The Libertarian Movement Needs a Kick in the Pants – Reason

In a provocative yet thoughtful manifesto, economist Tyler Cowen, a major figure in libertarian circles, offers a harsh assessment of his ideological confreres:

Having tracked the libertarian "movement" for much of my life, I believe it is now pretty much hollowed out, at least in terms of flow. One branch split off into Ron Paul-ism and less savory alt right directions, and another, more establishment branch remains out there in force but not really commanding new adherents. For one thing, it doesn't seem that old-style libertarianism can solve or even very well address a number of major problems, most significantly climate change. For another, smart people are on the internet, and the internet seems to encourage synthetic and eclectic views, at least among the smart and curious. Unlike the mass culture of the 1970s, it does not tend to breed "capital L Libertarianism." On top of all that, the out-migration from narrowly libertarian views has been severe, most of all from educated women.

As an antidote, Cowen champions what he calls "State Capacity Libertarianism," which holds that a large, growing government does not necessarily come at the expense of fundamental individual rights, pluralism, and the sort of economic growth that leads to continuously improved living standards. Most contemporary libertarians, he avers, believe that big government and freedom are fundamentally incompatible, to which he basically answers, Look upon Denmark and despair: "Denmark should in fact have a smaller government, but it is still one of the freer and more secure places in the world, at least for Danish citizens albeitnot for everybody."

In many ways, Cowen's post condenses his recent book Stubborn Attachments, in which he argues politics should be organized around respect for individual rights and limited government; policies that encourage long-term, sustainable economic growth; and an acknowledgement that some problems (particularly climate change) need to be addressed at the state rather than individual level. You can listen to a podcast I did with him here or read a condensed interview with him here. It's an excellent book that will challenge readers of all ideological persuasions. There's a ton to disagree with in it, but it's a bold, contrarian challenge to conventional libertarian attitudes, especially the idea that growth in government necessarily diminishes living standards.

I don't intend this post as a point-by-point critique of Cowen's manifesto, whose spirit is on-target but whose specifics are fundamentally mistaken. I think he's right that the internet and the broader diffusion of knowledge encourages ideological eclecticism and the creation of something like mass personalization when it comes to ideology. But this doesn't just work against "capital L Libertarianism." It affects all ideological movements, and it helps explain why the divisions within groups all over the political spectrum (including the Democratic and Republican parties) are becoming ever sharper and harsher. Everywhere around us, coalitions are becoming more tenuous and smaller. (This is not a bad thing, by the way, any more than the creation of new Christian sects in 17th-century England was a bad thing.) Nancy Pelosi's sharpest critics aren't from across the aisle but on her own side of it. Such a flowering of niches is itself libertarian.

Cowen is also misguided in his call for increasing the size, scope, and spending of government. "Our governments cannot address climate change, much improve K-12 education, fix traffic congestion," he writes, attributing such outcomes to "failures of state capacity"both in terms of what the state can dictate and in terms of what it can spend. This is rather imprecise. Whatever your beliefs and preferences might be on a given issue, the scale (and cost) of addressing, say, climate change is massive compared to delivering basic education, and with the latter at least, there's no reason to believe that more state control or dollars will create positive outcomes. More fundamentally, Cowen conflates libertarianism with political and partisan identities, affiliations, and outcomes. I think a better way is to define libertarian less as a noun or even a fixed, rigid political philosophy and more as an adjective or "an outlook that privileges things such as autonomy, open-mindedness, pluralism, tolerance, innovation, and voluntary cooperation over forced participation in as many parts of life as possible." I'd argue that the libertarian movement is far more effective and appealing when it is cast in pre-political and certainly pre-partisan terms.

Be all that as it may, I agree that the libertarian movement is stalled in some profound ways. A strong sense of forward momentumwhat Cowen calls flowamong self-described libertarians has definitely gone missing in the past few years, especially when it comes to national politics (despite the strongest showing ever by a Libertarian presidential nominee in 2016). From the 1990s up through a good chunk of the '00s, there was a general sense that libertarian attitudes, ideas, and policies were, if not ascendant, at least gaining mindshare, a reality that both energized libertarians and worried folks on the right and left. In late 2008, during the depths of the financial crisis and a massive growth of the federal government, Matt Welch and I announced the beginning of the "Libertarian Moment." This, we said, was

an early rough draft version of the libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick's glimmering "utopia of utopias." Due to exponential advances in technology, broad-based increases in wealth, the ongoing networking of the world via trade and culture, and the decline of both state and private institutions of repression, never before has it been easier for more individuals to chart their own course and steer their lives by the stars as they see the sky.

Our polemic, later expanded into the book The Declaration of Independents, was as much aspirational as descriptive, but it captured a sense that even as Washington was about to embark on a phenomenal growth spurtcontinued and expanded by the Obama administration in all sorts of ways, from the creation of new entitlements to increases in regulation to expansions of surveillancemany aspects of our lives were improving. As conservatives and liberals went dark and apocalyptic in the face of the economic crisis and stalled-out wars and called for ever greater control over how we live and do business, libertarians brought an optimism, openness, and confidence about the future that suggested a different way forward. By the middle of 2014, The New York Times was even asking on the cover of its weekly magazine, "Has the 'Libertarian Moment Finally Arrived?"

That question was loudly answered in the negative as the bizarre 2016 presidential season got underway and Donald Trump appeared on the horizon like Thanos, blocking out the sun and destroying all that lay before him. By early 2016, George Will was looking upon the race between Trump and Hillary Clinton and declaring that we were in fact not in a libertarian moment but an authoritarian one, regardless of which of those monsters ended up in the White House. In front of 2,000 people gathered for the Students for Liberty's annual international conference, Will told Matt and me:

[Donald Trump] believes that government we have today is not big enough and that particularly the concentration of power not just in Washington but Washington power in the executive branch has not gone far enough.Today, 67 percent of the federal budget is transfer payments.The sky is dark with money going back and forth between client groups served by an administrative state that exists to do very little else but regulate the private sector and distribute income. Where's the libertarian moment fit in here?

With the 2020 election season kicking into high gear, apocalypticism on all sides will only become more intense than it already is. Presidential campaigns especially engender the short-term, elections-are-everything partisan thinking that typically gets in the way of selling libertarian ideas, attitudes, and policies.

Cowen is, I think, mostly right that the libertarian movement is not "really commanding new adherents," including among "educated women." He might add ethnic and racial minorities, too, who have never been particularly strongly represented in the libertarian movement. And, increasingly, younger Americans, who are as likely to have a positive view of socialism as they are of capitalism.

Of course, as I write this, I can think of all sorts of ways that libertarian ideas, policies, and organizations actually speak directly to groups not traditionally thought of libertarian (I recently gave $100 to Feminists for Liberty, a group that bills itself as "anti-sexism & anti-statism, pro-markets & pro-choice.") School choice, drug legalization, criminal justice reform, marriage equality, ending occupational licensing, liberalizing immigration, questioning military intervention, defending free expressionso much of what defines libertarian thinking has a natural constituency among audiences that we have yet to engage as successfully as we should. That sort of outreach, along with constant consideration of how libertarian ideas fit into an ever-changing world, is of course what Reason does on a daily basis.

All of us within the broadly defined libertarian movement need to do better. And in that sense at least, Cowen's manifesto is a welcome spur to redoubling efforts.

Read this article:

The Libertarian Movement Needs a Kick in the Pants - Reason

Libertarian says college district is using the number 8 to influence Chinese voters – The Daily Post

BY SONYA HERRERADaily Post Staff Writer

A local Libertarian said in a ballot argument for the March election that the Foothill-De Anza Community College District is trying to trick Chinese residents into voting for new taxes by flashing around the number 8.

The number 8 has long been associated with good fortune in Chinese culture. Often companies market products using the number. Thats why certain real estate listings include several 8s, and why other businesses try to get as many 8s in their phone numbers as possible.

Mark Hinkle of Morgan Hill, who regularly writes ballot arguments against tax measures, claims that the college district is using the number 8 to manipulate Chinese voters.

The college district is asking voters on March 3 to approve Measure G, a $898 million bond sale, and Measure H, a $48 parcel tax.

Hinkles co-signer on the ballot argument, Mountain View attorney Gary Wesley, said that he attended a college district board meeting in 2006 when they were discussing a $490.8 million bond measure. He recalled that a board member asked why there was a .8 at the end of the amount. A district employee answered that 8 was considered lucky in Chinese culture, Wesley said.

The 1999 bond measure had been $248 million. This one is $898 million, Wesley said. You will find no other credible explanation for the $898 (million) total proposed for March 3.

District board members did not respond to requests for comment.

Hinkle, president of the Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association, typically writes ballot arguments against tax increases in every election. The arguments for and against a measure are printed in the Voter Guide thats mailed to residents.

Heres a look at some of the arguments voters will see in the guide prior to the March election.

For Measure G, the college district would borrow $898 million, which would be repaid with a property tax of $160 per $1 million of assessed property value. The amount district property owners would have to repay is estimated at $1.56 billion, which includes principal and interest. The taxes to repay the bonds would continue through 2053-54, according to the districts website. The district says the sale of the bonds would pay for upgrading and repairing classrooms and labs, improving access to buildings for students with disabilities, and repairing plumbing and electrical systems.

Measure H is a parcel tax for the district that would be in place for five years. The tax would cost $48 per year per parcel and would pay for faculty salaries and new programs to help students who are homeless or hungry.

District trustee Patrick Ahrens wrote the arguments for Measure G and H and the rebuttals to the arguments against the measures.

These documents were signed by district trustee Pearl Cheng; student trustees Tiffany Nguyen and Genevieve Kolar; Dudley Andersen, former chair of the districts past bond oversight committee; Foothill student Luis Herrera; former De Anza instructor Harry Price; Dick Henning, founder of Foothill Colleges Celebrity Forum; De Anza instructor Bill Wilson; and resident George Tyson.

Ahrens wrote that Measure G would ensure that the colleges will continue their current classes, and that the colleges have been excellent stewards of taxpayers money. Ahrens wrote that Measure H money cannot be used for administrator salaries or pensions.

Hinkle wrote the arguments against Measures G and H and the rebuttals to the arguments in favor of the measures. He wrote that Measure G is the third bond measure from the district in 20 years, and that if it passes, your grandchildren will still be paying for the debt incurred today.

Hinkle wrote that Measure G would permit the district to sell the bonds in later years, possibly at much higher interest rates, which would more than double what taxpayers would have to repay. Hinkle said that while enrollment at the districts two colleges has dropped, the number of retiring employees has risen. Hinkle said that the pension liabilities and other benefits owed to these district retirees will cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars and said that as written, Measure H allows the district to spend the money however it wants.

Measure T is a bond measure for Mountain View Whisman School District. The district would borrow $259 million, which would be repaid through a $300 tax per $1 million of assessed property value. The estimated total repayment amount is about $538 million, and the estimated revenue from the tax is $18.6 million each year. The district says the sale of the bonds would pay for repairing, upgrading and building new facilities and classrooms.

The argument in favor of Measure T and the rebuttal to the argument against Measure T were written by Cleave Frink, a member of the districts bond oversight committee for Measure G, which was passed in 2012. The argument in favor was signed by Realtor Aileen La Bouff; teacher Margaret Poor; district trustee Tamara Wilson; resident William Lambert; financial planner Niki Theil; Realtor Nancy Stuhr; Mountain View Los Altos Union High School District trustee Fiona Walter; retired fire chief Dale Kuersten; and teacher Gail Lee.

Frink wrote that Measure T would ensure that schools in the district would have modern classrooms, science labs and computer systems, and provide housing for teachers and district employees. Frink pointed out that Hinkle, the lone opponent to Measure T, doesnt live in Mountain View.

The argument against Measure T and the rebuttal to the argument in favor of Measure T were written by Hinkle, who said the bond is a blank check, and that the interest rate could be much higher and result in a higher repayment amount.

Measure D would change the Mountain View rent control law voters passed in 2016. The measure would, among other things, eliminate the current limit on rent increases, which is the consumer price index, and replace it with a 4% ceiling.

The argument for Measure D and the rebuttal to the argument against Measure D were written by multiple authors, including Frink and Fiona Walter; city council members John McAlister, Margaret Abe-Koga and Chris Clark; Environmental Planning Commissioner William Cranston; former Mountain View Whisman School board member Christopher Chiang; Greg Cooper, president of Mountain View Professional Firefighters Local 1965; Mountain View Whisman School District trustee Jose Gutierrez Jr.; and renter LJ Gunson III.

In the ballot argument, they said that Measure D allows landlords to fix up older apartments rather than tear them down. The group wrote that Measure D lowers rent increases from 5% to 4% per year, and that those increases arent automatic. They said courts have ruled that the citys current law doesnt cover mobile homes, and that Measure D allows city council to enact mobile home renter protections next year.

The argument against Measure D and the rebuttal to the argument in favor of Measure D were also written by multiple authors, including Sally Lieber, former mayor and state Assemblywoman; Tamara Wilson, Mountain View Whisman School District trustee; resident Alex Nunez; Trey Bornmann, president of Mountain View Mobile Home Alliance; Anthony Chang, member of Mountain View Homeowners Against Displacement; and former mayor Pat Showalter.

They wrote that Measure D would result in higher rents and more renters being displaced from their homes.

The group said that Measure D does not set new safety rules, and that the measure allows landlords to raise the rent up to 10% for non-safety property upgrades. They added that city council is only studying protections for mobile home renters next year, and that this study session does not guarantee protections for mobile home renters.

Read the original post:

Libertarian says college district is using the number 8 to influence Chinese voters - The Daily Post

What libertarianism has become and will become State Capacity Libertarianism – Hot Air

9. State Capacity Libertarians are more likely to have positive views of infrastructure, science subsidies, nuclear power (requires state support!), and space programs than are mainstream libertarians or modern Democrats. Modern Democrats often claim to favor those items, and sincerely in my view, but de facto they are very willing to sacrifice them for redistribution, egalitarian and fairness concerns, mood affiliation, and serving traditional Democratic interest groups. For instance, modern Democrats have run New York for some time now, and theyve done a terrible job building and fixing things. Nor are Democrats doing much to boost nuclear power as a partial solution to climate change, if anything the contrary.

10. State Capacity Libertarianism has no problem endorsing higher quality government and governance, whereas traditional libertarianism is more likely to embrace or at least be wishy-washy toward small, corrupt regimes, due to some of the residual liberties they leave behind.

11. State Capacity Libertarianism is not non-interventionist in foreign policy, as it believes in strong alliances with other relatively free nations, when feasible. That said, the usual libertarian problems of intervention because government makes a lot of mistakes bar still should be applied to specific military actions. But the alliances can be hugely beneficial, as illustrated by much of 20th century foreign policy and today much of Asia which still relies on Pax Americana.


Continue reading here:

What libertarianism has become and will become State Capacity Libertarianism - Hot Air

A look ahead to the 2020 elections: Answers to some of the big questions – Hickory Daily Record

Elections will dominate 2020, and it wont be long before Catawba County residents will be able to cast their ballots.

Primary elections will be held on March 3, with early voting set for February.

Heres an overview of the 2020 primaries:

What races will have primaries this year?

For federal offices, there will be Democratic and Republican primaries for president and U.S. Senate.

The Libertarian and Constitution parties will also have primaries for president.

The race for the 10th U.S. Congressional District, currently represented by Republican Patrick McHenry, will have a Republican primary while the Fifth Congressional District represented by Republican Virginia Foxx will have a Democratic primary.

There will be Democratic and Republican primaries for governor, lieutenant governor, auditor and superintendent of public instruction.

The races for attorney general, insurance commissioner, labor commissioner and secretary of state will only have a Republican primary.

The races for agriculture commissioner and treasurer will only have a Democratic primary.

There will also be a Republican primary in N.C. Senate District 42.

There will be no primaries for either of the N.C. House seats in Catawba County because only one Republican and one Democrat are running in each of the two races.

Locally, the races for Catawba County commissioner and register of deeds will have Republican primaries.

When will the polls be open?

Early voting will run from Feb. 13 through Feb. 29.

The polls will be open from 8 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. on weekdays, 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. on Saturdays and 1-5 p.m. on Sundays.

The Newton Main Library, Highland Recreation Center, Conover Station, Southwest Library and Sherrills Ford-Terrell Library will be the early-voting sites.

Catawba County residents are permitted to vote at any of the five sites, regardless of where they live.

On the March 3 primary day, polls will be open from 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.

Residents voting on March 3 must vote at their assigned polling places.

Who can vote in which primaries?

The primaries residents will be able to vote in will depend on their party affiliation.

To vote in the Republican, Democratic or Libertarian primaries, a resident must either be registered with the party or be registered as unaffiliated.

The Constitution Party only allows voters registered with the party to vote in its primaries.

Will I have to show ID to vote?

Residents will not have to show ID during the primary as a result of a court ruling blocking the states voter ID law.

N.C. Attorney General Josh Stein said the state will not appeal the decision until after the primary, according to an Associated Press report.

The voter ID law was approved by voters in 2018 and was set to go into effect this year.

What is the deadline for voter registration?

Residents wishing to vote on March 3 must be registered by Feb. 7.

Same-day registration will be available during the early-voting period. Residents must show some form of identification such as a drivers license or copies of government or financial documents showing a persons name and address.

Residents may register by printing off, filling out and returning the registration forms available for download at catawbacountync.gov/county-services/elections/voter-registration.

Forms are also available at public libraries, public high schools and admissions offices of colleges.

See the original post here:

A look ahead to the 2020 elections: Answers to some of the big questions - Hickory Daily Record

Bill Weld: Ho-Hum, Donald Trump Ordered The Assassination Of Qassem Suleimani OpEd – Eurasia Review

In 2016, former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld received the Libertarian Partys vice-presidential nomination. This year, having returned to the Republican Party, Weld is challenging President Donald Trump for the Republican Partys presidential nomination.

Many people would assume that Weld would be criticizing Trump for ordering this weekskillingin Iraq of Iranian General Qassem Suleimani. This assumption would make sense given the libertarian position favoring nonintervention overseas.

However, Weld has longfavoredmany policies far afield from libertarianism, including an interventionist foreign policy. True to form, Welds milk-toast response to Trumps assassination order in no way challenges the order itself or any aspect of the US governments ongoing intervention in Iraq, the Middle East, or anywhere in the world. Indeed, Welds response is evenblasregarding whether a US war with Iran is a good or bad thing.

Weld presented his response in two Friday Twitter posts. First, Weldwrote:

Soleimani was evil. Of that, there is no doubt. While there are real questions to be asked about this Administrations strategic approach toward Iran, today, our focus MUST be on the safety & security of our fellow Americans standing in harms way at a very dangerous moment.

Weld then followed up with thistweet:

Right or wrong, the United States is closer to war with Iran than we have been in decades. How we got here is a conversation for another day. Where we go from here? That is a question that demands clear and stable leadership.

This article was published by RonPaul Institute.

Please Donate Today Did you enjoy this article? Then please consider donating today to ensure that Eurasia Review can continue to be able to provide similar content.

Read more:

Bill Weld: Ho-Hum, Donald Trump Ordered The Assassination Of Qassem Suleimani OpEd - Eurasia Review

Work for Dominic Cummings at your peril, but his take on the states flaws is not without merit – The Guardian

When Dominic Cummings arrived in Downing Street, some of his new colleagues were puzzled by one of his mantras: Get Brexit done, then Arpa. Now, perhaps, they have some idea of what that meant. On 2 January, Cummings published on his blog the wackiest job proposals to emerge from a government since the emperor Caligula made his horse a consul.

The ad took the form of a long post under the heading Were hiring data scientists, project managers, policy experts, assorted weirdos, included a reading list of arcane academic papers that applicants were expected to read and digest and declared that applications from super-talented weirdos would be especially welcome. They should assemble a one-page letter, attach a CV and send it to ideasfornumber10@gmail.com. (Yes, thats @gmail.com.)

It was clear that nobody from HR was involved in composing this call for clever young things. Alerting applicants to the riskiness of employment by him, Cummings writes: Ill bin you within weeks if you dont fit dont complain later because I made it clear now.

The ad provoked predictable outrage and even the odd parody. The most interesting thing about it, though, is its revelations of what moves the man who is now the worlds most senior technocrat. The Arpa in his mantra, for example, is classic Cummings, because the Pentagons Advanced Research Projects Agency (now Darpa) is one of his inspirational models. It was set up in 1958 as part of Americas response to the Soviet space satellite programme and was charged with generating and executing research and development projects to expand the frontiers of technology and science.

Arpa, as it was then known, was the agency that funded the arpanet, the precursor to the internet, and is famous for the lavishness of its funding, the speed with which it operates and its decisiveness. When Bob Taylor had the idea of funding the arpanet, for example, it took him just 20 minutes to get his boss to agree to it. Other Cummings inspirations are the Manhattan Project, which built the first atomic bomb, and the Apollo mission, which first put men on the moon.

Note that all these inspirational projects have some interesting things in common: no politics, no bureaucratic processes and no legal niceties. Which is exactly how Cummings likes things to be.

One of Cummingss abiding obsessions over the past few years (often aired on his blog) is his conviction that SW1 his term for the entire government machine and its political masters is totally unfit for purpose in the modern era. In a way, his job ad is a 3,000-word articulation of this belief. SW1, as he sees it, is scientifically and technologically illiterate, stuffed with Oxbridge humanities graduates, generalists, amateurs, etc. When mounted on this particular hobbyhorse, Cummings sounds like CP Snow on speed.

I have some sympathy with these views as do some of the younger civil servants I meet. The problem is that the thinking implicit in Cummingss blog post is flawed in two ways. The first is that he has swallowed the Silicon Valley delusion that data (and data science) provide the key to life, the universe and everything. The second is that his recruitment wheeze is strategically naive. The idea that the huge bureaucratic machine of the British state can be transformed by the injection of a cadre of disruptive young geniuses is, to put it mildly, bonkers. The civil service has a powerful immune system for rejecting outsiders and Cummingss stated ambition that his new hires will make him redundant in a year or two is therefore daft. What he has are ideas when what he needs is a strategy.

Which is odd, because his main claim to fame from the Vote Leave campaign and Johnsons election victory is as a gifted strategist. Deep down, Cummings is what the economist Tyler Cowen calls a state capacity libertarian. This sounds like an oxymoron (a libertarian who believes in a strong state), but what it appears to involve is a conviction about the need for a capable state. In this regard, writes Cowen, sometimes the problem is too much government, sometimes the problem is not enough government. Most often, the problem is the wrong sort of government.

If this is indeed what Cummings believes (and much of his derisive blogging about the stupidity and incapacity of SW1 suggests that it is), then he needs a more sustained strategy to make the British state more capable of handling the challenges of governing a 21st-century society. In other words, a state that would never have screwed up on a universal credit scale.

In some ways, Cummings is his own worst enemy (though David Cameron might retort: Not while Im around). Many people are repelled by the way he interweaves radical insights with what looks like vulgar abuse. He mixes understanding with wacky afterthoughts and lets his compulsive autodidactism run away with him.

But he also has an acute sense (which most Brexiters seem to lack) that a UK outside the EU will need to become a much more capable and creative state if it is to escape becoming either a gigantic imitation of Singapore or the sandpit for private equity envisaged by Jacob Rees-Mogg and his cronies. Given Cummingss role in Number 10, and the elective dictatorship bestowed on his master by the rackety British constitution, he has a real opportunity to do some good. Lets hope he takes it.

John Naughton writes the Networker column for Observer New Review

More here:

Work for Dominic Cummings at your peril, but his take on the states flaws is not without merit - The Guardian

Disputed Appointments and the Supreme Court’s Legitimacy, in 1937 and Today – Cato Institute

Here is news you probably cant use: a new Texas Law Review analysis by University of Chicago law professor William Baude concludesthat Justice Hugo Black, who served on the Supreme Court from 1937 to 1971, was unconstitutionally appointed.

The relevant text is the Constitutions Article I, Section 6, which says No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time.

At the time of his appointment Black was serving as a senator from Alabamaas part of a Congress that had enacted new retirement benefits for Justices, and while his backers argued that the clause did not apply to bar his nomination, Baude concludes that it probably did. One litigant before the high court challenged Blacks right to serve, but the Court chose to sidestep the merits of that claim by ruling against its standing, and the controversydied.

All of this might seem purely academic. At this remove there would be no way to unscramble the legal omelet as to Blacks jurisprudential contributions, even were there a will. (Despite an unpromising start, the Alabaman eventually showed a libertarian streak on many Bill of Rights issues.)

But the issue is not quite so remote as that, because more than a few contemporary commentators have flirted in some cases more than flirted with claims that the makeup of the present Supreme Court is illegitimate.

After the Senate leadership refused to hold hearings on the Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland, the editorial board of the New York Times repeatedly declared the seat of the late Justice Scalia to have been stolen, and then-Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) said of eventual nominee Neil Gorsuch that hes not there properly.

The confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the seat vacated by Justice Anthony Kennedy brought renewed attack, with former Attorney General Eric Holder declaring that the legitimacy of the Supreme Court can justifiably be questioned and other high-profile figures taking a similar line.

Law professor Erwin Chemerinsky raised the ante with this remarkable assertion in The American Prospect: each of the five conservative justices Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh or someone like him (emphasis added) came on to the Court in a manner that lacks legitimacy. Perhaps at some point it will lead to open defiance of the Court.

Other commentators were happy to take up the exciting theme that future Court opinions written by, or decided by the votes of, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and perhaps other Justices might meet with open defiance or resistance from a future Democratic president, from state officials, or from people marching in the streets.

What can the Supreme Court do? Send its tiny police force to storm the White House? wrote Mark Joseph Stern at Slate. Libertarian-minded law professor Ilya Somin, who does not welcome the efforts to de-legitimize the Court or promote defiance of its rulings, nonetheless found them worth taking seriously enough to analyze at length last year.

Baudes research may provide a bit of reassurance in this respect. The challenge to the legitimacy of Blacks seat fizzled in part because it gained little headway with the public, but much more because the Courts other Justices welcomed Black aboard.

Most of the scenarios in which triumphant Democrats in 2021 or 2022 defy Supreme Court rulings are difficult to reconcile with the reality that the Courts liberal Justices have, to all appearances, been entirely content to regard Gorsuch and Kavanaugh as legitimate colleagues, and would, themselves, neither counsel nor welcome defiance of Court rulings. As I wrote last year, "the federal courts are not as polarized and tribal as much of the higher political class and punditry at nomination time."

Baude puts it this way at the conclusion of his article: the real source of constitutional settlement in our system is not always judicial decision, but sometimes sheer practice.

Here is the original post:

Disputed Appointments and the Supreme Court's Legitimacy, in 1937 and Today - Cato Institute

Meet the Kochs – The Mountain -Ear

Gene Strandberg, Gilpin County. Fred Koch, father of Charles and David, was a founding member of the John Birch Society, a right-fringe group that spouted conspiracy theories about communist subversion plots in the U.S. These two sons would organize and lead the real subversion one generation later.

Fred helped Stalins engineers build 15 oil refineries, establishing Russias oil industry. The American businessman and Nazi sympathizer William Rhodes Davis hired Winkler-Koch Engineering to supply the plans and oversee construction of a huge oil refinery in Hitlers Germany, one of the few in Germany that could produce high octane fuel for fighter planes.

The John Birch Society tried to impeach Chief Justice Earl Warren, after SCOTUS desegregated public schools. In 1968 Fred wanted a Birch Society member to run for President on a platform of segregation and the abolition of all income taxes.

In 1966 Charles was an executive and trustee of the Freedom School, founded in 1956 in Larkspur, Colorado by Robert LeFevre, who promoted the abolition of the state. The school opposed anti-poverty programs, Medicare, and forced integration. It taught that robber barons were heroes, taxes were theft, slavery was less evil than a military draft, and the Bill of Rights should consist of only one right, the right to own property.

According to a 1982 Bill Koch deposition, Charles led his brothers David and Bill in an attempt to blackmail his brother Fred out of his share of the family business by threatening to tell their father that Fred was gay, resulting in Freds disinheritance. The plot failed, because Fred wasnt gay, and he wouldnt give in. Exposing his character, Charles gave Fred so little notice of their mothers death that Fred could not get home in time for her funeral.

In 1974 Charles told a group of businessmen, The development of a well-financed cadre of sound proponents of the free enterprise philosophy is the most critical need facing us today. In 1976 the Center for Libertarian Studies was founded with $65,000 from Charles Koch. At a Center conference Charles suggested the movement attract young people because, that was the only group open to a radically different social philosophy. Charles was supported by Leonard Liggio, a libertarian historian with the Kochs Institute for Humane Studies from 1974-1998. He lauded the Nazis youth movement and said libertarians should organize university students to create group identity.

Former Birch Society member George Pearson presented a paper that was adopted for their higher education indoctrination grants. It proposed funding private institutions within universities, where they could influence who would be teaching and what would be taught. Pearson said it would be essential to use ambiguous and misleading names and hide the programs true agenda.

In a 1978 article for Libertarian Review, Charles wrote, Ideas do not spread by themselves; they spread only through people, which means we need a movement. Our movement must destroy the current statist paradigm.

In 1980 they tried through election, with David Koch as the Libertarian candidate for Vice-President. The platform called for the abolition of: the Federal Election Commission and all campaign finance laws; Medicare, Medicaid and all other government health care programs; Social Security; all income taxes and corporate taxes; the Securities and Exchange Commission; the Environmental Protection Agency; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Central Intelligence Agency; the Food and Drug Administration, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration; minimum wage laws; child labor laws; seat belt laws; public schools and all welfare programs for the poor. The parallel with ALEC and the current Republican goals is not coincidental.

Even arch-conservative William F. Buckley called their views anarcho-totalitarianism. They got only 1% of the vote, so they decided infiltrating universities, establishing think tanks, and co-opting the Republican Party was a better way to destroy the prevalent statist paradigm.

In the 1980s their disciple Richard Fink wrote The Structure of Social Change, which Fink described as a three-phase takeover of American politics. Phase 1 is an investment in academia, where the ideas to achieve their goals would be born.

Phase 2 is the establishment of think tanks to turn the ideas into palatable policies.

Phase 3 is forming front groups (promoted as grassroots), to influence officeholders to enact the policies.

If the Kochs were truly free market libertarians, they would have opposed the government bailout during the financial collapse, which the House of Representatives did reject. After the stock market dropped 777 points in one day, the Kochs and their think tank, Americans for Prosperity, scrapped ideology in favor of money. Two days later a list of conservative groups now supporting the bailout was shown to Republican legislators. The Senate soon passed TARP with overwhelming bipartisan support.

By 2009 Supreme Court Justices Scalia and Thomas were speakers at the Koch donor summits, which are secretive to the point of paranoia. Attendees are told to destroy all document copies, not to post any related information online, and to keep notes and materials secure. Names of guests and agendas are kept secret, sign up is done through Koch staff, not resort staff, name tags are required, all electronic devices are confiscated before sessions, and white-noise emitting loudspeakers are placed facing outward to defeat any eavesdropping attempts. One would think they had something to hide. Sources include politico.com January 2016, the New Yorker August 30, 2010, and prwatch.org January, 2016

Next time: secret money

(Originally published in the December 5, 2019, print edition of The Mountain-Ear.)

Read more from the original source:

Meet the Kochs - The Mountain -Ear

Libertarianism – Wikipedia

Political ideology of maximal individual freedom

Libertarianism (from Latin: libertas, meaning "freedom"), or libertarism (from French: libertaire, meaning "libertarian"), is a collection of political philosophies and movements that uphold liberty as a core principle.[1] Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy, emphasizing freedom of choice, voluntary association and individual judgement.[2] Libertarians share a skepticism of authority and state power, but they diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing economic and political systems. Various schools of libertarian thought offer a range of views regarding the legitimate functions of state and private power, often calling for the restriction or dissolution of coercive social institutions. Different categorizations have been used to distinguish various forms of libertarianism.[3][4]

Libertarianism originated as a form of left-wing politics such as anti-authoritarian and anti-state socialists like anarchists,[5] especially social anarchists,[6] but more generally libertarian communists/Marxists and libertarian socialists.[7][8] These libertarians seek to abolish capitalism and private ownership of the means of production, or else to restrict their purview or effects to usufruct property norms, in favor of common or cooperative ownership and management, viewing private property as a barrier to freedom and liberty.[9][10][11][12]

Left-libertarian[13][14][15][16][17] ideologies include anarchist schools of thought, alongside many other anti-paternalist, New Left schools of thought centered around economic egalitarianism as well as geolibertarianism, green politics, market-oriented left-libertarianism and the SteinerVallentyne school.[13][16][18][19][20] In the mid-20th century, right-libertarian[14][17][21][22] ideologies such as anarcho-capitalism and minarchism co-opted[7][23] the term libertarian to advocate laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights such as in land, infrastructure and natural resources.[24] The latter is the dominant form of libertarianism in the United States,[22] where it advocates civil liberties,[25] natural law,[26] free-market capitalism[27][28] and a major reversal of the modern welfare state.[29]

The first recorded use of the term libertarian was in 1789, when William Belsham wrote about libertarianism in the context of metaphysics.[30] As early as 1796, libertarian came to mean an advocate or defender of liberty, especially in the political and social spheres, when the London Packet printed on 12 February the following: "Lately marched out of the Prison at Bristol, 450 of the French Libertarians".[31] It was again used in a political sense in 1802 in a short piece critiquing a poem by "the author of Gebir" and has since been used with this meaning.[32][33][34]

The use of the term libertarian to describe a new set of political positions has been traced to the French cognate libertaire, coined in a letter French libertarian communist Joseph Djacque wrote to mutualist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1857.[35][36][37] Djacque also used the term for his anarchist publication Le Libertaire, Journal du mouvement social (Libertarian, Journal of the Social Movement) which was printed from 9 June 1858 to 4 February 1861 in New York City.[38][39] Sbastien Faure, another French libertarian communist, began publishing a new Le Libertaire in the mid-1890s while France's Third Republic enacted the so-called villainous laws (lois sclrates) which banned anarchist publications in France. Libertarianism has frequently been used to refer to anarchism and libertarian socialism since this time.[40][41][42]

In the United States, libertarianism was popularized as a synonym for liberalism in May 1955 by writer Dean Russell, a colleague of Leonard Read and a classical liberal himself. Russell justified the choice of the term as follows:

Subsequently, a growing number of Americans with classical liberal beliefs began to describe themselves as libertarians. One person responsible for popularizing the term libertarian in this sense was Murray Rothbard, who started publishing libertarian works in the 1960s.[46] Rothbard described this modern use of the words overtly as a "capture" from his enemies, saying that "for the first time in my memory, we, 'our side,' had captured a crucial word from the enemy. 'Libertarians' had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over".[23][7]

In the 1970s, Robert Nozick was responsible for popularizing this usage of the term in academic and philosophical circles outisde the United States,[22][47][48] especially with the publication of Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974), a response to social liberal John Rawls's A Theory of Justice (1971).[49] In the book, Nozick proposed a minimal state on the grounds that it was an inevitable phenomenon which could arise without violating individual rights.[50]

According to common meanings of conservative and liberal, libertarianism in the United States has been described as conservative on economic issues (economic liberalism) and liberal on personal freedom (civil libertarianism)[51] and it is also often associated with a foreign policy of non-interventionism.[52][53]

All libertarians begin with a conception of personal autonomy from which they argue in favor of civil liberties and a reduction or elimination of the state.[1]

Left-libertarianism[14][15][17] encompasses those libertarian beliefs that claim the Earth's natural resources belong to everyone in an egalitarian manner, either unowned or owned collectively.[13][16][18][19][22] Contemporary left-libertarians such as Hillel Steiner, Peter Vallentyne, Philippe Van Parijs, Michael Otsuka and David Ellerman believe the appropriation of land must leave "enough and as good" for others or be taxed by society to compensate for the exclusionary effects of private property.[13][19] Libertarian socialists such as social and individualist anarchists, libertarian Marxists, council communists, Luxemburgists and De Leonists promote usufruct and socialist economic theories, including communism, collectivism, syndicalism and mutualism.[18][20] They criticize the state for being the defender of private property and believe capitalism entails wage slavery.[9][10][11]

Right-libertarianism[14][17][21][22] developed in the United States in the mid-20th century from the works of European writers like John Locke, Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig Von Mises and is the most popular conception of libertarianism in the United States today.[22][47] Commonly referred to as a continuation or radicalization of classical liberalism,[54][55] the most important of these early right-libertarian philosophers was Robert Nozick.[22][47][50] While sharing left-libertarians' advocacy for social freedom, right-libertarians value the social institutions that enforce conditions of capitalism while rejecting institutions that function in opposition to these on the grounds that such interventions represent unnecessary coercion of individuals and abrogation of their economic freedom.[56] Anarcho-capitalists[17][21] seek the elimination of the state in favor of privately funded security services while minarchists defend night-watchman states which maintain only those functions of government necessary to safeguard natural rights, understood in terms of self-ownership or autonomy.[57]

Libertarian paternalism[58] is a position advocated in the international bestseller Nudge by the economist Richard Thaler and the jurist Cass Sunstein.[59] In the book Thinking, Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman provides the brief summary: "Thaler and Sunstein advocate a position of libertarian paternalism, in which the state and other institutions are allowed to Nudge people to make decisions that serve their own long-term interests. The designation of joining a pension plan as the default option is an example of a nudge. It is difficult to argue that anyone's freedom is diminished by being automatically enrolled in the plan, when they merely have to check a box to opt out".[60] Nudge is considered an important piece of literature in behavioral economics.[60]

Left-libertarianism such as anarchism envisages freedom as a form of autonomy[61] which Paul Goodman describes as "the ability to initiate a task and do it one's own way, without orders from authorities who do not know the actual problem and the available means".[62] All anarchists oppose political and legal authority, but collectivist strains also oppose the economic authority of private property.[63] These social anarchists emphasize mutual aid whereas individualist anarchists extol individual sovereignty.[64]

Some right-libertarians consider the non-aggression principle to be a core part of their beliefs.[65][66]

Libertarians have been advocates and activists of civil liberties, including free love and free thought.[67][68] Free love appeared alongside anarcha-feminism and advocacy of LGBT rights. Anarcha-feminism developed as a synthesis of radical feminism and anarchism and views patriarchy as a fundamental manifestation of compulsory government. It was inspired by the late-19th-century writings of early feminist anarchists such as Lucy Parsons, Emma Goldman, Voltairine de Cleyre and Virginia Bolten. Advocates of free love viewed sexual freedom as a clear, direct expression of individual sovereignty and they particularly stressed women's rights as most sexual laws discriminated against women: for example, marriage laws and anti-birth control measures.[69] Like other radical feminists, anarcha-feminists criticize and advocate the abolition of traditional conceptions of family, education and gender roles. Free Society (18951897 as The Firebrand, 18971904 as Free Society) was an anarchist newspaper in the United States that staunchly advocated free love and women's rights while criticizing comstockery, the censorship of sexual information.[70] Anarcha-feminism has voiced opinions and taken action around certain sex-related subjects such as pornography,[71] BDSM[72] and the sex industry.[72]

Free thought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic and reason in contrast with authority, tradition or other dogmas.[73][74] In the United States, free thought was an anti-Christian, anti-clerical movement whose purpose was to make the individual politically and spiritually free to decide on religious matters. A number of contributors to Liberty were prominent figures in both free thought and anarchism. Catalan anarchist and free-thinker Francesc Ferrer i Gurdia established modern or progressive schools in Barcelona in defiance of an educational system controlled by the Catholic Church.[75] Fiercely anti-clerical, Ferrer believed in "freedom in education", i.e. education free from the authority of the church and state.[76] The schools' stated goal was to "educate the working class in a rational, secular and non-coercive setting".

Later in the 20th century, Austrian Freudo-Marxist Wilhelm Reich, who coined the phrase sexual revolution in one of his books from the 1940s,[77] became a consistent propagandist for sexual freedom, going as far as opening free sex-counseling clinics in Vienna for working-class patients (Sex-Pol stood for the German Society of Proletarian Sexual Politics). According to Elizabeth Danto, Reich offered a mixture of "psychoanalytic counseling, Marxist advice and contraceptives" and "argued for sexual expressiveness for all, including the young and the unmarried, with a permissiveness that unsettled both the political left and the psychoanalysts". The clinics were immediately overcrowded by people seeking help.[78] During the early 1970s, the English anarchist and pacifist Alex Comfort achieved international celebrity for writing the sex manuals The Joy of Sex[79] and More Joy of Sex.[80]

Libertarians take a skeptical view of government authority.[81] Many socialist left-libertarians are anarchists and believe the state inherently violates personal autonomy. Anarchists believe the state defends private property which they view as intrinsically harmful as this strongly prevents removal of illegitimate authority through inspection and vigilance. Robert Paul Wolff has argued that "since 'the state is authority, the right to rule', anarchism which rejects the State is the only political doctrine consistent with autonomy in which the individual alone is the judge of his moral constraints".[63] Market-oriented left-libertarians argue that so-called free markets actually consist of economic privileges granted by the state. These libertarians advocate for free markets, termed freed markets, that are freed from these privileges. They see themselves part of the free-market tradition of socialism.[82]

There is a debate amongst right-libertarians as to whether or not the state is legitimate. While anarcho-capitalists advocate its abolition, minarchists support minimal states, often referred to as night-watchman states. Minarchist right-libertarians maintain that the state is necessary for the protection of individuals from aggression, breach of contract, fraud and theft. They believe the only legitimate governmental institutions are the courts, military and police, although some expand this list to include the executive and legislative branches, fire departments and prisons.[83][84][85] These minarchist justify the state on the grounds that it is the logical consequence of adhering to the non-aggression principle and argue that anarchy is immoral because it implies that the non-aggression principle is optional and that the enforcement of laws under anarchism is open to competition. Another common justification is that private defense agencies and court firms would tend to represent the interests of those who pay them enough.[86]

Right-libertarians such as anarcho-capitalists argue that the state violates the non-aggression principle by its nature because governments use force against those who have not stolen or vandalized private property, assaulted anyone, or committed fraud.[87][88] Others argue that monopolies tend to be corrupt and inefficient and that private defense and court agencies would have to have a good reputation in order to stay in business. Linda and Morris Tannehill argue that no coercive monopoly of force can arise on a truly free market and that a government's citizenry can not desert them in favor of a competent protection and defense agency.[89]

Right-libertarian philosophers such as Moshe Kroy argue that the disagreement between anarcho-capitalists who adhere to Murray Rothbard's view of human consciousness and the nature of values and minarchists who adhere to Ayn Rand's view of human consciousness and the nature of values over whether or not the state is moral is not due to a disagreement over the correct interpretation of a mutually held ethical stance. Kroy argues that the disagreement between these two groups is instead the result of their disagreement over the nature of human consciousness and that each group is making the correct interpretation of their differing premises. According to Kroy, these two groups are not making any errors with respect to deducing the correct interpretation of any ethical stance because they do not hold the same ethical stance.[90]

Socialist left-libertarians are opposed to private property and the private ownership of the means of production, supporting instead common or social ownership, or property rights based on occupation and use. Other left-libertarians believe that neither claiming nor mixing one's labor with natural resources is enough to generate full private property rights[91][92] and maintain that natural resources ought to be held in an egalitarian manner, either unowned or owned collectively.[93]

Right-libertarians maintain that unowned natural resources "may be appropriated by the first person who discovers them, mixes his labor with them, or merely claims themwithout the consent of others, and with little or no payment to them". They believe that natural resources are originally unowned and therefore private parties may appropriate them at will without the consent of, or owing to, others.[94]

Left-libertarians like anarchists, libertarian Marxists and market-oriented left-libertarians argue in favor of libertarian socialist economic theories such as collectivism, communism, mutualism and syndicalism.[20] Daniel Gurin wrote that "anarchism is really a synonym for socialism. The anarchist is primarily a socialist whose aim is to abolish the exploitation of man by man. Anarchism is only one of the streams of socialist thought, that stream whose main components are concern for liberty and haste to abolish the State".[95] Right-libertarians are economic liberals of either the Austrian School or Chicago school and support laissez-faire capitalism.[96]

It has been argued that socialist values are incompatible with the concept of self-ownership, when this concept is considered "the core feature of libertarianism" and socialism is defined as holding "that we are social beings, that society should be organised, and individuals should act, so as to promote the common good, that we should strive to achieve social equality and promote democracy, community and solidarity".[97] Likewse, right-libertarianism has been criticized for its propertarian views because "the holders of large amounts of property have great power to dictate the terms upon which others work for them and thus in effect the power to "force" others to be resources for them".[98]

Left-libertarianism stresses both individual freedom and social equality. In its classical usage, left-libertarianism is a set of anti-authoritarian varieties of left-wing politics such as libertarian socialism which includes anarchism and libertarian communism/libertarian Marxism, among others.[99][100] Left-libertarianism can also refer to the left-wing of the modern libertarian movement in the United States and more recently to the political positions associated with academic philosophers Hillel Steiner, Philippe Van Parijs and Peter Vallentyne that combine self-ownership with an egalitarian approach to natural resources.[99][101]

Many left-libertarian schools of thought are communist, advocating the eventual replacement of money with labor vouchers or decentralized planning. While maintaining full respect for personal property, left-libertarians are skeptical of, or fully against, private property, arguing that neither claiming nor mixing one's labor with natural resources is enough to generate full private property rights[102][103] and maintain that natural resources such as land, oil, gold and vegetation should be held in an egalitarian manner, either unowned or owned collectively. Those left-libertarians who support private property do so under occupation and use property norms such as in mutualism, or under the condition that recompense is offered to the local or even global community such as within the SteinerVallentyne school.[103]

Market-oriented left-libertarianism, including Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's mutualism and Samuel Konkin III's agorism, appeals to left-wing concerns on cultural and social issues such as class, egalitarianism, environmentalism, gender, immigration and sexuality within the paradigm of a socialist free market.[99] Joseph Djacque was the first to formulate libertarian ideas under the term libertarian. Later philosophers on the left would go onto adding detail to his political philosophy to study and document attitudes and themes relating to stateless socialism (in Djacque's case, it was called libertarian communism).[37][40][42][41]

Right-libertarianism strongly supports capitalist property rights and defends market distribution of natural resources and private property.[104] This position is contrasted with that of left-libertarianism which maintain that natural resources belong to everyone in an egalitarian manner, either unowned or owned collectively.[105] Right-libertarianism includes anarcho-capitalism and minarchist, laissez-faire liberalism.[14][17][21] Right-libertarians advocate negative rights, natural law and a major reversal of the modern welfare state.[29]

Although elements of libertarianism can be traced as far back as the ancient Chinese philosopher Lao-Tzu and the higher-law concepts of the Greeks and the Israelites,[106][107] it was in 17th-century England that libertarian ideas began to take modern form in the writings of the Levellers and John Locke. In the middle of that century, opponents of royal power began to be called Whigs, or sometimes simply Opposition or Country, as opposed to Court writers.[108]

During the 18th century, liberal ideas flourished in Europe and North America.[109][110] Libertarians of various schools were influenced by liberal ideas.[111] For philosopher Roderick T. Long, libertarians "share a commonor at least an overlappingintellectual ancestry. [Libertarians] [...] claim the seventeenth century English Levellers and the eighteenth century French encyclopedists among their ideological forebears; and [...] usually share an admiration for Thomas Jefferson[112][113][114] and Thomas Paine".[115]

John Locke greatly influenced both libertarianism and the modern world in his writings published before and after the English Revolution of 1688, especially A Letter Concerning Toleration (1667), Two Treatises of Government (1689) and An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690). In the text of 1689, he established the basis of liberal political theory, i.e. that people's rights existed before government; that the purpose of government is to protect personal and property rights; that people may dissolve governments that do not do so; and that representative government is the best form to protect rights.[116]

The United States Declaration of Independence was inspired by Locke in its statement: "[T]o secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it".[117] Nevertheless, scholar Ellen Meiksins Wood says that "there are doctrines of individualism that are opposed to Lockean individualism [...] and non-Lockean individualism may encompass socialism".[118]

According to Murray Rothbard, the libertarian creed emerged from the liberal challenges to an "absolute central State and a king ruling by divine right on top of an older, restrictive web of feudal land monopolies and urban guild controls and restrictions" as well as the mercantilism of a bureaucratic warfaring state allied with privileged merchants. The object of liberals was individual liberty in the economy, in personal freedoms and civil liberty, separation of state and religion and peace as an alternative to imperial aggrandizement. He cites Locke's contemporaries, the Levellers, who held similar views. Also influential were the English Cato's Letters during the early 1700s, reprinted eagerly by American colonists who already were free of European aristocracy and feudal land monopolies.[117]

In January 1776, only two years after coming to America from England, Thomas Paine published his pamphlet Common Sense calling for independence for the colonies.[119] Paine promoted liberal ideas in clear and concise language that allowed the general public to understand the debates among the political elites.[120] Common Sense was immensely popular in disseminating these ideas,[121] selling hundreds of thousands of copies.[122] Paine would later write the Rights of Man and The Age of Reason and participate in the French Revolution.[119] Paine's theory of property showed a "libertarian concern" with the redistribution of resources.[123]

In 1793, William Godwin wrote a libertarian philosophical treatise titled Enquiry Concerning Political Justice and its Influence on Morals and Happiness which criticized ideas of human rights and of society by contract based on vague promises. He took liberalism to its logical anarchic conclusion by rejecting all political institutions, law, government and apparatus of coercion as well as all political protest and insurrection. Instead of institutionalized justice, Godwin proposed that people influence one another to moral goodness through informal reasoned persuasion, including in the associations they joined as this would facilitate happiness.[124][125]

Modern anarchism sprang from the secular or religious thought of the Enlightenment, particularly Jean-Jacques Rousseau's arguments for the moral centrality of freedom.[126]

As part of the political turmoil of the 1790s in the wake of the French Revolution, William Godwin developed the first expression of modern anarchist thought.[127][128] According to Peter Kropotkin, Godwin was "the first to formulate the political and economical conceptions of anarchism, even though he did not give that name to the ideas developed in his work"[129] while Godwin attached his anarchist ideas to an early Edmund Burke.[130]

Godwin is generally regarded as the founder of the school of thought known as philosophical anarchism. He argued in Political Justice (1793)[128][131] that government has an inherently malevolent influence on society and that it perpetuates dependency and ignorance. He thought that the spread of the use of reason to the masses would eventually cause government to wither away as an unnecessary force. Although he did not accord the state with moral legitimacy, he was against the use of revolutionary tactics for removing the government from power. Rather, Godwin advocated for its replacement through a process of peaceful evolution.[128][132]

His aversion to the imposition of a rules-based society led him to denounce, as a manifestation of the people's "mental enslavement", the foundations of law, property rights and even the institution of marriage. Godwin considered the basic foundations of society as constraining the natural development of individuals to use their powers of reasoning to arrive at a mutually beneficial method of social organization. In each case, government and its institutions are shown to constrain the development of our capacity to live wholly in accordance with the full and free exercise of private judgment.

In France, various anarchist currents were present during the Revolutionary period, with some revolutionaries using the term anarchiste in a positive light as early as September 1793.[133] The enrags opposed revolutionary government as a contradiction in terms. Denouncing the Jacobin dictatorship, Jean Varlet wrote in 1794 that "government and revolution are incompatible, unless the people wishes to set its constituted authorities in permanent insurrection against itself".[134] In his "Manifesto of the Equals", Sylvain Marchal looked forward to the disappearance, once and for all, of "the revolting distinction between rich and poor, of great and small, of masters and valets, of governors and governed".[134]

Libertarian socialism, libertarian communism and libertarian Marxism are all terms which activists with a variety of perspectives have applied to their views.[135]

Anarchist communist philosopher Joseph Djacque was the first person to describe himself as a libertarian.[136] Unlike mutualist anarchist philosopher Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, he argued that "it is not the product of his or her labor that the worker has a right to, but to the satisfaction of his or her needs, whatever may be their nature".[137][138]

According to anarchist historian Max Nettlau, the first use of the term libertarian communism was in November 1880, when a French anarchist congress employed it to more clearly identify its doctrines.[139] The French anarchist journalist Sbastien Faure started the weekly paper Le Libertaire (The Libertarian) in 1895.[140]

Individualist anarchism refers to several traditions of thought within the anarchist movement that emphasize the individual and their will over any kinds of external determinants such as groups, society, traditions, and ideological systems.[141][142] An influential form of individualist anarchism called egoism[143] or egoist anarchism was expounded by one of the earliest and best-known proponents of individualist anarchism, the German Max Stirner.[144] Stirner's The Ego and Its Own, published in 1844, is a founding text of the philosophy.[144] According to Stirner, the only limitation on the rights of the individual is their power to obtain what they desire,[145] without regard for God, state or morality.[146]

Stirner advocated self-assertion and foresaw unions of egoists, non-systematic associations continually renewed by all parties' support through an act of will,[147] which Stirner proposed as a form of organisation in place of the state.[148] Egoist anarchists argue that egoism will foster genuine and spontaneous union between individuals.[149] Egoism has inspired many interpretations of Stirner's philosophy.

Stirner's philosophy was re-discovered and promoted by German philosophical anarchist and LGBT activist John Henry Mackay. Josiah Warren is widely regarded as the first American anarchist,[150] and the four-page weekly paper he edited during 1833, The Peaceful Revolutionist, was the first anarchist periodical published.[151] For American anarchist historian Eunice Minette Schuster, "[i]t is apparent [...] that Proudhonian Anarchism was to be found in the United States at least as early as 1848 and that it was not conscious of its affinity to the Individualist Anarchism of Josiah Warren and Stephen Pearl Andrews. [...] William B. Greene presented this Proudhonian Mutualism in its purest and most systematic form".[152]

Later, Benjamin Tucker fused Stirner's egoism with the economics of Warren and Proudhon in his eclectic influential publication Liberty. From these early influences, individualist anarchism in different countries attracted a small yet diverse following of bohemian artists and intellectuals,[153] free love and birth control advocates (anarchism and issues related to love and sex),[154][155] individualist naturists nudists (anarcho-naturism),[156][157][158] free thought and anti-clerical activists[159][160] as well as young anarchist outlaws in what became known as illegalism and individual reclamation[161][162] (European individualist anarchism and individualist anarchism in France). These authors and activists included mile Armand, Han Ryner, Henri Zisly, Renzo Novatore, Miguel Gimenez Igualada, Adolf Brand and Lev Chernyi.

In 1873, the follower and translator of Proudhon, the Catalan Francesc Pi i Margall, became President of Spain with a program which wanted "to establish a decentralized, or "cantonalist," political system on Proudhonian lines",[163] who according to Rudolf Rocker had "political ideas, [...] much in common with those of Richard Price, Joseph Priestly [sic], Thomas Paine, Jefferson, and other representatives of the Anglo-American liberalism of the first period. He wanted to limit the power of the state to a minimum and gradually replace it by a Socialist economic order".[164]

On the other hand, Fermn Salvochea was a mayor of the city of Cdiz and a president of the province of Cdiz. He was one of the main propagators of anarchist thought in that area in the late 19th century and is considered to be "perhaps the most beloved figure in the Spanish Anarchist movement of the 19th century".[165][166] Ideologically, he was influenced by Bradlaugh, Owen and Paine, whose works he had studied during his stay in England and Kropotkin, whom he read later.[165] The revolutionary wave of 19171923 saw the active participation of anarchists in Russia and Europe. Russian anarchists participated alongside the Bolsheviks in both the February and October 1917 revolutions.

However, Bolsheviks in central Russia quickly began to imprison or drive underground the libertarian anarchists. Many fled to the Ukraine.[167] There, in the Ukrainian Free Territory they fought in the Russian Civil War against the White movement, monarchists and other opponents of revolution and then against Bolsheviks as part of the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine led by Nestor Makhno, who established an anarchist society in the region for a number of months. Expelled American anarchists Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman protested Bolshevik policy before they left Russia.[168]

The victory of the Bolsheviks damaged anarchist movements internationally as workers and activists joined Communist parties. In France and the United States, for example, members of the major syndicalist movements of the CGT and IWW joined the Communist International.[169] In Paris, the Dielo Truda group of Russian anarchist exiles which included Nestor Makhno issued a 1926 manifesto, the Organizational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists (Draft), calling for new anarchist organizing structures.[170][171]

In Germany, the Bavarian Soviet Republic of 19181919 had libertarian socialist characteristics.[172][173] In Italy, from 1918 to 1921 the anarcho-syndicalist trade union Unione Sindacale Italiana grew to 800,000 members from 1918 to 1921 during the so-called Biennio Rosso.[174]

With the rise of fascism in Europe between the 1920s and the 1930s, anarchists began to fight fascists in Italy,[175] in France during the February 1934 riots[176] and in Spain where the CNT (Confederacin Nacional del Trabajo) boycott of elections led to a right-wing victory and its later participation in voting in 1936 helped bring the popular front back to power. This led to a ruling class attempted coup and the Spanish Civil War (19361939).[177] Gruppo Comunista Anarchico di Firenze held that the during early twentieth century, the terms libertarian communism and anarchist communism became synonymous within the international anarchist movement as a result of the close connection they had in Spain (anarchism in Spain) (with libertarian communism becoming the prevalent term).[178]

Murray Bookchin wrote that the Spanish libertarian movement of the mid-1930s was unique because its workers' control and collectiveswhich came out of a three-generation "massive libertarian movement"divided the republican camp and challenged the Marxists. "Urban anarchists" created libertarian communist forms of organization which evolved into the CNT, a syndicalist union providing the infrastructure for a libertarian society. Also formed were local bodies to administer social and economic life on a decentralized libertarian basis. Much of the infrastructure was destroyed during the 1930s Spanish Civil War against authoritarian and fascist forces.[179]

The Iberian Federation of Libertarian Youth[180] (FIJL, Spanish: Federacin Ibrica de Juventudes Libertarias), sometimes abbreviated as Libertarian Youth (Juventudes Libertarias), was a libertarian socialist[181] organization created in 1932 in Madrid.[182]

At its second congress in February 1937, the FIJL organized a plenum of regional organizations. In October 1938, from the 16th through the 30th in Barcelona the FIJL participated in a national plenum of the libertarian movement, also attended by members of the CNT and the Iberian Anarchist Federation (FAI).[183] The FIJL exists until today. When the republican forces lost the Spanish Civil War, the city of Madrid was turned over to the Francoist forces in 1939 by the last non-Francoist mayor of the city, the anarchist Melchor Rodrguez Garca.[184] During autumn of 1931, the "Manifesto of the 30" was published by militants of the anarchist trade union CNT and among those who signed it there was the CNT General Secretary (19221923) Joan Peiro, Angel Pestaa CNT (General Secretary in 1929) and Juan Lopez Sanchez.

They were called treintismo and they were calling for libertarian possibilism which advocated achieving libertarian socialist ends with participation inside structures of contemporary parliamentary democracy.[185] In 1932, they establish the Syndicalist Party which participates in the 1936 Spanish general elections and proceed to be a part of the leftist coalition of parties known as the Popular Front obtaining 2 congressmen (Pestaa and Benito Pabon). In 1938, Horacio Prieto, general secretary of the CNT, proposes that the Iberian Anarchist Federation transforms itself into the Libertarian Socialist Party and that it participates in the national elections.[186]

The Manifesto of Libertarian Communism was written in 1953 by Georges Fontenis for the Federation Communiste Libertaire of France. It is one of the key texts of the anarchist-communist current known as platformism.[187] In 1968, the International of Anarchist Federations was founded during an international anarchist conference in Carrara, Italy to advance libertarian solidarity.

It wanted to form "a strong and organized workers movement, agreeing with the libertarian ideas".[188][189] In the United States, the Libertarian League was founded in New York City in 1954 as a left-libertarian political organization building on the Libertarian Book Club.[190][191] Members included Sam Dolgoff,[192] Russell Blackwell, Dave Van Ronk, Enrico Arrigoni[193] and Murray Bookchin.

In Australia, the Sydney Push was a predominantly left-wing intellectual subculture in Sydney from the late 1940s to the early 1970s which became associated with the label Sydney libertarianism. Well known associates of the Push include Jim Baker, John Flaus, Harry Hooton, Margaret Fink, Sasha Soldatow,[194] Lex Banning, Eva Cox, Richard Appleton, Paddy McGuinness, David Makinson, Germaine Greer, Clive James, Robert Hughes, Frank Moorhouse and Lillian Roxon.

Amongst the key intellectual figures in Push debates were philosophers David J. Ivison, George Molnar, Roelof Smilde, Darcy Waters and Jim Baker, as recorded in Baker's memoir Sydney Libertarians and the Push, published in the libertarian Broadsheet in 1975.[195] An understanding of libertarian values and social theory can be obtained from their publications, a few of which are available online.[196][197]

In 1969, French platformist anarcho-communist Daniel Gurin published an essay in 1969 called "Libertarian Marxism?" in which he dealt with the debate between Karl Marx and Mikhail Bakunin at the First International and afterwards suggested that "libertarian Marxism rejects determinism and fatalism, giving the greater place to individual will, intuition, imagination, reflex speeds, and to the deep instincts of the masses, which are more far-seeing in hours of crisis than the reasonings of the 'elites'; libertarian Marxism thinks of the effects of surprise, provocation and boldness, refuses to be cluttered and paralyzed by a heavy 'scientific' apparatus, doesn't equivocate or bluff, and guards itself from adventurism as much as from fear of the unknown".[198]

Libertarian Marxist currents often draw from Marx and Engels' later works, specifically the Grundrisse and The Civil War in France.[199] They emphasize the Marxist belief in the ability of the working class to forge its own destiny without the need for a revolutionary party or state.[200] Libertarian Marxism includes currents such an autonomism, council communism, left communism, Lettrism, New Left, Situationism, Socialisme ou Barbarie and operaismo, among others.[201][unreliable source?]

In the United States, there existed from 1970 to 1981 the publication Root & Branch[202] which had as a subtitle A Libertarian Marxist Journal.[203] In 1974, the Libertarian Communism journal was started in the United Kingdom by a group inside the Socialist Party of Great Britain.[204] In 1986, the anarcho-syndicalist Sam Dolgoff started and led the publication Libertarian Labor Review in the United States[205] which decided to rename itself as Anarcho-Syndicalist Review in order to avoid confusion with right-libertarian views.[206]

The indigenous anarchist tradition in the United States was largely individualist.[207] In 1825, Josiah Warren became aware of the social system of utopian socialist Robert Owen and began to talk with others in Cincinnati about founding a communist colony.[208] When this group failed to come to an agreement about the form and goals of their proposed community, Warren "sold his factory after only two years of operation, packed up his young family, and took his place as one of 900 or so Owenites who had decided to become part of the founding population of New Harmony, Indiana".[209] Warren termed the phrase "cost the limit of price"[210] and "proposed a system to pay people with certificates indicating how many hours of work they did. They could exchange the notes at local time stores for goods that took the same amount of time to produce".[211] He put his theories to the test by establishing an experimental labor-for-labor store called the Cincinnati Time Store where trade was facilitated by labor notes.

The store proved successful and operated for three years, after which it was closed so that Warren could pursue establishing colonies based on mutualism, including Utopia and Modern Times. After New Harmony failed, Warren shifted his "ideological loyalties" from socialism to anarchism "which was no great leap, given that Owen's socialism had been predicated on Godwin's anarchism".[212] Warren is widely regarded as the first American anarchist[211] and the four-page weekly paper The Peaceful Revolutionist he edited during 1833 was the first anarchist periodical published,[151] an enterprise for which he built his own printing press, cast his own type and made his own printing plates.[151]

Catalan historian Xavier Diez reports that the intentional communal experiments pioneered by Warren were influential in European individualist anarchists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries such as mile Armand and the intentional communities started by them.[213] Warren said that Stephen Pearl Andrews, individualist anarchist and close associate, wrote the most lucid and complete exposition of Warren's own theories in The Science of Society, published in 1852.[214] Andrews was formerly associated with the Fourierist movement, but converted to radical individualism after becoming acquainted with the work of Warren. Like Warren, he held the principle of "individual sovereignty" as being of paramount importance. Contemporary American anarchist Hakim Bey reports:

Steven Pearl Andrews [...] was not a Fourierist, but he lived through the brief craze for phalansteries in America and adopted a lot of Fourierist principles and practices [...], a maker of worlds out of words. He syncretized abolitionism in the United States, free love, spiritual universalism, Warren, and Fourier into a grand utopian scheme he called the Universal Pantarchy. [...] He was instrumental in founding several 'intentional communities,' including the 'Brownstone Utopia' on 14th St. in New York, and 'Modern Times' in Brentwood, Long Island. The latter became as famous as the best-known Fourierist communes (Brook Farm in Massachusetts & the North American Phalanx in New Jersey)in fact, Modern Times became downright notorious (for 'Free Love') and finally foundered under a wave of scandalous publicity. Andrews (and Victoria Woodhull) were members of the infamous Section 12 of the 1st International, expelled by Marx for its anarchist, feminist, and spiritualist tendencies.[215]

For American anarchist historian Eunice Minette Schuster, "[i]t is apparent that Proudhonian Anarchism was to be found in the United States at least as early as 1848 and that it was not conscious of its affinity to the Individualist Anarchism of Josiah Warren and Stephen Pearl Andrews. William B. Greene presented this Proudhonian Mutualism in its purest and most systematic form".[216] William Batchelder Greene was a 19th-century mutualist individualist anarchist, Unitarian minister, soldier and promoter of free banking in the United States. Greene is best known for the works Mutual Banking, which proposed an interest-free banking system; and Transcendentalism, a critique of the New England philosophical school.

After 1850, he became active in labor reform.[216] He was elected vice president of the New England Labor Reform League, "the majority of the members holding to Proudhon's scheme of mutual banking, and in 1869 president of the Massachusetts Labor Union".[216] Greene then published Socialistic, Mutualistic, and Financial Fragments (1875).[216] He saw mutualism as the synthesis of "liberty and order".[216] His "associationism [...] is checked by individualism. [...] 'Mind your own business,' 'Judge not that ye be not judged.' Over matters which are purely personal, as for example, moral conduct, the individual is sovereign, as well as over that which he himself produces. For this reason he demands 'mutuality' in marriagethe equal right of a woman to her own personal freedom and property".[216]

Poet, naturalist and transcendentalist Henry David Thoreau was an important early influence in individualist anarchist thought in the United States and Europe. He is best known for his book Walden, a reflection upon simple living in natural surroundings; and his essay Civil Disobedience (Resistance to Civil Government), an argument for individual resistance to civil government in moral opposition to an unjust state. In Walden, Thoreau advocates simple living and self-sufficiency among natural surroundings in resistance to the advancement of industrial civilization.[217]

Civil Disobedience, first published in 1849, argues that people should not permit governments to overrule or atrophy their consciences and that people have a duty to avoid allowing such acquiescence to enable the government to make them the agents of injustice. These works influenced green anarchism, anarcho-primitivism and anarcho-pacifism[218] as well as figures including Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Martin Buber and Leo Tolstoy.[218]

For George Woodcock, this attitude can be also motivated by certain idea of resistance to progress and of rejection of the growing materialism which is the nature of American society in the mid-19th century".[217] Zerzan included Thoreau's "Excursions" in his edited compilation of anti-civilization writings, Against Civilization: Readings and Reflections.[219] Individualist anarchists such as Thoreau[220][221] do not speak of economics, but simply the right of disunion from the state and foresee the gradual elimination of the state through social evolution. Agorist author J. Neil Schulman cites Thoreau as a primary inspiration.[222]

Many economists since Adam Smith have argued thatunlike other taxesa land value tax would not cause economic inefficiency.[223] It would be a progressive tax,[224] i.e. a tax paid primarily by the wealthy, that increases wages, reduces economic inequality, removes incentives to misuse real estate and reduces the vulnerability that economies face from credit and property bubbles.[225][226]

Early proponents of this view include Thomas Paine, Herbert Spencer and Hugo Grotius,[101] but the concept was widely popularized by the economist and social reformer Henry George.[227] George believed that people ought to own the fruits of their labor and the value of the improvements they make, thus he was opposed to income taxes, sales taxes, taxes on improvements and all other taxes on production, labor, trade or commerce.

George was among the staunchest defenders of free markets and his book Protection or Free Trade was read into the Congressional Record.[228] Yet he did support direct management of natural monopolies as a last resort, such as right-of-way monopolies necessary for railroads. George advocated for elimination of intellectual property arrangements in favor of government sponsored prizes for inventors.[229][failed verification]

Early followers of George's philosophy called themselves single taxers because they believed that the only legitimate, broad-based tax was land rent. The term Georgism was coined later, though some modern proponents prefer the term geoism instead,[230] leaving the meaning of geo (Earth in Greek) deliberately ambiguous. The terms Earth Sharing,[231] geonomics[232] and geolibertarianism[233] are used by some Georgists to represent a difference of emphasis, or real differences about how land rent should be spent, but all agree that land rent should be recovered from its private owners.

Individualist anarchism found in the United States an important space for discussion and development within the group known as the Boston anarchists.[234] Even among the 19th-century American individualists there was no monolithic doctrine and they disagreed amongst each other on various issues including intellectual property rights and possession versus property in land.[235][236][237] Some Boston anarchists, including Benjamin Tucker, identified as socialists, which in the 19th century was often used in the sense of a commitment to improving conditions of the working class (i.e. "the labor problem").[238]

Lysander Spooner, besides his individualist anarchist activism, was also an anti-slavery activist and member of the First International.[239] Tucker argued that the elimination of what he called "the four monopolies"the land monopoly, the money and banking monopoly, the monopoly powers conferred by patents and the quasi-monopolistic effects of tariffswould undermine the power of the wealthy and big business, making possible widespread property ownership and higher incomes for ordinary people, while minimizing the power of would-be bosses and achieving socialist goals without state action. Tucker's anarchist periodical, Liberty, was published from August 1881 to April 1908.

The publication, emblazoned with Proudhon's quote that liberty is "Not the Daughter But the Mother of Order" was instrumental in developing and formalizing the individualist anarchist philosophy through publishing essays and serving as a forum for debate. Contributors included Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Auberon Herbert, Dyer Lum, Joshua K. Ingalls, John Henry Mackay, Victor Yarros, Wordsworth Donisthorpe, James L. Walker, J. William Lloyd, Florence Finch Kelly, Voltairine de Cleyre, Steven T. Byington, John Beverley Robinson, Jo Labadie, Lillian Harman and Henry Appleton.[240] Later, Tucker and others abandoned their traditional support of natural rights and converted to an egoism modeled upon the philosophy of Max Stirner.[236]

A number of natural rights proponents stopped contributing in protest. Several periodicals were undoubtedly influenced by Liberty's presentation of egoism, including I published by Clarence Lee Swartz and edited by William Walstein Gordak and J. William Lloyd (all associates of Liberty); and The Ego and The Egoist, both of which were edited by Edward H. Fulton. Among the egoist papers that Tucker followed were the German Der Eigene, edited by Adolf Brand; and The Eagle and The Serpent, issued from London. The latter, the most prominent English language egoist journal, was published from 1898 to 1900 with the subtitle A Journal of Egoistic Philosophy and Sociology.[241][242]

Henry George was an American political economist and journalist who advocated that all economic value derived from land, including natural resources, should belong equally to all members of society. Strongly opposed to feudalism and the privatisation of land, George created the philosophy of Georgism, or geoism, influential among many left-libertarians, including geolibertarians and geoanarchists. Much like the English Digger movement, who held all material possessions in common, George claimed that land and its financial properties belong to everyone, and that to hold land as private property would lead to immense inequalities, including authority from the private owners of such ground.

Prior to states assigning property owners slices of either once populated or uninhabited land, the world's earth was held in common. When all resources that derive from land are put to achieving a higher quality of life, not just for employers or landlords, but to serve the general interests and comforts of a wider community, Geolibertarians claim vastly higher qualities of life can be reached, especially with ever advancing technology and industrialised agriculture.

The Levellers, also known as the Diggers, were a 17th century anti-authoritarian movement that stood in resistance to the English government and the feudalism it was pushing through the forced privatisation of land around the time of the First English Civil War. Devout Protestants, Gerrard Winstanley was a prominent member of the community and with a very progressive interpretation of his religion sought to end buying and selling, instead for all inhabitants of a society to share their material possessions and to hold all things in common, without money or payment. With the complete abolition of private property, including that of private land, the English Levellers created a pool of property where all properties belonged in equal measure to everyone. Often seen as some of the first practising anarchists, the Digger movement is considered extremely early libertarian communism.

By around the start of the 20th century, the heyday of individualist anarchism had passed.[243] H. L. Mencken and Albert Jay Nock were the first prominent figures in the United States to describe themselves as libertarians[244] as they believed Franklin D. Roosevelt had co-opted the word liberal for his New Deal policies which they opposed and used libertarian to signify their allegiance to individualism.[citation needed] In 1914, Nock joined the staff of The Nation magazine which at the time was supportive of liberal capitalism. A lifelong admirer of Henry George, Nock went on to become co-editor of The Freeman from 1920 to 1924, a publication initially conceived as a vehicle for the single tax movement, financed by the wealthy wife of the magazine's other editor Francis Neilson.[245] Critic H. L. Mencken wrote that "[h]is editorials during the three brief years of the Freeman set a mark that no other man of his trade has ever quite managed to reach. They were well-informed and sometimes even learned, but there was never the slightest trace of pedantry in them".[246]

Executive Vice President of the Cato Institute David Boaz wrote: "In 1943, at one of the lowest points for liberty and humanity in history, three remarkable women published books that could be said to have given birth to the modern libertarian movement".[247] Isabel Paterson's The God of the Machine, Rose Wilder Lane's The Discovery of Freedom and Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead each promoted individualism and capitalism. None of the three used the term libertarianism to describe their beliefs and Rand specifically rejected the label, criticizing the burgeoning American libertarian movement as the "hippies of the right".[248] Rand's own philosophy of Objectivism is notedly similar to libertarianism and she accused libertarians of plagiarizing her ideas.[248] Rand stated:

All kinds of people today call themselves "libertarians," especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies who are anarchists instead of leftist collectivists; but anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet libertarians combine capitalism and anarchism. That's worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It's a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don't want to preach collectivism because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. Anarchists are the scum of the intellectual world of the Left, which has given them up. So the Right picks up another leftist discard. That's the libertarian movement.[249]

In 1946, Leonard E. Read founded the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), an American nonprofit educational organization which promotes the principles of laissez-faire economics, private property and limited government.[250] According to Gary North, former FEE director of seminars and a current Mises Institute scholar, the FEE is the "granddaddy of all libertarian organizations".[251] The initial officers of the FEE were Leonard E. Read as president, Austrian School economist Henry Hazlitt as vice president and David Goodrich of B. F. Goodrich as chairman. Other trustees on the FEE board have included wealthy industrialist Jasper Crane of DuPont, H. W. Luhnow of William Volker & Co. and Robert W. Welch Jr., founder of the John Birch Society.[253][254]

Austrian School economist Murray Rothbard was initially an enthusiastic partisan of the Old Right, particularly because of its general opposition to war and imperialism,[255] but long embraced a reading of American history that emphasized the role of elite privilege in shaping legal and political institutions. He was part of Ayn Rand's circle for a brief period, but later harshly criticized Objectivism.[256] He praised Rand's Atlas Shrugged and wrote that she "introduced me to the whole field of natural rights and natural law philosophy", prompting him to learn "the glorious natural rights tradition".[257](pp121, 132134) He soon broke with Rand over various differences, including his defense of anarchism, calling his philosophy anarcho-capitalism. Rothbard was influenced by the work of the 19th-century American individualist anarchists[258] and sought to meld their advocacy of free markets and private defense with the principles of Austrian economics.[259]

Karl Hess, a speechwriter for Barry Goldwater and primary author of the Republican Party's 1960 and 1964 platforms, became disillusioned with traditional politics following the 1964 presidential campaign in which Goldwater lost to Lyndon B. Johnson. He parted with the Republicans altogether after being rejected for employment with the party, and began work as a heavy-duty welder. Hess began reading American anarchists largely due to the recommendations of his friend Murray Rothbard and said that upon reading the works of communist anarchist Emma Goldman, he discovered that anarchists believed everything he had hoped the Republican Party would represent. For Hess, Goldman was the source for the best and most essential theories of Ayn Rand without any of the "crazy solipsism that Rand was so fond of".[260] Hess and Rothbard founded the journal Left and Right: A Journal of Libertarian Thought, which was published from 1965 to 1968, with George Resch and Leonard P. Liggio. In 1969, they edited The Libertarian Forum 1969, which Hess left in 1971. Hess eventually put his focus on the small scale, stating that "Society is: people together making culture". He deemed two of his cardinal social principles to be "opposition to central political authority" and "concern for people as individuals". His rejection of standard American party politics was reflected in a lecture he gave during which he said: "The Democrats or liberals think that everybody is stupid and therefore they need somebody... to tell them how to behave themselves. The Republicans think everybody is lazy".[261]

The Vietnam War split the uneasy alliance between growing numbers of American libertarians and conservatives who believed in limiting liberty to uphold moral virtues. Libertarians opposed to the war joined the draft resistance and peace movements, as well as organizations such as Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). In 1969 and 1970, Hess joined with others, including Murray Rothbard, Robert LeFevre, Dana Rohrabacher, Samuel Edward Konkin III and former SDS leader Carl Oglesby to speak at two Left-Right conferences which brought together activists from both the Old Right and the New Left in what was emerging as a nascent libertarian movement.[262] As part of his effort to unite right and left-libertarianism, Hess would join the SDS as well as the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), of which he explained: "We used to have a labor movement in this country, until I.W.W. leaders were killed or imprisoned. You could tell labor unions had become captive when business and government began to praise them. They're destroying the militant black leaders the same way now. If the slaughter continues, before long liberals will be asking, 'What happened to the blacks? Why aren't they militant anymore?'"[263] Rothbard ultimately broke with the left, allying himself instead with the burgeoning paleoconservative movement.[264] He criticized the tendency of these left-libertarians to appeal to "'free spirits,' to people who don't want to push other people around, and who don't want to be pushed around themselves" in contrast to "the bulk of Americans," who "might well be tight-assed conformists, who want to stamp out drugs in their vicinity, kick out people with strange dress habits, etc".[265] This left-libertarian tradition has been carried to the present day by Samuel Edward Konkin III's agorists, contemporary mutualists such as Kevin Carson and Roderick T. Long and other left-wing market anarchists.[266]

In 1971, a small group of Americans led by David Nolan formed the Libertarian Party,[267] which has run a presidential candidate every election year since 1972. Other libertarian organizations, such as the Center for Libertarian Studies and the Cato Institute, were also formed in the 1970s.[268] Philosopher John Hospers, a one-time member of Rand's inner circle, proposed a non-initiation of force principle to unite both groups, but this statement later became a required "pledge" for candidates of the Libertarian Party and Hospers became its first presidential candidate in 1972.[269] In the 1980s, Hess joined the Libertarian Party and served as editor of its newspaper from 1986 to 1990.

Modern libertarianism gained significant recognition in academia with the publication of Harvard University professor Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia in 1974, for which he received a National Book Award in 1975.[270] In response to John Rawls's A Theory of Justice, Nozick's book supported a minimal state (also called a nightwatchman state by Nozick) on the grounds that the ultraminimal state arises without violating individual rights[271] and the transition from an ultraminimal state to a minimal state is morally obligated to occur. Specifically, Nozick wrote: "We argue that the first transition from a system of private protective agencies to an ultraminimal state, will occur by an invisible-hand process in a morally permissible way that violates no one's rights. Secondly, we argue that the transition from an ultraminimal state to a minimal state morally must occur. It would be morally impermissible for persons to maintain the monopoly in the ultraminimal state without providing protective services for all, even if this requires specific 'redistribution.' The operators of the ultraminimal state are morally obligated to produce the minimal state".[272]

In the early 1970s, Rothbard wrote. "One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, 'our side,' had captured a crucial word from the enemy. 'Libertarians' had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over".[273] The project of spreading libertarian ideals in the United States has been so successful that some Americans who do not identify as libertarian seem to hold libertarian views.[274] Since the resurgence of neoliberalism in the 1970s, this modern American libertarianism has spread beyond North America via think tanks and political parties.[275][276]

A surge of popular interest in libertarian socialism occurred in Western nations during the 1960s and 1970s.[277] Anarchism was influential in the counterculture of the 1960s[278][279][280] and anarchists actively participated in the late sixties students and workers revolts.[281] In 1968, the International of Anarchist Federations was founded in Carrara, Italy during an international anarchist conference held there in 1968 by the three existing European federations of France, the Italian and the Iberian Anarchist Federation as well as the Bulgarian Anarchist Federation in French exile.[189][282] The uprisings of May 1968 also led to a small resurgence of interest in left communist ideas. Various small left communist groups emerged around the world, predominantly in the leading capitalist countries. A series of conferences of the communist left began in 1976, with the aim of promoting international and cross-tendency discussion, but these petered out in the 1980s without having increased the profile of the movement or its unity of ideas.[283] Left communist groups existing today include the International Communist Party, International Communist Current and the Internationalist Communist Tendency. The housing and employment crisis in most of Western Europe led to the formation of communes and squatter movements like that of Barcelona, Spain. In Denmark, squatters occupied a disused military base and declared the Freetown Christiania, an autonomous haven in central Copenhagen.

Around the turn of the 21st century, libertarian socialism grew in popularity and influence as part of the anti-war, anti-capitalist and anti-globalisation movements.[284] Anarchists became known for their involvement in protests against the meetings of the World Trade Organization (WTO), Group of Eight and the World Economic Forum. Some anarchist factions at these protests engaged in rioting, property destruction and violent confrontations with police. These actions were precipitated by ad hoc, leaderless, anonymous cadres known as black blocs and other organizational tactics pioneered in this time include security culture, affinity groups and the use of decentralized technologies such as the Internet.[284] A significant event of this period was the confrontations at WTO conference in Seattle in 1999.[284] For English anarchist scholar Simon Critchley, "contemporary anarchism can be seen as a powerful critique of the pseudo-libertarianism of contemporary neo-liberalism. One might say that contemporary anarchism is about responsibility, whether sexual, ecological or socio-economic; it flows from an experience of conscience about the manifold ways in which the West ravages the rest; it is an ethical outrage at the yawning inequality, impoverishment and disenfranchisment that is so palpable locally and globally".[285] This might also have been motivated by "the collapse of 'really existing socialism' and the capitulation to neo-liberalism of Western social democracy".[286]

Libertarian socialists in the early 21st century have been involved in the alter-globalization movement, squatter movement; social centers; infoshops; anti-poverty groups such as Ontario Coalition Against Poverty and Food Not Bombs; tenants' unions; housing cooperatives; intentional communities generally and egalitarian communities; anti-sexist organizing; grassroots media initiatives; digital media and computer activism; experiments in participatory economics; anti-racist and anti-fascist groups like Anti-Racist Action and Anti-Fascist Action; activist groups protecting the rights of immigrants and promoting the free movement of people such as the No Border network; worker co-operatives, countercultural and artist groups; and the peace movement.


Libertarianism - Wikipedia

Libertarian | Definition of Libertarian at Dictionary.com

[ lib-er-tair-ee-uhn ]SHOW IPA


maintaining the doctrine of free will.

OTHER WORDS FROM libertarianlibertarianism, nounantilibertarian, adjective, noun

Dictionary.com UnabridgedBased on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2020

I agree with you, but the youthful energy in the libertarian movement foresees a tipping point.

Had there not been a Libertarian in the race who received over 8,000 votes, Shumlin likely would have lost.

Some Tea Party types who felt that Republican Scott Milne was too moderate supported the Libertarian.

Healey describes his politics as "libertarian in some aspects, Jacksonian, Jeffersonian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative."

Sure, you could end up with a Congress that consists solely of libertarian veterinarians, or elderly communists, or whatever.

So far I concede the Libertarian contention as to the demoralising effect of Determinism, if held with a real force of conviction.

The case has been conceded to him in advance, and the libertarian can only flinch from his logic.

It is chiefly on the Libertarian side that I find a tendency to the exaggeration of which I have just spoken.

At the same time, the difference between Determinist and Libertarian Justice can hardly have any practical effect.


/ (lbtrn) /

a believer in freedom of thought, expression, etc

of, relating to, or characteristic of a libertarian

Derived forms of libertarianlibertarianism, noun

C18: from liberty

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 HarperCollins Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012

See more here:

Libertarian | Definition of Libertarian at Dictionary.com

What Is Libertarian – Institute for Humane Studies

Want to know what is a classical liberal? Visit our Core Classical Liberal Principles page.

The libertarian perspective is that peace, prosperity, and social harmony are fostered by as much liberty as possible and as little government as necessary.

With a long intellectual tradition spanning hundreds of years, libertarian ideas of individual rights, economic liberty, and limited government have contributed to history-changing movements like abolition, womens suffrage, and the civil rights movement.

Libertarian is not a single viewpoint, but includes a wide variety of perspectives. Libertarians can range from market anarchists to advocates of a limited welfare state, but they are all united by a belief in personal liberty, economic freedom, and a skepticism of government power.

According to American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition, 2000:

NOUN: 1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.

The Challenge of Democracy (6th edition), by Kenneth Janda, Jeffrey Berry, and Jerry Goldman:

Liberals favor government action to promote equality, whereas conservatives favor government action to promote order. Libertarians favor freedom and oppose government action to promote either equality or order.

According to The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman, Open Court Publishing Company, 1973:

The central idea of libertarianism is that people should be permitted to run their own lives as they wish.

According to Libertarianism: A Primer by David Boaz, Free Press, 1997:

Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others. Libertarians defend each persons right to life, liberty, and property-rights that people have naturally, before governments are created. In the libertarian view, all human relationships should be voluntary; the only actions that should be forbidden by law are those that involve the initiation of force against those who have not themselves used force-actions like murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, and fraud.

Go here to see the original:

What Is Libertarian - Institute for Humane Studies

Broome County officials take oath of office to kick off 2020 – WBNG-TV

(WBNG) - Broome County started off the new year with new leadership in several key roles.

Recently elected Broome County District Attorney Michael Korchak and Endicott Mayor Linda Jackson were among the several swearing in ceremonies happening across the county New Year's day.

After a hard fought victory in November, Korchak says he is grateful to serve this community.

"This was a very, very long journey but I have a lot of great people supporting me and I'm ready to get to work and serve the people of Broome County as their district attorney," said Korchak.

After losing the Republican Primary in June, Korchak switched to the Libertarian ticket and won the title by a narrow margin.

"When we were able to make the switch to the Libertarian Party, many of my supporters came along with me because we've been stressing from day one, the D.A.'s office isn't a political office, you're serving the community. There should be no politics involved so that way you're voting for person not party," said Korchak.

At the ceremony, he thanked his supporters, many of whom came to watch the historic moment at Saint Michael's Gym on Clinton Street.

While over in Endicott, Republican and former village trustee Linda Jackson was sworn in as the village's first new mayor in 12 years.

She will be replacing longtime mayor John Bertoni.

"It's so exciting. I can't tell you, when I got to put my name on the door it was a feeling. I drive through Endicott and I think, 'I'm the mayor of this wonderful place.' I'm just so excited, and the people are the most important part. I get to be mayor and I get to help everybody," said Jackson.

With her dream now becoming a reality, Jackson says she is ready to continue revitalization efforts for the village and increase security.

"We're going to work on security and safety first. Get our cameras up on the avenue, get cameras in other strategic places. Make it safe so that people won't mind going out at night in the village of Endicott," said Jackson.

Several village trustees also swore into office Wednesday, including Endicott Democratic Trustee Cheryl Chapman, who will serve as Deputy Mayor.

The newest leadership across the county says they are hoping to start the new decade strong for all residents.

See original here:

Broome County officials take oath of office to kick off 2020 - WBNG-TV

White nationalist who ran for Senate, claimed to have consumed goat blood, is arrested in Florida – FOX 10 News Phoenix

Augustus Sol Invictus was arrested Dec. 30 in Florida on a warrant issued by a police department in South Carolina. ( Brevard County Sheriff's Office )

A white nationalist who spoke at the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville and once claimed, during a failed campaign for U.S. Senate, to have consumed goat blood,was arrested this week inFlorida.

Augustus Sol Invictus, 36, was taken into custody Monday onchargesof kidnapping, domestic violence of a high and aggravated nature and possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, said Lt. Michael Chavis, a spokesman for theRock Hill, S.C., police department.

Invictus was arrested on a warrant from that departmentby Brevard County, Fla., sheriffs deputies.

According to aredacted Rock Hill police report obtained by Fox News, on Dec. 12Invictus held a gun to his wife's "head and forced her to go with him" to Jacksonville, Fla.

This incident took place in the presence of their children, the report adds, and when in Florida [the woman] was able to separate herself from her husband and escape back to Rock Hill with her children.

Florida officials tracked Invictus to a relative's home, Brevard County Sheriff's Office spokesman Tod Goodyear told the Associated Press. Hereportedly was taken into custody without incident after leaving a gym.

Chavis saidInvictus will be extradited back to South Carolina to face the charges.

During a 2016 Senate bid to unseat U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., Invictus got widespread attention for claiming that he killed a goat and drank its blood as part of a pagan ritual.

I did sacrifice a goat. I know thats probably a quibble in the mind of most Americans, he once told theAssociated Press. I sacrificed an animal to the god of the wilderness... Yes, I drank the goats blood.

Invictus failed, however, to win the nomination from Florida's Libertarian Party to challenge Rubio. The AP says he has changed his given name -- which he declinedto reveal in a 2015 interview -- to a Latin phrase that means majestic unconquered sun.

Invictus, an Orlando-area attorney, has called for violent uprisings,according to the Associated Press. White nationalist Richard Spencer, who organized the deadly Charlottesville rally that refocused attention on the country's frayed race relations, also has credited Invictus with drafting the core tenets behind the rally, it added.

Jail records show that Invictus is being held without bond and is scheduled to appear in court Jan. 15.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

More here:

White nationalist who ran for Senate, claimed to have consumed goat blood, is arrested in Florida - FOX 10 News Phoenix

Republicans are the party of civil liberties as Democrats walk away | TheHill – The Hill

Since the heyday of the civil rights movement, Democrats have touted themselves as torchbearers of the Jeffersonian principles of individual rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The Founders considered it axiomatic that the government should have strict limits and the rights of the individuals were not to be constrained. But Democrats have sadly shifted their priorities. The left wing increasingly favors intrusion in all aspects of American life and advocates policies diminishing personal rights in favor of state power and jeopardizing the social contract.

Joined by activist groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and the Human Rights Campaign, liberals argued for years that the Christian right was coming to take away your personal autonomy. Slogans such as my body my choice underscored a powerful conviction that the government should not interfere with your ability to live your life as you see fit. From marriage to police surveillance and from abortion to free expression, Democrats gained votes by advertising themselves as the defenders of individual rights in this nation. For years, they could claim that title.

In the era after the demise of Jim Crow, the cultural and political left vastly expanded the reach and breadth of institutions and ideologies devoted to the protection of individuals rights and free will. Progressive intellectuals championed the moral imperatives of free speech and expression as keys not only to an effective academic environment but a thriving economy and polity. Universities represented our bastions of learning and debate. During the tumultuous 1960s and 1970s, campuses brimmed with ideas to improve the nation and the world, many of which were wrong, but at least open for discussion. The American Civil Liberties Union had insisted on the fundamental right to speech even for the most odious of causes.

But times have certainly changed. Widespread calls for safe spaces, incessant demands of progressives to be comfortable, and constant disruptions of conservative talks on campuses have replaced the rallies championing the First Amendment. Airing an opinion about biological science, including one universally accepted throughout the entirety of human history barring the last five years, was startingly sufficient for author J.K. Rowling to be exiled from the realm of acceptable speakers. The advocacy of free market principles is even on the precipice of being deemed hate speech. Free speech has firmly given way to groupthink with a constant race to the bottom. Only the most woke survive in this heated political environment, to the detriment of healthy debate in our country.

All of this leads the Democratic candidates competing for 2020 and their counterparts in Congress to increasingly become nanny staters. Against the First Amendment are proposals to restrict the use of money to affect policy under Democratic proposals to constrain lobbying, shut down free speech under Democratic proposals ostensibly aimed at hate speech but which really aim to shut down conservative speech, and reduce the ability to exercise religious conscience under Democratic proposals to strip churches of tax exempt status. Little remains of leaving people free to run their own lives. Instead, the new doctrine is more related to the idea that everything is political. All within the state and nothing outside the state, is not just a frightening concept on its own, but effectively an unintentional carbon copy of the core philosophy of Benito Mussolini.

While Republicans are certainly not perfect on civil liberties by any means, the strong libertarian streak that runs through the party still demonstrates itself in many ways. Although President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump lashes out at Pelosi on Christmas, decries 'scam impeachment' Christmas Day passes in North Korea with no sign of 'gift' to US Prosecutors: Avenatti was M in debt during Nike extortion MORE is a flawed messenger for the argument that Americans should be left to simply pursue their own best interests, he is actively working to move power from the Washington swamp back to the states and to your wallet. If Trump is not good enough on civil liberties for your appetite, the reality is Democrats are far worse.

Their proposals are straight from the Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Jimmy Carter days of seeking to fix everything through federal mandates. Elizabeth Warren wants to set up a series of government funded daycare centers that not only will cost taxpayers $70 billion, but will also replace traditional family bonds with the state. There is no more basic right than familial autonomy, which would sink away if such plans were enacted into law. Bernie Sanders pushes more extreme ideas, opposing the ability for homeowners to control their own dwellings. As the mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg is most remembered by the long list of activities he chose to ban, from large sodas to styrofoam packaging to loud music.

These are not policies of a civil liberties party. They are inducements to relinquish our autonomy to Washington. Anyone who believes that is a fair trade is marching the nation down the road to serfdom. As Gerald Ford famously declared, A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.

Kristin Tate is a libertarian writer and an analyst for Young Americans for Liberty. She is an author whose latest book is How Do I Tax Thee? A Field Guide to the Great American Rip-Off. Follow her on Twitter @KristinBTate.

Excerpt from:

Republicans are the party of civil liberties as Democrats walk away | TheHill - The Hill

National View Column: Watch for a Trump-Trump ticket and more in 2020 – Duluth News Tribune

JANUARY: Senate Republicans reject both House impeachment articles, but four Republicans join the 47 Democrats to provide a majority voting the president obstructed Congress. The Des Moines Register endorses Joe Biden, saying the former vice president's experience means he'll be "a president we won't have to train." Trump fires FBI Director James Wray, nominating Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan to replace him. Ukraine President Zelenskiy renews plea for White House meeting with Trump.

FEBRUARY: Baltimore Ravens win Super Bowl. Iowa caucuses finish in a tight four-way race with Mayor Pete Buttigieg getting the most votes and Sen. Bernie Sanders the most delegates. Biden is a close third, followed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren. Sanders repeats his New Hampshire primary win, followed closely by Mayor Pete, Biden, and Warren. Biden edges Sanders in Nevada and trounces the field in South Carolina, followed by Sanders, Mayor Pete and Warren.

MARCH: On Super Tuesday, Biden wins Texas, Virginia, and four other states. But Buttigieg wins California, Colorado, Minnesota, North Carolina and Warren's home state of Massachusetts, taking the delegate lead. Sanders, like Alf Landon, wins only Maine and Vermont. Ex-New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg peaks at 8% in California and nets just three delegates. The next week, Sanders edges Biden and Buttigieg in Michigan, and Biden wins two states. But Buttigieg wins four and follows that up March 17 by beating Sanders and Biden in Arizona, Illinois, Ohio, and Florida. Trump clinches the GOP nomination.

APRIL: Mike Pompeo resigns as secretary of state to seek the Kansas Senate seat. Buttigieg edges Sanders and Biden in Wisconsin, extending his delegate lead. Warren and Bloomberg drop out, leaving businessman Andrew Yang, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and ex-Rep. John Delaney still competing. Cowboys name Troy Aikman as new coach. Trump picks Mike Pence as secretary of state, announcing the vice president asked for a switch. Reports say Trump asked Zelenskiy, still awaiting a White House meeting, if he has any dirt on Mayor Pete. Buttigieg wins New York, Maryland, and Pennsylvania primaries.

MAY: Biden drops out of Democratic race and endorses Buttigieg, who wins Indiana. Sanders, Yang, Gabbard, and Delaney refuse to concede. Trump and Vladimir Putin accept Zelenskiy's invitation for a July summit in Kyiv, during the Democratic Convention. The Supreme Court again upholds the Affordable Care Act's constitutionality, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the majority opinion.

JUNE: North Korean leader Kim Jong Un rejects Trump bid for new summit, urging withdrawal of all U.S. troops from South Korea. Trump says he is willing to go halfway. The Washington Capitals win their second Stanley Cup in three years while the L.A. Lakers win the NBA title. The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, says Trump must provide financial information to Congress and New York authorities.

JULY: Polls show Trump leading Pete Buttigieg by 6 points and winning 30% of black and Hispanic votes. Democrats make the former South Bend mayor the youngest major party nominee ever, with Stacey Abrams of Georgia as his running mate. At the Kyiv summit, Trump hails Putin's efforts for global peace. Zelenskiy declines comment.

AUGUST: Trump stuns the Republican Convention by naming Senior Adviser Ivanka Trump his new running mate. After brief flurry for Rep. Mark Meadows, the GOP Convention confirms a Trump-Trump ticket. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, spurning the Libertarian nomination, endorses the Buttigieg-Abrams ticket. Pompeo loses the Kansas GOP Senate primary to Kris Kobach.

SEPTEMBER: Trump announces he'll only debate ex-Mayor Pete once, but running mate Ivanka Trump will hold three debates with Democrat Abrams. Ukraine President Zelenskiy discloses Buttigieg's grandfather was involved in anti-NATO terrorism. Though Buttigieg denies it, noting his family came from Malta, not Ukraine, Trump invites Zelenskiy to the White House.

OCTOBER: After Abrams wins the first VP debate over Ivanka Trump, she cancels the next two. Zelenskiy admits he fabricated a Buttigieg story to get a White House invite. After the presidential debate, polls show ex-Mayor Pete has evened the race against Trump. The New York Yankees defeat the L.A. Dodgers in the World Series.

NOVEMBER: Democrats' Buttigieg-Abrams ticket, riding a popular vote majority of 4.5 million votes, wins the election with a bare 270 electoral votes. Trump holds Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. But Democrats win Arizona's 11 electoral votes and clinch the election with Abrams' Georgia (16) and Buttigieg's Indiana (11), where analysts blame backlash over Trump dropping Pence for a 9,900-vote Democratic margin. Trump, alleging widespread fraud, challenges Indiana result. Trump edges Buttigieg in Texas, but Democrats regain control of the Texas House, 76-74. Democrats hold the U.S. House and, in a surprise, gain three Senate seats, losing Alabama but winning Arizona, Colorado, Kansas and Maine. By winning the presidency, VP-elect Abrams gives Democrats control of 50-50 Senate.

DECEMBER: Recounts confirm Democrats' Indiana win, and the Electoral College confirms Buttigieg's election. He names Joe Biden as secretary of state, and, seeking bipartisan support, picks Utah Sen. Mitt Romney as secretary of defense. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi retires to become U.S. ambassador to the Vatican. Trump pardons himself, Mike Flynn, Paul Manafort and Roger Stone, but New York authorities say they'll press criminal proceedings against him in January. House Republicans call for impeachment inquiry into Buttigieg's ties to Ukraine.

Carl P. Leubsdorf is the former Washington bureau chief for the Dallas Morning News. He can be reached at carl.p.leubsdorf@gmail.com.

Read more:

National View Column: Watch for a Trump-Trump ticket and more in 2020 - Duluth News Tribune

Holcomb and cell phones: The inch that becomes a mile – Greenfield Daily Reporter

Leo Morris Submitted photo

Back in the dark ages when mandatory seat belt use was relatively new in Indiana, I had a colleague who liked to say that she never nagged people about buckling up when they were riding with her. In fact, she never mentioned it to her passengers.

Why? she was inevitably asked.

Natural selection was her answer.

I like to use that story as a good analogy for what I consider proper government. She gives people the information needed to make good choices, sometimes offers incentives for making good choices and can even provide the mechanisms to make good choices easier. But if people insist on making poor choices anyway, well, thats on them.

Of course, our government driver (to continue the analogy) seldom stops when she should. She employs various coercive tactics to get those passengers in line. (Yes, I am being deliberate in the choice of pronoun; were talking about the nanny state, after all.)

Such as, buckle up or this car isnt moving. Or, if you dont buckle up, I will harangue you mercilessly for the whole trip. Or, the penalty for not buckling up, payable at the end of the journey, will be a hefty fee that I will send collectors out to get from your childrens children into the 10th generation.

In my experience, people who advocate for government solutions, and even bigger and more expensive government when those solutions fail to materialize, seldom have to justify themselves. They are merely following the spirit of the age, no explanations required.

But those of us who advocate government restraint or, heaven forbid, limited government, are always put on the defensive. We are either insensitive to human misery to the point of heartlessness or hopelessly ignorant of the need for immediate action to avert imminent disaster.

In all the response I get to these columns (thank you very much), by far the most common form of criticism is from readers who misinterpret, either carelessly or deliberately, the libertarian thrust of my government critiques.

I always mean, in those pieces, the least government necessary, which, believe it or not, was a founding principle of this country. They always insist I really meant, no government at all, then proceed to deliver the Gotcha! they think I deserve.

What about the fire department when your house is burning down, they will ask, or the police department when youre robbed? What about that pothole you want filled in?

Arent those all socialism, you self-serving hypocrite?

Actually, no, theyre not. They are legitimate government functions.

My favorite Gotcha! showing up in my email with tiresome regularity is, So, I guess youve refused your Social Security payments, huh?

No, I have not. Had I the opportunity to opt out and use the money for my own retirement investments, I would have done so. But participation was mandatory. To whom am I trying to prove what if I dont take money out of the system I was forced to put money into?

The tenet of libertarianism people seem to have the most trouble grasping, though it really should be the easiest, is that government legitimately tries to keep us from hurting each other but risks overstepping its bounds when it tries to keep us from hurting ourselves. Autonomy should be sacred.

So, I find myself having to explain that, no, I do not object to Gov. Eric Holcombs proposal to ban Hoosier motorists from using their cellphones while driving unless theyre hands-free.

There are rules for the road that are open to challenge on libertarian grounds. There is no reason to require me to use seat belts when driving or wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle except to keep me from behaving stupidly.

But there are also rules that protect me from others stupid behavior, such as the one against driving while drunk.

Mandating hands-free-only cellphone use falls into the latter category. I am the one you might run into while youre fiddling with that stupid phone.

See? Simple.

Of course, there are a couple of potholes in the road an earnest libertarian should be aware of whenever he gives in and acknowledges that, yes, OK, fine, government should do this.

One is the maxim that by the time government acts, government action is usually beside the point. Most cellphones today have Bluetooth, and most new cars have systems that sync to it, so its likely the moment you get behind the wheel your phone automatically become hands-free.

The other is when government is given the legitimate inch, it will go the illegitimate mile. Setting reasonable speed limits is a legitimate function, but it requires local knowledge of local conditions. But few were shocked to see a national 55 mph limit that, for a time, was the most ignored law in America.

If Holcomb gets his way with cellphones, all sorts of distracted driving will be on the endangered list, everything from playing the radio to scarfing down those fries you got from the drive-thru. Then dont be surprised if there are hefty fines for talking to your in-car companions and there are calls for hands-free nose-picking.

Government will always always, always, always go too far.

I know you might not believe that. But the evidence is plentiful if you choose to ignore it, thats on you.

I respect your autonomy.

And, you know. Natural selection.

Leo Morris is as columnist for The Indiana Policy Review. Contact him at leoedits@yahoo.com or send comments to editorial@therepublic.com.

See the original post here:

Holcomb and cell phones: The inch that becomes a mile - Greenfield Daily Reporter

Are Conservatives Soul-Searching in the Wrong Places? – CNSNews.com

(Photo byThoas Samson/AFP via Getty Images)

A brutal business climate and societal breakdown have brought major changes to America. In response, many Americans, especially conservatives, are soul searching for something more compassionate for those left behind. Unfortunately, they are looking in the most unlikely places: business and government. They will likely be searching for a long time.

The controversy over this shift in mentality erupted with the publication of a Wall Street Journal advertisement in which major firms pledge a commitment to stakeholder capitalism, which holds businesses should be run having all society, not just shareholders, in mind. Sen. Marco Rubios (R-Fla.) stirred the pot with his recent speech at Catholic University, where he explored what he called common-good capitalism.

The thesis is that the modern American economy does not care for everyone. It falls short by concentrating only on return on investment to shareholders. Businesses need to think in terms of more general obligations to workers and communitystakeholders in the overall economy. Since business cannot provide for all social needs, state systems must also be put in place. The soul-searchers say it is time to admit that the federal government might indeed have a role in helping those left behind.

Challenging the Conservative Orthodoxy

Such thinking is especially hard for conservatives to accept. It challenges the reigning orthodoxy that has long held to low taxation, decreased federal spending, scrapping socialist government meddling and regulation, and free and fair markets as a means of providing for the common good. The movement maintains a Reaganesque distrust of government and a rightful distaste for its eternal programs. The libertarian right relegates the solving of most problems to markets.

However, there is no denying that something is missing from todays superficial and materialistic society. Countless people are suffering materially and especially spiritually, whether it be from anxiety, depression, opioids or family breakup. Society seems to have lost its soul. Hence, the searching.

As a result, many conservatives now question old assumptions about market reliability or the evils of government social largess. They are looking for new models for business and government to help find a soul for society that will help people cope. They assume these are the only two institutions from which all solutions flow.

The Limitations of Markets

These are strange places to look for solutions. Modern economy and government are sterile institutions built upon mechanical models and systems. To have recourse to them is to look for materialistic solutions for spiritual problems.

Modern capitalism, as it now operates, is not meant to be soulful. It is meant to produce material stufflots of stuff. It works like a machine producing efficiently, quickly and abundantly. Modern markets scour the globe looking to maximize efficiency and distribute risks. While such efforts do benefit society greatly, their primary purpose is directed toward trading, not giving.

Markets work in function of commutative justice. This form of justice requires a fair exchange of goods or services between contracting parties. It facilitates transactions by requiring, as nearly as may be, a near equal payment be rendered for the near equal value of a good or service.

Markets do not work in function of charity. Charity cannot govern economic transactions since, for an economy to function justly, each party must be strictly given its due. To insist that charity be made part of economic theory would put the charitable at a disadvantage and leave the marketplace in the hands of the hard-hearted or dishonest.

Thus, efforts to baptize modern capitalism by insisting upon integrating charity into its program will inevitably fail. Soul-searching conservatives might encourage entrepreneurs to practice charity in their dealings, as indeed many do. However, the cold mechanical processes of modern capitalism remain morally indifferent and soulless. They will not renew the face of the earth (Ps. 103:30), no matter how they are tweaked.

The Limitations of Big Government

The same comments can be made about modern government. If any institution can be called soulless, it is the anonymous, bureaucratic machinery of big government. Its bloated systems offer to be everything to everyone while suffering from a lack of the efficiency of business.

A government is supposed to be the political system and institutions by which the State is administered and regulated. It should be oriented toward the common good by providing a general framework by which society can prosper. It also is not directed toward giving but administering.

The sad reality is that modern government is usually big government. It does not provide for the common good but buries it under its massive structures.

Decades of social programs have proven that big government, like markets, is not meant to work in function of charity. Big government distributes its largess with cold indifference and sterile rules. Once entrenched, its self-perpetuating programs tend to prolong not diminish poverty at great cost to the nation.

Looking for Americas Lost Soul

Looking for Americas lost soul in business and government is not the right move. These institutions themselves are not bad, but they are directed to other purposes. The modern versions of these institutions are further handicapped by their cold mechanical structures and systems that can lead to abuse and frenetic intemperance.

Some conservatives have the idea that their message can be more palatable if it is dressed up with secularized systems of charity and government oversight. However, to replace one mechanical system with another does not address the soulless component that is missing.

That is not to say that these institutions cannot be instruments for a return to a more soulful America. Like all instruments, their use depends upon the motives of those using them. The human element is the most crucial part of their functioning.

A Needed Moral Regeneration

If America is to find its soul, a moral regeneration is needed that will address the causes of societys breakdown. It should not focus on symptoms. As it stands, everything is upside down.

Soul-searchers must seek out those institutions that are especially directed toward moral regeneration, not the mechanical workings of society. The God-given institutions of the family and the Catholic Church are two important natural regenerators that work in function of charity. They can transform society.

When all society is infused with family-like relationships and religious, moral observance, business and government can then play their essential role in fostering (not controlling) virtuous life in common.

However, such a message is not what people want to hear. It involves restraint, sacrifice, responsibility and accountability amid a culture that teaches the contrary. It is much easier to solve problems by creating stop-gap aid programs that never stop. Better to tweak the system than revamp fundamentals.

Only true Christian charity can overcome the selfish interests that cloud the soul-searching process. For charity is that supernatural virtue by which people love God above all things for His own sake, and their neighbors as themselves for the love of God.

The present soul-searching must either lead to God or end in failure.

John Horvat II is a scholar, researcher, educator, international speaker, and author of the book Return to Order: From a Frenzied Economy to an Organic Christian Society--Where We've Been, How We Go Here, and Where We Need to Go. He lives in Spring Grove, Pennsylvania, where he is the vice president of the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property.

Follow this link:

Are Conservatives Soul-Searching in the Wrong Places? - CNSNews.com

The Buzz 12.26.19 – Monterey County Weekly


This week is a good time to visit the shoreline and scan the horizon for the spouts ofgray whalesmigrating southward from their feeding grounds in Alaska to the calving lagoons of Baja California. A few single sightings have been logged this month and more are expected through January. Last year the number of gray whale sightings among local whale watching boats jumped during Christmas week. According to theNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, pregnant females typically come through first. Adults can reach 46 feet in length and weigh up to 35 tons. Calves are about 17 feet long at birth, and by the time they reach Monterey Bay headed north in spring, theyre about 20 feet, according to the Monterey Bay Aquariums gray whales webpage. In total, gray whales travel approximately 10,000 miles each year.

Remember the days in which you had to be a registered Democratic to vote in a Democratic primary election or a Republican to vote in a Republican primary? Those days are over. In 1996, California voters opted to switch to a system of open primaries, but in 2000, Prop. 198 was overturned by theU.S. Supreme Court, which found the voting system violated the First Amendment right of freedom of association. The State Legislature came back with a modified system that took effect in 2001: A political party may choose to let no-party-preference voters (also known as independents) vote in their presidential primaries. For the March 3, 2020 election, NPP voters may request primary ballots from theDemocratic Party,Libertarian PartyandAmerican Independent Party. (Not on that list is theRepublican Party, in which PresidentDonald Trumpis seeking re-election.) In Monterey County, NPP voters outnumber Republicans, but not Democrats. TheMonterey County Elections Departmenthas sent out 36,442 cards to unaffiliated voters asking them if they want a partys primary ballot, and as of press time has received requests from only 2,217 voters.

The Weekly is powered by the generosity of readers like you, who support our mission to produce engaging, independent and in-depth journalism.

Show Your Support

Learn More

Golf can be intimidating for a first-timer. If a novice player would step onto the famedPebble Beach Golf Linksfor a round, he or she might give up the game for good or so saysBryon Bell, the president ofTGR Design. The golf course design firm headed byTiger Woodsis in the process of laying out a new par-3 short course on the site of the formerPeter Hay Golf Courseat Pebble Beach. Bell and his team plan a course that will be family-friendly, playable for young golfers the longest holes measuring just over 100 yards yet still offering a chance for veteran golfers to work on their short game. Its about bringing people together, Bell says. Thats our goal. TGR Design is early in the process (we have some hurdles, Bell adds) but looks to be on track for a fall 2020 grand opening, at which point even hackers can have a go at Pebble Beach.

Pacific Grove Unified School DistrictSuperintendentRalph Porrasbegan noticing a disturbing trend among suspensions coming across his desk this fall, he toldP.G. City Councilon Dec. 18. Over a 60-day period most were connected to tobacco vaping-related products. Ive been in education for 30 years and Ive seen a lot of trends, Porras says. This one is insidious and it worries me a lot. Despite widespread news stories about vaping-related illnesses and deaths, vaping is on the rise among students Porras says its true among all schools in Monterey County. (TheU.S. Centers for Disease Controlreports more than 2,500 hospitalizations and 54 deaths due to the illness.) Porras sent a letter to parents describing what vaping devices look like. We dont know where they are getting them and thats half the concern, he says.

Read more:

The Buzz 12.26.19 - Monterey County Weekly

libertarianism | Definition, Doctrines, History, & Facts …

Libertarianism, political philosophy that takes individual liberty to be the primary political value. It may be understood as a form of liberalism, the political philosophy associated with the English philosophers John Locke and John Stuart Mill, the Scottish economist Adam Smith, and the American statesman Thomas Jefferson. Liberalism seeks to define and justify the legitimate powers of government in terms of certain natural or God-given individual rights. These rights include the rights to life, liberty, private property, freedom of speech and association, freedom of worship, government by consent, equality under the law, and moral autonomy (the ability to pursue ones own conception of happiness, or the good life). The purpose of government, according to liberals, is to protect these and other individual rights, and in general liberals have contended that government power should be limited to that which is necessary to accomplish this task. Libertarians are classical liberals who strongly emphasize the individual right to liberty. They contend that the scope and powers of government should be constrained so as to allow each individual as much freedom of action as is consistent with a like freedom for everyone else. Thus, they believe that individuals should be free to behave and to dispose of their property as they see fit, provided that their actions do not infringe on the equal freedom of others.

Follow this link:

libertarianism | Definition, Doctrines, History, & Facts ...

Libertarianism.org | Exploring the theory and history of …

An exhaustive survey of the Presidents of the United States and everything they did wrong while in office.

Building Tomorrow explores how tech and innovation are transforming culture while creating a freer and more peaceful world.

Out now! Arnold Kling's new book offers a way to see through rhetorical blinders so that we can incorporate new perspectives in to our everyday lives.


by David S. DAmato on Dec 20, 2019

Nowhere in the Constitution does it carve out a spot for secretivebureaucracies that never have to answer to the public.


by Sanford Ikeda on Dec 18, 2019

There is a distinct difference between the cost of things and the price of things. Cost influences price through changes in supply.


by Paul Meany on Dec 9, 2019

Huang Zongxiargued for a constitutional model of government designed to benefit all people, not just the ruling class, and which stressed the importance of respecting private property rights.

Featured Guide

Preble explains the need to question the assumptions that drive American foreign policy in the modern eraespecially the assumption that American politicians can and should forcibly remake the international order to suit their desires. He asks readers to consider whether America and the world would be safer and freer if U.S. foreign policy incorporated libertarian insights about the limitations of government power.

The rest is here:

Libertarianism.org | Exploring the theory and history of ...