Young Americans are usually thought of as decidedly liberal. This is an oversimplified picture. A sizeable minority of Millennials identify as conservative. Despite some evidence that Millennial conservatives lean left on social issues, it would be wrong to write all of them off as libertarians. Some young conservatives, in fact, hold anti-libertarian attitudes, and their numbers may be increasing.

Plainly speaking, these young conservatives hold socially and culturally conservative views. On the other hand, they are wary of individualism and free markets. They are not necessarily anti-capitalist, but fear that laissez-faire economic systems can be excessively cutthroat, prizing individual material gain above the wellbeing of the community.

This strain of conservative thought is closely related to the traditionalism of Russell Kirk, the 20th-century conservative political theorist who authored The Conservative Mind. Kirk identified ten foundational conservative principles. The first principle states that conservatives believe in an enduring moral order. Moral truths do not change with the times, and neither does human nature. Conservatives are champions, he continues, of custom, convention, and continuity because they prefer the devil they know to the devil they dont know.

Conservatives value private property because it is closely linked to freedom, but argue that getting and spending are not the chief aims of human existence. Decisions directly affecting members of a community should be made locally and voluntarily. Regarding governance, conservatives recognize that human passions must be restrained: Order and liberty must be balanced. Moreover, a conservative favors reasoned and temperate progress, but does not worship Progress as some type of magical force.

Young, anti-libertarian conservatives represent a new generation of traditionalists. And they are increasingly prominent on some college campuses.

Christian McGuire, a student at Virginias Patrick Henry College and editor-in-chief of the George Wythe Review, spoke to National Review about the schools conservative climate, saying the whole campus is fairly conservative. Patrick Henry College is a Christian school, so faith strongly influences students political views. McGuire says most students come from a background of religious conservatism, and feel as ifthey have been left out of the national discussion. More bluntly, he claims most of Patrick Henry College realizes we lost the culture war.

In response, McGuire and his fellow conservative classmates have started to turn to traditionalist thinkers such as Kirk. McGuire mentioned other increasingly popular thinkers among campus conservatives: Edmund Burke and G. K. Chesterton. Even Catholic social teaching is influencing some students. They are finding that these are rich sources of conservative thought.

When asked whether monarchist sentiments could be found on campus, McGuire responded firmly: Yes, absolutely. Though still very much a minority view at Patrick Henry College, some traditionalist-minded students are open to the idea of a king.

Traditionalist sentiments can also be found almost 600 miles northwest of Patrick Henry College, at the University of Notre Dame. Mimi Teixeira, a student at Notre Dame and vice president of the schools Young Americans for Freedom chapter, told National Review there is a sizeable group of students inclined to traditionalism. They are more interested in, and connected to, the Catholic faith and Catholic social teaching, she says. Besides Burke and Kirk, Pope Saint John Paul II is a powerful influence on this group.

The Notre Dame traditionalists are skeptical of classical liberalism. We do have a group of conservatives, she says, who dont agree with the Enlightenment. They contend classical liberalism is missing a piece.

Notre Dame isnt the only Catholic university with a sizeable number of young traditionalists. The Catholic University of America, in Washington, D.C., is home to many students who could be understood as profoundly traditional, according to Friar Israel-Sebastian N. Arauz-Rosiles,O.F.M. Conv., a seminarian at the university. The schools Catholic identity deeply influences how students think. He describes Saint Thomas Aquinas as probably the single most influential thinker on the university campus, in terms of his impact onstudents theological and political outlook.

Friar Israel has noticed that some students attend a yearly Mass in honor of Blessed Karl of Austria celebrated at Saint Mary Mother of God Church in Washington, D.C. A member of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine, Blessed Karl of Austria was the last emperor of Austria and king of Hungary. Friar Israel acknowledges this mightmerely represent a superficial interest in Catholic monarchy. Nevertheless, he has encountered a number of students who reject classical liberalism and such political theorists asThomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

At Hillsdale College in Michigan, traditionalist conservatism has many adherents. Michael Lucchese, a senior at Hillsdale, says lots of people come in libertarian, and come out hardcore traditionalist. They reject, he continues, the sort of free-markets-will-solve-everything mentality of libertarianism in favor of a more traditional conservatism. Hillsdale students are exposed to the Great Books of the Western canon, including texts by Plato and Aristotle. Russell Kirk, Alasdair MacIntyre, and Leo Strauss also influence Hillsdale students. Lucchese added that C. S. Lewis is the most uncontroversial figureon campus, beloved by everybody.

Like McGuire, Lucchese reports that some students are sympathetic to monarchism, especially in the history department. Pointedly, he says many students are dissatisfied with the modern world. They recoil at the prevalence of sexual immorality and the atomism at the heart of liberal capitalism. Traditionalism looks to higher, permanent things such astruth, goodness, and beauty. Students see that as more fulfilling than what the modern world has to offer.

Traditionalist conservatism is not establishing deep roots on all campuses. Marlo Safi, a student at the University of Pittsburgh and editor-in-chief of The Pitt Maverick, told National Review that most conservatives there are of a libertarian bent. I have only met maybe five people, she says, whom I would call traditionalists in the vein of Russell Kirk. Most conservative students prefer to talk about Milo Yiannopoulos and people who are currently on the scene, says Safi.

Similarly, Anthony Palumbo, editor-in-chief of the Wake Forest Review, told National Review theres not much traditionalist conservatism at Wake Forest. Most conservatives at Wake Forest care little about social and cultural issues, preferring to promote free-market economics.

Among students, traditionalist conservatism seems to be especially common at Catholic universities and smaller Christian colleges. These young traditionalists question the idea of Progress, and express discontent with the modern world. They find value in community, and their views are usually rooted in faith. The Left may be winning the culture wars, but these students keep the flame of traditional morality ablaze. They reject libertarianism, especially what they see as its excessive faith in free markets and individual material gain. They often look to similar thinkers for inspiration: political theorists such as Russell Kirk, statesmen such as Edmund Burke, philosophers such as Plato, numerous Catholic intellectuals, and others.

They are not quite a monolithic group. Not all of them are monarchists, for example. The degree to which they are skeptical of classical liberalism also differs. Some are very much opposed to Locke and Rousseau; others are more cautious in their criticism.

The presence of traditionalist conservatism among college students reveals that some young Americans reject the vocal liberalism and libertarianism of their peers. More than that, however, these young traditionalists fear that the modern world has gone astray. They are the vanguard of a new generation standing athwart history, trying to reorient Americans toward ideas and ideals thatnourish the whole person: community, truth, goodness, and beauty.

READ MORE: The Strange Traditionalism of the LiberalElite Did William F. Buckleys Conservative Project End in Failure? The End of Reaganism

Jeff Cimmino is a student of history at Georgetown University and an editorial intern at National Review.

See the rest here:

Traditionally conservative college students reject the vocal liberalism and libertarianism of their peers. - National Review

Public DomainWhen President Ronald Reagan nominated Robert Bork to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987, he praised his nominee for being "widely regarded as the most prominent and intellectually powerful advocate of judicial restraint."

It was no exaggeration. During his decades-long career as a law professor, federal judge, and legal commentator, Bork routinely preached the virtues of a deferential judiciary, arguing that in the vast majority of cases "the only course for a principled Court is to let the majority have its way."

Where Bork led, most legal conservatives were ready to follow. Judicial deference, or restraint, became a rallying cry on the legal right.

Borkean deference still holds sway today in many quarters. But it is also increasingly under fire from libertarian-minded legal thinkers who want the courts to play a more aggressive role in defense of individual liberty and against overreaching majorities.

Case in point: The new issue of Governing magazine profiles Don Willett, the Texas Supreme Court justice who recently appeared on Donald Trump's shortlist of potential U.S. Supreme Court candidates. Willett "is witty and approachable, and he's huge on Twitter," writes journalist Alan Greenblatt. "He's also one of the most influential jurists in the country right now."

Willett's rising influence signals Bork's declining favor. It shows that libertarian legal ideas are gaining ground.

To be sure, Bork and Willett are both "conservative" and both have ties to the Republican Party. But they differ in important ways. Bork wanted judicial minimalism; Willett wants judicial engagement. "The State would have us wield a rubber stamp rather than a gavel," Willett complained in the 2015 case of Patel v. Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, "but a written constitution is mere meringue if courts rotely exalt majoritarianism over constitutionalism."

Texas Supreme CourtAs Greenblatt notes in his profile, "Willett is pretty blunt about his overall intent. He's a champion of individual rights, claiming a central role for the judiciary in protecting those rights against state encroachment." Bork, by contrast, was obsessed with limiting the judiciary's role. If Bork's great enemy was judicial activism, Willett's great enemy is judicial pacifism.

The differences don't stop there. According to Bork's interpretation, the 14th Amendment offers zero constitutional protection for economic liberty, which means that the courts have no business striking down government regulations on 14th Amendment grounds. Since the amendment does not explicitly refer to economic liberty, Bork reasoned, it does not protect it. When "the Constitution does not speak," he insisted, we are "all at the mercy of legislative majorities."

Willett takes a different view. "The Fourteenth Amendment's legislative record," he has pointed out, "is replete with indications that 'privileges or immunities' encompassed the right to earn a living free from unreasonable government intrusion."

Willett has even thrown shade in Bork's direction: "A conservative luminary, Bork is heir to a Progressive luminary, Justice Holmes, who also espoused judicial minimalism. Both men believed the foremost principle of American government was not individual liberty but majoritarianism." Willett clearly ranks individual liberty first.

Thirty years ago, when Borkian judicial deference was in its heyday, the conservative legal mainstream was largely hostile to libertarian legal ideas. That Don Willett is now championing those same ideas and is at the same time under possible consideration for a Supreme Court seat demonstrates just how far the dial has moved in a libertarian direction.

Visit link:

From Bork to Willett: Is the Conservative Legal Movement Going Libertarian? - Reason (blog)

The Senate unanimously approved a bill Thursday that would allow people facing life-threatening diseases access to unapproved experimental drugs, providing a victory for libertarian advocates who see government regulators thwarting patients rights.

The bill, S. 204 (115), passed swiftly and easily in a Senate bitterly divided over health care. The powerful pharmaceutical lobby, which had quietly opposed an earlier version, kept an unusually low profile. The industry has been focused on fighting off any efforts to go after drug pricing, which President Donald Trump has said he would tackle.

Story Continued Below

The bills chief champion, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), declared it a victory for individual liberty over government, and for the right to hope. Its also been championed by the libertarian Goldwater Institute, and Vice President Mike Pence, who tweeted that it gives patients hope & a chance.

The legislation would allow patients with serious diseases anything from a late-stage cancer to multiple sclerosis to request access to experimental drugs directly from drug companies without having to go through the FDA, which has its own compassionate use program that approves 99 percent of requests.

But the right-to-try bill doesnt require drugmakers to make the experimental treatments available. In the 37 states that have similar laws on the books, Goldwater can point to only one doctor who says he has utilized a state right-to-try law for a patient and that medicine was being made available to certain patients by the FDA anyway.

Thats led some critics to call it right-to-ask and it may give desperately ill people false hopes.

This bill is inherently deceptive, Alison Bateman-House, a medical ethicist at New York University who led the charge against Johnsons bills, wrote in an email. What [patients] have a right to (and did long before this bill) is to ask drug companies for permission to use their experimental drugs outside of clinical trials. If the drug company says no, both before and after this legislation, that's the final word: neither the FDA nor the courts have to power to make companies provide access to their experimental drugs-in-development.

And if the experimental drugs do become widely used outside the standard clinical trial system, it could undermine some of the rigorous science needed to know whether medicines are safe and effective. Many drugs that start the clinical trial process flop. Some are harmful.

Get the latest on the health care fight, every weekday morning in your inbox.

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

You have a situation where patients think they want to take a risk and dont necessarily understand what risk they are taking," said Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Health Research, which lobbied against the bill.

And while the revised bill would require annual reports on whether the drugs used by these patients helped or potentially harmed them, patient safety experts are concerned it may not be enough.

But its hard for lawmakers to say no to hope.

Opposing right-to-try laws is akin to opposing motherhood, apple pie, and the American flag; you just dont do it and expect to be re-elected, David Gorski, an oncologist at Wayne State University, wrote in his blog on science-based medicine. Its easier for a senator to vote for the bill than to explain to constituents the nuances of why the new law might not help them and might even harm them.

PhRMA issued a statement but declined to say whether it now supported the bill, which must still be approved by the House after the summer recess. We appreciated the opportunity to work with Sen. Johnson and look forward to continuing to work with his office, it said. The revised Right to Try legislation that passed the Senate includes important protections for patient safety and the clinical trial process.

Senate HELP Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and ranking Democrat Patty Murray (D-Wash.) the same duo who are about to embark on bipartisan Obamacare stabilization" hearings played a role in helping Johnson work out a compromise. Alexander told POLITICO after the vote that Johnson tried to run it by everyone who was affected, including the pharmaceutical industry, trial lawyers and patients. Im very happy for him and the patients around the country who will benefit from it.

Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), one of the few Democrats who had been in favor of it all along, said more liberal members all wanted to step up once the revised bill was explained to them.

FDA also worked behind the scenes to push for changes to make the bill safer for patients.

Not every senator endorses the libertarian rhetoric about getting federal regulators out of patients' way that propelled right-to-try a key theme of the message the Goldwater Institute took through the states and to Washington.

Theres no more fundamental freedom than the right to save your own life. Right to Try guarantees that freedom by ensuring that patients, along with their doctors, are in control of the treatments they receive when facing a terminal diagnosis, Goldwater's president and CEO Victor Riches said in a statement after passage.

But more liberal lawmakers faced significant lobbying, featuring heartbreaking stories of young children or newlyweds facing shortened lives. Meanwhile, the most powerful opposition, the drug industry and doctors groups, kept their disagreement very low-profile. Their soft voices gave lawmakers little political protection for a "no" vote.

Theres no doubt about it there are a lot of patients out there that think this is the answer to their prayers. They certainly believed that, and they pushed their members of Congress to support a bill that in many cases the members of Congress thought was not a good idea, said Zuckerman.

PhRMAs low-profile on right-to-try hurt detractors from the outset. The industry group never took a formal position on the state right-to-try laws or earlier federal proposals. But it consistently reiterated its concerns about any approach to experimental medicines that sought to bypass the FDA and the clinical trial process. Of the major drug makers, only Merck formally came out against the earlier Johnson bill.

Its huge, NYUs Bateman-House said of PhRMAs reluctance to take a stronger public stance. When I speak with legislators, they say, Well if its that bad, why isnt pharma speaking against it?

Critics of right-to-try concede the final Senate bill is much improved from earlier versions. It adds crucial safeguards that should help protect patients' safety and their pocketbooks, as they can no longer be charged excessive amounts for unproven drugs.

But the critics, including bioethicists, safety advocates and researchers, still worry about the risk of undermining an agency like the FDA an important safety regulator that has ensured that drugs are studied in controlled settings so FDA can make informed decisions to approve or disapprove them.

The bill looks to be an "improvement," said Patti Zettler, a professor at Georgia State University and former associate chief counsel at FDA. "However, the fundamental problem with the bill is not resolved in that it still envisions removing, or drastically reducing, FDA's role in expanded access."

And it may fall short an example of Congress checking a box, but not really solving a problem.

Its something where your reluctant representative can claim they are taking action but does not effectively address root problems, said Ameet Sarpatwari of Harvard Medical School. Weve seen this with rising drug prices, and now we see it with experimental treatment. It is a show, but it is also dangerous in the sense that it furthers this sort of attack on FDA as somehow being antithetical to the interest of patients.

Correction: A previous version of this story misidentified Patti Zettler's affiliation. She is a professor at Georgia State University.

Missing out on the latest scoops? Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning in your inbox.

Read the original post:

Libertarians score big victory in 'right-to-try' drug bill - Politico

The Liberty Conservative

Jury Nullification Used To Free Libertarian Activist In Maryland The Liberty Conservative Dennis Fusaro, a libertarian activist, and Steve Waters were found not guilty by a jury of their own peers for illegal free speech. The men had sent a robocall back in 2014 to 5,000 people in Anne Arundel County, Maryland on the weekend before an ...

Read the original:

Jury Nullification Used To Free Libertarian Activist In Maryland - The Liberty Conservative

AlterNet

Inside the Total Catastrophe That Ensued After an Elected Libertarian Mayor Promised the 'Freest Little City in Texas' AlterNet If Von Ormy is a libertarian experiment with democracy, it's one that hasn't turned out as expected. The crisis of government in Von Ormy doesn't present itself at first glance. The town is located on I-35 just south of the Medina River, where San ...

See the article here:

Inside the Total Catastrophe That Ensued After an Elected Libertarian Mayor Promised the 'Freest Little City in Texas' - AlterNet

Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders Paragraph 3.4 of the 2016 Libertarian Party platform

I have nothing against Libertarians. In fact, some of my best friends are Libertarians. If one of my children wanted to marry a Libertarian, like Tevye the Milkman I would question G-d, grit my teeth, put on a brave face, and give them my blessing and my permission.

On the one hand, there is about 80 percent overlap between Libertarian and Conservative political values, and in practice we tend to arrive at many similar policy positions: the rule of law, strong private property rights, freedom of contract and of association, free trade, respect for constitutional authority, low taxes, light and economically literate regulations, federalism, a government of limited and enumerated powers, frugal fiscal policies, monetary discipline, and so on.

On the other hand, Libertarians dont have much use for the Conservatives attachment to tradition. In fact, some Libertarian positions seem utterly unmoored, not just from tradition, but from reality. Take for example, the Libertarian view of migration, expressed, inter alia, in the above-cited 2016 party platform. Without any limiting principle, this position would mean the end of both nations and states. Even on the level of utopian fantasy, I dont get the appeal.

On the other hand, Libertarians advance a powerful universal moral claim that is consistent with both traditional liberal values and advanced economic thinking. Here, for example, is Alex Tabarrok, professor of economics at George Mason University, making this moral claim:

There are fundamental human rights. There are rights which accrue to everyone, no matter who they are, no matter where they are on the globe. Those rights include the right to free expression. They include the right to freedom of religion. And I believe they should also include the right to move about the Earth.

And Here is Michael Clemens, another Libertarian economist at the Center for Global Development, making the economic case:

So, you know how in real estate they say that value is all about location, location, location. Its the same for the value of your labor. And that has a remarkable implication. It means that barriers that keep you in places where youre less economically productive keep you from making the contribution you could make. And for every person whos kept in a poor country, thats a tiny little drag on the world economy that adds up. So, what that means is that even a modest relaxation of the barriers to migration that we have right now Im talking about one in 20 people who now live in poor countries being able to work in a rich country would add trillions of dollars a year to the world economy. It would add more value to the world economy than dropping all remaining barriers to trade, every tariff, every quota and dropping all remaining barriers to international investment combined.

Tabarrok again:

Its actually very simple. You take a person from a poor country, a country like Haiti for example, and you bring them to the United States or another developed country, and their wages go up.Three times, four times, fives times. Im told, sometimes as much as ten times. So, its an incredible increase in living standards simply by moving someone from where their labor has low value, moving them to where their labor has high value. Its far more effective than any other anti-poverty program weve ever tried.

There is a kind of voodoo economics quality at work here: simply exposing a person from a poor country to the spacious skies and purple mountains majesty of the United States creates a ten-fold increase in that persons welfare, and a net increase in the welfare of the world. Amazing. Are there any negative externalities associated with this transaction, multiplied millions (or billions) of times over? Neither economist tells us. If there are, presumably they are negligible, and its in poor taste to ask. (Pay no attention to Hamburg and Malm.)

On the other hand, both Tevye and his creator Sholem Aleichem were immigrants who settled in New York City. Aleichem did well there, and I have to believe that Tevye did too.

On the other hand I also believe strongly in individual rights, and I think that elevating group rights to preeminence, which is what we are doing here in the United States, is incompatible with our political traditions and notions of liberty. We will come to grief for it. But I dont see how it can be a universal individual right to live anywhere on the globe one pleases. I may be a simple barefoot Virginia country lawyer, but I am used to thinking of a right as a claim for which a duly constituted political or judicial body has the power to grant relief or redress. No such body can grant relief for the claim advanced by Professors Tabarrok and Clemens, which has little basis in custom or practice. It is a purely abstract assertion that founders on such deeply rooted legal principles as state sovereignty.

Libertarianism shares with Marxism and other bastard stepchildren of the Enlightenment this abstract ideological quality, disconnected from the realities of lived human experience. For Marxism, the fatal conceit is its obsession with equality; for Libertarians, it is hyper-individualism. Like most primates, human beings are social, hierarchical, and tribal. Hierarchical means that humans are constantly jockeying with one another for social status, and a society of perfect equality is therefore a dangerous delusion. Tribal means that we are deeply, irrationally attached to exclusive collective identities, as anyone who has ever attended an American high school or a major team sporting event can tell you. There is no escape from the tribalism, its so deeply ingrained in us. Try to suppress it, and it comes out in other forms. Dissolve the 20th century American national identity, and you get the vicious and stupid identity politics of the 21st.

It seems to me that the error at the root of social contract theory is the understanding that the basic pre-political social unit is the individual. This understanding is ahistorical and wrongheaded as a matter of anthropology and psychology. The basic pre-political social unit is the family and tribe (which is really just extended family). Being an Old World immigrant myself, as well as a member of Tevyes very ancient tribe, I am deeply sympathetic to Edmund Burkes insight that human societies have an organic character, that their members are connected to each other and to past and future generations through bonds of partnership and obligation, and arent merely fungible, interchangeable economic units. Like any partnership, this is a kind of contract, but very different from what Libertarians and liberals believe. It encompasses nationalism, for one thing, whereas those other views tend to lead to borderless one-world utopianism. Of course, from a certain point of view modern nationalism is a deliberately manufactured construct. But what makes nation states such powerful political actors, and nationalism such a potent force in international politics, is that they are both the political manifestations of, and tap into, a very deep human feature.

On the other hand, wasnt it nationalism that brought us the worst crimes and conflagrations of the 20th century?

No. Western elites learned all the wrong lessons from the 20th century. After the Second World War they came to see in the nation-statenotthe fullest political expression of peoplehood, the seat of law and legitimacy, a celebration of human variety, and the font of culture, art, and human flourishing, but rather the heart of genocide. They completely misconstrued Adam Smiths dictum that there is a great deal of ruin in a nation. The horrors of the 20thcentury were caused not by nationalism in general, but byGermannationalism in particular.

The true lesson of the 20th century is that public policy works best when it works with the grain of human nature, not against it. Perhaps overcoming our irrational tendencies is a worthy individual goal. But the road to anti-human hell is paved with attempts to eliminate them altogether. The main challenge for the modern social order is managing and moderating the more malign and destructive forms of our nature. No one said it was going to be easy.

On the other hand

No. There is no other hand.

Excerpt from:

Tevye the Milkman, Libertarianism, and the Open Borders Fantasy - Ricochet.com

There is a secondary discussion beyond the obvious (and redundant) back-and-forth about who was worse during the 2016 Presidential election, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump:

Is the duopoly (a.k.a. the stranglehold on American politics perpetrated by the Republicans and Democrats) in need of retirement?

Many (if not most) people agreed it was indeed time to switch things up.

As we can see, most agreed the best way to do that was to put a non-politician into office in the form of Donald J. Trump so be it.

Like it or not, President Trump is indeed doing things in an unconventional manner (to put it VERY mildly) and my sincere hope is that this will loosen the grip of establishment politics on Washingtons throat.

The reality TV star and real estate mogul (turned president) will pave the way for more unconventional candidates who are equally sick of all the bullshit (there is no other way to put it in my mind , sorry for the profanity).

But Trump only has two terms, thats the law of the land.

Then what?

I highly doubt that we will ever (and overwhelmingly hope that we never) end up with a President Pence; it would be a throwback to a Republican Party most do not want.

I guess my bourbon fueled rant comes to one, single point: who replaces the Republicans and Democrats once they are gone?

The obvious answer is the Libertarian Party (LP).

For starters, (dont worry, we will tackle the rest in a second sweetheart) it is the third largest party in the country and the only one whos numbers have actually grown in the last decade. But who does it replace; the Republicans? Hmmm, I question that one.

While the economics and constitutional approach is certainly on par with your average Elephant, the southern US is still far too socially conservative to fall in with legal weed and a nuanced policy on abortion.

The LP replacing the Democrats is an even trickier concept to tackle.

In the first scenario, the social conservatives are really the only ones left out. Luckily, they still have the Constitution Party (what a joke of a name that is).

With Democrats, a major chunk of them would have to abandon how they were raised when it comes to fixing economic problems. They would have to learn that its people, not government, that fix economic and societal problems.

But, in my experience, most Democrats know very little about libertarianism, let alone the Libertarian Party.

In this last election, I was able to convert so many to either classical liberalism or straight-up libertarianism solely on its merits also because a few were pot heads who liked Gary Johnsons stance on marijuana legalization.

The overall reaction however, was this shit is great! How have I gone my whole life not knowing about this?

Yes I said confidently, remembering my own trip from the moderate left to libertarianismhow indeed.

But it wasnt how indeed. It was a sickening look at modern-day academia that pushes the divisive narrative that only a Republican or Democrat can win, and in a way its true.

Our current system was only built to accommodate two major parties. Any third party (a term I despise) simply throws the election to the House of Representatives for the office of President, and to the Senate for the office of Vice President.

We would literally be handing more power to people we consistently criticize for already being there too long and having too much power!

I think most of us dont want that!

But lets move past that and ask (as well as answer) another obvious question: no matter which side the Libertarian Party replaces, who will replace the other side?

Of course it is completely possible only one party even gets replaced, but lets just say for the sake of argument they both get replaced; who becomes the new opponent?

If youre thinking the Green Party, think again!

A party so left-wing that it makes Democrats go yeah, those hippies are fucking crazy? They are right too (you just need to listen to the music of Jill Steins failed second career to figure this out).

Will it be the Constitution Party? Yeah right!

I do not want any kind of a theocracy even one based around my own religion!

So here we are, back to square one; we are either infiltrating the two parties from within (which has failed repeatedly) or we will have to continue to try and force either the donkeys or elephants into extinction.

As I conclude this article I hope you did not think I was going to suggest which way this will go I dont know. But I am hoping to spark an idea, a thought, and a debate.

Do we finally put our foot down and say enough is enough! You guys all equally suck! or do we continue to run non-establishment candidates with Rs and Ds next to their names, in hopes of change from within?

One thing is for certain, we all have a very big decision to make in 2019 and 2020.

Like Loading...

Read more from the original source:

Is it Time to Retire the Duopoly? - Being Libertarian

Recently, I saw a video floating around Facebook of a 15-year-old girl being detained by loss prevention employees for stealing a candy bar. The person who shared the video claimed the force was excessive because they had her locked into a full-nelson and were attempting to drag her back into the store.

The reaction from those who strictly believe that the Non-Aggression Principle is all thats needed, in regard to laws in a libertarian society, shocked me.

Many were saying that because the girl aggressed on the store owners property that the escalation in violence was justified.

As a young minarchist, who believes in market anarchism and is enthusiastic about the tenets of libertarianism (but would still like an extremely limited government), I had yet to come into a situation involving retribution, within the NAP, that has actually made me question its validity in society.

I will not be able to accept the NAP if it leads to an eye-for-an-eye type of law in society; where an act of aggression is punished by a more severe act of aggression. Shooting someone for trespassing on your property, or beating someone with a bat for stealing money from you, are completely passable forms of self-defense in a society run by NAP law.

The issue that arises for me, is that this form of law is extremely barbaric and not conducive to a civilized society. Many act as if the NAP is absolute; as if the only deterrent (and proper punishment) for crimes is to use additional aggression. But, the justification of increased force in response to aggression is a retaliatory form of law, as found in the Code of Hammurabi.

By criticizing this, I am not taking a pacifistic approach or claiming that thieves and those who damage property should be let go, but the punishment and methods of preventing crime should not be more severe than the act of aggression.

Mike C. Materni describes this in his essay Criminal Punishment and the Pursuit of Justice, The common good, combined with the respect for the citizens originary freedom, demands that penalties be mild but certain, so that they can serve a deterrent effect without brutalizing society.

Cesare Beccaria, an 18th Century criminologist and philosopher, explained it best in On Crimes and Punishments, saying,The purpose of punishment [] is none other than to prevent the criminal from doing fresh harm to fellow citizens and to deter others from doing the same. Therefore, punishments and the method of inflicting them must be chosen such that, in keeping with proportionality, they will make the most efficacious and lasting impression on the minds of men with the least torment to the body of the condemned.

This is where I feel the NAP may fail as the standard of an all-encompassing law because it justifies punishment that is not equal to the crime.

Non-aggression is a good framework to begin to construct the laws and consequences of a civilized society, but it alone does not strive for the non-violent and even rehabilitative form of punishment that is necessary in society.

Fines and imprisonment were developed as the preferred forms of restitution in civilized society because they can deter crime and compensate victims without harming the criminal. While a tad extremist, I could foresee an anarchist society of NAP law resorting [back] to executions, quartering, and hangings as reasonable punishments for crimes.

As libertarians, it is our duty to uphold the NAP, but also recognize its shortcomings and be able to appropriately compensate for them. A mission to abolish the government shouldnt mean throwing out developments in justice that have made the free world into a better, more civil society.

Like Loading...

See the original post:

Why I'm Losing Faith in the NAP - Being Libertarian

When trying to attract members from the center of both the left and the right into libertarianism, its extremely tempting to carve out a spot in the middle in order to attract the centrists. Its not all a bad strategy, but its best to be careful not to win a battle and lose the war. Its important to consider that only by convincing people of the merits of libertarianism that they will become true supporters. There is a good case against moderating for the sake of moderation.

In most cases, the desire to moderate for gaining greater influence extends from the belief that most people are in the middle, and therefore, a more moderate message will bring more people into the fold. The two major US political parties have, more often than not, made this mistake in their primary elections for decades, and they have also made the same mistake in attempting new legislation and new ideas. The entire debacle of fixing health care has been stymied by members of the GOP who believe that moderating their stances will gain greater support from constituents. The problem is that stances without principle become utterly unconvincing.

Because a desire to moderate often extends from a desire to make messaging have a broader appeal, it is essentially marketing that is being considered. There are three parts to marketing: product, price, and promotion (the three Ps). The product, in this case, would be the core of libertarianism and all its representative philosophies. It is what defines libertarianism as true political ideals. If the product is modified, then it is no longer libertarianism, but then becomes something different, like centrism.

There is nothing wrong with centrism, in and of itself. It is a real set of political positions and philosophies that can be principled. However, it is a different product. It is not the same thing as libertarianism. Changing the product is doing something different from changing messaging. One does not have to become a centrist to make libertarianism convey a message appealing to centrists. This refers to both the price and the promotion.

There is a term in economics called opportunity cost that expresses the cost of an opportunity not taken. For example, I might pass on an opportunity to buy Bitcoin and instead use my money for a down payment on a new car. If the value of Bitcoin doubles, then I have had an opportunity cost of that gain versus the value I place on owning a new car. In the case of political marketing, I would think of part of the price portion to be similar to opportunity costs. If one accepts a political position, there is an opportunity cost of having rejected an alternative. So, by accepting a candidate for office that subscribes to libertarianism, one is rejecting alternative philosophies, such as the left or the right and in some cases even the center. Maybe someone from the center might say to themselves, If I select a libertarian, I am losing out on some policies that taxes the rich more heavily than the poor, or I am losing out on some socially conservative policies that I believe make the country a safer place. But, I am gaining a position of social acceptance and less extreme government spending.

So, the second part of that equation the centrist might be considering is the promotion part of the marketing. The promotion is the messaging of what benefits are gained for the opportunity costs paid. If I have a customer come into my retail store, in order to have the best chance at making a sale, I present the benefits of the potential product of interest in a way I think will most interest the customer. I would be a fool if I attempted to sell the customer something by presenting him with everything I think he might dislike about the product. I am not hiding anything. If he asks me about the negatives, I happily discuss them with explanations of why I believe they are actually a positive for him, in the end.

While business marketing demands a serious consideration of changing a product when it isnt selling well, that isnt much of an option for political philosophies. We have to focus more on the price and promotion. We do not have to change libertarianism in order to sell it. We simply present the aspects to each group of potential supporters to fit their interests. When people say there is a benefit to changing libertarianism to a more centrists stance, and when people want to moderate libertarian positions to make them more palatable to non-libertarians, they are changing the product. We can present a different and appealing message without changing the underlying principles. Moderating for the sake of moderation is unprincipled, and people see right through nearly every time. In almost every case where a moderate position is sought out for the sake of creating a moderate position, it does not sell. Without the principles to back up the position, it cannot stand.

There is nothing wrong with tailoring a message, and there is nothing wrong with trying to recruit centrists to support libertarianism. There are very open opportunities for doing so, especially in the US, where centrists dont typically have a very good voice. However, positions must always tie back to core principles that do not change. Truth always remains truth, and if you believe you have the truth, there is absolutely no reason to step away from it until someone convinces you otherwise. We dont have to hide things away from people because we fear they might not like it, but we should always present the benefits different groups of people will like the most.

This post was written by Danny Chabino.

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

Like Loading...

Read the rest here:

Red Dirt Liberty Report: Unprincipled Moderation - Being Libertarian

The split between left-leaning and right-leaning libertarians has reached a fever pitch after Jeff Deist, Director of the Mises Institute, gave an iconic speech during his annual Mises University event about blood and soil libertarianism, an idea encompassing cultural conservatism as a barricade against state power.

It is reasonable to believe that a more libertarian society would be less libertine and more culturally conservative for the simple reason that as the state shrinks in importance and power, the long-suppressed institutions of civil society grow in importance and power, Deist said.

And in a more libertarian society, its harder to impose the costs of ones lifestyle choices on others. If you rely on the family or church or charity to help you, they may well impose some conditions on that help.

While these sentiments may seem benign in nature, they were immediately picked up upon by frenzied analysts at the Cato Institute as inherently racistfilled with dog-whistles that appeal to the alt-right bogeymen that they have imagined is lurking around every corner.

If you keep saying things like heil Trump and blood and soil and putting slightly-modified Nazi flags in the backdrop of your [social media picture], you really, REALLY need to stop complaining about the way people react, Cato analyst Adam Bates wrote on social media in an attempt to equate Deist and his supporters to racists. Quit pretending youre being misunderstood. Youre not that smart, and the rest of us arent that dumb.

Fringe academic Steve Horwitz, also connected to Cato, first implied that Deist was a Nazi before launching a bizarre rant bemoaning Ron Pauls success in growing the libertarian movement.

Comparing Deists words to that of Holocaust deniers or sympathizers, Horwitz said, I await the new [Mises Institute] lecture on how entrepreneurship and personal responsibility help spread liberty, which will surely be titled Work Will Set You Free.' Work Will Set You Free was the slogan posted by the Nazis at Auschwitz and other concentration camps.

Although Horwitz compares blood and soil libertarianism to Nazism, he has no problem standing for blood and soil when it comes to the state of Israel. Horwitz is an avid Zionist, and sees no hypocrisy in his reflexive defense of nationalism and ethnic pride when defending his beloved Jewish state.

Horwitz followed his Nazi hysteria with a condemnation of Ron Paul saying, I have no love or admiration for Ron Paul. I think his contributions to building a sustainable libertarian movement are overrated and his role in attracting folks who found the alt right attractive has been damaging.

This rift within the libertarian movement has been festering for decades, and shows no signs of slowing down. When it is all said and done, libertarians will need to decide whether they are going to choose leaders who want to form common bonds with ordinary people or leaders who want to collect paychecks in Washington D.C. and promote degeneracy. The choice should not be very difficult.

Enjoyed the article? Make a contribution to support our work via Patreon!

View post:

The Libertarian Split Continues As Blood And Soil Speech Triggers Another Racial Witch Hunt - The Liberty Conservative

Public Domain"We've been compromised...by forces...of populism and protectionism, isolationism, xenophobia," says Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake, about his own Republican Party.

In a new book that borrows a title from Barry Goldwater, an NPR interview, and a no-holds-barred column in Politico, Flake is making the case that the GOP and President Trump are dishonest and disinterested in limiting the size, scope, and spending of government.

He has impeccable credentials as a libertarian-leaning politician who once ran the free-market Goldwater Institute in Phoenix. Flake is a dedicated free-trader and defender of immigration who accompanied Reason on our trip to Cuba in 2016. Since arriving in Congress in 2001, he has passionately attacked the Cuba embargo as misguided, immoral, and ineffective: "We preach the gospel of contact and commerce and trade and travel, yet with Cuba we turn around and say, 'No, it's not going to work there.' It just seemed to be a glaring inconsistency in our foreign policy." An "unapologetic member of the Gang of Eight" that sound comprehensive immigration reform, he is one of the few remaining Republicans in high office to champion higher levels of legal immigration both as a humanitarian gesture and as a practical boon to the country.

Flake tells NPR that his discontent "is a long time in coming. I got here in Washington in 2001.... And we got [President George W. Bush's education overhaul law] No Child Left Behind, which was, I thought, big federal overreach into local education policy. And then we got the prescription drug benefit, which added about $7 trillion in unfunded liabilities. I didn't think that was a very conservative thing to do."

As important, Flake notes,

When we couldn't argue that we were the party of limited government anymore, then that forced us into issues like flag burning or trying to intervene in the Terri Schiavo case, things that we wouldn't have done otherwise if we would have been arguing about true principles of limited government or spending.

He says that conservatives need "to be honest with people" about the causes of economic dislocation. While Donald Trump and his fellow populists wail about Mexico and China, Flake stays grounded in reality. "We manufacture twice as much as we did in the 1980s with one-third fewer workers and those productivity gains will continue. Globalization has happened and the question is: Do we harness it for our benefit or are we left behind by it?"

In his Politico piece, Flake ranges close to calling for Trump's impeachment, or at least official censure, writing that "unnerving silence in the face of an erratic executive branch is an abdication, and those in positions of leadership bear particular responsibility." Flake says that revelations about Russian attempts to influence the 2016 election and the president's bromance with Vladimir Putin were among the reasons he's channeling his inner Goldwater. Where should his party go from here?:

First, we shouldn't hesitate to speak out if the president "plays to the base" in ways that damage the Republican Party's ability to grow and speak to a larger audience. Second, Republicans need to take the long view when it comes to issues like free trade: Populist and protectionist policies might play well in the short term, but they handicap the country in the long term. Third, Republicans need to stand up for institutions and prerogatives, like the Senate filibuster, that have served us well for more than two centuries.

No wonder there have been whispers about Trump working to primary Flake, who is up for re-election in 2018.

You might not agree with Jeff Flake on everything, but it's good to see a principled free-market, open-borders Republican going public with his discontent, especially because he's got a strong record of calling out massive expansions of the government going back to his first days in Congress. We need more people like him in Washington, not just the handful we already know (Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Justin Amash, Thomas Massie...).

In 2008, at Reason's 40th anniversary gala in Los Angeles, soon after Barack Obama's and the Democrat's win over John McCain and the GOP Congress, Flake talked about how his party needed to get back to limited-government principles. Take a look:

Read more:

Jeff Flake's Conscience Is Good for Libertariansand the Country - Reason (blog)

The Liberty Conservative

Reason Magazine Feminazi Threatens Libertarian Youth Activist Over Harmless Joke The Liberty Conservative Libertarians have typically been known as standing for freedom of expression, but that is going to change if Elizabeth Nolan Brown has her way. The sex-positive Reason contributor, who co-founded Feminists For Liberty with the vehemently anti ...

Link:

Reason Magazine Feminazi Threatens Libertarian Youth Activist Over Harmless Joke - The Liberty Conservative

Being Libertarian

Godlessness Leads to Socialism Being Libertarian This criticism can be said for anyone who whole-heartedly believes in any ideology; it's just that libertarianism, or say, liberalism or conservatism has never killed 200 million people, so I'm less concerned with those particular beliefs. In a post ...

Read more:

Godlessness Leads to Socialism - Being Libertarian

Being Libertarian

Why the Youth in the UK are Generally Left, and Why They Should Prefer Libertarianism Being Libertarian This article looks to examine the reasons why the left has such a clear advantage amongst younger people within society and why those same young people would be more suited towards a libertarian political viewpoint. Perhaps the main reason left-wing ...

Excerpt from:

Why the Youth in the UK are Generally Left, and Why They Should Prefer Libertarianism - Being Libertarian

How does the Libertarian Partys 2017 Virginia gubernatorial nominee Cliff Hyra stack up from a progressive, environmentalist perspective? Lets check out his website and other sources, including the Virginia Libertarian Party platform and see (note: my comments in green). Also, for the record, Im all for including Hyra in gubernatorial debates.

Overall, on the issues listed above, Hyra gets 5 in the A range, 2 in the B range, 7 in the C range, 2 in the D range and 6 in the F range, for an overall grade of roughly a C. The reason why Democrats shouldnt vote for Hyra is that some of the areas where he gets particularly low grades Medicaid expansion/health insurance in general, womens reproductive freedom, the environment, guns are very important ones for most of us, while stuff like marijuana decriminalization is great, but not much different than Democratic nominee Ralph Northams position on the issue. So then why choose Hyra over Northam? Got me. On the other hand, perhaps if youre a Republican who detests corrupt crony capitalists like Ed Gillespie, perhaps you should consider a vote for the Libertarian candidate this year?

Visit link:

Grading 2017 VA GOV Libertarian Candidate Cliff Hyra - Blue Virginia (press release) (blog)

HomeOpinionInformative EssaysAn Open Letter from an African American Libertarian

July 22, 2017 Corey Fauconier Informative Essays, Opinion, Politics

I hope my correspondence finds you in good health and spirits. Its a little after midnight and I am sitting up with my Mac Book Pro on my lap and my beloved dog Eva Elizabeth by my side. I have been wanting to take some time and express myself in support of some things that I believe.

My name is Corey Maurice Fauconier. I am a native of Cambria Heights, Queens, New York. I reside on the South side of Richmond, Virginia. I am involved in my community with non profit organizations like Concerned Black Men (CBM), Get Involved RVA, Toastmasters International and the Richmond Crusade for Voters (RCV). I regularly attend the Richmond School Board, City Council and visit the General Assembly. I notice that not enough people are involved and working to make a difference and that frustrates me.

Back in November of 2014, my good friend and brother Regie Ford whom I met from Toastmasters International in 2007 invited me to attend an Candidates Forum hosted by the historic Richmond Crusade for Voters. The RCV was established in 1956 to educate African Americans in the Commonwealth of Virginia with regard to the referendum vote to prevent the desegregation of the public school system per Brown vs. the Board of Education. The sad thing is only fifty percent of African Americans came out to vote that year, the referendum failed to pass and as history teaches us, the Commonwealth of Virginia closed its public school system that year.

I witnessed history during that forum. Sprinkled in with the regular Democrats and Republicans were Robert Sarvis and James Carr Libertarians candidates for Senate and Congress. I remained objective. I closed my eyes and listened to Mr. Sarvis and Mr. Carr and most of what they said made absolute sense to me. They were honest. My 14 year old step son Elijah who is a freshman at Huguenot High School looked at me and said, Corey the Libertarians won, they were way better that the Democratic and Republicans.

It was historic because Robert Sarvis and James Carr were the first third party candidates to ever address the Richmond Crusade for Voters. Following the event, I went to introduced myself to Mr. Sarvis and Mr. Carr. We talked and took photographs. We exchanged contact information and something just clicked. Over the next few weeks Mr. Sarvis and Mr. Carr instead became Rob and James. Regular men who wanted to make a change in the politics of their community. They in turn introduced me to other Libertarians around the Commonwealth of Virginia. A network of people who were just like me, fighting for freedom.

Soon after, I met Carl Loser and Connie Hannigan-Frank on Twitter. Once again finding out that people in my community were just like me, working to fight for liberty.

I am researching the Libertarian Party. From what I can see thus far, it seems like the right place to be for me. Researching prominent African American Libertarians Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell. I have attended many meetings with my Libertarian brothers and sisters. The Patrick Henry Supper Club, the Chesterfield County Libertarian Party and the Powhatan Libertarian Party meeting. The power of people uniting in support of positive improvement in government and in our communities.

The one thing my late parents Emma and Sylvester taught me growing up in my Caribbean American / African American section of Queens was one to remain involved in my community and to read. Two very important lessons. I will continue to read and research, I will continue do my community service with Concerned Black Men, Get Involved RVA, Toastmasters International and Richmond Crusade for Voters. I will continue to embrace my Libertarian brothers and sisters to work in our community. I welcome any assistance from any Democrat or Republican who wants to make our community a better place. We need to work together in common-unity (community) But, if I need to label myself, call me Corey Fauconier, a proud Central Virginia Libertarian. Please feel free to contact me using the information below. May I thank you in advance for your time and consideration. I pray we find all the freedoms that we are fighting to obtain.

With Respect in Search of Liberty,

Corey M. Fauconier

@CoreyMFauconier Twitter

coreymfauconier@yahoo.com

Share on Google Plus Share

Corey "Sage" Fauconier is a native of Cambria Heights, New York who currently resides in the Highland Springs section of Henrico County, Virginia. Corey joined the Libertarian Party of Virginia in 2015. Since he joined he has been active in spreading liberty. He was the first African American Communications Chair February 2016 - April 2017. He ran for Virginia State Senate in the special election in January 2017. Currently, Corey is the Chairman of the Virginia Libertarian Campaign Committee (VLCC) a political action committee charged with raising money for Libertarian candidates in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Corey is an independent Hip Hop artist who uses the kinetic energy of music to attract listeners to liberty. He found success in July 2015 when he recorded "Nice: Libertarian Theme Song for Carl Loser, Libertarian Candidate for Virginia State Senate 10th District.

They Have Ignored PragerUs Advice From 2014 But Cannot Do So Much Longer (2/2)

Snowflakes Attack Dr. Kelli Ward For John McCain Being Selfish

You must log in to post a comment.

Read more here:

An Open Letter from an African American Libertarian - The Narrative Times (blog)

What initially attracted you to the liberty movement or to the ideas of liberty?

Whether it was a foundation in the principles of freedom learned from parents or in school, a desire to be rid of oppressive bureaucracy, or a speech (or set of speeches) from Ron Paul or some other advocate of liberty, most likely what attracted you were the ideas, or the picture of the change for good that liberty brings.

There is a movement, a tribe, gathering around these principles, because the ideals of liberty and what they offer to a person are attractive, they are desirable.

I truly believe, from what Ive seen of libertarianism and the rise of the classical liberals and constitutional conservatives, that these ideals resonate with everyone; from Uganda to South Africa, from China to the United States, people have an inherent desire for personal freedom and individual liberty.

Even the leftists, in their misguided ways, often come from a place of desiring freedom, though they tend to pursue freedom for themselves and their allies at the expense of everyone elses freedom. The underlying reasons for why many of them do what they do and fight for the ideals they desire (e.g. equality of outcome), is to bring about what they perceive as greater freedom for the people they consider oppressed.

Liberty is an attractive platform; its an inherent human desire, it just needs to be channeled towards the things that will bring actual liberty.

But, whats one thing thats never influenced you to change for the better? What has the opposite effect, making you shut out an idea rather than causing you to introspect and search yourself, the opposite effect of convincing you to pursue an idea further?

For me, that one thing is someone using a non-argument or insults to tell me that Im an idiot for my desire to make my world a better place. Let me explain.

Imagine you are a person who cares deeply for the poor and downtrodden, youve seen your single mother struggle to survive yes, its not societys fault its circumstance, or your absentee fathers, etc.

But because of her struggle, you have a certain empathy for others who struggle.

You want to see society step in and fill the gap that your extended family and community did not. A part of Americas greatness, that De Tocqueville spoke of, was its communitys involvement with helping the people of the community, being involved in helping the poor, the widows, the orphans, etc.

Maybe you dont understand either the economics nor the philosophical underpinnings behind the future you hope for, maybe you dont understand the blow struck to your own liberty when you involve bureaucracy and power-hungry individuals in more and more of the individuals everyday life. Maybe youve never seen the other side, or have only seen them as those who (because they are able to care for themselves) are too greedy to want to share with others.

So, you support government-run healthcare, you support greater welfare, free (or greatly subsidized) university, and higher minimum wages; you support the governments importing of hundreds of thousands of immigrants and the illegal crossing of many, many, more, because you see them all as people who are struggling without realizing the effects this may have on society.

You look at policy through your lens of struggle and choose anything you think will help change that. You may not even realize how these very policies actually undermine your own goals: as higher taxes, minimum wage increases, and inflation drive prices ever higher, the over supply of labor makes jobs more difficult to find, and the free universities become bureaucratic nightmares, overcrowded and pushing whatever nonsense is expedient to what is politically correct or whatever supports more government intervention and bureaucracy.

You dont realize this.

Rather you just want help for the people you know who are struggling day in and day out to survive, to feed their families, to pay their medical bills.

Then you come across a libertarian, and this embodiment of liberty rather than taking the time to explain to you how so many of the problems youve faced can be solved by introducing more liberty, by an acceptance of more freedom (individually and in the markets).

Rather than showing you whats so amazing about liberty, and how this mindset could help change your life through personal responsibility to help you and those you love drive towards improving your skills and providing value to others; how less government bureaucracy would lessen the tax burden (felt by all) and make reaching that middle-class lifestyle much more attainable; how ideas like the NAP could help curb the incessant appetite for foreign intervention and the costs (of both life and treasure) that come with it, and how so many bad laws and ideas could be changed if they were judged through the lenses of cost to freedom vs improvement of the freedom of others; instead of showing you the reason why so many of us were drawn to liberty, the libertarian calls you a statist or a Marxist and mocks you and your lack of understanding. Or worse, they use a weak strawman argument to point out some fallacy in your ideas.

This libertarian calls you out for being a freeloader, for being a socialist, or just straight up calls you an idiot and then moves on to the next internet debate leaving you with nothing of substance, only a deepened perception of capitalists being assholes and socialists being the ones who care driving you deeper into the arms of flawed logic.

Im not saying its wrong to debate on the internet, and Im not saying that every leftist online wants to objectively approach the ideas of liberty but how many of us were won over from the left or the right, and what was it that won us over? Was it a witty remark, or a really good burn? Or was it a set of ideals that made sense, and that we saw some person or some group of people not only espousing but truly living that set of ideals that showed the true character of what a world with liberty as its core virtue could look like?

Its not good enough to tell someone that their desire for free healthcare is akin to stealing from others to pay for yourself, its not enough to say that Canadas (or Scandinavias) healthcare systems are in shambles, because an objective onlooker would say that they are just fine, and quite frankly cheaper than the convoluted and increasingly bureaucratic systems like Medicaid and Medicare and the slew of insurance companies and bureaucracies in the United States.

But there is an idea to strive for, one where the red tape and government favoritism, the bureaucracy and high tax burden would be done away with; where medicine would be like any other service, subject to the competition of the market that brings lower prices and better services.

We need to remember to promote the goals of liberty and the outcomes that arise from increased freedom.

We need to remember to be the example of what we want to see, and to show that there is an alternative, not just become yet another voice in the cacophony of political bickering.

This post was written by Arthur Cleroux.

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

Arthur Cleroux is an individualist who balances his idealism with a desire for an honest, logical and objective approach to politics and political issues. Originally Arthur found that his values aligned well with the political right; however as time went on his desire for transparency and honest discourse of ideas in the political realm led him closer and closer to the center of the political spectrum! He found that on either wing there was a strong and dangerous type of groupthink, where people supported unnecessary and even bad policies because of a need to conform to the party line. As an individualist with a strong understanding of the importance of what Ayn Rand called the smallest minority on earth, the individual; he finds himself falling very closely in line with the ideals of liberty. Arthur is a lot of things but more important than anything he is a father to two amazing children! Caring for them, making sure they know that they are now and always will be loved is his primary goal, and along with that, comes a desire is to raise them to be free thinkers, to question and study the world and why it is the way it is, and to have character and grit to do what is necessary to succeed!

Like Loading...

Read this article:

Libertarians, Don't Become What We Hate About the Left and Right What Are We Thinking? - Being Libertarian

A day after the Fourth of July, Trevor Reilly sat at Granite City Food & Brewery crafting plans.

He was looking to make a name for the small, fringe party he adopted after feeling the GOP had turned its back on him.

The Lancaster Libertarian party, which Reilly heads, has started to meet theremonthly since January, looking for ways to grow a party seemingly overlooked in last year's election.

Reilly, a libertarian neophyte and newly ordained political activist, didn't see last year's presidential election as a two-dimensional, "pick-the-lesser-of-the-two-evils" fight between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

Instead, Reilly, a 25-year-old University of Nebraska-Lincoln student and Afghanistan veteran, took a third route campaigning for libertarian candidate Gary Johnson.

"It's like being part of the 'Bad News Bears,'" he said. "You're the underdog."

Being the underdog was a change of pace for Reilly.

Ever since he was eligible to vote, he had always been a staunch Republican, a direct outcome of growing up in a conservative household.

But as the election cycle picked up, Reilly saw himself drawn to the TV more and more watching everything from "Morning Joe" on MSNBC to Fox News.

That's how he found out about the Libertarian Party, eventually deciding to switch affiliations after he said the GOP abandoned the values he held dear like smaller government and fewer taxes.

"More Republicans were straying away from the values, like smaller government, that they used to hold," he said. "This year's election was just a culmination of that."

Reilly has been the head of the Lancaster Libertarian Party since October,spearheading activism previously unseen in the party in Lincoln.

From June 25 to July 2, the party held Freedom Week, devoted to discussing and highlighting libertarian ideals.

Such as smaller government, less taxation, legalization of more recreational drugs, and less bureaucratic meddling in people's lives.

In short, fiscally conservative but socially liberal, Reilly said.

The week culminated in the Rally for Liberty on the north steps of the Capitol, in which around 60 people gathered to discuss and celebrate the libertarian platform.

It's a platform that it is not totally new to Nebraska politics.

In June 2016, state Sen. Laura Ebke of District 32 pulled the same switch as Reilly, ditching the Republican Party for the Libertarians, citing frustration with Republican partisanship.

Reilly plans to organize more rallies not marches, he said to get the libertarian message out.

"Marches don't work to the same extent; they can devolve," he said. "Rallies stay centered on the message."

Concerning the latest uptick in activism in Lincoln and around the country, Reilly said he sees it as reaction to Trump just as the tea party reacted to Obama.

"It's just a side trying to get back at the other side," he said.

As far as his own future is concerned once he graduates?

"Who knows," Reilly said. "I might even run for office someday."

Here is the original post:

Newly minted Libertarian feels GOP strayed from small government values - Lincoln Journal Star

William Shatner at FreedomFest 2017 in Las Vegas Friday night. Credit: Emile Doak/The American Conservative

Is there a free mind? Are our minds free? Are we programmed by something up there to follow our fate? Or are we programmed by Mom and Dad at a very early age? So is there free will? Do we make choices?

So wondered William Shatner during his July 21 speech at the annual Las Vegas convention of libertarians and other free-marketeers called FreedomFest. He urged the audience to stick to its principles, not compromise as he says he did when he directed Star Trek V by giving up on his original vision of having the real God attack the crew with an army of lava men in the films climax.

Compromising principles is a mistake, suggested Shatner. Nobody can tell you what to do. Somewhere inside us is a core.

Is William Shatner a libertarian, you might ask? If not, whats he doing there? Well, it seems more like hes an environmentalist worried about overpopulationand hes a Canadian, of coursebut hes also expressed some populist longings for someone to sweep away the bureaucrats and make American democracy work again. And he avoids commenting on Donald Trump. Maybe call Shatner a frustrated technocratic populist? Sounds like sort of a Reform Party guy to me, leavened by an inevitable Star Trek-veteran love of science and education.

None of this makes him too much weirder than a previous FreedomFest speaker who went on to bigger things, namely Donald Trump. I suppose the question is how big you want the libertarian tent to be. You probably want a tent big enough to let in optimists who still believe we can invent and build things, but not a tent so big that it lets all the carny-barkers inside. A friend of mine in Colorado reports seeing someone flying around downtown Denver with a jetpack a couple weeks ago, so we know futuristic technological progress is officially going strong, but I worry more about unrealistic promises in politics these days.

I noticed some people joking online that theyd love to hear Shatner tell the assembled libertarians to get a life in the fashion of his notorious 1986 Saturday Night Live sketch about obsessive Trekkie conventioneers. I probably would have laughed harder at that joke myself a decade or two ago, when it seemed that the worst thing that could happen to the libertarian movement is that it might get too screechy and radical and alienate mainstream Americans. Everybody relax, I would have thought.

Nowadays, I worry more that in American politics, even the most radical road always leads back to the same mushy centrist middle, with a few highly predictable TV pundits guarding that middle against the emergence of any truly new ideas. So, if Shatner is unlikely to express a precise, coherent philosophical argument, I should at least root for him to leave crowds slightly confused, even if he says something stupid. That can spur thought. It beats sticking to safely-ambiguous, nigh-universal sentiments that are deployed as if to build coalitions but are really used mainly to make the speaker himself seem as non-threatening as possible, often boosting his career without doing much to shore up the hypothetical broader coalition. Absent utopian unanimity, one should root for competition, always.

Im beginning to feel the same way about fictional continuity in Star Trek, to my surprise.

A sci-fi geek, I have been as eager as anyone over the years to see massive fictional continuities like that of the Star Trek universe or the DC Comics universe kept perfectly consistent. Inevitably, though, things fall apart eventually. New writers and new producers like Star Trek/Star Wars director J.J. Abrams come along and cavalierly decide theres a certain scene they want to depict or a character they want to bring back, and out goes the whole timestream as were asked to pretend vast swaths of prior fictional history never happened. I used to think this process was as heartbreaking as watching footage of the old Penn Station being demolished.

But there comes a point when you realize that the hope of maintaining a consistent continuityor a large political coalitionis probably rooted in a misguided optimism. The editors are too busy to care about all the details, and the politicians and most popular pundits are too busy or corrupt to care about philosophical purity. So, then the disappointed idealist starts to root for chaos. Perhaps thats a little of what happened in November 2016.

Let my fellow libertarians fight viciously and devolve into factions (pausing to enjoy the occasional near-meaningless Shatner speech or other entertainment). Like small and decentralized states, the factionalism might afford a better chance for truth to survive out there somewhere than would one bland, homogeneous consensus version of the philosophy with all the rough edges polished and gleaming.

And if the new Star Trek: Discovery TV series comes out this fall and has a throwaway line in it suggesting that this timeline may replace both the Abrams films and all the TV material we know from the 60s and 90s, well, now Im okay with that possibility, too. I am preemptively embracing that anarchic conclusion before the monarchShatnerhas a chance to insult us all again. Let a hundred Omicron Ceti III flowers bloom.

In Vegas terms, until we really hit the jackpot, Im grateful so long as we can keep rolling the dice.

Todd Seavey is the author of Libertarianism for Beginners. He writes for SpliceToday.com and can be found on Twitter at @ToddSeavey.

More here:

Is Star Trek Icon William Shatner a Libertarian? - The American Conservative

July 25 at 5:37 PM

Again, the establishment political parties have used their influence with the bar association to reduce participation in the electoral process, this time in Virginia.The Posts July 22 Metro article Libertarian candidate not invited to debate reported that the Virginia Bar Association found a reason to exclude the Libertarian gubernatorial candidate from debating the Democratic and Republican candidates. Any thoughtful person knows the real reason for making this decision: There are only downsides to the major-party candidates having to debate a person who will clearly demonstrate that they do not and cannot have much to offer the voters.

Given the recent presidential race between major candidates with extremely high unfavorable ratings, I would think the Virginia Bar Association would be interested in supporting all reasonable opportunities to provide alternative information and candidates to the Virginia (and in three years, the national) electorate.

David Griggs, Columbia

See the rest here:

The real reason the Libertarian gubernatorial candidate was shut out of a debate - Washington Post