By Matthew Hayward As an observer of American society, I've noticed a fascinating trend that has sparked heated debates across our country: the rise of "Drag Queen Story Hour." While many have praised these events for their celebration of diversity and inclusivity, they have also faced criticism from those who question the appropriateness of the subject matter for children. As a conservative parent and a staunch believer in the First Amendment, I would like to propose an alternative: a "Militia Story Hour." Before you dismiss the idea outright, let me clarify what I mean by "Militia Story Hour." This would not be a forum for advocating violence or promoting extremist ideologies. It would instead be an opportunity for children and parents to learn about the history and role of militias in the United States, from the Revolutionary War to the present times. It could also provide a platform for discussing American values like self-reliance, independence, ...

Introduction: In today's discourse, the notions of social justice, rights, and needs often intermingle, sometimes creating confusion rather than clarity. As a classical liberal, I propose that we return to basics and separate these concepts to foster a clearer understanding of societal progress. Rights and Needs: A Fundamental Distinction: The terms 'rights' and 'needs' often get used interchangeably, which muddies the waters of our societal conversations. It's essential to understand the difference between the two to bring clarity. Rights are the inherent freedoms that we possess to defend ourselves and our property, providing us the liberty to pursue our happiness and needs. They do not entitle us to any material goods or services but equip us with the necessary tools to seek them out. In contrast, needs are essential commodities or services like food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and education. However, needs aren't rights. No one is entitled to have ...

By Matthew Hayward: In the world of hashtags and viral content, public discourse is dominated by statements of obvious, universally accepted principles. Racism is wrong. Fascism is bad. Human rights matter. Each one comes with a flood of social media posts, bumper stickers, and yard signs. Yet beneath this ostensibly virtuous surface lies a disconcerting trend: the co-opting of these universally supported principles to push more controversial, partisan agendas. This tactic, commonly referred to as virtue signaling , involves loudly asserting one's stand on issues everyone agrees upon. It's as if stating, "I'm against fascism," is an enlightened position rather than a basic expectation. But in this practice's crux lies a manipulative technique: pairing these universally accepted ideas with controversial, divisive issues. Suddenly, an assertion against racism or fascism becomes tied to debates on immigration policy, climate change, or income inequality. In this ...

By Matthew Hayward The Slippery Slope: When Government Overreach Erodes Its Own Authority Introduction Governance and citizenry balance delicately on mutual understanding, trust, and respect. The bedrock of this pact? The expectation that government safeguards citizens' rights and freedoms. Yet, this trust erodes when governmental actions undermine their own authority—a specter haunting my experiences with escalating firearms laws in Washington State. Background: The Gradual Tightening of the Noose Federal laws have long existed in a state of forced compromise to my principles, not allowing me to purchase a suppressor or automatic weapon without an additional fee and registration. Similarly, Washington State laws compelled me to pay for permission to carry a firearm in a concealed manner. However, Washington State disrupted the equilibrium between personal freedom and government regulation in 2014, introducing transfer fees on firearms, effectively creating a registry of gun owners...

By Matthew Hayward Ever wondered about the sudden explosion of a specific social issue in the media? Why does it feel like some topics suddenly take center stage and dominate the headlines? We're living in a world where information is as abundant as air. Social media, news outlets, and the like keep us plugged into endless narratives. However, amidst all this information, certain narratives, especially those related to social issues, can be twisted and turned to serve some not-so-noble purposes. It's like watching a magic trick unfold. But instead of a rabbit being pulled out of a hat, it's public opinion that's being magically swayed, fear that's being conjured, and division among people that's being created out of thin air. The purpose? It usually boils down to gaining power, control, and influence. Imagine someone subtly tweaking the narrative around a specific issue, amplifying some parts while muting others, just to tip the scale of public opinion in their ...

By Matthew Hayward Policy Trauma Response Hypothesis: Historical and contemporary progressive policies are shaped, in part, by a heightened sensitivity to individual feelings and personal preferences. This may be influenced by proponents' past personal traumas or experiences of marginalization, potentially activating a variant of the 'cycle of violence' theory. In this context, the cycle refers to those who have experienced emotional harm becoming advocates for policies that they believe will prevent such harm in others. These policies prioritize personal identities and emotional well-being over traditional societal norms or structures, encompassing policies like recognizing individual pronoun preferences, restructuring competitive environments to minimize perceived harm, and emphasizing microaggressions. However, while well-intentioned, some of these policies may have unintended negative impacts. This 'policy trauma cycle' operates alongside other motivations for t...

The Incompatibility of Individualism and DE&I Initiatives As an ardent advocate for individualism, I find myself increasingly at odds with the mainstream narrative that embraces Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DE&I) initiatives. I am acutely aware of the sentiments that fuel these initiatives; however, I believe they fundamentally clash with the principles of individualism, personal responsibility, and libertarian philosophy. In the realm of individualism, each person is recognized as unique, with their abilities, qualities, and achievements being the result of their personal endeavors and choices. Individualism sees society as an aggregate of such unique individuals and emphasizes personal freedom, independence, and accountability. DE&I initiatives, on the other hand, operate on a collectivist framework. They recognize and attempt to rectify systemic disparities between different groups of people, focusing on attributes like race, gender, or socioeconomic status. The col...