This is a blog for those who want to foster freedom, through communication and activism, at home and abroad. Whether you are a Democrat, a Republican, a Libertarian, or conservative or liberal, if you believe that individual freedom is foremost, as a right of all people and as an obligation to free those now suffering repression and enslavement by the dictators of this world, this blog is for you.
Why invent a new term, freedomist or freedomism? Why not one of the conventional political party labels?
Because freedom is not their central theme, although a few of their leaders may emphasize such in some instances. Among Republicans, former President
Bush is representative. Mr. Bush was a Freedomist in his foreign policy, to a much lesser extent in his economic policies, and not at all in his traditional social conservatism.
Democrats, including President Obama, who is to the far left of his party, and liberal Congressional Democrats, may want to spread democratic freedom, but give precedence to the UN, normalcy, and stability in international relations.
National defense is important, but second to diplomacy, international aid, and building bridges to past and present enemies. Moreover, Democrats are soft socialists at home, believing in nationalization, tight economic regulation and controls, spreading the wealth, equality, and cradle to grave welfare. However, on social matters (such as prostitution, drugs, and abortion) they do emphasize freedom, rhetorically and in their policies.
Surely then, the libertarians are much closer to what I mean by freedomists. As a youth, with my heart on my sleeve, I was a democratic socialist. In the early 1970s, persuaded by the arguments of
Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and Milton Friedman, I became a libertarian. And libertarian is what I called myself until recently. I remain so in domestic policy, which is to say the more freedom from regulation, government ownership, control, taxation, and oppressive laws, the better, up to a point. I am not an anarchist, but believe social justice means minimal government consistent with protecting and guaranteeing equal civil and political rights to all.
However, on foreign policy libertarians, with some exceptions, are isolationists fundamentally opposed to foreign involvements and interventions. They want international relations also to be free, with free trade and commerce, and freedom for other countries to do whatever they want with their people. Not our business.
On this, libertarians are blinded by their desire for freedom, not realizing that everything, including freedom, demands contextual qualification (should a carrier of a dangerous infectious disease be free to spread it far and wide, perhaps killing thousands with it?). Isolationism makes the world safe for the gangs of thugs (dictatorships) who murder, torture, and oppress their people, and rule by fear.
Not our business, the libertarian still will say. Thus we must infer that such a horrific violation of his fundamental belief in freedom is fine, as long as somebody else is suffering, and not I, my loved ones, nor my friends.
This is blindness to the libertarian's own welfare. In an age of readily transportable biological weapons, such as anthrax, and nuclear weapons, a country like the U.S. no longer can afford to ignore what goes on elsewhere in the production and deliverability of such weapons. Those who hate the democracies and their libertarian values will not hesitate to use them. We are vulnerable. Involvement and intervention in the rapacious affairs of thug regimes are necessary to protect democracies, not to mention advancing human rights and the freedom libertarians praise. Quite simply, no thug regimes can be trusted with either the possession or the capability of producing such weapons.
I believe many of you are freedomists (“ist” meaning a follower or believer in certain beliefs, such as in socialist or feminist). Come, join me. Subscribe to this site. Be part of an intellectual network of freedomists, and help promote freedomism.