I am troubled.  I have been a member of the Campaign for Liberty for almost two years now.  During the 2008 presidential campaign I came across a little book called The Revolution: A Manifesto by Dr. Ron Paul and had a transformational experience which you can read about here.  Since that time, I have continued to read and study the principles of American liberty as established by the nation’s founding fathers in that precious document, the Constitution of the United States of America.  I have contributed time and money to spreading the message of liberty.  I believe in individualism, free markets and non-interventionism.  And, I am an officer in the United States Navy.  I do not see a contradiction between the two.  However, some in the C4L obviously do.  Of late, I have seen several promoted articles that not only criticize our nation’s foreign and military policies (a firm plank in our platform), but go on to personally and vindictively defame the members of the armed forces with offensive and divisive labels such as coward, murderer, fascist, incompetent and dishonorable.  You can read examples of such emotional venting here and here.  Of course, our movement, anti-establishment as it is, attracts its fair share of “fringe” elements, and I would be content to attribute these vitriolic rants to a vocal minority except that they are often promoted by established leaders such as Lew Rockwell and Tom Woods.  I respect the opinions of these men and I am troubled that they have such a low opinion of me.  That being said, I will briefly defend my chosen profession to them, and then, more importantly, I will attempt to convince them that endorsing these divisive opinions are destructive to our cause.

The military profession has long been viewed as an honorable one, often regardless of cause. Even the military castes of ancient and feudal societies, who enforced the brutal and oppressive regimes of their time, were and continue to be respected for values of courage, loyalty, prowess and sacrifice.  George Washington himself served as a military officer under unapologetically imperialist British generals.  Today, provided our advanced understanding of human rights and liberty culminating from 1000 years of struggle, thought and experimentation, we insist that our military professionals also strive to be just.  The United States Congress, in an unusually wise move, tried to instill this value of justice by requiring all military officers to swear an oath not to a person or an institution, but to the law of the land - the Constitution.  I guarantee you that every young officer entering the service takes this oath to heart and few  would willfully violate it.  These are the young people in our society that still believe in words like honor and patriotism.  Unfortunately, just like the vast majority of our nation’s population, they are susceptible to the twisted logic and legal reinterpretations that have assaulted our Constitution over the last 100 years.

I am fairly certain that a C4L audience does not object to military service from a pacifist point of view.  I think most of us can agree that some things are worth fighting for - namely, to protect our homes, families and liberty.  However, many C4L members have expressed an opinion that a militia or reserve style military would be a safer way to defend the nation, thereby removing a tempting tool of imperial power from our leaders’ grasps.  While I recognize the value of this argument, the role of technology and technical expertise in modern warfare is unquestionably paramount, and a standing military to maintain such capacity is, in my opinion, necessary for a nation that hopes to remain free.  For example, a fleet of modern submarines capable of defending sea lanes and attacking invading fleets could not be built and manned upon the emergence of a threat without first maintaining the industrial capacity and professional knowledge base to do so.

Based on the emotionally charged rhetoric of the anti-military crowd, I do not expect to change their opinion of my profession.  Likewise, I have invested the last decade of my life in developing the skills necessary to command a submarine at sea and I am not likely to sacrifice that opportunity or the economic well-being of my family unless I am asked to do something I specifically deem antithetical to my principles.  So, rather than debate the merits of military service, I would ask C4L members to ask whether a campaign to discredit said service is in the interest of our movement.  I see two dangers incurred by endorsing these offensive rants.

First, like all emotionally charged and divisive rhetoric, you are excluding large portions of the population from accepting our ideas.  In the link at the beginning of this article, Stephen Greenhut finds the intensely negative reactions of Republicans on RedCounty.com to his provocative statements “funny.”  I find them sad.  Here is a group of people of whom at least some would probably be susceptible to our true conservative philosophy and have now been goaded into permanently associating the names libertarian and Ron Paul with values that they simply cannot accept.  What was the purpose here?  Mr. Greenhut’s amusement?  People who have lost friends or family in a warzone are largely unable to accept that their loved ones were cowards, murderers and warmongers.  People in the military, again a group of people highly inclined to accept constitutionalism, free market ideals and the philosophy of individual liberty, will find it very difficult to listen to people who introduce themselves with personal attacks.  Americans at large are not likely to suddenly strip off their yellow ribbon car magnets and find defamation of their sons and daughters in military service acceptable.  If the Campaign for Liberty is meant to be a forum for angry people to gain emotional succor by venting their feelings and relishing in their anti-establishment isolation, then I must reconsider my membership.  If instead, we hope to change the shameful face of modern American politics, rebuild faith in the Constitution and return our government to the limited scope its founders envisioned we should stick to the message.   And that message has been defined for us by Dr. Paul.  In his manifesto, he has distilled libertarian values into a unifying message that will resonate with most Americans.  For members that hold dear additional causes and grievances, Dr. Paul addressed that as well.  If we can bring about constitutional reform the other problems will solve themselves.  Non-interventionism and reduced operating budgets would bring our military back home and return it to the duties of guarding our shores vice patrolling a global empire.

Secondly, I must ask if you have considered the consequences of alienating the liberty movement from the military?  If you discourage young men and women of principle from joining the service and convince those who have already done so to get out, who remains?  Statists, imperialists and careerists is your answer.  Last year I was a student in a course on joint staff work.  Officers of all the branches sat around a table, learned about joint capabilities and how to work in a staff, and discussed all manner of issues relating to our profession.  The capstone project was to plan, as a commander’s staff, a military response to a regional crisis.  The instructor briefed us on the fictional scenario.  A small island nation was overthrown in a military coup and was invading its democratic neighbor.  The US was going to fulfill its role of world policeman and set things “right.”  When he asked if anyone had any questions, I asked, “When did Congress declare war?” which was met with puzzled faces.  “I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and that document gives the authority to invade other countries to the Congress.  When did we declare war?”  For the rest of the hour we debated and discussed the legal merits of the War Powers Act and our responsibilities as military officers.  By the end of class, several students were in agreement with me and most were considering questions they had never had occasion to ask themselves.  One joined the C4L a few days later.  One day, one of those men or women might have stars on their shoulders and demand answers to those questions at a much higher level.  Would you like to recruit these people to our cause by appealing to their reason and natural patriotism, or would you rather salve your anger by calling them cowards and fascists and surrender the most heavily armed sector of our society to the statists?

So the questions I pose for feedback from C4L members are:

Is there room for military professionals in the Campaign for Liberty and Libertarian movement?

Do you agree that it is destructive for our informal leaders to endorse off-message opinions that seek to alienate whole sectors of the population?

“If you don’t know where you’re going, how can you expect to get there?”  - Basil S. Walsh

I am in a transitional period of my life.  A few years ago I was a carefree junior officer.  My primary duty was to drive a two billion dollar submarine like I owned it. I was married to my best friend, but without kids.  We port-hopped around the Pacific, lived it up on Dole Whip and prime aged Morton’s steaks in Hawaii, and bought up man-toys like there was no tomorrow.

Today, my daughter is approaching her second birthday and I still feel like a new father.  In two months I’m heading to a new ship as a department head - one of the three principle planning and execution officers under the captain and executive officer.  And not just any department head, but the Engineer, responsible for the safe operation of a nuclear power plant and the well-being of half the crew.  It’s a job that comes with an automatic promotion to lieutenant commander, but also with the implicit warning that that honor can and will be taken away along with your naval career, should you fail to perform as required. I have yet to meet a served Engineer without some gray hair.  At 31 years of age, with a couple of degrees, plenty of training and a little experience, the preparatory phase of my life is finally over.  It’s time to execute.

And so, while I still have a few weeks with the luxury of free time, I’ve been spending quite a bit of it reflecting on the new responsibilities in my life and trying to prepare myself for the trials to come.  During my 25 minute commute to department head school, I’ve repeatedly gone over what I hope to accomplish and how I plan on getting there.  But today, on my way home from my submarine duty physical, I realized all those thoughts were simply pie in the sky until I write them down.  As we say in the the nuclear navy, “training not documented is training not had.”  Or perhaps put more eloquentally by some wise author, “Goals that are not written down are just wishes.”

Having a precise goal set enables you to assess your own performance.  Is my behavior in line with achieving my goals?  Are my planning and organization mechanisms up to the task?  More importantly, goals provide a framework from which to make daily decisions.  Should I use my limited resources to accomplish this or do that?  Which option will make more progress towards my goal?

I ended up generating two separate goal sets; one for my professional life and the other for my personal life.  I wrote down my professional goals first, which may be a little backwards, as my professional goals by necessity grow out of my personal goals, but personal goals are more general, natural and implicitly understood.  It’s my professional life that is generating the most stress now anyhow, so it felt good to get those off my chest.  I certainly did not want to neglect my personal goals, though, as those are far more important.

I decided that each goal set required a single specific long-term goal, and that the short-term goals would be constructed to work towards that long-term goal over the next few years.  That long-term goal needs to be well defined.  It may be something very specific like a particular career milestone.  Even if it’s something less concrete, though, it needs to be well-defined.  “Be happy” is not sufficient.  Neither is “Get rich.” What is it exactly that will make me happy?  How much wealth is necessary and for what purpose do I wish to amass it?  What is the end state I want to achieve?

Then, I listed out the things I need to do now to achieve that ultimate goal in the future.  For each bullet, I first wrote what needed to be accomplished and then, because, as Stephen A. Brennan wrote, “Our goals can only be reached through the vehicle of a plan,” I wrote out how I expected to achieve that goal.  Finally, I went back through and roughly prioritized my goals, not simply by what is most important, but by which goals serve as a basis for all of the others and therefore must always be prevalent in my mind.

Being that I’m not a very private person - in fact, sometimes painfully not so (just ask my wife) - I decided to post the goals I came up with for any soul that happened to wander by chancelitton.com to read.  And, of course, I felt the need to add some discussion of how and why I came up with them.  I’ve been told so many times in canned training seminars that I should write down my goals, but I was given little to no examples of how such an exercise might work.  Hopefully, you, the reader, can gain some value from this discussion and perhaps generate a set of goals for yourself.  Feel free to share what you come up with.

Finally, keep in mind that there will probably be failures along the way.  While this will no doubt be disappointing, be ready to flex your plan and find a way to re-attack your ultimate goal.  Even so, some goals may never be achieved.  If that’s the case, take pride in the journey and find a new goal on which to focus your efforts.  Keep in mind that “it must be borne in mind that the tragedy of life does not lie in not reaching your goal.  The tragedy of life lies in having no goal to reach.” - Benjamin E. Mays

The Professional Goals of Chance Litton as of June 2009

Career Goal:  Command at Sea

Tour Goals as Engineer:

1)  Maintain my department’s standards of professional watchstanding, quality work, and accurate and timely reporting and record keeping by frequently touring the engineering spaces and monitoring daily operations.

2)  Ensure my department is prepared to carry out its primary mission - to keep the ship moving when the s**t hits the fan, regardless of underwater mountains, 30,000 ton tankers, torpedoes or depth charges - by insisting that all department and division training is effective, engaging and comprehensive.

3)  Prevent egregious errors that could injure personnel or disrupt ship’s operations by instilling appropriate degrees of caution and ownership in my supervisors and sailors.

4)  Help my captain achieve his goals for the ship by making his goals my goals and by anticipating his needs.

5)  Advance the professional development of the sailors and junior officers assigned to me by engaging them on a personal level and providing both positive and critical feedback on their performances.

6)  Assist in the safe navigation and effective operation of the ship by taking ownership of my watchsection and providing backup to the other principle officers when possible.

7)  Support my brother department heads by providing assistance when asked and maintaining a unified effort.

8)  Learn the skills necessary to function as executive officer and commanding officer by taking full advantage of trainer, at-sea experience and mentorship opportunities.

9)  Accept criticism in the spirit that it is intended to help my improve professionally and improve the performance of my department and the ship, even when it is not presented as such.

10) Stay ahead of events and keep track of deadlines, records and requirements by extensive planning and effective organization mechanisms.

11) Periodically self-assess my performance with regard to these goals and with the input of my senior supervisors, and reform my methods and behaviors as necessary.

The Personal Goals of Chance Litton as of June 2009

Life Goal:  Earn and maintain the trust and respect of my family by providing for their growth, happiness and welfare, and earn and maintain the trust of my peers by by pursuing and achieving professional milestones and providing exceptional service to my friends and my communities, so that, in my advanced years, I can look back on my life with satisfaction and few regrets.

Current Goals:

1)  Develop my daughter into a well-rounded, self-disciplined and self-respecting young adult by providing her with guidance, structure and instruction.

2)  Grow a bond of love, trust and respect with my daughter by frequently participating in activities and sharing experiences with her, and by having frequent and open conversations.

3)  Nurture and maintain my relationship with my wife by helping her achieve her professional goals, providing daily assistance with tasks at home, giving her frequent breaks from the full-time duties of motherhood, making time for open conversation and play-time, and striving to meet her expectations of me as a man, as a friend, and as a partner.

4)  Achieve and maintain a fit and healthy body by engaging in frequent, regular exercise, by eating reasonable snacks and meals, and by drinking water vice other options.

5)  Invest a fair share of limited free time to semi-constructive hobbies such as genealogy, writing, and reading for professional and philosophical enrichment in addition to purely escapist activities such as gaming, popular fiction and television.

6)  Keep in touch with extended family and friends through phone calls, skype and internet networking sites and volunteer assistance when needed.

7)  Take at least yearly extended family vacations by saving resources and making time for that purpose.

8)  Remain debt-free by expending only cash on hand (except for prohibitively large purchases with investment potential, such as a home).

9)  Finish a personal project at least once a year.

10) Try to be nice to my wife’s cat even though it is far inferior to my own cat and, of course, to our dog.

11) Make time to play and exercise with my dog.

12) Periodically self-assess my performance with regard to these goals and input from my wife and reform methods and behaviors as necessary.

“You’ve got to be very careful if you don’t know where you are going, because you might not get there.”
  -  Yogi Berra

My daughter is coming into an age in which she is absorbing knowledge and ideas like a sponge.  This has made me keenly aware that there are many competing ideologies out there among children’s books and television programs.  Most people see cartoonish pictures of animals, cuddly dancing monsters and simple lessons on numbers and the alphabet and don’t give these inputs to their child’s developing mind a second thought.  While I fully expect my children to be exposed to a wide variety of ideas and concepts throughout their youth, I would like them to have a solid base in the principles I believe to be important to which they can compare and contrast new belief systems.  And I certainly prefer that the more radical ideas are presented to them candidly and not through a subtle or manipulative format.

And there are subtle and manipulative messages out there.  Many diverse parties are attempting to bypass parents and transmit their messages to young children for a wide variety of reasons.  As “education reformer” William Ayers of recent presidential election politics fame said at the 2006 World Education Forum in Venezuela, “education is the motor-force of revolution.”  I would like to at least be aware of any revolution for which my children are being recruited, thank you for very much.

The first time I really became aware of the more subtle “educational” qualities of children’s literature was when I came across a child’s book in a doctor’s waiting room.  It was about a gardener and a rabbit.  Having nothing better to do as I waited for my appointment, I read about the gardener’s hard work.  The book showed how he furrowed the ground, planted each crop and cared for the growing plants over several weeks.  In every picture, a mischievous looking rabbit was peeking out at the gardener from somewhere in the background, and I became curious as to how the rabbit was going to play into this whole story.  Eventually, the garden’s vegetables were ripe and the gardener went to bed excited about reaping the fruits of his labor the following morning.  But that night, the rabbit struck.  He frolicked through the garden, digging up and consuming all of the vegetables – every last one.  He engorged himself to such a degree that by the next morning he lay, practically comatose in the middle of the looted garden when the gardener came out and viewed the carnage in dismay.  Then he saw the rabbit – and here is where my jaw dropped.  The gardener just sighed and said, “Well, I guess I’ll have to grow enough for both of us next time.”  WHAT?!  That rabbit just stole the hard earned fruit of your labor, man!  Snare that little thief and have some rabbit stew.  Build a fence to protect your property.  If we were supposed to anthropomorphize the rabbit, teach him how to grow his own food, and then make him pay back what he stole from you.  Despite this little book’s cute pictures of a cuddly rabbit and its seemingly constructive message of hard work and sharing, I think it was a less-than-subtle advert for socialism and the welfare state.

My daughter has recently become a huge fan of a little red monster known as Elmo on Sesame Street.  Sesame Street is a mixed bag; perhaps because it is a proponent of moderation or the Third Way.  Let’s take the feature length “Elmo in Grouchland” as an example.  All of Elmo’s problems start when his friend Zoe picks up his favorite blanket and refuses to give it back right away.  Elmo selfishly overreacts and the blanket gets torn and ends up flying into Oscar the Grouch’s trash can home.  Elmo follows it and they both get transported to Grouchland where a mysterious villain is going about greedily snatching away everyone’s belongings, including Elmo’s blanket.  Elmo and his Sesame Street friends eventually get his blanket back and convince the villain to abandon his evil ways, but only after they convince the Grouches to unite and overthrow said villain.  There are many good messages here, such as helping your friends, standing up for right, and respecting others’ property.  But I think it is expertly crafted in such a way that many viewpoints can feel represented.  For instance, many people probably see the villain as a metaphor for greedy corporations, whereas I see him representing a government that uses force to steal from its citizens.  Nonetheless, I believe the core principles are sound: the right to own property and the virtue of voluntary generosity.

Recognizing my daughter’s fascination with Jim Henson’s Muppets, I turned to Netflix for more of the same.   When I came across Fraggle Rock, a show I remembered watching as a kid in the 80’s, I put it at the top of my queue.   We sat down to watch it together the evening it arrived.  The first episode mainly served to establish the setting and introduce the main characters.  The Fraggles are a pretty care-free bunch.  They play, explore, and confront surprisingly deep social issues on a regular basis.  They don’t seem particularly industrious (one episode is entitled “The 30-Minute Work Week”), but they have a deep sense of duty to each other and – I dare say – a quite libertarian outlook.

Several recurring themes jumped out right from the beginning.  Facing and overcoming fear is probably the dominant educational concept.  Courage, both physical and emotional, is something I hope my children will someday admire and strive for so that’s a positive for me.

The second episode introduced the Gorgs, a family of large, ugly creatures who are perpetually violent towards the Fraggles and from whom the Fraggles enjoy pilfering radishes to eat.  In this episode the mother and father Gorg, who claim to be the king and queen of the universe, capture a Fraggle and insist that he be their subject.  The Fraggle they happened to capture was Wembley, a particularly agreeable chap who didn’t mind showering them with titles and honors.  But no sooner was he captured than his friends mustered the Fraggle militia and marched to his rescue.  Unfortunately, they too were captured.  Being freedom loving Fraggles, however, they refused to bow before the Gorgs. 

While imprisoned the Fraggle leader regaled his troops with a story from his uncle, Travelling Matt, who explores “outer space” – the non-puppet land of human beings.  Travelling Matt had come across a strange spectacle in which humans were leading about flying servant creatures on strings (balloons and kites).  Matt felt compelled to free the indentured flying creatures and sneakily cut the strings.  He noted that the round creatures (the balloons) immediately flew away and escaped, while the square creatures (the kites) immediately flew down to Earth, returning to their masters.  Matt closed with the incredible conclusion, “Some creatures cherish their freedom more than others.”  Whoa.

But that’s not the end.  Eventually the Fraggles escape from the Gorgs with the help of their friend, Wembley, who was happy to be their subject until they were going to kill his friends.  He apologized to his Fraggle friends later saying, “I didn’t realize what they were doing to me until I saw them doing it to you.”  Gobo, the Fraggle leader, told him, “That’s okay, Wembley, sometimes slavery can feel like freedom.”  WHOA!  Who let this stuff get on TV?

In later episodes, the Fraggles learn the dangers of demagogues, the unpredictable consequences of arrogant do-goodership, and the duty of every Fraggle to have a job (even if it is for just for a few minutes a day).  It’s a veritable smorgasborg of Jeffersonian principles and Ron Paul-esque political lessons.  It is nice to know that our side tries to get in some less-than-subtle educational revolutions from time to time.

Despite my ignorance, homeschooling is not a new concept.  In fact, it – with neighborhood schooling – was the dominant form of American education before the late 19th century.  Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Edison, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln all had very little to no “formal” education and somehow managed to do pretty well for themselves and their nation.  Somehow, a nation that was not blessed with a state-run public school system managed to have a literacy rate greater than 95%, produced the fastest growing economy the world had ever seen, and provided great contributions to technology, science and art.  Public schools were founded and made compulsory at around the turn of the last century for a number of reasons, and educating the public was not at the top of the list.

Yet somehow we have been provided with a general belief that without public schooling children would not learn how to learn, would not be able to function in society, and would have fewer opportunities to succeed.  Luckily, many others have forged a path in recent decades to renew a sense of independence from the public school system and celebrate a child’s natural exuberance for knowledge.  Today, there are currently around 3 million children – or roughly 4% of school-age children – receiving their education at home in America.  All studies I have found on the subject have shown that homeschooled children have scored significantly higher than their publicly schooled counterparts on standardized tests throughout the last decade.

Whatever the history and statistics are, the choice to homeschool our children will obviously be a very personal one.  Nonetheless, I am writing this article to help friends and family that may – in their concern for the well-being of our children – have doubts about such a choice to understand why we are considering it.  It will also give us a chance to analyze our own reasoning.  Other parents struggling with the options available to educate their children may find our reasoning helpful as well.

The Benefits of Educating Our Children At Home

The first point to go in the “pro” column is the qualifications of the teachers.  I have a bachelor’s degree in physics with a minor in history, and a MS in physics from a space systems engineering curriculum.  I am a trained nuclear engineer, submarine operator and manager.  I have additional formal education in national strategy and policy and staff officer operations.  I have been a Life Scout, a Toastmaster’s International competent communicator, and an amateur writer, historian, stargazer, Latin student, game designer, movie critic, political commentator and science-fair judge.  My wife holds a BS in Biomedical Science and a MA in Medical Illustration.  She is a semi-professional author, a freelance graphic designer, and an accomplished artist.  In her free time she is an amateur photographer, a world traveler, an avid reader and a top-notch husband nagger.  Even if we had only our high school degrees we would still have one huge advantage.  If care could be quantified, our care level concerning the development, success and well-being of our children would be orders of magnitude higher than even the most well-meaning school teacher.  Show me a more qualified candidate to teach my children.

Second in the “pro” column is the additional time and experiences we will be able to share with our children.  As we charge through the early years of parenthood, every day is filled with new discoveries.  I have found that one of the greatest joys of life is watching my daughter’s eyes light up when she has an “a-ha!” moment.  I find it hard to imagine surrendering those moments to a stranger to enjoy, or worse, ignore until the light is dimmed forever.  I have many friends who find it difficult to communicate with their teenagers.  We all assume that it is just natural for teenagers to grow alienated from their parents, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it may have something to do with the forty hours a week they have spent in their strictly structured, lord of the flies world.  I think that by sharing our children’s education, we will develop stronger relationships with them.

Finally, the flexibility of homeschooling is very attractive.  As a military family, we will have to move every 2 to 3 years.  Having moved to several different schools as a child myself, I can tell you that it is not very much fun.  Additionally, I will have long periods of intense work or absence, and other periods of a reduced work load and leave.  A flexible school schedule will allow me to more effectively spend available time with my children and allow my wife the options of taking trips home or to see me when I am deployed.  Military life aside, the daily flexibility of homeschooling seems to provide a relief to the modern hectic pace of suburban life, allowing more time for and between extracurricular activities.

The Benefits of Not Sending Our Children to Public School

I have been trying to look back on my experience in the public school system and identify what my children might miss if they are homeschooled.  Mostly, I recall hours upon hours of boredom, constant power struggles with petty teachers and highly regulated but completely unsupervised bullies, and little to no exposure to new ideas or useful knowledge.  I can count the number of good teachers I had on one hand.  I still have not completely overcome the learned habit of drifting off into a daydream whenever someone stands up to give a lecture.  The most troubling thing is that I was identified as “gifted and talented” so I actually had some classes that were supposed to encourage independent thought as opposed to those poor “average” students hustling through grammar drills day after day.  Why would I subject my children to this?

Then, of course, there is that mysterious “socialization.”  I refer the interested reader to reference (1).  That book and the sources it references present a history of the growth of public schooling in America that most people are not familiar with.  Public schools were designed not so much to socialize, but to indoctrinate students into being efficient and obedient employees to the growing industries of the late 19th century.  Today, they may not operate with so much intent, but as a system they work to accomplish the same mission.  While that reasoning may seem a bit conspiratorial for some, there can be little argument against the observable socialization effects growing in our public schools – rising teen pregnancies, drug use and violence.  Homeschoolers suggest that the socialization their children find within their family, among their neighbors and in the organizations they can voluntarily join and leave is far superior to that found in today’s compulsory public schools.

Challenges

Unfortunately, the benefits of homeschooling do not come without sacrifice.  The primary price is paid by surrendering 40 hours of “free” babysitting every week.  This babysitting would allow significantly more free time for my wife to pursue her career interests and indirectly allow me to waste more of my free time writing blog articles or pursuing other pointless hobbies.  We have even considered having a second child at just the right time so that our first is starting school, allowing mom to have plenty of one-on-one time with the new arrival.  These benefits are very difficult to give up, but the question is: do they outweigh the benefits of homeschooling?

Another challenge is, of course, pulling off the actual education part.  I am not very concerned about the knowledge or skill required so much as the discipline.  Neither my wife nor I were what people might call disciplined students.  If I could not get myself to do my own homework (even as an adult at times), how can I expect to keep my children at their studies?  My hope is that by making education an interactive and learning-oriented activity, my wife and I can overcome our reluctance to study and our children may never develop it.

Money is often an issue for those who try to homeschool.  The loss of a second income can cause significant financial distress.  Because my wife is a freelancer and works from home, this will not be as much of a problem for us.  However, it will limit the time she can spend growing her clientele and starting new projects, which will reduce her significant income potential and possibly cause her to feel less personally fulfilled.  But what is the point of income other than to enjoy life and contribute to the success of our children, and what can be more fulfilling than participating in that success?

Other arguments against homeschooling are generally of a higher order.  Are state-run public schools beneficial or destructive to society?  Does homeschooling hurt public schooling by drawing away resources and students, or does it help it by providing healthy competition?  While certainly interesting, the answers to these questions are not much of an input to our decision.  We will do what we decide is best for our own children.  I believe that if everyone did what they thought best for their own children, rather than what some group of strangers decided was best for all of our children, we would be in a much better educational situation in this nation.

Conclusion

I hope that I have shed some light on why we are considering homeschooling our children.  I look forward to hearing from anyone who is interested in further discussion.  The nice thing is that as our daughter is just one and a half years old, we have plenty of time to make a final decision.

References

Here are a few of the better resources I found while researching the homeschooling option.  The skeptical reader might note that all of these sites are decidedly pro-homeschooling.  I was not able to find any anti-homeschooling sites other than those that object to it as a detriment to the public school system or on sociological principles of being able to monitor children to protect them from their parents.  I find neither of these points relevant to our decision.

(1) – The Underground History of American Education by John Taylor Gatto: http://johntaylorgatto.com/underground/toc1.htm
(2) – The Heritage Foundation: http://www.heritage.org/Research/education/bg2122.cfm
(3) – California Homeschool Network: http://californiahomeschool.net/howTo/faq.htm

Mr. Chairman,

As the Republican leadership considers why we lost the election, I hope you will consider the following points:

1)  George W. Bush won in 2000 running on traditional Republican principles such as limited government, free market economics, fiscal sanity and a non-interventionist foreign policy.

2)  George W. Bush abandoned all of these principles after 9/11.

3)  John McCain lost the election running on a platform of war, statist intervention in the economy and an ever-expanding federal government.

My hope is that the Republican leadership will understand that we lost because they forgot our core principles, not because the American people have suddenly decided they want big government to take care of them as the Democrats would have us believe.

Also, there was one man that tried to tell us this before it was too late, but many of us derided him at the time.  I think it is past time to include Texas Congressman, Dr. Ron Paul, at the highest levels in the debate over the party’s future.

Thank you for your time,

LT C. Chance Litton, USN

Those that blame economic freedom and deregulation for the economic crisis and the Republican loss are the same people who have driven the party into the ground.  The neo-con movement that has focused all of their policies on military adventurism and “conservative” social engineering will try to stay in power within the party by pointing the finger at true conservative values - those held by the founding fathers when they wrote the Constitution.  They will interpret the loss as a call from the American people for bigger government and more socialist policies.

The fact is Americans are no more socialist than they were eight years ago.  The problem is that the Republican leadership failed to live up to their rhetoric.  They had the power to reduce federal spending and limit the scope of government, but instead they expanded it and made the cowardly decision to sacrifice liberty for temporary security.

True conservatives are beginning to awaken after eight years of following the emotional and reactive policies of the departing administration.   They must refute the policies of interventionism in both foreign affairs and domestic.  They must insist that the federal government return to sane fiscal policy.  They must look to leaders like Congressman Ron Paul, who tried to show the way forward in the primaries and was shut out by the media.  Most importantly, the Republican party must admit to themselves and to independants that they went astray.  Otherwise, any promises they make will ring as empty as the promises that were discarded by the last administration.

The decision on the future of the Republican party will lay with the mainstream base of the party.  The new president and his significant majorities in both houses of Congress will quickly enact new statist policies.  Just today, Senator Schumer stated:

“The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”

I have not heard a more ringing endorsement for the cause of liberty.  Everyday Republicans have to understand that their leaders’ attempts at social engineering and concentrating power in the hands of the president are now going to backfire.  The new party in the White House will use these new powers to force their own worldview on the rest of us.

The next few years are going to hurt, but all is not lost.  Let us return to a platform of limiting the power of government, of celebrating individualism and freedom, and let us repudiate our faith in the political elite to effectively intervene on our behalf at home and abroad.  If we do this, we can become a real alternative to socialist Democrats and we can unite under the banner of liberty.

Here is a video version of a powerpoint/keynote presentation I made to summarize the key points of Ron Paul’s The Revolution: A Manifesto.  The presentation has several extra slides that aren’t in the video that cover more issues like the income tax and the environment.

Here is the powerpoint file if you’d like to give it as a presentation at a meeting or something like that:

the-revolution

The fact is that modern socio-economic systems are very definite and can be explained in a way that is very understandable.  That is the goal of this article.  In it, I will explore what the terms Capitalism and Socialism actually mean.  I will try to be as objective as possible, because both systems have strengths and weakness, but I hope you will agree with me in the end that one is preferable to the other.  These socio-economic systems can be explained simply and accurately, but we need to define a few terms.

The Nature of Wealth

The production of each worker in a society can be enumerated in the basic wealth unit of that society; US dollars in modern America, precious metals like gold and silver in ages past, or even agricultural units such as the koku of feudal Japan, which was the amount of rice one warrior consumed in one year.  The full sum of this production is an individual’s Wealth.  This Wealth can be divided into two portions.  Each worker uses one portion of his (or her) produced Wealth to provide the necessities of survival and basic comfort for himself and his dependents.  This portion is called Maintenance.  The other portion is called Capital, and it is this portion that enables civilization.  Capital is the excess wealth an individual produces beyond his own needs and is distributed to the greater economy for a variety of purposes to include purchasing luxuries or status symbols, investing to create new sources of Wealth, providing for the common defense, and supporting public services, charity and savings.  The division between these two portions is called the Subsistence Line.

Every socio-economic system can be defined by who decides where the Subsistence Line is located and how Capital is distributed.  In order to do this, we must define the possible decision authorities.  There are only two in the systems discussed here.  As has already been described, the worker is anyone who produces Wealth.  The term ‘worker’ in this context should not be confused with the often described ‘working class’.  Classes are artificial constructs based on how much Capital groups of individuals produce.  For example, the working class describes individuals who typically produce just enough Wealth to get them slightly over the Subsistence Line.  The poor reside below the Line, the middle class well above and the Wealth production of the rich is almost all Capital.  All of them are workers in this definition.  The other possible decision authority is the State, which is synonymous with the political elite.  This can include any individual or group that has that capacity to make policy at a national level.  A dictator, a hereditary or selected oligarchy, or elected officials are among the persons who can embody the State.  How such persons come into power defines the political system of a society which also plays into the definition of its socio-economic system.

The relationship between the workers and the State, how Wealth is distributed in a society and how the political elite are empowered can describe any socio-economic system.  For example, one of the oldest socio-economic systems is Despotism.  Despotism is a system that arises in a society with no understanding or respect for the Rule of Law, and in which one person, the Despot, is able to make policy by the exertion or threat of force on which he has a monopoly.  In this way, the Despot is free to choose the location of the Subsistence Line for his subjects and distribute their Capital as he sees fit.  If he sets the Subsistence Line way too low, his subjects will starve and either die off or rebel.  If he sets it just a little too low, they will suffer from malnutrition and squalor and become less productive and more restive.  However, if he sets it too high he will have less Capital to invest in his own security. Additionally, his subjects may choose to voluntarily lower their own Subsistence Line, thereby creating a source of Capital under their control which they may invest in things that weaken the Despot’s power, such as weapons or foreign assistance.  Luckily, Despotism has long since fallen out of style in the modern developed world.  Democratic traditions and a respect for the Rule of Law (which took modern civilization centuries to develop) have elevated two socio-economic systems to the forefront of modern ideas: Capitalism and Socialism.

The Case for Capitalism

In a Capitalist society, the Subsistence Line is set by popular opinion and each individual is free to define it as he sees fit.  If an individual feels that a large enough residence to provide private living space for each member of his family, a fulfilling quantity of quality food and entertainment and one car for each adult are the necessities of life, than the Wealth necessary to procure these things lie below his Subsistence Line.  All additional Wealth is Capital that the individual chooses how to reinvest.  He may choose to purchase unnecessary luxuries, invest in status symbols or education to advance his career, save for retirement or to start a business, or give it to his favorite charity.  In a Capitalist society each individual is considered to own the Wealth they produce, and the State exists to guarantee their Rights.  The central Right that all others derive from in a Capitalist society is the Right to property.

A Capitalist society generally requires a Constitutional Republic to operate, and it is essentially inseparable from the concept of the Free Market.  A basic definition of the Free Market is that prices for goods and services are determined solely by supply and demand.  Because individuals are responsible for reinvesting their Capital they will generally purchase goods and services at the best possible price.  A Capitalist believes that the complex and unpredictable nature of a full economic system will grow and remain stable due to this bottom-up style of planning.  Major changes to Capital distribution will only take place when a large number of people believe it to be in their best interest and will only last as long as they remain profitable.  The Constitutional Republic is necessary because the State will naturally attempt to increase its own influence.  The Constitution serves to chain the State down within the limits of the Law and checks and balances must be used to prevent the political elite from circumventing the Constitution.

Criticisms of Capitalism

There are two primary criticisms of the Capitalist system.  The first is based on the extremes of the economic classes.  The critics point out that the wealthiest classes, who have much more Capital than most, are able to influence society disproportionately by the way they choose to distribute that Capital.  They conclude that since each individual acts to advance their own interests, these actions are probably detrimental to some other individual or group in society, and therefore the rich shall abuse the poor and the working classes whom no one has a motivation to protect.  The poor, who reside below the Subsistence Line, will never have Capital to invest in their own interest and will therefore never have the opportunity to advance.

The second criticism of Capitalism states that faith in the Free Market is erroneous.  While generally accepting the theory of supply and demand, the critics believe that the people as a mass are capable of being panicked or defrauded by a variety of nefarious entities, including foreign governments, plotting corporations, scapegoat populations and demagogues. These critics believe that a central governing body, the State, must be entrusted with the responsibility and empowered with the resources to guide and protect the population from these corrupting influences, which brings us the other dominant modern socio-economic system – Socialism.

The Socialist State

In a Socialist society, the State, embodied by the political elite, determines how much of an individual’s produced Wealth is Capital.  It then takes this Capital from the workers and decides how to distribute it in order to meet the needs of the nation and of the interests that maintain the State’s power.  What differentiates a Socialist system from the Despotic system earlier used as an example is the source of the State’s power.  It is true that the State’s ultimate power still lies in the application of force.  If a worker fails to deliver his Capital to the state, he will be fined and eventually arrested.  If he resists arrest, he will be captured or killed.  However, a Socialist State rarely requires the full use of this force when compared to a Despotic system, because the State relies on its society’s respect for the Rule of Law.  The State uses the Law, as it was intended or not, to justify the use of force.  Due to their respect for the Rule of Law, the people cooperate as long as the powers and actions of the State remain tolerable.

The typical political systems that support a Socialist socio-economic system are Democracy and Selected Oligarchy.  While Democracy is not completely necessary, it is often the political system of a Socialist society because Democratic traditions and the Rule of Law usually develop together in a symbiotic relationship, and as stated previously, the Rule of Law is necessary for a Socialist society.  Democracy, or majority rule, also serves to promote Socialism as it is much simpler to convince large groups to vote away theirs’ and others’ property rights than to freely invest their Capital in a cause.

Divisions in Socialism

There are two broad styles of Socialism – Popular (Marxism) and National (Fascism) – that are defined by the priorities the State follows when distributing Capital.  If the State’s primary goal is to provide for the economic and social security of the workers it is a Popular Socialist State.  In a Democracy, the Popular Socialist State derives its power mainly by promising the distribution of Wealth to several large, dissatisfied political or social minority groups which together make a majority. A National Socialist State invests the majority of its Capital in the security and aggrandizement of the State itself.  In a Democracy, the National Socialist State derives much of its power by encouraging the population to identify as part of the State so that individuals take pride in the State’s accomplishments (scientific, cultural or political) whatever their own economic status.  In this way, dissent against the State becomes dissent against the Nation.  Other common elements of National Socialism are continuous war and conquest as well as the identification of a scapegoat population.

Criticisms of Socialism

There are three primary criticisms leveled against Socialism.  The first and simplest is that the State is incapable of effectively managing large and complex structures like a national economy.  After all, the State is made up of error-prone individuals.  Critics believe that any action the State takes (price fixing, tampering with the monetary unit, foreign intervention, etc.) will inevitably cause unintended side effects or “blowback”.  To correct this blowback, the State will intervene further creating additional unexpected blowback, and in this way the problem will eventually become unmanageable.

The second criticism asserts that because individuals are deprived of their Capital and because they believe the State will care for them if they fail, individuals have no incentive to produce more than they need for their own Maintenance.  The State’s source of Capital will therefore dry up, and it will be forced to lower the Subsistence Line to artificially produce more Capital.  Eventually, it will not be able to fulfill the promises it has made to the populous or the commitments of its Empire.

The critics’ final point is that as the State develops more power to distribute Wealth, it becomes a greater target of manipulation.  Powerful individuals, special interest groups and even foreign governments will lobby for their share of the loot.  The critics believe that the more loot that is at stake the more determined these interests will be to influence the State.

The Current Condition of the American System and the Way Forward

Most Americans recognize that a battle of socio-economic philosophies exists in our nation today.  However, most also mistakenly believe that this battle is between Capitalism and Socialism, using whatever words they choose for the concepts I have previously elucidated.  This is not the case.  Free Market Capitalism has been swiftly eroded by manipulations and outright negligence of our Nation’s Laws and Constitution over the last century.  The 16th Amendment of 1913 which paved the way for the Federal Income Tax determined that the State had the right to deprive individuals of their property – their Capital.  The establishment of the Fed and of dozens of other “regulatory” institutions and the redistribution of vast sums of Wealth have made the State extremely powerful.  The United States of America is ruled today by a Socialist State.

The debate now in our two-party system is between Popular Socialism – the Democrats –  and National Socialism – the Republicans.  Both systems are doomed to failure as is made obvious by the failures of Socialism in the past.  It is vital that the citizens of this nation seek to educate themselves on the founding principles of our Constitution and be wary of lessons they are taught on broadcast television or mass newspapers.  The State’s interest lies in convincing the citizenry that the Free Market is the cause of internal failures and not its own misguided attempts at intervention.  The State’s interest also lies in convincing the citizenry that foreign enemies exist for no avoidable reason rather than due to its own misguided attempts at intervention overseas.

No system is perfect.  The criticisms of Capitalism are valid.  However, a Capitalist system lays the onus of morality on the individual by how he chooses to invest his Capital.  A Socialist system deprives the individual of all responsibility.  Moreover, it is intrinsically immoral because it is based on the forced deprivation of individuals’ property.  The way forward for America lies in the Founding Fathers wise faith in Free Market Capitalism and the way to destruction lies in the dangerous lure of Socialism.

I came into this election season as a confused conservative.  In 2000, I voted for George W. Bush with excitement.  Like any good Republican candidate in the previous couple of decades, he promised to cut spending, reduce taxes and end American military adventurism.  At first, his administration seemed to be making some progress on these promises. Then, 9/11 happened.  Somehow, in the whirlwind of that crisis, everything got turned around.  I’ve always thought of the conservative philosophy as one based on reason and the liberal philosophy as one based on emotion; like that old joke that says if you’re a republican when you’re young, you have no heart, and if you are a democrat when you’re old, you have no brain.  Looking back on the years after 9/11, I now realize that my conservative philosophy, and I think that of the Republican Party’s leadership, was corrupted by the basest of emotions.  Liberals often refer to the politics of fear, but I can now put my finger on the real culprits: frustration, anger… even hatred.  How dare they attack us? My love for that which I have sworn an oath to defend, the Constitution and the ideals of liberty, justice and freedom it embodies, took a back seat to my wrath, my lust for revenge.

I scoffed at the meager efforts of the media to focus my rage on a few crackpots hatching schemes in caves in the remote corners of the world.  I watched the videos of throngs of cheering Muslims dancing in the streets, celebrating the blow to the western Satan.  I listened to Muslim leaders denounce the attacks through one side of their face and then justify it through the other.  I saw bin Laden’s stature soar among the Islamic nations.  I thank God now that I and most other Americans possessed enough civilization, retained just enough reason and had learned well our nation’s historical lessons of racism and prejudice that we did not focus that rage on our friends and neighbors that live among us.  But if someone had provided me a world map and asked me to identify the enemy, I would not have pointed to a nondescript spot in the mountains of Afghanistan, but drawn a large circle in the center of the map.  There was my enemy, and I would do my duty and play my part to convert them to a post-secular westernized democracy or failing that, destroy them altogether.  I certainly did not understand at the time that these goals were impossible, but even if I had, I’m not sure I would have cared.  My anger was such that I was willing to pay almost any price for revenge: our nation’s good name, the soul of our Republic, even my own life.

Like most Americans, I turned a blind eye to the Constitutional abuses of the executive branch and the pitiful surrender of the Congress.  I supported the illegal invasion of a miserable third world country not because of the obviously ridiculous reasons put forth by our government but because it fell within the boundaries of my circle on the map.  I reveled in the criticism of the world community and in the suffering of Islamic terror agents at the hands of CIA interrogators and in the cells of Guantanamo.  My sin of wrath that now pains me the most is my lack of respect for the Constitution.  I swore an oath to defend it and when it needed me the most, I abandoned it.

By 2004, whether due to the passage of time or because enough bombs had dropped their message of revenge, my anger had sufficiently dissipated for me to tell that something was definitely wrong.  I did not have much time for political awareness or self-analysis as I was busy fulfilling my own duty at sea, so far from the battlefields I foolishly wished to be upon.  Nonetheless I was troubled.  Where were we heading?  I began to realize that something was disturbingly wrong with my ideology.  The few political discussions I participated in had long since ceased being about limited government, reform of our welfare state or strengthening individual liberties and family values.  They instead turned to the “war on terror”, the spread of western democracy and dreams of empire.  I realized my views were clouded, but I kept faith in the fact that I was not a policy maker and that our leaders must have a rational plan.

Finally, we arrive at the beginning of this year.  I had been in grad school for over a year with plenty of time for introspection.  I had taken several courses in National Strategy and Policy and had re-attacked my political ideology.  I had become a father.  My anger from 9/11 was exhausted.  I recognize now that my loyalty to the cause in Iraq was fueled primarily by guilt at this point.  So many had sacrificed so much.  How could I now admit that it was a mistake?  I could never, will never, accept that any person has died in vain while wearing the uniform of a United States sailor, airman, soldier, guardsman or marine.  Even with my faith in the American Empire unshaken, my faith in the Republican Party was long gone.  No meaningful spending cuts had accompanied the tax cuts or the war.  If anything the power and scope of the federal government had grown tremendously.  The war itself was obviously mishandled.  I could no longer ignore the shredding of the Constitution or the erosion of American ideals in the treatment of prisoners, though I was still unable to admit my complicit responsibility.  The Republican front-runners looked like so many slimy politicians, ensconced in the “neo-con” philosophy. 

So I cast about for a change of direction and in came Barack Obama.  I, like most of America, had assumed that Hillary Clinton was the de facto democratic candidate.  The very first primaries proved us wrong.  I was enthralled.  I had heard of Obama a few times in the preceding years, always as an up-and-comer and now I saw why.  He spoke of bringing change to Washington, of real political dialogue and statesmanlike decision making.  And he looked the part.  In Obama I saw the end of wind-breaker politics.  He wasn’t just “one of the guys”; he was a man with a vision.  And so far he was pulling it off.  Every ball of dirt the Clintons threw at him just slid off and he didn’t throw anything back.  Because I could no longer trust the Republicans’ claims about reducing the federal government, the only significant difference between the parties seemed to be their Iraq War stances.  Obama said he wanted to pull out as quickly as possible.  That sounded like “cut and run” to me, but I could respect his viewpoint because he had opposed the war from the beginning.  It is one thing to say, “See, I was right.  Now I’m going to get you boys out of there.”  It’s a whole other thing to vote to send in the troops (or to cowardly and unconstitutionally cede your authority to make war to the president knowing full well what he intended to do with it), then suddenly say, “Oops, my bad.  Sorry boys, it’s an election year.  I ordered you all in to die for nothing.”

So I got behind the man of vision.  Of course, I followed the Republican primaries as well.  The moments that caught my attention were the debates, particularly when John McCain and Rudy Giuliani got into it with a congressman from Texas that I had never heard of, Ron Paul.  Each time, I felt that Paul was making sense.  He was talking about fiscal conservative values and a rejection of our self-imposed role of world policeman, things for which I had given my vote to George W. Bush eight years ago, but that I had since largely abandoned.  But the scorn of the other candidates, the moderators and the audience reminded me that Paul was a hopeless idealist, a dreamer.  Also, I wasn’t quite ready to abandon the Empire.  So I registered as an Independent in my home state and dropped my primary ballot for the man of vision, Barack Obama.

Unfortunately, it was not long before I discovered what exactly that vision was.  As the general election ramped up, the divisions (and surprising similarities) between the parties became more obvious.  One of Obama’s main campaign pledges was to add a whole new health entitlement program over Medicare and Medicaid to the mandatory spending of our federal budget which was already burdened by 53% with such programs.  Currently residing in California I have seen first hand what happens to a government that is castrated by mandatory spending.  California is going bankrupt at 94%, which means the governor controls a total of 6% for the annual budget.  There are not a lot of options in 6%.  On top of this and other enormous new expenditures, Obama was promising a tax cut to 95% of working Americans… even though only 53% of working Americans pay any income tax at all.  It became painfully obvious that Obama was an old-school, wealth redistributing socialist.  On top of that, as Iraq faded into back page news, Obama softened his rhetoric to include “in accordance with conditions on the ground” phraseology, and he made it clear in one of the debates that he fully intends to deploy American forces to trouble spots around the world such as Darfur.  Worse yet, when the mud started flying this time, kicked off by McCain to be sure, Obama was quick to fire back.  His new politics lasted all of two attack ads before he was wrestling in the mud.

So I meandered unenthusiastically back to John McCain.  The man is a war hero after all.  But it was hard to get excited.  If I heard about the bridge-to-nowhere one more time I was going to put my foot through the television.  In fact the only thing I ever heard McCain specify that he was going to “shake up” in Washington was to put the hammer down on earmarks.  Great.  That’s like a barber plucking one hair out of my head and asking for his fifteen dollars.  So McCain was not going to fix anything.  I was just supposed to vote for him because he probably wouldn’t to anything quite as socialist as Obama.  Otherwise, the only issue McCain had was Iraq, on which the two campaigns were quickly melding and I was becoming increasingly doubtful about.

Into this lackluster voting decision entered the current economic crisis.  The artificially inflated housing bubble popped and a bunch of jerks were caught with their pants down.  What do McCain and Obama do?  Both of them rush back to Washington to posture and prance and essentially agree that a huge bailout has to be passed to try to re-inflate the bubble and stretch out the inevitable collapse for a little while longer.  At the time, I didn’t really understand what was going on, but like many Americans the idea that 700 billion dollars (or more) should somehow be snatched out of thin air by a government that was already operating in deep deficits and distributed to Wall Street investment banks in order to keep me out of a bread line just didn’t add up.

Then, as if a voice in a dark room calling me towards the light switch, I saw an interview with a man who seemed to know exactly what was going on.  After I saw it, I went online and watched more videos.  There were videos all the way back to the 1970’s in which this man was warning of the coming crisis.  More importantly, he wasn’t waving a magic wand or “explaining it in terms the common people could understand.”  What Ron Paul was saying just made sense.  Because the federal government had adopted a policy of maximum spending and growth, it could not allow normal market adjustments and used the Fed to bull through such times by printing fake money, thereby destroying the dollar.  And here we are today on the edge of hyperinflation and a complete economic collapse thanks to government intervention meant to “protect” us.  He seemed so wise, but wasn’t he just the kooky guy the Republicans laughed at a few months ago?  I looked up those debates again and I remembered that I had initially felt he had won the debates before I had been told otherwise.

Then, I saw that he had written a book: The Revolution: A Manifesto.  It was cheap, short and highly rated on Amazon.  I ordered it and two days later sat reading it on my living room couch.  His first major point was my most difficult to swallow: rejecting the American Empire.  He didn’t just endorse pulling out of Iraq, he insisted that America needed to pull it’s troops out of Korea, Europe and the 130 countries around the world they are currently stationed.  Paul wasn’t only rejecting everything I had been taught to believe about America’s role in the world; as a Naval Officer, he was threatening my very livelihood.  But he wasn’t espousing some crackpot opinion.  His arguments mirrored those of the Founders and of the Constitution itself.  Who am I to think my opinions, or those of our modern leaders, superior to those of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington or Benjamin Franklin?  If they were such naïve fools, our Republic never had a chance anyway.  Then, I thought about my own education in history.  What Republic ever transitioned to Empire and retained the integrity of its institutions and the liberties of its citizens?  I think the best argument I have heard against Paul’s non-interventionist ideas is that releasing our military control of the world might allow another Hitler to rise.  I now fear that embracing the Empire and the centralized government needed to maintain it might allow another Hitler to rise… from our own nation.

Paul goes on to re-educate me on the founding principles of the Constitution, the ridiculous mockery the Fed has made of the dollar, the nature of individual rights and liberties, and the myths I have been sold about the necessity of Big Government.  I felt like I had been drinking the funny Kool-Aid for most of my adult life and Paul had just knocked the cup out of my hand.  After I finished the book in just a few hours, I dug out an old copy of the Constitution; one of the little booklets that Congress prints out in what I now see as some sort of sick irony.  I read it as if for the first time.  The fog is clearing and I am experiencing The Revolution.  It is a Revolution in Thinking that I feel like I now share with those great men who identified the inherent rights of man and built a government that can sustain them, if we just have the courage to believe in it.   Please, if you believe in liberty, justice and freedom, get your hands on a copy of The Revolution: A Manifesto by Dr. Ron Paul.  Experience the Revolution.

(Note: As a member of the Armed Forces, my views in no way reflect the policies or views, official or unofficial, of the United States Navy or Department of Defense.)