According to VPAP, it looks like theres going to be a Libertarian candidate (named Jason Carrier) for governor of Virginia, assuming of course that hes able to make the ballot (not an easy matter in Virginia). Heres some of what he has to say on his Facebook page. To put it mildly, hes not a fan of liberals, progressives, Democratsall of whom he seems to think are socialists, which he also believes are identical to National Socialists, whichyeah, dont ask.

If we are tired of how the government taxes us, spies on us, restricts our liberty, it is up to regular Americans (Farmer, Truck Drivers, Veterans, IT nerds) to run for office.

So for those of you who dont know, I am running for Governor of Virginia as the Libertarian candidate. The party asked and I said yes. I have never been a politician and I am going to need all the help I can get. This means volunteers and fund raising, etc. The first step is getting 10,000 names ballot petition. If you are interested in helping please let me know. I will be setting up website, and other items I hope this week. If you are interested in helping please PM me. If you have any questions about the LP party where we stand on issues ask them here, I will do my best to answer them.

As a Libertarian I support withholding all federal funds from all states they should stand on there own as much as possible and reject all federal mandates not in the constitution

I keep hearing people refer to Trump as Orange Hitler. I dont understand this label. Hitler was a socialist Trump is into Cronyism. Hitler build camps to keep people in Germany, Trump says he wants to throw people out. Although deportations are down. Hitler passed Universal Health Care, Trump says ObamaCare will be repelled, although he has not done it yet. Hitler passed 100% Gun registration and bans for people that were unstable, Trump says he supports the second amendment. Hitler believed in free education, Trumps says pay your own way. Hitler wanted to tax the rich to pay for social programs, Trumps say 15% flat tax. Hell based on the analysis of the Nazis party platform, Hitler would be head of the Democratic National Community. Just saying these are fact. Call Trump and asshole if you want, but Hitler is a bit of a stretch

I was talking today about the Federal land grabs out west, specifically Utah and Nevada. It is like the government is trying to round it citizen up put them into reservations where they have to buy water, food, shelter, and medical from them. It just seems wrong to me.

This meme is funny but historically inaccurate Nazis were socialists people rioting and burning books are socialists same shit different time

I going to post this and I am sure it is going to piss off my fellow Libertarians. I saw Trump signed an executive order that for every new regulation passed two had to be taken away. This is pretty awesome. So could he be the Libertarian president we were hoping for? Internet trolling done now to work

So ODU just released a study that shows Clinton got at least 800,000 votes from non citizen can we now get voter ID laws. I dont want Republicans to cheat either. Libertarians please feel free to cheat as much as we need to

Love me some Ron Paul

I am not a Trump supporter, but if you are attacking black performers for reaching across the aisle and calling them every racist slur in the book, you are an asshole. I heard what people called Steve Harvey, it is not acceptable.

If they lived in reality they would not advocate Socalism. It has failed for 100 years, and killed 200 million people, but lets give it one more try, with the most technically advanced military in the world, what could go wrong

Nazis were national Socalist party of Germany, same as USSR. I dont know why we dont teach this

Read the original:

Meet Your (Possible) 2017 Virginia Libertarian Candidate for Governor - Blue Virginia (press release) (blog)

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan speaks on the proposed American Health Care Act.

On Monday, congressional Republicans rolled out their new health care plan, which is supposed to repeal and replace Obamacare. Donald Trump hailed our wonderful new Healthcare Bill. But his enthusiasm for the proposed American Health Care Act is not widely shared. In addition to the expected critiques from the left, the bill has been forcefully condemned by a wide range of conservative and libertarian health care experts. These leading critics of Obamacare argue that the GOP proposal is just as bad, and possibly even worse.

Michael Cannon, well-known health care analyst for the libertarian Cato Institute, offered a particularly harsh appraisal, denouncing the new bill as Obamacare lite or worse:

This bill is a train wreck waiting to happen The Obamacare regulations it retains are already causing insurance markets to collapse. It would allow that collapse to continue, and even accelerate the collapse.

Republicans dont seem to have any concept of the quagmire they are about to enter with this bill.

If this is the choice, it would be better if Congress simply did nothing.

As Cannon explains,the new GOP plan has a similar structure to Obamacare, fails to address most of its flaws, and may well make some of them worse. Republicans should take note: If one of Obamacares leading critics concludes that your repeal and replace bill is even worse than Obamacare, and worse than doing nothing, thats a pretty damning indictment.

Other right of center economists and health care experts have offered similarly damning assessments, including Megan McArdle, Peter Suderman, Scott Sumner, and Avik Roy. Roy argues that the proposal includes some valuable reforms for Medicaid, but concludes that this benefit is outweighed by the many harmful aspects of the plan. Sudermans bottom line is even more negative: In general, its not clear what problems this particular bill would actually solve.

I am no fan of Obamacare myself, and was involved in helping develop the constitutional case against it that led to the Supreme Courts controversial ruling in NFIB v. Sebelius. But I find it sobering that even many of the ACAs toughest critics fear that the GOP alternative is likely to be worse.

A crucial point emphasized by many of these critics is that the GOP plan does little or nothing to constrain health care costs or open up the insurance industry to wider market competition. As Cannon puts it, Congress needs to enact reforms that make health care more affordable, rather than just subsidize unaffordable care. The GOP plan, he explains, does mostly the latter, often even more inefficiently and coercively than Obamacare.

McArdle points out that the new plan is as much a gigantic Rube Goldberg contraption as Obamacare is. She also notes that the GOP hopes to use many of the same procedural tricks to disguise its flaws as Democrats did with those of the ACA. It is far from clear they will manage to get away with it.

Because the plan is so enormously complicated and has so many moving parts, it could easily unravel in a wide range of unexpected ways, as the different components fail to interact as expected. For reasons F.A. Hayek famously explained, even the wisest of bureaucratic central planners lack the knowledge to foresee and offset such problems. And todays Republican Party is not exactly overflowing with wisdom and competence.

If the GOP plan falters like Obamacare has, its flaws will be exacerbated by another feature the two policies have in common: lack of bipartisan support. If it gets through Congress at all, the AHCA is likely to pass on a strict party-line vote or close to it, just like the ACA. From the standpoint of the opposition party, the optimal political strategy will be sit back, watch the trainwreck happen, and saddle the party that passed the plan with the blame.

Just as Republicans had no incentive to help Obama fix the flaws in the ACA, so Democrats will have no incentive to help fix problems with the new GOP plan. Partisan bias is a powerful and increasingly pernicious force, and it could potentially undermine the GOPs health care policy. Admittedly, Democratic opposition may not matter much if the Republicans expand their congressional majorities in 2018 and 2020. But recent history suggests that neither party can count on controlling Congress for long. And in the Senate, many bills are subject to filibuster, effectively requiring 60 votes to pass.

This entire sorry state of affairs is even more the fault of congressional Republicans than Donald nobody knew health care could be so complicated Trump. These had seven years to come up with an alternative to Obamacare, and so far their work product is far from impressive. Sad! Nonetheless, Trumps ignorance, reckless statements, and disdain for free market ideas have also contributed to the problem.

Despite GOP control of both houses of Congress, there is a very real chance that the new bill will not pass. It has already come under fire from both conservative and moderate wings of the party. Given the narrowness of the 52-48 Republican majority in the Senate and the unyielding opposition of Democrats, the plan will be defeated if even as few as three Republicans defect.

In fairness, given the divisions within the party, it is not an easy task to cobble together a bill that is both an improvement over Obamacare and acceptable to all the key factions within the GOP. Whether Republicans can overcome these problems and come up with something better than this initial effort remains to be seen. At this point, it is hard to be optimistic.

Read this article:

Conservative and libertarian health care experts pan GOP's Obamacare lite plan - Washington Post

Libertarian Party(Photo: Courtesy/Special to Poweshiek County CR)

The Iowa Secretary of State has announced that the Libertarian Party of Iowa has obtained official political party status in Iowa, effective March 1. The Libertarian Partys presidential nominee, Gary Johnson, received 59,186 votes, which was 3.8 percent of the vote in the November 2016 general election, surpassing the two percent threshold required by Iowa Code to obtain official political party status.

Johnsons 3.8 percent of the vote in Iowa was slightly more than the 3.3 percent he received nationally

I would like to congratulate the Libertarian Party of Iowa on being recognized as an official political party by the state, Secretary Paul D. Pate said. I encourage all Iowans to become and remain active in the political process.

Prior to the 2016 election, the Libertarian Party in Iowa was considered a non-party political organization (NPPO) and did not have some of the privileges granted to the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, two parties with political party status.

NPPOs must have their presidential or gubernatorial candidate receive more than 2 percent of the vote to be recognized as a full-status political party. If a partys nominee does not receive two percent of the total votes cast, the partys status is cancelled.

Political party status gives the Libertarian Party the ability to participate in primary elections in 2018. The Libertarian Party will be included as an option for Iowans on voter registration forms as well.

Libertarian Party state chair, Keith Laube, stated, Having our candidates be part of the Primary Election will allow voters to become familiar with our candidates earlier in the election season. Our candidates will know they are on the November ballot in early June rather than late August. This will help organize stronger campaigns and provide voters more opportunity to understand Libertarian views. Laube added, Having more candidates share their ideas by being involved in the entire election cycle is good for Iowa.

The last instance when a non-party political organization was successful at gaining political party status in Iowa was in the year 2000. Iowa Green Party nominee Ralph Nader received 29,374 votes, or 2.2 percent of the total votes cast for president.

The current number of voters registered as Libertarian in Iowa is 9,100.

Iowa voters could start registering as a Libertarian in. Since January 2016, voters are able to register to vote and change their political party affiliation on the Iowa Secretary of State website. Major party status will become effective 21 days from the filing.

Read or Share this story: http://dmreg.co/2mHl3Lb

Follow this link:

Iowa Libertarian Party official party - DesMoinesRegister.com

President Trump issued a new executive order this week that revises, rescinds, and replaces his prior order banning immigration from several majority-Muslim countries. The new order, which is scheduled to taked effect on March 16, is supposed to bolster the White Houses case in court, resolving legal defects that prevented the ban from prevailing the first time around.

In some ways, it accomplishes its goal, but in other ways, the new order undermines several legal arguments that the administration has been making.

While defending the president against a lawsuit brought by the state of Washington, the administrations attorneys justified his list of seven majority-Muslim countries by stating that they were previously identified as posing a heightened risk of terrorism by Congress or the Executive Branch. In fact, they said, Congress itself identified Iraq and Syria as countries of concern.

This argument was always weak because, although Congress did single out these countries for additional vetting, it still specifically provided for the ability of Iraqi and Syrian nationals to come to America so long as they had a visa. But now the president has excluded Iraq from the list, which means its justification that this list was something Congress put together is gone.

The whole point of the ban, as the administration put it, was to establish adequate standards to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists. In other words, because the vetting process is inadequate, and these nationalities are (in the eyes of the administration) inherently dangerous, people from the selected countries cannot be allowed in.

The new order exempts current visa holders from these countries. But this change totally undermines the argument that these nationals are dangerous even if they are screened. By fixing one problem, the administration creates another one for itself. If these nationals are dangerous, why would it concede to allow any of them in?

Heres a more immediate concern for the administration. When the original order was challenged, the administration argued in court that any delay in implementation immediately harms the public by thwarting enforcement of an Executive Order issued by the President, based on his national security judgment. It is likely that they will argue the same when this one is challenged.

President Trump signed a new executive order on immigration Monday that revised his first one halted by the courts. Here's a look at what is different about this new order and whether it will face the same legal issues. Photo: Getty

Yet the new order delays the effective date for more than a week. It does so to resolve a potential legal concern tied to banning people without notice. But the delay effectively eviscerates the argument from the presidents legal team that a judges decision to suspend enforcement of it would impose irreparable harm. A judge could respond, If thats true, did the presidents delay also harm the United States?

The administration also claimed that this was not a ban intended to reduce admissions of immigrants from these majority Muslim countries. Instead, it was just a temporary 90-day pause on entries from these places to allow the government to review vetting procedures. But now the new order restarts this timeline.

Why would the clock on reviewing procedures stop ticking just because the old order wasnt blocking entries? This provides evidence that these timelines were in fact arbitrary and that the goal wasnt about giving the administration time to review, but rather about cutting legal immigration of peoplemainly Muslim immigrantsthat the administration simply does not like.

Despite all of the changes, the fundamental problems persist. The order still references 1952 law providing that the president can exclude any class of alien if he finds them detrimental. But this justification ignores a later-enacted 1965 law that bans discrimination against immigrant visa applicants based on nationality. While the 1965 law provides a list of exceptions, the 1952 law was specifically not included among them.

Congress did not want to allow the president this authority. In fact, it specifically debated the question of whether difficult-to-screen countries should be included under the 1965 non-discrimination rule and decided that they should be.

This means that the executive order re-boot is still legally suspect. Indeed, in some ways, because it undermines so many of the governments arguments, the order has become even more suspect than it was before, and the courts should tell the president to go back to the drawing board once again.

David J. Bier is an immigration policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institutes Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity.

Read the original:

Opinion: A libertarian explains why Trump's new travel ban is still legally suspect - MarketWatch

President Trump's recent executive order, titled "Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Cost," speaks the language of the principled libertarians, but its beneficiaries are likely to be the thugs.

The order prohibits any agency from issuing any new regulation unless it also repeals two regulations that cost as much as the new one. "Costs" mean the cost of complying with the regulation. The harms that were the reason for the regulation don't count at all.

David Dana and Michael Barsa observe the implications of Trump's order. The Department of Interior created a set of new regulations in response to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster, in which BP spilled nearly 5 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. It was the largest marine oil spill in history, and, Dana and Barsa wrote, it cost "nearly $9 billion for lost fisheries and $23 billion for lost tourism, not to mention the catastrophic effects on marine life and birds. Yet under the president's order, the only costs that matter are those to the oil companies. Costs to the public and to the environment are completely ignored." The regulations aren't cheap; the cost to the industry has been estimated at hundreds of millions. But that's peanuts compared to the costs of another spill.

Trump is a big fan of Ayn Rand. Like her fictional hero John Galt in "Atlas Shrugged," he wants to free business from the heavy hand of government. But this is an oddly distorted libertarianism, in which Rand's villains masquerade as her heroes: those who talk most of liberty are the looters and moochers.

Conservatives worry about "regulatory capture": the danger that regulators will abandon the public interest at the behest of regulated industries, keeping prices high and stifling competition. The solution is to get rid of regulation: the state should butt out and let the market operate. There's no doubt that capture has sometimes happened. A notorious example is the Civil Aeronautics Board: after it was abolished in 1985, airline competition intensified and prices plunged.

There is, however, another way in which unworthy special interests can seize control of government. They can work to cripple regulation, so that they can hurt and defraud people. Libertarian rhetoric has turned out to be a rich resource for them.

Barack Obama is actually a better libertarian than Trump. He spent years teaching at the University of Chicago, where the idea of regulatory capture was developed. That had an impact: when he was President, he demanded (following a principle laid down by Ronald Reagan!) that any new regulations survive rigorous cost-benefit analysis. That immunizes regulations from capture, and makes sure that regulators take account of just what worries Trump, the cost to businesses. The overall net value -- benefits minus costs -- of Obama's regulations was upward of $100 billion.

Trump, on the other hand, has replaced cost-benefit analysis with cost analysis. Benefits are ignored. This isn't even business-friendly. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill destroyed hundreds of well-functioning businesses. On the other hand, the businesses that were crushed were small and had nothing like BP's political connections.

There's room for reasonable disagreement with Obama's regulations. The calculation of both costs and benefits inevitably involves some guesswork. The cumulative effect of regulation can hamper businesses. The big difference between Trump and the standard conservatives' critique of Obama is that Trump's executive order holds, as a matter of principle, that benefits don't matter. Consumer fraud, tainted food, pollution, unsafe airplanes and trains, epidemic disease all have to be put up with, if stopping them would increase the costs of regulation.

Trump's new "regulatory reforms" show a persistent pattern. One targets a rule that requires retirement advisers to put clients' interests ahead of their own. Conflicts of interest in retirement advice, for example steering clients into products with higher fees and lower returns, costs American families an estimated $17 billion a year. You can understand why some parts of the financial industry hated the rule. That $17 billion was going into someone's pocket, and that someone finds libertarian rhetoric right handy.

The Libertarian Party, which got more than 4 million votes in the last presidential election, is enthusiastic about the order. It shouldn't be. The order is a deep betrayal of libertarianism, which holds that people should do what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone else.

Freeing businesses to hurt people is not libertarian. The libertarians -- at least, the ones who don't see through Trump -- are being played. If the crippling of the state allows economic behemoths to do whatever they like to others, then what libertarianism licenses, in the garb of liberty, is the creation of a new aristocracy, entitled to hurt the commoners. This is just a different kind of mooching and looting.

It is a new road to serfdom. It reinforces the prejudices of those on the left who repudiate capitalism. The libertarians who embrace it, thinking that they are thereby promoting freedom, are useful idiots, like the idealistic leftists of the 1930s whose hatred of poverty and racism led them to embrace Stalin. John Galt is a sap.

More:

Trump's 'libertarianism' endangers the public - CNN

Editors Note: Seriously is a satire column, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. The vies expressed do not necessarily represent the views of the Collegians editorial board.

Claiming that Libertarians everywhere want to resist the temptation of government and grow closer to God, Executive Director of the Libertarian Party Wes Benedict announced that the Libertarian Party is giving up paying taxes for Lent.

We as Libertarians want to refocus this time of year on our most Heavenly duty: to not do a goddamn thing for anyone else, Benedict said, noting that while Libertarians would be participating in the Catholic tradition of Lent, its not like theyre religious or anything. Our country was founded by people who wanted to be free from religious persecution and we hope the statists respect our religious rights to not give a fucking dime to benefit anyone other than ourselves.

When questioned by critics, Benedict defended the move as living as God intended, probably, free from the shackles of shared social responsibility and having to actually cooperate with other human beings.

I dont know the Bible, like, super well, Benedict said, but the devil is totally a statist. I mean, forcing people to give up their souls and suffer for eternity? Hes like the IRS!

When asked by reporters why the party didnt simply give up government for Lent, Benedict said that the idea hadnt been discussed.

Damn, thats a good idea! Why didnt we think of that?

At press time, Benedict could be overheard loudly debating the merits of the Sixteenth Amendment with tax collectors, arguing that the constitutional right of the government to collect taxes was freaking bogus.

Disclaimer: Seriously is a satire blog, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All articles from Seriously are creations of fiction, and presumably fake publications. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental, except for all references to politicians and/or celebrities, in which case they are fictitious events based on real people. Photos used do not have any connection to the story and are used within the rights of free reuse, as well as cited to the best of our ability. Seriously is intended for a mature, sophisticated, and discerning audience.

Go here to see the original:

Seriously: Libertarian Party to give up paying taxes for Lent - Rocky Mountain Collegian

As Kirralie Smith sits at a sidewalk table in Taree for an interview this week, there is a palpable tension. Sheis mistrustful of what she calls the mainstream media, particularly those elements she believes are biased towards the left.

But Smithhas agreed to talk because she will, she says, use any platform to express her view that Islam is an ideology of violence, intolerance and sexism.

Play Video Don't Play

Play Video Don't Play

Previous slide Next slide

Kirralie Smith is a well-known anti-Islamic politician and activist, and she is being tapped as Australia's newest libertarian leader.

Play Video Don't Play

Police are searching for a man who stole the name and qualifications of an Indian doctor who treated patients across several Sydney hospitals for 11 years. Vision: Network Ten

Play Video Don't Play

A woman and her seven-year-old boy were killed in a car crash on the Hume Highway near Wilton, a seven-year-old twin sister is in a stable condition. Vision: Network Ten

Play Video Don't Play

A woman and her seven-year-old boy have died in a crash on the Hume Highway near Wilton, a seven-year-old girl is fighting for life with critical injuries.

Play Video Don't Play

A low-pressure system over the Tasman Sea provided surfers with decent rides at Dee Why this morning. Video by Nick Moir.

Play Video Don't Play

A woman and a seven-year-old boy have died following a horrific crash on the Hume Motorway south of Sydney. A seven-year-old girl is fighting for life in hospital with critical injuries. Vision: Nine News.

Play Video Don't Play

The former head of the NSW gaming authority has said it was a mistake for the former NSW Premier Barry O'Farrell to grant a licence to James Packer to build a high rollers casino in Sydney without a public inquiry. ABC TV's Four Corners

Play Video Don't Play

Violence has increased in suburbs surrounding the lockout precincts in the Sydney CBD and Kings Cross, according to a report from the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.

Kirralie Smith is a well-known anti-Islamic politician and activist, and she is being tapped as Australia's newest libertarian leader.

Smith received relatively little attention during the last federal election as a NSW Senate candidate for the Australian Liberty Alliance, the political offshoot of the Q Society, which describes itself as "Australia's leading Islam-critical movement".

("Q Society supports an integrated multi-ethnic Australia and rejects racism, which the Oxford dictionary defines as: 'Belief in the superiority of a particular race.' Since Islam is not a race or ethnicity, being critical of Islam is not racist," its website explains.)

But she is likely to receive far more press in the coming weeks as the co-defendant in a defamation action being brought by the businessman Mohammed El-Mouelhy, who was the subject of a critical video produced by the Q Society and presented by Smith.

Already Smith and the Q Society, also named in the suit, have rallied an impressive line-up of public supporters, including Coalition right-wingersCory Bernardi, George Christensen and the former MP Ross Cameron, who are among a handful of public figures set to address fundraisers to be held in Sydney and Melbourne on February 9 and 10.

We sit and both reach for our phones to turn on recording apps. Smith has already explained that she wants her own record of our conversation. The tension dissipates a little when a sky-blue ute throbs past us and Smith laughs and points out the personalised number plate, "TRUMP1". Later she will tell me that she rejects the suggestion she is right wing, rather, she says she a part of the silent majority of mainstream conservatives whose voices are now being heard due to victories of Donald Trump and the Brexit campaign.

Smith says she never intended to pursue politics. She has always been happiest as a wife and mother. "I love being my husband's wife," she says to emphasise the point.

As it was, a confluence of events brought her to her mission. In 2000 Smith and her husband Greg, a tradesman, sought out volunteer work in Mali and there met the Assemblies of God missionary Faouzi Arzouni, whom she describes as a Muslim apostate who became a friend and mentor.

Two years later the couple went on another trip, a 10-day visit to refugee camps ofthe displaced of what is now known as the Maluku sectarian conflict in Indonesia, during which Christian and Muslim communities fell into violent political and ethnic conflict. Smith recalls sitting in refugee camps hearing terrible stories of violence perpetrated by Muslims.

In 2009 Smith's husband took her to a talk being given by Mark Durie, an Anglican vicar. During that lecture Durie expressed concern about buying certain supermarket products because they had been certified as halal.

Smith was intrigued and began her own investigations on the internet, learning that many brands are halal-certified, and that a portion of the fees paid for such certification is donated to Muslim charities. In other countries, Smith contends, those charities have directed funds towards groups with terrorist links. Her online investigation became a website, Halal Choices, a campaign and, with the support of Bernardi and Christensen, a parliamentary inquiry into "third party" food certification. Finally it became a political ambit, with Smith running for the ALA in a campaign launched by the anti-Islamic immigration Dutch MP Geert Wilders.

"There is no question of our country being Islamified. Now, this reply constituted a historical error as soon as it was uttered," Wilders once told Dutch parliament.

"I can report that they have had enough of burkas, headscarves, the ritual slaughter of animals, socalled honour revenge, blaring minarets, female circumcision, hymen restoration operations, abuse of homosexuals, Turkish and Arabic on the buses and trains as well as on town hall leaflets, halal meat at grocery shops and department stores, Sharia exams, the Finance Minister's Sharia mortgages, and the enormous over-representation of Muslims in the area of crime, including Moroccan street terrorists," Wilders said.

Smith says she does not believe there is an imminent threat of adopting Sharia law, but is concerned about what she calls "creeping Sharia".

"We are being encouraged very strongly to tolerate Sharia finance, halal certification, the hijab," she says.

"Sharia is definitely present in Australia I believe there are honour killings and it is all reported under domestic violence or another name," she says. As evidence she says she has close friends who are pastors who work in churches who have provided sanctuary to victims.

But Smith's concerns are broader than creeping sharia. During the US election she was horrified by Hillary Clinton's support for abortion rights. She opposes political correctness, Safe Schools andbig government regulations imposed upon farmers by distant bureaucrats.

"I pretty much oppose everything the Greens stand for," she says.

She was also appalled by the Liberal Party's abandonment of Tony Abbott for Malcolm Turnbull.

This broader political outlook, and Smith's articulate direct manner, has led some observers to speculate that she is a potential leader for a new conservative movement, one energised by the international populist surge.

She is, says John Adams, a former Coalition adviser who has written about the need for more intellectual depth in the new conservative movement, a more capable and charismatic messenger than, say, Pauline Hanson. ("I think Pauline has a lot of good sentiment, I am not sure about the ability," says Smith of Hanson.)

In the months since the campaign Smith has kept in touch with supporters via videos on her Facebook page. In them she is relentlessly bright and articulate, upbeat about Christmas and Australia Day, though scandalised by the recent billboard that showed a pair of little girls celebrating in a hijab andcheerily opposed to the "threat" of multiculturalism. She denies ever having had media training, though confesses that she is constantly asked if she has.

Asked if she plans to run for office again Smith says she cannot answer the question as her entire focus is directed towards the defamation action and her family.

"People say this is sexist, well I am sexist, I love being a wife and mother, that is the best I have ever done in my life I love being my husband's wife."

In the next breath she adds that sheand her husband have made the decision to use any platform to put forward their message.

"I want to be able to look my children in the eye and say I did everything I could to stand for what is right."

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story incorrectly reported the Reverend Mark Durie's relationship to the Q Society. He is in fact an occasional speaker for the Q Society.

Continued here:

Islam-critical Kirralie Smith seen as potential ...

(Screenshot)

Being a libertarian in college can feel like youre a Jedi surrounded by a droid army. Youre constantly under attack with only a few friends. Well, this is the way Tom Ciccotta portrayed it in a New York Times op-ed on February 28th.

Leftists, in an effort to make campuses welcoming ostensibly, for everyone end up frequently silencing conservative and libertarian students, Ciccotta, a senior at Bucknell University, wrote. They paint any argument that isnt progressive as immoral, so conservative students can find themselves branded as such. Needless to say, this can be socially isolating.

Ciccotta is completely sincere in his analysis about life as a libertarian on campus. But is his experience the norm or the exception?

Christina Herrin attended The University of Iowa, one of the most liberal colleges in the state. She was regularly involved in the Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) and as well as Rand Pauls presidential campaign in 2015 and 2016. She told Red Alert Politics that there were many instances in which she felt the administration and other students were against her. On one occasion, pro-life chalking they etched was washed away because it was offensive. In another instance, Iowas YAL chapter was kicked off campus while trying to demonstrate against the war on drugs.

I agree 100 percent with [Ciccottas] article and institutions that promote free speech zones and safe spaces and dont encourage diversity of thought are doing a great disservice to my generation, Herrin said. It is sad to me because even though I dont agree, the amount I have learned while debating with others has taught me so much about my own argument, and has actually pushed me to be more conservative/liberty minded.

It was frustrating and difficult for me, as a student, to have friends who were unwilling to even come listen to Rand Paul speak when we brought him to campus because he was whatever liberal sound bite youd like to insert, she continued. It is hard to have people that are so guarded by their walls to even look at another opinion.

Conner Dunleavy, who attends the University of Albany, also felt that college campuses were biased against libertarian positions. He said that he was lucky because libertarian-leaning organizations like YAL were growing rapidly. However, outside of that, there were very few people willing to be open to his politics.

Outside of our clubs, however, universities are often political deserts where only the perceived majority opinion is tolerated, Conner Dunleavy said to RAP. Naturally it seems conservative students were our allies, outnumbered together and facing the sometimes violent liberal students who tend to try shouting down minority opinions.

Yet, Ciccotta, Dunleavy, and Herrins experiences werent universal among prominent libertarians when they were in college.

I do not feel like my views get silenced as much, but there is a lack of political diversity in most of the liberal arts majors, said Vamsi Krishna Pappusetti, a student at Arizona State University. My YAL chapter does not get protested nor do the faculty keep us from tabling or holding meetings. We try to table out as much as we can and I never really dealt with many hecklers. I cannot say the same for other students though from either TP USA or College Republicans.

So while most libertarians did feel isolated in a political desert, there were exceptions to the rule. Not every student felt surrounded waiting for Yoda to save them.

Read this article:

Is it lonely being a libertarian in college? - Red Alert Politics

Writing in the March/April issue of Politico Magazine, Tim Albertas headline posesa question that has been all too popular nowadays. Namely, does the age of Trump signal the end of the libertarian dream?

From the piece:

After generations of being relegated to the periphery of American politics, they are seeing some of their most precious ideals accepted and advocated for at the highest levels of government. But in many policy areas, there has never been a president who poses a greater threat to what they hold dearone who is poised, potentially, to reorient the GOP electorate toward a strong, active, centralized and protectionist federal government.

RELATED:Rand Paul can save health care reform

Indeed, so far the Trump administration has beenpretty schizophrenic when it comes to liberty. On one hand, the confirmation of Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos is thegreatest political victory school choicecommunity has experiencedon the federal level. Similarly, President Trumps two-for-one deregulatory special, while questionable on its implementation, signals a serious effort to dismantle the regulatory state.

On the other hand, Trump is so far removed from libertarian ideals on other issues, itboggles the mind. He wants to spend $1 trillion on big government infrastructure projects. He wants to build up the military and once threatened to bomb the shit out of ISIS. His protectionist agenda threatens less immigration, travel, and trade across Americas borders.

This split in policy has similarly split libertarians politically and professionally.As a young professional in Washington, Ive seen many close friends and acquaintances in the libertarian network get tapped by the administration for a potential job. Some say yes, reasoning that its better to have a seat at the table than be on the menu. Others say no,reckoning that theres no need to abandon their ideals if theyre already satisfied at a job where they can keep them.

Of course, theres no right or wrong answer. A well-functioning administration should ideally have both practical libertarians on the insidedoing the hardwork implementingpro-libertychange as well as idealist libertarians on the outsideholding them to their most cherished values. This dual dynamicseems to only avail itself during Republican administrations, presenting libertarians with a rare opportunity in the age of Trump to actually achieve some policy victories.

In short, anyone bemoaning the end of the libertarian moment in the age of Trump isnt looking close enough. Certainly, libertariansmay have seemed stronger when we were a united opposition front to the Obama administration. After all, its much sexier to be a critic than thanan actual agent of change. Nevertheless, Trumps ascent to the presidencyis itself a vindication of libertarian policy on certain issues (education, regulation) and an invitation on othersto join the team and fight for liberty (taxes, spending).

RELATED:Who are we? | The liberty movement in the Trump era

The movement is sure seem silent or even fractured in the next few years, but looks may be deceiving. Behind the stillness are hundreds of libertarians infiltrating the administrative state, influencing federal bureaucracies that havent been subject to internal restraint for years. Behind the split are libertarian think tanks and advocacy groups who have the ear of the ruling Republican party and can successfully pressure them to make pro-liberty policy victories.

In short, Mr. Libertarian has gone to Washington, and the opportunities are endless.

Continue reading here:

Mr. Libertarian goes to Washington - Rare.us

(Screenshot)

From its inception,X-Menrelied heavily on political undertones and took on sensitive subjects including racism, segregation, AIDS, and war. The latest (and best)film in the franchise isLogan no exception and while being more character-driven than previous films, it shows why Wolverine is the most libertarian superhero of all time.

The film takes place in the year 2029 and the character of Wolverine has aged significantly, is living off the grid with Professor X, and is making a living bydrivinga limo using a car sharing app whats more libertarian than Uber?His superhero days are long behind him and the only time he acts violently is when hes provoked.

Throughout the film, Wolverine constantly fantasizes about living on a boat with Professor X and being free of dealing with anyone a poor mans version of Peter Thiels dream of seasteading.

His fantasies are interrupted when a new character named Laura emerges, she has the same super powers and has suffered at the hands of military scientists who conducted experimentations on Logan and gave both of them adamantium claws.

(**SPOILER ALERT **)

Logan wasnever been a believer in mutant brotherhood and the identity politics that surrounds the X-Men comics. Hes a loner, a recluse, and a libertarian, he doesnt want to be part of any institutions and questions other mutants for their needing to belong.When Professor X demands they protect Laura he at first rejects the idea insisting its not my problem but has a change of heart when he learns shes his cloned-daughter who raised in a military lab.

His decision to protect Laura and Professor dont come out of any identity-based philosophy, but only for the fact that he choose to treat them like family.

The last X-Men decides he has to get his daughter to safety in a community 0f mutants, away from the long reach of the military-industrial complex that destroyed his life.

Over the course of the 9 X-Men movies featuring Wolverine, the character is a constant struggle to live independently of the government intrusion, the police state that tries to document and imprison mutants, and the identity politics that forces mutants to live their entire life based upon the features they were born with.

Its inLoganthat Wolverine finally is able to achieve those libertarian dreams for his daughter.

Excerpt from:

'Logan' proves Wolverine is the most libertarian superhero ever - Red Alert Politics

The podcast is finally here...

Wealth Daily subscribers are getting the first look at brand-new podcast the Libertarian Tree Hugger.

In this weekly show - headed by Jeff Siegel - we cut the nonsense, tackle "real" issues and provide practical advice on everything from organic farming to surviving Trump's America.

What you can expect is a straight forward, no lies approach. We don't hold back. But that is your gain. We want to highlight the growing industries, political issues and wise investments that are taking place in this new America.

When it comes to policy and controversy, last week was a doozy.

Today we focus on the controversy surrounding tech billionaire Peter Thiels data-mining company Palantir and itsnew tech, which is basically an early-stage Muslim registry.

We take a moment to reflect on Jeff Sessions' self-recusal from all cases involving Russia (ouch, Republicans). And Jeff delivers a scathing critique of one of Americas central systems: education. Will we even have schools after a month of Devos?

As always, we love to hear from, so feel free to drop us a line.

You can subscribe to the Libertarian Tree Hugger on Buzzsprout.

Or you can listen on our podcast player below:

We look forward to talking to you next week.

Jeff Siegel

Jeff Siegelhas been active in the financial publishing business since the mid-90s.

A true capitalist, Jeff has made his fortune in what's known as socially responsible investing, focusing primarily on alternative energy and transportation markets, sustainability, legal cannabis, and agriculture. He's a regular on the conference circuit, and every now and then you might find him appearing on Fox, CNBC, or Bloomberg.

From 1994 to 2001, Jeff worked for Agora Publishing, one of the largest financial newsletter publishers in the world, before packing his bags and traveling across the globe in search of mega-trends and his own version of nirvana...

He found both in the world of "green" markets.

Jeff's early analyses of alternative energy and socially responsible investing drew much criticism from the status quo. His unapologetic capitalist spirit and abrasive nature didn't earn him many accolades from colleagues, either...

But after accurately predicting dozens of trends in the ever-changing landscape of "green" market investing, many have since traded their preconceptions of socially responsible investing for profits.

Often declaring, Capitalism is a catalyst for positive change, Jeff continues to spot the most lucrative renewable energy, organic food, and cannabis companies in the world. And his thousands of loyal readers have made small fortunes in the process.

Each week, Jeff shares the latest in "green" market news as well as his own market updates and recommendations.

Jeff also works as a consultant, has been a featured guest on Fox, CNBC, and Bloomberg Asia, is the author of the best-selling energy book, Investing in Renewable Energy: Making Money on Green Chip Stocks, and is the co-author of Energy Investing for Dummies.

Alexandra Perry

Alexandra Perry is a contributing analyst for Wealth Daily and Energy and Capital. She has multiple years of experience working with startup companies, primarily focusing on artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, alternative energy, and biotech. Her take on investing is simple: a new age of investor can make monumental returns by investing in emerging industries and foundational startup ventures.

Sign up to receive the Wealth Daily newsletter - it's absolutely free! In each issue, you'll get our best investment research, designed to help you build a lifetime of wealth, minus the risk. Plus, by signing up, you'll instantly receive our new report: Surviving the Coming Economic Collapse.

Link:

Download New Podcast: Libertarian Tree Hugger - Wealth Daily - Wealth Daily

Being Libertarian, Liberty Link Media Group Announce Strategic Media Partnership Being Libertarian Being Libertarian LLC is proud to announce that it will, through its media division, Being LibertTV, be entering into a comprehensive, strategic, long-term relationship with Liberty Link Media Group, the popular venture started by Nicholas Veser and ...

Read the original here:

Being Libertarian, Liberty Link Media Group Announce Strategic Media Partnership - Being Libertarian

Wall Street Journal (subscription)

Middlebury College Investigating Violent Protests at Libertarian's Speech Wall Street Journal (subscription) Officials at Middlebury College, a liberal-arts school in Vermont, said Saturday that they were investigating a violent protest that erupted after a libertarian scholar's speech about Donald Trump's election and the white-working class. The lecture by ... Libertarian author Charles Murray shouted down by Middlebury College studentsWashington Times Guest lecturer calls protesting students 'seriously scary'News On 6 Students Protest Lecture By Dr. Charles Murray at Middlebury CollegeYouTube Middlebury Campus -Southern Poverty Law Center -Addison County Independent -Washington Post all 123 news articles »

Go here to see the original:

Middlebury College Investigating Violent Protests at Libertarian's Speech - Wall Street Journal (subscription)

Being Libertarian

What a US Relationship with Russia Should Look Like Being Libertarian Sparks have been flying ever since President Trump, in an interview with FOX News anchor Bill O'Reilly, came to the defense of Russian President Vladimir Putin after O'Reilly called Putin a killer. The media was sent into a feeding frenzy when Trump ... Donald J. Trump - T.coT.co This post has been updated to clarify the source of the Gateway Pundit's article on the - T.coT.co Photo contradicts Pelosi's statement about not meeting KislyakPolitico all 507 news articles »

Read more:

What a US Relationship with Russia Should Look Like - Being Libertarian

Mar 4, 2017 at 2:36 pm | Print View

Libertarians in Iowa now will be able to check the box on their voter registration form officially indicating their political affiliation.

Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate announced last week that the Libertarian Party of Iowa has attained official political party status.

Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson received 3.8 percent of the vote in the November elections, surpassing the 2 percent threshold required by state law for the party to be recognized.

I would like to congratulate the Libertarian Party of Iowa on being recognized as an official political party by the state, Pate said in a statement Thursday. I encourage all Iowans to become and remain active in the political process.

Johnson received about 3 percent of the vote nationwide in November. He received no electoral college votes.

Now that Libertarians have official party status in Iowa, candidates can participate in 2018 primary elections, and the Libertarian Party will be included as an option for Iowans on voter registration forms.

The Secretary of States office said the last time a political organization was granted full party status in Iowa was the Iowa Green Party in 2000.

The partys nominee at that time, consumer activists Ralph Nader, received 2.2 percent of the presidential votes that year.

There are 9,100 registered Libertarians in Iowa.

Continued here:

Libertarians gain official party status in Iowa - The Gazette: Eastern Iowa Breaking News and Headlines

Justin Amash cant seem to concentrate. His eyes keep drifting toward the TV behind me, mounted on the wall inside his congressional office. The 36-year-old representative from Michigan, who arrived in Washington six years ago as a self-described libertarian Republican, is rattling off a list of concerns about the newly inaugurated president, but he is distracted by C-SPANs programming: Mick Mulvaney, his close friend and colleague from South Carolinaand a similarly libertarian-minded Republicanis getting grilled during his confirmation hearing to become director of the Office of Management and Budget. Arizona Senator John McCain had just finished his inquisition and was particularly harsh, scolding Mulvaney for voting to slash military spending and withdraw American troops from Europe and Afghanistan. It was a tense exchange, and Amash savored every moment of it. The ascent of Mulvaney to such a powerful position in the federal government, libertarians believe, proves that their ideology has invaded and influenced the Republican mainstream in a manner unimaginable a decade ago.

There is, however, a complicating factor: Mulvaneys new boss is President Donald Trump.

Story Continued Below

In campaigning for the presidency, Trump frequently sang from the same hymnal as libertarian primary rival Senator Rand Paul, warning against regime change and nation-building abroad, decrying the allied invasions of Iraq and Libya (never mind that Trump initially supported both), and promising to disengage from a self-immolating Middle East while re-evaluating American involvement in NATO. The election of an ideologically unmoored reality-TV star was startling to many libertarians, but at least it suggested some progress in their struggle with the GOPs interventionist wing. The silver lining is that Trump proved you can win the Republican nomination, and the presidency, by criticizing neoconservative foreign policy, says David Boaz, executive vice president of the libertarian Cato Institute.

I think the McCain-Graham wing of the party is withering, Amash tells me in his office, referring to South Carolinas hawkish senator. It was dominant 10 or 15 years ago on foreign policy matters and surveillance and other things. But today, its a rather weak force compared to a decade ago in D.C. And its almost nonexistent at home.

And yet, Trump also pledged to oversee a massive military buildup. He threatened to bomb the shit out of the Islamic State; suggested killing the families of terrorists; expressed an interest in seizing Iraqs sovereign oil; advocated the return of torture; and, in his inaugural address, declared he would eradicate Islamist terrorism from the face of the Earth. When I mention all this, Amash bursts out laughing. Not exactly a libertarian philosophy, I say. No, he shakes his head. Its not.

There are areas, certainly, in which Trumpism and libertarianism will peacefully co-exist; school choice, as evidenced by Trumps selection of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, is one example. Deregulation is another. But by and large, they cannot be reconciled. Where libertarians champion the flow of people and capital across international borders, Trump aims to slow, or even stop, both. Where libertarians advocate drug legalization and criminal justice reform, Trump and his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, seek a return to law-and-order policies. Where libertarians push to protect the First and Fourth Amendments, Trump pushes back with threats of banning Muslims and expanding the surveillance state. And where Mulvaney has dedicated his career to the argument that dramatic fiscal measures are needed to prevent the United States from going bankrupt, Trump campaigned unambiguously on accumulating debt, increasing spending and not laying a finger on the entitlement programs that make up an ever-growing share of the federal budget.

THE LIBERTARIAN STANDARD-BEARERS: Rep. Justin Amash and Sen. Rand Paul outside the Capitol in 2015. | Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call

Sooner or later, something has to give. Mick knows the numbers. And hes going to get to, at some point, a soul-testing moment, Mark Sanford, his fellow South Carolina representative and a self-identified, lifelong libertarian, tells me. Do I go with, you know, what Donald is saying? Or do I go with what I know to be mathematic reality?

This disconnect captures the sense of uncertainty and conflict that libertarianswhether they are Republicans, Democrats or adherents of the eponymous third partyfeel in the age of Trump. After generations of being relegated to the periphery of American politics, they are seeing some of their most precious ideals accepted and advocated for at the highest levels of government. But in many policy areas, there has never been a president who poses a greater threat to what they hold dearone who is poised, potentially, to reorient the GOP electorate toward a strong, active, centralized and protectionist federal government. The Trump presidency, then, is shaping up to be a defining moment for the libertarian movement.

But it wont come down to intraparty disputes over marijuana, or sentencing reform, or government data collection. Rather, the viability of libertarianismfor the next four or eight years, and potentially much longerwill be determined to an overwhelming extent by the relative stability of international affairs and the level of security Americans feel as a result.

Not long ago, libertarians were having their long-awaited moment, with Rand Paulsupposedly the candidate who could rebrand their once-fringe ideology for a new generation of Americansgracing magazine covers and converting Republicans to a philosophy of laissez-faire at home and restraint abroad. But the reason he isnt president today, his allies say, owes equally to the rise of Trump and that of another disruptive phenomenon.

Two people were Senator Pauls undoing in the presidential race, Chip Englander, his campaign manager, tells me. Donald Trump and Jihadi John.

DEFINING MOMENT: At a 2007 primary debate, Ron Paul argued U.S. interventionism led to 9/11. | Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Libertarians call it the Giuliani moment. It was May 15, 2007, and the former New York mayor stood across from Ron Paul on a debate stage in Columbia, South Carolina. They had nothing in commonpersonalities and ideologies aside, Rudy Giuliani was comfortably leading the GOP presidential field, while Paul was polling in the low single digitsbut they would soon produce an inflection point in the partys modern history, one that triggered a decade of unprecedented progress for libertarians.

As a panel of Fox News moderators mocked his opposition to the Iraq War, Paul argued that American intervention in the Middle East was a major contributing factor to the September 11 attacks. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? he asked. They attack us because weve been over there. Giuliani, whose candidacy arose from his heroic handling of 9/11, pounced, calling it an extraordinary statement and asking Paul to withdraw it. The crowd roared with approval, but Paul didnt budge. I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback, he responded.

That statement, better suited to an Ivy League faculty lounge than a Republican debate stage, was the spark that started everything, says A.J. Spiker, the former Iowa GOP chairman who backed Ron Paul and later his son Rand for president. Before long, there was talk of a Ron Paul Revolution, which somehow wasnt an overstatement: As he climbed in the polls and gained name recognition, Paul began raising eye-popping sums of money online with the help of liberty movement groups that had begun forming across the country, with much of their grass-roots energy concentrated on college campuses.

There was, however, an unintended consequence: Pauls popularity served to cement libertarianisms reputation as an exotic strand of internecine opposition rather than a reliable, cooperative piece of the GOP coalition. Even though he emphasized other issues in his campaignmost memorably, auditing the Federal Reserveit was Pauls harsh critique of President George W. Bushs interventionism that defined his candidacy in 2008 and again in 2012, as well as his sons political ambitions, in the eyes of the party elite.

He alienated a lot of Republicans with a very isolationist foreign policy message, says Bob Barr, the former Georgia congressman who abandoned the GOP and became the Libertarian Partys presidential nominee in 2008. Barr, listening to Paul that year, recalls thinking, If libertarians continue to exist on ideological purity in that regard ... it will condemn them to not expanding their influence in the party.

The Republican establishment was banking on exactly that. Having watched with alarm as Pauls 2012 campaign attracted significantly more support than its 2008 iteration, the partys elder statesmen were eager to undermine the movements long-term viability. When I spoke with Karl Rove a month after Election Day 2012, he predicted libertarianism would soon regress to pre-Paul irrelevance. I dont think the antiwar sentiment is durable, Rove told me. The Republican Party is not going to find itself in five or 10 years committed to neo-isolationism.

In the year that followed, Roves prediction looked anything but prescient. In July 2013, Amash sponsored an amendment to restrict the National Security Agencys bulk data collection program; it fell just 12 votes shy of passage in the House, despite fierce opposition from President Barack Obama and the congressional leadership of both parties. That amendment was inspired by blockbuster revelations a month earlier, made by intelligence contractor Edward Snowden, that the governments domestic surveillance practices were illegal. That followed a watershed moment in March 2013, when Rand Paul, then a freshman senator from Kentucky and inheritor of his fathers messianic following, had completed a nearly 13-hour filibuster in opposition to the nomination of John Brennan as Obamas CIA directorand more broadly, to the administrations refusal to rule out drone strikes on American citizens. This momentum was validated by Republican leader Mitch McConnell, a mascot of the Washington establishment, hiring Jesse Benton, the Paul family consigliere, to manage his own 2014 Senate reelection.

With another White House campaign on the horizon, the dreams of a movement rested on the younger Pauls shoulders. Everyone recognized that the disheveled, curmudgeonly 70-something Ron could win hearts and minds but never the presidency. Randmore polished, more nuanced and nearly 30 years youngerwas the libertarians chosen one. (Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Partys 2016 nominee, was never taken as seriously.) Ron had won 21 percent of the vote in Iowa and 23 percent in New Hampshire in the 2012 primary; Rand, in the eyes of his bullish base, had nowhere to go but up.

Sure enough, by July 2014, he sat atop the GOP presidential field in the RealClearPolitics average of national surveys; that same month, NBC News released polls showing him leading in New Hampshire and tied for first place in Iowa. As he prepared to launch his campaign in early 2015, Paul basked in hisand the libertarian movementsascendance, which crescendoed with an August 2014 New York Times Magazine feature, with the headline, Has the Libertarian Moment Finally Arrived? It was met with hosannas inside Pauls political operation.

Twelve days after the Times piece was published, an organization known as the Islamic State, or ISISwhich had announced the formation of a caliphate to govern Muslims worldwide, but globally was not yet a household namereleased a video depicting the beheading of American journalist James Foley. Exactly two weeks later, ISIS published a similar video showing another American journalist, Steven Sotloff, also being beheaded. With the spectacular barbarism piercing Western consciousnessamid wall-to-wall coverage, the executioner was dubbed Jihadi John by media outletsObama delivered a prime-time address on September 10 and pledged to destroy ISIS.

The next month, Time magazine featured Paul on its cover as The Most Interesting Man in Politics. The timing could not have been worse: Having intended to capture Pauls rise, the story marked the onset of his decline. He had already dropped to 12 percent in the RCP national poll average, from 14 percent in July; by Christmas, he was at 9 percent. The crash continued throughout 2015, interrupted by only a fleeting bounce after his April 7 campaign launch. In late July, he was below 6 percent, and by October, one year after Times cover, he hovered at just over 2 percent.

We did a survey in Iowa that fall, and in the survey, Republican caucus-goers were very much opposed to the policies that Senator Paul was waving the flag for: less spying, less drone strikes, less foreign intervention, closing of foreign bases, recalls Vincent Harris, the campaigns chief digital strategist.

Embarrassingly, Pauls numbers plunged so low that Fox Business excluded him from its main debate in January 2016, less than a month before Iowas first-in-the-nation caucuses. (Paul boycotted the undercard debate.) A few weeks later, after winning just 4.5 percent of the vote in Iowa, Paul quit the race.

THE NEW BOSS: Rand Paul with Donald Trump after the president signed a bill undoing a coal rule. | Rex Features/AP

It was a dramatic, if unsurprising, fall from grace. Ron Paul had masterfully exploited the frustrations of a war-weary Republican Party, and though his son was hyped as an objectively superior messenger, everyone understood the foundation of his appeal could crumble with a sudden shift in public opinion. We as libertarians know that at a time of fear, our brand doesnt sell very well, says Jack Hunter, the editor of Rare Politics and co-author of Rand Pauls 2011 book, The Tea Party Goes to Washington. So when we saw beheadings on the news ... we knew it would be problematic.

Polling suggested as much. In November 2013when Rand Paul was riding high43 percent of Republicans said U.S. anti-terrorism policies were going too far in restricting civil liberties, while 41 percent said they werent going far enough to protect the homeland, according to Pew Research. In September 2014during the immediate aftermath of the Foley and Sotloff execution videosthose figures were 24 percent and 64 percent, respectively. The shift in sentiment would only accelerate. A separate poll in September 2014, commissioned by CBS News, found that 39 percent of Americans favored sending U.S. ground troops to Iraq and Syria to fight ISIS, with 55 percent opposed. Five months later, in February 2015, the percentages inverted: 57 percent of Americans wanted U.S. ground troops deployed to battle ISIS, and 37 percent were opposed. (Among Republican voters, it was 72 percent and 27 percent, respectively.)

To remain competitive, Paulwhose candidacy was already suffering from other manifest shortcomings, lack of financial support and personal prickliness chief among themtried to thread an impossible needle: projecting greater toughness to reassure mainstream Republicans, without sounding so muscular as to alienate his base. We accomplished neither, Tony Fabrizio, the Paul campaigns pollster, says. With all respect to Rand I think he wanted to prove he and his father were different. And that created natural tensions. By trying to please both sides, he wound up pleasing neither.

Drew Ivers, who chaired Ron Pauls 2008 and 2012 campaigns in Iowa, shocked his fellow libertarian activists by declining to endorse Rands 2016 bid. I remember him telling me once by phone that he was going to submit a proposal to go to war with ISIS, Ivers tells me. Go to war? Wait a minute. What do you mean, go to war?

I busted his chops about it, Matt Welch, editor at large of Reason, recalls of Pauls proposed declaration of war. And he said to me, Look, I cant win a Republican primary under these conditions if I dont support some kind of confrontation with ISIS.

Paul declined an interview request for this article. His spokesman, Sergio Gor, said in an email, Our focus is on Obamacare repeal and replacement exclusively right now. More accurately, the senators friends and allies say, he simply has no interest in re-litigating his presidential run or participating in a post-mortem of it.

Ironically, there was one Republican in 2016 who outdid Ron Pauls rants against Bushs interventionismand he won the partys nomination. Look at Trump. He went to South Carolina, a military state, and said the Iraq War was a disaster, said 9/11 happened on Bushs watch, shared these borderline conspiracy theories, Welch says. He was stridently antiwar and anti-interventionand he stomped the competition.

Trump had beaten Paul at what was supposed to be his own game.

***

Its the wild card of global affairsand the terrible hand it dealt Pauls 2016 campaignthat distracts from libertarianisms successful infiltration of the domestic policymaking complex. Education, which Republicans nationalized under Bush, is increasingly being handed back to the states. A coalition of liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans has begun challenging the status quo on issues ranging from police militarization to asset forfeiture to sentencing reform. Meanwhile, two of the libertarian communitys other longtime goals, marijuana decriminalization and marriage equality, have been realized in irreversible ways.

And yet, all of this momentum might be rendered insignificant, even irrelevant, if the new Republican president ends up going to war. In fighting for the heart and soul and future of the GOP, libertarians understand their chief strategic priority is holding Trump to his non-interventionist rhetoric. This explains why Paul was willing to support Sessions nomination, despite the new attorney generals sharply divergent views on issues such as drug prosecution and asset forfeiture: Paul, it appears, would rather spend what political capital he has opposing anyone who might inflame Trumps foreign policy. (Do not let Elliott Abrams anywhere near the State Department, the Kentucky senator wrote the week of Sessions confirmation vote, responding to reports that Trump could pick the well-known neoconservative to be deputy to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.)

So far, Paul and his ilk are taking some comfort in the company Trump keeps. The president passed on hiring Abrams. And the principals of Trumps national security teamTillerson, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, Homeland Security Secretary John Kellyare regarded as pragmatic realists who will restrain, rather than encourage, the presidents more aggressive instincts.

TRUMPs LIBERTARIAN: Mick Mulvaney is sworn in as director of the Office of Management and Budget. | Ron Sachs/picture-alliance/DPA/AP Images

That said, Trump, who loves to be called a man of action, feels a mandate to escalate various conflicts with Americas enemies. Exit polls on Election Day found that 24 percent of all voters thought the fight against ISIS was going very badly, and Trump won 83 percent of that group. Some in the Pentagon reportedly want to send ground forces into Syria. Trump has already proved unhesitant to deploy American troopsspecial operators at minimumto foreign soil. That he decided to greenlight a tremendously dangerous operation in Yemen almost immediately after taking office shows an appetite for boldness and a willingness to accept collateral damage; a Navy SEAL, as well as several civilians, were killed in the operation.

Its not what President Rand Paul would have done. And yet libertarians, who feared they ultimately would choose between an interventionist Democrat in Hillary Clinton and a neoconservative Republican nominee, still believe, perhaps naively, that this was their next best outcome. Marco Rubio, the hawkish Republican senator from Florida, would have been much worse for us, Amash tells me. I think Rubio would have ushered in a long decline of American foreign policy. Trump is just a shock to the system. Rubio is a younger, more charming John McCain.

In any case, the grass-roots foundation laid by Ron and Rand Paul seems likely to outlast Trump. Young Americans for Liberty, the group that grew out of Rons 2008 campaign, went from 96 chapters nationwide in 2009 to 602 chapters in May 2015, the month after Rands campaign launched. Today, there are 804 chapters. This growth, combined with continuous, non-election-year activismand polling showing that younger voters, both left- and right-leaning, are increasingly libertarian in their views of governmentwards off pessimistic assertions that their moment might have just come and gone.

Look at every single candidate who ran, and look at their infrastructures, Cliff Maloney, president of Young Americans for Liberty, tells me. Do you see people out still knocking doors for Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush or Ben Carson? No. This is going to be a slog. And were going to fight through.

The more important fight will take place on Capitol Hill. With the vast majority of Republicans already capitulating to Trump, libertarian-minded lawmakers are positioned as the most vocal bloc of intraparty opposition. Ron Paul was a lonely voice of dissent in Bushs GOP, and benefited politically when the party faithful eventually came around to some of his arguments. Today, theres a much larger contingent in the Congress oriented toward libertarianismAmash, Sanford, Thomas Massie of Kentucky and others in the House; Rand Paul and Mike Lee in the Senateand it has already shown a willingness to tangle with Trump where others in the party have passed. The aggressiveness with which libertarians check Trumps overreach, at home and abroad, will correlate with the movements credibility, and popularity, if Republican voters turn against the presidents policies.

But what if they dont? Knowing the Libertarian Party just nominated its most experienced presidential ticket ever and won just 3 percent nationally, the grave fear among libertarians is that Trumps actions will represent the very worst of his campaign promisesintervening militarily, adding to the debt, abandoning trade, restricting civil libertiesand that the GOP electorate will love him for it.

If the Republican Party becomes thoroughly Trumpist, Boaz says, theres not much room for libertarians.

Tim Alberta is national political reporter at Politico Magazine.

Read the original here:

The End of the Libertarian Dream? - POLITICO Magazine

Horse-racing monitors at Monmouth Park in Oceanport, where bettors can wager on races. The gambling industry hopes the Trump administration will be open to expanding wagering to sports betting.(Photo: Kevin Wexler/The Record)

The Competitive Enterprises Institute, known asalibertarian think, has published an eight-page paper on what it considers a foolish federal policy on sports betting in the U.S.

The group describes itself as "a non-profit public policy organization dedicated to advancing theprinciples of limited government, free enterprise, and individual liberty."

Here is my summary of some of the key passages:

For those not fully up to speed on how we got here, it's explained thusly:

The Origin of the Sports Gambling Ban.By the late 1980s, at least 13 states had considered proposals to legalize sports gambling, most in the hope that legalizing and taxing the activity would fill increasingly large budget deficits. That so worried gambling opponentssuch as lawmakers and sports league officials who feared gambling would compromise the integrity of sporting eventsthat Congress passed the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 (PASPA). Once enacted, PASPA prohibited states that did not already allow sports betting from licensing, promoting, or authorizing the activity. In effect, PASPA blocked all states, save for Nevada, from legalizing and regulating bets on the outcome of individual sports contests.

"The proposal, sponsored by Sen. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.), was championed by the commissioners of the four major sports leagues, who testified that such a law was necessary to prevent a cloud of suspicion over athletes and games and to avoid sending a regrettable message to our young people. Congress justified intervening in what had traditionally been viewed as a matter for state regulation by declaring sports gambling a national problem. The harms it inflicts are felt beyond the borders of those states that sanction it. The moral erosion it produces cannot be limited geographically. Without federal legislation, sports gambling is likely to spread on a piecemeal basis and ultimately develop an irreversible momentum.

This is a segment on "game integrity with a reference to a very famous case:

"In many ways, sports betting lines operate like financial markets. For example, when international open market trading is done in commodities, attempts at manipulation become much easier to detect because anomalies will be noticed and analyzed quickly. The same holds for sports betting. Betting lines do not shift much. An extreme fluctuation, which might occur if large amounts of money was suddenly being bet on a longshot underdog, would set off alarm bells......

"This is exactly what happened during the Black Sox scandal, when several members of the Chicago White Sox threw the 1919 World Series. It was the strange, sudden shift in betting odds that first alerted sportswriters and others that something fishy was going on. Bookmakers originally had the Sox as 7-5 favorites, with rumors that the odds might go as high as 2-1 by the time of the game, but a sudden swing in betting in New Yorkan unusually large amount of money being bet on the underdog Cincinnati Redsput the odds at even money by Game 1. The odds shift occurred, it turned out, because gangsters had bribed several members of the heavily favored White Sox to throw the Series. Rumors about a fix were rampant well before the Series first pitch.

The Black Sox went on to become the most infamous sports betting scandal in history. As a result, nearly 100 years later, gambling remains virtually the only unpardonable sin for an active player, coach, or manager in any sport. Players who have used performance-enhancing drugs or have been found guilty of criminal acts ranging from assault to illegal dog fighting have returned to the field. Gambling on games, on the other hand, almost always results in lifetime bans for athletes and officials. This is a formidable disincentive for players to be involved with gamblers or game fixing. Yet, few remember today that it was the bookmakers those taking bets on the gam e who first caught the scent of something fishy going on with the World Series."

The volume of new tax revenue also is addressed:

"If this economic activity were brought into the daylight, it would mean millions of dollars for cash-strapped states. In New Jersey, for example, illegal sportsbook makers prosecuted in the late 1990s had an annual volume of around$200 million. Global gaming research firm GamblingCompliance projects that a fully developed legal American marketwhere bets are placed at casinos, online, and at retail bookmaking shopswould produce $12.4 billion in annual revenue, five times bigger than the U.K.s sports betting market and 11 times bigger than Italys. All of which would be subject to tax. Tapping into this new source of revenue would not even require new laws for most states, as the federal government already requires people to report earnings from gambling and even allows them to write off gambling losses up to the amount that allows them to offset their winnings."

The paper concludes by saying that "the law must treat consumers like adults."

Read or Share this story: http://northjersy.news/2lIryJK

More:

Libertarian think tank makes case for legal sports betting - NorthJersey.com

Hundreds of students shouted down Libertarian author and political scientist Charles Murray during a lecture Thursday at Vermonts Middlebury College, forcing him to move to a private room and stream the lecture online.

Mr. Murray, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was interrupted immediately after taking the podium at the McCullough Student Centers Wilson Hall, according to video posted by The Middlebury Campus student weekly.

Once he started to speak, dozens of students stood up and turned their backs to him, holding signs and asking others to join. They then read a script in unison condemning Mr. Murrays supposed hate speech and started chanting Racist, sexist, anti-gay, Charles Murray go away.

Mr. Murray stood silently at the podium for 18 minutes until organizers approached him.

The college ultimately decided to cancel the lecture and moved Mr. Murray to a private room where he could stream the talk live, The Middlebury Campus reported.

Mr. Murray is most famously known for writing the 1994 book The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life, and is deemed a white nationalist by the liberal nonprofit Southern Poverty Law Center.

He was set Thursday to discuss his 2012 book Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010, which students argued normalizes white supremacy and white nationalism.

More than 450 Middlebury alumni signed a letter published Wednesday condemning the schools decision to allow Mr. Murray on campus.

The student group that invited the author, the American Enterprise Institution Club, said the invite was not necessarily an endorsement of his beliefs.

I really think his work Coming Apart is incredibly important in understanding the forces at play that brought the movement together, and as a Republican, I dont understand this movement enough, club president Phil Hoxie told a local NBC News affiliate.

Bill Burger, the vice president of communication at the school, said he was disappointed by the protesting students behavior Thursday.

We respect the right for students to express themselves and to protest, and we acknowledge that at the opening remarks for the event, but its clear that a group of students were committed to disrupting the event, and to an extreme degree theyve done that, he told NBC. Fortunately, weve been able to preserve what he says again, the important thing in our community is that there is an opportunity for people to speak and to be heard and listen and to challenge.

Middlebury officials told Inside Higher Ed that as Mr. Murray was trying to leave campus, protesters swarmed the vehicle and jumped on it, trying to prevent him from leaving.

Mr. Murraysaid on Twitter Friday that he was physically assaulted by the out-of-control mob.

Report from the front: The Middlebury administration was exemplary. The students were seriously scary, he tweeted.

See the article here:

Libertarian author Charles Murray shouted down by Middlebury College students - Washington Times

Screenshot via ZodiacThe Washington Post's Alyssa Rosenberg notes that David Fincher's Zodiac was released 10 years ago. The film received rave reviews, but still seems underappreciated by the general public. In her retrospective, Rosenberg notes that Zodiacwhich chronicles the efforts of police officers and journalists to catch a real-life serial killer in the 1960s and 70sstill resonates:

The characters have resources to pursue their investigations, and they're given time and plenty of leeway by their superiors (though one local politician runs for governor on the argument that the cops didn't have what they needed to crack the case). And neither is "Zodiac" a story about the sorts of failures involved in the Vietnam War, where brilliant people, restricted both by their own faith in technocratic solutions and their fears of being seen as soft on Communism, made fatally terrible decisions.

Instead, Fincher captures the uncertainty and loss of confidence that follow from a prolonged failure by institutions and people who are doing everything they're supposed to, only to find that it doesn't produce the correct results.

Ten years after "Zodiac" was released, and almost fifty years after the July 4 killing that sets the movie in motion, we're still living with and working through the consequences of the decline and loss of faith David Fincher captured in this masterful film. Fincher's "Fight Club" offered up a vision of weaponized male turned against society as a whole, while his "Gone Girl" portrayed female anger that had been distilled into a particularly venomous domestic poison. "Zodiac" is his movie for the rest of us, who have to live in a world going slowly insane without losing ourselves.

For me, Zodiac was a story about obsessionwhat it feels like to care about something that most other people have lost interest in. The serial killerwho calls himself the Zodiac and sends cryptic messages to the authoritiesslaughters a handful of people, and then largely retreats into the shadows. He botches some of his attacks, and others don't fit his profile, calling into question whether he's a single person or a group of completely unrelated nutcases taking advantage of a momentary spotlight.

As days become weeks and even years, everybody moves on, except the police officers assigned to the case and the newspaper cartoonist who can't let it go. They're driven, not by public safetyas one character points out, more people die crossing the street than at the hands of the Zodiac killerbut by their own insatiable, personal need to solve the case. Asked why he still cares about a serial killer who has long since fallen inactive, Jake Gyllenhaal's character snaps, "I need to know who he is!" Anyone who's ever attempted a 500-piece jigsaw puzzle, but misplaced the last few pieces, will relate.

Zodiac also makes some lightly libertarian criticisms of authorityin particular, its limits. The various representatives of the institutions that fail to capture the killerthe police, newspapers, local politiciansaren't evil, or incompetent. They're decent people trying to do right by the citizens of California. But they encounter structural problems: the crimes cross city and county lines, and no single entity has all the relevant information. In an early scene, the lead detectives ask a county official to make copies of the evidence in his possession and fax it to San Francisco PD. He replies, "We don't have telefax yet."

The film also explores the notion that violence is random, and its underlying causes don't fit neatly into preconceived narratives. The Zodiac killer isn't Hannibal Lecter, or Ramsay Bolton. He's a weird loner whose actions don't reflect a discernible ideology of evil. This kind of real-world violence is the hardest to address through public policy, because there's no identifiable reason for it.

In the end, it took someone outside the law enforcement bureaucracyGyllenhaal's character, cartoonist Robert Graysmithto finally solve the case, to the extent that it's solved at all.

Excerpt from:

Zodiac Turns 10: Why This Amazing Film Is Libertarian - Hit & Run ... - Reason (blog)

It goes without saying that libertarianism, as a political philosophy, is fiscally conservative i.e. that on a policy level, the State must conserve, rather than spend on a whim. Virtually all libertarians agree that this is technically correct.

The jury, however, is apparently still out on social issues. Many in the libertarian movement desire a merging between American conservatism (as opposed to virtually any other conservative movement in the world), which includes social conservatism, and libertarianism. Conservatism, as a political position, is quite region-specific, and entirely relative. To be a conservative means something different at different times. It is not a statement of principles in and of itself, but a belief that certain principles which are already being adhered to, must continue to be adhered to. This is why a European conservative is, for the most part, someone who still desires a strong welfare role for the State, and an America conservative is much more reluctant to support increased welfare.

Roger Toutant recently wrote that apparently, Libertarianism is, at its core, a fiscally and socially conservative movement. He says this without much further ado, instead opting to hide behind a facade of pragmatism. His reasoning goes that if libertarians continue to represent themselves as fiscally conservative and socially liberal (not to be confused with welfarist social liberalism), we will never win any popular support, because the right will refuse to get on board with our degenerate and lost social views, and progressives will never agree to our notion of small government.

Social liberalism, which is not under discussion here, but it is worthy to note, is a political philosophy in its own right, with its own economic theories. Being socially liberal, on the other hand, implies a public policy stance, as opposed to personal liberalism, which means that the individual himself behaves in a liberal fashion. Being socially liberal is nothing more than the notion that the State has no right to legislate decency or morality. (And given that were talking about American conservatism here, I should emphasise that it does not matter whether its a supranational government, a national government, a provincial or state government, or a local government). The States mandate is and always will be fixed to protecting people and property from physical aggression, enforcing mutually-agreed upon agreements, and guarding against fraud. All of this, naturally, must be wrapped up in the doctrine of the rule of law, i.e. the State cannot act arbitrarily, everyone must be equal before the law, people can appeal decisions, etc., etc.

Toutants is not an isolated argument. Indeed, it has become increasingly popular over the last year for conservative-leaning libertarians to defend and emphasise the ostensible compatibilities between libertarianism and American conservatism, while also emphasising the incompatibilities between traditionally left-leaning positions where progressives and libertarians share common ground. Christopher Cantwell is the embodiment of this worrying trend, having testified before a New Hampshire legislative committee that the government should prohibit female nudity on public beaches. He used highly-questionable arguments (including but what about the children?) in support of this position, but at the end of the day it was clear that his social conservatism was rearing its head in what was supposed to be a matter left to the political philosophy of libertarianism.

The founders of libertarianism would not have bothered to distinguish libertarianism from American conservatism. Indeed, if American conservatism and libertarianism are as indistinguishable as many make them out to be, why did the distinction come about at all?

This is all especially worrying to me as a South African, and, I imagine, to many libertarians across the world (to be anecdotal: my arguably anti-conservative Facebook posts get more likes from my European compatriots, over the norm where my American compatriots are mostly in the majority). In South Africa, conservatism means a preference for Apartheid, a highly-socialistic system founded in the very fascist notion that the State is the embodiment of the people and enforces their will. So when I enter into policy debates, only to have my opponents declare with conviction that libertarianism is conservative no doubt something they picked up from what is happening in America I am placed at a significant disadvantage.

The definition of conservatism which American conservatives have adopted enables them to relate, even if only at a distance, to the non-national philosophy of libertarianism. This is, however, not the case anywhere else in the world (at least, not to this extent). Therefore, when the argument is made that libertarianism and conservatism or social conservatism more particularly should, in essence, become one thing, a custom-made American definition is used. This is partly the problem with the assumptions underlying Toutants argument.

Libertarianism is set apart from American conservatism in one principal respect, which also sets it apart from progressivism, and which is the only justification for it being distinguished from both: individualism. A conservative, such as Toutant, can accept the basic premises of the NAP in theory, as have many conservative-leaning libertarians, but individualism in general is curiously excluded in favor of other values, such as (often bizarrely) democracy, certain social values such as the traditional marriage.

Toutants questionable interpretation of libertarianism is most evident in the following paragraph:

As far as I can tell, the vast majority of Libertarians are conservative in nature. They do not rely on the NAP to provide guidance to their moral behaviour, nor to help them define what is good or evil or what actions should be punished, or not, by the state. For that they rely on their culture and their religion. To many, the NAP is the equivalent of the Christian commandment, thou shalt not steal, full stop.

Being a libertarian who is personally conservative, and being a libertarian who advocates social conservatism, are two different things, considering that social conservatism is a public policy position. As an individual, I am arguably personally conservative. I believe in a higher power, I have never tasted alcohol or nicotine, I try to be decent, and look decent. But when my libertarian hat is on, i.e. when I engage in political philosophy or public policy (I work in public policy) then I am an individualist, I am socially liberal. And, in that respect, it is a prerequisite for a libertarian to be socially liberal qua libertarian.

Jared Howe, a Being Libertarian associate, recently wrote in a public Facebook comment that many Americans view libertarianism as a leftist movement due to the open border / free movement people. He went on to write that identity politics is not automatically invalid, and that even Hans-Hermann Hoppe relied on the historical and practical role of the monogamous family in his work. I am, as some would know, one of the open borders people. To many, that makes me a leftist ab initio, and clearly according to Howe as well. However, I obviously dispute this line of thinking, especially considering the rationale most open borders libertarians provide for their position, i.e. it is always founded in sound libertarian theory, even if it is not particularly Hoppean libertarian theory. Hoppes work is invaluable, but I dont recall him being declared the final arbiter on what is and what is not correct libertarian thinking.

Evidently, it has become problematic to use this description of libertarianism, i.e. that we are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. It causes confusion and opens doors which should not even exist (such as the ostensible similarities between libertarianism and American conservatism). Instead and this has become more popular in certain respects if we want to appeal to a broad audience rather than philosophy club, we should say we value personal and economic freedom for individuals. In this way, we avoid the confusion between socially liberal and social liberalism, which is a philosophy with some unfortunate socialist connotations, and avoid the confusion between American conservatism and fiscally conservative.

However, before we can go about reforming our marketing strategies, we should be clear about the fact that we comprise a distinct movement, and that while American conservatives have been worthy and valuable allies in many battles, we have our own agenda, which is often at odds with that of conservatives. We are not a subsidiary, extension, or transformation of American conservatism, but something entirely different.

Our victories over the left will be meaningless if we lose our identity in the process, instead becoming part of the authoritarian horseshoe paradigm we naturally must oppose.

* Martin van Staden is Editor in Chief of Being Libertarian.

This post was written by Martin van Staden.

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

Martin van Staden is the Editor in Chief of Being Libertarian, the Legal Researcher at the Free Market Foundation, a co-founder of the RationalStandard.com, and the Southern African Academic Programs Director at Students For Liberty. The views expressed in his articles are his own and do not represent any of the aforementioned organizations.

Like Loading...

Original post:

Social Conservatism and Libertarianism Are Not Mergeable So Stop Trying - Being Libertarian