Why This Blog and Why Should I Care What You Think?

Posted: January 6th, 2010 by Militant Libertarian

Mili Note: This was first published at the very beginning of this blog’s existence on January 14, 2004.  It was, literally, the first post on the blog.  At the time, I was Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Utah and not too long before, in 2003, my friend Dale Williams and I had put together one of the most successful rallies in Utah, this one a Bill of Rights rally to combat the USA PATRIOT Act.

Shortly after that, I was on a panel to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, headed by Senator-for-life Orrin Hatch.  I was part of a panel that included the ACLU of Utah, the Republican Party of Utah, and the Eagle Forum of Utah.  They put me in the middle.  I guess I was supposed to act as a buffer to keep the left and right from fist-fighting.

The whole panel setup was a dog and pony show put on by Hatch.  Surprise panel members testified for the USAPA and the whole thing was put on for the benefit of CSPAN2 and the drooling Utah public.

A lot has changed since then.  First, I have fully seen through the false left-right/RepubliDemo paradigm, I am no longer a member of the Libertarian Party and I rarely call myself a libertarian except as a qualifier for another adjective – usually anarchist or free market libertarian.  Second, I no longer live in the repressive state of Utah.

Anyway, here’s the original mission statement for MilitantLibertarian.orgHappy birthday to me!

Why This Blog and Why Should I Care What You Think?

Frankly, what I think is damn important. If you don’t think so, go somewhere else. :) What do I care and how am I gonna know you aren’t reading my screeds? The basis for libertarian thought is “no force, no fraud.” We don’t commit either and neither should anyone else. So I won’t force you to read my crap. ;) OK, on with the show.

Mainly, I’ve created this blog because I’m very unhappy. Normally, I’m a happy, no-worries type guy. Ask anyone who knows me. But there are many things that concern me right now, both politically and morally in our society.

Obviously, the name “Militant Libertarian” is an oxymoron. Duh. However, it does drive home a point. Think on it and you’ll understand.

Someone recently asked me why I would call attention to myself by using terms like “militant” and even broadcasting my intentions to the world. I answered by saying I’m tired of being afraid of the “consequences” of exercising one of my rights, this one protected by the First Amendment. I’m also tired of “under the radar” morons who hide from the government and do nothing to fight for change.

By the way, for those of you who care AND for all government agents in attendance: my name is Aaron Turpen and I reside in the Salt Lake City, Utah area. I’m on all the government lists anyway…


I’m a Libertarian (member of the Libertarian Party as well as a libertarian thinker, although I cannot speak for the LP itself). I find that my way of thinking is getting treated with more and more hostility by our society. Liberals wanna know what kind of “safety net” we’ll have and how we’re supposed to keep our “social contract” if we think like libertarians. Harsh (read: religious/moralistic/neo-) conservatives wanna know how we’re supposed to block the “moral decay of society” and the “communist/terrorist threat” if we think like libertarians.

These are phrases that get used continually in one form or another, over and over, until my ears bleed for relief.

Now, pretend you went to the Oxford School for Bright Young Juniors instead of your public school (read: socialistic indoctrination camp for the C-grade mind). Having that sort of background and having learned to think for yourself (instead of spouting facts from the Communist Manifesto), you will now be able to read what I have to say and maybe think about it a little. Whether you actually change your mind about anything is up to you. I’m a libertarian, remember, I don’t force anyone to do anything. :)

Libertarians have the philosophy that while most people are inherently good in nature, they are basically selfish. I know I want what’s best for me and you no doubt want what’s best for you, so where’s the argument?

Since people are basically selfish, then their prime motivation in life must be selfishness. Right? If that’s true, why not use that to advantage in government? After all, our current prohibitionistic philosophy of government (we prohibit EVERYTHING from drugs to gay-bashing to Cuban cigars, for God’s sake) does nothing but create black markets for certain goods. With black markets come criminal thought, which breeds crime.

You still with me? Good.

So, if every person is out for him or herself (see, I’m already caving into the prohibitionist idea of PC writing, dammit…), they will get what’s best for them by creating cooperation and agreements with others who are also trying for what’s best for them. This is mutually beneficial. Woah! What a concept.

Now, so long as these deals and agreements create no force or fraud (i.e. they don’t impinge on anyone’s basic rights), they are valid and good. Government’s job is to step in when they aren’t good (when force or fraud is committed and ONLY when force or fraud is committed…not to pre-emptively strike before force or fraud might be committed at a later date…).

For some reason, the liberals and conservatives I mentioned before can’t grasp this fundamental idea. The core problem with both of their beliefs is that, somehow, government is benevolent and better than the people who created it. Take a look around you and think closely about government. If you refer to it as “your government,” then maybe you are content with it. If you’re like 99.99% of Americans out there, though, you refer to it as “the government.” That should tell you something…

New Stuff Coming Soon!

I will be adding a “blog FAQ” sometime in the near future. It will probably replace this entry and will contain info on the blog, including how to hook up to it via your RSS reader (hint: the URL is http://www.militantlibertarian.org/rss/militantlib.xml).

Last edited: 1/26/04.


Comments (1)


  1. Clay Barham says:

    From her works, it is apparent Ayn Rand admired the courageous pebble-droppers, the nails standing above the boardwalk that ruling elite might trip over, who challenged the established and accepted way things were done. It was the creative, imaginative individuals who followed a dream, a vision of some better way of living that she wrote about, not the socialist taker who envied the creative few even when enjoying the benefits of the pebble-dropper’s efforts. This was her focus. All other ingredients haters add to the interpretation of Ayn Rand’s ideas are simply mud to cloud the water. Whether she was atheist or Jewish, anti-Christian or self-centered means nothing. She believed she was OK and others, as individuals, were potentially OK as well, but herds were led by the few who would limit individuals and take from those who have to share with those who have not, and they and their leaders were not OK. Those who violently oppose Rand are the ones who want to retain the Old World ideals of a few elite ruling the many, as is being reintroduced to America by the Obama forces. Claysamerica.com

Leave a Reply