Donate Get Updates Volunteer

Archive for Press Releases

Jun
16

Peace is Profitable

by R. Lee Wrights

Most discussions about the costs of war focus on two numbers, the cost in dollars and cents and the more profound and heartbreaking cost in lives. Yet even as depressing as these numbers are, the figures discussed rarely encompass the whole truth. Over many generations those in power have learned there are benefits to keeping the populace as ignorant as possible when it comes to the true costs of war.

American politicians never talk about all the people killed in war, just American service members. Everyone else who is killed, even Americans arbitrarily classified as “enemy combatants,” are marginalized as mere collateral damage. Dollar costs consider only the “official” Defense Department budget, not the funds scattered and hidden throughout the federal budget. And the tally sheet deliberately excludes the cost of caring for the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines physically and emotionally scarred by war.

The Eisenhower Study Group at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International Studies has compiled a comprehensive study of the human, economic, social and political costs of war. It’s available online. As you might imagine, the real numbers of wars we are presently involved in are staggering and stunning: more than 224,000 lives lost, more than 365,000 wounded, and in excess of seven million refugees.

The total estimated cost to the American taxpayer for our current wars is $3-4 trillion dollars through 2020 — plus an additional $1 trillion just to pay the interest on the money borrowed to fund war. Funding war by borrowing money is one of the devices politicians have devised to pay for war, particularly for unpopular wars. This means our children must pay tomorrow for the wars we are involved in today.

In the modern era, including Word War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War and our present conflicts, the United States has funded its wars through debt, taxation or inflation, or sometimes a combination of these methods. In each case, according to a recent report by the Institute for Peace and Justice, the result has been detrimental to the economy in the long run. In each case, the burden has fallen on the American taxpayers and the private sector, through increased taxes, increased cost of goods and shortages. In short, in each case the result has been a depressed civilian economy.

The report also found that excessive military spending can displace more productive non-military outlays in investments in high-tech industries, education, or infrastructure. The crowding-out effects of disproportionate government spending on military functions can affect service delivery or infrastructure development, ultimately affecting long-term growth rates. In simpler terms, the more the government borrows and spends for war, the less the private sector is able to grow and prosper.

For the period after World War II, if the wars had not happened the report concludes “it is likely taxes would have been lower, inflation would have been lower, there would have been higher consumption and investment and certainly lower budget deficits.” That can lead, in my view, to only one conclusion, a conclusion I reached years ago and one that is familiar to any libertarian: War is a waste. Peace is profitable.

War disrupts and distorts the free market, steals resources and workers from construction and diverts them to destruction. War does not produce anything except death. It only destroys. Jobs supposedly created by war industries, including drafting men into the military, is not full employment, it is slavery.

The businesses that profit from war are not free market entities, but “merchants of death” who would not exist if there were no war. “They are economic parasites, who take society’s resources but do not produce anything for civilian use in return,” wrote Jacob H. Huebert, author of Libertarianism Today. Again, we see that war is waste.

War spending is a monstrous manifestation of the broken window fallacy. In the war politicians’ perverted view of economics any war, no matter how many people are killed or how widespread the destruction, is an opportunity for them to increase their power and control by “jump-starting” the economy with projects to rebuild what they’ve destroyed. They deliberately ignore and discount the illogic and immorality of their actions. They have no concept that the money and resources squandered to break things, and then rebuild them, and to kill people, could have been better used building news things and saving lives.

War breeds war. War does nothing but devour valuable resources and destroy precious lives for the sole purpose of perpetuating itself. On the other hand, peace breeds prosperity. In peace, valuable natural resources can be preserved and used at home where we need them most. When there’s peace, people prosper. There have been economic booms, scientific advancements, and cultural progress after every conflict America has fought.

War is waste. Peace is production. War means we all lose. Peace means we all profit and prosper. What does America need more of right now?

R. Lee Wrights is a writer and political activist living in Texas. He is currently the Vice Chair of the Libertarian Party national committee. He is the co-founder and editor of the free speech online magazine Liberty For All. Contact Lee at rleewrights@gmail.com.

Categories : Op eds, Press Releases
May
26

Peace Is the Death of War

by R. Lee Wrights

BURNET, Texas (May 26) – When I began my quest for the Libertarian presidential nomination, my staff and I were committed to making the campaign about more than just winning the nomination. We determined that whoever was the nominee, the message of the Libertarian Party in 2012 would be “Stop All War,” and that message would be heard in all 50 states. To that end, we pledged 10 percent of all donations to insure ballot access, and began The Million Vote March project to achieve a historic first for the Libertarian Party.

As I have said from the beginning, this is not about Lee Wrights. It’s about the Libertarian Party and the libertarian message of peace, prosperity and progress. While the campaign for the nomination is over, the campaign to Stop All War, to gain 50-state ballot access, and to win one million votes for the Libertarian candidate for president continues. It must continue. Not only because it’s what my staff and I have pledged to do, but because it’s right for the Libertarian Party and it’s right for America.

So we’ll continue to seek donations for ballot access. We’ll continue to produce videos for Libertarian candidates and affiliates. We’ll continue The Million Vote March to vote libertarian to stop all war. We’ll strive to Occupy Ballot Access in as many states as possible.

But if the Libertarian Party is going to be the Peace Party, we must begin by declaring peace among ourselves. I’ve said it at dozens of state conventions, I said it in Las Vegas, and I will say it again and again until everyone hears and believes: I am not at war. If enough of us say it, they can’t have them anymore.

Peace is the death of war. Peace is not the opposite of war. Peace is not the absence of war. Peace is the death of war. Peace happens when enough people decide they have had enough killing. Peace happens when enough people say, “I am not at war.”

And peace, like charity, begins at home. As I’ve said across the nation at state Libertarian conventions and repeated in Las Vegas: we cannot begin to stop the wars outside of a convention hall until we stop the wars within its walls. Libertarians must first stop being at war with each other before we can even begin to think about stopping the wars Democrats and Republicans conjure up. As long as we’re fighting each other, the only victor will be those who desire neither peace nor liberty, but only war and tyranny.

On Saturday night and early Sunday, between the two rounds of voting for national chair, I was besieged by people asking me if I would support this or that person, or this or that compromise. I told every one of them that all they were doing was setting themselves, and the party, up for war. I told them all: “I am not at war.”

These are not just words. Many people who know my reputation as a warrior have found it difficult to believe, but it’s true. Those who know me know I’m sincere. These are not just words to be recited, they are words that must be lived. Peace, like libertarianism, is more than a philosophical or political concept. Peace is a way of life. We must be it and live it.

Categories : Blog, Op eds, Press Releases
Apr
28

Let’s Offer a True Libertarian Message to America

by R. Lee Wrights

BURNET, Texas  – It’s been nearly two years since I began this campaign to earn the Libertarian Party presidential nomination. From the beginning I stated my goal clearly and I’ve stuck to it. I said then that the Libertarian Party faces a critical test in 2012 and I want to make sure we’re up to the challenge. The Libertarian message in 2012 must be a loud, clear and unequivocal call to stop the wars! Stop the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, stop the war on drugs and alternative lifestyles, stop the war on civil liberties – stop all war.

At every presidential debate, state party convention and event I’ve attended, I’ve asked libertarian activists to join me in saying ‘I am not at war,’ and I’ve been encouraged and inspired by their response. It has been my honor to take part in forums with my fellow presidential candidates. I’ve learned some things from them, and I hope they have learned some things from me.

The only thing that has changed is that today it’s even more critical that the Libertarian Party’s candidate for President of the United States is ready, willing and able to present a clear, principled, unwavering and unequivocal libertarian message that offers Americans radically different answers to our nation’s problems, not variations or modifications of the false solutions promoted by Democrats and Republicans.

I believe I’m the person most qualified to fill that role. I’ve been a libertarian all my life; never have I been anything else. There is no learning curve for Lee Wrights as the 2012 standard bearer. I can wave the Libertarian flag high without exception or compromise.

We Libertarians are in the business of pulling up weeds like taxes and regulations, not planting new ones. We offer the American people true choices and rational alternatives. The Libertarian Party can make a difference in 2012, but only if we are different, and our candidate for president is not afraid to be a true, principled libertarian. The libertarian promise of peace, prosperity and progress is a message Americans are longing to hear. We don’t need to soften, refine or modify what we believe to win votes.

If you honor me with your nomination for President of the United States, I pledge to campaign like a libertarian, offer libertarian solutions to problems and issues, and eventually govern like a libertarian. I promise to always bear in mind that no matter what the question, freedom is the answer. If elected, I will be:

  • A Libertarian president who conducts foreign policy on the basis of conversation and commerce, not bullets and bombs.
  • A Libertarian president who supports our troops by bringing them all home now, leaving only embassy guards overseas.
  • A Libertarian president who never orders American troops on any mission other than defending the United States of America from direct attack.
  • A Libertarian president who never enters any “entangling alliance” or suggests giving foreign aid to any nation, no matter how friendly they are.
  • A Libertarian president who never proposes to “reform” or “replace” the federal income tax, but who’ll work to abolish it.
  • A Libertarian president who never condones or orders the detention – let alone the killing – of any person anywhere, regardless of their citizenship and their suspected activities, be they criminal or terrorist, without due process of law.

Gandhi said that we must become the change we want to see in the world. In 2012, the Libertarian Party must become the change it offers to the American people. We need a presidential candidate who is willing to speak about change, real change, and not deviate from principle for political expediency. I believe that I am that candidate. If you honor me with your nomination, I will offer the American people the change that will lead us all to liberty and freedom, and bring us peace, prosperity and progress.

Categories : Op eds, Press Releases
Apr
14

America needs secure open borders

by R. Lee Wrights

BURNET, Texas – America has always had an “illegal immigration” problem. Just ask any Native American. During a conversation with a Cherokee chief several years ago I asked him, “What did the native tribes call America before the white settlers came here?” He looked me straight in the eyes and solemnly replied, “Ours.”

This immigration debate is a classic example of why libertarians must become better communicators. Libertarians and others advocating immigration law reform talk about “open borders.” Conservatives, on the other hand, insist America must have “secure borders.” Both sides use these terms as if they were mutually exclusive. They’re not. They’re opposite sides of the same coin. It’s possible to have borders that are both open and secure.

The problem is that the term “open borders” is not specific enough to convey to a listener what we actually mean. When some people hear the words “open borders” they immediately envision an invading army marching across our borders unchallenged. On the other hand, when others (particularly libertarians) hear open borders, all that it means is accessibility for peaceful people to come and go.

As far as I’m concerned, we have open borders now. You go through a checkpoint at the border and if you are on the up and up, you’re allowed to pass unmolested. The border is kept both open and secure this way, at least in theory. Building walls and fences do not keep people out, and really only serve to keep people in.

People who complain about “illegal immigration” usually insist that anyone who wants to come here should “get in line.” The problem is there is no “line,” at least no line that makes any sense, as this chart from Reason magazine illustrates. The real problem we have is not the immigrants themselves as much as America’s immigration laws.

The Emmy award-winning investigative report John Stossel did a program last year that dramatically illustrates this point. If you’re from India, for example, have a doctorate and want to come to America and become a citizen, the immigration process takes five to seven years. Most people would agree that’s relatively reasonable and doable.

But if you’re an unskilled laborer from Mexico and want to come to America and become a citizen, the same process takes about 130 years. We’ve made it impossible for these people to immigrate legally. It’s no wonder people are swimming the Rio Grande. We have literally made it easier to swim the Rio Grande than to climb Mount Bureaucracy.

Not surprisingly, government has “created” this illegal immigrant problem. When people start screaming about the illegal immigrant problem, are they complaining about people coming from India to burden our system by taking advantage of already over burdened government programs? No. Generally they are complaining about people coming from south of the border. Why? Because we’ve made it impossible for them to come here legally.

Libertarians can become better communicators if we stop using broad and general terms too easily misunderstood by our audience. Instead of building walls we should work to expand the doorway leading to the American dream. The Libertarian position on immigration should advocate for “secure open borders” coupled with reform of the ridiculous immigration laws and phasing out of onerous welfare programs, to make it easier for peaceful people to come here to live, work, prosper and become productive members of our society.

Categories : News, Press Releases
Apr
7

The Messenger is Also the Message

by R. Lee Wrights

BURNET, Texas – In the 1960s Marshall McLuhan, a Canadian educator and philosopher, coined the phrase “the medium is the message.” He meant that the method used to convey a message, the medium, becomes part of the message itself and affects the way the message is perceived. His ideas about technology and human communication were revolutionary. He predicted the advent of the World Wide Web, even though he was writing 30 years before the web and social media like Facebook and Twitter blossomed.

Anyone trying to explain libertarian ideas should remember that “the medium is the message.” They should also keep in mind that the messenger is a medium, so you could say “the messenger is the message.” In many situations the libertarian messenger may be even more important than the message.

People won’t listen to you if they don’t like you, or if you don’t present yourself well. They won’t listen to you if you project an attitude of superiority, if you sound like you think you’re smarter than they are. They won’t listen to you if you call them stupid, or ignorant, or summarily dismiss whatever they say. They won’t listen to you if you argue instead of trying to persuade, or if you are loud or abusive, if you rant and rave.

As I’ve said many times, libertarianism is more than a political philosophy; it is a way of life. We must be it and live it. The libertarian promise of peace and prosperity is one Americans are longing to hear. We don’t need to soften, refine, modify or craft our message to appeal to conservatives or liberals in order to win votes. Instead, we must embrace our beliefs and wear them proudly. Our messengers must be as radical as our message, but in a nice way.

Our messengers must realize that how people receive and understand libertarian ideas depends on their background and upbringing. As any good libertarian communicator will tell you, not everyone gets the libertarian message right away. For many, it takes time. Even for some of the great libertarians I know, it took years for them to fully embrace the philosophy.

Just because someone doesn’t immediately see the light doesn’t make them evil, doesn’t mean they’re the enemy. It’s natural for people to cling to the ideas and ways of doing things they’ve known and believed all their lives. That doesn’t make them sheeple, or Statists, just human. There’s a difference between being ignorant and stupid, but we don’t win any converts by calling people either.

Libertarianism is about tolerance. How can we claim to be principled libertarians when we don’t tolerate those who disagree with us? Who was it that said a libertarian society would tolerate a socialist community within it, but not the other way around? Surely it is a true statement.

Everything we libertarians believe, we believe because we honestly think it’s best for all people. If it truly is the right thing, most people already know it in their hearts. Everything we libertarians believe can be packaged and sold to the voters in a way that invites them to agree with us and join us.

“Don’t teach, sell.” That’s the key to good communication for libertarian candidates. My good friend Sean Haugh once wrote, “You just have to find that sentiment of Liberty already within people’s hearts and connect with it. You can take the most hardcore Libertarian position on any issue and get the majority of people to agree with you, because you make them feel they always agreed with you.”

But sell gently, with calm and compassion. Politics is the art of the possible, as Sean reminds us. That means we must listen to people and present ideas and public policy proposals that make sense to them, in language they understand. We must identify and connect with their goals, their wants, their needs and their aspirations, claim them as our own, and then present to them reasonable, rational — and libertarian — alternatives that will achieve those goals, and meet those wants, needs and aspirations.

Libertarians can make a difference, but only by being different. One of the most important ways we’re different is that our core value is the belief in the individual human being. We dishonor that value by treating any person as less than ourselves in any way, including by demeaning them with our words or dismissing their concerns and ideas.

Categories : Op eds, Press Releases
Mar
31

The Health Care Law Is Not Only Unconstitutional, It’s Unhealthy

by R. Lee Wrights

BURNET, Texas – Like most bills passed by Congress, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act does exactly the opposite of what its title implies. It doesn’t protect patients at all, but actually harms them by making health care more expensive and less available. The U.S. Supreme Court has the opportunity to overturn this unconstitutional and damaging law, and it should – do away with the entire law.

The most obvious reason to strike down this law, to anyone who has a clear understanding of the U.S. Constitution, is that there’s nothing in the Constitution that grants the federal government the power to have anything at all to do with health care in the first place. The law completely disregards the principle of a limited federal government with specific and enumerated powers.

To justify the law, supporters employed a distorted interpretation of the commerce clause. When the Founders gave the federal government the power to “regulate commerce … among the several states” it was clearly understood to mean that individual states couldn’t put tariffs on goods or services from other states, or prevent the import or export of goods or services between states.

In other words, people could buy and sell across state lines without hindrance. It was in no way intended to give power to the federal government to force people to buy something. As James Madison explained, this principle of specific and limited power would be turned on its head because “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done … the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.”

The second reason the court should overturn this noxious law is that it fundamentally destroys the special relationship between doctors and patients. Contrary to attempts by President Barack Obama and others to blame the greed of medical practitioners for the supposed health care crisis, most people do not go into medical practice to get rich. They become doctors to help people. This law prevents them from doing that. An increasing number of doctors are giving up their private medical practices because of the burden of excessive government regulation.

As the federal government has become more and more entangled in health care, doctors spend more time dealing with government bureaucrats and insurance companies than they do with patients. Costs, to doctors, and to patients, have skyrocketed and the quality and availability of care has declined. The health care law only made this problem worse.

Under the plan, “accountable care organizations” operating under rules written by federal bureaucrats will decide what medical practices and services are provided and how much reimbursement is paid to doctors. In other words, medical decisions will be determined by cost, not by patient need. Further, the law stifles innovationwith more controls on the cost and use of services. It even places a tax on pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers.

America once had the best health care system imaginable. As recently as the 1960s, low-cost health insurance was available to virtually everyone — including people with existing medical problems. Doctors made house calls. A hospital stay cost only a few days’ pay. Charity hospitals were available to take care of families who could not afford to pay for health care.

That system was destroyed not by the free market, not by greedy doctors or insurance companies, but by power-hungry politicians seeking a means to increase their power. They saddled health care providers with excessive and intrusive government regulation, thus driving up costs and limiting access to health care for many Americans. In effect, they had the federal government break your legs, then hand you a pair of crutches and say, “See, if it weren’t for the government you would not be able to walk.”

If Americans are ever going to learn to walk again without the aid of a government crutch, the Supreme Court must strike down the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. That will be the first step toward true health care reform.

For more reasons why the Supreme Court should overturn the health care law, read “The Best 4 Legal Arguments Against Obamacare” by Damon Root.

Categories : Op eds, Press Releases
Mar
24

Jump Start The Economy With Tax Relief, Not Tax Reform

by R. Lee Wrights

BURNET, Texas – I have heard it said by some that the “revenue-neutral” Fair Tax will “jump-start the economy for the next 100 years.” That is simply not true. No tax has ever jump started any economy. Taxes have the opposite effect. They stall the economy by stiffing incentive and creativity. The only thing a tax stimulates is a desire to avoid it by those who the tax is imposed upon.

What this country needs is tax relief, not tax reform. All you have to do is look at American history to see the proof of this. When taxes are reduced, and the nation is at peace, the economy thrives and people prosper. When taxes are raised, and the nation is at war, the economy stagnates. There is no escape from these simple economic realities.

Daniel Mitchell, a Heritage Foundation senior fellow, examined three periods in U.S. history and found, “There is a distinct pattern throughout American history: When tax rates are reduced, the economy’s growth rate improves and living standards increase.” And while lower tax rates are important to economic growth, they are not the only critical issue. “Both the level of government spending and where that money goes are very important,” he wrote.

We also know that cutting taxes, along with cutting regulation and eliminating trade barriers, was a key factor in fostering economic booms in Great Britain, New Zealand and Ireland during the 1980s and 90s. Any time taxes and regulations are decreased; the citizens who drive a nations economy become wealthier. Indeed, the very signs of economic recovery and boon are a wealthier people and a poorer government.

Fair Tax fans are proud to defend their proposal because it’s “revenue neutral.” It will generate as much revenue as is currently collected with the income tax and other federal taxes. But that’s just the problem; it’s not a tax cut, so it won’t stimulate the economy. Indeed, it’s likely to create havoc by suddenly changing the incentives to spend and save. It’s like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. All the Fair Tax does is change the method a bloated federal government employs to extort money from the people. It merely rearranges the already staggering burden of government on the shoulders of American taxpayers.

The economy will continue to flounder so long as those who run government think they’re smarter than us, and are better judges of how we should spend our money. Economic growth and prosperity will continue to stagnate so long as politicians can use money wrung from taxpayers to subsidize the businesses and industries that finance their campaigns. America will never regain its economic preeminence so long as the tax code is used for social engineering, to manipulate people into buying hybrid cars, saving for their retirement, or investing in historical buildings.

How can the Fair Tax “jump-start” anything if it allows the federal government to take the same amount of money from the American people? What difference does it make if the spending addiction of politicians and bureaucrats is fed with money generated by a national sales tax or a payroll tax? In either case, the money is taken from the people and is no longer theirs to spend. Americans do not need tax replacements or tax reforms. Americans need tax relief!

The only thing the Fair Tax is sure to jump-start is more federal spending, because as Milton Friedman noted, “In the long run government will spend whatever the tax system will raise, plus as much more as it can get away with.”

Categories : Op eds, Press Releases
Mar
17

Libertarianism Is Different Because It’s About Peace

by R. Lee Wrights

BURNET, Texas – As I’ve crisscrossed the country the past few months visiting Libertarian state party conventions, I’ve had plenty of time on the road between stops to reflect on what I’ve heard from my fellow libertarians. And what I’m hearing from an increasing number of them is that they’re ready to make a difference in 2012 simply by being different, by being true libertarians.

Libertarianism is all about non-aggression. The philosophy of life which guides all libertarians and which drives some of us to plunge into the political process is the exact opposite of what motives Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives. We leave people alone. They tell everyone how to live. We’re good neighbors. They’re nosy neighbors. We’re for peace. They’re for war.

As I’ve said many times, I’m running for president of the United States not to do things, but to undo things. I am, proudly, part of that vast libertarian conspiracy that wants to take over the government so that we can leave you alone. My good friend Anthony Gregory called libertarianism “the ultimate anti-war philosophy.” I can see manifestations of that truth at every event I attend. When I started this campaign more than a year and a half ago, I was motivated primarily by the many young people I met who asked why the Libertarian Party wasn’t taking the lead in the antiwar movement. But as this campaign has progressed, I’ve been encouraged and reinvigorated by the fact that people of all age groups have been just as receptive to the message to stop all war.

Read More→

Categories : Op eds, Press Releases
Mar
10

They’ve Got To Be Carefully Taught To Kill

by R. Lee Wrights

BURNET, Texas – One point I’ve repeatedly emphasized during this campaign is that you can’t teach people that it’s wrong to kill people by killing people. I’ve said this so often that I almost forgot what it really means. A good friend of mine recently brought me back to reality. He asked simple, “Well, then, if you don’t teach people that it’s wrong to kill by killing people, then how do you do it.”

When he asked that question, I was briefly stumped. I had to think about how to answer for a while. Then the answer came to me: you don’t. You really don’t have to teach people that it’s wrong to kill because they know it already. It’s instinctive. It’s a basic part of human nature. People know that taking someone’s life is wrong.

In America, it’s a fundamental principle of our Judeo-Christian heritage: Thou shalt not kill. But it’s equally important in most other cultures, belief systems and philosophies all over the world as well. The problem, of course, is that what a person believes, or what they learn from their culture, society and upbringing, is not always reflected in how they act.

This is not to say that human beings are naturally pacifists. They are not. Some people, not everyone, will kill to defend themselves, or others. But for most people, that’s generally as far as they’ll go. In fact, the mark of an advanced civilization is that people don’t arbitrarily kill one another. They voluntarily follow informal rules of society or enact the formal rule of law to handle disputes.

If you want to get someone to kill other people on a large scale, you have to work on it. People have to be taught to kill. They have to be taught to hate and fear. They have to be indoctrinated with the belief that their lives, the lives of their loved ones, or their very existence, are in mortal danger. It requires a careful, deliberate and methodical lesson plan, like that used in military basic training, to overcome a person’s natural instinct to leave others alone unless they’re personally threatened.

Throughout history, ruling elites have manufactured fear and hate to manipulate people into acting contrary to their natural, peaceful instincts. They start by dehumanizing and demonizing the intended enemy, and anyone who opposes them in their own country. They wrap their arguments in the flag, proclaiming that it’s right, it’s noble, it’s patriotic to kill in the name of the Fatherland, the Motherland — or the Homeland. This evil subterfuge is an essential tool for the ruling elites. Without it, they would not be able to wage war.

We don’t need to teach people it’s wrong to kill, because they already know that. What we have to do is teach them that it’s not right, or noble, or patriotic to kill someone who has done you no harm, or who does not directly threaten you. It’s not your duty to kill merely because your so-called leaders tell you to.

On the contrary, we must teach them that it’s just as wrong to kill someone next door to you merely because they said something nasty about your grandmother, as it is to kill someone in another country who the president labels as an enemy. We must all say, “I am not at war.” If enough of us say it, they can’t have them anymore.

Categories : Op eds, Press Releases
Mar
3

Stop the Next War Before It Starts

by R. Lee Wrights

BURNET, Texas – It is becoming increasingly clear to me that President Barack Obama is determined to add to his record as the Nobel Peace Prize winner who has bombed the greatest number of countries. He’ll probably order this action before the November presidential election. It may seem that he’s waffling, but that’s only due to the general ineptitude of his administration. President Obama is too much of a politician to let a good “crisis,” however synthetic, go to waste.

The only question in my mind is … what nation is he going to attack? Will it be Pakistan, Syria or Iran? The most likely target is Iran. You can hear the drum beats of war everywhere, reverberating from the White House to the halls of Congress. The bellicose spirit spews from the mouths of political pundits, and is evident in the posturing of three of the four Republican candidates for president still standing.

To my utter astonishment and dismay, even some libertarians are supporting this. In complete disregard for the non-aggression principle, a fundamental precept of libertarianism, they buy into the misguided notion that either the U.S. must stop Iran from getting “the bomb” or support Israel if they decide to act. Either way, America winds up in another war!

No U.S. intelligence agency has presented any evidence that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, nor has the International Atomic Energy Agency. But administration officials, Democratic and Republican politicians, and presidential candidates won’t let the facts get in the way of an opportunity to exploit fear for their own political gain. Anyone who questions or challenges their saber rattling is dismissed as an “isolationist,” belittled as naïve, or smeared as an “America-hater.”

In fact, this next war may have already begun. There are news reports that the U.S. is conducting or supporting covert operations against Iran, including funding dissident groups, cyber-terrorism, commercial sabotage, and targeted assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists. All these actions are actual acts of war, unlike the verbal rantings emanating from Iran. Once again, the Obama administration is interfering in the affairs of a sovereign nation, practicing the nosy neighbor foreign policy so beloved by Democratic and Republican war hawks and which ultimately leads us to war.

Only true libertarians dare to ask the right questions: What gives the United States the right to tell any other nation how it can defend itself? What gives us the right to attack a nation without hard evidence that they will attack us? The answer to both questions is clear: nothing.

We invaded Iraq because our government claimed they had weapons of mass destruction that would be used against us. When we occupied the country, we found no such weapons. The claim was a lie and the “intelligence” was false. Now, the war hawks are clamoring to attack yet another sovereign nation under similar false pretenses and without just cause.

Fear that your neighbor, or someone across town, will shoot you simply because he has a gun doesn’t justify shooting him first. Nor is shooting first justified if your antagonist is shouting insults at you from his front yard. Shooting first is only justified in self-defense, where it’s clear someone is going to shoot you. If they aim a loaded gun at you, you can be pretty sure they intend you harm. You’re only justified in shooting first when the threat is proven real and imminent.

The people running the Iranian government may be bombastic and bellicose. They may, in fact, rant and rave about “the Great Satan,” but there’s no clear intelligence that they have the means to carry out their threats.

That isn’t a popular view to express. The war hawks will surely invoke the terrible and emotionally charged image of a mushroom cloud over D.C. to deride us, claiming we can’t wait for “final proof” of a possible attack, we must act first. But they won’t provide any evidence Iran has the capability to deliver such a weapon either, even if it had one. It doesn’t.

Stop the coming war on Iran before it starts. Only the Libertarian Party is committed to peace. Join The Million Vote March to vote Libertarian and stop all war. Make them remember this November! Send a clear message to the ruling elites, who would again spill our most precious blood based on unproven allegations, that enough is enough.

Categories : Op eds, Press Releases
Next Page »

"I am not at war!"
-R. Lee Wrights

The Million Vote March

The Million Vote March.

Vote Libertarian
to Stop All War!

Occupy Ballot Access

Support ballot access for the Libertarian Party.

Learn More About Libertarianism