Let me state that I'm not in any way associated with the Libertarian party. I use a small L when describing myself, and the label "libertarian" has been chosen simply as a matter of expediency in describing myself, because no one would know what a juris naturalist is. For those who don't know, Richard Maybury coined that term to describe the worldview he has adopted, which very closely matches that of the founders of this country and also takes into account the opposing views of federalist/antifederalist. He believes both were right, and I happen to agree. This view believes in commonlaw, restitution in cases of breach of commonlaw, and a free market (within the confines of commonlaw.) The closest we come in common modern parlance is libertarian, and I find myself often in the Libertarian/libertarian camp in most political discussions, so it has its uses.

There is such an aversion to libertarianism, or what is perceived as libertarianism, on all sides, that I find myself often dumbfounded. Whether conservative or leftist, there are so many misconceptions about what a libertarian is that it deserves to be addressed.

I have been reading leftists who actually believe that libertarianism consists of far-right-wingers who use pot and pornography. Where did that come from? How on God's green earth...? See, I told you I'm dumbfounded by it. Here is a newsflash for the left: you do not have to smoke marijuana to be against the war on drugs. You do not have to be a drug user to believe or advocate that certain things should be decriminalized or even legalized. I understand that some Libertarians/libertarians do smoke pot or use pornography. Guess what? So do socialists, communists, right-wingers, conservatives and any other group you can think of. It seems to me it's the leftist mindset of how it affects me and how I can get more out of something that is responsible for the belief that one who believes something is not criminal must use the product themselves. In reality, some of us are of the belief that pornography is not only harmful but highly immoral. You know what we do about that? We don't read it.

Then I heard some on the right. They think libertarians are actually social utopians and drugged-out hippies. Oh, and losers. You know, because we have a two-party system and one of those parties is not Libertarian, therefore they're a loser third party. Well, touchee on that part, it's something that has to come from the ground up - through winning local elections, right? Or from within - effecting change within an existing party. Both take time, and if you wish to call it "losing" while that's happening, so be it. But social utopians? Hippies???? The funny thing about that is it's the Republican party that much more closely aligns with socialism and hippie dreams, isn't it? I mean "compassionate conservative" actually means a conservative who isn't fiscally very conservative right? Who is willing to use confiscatory tax dollars to expand things like enforced government schooling exponentially? Who isn't afraid to keep taking what the people produce and spending more and more of it on unconstitutional programs like that and other things? Yeah, that's what I thought. Compassionate with other people's (stolen) money, just like the utopians. I think it's pretty unfair to go around calling people who advocate the precise opposite of hippiedom hippies while indulging in it yourselves.

It may be time to scrap even the small L version of the label Libertarian, I don't know. It may be time to keep putting out the juris naturalist label and explaining it. Then again maybe not. Maybe it's time to take a stand and confront this stupidity and ignorance where we see it.

In either case it's necessary to keep up the fight to educate the indoctrinated government schooled masses as to what liberty actually is. To explain to them once again that common law requires us to honor our agreements (1. Do all you have agreed to do) and not to harm others (2. Do not encroach upon other persons or their property), and all that follows from these two logical premises. The constitution ordinarily forms a great start, but people have begun to think of it as a document that limits our rights as opposed to a document that severely limits the scope of the government over our lives. (For example, people spend time arguing over how much it's constitutional for the federal government to spend on education, or pro/con of federal curriculum without recognizing that it isn't constitutional of them to spend one of our dimes, or any of their time on it.) Going back to educating people on the basics of common law seems essential in this case, and the free market that grows out of that common law. How the principles of restitution work within that common law and free market. Explaining that there is another way, that it doesn't have to be one or the other form of totalitarianism. That it isn't a matter of merely left versus right at all.

In the meantime, when you see someone claiming libertarians are just right-wing-left-wing-hippie-commie-pothead-pornloving-freaks, hopefully you will recognize that for what it is. Unadulterated crapola.