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

Forbes

Decentralizing The Hollywood Machine With Blockchain Tech And 'Libertarian' Filmmaking Forbes As with many industries that have emerged from a post industrial centralized system where power is held by the few and organizational structures were designed to control the people dividing the work into tasks that needed to be done, the film and ...

Read more here:

Decentralizing The Hollywood Machine With Blockchain Tech And 'Libertarian' Filmmaking - Forbes

Its easy to see people as enemies, even when they are on your team. Libertarianism is no different. The movement is torn apart by in-house fighting and bullying, more so than any other movement or party. Some have said the conservatives and liberals are the same way, but those groups are large enough to survive infighting. More importantly, they are united in effort, despite their fighting. They may conflict over certain policies and ideas, but they unite against the common enemy in the end.

Republicans may fight a lot among each other, but they unite against the Democrats at the end of the day. The Democrats fight over themselves as well, but they unite against the Republicans all the same (cue the parties are the same jokes, and moving on). Libertarians? They wont unite for any reason at all. A brick wall stands between each sector of our movement, dividing us.

Its one thing to not give up your own personal beliefs and capitulating to the movement, its another to not unite against the enemy we all agree on. To allow tyranny to rule over us because we dont want to stand beside someone who disagrees with us on a few interpretations of our philosophy is not the same as standing your ground honorably and refusing to give up your beliefs.

The Cause of the Problem

Libertarianism isnt a set of policies or ideals. Its a philosophical stance, built on key principles like the non-aggression principle, or the idea of states rights, a term meaning the states and their citizens have a right to self-governance and autonomy. Not that the state government have rights over its citizens.

Because its a philosophical stance and isnt mutually exclusive, meaning other consistent philosophies can be attached to it it can be interpreted differently. This reality seems to anger many, but refusing to accept this fact can only hurt us. Lets consider the following:

John Doe and Joe Dohn are both Libertarians. They believe that something should be illegal if it aggresses against another. The topic of abortion comes up and John Doe believes the fetus is not a living person. Therefore, abortion aggresses against no one, and so he is pro-choice. Joe Dohn believes that the fetus is a living person with rights, meaning abortion aggresses against the fetus, and therefore he is pro-life. Is one of them not libertarian simply because we disagree with that person? No.

Libertarianism can be interpreted differently, depending on how we view the world. Which studies you read, what theories you trust most, these define how you see the libertarian philosophy. Conservatism is defined as being pro-life, anti-welfare, pro-military, anti-corporate tax, and such. Its defined by a set of policies its members agree on. Libertarianism is purely philosophical, and so has no set opinion or belief.

Why the Problem Matters

Some have said the infighting keeps us safe from internal corruption. I dont buy this. If anything, it stops the movement from facing corruption. Corruption can still show its face in the party and in each individual sector of the movement, regardless of how united the movement is or isnt. Corruption cant be stopped by dividing ourselves. Others have said its important because we should embrace our differences, that our differences benefit our movement. The problem is that fighting, calling each statists, and accusing other libertarians of being fake, is not the same as embracing our different beliefs. A look at any comment section will show it filled with everyone calling out statist and pretender whenever a disagreement occurs.

Tyranny can exist because we arent fighting it. Were in comment sections fighting each other. But consider, somewhere between 19% of the country to 22% of the country identifies as libertarian. With such a large portion of the population being libertarian, why do we see no movement in our movement? Its because we wont work together.

Instead, we push each other out of the movement. We put an end to our ability to bring in new members. Imagine a new member who was of a different party prior. He finds that he agrees with a lot of our philosophy, but hes new, so he isnt 100% for privatizing roads, eliminating publics schools, and ending most welfare yet. To be fair, many long-time libertarians have varying opinions on these. Now, this new member spends the first month being called a statist, a fake, a commie, and so on, just for asking about it or stating his opinion. He leaves and doesnt look back.

Infighting pushes out new and old members, disenfranchises most libertarians (thats why so many libertarians vote Republican), and cause each variant of libertarianism to hate each other when they should see each other as allies.

How to Fix the Problem

The first step to fixing the problem is for us to start remembering these three simple things:

The problem must be fixed. We can stand united while still holding onto and debating our disagreements. There is no libertarian movement if we stand divided. We share a common goal, and we should aim for that goal together.

The beauty of libertarianism is that it encompasses so many different spectrums. We can have so many diverse types of politicians, each with different views and ideas, while still having a completely libertarian Congress. We despise the two-party system, but libertarianisms vast spectrum allows for the equivalent of many, many parties, each being libertarian in nature. Conservatarians, an-caps, left-leaning libertarians, paleolibertarians, each a libertarian equivalent of a separate party.

We should embrace our differences while standing together as 20% of the population, to end tyranny and socialism, and embracing our differences starts by no longer fighting over our differences.

* Donald Keller is the Admin and Head Editor for the Libertarian Coalition. He is a cook, artist, and writer in De Soto, Mo.

Like Loading...

Read more from the original source:

The Problem Of Libertarian Infighting - Being Libertarian

Last fall, the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire reached an important milestone: They managed to get 4 percent of the vote in the governors race, giving them official party status and a place on New Hampshire ballots. But a snag for one candidate seeking to run in the House special election highlights the fact that many of the state election laws were still built for a two-party system.

When a House seat opened up in Grafton, John Babiarz wanted to run as a Libertarian in the upcoming special election.The problem? When he went to register, he says the town clerk blocked him from changing his party registration from undeclared and filing necessary paperwork to be on the ballot.

In a normal election cycle, the law gives voters a chance to change their party affiliation before the filing period for a primary election.

Typically before an election season starts, there is an opportunity for voters to meet with the Supervisors of the Checklist and change their party affiliation before the filing period opens, Deputy Secretary of State Dave Scanlan explained. That gives the voter an opportunity to become a candidate in the party they want, but also any voters party affiliation is locked in from the filing period until after the primary election.

But Babiarzs case highlighted a gap in the state law for special elections: The window of time between when an elections called and when the filing period starts is much narrower and doesnt allow for the same flexibility for candidates like him to change party status.

In this case of the special election, the governor and council set the date of the special election, and its done on a Wednesday. The filing period starts the following Monday. So theres very little opportunity for the Supervisors of the Checklist to call a meeting together and properly advertise it.

And whats new about this process, both Scanlan and Babiarz noted, is the inclusion of another political party that wasnt previously recognized.

I think for too long, the two major parties had everything set. They were comfortable with it. But when you have a new party with special elections They didnt take that into consideration that a new party would just start ramping up new membership, people may have not changed over to have the valid thing to run like everybody else.

On Tuesday, the state ballot law commission sided with Babiarz, ordering election officials to allow him to add his name to the ballot for the July 18 primary.

The commission said the law needs to be updated to fix the gap this case illustrates something Babiarz hopes to have the chance to do, should he win his bid for the seat, as a Libertarian.

See the rest here:

Ballot Law Commission Grants Libertarian Candidate a Spot in Grafton House Special Election - New Hampshire Public Radio

The Libertarian Party of Arkansas submitted over 15,000 signatures on Monday to the Secretary of States office to try and qualify to be a new political party -- for the fourth election cycle in a row. The state has 30 days to certify at least 10,000 of the signatures are from registered Arkansas voters.

This initial hurdle, and the financial cost of signature drives, is often critiqued by Arkansas third parties. In order for a political party to retain Arkansas ballot access through the next election cycle a candidate for either governor or president has to garner at least three percent of the vote. Last year Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson fell just shy with 2.63 percent of the vote.

Despite falling short of that threshold in 2016, state Party Chair Michael Pakko said the Libertarian Party deserves to be thought of as competitive.

Last year the Libertarian Party was the only party to field candidates against incumbents in all four U.S. Congressional states. In state legislative races Libertarians provided the only opposition in nearly a third of all contested races, Pakko said at the Capitol, Moreover people are choosing to vote Libertarian. Across the four Congressional districts last year our candidates earned over 196,000 votes about 18.5 percent of the total.

The once all-powerful Democratic Party of Arkansas only fielded one Congressional candidate in the last election. But this year, bolstered by an impassioned base in the era of Trump, a growing number of Democrats are expressing interest in 2018 races.

Pakko said he expects Libertarians to be in more three-way races next election.

Its always nice to be the only opposition party. When the Democrats werent running in races last year that gave us a little bit bigger piece of the spotlight but we dont expect that to be the case, Pakko said, so well just take it as it comes.

No Arkansas Libertarians hold legislative, statewide, or federal offices. But that lack of experience isnt necessarily a negative to Pakko.

One of the things voters communicated in their election of Donald Trump was their willingness to pick someone for public office that didnt have previous experience, he said.

While certainly having experienced candidates would be helpful I dont think thats necessarily a handicap to have non-professional politicians, regular citizens running for office and I think voters will be receptive, said Pakko.

What matters most to voters, according to the Libertarian chair, is making government work.

The biggest issue that voters think about is the dysfunctional nature of government both at the state and national level, he said. Its a matter of the two political parties at loggerheads, constant gridlock, and wed like the voters in Arkansas to know there is another choice, another option.

For Pakko and most Libertarians making government work often means passing laws that peel back the role of government, If you believe that governments should protect the rights of the individual, that people should be able to live their lives however they see fit with minimal interference from the government, if you believe that freedom and prosperity flourish where markets are allowed to work and the U.S. is at peace with its neighbors in the world, then please consider joining the Libertarian Party.

Visit link:

Arkansas Libertarians Submit Signatures To Be "New" Political Party - WKNO FM

When oathkeeping patriot Frank Morganthaler suffered a heart attack while protesting Sharia Law this past weekend, leftists laughed at him as his life slipped away. This inspired an Islamic libertarian to start a fundraiser for the deceased man despite their political disagreements. This show of unity was soundly rejected by the intolerant left, who have started a campaign of harassment against the compassionate Muslim.

Will Coleys idea was to raise funds to show mercy toward their enemies during the Islamic holy season of Ramadan. At a time when political tensions are reaching frightening highs, Coley hoped that this gesture would re-introduce a little bit of human dignity into the political sphere. After encountering vicious hate-filled leftists on social media, Coleys hopes were dashed.

We will not be deterred in our drive to do good for others, even those who see themselves as my enemy, Coley wrote on Facebook in defense of his cause. Despite the heavy flak he is taking, he is hoping to raise $10,000 to pay for the Oathkeepers funeral costs.

A hate campaign was started on social media to derail Coleys gesture, and it has been successful. Terror apologist Linda Sarsour led the way, and the mob mentality took over from there. Coley was derided for the color of his skin, and it was determined by leftists that his skin was just too white for him to deserve a say in Muslim affairs.

Coley was shaken by this news but is not particularly surprised. He and his group, Muslims for Liberty, have been shunned by mainstream Muslim organizations for many years. Because his ideas are libertarian, that has put him on the outside looking in. Now it is Coleys skin color that is causing him problems in the Muslim community.

However, his idea has not been a complete failure. He has raised more than 25 percent of his stated goal at this point, and will be able to offset some of Morganthalers funeral costs at the very least. He also received a favorable television profile on a local news program in his native Tennessee to explain his plans to bridge the massive gap between Muslims and their opposition.

I have my faith, and you have yours, but theres no reason we have to hate each other because we believe differently, Will Coley said in an interview with WVLT news.

Coley has his work cut out for him in this polarizing political climate, but he is intent upon building bridges even in the case of immense pushback. His fundraiser link can be accessed at this link.

See more here:

Islamic Libertarian Harassed by Leftists After Starting a Fundraiser ... - The Liberty Conservative

"What we're witnessing," says Nick Gillespie on today's Reason Podcast, "is the end of a bunch of things"the Clinton political dynasty, Brexit, French establishment politics, the collapse of the May government in the United Kingdom"and in that end, there is the possiblity of...a different, 21st-century world...where politics and policy follow all the advances in personalization and individualization and autonomy we see in our cultural and political lives."

Gillespie is joined by Reason magazine Editor in Chief Katherine Mangu-Ward and Reason Editor at Large Matt Welch. Andrew Heaton moderates a discussion that heatdly talks about former FBI director James Comey's controversial testimony about Donald Trump, the results of last week's election in Britain, a production of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar featuring a titular character who looks a lot like the president, and whether Infowars' host and 9/11 truther Alex Jones is actually the libertarian he self-describes as.

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

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

Subscribe at iTunes.

Follow us at SoundCloud.

Subscribe at YouTube.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Image: Zach Copley, Wikimedia, Creative Commons.

Read more from the original source:

Was Comey Convincing, Is Trump Julius Caesar, Is Alex Jones a Libertarian? [Reason Podcast] - Reason (blog)

Politics in plain English

A seven-part guide to the candidates running to be the next governor of Virginia.

Superlative: Most likely to be late to the party"

Cliff Hyra may have been the last candidate to join the Virginia gubernatorial race, but like all cool kids, he has the potential of using this newfound attention to get people talking about what really matters politics.

As you could imagine, running for a statewide election as the third party nominee can set you at a disadvantage from the get-go. Fortunately for Hyra, being an unopposed libertarian candidate means that he can take this time to find his edge and relax while his opponents vie for a space on the general election ballot this week.

Hyra is a patent attorney from Mechanicsville, Virginia, who is married with three young children and is expecting another in Aug. To him, this race is a unique opportunity, and he hopes to build on 2013 candidate Robert Sarvis' momentum.

"Rob Sarvis had one of the most successful campaigns in the history of third parties and libertarian parties, Hyra said. "He got about 150,000 votes which is about a 7 percent turnout. (This) is really within striking distance of 10 percent, which is the threshold where if we hit 10 percent we would have automatic ballot access."

In the past, third party candidates have been required to canvas for 10,000 signatures as a precursor to moving forward with their campaign, a costly measure of resources that is not required of the Republican or Democratic candidates.

Despite Hyra's admittedly brief introduction to state politics, he is unfailingly enthusiastic about his future plans and continues to demonstrate faith in his supporters.

"I think you have to run the race with the goal of winning and being the governor, Hyra said. "You know, we are going to do all the things that we can do to maximize the chances of winning. With that said, I am not a crazy person, so I understand that you know the chances are low. At the same time, last year we had a very unusual election and something happened that I didn't think could happen so you know, I am not ruling it out."

If elected, Hyra has addressed four key issues that he will work to resolve in his four-year term economic growth, education reform, justice reform and health care.

In essence, his strategies to achieve optimal success can be generally attributed to one traditional libertarian solution, deregulation. Most of his campaign hinges on the belief that fewer laws constricting peoples actions can do wonders for the economy, incarceration rates and the booming of businesses.

More specifically, Hyras economic proposal includes eliminating income tax of the first $50,000 and removing specific license requirements that cause businessmen and women to get tripped up on trivial tasks.

Currently Virginians are taxed $11,815.28 on $50,000. This proposed cut would likely benefit the middle class the most, but can still exhibit a positive change in tax returns for people of the state.

Involving improvements with the school system, Hyra boasts small-town research on charter schools in New York as a testament to the power of competition to bring forth greater student and parent satisfaction. He says that elected officials must put forth more effort to close the gap, beginning with the states own research.

I was lucky enough to go to some really great schools in Northern Virginia, but we also have some schools that are not doing as well in some places, Hyra said. There are schools that have been really failing the students for many years and you know to some extent there is only so much good that you can do by just throwing more money at the problem.

According to Hyra, legal punishment for victimless crimes is counterproductive, specifically involving marijuana and alcohol consumption.

Logically speaking, Hyra says that lessening criminal punishments for these kinds of crimes will save Virginia money, which spends on average approximately $25,000 a year to incarcerate a single person. In addition, this plan could help reduce racial profiling. Hyra says studies show that African Americans are equally as likely to commit these kinds of crimes as others, but are being sent to prison at much higher rates.

Finally, Hyra has promised to change the face of healthcare by tossing out laws like Virginias Certificate of Need and is looking for a way to expand the healthcare plan without further involving the government.

Cliff Hyra is an incredible candidate, Libertarian Party of Virginia Chair Bo Brown told Bearing Drift News. Hes brilliant. His wifes incredible. Theyve got this great family. Theyre a great representation of Virginians. Weve got to let a lot of our (voters) understand that there are other candidates out there. You dont have to stay stuck to one of those two old parties.

Because Hyra announced his campaign in late April and received the nomination in May, little has been said about his qualifications for this role by other important political figures or by his opponents who are preoccupied with their respective primaries on Tuesday, June 13.

Hyra is a Virginia Tech alumnus who majored in aerospace engineering before attending law school at George Mason.

Hyra says that most people may not know that he became interested in the art of advantage gambling during his time at Virginia Tech and used his computational prowess at Las Vegas casinos for fun.

Want to learn about more gubernatorial candidates? Click below to learn about Republican front-runner, Ed Gillespie.

Superlative: Most likely to take detailed notes

Link:

Meet Cliff Hyra: The libertarian with a golden ticket to the general election - Virginia Tech Collegiate Times

The Libertarian Party of Arkansas submitted over 15,000 signatures on Monday to the Secretary of States office to try and qualify to be a new political party -- for the fourth election cycle in a row. The state has 30 days to certify at least 10,000 of the signatures are from registered Arkansas voters.

This initial hurdle, and the financial cost of signature drives, is often critiqued by Arkansas third parties. In order for a political party to retain Arkansas ballot access through the next election cycle a candidate for either governor or president has to garner at least three percent of the vote. Last year Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson fell just shy with 2.63 percent of the vote.

Despite falling short of that threshold in 2016, state Party Chair Michael Pakko said the Libertarian Party deserves to be thought of as competitive.

Last year the Libertarian Party was the only party to field candidates against incumbents in all four U.S. Congressional states. In state legislative races Libertarians provided the only opposition in nearly a third of all contested races, Pakko said at the Capitol, Moreover people are choosing to vote Libertarian. Across the four Congressional districts last year our candidates earned over 196,000 votes about 18.5 percent of the total.

The once all-powerful Democratic Party of Arkansas only fielded one Congressional candidate in the last election. But this year, bolstered by an impassioned base in the era of Trump, a growing number of Democrats are expressing interest in 2018 races.

Pakko said he expects Libertarians to be in more three-way races next election.

Its always nice to be the only opposition party. When the Democrats werent running in races last year that gave us a little bit bigger piece of the spotlight but we dont expect that to be the case, Pakko said, so well just take it as it comes.

No Arkansas Libertarians hold legislative, statewide, or federal offices. But that lack of experience isnt necessarily a negative to Pakko.

One of the things voters communicated in their election of Donald Trump was their willingness to pick someone for public office that didnt have previous experience, he said.

While certainly having experienced candidates would be helpful I dont think thats necessarily a handicap to have non-professional politicians, regular citizens running for office and I think voters will be receptive, said Pakko.

What matters most to voters, according to the Libertarian chair, is making government work.

The biggest issue that voters think about is the dysfunctional nature of government both at the state and national level, he said. Its a matter of the two political parties at loggerheads, constant gridlock, and wed like the voters in Arkansas to know there is another choice, another option.

For Pakko and most Libertarians making government work often means passing laws that peel back the role of government, If you believe that governments should protect the rights of the individual, that people should be able to live their lives however they see fit with minimal interference from the government, if you believe that freedom and prosperity flourish where markets are allowed to work and the U.S. is at peace with its neighbors in the world, then please consider joining the Libertarian Party.

Go here to read the rest:

Arkansas Libertarians Submit Signatures To Be "New" Political Party - KUAR