Republican? No. Libertarian? No. What then?

If you have any feedback about the post, feel free to leave a comment. I'm always up for conversation.

 I had a great conversation with a few trolls on Twitter the other night. They were tracking down articles with a liberal slant so that they could make unpleasant comments. So I tried my hand at trolling them back, and I learned something interesting in the process. There is an increasing number of Americans who are neither HRC supporters nor El Presidente Trump supporters. These people believe that all government is evil. They don't care if it's Bernie Sanders or Bill Clinton. They're convinced that our current governing situation is solely in place to terrorize the common man and steal from him. Not only does that sound like utter hogwash, it's a dangerous attitude to be adopting about the country you inhabit.

  It was Thomas Jefferson who said that the tree of liberty needs to be occasionally refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Perhaps that worked in 1776 when our country was being ruled by a monarchy that existed thousands of miles away across the open ocean, in a time when there were quick methods of communication like the telephone or email. It doesn't work nearly as well when any average joe can write an email to his congressman or march outside the White House to try and affect change. It doesn't work nearly as well when we're given every chance to choose who represents us, and more often than not we're given a chance to choose the laws that govern us. The days of taxation without representation are long gone. This is just a petty squabble that has the potential to become violent.

  The keystone argument for many of the anarchists is that the government is stealing from you constantly. They claim that police forces exist only to brutalize the common man. They claim that laws are passed only to restrict his freedoms. They demand accountability. I swear to god one of the trolls actually sent me an article wherein taxation was called theft along with the lovely hashtag "muhroads". Unfortunately, I don't speak enough rightwing to decode that hashtag so I'll leave the meaning up in the air. I propose to you that without taxation, infrastructure would fall to pieces around you. If emergency services were privatized, who would then pay their salaries? It would still be the poor sod whose house burns down and he has to pay to get a fire truck out there. What if we go with the other popular suggestion of having solely volunteer emergency services? Who pays when the firetruck is damaged? Who buys the equipment for all the volunteers? Do they pay their own way? Who would want to join the fire department if you had to pay hundreds of dollars for your equipment on top of risking your life every day? Who pays for the upkeep on the police vehicles? Who pays to stock their armory and keep their equipment repaired? Do the volunteers just provide their own car and their own gun? If taxation is eliminated, the costs will just be shifted to the consumer in a different way. You won't be paying a small percentage extra on purchases, you'll be paying when your house is burning. You won't pay a small tax on your income, you'll pay when the police arrive to stop the burglar in your home. It's not like you can just magically eliminate all the costs of maintaining society.

Look at these lovely patriots. Great people amirite?

  Then there are those who call themselves nationalists. They babble on social media about the dangers of the global elite (read as Jews) and the expansion of immigrant populations. They claim that non-whites are an active threat to the white population and that they are attempting to oppress the white population through terrorist tactics. Their solution? Clear 'em all out and make America white again. Sometimes these people will even go as far as to advocate for a mass genocide of non-whites and, of course, the "global elite". But the vast majority that I've seen, refuses to refer to this movement as what it is. These nationalists are Nazis. They're neo-facists. These are the people who take to the internet screeching about the need for a new third reich. The ones who shout "death to the Jews". Hell, they're basically terrorists themselves.

  Why do we keep accepting them then? Why do I routinely see articles from the New York Times, no less, that sugar coat psychopaths like Steve Bannon.

Combative, Populist Steve Bannon Found His Man in Donald Trump

That's an actual headline from the NY Times. You can follow the link to read it for yourself. I see the word combative. I see the word populist. But I don't see the word racist. Nor do I see the word xenophobe or neo-Nazi. The article goes on to mention his world views including his idea that the quote ""Judeo-Christian west" is in a "war against Islamic facism"". The author spends the entire article almost defending Steve Bannon as he builds the case that Steve is not a nationalist but an opportunist. I counter that it does not matter whether or not he is using the alt-right for power when he himself is still an incredibly dangerous individual. By making a case otherwise, you are normalizing his views and lending credence to islamophobia and antisemitism. The same goes for all other talking heads who are given similar free passes in the media. Donald Trump. Breitbart. Ann Coulter. Until we acknowledge these people for what they are, we can never move forward.