Beta

Password Reset Confirmation

If an account matching the email you entered was found, you will receive an email with a link to reset your password.

Welcome to our Beta

The Advocates of Self-Government is preparing a new experience for our users.

User Not Found

The username/email and password combination you entered was not found. Please try again or contact support.

Skip to main content

Quizzes & Apps

Articles

Tag: politics

Civil Society – Not the State – Will Solve Video Game Addiction

Just when we think that politics can’t get any zanier, Missouri Senator Josh Hawley wants to ban “manipulative” online game features that supposedly make children addicted to video games. Introduced on May 8. 2019, Hawley’s Protecting Children from Abusive Games Act would prohibit video game companies from “exploiting children.” Hawley cites the use of “loot boxes,” microtransactions which encourage video game players to spend money in order to advance in a specific game. As crazy as this proposal may sound, let’s give Hawley the benefit of the doubt. There are certain studies that point to 1 to 10 percent of gamers being addicted to video games, whereas the World Health Organization contends that 3 to 4 percent suffer from video game addiction. But we have to ask ourselves, should this require the state to be involved? Josh Hawley is a reasonable elected official. The fact of the matter is that I actually like the family values he stands for. Unfortunately, many sectors of the Conservative movement believe these values must be enforced via the state. This couldn’t be more wrong. When we look back at our past century of Progressive politics, we’ve seen the state usurp functions that traditionally belonged to civil society. Because of these state encroachments, civil society has effectively been crowded out by the state. Voluntary organizations and mutual aid societies provided the necessary social glue to help people when they were in dire straits. In the case of health complications like addictions, these organizations would help rehabilitate these people and reintegrate back into normal society. This was how things worked throughout the Gilded Age (1880-1920), an era that almost seems quaint in today’s political environment of massive government. Unfortunately, the never-ending growth of the managerial state has phased out many of these organizations. As a result, American society has become more atomized and socially aloof when it comes to addressing these problems. Freedom comes with certain responsibilities. Yes, individuals can partake in activities that are harmful to their health, but they must assume the consequences for these actions. Even then, that does not mean the state should have to immediately step in to fix these problems. In fact, an integral part of freedom is the ability to partake in voluntary associations. As mentioned before, civil society is often a fallback measure for those who are going through troubling times. What separated America from other societies was its emphasis on voluntary charity and civic institutions that helped those in need. It did not need a heavy-handed state to carry out these actions. However, American culture has changed significantly thanks to the unprecedented growth in government during the past century. Senator Hawley may be onto something about addiction. As an American citizen, he has every right to raise awareness about the issue. However, a line must be drawn when government intervention is brought into the equation. Instead, Hawley and his ilk can set the example by re-vitalizing civil society via private, voluntary means. When it comes to addictions, America has a chronic ailment of turning to the state for solving problems.

Are Libertarians Just Moderates?

What is a moderate in today’s political environment? When someone describes themselves as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal,” they are often seen as just being moderates. However, this conclusion couldn’t be farther than the truth. The term “moderate” is as loose and ambiguous as defining one’s political views as “independent.” The issue at hand is that one person who identifies themselves as a moderate could be completely different than another person who identifies themselves as a moderate. One moderate could be pro-life and another could be pro-choice. Another independent could be a split ticket voter every election and another independent could vote Republican for reasons other than a regular conservative. Perhaps the best way to define moderates and independents is as being part of a broad, undefined group of individuals without a guiding political ideology. Libertarians could potentially be independents if we are talking specifically in partisan terms, especially when you take into account there are libertarians Democrats, Republicans, and members of the Libertarian Party itself. However, you cannot justly define libertarians and libertarianism as being a moderate ideology whatsoever. Libertarianism is based on the concepts of natural rights, non-aggression, and voluntary cooperation. Libertarians view individual rights as inalienable and private property rights as the bedrock to a civil and a free society. Libertarian thought amongst those who believe fully in individual liberty and economic freedom is consistent in their views on certain matters regardless as to what party is in power and who sits in the White House. The fact is, public institutions wish and actively shut out libertarianism from civics courses and U.S. Government classes since the ideals of liberty go directly against our civil religion’s views of the omnipotent state. Therefore, politicians in both parties and progressive academics would rather most voting Independents consider themselves politically moderate so that they are directionless and therefore more easily swayed to make drastic decisions based out of sheer emotion each time a tragedy or severe challenge upsets the status quo. The next time someone defines you as a moderate for your fiscally conservative, socially liberal views, you can smile and tell them that your guiding principles are life, liberty, property, and the freedom for individuals to define and pursue their own definition of happiness in a world without force or coercion by any monopoly of power.

The Difference Between Progressives and Libertarians

Often, people will attack or simply oppose things they don’t understand because of a blanket partisan opinion. In this article, I want to flesh out the real differences between people who hold progressive views and those who hold liberal views. Progressives and libertarians hold many similar values: we want to defend the rights of the underprivileged and minorities as well as promote social tolerance. Libertarians often hold in high regard progressives such as Martin Luther King Jr. as well as former President John F. Kennedy for their stances on equal rights before the law. Where the line is drawn, however, is the relationship between the individual and the state. Taken from a Marxist worldview, progressives see an immediate class struggle between the extorted working class and the economic elite. The progressive seeks not to abolish the capitalist system entirely, but to essentially use government to intervene as it may control the decisions of private businesses and to redistribute wealth amongst the working class as they see fit. Progressives also place identity politics and ethnic factionalism above the well being of individual thought and action. Progressives have a very narrow view of natural rights and place safety above liberty. Libertarians reject Marxist social views and see each individual in society as an autonomous being, endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights which are self-evident. Libertarians see free markets as a ladder of opportunity in which individuals move up and down in a fluctuating environment based upon their own ability. Libertarians wish the limit monopolized public institutions of force and coercion so individuals can live their lives the best way they see fit. Primarily, the biggest shift in mentality between the progressive and the libertarians is divided down the relationship between the individual and the state. Libertarians believe in LGBTQ+ rights, for example, but would not force their beliefs onto those who disagree through means of law or coercion. Libertarians believe that a collection of people in a free market should express the right to collective bargaining, but would never force a person to join a union in order to have a job. Ultimately, libertarians believe that social liberalism is best expressed voluntarily and absent of state intervention, whereas progressives do not wish to live in a world which does not share their progressive views, thus forcing the state to be the enforcer of their standards for mankind.

The Difference Between Conservatives and Libertarians

Often, libertarians and conservative talking points sound very similar, but if you brought up only a certain number of contentious topics, you’d quickly see why libertarians and conservatives are not just variations of each other. Libertarians believe that individuals and individual liberty are the keys to a free society and that these rights are inalienable regardless of where you are on a map. Issues like drug prohibition and prostitution have only to do with the individuals taking part and therefore should fall under criminal behavior since no individual is being deprived of life, liberty, or property through force. Libertarians do not believe in “victimless crime” like conservatives do since libertarian principles are based on voluntary cooperation and consent. Additionally, libertarians are more strident about issues such as gun control compared to conservatives, who claim to support the Second Amendment. On issues such as the recent bump stock ban by the Trump administration, libertarians were firmly against this infringement upon gun rights since the right to own a weapon for self-defense is inalienable, and therefore shall not be infringed. Conservatives, much like progressives, believe that without laws enforced by the state dictating the thoughts and actions of individuals, society would fall into social chaos. However, history shows that governments around the world have done more to harm individuals living peacefully than any other thing in the world. During the Civil Rights era, establishment Democrats, as well as southern conservatives, upheld arcane institutions such as the Jim Crow laws which limited the rights of African-Americans and people of color in order to maintain a false sense of cultural and social tranquility. Finally, in the realm of foreign policy, conservatives have historically been far too keen to intervene in the affairs of other nations who do not directly threaten the safety of the United States. Republican and Democrat presidents alike have a record of saying we support democratic institutions and civil liberties abroad but are far too alright with putting puppet dictators and despots into a place of power. Ultimately, whether it is individual liberty or economic freedom, libertarians live a consistent set of values based on individual freedom which conservatives believe they uphold but are far too willing to compromise in the name of safety.
Venezuela

Venezuela Coup Fails, So Of Course Trump Pushes More US Intervention

President Donald Trump is truly the celebrity apprentice of the US empire. Instead of firing the neocons and globalists driving his foreign policy, Trump is promising more intervention, despite the flop that was the attempted coup in Venezuela. “A full and complete embargo, together with highest-level sanctions, will be placed on the island of Cuba,” Trump threatened in a Tuesday evening tweet, hypocritically ordering Cuba not to intervene in Venezuela. This glaring admission of weakness from the deal-maker-in-chief came as reality dawned on him that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s socialist regime was holding steady against Juan Guaidó, the National Assembly leader who, standing with a small group of military members, urged a coup hours earlier. Venezuela Amid the quick pace of Tuesday’s events, the ex-CIA director turned Secretary of State Mike Pompeo went on CNN to blame “The Russians” for giving Maduro the courage not to flee Venezuela. Meanwhile, Democrats eyeing 2020 are apparently too stuck on Russiagate to know how to react to the news. If only there was a fresh face in the Democratic field who could make a coherent argument against CIA and US military intervention abroad, who also saw through the Russiagate nonsense. Oh, wait, that was supposed to be Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who inexplicably deleted this video from her Twitter account. The attempted coup in Venezuela on Tuesday was cheered on immediately (synchronistically even) by the same old warmonger types such as Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida) and Trump’s national security adviser John Bolton. Bolton, by the way, couched the Trump administration’s views on the situation in speculative terms, telling reporters, “The Cubans, we believe, have played a very significant role in propping Maduro up today, possibly with help from the Russians, that’s the speculation.” So, at least 69 people were hurt in the violence in Venezuela, reports AFP. And 25 Anti-Maduro Venezuelan soldiers have been granted asylum within a Brazilian embassy, as a result of the failed coup. Similarly, opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez took refuge in Chile’s embassy in Caracas. Making America great again is over. Trump is ostensibly now in “keeping America great” space, as the 2020 campaign ramps up. But how can that case be made without laughter if his focus is now set on Cuba, Venezuela, and Russia? After Tuesday’s embarrassing display, there is no hope that the next time US interventionism blows up in Trump’s face, he will tell any of his neocon or globalist staff, “You’re fired.”

The Brexit Party Shows Why America’s Two-Party System is Illiberal

Former UKIP leader Nigel Farage is back in the United Kingdom to ensure that Brexit becomes a reality. Three years ago, the British voted to leave the European Union and return much of their lost sovereignty and self-determination back to their country. Since then, the major parties – ranging from the Labour Party, Conservative Party, and UKIP – have wrestled with leadership changes as they attempt to either push Brexit forward according to schedule or try to slyly forgo Brexit entirely. Now, with British Prime Minister Theresa May widely unpopular and British voters even more upset with the slow process, it only makes sense that Farage would return to ensure that the effort he and his movement spent over 27  years can finally come to fruition. In the UK, competing parties that participate and get elected based on a mix of plurality and rank choice voting known in the UK as first past the post voting. Without going into too much detail as to how elections in the UK work, what is important is the fact their democratic institutions allows for competing third-parties that allow for voters to have a real impact in the way coalition governments are formed and to ensure their voices are understood by the political class. In the United States, rigged institutions such as the Commission on Presidential Debates prevent third-party candidates from getting on the debate stage because Democrats and Republicans want to ensure the two-party system stays amongst them. The relevant saying that “picking between two parties is like only picking between only two flavors of ice cream,” is still true to this day. From ballot access requirements to other legalities that prevent third parties from making a real impact, American voters are deprived of an authentic voice for their needs each election. When the American people have less political freedom than the nation we broke away from in 1776, we have to start asking whether the old two parties truly care about our liberty as voters, or if we are meant to stay in this permanent state of choosing which party can take away more of our freedoms in the next election.

Democrat Presidential Candidates Target the Death Penalty

Within the past month, many of the dozens of Democrats running for the party’s nomination for president in 2020 came out against the death penalty after former Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper announced that, if elected president, he would suspend the death penalty. While this has not been a hot button issue in an election cycle – which has already been marked with plans for the abolishment of the Electoral College, gun confiscation, and socialized medicine – this might be the most humane decision made by any of the current contenders in the race by restricting a form of state action. Since the death penalty is a state-sanctioned decision, it does not often receive attention during presidential discussions. However, when has a candidate in either party not wanted to use federal power in the last 160 years to issue proclamations against state’s rights? The constitutional argument aside, the death penalty has strong opposition across the board ranging from progressives to conservatives. Libertarians have historically been opposed to the death penalty since it is the belief that life should only be taken in an immediate act of self-defense. In situations of potentially lethal assault against a non-violent individual or in acts of war between opposing military forces, violence and the imminent threat of death is understood. However, just as it was wrong for Cain to murder his brother Abel for no reason other than greed, libertarians believe that it is just as wrong to put a person in a cage, walk them leashed to execution, and take the life of a person who has no ability to fight back. Whether secular or religious, libertarians stand for the right to maintain and protect life. While Hickenlooper’s opposition to the death penalty should be admired, his executive action to restrict the rights of states to make their own legal decisions is both undemocratic and unconstitutional. Therefore, it is the moral responsibility of all individuals who believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to oppose unjust actions by those in authority and to organize into effect changes in their community, state, and nation. Only then will righteous people have the legal and moral high ground in the courts of law and of public opinion.

What King and Kennedy Remind Us About Politically Motivated Violence

The first week of April in 1968, America was shaken to its core when Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. and Senator Bobby Kennedy were both assassinated. King was killed in Tennessee by a white supremacist and Kennedy, by a mentally ill individual who hated what he stood for. This happened after Kennedy had just been announced the winner of the Democratic primary in California. In the summer of 1968, both men had been criticized by both their movements and parties for the harsh stance they took against the war in Vietnam, as well as the institution of the draft. While Americans stood on either side of the fence in terms of these political decisions – unlike most nations throughout history where factionalism led to civil war, it was always the American tradition and mindset to settle these decisions through our lawmakers and in the courts so our country would not spiral into violence ever again. The assassination of King and Kennedy would lead to a summer of violence throughout the country, with most historians pointing to the Chicago riots at the Democratic National Convention which appeared to have caused mass disenfranchisement in our political and law enforcement institutions. Ultimately, the martyrdom of King and Bobby Kennedy still has an impact on American culture and our political fabric as a whole. We still speak of them and remember their messages of peace and civil dialogue with sincerity – yet often forget the names of the men who killed King and Kennedy would kill their ideas and the commitment of those who believed in those ideas. Libertarians believe and practice a non-aggression principle, and believe that no act of force, violence, or coercion should ever be used to obtain political power and influence. This non-aggression principle leads and intertwines itself into the rest of the libertarian ethic as a whole since the focus of liberty derives and is powered by the power of the individual, crafted by their creator with inalienable rights. History shows that all movements rooted in violence and goals obtained only through violent means ultimately end by their own hand. The legacies of King and Kennedy remind us years later that peace is a stronger unifier than fear, and love is a larger motivator than hatred. Only those that understand this can be depended on to maintain the free society we all cherish and hope to expand to other areas of life.

‘Asylum Seekers’ Should Fight For Freedom Back Home, But Americans Must Lead By Example

Over 103,000 migrants were apprehended on the U.S. southern border last month, as crossings continue to rapidly increase. At what point should these people take responsibility for their homelands? And when will Americans who call for that cease being hypocrites? It’s said that America is the land of the free, because it’s the home of the brave. But how much bravery does it take to scapegoat foreigners escaping tyranny for a better life? Especially in times when the U.S. government, elected by the citizenry, is the one robbing, killing, kidnapping, and enslaving the people? Still, being a hypocrite doesn’t make one wrong. The U.S. Declaration of Independence acknowledges the natural right of rebellion of all people. It’s the only right described as a duty, actually. But for Americans in particular, it’s even more severe. As Judge Andrew Napolitano points out, the Declaration was adopted into the U.S. Code, so ignoring the “duty, to throw off such Government” is illegal! Natural law, of course, precedes the constitutions of Venezuela, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, and every other Mexican country. The people there may not have the right of rebellion written down or even a safeguard for the right to bear arms. But that doesn’t excuse those who flee to the U.S. from the question so many Americans instinctively ask: Why not go back you came from and make a better life there? Overthrowing a government is risky business. Witness the Arab Spring. U.S. regime change interventions are a separate entity, but they help show how revolution can be a state weapon. Prudent, civilized people are rarely revolutionary. If not now, though, when do conditions warrant revolt? “Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats,” H.L. Mencken wrote. The latest figures show U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered 103,492 individuals crossing from Mexico in March alone. Compared to March of last year, that was a 148 percent increase. Unaccompanied children are also increasing, with 35,898 crossing so far this year, an increase of 66 percent over 2018. On paper, the solution seems simple. Abolish welfare and all the goodies taxpayers are subsidizing. Stop military and covert interventions in the internal affairs of foreign nations. End drug prohibition. Beyond that pie in the sky, taxpayers must rise up against at least one of the following: the TSA, the national security state, the IRS, the Department of Education, or every gun grabbing, thought policing, conscriptive policy they have so far allowed. Show the world how liberty gets done. Nullification might be the most practical starting point. Immigrants tend to assimilate. If Americans were to be proper hosts and put their house in order, some of their guests just might pitch in to help.

Race Reparations Won’t Fix Racial Inequality

When I ran for student council in the fifth grade, my opponent said if she won, she would take the entire class to Disneyland. Was that actually something some fifth grader was capable of when our real job was to vote on party themes and fundraiser ideas for school supplies? No, but she said it because who could really stop her? The teachers could jump in and say that wasn’t going to happen, but in everyone’s mind, she was fighting for them, so what was there to lose? I certainly wasn’t promising Disneyland. A decade later and there are still folks who are making promises –  from dog catchers running for re-election to first-time candidates for president of the United States – racial reparations are as practical and possible as Trump’s wall or that fifth grade trip to Disneyland. Pitching an idea that even Bernie Sanders thinks is way too out there is saying something, but Democrat candidates such as Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, and Julian Castro are trying to outdo each other with the promise of monetary reparations for descendants of African slaves. This isn’t a new idea, but the fact that not one but several presidential candidates are advocating for this is disturbing. It’s pandering for votes. America has paid for the sins of its past in blood to abolish slavery, and brave free men and women fought in the courts of law and public opinion during the Jim Crow era to ensure equality before the law. Many generations removed from slavery, the goal of those alive now should be to encourage the growth of freedom and access to opportunities so the next generation can live the lives we would want them to. While the concept of monetary restitution for descendants of African slaves is a grand, utopian concept with no real plan of action nor chance of actually happening, there are actions that can be accomplished right now that can benefit those craving a better life for themselves and their posterity right here, right now. Eliminating Affirmative Action would end the legalized racism that is currently part of the college admissions process, meaning people can earn the education their desire at the institution of their choice based off the merit of their work ethic and widen the opportunity of acceptance for those who Affirmative Action tilts against. Also allowing for the expansion of school vouchers will force schools to compete for students by raising the standards they hold themselves to so our children receive the best education and care possible since teachers and staff would be incentivized to perform better than they currently are. Lowering barriers to entry would provide free people self-determined to provide a livelihood for themselves the opportunity to find work by eliminating the rigged system that is occupational licensing. Everyone has the right to work, and the best-guaranteed income is a job, plain and simple. Finally, equality before the law must be upheld and protected. The racist war on drugs was created to effectively target the black community, and the justice system systematically imprisons blacks over whites for the exact same crime. By allowing people to live free instead of in cages should be a cross-partisan issue. The Democrats are promising the grand plan for the reason President Lyndon Johnson created the Great Society initiative in the first place –  to guarantee the black vote for generations by making them choose between the dangers of liberty or the mental slavery of dependency.

Trump Migrates on Border Wall & Immigration to Secure 2020 Victory

Conventional wisdom is wrong again. President Donald Trump doesn’t need a wall to win in 2020. A better strategy is to simply stay consistent with his off-script promotion of legal immigration “in the largest numbers ever.” Don’t bet on Trump wearing a Make Open Borders Great Again hat anytime soon, but he may be dabbling in more libertarian-leaning immigration politics as Congress finalizes its deal on border security funding. Another government shutdown seems off the table, but increasingly, so does Trump’s threat of a national emergency declaration, which theoretically would force the funding and building of a border wall. Trump knows a court challenge would last through his re-election campaign, and under the National Emergencies Act of 1975, a simple majority of the House of Representatives could override the executive move. How, then, does Trump come out winning? It may depend on what he says in El Paso, Texas, on Monday night, his first rally of 2019. Look out for anything that may parallel what he extemporaneously floated in front of a divided Congress at his State of the Union Address. “Legal immigrants enrich our nation and strengthen our society in countless ways,” Trump said. “I want people to come into our country in the largest numbers ever, but they have to come in legally.” The mainstream media gawked at this, and not surprisingly, Democrats haven’t jumped at the opportunity to work with the president to welcome more immigrants. But it’s not exactly coming out of nowhere from this administration. In June 2018, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders stressed to reporters that Trump wanted a “very legal and easy immigration process so that people can come here the right way, not the wrong way.” Trump talked about simplifying the process on the 2016 campaign trail as well, though, in fairness, his more popular lines were regarding the wall and temporary bans. Still, his wall was always going to have doors. He told CNN’s Erin Burnett in 2016 that he hoped to “get a lot of people coming in.” As Congress closed in on a deal Thursday, Republican Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, told the Washington Examiner that Trump was “very reasonable” with him on what he would sign regarding funding for border security. If that is the case, expect Trump to boast about how far he moved Democrats away from “open borders” and secured at least some funding for limited border barriers. Trump would be able to avoid the dead-ends of more government shutdowns and endless court battles, all the while stealing thunder from his opponents. Trump is playing politics, not the way a bold libertarian type might, but the end result may be much less frightening than our first impressions following his golden escalator announcement. While his endorsement of the 2017 RAISE Act to lower legal immigration caps alarmed many, he’s clearly turned a 180 from that position since “winning” on other economic fronts, like renegotiating and remarketing NAFTA as USMCA, which aims to force car manufacturers into building more factories in the US. Is this the beginning of the end of the wall as a campaign issue? “I need people coming in because we need people to run the factories and plants and companies that are moving back in,” Trump told reporters this past week. “We need people.”  

Image credit: Gage Skidmore

‘Unity’ Is What’s Dividing This Country

Please, make it stop. These incessant calls for “unity” are already falling flat, and only 1/1,024th of the 2020 Democratic candidates have announced their campaigns. Not to be outdone, even President Donald J. Trump promises “unity” will be the focus of his State of the Union address. Is it any wonder Americans are so divided? Liberty is ostensibly the founding principle and purpose of the United States of America. But the Constitution also seeks “to form a more perfect Union.” Is this a contradiction that guarantees the American experiment inevitably explodes in our faces, as evidenced by daily reality? Or could it be that our nation is simply missing a key ingredient? An Abraham Lincoln for our time, say, oh, I don’t know, Senator Kamala Harris or Senator Cory Booker? “The lines that divide us are nowhere near as strong as the ties that bind us,” presidential candidate Booker assures us. Days earlier, his opponent Harris proclaimed, “We have so much more in common than what separates us.” Who honestly believes them? Certainly not the overpaid speechwriters and consultants. Maybe they did 15 years ago when a lowly US Senate candidate named Barack Obama won over America with his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention. “There is not a liberal America and a conservative America—there is the United States of America,” Obama famously told a clamoring, emotional audience. So then, what’s Trump going to say Tuesday night? Spoiler alert: more of the same. Asked what the theme of his State of the Union would be, he replied, “I think it’s unification.” The 2020 battle line has been drawn. There will be a winner, but it won’t be “unity,” and it won’t be the American people. Unless, and this is where things get radical, the Constitution’s true meaning is honored. A more perfect union isn’t supposed to mean Soviet. Americans should get real about the practicality of uniting together. It seems like a good intention, but the end product is separate forces united against one another. What the Constitution actually sets out to do is balance unity with subsidiarity, whereby the states and local communities deal with their own problems and the federal authorities mind their own business. Secession shouldn’t be necessary. Look at what Thomas Jefferson and James Madison wrote and did in such divisive times. They turned to the Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights and respectively steered Kentucky and Virginia toward nullification of federal laws that attacked freedom of speech. The federal government’s inclination toward unity is almost always about uniformly subduing the several states and the people therein. Economist and historian Murray N. Rothbard advised libertarians and “many other minority or dissident groups” to “lay the greatest stress on the forgotten Tenth Amendment.” American society will surely collapse financially and culturally if universal policies and central planning continue to be the means by which we seek unity. Peace and prosperity, however, will take hold if we work from the bottom up at the local level. Rothbard also implored defenders of liberty to strongly favor non-intervention in foreign policy, agreeing with Madison and Jefferson that war is a means by which the president “unites” the people under his total dominion. Therefore, in 2020, instead of “unity” being the hill to die on, let it be peace. Trump would be well-served to face an opponent like Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard. The country would be well-served too. Because although she laments “divisiveness” in her campaign rhetoric, she points to its root cause being nonsensical wars.