12345...102030...

CPAC On My Mind: Part Two – Being Libertarian

When Nigel Farage, the man behind #Brexit, spoke at CPAC 2017, I was pleasantly surprised. As a fan of that event myself, but not a Trump supporter, I assumed that many attached to Britains separation from the European Union might also be aligned similarly and, therefore, be less apt to associate with President Trumps more aggressive approach. So the mere appearance was nice enough, but when Mr. Farage then stuck around to mingle and chat, I was more than pleasantly surprised I was blown away.

I came [to CPAC] two years ago, Farage explained when discussing his past relationship to the event with us just outside the ballroom doors. There are a lot more young people here [than last time]. So there is more of a buzz and excitement in the air. Winning does that.

And winning is certainly something both Farage and Trump have in common. And the POTUS even promised more winning for America in his own speech that kicked off the second full day of events at CPAC at the top of the morning. That appearance, which contained a healthy mix of truth and fiction (Trump claimed that he had a line going back six blocks of fans waiting for him at the Gaylord Convention Center; he did not), set the tone as being quite cheeky. The President started things off with a joke: that if the audience never sat down, the dishonest media would likely be able to spin that into a headline claiming that he received no standing ovation. Ha.

But that rhetoric clearly works. The man got elected. And while sitting in the audience during the speech, I was involuntarily back-slapped and elbow-jabbed by an elderly gentleman to my right who kept raving about how bright he thought Trump was, and how he would wager that Trump has a lot more in common with us than with them. Us vs. them. And there it was Trumps winning formula. Not only was his a strategy of populism, but a type of populism based around the concept of the frontier of antagonism. Want solidarity? Unite against a common enemy. Except with Trump, the common enemy is everyone.

Well, everyone except Bernie Sanders. I like Bernie, Trump proclaimed at one point during his appearance.

Luckily, the trend of an open and accepting CPAC, which started one day prior, continued into this day, which saw yet another conservative minority group setting up shop and voicing their views.

This time, it was a group of black Americans who were not only pro-Trump, but adamantly against what they saw as the media-pushed idea that Trump or Republicans at large, are racist. I have always been for God, but now I am also for the Republicans, proclaimed Maurice Symonette, the group leader and administrator of the website Gods2. Symonette continued by pulling from history on behalf of the Republicans and citing failed regulation policies to disparage the Democrats: The Republicans fought to free us; the Democrats are the ones who want to keep us enslaved. The shirts worn by everyone in the group read as follows: TRUMP & Republicans Are Not Racist.

Even more surprises were found as well once one entered The Bone Zone, a booth on the show floor dedicated to taking pictures with overnight sensation Ken Bone, because of what Mr. Bone was actually doing at CPAC. Contrary to what a lot of people may thing, Ken is much more than just a meme he is currently working with a company called Victory Holdings, which is itself developing an app known as DonorDex that aims to provide a network of potential donors for small-profile and third party political candidates to reach out to with but a touch of a button. In this way, Mr. Bone hopes to raise awareness about this new service and therefore make it easier for underdog candidates to truly compete with the elite politicians they will run against. Not a bad idea, at all.

While there were some misfired attempts at humor (because Republicans), such as a sign depicting a shady looking cartoon character reaching into his pants and proclaiming lets get fiscal, the environment at CPAC was largely one of genuine chill and fun. Whispers of an exclusive party held by Breitbart on a reserved boat began circulating; certain attendees showed up who, while not scheduled speakers, were celebrities in their own right (such as Cassandra Fairbanks, a journalist and ex-Bernie Sanders supporter who very publicly switched her allegiances to Trump after Hillary got the Democratic nomination).

Whether one wants to admit it or not, modern conservatism has become cool again. And CPAC 2017 was the place to be in that regard.

This post was written by Micah J. Fleck.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

Like Loading…

Continued here:

CPAC On My Mind: Part Two – Being Libertarian

Libertarian Think Tank Proves That Trump’s Muslim Ban Won’t Work … – The Ring of Fire Network

The Libertarian Cato Institute released a study in 2016 that actually disproves Donald Trumps theory that banning Muslims from entering the United States will save American lives. That likely wasnt the intention of Cato, but their own work proves that Trump is full of it. Ring of Fires Farron Cousins discusses this.

Transcript of the above video:

The Libertarian Cato Institute actually released a report in 2016 that incidentally happened to completely disprove everything that Donald Trump and his Administration have told us about the intended effects of their Muslim ban. Now as it stands right now the Administration is currently redrafting that executive order to make it into something that the courts are not going to rip apart. The likelihood of them being successful with that, extremely low considering the fact that these are not lawyers, these are not people who understand foreign policy. Its likely theyre going to write something thats not exactly going to pass the muster when it comes to being legal.

However, this Cato Institute study from 2016 shows that in the years between 1975 and 2015, a 40 year span, there were 20 incidents where refugees entered the United States and committed acts of violence. In those 40 years, of those 20 people who were refugees three people were killed. 40 years, 20 refugees involved in incidents. Only three people killed.

Contrast that with home grown terrorism. I mean, how many people died in the Oklahoma City bombing? How many people have been killed by right wing hate groups? I mean just this week two men were killed by one white man because he thought they were Muslims. He thought they were Middle Easterners. Turns out they were from India. They were engineers, very well respected people with huge educations, working to make things in the world better, and he murdered them in a hate crime because he thought they were Middle Eastern, as if thats some sort of justification for killing another human being. While he murdered them he was yelling, Get out of my country. No. You get out of the country. Thats not what we do here in the United States.

I bet if Donald Trump and his Administration actually looked in to the amount of terrorism being caused by white men in the United States, maybe wed have a different kind of travel ban. Its not hard to identify the problem when you look at all the variables. Now the Cato Institute Study was just trying to figure out if refugees coming into the United States were a threat or not. It turns out according to Cato that theyre not. If we want to address the real threats we have to look at all the data. We have to look at the acts of home grown terrorism being committed by white men in the United States, because those are the treats. Those are the real problems. The people who take over a wildlife refuge in Oregon, the people who have standoffs with federal officers in the SouthWest, those are terrorists. Those are people that we need to be worried about. Those are people that we should probably be afraid of. Those are people that should spend the rest of their lives behind bars because that is illegal.

Those are the people that we should be worrying about, but instead the Trump Administration, Republicans in general, theyve created these Middle Eastern boogeymen, telling us that we need to be afraid of them coming over here and trying to kill us. Meanwhile, the real people who pose a threat to our very lives are the ones around us. Maybe the crazy neighbor, maybe the guy down the street. The people that you wouldnt ordinarily think because statistically they pose a far greater threat to our lives here in the United States than anyone coming over as a refugee.

Read the original post:

Libertarian Think Tank Proves That Trump’s Muslim Ban Won’t Work … – The Ring of Fire Network

Jerome Tuccille, Libertarian Author and Trump Biographer, Dies at 79 – New York Times


New York Times
Jerome Tuccille, Libertarian Author and Trump Biographer, Dies at 79
New York Times
Jerome Tuccille, who wrote one of the first manifestoes of the American libertarian movement and the first biography of Donald J. Trump, died on Feb. 16 at his home in Severna Park, Md. He was 79. The cause was complications of multiple myeloma, his

Go here to see the original:

Jerome Tuccille, Libertarian Author and Trump Biographer, Dies at 79 – New York Times

Perspectives: The Forcible Removal of Milo Yiannapolous – Being Libertarian

Being Libertarian Perspectives serves as a weekly, multi-perspective opinion and analysis piece by members of Being Libertarians writing team. Every week the panel, comprised of randomly selected writers, will answer a question based on current events or libertarian philosophy. ManagingEditor Dillon Eliassen will moderate and facilitate the discussion.

Dillon Eliassen: Please answer in the affirmative or negative, and provide reasoning for the following question: The conservative and liberty movements will benefit from Milo Yiannapolous continuing to lose access to privately owned and maintained speech platforms. Hes been banned from Twitter, his college campus tour is continually disrupted and he just lost his Simon & Schuster book deal. Conservatives and libertarians are better off with him out of the public eye; hes become a pariah and his advocacy for free speech is a mask for his desire for flamboyancy and notoriety.

David McManus Jr.: At least from my lens, what he is saying is a complete detraction from libertarian thoughts and ideals, although its quite possibly our best tool in sustaining free speech. In the day and age of the left vs right dichotomy, people are afraid of language from both sides and the right wing have been castrated and forced to kowtow to PC culture. Regardless of how you view his advocacy, it hits headlines on CNN and is starting to cloud the mainstream media with a puppet from the internet that dances on a whim of what the online communities want. As Im sure you can all agree, the online anonymity allows people to splurge their innermost thoughts all over a forum and not get arrested for thought crime (yet). So this incredible ability that Milo brings to the table to put a name, face and sense of rationality to the online hub of free speech does help to advance a free thinking society through acceptance and tolerance of other ideas. He is a pawn in a big game of chess, he learned his place, which was playing the role of the contrarian on a massive scale. It just so happened that he jumped the gun and perhaps tried to advocate for something that our culture wasnt quite ready to discuss as of yet.

Danny Chabino: On the one hand, freedom of speech is exceptionally vital to a free society. However, on the other hand, private groups must be free to select whomever they want to speak and whatever messages and ideas they wish to convey. Otherwise, it is pointless to have such organizations. I dont particularly like people who stir the pot for the sake of stirring the pot. They tend to be arrogant and obnoxious, seeking only attention for themselves. But, Milo is free to speak whatever he wishes to speak and to associate with whatever group he chooses. Is he good for freedom and for the liberty movement? I dont really know or care that much. Ill readily admit that I dont follow him too closely because I find him off-putting. The voices that put forth solidly logical thought will usually end up being heard. Im certain that if Milos ideas are found worthy, he will be heard.

Charles Peralo: I think the answer to this is simple: The roots to Being Libertarian were Being Banned From Being Liberal. Id say right now a page, thanks to Billy Bob Clinton, we just barely passed was Occupy Democrats Logic. Both pages were founded due to censorship from a group. Now, Being Libertarian has banned people. People posting spam or maybe sometimes some HEAVILY racist or bizarre stuff. But theres no Banned From Being Libertarian or no claim we deny people the power to ask a question. Being Libertarian is always open to the left or right to like us and make a point. So We have some censorship rights here and pages get the right to censor how they wish, the same as universities. The question is between denial of speech or denial of the right to ask a question. BL being at 400,000 followers and ODL being at 350,000 is kind of just proof being rude and just denying some rights to talk creates the problem from the likely reality neither groups would exist if Being Liberal and Occupy Democrats werent so ban happy. But we need to actually point out the left isnt immune to this. One of my best friends got banned from the LP page for saying in a comment You guys should just nominate Rand Paul. Also, our own special neck bearded pal from Fresno and our favorite guido with a taxation is theft hat and jersey block people left and right. So All movements do this. And Im going to stand up for Berkeley here. Rand Paul goes to speak and gets a standing ovation there, with it being the largest crowd a Republican ever got there. Milo speaks and its a riot. That shows this is not really a censorship of the right, because of economics or whatever. Theres clearly a line drawn in how they are different. And why do they stand for Rand and riot for Milo? Because Rand Paul says we need to abolish the payroll tax. He devotes an entire chapter in his book saying the criminal justice system is rigged against black people and our big government economics are making them poor. He says the TSA is bad for wrongly profiling Muslims. He says we shouldnt bomb the shit out of everyone. He had a plan to make getting a work visa much easier for immigrants. Milo runs around and says transgenders are mentally confused, black people have no real issues that are the polices fault and he does it all from the perspective and life experience of a 32 year old college dropout who gets joy from riots.

Jacob Linker: Theres a difference between saying theres a right for someone to speak and actively providing them a platform though. BL as a private entity has a total right to decide to limit input from detrimental content providers. Also I doubt weve seen the last of Milo.

Baruti Libre Kafele: The truest test of ones advocacy for the natural and constitutional right of freedom of speech is for one to convey or disseminate perspectives that may be contradictory or disagreeable to ones social and political views whether they are politically correct or not. Whether I, or anyone agrees with Milos views on pedophilia and other topics or not, he is unequivocally making history and getting crucified for all of us to share our idiosyncratic perspectives or views to the world via journalism, blogging, public speaking, etc. His flamboyancy, sexual orientation or courting tendencies should not negate that he has the right to express himself however he pleases.

TJ Eckert: I agree with Charles and Danny to some extent. Free speech is one of, if not the most important, rights to maintain. That includes the ability to pick and choose when in private groups, otherwise private groups lose part of their meaning. While I think Milo should be able to speak when invited by a group that thinks they will benefit from having him, I dont think he benefits our movement much at all. He is a provocateur, in my opinion, a narcissistic egotist, and isnt interested in helping anyone really. Like Charles said, Rand Paul can come speak, deliver a message, and even get through to some who would riot for Milo. Why? In my shooting classes we have a saying that if you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes. In my opinion, Milo has been playing these stupid games for a while, and hes just won his stupid prize. Were better off without him, and good riddance. The only thing he was ever even good for, if you can call it that, was pointing out how absolutely crazy the left can go to twist their own thinking. Believing that words are actual violence, and actual violence in response was just self defense. But all the baggage he brings with him isnt worth it.

Bric Butler: I think we are all in agreement that free speech is vital to protect and the only such limitations to be put on it should be in regard to private institutions deciding who they allow to use their venues. Yet this Rand Paul and Milo comparisonIm not OK with. In my shooting classes we have a saying that if you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes. That is overt victim blaming. Same as, Well what did she expect when she wore such a short dress? Of course she was going to get raped! Milo might be unhelpful and just being an ass, but that doesnt mean we should make even small excuses for rioters.

TJ: Im not excusing riots, nor am I victim blaming. Maybe I shouldve been clearer: The stupid prize is him being dropped from his book deal, and possibly fired from Breitbart. Him pointing out that the left will riot over words may have been his only good contribution. The riots werent justified. The case of play stupid games, win stupid prizes is not a victim blame. Much like the kids who think its fun to shoot each other with Roman candles, they dont get my sympathy when they get burned. Milo tried making a career at just pissing off anyone and everyone. Look at his Bill Maher interview. He just had to get a fuck you from each panelist, he was literally begging for it. Well, now hes getting a big fuck you, just like hes asked for.

Bric: Yeah, the Bill Maher interview really kind of finally turned me off from supporting him, before all this other stuff even came out. I think Milos problem is he got too famous too fast. Wasnt able to properly handle it.

TJ: I honestly think his pedophilia video is a planned attack on him more than anything. I just dont really feel bad for him though. Hes not an innocent victim by any stretch of the imagination. I dont know if hes the type that would handle it well even if he got famous in other ways.

Anna Trove: I used to like Milo. I agreed with him on a lot of issues and liked how he was blunt and uncompromising in the face of SJWs and feminists. However, as he got more in the public eye he just got more ridiculous. His views became giant caricatures. He started saying things like there should be a cap on women in STEM fields, and that birth control makes girls unattractive and crazy. Instead of simply using facts to dispel myths like the gender wage gap, he started promoting his own insane ideas about things. The Bill Maher interview was the nail in the coffin for me. It was painfully cringe-worthy. I absolutely dont think the liberty movement should be associating themselves with Milo. It is not beneficial for us. Did anyone else hear in the Maher segment Milo said something like Im a liber- but Bill cut him off? He has distanced himself from libertarians in the past (thankfully) and I hope he continues to.

Nima Mahdjour: Yes, conservatives & libertarians will continue to benefit from the establishments attempts to prohibit his free speech. No, I dont think theyre better off without him in the public eye, but we dont know since hes just been getting more and more publicity from the smear attempts, especially this past month.

David: Hes really just the exodus king. If you take him away from one place (Twitter), hell find another way to come back bigger and better. You take away his spotlight and you give the spotlight to another spot. He will march them all towards a new platform. Hes kind of like hosting pornography on your website, hes big business for whatever platform hes on, but youve got to deal with the morality and the consequences of hosting a provocateur. He and Trump are two sides of the same coin ridiculously offensive and for that reason theyve inspired a new counterculture, but at the same time, they are in no way libertarian. Libertarians are grasping at straws to tag their ideology onto his likeness, but within a societal context, hes doing us proud on our only shred of common ground.

John Engle: Milo has helped to normalize and propagate a brand of populist conservatism that has hijacked many of the people who would have once been found in the liberty movement. It hardly seems likely that his public censure will do much to bring all those people back, but it at least removes from that strand of thought one of its most able propagandists. Free speech is obviously fundamental. And odious though I find much of what he says (and claims to believe), Im no great fan of de-platforming. As a general thought though, this is not a classic no-platform case since the moves have been made due to revelation of new information, so in the presence of that information no invitation may have been forthcoming in the first place. That said, it is interesting how quickly so many groups moved to distance themselves from someone who has said some provocative, even hateful things. Its a decent case study of how uncomfortable provocation makes many people. Simon & Schuster was clearly desperate for a way to cut ties after the bashing they have received over the past several months and this is a face-saving opportunity for them.

Dillon: The freedom to express ones self does not exist in a vacuum. Like the Second Amendment, there is a functionality required to exercise this natural right. An individual must own a gun for his right to bear arms to have any real meaning. The First and Second Amendments are not as abstract as other entries in the Bill of Rights, such as the Fourth, Fifth and Tenth Amendments, as those exist regardless of your behavior and interaction with others, and the application of those Amendments to you. Yes, you exercise your free speech when conversing with friends, or yelling at passers-by on a street corner, but to use your speech to effect change, tools and infrastructure are needed for your speech to be entered into the public domain. i.e. TV, radio, the Internet, printing press, etc. Milos speech will no longer be discursive since hes been banned from Twitter, hes resigned from Breitbart, hes forced to cancel his college campuses speeches, his books been cancelled, etc. Milo has essentially squandered his right to free speech by prioritizing confrontation, flamboyance and provocation; he fell into the style over substance trap and hes paying a price for it. Hes become radioactive; Milo made choices regarding how he would exercise his right to speech that caused not only those ideologically opposed to him to try to stifle him, but those normally predisposed to his beliefs are now shying away from him. In some ways, hes made it more difficult for conservatives and libertarians who can make valid arguments and have important things to say due to guilt by association. Milos reaping what he has sewn. He spent so much time portraying feminism as cancer. IRONY ALERT: Milos the cancerous entity now, having expended so much time and effort arguing that Muslims, feminists and other groups who are the subject of his ire should be forcibly removed from society, but he has proven to be the most effective in causing himself to be removed from society.

This post was written by Dillon Eliassen.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

Dillon Eliassen is the Managing Editor of Being Libertarian. Dillon works in the sales department of a privately owned small company. He holds a BA in Journalism & Creative Writing from Lyndon State College, and needs only to complete his thesis for his Masters of English from Montclair State University (something which his accomplished and beautiful wife, Alice, is continually pestering him about). He is the author of The Apathetic, available at Amazon.com. He is a self-described Thoreauvian Minarchist.

Like Loading…

See the article here:

Perspectives: The Forcible Removal of Milo Yiannapolous – Being Libertarian

Libertarian Media Outlets Denied Access To White House Exclusion List – The Libertarian Republic

AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster

By: Eli Bowman

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD Its no surprise that certain media outlets have received criticism from President Trump. Attacks during campaign season, as well as recent criticisms of the Presidents policies and executive orders have likely been the fuel for Trumps media hating fire. A source close to the President said If he could hed rather burn fake news reporters instead of booksbut hes sticking with books for now.

Large left-leaning media outlets such as CNN and The New York Times were banned from a White House press conference earlier today. The Overton window would suggest that this slippery slope will soon turn into a regular occurrence.

Among the media outlets that have been journalistically castrated by the white house are wildly popular libertarian publications The Libertarian Republic, Liberty Hangout, and Liberty Viral. They were banned from todays white house briefing as well.

Of course, youd never know it because these three publications were also banned from the articles naming the media outlets that were banned.

This is a shame for our readers. We work tirelessly to put our lighthearted, yet informative pieces to advance liberty and be included in the list of exclusions. Being left of the list of excluded media is a big league mistake. Grant Deltzsaid in letter to Liberty Virals subscribers. Trump responded via Twitter.

When Kody Fairfield, Editor-in-chief of The Libertarian Republic, was asked about the matter he said It doesnt make sense. I understand being banned from the white house for doing unbiased journalism, but to be banned from the list of banned media outletsthats a real punch in the gut. Well, Trump is banned from TLR in that case then. Thatll piss him off.

When hearing of his ban from TLR Trump took to Twitter.

Keith Doiron, founder of The J3BOLUTION and Chairman of the Please Clap Foundation cant believe it either, telling us in a text message Ive clapped for many things before that werent necessarily popular at the time, but I just cant clap for thisnot even if Jeb! asked me to. Lets just say that Jeb Bush wont ban those three groups when hes President in 2020.

President Trump initially denied our requests for comment but then tweeted out the following.

Justin Moldow, founder of Liberty Hangout, had this to say about the sneak diss. Its a total shock to me. On his helicopter he specifically told me that Liberty Hangout would never be excluded from briefings and press conferences. He said that right to my faceon his helicopter. Now, Im about to take him for another helicopter ride.

While libertarian media outlets are hoping to be able to once again gain access to the White House, this tweet from The Cheeto King isnt promising:

Liberty Virallibery hangoutsmediapress corpssatireThe Libertarian RepublicWhite House

Follow this link:

Libertarian Media Outlets Denied Access To White House Exclusion List – The Libertarian Republic

Le Pen Refusing the Headscarf: Hero or Hypocrite? Its Complicated. – Being Libertarian

The Complexity of French Secularism Examined

This past week, during her visit to Lebanon, the French presidential candidate, Marine Le Pen, made headlines when she refused to dawn the proper dress in order to meet with a local Islamic cleric. Many conservatives and libertarians applauded her for defiance towards, and rejection of, one of the most notorious symbols of a repressive religious ideology, the headscarf (the least concealing of a variety of head and body coverings for women in the Islamic world). The justifications for this are found in such passages in the Quran as 33:59, that states:

O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies. That will be better, that they should be known so as not to be annoyed. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Many modern Islamic scholars will attempt to explain away this as an error of translation or that there is no specific mention of the face or head. Yet, this does not bode well when you read in the Hadith, Sahih Bukhari (60:282),

Aisha used to say: When (the Verse 24:31 of the Quran): They should draw their veils over their necks and bosoms, was revealed, (the ladies) cut their waist sheets at the edges and covered their faces with the cut pieces.

The face is found upon the head, and these women began to cover themselves there, and it must have pleased the Prophet for he did not correct them. Yet, I digress, Im sure defenders of Islam will say I continue to misinterpret the texts due to my bias against the religion (disclaimer: as an atheist and anti-theist I am against all religions, not just Islam). Even if they are correct, the very fact that their holy texts contain passages that can easily lead to interpretations causing such marginalization of women is another problem in itself that no amount of historical revisionism can whisk away.

Okay, now Im really off topic. Lets get back to the main point.

Marine Le Pen refused the headscarf, and many cheered her defiance of religious fundamentalism and applauded a true act of legitimate feminism. Amidst the fanfare, some raised objections. These people branded her a hypocrite because of her strict support for French secularism, known as lacit, and the use of legislation to further legally ingrain it in French society. Those who subscribe to lacit often oppose almost any form of religious expression in the public square. Lacit has been the driving force behind a law forbidding religious symbols and dress (including Islamic headscarves) to be worn by children in public schools. It has also been rumored to be a driving force behind the law that banned face concealing headwear in all public spaces in France, even though it was officially promoted for security reasons. Le Pen supports both of these laws, and even wishes to expand laws regarding religious dress in order to further legally enshrine lacit.

So, in short, she sees being forced to wear a headscarf as an affront to liberty, yet also sees no affront to liberty in forcing women to not wear one.

To those outside of France, this seems like utter hypocrisy, and understandably so, but only because we (speaking to my fellow Americans) come from a society with a much different history pertaining to religions relationship with the law. So, please, before judging her as an enemy of freedom, take the time to discover the history behind the secularisms of France and America.

French lacit in not like American secularism, also known as the Jeffersonian wall of separation enshrined in the Constitutions First Amendment, stating:

Congress shall make no lawrespecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

American secularism is a very live-and-let-live secularism. Basically, it only limits the government, making sure it doesnt suppress a religion or give one special preferential treatment. This has left citizens free to practice and demonstrate their religion in almost any way. Yet, French lacit is much more strict and regulatory in nature.

The differences stem from dissimilar histories.

America was first settled by those who were fleeing religious persecution, and by the time it was organizing as a new nation under the Constitution, dozens of sects of Christianity had made themselves at home along the Eastern Seaboard. Therefore, the lingering thoughts of their forefathers religious persecution and the need to facilitate peace among multiple sects naturally led the framers of the Constitution to create such a liberal, free-range secularism.

In France, the history since the Revolution of 1789 had been marked by struggle against an often legally entrenched and powerful Catholic Church that acted jointly with the monarchy to suppress the French people. Its power would fall with the rise of each Republic but would return once more with the return of monarchy. For example, after the rise of Napoleon via the Concordant of 1801, he made Catholicism the official state religion once more. This was a policy continued through the Bourbon Restoration and July Monarchy until 1848, with the rise of the 2nd Republic. Yet, upon the 2nd Republics fall in 1852, Catholicism was once again resurrected as the state religion. This remained throughout the whole 2nd French Empire, and then for 35 years into the 3rd French Republic until the 1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and State disestablished Catholicism as the state religion and ended the churchs privileges in society once and for all.

That was a 116-year battle between the French people and legally privileged organized religion.

So, the French people, out of fear of the return of Catholicism to its former power, have since 1905 passed many laws, and continue to support many more, that place harsh restrictions on all religions in the public sphere to make sure none may rise to have political power or legal privilege ever again.

As a society, they have decided to place relatively mild restrictions on liberty with regards to religious expression so as to guard one of their societys greater liberties: freedom from state religion. This is a utilitarian approach to liberty, but an approach to liberty nonetheless. Accepting a cost, in this case, a little loss of freedom in one area to get the benefit of securing a larger freedom; the freedom from an established religion by further safeguarding their return to revolutionary struggle between church and state that plagued their nation for over a century.

So, do not cast off Le Pen as a hypocritical foe to liberty. She is simply promoting liberty as she understands it; albeit a precarious brand of it. But for France, a nation with a long and complicated relationship to such an idolized ideal, that may ever be the only way.

After all, France is the nation who prides herself as being depicted as the bare breasted Marianne. Can we really ever realistically expect her to accept her fellow women to be wrapped in veils?

This post was written by Bric Butler.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

Like Loading…

Read more:

Le Pen Refusing the Headscarf: Hero or Hypocrite? Its Complicated. – Being Libertarian

A Libertarian View of CPAC: Part One – Being Libertarian

The first proper day of events at the 2017 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) was underway on Thursday, February 23rd, 2017 at the Gaylord resort in Maryland. Being Libertarian was there on Media Row, representing an all-too-scarce libertarian presence alongside the mainstream media outlets that normally frequent these events.

But then something very unexpected happened: CPAC was friendly. It was friendly to us libertarians; it was friendly to minority activist groups who still consider themselves conservative; it was friendly to LGBT rights and non-federal intervention. In other words, the first day of events at CPAC proved to be much more libertarian-ish (as Dr. Rand Paul would say) than ever anticipated. Perhaps that was because we simply knew where to look, but either way, the mainstream-pushed image of the typical right-wing zealots unwilling to hear other viewpoints fades quickly upon further investigation of this conference.

At The Hub, which is essentially CPACs equivalent to Comic Con for political nerds, the many many booths of the participating organizations complete with all their wonderful, unique swag were lined up for mass consumption. There were think tanks such as the Capital Research Center offering internships, colleges such as Hillsdale advertising their intensive academic programs and fellowship opportunities, and newspapers like Campus Reform empowering students to bring free speech issues on their respective college campuses to light.

But in addition to these usual elements to a conservative conference, there were other groups being represented here that might have been less wise to bet on showing up: there was a booth dedicated to giving conservative atheists a voice; there was a booth dedicated to members of the LGBT community who understand and embrace the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution for their protection; and there was even a small group of Republican transgender activists at CPAC raising awareness of the fact that trans people are not delusional, nor do they have to be exclusively liberal.

One such activist, Jennifer Williams, was upstairs on the main event floor housing the Potomac ballrooms. She was proudly sporting a GOP elephant pin sportingthe trans rights colors, and holding up a sign that read: Proud to be Conservative. Proud to be Transgender. Proud to be American. #SameTeam. And she was doing all of this while also being wrapped in the dont tread on me me flag. When asked her opinion on the relationship between the GOP and trans people in America, Williams pointed out that while there was still work to be done, she was confident that the more the trans community raises awareness about its plight and perspective, the less alien trans people will seem to traditional conservatives in America. Williams believes in a truly free United States in which ones sex, gender, or creed does not dictate ones politics, and where all people are free to express themselves politically however they feel right doing so.

James Spiller, a general attendee who seemed to support Williamss cause,spoke to us about how understanding trans people in many ways is the final step toward bridging the gap between liberal and conservative voters on the social front. He pointed out, rightly, that upon receiving hormone treatment, trans athletes bodies transform into the body type of their borne-in gender (i.e. a trans woman on hormones loses muscle mass and experiences slight realignment of bone structure, meaning she is not unfairly advantaged against her biologically female cohorts). Spiller also cited the fact that by pointing this out, both liberals and conservatives will learn very real truths that will bring the two groups closer to an understanding. For instance, in addition to conservatives realizing the transformative effect of hormone treatments, liberals might also have to acknowledge that there are genuine mental and physical differences between men and women than a transgender persons transition could help to highlight, and therefore unveil the real reason for the gender pay gap: women and men approach life, work, etc. differently from one another, make different choices, and have different frames of mind, so naturally different choices will be made in the workforce leading to different rates of pay.

Williams, while she didnt comment directly on Spillers points, did seem to share the outlook that many liberals claim to understand trans people just to virtue signal, but that they do not own concepts like compassion and social justice conservatives can display it, too. I did not vote for Trump, Williams admitted. I was a Kasich supporter. But I would have voted for Trump had New Jersey been in play at the time. But she clarified that she does hope Trump continues to support the LGBT community, and that any reversal on the issues would feel like a slap in the face to her community.

This point was touched upon later in the day during the Steve Bannon speaking event, in which he and fellow presidential aid Reince Priebus explained that President Trump still supports LGBT rights, as well as the lack of authority for federal overreach on such matters, and is therefore leaving the trans bathroom issue to the states. While much of the mainstream media has been reporting this stance as a reversal on trans rights, its actually quite consistent with the small government conservative and libertarian viewpoint. Leaving the bathroom issue to the states while still explaining ones personal views in support of trans people is, through this lens, not a contradiction, and is still very much a pro-LGBT position for a Republican president to have.

And the best part of all of this was that the entire room erupted with applause at this statement. Let that sink in: an entire ballroom full of conservatives and Republicans cheered on a trans rights issue. And the conference itself let atheists, gays, transgenders, and other minority groups through its doors in the name of liberty, freedom of expression, and fellowship. If you are a conservative, you are welcome at CPAC, regardless of any other aspect of your person that might not historically line up with the perceived norm. That is the message CPAC 2017 has chosen to convey. And I frankly hope that sentiment continues. As our new acquaintance James Spiller noted, true understanding is the only way the lefts claim to social and intellectual superiority is going to be curtailed.

Well, to be fair, there was one minority group that CPAC chose to discriminate against: white supremacists. Alt-right leader and white nationalist Richard Spencer attempted to crash the event (much like he had done with short-lived success at the International Students for Liberty Conference last week), but was made short work of by event organizers and hotel security. Racism, it seems, has finally run its course with the Republican Party and the conservative movement as a whole.

Yeah, I see the fuck face, one CPAC attendee could be overhead saying when Spencer first came on the scene. It was established that it is okay to punch Nazis, right? While back at the spot on the convention floor where Miss Williams was waving her no tread flag, an elderly gentleman walked up to her, shook her hand and said: I dont quite understand, but Im trying to.

No, the modern conservative movement isnt perfect. And no, we should not drop our guard on the frontier of looking at it critically. But we also must be mindful that, just as the older man shaking Williamss hand said, it is trying. It is trying to branch out and finally be the all-inclusive, anti-big government movement it has long claimed to be but never quite delivered on. And that effort should be commended. We should continue to hold the conservatives and the GOP accountable for continuing that, of course (and Bannon himself said at his event that the American people should hold the Trump administration accountable as well), but for now, this is more than expected, and pleasantly surprising. Especially for libertarians.

This post was written by Micah J. Fleck.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

Like Loading…

See the article here:

A Libertarian View of CPAC: Part One – Being Libertarian

Local Libertarians eyeing city, state government seats – Mid-City Messenger

Local Libertarians eyeing city, state government seats
Mid-City Messenger
The Libertarian Party of Orleans Parish is looking to gain notoriety with a few local government seats, but they're still searching for locals who want to get involved. We're not going to start winning offices right off the bat, Kirk Coco, party

Read more from the original source:

Local Libertarians eyeing city, state government seats – Mid-City Messenger

Libertarianism, Helicopters, and Leftists – Being Libertarian

All it takes is a Hoppe, skip and a jump for those, who are joking online about throwing communists from helicopters, to justify their actions.

A growing wave of libertarians and anarcho-capitalists are finding themselves drawn to the world of anti-communist rhetoric, which extends to the nth degree. So, is commie killing a justified response to the violation of the NAP, or is this simply lunacy concocted to ideologically discriminate? Where does the line between threat and belief system exist?

To discover this, we must first look at the emerging resurgence of Hans-Hermann Hoppe and his beliefs, through the Facebook page Hoppean Snake Memes. Its a page which has amassed nearly seventeen thousand likes for its ideological tint, which takes heavy opposition to Marxism and Leninism; ideologies which are acting in opposition to anarcho-capitalism.

Just as one must fight to maintain their freedom, one must also work to secure their own free society. The difference between an anarcho-capitalist society and an anarcho-individualist society is based on the premise of the left and right dichotomy, with anarcho-capitalists representing the right-wing and property rights, and the anarcho-individualists representing the left-wing and communism.

Anarcho-individualism, as indicated through the works of Max Stirner, completely disregards pragmatism, societal progress and morality to favour the Ubermensch perspective of Friedrich Nietzsche, which essentially involves giving complete reign of ones life and actions over to the people to allow them to decide their life based on their own moral compass.

Essentially, given the rise of groups such as Antifa which run contrary to the libertarian principles of personal and property rights Hoppean Snake Memes takes a hyperbolic approach to Hoppes original views by mixing them with Augusto Pinochets historically notorious habit of dropping communists from helicopters.

The death of communists is seen very much in the same way that one would see the killing of ISIS regardless of whether or not individual ISIS members have committed atrocities, their group is reason enough for suspicion and consequential action to be taken to stop it. Given that groups such as Antifa and ISIS threaten the peace and prosperity of societal participants (since communism and Islam represent the two biggest terror threats in the world at the moment), it is clear that action must be taken.

I interviewed the administrator of the Facebook page who simply went by the monicker Snek for the purposes of conversation; he elaborated on his disdain for communism, which he saw as antithetical to a society which follows along a pathway of objective self-servience and capital-based individualism.

When I say communist, I am referring to one who advocates gulags. Not simply worker control of the means of production. I have nothing against worker control of the MOP, provided its all voluntary, et cetera et cetera.

Upon being pressed as to how this runs contrary to freedom of association and freedom of speech, the terminology of threat was used to justify the way in which communist advocacy works; their ideals stomping over the civil liberties of person and property.

This, paired with the forced radicalism of groups such as Antifa, is now acting as the basis for an emerging ideology that pairs anarchism with practicality, in order to minimise big government to small government and gradually make the transition to a stateless society. This is why the forces in question have fallen in love with the bombastic reductions taken by Donald Trump; reductions which run counter to the prior Democratic tendency to slip down a slippery slope and fall into a pit of authoritarian tripe (think Franklin D. Roosevelt). This heavy focus on pragmatism for libertarianism has led followers to co-opt the alternative right and expand its audience in the retaliation against leftism.

Snek detailed the following:

It should be noted that the helicopter memes are, for the most part, an exaggeration; the purpose, though, is to provoke thought on what is to be considered legitimate self-defence. The argument that Pinochet did nothing wrong stems from the argument that Allende would have been worse. Allende had very close ties to MIR and Castro, judging by Castros actions we know that if Allende was even remotely like him, Allende would have been objectively worse than Pinochet, in terms of human rights violations.

Given the low polling numbers of the Libertarian Party and the fact that the ideology has as much momentum behind it as a Snorlax on a bridge, can one really blame a frustrated branch of Austrian economics for a kneejerk reaction to the left and their omnipresent threat of attack on our fundamental rights?

Out of the philosophical and epistemological questions that lie behind the nebulous terminology of the NAP, it should be determined (at least to some extent) by the public consensus what is considered justifiable retaliation.

Do you approve of the commie killin freedom fighters, or do you simply see them as being full of Pinoshit?

We here at Being Libertarian are not at liberty (ironically) to disclose our personal position on ideological discrimination, however, we must advocate peace towards your fellow man, to set a good example for the thieves more extreme members of the left.

And stay up to date with all my articles on my personal Facebook page.

This post was written by David McManus.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

David McManus has an extensive background in youth politics and of advocacy with regards to the libertarian and anarcho-capitalist movements. David draws his values from the works of Stirner, Hoppe and Rothbard. He is currently a student in Australia with a passion for writing, which carries into a healthy zest for liberty-based activism. Despite an aspiring career in politics, he considers himself a writer at heart with a steady niche for freelance work.

Like Loading…

Read the original post:

Libertarianism, Helicopters, and Leftists – Being Libertarian

Can libertarians mediate the divide? – Newsday

Cathy Young

Cathy Young is a regular contributor to Reason magazine and Real Clear Politics.

The people who gathered for the 10th annual conference of the International Society of Students for Liberty in Washington last weekend were a motley crowd that included anti-war activists with neon-colored hair and law students in three-piece suits. In the exhibit hall, a display honoring Ronald Reagan was only a few feet away from a LGBT group with a rainbow version of the Dont Tread on Me Gadsen flag and from the table of a group called Muslims for Liberty.

Despite the festive atmosphere, this years speakers at the libertarian event were mostly in a dark mood worse than last year, when many warned about a rising authoritarian tide. While libertarians tend to be at the Republican end of the two-party spectrum, Donald Trump Republicanism is about as un-libertarian as you get. There was raucous applause when Katherine Mangu-Ward, editor of Reason magazine (where I am a contributing editor), declared at the opening-night session, Free movement of people and goods across the border is good. Another Reason editor, Nick Gillespie, contrasted the libertarian spirit of cosmopolitanism and tolerance with Trumps demonization of undesirables and with the lefts anti-pluralist drive to silence politically incorrect speech.

Tom Palmer, vice president for international programs at the nonprofit Atlas Network, also spoke of illiberal trends on both the left and the right in his talk on global anti-libertarianism. But while Palmer named left-wing identity politics and thought-policing as part of the problem, his focus was the threat from the right: in America, Trumpism, with its cult of the leader who embodies the peoples will and its paranoia about the foreign; in Europe, populist, nationalist, and sometimes outright fascist movements, many financed by Russias authoritarian regime.

Social psychologist and New York University professor Jonathan Haidt, whose talk on the rise of the safety culture in colleges was probably the biggest hit of the conference, warned that the end of liberal democracy was a real threat. Haidt, whose 2012 book, The Righteous Mind, examined the moral foundations of political beliefs, painted a dire picture of polarization in America and of the drift toward a leftist echo chamber on college campuses. Social justice, Haidt said, is replacing pursuit of knowledge as the central mission of universities, and there is less and less tolerance for dissent. The result is a generation sympathetic to censorship of offensive speech.

Haidt argued that diversity of thought is desperately needed on campus, and that libertarians may be the key. Conservatives are seen as poison in the academy, while libertarians are merely viewed with wariness and confusion, and are thus in a far better position to get unorthodox opinions heard. Do something about the mess that were descending into, he implored the audience, mostly of libertarian students.

In the age of Trumpian populism versus political correctness run amok, libertarianism offers promise beyond the campus, too if it doesnt descend into laissez-faire utopianism at home and isolationism abroad. Gillespie noted that if libertarianism is defined as a preference for less government involvement in both economic and moral matters, at least one poll finds that libertarian leaners are now the single largest group of voters, at 27 percent (while 26 percent are conservative, 23 percent liberal, and 15 percent populist).

While parts of the conference had a decidedly pessimistic tone, there was optimism as well and discussion of libertarian victories from deregulation to gay civil rights. Libertarianism may not have all the answers; but right now, it may be our best hope for rebuilding a culture of freedom and tolerance.

Cathy Young is a regular contributor to Reason magazine and Real Clear Politics.

See original here:

Can libertarians mediate the divide? – Newsday

Seven questions with Greg Brophy: ‘Slightly more libertarian … a lot more cynical’ – Colorado Springs Gazette

Colorado State Senator Greg Brophy speaks about his concern that new gun laws would hurt the local economy, during a debate period on a day of voting on gun control bills before the Colorado Legislature, at the State Capitol, in Denver, Friday March 8, 2013. Colorado Democrats are on the cusp of advancing gun-control proposals Friday in a state balancing a history of heartbreaking shootings with a Western heritage where gun ownership is treasured by many. (AP Photo/Brennan Linsley)

Greg Brophy has racked up plenty of political mileage in his 50 years. The Republican served two sessions in the state House starting in January 2003 before moving up to the Senate, where for nearly 10 years he represented an immense swath of Colorado’s eastern plains. He also made a brief run for governor in 2014. Then, it was off to the nation’s capital for a stint as U.S. Rep. Ken Buck’s chief of staff. Now, Brophy’s back in Colorado, where he resides in the Denver area with wife Angela and works in public affairs. Always a farmer (he holds an ag science degree from CSU in Fort Collins), he still helps run the family farm back in his hometown, Wray. The prep wrestler-turned-avid bicyclist won friends across the aisle for his two-wheel obsession and may well have been one of the most physically fit Coloradans ever to take a seat in the legislature. And though his grappling days are long past, Brophy is known for being as scrappy off the mat as he was on it back in high school.

Catch us up on your family, and tell us about your new gig.

The most important family news is that Angela and I are grandparents! Our youngest is a freshman in high school, so we will be empty nesters before too long.

I took a position with Michael Best Strategies as the V.P. of Western States. MIchael Best is a public affairs company with offices in D.C., Wisconsin, Colorado, Illinois, Texas and Utah. The firm has excellent relationships with the Trump Administration, Congress and the Senate, with a powerhouse in Colorado including Jeff Thormodsgaard, myself, Katie Wolf, Jenise May, and Alex Hayes.

You won a seat in the state House of Representatives in 2002 as easily one of the most conservative members of the General Assembly. Have you evolved in any way philosophically?

I’m slightly more libertarian now than I was, a lot more cynical, and much, much, much more cognizant of the need to maintain the majority (something we all took for granted in 2004 to our detriment).

What did you learn as a senior congressional staffer during your time in D.C.? Any eye-openers?

It’s dysfunctional, and it’s truly a swamp. Under (former House Speaker John) Boehner, PAC contributions were used to enforce party discipline. (Current House Speaker Paul) Ryan is changing that, thank goodness. I became a much bigger fan and advocate for returning power to the states; it’s the only way to really “drain the swamp.”

It seems the state’s transportation grid is always in crisis, yet the legislature never comes up with a lasting solution. Everybody says this year is different – but will it be?

Probably not.

It is true we need more money. It is also true that we waste entirely too much money on studies and environmental mitigation. My county commissioner friends swear they can build roads for way less than half. That’s directly related to red tape and regulation. A grand bargain would address both and make both sides uncomfortable. In my opinion, that takes the kind of leadership that Gov. Owens brought. We haven’t had that kind of leadership since he left.

What was your proudest achievement – and what was your biggest disappointment – during your dozen years in the General Assembly?

Proudest: Winning the argument on gun control even though we lost the vote. Plus, I led the way to modernizing trucking laws in Colorado even though the bill was taken away by the majority party. Biggest disappointment: never being a chairman.

You used to host an annual shooting event out at your farm and invited a wide swath of Colorado’s political firmament. Who was the most unlikely participant ever to show up?

Well, this is easy, (former New York City Mayor Michael) Bloomberg’s lobbyist for gun control came and shot a lot of watermelons. It’s interesting to note that during the 2012 Pedal the Plains, Gov. Hickenlooper was in my house in Wray practically begging for an invitation to shoot the following year – a mere three months before introducing the (Democrats’) gun-control legislation.

How much mileage do you put in on your bike these days?

Last weekend was spectacular – 70 miles! My ideal ride is four hours and close to 50 miles in the summer.

See the rest here:

Seven questions with Greg Brophy: ‘Slightly more libertarian … a lot more cynical’ – Colorado Springs Gazette

Iowa Libertarian Party to Have Major Party Status in 2018 Elections – IVN News

The 2016 election wasthe gift that keeps on giving for the Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Party ofIowa (LPIA) will soon officially be given major party status, allowinglibertarians to be on the ballot in future state elections, and greater exposure for its candidates.

We plan to have a record number of candidates in 2018, said LPIA Chair Keith Laube in an interview for IVN. There were a record 25 Libertarian candidates on the ballot in Iowain 2016.We have been building a base of Libertarian registered voters in Iowa since 2008, the first year Iowa voters could register as a Libertarian.Our plan istoreach out to voters to continue increasing the number of registered Libertarians in Iowa.

Iowa state law allows political parties to gain status when 2 percent of the vote is earned by the partys presidential candidate. Gov. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian presidential candidate in 2016, received a little over 3 percent in the state about the same percentage he got at the national level.

We plan to have a record number of candidates in 2018.

American elections have always been dominated by the two-party system at every institutional level of elections and the political landscape. The plight of third parties to get on the ballot has been a long struggle. Ballot access is easy for Democrats and Republicans, but that isnt the case for Libertarians or other third party candidates.

And while the Libertarian Party has garnered ballot access and party status in several states after 2016,Laube says obstacles remain to keeping the LPs party status.

Per Iowa code, to maintain party status in Iowa a party must receive at least 2% of the vote for the top of the ticket. So in 2018, our governor candidate must receive at least 2% of the vote, he explained. We met with state officials and have been conversing back and forth with them as we go through the transition in party status. The state officials have been very professional and good to work with.

Laube added:

We need to continue to educate voters thatLibertarian candidates are very capable of serving at the State and Federal level. Libertarian views attractqualified candidates who run for office because they want positivechange to occur in Iowa.Libertarian candidates are often independent thinkers whodo not want to be draggedalong with the partisan political baggage that comes with the two older parties.

And theremay be no greatertime to be a libertarian. The Libertarian Party has gained popularity amongst voters as more people break off from the Democratic and Republican parties in dissatisfaction. Supporters of the Libertarian party share a common belief that the government should be less involved in peoples lives, in the household and with their wallets.

As such, libertarians tend to be viewed as fiscally conservative and socially open or liberal or tolerant. Such a stance on government and domestic and foreign policy is making the party more attractive to many voters because such an approach looks outside the current political establishment for solutions.

I believe Libertarian candidatesin 2018 will rely on the majority of the population who want tohave their individual liberties restored and who desire a more accountable,Laube said. As a major party,2018will be the first year our candidateswill beable to participate in the Primary Election. Candidates will know they are on the ballot in early June rather than late August. This will create stronger campaigns and allow voters to learn about our candidates andissues earlier in the election cycle. Having more candidates talk aboutissuesearlier in the election cycle isa positive forIowans.

Iowas secretary of state will make LPIAs party status official on March 1.

See the original post here:

Iowa Libertarian Party to Have Major Party Status in 2018 Elections – IVN News

CPAC Organizer Tries To Pawn Off Milo Yiannopoulos as "Libertarian" – Reason (blog)

Breitbart.comWhat do you do when you’re Matt Schlapp, the guy heading up the American Conservative Union, which runs the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (emphasis added), and it turns our your biggest draw to this year’s event defends pedophilia? Well, first you disinvite him and then you bluster your way through an excrutiatingly painful few minutes on Morning Joe before trying to pawn Milo Yiannopoulos off as a libertarian:

“He doesn’t call himself conservative. He calls himself more of a libertarian…. Some libertarians would deny that he’s a libertarian.”

On that much, we agree. Most libertarians I know wouldn’t claim Milo as one of our own. You know who else says Milo isn’t a libertarian? Well, Milo himself, it turns out:

“Libertarians are children. Libertarians are people who have given up looking for an answer. This whole ‘everybody do what they want’ is code for ‘leave me to do what I want.’ It’s selfish and childish. It’s an admission that you have given up trying to work out what a good society would look like, how the world should be ordered and instead just retreated back into selfishness. That’s why they’re so obsessed with weed, Bitcoin, and hacking.”

Read more about that here and here.

Milo’s critique of libertarianism is not so strong, is it? As it happens, the policy work being done by folks at Reason Foundation (the nonprofit that publishes this website) is revolutionizing K-12 education, public-sector pensions, transportation infrastructure, and more. Same goes for ideological compadres at the Cato Institute and elsewhere. To the extent that there’s a principled opposition to really dumb military interventions, runaway spending, and conservative-approved idiocies such as a border wall and trade protectionism, well, it’s not conservatives pushing it. And none of that is to deny one bit that drug policy, criminal justice reform, crypto-currencies, and forced transparency of government overreach are in any way about “selfishness.”

What does it say about the modern conservative movement that CPAC was so desperate to get Milo on its stage in the first place? Nothing good. He’s outrageous (not really “dangerous” in any meaningful sense of the word) and he is fully capable of bringing out the worst elements of the idiot-progressive left. But does he have anything to say when he’s actually allowed to speak? Derp, not really. Schlapp can say that ACU wants to teach the controversy and all that, but the fact of the matter is that as an intellectual force and a serious place for discussion about policy, CPAC has been more watered-down than the beer at Delta House for a very long time. It’s a good sign that someone with the last name Paul won five of the last seven presidential straw polls, but conservatives and Republicans have almost completely squandered their power and influence throughout the 21st century. When George W. Bush and the GOP ran the federal government, they busted the budget in a way that would embarrass drunken sailors the world over. When Obama was in power, they did virtually nothing to demand actual budgets or restrain executive power, and they’re still pretending that they are really…just…about…ready…to…reveal an alternative health-insurance plan. They nominated and elected Donald Trump for president and it’s surprising that CPAC invited/disinvited a flyweight trash talker to their big shindig? It’s almost as if they didn’t kick out the gays a couple of years ago or that Newt Gingrich doesn’t show up every year and talk about the need for flag-burning amendments and English-only laws.

It’s never easy for a movement founded on the cry of standing athwart history, yelling Stop to move forward, but this is simply ridiculous.

Here’s Matt Schlapp on Morning Joe:

Continued here:

CPAC Organizer Tries To Pawn Off Milo Yiannopoulos as "Libertarian" – Reason (blog)

The libertarians versus the conservatives – Washington Times

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

SELFISH LIBERTARIANS AND SOCIALIST CONSERVATIVES?: THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE LIBERTARIAN-CONSERVATIVE DEBATE

By Nathan W. Schlueter and Nikolai G. Wenzel

Stanford University Press, $24.95, 232 pages

While libertarians and conservatives have some similar outlooks on politics, economics and culture, many profound differences have kept them apart. Attempts to bridge this gap, including Frank S. Meyers theory of fusionism (combining elements of libertarianism and traditional conservatism), have largely been unsuccessful.

Nevertheless, these two right-leaning ideological groups have more than enough in common to discuss ideas in an intelligent, thoughtful manner. Nathan Schlueter and Nikolai Wenzels Selfish Libertarians and Socialist Conservatives? serves as an important backdrop in ensuring the libertarian-conservative debate never turns into a libertarian-conservative divide.

Mr. Wenzel, the libertarian, is a research fellow at the University of Paris Law Schools Center for Law & Economics. Mr. Schlueter, the conservative, is a professor of philosophy and religion at Hillsdale College. In their view, a civil, informed, and energetic argument between these two political opposites offers a more interesting, illuminating, and engaging format for readers than an impartial survey of the issues.

Are they right? For those who identify as conservatives, libertarians or one of the worlds few remaining fusionists (like me), their information and analysis is nothing new. But the authors ability to create succinct philosophical arguments for intellectuals and the masses is both admirable and educational.

Each author contributes four chapters. They provide explanations of what their political ideologies entail, whats wrong with each others ideological position, relevant case studies, and final conclusions.

Mr. Schlueter posits that conservatism is not a specific philosophy of government but a generic term that can have a wide range of specific meanings, depending on context. Hence, to create a unified conservatism from its three primary strains (libertarianism, traditional conservatism and neoconservatism), these principles are necessary for human flourishing and that, although they are in some tension with one another, the three principles are interdependent.

Moreover, the author argues, the principles of the American founding that conservatives defend are a form of classical liberalism. This, in turn, has led modern conservatives to defend traditional concepts like natural law and the common good, along with newer concepts like limited government and property rights.

Mr. Wenzel sees libertarianism as a political philosophy about the protection of individual rights. Adherents to this ideology consider liberty to be the highest political good, and believe that government should be viewed as a protector of rights, to provide an umbrella within which individuals can peacefully go about their business, interact, and thrive. Libertarianism also relies heavily on markets and civil society to supplement that which individuals cannot complete on their own and that which government cannot deliver without violating individual rights.

Naturally, the two authors respectfully feel that each others political philosophy is, as they put it, wrong.

Mr. Wenzel believes Mr. Schlueter makes one of the clearest expositions of conservatism I have seen, but that much in conservatism is problematic. For instance, he perceives natural law liberalism, which his co-author defends as a component of unified conservatism, rests on the claim that there exists an objective moral order but that it has also been used to justify ugly things like slavery, absolute monarchy, or Sharia. At the same time, he wonders if this contradictory hodgepodge of different conservatisms is arbitrary in its claims because it seeks justification for the public imposition of private preferences.

Mr. Schlueter admires Mr. Wenzels able defense of libertarianism, but believes [i]n the most fundamental sense, the difference between conservatism and libertarianism turns on the degree to which politics can be understood in terms of economics. By and large, conservatives dont believe that economics defines political life and human beings can only fully flourish through their own self-constituting choices. Also of note, when it comes to public choice theory a popular topic in libertarian circles he feels the major flaw is that its either descriptive, or is it prescriptive. The former is undermined by empirical evidence, and the latter is undermined by political life altogether.

Their case studies and conclusions dont lead to any surprising revelations: Mr. Schlueter supports conservatism, and Mr. Wenzel supports libertarianism. But their discussions about economics, immigration, education and marriage are intriguing. The differences between the two ideologies are subtle in some ways, and more stark in others.

Neither Mr. Schlueter nor Mr. Wenzel believe his political ideology is the model of perfection. There are flaws in libertarianism and conservatism, as there are in all philosophical models. At the same time, they obviously both feel that their respective ideology is better for our society, warts and all.

In this civil debate of ideas, thats the best closing argument we could ever hope for.

Michael Taube is a contributor to The Washington Times.

Continued here:

The libertarians versus the conservatives – Washington Times

Richard Spencer attempted to crash a Libertarian conference and was shown the door – Salon

Richard Spencer the alt right leader who vowed were not going awayafter Donald Trump won the presidency, was caught leadinga Nazi salute for Trumpand who got punched in the face at his heros inauguration was evicted from the 10th annual International Students for Liberty Conference after trying to crash itsparty.

Spencer, a self-declared white nationalist who believes the U.S. is losing its white identity, had no business attending a gathering of libertarian students, and conference organizers had every right to eject him, Robby Soave wrote in Reason Magazine. Indeed, their decision to do so was a valid exercise of libertarian principles in action.

Soave described how Spencer set himself up in the bar of the hotel in Washington D.C. where the event was being held and attempted to host an unscheduled and unwanted conversation about his despicable views. He was eventually confronted by libertarian punditJeffrey Tucker, who confronted Spencer and made clear to the alt-right provocateur that he did not belong at ISFLC. Some shouting ensued, and hotel staff intervened. Shortly thereafter, Spencer left.

In characteristic libertarian fashion, Soave pointed out that the Marriott Wardman hotel is private property, and should enjoy the absolute right to evict irksome and unwelcome guests from its premises.

Spencer has naturally availed himself of the opportunity to troll libertarians on his Twitter account. Some of his tweets are included below, although for spatial reasons we have not included all of them.

Attempts to disrupt the conference, both from the far left and far right, were not entirely unexpected, but the appearance of Mr. Spencer and alt-right activists at the hotel demonstrated the alt-rights hostility to the ideas of liberty and freedom, said Students for Liberty CEO Wolf von Laer in a statement. Although we support freedom of speech and thought, we did not invite Mr. Spencer. We reject his hateful message and we wholeheartedly oppose his obsolete ideology.

Excerpt from:

Richard Spencer attempted to crash a Libertarian conference and was shown the door – Salon

A Libertarian Look at Free College – Being Libertarian

There has been a lot of talk lately about free college. Being a Libertarian I initially scoffed at the idea. Then, as I normally do, I started to wonder if there was any idea that could improve the current college business model to attain most of the same perks that free college would be able to attain.

It would be nice if money were off the table when it came to choosing where to attend college. It would be nice if my income, or my familys income or social status, was not a factor. It would be nice if students were accepted solely based on their merit and potential, disregarding all other factors. To me, this is a principle that makes me want to find a solution as a Libertarian. I believe that I have done just that.

What if we had a business model that could remove the need for tuition, while making a college more profitable? What if colleges viewed students as investments and it was in their best interest to provide them with competitive degrees and to help them find employment quickly upon graduation? What if a college based its profitability off of the profitability of its alumni? What if colleges understood the needs of the market and focused its degrees on these areas to not only meet the needs of the market, but also to maximize alumni income? What if students that could not complete their program, and had to drop out, could walk away debt-free? What if the answer to all these questions is yes? Well, it is.

I have developed a business model that requires no upfront tuition to be paid by students. Instead, students agree that upon graduation, they will pay 12% of their income to the college for the next 12 years. With this basic agreement, the colleges profitability is not interlaced with the profitability of the student upon graduation. The college will want the student to find a high paying job quickly, and could offer services to help the student in this manner, and since the student is bound by this contract for 12 years, it is in the colleges interest to help its alumni for this entire time. The college wants to produce graduates that will earn a higher wage to maximize their profits.

In order to accomplish this, the college will focus degree programs on areas where there is a need in the market. Colleges would shift away from degree programs that earn little money and have little need in the market. Colleges would offer degree programs that would best fit the skill-set of the student and help the individual to be as successful as they can. The college now cares about counseling and motivating students to not drop out. The college now cares about each class within the degree program because it is in their interest to be as efficient as possible. Each class would be taking up vital space in a streamlined degree program designed to provide the best skill and knowledge to students to help them be as successful as possible.

Now the college would start to earn a reputation for itself and its alumni because of its better degrees. The market would constantly change and the degree programs would change in order to keep up, because that would be in the best interest of the college. This business model would remove the government from being loan officers, remove the need for grants for education, remove the debt that students face for decades, and create a contract between the college and its alumni that would be a mutually-profitable partnership.

In order to move this business model away from the theory and to test its validity, I took a look at the University of Colorado. During the Fiscal Year 2015-16 the University of Colorados revenue by tuition was $872.3 million, with a student headcount enrollment of 63,202 and awarded 14,479 degrees. If each of these graduates started out earning an average of $40,000 a year and received a 3% increase each year either through changing jobs or regular pay raises, once the 12 year span of alumni was full, the University of Colorado would be bringing in over $986 million dollars, an increase in revenue of over 13%. The average student would end up paying back $68,121 without any interest. These same 4 year degrees currently cost close to $120,000 with in-state tuition. If the average earnings of the alumni are $50,000 a year, the colleges income can increase to $1.2 billion, which would be an increase of over 41%. Understanding this, one can see why the colleges would focus on finding the best possible opportunities for its alumni.

I can hear you asking how does the university make more money while the student pays less? Its simple; we have removed the middle-man, the government. By doing so, we have removed compounding interest and all payments start off based on the graduates current income. If the college has graduates that are earning less than their peers, it is in everyones interest for the college to assist the graduate to find a higher paying job.

Students that attend college, but fail to graduate, owe nothing. This prevents the current problem of student debt without a degree. The student can always return later and complete their degree, or transfer to another college. Transferring credits would have the same effect as the college owning stock in the transfer student. The 12% that the student would pay upon graduation would be split based on their credits among the two colleges. There are sure to be challenges to this business model, but they could be overcome with creativity and resources.

The biggest challenge will be in the initial years until the college attains a full 12 year span of alumni that are paying their 12% payments. This could be overcome by using a hybrid of the tuition system with the 1212 program, or colleges with a large endowment might use some of it to attain this model. Harvard currently has the largest endowment in the world, just over $36 billion. It could be the first university to implement this business model as a social experiment.

There are solutions to these challenges, and these solutions lead us to a better business model when it comes to education costs in America.

* Jeffrey Smith served in the Army for 13 years, currently working as a Senior Operations Specialist and Analyst for a not-for-profit that proctors the clinical skills exam for medical students and has a masters degree in business administration from Excelsior College. Jeff is a long time Libertarian looking for opportunities to bring the Libertarian platform to everyday people.

Like Loading…

Read the original post:

A Libertarian Look at Free College – Being Libertarian

WATCH: Libertarian Destroys Tucker Carlson’s Immigration Strawman – The Libertarian Republic

LISTEN TO TLRS LATEST PODCAST:

By: Elias J. Atienza

Tucker Carlson, host ofTucker Carlson Tonightand former senior fellow for the Cato Institute, debated immigration policy analyst Alex Nowrasteh. The twos debate covered welfare benefits for legal immigrants and illegal immigrants, along with the ideal level of immigration. Carlson favored limiting immigration while Nowrasteh believes in not letting Washington bureaucrats limit immigration.

The twos debate is just another battle in the never ending battle in libertarian circles about borders and immigration. Mainstream libertarians, such as those from the Cato Institute, believe in opening up the borders, while some schools of libertarian thought believing in closing the borders, such as Murray Rothbard and Hans Herman Hoppe. Ron Paul seems to be favor of killing the welfare state before increasing immigration, writing on it just last year:

How to tackle the real immigration problem? Eliminate incentives for those who would come here to live off the rest of us, and make it easier and more rational for those who wish to come here legally to contribute to our economy. No walls, no government databases, no biometric national ID cards. But not a penny in welfare for immigrants. Its really that simple.

So watch Carlson and Nowrasteh argue about their positions on immigration.

WATCH:

cato instituteHans Hermann Hoppemurray rothbardron paultucker carlson

See the original post here:

WATCH: Libertarian Destroys Tucker Carlson’s Immigration Strawman – The Libertarian Republic

Student senate approves Libertarian student organization – Times-Delphic

Photo by Jake Bullington.

BY JAKE BULLINGTON

Student senate approved a total of six motions, including a motion approving Drakes chapter of Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) as a recognized student group. The Libertarian advocacy group was founded by the partys champion, Ron Paul in 2008, and claims more than 800 chapters have been established at college campuses across the country, according to their website.

The proposal for organizational status reads that YAL intends to spread Libertarianism in the greater Des Moines area and Drake campus. President of Drakes YAL chapter, first-year Jake Dorsch said that they currently have eight active members, but hope to expand the group through bringing elected officials and candidates to speak to students.

We had a state senator come by, a house candidate, a couple political activists, everything, Dorsch said, citing some of the events Drakes YAL chapter has put on thus far.

Senator Grace Rogers asked Dorsch what he looked to gain from having YAL become an official organization on campus.

I think that I was kind of annoyed when I first came here, because theres only Democrats and Republicans represented at Drake University and I believe we need to hear more voices, Dorsch said.

Dorsch also stated that there are YAL chapters at Iowa State, University of Iowa, University of Northern Iowa and Coe College.

There was a consensus among senators about the desire to bring more political ideologies to campus.

Senator AJ Treiber also supported approving YAL for Drakes campus.

I think its a great idea to have more political discussion on campus, Treiber said. Seeing that Iowa kind of leads the nation, quite literally with the caucuses, I think its great to have that diversity.

Although YAL has been inactive at Drake for multiple years, senators were not completely unfamiliar with the organizations name.

Nearly a year ago, a conservative group called Turning Point USA (TPUSA) came to senate for organizational approval. One of several reasons senate cited for denying this group was allegations that the TPUSA chapter at Iowa State stole contact information from YAL members. There were concerns of student privacy from members, including then-senator Kevin Kane, according to a 2016 Times-Delphic article.

No questions about this concern arose at the meeting. The motion also clearly stated that YAL is a nonprofit organization and cannot endorse any candidates, only Libertarian ideals and philosophy.

According to public filings to the IRS, made accessible by ProPublica, YAL is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, classified as a youth development program.

Senate approved the motion, allowing YAL at Drake to become an official organization and to enjoy the rights and privileges thereof, according to the motion.

See original here:

Student senate approves Libertarian student organization – Times-Delphic

Libertarians clash with Richard Spencer in DC | Washington Examiner – Washington Examiner

There were some unhappy people at this weekend’s libertarian conference when they found Richard Spencer in the building.

Videos posted to social media Saturday showed the white nationalist, often associated with the alt-right movement, attracted a crowd at the International Students for Liberty Conference at a Washington, D.C., hotel.

Sitting at a table with a large white sign bearing his name, Spencer was met with chants of “fuck you,” but offered to talk with those who were willing. He mentioned he was invited to speak at the conference by people attending the event, though one account, citing a libertarian press source, disputed the claim.

Spencer broached topics such as President Trump’s travel ban and getting sucker-punched in the face in Washington, D.C., in January.

Stay abreast of the latest developments from nation’s capital and beyond with curated News Alerts from the Washington Examiner news desk and delivered to your inbox.

Sorry, there was a problem processing your email signup. Please try again later.

Processing…

Thank you for signing up for Washington Examiner News Alerts. You should receive your first alert soon!

At one point Spencer called Jeffrey Tucker, the content director for the Foundation for Economic Education, “totally awful.”

Later, Tucker himself confronted Spencer, saying, “You don’t belong here. Students for Liberty opposes everything that you stand for.” He called Spencer a “troll,” a “fascist” and a “liar.”

Spencer made headlines in November after he gave a toast in Washington, D.C., that drew approving Nazi-style salutes from several conferencegoers. “Hail Trump! Hail our people! Hail victory!” boomed Spencer, popularizer of the term “alt-right” to describe white nationalists, at a National Policy Institute gathering in the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center.

Spencer then extended his right arm with a glass to toast that victory. Most members of the audience cheered. Some can be seen in a video excerpt of a forthcoming documentary extending their right arms and palms instead in unmistakable Nazi-style salutes.

Also from the Washington Examiner

The Odd Couple: Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell.

02/21/17 12:01 AM

Multiple accounts on social media said Spencer was eventually removed from the conference Saturday.

Spencer himself tweeted: “Looks like I was deported by a ‘libertarian’ lover of the deep state guys,” referring to Tucker. Deep state is when government and military officials are involved in secretly guiding the direction of government policy.

Top Story

H.R. McMaster replaces Mike Flynn as Trump’s national security adviser.

By Caitlin Yilek, Kelly Cohen

02/20/17 3:03 PM

Follow this link:

Libertarians clash with Richard Spencer in DC | Washington Examiner – Washington Examiner

Libertarian author Steven Greenhut will talk public employee pensions at Maui County Club – MauiTime Weekly

And now for something fun: Steven Greenhut, a very intelligent and conscientious writerand one of my former editors from my time in Californiawill be on Maui this weekend to do a talk for the Grassroot Institute of Hawaiiabout public employee unions and pensions.

County public employees in the state of Hawaii make among the highest wages in the nation, even after adjusted for Hawaiis high cost of living, states the lecture notice. Steven Greenhut is the author of Plunder! How public employee unions are raiding treasuries, controlling our lives and bankrupting the nation. He will open the books on police and fire departments across the country, and show that the problems of pension spiking, overtime, and Cadillac benefits are also happening in Hawaii.

Greenhut is the Western Region Director for the R Street Institute, a columnist for the Orange County Register and a true libertarian. He opposes public employee unions, big public pensions, eminent domain (which he also wrote a book about), civil asset forfeiture, the drug war, militarized law enforcement and interventionist wars of all types, shapes and sizes.

Seriously, this will be a good talk. Greenhut will speak at 11:30am on Friday, Feb. 24 at the Maui Country Club (48 Nonohe Pl., Paia). The cost is $20, and it includes lunch. Click here for more information.

Photo courtesy Steven Greenhut

More here:

Libertarian author Steven Greenhut will talk public employee pensions at Maui County Club – MauiTime Weekly


12345...102030...