. There are the principled radicals like Mary Ruwart.
There are the disaffected Republicans, who are mostly pro-war, but
are somewhat fiscally conservative. And there is a third group that
is fairly libertarian, but not necessarily radical and perhaps looking
too much for political solutions for change.

The first group
understands what the liberty movement is all about. The second group
is mostly hopeless and is trying to wreck the LP with its watered
down Republican policies. Perhaps some individuals in this group
will change, but I am not here to change their minds today. Instead,
I would like to address the third group. Many in this third group
saw Bob Barr as a celebrity ticket that would finally gain the necessary
exposure for the Libertarian Party from the mainstream media.

Most people
want to be rich. Some realize that you have to work hard, save money,
come up with a creative business, or some combination of those things.
It usually doesn't come easy. Others go a different route and play
the lottery. Occasionally someone gets lucky and wins, but even
then it doesn't always turn out so well. But most lottery players
never win.

The group that
supported Bob Barr as the LP nominee was playing the lottery. They
were looking for an easy ticket to riches. They had hopes and dreams
that the media would finally pay attention to their candidate. With
someone like Barr, maybe this was the time that we could finally
become a force to be reckoned with, they reasoned. Needless to say,
the Barr campaign has been a huge disappointment. In fact, it was
almost a large waste.

Bob Barr never
fully repudiated many of the awful positions he took in the past.
He certainly sounded better than McCain or Obama on the campaign
trail, but he always left much to be desired. He talked about smaller
government, but most of the things he said could have been said
by any establishment Republican candidate. Ronald Reagan probably
sounded more radical in his time than Bob Barr has this past year.
Why would people get excited about a third-party candidate, who
has no shot of winning, when his ideas aren't even that radical
or exciting?

The Bob Barr
supporters playing the lottery ticket forgot, or never learned,
the key component to advancing liberty. It isn't vote total or media
exposure that counts the most. It is educating others on the benefits
of liberty. Perhaps Barr reached a few new people and drove them
in a more libertarian direction. But it was a fraction of what Ron
Paul did in his latest presidential run. And the biggest factor
is that Barr did close to nothing in recruiting radical libertarians
that can always be counted on to oppose the state.

Harry
Browne understood well in his two presidential campaigns that
education is the key to success. He knew he had no chance of winning
and he would admit that. His goal was to spread the message of liberty
and to teach people how much better off their lives could be without
government interference. This point was completely missed by Bob
Barr and his supporters.

The ironic
thing is that this could have truly been a breakout year for the
Libertarian Party. I don't want to put words into Ron Paul's mouth,
but I have a feeling that if Mary Ruwart had been the nominee, then
she would have received an endorsement from Ron Paul. Either way
though, she would have been a perfect place to go for a large number
of the approximately 1.2 million people that voted for Ron Paul
in the primaries. She would have been a rallying point for the liberty
movement, much as Ron Paul was in the primaries. But regardless
of the number of supporters and voters she would have received,
she would have continued to educate people and had people excited
about freedom, just as Ron Paul did in his campaign.

This should
all be a lesson to those in the LP. Don't get sucked in by the celebrity
candidate. Don't get sucked in by someone saying that he will get
more media attention than ever before. Certainly don't get sucked
in by someone who says he can win. It turns out that Barr didn't
receive that much more media coverage than past candidates anyway.
And he received around the same percentage of votes as what had
been typical
for the LP.

It will be
interesting to see where the party goes from here. If the disaffected
Republicans, who aren't really libertarians, continue to take over
the party, then the party will become completely irrelevant in a
short period of time. If the radical libertarians get back in control
of the party, then the LP can resume educating people, much like
Harry Browne did. The libertarian movement will go on with or without
the Libertarian Party, but it will certainly be better if the LP
can help us instead of wasting time like it did in the 2008 presidential
campaign.

November
7, 2008

Geoffrey
Pike [send him mail]
currently resides in Florida. In his spare time, he enjoys sports,
music, investing, and studying libertarianism.

DIGG THIS

We just had
a $700 billion bailout bill that was signed into law and done in
defiance of the American people at large. This money is on top of
many more billions that have already been spent bailing out Wall
Street. We have a runaway government and we will likely experience
economic depression or very high inflation, or possibly both, in
the near future. Yet, I am smiling about the whole thing.

It is hard
times for many people and I certainly sympathize with them. Our
own government is raping us and it is a shame that we have to go
through this. But there is certainly a lot to be positive about.
Last year, Ron Paul triggered a small but significant revolution
in this country. Although the results were somewhat disappointing,
we can't ignore that he received 1.2 million votes and seemed to
awaken many people.

Perhaps I am
smiling because the Austro-libertarians have been vindicated with
this whole mess. Ron Paul has been warning people for years about
the Federal Reserve and the distortions in the market. Anyone paying
attention can see that he knew what he was talking about. We should
not feel that we can't point out that the Austro-libertarians were
warning of this years ago.

Perhaps a bigger
reason for my smile is being vindicated amongst other libertarians.
Now many other libertarians will not see it this way at this time.
I often get down on the future prospects for liberty and how seemingly
irrational many people are. But it often amazes me just how negative
other libertarians are about the future. Many libertarians think
of the general population as the "dumb masses." Sometimes
it's hard to disagree, but I have had a sense over the years that
people, and the American people in particular, are more rational
than many of us give them credit for.

This last week,
Americans awoke from a deep sleep. Or maybe they were already awake,
but we didn't know it yet. Congress got flooded with calls opposing
the bailout. One Congressman said that the calls to his office were
running 50–50; 50% no and 50% hell no. Although the majority
of Americans still don't understand inflation and the boom/bust
cycle very well, they instinctively understood that Americans were
being ripped off with this bailout and that the government officials
were simply rewarding their friends on Wall Street who had failed.
Even as far as rising prices, many more Americans are realizing
that the cause is monetary inflation, although we probably don't
have a majority that understand this yet.

We have a lot
to be positive about. Now you may think that is crazy because Congress
still passed the bailout bill, despite strong opposition from constituents.
Now don't expect all of these people to be voted out of office next
month who voted "yes" on the bill, but this cannot go
on forever. First of all, the empire is coming crashing down. Even
if this weren't the case, it won't matter over time. Americans are
becoming far more well informed than in the past. The internet allows
us to communicate to each other quickly and effectively and expose
many of the lies of the politicians. When a large number of Americans
finally withdraw their consent, the government will no longer function
as it does. It will come crashing down, much like the Soviet empire
did.

Americans are
realizing in large numbers that the government is not their friend.
With Congress defying the will of the people, it made people angrier.
It basically shows the whole system as a sham and that we don't
have representative government.

It has also
been fun watching the news the last few weeks. I heard one commentator
after another saying that they have to pass this bill, despite strong
opposition by the people. Some were more direct than others in saying
that "the people just don't understand." But this time,
the people understood all too clearly. No matter which way it was
spun, the people understood that their own government was taking
advantage of them. And on top of that, it exposed the elitist and
out-of-touch mentality in the mainstream media (both Republican
and Democrat).

It has all
been fun to watch. Speaking of fun, if you really want to have a
good time next weekend, get together a big group of friends and
line up outside a bank in your neighborhood. Call the local news
station. You can cause a bank run and expose how fragile our fraudulent
banking system is. Okay, I'm really just kidding about this. In
fact, it is probably illegal, so don't even consider it.

Libertarians
can take advantage of this time in history. It could be a tipping
point. For once, we have a large majority of the people on our side.
Let's continue to expose the Federal Reserve and the government
as a whole as the corrupt and evil organizations that they are.
People may be more open to radical libertarian ideas now more than
ever.

Let's continue
the revolution that Ron Paul triggered last year and let's also
have some fun doing it. I continue to see hope for the future as
the American empire is quickly crashing down.

October
8, 2008

Geoffrey
Pike [send him mail]
currently resides in Florida. In his spare time, he enjoys sports,
music, investing, and studying libertarianism.

DIGG THIS

There is a
movie called Idiocracy
in which two average people partake in a hibernation project and
end up 500 years in the future. To their surprise, the people in
society have turned into complete idiots. Sometimes I feel like
this is the world I am living in, especially lately with Earth Day.

The whole "green"
movement is a joke and I am baffled by how many people have been
swindled out there. I have nothing against others helping the environment
or nature, provided that it is done peacefully, but all of this
environmental anguish is out of control. Luckily, the average American
is only talking about it and doing small symbolic gestures and is
not ready to sacrifice their lifestyle.

Most of the
so-called solutions we hear from so-called environmentalists are
not really solutions at all. They are ideas that simply make life
for human beings more difficult and more expensive, while slowing
down human progress. The whole so-called environmental movement
is anti-human and anti-freedom. When communism collapsed in the
late 80's and early 90's, it was given a bad name association, and
rightly so. The communists had to go into hiding and could no longer
directly call for communism since their ideas had been discredited.
The communists decided to become environmentalists and take a new
approach to their agenda.

If you'll notice,
nearly every single solution offered by the green movement is to
impede human progress. It also usually involves using the force
of government or at least it is a suggestion that could later lead
to government force.

The whole global
warming debate has to be a hoax. We live in a variable climate that
has always varied as long as mankind has walked the earth. If this
year is warmer than last year, it means nothing. If this century
is warmer than last century, it means nothing. Next week may be
warmer or colder than this week. It could go either way because
we live in a variable climate. Even the reports that the earth has
warmed in the last century can be doubted. Some of the official
thermometers have been found to be within a short distance of
pavement that attracts heat.

If the earth
has actually warmed by a degree in the last century, so what? The
century before that may have been 2 degrees warmer. If you ever
get a chance to see Greenland, you will find that it is mostly ice.
There isn't much green to it. But the people that settled Greenland
probably named it that for a reason. Could it have been much warmer
there when it was first settled centuries ago?

Even if the
earth is warming, it doesn't mean it has anything to do with humans.
Most of the scientists that preach man-made global warming get their
funding from government. If they didn't preach man-made global warming,
then their funding would miraculously disappear. It is amazing how
incentives work.

If the earth
is warming, it might not be such a bad thing, especially for some
of the brutal places near the poles. But even if we did want to
stop global warming from occurring, we certainly shouldn't turn
to government and another FEMA-like agency.

Another green
idiocracy issue is that of saving water. The last time I checked,
about two-thirds of the earth is covered in water. There is this
incredible process where water evaporates and is purified and falls
as fresh water from the clouds. It is like a huge filtration system
for our planet.

It makes no
sense when people talk about saving water. We pay for water when
we pay our water bill. The more water you use, the more you pay
for it. It is just like any other good that we buy. When you see
areas that have a drought and a supply problem with water, that
is an automatic indication that the government is interfering. In
a normal free market, if there is an increase in demand or a decrease
in supply of something, the price rises. This will decrease demand
and may help increase the supply if the good can be obtained from
another place that has a larger supply.

In areas with
droughts, the government control of the water supply is really the
only reason for a shortage. If you walk into a grocery store in
those areas, there will be plenty of bottled water on the shelves
as this operates in a more free market environment.

Then we have
recycling. I have nothing against recycling, just government forced
recycling. This includes being forced to pay for others to recycle.
If it is worth it to recycle a particular material, then the free
market will take care of this. If the government forces you to pay
for a recycling program, then it is not cost effective. For example,
if it costs an average of 5 cents per can to recycle soda cans and
it saves only 4 cents per can in making new ones, then it is not
worth it. However, if they could be recycled at a cost of only 3
cents per can to later save 4 cents, then it may be worth it and
some company may come in and do it and give you a monetary incentive
to participate. But if the government has to subsidize it, then
it is a waste of money.

The same goes
for more fuel-efficient vehicles. If the price of gas gets high
enough, it will be worth it for people to pay more for hybrid and
other fuel-efficient vehicles. You shouldn't need a government subsidy.

This also applies
to ethanol. If using corn to make ethanol for our gasoline were
an efficient use of resources, the government would not have to
"give" out billions of dollars in subsidies. It actually
uses more energy to make ethanol from corn than it produces, but
this fact doesn't even matter. If it were really cheap to make ethanol
or if ethanol could make your car get 500 miles to the gallon, then
people would freely choose to use it out of their own self-interest.
But when the government has to force us to pay for it, we can all
be certain that it is a waste of resources.

The ironic
thing about the whole environment issue is that the governments
of the world are by far the biggest destroyers of it. When you hear
about one of those forest fires raging in California, it most likely
originated on government land. The best answer to having a good
environment is through strong property rights. When individuals
are secure in their property, they can confront those that infringe
on their property with pollution or anything else, as the justice
system would provide a remedy of the situation with possible restitution.
And more, when property is owned privately and not through the government,
it is much more likely to be taken care of. People will treat their
own property with the respect that it deserves, whereas government
property will be abused, neglected, and possibly destroyed.

People need
to stop being so phony about going green and start thinking with
their heads. The green movement today does little, at best, to help
the environment and it is a total waste of time and resources.

May
5, 2008

Geoffrey
Pike [send him mail]
currently resides in Florida. In his spare time, he enjoys sports,
music, investing, and studying libertarianism.

DIGG THIS

It looks likely
that the next president of the United States will be John McCain,
Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton. There is still a chance that a
third-party candidate could come out of nowhere and win, but we
know that is unlikely at this point. Although Obama talks of change
and sometimes talks of withdrawing from Iraq, we know that we will
mostly get more of the same. Of course, Clinton or McCain would
be a virtual guarantee of a continuation of big government in every
aspect.

In this election,
we finally had a libertarian who received some publicity and actually
was allowed in the debates. It is obviously disheartening that he
didn't get a higher vote total, even if the mainstream media didn't
cover him much. Ron Paul reached a lot of people and made a few
waves, but Americans, and in particular Republicans, seemed to reject
his message.

It seems hopeless
at times, as we know that the mainstream media will never willingly
change. Government will continue to grow and the whole system has
been rigged in favor of the establishment. How could we possibly
ever reverse this course?

I learned many
things from Harry Browne, but the most important thing I ever learned
from him is that we should still be hopeful. It is really amazing
how many libertarians think that we are doomed. While there are
certainly no guarantees, the chance of gaining back liberty and
drastically reducing government in our lives is quite high in the
long run. As Harry used to say, "human nature is on our side."

Go ahead and
find a nice mall and walk around it. Look at the people talking
on their cell phones, drinking their Starbucks, and carrying their
shopping bags. Look at them getting in and out of their SUV's and
playing with their iPods. You may think they are spoiled brats,
but really it is a sign of how much wealth our society has and how
far we've come. Now we may go through some rough times in the near
future and people will certainly have to cut back and save more
money, but do you really think people are going to give up this
lifestyle?

There is a
reason that Ron Paul drew strong support from young people. His
young supporters know that Social Security is bankrupt and that
they would be much better off with far less government. But even
many young people that didn't support Paul understand that they
shouldn't depend on Social Security and all of the other promises
made by government.

It is unlikely
that we will elect a libertarian president any time soon, but that
doesn't mean that all is lost. It is the opinions and values of
the people that will ultimately count. Although too many people
buy into the falsehood of elections and think that democracy means
freedom, even these people want to run their own lives and make
their own choices.

The best hope
for freedom in this world may still lie with Americans. Although
the U.S. government has become an empire on the verge of bankruptcy,
there is still a strong sense of individualism in this country.
We have a high degree of religious freedom, freedom of speech, and
freedom of press (yes, there are exceptions).

In the last
year, the libertarian movement has grown by leaps and bounds, thanks
in large part to Ron Paul's presidential run. The strongest support
is from the youth and we have every reason to believe that this
is a trend that will continue. The government education system has
become such a joke that most kids don't even pay attention to what
is taught in school. Sure, they probably aren't learning to read
and write as well as they should, but at least many of them are
coming out of high school not believing that the government is the
answer to all of their problems.

With the open
communication of the internet, how can this move towards liberty
be stopped? We have the truth on our side and now we just have to
communicate to others on how much better their life would be without
big government.

Most comedy
shows ridicule politicians to no end and the populace has very little
respect for politicians. Their respect for government as a whole
is not far behind. The groundwork has been laid. We must build on
this. It will not happen overnight, but it can happen.

The idea of
liberty is becoming fashionable again. The empire is dying and we
will be there to pick up the pieces. We must be consistent, truthful,
radical, and unashamed of our ideas. We can win our freedom and
we will show the rest of the world how great life can be. We will
no longer spread democracy at the point of a gun. Instead, we will
spread freedom by example.

March
7, 2008

Geoffrey
Pike [send him mail]
currently resides in Florida. In his spare time, he enjoys sports,
music, investing, and studying libertarianism.

DIGG THIS

It has been a disappointing couple of weeks for many of the Ron
Paul Revolutionaries. Ron Paul received about 10% of the vote in
the Iowa caucuses and then received about 8% of the vote in the
New Hampshire primary, just missing out on third and fourth place
in both.

Iowa was somewhat understandable, being that Ron Paul does not
want to subsidize the ethanol industry, which of course means that
the whole nation subsidizes many of the people of Iowa. But New
Hampshire, home of the free
state project, where independents could vote in the primary,
was surprisingly low. Unfortunately, the mild weather that day brought
out a high voter turnout, which was certainly a disadvantage to
the Paul campaign. If it had been freezing cold with blizzard conditions,
mostly the hardcore voters would have turned out and Paul may have
received double digits. But the results showed that there is still
a lot of work for us to do.

It would be really easy to get into a permanently bad mood and
become apathetic. These are the times that many will take a less
than optimistic view of the intelligence of the American people.
The only thing that will make some libertarians feel better is a
reading of someone like Mencken
and his references to the Booboisie.

If you must go through that stage, then it would be wise to at
least wait until the Ron Paul campaign is over, as we continue to
recruit more libertarians every day. It would be even wiser to not
let it be permanent. Most people, including libertarians, never
could have dreamed one year ago of Ron Paul getting 10% of the vote
in the Iowa caucuses. Who would have dreamed, even 4 months ago,
that he would raise over 19 million dollars in one quarter? Just
remember that Ron Paul didn't even get one percent of the vote in
his 1988 run for president. His vote total for just the Republican
primaries will likely blow away his vote total for the general election
in 1988.

Although we would have liked to see an even stronger showing in
Iowa and New Hampshire, significant progress has been made. There
are tens of thousands (and probably more) of people who have been
exposed to ideas that they had never really heard articulated before.

We must always remember that this is a battle of ideas. It is a
matter of convincing our fellow human beings that we will all (with
a few exceptions) be better off living in a society with more liberty
and less government.

The best thing about the Ron Paul Revolution is the demographics
of those that support him. He receives support from all different
groups of people, but young people have been especially enthusiastic
about this campaign. But the most encouraging thing is that these
young people actually understand his message. They don't just support
him because of his antiwar views. They don't just support him because
that is the cool thing to do. They support him because they understand
his message of freedom and how it can benefit us. They understand
that freedom is the most moral system. They understand that government
is force. They understand that the Constitution should limit the
power of the federal government. They understand the concept of
states' rights. They understand the basics of monetary policy and
that creating fiat money out of thin air causes price inflation.

The young people of the Ron Paul Revolution are a significant group
and an educated group. With the free flow of information through
the internet, we have reason to be very optimistic. The only way
to win this battle is to continue educating others on the benefits
of liberty. The ultimate success for liberty would of course be
a repeal of the state. But the main step towards that goal is convincing
and educating more and more people on how much better their life
could be with less government force.

We don't need to elect a libertarian president to become free.
We have to change the hearts and minds of the people. The colonists
didn't measure their success with an election. After all, a king
ruled them anyway. The American Revolution took place because the
idea of liberty spread like wildfire. It was people like Thomas
Paine, who published his Common Sense pamphlets that persuaded
people that they could rule their own life and didn't need a king
to tell them what to do.

We can have a peaceful revolution here and it probably won't happen
in a voting booth. As more people continue to see how destructive
the government is, the weaker the system becomes. The collapse of
the Berlin Wall and the entire Soviet Union didn't happen because
of an election. It didn't even happen because of benevolent leaders.
It happened because the system was a failure and could not be supported
any longer. The federal government of the United States could collapse
just as easily.

Gary North has written an article
on taking this whole movement local. This is certainly important
and possibly the most effective way of building off of the success
of the last year. But whatever you do, don't give up hope. A popular
slogan from Ron Paul supporters is: "Dr. Paul cured my apathy."
Make sure you are cured permanently.

Even if you think Ron Paul has no chance of winning, you should
still be taking advantage of this time to recruit more libertarians
to our cause. This is a critical time right now that you can't get
back. Ron Paul has not given up on his campaign and you shouldn't
either. We have the opportunity of a lifetime with a great spokesman
for liberty in the national spotlight. We owe it to ourselves, to
Ron Paul and to the cause of freedom to continue spreading his message
now and in the future.

Take care of yourself and your family, but don't give up fighting
for freedom. We might be closer than you think.

January
15, 2008

Geoffrey
Pike [send him mail]
currently resides in Florida. In his spare time, he enjoys sports,
music, investing, and studying libertarianism.

DIGG THIS

Ron Paul has
certainly received the attention of disaffected Americans in his
run for the presidency. Many young people and previously apathetic
citizens have been drawn to the Ron Paul revolution because of his
unique message as compared to the other candidates. But there are
still some non-voters out there that refuse to participate in politics.
They ask, "Why should I trust him?"

It is certainly
a legitimate question to ask why we should trust another politician.
What makes Ron Paul different from any other candidate today or
in the past? Candidates say one thing and then they do something
completely different once in office.

While we cannot
accurately say what every person will do, we can certainly make
good predictions based on the information we have. Anything is possible.
George W. Bush could turn libertarian tomorrow or Osama Bin Laden
could convert to Christianity, but we can reasonably predict that
these things won't happen.

There are two
primary reasons why we can reasonably predict that Ron Paul's policies
in office would be similar to what he preaches. The first reason
is his past record. He has been in Congress for ten terms and we
can see how he has voted. He has consistently voted to uphold the
principles that he advocates.

When there
is a vote in the House of Representatives that reads something like
420-1, we can take a good guess that he was the one "no"
vote. That is how he got the nickname Dr. No. He does not vote in
favor of any legislation that is not specifically authorized in
the Constitution. Since most bills passed in Congress are unconstitutional,
Ron Paul often has to vote no.

Ron Paul's
voting record alone makes him a unique politician. George W. Bush
campaigned in 2000 for no nation building and cutting taxes. Ronald
Reagan campaigned in 1980 and 1984 to get the government out of
our lives. Even under Reagan, the federal budget grew approximately
two-thirds bigger. Ronald Reagan continued to preach less government
throughout his presidency, but his policies rarely reflected his
rhetoric.

But we can
look at the records of Bush and Reagan when they were governors.
It should not be any great surprise that they embraced big government
once in office as president. They both expanded the budgets in their
respective states and failed to make significant cuts in government
programs. And this is aside from the fact that even some of their
rhetoric was far from libertarian, such as their enthusiasm for
the war on drugs.

The second
reason to trust Ron Paul to do what he says is because he offers
us specifics. It is easy for Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani to say
they will cut taxes, but does that just mean more deficits? Aside
from Ron Paul, none of the candidates have been able to point out
specific areas where they will cut spending.

Ron Paul says
we need to leave Iraq and stop policing the world. Dismantling the
U.S. empire would immediately cut hundreds of billions of dollars
out of the budget. He also says we can get rid of the Department
of Education and the Department of Energy, among others. We can
also stop farm subsidies and handing out foreign aid. These are
all specific measures to reduce spending which could actually produce
real tax cuts.

John McCain
will talk about stopping pork-barrel spending (which in his terms
makes up less than 1% of the total budget) and other candidates
will talk about stopping wasteful spending. But they are short on
specifics. This means they have no specific plans to cut the size
and scope of government. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
In order to cut taxes without increasing deficits or inflating,
you have to cut the budget. The only candidate who offers specific
programs and departments to cut is Ron Paul.

It could be
argued that Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress offered specific
proposals in 1994 with their Contract
with America. But most of the items were modest proposals that
did little to shrink government. And again, many of the Republican
Congressmen (like Gingrich) that were part of this already had a
track record of big government.

Many Democrats
(hopefully former Democrats) have recognized that they can trust
Ron Paul. He speaks firmly and with conviction about ending the
war. From the Democratic candidates (possibly excepting Kucinich
and Gravel), you hear wishy-washy statements about the need to keep
a presence in Iraq with no promises to end the war immediately.

By looking
at Ron Paul's record and by hearing his specific proposals, you
can be reasonably sure that he will do what he says. His message
is consistent and unyielding and it just so happens that his message
of freedom is the correct one.

December
18, 2007

Geoffrey
Pike [send him mail]
currently resides in Florida. In his spare time, he enjoys sports,
music, investing, and studying libertarianism.

DIGG THIS

The Ron Paul
revolution has come about quickly in less than a year's time. It
has surprised nearly everyone, including Congressman Paul himself.
Libertarians are accustomed to seeing the same typical Republicans
and Democrats running each election cycle, while the Libertarian
Party presidential candidate gets less than 1% of the vote with
no hopes of winning. So why all of a sudden is Ron Paul having so
much success?

In many ways,
there is a bit of a perfect storm brewing. Ron Paul is the only
member of Congress with a strong libertarian philosophy and he obviously
has the experience of running campaigns. By running as a Republican,
he is able to accomplish more since the whole system has been rigged
against third-party candidates. The most important aspect of his
run as a Republican is his presence in the debates, which has exposed
a whole new audience to the message of freedom and small government.

In addition
to all of this, there is a high resentment towards politicians these
days. The current president's approval ratings are low and the Congress
(controlled by Democrats) has even lower approval ratings. There
is also a very unpopular war being fought, which neither side has
the willingness to end.

There was a
similar environment in the 1970's with a war that was even more
unpopular because of the draft. There were also the disasters of
the Johnson and Nixon administrations. Although there was revolution
in the air at that time, it seemed to be dominated by socialists.
There was certainly an anti-war revolt, but it was coupled with
calls for bigger government at home.

Another major
factor in the whole success of the Ron Paul revolution is of course
the internet. It is hard to say how successful the Paul campaign
would have been without the internet, but most could safely assume
that it would have been much more difficult for people to organize.

There is another
link in the whole rEVOLution that often gets ignored. The libertarian
base has finally developed enough to have a revolution. The internet
is great. Having an unpopular president and Congress have certainly
helped. Having a man like Ron Paul, running as a Republican, has
been critical. But all of this would not be possible if the ideas
of liberty had not been planted in people's heads prior to this.

When Harry
Browne ran for president on the Libertarian Party ticket in
1996 and 2000, he knew and admitted that he had no chance to win.
The purpose of his campaigns was not to win. He continually stated
that his main purpose was to educate people and recruit and grow
the libertarian base for the future. He understood that you could
not wave a magic wand and create liberty without the hard work of
convincing our fellow humans of the great benefits of liberty.

Thanks to the
work of Harry Browne, many of the writers and readers of LewRockwell.com,
Ron Paul himself, and so many others, we are now in a position to
make gains for our side.

Every year,
it seems the government gets bigger and more powerful, while a minor
setback for the government is seen as a rare accomplishment for
libertarians. It seems that libertarians can't do anything to cut
the government. It is a lot of work just trying to slow down its
growth.

Now we see
more hope than ever. We see that maybe it will be possible in the
future to make significant gains for freedom. And it is due to the
hard work and determination of past libertarians that fought on,
even though progress could rarely be visibly seen.

Some Ron Paul
supporters think this is the last chance to save our country and
our freedom. While possible, it is not likely. This revolution should
actually give renewed hope, as a whole new generation of libertarians
is growing exponentially. Even if Ron Paul does not win the Republican
nomination, this past year has been an enormous success.

In the past,
we libertarians have heard from many, particularly Republicans,
that the only way to reduce the state is in baby steps. In other
words, we can't be too radical in what we advocate or it will turn
people away. The people that said this and continue to say this
have it completely wrong. It is the radical libertarian base that
has stayed consistent and on message and has done far more to help
the cause of liberty than anyone else.

As the number
of radical libertarians increase (which has happened quickly due
to Ron Paul and the internet), the quicker it will be that the state
falls. It would be nice if Ron Paul were to become president in
2009. It would speed up our agenda into light speed. But even if
Ron Paul doesn't win the nomination, his campaign has helped recruit
radical libertarians that can now help educate other people on the
benefits of liberty.

Let's thank
Congressman Paul for his past work and now for leading our rEVOLution.
Let's also not forget about all of the people prior to this that
never gave up hope and set the stage for where we are today.

December
4, 2007

Geoffrey
Pike [send him mail]
currently resides in Florida. In his spare time, he enjoys sports,
music, investing, and studying libertarianism.

DIGG THIS

On November
5, 2007, over 4 million dollars was voluntarily donated to the Ron
Paul for President campaign. This one-day phenomenon was not organized
by campaign headquarters, but was started by one individual supporter.
The word spread in a short time through the Internet to the over
1000 Ron Paul meetup groups.

This one-day
event on November 5th was known as the money bomb and
it was tied to Guy Fawke's Day and also the movie V for Vendetta.
On November 5, 1605, Guy
Fawkes tried to blow up the Houses of Parliament (although he
failed). This was also the basis of the V
for Vendetta movie in which November 5th became
a day for revolution.

After this
amazing day of fundraising, the media could not help but take notice.
It sent shockwaves through the establishment, even if they didn't
react that way. There were many news articles and television stories
that covered the event and many of them were fair in their reporting.
But there were also some that were insinuating Ron Paul supporters
as being advocates of violence.

For those that
have tried to tie violence to the Ron Paul revolution, they actually
have it completely backwards. It is mostly only the Ron Paul supporters
that are advocates of peace. It is the supporters of the other candidates
who are advocating violence.

In saying that
the other candidates and their supporters are advocating violence,
many will immediately think of the war issue, particularly the Iraq
War. While this is a major issue with great importance, it is not
the only issue that involves violence. In fact, all of the issues
involve violence as all government is backed by force or the threat
of force.

Mike Gravel
and Dennis Kucinich are generally in agreement with Ron Paul's position
on the Iraq War in that it is a disaster and that we need to end
the U.S. occupation as soon as possible. Unfortunately, Gravel and
Kucinich are advocates of violence, but limiting it mostly to Americans.

What would
a Kucinich administration do if you did not agree with his socialized
health care plan and you refused to participate? What if you didn't
agree with the government educating your children or if you just
didn't want to pay for the "education" of other people's
children? In other words, if you refused to pay your taxes or even
part of your taxes, would a Kucinich administration just let it
go at that?

The most likely
scenario is that a Kucinich administration would fine you and jail
you. If you refused, you would see the guns of the government agents
coming to your door. This is not peace.

Every candidate
wants to grow the government, except for Ron Paul. This translates
to the candidates wanting to initiate more violence than is already
being done. Ron Paul and his supporters are the only ones that would
like to reduce violence.

November 5,
2007 was a day of peace. It was a symbol of people wanting more
peace. The Ron Paul rEVOLution has "love" in it because
it is a revolution of peace. Any Ron Paul supporter that is advocating
violence is only advocating it in response to violence that has
already been initiated against them. But even most Ron Paul supporters
would not agree with a violent overthrow of the government.

It is hopefully
understood by most libertarians that persuading our fellow human
beings of the benefits of liberty is the only way to bring about
real and lasting change. The government will eventually collapse
if a large enough group of people sees the benefits of not having
a federal government.

Lew Rockwell
once
stated that, "the libertarian revolution will come when
we least expect it, and it will unfold in a way we cannot fully
anticipate." Previous libertarians laid the foundation and
perhaps we are in this revolution now and Ron Paul, along with the
Internet, has just happened to be the catalyst.

November
13, 2007

Geoffrey
Pike [send him mail]
currently resides in Florida. In his spare time, he enjoys sports,
music, investing, and studying libertarianism.