Lew Rockwell is right - Accountability is important

Within any large group of individuals - for instance, the Liberty Movement - leaders will naturally emerge.  In the initial introductory stages, many people aren't familiar with these leaders and are much more likely to criticize them for their shortcomings.  This is analogous to the hazing that often occurs when a "new guy" starts a job where a cohesive unit of employees exist; he tends to get a hard time until the crew warms up.  However, as a group of people become content with a new person, the willingness to hold that person accountable through constructive criticism fades.  This lack of accountability within a group can often lead it astray if gone unchecked - especially if it is the leaders that are not being held accountable.

Consider what Lew Rockwell recently had to say regarding Libertarian Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson at his website in a post titled - Don't Criticize Gary Johnson?:

"Don't criticize Gary Johnson I have been told by several individuals today. He is not perfect, they all say, but he is the best choice we have for president and deserves our support. I would love to see Gary Johnson elected president instead of either Obama or Romney, but I know, my critics know, and I hope Gary Johnson knows that he has a zero chance of being elected president. As to whether the LP should even run a candidate for president, that is another topic for another day. I will continue to criticize everyone who deviates from a pure libertarian standard..."

Lew Rockwell is correct in his intended sentiment that constructive criticism is fair and is necessary.  When leaders are blindly followed, hero worship likely ensues, and dilution of ideals tends to follow accordingly.

The tragic thing is that in today's "fast paced" society where attention spans are often short, people tend to register criticism as a blanket denouncement of the individual in question without further inquiry into the pros and cons of the entire situation.  Like many of my elders have advised me over the years - "Haste makes waste."  This willingness of so many people to quickly label another individual based upon a single, narrow criticism results in pause on the part of at least a portion of potential detractors.

I for one have always been willing to stand up for what I believe in and refuse to surrender my right to honestly let others know when I disagree with them; I will continue to speak the truth to the best of my abilities regardless of the potential popularity of that truth.

That said - in order to avoid the pitfalls of short attention spans that are inherent in public communications - I also try to qualify my criticism if it is not intended to be a blanket denouncement.  For instance, I may say - "While I agree with so-and-so on X and Y, I feel that so-and-so has stepped out of bounds with respect to Z."  Of course, this is my personal style, and other individuals can choose to communicate as they wish.

However, I urge all readers to - Never blindly follow anyone.  Make it a goal to know the shortcomings of those around you that can have an effect on things that you consider to be important.  By being aware of those faults, you can help to make other people better through constructive criticism and can potentially leverage your abilities to make up for the shortcomings of affected leaders when circumstances deem it important.   

I hope that you will stand up for what you believe in regardless of others' clout and aspire to conduct yourself in a rational and  non-emotional way when doing so.  Accountability is paramount to the long-term success of any group.




Follow @DerrelWalters

A Plea to America: Do we need government intervention in all parts of our lives?

Over the last 70 or so years, the U.S. government has pursued an ever expanding policy of interventionism.  Regulation and government involvement in our lives have been increasing at an alarming rate, and all these new laws to break has led us to have the highest rate of incarceration in the world, higher than any communist or tyrannical country.  Below, I give a brief explanation of why government interventionism is, most of the time, unnecessary.

We ban drugs because we say they are harmful and can kill people.  Is this policy based on sound logic?  No matter what your position on the issue, please consider the following.

How many people have died from "The War on Drugs"?  Well, literally tens of thousands of Mexican people are still dieing from this policy in addition to those that die everyday here in America.

Now, suppose the drug war had never been enacted.  How many people would have died over the same time period from the use of now illegal substances?  I would argue far fewer!

Take for instance, Coca-Cola, which still by the way uses a cocaine free extract from the coca plant (the only company still allowed to import coca leaves):  Early consumers of Coca-Cola became concerned with its use of coca extract.  People said, "Coca-Cola will make you a 'cocaine head'."  Due to public pressure from the CONSUMER, not the government, the product soon eliminated the active alkaloid from the leaf extract to trace amounts until technology allowed the complete removal around 1930.

We do not need the government to be our nanny.  We can take care of ourselves.  Our history proves it.  The U.S. has been here longer than 70 years. I beg you to explore our history prior to that. 

It is a more educated and well informed consumer that improves our economy and directs labor to more efficient and higher demand economic sectors.  In the 1990's, the U.S. government would have us believe that Microsoft would rule the computer industry forever.  How many of you are now sitting on an Apple device reading this?  That was the result of American innovation and American demand.

For the sake of us all, Americans please help stand up for our freedom!  Bring awareness! Follow @DerrelWalters