LIBERTARIAN NATIONAL CONVENTION

  I had the distinct honor and privilege to speak at the Libertarian Party National Convention in Grand Rapids, Michigan yesterday.  They wanted me to talk about food emancipation and what policy would insure global food security.

                  You loyal readers have read my food emancipation arguments for some time and know that my next book, which should come out late this summer, is FOOD EMANCIPATION:  UNSHACKLING AMERICA'S SUSTENANCE.  It's about suffocating food regulations that prohibit neighbor-to-neighbor sales without asking a bureaucrat's permission.  Right now, a home-butchered rib eye steak cannot be sold legally in the U.S. without going through a government-inspected facility.  The way to stop the oligarchy is with freedom, not additional government oversight.

                  The Libertarians, of course, ate up that idea.  I chided them, however, for dropping the ball on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) when they were first introduced.  At the time, environmentalists wanted to prohibit them but were shouted down for being anti-technology by the American majority, including the libertarians.  Because they're big on personal liberty, libertarians had no problem with Monsanto developing and releasing their new technology.

                  The hypocrisy, however, was to not vigorously defend property rights for the farmers who found pollen drift and then sexual orgies happening in their crops from unwanted invasive beings.  Environmentalists, of course, wanted to ban GMOs due to drift, but being forever weak on private property, could not bring themselves to invoke trespass arguments.  Libertarians, who are strong on private property and trespass violations, did not come to the defense of farmers because they were too hyped up defending Monsanto's right to develop GMOs.  And, of course, the libertarians despise the environmentalists, so philosophically if the environmentalists were against GMOs, libertarians had to love them. 

                  The libertarians should have said:  "GMOs are fine as long as these patented beings stay on property that wants them, but the moment they trespass on someone else's land, it's equivalent to the neighbor's bull coming over and stomping out your rose bushes."  Any magistrate would swear out a warrant for redress.  But that's not what happened.  The result is that the libertarians missed a golden opportunity to educate the environmentalists about private property and the environmentalists were never challenged in their single-answer response to things, which is government regulations.

                  I witnessed some rancorous exchanges during the party deliberations and realized how difficult it is for people steeped in "doing it my way" to be diplomatic and charitable.  It's like a room full of loose cannons. 

                  Of all political factions, I find myself in agreement with more from the Libertarians than any other group, hence my monicker:  "Christian libertarian environmentalist capitalist lunatic farmer."  They are not interested in government solutions and would eliminate all government education, all subsidies, all health interventions, all retirement interventions like Social Security, and all meddling in foreign governments, including the current Iran war.  Their position is that no U.S. war has been constitutional since WWII, the last one to be voted on by Congress, which has the sole responsibility to declare war. 

                  If Libertarians were in charge, we wouldn't need FOOD EMANCIPATION.  Anyone could produce and sell anything they wanted, including cocaine and methamphetamine.  I agree.  A government that can tell you not to take cocaine can also tell you not to drink raw milk or homemade baloney.  The Romans had a saying that you could tell the strength of a society by the number of laws it had.  A weak, declining society passes laws because that's all it can do, and that's where the U.S. is right now.  We haven't tried liberty for a long time. 

                  Whenever I get around minority groups like this, I'm struck by how much effort the Republicans and Democrats put into keeping them off the ballot, off the stage, and out of the public eye.  That's one reason I almost refuse to vote for either of the two major parties.  They say they want inclusivity, but they do everything possible to keep the minority view from a seat at the table, and it stinks.  I've even signed petitions to get Socialists  on the ballot.  The more different views on the table, the more chances we have to make wise decisions. 

                  What's wrong with hearing what others have to say?