The idea of coexistence does, unfortunately, feel quite quaint these days. 

Polls and studies back up what we all anecdotally know to be true: Americans are deeply divided and increasingly hostile toward those with opposing views. Startling numbers of Americans say they would go so far as to fire someone based on their vote for president. Meanwhile, 56 percent say they expect to see violence following the election, and another 61 percent fear we are on the verge of a second civil war.

To be honest, this friction shouldn’t come as that much of a surprise. 

Have you ever marveled at how different we are? Or really contemplated the sheer number of ethnicities, nationalities, religions, cultures, or backgrounds represented in this country? Before even considering political ideologies, our country is filled with people whose lived experiences, beliefs, and customs are radically different. 56 percent say they expect to see violence following the election, and another 61 percent fear we are on the verge of a second civil war.

That’s not only true because of the diversity in the people who come here, it’s true based on our own regional differences as well. As someone who grew up in the South, visiting California for the first time felt like visiting another country. The way they talked, the foods they ate, their clothing styles—all were radically different from where I grew up in Kentucky and Alabama. 

And to complicate matters further, Americans live in social bubbles. We are increasingly unlikely to know people who are different from ourselves. This can lead to bias, a lack of perspective on other viewpoints, and a simplistic understanding of other groups.

We are really 50 micro-countries that have chosen to coexist as one. It even says as much in our name: the United States. Unlike some other countries, we don’t all share a common history, religion, ethnicity, accent, or culture. 

When you think about it, our success as a country is actually more surprising than our current division. Instead of worrying about the future, we ought to examine the ways in which this vastly diverse group of people has managed to get along and prosper for almost 250 years. This is a feat the world has never seen before—and we owe our success to the brilliance of our founders and the limited government structure they provided us.

From the beginning, even before we were this big and diverse, our system was designed to allow for peaceful coexistence among very different people. Each state possesses its own executive, legislative, and judicial branch, along with its own constitution. And the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution grants most political authority to the states: 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The founders’ intention was always localized control.

This structure of government is what we call federalism. The founders intended the states to operate as laboratories for new ideas and programs. If a state tried a successful approach to a problem, others would take note and replicate it. If a state did something terrible, the harm was mitigated and would impact fewer people. And the federal government was on hand to step in if a state infringed upon individual rights.

The founders recognized that a big, centralized federal government could not adequately represent people from so many different places. They also knew it should not attempt to micromanage the lives of diverse citizens with varying interests.

In Federalist No. 45, James Madison wrote, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

The objective was to ensure people in one state did not dictate the ways and rules of life for people in another. This structure also ensured people had a more direct line of access to their representatives in the states—meaning they could much more effectively participate in their political process and work to set or change laws that impacted them.

In contrast, our federal government was given a limited number of functions, laid out explicitly in the Constitution. These include the authority to coin money, regulate interstate commerce, declare war, raise and maintain armed forces, and establish a Post Office. But the federal government has expanded far, far beyond its original bounds.

We now have a gigantic federal government that involves itself in everything from healthcare to education to marriage to social media. This is the root cause of our division.

When another person’s vote has the ability to wield enormous power over your life and make sweeping changes in your community, that is going to lead to more than hostility. In fact, it is unsustainable—and could eventually lead to a breaking up of our country. 

People in California shouldn’t be able to force their way of life on people in South Carolina, or vice versa. We are very different people, with different religions, cultural practices, ways of life, and population sizes.

Famed economist Milton Friedman perhaps predicted and expressed this problem best:

Government has three primary functions. It should provide for military defense of the nation. It should enforce contracts between individuals. It should protect citizens from crimes against themselves or their property. When government– in pursuit of good intentions tries to rearrange the economy, legislate morality, or help special interests, the cost comes in inefficiency, lack of motivation, and loss of freedom. Government should be a referee, not an active player.

Big government makes people fear one another and drives distrust. In a free-market economy, people have to provide goods or services that improve the lives of their fellow man in order to make a living. In a crony capitalist economy, people instead petition the government to stomp out their competitors, protect their interests, and improve their lives to the detriment of their fellow citizens. 

In a country with a limited government, citizens would be free to practice their religions, customs, and culture as they wish. A federal election would not greatly impact you or your neighbor. The federal government would never enter the equation on most everyday issues in a person’s life. But in a country where people use the federal government to force their customs, religions, and practices on others, a culture war is formed where Americans feel they have to fight and defeat those who are different than themselves just to preserve their way of life.

This isn’t sustainable. We’re on a dangerous path, and Americans are right to fear violence, retaliation, or even another civil war (of sorts) if we don’t change course. 

A return to federalism is the only realistic alternative—and how we get out of this mess.   

Limited government and individual liberty are more than popular slogans, and many of those on the Right need to return to these values as much as those on the Left do.

A limited government allows people to find local solutions, cooperation, and sustainable approaches to society’s ills while ensuring that each individual person is secure in their natural rights and has the opportunity to build the life that best suits them.

If we want America to be great again, we’ll remember what made us great in the first place: our diversity, our values of limited government and individual rights, and our commitment to a peaceful coexistence. That is American exceptionalism.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

The post The Only Way to Stop Polarization from Tearing America Apart appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

The truth is that the real “Chinese Virus” we’re facing right now isn’t the debilitating cough and fever sweeping the globe, but the subsequent massive rise in state sanctioned tyranny.

It starts simple enough – a direct self-isolation violation or someone losing it and going for a swim in the closed off hotel pool. And the response is all the same. Police are called (or were already present) and come in to deal with the rule breakers. At first it’s someone who will hurt others by leaving their home, or losing it due to the nature of this whole debacle and causing a panic to your fellow hotel-sheltered. It could even be some jackass who wants to be out to “catch ’em all” in Pokemon Go “because he has to” and then surprise, he gets arrested. But such is always the start of these tales, and the harsh response that those governing choose to take is then justified under the guise of the ‘greater good’.

It moves on from those cases, and lines continue to be crossed as people are faced with the so-called consequences of their actions. A woman is arrested for sitting on a riverside bench. A couple is fined for being too close while social distancing is in effect. Joggers are arrested. Lives are threatened. Even drones are dispatched to enforce what ought to be simple social activity advisement (something eerily reminiscent of Half Life 2). These occurrences continue to seem less and less absurd, and instead now fall in line with what you might begin to think are actual violations of civil rights. It begs the question: Is the right of association really being enforced?

Who is to say it is wrong for consenting able-bodied adults to associate as they please, fully aware of the risks and consequences? There is, of course, the risk of spreading it to others, but seldom is that risk not being analyzed by those around you anyway. Not to say I personally think people should gather. If it can be helped, they should stay at home and watch Netflix, HBO, or Hulu until the all clear rings out. However, perfectly reasonable interaction with others and the world is hardly an excessive demand from the healthy.

Take, for example, a small distributorship, which will likely see fewer than 10 bodies in the business at any given time of day. As it stands, if such a business wishes to stay open, it would be extremely understandable even if what they provide is something seemingly banal. Hindering people’s ability to move forward only further cripples the nation’s economy. Even if one might not agree with this kind of example, it should at the very least illuminate a discussion that should very well be had about this as legitimate concern.

With word, now, that police are even stopping people with out-of-state license plates, it’s at this point we realize whether we wanted, realized, understood it or not, we’ve been placed under extraordinary authoritative and controlling measures. With good intentions, to be sure, and with what seems to be good reason. However, these restrictions are moving beyond a supposed ‘necessary’ evil to what may very well constitute abuse of authority. Authority is being expanded, not only in America, but abroad, which is quite concerning given the proclivity of such violation citations or arrests being seen in other nations. Even in some states, the problem is rising all the same. We’re hardly special, even if we can at least guarantee that there really can’t be a national quarantine.

“They didn’t come for me” is a phrase so old they wrote a short story based around it for high schoolers to read in Freshman English. It’s easy to look from the sidelines as people are dealt with. However, taking action or saying something are the efforts needed to keep power in check. With traffic violations down (and thus revenue), the police need every reason they can to generate income to make up for it. Diligence will be necessary to counteract increased crackdowns on liberty, for any reason, from the government.

Let’s not become like China.

MORE:
The Great Suppression
America Should Retaliate Against China For The Coronavirus

The post The Real Chinese Virus: Rising Authoritarianism In A Pandemic World appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

[Missouri Is Fighting Alone Against Drug Monitoring (And Why The Entire USA Should Thank Them)]

Although not a new problem in our society, drug overdose seems to have received a lot more attention since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, with state governments scrambling to come up with viable solutions to curb what is being called an opioid epidemic. Their strongest push for creating a government-related program to fix a government-related problem comes in the form of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMP). These programs promise to help prevent drug-related deaths by somehow curbing drug addiction – a feat not yet achieved despite decades of government intervention.

These attempts by governments to thwart addiction will continue to fail, as they have ever since New York implemented the first PDMP in 1918. If you think I sound overly sure of myself in making this claim, rest assured there is good reason – I am a recovering addict. On December 21, 2019, I celebrated 13 years being clean. This anniversary was especially momentous because it marked more years being clean than the years I spent in active addiction.

My experience with addiction comes not from studying from afar and in textbooks, but from firsthand experience dealing with my own addiction as well as my interactions with fellow addicts. The following is what I consider to be the top four reasons PDMP can’t battle addiction.

1. Chemical Dependence Does Not Equal Addiction

Conflating chemical dependence with drug addiction is, in my opinion, the most common misstep advocates of PDMP continue to make. You can find myriad sources stating that chemical dependency is the same as substance abuse; however, I would argue that is a misunderstanding.

There are many medical reasons why a person may develop a chemical dependence to a regimen of drugs. A common example is management of chronic pain which cannot be treated with a medical procedure. Many of these people don’t like their choices for pain management, and are always searching for alternative courses of action to take other than being chemically dependent on a substance. I would not call an individual in this situation an addict. After all, an addict would justify their drug use with medical necessity (among other reasons) rather than search for alternatives to substance use.

Another medical reason is a circumstance one of my own family members went through: treatable physical injury. Suffering from multiple degree burns in a house fire, this family member underwent several stages of treatment in the hospital – skin grafts to repair areas of their body too damaged to heal, followed with inpatient monitoring while the healing process ran its course. They were in severe pain the entire time, and pain management was required for the months they remained in the hospital.

This family member developed a chemical dependence on demerol, the drug chosen for pain management as they healed. A final stage of weaning off the drug was needed before treatment was complete, which was also done in the hospital under supervision. Sadly, this weaning process is more often not done in an inpatient setting, and this lack of medical supervision is where this form of chemical dependency can progress to substance abuse.

Herein lies a key difference, in my experience, between chemical dependence and addiction. Chemical dependence to drugs like Doxycycline 100mg seems to largely stem from medical necessity, whereas drug abuse and addiction, for the most part, does not have its origins with a physical medical purpose. PDMP laws are unable to acknowledge this distinction. They can only view all individuals in the same light. This is a disservice to medical patients and addicts alike, and it can push both away from safe medical treatment.

2. Dual Diagnosis Treatment

Dual diagnosis is a term describing a person with both a mental illness and a drug abuse problem. A preexisting mental illness, if left untreated, can lead to drug and alcohol addiction, and addiction can manifest a mental illness. In these situations, an addict needs to overcome their addiction and may need to be prescribed medication to treat the symptoms of their mental illness, which is a conundrum in itself without being exacerbated by government controls.

In a recent paper, researchers shed some light on how these individuals fall through the cracks of the US healthcare system, due in large part to drug policy and programs focusing on criminalization and incarceration rather than treatment. PDMP  is one such program which enables law enforcement in this endeavor, leaving these people untreated for both their addiction and their mental illness.

3. The Drug Of Choice Fallacy

Proponents of PDMP  also fall prey to another misunderstanding of addiction when advocating for these laws; the fallacy that addicts are addicts because of the drugs they use. Nearly every argument favoring PDMP I’ve encountered asserts that drug monitoring is effective in fighting addiction because it can be used to limit or restrict access to an abuser’s “drug of choice.” I can assure you, when in active addiction, I had no “drug of choice.” There were certain drugs I preferred, but I would have settled for whatever I could acquire soonest or easiest.

For an addict, the substance used is not as important as the craving to appease our addiction. I have known plenty of recovering drug like Accutane addicts who relapsed on alcohol, and even substances that aren’t considered drugs. I can relapse with what I can find in a grocery store, hardware store, gas station, or on the street corner. PDMP can’t do anything to address that. In fact, the very nature of this law will drive an addict to riskier, more dangerous substances.

4. Addiction Recovery Is Voluntary

This is going to be the hardest pill for drug control advocates to swallow. Seeking recovery from addiction is a voluntary choice. An addict cannot be compelled to quit. This renders legislators’ attempts to force addicts clean through required treatment and drug restriction by PDMP ineffective.

Nothing exemplifies this truth more plainly than the success of voluntary recovery programs. For more than half a century, a smattering of anonymous 12-step support groups have aided more people in recovery from addiction than all the government funded programs to date. Countless millions worldwide find solace from private community organizations, churches, and institutions that don’t even actively recruit. Just letting people know they are there is enough to attract those in need on a voluntary basis.

Perhaps that is part of the reason legislators think they need to compel individuals – so they can legitimize an ever-encroaching government co-opting what society can handle on its own when given the chance. Addicts don’t need government programs to hinder them. They need government out of the way so they can succeed.

The post Why Prescription Drug Monitoring Can’t Battle Addiction: An Addict’s Perspective appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

The prohibition of alcohol may be one of the greatest examples in the 20th century of the government trying to overstep its bounds by attempting to become the moral arbitrator of right and wrong within civilized society. Instead of transforming men into angels through social engineering, the movement intended millions of Americans suddenly became criminals by trying to consume or sell an alcoholic beverage.

A study conducted by Mark Thorton of the Cato Insitute notes America had seen a steady decline in crime over the 19th and 20th centuries. However, due to the Prohibition of alcohol, the homicide rate in large cities had a 78% increase over the pre-prohibition period due to restrictions placed on alcohol.

The birth of organized crime was another disastrous consequence of the government’s war on booze. This era saw the rise of infamous mob bosses like Al Capone, who greatly profited from the sale of illegal hooch. Dave Roos of History.com makes mention of the fact that it was Prohibition that was the launching pad for organized crime in America in his interview with Howard Abadinsky, author of Organized Crime. “Suddenly gang leaders are making deals with each other,” says Abadinsky, forging mutual protection pacts across state and international borders, and across ethnic lines, to ensure that shipments of illegal alcohol poured freely into the big cities.

“These are very violent people who are used to solving problems by killing them, but eventually they sit down and say, ‘We’ll guarantee peace in your area if you guarantee peace in our area.’ That’s called syndicated crime, this cooperation between criminal groups,” says Abadinsky. “In the absence of Prohibition, we wouldn’t have had the kind of syndicated criminality that occurred. Prohibition was the catalyst.”, says Roos, according to History.com.

As if a sharp rise in the homicide rate and the birth of organized crime in the states was not enough, you can also blame the Prohibition Movement and Progressives of the Temperance societies and their pollical allies for the deaths of around 13,000 people. In 1927, Time Magazine reported that the government introduced a new system for “denaturing” alcohol. Denaturing was the adding of unappetizing or toxic chemicals into industrialized liquor in an effort to keep people from drinking industrial-grade alcohol to avoid paying a tax on alcoholic drinks. The process introduced by anti-alcohol advocates in government made spirits toxic to consume. “The new formula included “4 parts methanol (wood alcohol), 2.25 parts pyridine bases, 0.5 parts benzene to 100 parts ethyl alcohol”, Time Magazine reported. Time also reported that this formula was known to cause blindness.

No matter what an individual may think about the consumption of alcohol or drugs on a personal level, if we learn one thing from Prohibition, it’s that banning things never works. More often than not, it makes the problem much worse. The suffering created by the assault on the liberty of Americans that was created by the 18th amendment was worsened by the $300 million dollars needed to enforce the tyrannical law.

And so we remember the passing of the 21st amendment, which officially marked the end of the era of Prohibition on December 5th, 1933.  May I propose a toast to all my compatriots – I say, have a drink and remember, Prohibition stinks!

The post Have A Drink, Prohibition Stinks: Remembering the Tyranny of Prohibition appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

by Kyle Perkins

The inclusive plan of aspiring dean Vijay Pendakur offends the student diversity chief by including all students equally. What specifically he aims to do is include all students in the discussions he’ll have as a dean if elected. As inclusive as this plan is, it appears to not sit well with the student diversity chief of the school at which he’s looking to be a dean. His idea meets the definition of equal opportunity. That is, the idea that people need an even learning field and need to be free from artificial barriers so that they can advance upon basis of individual talents.

However, the idea this student diversity chief has is just the opposite. This chief prefers equality of outcome, which is granting everyone the same outcome no matter their individual talents or works. So out of these two, I say Mr. Pendakur is the truly inclusive one. He goes right into strongly understanding the value of advancement by individual talent.

More Opportunity means More Prosperity

Nothing in human history has created more prosperity for all than building opportunity for all, as the Cato Institute notes. Building more opportunity for all is exactly what Mr. Pendakur is aiming to do. This does not just apply to an individual’s economic prosperity, but in this case, it also goes for academic prosperity.

Knowing a core libertarian principle is advancement on individual talent, students ought to be able to advance themselves accordingly. Playing favorites with some demographics over others demolishes opportunity, meaning demolition of prosperity. And this favoritism is what’s being used to try to excuse Mr. Pendakur from being a Cornell University Dean.

Mr. Pendakur Nailed What the Problem is

Vijay Pendakur has stated that it is a problem to hear “diversity and inclusion” and think “playing favorites with previously shunned demographics.” And the fact of life that Cornell University needs to accept if it is to sit well with sanity is that Pendakur is absolutely right. Even paraphrasing what he said, the reality pointed out remains the same: that you do not build a better society by playing favorites with those of people who were normally shunned in the past.

Instead, build a better society by a chain of voluntary individual displays of charity. One starts with helping out the people they know personally. And then those others help the third people they know personally. Eventually, you improve your society through voluntary and individualistic brotherhood. I trust that Mr. Pendakur knows this to, and the other fact is you do not improve society through the blanket-thinking bigotry that Cornell University displayed against Vijay’s idea.

The best way for government to make education and society in general better is to stay strictly limited in power. Only allow government the power to enforce a universal standard of human rights as a requirement for economic freedom and for personal liberty. Becoming and remaining a minimal State is the only viable way government can help.

The post Cornell University Decides That Aspiring Dean is Too Inclusive appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

During Donald Trump’s address given at the Republican National Convention Thursday night, he said four words that either gives you hope or strikes fear into your heart. He said, “I am your voice.”

What was lacking in his message was the call for freedom — a message quelled by members of the party who see no hope. So much so, that they quickly sacrificed their principles for a false sense of security that comes with building a wall.

Alas, faith may be restored for those who are still waiting to raise their glass to freedom. The Republican party isn’t quite ‘dead’, necessarily. At least, not in the way you might think. There is a great unifier and it’s what has always brought people together. It’s just not going to be the plutocrat with a strong taste for a big police state who will do it.

It’s freedom. And beneath the authoritarian specter that was the RNC, there was a glimmer of hope for those of us who cherish freedom. It was seen for a moment when Trump reached out the LGBTQ community.

Only weeks ago, in Orlando, Florida, 49 wonderful Americans were savagely murdered by an Islamic terrorist. This time, the terrorist targeted our LGBT community. As your President, I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBT citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology. To protect us from terrorism, we need to focus on three things.

It might have been the first time that any Republican presidential nominee verbalized a position advocating for the LGBT community. This is a step in the right direction and softens the orange-tinted, tough veneer that is presumed to be Trump’s character.

That glimmer shone again when Peter Thiel, PayPal founder and tech billionaire, addressed the convention. Thiel was the first openly gay Republican convention speaker in the party’s history. Although Thiel may represent the gay community, he also represents a significant amount of people in the party who, like him, disagree with the much of the party’s social platforms.

This has been a year of firsts with regard to the Republican Primary election season, but it also signifies a pivotal moment in the party. While many are asking themselves, should I stay or should I go? Others may just stick around to see if this positive shift will ultimately lead to the political party’s transformation – a party that is more inclusive of minorities by heralding a more principled, civil liberty-centered platform.

“When I was a kid, the great debate was about how to defeat the Soviet Union,” Thiel said. “And we won. Now we are told that the great debate is about who gets to use which bathroom. This is a distraction from our real problems. Who cares?,” he concluded.

Can you hear the voices of freedom now?

It’s freedom. Economic freedom, to be specific.

Peter Thiel’s approach will more likely help to reign in a younger, more socially progressive demographic. A demographic that is, like Bernie Sanders’ supporters, fed up with the current system, only more fiscally conservative.

“I don’t pretend to agree with every plank in our party’s platform, but fake culture wars only distract us from our economic decline,” Thiel said.

The fake culture wars Thiel refers to is riddled with venomous, outspoken individuals on social media, bringing out unsavory characters who highlight some of the worst of Trump’s supporters. The ‘PC Police’ have given rise to a rowdy bunch of anti-establishment folks with a low tolerance for main stream media spin. Yet, in spite of this, there is some good that has come of it. It has resulted in a calling of arms to restore our First Amendment right.

Perhaps the years of divisive, social-leaning platforms that often cost general elections are a thing of the past and people will begin to understand what the actual role of the federal government is, while respecting the powers of individual states. This may be accomplished as long as Thiel and others like him continue to push the boundaries of the status quo and stand up for individual liberty. If this gains momentum, not only will it do more to unite the party under the Republican banner, it will breathe new life into a crippled, dying, good ol’ boys club.

The post Beneath the Frightening Surface, Hope for Liberty at the RNC appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.