May 22, 2026
Libertarian pundits act like they're working to keep their jobs, not establish liberty.
They hack at this or that state proposal or criminal act, maybe show how it robs or restricts us, then declare the people don't understand, will never understand because of relentless propaganda, and all is lost. Or maybe the more optimistic will say we have to eliminate this or that part of government, without saying how to do it. Or they imply we can do it with the right people in office, if we can ever get honest vote counts again.
Most of all there is tacit if not explicit agreement that smaller government is the answer. Fewer laws mean more liberty, which means more prosperity, more of what might be called happiness. Some even suggest returning to the Constitution, since it has lost almost all meaning.
They're talking to a choir. They're also talking to an audience that wants to know how to bring about the needed changes. But for that they only hear the same old same old. But not even that, really. Sound money is a requirement of sustainable prosperity and freedom, but most pundits, in their tacit embrace of the State, apparently believe sound money can co-exist with the sovereign State. Sound money is money selected by the free market that functions independent of any political authority. In other words, we've never had sound money.
How many articles have you read about gold being real money and central bank fiat dollars being a subtle form of theft ? Money (including a bought media and academia) being the source of the Fed's power, why would they ever surrender their printing press ? How many articles have you come across calling for the president to bring the troops home ? Foreign wars are the Deep State's gravy train. Why would they give them up cold turkey ? Perhaps you've read writers who call for the elimination of the FBI, DEA, or CIA. Or calling for restrictions on the IRS or NSA. Or articles pointing to the wasteful budget of the military. During the covid hysteria we read that covid mask mandates were maintained in violation of science. Or how ivermectin was demonized while data showed its efficacy.
That's all good work, guys. The swamp is deep, so there's no end to material. I've written one or two of those hits myself. But what's the point ? Entertainment ? By shining a light on the ugliness to which we give tacit assent ? To prep readers for a return to 1787 ? There's always a Shays's Rebellion at hand to feed State aggrandizement.
The good old days were bad
You, constitutional pundits, are putting readers on a ship that'll end up where the bad stuff started. No matter the size, government as we know it rests on the monopoly state. The state, not the people under it, is sovereign, yet there's the belief that good people in office will permit the rest of us to live free of government interference. Staff it with Ron Paul at every position and it's smooth sailing from now on. And what happens when Ron leaves office ? Aside from the fantasy in believing you'll achieve it, and that it will fix everything, meaning no more bad laws or bad guys, there is no reason for sober readers to get excited.
The fix is not the same thing but smaller; the fix is eliminate the monopoly.
Ironically, it is pure American in concept. Americans have always hated monopolies without realizing they've been swearing allegiance to the mother of them all. For a clear understanding of what constitutes a monopoly as opposed to a giant firm, see historian Gabriel Kolko's classic Triumph of Conservatism.
A monopoly eliminates competition - by state mandate. Without competition we are at the mercy of the monopolist. The state is the monopoly backing all other monopolies such as the medical and banking cartels. Get rid of the state monopoly and you get rid of all "lawful" monopolies. You have government by a market restricted only by individual rights enforced by private police and courts, a truly democratic government of the people. Big Tech, Big Pharma, Big Whatever might still be big but not without the threat of competition. The consumer (you) is king. No government favors, no bailouts. They swim on their own or sink. Or if they do get help it will be voluntary. Unlike today's arrangement, all theft, including legal theft, is a crime under market government.
This means no Fed, the creator of the depreciating dollar.
Most people want to stick with what they hope will continue working. Change it ? No way. Change is disturbing and unreliable. Other people took the lead and and in one year -1913 - put us at the mercy of the Fed and the income tax. Those two alone allowed the nation to join the slaughter of two World Wars and countless skirmishes since. In 1947, the National Security Act ensured that wars of choice and other interventions would keep the people in line.
We are not allowed to vote to end the state. That would be an admission that some other form of government might be preferable. So we vote on different State leaders - if we choose to vote.
Conclusion
We already live under market forces. Why not extend the market to cover judicial and security concerns ? I've discussed how to do it in my book and cover the essentials in my YouTube movie, but it starts with getting people to affirm the idea of government by market forces only. They don't have to march in the streets or campaign for a candidate who promises to overthrow the State. All you have to do is give a thumbs up for the movie on my YouTube channel .
But viewers have to vote. If they like the idea of market government they have to say so with a vote for the movie. When a critical mass of supporters is reached, momentum and ruinous government fiscal policies will take care of the rest.