From: C Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 10:19 AM To: wblock@loyno.edu Subject: Involuntary Commitments blog on Lewrockwell Professor Block, I wanted to thank you for your recent post on lewrockwell about Involuntary Commitments (https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/involuntary-commitments/). Yours is the first post that Ive seen in all these years that addresses what Ive seen as a real weakness in the libertarian community. Ive had enough interactions with people to know that many people need help to pull themselves up. Whether its because of mental illness, traumas suffered, circumstance, an unlucky turn, you name it, life isnt easy. Life is hard and some people get crushed underneath it. I suppose Ive reached a point where the further away the government were talking about the more strict libertarian I am, but the closer to home were talking about the more pragmatic I become. Welfare at the federal level versus the local city or town level are two completely different things. Ive seen too many people beaten down by the government school system, or the drug war, or poverty, or abuse, (and yes, as you mention much of this would be alleviated by a more libertarian system) that if some of my local tax dollars goes to fund a local abused womans shelter, or a local foodbank for the homeless, or a reading program at the local library to help children, yeah, I can get behind that. I think that where Libertarians shine brightly is in understanding the big picture, the core principles that drive big problems. But sometimes I also think that after years (or decades) of seeing all the horrible things that government has done, it becomes easy for libertarians to stick their nose up at the world (and the people suffering in it) and subtly confuse their deep understanding of what ails the country with genuine compassion. Your comments were the first Ive seen that broaches this topic. Sincerely, the 80% Libertarian. C

Dear C: Without government, the poor would be much better off. The state takes half the GDP and wastes most of it. They use a lot of their share of our production to regulate us, and make us even less efficient. Even so, charitable giving is generous. Without the statists, it would be much higher. I dont think we need fear for the plight of the helpless in the free society. Nor am I a big fan of federalism; let the cities and states solve problems, not the federal government. The state is the state is the state; it is evil at any and all levels. Yes, other things equal, we libertarians expect better from local than central governments, but this is not always the case. President Reagan once threatened NYC with dire consequences for their local rent control ordinances. I favored him over them in that episode. Hopefully, this experience will now raise you to 81% libertarian, or more.

Readings. On federalism: Block, Walter E. and Stephan Kinsella. 5/24/05. Federalism. http://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block48.html

On charity, poverty:

Anderson, G., 1987; Anderson M., 1978; Beito, 2000; Block, 2001, 2011; Brown, 1987; Delery and Block, 2006; Elder, 2016; Hazlitt, 1969; Higgs, 1995; Knight, Simpson and Block, 2015; LaBletta and Block, 1999; Moscatello, McAndrews and Block, 2015; Murray, 1984, 2006; Niskanen, 2006; Olasky, 1992; Piven and Cloward, 1993; Richman, 2001; Rothbard, 1996, 1998; Sowell, 2014; Tucker, 1984; Williams, 2014. For a critique of Murray, 2006, see Gordon, 2006.

Anderson, Gary M. 1987. Welfare Programs in the Rent Seeking Society, Southern Economic Journal, 54: 377-386

Anderson, Martin. 1978. Welfare: The Political Economy of Welfare Reform in the United States, Stanford: Hoover Institution

Beito, David. 2000. From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Block, Walter E. 2001. Transfers in Kind: Why They Can be Efficient and Nonpaternalistic Comment, International Journal of Value-Based Management, pp. 191-199; http://www.walterblock.com/publications/transfers_in_kind.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2011. Toward a libertarian theory of charitable donations. Economics, Management, and Financial Markets. Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 9-28; http://www.addletonacademicpublishers.com/abstracts/economics-management-and-financial-markets/volume-64-2011/toward-a-libertarian-theory-of-charitable-donations-to-criminals-governments.html; http://www.addletonacademicpublishers.com/component/option,com_sectionex/Itemid,103/id,23/view,category/#catid143

Brown, Arnold. 1987. The Shadow Side of Affluence: The Welfare System and the Welfare of the Needy, Fraser Forum, October.

Delery, Jeanette and Walter E. Block. 2006. Corporate Welfare, Markets and Morality; Vol. 9, No. 2, Fall, pp. 337-346; http://www.acton.org/publicat/m_and_m/new/index.php?mm_id=6; http://www.acton.org/publicat/m_and_m/new/article.php?article=37; http://www.acton.org/publicat/m_and_m/pdf/9277645.pdf

Elder, Larry. 2016. Black fathers matter. June 13; http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/marriage/black-fathers-matter.html

Gordon, David. 2006. A Man, A Plan, A Flop. Mises Daily. April 24; http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=296; http://mises.org/daily/2118

Hazlitt, Henry. 1969. Man vs. the Welfare State. New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House.

Higgs, Robert. 1995. The Myth of Failed Policies. The Free Market. June. Vol. 13, No. 6. http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=239&sortorder=articledate

Knight, Victoria*, David Simpson*, and Walter E. Block. 2015. Welfare: The Negative Societal Effects. Acta Economica et Turistica. Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 77-93; http://141.164.71.80/exchange/walterblock/Inbox/Re:%20%20_x003F_Welfare:%20The%20Negative%20Societal%20Effects._x003F_%20Acta%20Economica%20et%20Turistica-2.EML/1_multipart_xF8FF_2_AET%20Vol%201%20No%201.pdf/C58EA28C-18C0-4a97-9AF2-036E93DDAFB3/AET%20Vol%201%20No%201.pdf?attach=1; http://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=toc&id_broj=12165; http://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=clanak&id_clanak_jezik=221911

LaBletta, Nicole and Walter E. Block. 1999. The Restoration of the American Dream: A Case for Abolishing Welfare, Humanomics, Vol. 15, No 4, pp. 55-65

Moscatello, Rick, Megan McAndrews* and Walter E. Block. 2015. Satisfied with Poverty: An Argument for Ending Welfare. Journal of Leadership and Management; Vol. 3, No. 5, http://leadership.net.pl/index.php/JLM/article/view/75; reprinted in Leadership and Management: Emerging, Contemporary, and Unorthodox Perspectives, Szpaderski, Adam and Christopher P. Neck, editors

Murray, Charles. 1984. Losing Ground: American Social Policy from 1950 to 1980, New York: Basic Books

Murray, Charles. 2006. In Our Hands: A Plan to Replace the Welfare State. Washington, D.C.: The AEI Press

Niskanen, William. 2006. Build a Wall around the Welfare State, Not around the Country, Cato Policy Report. September/October; http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/build-a-wall-around-the-welfare-state-not-around-the-country/

Olasky, Marvin. 1992. The Tragedy of American Compassion, Chicago: Regnery Gateway.

Piven, Frances Fox and Richard Cloward. 1993. Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare, New York City, NY: Vintage.

Richman, Sheldon. 2001. Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State. Future of Freedom Foundation

Rothbard, Murray N. 1996. Origins of the Welfare State in America, The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 12, No. 2, Fall, pp. 193-230

Rothbard, Murray N. 1998 [1982]. Welfare and the Welfare State. In The Ethics of Liberty, Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press, pp. 160-193; http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp

Sowell, Thomas.2014. Welfare does not work. http://www.targetliberty.com/2014/11/thomas-sowell-welfare-does-not-work.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TargetLiberty+%28Target+Liberty%29

Tucker, William. 1984. Black Family Agonistes, The American Spectator, July, pp. 14-17.

Williams, Walter E. 2014. Black People Duped. March 4; http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/03/walter-e-williams/black-people-duped/

Walter Williams documentary: http://www.suffernofoolsfilm.com/preview.php

1:11 pm on June 11, 2017 Email Walter E. Block

The Best of Walter E. Block

Please follow and like us:

Continued here:

Walter Block - Austrian Economist and Libertarian Theorist

they faced repeated and intense backlash from some professors and students

So many progressives dont even seem to understand what Libertarians believe. If they did, more college students would probably be Libertarians.

The College Fix reports:

Students launch libertarian club at small Oregon college and get harassed, investigated, condemned

All they wanted to do was promote free speech and intellectual diversity. Instead their activities were condemned and shut down by professors and students.

So say members of the Young Americans for Liberty campus club at Linfield College, who tell The College Fix their efforts were stifled and stymied through fear and intimidation, administrative power, and student hysteria at their small school in McMinnville, Ore.

The liberty-loving students say they faced repeated and intense backlash from some professors and students after launching their club this past spring mostly notably their event with controversial Professor Jordan Peterson was canceled by campus leaders. Peterson is the University of Toronto psychologist recently famous for his opposition to the requirement of made-up gender pronouns.

The student group was also investigated for circulating a free speech ball on which someone drew Pepe the Frog, the unofficial alt-right mascot. After an investigation, during which YAL leaders were called in and interrogated, the student who drew the image was forced to write a conciliatory essay.

Another of their events, a screening of The Red Pill, a documentary on mens rights activists and critical of the contemporary feminist movement, drew even more ire from campus leaders, with one even likening the libertarian students events to terrorism recruitment.

Read this article:

New Libertarian Student Club at Linfield College Harassed and Condemned - legal Insurrection (blog)

Im paying too much to be forced to read ideological garbage

After he cut the microphone for the high school valedictorian who criticized the authoritative attitude of administrators, guaranteeing the suppression would go viral, Wyoming Area Secondary Center Principal Jon Pollard told the new graduates to watch what you put on social media.

Its advice that would have been better directed to another young person who showcased her narrowmindedness and disinterest in hearing other perspectives on Twitter.

University of St. Francis student Jennifer Martin tweetedWednesday that her professor (an adjunct, it turns out) gave her an assigned reading on national health care systems from the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank that is widely respected in D.C. for the quality of its research and thought-provoking events (one such event covered here last fall).

Cato also got tens of millions in fundingover the years from Charles and David Koch, the billionaire brothers who are active in Republican politics, and it was co-founded by Charles four decades ago.

This was enough for Martin to declare that her professor had committed an academic sin, and she would get this person in trouble for giving her ideological garbage from a conservative propaganda machine to read. (Never mind the Kochs sued Cato for control of a board seat five years ago, and the settlement protected Catos independence.)

She even pinned it to the top of her Twitter feed.

What followed was a mostly civil back-and-forth between Martin a self-described liberal lover who claims repeatedly she would feel the same about reading a liberal think tank and some names that might be familiar to College Fix readers.

Former Fix writer Nick Pappas quipped: If I had to read the writings of communists, and listen to the words of terrorists, you can read what a few liberatarains [sic] think.

They argued a bit, with Martin saying Cato was not a reputable source and its article omitted data to push the limited govt agenda, and Pappas saying that Martin was setting an unrealistic standard for any article. (Current Fix writer Kayla Schierbecker joined in with a quip, too.)

Group blog Popehat, a great source of First Amendment-related posts, joked that If its any comfort its pretty clear you wont be able to understand [the article] well enough to be corrupted by it.

Various professors and young academics joined in to encourage Martin to broaden her reading to things she disagrees with and formulate thoughtful critiques.

The student kept insisting that political think tanks are not educational, but that she read the Cato article and it confirmed her view that Cato is political propaganda.

Philosophy professor Francis Beckwith of Baylor University (with whom I have a past connection via another think tank, the Discovery Institute) thanked Martin for giving him a good example of the genetic fallacy for his class.

Most responses were simply bemused. Charles Cooke is National Review Onlines editor, by the way, and the Niskanen Center (Will Wilkinson) is a much younger and explicitly activist libertarian think tank.

Before I go any further: The universitys website has no record of this professor Fran Steel that I could find, nor does Google, and USF (a Catholic institution) has not responded to my query as of late Wednesday.

But Martin refers to the professor further down the thread as an adjunct, and this could be an online class. USF is based in suburban Chicago, but it also has a healthcare-focused campus in Albuquerque, which would explain why Martin was offered a reading on healthcare policy.

We werent all sure at The Fix whether this was even a real argument by Martin, or if it was a prank or parody. It fits every stereotype we have of students who refuse to engage with an argument based on some wholly subjective standard (its not responsible, as Martin says).

And we do have trouble believing shed really object to reading an article in, say, a Center for American Progress publication. Heres another Martin tweet that is posted on her front page.

What is encouraging about this thread is Martin keeps engaging with critics even as she says she shouldnt have to engage with Cato because of its (complicated) Koch relationship.

And given everything you hear about trolling and the inability of people of different views to have a civil conversation on anything, this is a pretty damn civil argument.

Lets hope Martin learns from this experience and becomes eager to explain why an argument is wrong, using her own responsible data, and not simply why the source of the argument invalidates it.

LikeThe College Fixon Facebook/Follow us on Twitter

IMAGE:Yepifanova Olena/Shutterstock

About the Author

Associate Editor

Read the original post:

Student tries to get professor in trouble for assigning her libertarian reading - The College Fix

There has been debate this week about how many libertarians are there. The answer is: it depends on how you measure it and how you define libertarian. The overwhelming body of literature, however, using a variety of different methods and different definitions, suggests that libertarians comprise about 10-20% of the population, but may range from 7-22%.

Furthermore, if one imposes the same level of ideological consistency on liberals, conservatives, and communitarians/populists that many do on libertarians, these groups too comprise similar shares of the population.

In this post I provide a brief overview of different methods academics have used to identify libertarians and what they found. Most methods start from the premise that libertarians are economically conservative and socially liberal. Despite this, different studies find fairly different results. What accounts for the difference?

1) First, people use different definitions of libertarians

2) Second, they use different questions in their analysis to identify libertarians

3) Third, they use very different statistical methods.

Lets start with a few questions: How do you define a libertarian? Is there one concrete libertarian position on every policy issue?

What is the libertarian position on abortion? Is there one? What is the libertarian position on Social Security? Must a libertarian support abolishing the program, or might a libertarian support private accounts, or means testing, or sending it to the states instead? A researcher will find fewer libertarians in the electorate if they demand that libertarians support abolishing Social Security rather than means testing or privatizing it.

Further, why are libertarians expected to conform to an ideological litmus test but conservatives and liberals are not? For instance, what is the conservative position on Social Security? Is there one? When researchers use rigid ideological definitions of liberals and conservatives, they too make up similar shares of the population as libertarians. Thus, as political scientist Jason Weeden has noted, researchers have to make fairly arbitrary decisions about where the cut-off points should be for the libertarian, liberal, or conservative position. This pre-judgement strongly determines how many libertarians researchers will find.

Next, did researchers simply ask people if they identify as libertarian, or did they ask them public policy questions (a better method)? If the latter, how many issue questions did they ask? Then, what questions did they ask?

For instance, what questions are used to determine if someone is liberal on social issues? For instance, did the researcher ask survey takers about legalizing marijuana or did the researcher ask about affirmative action for women in the workplace instead? Libertarians will answer these questions very differently and that will impact the number of libertarians researchers find.

While there is no perfect method, the fact that academics using a variety of different questions, definitions, and statistical techniques still find that the number is somewhere between 7-22% gives us some idea that the number of libertarians is considerably larger than 0.

Next, I give a brief overview of the scholarly research on the estimated share of libertarians, conservatives, liberals, and communitarians in the American electorate. I organize their findings by methods used starting with most empirically rigorous:

Ask people to answer a series of questions on a variety of policy topics and input their responses into a statistical algorithm

In theses studies, researchers ask survey respondents a variety of issue questions on economic and social/cultural issues. Then, they input peoples answers into a statistical clustering technique and allow an algorithm to find the number of libertarians. This is arguably the strongest method to identify libertarians.

Ask people to answer a series of questions on a variety of policy topics and plot their average responses on a 2-dimensional plot

In these studies, researchers 1) average responses to multiple questions on economics and then 2) average responses to multiple questions on social/cultural/identity/lifestyle issues. They then take the two averaged scores to plot respondents on a 2-dimensional graph (Economic Issues by Social Issues).

Ask people to answer a question about economic policy and a question about social policy

While not as rigorous as asking people multiple questions, this is another quick way to observe the diversity of ideological opinion in surveys.

Ask people if they identify as libertarian and know what the word means

The Pew Research Center found that 11% of Americans agree that the word libertarian describes me well and know libertarians emphasize individual freedom by limiting the role of government.

Ask people if they identify as socially liberal and fiscally conservative, an oft-used definition of libertarianism

A 2011 Reason-Rupe poll found that 8% of Americans said they were conservative on economic issues and also liberal on social issues. But the same method found 9% identified as liberal on both social and economic issues, 2% identified as liberal on economic issues and conservative on social issues, and 31% identified as conservative on both social and economic issues. They remainder were somewhere in the middle These results are consistent with polls from Rasmussen, and Gallup which finds a public preference for the word conservative over liberal. This means many people who endorse liberal policy are inclined to self-identify as moderate or conservative.

Conclusions

In sum, the overwhelming body of empirical evidence suggests that libertarians share of the electorate is likely somewhere between 10-20% and the conservative and liberal shares arent that much greater. Libertarians exist, quite a lot, but you have to know what youre looking for.

Excerpt from:

How Many Libertarians Are There? The Answer Depends on the Method You Use - Cato Institute (blog)

who wants diabetics to die as punishment for their sins of sloth and gluttony, the Trump Administration makes clear that this will be Administration policy too.

It needs to be clearly understood that the American Taliban Christians in the ranks of Trump defenders will support the denial of health care to every person whose illness they deem to be a divine judgment for sin. As court prophets to the rich and powerful, such prolife Christians will tell cancer victims, diabetics, the obese, pregnant women, STD and AIDS victims and a host of others that they are parasites who brought it on themselves and who should be punished with denial of health care because a just and righteous God wills it.

And all the while they pronounce death and judgment on the lebensunwertes leben in the name of a false Jesus, these Christians lie that it is a state social safety net and not their own brutal and vindictive hearts that keeps them from otherwise being as generous to sick as St. Francis of Assisi. Who do they think they are kidding?

Read the original here:

On the heels of my conversation with the Good Catholic Libertarian - Patheos (blog)

Is there room for another heel in the Illinois governor's race?

Former pro wrestler Jon "The Illustrious One" Stewart says yes and he's looking to put his rivals for the Libertarian Party nomination in a half nelson, then body-slam Bruce Rauner and whoever the Democrats select in the general election.

"Politics is wrestling with suits and ties on," Stewart, 50, told Chicago Inc. "I'm comfortable on a mic, and I'm not afraid to tell the truth."

It isn't The Illustrious One's first run for elected office. Back in 1997, he unsuccessfully ran as a Republican for the state House on the North Shore with a little help from President Donald Trump's counselor Kellyanne Conway.

"I was her first political client," said Stewart, who lives in Deerfield and now runs his family's used-car dealership. "She's probably one of the smartest people I've ever met so I'm not surprised she has got to where she is.

"I'm a little like her we both speak our minds, and sometimes we might speak out of turn, but we are not afraid."

But by Stewart's own admission, the best-known episode of his colorful life came in 2006 when he was mistaken for longtime "Daily Show" host Jon Stewart by a high school in Utah that accidentally booked him for a fundraising gala.

Stewart later took an unsuccessful stab at running for Congress as a Republican, before a falling-out with the late then-Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka led him to join the Libertarians in 2011.

Like Conway, Stewart remains a fan of Trump, who himself has dabbled in the pro-wrestling world. Stewart said he voted for Trump after previously backing Barack Obama because Trump is a necessary "Molotov cocktail thrown into the system in Washington, D.C."

That could cause problems for Stewart at the state Libertarian convention in March 2018, when party members will select their candidate in a caucus and might hold Stewart's failure to support Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson against him.

Two other Libertarian candidates, Matt Scaro and Kash Jackson, have also announced runs, and Illinois Libertarian Party Chairman Lex Green said Stewart "has to overcome" the irritation of party workers who spent $100,000 getting Johnson on the ballot in Illinois.

"But Jon is a good candidate, and there are many pragmatic libertarians who may be able to look past that," Green said.

Stewart is hoping that policies including a Trump-like plan to send 300 federal officers into Chicago's Englewood neighborhood to combat violence and replacing pensions with 401(k)s for new government hires will sway voters.

And he pointed to the 1998 election of former wrestler Jesse "The Body" Ventura as governor of Minnesota, as well as Trump's recent victory, as evidence of an enduring appetite for outsider candidates.

"When I first ran in the North Shore, I think most people were expecting a bleached blond guy in a leather motorcycle vest to show up, so they were surprised to find someone in a shirt who was engaged on the issues," Stewart said.

Though his campaign doesn't have much money, car dealers across the state have vowed to back him, he said, adding that people who underestimate him will be "surprised."

"The state's politics aren't working it's surreal at this point," he said. "How can the Democrats and the Republicans say, 'Give us one more chance?'"

kjanssen@chicagotribune.com

Twitter @kimjnews

Read the rest here:

Former pro-wrestler with ties to Kellyanne Conway seeks Illinois governor nod - Chicago Tribune

The Libertarian Party of Jasper County recently celebrated its official recognition by the Libertarian Party of Indiana. Though the local party's precise number is small, members are planning events to spread the message of libertarianism, and several initiatives for county politics may be arriving in the near future.

Loren Berenda, a Shelter Insurance Agent and former law enforcement officer, is the local party chairman. He believes that the party first began to find momentum in Jasper County during the 2016 presidential election, if only due to the unpopularity of the major party candidates. Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson collected 620 votes from the county, according to courthouse records.

"I know there's a lot of locals who weren't happy with Gary Johnson," Berenda said. "But it was an alternative to Hillary Clinton. And then, obviously President Trump had a lot of negative publicity that was coming out...A lot of people just pushed Gary Johnson's box as a protest to the other two."

The number of voters doesn't have to reflect the exact number of registered party members, and it did show potential interest in Libertarianism from locals. So, local party members decided to try for official recognition from the state-level party. Read the full story in the print edition or by subscribing to the e-edition.

View post:

Jasper County Libertarian Party gains official recognition - Newsbug.info

Had a typical conversation with a Libertarian about the question of health care as a right. He was a typical Catholic dissenter from the Churchs teaching on this point, offering the typical Libertarian falsehoods like:

The reason this is a lie is that health care is not charity. It is, as the Church teaches, a right.

The Libertarian lie in reply to this is twofold.

The reply to these lies is twofold as well:

The reason health care is a right is that life is a right and health is simply a corollary of that. And because health care is a right, guaranteeing access to it, like guaranteeing the right to be born, is a matter of justice, not charity, too. And since it is precisely the business of the state to secure justice, it is the rightful business of the state to secure access to health care for all.

My Libertarian correspondent would have none of this, of course, and emitted the customary lie of Libertarians that state involvement in health care robbed him of the power to glow with the burning personal charity that would consume his heart for the poor and sick, did not the state remove a buck and half from his paycheck in brutal act of violent theft. The poor and sick would see the dawn of a new Millennium of care for all their needs at the hands of a Marching Army of Living Libertarians Saints more generous than St. Francis of Assisi if the state and its monstrous confiscatory powers were not aided by the liberal cabal Catholic bishops in calling for universal health care (as they have, in fact, done for a century).

But then the mask suddenly slipped and he wrote:

Youre an economic buffoon who also happens to be guilty of the sins of sloth and gluttony. You and your following should be ashamed of yourselves for demanding the robbery of the material wealth of the productive.How much of your health care is a right? Youre obese. Should we be forced to pay extra for your sins of gluttony and sloth?

And there it was. All the burning charity suddenly evaporated and made clear that the use of medicine as a weapon to punish the lebensunwertes leben is one of the many charming features of Libertarianism. You know, like this:

I remember when Catholics were all up in arms about death panels. Turns out the only real problem was that guys like my deeply, truly Catholic Libertarian reader wanted to make sure that *he* got to chair them.

And thats the thing. With very few exceptions, Libertarianism is a philosophy which, in contests between the wealthy and powerful vs. the poor, virtually *always* sides with the powerful and declares any state action on behalf of justice for the defenseless to be violence while all violence against the weak is the invisible hand of the market.

Mixed with a smug real Catholic pride, it assumes all illness is Gods punishment for sin and wants to see the wrath of God run its course on those guilty of (in this case) gluttony and sloth (like he knows one damn thing about me and is competent to render such a verdict on the life of a total stranger). This Libertarian Judge of Souls wants diabetics (or anybody else they deem guilty of health-related sins, whether sinfully pregnant women, sinfully sick smokers, sinfully obese cubicle workers or sinfully sick AIDS patients) to die as punishment rather than he pay one damn penny to help their treatment. And he wants everybody to believe that this is all because he is more personally generous than St. Francis of Assisi, but the state gets in the way of his holy charity. These guys are so full of crap and such massive and vindictive narcissists, it takes your breath away.

More:

When the Libertarian Mask Slips and the Eugenicist is Revealed - Patheos (blog)

Local Libertarians betting on community engagement to improve ballot recognition Mid-City Messenger The Orleans Parish Libertarian Party is working to grow their party while earning recognition on the ballot, but community engagement is the first step. Mike Dodd, chairman of the local party, encouraged other Libertarian party members to run for ...

Read the rest here:

Local Libertarians betting on community engagement to improve ballot recognition - Mid-City Messenger

The fire that consumed Grenfell Tower last Wednesday was an unimaginable sort of horror. Parents threw children out of windows to onlookers below; entire households perished; there are reports that no one from the top three floors survived. The death toll is still increasing. It was almost certainly the worst fire in the United Kingdom in decades.

And it was entirely preventable. For an additional 5,000 (about $6,400) the apartment block could have been refurbished with fire-resistant cladding, rather than the highly flammable materials banned in the United States and Germany that were used instead, and that probably transformed a run-of-the-mill high-rise fire into a national tragedy. For 138,000 ($176,000), the entire building could have been retrofitted with sprinklers. Residents had complained for years that the building was unsafe and could not be safely evacuated in the case of a serious fire.

It should not be shocking, then, that Megan McArdle has received a blizzard of rebukes for suggesting that it may be misguided to criticize the London authorities for not installing sprinkler systems. McArdle does not make any conclusive claims about the sprinklers: She acknowledges that the former housing minister who decided not to require developers to install sprinklers may have made the wrong call. But, McArdle argues, all expenditures must be justified and balanced against the possible trade-offs: Every dollar [the government] spends on installing sprinkler systems cannot be spent on the health service, or national device, or pollution control. And McArdle, as a good libertarian, points out that requiring developers to install sprinklers would increase rents and impose other costs, while leaving the issue unregulated would allow potential tenants themselves to choose whether sprinkler systems and other safety features are worth the cost.

McArdle was savaged on social media for these transparently reasonable sentiments; one particularly asinine Slate article was mockingly titled, Would I Cross the Street to Spit on You If You Were on Fire? Theres Always a Trade-Off. People dont, it turns out, particularly appreciate the notion that safety is a trade-off; they particularly dont appreciate hearing about the importance of such trade-offs in the aftermath of an unbearable tragedy. At times like these, people want to hear about requisitioning the empty houses of rich people, as Jeremy Corbyn suggested. They want to hear about greedy developers going to prison; they want politicians unseated. People want something to be done, even if that something doesnt make much sense or will not be particularly helpful.

This, of course, is a problem with people, not a problem with Megan McArdle, whose column appeared obnoxious precisely because it was reasonable and levelheaded at a time when one is not supposed to be either. McArdle is right that there is always a trade-off and that the government should install sprinklers in public housing only if that is the best use of the money. McArdle is right, too, that requiring developers to install sprinklers in every single building would price low-income households out of units they could otherwise have afforded, and would deprive people of the ability to determine for themselves what level of risk they are willing to pay for.

But McArdles analysis is incomplete. Any perfect cost-benefit analysis, after all, should take into account not only the fiscal costs and benefits directly implicated in a decision but also the costs and benefits associated with the long-term repercussions of the decision.

In this case, the decision not to install more expensive cladding at Grenfell was a catastrophic failure for the cause of responsible governance. The tragedy has galvanized England and will almost certainly bring in its wake a less compromising, and less proportionate, attitude toward building regulations. A flurry of laws will surely be passed to assuage the horror and the sense of national culpability. Some of these laws may be reasonable and well designed, but it is likely that most will not be. And that is the best-case scenario. Londons mayor, Sadiq Khan, has suggested that the tower blocks of the 1960s and 70s, which provide low-income housing to thousands in a city with a severe housing crisis, may be systematically torn down. And if, as seems possible, the Grenfell fire leads to the fall of Theresa May and the rise of Jeremy Corbyn, then a libertarian approach to building regulations will ultimately have produced the first genuinely left-wing government the United Kingdom has seen since 1979.

There is very little that is worse for skeptics of big government than a tragedy. Since people demand action after a tragedy, tragedies tend to lead to greater regulation, and regulation is subject to a ratchet effect: Once regulations are passed, they are hard to reverse and the new regulatory climate becomes normal. The political effects of a tragedy can shape society for decades it was the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory in lower Manhattan that brought about new regulatory standards in factories, and the Titanic changed maritime safety forever.

It stands to reason, then, that conservatives and libertarians have an interest in promoting modest, cheap, and popular safety rules and regulations. If the United Kingdom had banned the flammable cladding used in Grenfell, as America and Germany had, no one would be talking today about tearing down low-income housing across London, and the cost would be only a few thousand pounds more per development. If the authorities had prevented factories in lower Manhattan from locking their employees in, the garment workers would probably never have unionized. If the Titanic had been forced by law to carry enough lifeboats, maritime regulations would probably be far simpler today.

Libertarians in particular will find these preventive regulations difficult to stomach. But most of the world is not libertarian certainly, not after a trauma of this magnitude and so, difficult to stomach though they may be, safety rules and regulations, carefully chosen and managed, are a worthwhile investment in a slightly more libertarian future.

READ MORE: Assigning Blame for Londons Tower Inferno The Tragedy of Grenfell

Max Bloom is an editorial intern at National Review.

Read the rest here:

What Conservatives and Libertarians Should Learn from Grenfell - National Review

Being Libertarian

Marxism Returns to the UK The Right Engle Being Libertarian For the past few decades it seemed like hardcore socialism was a thing of the past in the United Kingdom. The Conservative and Labour parties had both accepted a liberal consensus that markets were good, and that aggressive redistributive policies and ... and more »

See the article here:

Marxism Returns to the UK The Right Engle - Being Libertarian

Photo: Sandy Huffaker/AFP/Getty Images

The Democracy Fund Voter Study Group has a new survey of the electorate that explodes many of the myths that we believe about American politics. Lee Drutman has a fascinating report delving into the data. I want to highlight a few of the most interesting conclusions in the survey.

1. The Democratic Party is not really divided on economics. You think the Bernie Sanders movement was about socialism? Not really. Sanders voters have the same beliefs about economic equality and government intervention as Hillary Clinton supporters. On the importance of Social Security and Medicare, Sanders voters actually have more conservative views:

Where they mainly differ is on international trade and the question of whether politics is a rigged game. The ideological content of Sanderss platform is not what drew voters. It was, instead, his counter-positioning to Clinton as a clean, uncorrupted outsider.

2. Fiscal conservativesocial liberals are overrepresented. The study breaks down the beliefs of voters in both parties by income. The parties tend to cohere pretty tightly rich Republicans are much closer to poor Republicans than either is to the Democrats; and rich Democrats and poor Democrats share more in common than either does with Republicans.

Still, there are important differences. The richest members of both parties have more economically conservative and socially liberal views than the poorest members. That gives them disproportionate influence over their agendas and priorities.

3. Libertarians dont exist. Well, obviously, they exist just not in any remotely large enough numbers to form a constituency. Its not just hardcore libertarians who are absent. Even vaguely libertarian-ish voters are functionally nonexistent.

The study breaks down voters into four quadrants, defined by both social and economic liberalism. But virtually everybody falls into three quadrants: socially liberal/economically liberal; socially conservative/economically conservative; and socially conservative/economically liberal. The fourth quadrant, socially liberal/economically conservative, is empty:

The libertarian movement has a lot of money and hardcore activist and intellectual support, which allows it to punch way above its weight. Libertarian organs like Reason regularly churn out polemics and studies designed to show that libertarianism is a huge new trend and the wave of the future. Sometimes, mainstream news organizations buy what theyre selling. But the truth is that the underrepresented cohort in American politics is the opposite of libertarians: people with right-wing social views who support big government on the economy.

4. Trump won by dominating with populists. Republicans always need to do reasonably well with populists, which is why theres always a tension between the pro-government leanings of a large number of their voters and the anti-government tilt of the party agenda. The key to Trumps success was to win more populists than Mitt Romney had managed. The issues where 2012 Obama voters who defected to Trump diverge from the ones who stayed and voted for Clinton are overwhelmingly related to race and identity.

As Drutman notes, Among populists who voted for Obama, Clinton did terribly. She held onto only 6 in 10 of these voters (59 percent). Trump picked up 27 percent of these voters, and the remaining 14 percent didnt vote for either major party candidate. What makes this result fascinating is that, in 2008, Clinton had positioned herself as the candidate of the white working class and she dominated the white socially conservative wing of her party. But she lost that identity so thoroughly that she couldnt even replicate the performance of a president who had become synonymous with elite social liberalism.

Every election is different. But to the extent that 2016 has an ideological lesson for Democrats, it is that the subject the party is currently debating within itself whether or how far left to move on economics is irrelevant to its electoral predicament. The issue space where Clinton lost voters who had supported Obama was in the array of social-identity questions, revolving around patriotism and identity.

They may not need to solve this problem Trumps failures may well solve it for them. And to some extent, moral commitments to social justice may preclude the party from moving to the center on some or all of their social policies. But to the extent Democrats want to optimize their party profile to make Trump a one-term president, the social issues are where they need to focus.

Assads decision to test U.S. pilots last weekend suggests we cant keep the U.S. fight against ISIS separate from the Syrian conflict any longer.

The press secretary may no longer be doing his daily briefings.

Otto Warmbier came back to the United States last week in a coma, after being imprisoned in North Korea for 17 months.

The court handed down rulings that could make the Washington Redskins and anyone blocked on Twitter by Donald Trump very happy.

The GOP leader is trying to keep everyone guessingmost recently with reports the Senate will vote on health care legislation next week.

Jon Ossoffs race against Karen Handel in Georgia is the first test.

The defender of the citys old guard is anonymous no more.

It is well established that states cannot draw district lines to disadvantage racial minorities. Political minorities have no such protection yet.

As the special counsel looks into Kushners finances, the White House adviser is searching to add a courtroom litigator to his legal team.

The suspect is reportedly dead, but no cops or bystanders were harmed.

Time to scratch at least he wont start a war with Russia from your list of upsides to the Trump presidency.

Ten people were injured and one death at the scene may be related to the attack. Witnesses said the driver shouted that he wanted to kill Muslims.

The production closed Sunday night.

A Seattle mother reports a burglary. Police shoot her. Meanwhile, Trump wants to stop reforms of police brutality.

Critics said the edited version offered a decent overview of the Infowars host but still had journalistic shortcomings.

En Marche defeated the two establishment parties, though turnout was at a record low.

A new survey of the electorate explodes many of the myths we believe about American politics.

In a race thats too close to call, both parties are seeing a potential harbinger for what will happen in the 2018 midterms.

Sunday saw some unprecedented escalations in Syrias long conflict, including a cross-border Iranian ballistic missile strike on ISIS.

Original post:

New Study Shows What Really Happened in the 2016 Election - New York Magazine

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

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

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

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

It's grim going; this isn't the first time Nancy MacLean has investigated the dark side of the American conservative movement ... but it's the one that feels like it was written with a clock ticking down.

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

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

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

We are, 'Democracy in Chains' is clear, at a precipice.

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

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

Genevieve Valentine's latest novel is Icon.

Link:

'Democracy In Chains' Traces The Rise Of American Libertarianism - NPR

Five main party candidates have declared they will run for the District 26 congressional seat against Michael Burgess, R-Texas, 16 months before next Novembers election. While that may seem early, thats nothing compared to Libertarian party candidate Mark Boler. Hes been running for this position for eight years.

Boler has been the Libertarian nominee for District 26 every election since 2010, and his support has been steadily increasing, for the most part. He received 2.3 percent of the vote that year, 3 percent in 2012 and 4 percent in 2016. In 2014, when the Democratic party didnt field a candidate, Boler received 17 percent of the vote.

When there is a third party running, people go to websites. People say Oh look, there is another party, he said. I think had people like me not run, all thats left is the Republican and the Democratic party, which is really the same party. Theyre the Big Government party.

The Libertarian party is the most prominent third party in the U.S., as well as one of the most long-lasting, holding its first convention in 1972 and growing ever since. In presidential elections, their candidates have been receiving increasing support since 2004, culminating in Gary Johnson receiving 3.28 percent of the vote last year, the first year in which the party was on the ballot in all 50 states. With the major parties fielding two of the most disliked presidential candidates in history, he was polling in double-digits at some points.

Johnson received 3.8 percent of the vote in Denton County.

The partys politics are based around preserving or reestablishing as much personal choice as possible by lowering taxes and fighting against laws that govern non-violent personal behavior. The most common policy positions include ending the war on drugs and pulling out of the Middle East.

Denton County Libertarian Party historian James Gholston said that while the partys poll numbers are growing slowly, public opinion has shifted much more strongly toward its positions.

Some of our ideas that seemed wildly insane once upon a time are basically mainstream, he said. Its almost a case of pick a topic. Ending the war on drugs, bringing our troops home, not regulating things into nightmare situations where youre horribly penalized just for creating jobs.

Gholston said the partys longevity is historically notable, and that most third parties start as a grassroots movement and then die out in a couple of years time.

Were still here, which is actually not a small thing when youre not a Democrat or a Republican, he said. If we were going to vanish without a trace, it would have happened decades ago.

County chair James Felder said that Texas push to end straight-ticket voting has things looking up for the party. Felder pointed to the 2016 race for Texas railroad commissioner, in which Libertarian candidate Mark Miller received 5.2 percent of the vote despite being endorsed by several major newspapers, as an example of a race that would have gone differently without straight-ticket elections.

The majority of the people vote straight-ticket. They dont even care about down-ballot candidates, he said.

Felder said Boler has been running for congress since before he became the local party chair. He said the party keeps putting Boler up as a candidate because hes incredibly active. He said Boler was party treasurer when he arrived and serves on the executive committee, goes to state conventions and helps with other candidates elections around the county.

Boler said the major barriers to his being elected are money and the prominent idea that voting for a third party is a wasted vote. The logic, such as it is, goes that since a third party candidate could never win, no one should vote for them.

Theres going to be some kind of a tipping point, a critical mass, where people see, Oh, theres a certain percentage of people voting for somebody other than a Republican or a Democrat, he said. I think then theyre going to go ahead and say, Wow, maybe they could win.

Boler said the most hes ever raised for a campaign was $2,600 in 2012, and a lot of that was his own money.

After four unsuccessful campaigns, Boler said he is still re-energized by the increasing support he receives.

I get successes and satisfaction from seeing a steady increase in the number of people that vote for me. Maybe that many people are really saying, Hey, Im fed up, I want more freedom. he said. Im here to show that theres another way, and there is. I gain satisfaction from that, even if I dont win.

Visit link:

Libertarian candidate makes fourth run for Congress in Dist. 26 - The Lewisville Texan Journal

Being Libertarian

Westworld and the Roots of Self-Ownership The Chief's Thoughts Being Libertarian Since finishing the show, aside from some unrelated YouTube analyses, I have not read or watched any libertarian reviews of Westworld, so if you have written one and see similar themes in this piece, rest assured that I write only from my own memory ...

See original here:

Westworld and the Roots of Self-Ownership The Chief's Thoughts - Being Libertarian

I have a co-worker who is of Puerto Rican descent. His name is Luis. Were about the same age. Hes been married 20 years. He and his wife work, and their eldest son has just started college. We were both raised Roman Catholic. Were both concerned about terrorism. Were middle class; we have good incomes, but there are times when we have more expenses and have to balance earnings with costs. We both try our best to be financially responsible for ourselves for retirement, our property and our dependents. We work a lot during the week, and spend the weekends maintaining our homes and property, and when we have a few free hours, spend them with family and friends. Were both New York Mets fans. Neither of us collects welfare. Our parents are getting older, so we try to make their lives a bit more comfortable. We love our wives, though they drive us crazy sometimes!

I wish Luis would take his goddamn family back to Puerto Rico and stop subverting white values and raping my wife, in that order.

***

Puerto Ricans have voted to force America to accept Puerto Rico as the 51st state. Americas 20 trillion dollars of debt will have reached its tipping point when we white Middle Class workers are forced to absorb Puerto Ricos 70 billion dollars of sovereign debt; it is the straw that will break the backs of white American taxpayers, and it is enabled by GOP establishmentarians, Jewish internationalist banksters, the Deep State, feminazi enviro-fascists, and Zionist globalist accountants.

What will be the effect of Puerto Ricos brazen decision to sew another star onto Old Glory? What is all this in service to?

Its so Puerto Rico can increase the Democratic Partys share in government thereby leading to a further rejection of property norms. Its so that Jew Chuck Schumer can ensure white voters can never vote him out of office. Its so that trisexual, trans councilman, abortion coercive Nancy Pelosi can remain in power. Its so that Chicago Bears linebacker, veganist, Bolshevik MicHELLe Obama can force our children to eat asparagus.

Do all of you, dear readers, want to live in a world dominated by Marxist Islamist Mexican deconstructionist Communist post-structuralist Central American post-modern social architects?

No. No, of course you do not.

I know Im preaching to the converted, but Ill state this as explicitly as possible: Puerto Rican statehood will literally result in the eradication of the white race, and white, anglo-saxon, heterosexual, Protestant, capitalist, collectivized commons subsidizing married couples have a moral obligation to produce one child per year until joint-fertility is no longer possible.

***

Oscar Lpez Rivera of theFuerzas Armadas de Liberacin Nacional Puertorriquea is an American hero. If it wasnt for him, Puerto Rico would have been a state when our fathers wore a younger mans clothes.

Rivera, in case you dont live in the New York metro area, was told he couldnt be honored in this years Puerto Rican pride parade because he committed only over a hundred bombings in American cities. Rivera is a freedom fighter who wanted Puerto Ricans to own their own means of production instead of be exploited by interloping Zionist homosexual corporate special interest Bilderbergers, and in the tradition of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Locke, Richard Spencer and Arnold Schwarzenegger, stood up to corporate job offshoring autocratic tyrants and fought for liberty for Puerto Ricans so they wouldnt be Americans and further denigrate apple pie, baseball, the Constitution, Walter Cronkite, and the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum.

If it wasnt for Rivera, Puerto Ricans would already have access to white wealth.

***

Puerto Ricos invasion of safe American spaces shows its time, now more than ever, to reassert white hegemony and to enforce peaceful ethnic cleansing. It isnt fair for unborn white Americans to suffer the burden of Puerto Ricans who will take advantage of established markets, debt-free infrastructure and publicly owned private commons. Our markets cant absorb more consumers who reject white American values. Call your elected representatives and demand they send Puerto Ricans back to Uruguay, where they belong, and where they are better off, for their own sake, as well as ours, and theirs, but mostly ours, and equally theirs.

***

And thats the way it is, as far as you know.

Image: Terry Sparkman

This post was written by Dillon Eliassen.

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

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

Like Loading...

See more here:

Shortcuts & Delusions: Puerto Rican Statehood Is White Genocide - Being Libertarian

LISTEN TO TLRS LATEST PODCAST:

By Chris Massari

There is a largely missed connection between the comic medium, particularly the superhero genre and stories from the two big publishers Marvel and DC, and the philosophies associated with libertarianism. Everything from the non-aggression principle (NAP), individualism, civil liberty, voluntary action and in some cases/stories to individuals versus the State. In fact, one could say that the parallels between the two are almost too spot on.

Anyone with a basic understanding of pop culture can easily identify the very nature of volunteer action and connect that with superheroes. Id be surprised if youve never heard the phrase With great power, comes great responsibility and not instantly know what its from and what that quote is presenting. You dont even have to just use Spider-Man to present the idea of voluntary action. Use Batman, use Superman, use Wonder Woman, The Flash or Daredevil, and really any of the majority of comic heroes can easily be substituted in and out as examples for voluntary philosophies. Voluntary action is in the very nature of the mediums stories and individuals using their unique abilities towards a public good, doing a service voluntary of the state through individual actions.

To take it one step further withcomics and libertarian ideals, one could explore the vast history of Superman following a non-interventionist foreign policy when it comes to handling situations outside of the United States, not including Frank Millers The Dark Knight Returns. This one example doesnt even include the deeper and more complex philosophical parallels in major or even minor story lines. This is just one character that consistently follows a particular ideological stance that falls right in line with the libertarian model.

Now, if you were trying to best convey libertarian philosophies in a comic, I think the perfect introductory look would be Marvels Civil War arc in 2006 by Mark Millar. This story was even repackaged recently to fit Marvels cinematic universe in Captain America: Civil War. While the film is much less complex than the comic version, the core principles remain the same. Individual versus State, where comic heroes are being forced by the government into mandatory registration of their abilities and identities. If they dont register, they cannot legally be heroes or engage in hero related activities. It kind of reminds me of that meme going around on the internet where someone feeds the homeless, only to be arrested for feeding the homeless, only to be forced into doing mandatory community service. Here, its acts of heroism being condemned by the State.

In both the comic and film, the ideological battle of Individual versus State is represented by Captain America, the individualist and Iron Man, the State advocate. Anyone familiar with the film will recognize this dialogue:

Tony Stark: Oh, thats Charles Spencer by the way. Hes a great kid. Computer engineering degree. 3.6 GPA. Had a floor-level gig at Intel planned for the fall. But first, he wanted to put a few miles on his soul, before he parked it behind a desk. See the world, maybe be of service. Charlie didnt want to go to Vegas or Fort Lauderdale, which is what I would do. He didnt go to Paris or Amsterdam. Sounds fun. He decided to spend his summer, building sustainable housing for the poor. Guess where Sokovia. He wanted to make a difference, I suppose. I mean, we wont know because we dropped a building on him while we were kicking ass. Theres no decision-making process here. We need to be put in check. Whatever form that takes, Im game. If we cant accept limitations, were boundaryless, were no better than the bad guys.

Steve Rogers: Tony, someone dies on your watch, you dont give up.

Tony: Who said were giving up?

Steve: We are if were not taking responsibility for our actions. This document just shifts the blame.

Col. James Rhodes: Sorry. Steve, that, that is dangerously arrogant. This is the United Nations were talking about. Its not the World Security Council, its not SHIELD, its not HYDRA.

Steve: No, but its run by people with agendas and agendas change.

Tony: Thats good. Thats why Im here. When I realized what my weapons were capable of in the wrong hands, I shut it down and stop manufacturing them.

Steve: Tony. You chose to do that. If we sign these, we surrender our right to choose. What if this panel sends us somewhere we dont think we should go? What if its somewhere we need to go, and they dont let us? We may not be perfect, but the safest hands are still our own.

Tony: If we dont do this now, its gonna be done to us later. Thats a fact. That wont be pretty.

This conversation highlights the crux of the ideological argument presented in the story and can be perfectly applied to the libertarian platform as a palatable and understandable representation of what the party values to a mainstream audience.

I say this because its no secret that entertainment generally leans Left and recently, leaning to a Regressive rather than Progressive atmosphere. People gravitate towards entertaining things and if a particular ideology can be presented in a fun, easy to digest fashion, its not difficult to push your narrative whatever it is. Now, I need to add this isnt a Down with the Liberal Media statement but, more an observation of presenting ideas to a wide stream audience, something I, unfortunately, feel the Libertarian party hasnt quite gotten right just yet.

What I do find interesting is that when certain ideas, like the Libertarian philosophies presented in Civil War, are shown in entertainment, people agree with them and can even become passionate about it. Do a little google research and you can see how adamantly people argued over who was right in the original Civil War comic run. Fighting vehemently over who was right, Captain America or Iron Man. However, when applied to real life actions and politics, the Libertarian Party can be viewed as a three-headed monster or laughing stock depending on who you ask. There are obvious reasons for that from lack of education in the mainstream, the various factions within the Party, the two-party system and of course, the saying that getting Libertarians in order is like leading cats to water.

That said, I think if the Libertarian Party can learn to take these easy and palatable parallels in comics or other entertainment mediums, it can help to better present these ideas, principles, values, and philosophies in a manner that people like, enjoy and might even take part in down the road. I believe exploring the vast amounts of stories in comics that directly present Libertarian values so often and easy to understand, could be a great way to present the values of Liberty and individualism to a wider audience.

So, read a comic and support Liberty and the individual or something like that.

Captain AmericaCaptain America Winter SoldierCaptain America: Civil Warcomic bookComic Book Moviescomic bookscomicsdc comicsMarvelmarvel comicsMarvel Studiosopinionphilosophypolitical opinionpolitical philosophy

Read more here:

Comics and Liberty: How Basic Libertarian Principles Parallel Comic Lore - The Libertarian Republic

The Exporting Jobs Canard WSJ

Mr. Trump assumes that when U.S. multinationals expand abroad, it necessarily reduces the number of people they employ in the U.S. But this assumption is wrong, and tariffs would hurt American workers, not help them.

Academic research has repeatedly found that when U.S. multinationals hire more people at their overseas affiliates, it does not come at the expense of American jobs. How can this be? Large firms need workers of many different skills and occupations, and the jobs done by employees abroad are often complements to, not substitutes for, those done by workers at home. Manufacturing abroad, for example, can allow workers in the U.S. to focus on higher value-added tasks such as research and development, marketing, and general management. Additionally, expanding overseas to serve foreign customers or save costs often helps the overall company grow, resulting in more U.S. hiring.

The ultimate proof is in the numbers. Between 2004 and 2014, the most recent year for which U.S. government data are available, total employment at foreign affiliates of U.S. multinationals rose from nine million to 13.8 million. Yet the number of jobs at U.S. parent companies rose nearly as much, from 22.4 million to 26.6 million

President Trump is right that America needs millions more good-paying jobs. But he does not seem to realize they can be created by U.S.-based multinationals that know how to invest capital, operate globally and create knowledge. In 2014, U.S. multinationals undertook 45.4% of all private-sector capital investment, were responsible for 49.5% of all U.S. goods exports, and conducted a remarkable 78.9% of total U.S. private-sector research and development

Limit the ability of U.S. multinational companies to flourish abroad and you limit their ability to create high-paying jobs in America. Washington should base its policies on data and research, not anecdotes and assertions.

The Case For and Against Policing Todays Tech GiantsAxios

The Choice Facing Americans, According to Tyler CowenLibrary of Law and Liberty

Cowen, the Holbert L. Harris Chair of Economics at George Mason University and director of George Masons Mercatus Center, has best escaped the boundaries of his discipline to become a public intellectual who examines his assumptions as an economist by the light cast by other disciplines in the humanities and social sciences. Such an approach gives his work an admirable breadth, not to mention making it remarkably accessible to non-economists.

His new book is no exception. The Complacent Class: The Self-Defeating Quest for the American Dream has nine chapters. The first four draw mostly from economic and other social scientific data to try to explain an unhealthy trend that Cowen detects in our society, and even in the American character: a loss of flexibility and concomitant embrace of the status quo that were never, he argues, as pronounced before as they are today

Complacency runs contrary to what the author regards as the central trait of the American: her restlessness. Restlessness is a good thing, in Cowens view. It signifies the successful pursuit of economic opportunities, a dissatisfaction with the status quo, and the constant effort to innovate. The choice facing Americans, then, is either a kind of desperate preservation of the status quo and, with it, a rapid shrinking in opportunities; or the return to restlessness, with all of its risks, its violence, and its mobility.

Canada to Teach Computer Coding Starting in KindergartenPhys.org

A Market-Friendly Approach to Combating Climate Change Slate

Ultimately, the only way to combat American automobile dependency is to reform the way we build, and in particular, to help avoid low-density settlement patterns that make it impractical or impossible for Americans to get anywhere without a personal car

But even in Berkeley, liberals have a blind spot when it comes to housing policy and the transportation choices it requires. As a councilman in 2014, Arreguin pushed a ballot measure putting superstrict conditions on new development. It failed, but his elevation to mayor in November was seen as a reproach of his opponent Laurie Capitellis pro-development record.* It was a very clear choice between me and my opponent, who has literally rubber-stamped every [real estate] project that came before this council, Arreguin told the San Francisco Chronicle last fall.

At Tuesday nights City Council meeting, which touched on a number of housing issues, this dissonance was on display in a residents complaint about a proposed new building that would cast shadows on her zucchini plants. The project was returned to the citys Zoning Adjustments Board. The zukes live another day

That overturning housing restrictions is part of the fight for economic and racial justice is well-established. But in a moment of all-in activism and outrage over climate change, its worth reflecting on the degree to which the prohibition of infill housing is an environmentally reactionary policy.

The fewer people live in Berkeley and other job-rich, close-in Bay Area cities and suburbs, the more people have to drive. More than half of Berkeleys greenhouse gas emissions come from cars and trucks

Infill housing production is the municipal equivalent of driving a hybrid: If youre serious about fighting climate change, its no longer up for debate.

Why the Tighter Labor Market isnt Generating Better Pay WSJ

Janet Yellen and the Case of the Missing Inflation NYT

Inflation has stubbornly stayed lower than the Federal Reserve has desired for the past eight years, and it has been falling in the last few months. In a move that could well define her chairmanship of the central bank, Janet Yellen is betting that falling prices are a temporary blip that will soon be forgotten.

If her forecast is right, the Fed policy meeting on Wednesday will turn out to be a nonevent in a gradual return to normal policy. If shes wrong, the June 2017 meeting will look like a giant unforced error that unnecessarily prolonged an era in which the Fed proved impotent to get inflation up to the 2 percent level it aims for and lost credibility needed to fight the next downturn

What is worrisome is not direct economic damage, but the fact that the Fed has missed its (arbitrary) 2 percent target in the same direction undershooting year after year. If its not a drop in prices for cellphone plans, its a falloff in oil prices, or cheaper imports because of a strong dollar.

That in turn implies that the low-growth, low-inflation, low-interest-rate economy since 2008 isnt going anywhere. This would prove especially damaging if the economy ran into some negative shock; a lack of Fed credibility could leave it less able to prevent a recession.

Preparing for Brexit, Britons Face Economic Pinch at Home NYT

How Trump Can Make Apprenticeships a Hit Bloomberg

Replicating the German apprenticeship model in the U.S. would require nothing short of a revolution. For one thing, it would be expensive: The U.S. federal government spends $90 million a year on dedicated apprenticeship programs; accounting for both education and training, the German system costs $27 billion.

A more immediate challenge is to persuade U.S. employers to sign on. Few companies have the time or resources to educate, train, pay and certify apprentices. Thats especially true in industries without a track record of employing apprentices, such as technology, health care and finance. Many businesses leaders remain skeptical of the preparation that prospective apprentices receive from public high schools and community colleges. If the scale of a U.S. apprenticeship program is to come anywhere close to Germanys, apprentices will have to become easier for businesses to manage and public-education systems must be more responsive to the job requirements of local industries.

It can be done.YouthForce NOLA, a partnership of political, business and education leaders in New Orleans, places 1,200 high-school seniors from local public high schools in paid internships in fields such as software development and advanced manufacturing Another successful model is the state-run Apprenticeship Carolina program in South Carolina, which serves as an intermediary between businesses, workers and educational institutions.

See more here:

Links and quotes for June 15, 2017: Job offshoring, libertarian solutions to climate change, apprenticeships, and more - American Enterprise Institute

If you're interested in curious cultural phenomena, you may have taken notice of the tiny Pacific nation of Niuean idyllic Polynesian Eden, which is depopulating itself so dramatically that it will soon turn spontaneously into a wildlife refuge.

By population, the smallest country in the world is the Vatican. Niuepronounced "new way"is the smallest republic. According to its most recent entry in the CIA World Factbook, which was made in 2014, Niue's population is 1,190. It has an area of about 100 square miles, which makes it a little less than half the size of Guam; a little less than one-fourteenth the size of Long Island. Niue has a lower population density than Russia, and one 55th the population of Yankee stadium with a capacity crowd.

Despite being a beautiful, tropical paradise, Niue's population is dropping by about 3 percent a year. In 2000, its population was 1900; in 1990, 2,332; in 1980, 3,402, and in 1950, nearly 5,000. The reason for the plummet, as you can probably guess, is the absence of jobs. Niue is unfathomably remote; 1,700 miles northeast of New Zealand; 2,800 southwest of Hawaii, 3,600 miles east of Australia. Few people see a future on the Island. Niue is an independent Republic in free association with New Zealand, and as part of the deal, Niue's citizens are also offered New Zealand citizenship. New Zealand's annual gross domestic product is $186 billion. Niue's is a little less than $25 million; by far the lowest of any country in the world (though not unimpressive for a country with only 1000 people in it). Its three main industries are tourism, fishing and agriculture; subsistence farming is common. The government is in debt, and receives considerable sponsorship from New Zealand, which is also, at Niue's request, responsible for Niue's national defense. The upshot of all this is that New Zealand is slowing siphoning off Niue's remaining Niueans. Unless something changes, the remaining, aging Niueans will die-off or move. Inevitably, before long, Niue will be empty, and that will be that.

By area, the smallest country in the world, is the Vatican. Monaco is second. The third smallest country in the world is Liberland, which is 2.7 square miles on the Danube between Croatia and Serbia. Liberland's tiny patch of territory was, prior 2015, terra nulliusCroatia said it belonged to Serbia and Serbia said it belonged to Croatia. Noticing this, libertarian activist Vit Jedlika claimed it, and established the pure libertarian Free Republic of Liberland. However, It's a country recognized by no one. The legal situation is this: Serbia claims the Danube as its north-western border with Croatia. Croatia says some of the land on the Serbian side of the Danube belongs to it, and some of the land on the Croatian side belongs to Serbia. This left a microscopic parcel of land on Croatia's side claimed by neither of the two.

As regards Liberland's claim, Serbia says it doesn't care. Croatia, however, has blocked Liberlandians from entering the area, fearing that if the land isn't accorded to Serbia, it will weaken the Croatian claims to the disputed land on the Danube's other side. So for the moment, Liberland is a stateless state.

But I admire it. Most Americans will, once they've had a look at it. Liberland's constitution, written in English and available on its website, borrows liberally from oursmost importantly, in its Bill of Rights. The problem with most almost-free countries is a lack of protection against an overbearing government; too many republican governments have been formed under the assumption that so long as a government is of the people and by the people, it is free to do whatever it wants for, or to, the people. Liberland preempts this problem with strict and explicit limits on the powers of government, and the most iron-clad and extensively detailed Bill of Rights ever written. The Bill of Rights broken down into sections on freedom of speech and information, property rights, privacy rights, the rights of the accused, rights of "physical liberty," equality before the law (including freedom of religion), and "the right to self-defense and defense of one's rights and property," including against the government. The primacy of Liberland's Bill of Rights is enshrined in its Constitution's preamble (which, keep in mind, was written by people for whom English is a second language): "Being aware of a long and shameful list of governments' trespasses to the Rights of the sovereign Individuals, we hereby declare that the Public Administration governing the Free Republic of Liberland shall first and foremost respect the Bill of Rights and exercise only such functions as have been delegated to it under this Constitution. Therefore, we declare that whenever the Public Administration becomes an obstacle to, rather than a guarantor of, our Rights, it shall be our duty to alter or abolish such government, and to institute a new government for the restoration of the Rights which we consider inherent in all human beings."

If you have some time, read the whole Liberland constitutionit's inspiring, even though it lacks the poetry of the American constitution. Though I should point out, the first draft of Liberland's constitution, from 2015, began very poetically: "We, the Citizens of the Free Republic of Liberland, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and future generations, do ordain and establish the Constitution of the Free Republic of Liberland."

Liberland is the republic that would have been created by John Locke and Milton Friedmanand Thomas Jefferson, et al, if they had been free of the obligation to compromise. It lacks land, but it has citizensor at least perspective citizens: according to the Guardian, in the week following its 2015 declaration of independence, Liberland received 200,000 applications for citizenship.

Niue, on the other hand, has land: 100 square miles, 40 times as much as Liberland has claimed in the Balkans. But of course it lacks peoplenearly the entire population could fit on a single Jumbo Jet. Citizens of Niue who wish to stay need an infusion of people, enough to create an economy with jobs and prospects for their children. Ideally, they want an infusion of people who won't interfere with their life style. In other words, they need libertariansand as it happens, libertarians needs them.

It takes 3 years of residence to become a citizen of Niue. If a few thousand Liberlandians were to move there, they would save the island and the nation, and the remainders of Niue culture (only about 650 Niuean citizens are ethnically Niuean; only about 500 of those speak the Niueain language). After a few years, the libertarians could vote to amend the Niue constitution and institute their policies of pure freedom, none of which would encroach in anyway on the surviving Niuean traditions. The Liberlandians would have land on which to enjoy their utopian ideals, andvia the accompanying guarantees of free trade, a free market and businesses free from government interferencethe Niuean economy would likely see "Asian Tiger" type economic growth (being so far off the beaten path, though, this would primary start as tax-haven growth).

Most importantly, the world will have a chance to see the success of a country based on unadulterated liberty, andas a bonuscome to understand that America's strength and prosperity are not accidental.

Follow this link:

Libertarians and the Idyllic Island Nation That's Running Out of People - The Weekly Standard

Jack Ma, billionaire and chairman of Alibaba Group Holding Ltd., gestures as he speaks during a panel session at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland, on Wednesday, Jan. 18, 2017.

Corporate executives sometime like to talk about how their companies are overtaking nation states. In China, they tend to be careful not to outshine the government and avoid such analogies.Yet that's just what Jack Ma did last week.

At Alibaba's annual investor day, China's richest man outlined a vision where the company he founded could become the world's fifth-biggest economy by 2036, trailing only the U.S., China, Europe and Japan. Let's just say most entrepreneurs in Chinawouldn't make that comparison.

"Well, people say, this is too big," Ma said of the scale of Alibaba's ambition. "It costs nothing to imagine, right?"

Many shrugged the comments off as bluster from a man prone to making grand pronouncements. Mabased his prediction on the number of goods transacted on his platforms and the potential number of customers. AndAlibaba's $23.5 billion in revenue last year was still dwarfed by Alphabet's $90billion and Amazons $136 billion. In Ma's own words, the Chinese e-commerce giant is still just "a baby."

Yet in Hangzhou, in front of thousands of global investors, Ma planted the flag and claimed that his company would one day become one of the world's most powerful economies by serving2 billion people and helping 10 million small businesses trade freely on the web. On the face of it, the declarationencapsulates the libertarian dream of empowering individuals and transcending borders. Ma has spent years cultivating an image of a rebel fighting the system,knocking down walls protecting state-owned enterprises and becominga billionaire in the process.

Yet on closer examination, it's clearthat none of Ma's rhetoric ignoredthe groundwork that has already been laid out by Beijing, whether it's Chinaexpanding its footprint in Africa, exploring the ocean frontier in Southeast Asia, or revitalizing the once-famous Silk Road. When Xi Jinping was in Davos talking up global trade, Ma was quick to call (again) for his web-based version of the World Trade Organization. When China touted its One Belt, One Road project, Ma was quick to tout Alibaba's expansion in those regions.If anything, he's China's shadow diplomat, flying more than 870 hours and visiting 40 countries last year to meet with prime ministers and other leaders.

Ma's dabbling in international affairs is rooted in the goal of amassing billions of customers by 2036. By his own calculation, China will only be able to provide 40 percent of that market, the rest will have to be found overseas. Following China's Belt-Road project, setting up global trade platforms, even his promise to President Donald Trump to create a million jobs in the U.S. is all part of that plan.Indeed, Ma headsto Detroit next week to bring that message.

If anything, Jack Ma is a master in the dark arts of influence and international affairs. That probably makes him more of a savvy politicianthan a libertarian icon.

Sign upto receive the Fully Charged newsletterin your inbox, andfollow Bloomberg Technology onTwitterandFacebookfor more.

Exclusive insights on technology around the world.

Get Fully Charged, from Bloomberg Technology.

Uberstumbled again as while seekingto fix its scandals.TPG Capital co-founder David Bonderman resigned from the ride-hailing company's board after making a sexist comment during a meeting intended to address rampant internal gender bias. The billionaire couldn't have picked a worse setting to interrupt a woman with a comment about how women talk.

Nintendo added more reasons to buy the Switch.The Japanese gaming company unveiled a slate of new titles for the hybrid console, seeking to boost sales during this year's critical year-end shopping season. Most anticipated is a brand-new Pokemon role-playing game, as well as Switch versions of Metroid4 and Rocket League.

The laptop ban on flights may be expanded, but the U.S. is looking for ways to avoid this (unpopular) step.Enhancements in the way airports outside the U.S. conduct screening may be enough to head off a ban on large electronic devices slated to cover broad areas of Europe and other regions, aDepartment of Homeland Securityofficial said.

Link:

Jack Ma's Libertarian Talk Approaches Red Line - Bloomberg - Bloomberg