Capitalism is a great economic institution for all kinds of rebels, freaks, extremists, stooges, and jackasses. As long as you can make yourself marketable, you can become a self-made man; and what is more marketable than being the scum of the Earth, the absolute lowest of the low, the deformed, the crippled, the sick, the demented, the senseless? What are the advantages and disadvantages to this laissez-faire approach to society? Why are the freaks and rebels a good sign of a healthy culture?

Censorship!

But in the broader context of art, culture, and people’s individual tastes, a laissez-faire (hands off!) society shouldn’t be allowed to censor any form of self-expression. The only case in which government intervention should be allowed is when that form of expression inhibits someone’s rights, meaning: the taking of one’s life, the taking of one’s property, physical harassment and abuse, or fraud.

Other than those exceptions, people’s sensitive whims are not a righteous method of choice between who or what should be censored. A laissez-faire society recognizes these rights. It gives all walks of life a chance to prosper in their own way. In this sense, capitalism celebrates the diversity of men and women.

How Much $$$ Is Your Soul?

On the other hand people love pointing out that capitalism can be exploitative. The profit incentive makes people change or sacrifice their art for the sake of business or money. How often do you hear others say how a particular band or artist “sold out?” We always think people are doing things solely for the money, and maybe sometimes they are.

However, who are we to judge? Most of us probably do something “just for the money”… because that is just a part of living. We can’t expect others to simply take care of us from cradle-to-grave; instead, we need to prove our worth to society or become self-sufficient. It may sound crude or shallow, but this is what people naturally expect from others. “If you don’t pull some sort of load, you don’t get to eat with us.” This idea existed long before capitalism, and it doesn’t seem to be going away anytime soon.

So instead of framing capitalism as a system that makes people sell their souls, we should think of it as a system that gives people the most free choice on how they want to make a living. The right to profit from one’s talents and quirks is a big component of what makes a culture thrive.

Free Choice or Freak Show?

I’ve come to terms that the degree to which a culture thrives must therefore be the degree to which its people are able to exercise freedom. The more we are encouraged to deviate from cultural norms, to find our own individual voice, the greater our ability to innovate and evolve as a society. Respective to art, music, and entertainment, I think today represents some of the most exciting times in the history of mankind.

Reflect for a moment on just how laissez-faire and yet artistically explosive the internet is. There is so much quality, so much opportunity, and yet so much shit – but that is just the nature of diversity. Many have used the internet to advertise their particular style of music or photography or writing, and our culture has thrived because of it! There is something for everyone now.

And this kind of freedom also allows for the occasional freak show: think “2 Girls 1 Cup,” DarwinAwards.com, Rotten.com, 4chan, ChatRoulette, …if you have ever used the internet then you know the kind of messed up stuff that is out there.

And what about the modern day circus acts we see on MTV with shows like Jackass, Wild Boys, Nitro Circus, and Jersey Shore? Reality TV is one of the best examples of Andy Warhol’s quote, “In the future, everyone will have their 15 minutes of fame.”

But although some may see this all as a sign of a dying culture, I see it as a sign of an open and thriving one. One that is curious, tolerant, always changing, celebrates diversity, and is truly representative of a free society. The crazier it gets, the more free we must be…

Melting Pot or Salad Bowl?

A melting pot is a metaphor for when a heterogeneous society becomes more homogeneous; in other words, people are expected to conform to one “common culture.” On the contrary, a salad bowl is when a heterogeneous society mixes together but still each part remains distinct.

I think our society is neither. It is constantly borrowing and being influenced by other ideas, but this synthesis creates new elements, not keeping the old parts separate nor mixing them together as a cohesive whole. We are all individuals influencing our world through that process of self-discovery. This is why I think we should all embrace (or at the very least tolerate) everyone’s unique path.

At first the idea of business and spirituality together may seem contradictory. We are often told that businesses are only driven by the incentive to make more money, while spirituality entails abandoning this attachment to material wealth. With this attitude hanging over our head, how can a spiritual person ever expect to become a successful businessman? Under what conditions can one sell and still be moral?

To start, is there any place in this world that is outside of economic reality? Even the poorest of spiritual beggars must have some desire for clothing, food and shelter if he or she wants to survive.

On the other hand, some of these spiritually-driven individuals make a virtue out of living from the bare minimum, a notion that the late Indian mystic Osho disagreed with strongly. Often referring to himself as the “rich man’s guru,” Osho taught that material poverty was not a genuine spiritual value. According to one excerpt from Wikipedia:

“Osho had himself photographed wearing sumptuous clothing and hand-made watches, and while in Oregon drove a different Rolls-Royce each day – his followers reportedly wanted to buy him 365 of them, one for each day of the year. Publicity shots of the Rolls-Royces (93 in the end) were sent to the press. As a conscious display, they may have reflected both his enjoyment of wealth and his desire to provoke American sensibilities, much as he had enjoyed offending Indian sensibilities earlier.”

Although a complex character who loved to provoke others, Osho made it clear that he never mistook material wealth for spiritual gain. Money to him was just a tool. He once said,

“Money is a means. If you are happy and you have money, you will become more happy. If you are unhappy and you have money, you will become more unhappy – because what will you do with your money? Your money will enhance your pattern, whatsoever it is.”

Although he was rarely one to hide his wealth, money did not define Osho. In fact many of the royalties he received from his work were often donated to local communes, including the 90+ Rolls Royces.

In some ways Osho’s teachings can even be seen to resemble the moral philosophy of Ayn Rand, who once said, “The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live.” Osho was definitely one to enjoy himself and live. He saw no virtue in prolonging any kind of suffering, starting with his own. His way of life quickly became a quintessence of how one can take responsibility for themselves and enjoy life without any signs of guilt or fear.

It is not money that is the root of all evil, but human greed itself that causes humans to do heinous acts for material and superficial gains. Money however can still be used as a tool for good, and even the acquisition of money, as long as the means are just, can often benefit society at large. The remainder of this article will touch upon business incentives that I feel also align themselves congruently with spiritual and moral imperatives.

The Incentive To Provide Goods For Others

First and foremost the purpose of a business is to provide goods for others. The owner may have the intentions of striking it rich, but if he neglects the needs and wants of society then he will have a tough time selling his products. Sure, he or she may find ways to exploit the system and trick others into buying something they don’t really desire, but this can be incredibly difficult to do and even if the business does succeed, they won’t last long.

Businesses are almost always better off if they try to provide something of value. Just look at individuals like Bill Gates from Microsoft and Sam Walton the founder of Wal-Mart. Both of these companies have drastically helped to increase the standard of living of others. Nowadays almost everyone has experienced the luxury of a computer, as well as the low prices provided by enterprises like Wal-Mart. In what ways have these institutions benefited you?

Businesses must know the demands of others if they want to continue to exist. Providing valuable goods to others at an affordable rate is a great way to benefit society at large. Often these endeavors can result in an alleviation of suffering, which is a primary objective to any spiritual practice. In the right hands, more money can mean a greater capacity to do good for others. This is an aspect of business that should be celebrated more often.

The Incentive To Treat Customers Right

My economics teacher in high school once said that if someone has a bad experience with a company they are likely to tell the story to – on average – about 7 other people. I wasn’t able to confirm this statistic (if anyone can help me that would be great!) but I think she was touching on a crucial point: businesses must treat customers at some sort of satisfactory level if they want their customers to keep coming back. If a business gets enough of a bad reputation, people will stop going, and the company will no longer be favorable in the public eye. Especially in industries where there is much competition, it is in the company’s best interest to win over their customers.

It doesn’t cost much to treat your customers with loyalty, care, and a bit of compassion – so if you are running a business it is in only in your own rational self-interest to make it assured that your customer’s needs are being met. This doesn’t just mean in the value of your product, but also in the value of your services as well as the overall human-to-human experience. This means the overall “personality” of your company: What kind of friend are you to your clients? Are you being genuine, superficial, or are you acting as if you just don’t give a fuck at all? People aren’t dumb – they can usually tell the difference!

The Incentive To Treat Employees Right

Sure, many people believe that many modern economies have resulted in what is know as wage slavery. In this sense many say companies can get away with exploiting their workers, despite the fact that workers voluntarily choose where they work in a free society. Despite this, businesses have plenty good incentives to treat their workers with the best possible care.

For example, building a sense of community or family around the workplace is a fantastic way to increase productivity. If people love where they work then they are much more motivated to do a great job. Of course, not all jobs are equally enjoyable, so it is up to the business owner to be creative when trying to build a more friendly atmosphere for his employees. One real world example is the offices at Google, one of the biggest companies in the world. Sure looks like fun to work there!

Choosing The Right Values

Achieving the above objectives requires a company to have good and productive values. Although this isn’t all that it takes to build a great business, it is important to have a sense of love, compassion, and family within the internal structure of your company. That is what keeps it together and makes up its core. You want your employees to be able to feed energy off of each other. This builds a self-perpetuating drive and motivation to do good for the company, which should try and be seen as a greater whole.

Understand that by doing good for the company you are also doing good for society at large. The key is to work for (or build) a company that you believe is doing good for the world. The rest of your attitude will come naturally to you. You will want to improve the company because it simultaneously improves humanity too.

Last Thoughts On Business-Minded Spirituality

This framework for business is part of what I am beginning to call “Business-Minded Spirituality.” As an ardent proponent of capitalism and free markets, but also a deeply spiritual person, I strive to persuade you that businesses are not just evil and greedy money-making machines, but amazing tools that can be utilized to transform our world in a positive direction. For those that are already awakened spiritually, continue your learning by getting into the realm of business. For those that are more business-oriented, add a spiritual element to your company to help make it grow in new and expansive directions. I hope to be discussing these concepts more in the near future.

Some of you may have already adapted a business-minded and spiritual attitude. What type of things do you do to build a spiritual sense around your company? Which techniques do you find most effective for improving upon your business?

Farewell Video

Let me now leave you with a video of Osho himself, discussing the concept of “Selling Bliss:”

The main question you need to ask whenever you hear about an outcome of “government spending” is: Instead of what?! The cost of any economic decision is never simply “What were the outcomes?” but also ‘What were the potential outcomes?” – what was the opportunity cost? What could have been achieved if I invested my time and capital differently?

Today President Obama announced that 1 million jobs were saved due to the $787 billion dollar stimulus plan he initiated earlier this year. I ask, “Instead of what?”

At first glance this may sound like a great headline for Obama, but only if you make an all-too-often economic fallacy about the nature of government spending. When we are on the receiving end, it is all too easy to forget that governments do not have their own source of wealth; they only absorb wealth from their citizens through taxes and monetary inflation. In this sense there is no such thing as government spending, only redistribution. As argued by many intellectuals throughout the past century, this kind of economic planning often comes with disastrous effects. Yet politicians refuse to listen, often only citing Keynesian economists – who justify increased government spending even when it is in contradiction with the most basic laws of the free market.

In this article I will argue that almost all government spending “for the sake of the economy” – no matter the intentions – is bad. I will argue that it doesn’t matter which way the money flows; it is the principle of the action that hurts the economy and undermines the intelligence of the market. And in the end we all lose out as a result of government meddling in the economy.

Government spending vs. Market spending

I find the best way to frame the battle between markets and governments is as follows,

When individuals are given the chance to keep their earnings (private property) and spend it as they see fit (voluntary contracts) – does this lead to better outcomes than when governments decide where money should be spent?

ARGUMENT 1: Fallacy Of Intentions (The Belief In A “Benevolent Government”)

One argument in favor of government is what I call the fallacy of intentions. This is the general belief that a benevolent government can provide for society better than self-interested individuals.

The underlying premise is that individuals are greedy and we can not expect greed to serve the general welfare of the people. As John Maynard Keynes once said, “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.”

But this is a fallacy. Governments, like markets, are also a conglomeration of individual humans; humans that have the same potential for greed as anyone else. One of my favorite rebuttals to this fallacy is a quote by Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, in which he states:

“If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reasons also reject every kind of government action.”

A Keynesian might then counter this point by arguing that in a democracy – since the people elect their representatives – greed could therefore be limited.

But certainly “greedy individuals” are just as capable of organizing campaigns and becoming elected officials as “benevolent individuals”? America is already a great example of how money seems to be the best predictor of government power.

However we cannot blame this on capitalism, we can only blame government for not following its original constitutional foundation. This is why it is my belief that a constitutional republic, one which concentrates government power closest towards the individual, is one that best serves a free society. A constitution is necessary in order to define the purpose of government and to limit it from breaking these restrictions.

ARGUMENT 2: The Intelligence Of Governments Versus Markets.

Another argument in favor of government is that government can better allocate resources than the free market can. It is believed that under laissez-faire capitalism self-interested individuals will only act in a way that maximizes profit for themselves and consequently not provide for the needs of others.

However, economic activity is not a zero-sum game; everyone reaps benefits from voluntary trade. If individuals didn’t see benefit in an action they simply wouldn’t do it. As Adam Smith once famously wrote in his influential book “The Wealth of Nations” (1776):

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.”

Adam Smith later named these market forces the invisible hand. Ludwig von Mises claimed that Smith believed that the invisible hand was that of God. He did not mean this as a criticism, since he held that secular reasoning leads to similar conclusions.

Mises’ contrasted the invisible hand of the market with central economic planning, claiming the the latter was not only undesirable but impossible. In his theory of the “economic calculation problem” which was later expounded by Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek, Mises argues that governments cannot possibly have the knowledge to know what is good for the economy. Mises believed that only the voluntary actions of consenting adults could properly allocate resources throughout the market. Hayek expanded on this idea by stating the efficient exchange and use of resources can be maintained only through the price mechanisms possible through free markets.

When governments legislate price and wage limits, the market is inhibited from reacting properly when changes occur in supply and demand. Due to the uncertainty of the economy, government can not possibly have enough knowledge to benefit society through massive spending. In fact, they almost always undermine a “natural market” solution from taking place. The more you give individuals a chance to act freely the better each individual’s needs will be met.

Of course the market isn’t perfect or Utopian. Individuals do not always make the right decisions for themselves and economies will fall into recessions during bad economic times. But this is true for any aspect of life. Just because half of American marriages end in a divorce doesn’t mean we want the government to make decisions on who we should marry. Life is filled with mistakes; it is how we learn, and it is a part of freedom.

So, yes, it sounds nice when we hear that Obama created X amount of jobs or saved Y. But how would this solution compare to a market solution? How do we know Obama is “creating” or “saving” jobs that really serve the American people? Yes, governments can help the unemployment rate by starting wars, or even by having everyone build pyramids, but is this really signs of a growing economy? Is this really an efficient allocation of resources? When Obama and Bush “bailout” companies that the market has already chosen to fail, then they are only delaying the inevitable destruction of these jobs. The people have already chosen another product. People losing jobs is a necessary function of a healthy market.

Note on GDP as a measure of economic growth

Like unemployment rates, GDP is another statistic that can be easily manipulated by government. The government reported this week that the economy grew 3.5 percent from July through September. But since government spending is a part of GDP, no wonder the “economy grew” with all this stimulus spending.

“What kind of man was Ludwig von Mises? As this unique film shows, Mises (1881-1973) was a man who never stopped fighting for freedom: not when the Nazis burned his books, not when the Left blackballed him at universities, not when it seemed as if statism had won. With courage and genius, he fought big government until the day he died … in 25 books, hundreds of articles, and more than 60 years of teaching.

Mises was the twentieth century’s foremost economist, and one of its most important champions of Liberty. Here is a film that does justice to this extraordinary man, and to his equally extraordinary ideas.”

“G. Edward Griffin (born November 7, 1931) is an American film producer, author, and political lecturer. Starting as a child actor, he became a radio station manager before age 20. He then began a career of producing documentaries and books on often-debated topics like cancer, Noah’s ark, and the Federal Reserve, as well as on right-libertarian views of the U.S. Supreme Court, terrorism, subversion, and foreign policy. He has opposed the Federal Reserve since the 1960s, saying it constitutes a banking cartel and an instrument of war and totalitarianism.”

Milton Friedman discusses the American Medical Association. According to him, the AMA’s monopoly on the licensure of physicians in the United States has put a damper on competition within the industry, leading to lower quality services as well as limited availability to the American public. Although I don’t yet fully accept Friedman’s suggestion, I still find it an interesting proposition that is worth spreading, check it out:

“The economic calculation problem is a criticism of socialist economics, or more precisely central economic planning. It was first proposed by Ludwig von Mises in 1920 and later expounded by Friedrich Hayek. The problem referred to is that of how to distribute resources rationally in an economy. The free market solution is the price mechanism, wherein people individually have the ability to decide how a good should be distributed based on their willingness to give money for it. The price conveys embedded information about the abundance of resources as well as their desirability which in turn allows, on the basis of individual consensual decisions, corrections that prevent shortages and surpluses; Mises and Hayek argued that this is the only possible solution, and without the information provided by market prices socialism lacks a method to rationally allocate resources. Those who agree with this criticism argue it is a refutation of socialism and that it shows that a socialist planned economy could never work. The debate raged in the 1920s and 1930s, and that specific period of the debate has come to be known by economic historians as the The Socialist Calculation Debate.”

Joseph T. Salerno is an Austrian School economist in the United States. A professor at Pace University, Salerno is an active scholar in the areas of banking and monetary theory, comparative economics, and the history of economic thought.

This is the third time within the last couple of weeks that Judge Napolitano’s show “Freedom Watch” has covered the War On Drugs, and its utter failure as a government motive to protect its citizens from substance abuse. Even though I already reported on one of these segments at Legalize It? Director of NORML on Marijuana Prohibition, because this is a topic I find very interesting, I decided to report on this latest update as well.

Jacob Hornberger, the founder and president of the Future of Freedom Foundation , a non-profit libertarian educational facility, says Nobel Prize economist Milton Friedman predicted the failure of the War On Drugs back in the 1970s, back when then-President Richard Nixon first defined the movement. Since then, Hornberger argues, the WOD has proved itself to be a failed war. He claims the best way to fix this mess is to do the same thing we did with alcohol prohibition – end it!

Napolitano agrees with Hornberger; he believes the War On Drugs is unconstitutional, a waste of time, and a waste of the American people’s money and resources. As a result of some of these laws, innocent people’s lives have been ruined by the hands of the state.

NAPOLITANO: Is it controversial for people in the public eye to come out in favor of the legalization of the private use of recreational drugs?

HORNBERGER: Well when I was bringing this up 20 years ago on radio talk shows I could light up the phone calls. People were just shocked at the possibility that drugs could be legalized. Twenty years later it is now a legitimate position…What do the drug warriors have left? All they have is their good intentions, and that is not enough. They have made the situation worse.

According to Hornberger it is not uncommon today to see police officers, federal judges, prosecutors, and lawyers against the War On Drugs.

HORNBERGER: We have argued for 30 years now, Judge, that the free market would put these drug dealers and drug cartels out of business instantaneously. And the article to which you are referring, where the private sector is having these marijuana farms, is proving that. These cartels are having a difficult time competing against these legitimate marijuana farms. Which leads us to believe that if you legalize the whole market, [then] these drug gangs and cartels would go out of business overnight.

According to this CNN poll conducted earlier this year 95% were in favor of marijuana legalization.

Is it time politicians start listening to the American people? Can we ever return to a society that respects the individual’s freedom to choose his own pursuit of happiness, as long as it does not undermine the liberties of another? What is stopping legislators from legalizing drugs like marijuana and regulating it similarly to how we regulate alcohol? Over the last decade I have noticed a surge in people speaking up on this issue – hopefully we can come to our senses sooner rather than later. America, let your voice be heard!

I am tremendously in debt to economist and Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman and his 10-part TV series “Free To Choose,” which gives a clear and comprehensive view on free markets and how government intervention often (but not always) mucks things up.

It originally aired on PBS during the 1980s, but thankfully it is now available on our glorious internet. Anyone with an interest in economics should take the time to watch these videos.

The first half of each video is a short documentary narrated by Friedman, where he travels all over the world and provides examples of various forms of markets and government intervention. The second half is a debate-styled dialogue between Friedman and other notable economists, union members, professors, politicians, and others.

The debates are where you really get to see Friedman’s intellectual prowess in action. During his time he was well-known as one of the best and most informed arguers in academia. Not too many could hold their ground in the midst of Friedman. Economist George Schultz once joked, “Everybody loves to argue with Milton, particularly when he isn’t there.”

Positions Advocated in this film include:

“Friedman advocates laissez faire economic policies, often criticizing interventionist government policies and their cost in personal freedoms and economic efficiency in the United States and abroad. Areas of focus include government taxation on gas and tobacco, government regulation of the public school systems, and the Federal Reserve’s role in exacerbating the Great Depression by reducing the money supply in the years leading up to it. On the subject of welfare, the Friedmans argue that current welfare practices are creating “wards of the state”, as opposed to “self-reliant individuals”, and suggest a negative income tax as a less harmful alternative. Other ideas covered are: decriminalization of drugs, tighter control of Fed money supply, and the repeal of laws favoring labor unions.”

THE CATO INSTITUTE

These guys are just about everywhere nowadays and for good reason: they have been pushing libertarian ideals hard since 1977.

This non-profit, pro-free market libertarian think tank, and public policy research facility, was first founded by Edward Crane after he received assistance from Mr. Libertarian himself Murray Rothbard as well as some funding by engineer and CEO Charles Koch.

According to their website,

“The mission of the Cato Institute is to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace. The Institute will use the most effective means to originate, advocate, promote, and disseminate applicable policy proposals that create free, open, and civil societies in the United States and throughout the world.”

The Cato Institute is responsible for a variety of publications and essays throughout the decades on a on a wide range of policy issues including taxing and spending, education, free speech, Social Security, regulation, federalism, individual rights, the rule of law, globalization, national security, and the environment.

Where to start:

Their main blog is great as well as their multimedia section and homepage where they display recent articles and recommended links.

LUDWIG VON MISES INSTITUTE

The Mises Institute considers themselves the world center of the Austrian School of economics as well as libertarian political and social theory. That can certainly not be disputed. They also have an incredible amount of content – so you are going to want to get digging soon.

In the media center you will find a variety of downloadable video and audio files of lectures, documentaries, and interviews. These are great to put on your IPOD and listen to on long road trips. Topics cover welfare, bureaucracy, war, monetary reform, and economic critiques on Keynesian, classical, monetarism, socialism, Marxism, and communism.

The literature section is also full of gold, where you will find hundreds and hundreds of downloadable books, journal articles, essays, and even study guides.

Where to start:

One of my personal recommendations is to check out their study guide dedicated to Mises’ magnum opus Human Action, which lays out the Austrian methodology of praxeology – the basis of all Austrian economic theory. Praxeology is a form of methodological individualism (who early economist and Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek, and one of the most influential philosophers of science Karl Popper both advocated), which demands that social sciences ground their theories in the actions of individuals and not collective entities who do not behave as autonomous decision makers.

If that last paragraph bored the heck out of you: then just check out their daily archive and recommended links on their homepage.

LEWROCKWELL.COM

I’ll be honest here, LewRockwell.com is my favorite libertarian resource but it is also the most extreme recommendation on this list. I think their main slogan sums up what you are going to get here perfectly: “Anti-State, Anti-War, and Pro-Market,” and their articles are certainly not bashful of it.

You won’t be seeing many kind words regarding government – but it is not like they are just being spewed by the mouths of government fear-mongering, Fox News-motivated drones.

Far from it: LewRockwell.com is nothing but quality reading. They update their site daily with about 13-15 new articles, with about 75% being about current issues in politics and economics and 25% regarding miscellaneous topics like art, culture, and science.

LewRockwell.com’s strong point is its stunning display of diversity in perspective. Authors range anywhere between university professors, politicians, economists, financial experts, authors, doctors, psychiatrists, and various others devoted to individual rights, limited state (sometimes flirting with anarchism), and the freedom to choose within the marketplace.

You may not readily agree with some of the ideas you read, but at the very least LewRockwell.com offers one of the freshest, inspiring, and most intellectual perspectives on what liberty really means.

Where to start:

Just check out their daily articles and pick whatever sounds interesting.

FOUNDATION FOR ECONOMIC EDUCATION

The Foundation For Economic Education (FEE) was first founded in 1946 by Leonard E. Read. Since then they have been dedicated to provided a consistent case for freedom and the sanctity of private property, individual liberty, the free market and the moral superiority of individual choice and responsibility over coercion.

Since FEE was established they have published or hosted lectures by some of the greatest economists of the last century: Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, Milton Friedman, James Buchanan, Vernon Smith, Israel Kirzner, Walter Williams, George Stigler, Frank Chodorov, John Chamberlain, F.A. “Baldy” Harper, William F. Buckley Jr., among many others.

One quick look through their library of books, articles, audio and videos and you will see the massive database and free information that FEE has to offer to the general public. I also recommend their main blog, Anything Peaceful which gives a free market perspective on current issues facing our nation’s economy, and how we can help move our country in a more free and prosperous direction.

AYN RAND INSTITUTE

It is clear that Ayn Rand as an individual would never endorse libertarianism as a political movement or philosophy.

But the fact of the matter is the ideas of Rand’s Objectivism and the ideas of capitalism, individual rights, and limited government are essentially synonymous. Rand just never liked the term “Libertarianism” because she saw it as inherently collectivist.

If I had to say one thing about Rand I would say she was misunderstood, and this was partly because she was such a stubborn person.

But ultimately, she was an intellectual tyrant, and true defender of freedom, the pursuit of happiness, and peace. I highly suggest reading The Ayn Rand Institute’s FAQ page for a full overview on what Rand was about, what her writings were about, what her philosophy called Objectivism was all about, and what the Ayn Rand Institute is doing today, as a non-profit think tank, advancing these ideas and trying to make real world changes.

DAILYPAUL.COM

A lot of the recent popularity in libertarianism is because of Congressmen Ron Paul who ran for President in 2008 under the Republican Party, and also back in 1988 under the Libertarian Party.

He is also currently getting a lot of recognition in the media for his new bill HR1207: Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009, which currently has 297 cosponsors, as well as Dr. Paul’s new book “End The Fed” which is an intellectually marathon on the economic, philosophical, and moral reasons why the Federal Reserve is a threat to everyone’s liberty.

I go to DailyPaul.com because when Ron Paul is getting coverage I like to see what he has to say. Just the other week he was on the Daily Show discussing his book. Ron Paul’s opinion matters, and he is still going to be relevant in the next coming years – especially as our economy continues to slide, and the American public gets more eager for answers and rational explanations to what got us into the mess we are experiencing now.

REASON.COM

Reason.com is updated daily with articles and columns on current developments in politics and culture. It also contains the full text of past issues of the print edition of Reason Magazine. Like all these other resources, it is also entirely free. You can look through their Print Archives here.

One of my personal favorite features of Reason Online is REASON.TV which contains videos, celebrity interviews, and short documentaries on a variety of topics like civil rights, health care, business and technology, welfare, foreign policy, government spending, The War On Drugs, abortion, gun rights, labor unions, global warming, science, art, culture, and much more.

Their slogan is “Free Minds, Free Markets,” which are ideals they hold to pretty well since they are very non-partisan in their political beliefs and very dedicated to the principles of liberty and voluntary transactions as they would take place in a free market.

There is also REASON.ORG, or the Reason Foundation, which takes a more academic approach at critiquing public policy, offering different solutions. According to the Washington Journal, “Of all the nation’s conservative or free-market policy groups, it may be the most libertarian among them, the Reason Foundation in Southern California, that ends up having the most direct impact on the actual functioning of government.”

Where to start:

It really depends if you want to read articles, watch videos, or listen to podcasts or audio files. Reason has all of the above and the best idea is to just go to their main page and start digging through all they have.

FREEDOM WATCH ON FOXNEWS.COM

Yes, it is affiliated with Fox News. Yes, Judge Napolitano sometimes fills in for the Glenn Beck show. Now can we get over it? The truth is Freedom Watch is the best libertarian TV show on the internet, and it is now running on a new daily schedule, or as Napolitano calls it: “A Daily Dose Of Raw Liberty!”

Frequent guests include pretty much everyone we have discussed above: members from The Cato Institute, Reason magazine, Mises Institute, Ayn Rand Institute, and politicians like Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Rand Paul, and Jim Demint, including many other knowledgeable guests, authors, constitutional and law experts, etc.

Where to start:

You could just check out the site and start streaming the videos. Or, if you want to take a personal recommendation, check out my recent article, “Legalize It? Director of NORML on Marijuana Prohibition.”

HONORABLE MENTIONS:

HOOVER INSTITUTION

They Hoover Institution at Stanford University is a public policy think tank which has had much influence in both conservative and libertarian circles. It was first founded in 1919 by then-future U.S. president Herbert Hoover. High-profile conservatives like Edwin Meese, Milton Friedman, George Shultz, Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, and Amy Zegart are all Hoover Institution fellows. Check out their website for a great archive section and various other material on economics, politics, and freedom within the marketplace.

HUFFINGTON POST

Sure it’s not libertarian, but it is always healthy to keep up to date on what other political commentators are saying about current issues in America. The Huffington Post has a lot to offer libertarians and the American public in general by raising awareness about serious issues our country is facing.

Even if many of the solutions they might propose are more government and regulation, I still find their reporting much more unbiased than some of the stuff I have found at DailyKOS, truthdig and alternet.

FORA.TV

FORA.TV is not libertarian either but its site gathers the web’s largest collection of unmediated video drawn from live events, lectures, and debates at universities, think tanks and conferences. Of course their politics section and economics section would be the pages libertarians would be most interested in but they also include some great information on various things about science, culture, the environment, and technology.

Many people are living a life of abundance and they do not realize it. They insist on miscounting their wealth – living everyday as it it were a close-call struggle for survival. This attitude brings out the barbarian in man. It makes us act on impulse. It makes us abandon reason and abandon luxury – it leads many to live a life of constant neuroticism.

What do we have to be so overprotective about? Why should we cling to every bit of property as if it were our last meal? What makes us so hesitant to give up what we do not truly need or depend on?

A dollar that sits in your wallet remains but a dollar. It is worthless. It is not real wealth – the kind that only comes from production and consumption – it is only a symbol of wealth.

Not to misrepresent savings – a practice that is crucial for accumulating capital – the only way to increase one’s potential for production and consumption, but the economist Keynes – if he was right about one thing then it was this: “In the long-run, we are all dead.” There is no amount of wealth we can gain in this world and keep after we die. Nothing we own in this life will be ours forever. Sounds scary? It’s not. It’s liberating. What we lose in clinging to our material possessions is equal to what we gain by letting go of them.

Before all else, acknowledging one’s abundance becomes a shift in perspective. It allows us to step in the handsome role of the giver and no longer remain the victim of circumstances.

The attitude of abundance does not lead us to give to others recklessly or without discretion; instead, it allows us to give in a way that increases the wealth for both parties. All free economic activities benefit each person’s self-interest. Giving for the sake of feeling good about “giving,” and not with the foresight that the person you are giving will capitalize on your investment is foolish and a waste of hard-earned wealth.

There are no good reasons to give simply out of pity for others. The receiver rarely wants to receive out of pity. It only puts him or her in a position of weakness, and hurts their psychological well-being much more than it helps their financial situation.

Only give with the intention of putting another at a position of strength, self-reliance, and self-motivation. Then your act of giving becomes self-fulfilling, the receiver appreciates it more, and it keeps his or her self-pride intact and unharmed.

Those with the attitude of abundance do not give for their own selfish psychological benefits. They are already strong characters of moral and emotional strength. Thus, they give out of the goodness of their hearts – out of their own self-interest towards the well-being of the party they are giving to. Their act of giving does not end until they see the other as prosperous as themselves (through the receivers own merit and good effort, not through some arbitrary equalization of possessions).

The abundant don’t give to others so that the receiver can simply get by another day. They give to the receiver so that the receiver has a means, a starting point, to step up as their own character of integrity and abundance.

The abundant gain pleasure by making others abundant. That is the true sharing of wealth. Why would one want to give to another if the benefit is merely material and not a stepping stone to true independence and freedom for all parties. The attitude of abundance gives rise to others attitudes of abundance. And with this attitude, society as a whole can enjoy more wealth.

In 1987, the American economist and philosopher Thomas Sowell wrote the book “Conflicts in Vision: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles.” In it Sowell describes American politics as broken down into two distinct visions: the constrained and the unconstrained.

Those with a constrained vision believe that human nature is flawed, but fixed. They, like our founding fathers, acknowledge that humans are greedy and self-interested by nature, and that power always corrupts. A constrained vision is at strict adherence to federalism and the idea that a healthy government needs a separation of power in order to limit the damages done by human nature.

Those with an unconstrained vision believe that a government can be as powerful as it needs to be in order to make the world just. As long as the right people are in office then the government can rid the world of the problems caused by human’s flawed and greedy nature. They believe that human nature is not fixed, but malleable: “There are those who look at things the way they are and ask why… I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?” – this is the shared attitude of the unconstrained visionary.

Sowell was recently interviewed on these old ideas and was asked how they relate to the politics of today:

In this interview he expands on his ideas regarding the unconstrained vision, which he believes is like a disease slowly taking over America, and especially those who are currently being led by the most unconstrained visionary ever to be President of the United States: Barack Obama.

Sowell warns us that the Left is almost always seeking some unconstrained vision. It is a vision never rooted in the reality of men, but in the dreams of idealists. Instead of protecting the freedoms that this country was founded on, they will utilize government intervention until there is not equal opportunity, but equal outcomes. They believe they can achieve a Utopian-like society as long as they are given the power to do so.

“Ask not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works.” Barack Obama

Our President will grab as much power as he can until his vision is fulfilled. And the unconstrained American people are willing to give it to him – as much as he wants in fact – because we believe Obama is the right person to do it.

But the constrained are saying “Stop!”

They understand power corrupts, and more power is almost never a good thing. Even if Obama is half as noble as the unconstrained believe he is, then what happens when the next president comes into office? What happens if he is corrupt? Or the next guy after that guy is corrupt? Eventually someone is going to step to the floor with all of these new powers – and we will be doomed. By giving government these new powers we are only setting up a time bomb for our own inevitable destruction.

Sowell believes that the unconstrained are the same kinds of people that believe communism would have worked – if only Stalin wasn’t in power. They fail to understand that a system like communism only brings people like Stalin into power. The same is true for all other forms of Fascism and Socialism that have failed in the past. Power corrupts – this is human nature – the constrained understand this.

In an economic environment, the unconstrained visionary believes that the powers of the free market only appeal to particular interests instead of focusing on the public interests. And Obama, as well as other unconstrained visionaries, have taken it upon themselves to define what “public interests” even means.

They fail to understand that man only has one mind, and by nature there are only individual interests. Only the conglomerate of actions done by individuals, driven by their own one-minded interest, can create the outcome of the “public interest.” There is no one-minded man that can possibly know what is in the interest of the public. Obama with his unconstrained vision is ignoring his senses, and the limitations of his own mind, in replace of his dreams. This is dangerous.

When Sowell is asked why he voted for McCain, his answer was simple: “I wanted a disaster over a catastrophe.” Sowell believes that Obama’s presidency is going to offer a good demonstration… of how government intervention, as a result of an ever encroaching power, almost always messes things up.