Category Archives: Libertarianism

Libertarians embrace political values and principles that differ from those held by members of the two main political ideologies in the United States. Chief of these differences is the role they believe government should play in citizens' daily lives. In this article, we'll explore these differences in detail to understand the libertarian mindset better.

Gary Johnson, 2016 Libertarian Presidential Candidate, Pixabay License, Free for commercial use. No attribution required

Libertarians strongly oppose any government interference in your personal, family, and business decisions. Essentially, we believe all Americans should be free to live their lives and pursue their interests as they see fit as long as they do no harm to another.

- Libertarian party's official website

Libertarianism is a political outlook that places the rights of the individual above the rights of the government. Libertarians believe in a capitalist market economy free from government interference and a society where people can choose to live their lives as they see fit. They only ask the government to offer basic protections of freedom and security.

Libertarians generally have the following views:

Libertarians believe in a free market economy with minimal to no government interference

Libertarians advocate for the reduction or elimination of taxes, believing that high taxes stifle the flow of the market

Libertarians believe in minimal government spending. Allowing the economy to function and prosper will resolve many of the issues around inequality

Police and military should receive minimal funding, just enough to protect basic personal and property rights and to safeguard against emergencies

The government should not get involved in the personal lifestyle choices of individuals as long as those actions arent hurting anyone

Parents and guardians should have school choice

Libertarians are often fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Libertarians believe that the ultimate power in society rests in the hands of the individual, as opposed to the government. Economically, they believe the government should remain largely uninvolved. The free market will resolve its issues if it is left alone.

Morally, libertarians maintain their preference for minimal government interference. Libertarians argue that as long as what someone is doing doesnt directly hurt another person, they should be allowed to live their lives as they choose.

What follows is an overview of libertarian views and how they are similar to or different from conservative and liberal perspectives. In some cases, libertarian ideas overlap with one or the others' ideas.

Issue

Liberal

Conservative

Libertarian

Economy

Prefer more regulation to help the needy and equalize opportunities.

Value a capitalist system and reduced government regulation of the economy to allow the market to flow.

Believe in a free market economy, with the least amount of government involvement possible.

Taxes

The wealthy should be taxed more heavily; lower taxes for the poor and middle classes.

Lower taxes, especially for the wealthy.

Lower taxes for all, regardless of income. They believe that high tax rates stifle the economy.

Government Spending

It is the governments job to spend to address social inequalities. The government should fund programs to benefit people in need.

The government should avoid spending money on social programs and instead invest in the military and police to maintain the social order.

Keep government spending to a minimum.

Police and Defense

Those undergoing trial have rights that must be respected. Decriminalize victimless crimes like drugs and sex work.

The police and military should be funded to ensure the United States is safe and protected from outside threats.

Minimize government spending on security and defense, decriminalize victimless crimes, and establish basic protection of property and personal freedom.

Education

Advocacy for public schools; tend to be against private education and school of choice, believing it takes away from the value of public schools.

Support educational flexibility around religious beliefs and favor charter schools and schools of choice.

Values schools of choice and privatization of schools. The competition of a market model will improve education for everyone.

Lifestyle and Personal Freedoms

Appreciates greater freedom when it comes to personal and lifestyle choices.

Values more government involvement in social and moral issues, which is necessary to maintaining a healthy social order.

Believes in a hands-off government approach to social and lifestyle choices, as long as they do not hurt others.

The Libertarian party is a U.S. political party founded in 1971 by David Nolan in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Libertarians believe in a free-market economy and minimal government intervention. They support the rights of the individual alongside small government.

Libertarianism was founded by individuals spanning political party lines. The founders wanted to develop something different from the traditional Democratic and Republican parties. While the libertarian party hasnt had much measurable political success, its numbers have grown over the years to over 600,000 registered party members.

The Libertarian party is considered a third party. Except for a few very close elections, the party doesnt play a major role in American politics. Since libertarianism isnt currently a viable political party platform, much of its work focuses on trying to establish itself further and broaden its appeal to voters.

Libertarianism is a draw for young Republicans who share the economic ideals of their party but dont align with its social conservatism.

Libertarians represent a cross-section of liberal and conservative views. Economically, libertarians take a more conservative approach, preferring that the government avoid intervening in the flow of the free-market economy. However, libertarians differ from many conservatives when it comes to social and moral issues. They maintain a hands-off government stance, while many traditional conservatives prefer the government to involve itself in certain aspects of society.

Libertarians are conservative regarding the economy, preferring minimal government involvement, and liberal about personal and moral choices. Libertarians often align with Republicans regarding fiscal views but veer away from Republican politics, believing that the government should not involve itself in personal affairs that do not impact others directly. There is a notable crossover between Republican and Libertarian policies and adherents.

Libertarians share many traits with liberalism regarding the role of the government in social affairs. Libertarians prefer a hands-off and tolerant approach and oppose government efforts to regulate morality or lifestyle. However, while liberals would like the government to become involved in the economy by assisting those in need and equalizing opportunities, libertarians do not. Libertarians oppose government interference in the economy, believing it harms society.

Authoritarianism is the opposite of libertarianism. By definition, authoritarianism refers to people submitting to the government's will. Authoritarianism values blind obedience to authority figures. In contrast, libertarians do not believe in heavy-handed government authority. They consider this overreach. Libertarians believe government involvement beyond ensuring public safety and maintaining property rights harms society.

Ron Paul speaking to supporters at a town hall meeting in Iowa. Wikimedia Commons. Photo by Gage Skidmore, CC-BY-SA-2.0

Over the years, several notable libertarian candidates have run for president. The following section details the most prominent libertarians to impact American electoral politics.

Ron Paul is a physician with a military background who began his political career in 1971. He served as a Republican congressman in Texas and was a presidential candidate who ran unsuccessfully under the Libertarian party in 1988. He later ran as a Republican in the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections, albeit unsuccessfully.

Gary Johnson is the former Republican governor of the state of New Mexico. He ran as a fiscal conservative in the 2012 and 2016 Presidential elections, valuing the economic ideals of the Republican Party. However, he took a more liberal position on social issues, including decriminalizing marijuana. In the 2012 Presidential election, Johnson received over 1.2 million votes, a record-breaking amount for a Libertarian candidate.

Visit link:
Libertarianism: Definition & Examples | StudySmarter

I have always felt a libertarian streak in my view of society, but Im not sure that the term hasnt taken a turn for the worse (Free Staters test limits of N.H. libertarianism, Page A1, Sept. 4). As I recall how William Weld had to promise the Libertarian party that he would remain a Libertarian for the rest of his life in order to be nominated as the vice presidential candidate of that party in 2016, and as I read about Free Staters in Brian MacQuarries article, I wonder where the liberty is.

If democracy is soft communism, then Free Staters seem to be soft fascists, dictating to others what they may think and forcing them to leave their lifelong homes if they dont fall in line. They dont want to be told what to do but are ready to tell others, and with a totalitarian attitude.

Read the rest here:
In N.H., its live Free State or leave thats libertarianism? - The Boston Globe

Crypto was taking off, and governments were finally starting to act like it. In 2013, when a young writer and software developer named Vitalik Buterin wrote an impassioned screed defending the blockchain gospel for his publication, Bitcoin Magazine, cryptocurrencies were still a niche curiosity. But a series of regulations was spooking the nascent industry, threatening the sort of anti-government ethos that has always been core to the project. For Buterin the panic felt a little overblown. Crypto, he argued, couldnt truly be regulated. After all, this was the whole point of the new system: an internet with no masters, no mediators, and no guardrails. The future of crypto-libertarianism is fine, he wrote. Stop worrying.

This is the promise crypto advocates have sold consumers and politicians over the past decade, as crypto has blown up into a trillion-dollar behemothin the process making Buterin, now best known as the founder of the Ethereum network, very, very rich. (Buterins Ethereum Foundation did not respond to a request for comment.) Even as crypto has wormed its way into the mainstream, the argument goes, the tech was constructed in such a way as to prevent meddling on the part of banks and governments. For example, Jesse Powell, CEO of the Kraken exchange, has referred to crypto networks as censorship-resistant rails of last resort. And the venture-capital powerhouse Andreessen Horowitz, now the foremost backer of crypto start-ups, has invoked that same idea in promoting its multibillion-dollar funds.

But what might have rung true in 2013 doesnt hit quite as hard in 2022. Thanks in part to its attempts to garner mainstream recognition, crypto is now rubbing up against renewed governmental scrutiny. In recent weeks, a subtle yet significant move from the Treasury Department has exposed some of the rhetorical misconceptions at the heart of the industry, suggesting that the tech can be meddled with after all.

Read: Have the crypto bosses learned anything at all?

For all the talk of crypto as a slick new alternative to a corrupt and outmoded banking system, companies have now found themselves backed into a corner: Either they can comply with regulations that could essentially defang the promise of the technology, or they can stay the course, at great cost to their bottom lines. And for the most part, companies look to be choosing the easy way out, principles be damned. Its a sign that crypto is growing up from its youth oriented around building a new financial system, instead evolving into something like a new wing of Big Tech. The more crypto matures, and the more it integrates into the existing scaffolds of American capitalism, the more it strays from its core ideals.

The panic began in early August, when the Treasury Department decided to sanction a program called Tornado Cash, essentially forbidding any person or business in the U.S. from interacting with it in any capacity. Tornado Cash is a tool that makes Ethereum transactions more or less untraceable, scrambling the paper trail on a famously transparent blockchain. Its great for well-meaning privacy enthusiasts worried about prying eyes, but its also great for cleaning up dirty money: State-backed North Korean hackers reportedly used the program to launder more than half a billion dollars worth of Ethereum in April.

Tornado Cash isnt all that popular of a program, but the implications of the sanctions are far-reaching. It threatens to affect how the entire Ethereum blockchainnow the second-largest crypto network after bitcoinfunctions in practice. Permit me a moment of crypto-splaining: When you ask your computer to send some Ethereum to a friend, you need to wait for another computer in the network to verify the transaction, ensuring that you have enough money to send and that its going to the right address. Without that go-ahead, the money is stuck in limbo.

Right now, that happens through a process called mining, though Ethereum plans to replace its miners with a new, more energy-efficient system of validators later this month. Technically anyone can be a validator, but because validation requires having lots of crypto on hand, its mostly companies that do this work, pooling together customer funds and taking a cut of the profits. According to Decrypt, more than 60 percent of the validation will go through four companies. And if the computer doing the validating belongs to an American company (even if you yourself are not based in the U.S.), it will need to abide by the sanctions, making it harder for anyone anywhere in the network to use Tornado Cash.

Read: The petty pleasures of watching crypto profiteers flounder

The end result risks what crypto has always wanted to avoid: censorship. Because the companies behind these validators are subject to punishments for violating the sanctions, the reality is that your money can be effectively frozen by a watchful government. Its a small dent in the armor that is Ethereums resistance to censorship, and one that may not necessarily affect more casual usersbut the fact that the armor can be dented at all is telling. Who knows what the Treasury might decide to sanction next? It reveals what was true all along, Angela Walch, a law professor at St. Marys University who studies crypto, told me. The cats out of the bag for both regulators and the crypto sector that [censorship resistance] is kind of a myth.

American validators have no good options here. If they choose to comply with the sanctions, theyre conceding that governments can meddle in transactions after all, and potentially allowing innocent bystanders to get caught in the crossfire. If they dont, they risk violating Treasury Department guidelinesa move thats not particularly sustainable for a growing industry.

In practice, companies will need to either comply with the sanctions and renege on their Dont Tread on Me roots, or simply halt their validation businesses altogether, skipping out on gobs of money in the process. For crypto companies, this is where the rubber is meeting the road, Walch said. Their talk about this being a democratizing force, and neutrality is important, and everyone should have the ability to freely transactokay, are you going to follow the law, or are you going to follow the purported ethos of the space? Were hitting the point where youre not going to have it both ways anymore.

No one should be surprised that the denizens of crypto Twitterthat twisted artery through which all blockchain-related discourse seems to floware lobbying for the latter option. To the faithful, the choice of how to respond to these sanctions is almost a moral issue. If youre willing to comply with the Tornado Cash sanction, the thinking goes, maybe you never really cared about what made the blockchain special to begin with. A crypto YouTuber suggested that if Ethereum validators capitulate to the sanctions, the whole system would be for beta males.

A few crypto leaders are not backing down. Buterin, more a technologist than a company man, is on record as saying he would opt to punish validators who comply with the sanctions. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, arguably the most influential executive in the American crypto sphere, has said the same of his companys validators; yesterday, the exchange announced that its bankrolling a lawsuit against the U.S. Treasury over the sanctions. When Ethereum upgrades later this month, Coinbase will control an estimated 15 percent of the market for the networks validation process, making it one of the most powerful individual actors in the system. Shutting down a portion of a business thats poised to create major gains for Coinbase, especially on the heels of a particularly bad quarter, would be borderline disastrous. (A spokesperson for Coinbase pointed me to a webinar it hosted to discuss the fallout of the sanctions, but declined to comment further.)

But by and large, most companies have so far stayed mum on this question. For some, the silence could represent genuine confusion as to how exactly theyre meant to conform to the sanctions. For others, though, it may be just a way of passing the buck: The industry seems to be more concerned with enshrining its place in the American financial system than with taking an ideological stand at the expense of profit, and its possible an official statement to that effect would only inflame the community. Last week, a spokesperson for Kraken, which runs an Ethereum validation business alongside its exchange, said in an email that the company is carefully monitoring the discussion on the potential implications of Tornado Cash sanctions for validators, but refrained from expanding on how it plans to comply with the new sanctions. A 2018 mission statement from Jesse Powell might give you a hint as to where the company is headed, however: He wrote that his ideological motivation to build a world-class exchange was entirely dependent on working with regulators. Lido Finance, another prominent source of validators, didnt respond to multiple requests for comment.

That companies are finally confronting these issues is a sign the industry is maturing, for better or for worse. Crypto was originally conceived as an alternative to traditional finance, a way of sidestepping the big banks. But what happens when the new system grows into the old one? When Buterin wrote his blog post a decade ago, a single bitcoin cost $120. At the heart of last years surge, that price hit $69,000. In 2022, venture-capital firms and investment banks are putting billions into the idea that crypto will have some role in the future of global finance. Blackrock has a private Bitcoin trust for its clients, and JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Goldman Sachs all have dedicated crypto divisions.

In this new era, companies will have to decide: accept the reality of regulation and continue to grow their businesses, or find some way of skirting the new rules entirely. At least, theyll finally have to pick a side.

Read more from the original source:
Cryptos Libertarianism Is Running Headfirst Into Reality - The Atlantic

There are few things in politics as dangerous as a sure thing.

Maybe thats because when a political party believes victory is certain, the kooks and grifters come out in droves to profit off it generally eroding whatever advantage that party might have had to begin with in the process.

And so, with the possibility of a red wave in 2022 widely considered to be a sure thing, it really shouldnt have been surprising that some of Team Reds candidates are almost comically damaging to Republican prospects.

Given Nevadas unique position in national politics, its only fitting that many of the GOPs unforced errors would take place here especially because much of the Republican consulting class in this state appears to be more interested in the grift than they are in propelling credible and qualified candidates to victory.

A recent case in point would be Michele Fiores inexplicable decision to brag even campaign on the fact that a disgraced former councilman-turned-lobbyist, Ricki Barlow, endorsed her campaign for treasurer.

Certainly, most campaign consultants would jump at the chance to have an endorsement from someone in the opposing party a phenomenon some Democrats have enjoyed several times this election cycle. Nonetheless, most competent campaigns would also give at least a modicum of consideration to the reputation of the person giving the endorsement before bragging about it to potential voters.

The grifters who comprise certain factions within the Republican Party, however, apparently dont consider such nuanced considerations to be important. And so, the woman who has, herself, been investigated for shady financial practices is publicly promoting the endorsement of a disgraced colleague.

Fiores trademarked poor judgment, however, is not an isolated incident.

Sigal Chattah, the Republican running for attorney general, has demonstrated a similar level of incompetent politicking in her race. Her comments, demeanor and political views aside, her recent lawsuit to remove the (ineligible) Libertarian candidate from the ballot had the fingerprints of rank political amateurs all over it.

One can presume her attempt to boot the Libertarian candidate from the ballot stems from a belief that he would siphon votes from the Republican ticket on election day therefore further frustrating what is already turning out to be a challenging race for her. Since the Libertarian has already sought to withdraw his candidacy, it makes sense Chattah would seek to remove the spoiler-candidates name from the ballot.

However, her lawsuit was filed months later than it should have been if there was ever going to be any hope of removing his name and after the last legal day for name changes to be made to the ballot. Chattahs team effectively waited until ballots were ready to roll off the printers and get stuffed into envelopes leaving Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske, the judicial branch, or even the lowly-paid employee responsible for hitting print on the big machine at the ballot factory, incapable of actually doing anything about it.

It should come as no surprise that Chattahs lawyer for this matter was Joey Gilbert the very same man who threw a litigious temper-tantrum after his entirely predictable primary loss to Republican Sheriff Joe Lombardo. If the last headline-grabbing lawsuit he was a part of was any indication of future performance, reasonable observers should have known this one wouldnt pan out well for team red.

And sure enough, a district court judge ruled last week that the ineligible Libertarian candidates name will, indeed, remain on the ballot.

Beyond these specific examples, theres also a growing (and ill-advised) belief among many Republican candidates that being actively hostile toward the news media is, somehow, a winning campaign strategy.

Adam Laxalt, for example, has effectively built a wall around his campaign to keep out reporters who might ask occasionally difficult questions. So far, Laxalt has even refused to agree to a debate with his Democratic opponent putting him out of step with other high-profile Republicans, such as Joe Lombardo, who have already agreed to the pretty standard practice of public debates in major political contests.

Of course, to be fair, Laxalts apparent inaccessibility isnt a uniquely Republican trait. For example, his opponent Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto has refused to grant The Nevada Independent the kind of long-form interview that Republicans Mark Amodei and Joe Lombardo have already provided.

But why would she? Why risk being asked a handful of difficult questions when Laxalt is willfully limiting his own ability to talk to voters through the media? In a very tangible way, Laxalts resistance to engaging with reporters has given Cortez Masto the freedom to be highly selective about when (or if) she decides to engage with objective news outlets and that freedom is a pretty welcomed gift to any incumbent trying to defend their office.

By many measures, 2022 should have been a very successful election year for the GOP with economic challenges, midterm trends and a deeply unpopular Democratic president setting the stage for a red wave in November. However, that advantage effectively gave rise to a goldrush of amateurs, opportunists, and grifters seeking to profit quickly off such a sure thing.

And those are exactly the types of people capable of turning a predicted red wave into something more like a ripple.

Michael Schaus is a communications and branding expert based in Las Vegas, Nevada, and founder of Schaus Creative LLC an agency dedicated to helping organizations, businesses and activists tell their story and motivate change. He has more than a decade of experience in public affairs commentary, having worked as a news director, columnist, political humorist, and most recently as the director of communications for a public policy think tank. Follow him at SchausCreative.com or on Twitter at @schausmichael.

Read more from the original source:
The 'red wave' was such a sure thing, of course Republicans are blowing it The Nevada Independent - The Nevada Independent

You may think Nevada Republican candidate for secretary of state Jim Marchant is just a despicable election denying conspiracy peddler who, given the opportunity, would eagerly reject the will of Nevadas citizens if more of them voted for a Democrat than a Republican.

And he is.

But hes also a businessman! Or was? Whatever.

Last week the Review-Journal reported that Marchants entrepreneurial enterprises had a habit of getting sued over the years, and losing, for breaching contracts and not paying bills. You can see why Donald Trump, Americas deadbeat-in-chief, would call Marchant a legendary businessman. Well, a Marchant campaign person told the Review-Journal thats what Trump said once.

Maybe Trump said that in 2020, when Marchant was losing an election for Congress. Trump endorsed him that year. Trump does not appear to have endorsed Marchant this year as yet.

Marchant has however been endorsed by Adam Laxalt. And Trump has endorsed Laxalt. So Marchant is only one degree removed from a Trump endorsement? Hmm, I seem to be digressing. Where was I?

Oh right. Deadbeat businessman. In fairness to Marchant, the qualifications required to run a business haphazardly and ineffectively or even right into the ground may be entirely different from the skill-set (hate, paranoia, hostility to facts, affection for QAnon, etc.) needed in any effort to deprive voters of their choice and steal an election from them. Apples and oranges. Maybe.

***

You may think Nevada Republican candidate for attorney general Sigal Chattah is just a rootin tootin MegaMAGAhead who coined this campaign cycles most distinctive if disturbing campaign slogan when she said the Black man who currently has the job should be hanging from a f***ing crane.

And she is.

But shes also a lawyer! Granted, shes a lawyer who, when asked a question about the legal status of abortion rights in Nevada, gave the wrong answer. But a lawyer nonetheless.

Which is an important point in this instance because the Legislature passed a law that says you cant be attorney general unless you are a member of the state bar.

And thats an important point in this instance because a Libertarian non-lawyer filed to run for AG, so Chattah got fellow rootin tootin MegaMAGAhead and Republican gubernatorial primary loser (though hes in denial, sniffle) Joey Gilbert to sue to get the Libertarian off the ballot. To which the office of Nevadas Republican secretary of state said yikes you should have asked earlier because its too late now, or words to that effect, and a judge agreed, the Nevada Independent reported Wednesday.

Before you start sending sympathy cards to Chattah, you should know the Libertarian non-lawyer says he wanted to be taken off the ballot and has no intention of campaigning because goshdarnit the laws the law. Which seems sort of a squishy position for a libertarian to take if people want to elect a non-lawyer AG they should have the liberty to do that, amirite? Darned burdensome freedom-crushing government regulations.

Come to think of it, how come instead of trying to get Big Government to uphold that law, Sigal, and Joey too for that matter, arent calling out its underlying un-Americanness? Why arent Sigal and Joey championing her fellow freedom-loving libertarians rights and Hmm, I seem to be digressing. Where was I?

Oh right, squishy Libertarian will probably be on the ballot whether he likes it or not.

Yes, Libertarian votes are votes that otherwise would go to the Republican. Conceptually. In practice, though, you may have noticed over the years that Libertarians rarely if ever perform as well as polling might suggest, or as Republicans might fear, or as Democrats might hope. It seems a gut check kicks in when its time for right-wing voters to cast their ballots, and they vote for the candidate they think has the best chance of winning, i.e., the Republican. Whether Chattah wins or loses wont hang, er, hinge on the performance of a third party candidate.

***

You may think Republican state treasurer candidate Michele Fiore is a scandal-ridden grifter and carnival loon barking at the moon and hoping for the moon and the loons to notice her.

And she is.

Some things never change.

Read more:
Jim, Sigal, and Michele just living their best lives - Nevada Current

Among the many explanations or interpretations of the roaring buzz that followed the death of the queen of England and the proclamation of the new king, I note three plausible ones, from the most comforting to the most concerningin a classical-liberal or libertarian perspective.

The first, optimistic, interpretation is that people (by which I mean most people) like a hands-off distant sovereign as opposed to an omnipresent harasser. They would rather see the photograph of a constitutional, i.e. limited, monarch in government offices than a meddling and divisive fifty-percent-plus-one president. The queen has arguably never done anything against one of her subjects, contrary to Trump or Biden. In a fertile imagination, the queen might evoke Anthony de Jasays capitalist state, which reigns but does not govern, that is, does not impose costs on some subjects for the benefit of others, and whose only role is to prevent the establishment of a state that would govern.

This overly optimistic view is attenuated by the fact that the queen did allow the decline of English liberty (although she could probably not have prevented it). As a symbolic representation, compare the 96 cannonballs that mourned her passing with the interdiction for any subject who is not in her majestys service to have a revolver in his nightstand drawer. Moreover, by any account, the start of the decline of English liberty preceded Elizabeth IIs reign anyway.

A second interpretation is that people simply like ceremonial rites, decorum, and tradition, which is very different from what they get under egalitarian and totalitarian democracy, a sausage factory of discriminatory laws that take sides for some subjects and against others, and change every few years under the cheers of a passing numerical majority and the shouts of an exploited minority. Passing through checkpoints is not a ride in a carriage drawn by white horses. A ceremonial king or queen makes the subjects feel above all that.

As de Jasay notes, however, a state that looks innocuous may just serve to disarm mistrust. In this perspective, the main benefit of the good queen may be a fairy tale for her subjects to dream about. They love royalty like they are fans of celebrities. The propaganda power of the state should not be ignored. Instead of a queen or a king, the French have the timeless Marianne, an attractive woman who represents the republic (see image below). How can that be dangerous?

The third and most pessimistic interpretation of the buzz around Elizabeth II and Charles III, is that people may long for a glamorous and powerful sovereign to obey. James Buchanan was caught wondering if individuals really want equal liberty as classical liberals have assumed for a few centuries. The British cry long live the King could be analogous to the proud Trump is my president or possibly Biden is my president of Americans.

The actual mix of these explanations across the different individuals may determine how far we are down the road to serfdom.

Here is the original post:
Long Live the King (My President)! - Econlib

Two advocacy pieces in recent months both suffered from the same problem: sweeping assertions based on theoretical models and false assumptions and beliefs.

Rent Control Will Harm the Poor was an exercise in advocacy-based science. It picked studies by Conservative Libertarians that predictably supported the assumptions and goals of real estate promoters. Rent Stabilization Is a Necessary Tool was also an exercise in advocacy-based science. It picked studies by Liberal Progressives that predictably supported the assumptions and goals of social justice promoters.

The arguments on both sides were made as if we are litigators in a court of law rather than a society of human beings trying to achieve group functional outcomes. What they are engaged in is not scientific inquiry; it is advocacy-based science that uses selective scientific information to promote a predetermined position.

Public policy should be based on knowledge, not theory.

I have been a property owner, businessman, and resident in Santa Barbara since 1980. My family and friends want multigenerational communities in Santa Barbara County where our children can buy homes; we dont want wealth ghettos surrounded by servant communities.

In the real world outside of economic theories, local property values float on top of the global stock of properties; housing is a financial asset, and financial assets are valued based on the willingness of investors to hold the stock of the asset. Housing is treated by the capital markets as a financial asset by virtue of the fact that it can be easily rented out and generally produces a positive yield. Assets that produce cash flow are always treated as financial assets by investors. By contrast, oil, wheat, and gold are commodities that cost money to store and have no meaningful rental demand; they do not produce a positive yield.

The reason shelter is unaffordable for a majority of the Santa Barbara population in 2022 is that too great a share of the total housing stock is held by the private market and too great a share of the funding is extended to low-risk consumers: consumers with high credit scores. Housing costs have been driven higher as global wealth has experienced massive growth since the 1980s, while investable opportunities offering attractive returns to global capital have simultaneously become rare in the developed world. This flood of wealth, or accumulated capital, has placed great downward pressure on the cost of capital, or real interest rates, which has drastically reduced yields on high quality bonds. This in turn has drastically increased investment demand for rental yield.

Supply and demand have not stopped working in housing markets; the confusion is about which demand is instrumental. Investment demand is instrumental in modern housing markets, not shelter demand. The confusion is compounded by failing to account for the massive size of global demand for rental yields, relative to the potential supply of private sector housing units. The demand for financial assets dwarfs any potential supply that the private sector will ever produce!

Since housing is effectively a financial asset, it is also illogical to expect that such policies as rental assistance in the form of tax breaks or vouchers and so on will do anything but drive up housing costs. All public subsidies of the private sector, such as rental assistance, school vouchers, and health-care subsidies, drive up the cost of the product or service in question. Why? Because the private market responds to such public funding guarantees by setting prices based on whatever private businesses can get away with in political terms not based on market value.

The fact that the unregulated private market is a destabilizing force in the economy should be obvious to rational people. Unfortunately, its equally obvious that we are generally not governed by rational people. We are governed by political ideologues. Complete markets require healthy competition between private and public sectors. Over the last 50 or so years we have experienced the weaponizing of economic theory for political purposes. And the effects of misguided privatization and deregulation that has followed has been disastrous for multigenerational communities; residential and socioeconomic segregation has exploded.

Unaffordable housing is entirely political due to the restrictions on the supply of funding for high-risk consumers. The federal government, as a sovereign currency issuer and treasurer of all future output of the nation, could achieve affordable housing for all Americans in a matter of a few years. It is the same with health care, childcare, and education. Sweden did this in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. Its very straightforward, but Conservatives and Libertarians have internalized an ideology that defines anything that exists outside of their narrow definition of markets as Socialism. They ignore the historical performance of the Swedish stock market, the fact that rates of innovation are higher in Sweden than in the U.S., and that thriving Swedish capitalism is a historical fact.

Instead of allowing incomplete markets and real estate speculation to destroy communities, communities should hold referendums on population limits and growth, set aside a certain percentage of every communitys housing stock for local residents, and lease that residential and commercial housing to local residents with proven seniority at an affordable percentage of the local median household income. Communities should also establish public trusts that offer financing to housing cooperatives owned by long-term residents.

Kristian Blom is a fixer at Blom Levy & Co., registered investment advisors.

Here is the original post:
How Housing Is Captive to Investment Demands - Santa Barbara Independent

Election Day is less than two months away, on Nov. 8. That's when voters will go to the polls and decide on the next governor of Arkansas.Republican candidate Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Democrat Chris Jones and Libertarian Ricky Dale Harrington Jr. are vying for the position. All three candidates spent the past week on the campaign trail. Harrington Jr. hopes his campaign puts the Libertarian Party on the map with people in Arkansas.We have made great progress in our country because of those ideas and principles of liberties, he said. We have freedoms as African Americans in this country now. Freedoms that my grandparents didn't have. Freedoms that my parents didn't have, as a black man right now, and we're still working towards those principles of liberty.Jones is continuing his walk a mile campaign. He told 40/29 News this past week that he wants to hear from Arkansas on issues that matter to them, like education.Jones spent Friday in Russellville. He said the energy has been high on his campaign stops."When we're thinking about the position of governor, it's an executive position, and so you need executive experience, he said. And Ive run multiple multi-million-dollar organizations. It's a problem-solving experience. We have problems to solve, and Im an engineer and a scientist. I know how to solve problems. Most importantly, it's a moment where we need a leader who has the compassion to bring us together as a community."Sanders greeted hundreds of voters in Bella Vista Friday morning as part of her freedom tour. She focused on improving education and making sure young Arkansans are set up for success."We pushed this idea for so long that if a kid didn't go to a four-year university, that they couldn't be successful, she said. Frankly, nothing could be further from the truth. We need to put kids on a pathway to prosperity, and make sure they're prepared either when they graduate from high school to go directly into the workforce. Or whether they're going into a two-year program, an apprenticeship program, or a four-year degree."

Election Day is less than two months away, on Nov. 8. That's when voters will go to the polls and decide on the next governor of Arkansas.

Republican candidate Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Democrat Chris Jones and Libertarian Ricky Dale Harrington Jr. are vying for the position.

All three candidates spent the past week on the campaign trail.

Harrington Jr. hopes his campaign puts the Libertarian Party on the map with people in Arkansas.

We have made great progress in our country because of those ideas and principles of liberties, he said. We have freedoms as African Americans in this country now. Freedoms that my grandparents didn't have. Freedoms that my parents didn't have, as a black man right now, and we're still working towards those principles of liberty.

Jones is continuing his walk a mile campaign. He told 40/29 News this past week that he wants to hear from Arkansas on issues that matter to them, like education.

Jones spent Friday in Russellville. He said the energy has been high on his campaign stops.

"When we're thinking about the position of governor, it's an executive position, and so you need executive experience, he said. And Ive run multiple multi-million-dollar organizations. It's a problem-solving experience. We have problems to solve, and Im an engineer and a scientist. I know how to solve problems. Most importantly, it's a moment where we need a leader who has the compassion to bring us together as a community."

Sanders greeted hundreds of voters in Bella Vista Friday morning as part of her freedom tour.

She focused on improving education and making sure young Arkansans are set up for success.

"We pushed this idea for so long that if a kid didn't go to a four-year university, that they couldn't be successful, she said. Frankly, nothing could be further from the truth. We need to put kids on a pathway to prosperity, and make sure they're prepared either when they graduate from high school to go directly into the workforce. Or whether they're going into a two-year program, an apprenticeship program, or a four-year degree."

More here:
Arkansas governor candidates hitting the campaign trail - 4029tv

GREEN BAY, WISCONSIN - NOVEMBER 28: Aaron Rodgers #12 of the Green Bay Packers reacts after defeating the Los Angeles Rams 36-28 at Lambeau Field on November 28, 2021 in Green Bay, Wisconsin. (Photo by Patrick McDermott/Getty Images)

Aaron Rodgers hasn't shied away from the microphone leading up to the 2022 NFL season.

The Green Bay Packers starting quarterback has done a lot of notable interviews, many of which focused on things other than football, and his latest one is making some headlines.

Rodgers voiced his opinion on the abortion issue in a reported interview with Bill Maher.

"I don't believe the government should have any control over what we do with our bodies."

Unsurprisingly, Rodgers' comments are making waves on social media this weekend.

"Agreed," one fan wrote.

"Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck..." another fan wrote.

"Why is this even a controversial statement?" one fan added.

"More proof that Rodgers is a Libertarian. Remember, you can have an opinion on something and still believe its wrong for the government to force that belief on other people," one fan added.

Do you side with Rodgers?

Read more:
Aaron Rodgers Sounds Off On Government: NFL World Reacts - The Spun

American libertarian author and editor (born 1953)

David Boaz (; born August 29, 1953, Mayfield, Kentucky) is the executive vice president of the Cato Institute, an American libertarian think tank.

He is the author of Libertarianism: A Primer, published in 1997 by the Free Press and described in the Los Angeles Times as "a well-researched manifesto of libertarian ideas."[1] He is also the editor of The Libertarian Reader and co-editor of the Cato Handbook for Congress (2003) and the Cato Handbook on Policy (2005). He frequently discusses such topics as education choice, the growth of government, the ownership society, his support of drug legalization as a consequence of the individual right to self-determination,[2][3][4] a non-interventionist foreign policy,[5] and the rise of libertarianism on national television and radio shows.

Boaz's 1988 op-ed The New York Times on the high cost of the drug war fueled public debate over the decriminalization of drugs.[6] His articles have also been published in The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, National Review, and Slate. He has appeared on ABC's Politically Incorrect, CNN's Crossfire, NPR's Talk of the Nation and All Things Considered, Fox News Channel, BBC, Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and other media. Boaz, a graduate of Vanderbilt University, is the former editor of The New Guard magazine and was executive director of the Council for a Competitive Economy prior to joining Cato in 1981.

Here is the original post:
David Boaz - Wikipedia