LISTEN TO TLRS LATEST PODCAST:

Dries Van Thielen

TLR: Why will the 2017 elections be more successful than the one in 2012?

VALENTINE: Like the American Libertarian Party, the Dutch Libertarian Party was inspired by dogmatic anarchists. However, similar to the American Libertarian Party, we recently had a strong disagreement on approach. On the one side, we had dogmatic theorists, stating that the libertarian ideology could not dilute. On the other side, we had an uprising of pragmatics favoring a more conciliatory attitude. We went along with the pragmatics and thus far we reached a wider audience and I myself, receive more phone calls from journalists. Without betraying our ideology, we composed a more attractive program which resulted in more and younger members.

TLR: Your campaign shows similarities with Gary Johnsons presidential campaign which was unable to attract major media attention. What is the approach of the LP towards media?

VALENTINE: For 2017, our strategy consists out of two approaches. First, we try to attract political attention for the upcoming elections. In doing so, we make efforts to draw attention by focusing on social media Twitter, Facebook, Instagram or LinkedIn and mixing ourselves in online discussions by creating our own content. You see, similar to Johnson, we are never asked for political debates. When we are debating on a local level, the audience is drawn into our ideas since we pose a different concept than spending more money on topic A or B as our colleagues propose. Political TV debates are somnolent since no party offers solutions for ongoing problems (like poverty, ).

Secondly, we try to look further than the upcoming elections. In 2017, we will work to introduce three cornerstones (political, intellectual and social) of libertarianism in the LP. A political cornerstone since it is the only way to become more influential in the Netherlands. An intellectual cornerstone since we are too often drawn to American media outlets (FEE, Libertarian Republic, CATO, and Mises.org,), focusing on the United States. Instead, we would introduce our own articles and platform focusing on the Netherlands.

Third, a social cornerstone, showing the power of freedom and individual cooperation. We missed out on a strong equip of volunteers throughout the years, being active in the fibers of society will change that. Currently, we are working to maintain and professionalize our team.

TLR: According to your recent Twitter campaign (#Nexit), the Netherlands have to opt out of the EU and NATO. Why would this be a good idea?

VALENTINE: People who join politics are well-intended, I presume. They join a party with the firm belief to change the mishaps in their respective country. So did the EU: it started with good intentions free movement of goods, people and capital, a lessening of trade restrictions These ideas are utterly libertarian-inspired, but the reality and elaboration differ from these well-intended ideas. Nowadays, we have an army of unelected bureaucrats in Brussels and Luxembourg, designing our society! This is as un-libertarian as can be.

Without sounding too much like Geert Wilders (the entire Preliminary Election Program of PVV is 1 page long), I believe that the EU-agreements can be summed up on 1 page: freedom and free trade doesnt need codices. Brussels needs to disappear and The Hague needs to retake control.

As an alternative to the European Union, I would suggest the model Switzerland holds up. Granted, it isnt a libertarian utopia, but it only has 8 million inhabitants divided amongst 26 cantons, each with its respective constitution. The smallest particle decides which results in a more involved population. The citizens witness first handed the effects of their own policies.

TLR: And NATO?

VALENTINE: The same goes up with NATO. The NATO pact took off with good intentions, for we have to defend ourselves against invaders: libertarians arent pacifists. However, similar to the EU the intentions are overtaken by reality.

See, the moment we centralize our countrys interests, it gets troublesome since the organization you transfer your own interests to, has incentives of their own. In the case of NATO, the interests of its largest member the United States prevail on the ones of smaller member states (Netherlands and Belgium).

It is untenable to keep this relic from the Cold War alive as you take into account what it is used for nowadays: bombing sovereign states. Consistently bombing neighboring countries will not lead to a more secure Europe.

TLR: Can free trade solve the question of security, as a reaction for the dismantling of NATO? The majority of wars are fought for a lack of free trade.

VALENTINE: If goods dont pass the border, troops will. No sane country will put well-functioning commercial relations at risk since every interaction is advantageous for both participants. It would benefit the world if the world-wide free trade would be allowed (decline of poverty as the main advantage).

TLR: Besides free movement of goods and capital, your program mentions the open border solution based on the 19th-century European model. Will every individual integrate into this model?

VALENTINE: We favor the open border policy. Every individual is free to cross borders but we will check in your country of origin, whether you have ties with terrorist organizations.

Also, we encourage immigrants to work as soon as they enter the country instead of being pampered by the government, as is the case nowadays. Only, we will not allow immigrants to make use of the social benefits. In doing so, we counter the argument (theyll ruin our welfare) made by advocates of closed borders.

I find our system logical. Therefore, we counter the argument made by Geert Wilders. He states: We have to close borders, no one is allowed to cross borders and the Muslims already residing in the Netherlands will soon be kicked out! These accusations are nonsense and will harm the economy.

TLR: You grew accustomed to libertarianism by the writings of Ron Paul. Do you have any book recommendations for our readers?

VALENTINE: As an introduction into libertarianism, I highly recommend Revolution: A Manifesto by Dr. Ron Paul. Besides the classics (Economics in One Lesson or The Law), I was impressed by Matt RadleysThe Evolution of Everything. He refers to himself as a libertarian in minuscule. Many libertarians are attracted to libertarianism for its moral or economic aspect. It never goes both ways. The entire world is driven by invisible natural laws so it is unnecessary and illogical to set up structures according to Radley.

Since it is election season, I am currently reading The audacity to win by David Plouffe, Obamas Senior Advisor. It was he who was responsible for his (re-)election which interests me nowadays and I think it is a good read for many (non-pragmatic) libertarians. Unfortunately, the story does not tell itself.

TLR: I heard a passionate libertarian. When do you call the elections successful?

VALENTINE: The goal of the American Libertarian Party was to reach for 5% of the votes mainly to become a household name. The same goes up for us: the long-term is more important than these elections. If we reach 1 seat in parliament, it will be considered a grandiose success. Even if we reach 0.5 seats, which will correspond with about 20 thousand votes, these elections will be considered successful. This way, we will become a party worth taking into account.

EUGlobal Politicsimmigrationlibertarian partyNAvoNetherlandsRobert Valentine

Read more from the original source:

Dutch Libertarian Party Pres. Robert Valentine: If Goods Don't Pass the Border, Troops Will - The Libertarian Republic

Image courtesy of Flickr Creative Commons

With the victory of Betsy DeVos, it seems the Department of Education may be entering its end-of-life phase. Although I would thoroughly enjoy finishing it off with a few blows of a hammer (then poking it to ensure it is good and dead), the narrowness of her victory margin suggests that detractors will successfully petition to keep the department on life support for some time. Even though the mere existence of a Department of Education flies in the face of the Constitution, people have gotten rather used to it: kind of like the awkward office Christmas parties that everybody dreads but cant abandon because they are considered an integral part of polite society. Right below muh roads in importance is muh public schools. Publications like the New Republic seem to look at Ron Pauls revolutionary idea of public school abolishment as a sure symptom of severe mental illness (reason alone for me to strongly consider his stance).

I have both hope and misgivings about the appointment of DeVos, but I find the clear disdain for her, exhibited by some of my least-favorite talking heads, mildly encouraging. I am, at the very least, interested to see what she will do, and I hope that one of her first orders of system dismantling is to staunch the bleeding of tax dollars into higher education.

From a pragmatic perspective, this move is clearly a simpler one than some of her other endeavors will likely be. The people attending college are adults and (one would hope) better able to handle the removal of their babysitter. But the reason for its importance goes beyond mere convenience. Higher education and more specifically the governments funding of it lies at the crux of many of our most pressing problems in the United States.

Until recently, I would likely have promoted our illustrious institutes of education as a solution to problems, instead of their cause; probably because the Department of Education has the word education right in its name, and that sounded so promising. I wont go into all the spectacular examples that have proven this line of thinking obsolete, but I think most people who are not either Shaun King or professors teaching seminars entitled Why All White Men Are Hitler would agree that these institutions are largely failing to educate anybody. This fact is not likely to change overnight, but merely extricating the government from them accomplishes one vitally important end quashing the illusion of entitlement that is destroying our country.

One of the first experiences many people have when officially reaching adulthood is navigating college. When state schools are so heavily funded by taxes, supplemented by state-run student loans and grants, students are immediately handed a large sum of their tuition for free and thereby unaware of the true cost of education. According to the New America Foundation (cited in The Atlantic), the federal government (your taxes) spent $69 billion on funding for higher education in 2013 (and that does not include loans). Worse, as soon as students arrive on campus, peppy student body representatives are handing these mini adults their free condoms, meal cards, and bus passes. Two seconds after reaching adulthood, they are having the idea that life is supposed to be free reinforced.

Women are oppressed by their own fertility and must be compensated. We are all victims of natural hunger and must have meals provided by well, it doesnt really matter who is paying for it, as long as WE are not. No apartments are available next to campus, so we need transportation somebody needs to cover that. And we have the right to receive education, in the area of our interest, be it interpretive dance or something even less practical.

Furthermore, we have the right to be assisted by tax money in these endeavors. If we shockingly find ourselves unable to secure a spot in a wildly successful dance company, we can have our student loans forgiven, as if doing so just required an apology and a conciliatory handshake. We have a right, nay, a DUTY, to pursue our destiny.

Mind you, I am not discouraging individuals or businesses who want to assist struggling students in these areas. Quite the contrary. I am merely pointing out that by having the government do it, we are eliminating the faces of the generous donors and the natural gratitude that often follows direct receipt of a gift. We are replacing that with the impression that these services somehow grow on trees. There is a condom tree, a bus pass tree, and a tree that produces the gelatin dessert served in your dining hall.

This may account for the tree-hugging movement among environmentalists. They got their degrees at these schools.

Unfortunately, once the government has sold this lie to students, it has them in prime position to sell them more. Consider that if these items did grow on trees, the government would tax and regulate them until they were prohibitively expensive, then heroically find ways to cut costs for students by making somebody else pay for it. The legislators who did this would now be considered champions of equality and education by the students, even as they grift those very students future selves out of tax money.

And thus, the cycle of government dependence is born at the commencement of higher education. State-sponsored universities are creating citizens who see legislators as saviors and imagined entitlements as natural resources.

Eliminating government involvement is not likely to turn clueless students into responsible adults overnight, but it will hopefully avoid our current crisis of sending intelligent young people into expensive schools and having them emerge 4 years later, 50 economic I.Q. points lower.

If we are going to kill the beast of overreaching government, we need to go for the jugular: tax-funded higher education.

Like Loading...

Continued here:

Muh State Universities: Breaking Free of Indoctrination - Being Libertarian

A Swarthmore Libertarian whos launched a campaign against U.S. Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., is holding a town hall on Sunday, March 12, to talk about the impact of legal force on addicts.

Dale Kerns is an estimator for an electrical contractor. He also serves on the board of Goodwill of Delaware and Delaware County and is seeking the Libertarian nomination to run against Casey next year.

At 11 a.m. on March 12, he will host a town hall at the Clarion Philadelphia Airport at 76 Industrial Highway in Essington.

Speakers at the event include Christopher Dreisbach, CEO of Blueprints for Addiction Recovery and Christopher Baston, a U.S. Air Force veterans and contributor on WPHL radio.

Advertisement

The Kerns campaign said the event was motivated by his own recent loss of a relative to drug addiction and is meant to show the negative impact that the criminalization of addiction had on families and homes.

Two Republicans have already announced theyre in the race as well: Andrew Shecktor, a Berwick borough councilman who ran successfully last year as a delegate for Donald Trump to the Republican National Convention, and state Rep. Rick Saccone of suburban Pittsburgh.

Originally posted here:

Swarthmore Libertarian running against Casey to hold town hall - The Delaware County Daily Times

The UN has determined that both the rebels and the opposition from Syrian and Russian forces had committed war crimes that have caused many casualties among the civilian population of Aleppo.

The investigation report released by the UN Commission of Inquiry noted that Syrian and Russian forcespervasively used weapons to bomb highly populated areas in the rebel-held capital of Aleppo during last years conflict.

According to Al Jazeerathesemunitions included aerial bombs, air-to-surface rockets, cluster munitions, incendiary bombs, barrel bombs, and weapons delivering toxic industrial chemicals.

The Syrian governmentalso used chlorine bombs, a banned chemically toxic weapon that caused hundreds of civilian casualties according to the UN report.The government has repeatedly denied using chemical weapons in the war, which has killedalmost 400,000 people.

The report also accused the Syrian government of ameticulously planned and ruthlessly carried out air strike on a UN and Syrian Red Crescent convoy in western Aleppo in September, which killed14 aid workers.

According toAl Jazeeras Mohammed Jamjoom, the press was told was that the UN is preparing a dossier so if there is a tribunal that eventually happens, the evidence is ready to try to prosecute those who are accused of doing war crimes.

Rebels have been accused of firing shells indiscriminately at government-held areas and other parts of western Aleppo. Rebels also reportedly prevented groups of civilians from escaping eastern Aleppo during the latter stages of its fall, and used some civilians as human shields.

The Syrian government has repeatedly deniedmost of the claims put forth against it, and the rebels have also failed to take any accountability for their actions. Both sides have ravaged the city of Aleppo, killed many innocent civilians, and have used inhumane and illegal methods in fighting each other.

Photo Credit: Reuters/Kenan Al-Derani

This post was written by Nicholas Amato.

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

Nicholas Amato is the News Editor at Being Libertarian. Hes an undergraduate student at San Jose State University, majoring in political science and minoring in journalism.

Like Loading...

See more here:

UN: All Sides Committed War Crimes in Aleppo - Being Libertarian

The past week has been a wild one in the libertarian movement that resulted in a great deal of soul-searching and reflecting. With left-libertarians triggered and showing their nasty, totalitarian colors under the pressure, many rational libertarians are realizing that this poison must be removed from the movement post haste before even more damage is done.

Anarcho-capitalist author and philosopher Christopher Chase Rachels has taken the lead in this valiant effort. In an apparent response to the growing acceptance of violence, harassment, and mob tactics by left-libertarians, Rachels is striking back. He drafted a manifesto for his new right-libertarian alliance that he published earlier today.

We as the libertarian right seek first and foremost to promote a society whose prevailing legal system(s) is/are firmly rooted in the private property ethic and the NAP, Rachels said in his manifesto. That this is the fundamental core of the peaceful, civilized, and prosperous society.

Those words sound like doctrinaire libertarianism, but Rachels manifesto definitely could appeal to those on the right as well. Rachels cleverly outlined language to satisfy right-wingers who are growingly interested in forming model communities to rid themselves of leftists completely, a noble goal if there ever was one.

People have the right to pool their property and form whatever type of community they wish based on whatever cultural values they have so long as insodoing they do not violate the private property of others, Rachels said.

This means that right-wing people could clique up with fellow right-wingers, even if they happen to be white, and form exclusionary communities. While this notion may make a left-libertarian run shrieking to the safety of a lynch mob, right-libertarians understand that this is true freedom. Rachels alliance might finally be the vehicle to promote a consistent, unapologetic strain of libertarianism that unabashedly promotes freedom, no matter what the outcome.

Jared Howe of Being Libertarian has provided a great deal of intellectual ammunition on Rachels behalf as he embarks upon his new mission.

When the left organizes, the right traditionally does nothing, though this is rapidly changing, Howe said. When the right organizes, the left spergs the fuck out and lapses into hysterical purity spiraling, gaslighting and Kafkatrapping.

This tells me that the left is TERRIFIED of the right. As Brexit, the election of Trump, and the rise of the Alt-Right have demonstrated, the left clearly isnt going to prevail through verbal abuse alone. Thats why theyve been escalating and provoking violent conflicts with Trump supporters. For them, it isnt about being right; its about survival through parasitism.

As the libertarian movement inevitably splits along partisan lines, opportunities will arise for libertarians to regroup, strike back, and make a lasting impact. Rachels and Howe clearly understand the need to combat the stasis in the libertarian movement. Their project has the real potential to focus libertarian resources toward achieving necessary ends.

The alliance does not have a website at the current time, but interested individuals are encouraged to email [emailprotected] for more details.

Read the original here:

Rothbard's Revenge: The Developing Libertarian-Right Alliance To Crush Leftist Influence In Modern Society - The Liberty Conservative

New York Times

The Isolation of College Libertarians New York Times Leftists, in an effort to make campuses welcoming ostensibly, for everyone end up frequently silencing conservative and libertarian students. They paint any argument that isn't progressive as immoral, so conservative students can find themselves ...

Go here to read the rest:

The Isolation of College Libertarians - New York Times

This article originally appeared on AlterNet.

I once had a conversation with a Libertarian friend who insisted that freedom was the answer to everything ironic since he was getting married the following week.

Freedom to have sex with others while married? I asked.

Of course not, he said.

Freedom for your children to do whatever they want?

No, thats different, he said.

Freedom for everyone to have a nuclear bomb?

No, that wouldnt be good.

Freedom for people to steal?

No, that has to be controlled.

You dont really think that freedom is the answer to everything, I said. The real question is what to constrain and what to let go free. The question in social engineering is the question in all engineering. Its a question of tolerances: What to constrain with tight tolerances and what to let run free with loose tolerances. That question is built right into the paradoxical declarations that we should all, be intolerant of all intolerance, or tolerate all intolerance.

Sorry, thats not my question, he said.

But why? I asked.

Because its hard and I dont want to bother with it.

I applauded his honesty. If you want to know why its not obvious to everyone by now that the question is what to tolerate and not tolerate, its simply this: The question is difficult.

Its so much easier to be a hypocrite, to claim that total freedom or total constraint are the only possibilities and that you favor one and oppose the other. Its easier to pretend that youre crusading for absolute freedom against absolute control or vice versa than it is to deal with the messy complexity of trying to sort out what to free and what to constrain.

Hypocrisy is the alternative to praying for the wisdom to know the difference between what to constrain and what to let run free. Just pretend that you already have theperfect wisdom to know the obvious difference. Pretend that theres no question, control is always bad, freedom is always good. Or vice versa.

And with hypocrisy, you can even have it both ways depending on your momentary needs and whims. You can claim that you always favor one as you can switch back and forth.

I dont like that this constrains me. We should all be free always.

Always?!

Yes, judgment is always bad. People should never be judgmental.

But isnt should a judgment?

No. And why do you always have to disagree with me?

I dont always and anyway, didnt you just say that people should be free always? Doesnt that apply to me too? Shouldnt I be free to disagree with you?

No. People should always do the right thing. People should always be controlled by the moral principles I know and espouse.

But, but, you just said . . .

Theres a difference between being and feeling consistent. To be consistent you have to tame the tendency to extrapolate to universal principles from whatever youre feeling in the moment. You have to be able to notice your inconsistencies.

Since thats difficult and self-compromising, its easier to just feel consistent. For that you need only hold one idea constant. Just always chant, Im consistent. I have integrity. Im not like all of the other people around me. Other people are inconsistent hypocrisy. Im not.

If you hold that one thought with all your heart then you dont have to pay attention to your flip-flopping. You can have all your cakes and eat them too.

You wont live by your inconsistent standards, but if youre insistent enough, youll be able to convince yourself that you do, and maybe youll be able to convince others too. There are lots of hypocrisy cults you can join, mutual admiration societies that claim some absolute truth, thereby liberating themselves to follow their whims, confident that theyre consistent.

These days, libertarianism is one such cult, growing in popularity, in large part through sponsorship by the Koch brothers network of donors, spending billions through private charities to achieve a cabal of about 400 billionaires ultimate aim, to be unconstrained in everything they do. The cabal was inspired by a self-serving misreading of the Soviet Union. Fred Koch, the Koch brothers father was a key provider to Stalin as he built the Soviet Unions oil industry. When Fred saw the devastation wrought by his client Stalin he wrote that, What I saw in Russia convinced me of the utterly evil nature of communism. . . . What I saw there convinced me that communism was the most evil force the world has ever seen and I must do everything in my power to fight it, whichI have done since that time.

Rather than bite Stalins hand that fed him he conveniently focused on the rationalization that Stalin employed to justify his dictatorship. Fred went on to say in 1938 that Although nobody agrees with me, I am of the opinion that the only sound countries in the world are Germany, Italy, and Japan, simply because they are all working and working hard. He loved fascism; he hated communism.

Thus was born the hypocritical Koch campaign, control for freedom; constrain for liberty, dictate anarchy. It was easy to get other wealthy donors enthusiastic about the movement, donors like our new education secretary Betsy Devos, a self-declared Libertarian who donated over $200 million to hypocritical campaigns for state-imposed religious education in the name of Libertarianism. And its been easy to find politicians who will mouth and defend the hypocrisy for the money.

Thats what happened to what once was the Republican party. The Republicans who embraced American traditions bent to the Kochs will or were chased out by Koch-funded candidates from the Tea Party. If youre wondering whatever happened to our country, what explains the weird jack-knifing lurch toward libertarianism, the Koch brothers are a good place to find answers. The Tea Party wouldnt have lasted any longer than the Occupy movement if it werent orchestrated and funded by the Kochs.

Do I sound like a conspiracy theorist? If the alternative to conspiracy theory is the assumption that there are never any conspiracies, were in real trouble. There are conspiracies. The difference between conspiracy theorists and people who reveal real conspiracies is in whether the eagerness to find oneor the evidence leads one to the conclusion that there is one. If you read the facts on the Koch brothers, I think youll find that the evidence stacks up pretty conclusively.

But no matter how much money you pour into selling something, it wont sell if theres no latent appetite. With Libertarianism as a rationalization, theres plenty of appetite, the appetite for some alternative to having to think about whats worth and not worth constraining.

Libertarians have bought themselves the ultimate freedom, paid in full with a commitment to hypocrisy, the freedom to never have to wonder about or learn from anything ever again, the freedom to feel consistent without having to trouble themselves with the hard question that shows up everywhere since sometimes freedom turns out well and sometimes it turns out badly:

In engineering:There are bolts and there are ball bearings. We bolt some things down and we let other things run free.

Computer engineering:Algorithms are constraints that enable you to input a free range of variables and get reliably constrained results.

Social engineering:We want people to have freedom to do what they want so long as it doesnt cause more damage than their freedom is worth. Laws, at their best, are constraints that maximize freedom.

Liberty and justice for all:Justice constrains us, liberty frees us. Justice is security. Government at its best seeks the best mix.

Freedom and responsibility:Youre free on the dance floor, but unless youre special (P.S., youre not) your freedom comes with responsibility for not constraining other peoples freedom. You dont get to crowd everyone into the corner by dancing wildly with your eyes shut shouting I believe in freedom!

Social movements:The best and worst movements in human history have all had the same rallying cry, a proud We demand more! Thats the cry of those crowded out but also those who already have more than their fair share. Its the cry of the womens and civil rights movement but alsoof the Nazis. So whats the difference between the good and bad versions of that rallying cry? Hypocrisy, demand for more dance floor when youre already taking up plenty of it.

Player vs. married:A player is free to date whomever but the freedom comes with a loss of security, no reliable partner to come home to. A married person is more constrained but in the bargain gains some security.

Freelance vs. salaried:Salaried workers are more constrained than freelancers, but in exchange, they get a bit more security.

Evolution:Life is a trial and error process and we are the trials. This makes us ambivalent, rooting for ourselves as trials and rooting for the trial and error process. In our hearts, we cry let the best man win and it damned well better be me!

Sore losers:Sore losers smash the game board if they lose. Libertarians are like that. They think that if they dont win, the game is rigged against them and must be destroyed so that they always win.

Free willvs. determinism:We claim that free will as better than determinism but actually were ambivalent. What wed really like is the freedom to advance and the determinism that locks in the advances weve already made. What we really want is a ratchet, freedom to climb, constraint against falling.

We can have that ratchet if we shut our eyes, dance impulsively and shout freedom is the only answer! while crowding everyone else into the corners by meaning only our personal freedom, the hell with theirs.

Read the original:

What does freedom actually mean? Self-indulgent Libertarian hypocrisy knows no bounds - Salon

Conservative and libertarian law professors demand more politically balanced faculties

February 28, 2017

Law schools are notoriously one-sided when it comes to the political leanings of their faculty, and conservative and libertarian academics are tiredof seeking change behind the scenes.

More than two dozen law professors, many familiar to College Fix readers, sent an open letter to the executive committee of the Association of American Law Schools.

It lays bare their grievances against AALSs failure to take concrete preliminary steps to promote viewpoint diversity among law faculties, in the words of the professor who shared it, libertarian luminary Randy Barnett of Georgetown.

Drafted by Case Western Reserve Law Prof. George Dent, who has led a yearslong effort in the association to promote diversity beyond skin color and sex, the letter says conservatives and libertarians are grossly underrepresented on law faculties:

For several years now a number of legal scholars have asked the AALS to support the commitment to viewpoint diversity stated in its by-laws.

While the new executive director seems also to take us seriously, and this years AALS annual meeting seemed to have better balanced panels, the association refuses to go further, the letter says.

At last years annual meeting, several professors met with the executive committee to ask for creation of a Political Diversity Task Force; for viewpoint diversity to be made a regular element of the sabbatical reviews for member schools; and for access to the associations Faculty Appointments Register, to help them track viewpoint diversity in hiring.

Its been a year since AALSsaid it would create subcommittees to examinethese requests, and nothing has happened, says the letter:

We fear that the Executive Committee does not take our concerns seriously and intends to take no action to address them. Both scholarship and teaching suffer when law schools are echo chambers in which only one side of current debates is given a voice.

The signatories include Case Western Reserves Jonathan Adler, University of San Diegos Gail Heriot (a potential Trump administration pick), George Masons Ilya Somin and UCLAs Eugene Volokh.

Read the letter.

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

Read more from the original source:

Conservative and libertarian law professors demand more politically balanced faculties - The College Fix

Idealists, or purists, can be frustratingly impractical with their ideology. Some will consider any form of political action an endorsement of state power and others will only support political activists that adhere strictly to impractical or impossible standards. Meanwhile, realists have a tendency to dismiss any extreme ideas, including those of ancaps (anarcho-capitalists), as completely worthless if they deviate too far from the current schematic of civilization.

I am not suggesting that all libertarians fit neatly into these two categories, but those who do are prevalent. Im asserting that these libertarians are needlessly in opposition, when in fact these sides are complementary, not antagonistic. Is it a contradiction for one person to be on both sides of the spectrum simultaneously? Not if we view idealism as the goal and realism as the means to achieve it.

The purpose of idealism is to provide the end goal. Idealisms only constraint is that it must account for human behavior. In libertarian ideology, anarcho-capitalism is typically considered idealism. No reasonable thinker expects anarcho-capitalism to become mainstream anytime soon. It is only an ethical standard for which to aim. The inability to apply it to the immediate present does not negate the moral arguments for it.

In the past, when slavery was globally accepted and relied upon, the concept of abolition would have been viewed as having catastrophic consequences. When slave labor was the standard means for large-scale production, the idea of automated machinery or any other replacement was impossible to fathom. Today, these concepts are reversed. Blatantly advocating slavery is nearly unheard of, and automated machinery is casually accepted as the go-to method of large-scale production. This is why idealism is not to be easily dismissed. However, what purpose is a goal without means to achieve it?

The purpose of realism is to provide the means to achieve these goals. Realism is pragmatic and practical, focusing only on what can be accomplished in the world we are given today. Realists focus on using methods that bring about change, even if the change is minor or involves compromise.

Having a realistic path is necessary to achieve any goal. As weve all heard numerous times, if we want to accomplish a goal, we must break this goal up into smaller, simpler, easily achievable goals. No entrepreneur can succeed with a great idea, but no business plan to implement. In this same manner, no anarchist can eliminate the state solely by preaching Rothbard. Nor can a minarchist limit state power only by reading Adam Smith.

It cannot be considered a sacrifice of principles to compromise so long as its a net benefit for liberty.

Those such as Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY 4th), and Congressman Justin Amash (R-MI 3rd) can all be considered realists. While the extent of their impact is debatable, it is difficult to argue that they have achieved nothing.

But why are both idealism and realism necessary?

Say youre unhappy with your current environment, so you decide to move. The role of the idealist is to decide your destination while the realist charts your path. On the way, you notice the road isnt perfectly straight. At some points, you may actually be increasing the distance between you and your destination. At other times, you might be traveling north when your destination is northwest. These times are not inefficient, but necessary for progress. This explains the complications of realists. The path to the goal is not always obvious, and idealists can benefit from a realistic approach.

Since both the realists and the idealists are necessary, why not be both? Instead of choosing a side, why not hold a realist position and an idealist position on each issue?

Sometimes these positions are the same, and other times different. For example, is it hypocritical to believe in open borders and to actively support extreme vetting? I argue no.

A welfare/warfare state can complicate things. A policy that works for Japan may not work for South Africa and, in a similar sense, a policy that works for America in 2017 may not for Ancapistan in 2517.

There are already a few that could be considered both realistic and idealistic. In fact, an entire branch of anarchism is devoted to a form of practical activism: Agorism.

Agorists advocate withdrawing from government and living as an anarchist through a black or grey market.

As for specific examples, there are three that stand out. Judge Andrew Napolitano considers himself an anarchist, yet is obviously part of the system as a judge. Tom Woods, another ancap, has advocated for political involvement as well. Perhaps the most controversial example is Stefan Molyneux, an activist that has written two books on anarchy and yet routinely advocates against open borders in present day America.

Despite these examples, a majority of libertarians appear bonded to either realism or idealism, reluctant to see the viability of the another. Perhaps collaboration between the two can be a solution to the frequent infighting within the libertarian scope.

* Nathan A. Kreider is the Fall 2015 Spring 2017 president of the Young Americans for Liberty chapter at Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania. He runs nkreider.com and tweets from @LibertyNAK regularly.

Like Loading...

Read more:

Realism or Idealism: Why Not Both? - Being Libertarian

The Libertarian Party continues to bask in a historic election year, gaining party status and ballot access in more states in 2016. The general platform of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism/tolerance/openness is striking a cord with many voters looking for alternatives outside the two-party political structure.

In some states, like Iowa, the local Libertarian Party is celebrating major party status. However, other Libertarian Parties must fight Republican and Democratic forces to gain the party status or ballot access they believe they rightfully earned after the 2016 elections.

In Tennessee, the state Libertarian Party asked the secretary of state to declare it a qualified political party, according to Ballot Access News. Current law requires minor parties to get at least 5 percent of the vote in the previous gubernatorial election.

The last gubernatorial election was in 2014, when 5% of the vote was 67,687. The partyscase for qualified party status is that Gary Johnson received70,397 votes. I reached out to the chairman of the Libertarian Party of Tennessee for comment, and will update the article with the chairmans comments.

The Libertarian Parties in Ohio and Washington stateare also fighting state officials on being denied major party status, despite Johnsons success in 2016. In Washington, the secretary of state added the total number of write-in votes to the total presidential count to drop the Libertarian Party below the required number (5% of the vote total) to obtain major party status.

The Ohio Libertarian Party has long been locked in conflict and litigation with the states Republican secretary of state, Jon Husted, over candidates being denied access to the ballot and denying the party recognized status. Multiple lawsuits have been filed by the Libertarian Party against Husted, which have had no success before the Supreme Court.

Husted denied the Libertarian Party of Ohio recognized party status because Gary Johnson had to run in the state as an independent, even though he was the Libertarians presidential nominee. The party had been previously stripped of its party status and the state would not let Johnson run under the Libertarian label.

These are just a fewexamples of the struggles the Libertarian Party and other minor parties experience just to get on the ballot. In many states, the petition requirements to appear on the general election ballot area deterrent. And even if a minor party believes it can get the signatures necessary, many fear legal challenges from the major parties that could potentially cripple theirparty financially.

The Libertarian Party of Illinoischallenged a law before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appealsthatmakes it harder for third parties to gain ballot access. An update from the Courthouse News Serviceindicates that the court may be poised to rule in the Libertarian Partys favor. It would be a big win for Libertarians not only in Illinois, but across the country.

Original post:

Libertarian Ballot Access Fight against Two-Party Duopoly Grows Stronger - IVN News

By Thomas L. Knapp

Feb. 7: Muhammad Ali Jr., returning to the U.S. from a speaking engagement in Jamaica, is detained for two hours at Florida's Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport and questioned about his name and religious beliefs.

Feb. 22: Passengers disembarking from a domestic (San Francisco to New York) flight at JFK airport are held up by U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents demanding their IDs.

Feb. 24: Jeffrey Tucker of the Foundation for Economic Education clears the usual security checks at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta Airport en route to Mexico. Then, while actually boarding the plane, he and the other passengers on the flight are stopped by U.S. Marshals demanding that they submit to retinal scans.

You're probably thinking that this is the point where I'll take a break to blame Donald Trump. It isn't. It's the point where I'll take a break to remind Americans who've been voting for politicians who promise to "secure the border" and other such authoritarian nonsense that THIS is exactly what they've been voting for.

When advocating for the libertarian position on immigration ("open borders," which also happens to have been the position Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush both took in the 1980 Republican presidential primary debates), I usually prefer to stick to the moral argument. That argument, put simply, is that where peaceful people move to, settle or work is nobody's business but theirs.

But there are practical arguments against America's increasingly draconian immigration laws too. Enforcement is expensive but, fortunately, almost certain to be ineffectual (if it worked, severe economic downturn would be the result).

The most important of the practical arguments, in my opinion, is that a police state built to persecute immigrants will necessarily persecute everyone else as well.

I've spoken with friends who traveled in the old Soviet Union and eastern Europe before the Berlin Wall came down. They see near-complete similarity between those regimes and the operations of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection and Border Patrol forces.

The difference between pre-reunification East Germany and the 100-mile wide "constitution-free zone" along the U.S.-Mexico border is the flag the agencies in question salute. Recent administrations have worked to expand that zone to cover the entire country and the Trump administration seems bent on finishing the job.

The near-total police state blossoming before our eyes is the inevitable result of America's 70-year romance with the astoundingly stupid idea that it's the government's business to monitor and control who travels, lives and works where.

America had legally open borders for its first century as a nation, and nearly so for half a century after that. It wasn't until after World War II that one even needed a passport to enter or leave the United States.

Open borders worked. Freedom worked.

The subsequent seven decades of attempts at rigorous immigration control have irrefutably established that our choice is not between open borders and closed borders, but between immigration freedom or totalitarian government. And Americans' time to stop the stampede toward the latter is running short.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

Read more:

Libertarian View: The immigration enforcement police state is here - SouthCoastToday.com

When Nigel Farage, the man behind #Brexit, spoke at CPAC 2017, I was pleasantly surprised. As a fan of that event myself, but not a Trump supporter, I assumed that many attached to Britains separation from the European Union might also be aligned similarly and, therefore, be less apt to associate with President Trumps more aggressive approach. So the mere appearance was nice enough, but when Mr. Farage then stuck around to mingle and chat, I was more than pleasantly surprised I was blown away.

I came [to CPAC] two years ago, Farage explained when discussing his past relationship to the event with us just outside the ballroom doors. There are a lot more young people here [than last time]. So there is more of a buzz and excitement in the air. Winning does that.

And winning is certainly something both Farage and Trump have in common. And the POTUS even promised more winning for America in his own speech that kicked off the second full day of events at CPAC at the top of the morning. That appearance, which contained a healthy mix of truth and fiction (Trump claimed that he had a line going back six blocks of fans waiting for him at the Gaylord Convention Center; he did not), set the tone as being quite cheeky. The President started things off with a joke: that if the audience never sat down, the dishonest media would likely be able to spin that into a headline claiming that he received no standing ovation. Ha.

But that rhetoric clearly works. The man got elected. And while sitting in the audience during the speech, I was involuntarily back-slapped and elbow-jabbed by an elderly gentleman to my right who kept raving about how bright he thought Trump was, and how he would wager that Trump has a lot more in common with us than with them. Us vs. them. And there it was Trumps winning formula. Not only was his a strategy of populism, but a type of populism based around the concept of the frontier of antagonism. Want solidarity? Unite against a common enemy. Except with Trump, the common enemy is everyone.

Well, everyone except Bernie Sanders. I like Bernie, Trump proclaimed at one point during his appearance.

Luckily, the trend of an open and accepting CPAC, which started one day prior, continued into this day, which saw yet another conservative minority group setting up shop and voicing their views.

This time, it was a group of black Americans who were not only pro-Trump, but adamantly against what they saw as the media-pushed idea that Trump or Republicans at large, are racist. I have always been for God, but now I am also for the Republicans, proclaimed Maurice Symonette, the group leader and administrator of the website Gods2. Symonette continued by pulling from history on behalf of the Republicans and citing failed regulation policies to disparage the Democrats: The Republicans fought to free us; the Democrats are the ones who want to keep us enslaved. The shirts worn by everyone in the group read as follows: TRUMP & Republicans Are Not Racist.

Even more surprises were found as well once one entered The Bone Zone, a booth on the show floor dedicated to taking pictures with overnight sensation Ken Bone, because of what Mr. Bone was actually doing at CPAC. Contrary to what a lot of people may thing, Ken is much more than just a meme he is currently working with a company called Victory Holdings, which is itself developing an app known as DonorDex that aims to provide a network of potential donors for small-profile and third party political candidates to reach out to with but a touch of a button. In this way, Mr. Bone hopes to raise awareness about this new service and therefore make it easier for underdog candidates to truly compete with the elite politicians they will run against. Not a bad idea, at all.

While there were some misfired attempts at humor (because Republicans), such as a sign depicting a shady looking cartoon character reaching into his pants and proclaiming lets get fiscal, the environment at CPAC was largely one of genuine chill and fun. Whispers of an exclusive party held by Breitbart on a reserved boat began circulating; certain attendees showed up who, while not scheduled speakers, were celebrities in their own right (such as Cassandra Fairbanks, a journalist and ex-Bernie Sanders supporter who very publicly switched her allegiances to Trump after Hillary got the Democratic nomination).

Whether one wants to admit it or not, modern conservatism has become cool again. And CPAC 2017 was the place to be in that regard.

This post was written by Micah J. Fleck.

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

Like Loading...

Continued here:

CPAC On My Mind: Part Two - Being Libertarian

The Libertarian Cato Institute released a study in 2016 that actually disproves Donald Trumps theory that banning Muslims from entering the United States will save American lives. That likely wasnt the intention of Cato, but their own work proves that Trump is full of it. Ring of Fires Farron Cousins discusses this.

Transcript of the above video:

The Libertarian Cato Institute actually released a report in 2016 that incidentally happened to completely disprove everything that Donald Trump and his Administration have told us about the intended effects of their Muslim ban. Now as it stands right now the Administration is currently redrafting that executive order to make it into something that the courts are not going to rip apart. The likelihood of them being successful with that, extremely low considering the fact that these are not lawyers, these are not people who understand foreign policy. Its likely theyre going to write something thats not exactly going to pass the muster when it comes to being legal.

However, this Cato Institute study from 2016 shows that in the years between 1975 and 2015, a 40 year span, there were 20 incidents where refugees entered the United States and committed acts of violence. In those 40 years, of those 20 people who were refugees three people were killed. 40 years, 20 refugees involved in incidents. Only three people killed.

Contrast that with home grown terrorism. I mean, how many people died in the Oklahoma City bombing? How many people have been killed by right wing hate groups? I mean just this week two men were killed by one white man because he thought they were Muslims. He thought they were Middle Easterners. Turns out they were from India. They were engineers, very well respected people with huge educations, working to make things in the world better, and he murdered them in a hate crime because he thought they were Middle Eastern, as if thats some sort of justification for killing another human being. While he murdered them he was yelling, Get out of my country. No. You get out of the country. Thats not what we do here in the United States.

I bet if Donald Trump and his Administration actually looked in to the amount of terrorism being caused by white men in the United States, maybe wed have a different kind of travel ban. Its not hard to identify the problem when you look at all the variables. Now the Cato Institute Study was just trying to figure out if refugees coming into the United States were a threat or not. It turns out according to Cato that theyre not. If we want to address the real threats we have to look at all the data. We have to look at the acts of home grown terrorism being committed by white men in the United States, because those are the treats. Those are the real problems. The people who take over a wildlife refuge in Oregon, the people who have standoffs with federal officers in the SouthWest, those are terrorists. Those are people that we need to be worried about. Those are people that we should probably be afraid of. Those are people that should spend the rest of their lives behind bars because that is illegal.

Those are the people that we should be worrying about, but instead the Trump Administration, Republicans in general, theyve created these Middle Eastern boogeymen, telling us that we need to be afraid of them coming over here and trying to kill us. Meanwhile, the real people who pose a threat to our very lives are the ones around us. Maybe the crazy neighbor, maybe the guy down the street. The people that you wouldnt ordinarily think because statistically they pose a far greater threat to our lives here in the United States than anyone coming over as a refugee.

Read the original post:

Libertarian Think Tank Proves That Trump's Muslim Ban Won't Work ... - The Ring of Fire Network

New York Times

Jerome Tuccille, Libertarian Author and Trump Biographer, Dies at 79 New York Times Jerome Tuccille, who wrote one of the first manifestoes of the American libertarian movement and the first biography of Donald J. Trump, died on Feb. 16 at his home in Severna Park, Md. He was 79. The cause was complications of multiple myeloma, his ...

Go here to see the original:

Jerome Tuccille, Libertarian Author and Trump Biographer, Dies at 79 - New York Times

Being Libertarian Perspectives serves as a weekly, multi-perspective opinion and analysis piece by members of Being Libertarians writing team. Every week the panel, comprised of randomly selected writers, will answer a question based on current events or libertarian philosophy. ManagingEditor Dillon Eliassen will moderate and facilitate the discussion.

Dillon Eliassen: Please answer in the affirmative or negative, and provide reasoning for the following question: The conservative and liberty movements will benefit from Milo Yiannapolous continuing to lose access to privately owned and maintained speech platforms. Hes been banned from Twitter, his college campus tour is continually disrupted and he just lost his Simon & Schuster book deal. Conservatives and libertarians are better off with him out of the public eye; hes become a pariah and his advocacy for free speech is a mask for his desire for flamboyancy and notoriety.

David McManus Jr.: At least from my lens, what he is saying is a complete detraction from libertarian thoughts and ideals, although its quite possibly our best tool in sustaining free speech. In the day and age of the left vs right dichotomy, people are afraid of language from both sides and the right wing have been castrated and forced to kowtow to PC culture. Regardless of how you view his advocacy, it hits headlines on CNN and is starting to cloud the mainstream media with a puppet from the internet that dances on a whim of what the online communities want. As Im sure you can all agree, the online anonymity allows people to splurge their innermost thoughts all over a forum and not get arrested for thought crime (yet). So this incredible ability that Milo brings to the table to put a name, face and sense of rationality to the online hub of free speech does help to advance a free thinking society through acceptance and tolerance of other ideas. He is a pawn in a big game of chess, he learned his place, which was playing the role of the contrarian on a massive scale. It just so happened that he jumped the gun and perhaps tried to advocate for something that our culture wasnt quite ready to discuss as of yet.

Danny Chabino: On the one hand, freedom of speech is exceptionally vital to a free society. However, on the other hand, private groups must be free to select whomever they want to speak and whatever messages and ideas they wish to convey. Otherwise, it is pointless to have such organizations. I dont particularly like people who stir the pot for the sake of stirring the pot. They tend to be arrogant and obnoxious, seeking only attention for themselves. But, Milo is free to speak whatever he wishes to speak and to associate with whatever group he chooses. Is he good for freedom and for the liberty movement? I dont really know or care that much. Ill readily admit that I dont follow him too closely because I find him off-putting. The voices that put forth solidly logical thought will usually end up being heard. Im certain that if Milos ideas are found worthy, he will be heard.

Charles Peralo: I think the answer to this is simple: The roots to Being Libertarian were Being Banned From Being Liberal. Id say right now a page, thanks to Billy Bob Clinton, we just barely passed was Occupy Democrats Logic. Both pages were founded due to censorship from a group. Now, Being Libertarian has banned people. People posting spam or maybe sometimes some HEAVILY racist or bizarre stuff. But theres no Banned From Being Libertarian or no claim we deny people the power to ask a question. Being Libertarian is always open to the left or right to like us and make a point. So We have some censorship rights here and pages get the right to censor how they wish, the same as universities. The question is between denial of speech or denial of the right to ask a question. BL being at 400,000 followers and ODL being at 350,000 is kind of just proof being rude and just denying some rights to talk creates the problem from the likely reality neither groups would exist if Being Liberal and Occupy Democrats werent so ban happy. But we need to actually point out the left isnt immune to this. One of my best friends got banned from the LP page for saying in a comment You guys should just nominate Rand Paul. Also, our own special neck bearded pal from Fresno and our favorite guido with a taxation is theft hat and jersey block people left and right. So All movements do this. And Im going to stand up for Berkeley here. Rand Paul goes to speak and gets a standing ovation there, with it being the largest crowd a Republican ever got there. Milo speaks and its a riot. That shows this is not really a censorship of the right, because of economics or whatever. Theres clearly a line drawn in how they are different. And why do they stand for Rand and riot for Milo? Because Rand Paul says we need to abolish the payroll tax. He devotes an entire chapter in his book saying the criminal justice system is rigged against black people and our big government economics are making them poor. He says the TSA is bad for wrongly profiling Muslims. He says we shouldnt bomb the shit out of everyone. He had a plan to make getting a work visa much easier for immigrants. Milo runs around and says transgenders are mentally confused, black people have no real issues that are the polices fault and he does it all from the perspective and life experience of a 32 year old college dropout who gets joy from riots.

Jacob Linker: Theres a difference between saying theres a right for someone to speak and actively providing them a platform though. BL as a private entity has a total right to decide to limit input from detrimental content providers. Also I doubt weve seen the last of Milo.

Baruti Libre Kafele: The truest test of ones advocacy for the natural and constitutional right of freedom of speech is for one to convey or disseminate perspectives that may be contradictory or disagreeable to ones social and political views whether they are politically correct or not. Whether I, or anyone agrees with Milos views on pedophilia and other topics or not, he is unequivocally making history and getting crucified for all of us to share our idiosyncratic perspectives or views to the world via journalism, blogging, public speaking, etc. His flamboyancy, sexual orientation or courting tendencies should not negate that he has the right to express himself however he pleases.

TJ Eckert: I agree with Charles and Danny to some extent. Free speech is one of, if not the most important, rights to maintain. That includes the ability to pick and choose when in private groups, otherwise private groups lose part of their meaning. While I think Milo should be able to speak when invited by a group that thinks they will benefit from having him, I dont think he benefits our movement much at all. He is a provocateur, in my opinion, a narcissistic egotist, and isnt interested in helping anyone really. Like Charles said, Rand Paul can come speak, deliver a message, and even get through to some who would riot for Milo. Why? In my shooting classes we have a saying that if you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes. In my opinion, Milo has been playing these stupid games for a while, and hes just won his stupid prize. Were better off without him, and good riddance. The only thing he was ever even good for, if you can call it that, was pointing out how absolutely crazy the left can go to twist their own thinking. Believing that words are actual violence, and actual violence in response was just self defense. But all the baggage he brings with him isnt worth it.

Bric Butler: I think we are all in agreement that free speech is vital to protect and the only such limitations to be put on it should be in regard to private institutions deciding who they allow to use their venues. Yet this Rand Paul and Milo comparisonIm not OK with. In my shooting classes we have a saying that if you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes. That is overt victim blaming. Same as, Well what did she expect when she wore such a short dress? Of course she was going to get raped! Milo might be unhelpful and just being an ass, but that doesnt mean we should make even small excuses for rioters.

TJ: Im not excusing riots, nor am I victim blaming. Maybe I shouldve been clearer: The stupid prize is him being dropped from his book deal, and possibly fired from Breitbart. Him pointing out that the left will riot over words may have been his only good contribution. The riots werent justified. The case of play stupid games, win stupid prizes is not a victim blame. Much like the kids who think its fun to shoot each other with Roman candles, they dont get my sympathy when they get burned. Milo tried making a career at just pissing off anyone and everyone. Look at his Bill Maher interview. He just had to get a fuck you from each panelist, he was literally begging for it. Well, now hes getting a big fuck you, just like hes asked for.

Bric: Yeah, the Bill Maher interview really kind of finally turned me off from supporting him, before all this other stuff even came out. I think Milos problem is he got too famous too fast. Wasnt able to properly handle it.

TJ: I honestly think his pedophilia video is a planned attack on him more than anything. I just dont really feel bad for him though. Hes not an innocent victim by any stretch of the imagination. I dont know if hes the type that would handle it well even if he got famous in other ways.

Anna Trove: I used to like Milo. I agreed with him on a lot of issues and liked how he was blunt and uncompromising in the face of SJWs and feminists. However, as he got more in the public eye he just got more ridiculous. His views became giant caricatures. He started saying things like there should be a cap on women in STEM fields, and that birth control makes girls unattractive and crazy. Instead of simply using facts to dispel myths like the gender wage gap, he started promoting his own insane ideas about things. The Bill Maher interview was the nail in the coffin for me. It was painfully cringe-worthy. I absolutely dont think the liberty movement should be associating themselves with Milo. It is not beneficial for us. Did anyone else hear in the Maher segment Milo said something like Im a liber- but Bill cut him off? He has distanced himself from libertarians in the past (thankfully) and I hope he continues to.

Nima Mahdjour: Yes, conservatives & libertarians will continue to benefit from the establishments attempts to prohibit his free speech. No, I dont think theyre better off without him in the public eye, but we dont know since hes just been getting more and more publicity from the smear attempts, especially this past month.

David: Hes really just the exodus king. If you take him away from one place (Twitter), hell find another way to come back bigger and better. You take away his spotlight and you give the spotlight to another spot. He will march them all towards a new platform. Hes kind of like hosting pornography on your website, hes big business for whatever platform hes on, but youve got to deal with the morality and the consequences of hosting a provocateur. He and Trump are two sides of the same coin ridiculously offensive and for that reason theyve inspired a new counterculture, but at the same time, they are in no way libertarian. Libertarians are grasping at straws to tag their ideology onto his likeness, but within a societal context, hes doing us proud on our only shred of common ground.

John Engle: Milo has helped to normalize and propagate a brand of populist conservatism that has hijacked many of the people who would have once been found in the liberty movement. It hardly seems likely that his public censure will do much to bring all those people back, but it at least removes from that strand of thought one of its most able propagandists. Free speech is obviously fundamental. And odious though I find much of what he says (and claims to believe), Im no great fan of de-platforming. As a general thought though, this is not a classic no-platform case since the moves have been made due to revelation of new information, so in the presence of that information no invitation may have been forthcoming in the first place. That said, it is interesting how quickly so many groups moved to distance themselves from someone who has said some provocative, even hateful things. Its a decent case study of how uncomfortable provocation makes many people. Simon & Schuster was clearly desperate for a way to cut ties after the bashing they have received over the past several months and this is a face-saving opportunity for them.

Dillon: The freedom to express ones self does not exist in a vacuum. Like the Second Amendment, there is a functionality required to exercise this natural right. An individual must own a gun for his right to bear arms to have any real meaning. The First and Second Amendments are not as abstract as other entries in the Bill of Rights, such as the Fourth, Fifth and Tenth Amendments, as those exist regardless of your behavior and interaction with others, and the application of those Amendments to you. Yes, you exercise your free speech when conversing with friends, or yelling at passers-by on a street corner, but to use your speech to effect change, tools and infrastructure are needed for your speech to be entered into the public domain. i.e. TV, radio, the Internet, printing press, etc. Milos speech will no longer be discursive since hes been banned from Twitter, hes resigned from Breitbart, hes forced to cancel his college campuses speeches, his books been cancelled, etc. Milo has essentially squandered his right to free speech by prioritizing confrontation, flamboyance and provocation; he fell into the style over substance trap and hes paying a price for it. Hes become radioactive; Milo made choices regarding how he would exercise his right to speech that caused not only those ideologically opposed to him to try to stifle him, but those normally predisposed to his beliefs are now shying away from him. In some ways, hes made it more difficult for conservatives and libertarians who can make valid arguments and have important things to say due to guilt by association. Milos reaping what he has sewn. He spent so much time portraying feminism as cancer. IRONY ALERT: Milos the cancerous entity now, having expended so much time and effort arguing that Muslims, feminists and other groups who are the subject of his ire should be forcibly removed from society, but he has proven to be the most effective in causing himself to be removed from society.

This post was written by Dillon Eliassen.

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

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

Like Loading...

See the article here:

Perspectives: The Forcible Removal of Milo Yiannapolous - Being Libertarian

AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster

By: Eli Bowman

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD Its no surprise that certain media outlets have received criticism from President Trump. Attacks during campaign season, as well as recent criticisms of the Presidents policies and executive orders have likely been the fuel for Trumps media hating fire. A source close to the President said If he could hed rather burn fake news reporters instead of booksbut hes sticking with books for now.

Large left-leaning media outlets such as CNN and The New York Times were banned from a White House press conference earlier today. The Overton window would suggest that this slippery slope will soon turn into a regular occurrence.

Among the media outlets that have been journalistically castrated by the white house are wildly popular libertarian publications The Libertarian Republic, Liberty Hangout, and Liberty Viral. They were banned from todays white house briefing as well.

Of course, youd never know it because these three publications were also banned from the articles naming the media outlets that were banned.

This is a shame for our readers. We work tirelessly to put our lighthearted, yet informative pieces to advance liberty and be included in the list of exclusions. Being left of the list of excluded media is a big league mistake. Grant Deltzsaid in letter to Liberty Virals subscribers. Trump responded via Twitter.

When Kody Fairfield, Editor-in-chief of The Libertarian Republic, was asked about the matter he said It doesnt make sense. I understand being banned from the white house for doing unbiased journalism, but to be banned from the list of banned media outletsthats a real punch in the gut. Well, Trump is banned from TLR in that case then. Thatll piss him off.

When hearing of his ban from TLR Trump took to Twitter.

Keith Doiron, founder of The J3BOLUTION and Chairman of the Please Clap Foundation cant believe it either, telling us in a text message Ive clapped for many things before that werent necessarily popular at the time, but I just cant clap for thisnot even if Jeb! asked me to. Lets just say that Jeb Bush wont ban those three groups when hes President in 2020.

President Trump initially denied our requests for comment but then tweeted out the following.

Justin Moldow, founder of Liberty Hangout, had this to say about the sneak diss. Its a total shock to me. On his helicopter he specifically told me that Liberty Hangout would never be excluded from briefings and press conferences. He said that right to my faceon his helicopter. Now, Im about to take him for another helicopter ride.

While libertarian media outlets are hoping to be able to once again gain access to the White House, this tweet from The Cheeto King isnt promising:

Liberty Virallibery hangoutsmediapress corpssatireThe Libertarian RepublicWhite House

Follow this link:

Libertarian Media Outlets Denied Access To White House Exclusion List - The Libertarian Republic

The Complexity of French Secularism Examined

This past week, during her visit to Lebanon, the French presidential candidate, Marine Le Pen, made headlines when she refused to dawn the proper dress in order to meet with a local Islamic cleric. Many conservatives and libertarians applauded her for defiance towards, and rejection of, one of the most notorious symbols of a repressive religious ideology, the headscarf (the least concealing of a variety of head and body coverings for women in the Islamic world). The justifications for this are found in such passages in the Quran as 33:59, that states:

O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies. That will be better, that they should be known so as not to be annoyed. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Many modern Islamic scholars will attempt to explain away this as an error of translation or that there is no specific mention of the face or head. Yet, this does not bode well when you read in the Hadith, Sahih Bukhari (60:282),

Aisha used to say: When (the Verse 24:31 of the Quran): They should draw their veils over their necks and bosoms, was revealed, (the ladies) cut their waist sheets at the edges and covered their faces with the cut pieces.

The face is found upon the head, and these women began to cover themselves there, and it must have pleased the Prophet for he did not correct them. Yet, I digress, Im sure defenders of Islam will say I continue to misinterpret the texts due to my bias against the religion (disclaimer: as an atheist and anti-theist I am against all religions, not just Islam). Even if they are correct, the very fact that their holy texts contain passages that can easily lead to interpretations causing such marginalization of women is another problem in itself that no amount of historical revisionism can whisk away.

Okay, now Im really off topic. Lets get back to the main point.

Marine Le Pen refused the headscarf, and many cheered her defiance of religious fundamentalism and applauded a true act of legitimate feminism. Amidst the fanfare, some raised objections. These people branded her a hypocrite because of her strict support for French secularism, known as lacit, and the use of legislation to further legally ingrain it in French society. Those who subscribe to lacit often oppose almost any form of religious expression in the public square. Lacit has been the driving force behind a law forbidding religious symbols and dress (including Islamic headscarves) to be worn by children in public schools. It has also been rumored to be a driving force behind the law that banned face concealing headwear in all public spaces in France, even though it was officially promoted for security reasons. Le Pen supports both of these laws, and even wishes to expand laws regarding religious dress in order to further legally enshrine lacit.

So, in short, she sees being forced to wear a headscarf as an affront to liberty, yet also sees no affront to liberty in forcing women to not wear one.

To those outside of France, this seems like utter hypocrisy, and understandably so, but only because we (speaking to my fellow Americans) come from a society with a much different history pertaining to religions relationship with the law. So, please, before judging her as an enemy of freedom, take the time to discover the history behind the secularisms of France and America.

French lacit in not like American secularism, also known as the Jeffersonian wall of separation enshrined in the Constitutions First Amendment, stating:

Congress shall make no lawrespecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

American secularism is a very live-and-let-live secularism. Basically, it only limits the government, making sure it doesnt suppress a religion or give one special preferential treatment. This has left citizens free to practice and demonstrate their religion in almost any way. Yet, French lacit is much more strict and regulatory in nature.

The differences stem from dissimilar histories.

America was first settled by those who were fleeing religious persecution, and by the time it was organizing as a new nation under the Constitution, dozens of sects of Christianity had made themselves at home along the Eastern Seaboard. Therefore, the lingering thoughts of their forefathers religious persecution and the need to facilitate peace among multiple sects naturally led the framers of the Constitution to create such a liberal, free-range secularism.

In France, the history since the Revolution of 1789 had been marked by struggle against an often legally entrenched and powerful Catholic Church that acted jointly with the monarchy to suppress the French people. Its power would fall with the rise of each Republic but would return once more with the return of monarchy. For example, after the rise of Napoleon via the Concordant of 1801, he made Catholicism the official state religion once more. This was a policy continued through the Bourbon Restoration and July Monarchy until 1848, with the rise of the 2nd Republic. Yet, upon the 2nd Republics fall in 1852, Catholicism was once again resurrected as the state religion. This remained throughout the whole 2nd French Empire, and then for 35 years into the 3rd French Republic until the 1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and State disestablished Catholicism as the state religion and ended the churchs privileges in society once and for all.

That was a 116-year battle between the French people and legally privileged organized religion.

So, the French people, out of fear of the return of Catholicism to its former power, have since 1905 passed many laws, and continue to support many more, that place harsh restrictions on all religions in the public sphere to make sure none may rise to have political power or legal privilege ever again.

As a society, they have decided to place relatively mild restrictions on liberty with regards to religious expression so as to guard one of their societys greater liberties: freedom from state religion. This is a utilitarian approach to liberty, but an approach to liberty nonetheless. Accepting a cost, in this case, a little loss of freedom in one area to get the benefit of securing a larger freedom; the freedom from an established religion by further safeguarding their return to revolutionary struggle between church and state that plagued their nation for over a century.

So, do not cast off Le Pen as a hypocritical foe to liberty. She is simply promoting liberty as she understands it; albeit a precarious brand of it. But for France, a nation with a long and complicated relationship to such an idolized ideal, that may ever be the only way.

After all, France is the nation who prides herself as being depicted as the bare breasted Marianne. Can we really ever realistically expect her to accept her fellow women to be wrapped in veils?

This post was written by Bric Butler.

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

Like Loading...

Read more:

Le Pen Refusing the Headscarf: Hero or Hypocrite? Its Complicated. - Being Libertarian

The first proper day of events at the 2017 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) was underway on Thursday, February 23rd, 2017 at the Gaylord resort in Maryland. Being Libertarian was there on Media Row, representing an all-too-scarce libertarian presence alongside the mainstream media outlets that normally frequent these events.

But then something very unexpected happened: CPAC was friendly. It was friendly to us libertarians; it was friendly to minority activist groups who still consider themselves conservative; it was friendly to LGBT rights and non-federal intervention. In other words, the first day of events at CPAC proved to be much more libertarian-ish (as Dr. Rand Paul would say) than ever anticipated. Perhaps that was because we simply knew where to look, but either way, the mainstream-pushed image of the typical right-wing zealots unwilling to hear other viewpoints fades quickly upon further investigation of this conference.

At The Hub, which is essentially CPACs equivalent to Comic Con for political nerds, the many many booths of the participating organizations complete with all their wonderful, unique swag were lined up for mass consumption. There were think tanks such as the Capital Research Center offering internships, colleges such as Hillsdale advertising their intensive academic programs and fellowship opportunities, and newspapers like Campus Reform empowering students to bring free speech issues on their respective college campuses to light.

But in addition to these usual elements to a conservative conference, there were other groups being represented here that might have been less wise to bet on showing up: there was a booth dedicated to giving conservative atheists a voice; there was a booth dedicated to members of the LGBT community who understand and embrace the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution for their protection; and there was even a small group of Republican transgender activists at CPAC raising awareness of the fact that trans people are not delusional, nor do they have to be exclusively liberal.

One such activist, Jennifer Williams, was upstairs on the main event floor housing the Potomac ballrooms. She was proudly sporting a GOP elephant pin sportingthe trans rights colors, and holding up a sign that read: Proud to be Conservative. Proud to be Transgender. Proud to be American. #SameTeam. And she was doing all of this while also being wrapped in the dont tread on me me flag. When asked her opinion on the relationship between the GOP and trans people in America, Williams pointed out that while there was still work to be done, she was confident that the more the trans community raises awareness about its plight and perspective, the less alien trans people will seem to traditional conservatives in America. Williams believes in a truly free United States in which ones sex, gender, or creed does not dictate ones politics, and where all people are free to express themselves politically however they feel right doing so.

James Spiller, a general attendee who seemed to support Williamss cause,spoke to us about how understanding trans people in many ways is the final step toward bridging the gap between liberal and conservative voters on the social front. He pointed out, rightly, that upon receiving hormone treatment, trans athletes bodies transform into the body type of their borne-in gender (i.e. a trans woman on hormones loses muscle mass and experiences slight realignment of bone structure, meaning she is not unfairly advantaged against her biologically female cohorts). Spiller also cited the fact that by pointing this out, both liberals and conservatives will learn very real truths that will bring the two groups closer to an understanding. For instance, in addition to conservatives realizing the transformative effect of hormone treatments, liberals might also have to acknowledge that there are genuine mental and physical differences between men and women than a transgender persons transition could help to highlight, and therefore unveil the real reason for the gender pay gap: women and men approach life, work, etc. differently from one another, make different choices, and have different frames of mind, so naturally different choices will be made in the workforce leading to different rates of pay.

Williams, while she didnt comment directly on Spillers points, did seem to share the outlook that many liberals claim to understand trans people just to virtue signal, but that they do not own concepts like compassion and social justice conservatives can display it, too. I did not vote for Trump, Williams admitted. I was a Kasich supporter. But I would have voted for Trump had New Jersey been in play at the time. But she clarified that she does hope Trump continues to support the LGBT community, and that any reversal on the issues would feel like a slap in the face to her community.

This point was touched upon later in the day during the Steve Bannon speaking event, in which he and fellow presidential aid Reince Priebus explained that President Trump still supports LGBT rights, as well as the lack of authority for federal overreach on such matters, and is therefore leaving the trans bathroom issue to the states. While much of the mainstream media has been reporting this stance as a reversal on trans rights, its actually quite consistent with the small government conservative and libertarian viewpoint. Leaving the bathroom issue to the states while still explaining ones personal views in support of trans people is, through this lens, not a contradiction, and is still very much a pro-LGBT position for a Republican president to have.

And the best part of all of this was that the entire room erupted with applause at this statement. Let that sink in: an entire ballroom full of conservatives and Republicans cheered on a trans rights issue. And the conference itself let atheists, gays, transgenders, and other minority groups through its doors in the name of liberty, freedom of expression, and fellowship. If you are a conservative, you are welcome at CPAC, regardless of any other aspect of your person that might not historically line up with the perceived norm. That is the message CPAC 2017 has chosen to convey. And I frankly hope that sentiment continues. As our new acquaintance James Spiller noted, true understanding is the only way the lefts claim to social and intellectual superiority is going to be curtailed.

Well, to be fair, there was one minority group that CPAC chose to discriminate against: white supremacists. Alt-right leader and white nationalist Richard Spencer attempted to crash the event (much like he had done with short-lived success at the International Students for Liberty Conference last week), but was made short work of by event organizers and hotel security. Racism, it seems, has finally run its course with the Republican Party and the conservative movement as a whole.

Yeah, I see the fuck face, one CPAC attendee could be overhead saying when Spencer first came on the scene. It was established that it is okay to punch Nazis, right? While back at the spot on the convention floor where Miss Williams was waving her no tread flag, an elderly gentleman walked up to her, shook her hand and said: I dont quite understand, but Im trying to.

No, the modern conservative movement isnt perfect. And no, we should not drop our guard on the frontier of looking at it critically. But we also must be mindful that, just as the older man shaking Williamss hand said, it is trying. It is trying to branch out and finally be the all-inclusive, anti-big government movement it has long claimed to be but never quite delivered on. And that effort should be commended. We should continue to hold the conservatives and the GOP accountable for continuing that, of course (and Bannon himself said at his event that the American people should hold the Trump administration accountable as well), but for now, this is more than expected, and pleasantly surprising. Especially for libertarians.

This post was written by Micah J. Fleck.

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

Like Loading...

See the article here:

A Libertarian View of CPAC: Part One - Being Libertarian

All it takes is a Hoppe, skip and a jump for those, who are joking online about throwing communists from helicopters, to justify their actions.

A growing wave of libertarians and anarcho-capitalists are finding themselves drawn to the world of anti-communist rhetoric, which extends to the nth degree. So, is commie killing a justified response to the violation of the NAP, or is this simply lunacy concocted to ideologically discriminate? Where does the line between threat and belief system exist?

To discover this, we must first look at the emerging resurgence of Hans-Hermann Hoppe and his beliefs, through the Facebook page Hoppean Snake Memes. Its a page which has amassed nearly seventeen thousand likes for its ideological tint, which takes heavy opposition to Marxism and Leninism; ideologies which are acting in opposition to anarcho-capitalism.

Just as one must fight to maintain their freedom, one must also work to secure their own free society. The difference between an anarcho-capitalist society and an anarcho-individualist society is based on the premise of the left and right dichotomy, with anarcho-capitalists representing the right-wing and property rights, and the anarcho-individualists representing the left-wing and communism.

Anarcho-individualism, as indicated through the works of Max Stirner, completely disregards pragmatism, societal progress and morality to favour the Ubermensch perspective of Friedrich Nietzsche, which essentially involves giving complete reign of ones life and actions over to the people to allow them to decide their life based on their own moral compass.

Essentially, given the rise of groups such as Antifa which run contrary to the libertarian principles of personal and property rights Hoppean Snake Memes takes a hyperbolic approach to Hoppes original views by mixing them with Augusto Pinochets historically notorious habit of dropping communists from helicopters.

The death of communists is seen very much in the same way that one would see the killing of ISIS regardless of whether or not individual ISIS members have committed atrocities, their group is reason enough for suspicion and consequential action to be taken to stop it. Given that groups such as Antifa and ISIS threaten the peace and prosperity of societal participants (since communism and Islam represent the two biggest terror threats in the world at the moment), it is clear that action must be taken.

I interviewed the administrator of the Facebook page who simply went by the monicker Snek for the purposes of conversation; he elaborated on his disdain for communism, which he saw as antithetical to a society which follows along a pathway of objective self-servience and capital-based individualism.

When I say communist, I am referring to one who advocates gulags. Not simply worker control of the means of production. I have nothing against worker control of the MOP, provided its all voluntary, et cetera et cetera.

Upon being pressed as to how this runs contrary to freedom of association and freedom of speech, the terminology of threat was used to justify the way in which communist advocacy works; their ideals stomping over the civil liberties of person and property.

This, paired with the forced radicalism of groups such as Antifa, is now acting as the basis for an emerging ideology that pairs anarchism with practicality, in order to minimise big government to small government and gradually make the transition to a stateless society. This is why the forces in question have fallen in love with the bombastic reductions taken by Donald Trump; reductions which run counter to the prior Democratic tendency to slip down a slippery slope and fall into a pit of authoritarian tripe (think Franklin D. Roosevelt). This heavy focus on pragmatism for libertarianism has led followers to co-opt the alternative right and expand its audience in the retaliation against leftism.

Snek detailed the following:

It should be noted that the helicopter memes are, for the most part, an exaggeration; the purpose, though, is to provoke thought on what is to be considered legitimate self-defence. The argument that Pinochet did nothing wrong stems from the argument that Allende would have been worse. Allende had very close ties to MIR and Castro, judging by Castros actions we know that if Allende was even remotely like him, Allende would have been objectively worse than Pinochet, in terms of human rights violations.

Given the low polling numbers of the Libertarian Party and the fact that the ideology has as much momentum behind it as a Snorlax on a bridge, can one really blame a frustrated branch of Austrian economics for a kneejerk reaction to the left and their omnipresent threat of attack on our fundamental rights?

Out of the philosophical and epistemological questions that lie behind the nebulous terminology of the NAP, it should be determined (at least to some extent) by the public consensus what is considered justifiable retaliation.

Do you approve of the commie killin freedom fighters, or do you simply see them as being full of Pinoshit?

We here at Being Libertarian are not at liberty (ironically) to disclose our personal position on ideological discrimination, however, we must advocate peace towards your fellow man, to set a good example for the thieves more extreme members of the left.

And stay up to date with all my articles on my personal Facebook page.

This post was written by David McManus.

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

David McManus has an extensive background in youth politics and of advocacy with regards to the libertarian and anarcho-capitalist movements. David draws his values from the works of Stirner, Hoppe and Rothbard. He is currently a student in Australia with a passion for writing, which carries into a healthy zest for liberty-based activism. Despite an aspiring career in politics, he considers himself a writer at heart with a steady niche for freelance work.

Like Loading...

Read the original post:

Libertarianism, Helicopters, and Leftists - Being Libertarian

Local Libertarians eyeing city, state government seats Mid-City Messenger The Libertarian Party of Orleans Parish is looking to gain notoriety with a few local government seats, but they're still searching for locals who want to get involved. We're not going to start winning offices right off the bat, Kirk Coco, party ...

Read more from the original source:

Local Libertarians eyeing city, state government seats - Mid-City Messenger