The Obvious Problem With the ‘Simple’ GOP Solution for Health Care – The Fiscal Times


The Fiscal Times
The Obvious Problem With the 'Simple' GOP Solution for Health Care
The Fiscal Times
The moment was valuable not because it revealed that a few Paul backers took their libertarianism to such an extreme that they cheered the idea of letting a sick man perish in the name of freedom, but because of the disgust that the rest of the country

and more »

View post:

The Obvious Problem With the ‘Simple’ GOP Solution for Health Care – The Fiscal Times

SCHMIDT: Political magic: The politics of Penn & Teller – Seguin Gazette-Enterprise

Last September, I discussed South Park for the first time, and how it has taught libertarianism since its debut in 1997. At one point, I discussed how ReasonTV listed it as one of the 5 Best Libertarian TV Shows Ever. When briefly explaining this, I mentioned another show: Showtimes Penn & Teller: Bull****. This particular show, which aired from 2003-2010, starred the famous magician duo, Penn and Teller, and while they present the topic of each episode, they remain in their regular performance fashion where Penn does all the discussion and Teller stays in his mime persona while performing several magic tricks and gags in the background.

Even though in several episodes where they debunk things like detoxing, the apocalypse, and the link between childhood vaccinations and autism, there are other episodes where they discuss social and political issues, and within the episodes, Penn is not afraid to reveal his strong Libertarian views on the issues discussed. When I became a Libertarian four years ago, it was Penn and Tellers show that Zachary, my friend who introduced me to Libertarianism, pointed me to, and after I watched each episode that he suggested, we would discuss it. The episodes I remember that we discussed the most and which covered very strong Libertarian viewpoints where the episodes based on the War on Drugs, the death penalty, and taxes (which included an interview with Former Congressman Ron Paul). Several other episodes that I watched were based on the War on Porn, gun control, video games, and family values.

kAmtG6? E9@F89 E96 D6C:6D 6?565 D6G6? J62CD 28@ 2?5 s’s 3@I D6ED @7 2== 6:89E D62D@?D 2C6 2G2:=23=6 E@ AFC492D6[ 72?D 2?5 G:6H6CD @7 E96 D9@H H6C6 ?@E 96D:E2?E E@ A@DE E96 >@C6 A@=:E:42= 5:D4FDD:@? 4=:AD @7 E96 D9@H @? *@F%F36]k^Am

kAm~?6 @7 E96 >@C6 A@AF=2C 4=:AD 762EFC6D !6?? 5:D4FDD:?8 E96 8@G6C?>6?E C68F=2E:@? @7 4@C? 4C@AD 2?5 4C62E:@? @7 9:89 7CF4E@D6 4@C? DJCFA H9:=6 %6==6C ๐Ÿ˜€ D:EE:?8 @? E96 E23=6 ECJ:?8 E@ AF== @77 >28:4 EC:4

kAmp?@E96C[ H9:49 92D 364@>6 2 >6>6[ 762EFC6D !6?? 5:D4FDD:?8 9@H D6=746?E6C65 2?5 C24:DE D@>6 :?5:G:5F2=D 2C6 H96? E96J 4@>A=2:? @? 9@H 4@F?EC:6D =:F49 7@@5[ H9:49 6?5D H:E9 9:> D2J:?8 F?=6DD J@F 2?5 J@FCD 2C6 DE2CG:?8[ J@F ?665 E@ D9FE E96 YYYY FAPk^Am

kAm~7 4@FCD6[ E96C6 2C6 >2?J >@C6 4=:AD E92E E246?E C68F=2E:@?D]k^Am

kAmx? E96:C A6CD@?2= 2?5 AC:G2E6 =:G6D[ 3@E9 !6?? 2?5 %6==6C 92G6 5:D4FDD65 E96:C A@=:E:42= 36=:67D 2?5 92G6 DEC@?8=J 366? :?G@=G65 H:E9 E96 {:36CE2C:2? >@G6>6?E] q@E9 @7 E96> 2C6 >6>36CD 2?5 C6D62C49 76==@HD @7 E96 {:36CE2C:2? E9:?D6=7 H2D E96 >@56C2E@C 7@C E96 {2D ‘682D {:36CE2C:2? s632E6 5FC:?8 =2DE J62CD AC6D:56?E:2= 6=64E:@?]k^Am

kAm%96J 2=D@ 6IAC6DD E96:C 36=:67D @? D@4:2= >65:2 2D H6== 2D E96:C 72>@FD DE286 D9@HD] !6?? 92D 2=D@ 2AA62C65 ๐Ÿ˜• G:56@D 7@C *@F%F36 492??6=D E92E AC@>@E6 E96 {:36CE2C:2? G:6HA@:?E]k^Am

kAmtG6? ๐Ÿ˜• 9:D 3@@@C6 @7 9:D {:36CE2C:2? G:6HD ๐Ÿ˜• D6G6C2= 492AE6CD[ 2?5 2E @?6 A@:?E[ 96 4C:E:4:K6D $6E9 |24u2C=2?6 WE96 4C62E@C @7 u2>:=J vFJ 2?5 H6== @H? 7@C 9:D DEC@?8 =:36C2= G:6HA@:?EDX 7@C 42==:?8 E96 %62 !2CEJ C24:DED[ 6G6? E9@F89 !6?? D2JD E92E 96 5@6D?E DFAA@CE E96 %62 !2CEJ 3642FD6 96 5:D28C66D H:E9 E96> @? D@4:2= =:36CE:6D[ @FC @G6CD62D H2CD[ ~32>2D 3:CE9A=246[ $2C29 !2=:?[ 2?5 E96 4@?DA:4F@FD 23D6?46 @7 E62 2E E96:C C2==:6D]k^Am

kAmx H@F=5 92G6 E@ D2J E92E x 2> 8=25 E92E !6?? 2?5 %6==6C ๐Ÿ˜€ DE:== 2 A2CE @7 E96 =:36CE2C:2? >@G6>6?E 2?5 AC@>@E:?8 =:36CE2C:2?:D> E@ E9:D 52J] (96E96C :E 36 E9C@F89 E6=6G:D:@?[ D@4:2= >65:2[ @C 6G6? 2E E96:C >28:4 D9@HD[ ๐Ÿ˜• >J @A:?:@?[ !6?? 2?5 %6==6C H:== 36 @?6 @7 E96 36DE 5F@D @FE E96C6 5@:?8 D@]k^Am

kAmk6>m}@=2? $49>:5E ๐Ÿ˜€ 2? :?56A6?56?E 7:=>>2mk^Am

Read more from the original source:

SCHMIDT: Political magic: The politics of Penn & Teller – Seguin Gazette-Enterprise

‘Democracy In Chains’ Traces The Rise Of American Libertarianism – WPSU

Obscuring census data to give “conservative districts more than their fair share of representation.” Preventing access to the vote. Decrying “socialized medicine.” Trying to end Social Security using dishonest vocabulary like “strengthened.” Lionizing Lenin. Attempting to institute voucher programs to “get out of the business of public education.” Increasing corporatization of higher education. Harboring a desire, at heart, to change the Constitution itself.

This unsettling list could be 2017 Bingo. In fact, it’s from half a century earlier, when economist James Buchanan an early herald of libertarianism began to cultivate a group of like-minded thinkers with the goal of changing government. This ideology eventually reached the billionaire Charles Koch; the rest is, well, 2017 Bingo.

This sixty-year campaign to make libertarianism mainstream and eventually take the government itself is at the heart of Democracy in Chains. It’s grim going; this isn’t the first time Nancy MacLean has investigated the dark side of the American conservative movement (she also wrote Behind the Mask of Chivalry: The Making of the Second Ku Klux Klan), but it’s the one that feels like it was written with a clock ticking down.

Still, it takes the time to meticulously trace how we got here from there. Charles and his brother David Koch have been pushing the libertarian agenda for more than 20 years. A generation before them, Buchanan founded a series of enclaves to study ways to make government bend. Before that, critic and historian Donald Davidson coined the term “Leviathan” in the 1930s for the federal government, and blamed northeasterners for “pushing workers’ rights and federal regulations. Such ideas could never arise from American soil, Davidson insisted. They were ‘alien’ European imports brought by baleful characters.” And going back another century, the book locates the movement’s center in the fundamentalism of Vice President John C. Calhoun, for whom the ideas of capital and self-worth were inextricably intertwined. (Spoilers: It was about slavery.)

Buchanan headed a group of radical thinkers (he told his allies “conspiratorial secrecy is at all times essential”), who worked to centralize power in states like Virginia. They eschewed empirical research. They termed taxes “slavery.” They tried repeatedly to strike down progressive action school integration, Social Security claiming it wasn’t economically sound. And they had the patience and the money to weather failures in their quest to win.

As MacLean lays out in their own words, these men developed a strategy of misinformation and lying about outcomes until they had enough power that the public couldn’t retaliate against policies libertarians knew were destructive. (Look no further than Flint, MacLean says, where the Koch-funded Mackinac Center was behind policies that led to the water crisis.) And it’s painstakingly laid out. This is a book written for the skeptic; MacLean’s dedicated to connecting the dots.

She gives full due to the men’s intellectual rigor; Buchanan won the Nobel for economics, and it’s hard to deny that he and the Koch brothers have had some success. (Alongside players like Dick Armey and Tyler Cowen, there are cameos from Newt Gingrich, John Kasich, Mitt Romney, and Antonin Scalia.) But this isn’t a biography. Besides occasional asides, MacLean’s much more concerned with ideology and policy. By the time we reach Buchanan’s role in the rise of Chilean strongman Augusto Pinochet (which backfired so badly on the people of Chile that Buchanan remained silent about it for the rest of his life), that’s all you need to know about who Buchanan was.

If you’re worried about what all this means for America’s future, you should be. The clear and present danger is hard to ignore. When nearly every radical belief the Buchanan school ever floated is held by a member of the current administration, it’s bad news.

But it’s worth noting that the primary practice outlined in this book is the leveraging of money to protect money and the counter-practice is the vocal and sustained will of the people. We are, Democracy in Chains is clear, at a precipice. At the moment, the first practice is winning. If you don’t like it, now’s the time to try the second. And if someone you know isn’t convinced, you have just the book to hand them.

Genevieve Valentine’s latest novel is Icon.

View post:

‘Democracy In Chains’ Traces The Rise Of American Libertarianism – WPSU

The Grenfell Tower Fire and Political Libertarianism – Patheos (blog)

I would have been fourteen or fifteen. I was at summer camp, and cabin inspections generated intense competition. And no wonderthe cabin with the lowest cabin inspection score each dayhad to clean the bathrooms at 11 p.m., while everyone else was in bed. One morningone of the boys cabins disabled their cabins fire detector, taking out the battery and labeling it an OSHA violation. Oh boy did they get cabin inspection points for that.As the week went on, rigging an OSHA violation before cabin inspections became a matter of course.

Perhaps I should explain. This was no ordinary summer camp. It was a camp that combined fundamentalist Christianity with libertarian political views. At the campfire each night wesang songs that made fun of the United Nation. In our daily sessions we learned that social security was an unsustainable Ponzi scheme, thatenvironmental protection regulations were a plot by the UN to turn the world into a dictatorship ultimately led by the Antichrist, and that farmers whoencounterendangered species on their land should shoot, shovel, and shut up to avoid losing use of their land.

But today, my mind is drawn to the disabled fire detectorand the praise the boys in that cabin received for their innovation in rigging up an OSHA violation. And my mind is drawn to something elsethe dozens of lives lost inGrenfell Tower, lives that might have been saved had the building had functioning alarm and sprinkler systems.

With Grenfell Tower, weve seen what ripping up red tape really looks like, George Monboit wrote on Thursday in an opinion piece in The Guardian. Grenfell Tower will forever stand as a rebuke to the right, Jonathan Freedland declared in the same publication a day later.It seems that in 2014, the U.K. minister of housing declined to require sprinklersbecause the Tory Government had committed to reduce regulations.We believe that it is the responsibility of the fire industry, rather than the Government, to market fire sprinkler systems effectively and to encourage their wider installation, he said.

I grew up in the U.S., not the U.K., but this rhetoric isachingly familiar.

One would think that the Grenfell Tower fire, with its colossal loss of life,would make clear the necessity of basic safety requirements like sprinklers. Not so.On Friday, U.S. libertarian journalist Megan McArdle wrote an opinion piece in Bloomberg. Perhaps safety rules could have saved some residents, she wrote.But at what cost to others lives? Theres always a trade-off. Hereis the core of McArdles argument:

If it costs more to build buildings, then rents will rise. People will be forced to live in smaller spaces, perhaps farther away. Some of them, in fact, may be forced to commute by automobile, and then die in a car accident. We dont see those costs in the same way as we see a fires victims; we will never know the name of the guy who was killed in a car accident because he had to live far from work because rents rose because regulators required sprinkler systems.

When it comes to many regulations, it is best to leave such calculations of benefit and cost to the market, rather than the government. People can make their own assessments of the risks, and the price theyre willing to pay to allay them, rather than substituting the judgment of some politician or bureaucrat who will not receive the benefit or pay the cost.

Its possible that by allowing large residential buildings to operate without sprinkler systems, the British government has prevented untold thousands of people from being driven into homelessness by higher housing costs. Hold these possibilities in mind before condemning those who chose to spend government resources on other priorities. Regulatory decisions are never without costs, and sometimes their benefits are invisible.

McArdle still believes that sprinkler systems should be optional. But in her insistence that people can make their own assessments of the risk shes ignoring something elsethat the residents at Grenfell Tower wanted a sprinkler system. They organized and made demandsdemands that, if met, would have saved lives in last weeks fire. They were ignored. This isnt a case where people happily chose to live in a dangerous building because its rents were lower.

Im going to hazard a guess that no one wants to live in a firetrap, no matter how low the rents are. We as a society benefit from ensuring a certain minimum standard for our housing. Certainly, we can talk about overregulation. Where I live, I am required by city codeto obtain a permit to build so much as a porch. But requiring sprinklers in high-rises is not overregulation, and McArdles solution to homelessness appears to be dangerous slums.

Interestingly,experts have notedthatif the Grenfell Tower had been built four years earlier, it would likely have collapsed during the blaze, costing only more lives. After a gas explosion caused a high rise to collapse, new building requirements were put in place to ensure that a structure would not collapse in case of fire or a blast. Built several years later, the Grenfell Tower was constructed in accordance with thenewregulations, and thus did not collapse.

There are societal benefits to having minimum housing standards. Chicago learned this in 1871, when a single fire spread quickly due to substandard (or nonexistent)fire safety standards, destroying over three square miles of the city and taking 300 lives. A fire in one building can spread to another, meaning thatfire safety standards affect whole communities, not individual buildings alone. The same is true of indoor plumbing and disease, which like fire can easily spread.

Making safety standards optional leads to a system where low rent buildings are firetrapsone where only those with the ability to pay can avoid living in dangerous conditions. McArdle acknowledges this when she states that requiring builders to abide by minimum safety standards raises rents and makes people homeless. But while most respond to high rents with various rent reduction proposals, and to homelessness with shelters and transition to housing proposals, McArdle responds to both by suggesting that those who cannot afford to live elsewhere should be forced to live in firetraps.

McArdle frames the issue as one of personal choice. People can make their own assessments of the risks, and the price theyre willing to pay to allay them, she writes. This assumes that people have enough money to choose, which she admits (in her reference to homelessness) that they often do not. Thisadmission betrays her insistence on personal choice.

We can both ensure minimum safety standards in building housing and find ways to offset rising rents.We can both ensure that buildings have sprinkler systems and find ways to address homelessness. McArdle suggests that we handle homelessness and high rents by bringing back slums, but we live in a society that has the resources to upholdbasic safety standards while ensuring that affordable housing is available for those who need it. We have a social responsibility to do more than wash our hands of the issue and shrug when a high-rise fire claimsover sixdozen lives.

That camp I attended as a teen still takes place every summer, impartingthe samelibertarianmission and vision to new groups of children. It pains me to realize this, but it is unlikely that the Grenfell Tower fire will result in any change in whatstudents there are taught. For those who runthe camp, as for McArdle, it is government regulationand not fire, collapse, or diseasethat is the enemy.

Perhaps even now, as I write, campers are preparing for cabin inspection bydisabling their fire detectors and labeling OSHA violations.

I have a Patreon! Please support my writing!

View post:

The Grenfell Tower Fire and Political Libertarianism – Patheos (blog)

Alex Jones does NOT represent libertarians – Conservative Review


Conservative Review
Alex Jones does NOT represent libertarians
Conservative Review
Megyn Kelly made headlines this week for her interview with controversial broadcaster Alex Jones, a self-described libertarian. For someone like me, this is distressing for a number of reasons. First, there's just the shameless appeal to sensationalism

Read more from the original source:

Alex Jones does NOT represent libertarians – Conservative Review

‘Democracy In Chains’ Traces The Rise Of American Libertarianism – KRVS

Obscuring census data to give “conservative districts more than their fair share of representation.” Preventing access to the vote. Decrying “socialized medicine.” Trying to end Social Security using dishonest vocabulary like “strengthened.” Lionizing Lenin. Attempting to institute voucher programs to “get out of the business of public education.” Increasing corporatization of higher education. Harboring a desire, at heart, to change the Constitution itself.

This unsettling list could be 2017 Bingo. In fact, it’s from half a century earlier, when economist James Buchanan an early herald of libertarianism began to cultivate a group of like-minded thinkers with the goal of changing government. This ideology eventually reached the billionaire Charles Koch; the rest is, well, 2017 Bingo.

This sixty-year campaign to make libertarianism mainstream and eventually take the government itself is at the heart of Democracy in Chains. It’s grim going; this isn’t the first time Nancy MacLean has investigated the dark side of the American conservative movement (she also wrote Behind the Mask of Chivalry: The Making of the Second Ku Klux Klan), but it’s the one that feels like it was written with a clock ticking down.

Still, it takes the time to meticulously trace how we got here from there. Charles and his brother David Koch have been pushing the libertarian agenda for more than 20 years. A generation before them, Buchanan founded a series of enclaves to study ways to make government bend. Before that, critic and historian Donald Davidson coined the term “Leviathan” in the 1930s for the federal government, and blamed northeasterners for “pushing workers’ rights and federal regulations. Such ideas could never arise from American soil, Davidson insisted. They were ‘alien’ European imports brought by baleful characters.” And going back another century, the book locates the movement’s center in the fundamentalism of Vice President John C. Calhoun, for whom the ideas of capital and self-worth were inextricably intertwined. (Spoilers: It was about slavery.)

Buchanan headed a group of radical thinkers (he told his allies “conspiratorial secrecy is at all times essential”), who worked to centralize power in states like Virginia. They eschewed empirical research. They termed taxes “slavery.” They tried repeatedly to strike down progressive action school integration, Social Security claiming it wasn’t economically sound. And they had the patience and the money to weather failures in their quest to win.

As MacLean lays out in their own words, these men developed a strategy of misinformation and lying about outcomes until they had enough power that the public couldn’t retaliate against policies libertarians knew were destructive. (Look no further than Flint, MacLean says, where the Koch-funded Mackinac Center was behind policies that led to the water crisis.) And it’s painstakingly laid out. This is a book written for the skeptic; MacLean’s dedicated to connecting the dots.

She gives full due to the men’s intellectual rigor; Buchanan won the Nobel for economics, and it’s hard to deny that he and the Koch brothers have had some success. (Alongside players like Dick Armey and Tyler Cowen, there are cameos from Newt Gingrich, John Kasich, Mitt Romney, and Antonin Scalia.) But this isn’t a biography. Besides occasional asides, MacLean’s much more concerned with ideology and policy. By the time we reach Buchanan’s role in the rise of Chilean strongman Augusto Pinochet (which backfired so badly on the people of Chile that Buchanan remained silent about it for the rest of his life), that’s all you need to know about who Buchanan was.

If you’re worried about what all this means for America’s future, you should be. The clear and present danger is hard to ignore. When nearly every radical belief the Buchanan school ever floated is held by a member of the current administration, it’s bad news.

But it’s worth noting that the primary practice outlined in this book is the leveraging of money to protect money and the counter-practice is the vocal and sustained will of the people. We are, Democracy in Chains is clear, at a precipice. At the moment, the first practice is winning. If you don’t like it, now’s the time to try the second. And if someone you know isn’t convinced, you have just the book to hand them.

Genevieve Valentine’s latest novel is Icon.

Read more:

‘Democracy In Chains’ Traces The Rise Of American Libertarianism – KRVS

A Socialist Answers Five Questions From A Libertarian – Patheos (blog)

Previously I interviewed my friend Michael, who identifies as a libertarian. Despite our ideological differences, I really appreciated Michael taking time to chat with me about politics! I certainly learned a lot from his answers and it definitely helped me understand libertarianismin greater detail. My goal here is to reduce political polarization through mutual understanding. This time Michael asked me some questions and here aremy answers!

Michael:In your view, what does the individual owe to society, speaking in terms of moral and practical obligations? Conversely, what does society owe to the individual?

Matthew: As you discussin your answers, humans are fundamentally social creatures. Because of this, I do think there are certain obligations the individual should owe for society for it to work more effectively. Broadly, we should aim to not harm each other and help each other when possible.

Ideally, I would like society to offer a space of equality for everyone where they can express themselves how they wish if it doesnt interfere with other peoples liberty. However, I also think that if we have more than enough for ourselves, we should feel morally obligated to give to those less fortunate. The income inequality in the United States is ludicrous right now and only getting worse. I would like to the super wealthy give more to those who they make their money from.

Of course, actually making sure the wealthy give up some of their wealth is tricky! Right now we have elevated tax brackets for the wealthy and I personally think they could be even higher. Its not a perfect system, but taxing the wealthy and funneling some of their money into programs who help those who need it is still better than not providing any help to those in need.

Michael: As I mentioned in my responses, one of the things I most admire about you and many fine folks on the Left is your concern for those in need. My question is, What do you see as the boundaries of this moral concern? In other wordsand this does tie into my last questionis there a point at which an individual should be left to face the consequences of bad decision-making, without society stepping in to provide for them? For the sake of clarity, let me specify that here I am particularly thinking of people who run up massive gambling debts, or who abuse alcohol and/or other drugs until they lose jobs, homes, families, etc., and show no sign of sincerely wanting to change.

Matthew: Practically, there has to be some point. Even the most socialist utopia wouldnt be able to solve everyones problems through societal intervention. I suppose I take a rather utilitarian approach to this. If we tried to pour resources in solving everyones issues, it would be impossible and we would run out of resources. But I do think spending resources on large problems (for example, making sure the sick and disabled receive health care) is a worthwhile cause. We should aim to help as many people as we can with as few resources as we can.

But yes, I do think there should be checks in place so people dont abuse the system. However, for every person who finds some loophole with food stamps to eat lobster, there are many more that use them to feed their children. As I said above, I dont delude myself in thinking tax funded programs are 100% efficient. Far from it. But an imperfect system is better than nothing.

Michael: To what extent do you see connections between economic freedom and social freedomor do you see them as very different? For the purposes of this question, I will define economic freedom in terms of the ability to buy and sell ones labor and goods with others who are similarly free, and social freedom as the ability to express ones self, live as one wishes, marry whom one wishes, etc.

A quick word on where Im coming from with this question: my experience from my time on the Left, and from things I have seen since, is that many progressive liberals have a strong and very commendable commitment to social freedoms, particularly for LGBT people, women, and minority groups, but a deep skepticism of the free enterprise and markets system (aka capitalism). To my eye, the two are connected: having the freedom to buy and sell with people in other countries without having to pay onerous tariffs, for example, seems logically of a piece with the idea that discrimination against people because of race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, or sexual orientation is wrong.

Matthew: This is a great question and one Im constantly reflecting on. On the left, I know plenty of people who think they are connected, but in the opposite direction! As I mentioned above, those federal programs that offer food and healthcare aim to help those in need. So we forfeit some economic freedom to help out the most vulnerable groups like the poor, elderly, and disabled.

Again, I concede these programs are not perfect. I can understand how it would be frustrating to see ones money be taken away for a program that has explicit flaws. But again, I consider this the best option with what we have to work with. I think having a system in place to give is still better than hoping people give on their own without any direction.

Michael: Out of all the various activities in which the government is involved, and on which it spends money, are there any that strike you as unjust and objectionable? Which functions, if any, would you eliminate entirely, and which functions, if any, would you reform or change to make them more desirable?

Matthew: Yes! I dont care for our massive military budget as I think too often America tries to be the worlds police officer and doesnt always do a good job. An example of something that should be completely eliminated would be abstinence only education (which I believe most funding is now gone thankfully). Or of course many of Trumps proposals like his infamous wall.

Perhapslibertarians and socialists can find a lot of common ground with reforming programs. The issue I always have with libertarianism is the intermediate steps. Yes, lets say that a particular program is not working super well, but is still helping some people.If we slash the program, those people who really need it get screwed. Maybe we can work on some intermediate steps to make sure the program becomes more efficient, but those who need the services can still get them somehow.

So I can relate to a more libertarian perspective orientation here. When I see the government spending my tax dollars on things I feel very strongly against, I definitely do not enjoy it. However, I am in favor of things like healthcare and education so while the government may not do the most efficient job with covering those things, I am much more content in paying taxes on them. My hope and goal is to shape the government to fund efficient and helpfulprograms and reform them with any new evidence that arises.

Michael: When you think about the current state of the Left-Right divide in our country, particularly after the election (shudder), what message or insights do you most wish conservatives and libertarians would take the time to understand and internalize about progressive liberals and Democrat voters? How would you like people on the Right to view you, and people with similar views, such that they might be more willing to engage with folks on the Left in a respectful and civil manner?

Matthew: In general I wish everyone would make a stronger effort to understand their opposition. Too often we are quick to use strawman arguments and demonize people with bad information for merely being on the other side. We should all be mindful that we are biased and make our best effort to reflect on our own positions. You may not completely shift your values, but sometimes listening to those you strongly disagree with can illustrate some weaknesses in your own position.

For example, I think too often libertarians think socialists just want free stuff without considering why we think socialized things are important. Its not that we are lazy and dont want to pay for anything, we think that the government providing healthcare, education, and other resources is the best way for everyone to get what they need to live a happy and healthy life. Additionally, I think its unfair when socialists claim libertarians are incredibly selfish that dont care about anyone. I think many libertarians do care, they just think liberty, above other things, is most important for the well-being of our society. So we may all want similar things and our society to do well, we often just disagree on the methods.

On a related note, I also feel like conservatives are too quick to demonize those who care about social justice and lump us all in one group. Yes, there are jerks in every group, but to focus on a handful of people is simply unfair. Try talking to a variety of liberals and social justice activists. Try making an honest effort to listen to what we are concerned about. You might even find that we agree sometimes!

PS: I now have a Patreon if youd like to support my writing and podcasting.

See the original post here:

A Socialist Answers Five Questions From A Libertarian – Patheos (blog)

The Rise and Fall of Prog Rockand of Libertarianism [Reason Podcast] – Reason (blog)

“There’s not a-vote-for-this-party type of politics” in progressive rock, says David Weigel, author of The Show That Never Ends: The Rise and Fall of Prog Rock, “There is a utopianism about it….’Let’s create a new world….It was very much a music and lifestyle where you tuned out, where you went to a festival, where you got into an arena. And a time where there were fewer distractions, as well.

Weigel’s history of a musical genre that includes bands such as King Crimson, Yes, ELP, Genesis, and more is a rich journey into one of rock’s least-appreciated moments. The former Reason staffer (archive here) who now covers national politics for The Washington Post argues that many subsequent forms of music owe significant but often-unacknowledged debts to the organ-centric sounds of prog rock.

In a wide-ranging conversation with Nick Gillespie, Weigel weighs in on politics in the Trump era. “There is not a lot of space for libertarianism in politics right now…except on the issues where libertarianism intersects with the donors who have done the most for Donald Trump. I feel like my friends at the Competitive Enterprise Institute are pretty happy about Trump’s positions on climate. [CEI’s] Myron Ebell [has] literally joined the administration,” he says. “But the criminal justice reform side of libertarianism has kind of retreated to the states, where it’s doing okay but has no clout in DC anymore.”

Audio production by Ian Keyser.

Subscribe, rate, and review the Reason Podcast at iTunes. Listen at SoundCloud below:

Don’t miss a single Reason podcast! (Archive here.)

Subscribe at iTunes.

Follow us at SoundCloud.

Subscribe at YouTube.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

THIS IS AN UNCORRECTED RUSH TRANSCRIPT. PLEASE CHECK AGAINST AUDIO FOR ACCURACY BEFORE QUOTING.

Nick Gillespie: Hi, I’m Nick Gillespie, and this is the Reason Podcast. Please subscribe to us at iTunes and rate and review us while you’re there. Today we are talking with David Weigel, he’s a politics reporter at the Washington Post, a former Reason employee, but the reason that we’re talking today is he’s the author of the incredible new book, The Show That Never Ends: The Rise and Fall of Prog Rock. Dave Weigel, thanks for talking to us.

Dave Weigel: Thank you for having me to talk about it. Appreciate it.

Nick Gillespie: All right, well let’s get right to it. The rise and fall of Prog Rock, of progressive rock. What is the thesis of The Show That Never Ends?

Dave Weigel: It’s that rock history, which I take pretty seriously, which honestly occupied a lot of my mind before I got into covering politics like I do now. That rock history had cut out what I thought was actually really dynamic, important, informative music, the progressive rock movement. And I also, I kind of lean in…right, the book in arguing that the progressive musicians, Keith Emerson, Robert Fripp, Peter Gabriel. These people invented a lot of stuff that was happily taken by more let’s say critically approved bands. You know, the stuff that is credited to electropop or to punk, I mean a lot of that these guys did first, and they did it in a very popular and arena-filling way that was left out once people said, actually that was garbage, we’re going to go with punk. And by people I mean like…it’s a really clear decision by the record industry and critics. We can get into that.

Nick Gillespie: Well, define…what are the core elements of progressive rock? You know, how do we…and throughout the book you kind of talk about how like Led Zeppelin, which in many ways certainly, probably the biggest selling band of the period from about ’68 to ’78 or whenever they broke up. But it’s true that ELP, Emerson, Like, and Palmer, Yes, Genesis, they could fill stadiums as well, they were gigantic. But you point out that Led Zeppelin is not progressive rock. Even though they’ve got multi-instrumentation, a lot of experimentation, really long solos. Jimmy Plant using one of the other band members to play the bow on a cello or something like that. So what is progressive rock in its essence?

Dave Weigel: You mentioned Led Zeppelin soloist who I think a lot of people broke them in with progressive because lyrics about fairies and Tolken and stuff, and people think, oh that’s what prog is, right? Not really. The way that I was happy defining it because people who played it and critics who wrote about it defined it is just extremely ambitious music that kind of started in western sixties garage rock forms, and expanded to include classical influences, eastern influences, electronic music, discordant music, but basically ambitious and technically proficient music based on rock. And so, it is a loose definition, as the last person who still organizes an iTunes and CDs, and you have those struggles, like is this post-punk, is this punk?

With progressive there are bands that also morphed during their lifetimes. Marillion started as a very progressive revivalist band in the early eighties, and by the nineties were something a lot more akin to alternative rock, although they were branded so they weren’t really considered part of it. It’s changeable, you can dip in and out of it, but I think it’s just basically this music that was ambitious and it’s defined in the book by other writers. These guys from the sixties and seventies who lifted this stuff up. Because this London scene, Hanneberry scene, little bit later western Europe. These bands coming out of these all-night parties and these festivals where writing extremely complicated music, where incorporating quotes from Brahms and Bach into it, were not just soloing, but trading off technical solos that were not just like … there are solos in all of rock that are just, watching go up and down these scales. But solos that were moving from form to form, and style to style in a way that … the whole thing is that music had not done that before then. Pop music had not done it before then, and pop music hasn’t really done it since.

Nick Gillespie: You talk a lot about how progressive rock is fundamentally a British phenomenon. It seems … and to put it in a time context, in all of this stuff you can go back to … find earlier and earlier antecedents, but it really kind of explodes in the late sixties with bands like Soft Machine, and then especially King Crimson, and Yes, and Genesis. ELP. But talk a bit about the Britishness of it, and also the way that it departed from traditional rock and roll as a kind of rebellion against your father’s music. Because this was kind of as you were so saying, there’s quotations from Brahms and Yes would enter the stadium to strains from the Firebird Suite and whatnot. ELP actually put out a version of Pictures at an Exhibition. They were rebelling, I guess, against maybe the Animals, or Simon and Garfunkel, maybe, but they were also embracing their great-grandfathers. What’s the Britishness element about in all this?

Dave Weigel: The thing that you hear the first when you’re listening for it is the influence actually of Anglican church music. And just … and these big sweeping chords you hear in Yes music, in a lot of what ELP does, you hear this classical English hymn is played on a pipe organ, piped through stuff like Hammond’s and Mogue’s. There’s just this very … I don’t want to use the word pompous because it’s negative, but pomp.

Nick Gillespie: Yeah …

Dave Weigel: Music that contains pomp that these guys listened to.

Nick Gillespie: So this is Elgar on acid, basically.

Dave Weigel: Yeah. That was there. A lot of these guys … I start the book pretty early in the nineteenth century with the classical music that introduced mania and spectacle to popular music.

Nick Gillespie: And this is particularly Franz Liszt who Ken Russell obviously did that. You know and had Roger Daltrey play Liszt and Lisztomania and …

Dave Weigel: They had Rick Wakeman play Thor … I go to the mid-sixties because these guys were just a little bit younger than the Beatles. The same generation, same cohort, so they’re all listening to music and … Against the stereotype, they’re not all going to private schools. Or as they’re confusedly called in Britain, public schools. They’re usually pretty working class, coming out of the austerity of the … of World War II, and they have a record player. They have church. They have these limited influences. Yeah, talk about Greg Lake rushing to … well he might have over hyped a little bit because of the drama. The new records that the GIs brought back, things like that. So these same influences, but starting a little bit later. I mean, they go through a journey that’s pretty similar to what the Beatles did, and the Beatles, Joseph Campbell’s story is pretty … has been parodied a bunch of times now. With the Vans discovering drugs and religion and sitars. But …

Nick Gillespie: But it is fascinating … you know, putting this in a historical context, which for those of us, even people who grew up in the United States, during World War II or the Depression had it easier than the Brits. Because on top of everything else you had actual bombing and wartime destruction of everything. It’s kind of fascinating and it di remind me of books about the Beatles and early rockers in England in the fifties of just how hard it was even to get instruments. And that’s a constant constraint, it seems for these guys because mellotrons and synthesizers were really expensive. So it’s partly the church stuff, right, because the organ seems to be a vary … organs and keyboards seem to be front and center in progressive rock in a way that they are certainly not generally in regular rock bands.

Dave Weigel: Yeah, and they just carry this sort of importance that … it wasn’t obviously there in the more derivative music I like a lot, but the more garage rock stuff that some of these bands were part of. Listen to Tomorrow or Sin or these first bands, really early Procul Harem and Moody Blues. They were pretty happy covering Motown sounds and just adding fuzz bucks to them. Like the who were.

And I leave … I deal a little bit with the Who in here because they just … these guys in their early and mid-twenties were having more fun taking their technical knowledge and saying all right, we’ve kind of mastered how to cover Martha and the Vandellas, and add some fuzz to it. So what if we’re covering Rondo, what if we’re covering classical musicians, what if we’re covering Bolero, in the case of King Crimson. And finding that there’s just … one thing that I try to emphasize … there’s this idea of music being really gossamer, and impenetrable and too noodly to get into, but no it’s always pretty anchored in melody and what the members found compelling.

It’s also … I don’t deal a lot with drugs, except for later in ELP’s career, because I asked them, and they really weren’t on them. With the exception of some guys like David Allen and Soft Machine and Gong, they’re mostly just pounding beer. I mean, I talk about Mike Oldfield writing Tubular Bells, having filled the champagne magnum with Guinness, and just pounding it. Like they were … the style of creation that you would see when the Ramones were writing two-minute songs. Which I also like a lot, but it was just the way their heads went, where I am bored with the simple forms. I’m going to rebel against the three-minute pop structure and I want to write pop symphonies. Kind of in the way Brian Wilson did, but I think even with a greater ambition, and a little bit, obviously less burnout. Because these guys did it for years.

Nick Gillespie: Yeah, you know speaking of beer as the kind of drink of choice, or the drug of choice, I remember … I got into progressive rock. Mostly my brother, who’s older than me, came home from college in the late seventies with Yes songs, the triple album, and we would always laugh because there’s a picture of Rick Wakeman, who has like eight hundred keyboards around him, and there are beer bottles everywhere. Like where he can’t swing one arm of his cape without knocking over a case of empty Millers. Or something. Or Schmitty tallboys. King Crimson really occupies the place of pride in the book. Explain what is so important about King Crimson.

Dave Weigel: They’re a wellspring for a lot of what came in the late sixties, and then what comes important later. I mean decades later when progressive rock is just influencing music that sounds nothing like it. Like electronic music, heavy metal, things like that. It starts with Robert Fripp, the guitarist who kind of putting together a larger band from a smaller band with these two brothers, Michael Giles and Peter Giles, the drummer and the bassist. He adds woodwinds and keyboards in McDonald. He adds a full-time lyricist and lights manager, Peter Sinfield. And adds Greg Lake, who is a kind of barrel-chested, classic rock star signer on bass. And they become just for a very short moment, this enormous, big-next-thing band. One of those bands where the first album really is a statement that can stand on its own. Even though they did everything else …

Nick Gillespie: And that is the In the Court of the Crimson King. With the ultimate rock album Nostril Shot, as I recall this.

Dave Weigel: This first song on the album, 21st century Schizo Man, there are metal elements to it. There are jazz elements that McDonald had kind of goofed around with when eh was playing woodwinds in the army. There are all these things just colliding against each other, and it’s a popular album, and the band immediately falls apart. Just for the normal reasons that bands break apart, Greg Lake leaves pretty soon, Emerson, Lincoln Palmer, other members start dropping off. And the band becomes basically whatever Robert Fripp finds interesting at that moment.

And I spent a lot of time on Fripp because he just … he’s one of these characters you find sometimes in any kind of history who is extremely loquacious and so arch about his place in the moment. He’s almost like a Lewis Carroll character. He’s very good at analyzing his own sex appeal, and analyzing why he hates crowls, and whether the music he just produced is interesting and worth promoting or not. Just because reassembling the band so they … through the seventies, just for the short period of five years, changed their sound multiple times. They break up with Red, which is a much more metal sounding album. And for that reason, very influential for bands like Tool and Perfect Circle, people like that.

He leaves and Fripp basically goes into seclusion in a … what I will not call a cult, but it was sort of a religious tendency he picks up. Returns to becoming a much more avant garde performer and through that … and also not somebody who likes the term progressive rock. He really … he hates being classified as prog … he’s very happy to see punk come along and obliterate all this. And I have the scene in the book where he sees ELP at kind of the height of their ridiculousness, when they’re touring with an orchestra in Madison Square Garden and just has it out with Greg Lake so much. Years after the guy had clearly succeeded beyond what King Crimson could ever do, that he just gets kicked out of his limo.

But he is much happier with looping experiments, with … he produces a folk band, The Roaches, and opens up their sound. He’s the guitar player on the song Heroes, which is I think a tone … one of those songs where anything that sounds even a little bit it sounds like a rip off. Like a truly unique song that he plays. And then restarts in the eighties, bring in Adrian Belew who kind of sounded like him when he was playing with Talking Heads for a kind of art rock band. Several times over the decades, King Crimson just keeps inventing a different version of this music, which is never …

And again, people who are not always comfortable calling it progressive rock but which is always taking … okay, I guess the inspiration each time being okay, there’s this music. We’re pretty bored by that. How can we play with this, how can we structure our guitar solos so that they’re interlocking, how can we … stuff like that I cut out of the book because I just got so into writing about it. This whole album of tape loop experiments with David Byrne reciting the names of different philosophies over it. He becomes a very art rock guy.

And then … he today, Robert Fripp is still touring with this band with a three drummer line up. Again, something he never did … and I just, whatever they’re in, if they’re in politics, which I cover mostly. If they’re in film, in they’re in music, especially, just people like that who clearly just need to do the next thing and don’t want to go back and play the hits. Like King Crimson will play songs they wrote 50 years ago, but they completely rearranged them because Fripp is not about to sit there and just bang out like the rift Satisfaction and have … he sees the music needs to be fresh wherever it’s played. And I think that is kind of the attitude that some of the classical composers that I write about in the very beginning. The book had … it is got to be music that you can reinterpret. He can’t just be a pop song for quick radio consumption that talks a little bit about how great it is to fall in love and to make love, and you’re in and out.

Nick Gillespie: At the same time, and I agree that’s an interesting way to put it. You talk about this in the book, The Show that Never Ends, which of course comes from an ELP opening track. But it’s a time where rock music and it was obviously aping progressive jazz on a certain level. But it was like, okay we need to move beyond the … it was really more like a two-minute pop song, and then it had merged by the end of the sixties into a three-minute pop song. We need to talk about stuff more than simple love and puppy love, and that type of stuff. Would you agree though that there is also an epic amount of silliness in the form, which is kind of entwined with it’s seriousness? And I … Keith Emerson’s early band The Nice had an album called The Golden Apples of Emerless Daft Jack, which is anagram …

Dave Weigel: their names, including a member they would soon kick out of the band because he kept getting hi on LSD and passing out during concerts.

Nick Gillespie: Yeah and I mean, there’s so much silliness in, you know … you describe ELP in a lot of ways I guess may have been the most successful in that the band toured the biggest possible stadiums, the name of the band was simply the letters of the last … first letters of the last name of the band. Each of them was a virtuoso. I think of a song like Lucky Man, which was I guess their biggest single hit, which starts out as kind of a pirate-y song about channeling … like a Paul Simon lyric about a man with white horses and ladies by the score. And then it ends in this totally inappropriate, to my mind, synthesized … twenty minute, it sounds like synthesizer solo that has nothing to do with pirate ships. Pirates had nothing to do with it. I mean, what … how does the silliness and the kind of you know baroque overexaggeration, how does that fit in with the seriousness of the music for you?

Dave Weigel: Well, they were aware of the silliness. Like that song … I tried to explain in the book, the interplay … how ELP got along. And it was not always well, I mean they were three very talented people. Palmer, the drummer, the most easy to get along with. But Emerson and Lake with gigantic egos, and Emerson had said explicitly several times through his life, Lake was bitter because he was playing with two virtuosos, and he was … his name was in the same lights, but he clearly wasn’t as good as they were.

And so this was a … Lucky Man was almost a doggerel that Keith Lake wrote when he was a teenager, and Lake, Emerson threw this experimental Moog solo on it because he thought, I have a Moog, let me tool around with it. It was, not just experimental, but it was not pompous. It was fun, and with Yes. As serious, so John Anderson’s lyrics by far are the most … the most high-minded peace about Yes. John Anderson writes lyrics like he’s writing the Bhavagad Gita every night, if you open up Tales from Topographic Oceans, for any of them. After listening to a lot of his music, one of the guys I find it hardest to place which lyric is from what song. So he takes it very seriously, but everyone else in the band was just basically a good rock musician who just thought this stuff was fun.

And you saw it when they break off in their solo careers for a couple of years in the 1970s, you know Steve Howell was playing classical guitar because that was … that’s what he wanted to get to from all this. So they were basically … it was not we’re going to … There’s forms of music I find a lot more pretentious. I mean, there’s a lot of punk, like Crass and the Adverts that were trying … Or even John Liden who always did this, in I think a really calculated way. They were trying to make their music the focal point of a better way of living. Better philosophy. We’re going to take … break down the system. And progressive rock was rebellious, but it was basically fun. And so yeah, they’re very aware … like even there are bands like Jade Warrior where their whole gimmick is everything sounds like everything is influenced by Japanese instruments. There’s Gryphon, everything sounds like it’s at a Renaissance fair, who had opened for Yes sometimes. Gentle Giant, they were all basically normal people who just … this was fun to them. They’d be bored playing something less ambitious.

Nick Gillespie: Talk about … yeah, that dimension of kind of pleasure and of self-challenging, and of also … one of the things that I love about rock music in general, and by that I guess I mean more pop music in general, is that there are clearly rules and there are both aesthetic rules, that certain sounds and certain chords and whatnot work better in unison, but then there are also rules about … it’s all a business. And you’re not supposed to have whole album-length side cuts, you know there’s no air play for that. There’s no play for that, and these guys all pushed all sorts of expectations and whatnot. Is there a politics to it, I mean you started out as a … in a way, not quite but early in your career you wrote for reason, you identify as Libertarian leaning, at the very least. You were a self-conscious conservative in college. Is there a politics to progressive rock? And if so, not a partisan politics. And is there … what … how do you map the energy or the kind of impulses in it onto politics?

Dave Weigel: There’s not a vote for this party type of politics. There is a utopianism about it. And I didn’t say, let’s create a new world, but these were generally artists in the 1970s in the time of greater environmental awareness, and that was … when Yes wrote any kind of song, politics, I’m laughing because you’ve probably also heard, Don’t Kill the Whale, their classic environmental funk-based ballad. When they got into politics at all, it was that. The big exception is Rush, who and I cut out this … I talked to Rand Paul about Rush because they had condemned him for using his music and it really pisses him off.

Yet Rush basically when they were in their early twenties, and breaking big in the UK, did an interview with … I keep going back to how good the British music press was. British music press analyzed and sometimes lionized and sometimes tore down these bands, with just tremendous aplomb. Lester Banks doing the same thing in the states. British press had a ton of those people. And they just got Neil Pert rolling about how great Iron Rand was, and how she influenced the lyrics like the trees, and 2112, they got away from that. They got more … these bands all go pretty. So they were like many artists, annoyed with Britain’s super high-tech race, but they were not super political. And they did have …

Nick Gillespie: Although they were very individualist. I mean they were Byron-esque. They were breaking artistic form, breaking audience expectations and trying to create something bold and new. Not necessarily … like you were saying, not to change the world. They didn’t want a five-hour work week or something, but they did want to blow people’s minds.

Dave Weigel: They did, and so they … I kind of looked because I was interested in that. If there was any sort of big movement they got involved with, or benefit concert. You had Peter Gabriel a bit later get involved in some of that after he leaves Genesis. And Genesis themselves, Peter Gabriel himself becoming involved with Live Aid, but those are big classic celebrities…

Nick Gillespie: Well and also I always think of Gabriel as well with Steven Biko and calling attention to apartheid in South Africa and whatnot. I think a generation of Americans, certainly people my age in their fifties or older. The reason we knew who Steven Biko was was because Peter Gabriel had written a song about him.

Dave Weigel: Yeah, they took on these causes and … at the same time a lot of other musicians were. But progressive music itself was just not … a lot of it existed in this … some of the European bands that I get into came from much more troubled politically countries in the seventies than the UK, from Italy, from Greece. They got a little bit more really about it. But the music was … this was kind of before a lot of pop music felt comfortable getting directly involved in politics. It was kind of heartening. The period I’m writing this book in, and researching it is 2013 to 2016, which is even more tumultuous, than a lot of people thought the election could be. And there is a sense that a lot of this music was being created, we all now know is a period of Western decline. Right? There were the 25 good economic years after World War II, and then people are kind of starting to pick over the scraps, the pound sinks, the oil crash happens, etc., etc. so that’s, I think … those are among the factors why some of this music

Nick Gillespie: So it’s kind of … it’s almost hedonism. I mean it participates in a seventies hedonism, but it’s not … it’s really interesting that it’s not about fucking. You know, per se. I mean the Rolling Stones become hedonists. You know, Bob Dylan disparages hedonists at the end of the seventies. And these guys are just trying to create kind of interesting new worlds that they can escape to.

Dave Weigel: Yeah, I think that’s a good way of putting it. But always … music was half happening on Earth, it was just not … it was happening during a period of political tumult and economic decline and the music was pretty disconnected from that. Even Robert Fripp who was writing some of the most, I think musically dark and disturbing of it was … it was pretty inward looking and pretty personal, pretty … both personal sometimes and more often abstract. Like I said, I don’t even think … song like Starless or Fallen Angel is coming at a period … America’s going through Watergate has very little to do with that.

And so I think that’s another reason why some of this music has not factored very large into music history, because there are bands and musicians who got involved in ways that you tell their story when you’re telling the story of the seventies. It’s one point I make in the book, I mean you tell the story of this period and if you’re doing it in a movie or TV show you throw in disco or you throw on singer songwriters, maybe you throw on protest music. And they just didn’t do protest music. It was very much a music a lifestyle where you tuned out, where you went to a festival, where you got into an arena. And a time where there were fewer distractions, as well.

Nick Gillespie: Yeah. What … Talk about how part of what the book is addressing really is that … and you’ve mentioned it, that the critical contempt for a lot of progressive rock … and you know they had their champions in the day and they still do, but in general you’re right that people tend to write about rock music like a loose term for a lot of pop music. But as a means of social expression and dissatisfaction with the status quo and so you know Elvis disrupts the bland gray Eisenhower era. The Beatles bring something new and exciting to a post-Kennedy assassination America. And then blah, blah, blah. And Punk obviously, Johnny Rotten never misses an opportunity to talk about how he would doctor Pink Floyd tshirts and write I hate above them and walk down Carnebie Street and get attacked by people, and he …

Dave Weigel: As soon as he can, he’s playing like experimental bass music with Bill Laswell and stuff.

Nick Gillespie: Yeah well this is … part of what’s interesting … yeah I agree completely, or the band The Germs. The LA post-punk band or late punk band opens their song No god with a snippet from Yes’s Roundabout. You know there’s clearly many more connections and according to if you read journalists like Nick Kent, the Sex Pistols in their early days, all they were doing basically were covers of The Who and of a couple of other bands that they publicly denounced. But … the argument of the book is really that progressive rock … it persists in a lot of ways that it’s not recognized. And you talked about some of them there. And then it was that the critics really wanted to trash it after a certain point. And is it … why these albums, certainly groups like Jethro Tull, Genesis, Yes, were selling millions of records. Was it simply that critics didn’t like popular music, if something was really popular it couldn’t be good? Or was it that they were turned off by this was a different type of rock and roll than they were comfortable celebrating.

Dave Weigel: Well I think some of it was that the music was getting less interesting. The Yes of I think Going for the One is kind of the last gasp of super interesting Yes music. By late 1977, 1978 it so happens that what is being offered to the market by some of these bands. If it sounds like the early 70s it is played out. They have run out of ideas, they’re older, they’re doing less. That’s why the bands that make it into the 80s both commercially if you’re talking about John Wedden performing in Asia or artistically if you’re talking about King Crimson, they don’t sound like they did at the end of the 70s. So part of it’s the quality. Although as we all know, that’s not necessarily determinative of whether something’s popular or not. Part of it really is … the artists I talked to, and the radio folks I talked to really do say this was a conscious decision of labels who just … They had a different younger group of AR people. They found this music boring and they found punk exciting, so they elevated it…

Nick Gillespie: Punk in the US never sold many records. And I mean there were one-offs and things like that, but it’s interesting …

Dave Weigel: I’m thinking more the British … the British side of this was much more direct. Where you had Harvest Records, which is producing all this, and Island, the guys who had been selling huge

Nick Gillespie: And in fact you mentioned Mike Oldfield, and obviously people know Richard Branson, but I don’t think … it’s hard to appreciate the full measure of how Richard Branson has enhanced the 20th and 21st centuries. He both brought Mike Oldfield to a mass audience and in many ways progressive rock and then eh was the person who put out the Sex Pistols only a few years later. So it’s kind of interesting to see even within that label the quick turnaround.

Dave Weigel: Yeah, they’ve been doing the quick turnaround … at the same time, this music is more possible than punk in a lot of ways. I always go back to I read I think every issue of Sounds and Express, these British magazines. And end of the year polls in 1977, people still say their favorite keyboard player is Rick Wakeman, their favorite guitarist is Steve Howe. The concerts were bigger, the other side of everyone saying, well that one Sex Pistol Show, everyone who went to it started a band. Well the Yes show down the street had people at it. Those people didn’t stay invested in music. They grew up and did something else.

It was I think the music was a little bit less good, some of the bands tuned out, and there was a decision by critics and labels to focus on other music. And it was really hard, going back for the research for the book, I have rarely seen a heel turn like this, where critics really were ready to praise the music and then six months later, say this was the problem with everything. That’s why … I think I could quote pretty liberally from Rolling Stone, and from magazines that eventually as part of their creation methos for rock had to condemn this stuff. They were like, oh Emerson, Lake and Palmer’s as interesting as anything you’re going to hear to they …

Rolling Stone has a giant feature on Emerson, Lake and Palmer in 1977 when they’re kicking off they’re world tour as a big important band with a following that needs to be understand. And by the end of that tour, their supposed to be a laughingstock. So … some people know that different than others. As I said, Robert Fripp was really happy that all that stuff imploded. Greg Lake never really got over it. Greg Lake, who passed away last year always resented what he found to be interesting music was shoved aside for more basic rock music and punk and that. He thought it was just a really cynical and stupid and as you were saying, it didn’t even sell that well so why’d they do it so

Nick Gillespie: I just wish Greg Lake had buttoned up on the cover of Love Beach. That image still haunts me of his kind of human veal physique. Nonetheless felt totally free to inflict on the record-buying public.

Dave Weigel: That’s one of these albums, I looked at that and said I bet there is a story of drug use and decay and failure behind this, and indeed there was. That is like one of the more Spinal Tap-y albums in the book

Nick Gillespie: What … I’m also thinking … you interview a lot of people in the moment, which is great and this is great rock history because of the research that you’ve done but also the reporting that you’ve done. You talk a lot to Roger Dean, who is important. He’s not a musician, but he’s the guy who did the Yes covers in particular. And I just want to get this in because it cracks me up. And it may not to anybody else but you now Roger Dean’s landscapes are constantly of planets that are being overrun by water and melting icebergs and things dripping and yet he’s a global warming skeptic, right?

Dave Weigel: He is. I forget how we got into that, but I did some

Nick Gillespie: I’m sure he brought it up.

Dave Weigel: I think it was in the news, but I did some reporting that was in person where I went on the cruise, which I talk about at the beginning of the book. Which I actually … the thing that I think David Foster Wallace gets wrong … having written one book and criticize a legend. If you go onto a cruise with a theme actually it’s very different from just bumping around with people who want to eat all day and pass out in front of the pool. The

Nick Gillespie: So tell the story. This the Yes cruise, right?

Dave Weigel: This is the cruise to the edge. Which was put on by the guys who did Monsters of Rock, and discovered that … and a cruise based around the Moody Blues, and then they discovered that they should just around progressive music. There was a similar fan base to the rock one. They’re pretty explicit. I talked to them at the beginning about how easy it is to commodify this. But I went to that for a week in the Caribbean. I went to a much smaller scale but really fascinating series of concerts called Near Fest in the Allentown area. Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. And that’s where I think I talked … I talked to Roger Dean at both. We actually had decent conversation at both of these. But this is the one in Pennsylvania where something stuck in his craw and he really wanted to talk about it.

Nick Gillespie: Oh yeah, it’s coal country. Right, look what Al Gore hath wrought.

Dave Weigel: And I followed up the first article about that guy, so there are people who might be interested in what you have to say about global warming. I think he realized it’s beyond being off-brand. Everyone who has a Roger Dean painting in their portrait room disagrees with him about this.

Nick Gillespie: I thought he would be in favor of global warming. Because you look at the cover of Fragile, it’s water water everywhere. What’s …

Dave Weigel: Are you going to fly to …

Nick Gillespie: Who was the most interesting person beyond Robert Fripp? And it is … I go back and forth when I think about … He’s on one end of the spectrum of kind of performers who … on the other I remember years ago seeing an interview with Neil Diamond where … it was on CBS Sunday Morning or 60 minutes or something, and the interviewer said, do you ever get tired of playing your hits? And Neil Diamond looked totally befuddled. And I think it was genuine. And he said, why would I be tired of playing my hits? That’s what the audience comes for. And of course Neil Diamond and I think a lot of rock performers have come over to his side of the equation, where instead of saying, I’m not playing that song anymore. Or I’m going to make it unrecognizable. They really in a way 20, 30 years ago rock stars didn’t give a shit about their audiences. They would show up late, they would show up drunk, they would show up out of tune. They wouldn’t have rehearsed. And now they’re more like they want to give a great experience. Every night, each night, each concert. And then there’s Robert Fripp. Beyond Robert Fripp, who was the progressive rock god that surprised you the most as you toured through this material?

Dave Weigel: Well I had never spent that much time talking to and then reading interviews with Keith Emerson who was just fascinating to me because he really was innovative and virtuosic performer who was seen like that for years and then dropped out of relevance pretty hard for decades. I remember even talking to somebody who was grimly noting a couple years ago how depressing it was to watch him scoring video game music. And he was right in this nether zone where he was very aware that he was famous for something that happened a very long time ago. Kind of quote him going around Moog Fest, which where he was sort of god, but it’s weird that he’s being worshiped for something where all the new interesting music is written by other people.

And so I thought he was … without being terribly … he was very English and not super interested in being introspective. He wrote in his autobiography. But he was who clearly wanted this … if he didn’t want the jet set lifestyle forever, wanted this music to keep evolving and it didn’t. I think it was stuck in a between space for the last couple of decades of his life. Was pretty unhappy when ELP would have to reunite and go on tour. It was always done with just a label pressuring them to do it. Right, it was the label saying you’ll make a lot more album if this is an ELP album versus a Keith Emerson album. They said fine. But watching someone with that much talent go along with these commercial instincts just because he had to was … I wasn’t entirely surprised but sad as I reported on it and wrote about it.

And then I think David Allen was kind of the other end of the spectrum. This guy who was Australian musician who literally hitchhikes on a boat across the oceans, gets to the UK. He friends much younger musicians, gets kicked out of the band because … this is Soft Machine. He gets kicked out of Soft Machine because he has a drug record and won’t … can’t reenter the UK. And then just starts a different French band which becomes … Gong is a … once I listen to more fusion and more kind of Herbie Hancock and stuff. I saw everything is ripping from there but this guy was making that kind of music and being completely blissed out about it right up until he died. A couple days before he dies of cancer. And so he was another one I didn’t know what to expect. Two different extremes I’d say where one guy was deeply unhappy about what had happened to this movement he was part of. And the other guy said oh movement’s gone, that’s fine. I’m still singing about potheaded pixies and doing weird glissando noises on my guitar, so this is great. As long as there’s ten people listening to this in a pub, I’m happy.

Nick Gillespie: Is progressive rock and this might have something to do with it’s kind of fall from grace. But it is fundamentally a male thing? You know there aren’t a lot of ladies in the book. There’s a few who show up. But they’re mostly … to be honest they’re the ones singing an alto soprano or a soprano talking about sea carpets. Or sun carpets of the sea and things like that. What was the role of women in progressive rock?

Dave Weigel: There wasn’t as much of it. I’ve mentioned Annie Haslam from Renaissance, Sonja Christina from Curved Air, again if you read these magazines in the seventies, you’re seeing them all being put on the same pedestal. Like check out the new music that’s coming out of Curved Air. Check out this three-page spread about Sonja Christina. There wasn’t a lot of it, and I think it was basically a function of who formed the bands. The bands that came together out of the London scene, there simply weren’t that many women in it. Except for Hawkwind having a six-foot model covered in paint walking around during their shows.

Nick Gillespie: And Hawkwind of course is one of those great odd junctures or notes of history because out of Hawkwind also comes Motorhead of all things, and then they made a bid for popdom in the eighties with songs like Sigh Power and whatnot. You know traditional pop songs.

Dave Weigel: As did Jethro Tull,, I spent a little time on the Bid for Pop stuff, but I didn’t want to make the book a mockery at all. When something is generally funny I was writing about it, sure. But when life gives you Spinal Tap, they smell the glove.

Nick Gillespie: Or when Yes gives you Tormado or yeah.

Dave Weigel: But I generally tended to back away and look at what the newer revival stuff like Marilion and Porcupine Tree. But no, not a ton of women in this. And I don’t know how that affected the way they were viewed in history because they were … select women you could point to but also not a ton.

Nick Gillespie: Rock in general is very much … the audience is different. And certainly the Beatles had as many women or more women fans than they had male fans, but they were Liverpool lads, not lasses. It’s a strange creative … medium of creative expression.

Dave Weigel: Although you’ve got this character who ends up being like a creation figure and, because PP Arnold is the soul singer who brings together Nice as her backing band. And then they break off and do their own thing. So various points there are female artists who are important to this, but it is basically a story of men and their organs. To put it one way.

Nick Gillespie: Now that male organs have been exposed, let’s talk a little bit about politics. You’re the … you cover national politics for the Washington Post. You got into political reporting partly at Reason and then you had gigs at Slate and a number of other places. What happened … you came into this at the height of the Ron Paul experience. Where is Ron Paul and Rand Paul now? I mean Rand Paul is so unpopular that he can’t … with Rush that they won’t even let him play the Trees for God’s sake. Which, for people who don’t know is essentially a story about a bunch of maple trees form a union to block the oak tree from growing taller than it.

Dave Weigel: Yeah, it’s basically sake Rand’s animal farm.

Nick Gillespie: But set in trees and I’m assuming. I always read the maples being bullies because that’s Canda, and Canada is somehow anti-individualistic. And Rush are the oaks that want to grow taller than the rest of the forest.

Dave Weigel: There is not a lot of space for libertarianism in politics right now except for I think, being honest about it, the issues where libertarianism intersects with the donors who have done the most for Donald Trump. I feel like my friends at the Competitive Enterprise Institute are pretty happy about Trump’s positions on climate. Myron Ebell, especially is … literally joined the administration. But the criminal justice reform side of libertarianism is kind of retreated to the states. Where it’s doing okay but has no clout in DC anymore. The drug reform side of it … I interviewed Rand right before Jeff Sessions was officially, right after and asked him a couple questions about why he disagrees so vehemently with Sessions on drug policy, to vote for him.

And his answer was honestly the Democrats forced his hand by being so cruel and by portraying him as a racist so … doesn’t have a lot. That was kind of a key answer because what we’re finding a lot of politics right now is that you can’t get the conservative voter base active not really around an issue but around being angry at the left. And libertarian policies by the balls is so idea based and you’re angry in an elite that’s failing the country, but you are not angry at how gross Hilary is or anything simple to mobilize against. And depressingly that’s … found that politics moves fewer bodies than getting people to laugh at Leonardo DiCaprio for using a plane or to be annoyed with Black Live Matter for blocking an intersection.

There’s just a much lower quality sort of politics that replaced libertarian stuff. And the fatal thing is, I asked Rand this too, he said he was wrong. He thought that in order to win again, the Republican party ended to attract young voters and non-white voters who were giving up on hardcore nationalism and Trump proved that he can eke together a majority if he had just enough nationalists. And why would you go back? I think the only thing that would change … give libertarians another moment is Trump being defeated, or Republicans being defeated in a massive way. It’s not happening right now. I keep … I make fun of how Trump unlike most presidents, has press corp ready to go to voters that voted for him, and say, “you’re still with him right?” There are these stories, even he does his decisions that 70% of people oppose, stories about how he’s doing it for his base. He’s delivering. And so as long as you kind of prioritize the easily angered, easily activated nationalist base, then yeah libertarians don’t have much of a place in politics.

Nick Gillespie: How do you … as somebody who is in the main stream media. You’re at the Washington Post that fears that democracy dies in darkness. Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon who owns the post is also a contributor to Reason at times, you know has been singled out by Donald Trump. The Washington Post, you’re the fake news and all of that. How is that affecting you and your colleague’s coverage? Because … do you feel … is the mainstream media giving Donald Trump a fair shake? Or are they, like a lot of people in America, so overwhelmed with their contempt or disgust for how he appears, the way he phrases things. Some of his policies but not all of them. Is it difficult to cover him fairly do you thinK?

Dave Weigel: I think factually you have to be tough on him because he will make a speech and make stuff up. He always has. When he was saying … I think factually if you were writing aobut him when he was selling you on the Taj Mahal in Atlantic City and … factually you have to say that was a failure. He was lying about his finances. And he knows that now and so I think there’s this trap I’m kind of worried about where there’s … I worry about it all the time when I see one of these studies where it’s 90% of coverage of Trump has been negative. If you burrow into it, a lot of that is coverage of Republicans criticizing him. Not so much Democrats. It’s not news when Nancy Pelosi doesn’t like him. It’s news when

Nick Gillespie: John McCain or Jeff Lake or something.

Dave Weigel: So that or it’s him misstating something, or being embroiled in a scandal. And they’re really not Democrats scoring any points on him. So it’s not like we’re slanting it to one party. But it’s difficult … I would argue that especially in the early years of Obama, and I worry that I was part of this. That there was coverage of the first black president a little bit too gauzy. And looking for ways in which he was inspiring people and looking past mistakes that were being made. And there’s … that’s gone, but I feel like it’s two factors colliding. One is that Obama had unusually good coverage, and the absence of Obama you’re getting back to what you would have with Bush or with Clinton. With the first Clinton, the one who won. And that’s colliding with objectively Trump just lies more than most presidents. It’s been part of his strategy for years, and won him an election. And. But I do fret about people who are told by him not to trust the media and see us say, hey this is false what he just said. And say I don’t believe you any more. I don’t know how we unwind that.

Originally posted here:

The Rise and Fall of Prog Rockand of Libertarianism [Reason Podcast] – Reason (blog)

Peter Espeut | Libertarianism or the common good? – Jamaica Gleaner

The LGBT lobby has its allies in the pro-abortion, pro-prostitution, pro-euthanasia, pro-drug-use advocacy groups, and its members have joined together in common cause to assert their ‘rights’, and they call upon the government to decriminalise, legalise, and normalise their favourite pastimes.

Philosophically, they are all in the same camp: they are libertarians, promoting the idea that consenting individuals should be free to do whatever they choose as long as it does no harm and does not infringe upon the ‘rights’ of others, but these ‘others’ and their ‘rights’, and any possible harm involved, are usually defined in a very narrow and often perverse way.

For abortion to be defensible, the existence of a human being in the womb has to be denied (despite scientific evidence to the contrary), otherwise their right to life would have to be defended. For prostitution to be defensible, sexual intercourse has to be defined as a commodity to be repeatedly bought and sold, implying no emotional involvement and causing no emotional harm. For euthanasia to be defensible, human life itself has to be devalued, especially the lives of the disabled and the terminally ill.

Libertarianism glorifies the freedom of the individual to choose what is good (and pleasurable) and convenient for himself or herself without any regard to the common good.

It suits the libertarian lobbyists to posit that libertarianism and the philosophy that underpins it are the most logical and sensible way to organise modern society, and that organised religion, whose principles, based on scriptures dating back several millennia (which are in profound conflict with libertarianism), are outdated and are holding back progress. Fundamentalist Christians play into their hands by thumping their Bibles even harder! Asserting the authority of a text Libertarians reject can advance the argument no further, and I wish fundamentalists would stop it.

It does no disrespect to the Bible or the Holy Qu’ran to use well-authenticated, wholly secular philosophical arguments to refute and discredit libertarian philosophy as being pathologically individualistic and selfish, and operating contrary to the common good, which is the end towards which society is to be organised and governed.

To speak about ethics is not automatically to speak of religion. Secular Greek philosopher Aristotle wrote his book, titled Ethics, around 350 years before Christ was born. Aristotle argued that political constitutions were right if they were in the common interest and wrong if they were in the interest of the rulers.

These ancient ideas were developed over the centuries by other secular political philosophers. John Locke declared that “the peace, safety, and public good of the people” are the ends of political society. David Hume contended that social conventions are adopted and given moral support by virtue of the fact that they serve the public or common interest. Jean-Jacques Rousseau understood the common good to be the object of a society’s general will and the highest end pursued by government.

The fundamental building block of the society is the family. This is not a religious principle, but a socio-political one. Weak families lead to improperly socialised children, lowering their potential to benefit from education and increasing their potential for dysfunctional behaviour and the development of an unbalanced personality. Anything that strengthens the family strengthens society as a whole; and anything that undermines the family, undermines the integrity of society.

The common good is the good of all people and of the whole person. No group within society is to be excluded from its benefits, and integral human development includes the intellectual, physical, artistic and emotional facets of the human person. The task of the State is to work for the development of the whole person, and of all the people, and in doing so, the virtues of temperance, honesty, fairness, openness, and justice are brought into play.

The fundamental question we need to answer is, which of these two moral philosophies should we employ to govern Jamaican society? Libertarianism, which is directed towards satisfying the cravings of individuals or the philosophy of the common good?

If we choose libertarianism, how can we blame politicians for taking decisions that line their pockets? They would, after all, be taking decisions that are in their best interests rather than the common good.

The arguments being put forward by libertarians to legalise buggery, prostitution, and abortion should be rejected, not because they run against religious norms, but because they do not serve the common good.

– Peter Espeut is a sociologist and Roman Catholic deacon. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.

Continue reading here:

Peter Espeut | Libertarianism or the common good? – Jamaica Gleaner

Freedom Philosophy: The Death of The Left/Right Divide – Being Libertarian

Freedom Philosophy: The Death of The Left/Right Divide
Being Libertarian
Libertarianism isn't a reaction to the left/right divide but rather it's merely the recognition that it no longer exists. It's a rejection of militarism at a time when militarism threatens our national security and it's a rejection of overspending at a

Follow this link:

Freedom Philosophy: The Death of The Left/Right Divide – Being Libertarian

How to Get to Liberaltarianism from the Left – Niskanen Center (press release) (blog)

June 12, 2017 by Steven Teles

Will Wilkinson has scaled the Olympian Heights of the New York Times for the cause of liberaltarianism and the greater glory of the Niskanen Center. But what is liberaltarianism? And who cares about it?

Speaking as a historically oriented political scientist, my first way of attacking this question is to ask where the object under examination came from. What is its origin? The term liberaltarianism was originally coined by my good friend, co-author, and co-conspirator Brink Lindsey over a decade ago in The New Republic. While Brinks objective in that article was to invite liberals into a coalitiona coalition that liberals like Jonathan Chait quite firmly refused to acceptI think the articles most immediate target was libertarianism itself. It defined a pole of libertarianism, around which those who were uncomfortable making common cause with conservatism could rally. Brink argued that libertarians should admit that they are not, as many of them had argued going back to the 1970s, equidistant from the two parties. They are natural allies with liberalsalbeit critical allies. Their alliance with conservatism was opportunistic, but their alliance with liberalism was on principle.

That pretty much describes where Will is coming from, as well as many of the other folks at Niskanen who came out of the libertarian network of organizations. For them, liberaltarianism is another way of saying post-libertarianism (a term first coined by our own Jeffrey Friedman). The purpose of liberaltarianism is to describe the political position you get to when youve become disenthralled with the mass of positions and alliances associated with institutional libertarianism but retain a substantial chunk of its underlying principles.

While Ive hung around with a lot of libertarians in my life and learned a great deal from them, Ive never been one of them. I am and (God willing) will always be a straight-ticket Democrat. So my path to liberaltarianism has a different trajectory than my co-conspirators here at the Niskanen Center. It is worth explaining why I now think liberaltarianism is a reasonable shorthand for my political positions, and what I think the philosophy has to offer for people who come more or less from my side of the fence.

I grew up knowing that I was a liberal, but also knowing that I was not quite like the other liberals I knew. This instinct was almost certainly hard wired, with sources that I may never get to the bottom of. But it meant that I was always drawn to liberals who got into fights with other liberals. In college that drew me to the Washington Monthly and its diaspora throughout the media landscape, and to the thinkers around the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). In graduate school I read and was deeply influenced by William Galstons Liberal Purposes, which in a very vulgar way you could think of as higher DLCism. I had not thought through exactly what my program was, but I knew what my tribe was. Much of my subsequent intellectual career has been devoted to figuring out the program that should go with the tribe.

That program, such as I have been able to develop it up until now, can be characterized as left-liberaltarianism. That is just a fancy way of saying that I come to the liberaltarian project not as a refugee from libertarianism, but as an internal critic of modern liberalism. Liberaltarianism, as I understand it, is thus Janus-facedit is not the median between conservatism and modern liberalism, for it has criticisms of both. The core of left-liberaltarianism is an effort to combine liberal principles of social justice with a respect for limited government, and a preference for a relatively sharp line between state and market, and between levels of government.

By limited government, I mean a government that operates as much as possible through relatively simple, transparent, direct means that are susceptible to political oversight and citizen comprehension. The primary defining attribute of the state is coercion, and liberaltarians prefer that it use coercion out in the open. In contrast to the increasing attraction of those on the center-left for social policy nudges, liberaltarianism has a preference for shoveslarge blunt uses of social authority. Instead of a proliferating mass of regulations to combat climate change, liberaltarians prefer a tax on carbon. Instead of a variety of different tax subsidies and clever devices to encourage people to save, liberaltarians have a preference for good old-fashioned tax-and-spend social insurance. In contrast to the confusing welter of rules and regulations in Dodd-Frank, liberaltarians favor blunt limits on bank leverage. The defining characteristic of all these reforms is that they are simple and rule-like, replacing administrative discretion wherever possible with blunt applications of coercion specified in law.

Transparency and simplicity are themselves powerful limitations on government. With rare exceptions, liberaltarians want rules that avoid the excessive entanglement of the state and market, and the interweaving of levels of government. Instead of governments that, at many levels and in subtle ways, sneak up on involvement in a particular social domain, liberaltarians want definitive decisions by the national government to intervene (or not). This serves to enhance political deliberation, since the decision to act must be clear and responsibility for results unmistakably affixed. When the national government operates by steering or nudging or partneringwhether with private firms or state governmentsit is unclear precisely who is to be praised or blamed, and it can become nearly impossible for legislatures or citizens to exercise effective oversight. In addition, especially in the case of partnering with private actorssomething mistakenly referred to as privatizationthis kind of interweaving of state and market creates powerful temptations toward the corruption of both. These temptations can be seen clearly, for example, in the Trump administrations still-vague infrastructure plans, which promise to turn $200 billion of taxpayer money into $1 trillion in projects by creating incentives, guarantees, and inducements for private businesses, rather than using direct government spending. Something similar can be said of proposals like that of the Democratic nominee for governor of New Jersey, who advocatesa state investment bank for small businesses. The opportunities for the government to steer such projects to its political allies would be enormously temptingwhich is, in the Trump administrations case, almost certainly a feature rather than a bug.

This gets to a final feature of liberaltarianism, which is that it is especially sensitive to the ways that the state is not always an instrument of egalitarianism, but can be captured by the powerful and turned to their advantage. This is the subject of my forthcoming book with Lindsey, The Captured Economy. While the state is a potentially very powerful tool to enhance equal opportunity, it is also highly susceptible to the manipulations of those with economic and social power. As Brink and I argue, that influence is magnified in policy domains characterized by policy complexity and multiple, obscure institutional venues, which are easier for the wealthy to manipulate. Dentists, to take only one example out of many, are able to turn the regulatory system to their own advantage because the licensing boards that make the rules are so low-profile that they attract attention only from dentists themselves. Something similar typically characterizes other areas of upward redistribution, from financial regulation to intellectual property and real estate.

This vision of liberaltarianism, then, is primarily institutional in character. Back in the early twentieth century, Progressives who sought to increase the power of government to enhance social justice concluded that the only way to do that was to emancipate government at every level, to remove formal limits on the state (other than individual rights). But it turns out that a system of pervasive intertwining of the national and state governments, and the market and state, is one that is not particularly good for social justice, political accountability, or citizen engagement with politics.

One agenda for liberaltarianism, therefore, is to think about how to pursue important state functions in environmental protection, social welfare, and other areas in ways that are simpler, that sort out more cleanly who is responsible, and that involve the national government either in a way that occupies the field or that leaves matters for the market or state and local governments. We want a welfare/regulatory state governed as much as possible by law rather than administrative discretionrule-of-law big government, you might say. Often that will mean purer nationalization of functions, for example by nationalizing Medicaid (i.e., ending its status as a joint state-federal venture). But it will also mean reconsidering the mass of complex mandates and funding structures in K-12 education. It will mean trying to pull the national government out of the business of subsidizing private savings (through 529s, IRAs, 401ks) and just increasing social insurance. By doing soby sharply reducing the expectation of mass participation in private equity marketswe could also reconsider how we regulate finance, with less expectation that we need to protect unsophisticated investors. Other than preventing systemic risk (for example, through capital requirements) we could let markets rip more than we do now, since only the well-to-do would be significantly invested in them.

This is not the only vision of liberaltarianism. There are other visions that come more from the left, such as those that are primarily motivated by cosmopolitanism, or an aversion to paternalism. I am less convinced by those visions, although I think they are a necessary part of the larger conversations that should happen under the liberaltarian umbrella. I hope to address them in later posts.

Steven Teles is a Senior Fellow at the Niskanen Center and Associate Professor of Political Science at Johns Hopkins University. He is co-author (with Brink Lindsey) of the forthcoming The Captured Economy: How the Powerful Become Richer, Slow Down Growth, and Increase Inequality, and (with David Dagan) Prison Break: Why Conservatives Turned Against Mass Incarceration.

Read more here:

How to Get to Liberaltarianism from the Left – Niskanen Center (press release) (blog)

Incompatibilism – Wikipedia

Incompatibilism is the view that a deterministic universe is completely at odds with the notion that persons have a free will; that there is a dichotomy between determinism and free will where philosophers must choose one or the other. This view is pursued in at least three ways: libertarians deny that the universe is deterministic, the hard determinists deny that any free will exists, and pessimistic incompatibilists (hard indeterminists) deny both that the universe is determined and that free will exists.

Incompatiblism is contrasted with compatibilism, which rejects the determinism/free will dichotomy.

Metaphysical libertarianism argues that free will is real and that determinism is false. Such dualism risks an infinite regress however;[1] if any such mind is real, an objection can still be raised using the standard argument against free will[clarification needed] that it is shaped by a higher power (a necessity or chance).[clarification needed] Libertarian Robert Kane (among others) presented an alternative model:

Robert Kane (editor of the Oxford Handbook of Free Will) is a leading incompatibilist philosopher in favour of free will. Kane seeks to hold persons morally responsible for decisions that involved indeterminism in their process. Critics maintain that Kane fails to overcome the greatest challenge to such an endeavor: “the argument from luck”.[2] Namely, if a critical moral choice is a matter of luck (indeterminate quantum fluctuations), then on what grounds can we hold a person responsible for their final action? Moreover, even if we imagine that a person can make an act of will ahead of time, to make the moral action more probable in the upcoming critical moment, this act of ‘willing’ was itself a matter of luck.

Libertarianism in the philosophy of mind is unrelated to the like-named political philosophy. It suggests that we actually do have free will, that it is incompatible with determinism, and that therefore the future is not determined. For example, at this moment, one could either continue reading this article if one wanted, or cease. Under this assertion, being that one could do either, the fact of how the history of the world will continue to unfold is not currently determined one way or the other.

One famous proponent of this view was Lucretius, who asserted that the free will arises out of the random, chaotic movements of atoms, called “clinamen”. One major objection to this view is that science has gradually shown that more and more of the physical world obeys completely deterministic laws, and seems to suggest that our minds are just as much part of the physical world as anything else. If these assumptions are correct, incompatibilist libertarianism can only be maintained as the claim that free will is a supernatural phenomenon, which does not obey the laws of nature (as, for instance, maintained by some religious traditions).

However, many libertarian view points now rely upon an indeterministic view of the physical universe, under the assumption that the idea of a deterministic, “clockwork” universe has become outdated since the advent of quantum mechanics.[citation needed] By assuming an indeterministic universe libertarian philosophical constructs can be proposed under the assumption of physicalism.

There are libertarian view points based upon indeterminism and physicalism, which is closely related to naturalism.[3] A major problem for naturalistic libertarianism is to explain how indeterminism can be compatible with rationality and with appropriate connections between an individual’s beliefs, desires, general character and actions. A variety of naturalistic libertarianism is promoted by Robert Kane,[4][5] who emphasizes that if our character is formed indeterministically (in “self-forming actions”), then our actions can still flow from our character, and yet still be incompatibilistically free.

Alternatively, libertarian view points based upon indeterminism have been proposed without the assumption of naturalism. At the time C. S. Lewis wrote Miracles,[6]quantum mechanics (and physical indeterminism) was only in the initial stages of acceptance, but still Lewis stated the logical possibility that, if the physical world was proved to be indeterministic, this would provide an entry (interaction) point into the traditionally viewed closed system, where a scientifically described physically probable/improbable event could be philosophically described as an action of a non-physical entity on physical reality (noting that, under a physicalist point of view, the non-physical entity must be independent of the self-identity or mental processing of the sentient being). Lewis mentions this only in passing, making clear that his thesis does not depend on it in any way.

Others may use some form of Donald Davidson’s anomalous monism to suggest that although the mind is in fact part of the physical world, it involves a different level of description of the same facts, so that although there are deterministic laws under the physical description, there are no such laws under the mental description, and thus our actions are free and not determined.[7]

Those who reject free will and accept determinism are variously known as “hard determinists”, hard incompatibilists, free will skeptics, illusionists, or impossibilists. They believe that there is no ‘free will’ and that any sense of the contrary is an illusion.[8] Of course, hard determinists do not deny that one has desires, but say that these desires are causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences. According to this philosophy, no wholly random, spontaneous, mysterious, or miraculous events occur. Determinists sometimes assert that it is stubborn to resist scientifically motivated determinism on purely intuitive grounds about one’s own sense of freedom. They reason that the history of the development of science suggests that determinism is the logical method in which reality works.

William James said that philosophers (and scientists) have an “antipathy to chance.”[9] Absolute chance, a possible implication of quantum mechanics and the indeterminacy principle, implies a lack of causality.[citation needed] This possibility often disturbs those who assume there must be a causal and lawful explanation for all events.

Since many believe that free will is necessary for moral responsibility, this may imply disastrous consequences for their theory of ethics.

As something of a solution to this predicament, it has been suggested that, for the sake of preserving moral responsibility and the concept of ethics, one might embrace the so-called “illusion” of free will. This, despite thinking that free will does not exist according to determinism. Critics argue that this move renders morality merely another “illusion”, or else that this move is simply hypocritical.

The Determinist will add that, even if denying free will does mean morality is incoherent, such an unfortunate result has no effect on the truth. Note, however, that hard determinists often have some sort of ‘moral system’ that relies explicitly on determinism. A Determinist’s moral system simply bears in mind that every person’s actions in a given situation are, in theory, predicted by the interplay of environment and upbringing. For instance, the Determinist may still punish undesirable behaviours for reasons of behaviour modification or deterrence.

Hard incompatibilism, like hard determinism, is a type of skepticism about free will. ‘Hard incompatibilism’ is a term coined by Derk Pereboom to designate the view that both determinism and the sort of indeterminism that has a significant chance of being true are incompatible with our having free will.[10] Like the hard determinist, the hard incompatibilist holds that if determinism were true, our having free will would be ruled out. But Pereboom argues in addition that if our decisions were indeterministic events, free will would also be precluded. In his view, free will is the control in action required for the desert aspect of moral responsibility — for our deserving to be blamed or punished for immoral actions, and to be praised or rewarded for morally exemplary actions. He contends that if our decisions were indeterministic events, their occurrence would not be in the control of the agent in the way required for such attributions of desert.[11] The possibility for free will that remains is libertarian agent causation, according to which agents as substances (thus not merely as having a role in events) can cause actions without being causally determined to do so. Pereboom argues that for empirical reasons it is unlikely that we are agent causes of this sort, and that as a result, it’s likely that we lack free will.[12]

In recent years researchers in the field of experimental philosophy have been working on determining whether ordinary people, who aren’t experts in this field, naturally have compatibilist or incompatibilist intuitions about determinism and moral responsibility.[13] Some experimental work has even conducted cross-cultural studies.[14] The debate about whether people naturally have compatibilist or incompatibilist intuitions has not come out overwhelmingly in favor of one view or the other. Still, there has been some evidence that people can naturally hold both views. For instance, when people are presented with abstract cases which ask if a person could be morally responsible for an immoral act when they could not have done otherwise, people tend to say no, or give incompatibilist answers, but when presented with a specific immoral act that a specific person committed, people tend to say that that person is morally responsible for their actions, even if they were determined (that is, people also give compatibilist answers).[15]

Read the rest here:

Incompatibilism – Wikipedia

The Enemy of Your Enemy is No Friend of Liberty – The Libertarian Republic

LISTEN TO TLRS LATEST PODCAST:

By Ian Tartt

As if it didnt already have enough problems, the liberty movement is now divided even more than it was before the last election cycle. This is largely a result of the campaigns of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. While most libertarians reacted in horror to both candidates, some were more concerned about one than the other.

Accordingly, some voted for Clinton to stop Trump, while others did the opposite. At the same time, many of them joined organizations that are not libertarian in nature but agreed with them on a handful of issues brought up during the election. This resulted in some libertarians aligning with right-leaning organizations and others aligning with left-leaning organizations.

The core problem with these associations is that they are based on what those from different sides oppose rather than what they support. That is, those who side with right-leaning organizations do so because those organizations oppose socialism; likewise, those standing with left-leaning organizations have allied with them because of their shared opposition to fascism. But simply opposing socialism or fascism does not a libertarian make. Its the consistent recognition and defense of individual liberty that makes one a libertarian.

Because some libertarians are joining with organizations who are merely enemies of their enemies instead of being their friends, there is great risk involved. Over time, they may adopt some decidedly un-libertarian positions and could even end up leaving libertarianism altogether. Of course, that depends on how heavily theyre involved with the organization and why theyre involved with them in the first place.

Another major drawback is that the libertarians who align with non-libertarian organizations often become divided (that is, those working with right-leaning organizations would see those aligning with left-leaning organizations as their enemies, and vice versa). Since there are also a number of libertarians who reject such alliances entirely, the liberty movement is now further split in several different directions. Some libertarians, whether theyre aligned with those on the left, those on the right, or with neither, refuse to work with those who reject their alliance or lack thereof.

While theres nothing wrong with working with an individual or organization to advance a certain goal (such as standing with a right-leaning group to protect gun rights or helping a left-leaning group push for drug decriminalization), libertarians should avoid strong partnerships with those organizations. And they absolutely shouldnt reject fellow libertarians, with whom they agree more often than not, in favor of working with those with whom they almost never agree. Doing either will only weaken the liberty movement by bringing in people who shouldnt be there in the first place and severing ties among those who are natural allies.

The best thing to do at this point is for those libertarians who are strongly aligned with a left or right organization that doesnt respect individual liberty to break those ties. Once they do that, they should try to rebuild as many bridges between themselves and their fellow libertarians as possible. This will help strengthen the bonds between lovers of liberty as well as prevent those unfamiliar with libertarianism from thinking that its something that it isnt. There is still time to undo the damage that was done from unnatural alliances, but until a serious effort to set things right is made, the liberty movement will continue to struggle while increasingly more freedoms are lost.

Alliancesdivisionleftlibertariansrightstrategy

The rest is here:

The Enemy of Your Enemy is No Friend of Liberty – The Libertarian Republic

Thatcherism – Wikipedia

“Right-wing Neoliberalism” redirects here. For other uses of the term, see neoliberalism.

Thatcherism describes the conviction politics, economic, social policy and political style of the British Conservative Party politician Margaret Thatcher, who was leader of her party from 1975 to 1990. It has also been used to describe the beliefs of the British government under Thatcher as Prime Minister from 1979 to 1990, and beyond into the governments of John Major, Tony Blair and David Cameron.[1] An exponent or supporter of Thatcherism is regarded as a Thatcherite.

Thatcherism represented a systematic, decisive rejection and reversal of the post-war consensus, whereby the major political parties largely agreed on the central themes of Keynesianism, the welfare state, nationalised industry, and close regulation of the economy. There was one major exception: the National Health Service, which was widely popular. She promised Britons in 1982, the NHS is “safe in our hands”.[2]

Both the exact terms of what makes up Thatcherism as well as its specific legacy in terms of British history over the past decades are controversial. In terms of ideology, Thatcherism has been described by Nigel Lawson, Thatcher’s Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1983 to 1989, as a political platform emphasising free markets with restrained government spending and tax cuts coupled with British nationalism both at home and abroad.[3]The Daily Telegraph stated in April 2008 that the programme of the next non-conservative British government, Tony Blair’s administration with an emphasis on ‘New Labour’, basically accepted the central reform measures of Thatcherism such as deregulation, privatisation of key national industries, maintaining a flexible labour market, marginalising the trade unions, and centralising power from local authorities to central government.[4]

Thatcherism attempts to promote low inflation, the small state, and free markets through tight control of the money supply, privatisation and constraints on the labour movement. It is often compared with Reaganomics in the United States, Economic Rationalism in Australia and Rogernomics in New Zealand and as a key part of the worldwide economic liberal movement. Nigel Lawson, Thatcher’s Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1983 to 1989, listed the Thatcherite ideals as “free markets, financial discipline, firm control over public expenditure, tax cuts, nationalism, ‘Victorian values’ (of the Samuel Smiles self-help variety), privatisation and a dash of populism”.[3]

Thatcherism is thus often compared to neoliberalism. Milton Friedman said that “the thing that people do not recognise is that Margaret Thatcher is not in terms of belief a Tory. She is a nineteenth-century Liberal.”[5] Thatcher herself stated in 1983: “I would not mind betting that if Mr Gladstone were alive today he would apply to join the Conservative Party”.[6] In the 1996 Keith Joseph memorial lecture Thatcher argued that “The kind of Conservatism which he and I… favoured would be best described as ‘liberal’, in the old-fashioned sense. And I mean the liberalism of Mr Gladstone, not of the latter day collectivists”.[7] However, Thatcher once told Friedrich Hayek: “I know you want me to become a Whig; no, I am a Tory”. Hayek believed “she has felt this very clearly”.[8]

But the relationship between Thatcherism and liberalism is complicated. Thatcher’s former Defence Secretary John Nott claimed that “it is a complete misreading of her beliefs to depict her as a nineteenth-century Liberal”.[9] As Ellen Meiksins Wood has argued, Thatcherite capitalism was compatible with traditional British political institutions. As Prime Minister, Thatcher did not challenge ancient institutions such as the monarchy or the House of Lords, but some of the most recent additions: such as the trade unions.[10] Indeed, many leading Thatcherites, including Thatcher herself, went on to join the House of Lords: an honour which Gladstone, for instance, had declined.[11]

Thinkers closely associated with Thatcherism include Keith Joseph, Enoch Powell, Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. In an interview with Simon Heffer in 1996 Thatcher stated that the two greatest influences on her as Conservative leader had been Joseph and Powell, who were both “very great men”.[12]

A number of commentators have traced the origins of Thatcherism in post-war British politics. The historian Ewen Green claimed there was resentment of the inflation, taxation and the constraints imposed by the labour movement, which was associated with the so-called Buttskellite consensus in the decades before Thatcher came to prominence. Although the Conservative leadership accommodated itself to the Attlee government’s post-war reforms, there was continuous right-wing opposition in the lower ranks of the party, in right-wing pressure groups like the Middle Class Alliance and the People’s League for the Defence of Freedom, and later in think tanks like the Centre for Policy Studies. For example, in 1945 the Conservative Party chairman Ralph Assheton had wanted 12,000 abridged copies of The Road to Serfdom (a book by the anti-socialist economist Friedrich Hayek later closely associated with Thatcherism),[13] taking up one-and-a-half tons of the party’s paper ration, distributed as election propaganda.[14] The historian Dr. Christopher Cooper has also traced the formation of the monetarist economics at the heart of Thatcherism back to the resignation of Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer Peter Thorneycroft in 1958.[15]

Thatcherism is often described as a libertarian ideology. Thatcher saw herself as creating a libertarian movement,[16][17] rejecting traditional Toryism.[18] Thatcherism is associated with libertarianism within the Conservative Party,[19] albeit one of libertarian ends achieved by using strong and sometimes authoritarian leadership.[20] British political commentator Andrew Marr has called libertarianism the “dominant, if unofficial, characteristic of Thatcherism”.[21] However, whereas some of her heirs, notably Michael Portillo and Alan Duncan, embraced this libertarianism, others in the Thatcherite movement, such as John Redwood, sought to become more populist.[22][23]

Some commentators have argued that Thatcherism should not be considered properly libertarian. Noting the tendency towards strong central government in matters concerning the trade unions and local authorities, Andrew Gamble summarised Thatcherism as “the free economy and the strong state”.[24]Simon Jenkins accused the Thatcher government of carrying out a ‘nationalisation’ of Britain.[25] Libertarian political theorist Murray Rothbard didn’t consider Thatcherism to be libertarian, and heavily criticised Thatcher and Thatcherism stating that: “Thatcherism is all too similar to Reaganism: free-market rhetoric masking statist content.”[26]

Another important aspect of Thatcherism is the style of governance. Britain in the 1970s was often referred to as “ungovernable”. Thatcher attempted to redress this by centralising a great deal of power to herself, as the Prime Minister, often bypassing traditional cabinet structures (such as cabinet committees). This personal approach also became identified with personal toughness at times such as the Falklands War, the IRA bomb at the Conservative conference and the miners’ strike.[citation needed]

Sir Charles Powell, the Foreign Affairs Private Secretary to the Prime Minister (198491 and 1996) described her style thus, “I’ve always thought there was something Leninist about Mrs Thatcher which came through in the style of government: the absolute determination, the belief that there’s a vanguard which is right and if you keep that small, tightly knit team together, they will drive things through… there’s no doubt that in the 1980s, No. 10 could beat the bushes of Whitehall pretty violently. They could go out and really confront people, lay down the law, bully a bit”.[27]

Thatcherism is associated with the economic theory of monetarism. In contrast to previous government policy, monetarism placed a priority on controlling inflation over controlling unemployment. According to monetarist theory, inflation is the result of there being too much money in the economy. It was claimed that the government should seek to control the money supply to control inflation. However, by 1979 it was not only the Thatcherites who were arguing for stricter control of inflation. The Labour Chancellor Denis Healey had already adopted some monetarist policies, such as reducing public spending and selling off the government’s shares in BP.

Moreover, it has been argued that the Thatcherites were not strictly monetarist in practice. A common theme centres on the Medium Term financial Strategy. The Strategy, issued in the 1980 Budget, consisted of targets for reducing the growth of the money supply in the following years. After overshooting many of these targets, the Thatcher government revised the targets upwards in 1982. Analysts have interpreted this as an admission of defeat in the battle to control the money supply. The economist C. F. Pratten claimed that “since 1984, behind a veil of rhetoric, the government has lost any faith it had in technical monetarism. The money supply, as measured by M3, has been allowed to grow erratically, while calculation of the PSBR is held down by the ruse of subtracting the proceeds of privatisation as well as taxes from government expenditure. The principles of monetarism have been abandoned”.[28]

Thatcherism is also associated with supply-side economics. Whereas Keynesian economics holds that the government should stimulate economic growth by increasing demand through increased credit and public spending, supply-side economists argue that the government should instead intervene only to create a free market by lowering taxes, privatising state industries and increasing restraints on trade unionism.[citation needed]

Reduction in the power of the trades unions was made gradually, unlike the approach of the Heath Government, and the greatest single confrontation with the unions was the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) strike of 198485, in which the miners’ union was eventually defeated. There is evidence that this confrontation with the trade unions was anticipated by both the Conservative party and the NUM. The outcome contributed to the resurgence of the power of capital over labour.[29]

Thatcherism is associated with a conservative stance on morality.[30] The Marxist sociologist and founder of the New Left Review, Stuart Hall, for example, argued that Thatcherism should be viewed as an ideological project promoting “authoritarian populism”, since it is known for its reverence of “Victorian values”.[31] The Social Democrat Party supporter David Marquand claimed that Thatcher exploited “authoritarian populist” sentiment in 1970s Britain: “Go back, you flower people, back where you came from, wash your hair, get dressed properly, get to work on time and stop all this whingeing and moaning.”[32][non-primary source needed]Norman Tebbit, a close ally of Thatcher, laid out in a 1985 lecture what he thought to be the permissive society that conservatives should oppose.[relevant? discuss]

Bad art was as good as good art. Grammar and spelling were no longer important. To be clean was no better than to be filthy. Good manners were no better than bad. Family life was derided as an outdated bourgeois concept. Criminals deserved as much sympathy as their victims. Many homes and classrooms became disorderly; if there was neither right nor wrong there could be no basis for punishment or reward. Violence and soft pornography became accepted in the media. Thus was sown the wind; and we are now reaping the whirlwind.[33]

Examples of this conservative morality in practice include the video nasties scare, where, in reaction to a moral panic over the availability of a number of provocatively named horror films on video cassette, Thatcher introduced state regulation of the British video market for the first time. Despite her association with social conservatism, Thatcher voted in 1966 to legalise homosexuality.[34] That same year, she also voted in support of legal abortion.[35] However, in the 1980s during her time as Prime Minister, Thatcher’s government enacted Section 28, a law that opposed promotion of homosexuality by local authorities and the promotion of the teaching of “the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship” in schools. The law was opposed by many gay rights advocates, such as Stonewall and OutRage! and was later repealed by Tony Blair’s Labour government in 2003.[36][37]

However, Thatcher was one of only a handful of Conservatives to vote for the Sexual Offences Act 1967.[38]

Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron later issued an official apology for previous Conservative policies on homosexuality, specifically the introduction of the controversial Section 28 laws from the 1980s, viewing past ideological views as “a mistake” with his own ideological direction.[39]

In May 1988 Thatcher gave an address to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. In the address, Thatcher offered a theological justification for her ideas on capitalism and the market economy. She said “Christianity is about spiritual redemption, not social reform” and she quoted St Paul by saying “If a man will not work he shall not eat”. ‘Choice’ played a significant part in Thatcherite reforms, and Thatcher said that ‘choice’ was also Christian, stating that Christ chose to lay down his life and that all individuals have the God-given right to choose between good and evil.

Whilst Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister, she greatly embraced transatlantic relations with the US President Ronald Reagan. She often publicly supported Reagan’s policies even when other Western allies were not as vocal. For example, she granted permission for American planes to use British bases for raids on Libya and allowed American cruise missiles and Pershing missiles to be housed on British soil in response to Soviet deployment of SS-20 nuclear missiles targeting Britain and other Western European nations.[40]

Towards the end of the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher (and so Thatcherism) became increasingly vocal in its opposition to allowing the European Community to supersede British sovereignty. In a famous 1988 Bruges speech, Thatcher declared that “We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them reimposed at a European level, with a European superstate exercising a new dominance from Brussels”.

While Euroscepticism has for many become a characteristic of Thatcherism, Margaret Thatcher was far from consistent on the issue, only becoming truly Eurosceptic in the last years of her time as Prime Minister. Thatcher supported Britain’s entry into the European Economic Community in 1973, campaigned for a yes vote in the 1975 referendum[41] and signed the Single European Act in 1986.[42]

It is often claimed that the word “Thatcherism” was coined by cultural theorist Stuart Hall in a 1979 Marxism Today article,[43] However this is not true as the phrase “Thatcherism” was first used by Tony Heath in an article he wrote that appeared in Tribune on 10 August 1973. Writing as Tribune’s Education Correspondent, Heath wrote “It will be argued that teachers are members of a profession which must not be influenced by political considerations. With the blight of Thatcherism spreading across the land that is a luxury that only the complacent can afford”.[44][45] although the term had in fact been widely used before then.[46] However, not all social critics have accepted the term as valid, with the High Tory journalist T. E. Utley believing that “There is no such thing as Thatcherism.”[47] Utley contended that the term was a creation of Mrs Thatcher’s enemies who wished to damage her by claiming that she had an inflexible devotion to a certain set of principles and also by some of her friends who, “for cultural and sometimes ethnic reasons” had little sympathy with what he described as the “English political tradition.” Thatcher was not an ideologue, Utley argued, but a pragmatic politician; and he gave the examples of her refusal to radically reform the welfare state, and her avoidance of a miners’ strike in 1981 at a time when the Government was not ready to handle it.

Some leftist critics such as Anthony Giddens claim that Thatcherism was purely an ideology, and argue that her policies marked a change which was dictated more by political interests than economic reasons:

Rather than by any specific logic of capitalism, the reversal was brought about by voluntary reductions in social expenditures, higher taxes on low incomes and the lowering of taxes on higher incomes. This is the reason why in Great Britain in the mid 1980s the members of the top decile possessed more than a half of all the wealth.[48] To justify this by means of economic “objectivities” would be an ideology. What is at play here are interests and power.[49]

The Conservative historian of Peterhouse, Maurice Cowling, also questioned the uniqueness of “Thatcherism”. Cowling claimed that Mrs Thatcher used “radical variations on that patriotic conjunction of freedom, authority, inequality, individualism and average decency and respectability, which had been the Conservative Party’s theme since at least 1886.” Cowling further contended that the “Conservative Party under Mrs Thatcher has used a radical rhetoric to give intellectual respectability to what the Conservative Party has always wanted.”[50]

Critics of Thatcherism claim that its successes were obtained only at the expense of great social costs to the British population.[how?] There were nearly 3.3million unemployed in Britain in 1984, compared to 1.5million when she first came to power in 1979, though that figure had reverted to some 1.6million by the end of 1990.

While credited with reviving Britain’s economy, Thatcher also was blamed for spurring a doubling in the relative poverty rate. Britain’s childhood-poverty rate in 1997 was the highest in Europe.[51] When she resigned in 1990, 28% of the children in Great Britain were considered to be below the poverty line, a number that kept rising to reach a peak of nearly 30% during the government of Thatcher’s successor, John Major.[51] During her government Britain’s Gini coefficient reflected this growing difference, going from 0.25 in 1979 to 0.34 in 1990, at about which value it remained for the next 20 years, under both Conservative and Labour governments.[52]

The extent to which one can say Thatcherism has a continuing influence on British political and economic life is unclear. In 2002, Peter Mandelson, a member of parliament belonging to the British Labour Party closely associated with Tony Blair, famously declared that “we are all Thatcherites now.”[54]

In reference to modern British political culture, it could be said that a “post-Thatcherite consensus” exists, especially in regards to economic policy. In the 1980s, the now defunct Social Democratic Party adhered to a “tough and tender” approach in which Thatcherite reforms were coupled with extra welfare provision. Neil Kinnock, leader of the Labour Party from 1983 to 1992, initiated Labour’s rightward shift across the political spectrum by largely concurring with the economic policies of the Thatcher governments. The New Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were described as “neo-Thatcherite” by some on the left, since many of their economic policies mimicked those of Thatcher.[55]

Most of the major British political parties today accept the trade union legislation, privatisations and general free market approach to government that Thatcher’s governments installed. No major political party in the UK, at present, is committed to reversing the Thatcher government’s reforms of the economy. Although in the aftermath of the Great Recession from 2007 to 2012, the then Labour Party leader, Ed Miliband, had indicated he would support stricter financial regulation[56] and industry focused policy,[57] in a move to a more mixed economy. In 2011, Miliband declared his support for Thatcher’s reductions in income tax on top earners, her legislation to change the rules on the closed shop and strikes before ballots, as well as her introduction of Right to Buy, claiming Labour had been wrong to oppose these reforms at the time.[58]

Moreover, the UK’s comparative macroeconomic performance has improved since the implementation of Thatcherite economic policies. Since Thatcher resigned as British prime minister in 1990, UK economic growth was on average higher than the other large EU economies (i.e. Germany, France and Italy). Additionally, since the beginning of the 2000s, the UK has also possessed lower unemployment, by comparison with the other big EU economies. Such an enhancement in relative macroeconomic performance is perhaps another reason for the apparent “Blatcherite” economic consensus, which has been present in modern UK politics for a number of years.[citation needed]

Tony Blair wrote in his 2010 autobiography A Journey that “Britain needed the industrial and economic reforms of the Thatcher period”. He described Thatcher’s efforts as “ideological, sometimes unnecessarily so” while also stating that “much of what she wanted to do in the 1980s was inevitable, a consequence not of ideology but of social and economic change.”[59]

On the occasion of the 25th anniversary of Thatcher’s 1979 election victory, BBC conducted a survey of opinions which opened with the following comments:[60]

To her supporters, she was a revolutionary figure who transformed Britain’s stagnant economy, tamed the unions and re-established the country as a world power. Together with US presidents Reagan and Bush, she helped bring about the end of the Cold War. But her 11-year premiership was also marked by social unrest, industrial strife and high unemployment. Her critics claim British society is still feeling the effect of her divisive economic policies and the culture of greed and selfishness they allegedly promoted.

The dictionary definition of Thatcherism at Wiktionary

See the original post:

Thatcherism – Wikipedia

Local column: Libertarianism gone hog wild – Post Register

Local column: Libertarianism gone hog wild
Post Register
We all want liberty, but taking it to a point where our safety is constantly threatened goes too far, writes Jim Delmore. Why does the Idaho Legislature persist in giving people the right to infringe upon the freedoms of others? Let me give some examples.

Visit link:

Local column: Libertarianism gone hog wild – Post Register

How Libertarianism and Christianity intersect – Faith Facts

January 5, 2013

Libertarianism and Christianity

We have noticed many conservative Christians these days claiming to hold to a libertarian political philosophy. Libertarianism is the idea that government should allow complete freedom, except in the case when one person directly harms another. While this often sounds appealing to Christians, we see a dangerous clash of worldviews in trying to mix Christianity with libertarianism. We think that Christian libertarians have been unwittingly duped into adopting a philosophy that has much in common with liberal secularists–and is contrary to the Bible at key points. One appealing thing about libertarianism is that it espouses that the state has been given too much authority. However, we will argue that libertarianism and Christianity really do not mix like some think. Among the problems are these:

Their worldview is determined by a secular philosophy rather than a biblical worldview. Even Christians frequently quote Ayn Rand for support of their theory. The fact that Rand was an ardent atheist and hater of Christianity should give considerable pause. Another libertarian stalwart was Ludwig von Mises, who was agnostic. While libertarianism is not exclusively atheistic or agnostic, a Christian that walks into that sphere is giving the devil a foothold, against which there is a strong commandment from Scripture (Ephesians 4:27).

Libertarianism is ultimately arbitrary. It is an attempt to define morality without God. But as Dostoevsky said, “If there is no God, everything is permitted.” Any view of government not based on an unchangeable objective standard (the Bible!) is subject to be altered at the whims of political power brokers. Christianity, on the other hand, is not arbitrary. Our website is dedicated to demonstrating through reason and evidence that Christianity is objectively true.

Any philosophy (whether Jean-Paul Sartre’s Existentialism, Darwin’s Evolution, or Ayn Rand’s Objectivism) that has a non-theistic foundation ultimately bumps into the problem of nihilism. This means, ultimately, no basis for meaning and purpose for life. (We come from nowhere, we go to nowhere, but somehow life in between has meaning?)

Despite attempts to meld biblical Christianity with this political philosophy, libertarianism inevitably interferes with the individual Christian’s reliance on his faith as the sole lens from which to see the world, moving him away from a biblical worldview. Libertarianism, at its core, is a non-religious philosophy. This thinking is a dangerous diversion for the Christian and can be insidiously damaging to his or her faith, indeed to the Christian’s soul. That libertarianism is divisive to the Christian’s worldview is evident when, as we have noticed is often the case, “libertarian Christians” howl louder when someone attacks their libertarianism than when someone attacks their Christianity! This curious reaction seems to reveal their true allegiance.

We should remember that the law is a teacher. Before the Civil War, when slavery was legal, many Christians believed that slavery was OKand even biblical! After the Civil War, Christians abandoned that dangerous notion. I believe there is a parallel with gay marriage. Making gay marriage legal drives some Christians to think that it is OK–and even biblical.

Libertarian Christians usually think that Christians can segregate their faith–relegating their faith to their private lives. This is falling for the secularist mentality! It’s a trap that marginalizes Christianity just like secularists want! Secularists say, “Sure. You can have your faith. Just leave it over there in the corner of society somewhere and don’t bother anyone else with your stupid ideas.” Falling for this has numerous negative consequences, including giving the impression to potential converts to Christianity that our faith is not universally applicable, that it is only one of many possible worldviews, and Christianity is only a crutch for weak individuals. Jesus’ was given “all authority on heaven and earth” (Matthew 28:18)–not just some authority. This notion–that the Christian faith can be marginalized from society–is directly responsible for the decline of Christianity in America. The inclination to segregate one’s faith so as not to “impose” our values on others smacks of “true for me but not for you.” It is amazing that any Christian would buy into this post-modern relativism. Further, attempting to segregate our faith is dishonoring to God: God is god of ALL or He is not God AT ALL. (Psalm 24:1)

Our COMPASSION as Christians demands that we institute biblical values in society. What other basis for a successful and compassionate society could possibly be better than the Bible?! Who are you going to go with: Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, or Jesus? Jesus allowed no human partner; we are either with Him 100% or we are against Him. (Matthew 12:30)

Christians, make no mistake about this: The homosexual marriage movement is not about freedom. It is about banishing Christianity from the culture. To say that “the state has no authority to sanction marriage” is simply abdicating the role Christianity should play in the culture. Remember, Jesus has authority over all things, not just the church and not just individuals.

Libertarianism is at its core a selfish worldview. The mantra of libertarianism is individualism. This is distinctly different from biblical Christianity. Christianity subjugates the self to God, and to other people (Matthew 22:34-39). In contrast, classic libertarianism and liberalism alike are opposed to, or have no need for, a moral authority above the individual self.

Libertarian Christians have, amazingly, adopted other concepts and the language of liberal secularists. They say to other Christians, “We don’t want a theocracy.” This charge is a red herring. Theocracy is when the church, as an institution, has all political power, including administering civil law. Biblical Christians want no such thing. We support the separation of church and state, properly understood. And we certainly do not want Old Testament civil and ceremonial laws instituted in society. Such laws were repealed in the New Testament (Acts 10:12-15; Colossians 2:11-16; Romans 14:17).

While civil and ceremonial laws were repealed in the New Testament, moral law stands forever. Biblical moral law is applicable to everybody whether they believe it or not. Judicious application of biblical moral law to civil law is infinitely compassionate and positive for society. The idea that “you cannot legislate morality” is also an idea adopted from liberal secularism. It is a false idea. Virtually every law is a put in place based on someone’s idea of morality.

Christianity does not bring bondage; it brings freedom. The truth sets you free (John 8:32)! The more Christian principles are put in society, the more true freedom we have. America’s Founding Fathers noted this passage to support their cause of freedom: “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” (2 Corinthians 3:17). Our message to Christians and non-Christians alike is this: If you want both true freedom, vigouous capitalism, and a compassionate society–the answer is biblical Christianity WITHOUT COMPROMISE AND WITHOUT BEING WATERED DOWN BY OTHER WORLDVIEWS.

Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord. (Psalms 9:17; 33:12)

Unless the Lord builds the house, its builders labor in vain. (Psalm 127:1)

Your kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. (Matthew 6:10)

Bits & Blog is a monthly blog from Faith Facts. We will not overload your Inbox with messages. But if you would like to subscribe to this infrequent communication we promise to try to bring you bits of information we hope will be of interest to you. Just complete the Faith Facts Update form on the home page.

Read more:

How Libertarianism and Christianity intersect – Faith Facts

6 Reasons Why I Gave Up On Libertarianism

These days, libertarianism tends to be quite discredited. It is now associated with the goofy candidature of Gary Johnson, having a rather narrow range of issueslegalize weed! less taxes!, cucking ones way to politics through sweeping all the embarrassing problems under the carpet, then surrendering to liberal virtue-signaling and endorsing anti-white diversity.

Now, everyone on the Alt-Right, manosphere und so wieser is laughing at those whose adhesion to a bunch of abstract premises leads to endorse globalist capital, and now that Trump officially heads the State, wed be better off if some private companies were nationalized than let to shadowy overlords.

To Americans, libertarianism has been a constant background presence. Its main icons, be them Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard or Friedrich Hayek, were always read and discussed here and there, and never fell into oblivion although they barely had media attention. The academic and political standing of libertarianism may be marginal, it has always been granted small platforms and resurrected from time to time in the public landscape, one of the most conspicuous examples of it being the Tea Party demonstrations.

To a frog like yours trulyKek being now praised by thousands of well-meaning memers, I can embrace the frog moniker gladlylibertarianism does not have the same standing at all. In French universities, libertarian thinkers are barely discussed, even in classes that are supposed to tackle economics: for one hour spent talking about Hayek, Keynes easily enjoys ten, and the same goes on when comparing the attention given to, respectively, Adam Smith and Karl Marx.

On a wider perspective, a lot of the contemporary French identity is built on Jacobinism, i.e. on crushing underfoot organic regional sociability in the name of a bureaucratized and Masonic republic. The artificial construction of France is exactly the kind of endeavour libertarianism loathes. No matter why the public choices school, for example, is barely studied here: pompous leftist teachers and mediocre fonctionnaires are too busy gushing about themselves, sometimes hiding the emptiness of their life behind a ridiculous epic narrative that turns social achievements into heroic feats, to give a fair hearing to pertinent criticism.

When I found out about libertarianism, I was already sick of the dominant fifty shades of leftism political culture. The gloomy mediocrity of small bureaucrats, including most school teachers, combined with their petty political righteousness, always repelled me. Thus, the discovery oflaissez-faire advocates felt like stumbling on an entirely new scene of thoughtand my initial feeling was vindicated when I found about the naturalism often associated with it, something refreshing and intuitively more satisfying than the mainstream culture-obsessed, biology-denying view.

Libertarianism looked like it could solve everything. More entrepreneurship, more rights to those who actually create wealth and live through the good values of personal responsibility and work ethic, less parasitesbe they bureaucrats or immigrants, no more repressive speech laws. Coincidentally, a new translation of Ayn Rands Atlas Shrugged was published at this time: I devoured it, loving the sense of life, the heroism, the epic, the generally great and achieving ethos contained in it. Arent John Galt and Hank Rearden more appealing than any corrupt politician or beta bureaucrat that pretends to be altruistic while backstabbing his own colleagues and parasitizing the country?

Now, although I still support small-scale entrepreneurship wholeheartedly, I would never defend naked libertarianism, and here is why.

Part of the Rothschild family, where nepotism and consanguinity keep the money in

Unity makes strength, and trust is much easier to cultivate in a small group where everyone truly belongs than in an anonymous great society. Some ethnic groups, especially whites, tend to be instinctively individualistic, with a lot of people favouring personal liberty over belonging, while others, especially Jews, tend to favor extended family business and nepotism.

On a short-term basis, mobile individuals can do better than those who are bound to many social obligations. On the long run, however, extended families manage to create an environment of trust and concentrate capital. And whereas individuals may start cheating each other or scattering their wealth away, thanks to having no proper economic network, families and tribes will be able to invest heavily in some of their members and keep their wealth inside. This has been true for Jewish families, wherever their members work as moneylenders or diamond dealers, for Asians investing in new restaurants or any other business project of their own, and for North Africans taking over pubs and small shops in France.

The latter example is especially telling. White bartenders, butchers, grocers and the like have been chased off French suburbs by daily North African and black violence. No one helped them, everyone being afraid of getting harassed as well and busy with their own business. (Yep, just like what happened and still happens in Rotheram.) As a result, these isolated, unprotected shop-owners sold their outlet for a cheap price and fled. North Africans always covered each others violence and replied in groups against any hurdle, whereas whites lowered their heads and hoped not to be next on the list.

Atlas Shrugged was wrong. Loners get wrecked by groups. Packs of hyenas corner and eat the lone dog.

Libertarianism is not good for individuals on the long runit turns them into asocial weaklings, soon to be legally enslaved by global companies or beaten by groups, be they made of nepotistic family members or thugs.

How the middle classes end up after jobs have been sent overseas and wages lowered

People often believe, thanks to Leftist media and cuckservative posturing, that libertarians are big bosses. This is mostly, if not entirely, false. Most libertarians are middle class guys who want more opportunities, less taxation, and believe that libertarianism will help them to turn into successful entrepreneurs. They may be right in very specific circumstances: during the 2000s, small companies overturned the market of electronics, thus benefiting both to their independent founders and to society as a whole; but ultimately, they got bought by giants like Apple and Google, who are much better off when backed by a corrupt State than on a truly free market.

Libertarianism is a fake alternative, just as impossible to realize as communism: far from putting everyone at its place, it lets ample room to mafias, monopolies, unemployment caused by mechanization and global competition. If one wants the middle classes to survive, one must protect the employment and relative independence of its membersbankers and billionaires be damned.

Spontaneous order helped by a weak government. I hope they at least smoke weed.

A good feature of libertarianism is that it usually goes along with a positive stance on biology and human nature, in contrast with the everything is cultural and ought to be deconstructed left. However, this stance often leads to an exaggerated optimism about human nature. In a society of laissez-faire, the libertarians say, people flourish and the order appears spontaneously.

Well, this is plainly false. As all of the great religions say, after what Christians call the Fall, man is a sinner. If you let children flourish without moral standards and role models, they become spoiled, entitled, manipulative, emotionally fragile and deprived of self-control. If you let women flourish without suspicion, you let free rein to their propensities to hypergamy, hysteria, self-entitlement and everything we can witness in them today. If you let men do as they please, you let them become greedy, envious, and turning into bullies. As a Muslim proverb says, people must be flogged to enter into paradiseand as Aristotle put forth, virtues are trained dispositions, no matter the magnitude of innate talents and propensities.

Michelle The Man Obama and Lying Crooked at a Democrat meeting

When the laissez-faire rules, some will succeed on the market more than others, due to differences in investment, work, and natural abilities. Some will succeed enough to be able to buy someone elses business: this is the natural consequence of differences in wealth and of greed. When corrupt politicians enter the game, things become worse, as they will usually help some large business owners to shield their position against competitorsat the expense of most people, who then lose their independence and live off a wage.

At the end, what we get is a handful of very wealthy individuals who have managed to concentrate most capital and power levers into their hands and a big crowd of low-wage employees ready to cut each others throat for a small promotion, and females waiting in line to get notched by the one per cent while finding the other ninety-nine per cent boring.

Censorship by massive social pressure, monopoly over the institutions and crybullying is perfectly legal. What could go wrong?

On the surface, libertarianism looks good here, because it protects the individuals rights against left-hailing Statism and cuts off the welfare programs that have attracted dozens of millions of immigrants. Beneath, however, things are quite dire. Libertarianism enshrines the leftists right to free speech they abuse from, allows the pressure tactics used by radicals, and lets freethinking individuals getting singled out by SJWs as long as these do not resort to overt stealing or overt physical violence. As for the immigrants, libertarianism tends to oppose the very notion of non-private boundaries, thus letting the local cultures and identities defenseless against both greedy capitalists and subproletarian masses.

Supporting an ideology that allows the leftists to destroy society more or less legally equates to cucking, plain and simple. Desiring an ephemeral cohabitation with rabid ideological warriors is stupid. We should aim at a lasting victory, not at pretending to constrain them through useless means.

Am I the only one to find that Gary Johnson looks like a snail (Spongebob notwithstanding)?

In 2013, one of the rare French libertarians academic teachers, Jean-Louis Caccomo, was forced into a mental ward at the request of his university president. He then spent more than a year getting drugged. Mr. Caccomo had no real psychological problem: his confinement was part of a vicious strategy of pathologization and career-destruction that was already used by the Soviets. French libertarians could have wide denounced the abuse. Nonetheless, most of them freaked out, and almost no one dared to actually defend him publicly.

Why should rational egoists team up and risk their careers to defend one of themselves after all? They would rather posture at confidential social events, rail at organic solidarity and protectionism, or trolling the shit out of individuals of their own social milieu because Ive got the right to mock X, its my right to free speech! The few libertarian people I knew firsthand, the few events I have witnessed in that small milieu, were enough to give me serious doubts about libertarianism: how can a good political ideology breed such an unhealthy mindset?

Political ideologies are tools. They are not ends in themselves. All forms of government arent fit for any people or any era. Political actors must know at least the most important ones to get some inspiration, but ultimately, said actors win on the ground, not in philosophical debates.

Individualism, mindless consumerism, careerism, hedonism are part of the problem. Individual rights granted regardless of ones abilities, situation, and identity are a disaster. Time has come to overcome modernity, not stall in one of its false alternatives. The merchant caste must be regulated, though neither micromanaged or hampered by a parasitic bureaucracy nor denied its members right for small-scale independence. Individual rights must be conditional, boundaries must be restored, minority identities based on anti-white male resentment must be crushed so they cannot devour sociability from the inside again, and the pater familias must assert himself anew.

Long live the State and protectionism as long as they defend the backbone of society and healthy relationships between the sexes, and no quarter for those who think they have a right to wage grievance-mongering against us, no matter if they want to use the State or private companies. At the end, the socialism-libertarianism dichotomy is quite secondary.

Read Next: Sugar Baby Culture In The US Is Creating A Marketplace for Prostitution

Dec 1, 2016Andr du Ple

Read the original here:

6 Reasons Why I Gave Up On Libertarianism

27 Libertarianism & Transhumanism (with Zoltan Istvan and Tempest McGee) – Lifeboat Foundation (blog)

Podcast on transhumanism and libertarianism with Cuddle Pile (their show is also on iTunes, Stitcher, GooglePlay, etc). Its a fun interview.

Cuddle Pile 27 Libertarianism & Transhumanism (with Zoltan Istvan and Tempest McGee)

Here it is! The moment we have all been waiting for! ZOLTAN ISTVAN calls into the show! AKA the guy Tony voted for in the 2016 Presidential election. Now he is running for Governor of California!

Also joining us is Tempest McGee. You might remember us mentioning her on the Valentines Day episode. We referred to her as X-Files girl. What does she have to do with Zoltan? THEYRE BOTH LIBERTARIANS! What is a Libertarian? Tune into find out!

00:00 Intro

Link:

27 Libertarianism & Transhumanism (with Zoltan Istvan and Tempest McGee) – Lifeboat Foundation (blog)

Humane Libertarianism: A New American Liberalism, a lecture hosted by SLU slated for March 15 – North Country Now

CANTON — St. Lawrence University will host economist Deirdre McCloskey at 7:30 p.m. on March 15, in Hepburn Hall, room 218.

The event is part of the Department of Economics Visiting Speaker Series in Political Economy and is funded by the Charles Koch Foundation.

McCloskeys lecture, Humane Libertarianism: A New American Liberalism, is free and open to the public.

An economist, historian and rhetorician, McCloskey the author of more than 400 peer-reviewed academic articles and 17 books, including “Economical Writing: A Memoir and most recently Bourgeois Equality: How Ideas, Not Capital or Institutions, Enriched the World, the third volume in the trilogy The Bourgeois Era.”

McCloskey earned a bachelors degree and Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University and taught at the University of Chicago, the University of Iowa, and the University of Illinois at Chicago, from where she retired as the distinguished professor of economics, history, English and communications at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

For more information, contact the Department of Economics at 315-229-5430 or visit http://www.stlawu.edu/economics.

Go here to see the original:

Humane Libertarianism: A New American Liberalism, a lecture hosted by SLU slated for March 15 – North Country Now

Follyswaddling Healthcare or How to Abandon Libertarianism in One Intemperate Moment of Political Insecurity – The Libertarian Republic

Follyswaddling Healthcare or How to Abandon Libertarianism in One Intemperate Moment of Political Insecurity
The Libertarian Republic
I'm going to remind libertarians of many thing they already know, but generally forget they know when it comes to the idiotic national conversation we've had about healthcare in the last decade. First, rights are not what the government gives out to

See the original post:

Follyswaddling Healthcare or How to Abandon Libertarianism in One Intemperate Moment of Political Insecurity – The Libertarian Republic