5489504

In DecemberPoliticoargued that libertarians were emerging as the opposition to then President-elect Trump, and Nick Gillespie, one of the editors at the flagship libertarian publication, Reasonmagazine, agreed. James Hohman and Matea Gold wrote in The Washington Post about how libertarian philanthropist Charles Koch was emerging as a major force of opposition to the Trump administration.

Onimmigrationpolicy that may be true, but as several writers have pointed out the Koch-seeded world of libertarian-lite non-profits that attempt to influence the GOP have many connections to both Vice PresidentPenceand to the people likely to staff the TrumpEPA. If you apply for ajob listedwith one of the many Koch-connected firms FreedomPartners, I360 and ask the recruiter (as I have) why so many jobs are open at these campaign and data science firms, you may be told that it is because many people have left their old jobs to work for the Trump administration.

But what about the young people?

You might expect the oppositional, radical, protesting, left libertarians to be found among the young. This weekend marks the 10th International Students for Liberty Conference, where a couple of thousand libertarians descend on D.C. for their own 3 day version of next weeks CPAC (the Conservative Political Action Conference). The libertarians have even moved as theyve grown to the Woodley Park Marriot Wardman Hotel, which was the venue for CPAC through the last CPAC that flame throwing publisher Andrew Breitbart attended before he passed away. (Officially CPAC moved out to the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center because it had outgrown the Marriot, though if you check the number of voters before and after the move in its presidential straw poll, the numbers did not grow. Some say it moved to the inaccessible Gaylord in Oxon Hill, Maryland because Occupy protesters some hired off Craigslist were protesting CPAC. So far, they dont protest the libertarians.)

SFL was started by a small group of east coast, mainly Ivy-educated students, including Alexander McCobin, who very ably ran and grew the group to ahuge international federation operating on every inhabited continent, whilesimultaneously trying to finish a graduate degree in philosophy. McCobin, who speaks at ISFLC this weekend, has left the group to run an SFL for adults, Whole Foods founder John Mackeys organizationConscious Capitalism. Besides a change in leadership, this years ISFLC seems to have a change in political coloration.

In the past the libertarian students keynote speakers have included former Mexican president Vincente Fox (best known as an answer to a trivia question about Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnsons memory lapse) on ending the drug war, and featured panelists have included film maker Oliver Stone andInterceptfounding editor Jeremy Scahill. Edward Snowden has Skyped in as a speaker.

This years keynote speaker is Senator Rand Paul, only a day after appearing on TV standing behind President Trump with Senator Manchin and other coal country union leaders and politicians, as the President signed directives easing regulations that had decimated that industry. Other speakers include Steve Forbes, tax cut advocate Grover Norquist, and historian Amity Shlaes.

The optics are more accommodation and less opposition, or if opposition definitely a GOPish, right of center, free trader, #NeverTrump opposition.

These more GOP-leaning, conservative-seeming panelists are mainly Friday afternoon and evening. Saturday and Sunday pick up with a more left-leaning or liberal-tarian assortment of speakers: AntiWar.coms Angela Keaton, Israel critic Sheldon Richman, Institute of Justice litigator Rob Pecola on civil asset forfeiture, Electronic Frontier Foundation anti-surveillance state critic and organizer ShahidButtar, and Cato Institute pollster Dr. Emily Ekin on the central question for libertarians now President Trump: How did we get here, and where do we go now?

For the past several years many of the major speakers at ISFLC would be featured on John StosselsFox Businessshow, which mined ISFLC for content in a happysymbiotic relationship. No one else (Kennedy? Tucker?) seems to have picked that up this year, so to learn what the future of the libertarian movement is thinking, youll actually have to travel to Woodley Park.

See the rest here:

Libertarians And President Trump - Daily Caller

Being Libertarian

We Need to Fix the Libertarian National Convention Being Libertarian That's a fairly simple maxim, yet it is one the Libertarian Party has frequently ignored, to its detriment. In 2016, when many Americans began flailing about, searching for an alternative to the least popular mainstream candidates in history, the ... Libertarians delay state conventionThe Bozeman Daily Chronicle (blog) all 2 news articles »

Originally posted here:

We Need to Fix the Libertarian National Convention - Being Libertarian

Courtesy Illustration

This article is part of a Point/Counterpoint series. Click here to see the initial response about Liberal Capitalism.

~

You never change things by fighting the existing reality.

To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.

-Buckminster Fuller

We live in a cage that prevents sincere freedom and justice, and ultimately deeper democracy and peace. The bars of this cage are comprised of power hierarchies, which divide people into classes and countries that childishly wage endless, costly wars. Consequently, this locks up the highest potential for humanity by constraining our psychologies, relationships, and peaceful socioeconomic evolution.

When speaking of politics, the core issue is power. The question becomes: is power concentrated in the hands of one person or a few people in de facto dictatorship? This applies not just to political power, but also centralized economic power in the form of dictatorial private corporations.

Clearly, wealth is power. In our system of extreme inequality, the wealthiest few have far more power to buy property resources, politicians, elections, laws and entire governments. That is oligarchy, and a 2014 Princeton study found this is what we have, not democracy.

Dismantling power imbalances, and building something with deeper freedom and justice, has been the aim of libertarian socialism since the Enlightenment, from Godwin to Chomsky. Institutions targeted for dissolution are the coercive state, the oppressive security apparatus for the wealthiest few, and capitalism itself, which inherently generates vast inequality and injustice.

This rich philosophical tradition of more traditional anarchism has largely remained hidden from Americans by information gatekeepers. Few teachers, politicians or media institutions intelligently mention it. Despite capitalist and communist distortions creating manifold misunderstandings, the historical fact remains that libertarian socialism has always meant a highly organized system where people govern themselves, without rulers.

Philosopher Rudolph Rocker wrote, (Anarchism is) a definite trend in the historical development of mankind, whichstrives for the free unhindered unfolding of all the individual and social forces in life. (Anarchists would replace political and capitalistic economic dictatorships that divide) every country into hostile classes internally, and externallyinto hostile nations; (causing) open antagonism and by their ceaseless warfare keep the communal social life in continual convulsions.

Importantly, we have examples of libertarian socialism succeeding. In addition to thousands of functional worker co-operatives globally, examine the 1936 Spanish Revolution. Anarchists took over considerable regions of Spain, arguably the best modern example of true civilization, before communists, fascists and capitalists crushed them.

George Orwell described the Spanish Revolution well: (The) normal motives of civilized lifesnobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc ceased to existclass-division of society (disappeared and) no one owned anyone else as his master. (There was) a feeling of having suddenly emerged into an era of equality and freedom. Human beings were trying to behave as human beings and not as cogs in the capitalist machine.

As in Spain, this more evolved order must be organized based on smaller organic units of power, such as democratized workplaces, villages and neighborhoods. According to Dunbars Number, derived from measuring the neocortex ratio of primates, the ideal unit is approximately 150 people.

These smaller units would make local decisions, and elect representatives that can be immediately recalled in a global federation. Collective, federated decision-making is essential for peace and fearless disarmament. A more just system of wealth and property decentralization would also vastly reduce or eliminate crime.

A federated architecture would also protect the most vital human needs of clean water and healthy soil for food production, the most fundamental basis of a sane, sustainable economy. Indeed, capitalist destruction of soil and water is the most unsustainable and violently impoverishing human activity. Soil takes thousands of years to form, so its ruin promises reverberation for millennia and untold generations. Even progressive Fayetteville endlessly paves paradise for parking lots, in the words of Joni Mitchell.

To evolve beyond the destructive dominator paradigm, the dictatorial state and capitalist corporations must be replaced. However, other hierarchies demand dissolution as well, including patriarchy, racial supremacy, Nature domination and middle man religion. Christian Anarchists took steps on the latter, with Leo Tolstoys Kingdom of God is Within being a foundational document, inspiring Gandhi, Dr. King and the Berrigan brothers.

Ultimately, the current system is a chaotic house of cards that must transform or crumble. An evolutionary social vision is mandatory to alter the structures threatening our survival, particularly in terms of climate change and nuclear war. These problems go deeper than Trump, since both Wall Street war parties sell bombs to dictators, and profit from war and environmental holocaust.

People speak of Trump not representing our values, but the reality is, mainstream American culture has none. He is the unmasked face of the corporatist empire where money is the American idol, where profit matters more than human life. It is painfully unjust, disgusting and embarrassingly cruel when capitalist tycoons drown in money while workers struggle to afford medicine, pay rent and feed their children. Trump is the American mirror.

We must peer into the mirror, and ignite a revolution in the mind, as Krishnamurti insisted. Begin with a few leaves, some beautiful ideas, and then a spark. From there, breathe life into this fire until it is a raging revolutionary inferno, impossible to extinguish.

Social evolution is a developing child, first an infant, then toddler, and now selfish warring juveniles. A Newer World awaits adult cage free humanity.

See the original post here:

Point/Counterpoint: Key to Escape Political and Economic Prison, Libertarian Socialism - The Free Weekly

Rare.us

Libertarian-leaning Republican Mark Sanford isn't afraid to criticize President Trump Rare.us On the same day Donald Trump is visiting Boeing in South Carolina, one of that state's most prominent congressmen is making it known that just because they belong to the same party, that doesn't mean the president will get a free pass. In a lengthy ... 'I'm a Dead Man Walking' - POLITICO MagazinePOLITICO Magazine Mark Sanford isn't afraid to criticize President Trump because 'truth ...The Week Magazine all 13 news articles »

Originally posted here:

Libertarian-leaning Republican Mark Sanford isn't afraid to criticize President Trump - Rare.us

Recently, I went to an ice cream place in New Holland, and the owners there were explicitly Christian. They had signs asking people to maintain a modest dress, and if customers were not modestly dressed, to please limit their time at the farm.

After our visit there, we went into Lancaster city. This happened to be on the day of the Womens Marches around the country. We ate at a cool place and saw some stragglers still holding signs. Within the windows of the cafes and bars, you could see young hipsters who would probably recoil in disgust at the signs found at the Christian ice cream place.

At the same time, those farmers at the ice cream place probably would have recoiled in disgust at the values articulated on some of the signs being carried around and the alcohol being consumed.

It struck me that we all live in our own bubbles, and thats OK. We just shouldn't be forcing each other to comply and support our lifestyles. We can engage and try to persuade, but force should be removed from the equation. Maybe we shouldn't force those dairy farmers to pay for birth control with their tax dollars, but maybe we also shouldn't be forcing young urbanites to adhere to a religious practice by forbidding gays to marry, or prohibiting them from smoking marijuana.

Maybe we should stop using the government as an instrument of force in general and start leaving each other alone to live the lives that we feel are best for ourselves. When you use the government to enforce your beliefs, you are willing to send a man with a gun to enforce them. Perhaps its time to start being a bit more libertarian.

Go here to see the original:

Maybe it's time to be more libertarian - LancasterOnline

Jakarta,Indonesia, held an election Wednesday to elect a new governor to succeed the current governor who is on trial after being indicted for violating blasphemy laws.

Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, or Ahok, is the first Christian and ethnically Chinese governor of Jakarta in the last 50 years, and is currently on trial for insulting Islam after accusing his opponents of using it as a means to mislead the electorate. He was elected in 2014 when then-governor Joko Widodo stepped down from the role to run for president.

Purnama was seen as the clear favorite to win re-election, until he was charged with blasphemy a criminal offense in Indonesia in late 2016. If convicted, Purnama faces up to five years in prison for his actions.

This election is seen as a test of religious tolerance in a country whose laws dont support the liberty to be blasphemous. Indonesias blasphemy laws were enacted in 1965,and in 2012 a public servant was imprisoned for two and a half years on the charge of outing himself as an atheist on Facebook.

If Purnama wins the election, this could be seen as an clear rejection of blasphemy laws, given that 85% of Indonesias population is Muslim. This election gives the people of Jakarta the ability to freely voice a rejection to these kind of laws that limit freedom of speech especially political speech and freedom of religion.

The results of the election are expected some time during late February.ccr

Some voters have spoken out in favor of Purnamas re-election despite the controversy.I am a devout Muslim but I dont care about the religion of our leaders, said Lip Purwantara, a voter I am voting for someone who can make our city greener, cleaner and better place to live.

BBC reportsthat they witnessed people telling those queuing to make sure they vote for a Muslim, before being warned by officials not to intimidate voters.

Despite the controversy, Purnama has been credited with many successful policy decisions, including efforts to improve the the citys traffic situation, tackling corruption, turning a red-light district into a public park, and favoring greater education and healthcare access.

Private exit polls suggested that Purnama still maintained a slight lead overformer education minister Anies Baswedan, but doesnt have enough support to reach the required 50% threshold to win. This suggests the likely possibility of a run-off election, which would occur some time in April.

Photo Credit:Kompas / Kurnia Sari Aziza

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...

Go here to see the original:

Blasphemy Controversy Plagues Jakarta Gubernatorial Election - Being Libertarian

LISTEN TO TLRS LATEST PODCAST:

By Kody Fairfield

A journalist, and frequent guest of Bill Mahers Real Time has cancelled his appearance on the show this Friday night because of Breitbart editor and conservative provocateurMilo Yiannopoulos being chosen as the lead guest, reportsDeadline.

The founder of the Intercept, Jeremy Scahill, has removed himself from the line up of the HBO political talk show in protest of Yiannopoulos saying in a statement released on Twitter that the booking of Milo is many bridges too far.

Deadline reports that Scahill has been a recurring guest on Mahers show over the past decade and that Scahill admits he might not always be popular with its audience.

[Maher]and his staff have created a vital platform for debate and discussion that at times I love and other times loathe, he wrote in the post. I know I fall into the latter category for some of the shows viewers because I hear from them every time I appear. Whatever one might say about Bill, he always allows guests to challenge him or disagree with him.

Scahill in his statement expressed that he believes Milo will incite violence against immigrants, transgender people, and others.

On Friday, a spokesperson for HBO told Deadlinethat Yiannopoulos would appear in the studio with Maher, and that, as with other weeks, an appropriate amount of security will be on hand.

Read more from the original source:

Journalist Cancels Appearance on Real Time Because of Milo - The Libertarian Republic

LISTEN TO TLRS LATEST PODCAST:

By Zach Foster

Most people are used to seeing signs that say, dont feed the animals, as those signs are posted in parks and zoos. Whatno one expects to see, however, are signs that say Do not feed the people, right?

One of the oldest traditions of Western civilization is giving alms to the poor, including feeding the homeless. The City of Los Angeles almost made it illegal to feed the homeless. This is how a group of activists stopped big government in its tracks.

In 2013, Los Angeles City Councilman Tom LaBonge introduced a motion before the City Council prohibiting anyone from feeding the homeless in public rights of way (sidewalks, street corners, open areas). The councilmen justified the motion on health and food safety reasons. Libertarian activist Angela McArdle had a problem with the motion.

Who are they to tell the people theyre not allowed to help the needy? says McArdle. According to the paralegal and Libertarian activist, she and her friends have been feeding the homeless for years. LaBonges rationalization for the motion was that it protected the homeless from food poisoning from improperly prepared food. If people wanted to help them, they would have to incorporate, become accountable to the IRS, open a kitchen, and have their facilities inspected by city, county, state, and federal bureaucrats.

Not all homeless people are out there on the corners asking for change. Most of them keep a low profileits so easy to get harassed or assaulted. A lot of them really do go hungry and need the help. If I want to make sandwiches at home and hand them to the homeless people I see on my way to work, thats my business.

One of the biggest problems with the motion proposed in the L.A. City Council is its typical of the current atmosphere. Very few cities in densely-populated California actually do anything to solve the problem of homelessness. Rather than developing and enacting policies to reduce homelessness, city councils go for the quick fix and make it illegal to be homeless.

By passing vagrancy laws, restricting the hours and use of public spaces, and making feeding the homeless in public spaces illegal, cities merely pass the buck as entire tent cities and homeless populations are legislated out of one city after another. They bounce around the L.A. County grid like ping pong balls.

Just recently, the City of L.A. made it illegal for people to sleep in their car, McArdle says. That infuriates me. My legal clients are people who were wrongfully evicted or foreclosed on. The first few nights, many of them have nothing but their car for them and their children to sleep in for that night. All the City government did was take away another safety net protecting people from the city streets at night.

Angela McArdle, paralegal and Libertarian activist

In addition to losing a layer of protection against the grittier kinds of people found on city streets and alleys, people in violation of this ordinance will be ticketed or possibly detained. That only creates another financial burden for the homeless, many of whom lost their homes due to financial struggles, not delinquent behavior. Restricting the public from feeding the homeless is one more burden on the latter group.

Angela McArdle and friends joined up with the non-profit Monday Night Mission to protest the indefensible motion. The protest was held on Hollywood and Vine, fittingly in the district of Tom LaBonge, sponsor of the anti-homeless motion. Nearly a thousand people attended and it was covered in the local L.A. TV stations. The overwhelming show of public opposition to the motion put an end to it before it was voted on.

Three years later, Tom LaBonge retired amidst allegations of misuse of $600,000 in taxpayer funds. The L.A. Times reported that the City Attorneys investigative task force has approved only $83,000 of the $600,000 spent by LaBonges office.

The defeat of the anti-homeless motion is an example of ordinary citizens standing up to government overreach. Libertarians often get discouraged because its so difficult electing Libertarians to high office. But what Angela McArdle and her friends did shows how city governments can be tyrannical too, not just the Feds, and that We the People have power over the bureaucrats who want to rule us.

Im proud we were able to make a difference, McArdle says with a broad smile, but even if the motion had passed, I would have broken that law a hundred times. Now thats the spirit! Not surprisingly, McArdle found a home for her activism in the Libertarian Party.

activismActivisthomelesshomelessnessLos Angeleslos angeles times

Continue reading here:

Feeding the Homeless: Activist Stands Up to City Government - The Libertarian Republic

Last week, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) rankled many libertarians with his vote to confirm unreconstructed drug warrior and criminal justice reform opponent Jeff Sessions as Attorney General. Last night, the libertarian-leaning senator answered those critics and explained his vote on Fox Business Network's Kennedy program:

I think personal considerations; I've known him for a long time. I didn't like the way Democrats vilified and tried to create him into some sort of racist monster, which is not who he is. So the fact that they used character assassination, I didn't want to be associated with that.

But I can tell people, libertarians across the country, that there is no stronger voice in the U.S. Senate for opposing militarization of the police, opposing the drug war, opposing the surveillance state. And so if people want to apply a purity test to me they're more than welcome, but I would suggest that maybe they spend some of their time on the other 99 less libertarian senators.

You can watch the whole interview, which covers angry constituent townhalls, Paul's Obamacare-replacement bill, and whether the left is developing its own version of the Tea Party, below:

Paul's vote, you'll recall, was also couched in his ongoing opposition to President Trump appointing Elliott Abrams to the number-two slot at the State Department, an effort that at minimum coincided with success.

Paul's confirmation strategery has received praise from W. James Antle III and a sympathetic ear from his former co-author Jack Hunter, while prompting a BuzzFeed News piece titled "How Rand Paul Is Navigating The Trump Presidency."

Reason on Jeff Sessions here, on Rand Paul here.

Read this article:

Rand Paul, to Libertarians Critical of His Sessions Vote: 'I would ... - Reason (blog)

Recently somebody posted this on FB:

It sparked a fascinating conversation:

Melody: Jesus was speaking to the individual, NOT the government. If your so concerned about refugees, then YOU need to get off your butt and go help them. Leave the safty of your country and go help them. Im tired of people using Jesus to justify more government control.

Dan: You are incorrect and B16 in his encyclical Caritas in Veritate more than denounces you. Then prior to that, there is PP and Mater et Magistra.

You need to learn your faith.

Melody: I know my Faith, I also know that The Catholic Faith (plus others) teaches that it is the individual NOT the government who is responsible for caring for humanity.

Mary: Melody we dont need to do a thing about abortion. Its an individual choice. Is this what you are saying?

Liz: I came to the same conclusion, Mary.

This is like a little microcosm of the American Church. Melody has absorbed the strange libertarian lie that that state is somehow free to ignore the natural law and do Whatever because the natural law applies only to individuals. She, of course, is thinking only of the gospel commands about care for the least of these. And she relies on the lie that things like food, shelter, and elementary demands of basic justice to human beings are charity. She then proceeds to the lie that since these things are charity they are no business of the state.

But in fact, things like food, shelter, and health care are not charity. They are due human beings in justice and ensuring justice is precisely the task of the state. Therefore it is not either/or, but both/and. We are to personally care for the least of these. We are also to see to it that the state does too.

This is ironically illustrated by Mary, who takes Melody at her word and takes it to the conclusion the anti-abortion-but-not-prolife right ever seems to realize by pointing out that if the state is not supposed to help protect the human right of the least of these, then it follows that the whole point of the prolife struggle to get the state to stop its laissez faire approach to abortion is without foundation.

The great irony here is that Liz, a pro-choice atheist who has been rather shocked to discover she has a lot in common with a bunch of devout, Mass-going Catholics with strong empathy for the Catholic social justice tradition finds herself suddenly in bed with Melody, a libertarian, anti-abortion-but-not-prolife Catholic who mouths all the right wing excuses for ignoring the Church on everything but abortion.

I wrote them both and told them I hope they both feel exquisitely uncomfortable being in bed with one another. Liz, at any rate, has enough of a sense of humor to appreciate the irony of her predicament. Melody I dont know and am not sure if she even realizes that she just made the libertarian case for every pro-choice person on planet Earth. But Liz, I think, must realize that her pro-choice philosophy undergirds the libertarian case for the selfishness Melody is advocatinga selfishness Liz loathes.

The way out of their strange bedfellows dilemma is, of course, embrace of the complete and consistent Catholic ethic of life and rejection of the libertarianism they each selectively embrace.

No idea what will happen next.

Continued here:

Libertarians and Pro-Choice Advocates: Peas in a Pod - Patheos (blog)

Im A Libertarian Man, and I Support Feminism

I want to discuss a topic that I feel all libertarians should be supporters of Feminism! Lets face it, libertarians need to stop being so freaking anti-feminist, once and for all; though I think most libertarians are pro-feminist deep down inside. Feminism in its original meaning is 100% a libertarian/capitalist movement.

First off, lets just say why feminists in the original sense should hate government. Governments used to not allow women to own property or businesses of any kind. Literally setting it up so that (in many states) if a woman was married to a man, and didnt have a male son when the man died, she would likely be forced to give the business to the closest male relative, likely without any compensation for it.

For many years, women were not legally allowed to vote in America. Women were denied access to schools for most of history. Many governments would even be able to shut down a business just for hiring and using women workers, if complained about. Occupational licensing was made difficult to obtain, and women were denied the right to become things such as lawyers, doctors and more. Women were put in many situations where their property and rights werent respected. Up until the 1950s, many states didnt even care if a man casually beat his wife as long as no serious damage was caused.

There was a discriminatory agent around and, holy sh*t, it was the government. The government, being a male created tool which blocked womens rights (they did not have voting rights), created a male only majority that damaged the rights of women. They did this with Jim Crow; they did this to the Native American community; they did it to women; from this, its easy to say women were treated poorly by society and viewed as tools in male oppression.

We cant just say Oh, that was the past, today is what counts; Its called all f*cking history, compared to the last 50 damn years! For most of American history, women had very few rights compared to men. We did live in an anti-female society. In world history, for 99% of the time, women didnt have an equal say. We are living in the [maybe] .3% that they do. This is something I see libertarians pretend isnt the case and that is morally and historically just a total wasteland of wrong. What caused this to end? Well, like most problems, it was the market. Let me list what the market did to help womens rights.

Changes in Labor The movement of manual labor economies to white collar jobs: with the rise of technology, people arent cutting down trees, farming, or doing a lot of other jobs which, from a physical perspective, women arent as capable of doing. More people in the early 20th century moved into jobs where they worked in an office, developed things with their minds, and from that, the door was opened, and women were needed in that pool of the labor market.

Modern Medicine Another was the rise of modern medicine, and women not dying as frequently while giving birth. Everyone having a mom is new to history. If a person lived before the 20th century, there was a good chance their mom died giving birth to them, or giving birth to their siblings. The older women were, the more likely it was to happen. This is why women, for most of history, would be married at a very young age and asked to have children at about 15-18 years old. Modern medicine made it so that giving birth at age 30 isnt a death sentence anymore. This opens options for new career choices.

A Rise in Wealth and Education The rise of women in education and early careers, caused a rise in wealth. People had more money, and America got an expanded labor force, allowing for care services which make parenting while both parents work a real thing and not a financial impracticality. For the first time, it is profitable for both parents to work, even if that requires housekeeping or day care services. The market did something very new when it moved people away from farms and into cities. People came for factory jobs and, as the need for child labor dropped, the rise of public schools began. Women got the invite to join, and for the first time in history, lower, middle, and upper income girls were able to attend schools. This was likely the greatest thing ever to aid in the rise of women in the economy. Birth Control Birth control and the greatness of Roe vs Wade here is a simple fact, being pregnant as a choice rather than it being obligatory, is a great thing!

So where does this bring us?

Why are women still complaining?

Feminists do have a point, these problems exist, and there are two sets of solutions.

The first solution is culture: shows such as Jessica Jones, or Legend of Korra, that are geared towards a male audience but turn women into these non-sexualized, awesome characters (who say what theyd like, have relationships with who they want, and kick-ass) are honestly doing more to change the stigma in how men treat women than any protest has. Culture and actions in media are changing this culture to the benefit of women.

The second solution is capitalism: women make less than men on average due to chosen career paths? Libertarians have a solution for that eliminate government backed student loans. Banks will still loan money, but not to poorly performing majors and people will now financially be forced to pursue higher earning fields such as math or science. In this, they will also see a decline in older, lesser earning majors slowing down the new supply of labor in that pool and opening other options.

Women complain about birth control and abortion rights? Libertarian have a solution for that. Its called deregulation where birth control is easier to obtain and lower FDA times to get approvals on new drugs.

Women complain about men being abusive? Libertarians have a solution for that. Just imagine how much better the police would function without the war on drugs, without so much time/money going to victim-less crimes and more attention going to real abuses.

Libertarians have solutions to female problems, and female problems in culture do indeed exist. Why a woman gets called a slut for having sex with twenty people, but a man gets called awesome is confusing. Why so many parents tell their daughters to marry wealthy men at a young age is genuinely sad. Solutions do exist on both a personal and government level.

Im tired of libertarians failing and failing hard. We are turning our movement into something which sees Milo Yianhoweveryouspellit say women shouldnt pursue science and we go Hahaha thats funny! We are seeing many in the liberty movement casually bash feminist and instead of saying We see your problems as real, and we have answers for you! we stay in this male bubble of bashing women. Its why libertarians dont succeed. When we ignore the problems and just bash the idea that the problems exist we lose a voter! We lose a supporter! We lose a volunteer! We lose a libertarian! We create a communist!

So, I support feminism, and libertarianism is 100% a feminist friendly movement.

This post was written by Charles Peralo.

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

Like Loading...

Read this article:

I'm a Libertarian Man, and I Support Feminism. - Being Libertarian

Former Libertarian presidential candidate and Missouri State alumus Austin Petersen was welcomed back to campus by the Missouri States Young Americans for Liberty on Thursday, Feb. 8.

According to the chapter president, sophomore history major Jaret Scharnhorst, Young Americans for Liberty is a nationwide organization that is focused on recruiting, training and educating students on the ideals of liberty and the Constitution.

Petersen opened his talk by throwing in a little humor as he talked about the ideals of the Libertarian Party.

Here is being a Libertarian in a nutshell, I just want gay married couples to be able to guard their marijuana fields with automatic rifles, Petersen said.

Petersen graduated from Missouri State in 2004, majoring in musical theatre. In 2016, Petersen ran for president of the United States with the Libertarian Party. He became the runner-up for the nomination to the governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson.

After graduating from MSU, he moved to New York to become an actor where he noticed that the taxes were quite high. He said he noticed even with the little money that actors make, the government still took quite a bit out.

This is what sparked Petersens interest in politics. Before he knew it, he was working his way up the ladder in Washington D.C.

About a year later, he said he saw that his preferred candidate for the Republican Party, Rand Paul, was probably not going to make it through the primary. So, he decided to take matters into his own hands.

I thought to myself, If he did not make it to the primary, then there would not be someone who embodied my beliefs, Petersen said, So, I thought, Well Im turning 35 this year, (and) I am constitutionally eligible, so I decided to throw my hat into the ring.

In his speech, Petersen talked about Libertarian ideals and how they differ from those of Republicans and Democrats.

You know with this past election having two not very popular candidates, people are looking to third parties now more than ever, Petersen said.

Petersen also covered a wide array of controversial issues that surround this nation today, one of those being the War on Drugs.

One of the first things that I would do would be to abolish the War on Drugs completely, Petersen said. The reason drugs are dangerous is because they are illegal. Doing drugs is a victimless crime. So, yes, I do believe that heroin should be legal, that way we are able to study it. If we do that, Im sure that once people realize how bad it is for you, the usage of the drug will go way down.

Scharnhorst said he believes that bringing in Petersen will do great things for the organization

You know bringing in a person of Austins caliber is a really big deal, Scharnhorst said. If you tell people that you have a presidential candidate, and MSU alum come and speak, that will really get people to come out to hear his message and our message as well.

Justin Orf, senior political science major, was in the audience during Petersens speech, and had good things to say about Petersen.

I really liked his speech, because it provides us with different viewpoints, Orf said. College Republicans and Libertarians have similar views on less government, so it is pretty cool to see that connection. But it also shows us how Libertarians diverge a bit from normal conservatism.

As Petersen concluded his speech, he said the sole role of government should be to protect citizens liberties.

Read the original post:

Former Libertarian presidential candidate visits alma mater - Standard Online

In the midst of what should have been (if not for the populist political revolts of 2016) the dawn of a Clinton presidency, I find it surreal I lament that the very woman I detest will not be leading the American nation for the next four to eight years.

There, I have said it. Mere months after her exit from the political arena, I most sincerely miss Hillary Clinton.

She was corrupt, uninspiring, and had been part of the political establishment for so long she became their most notorious poster child. Yet, for all her faults she successfully kept radical, progressive, democratic-socialism at bay in the 2016 elections.

She defeated Bernie Sanders, but another prodigy of the left is waiting in the wings. That looming figure, of course, is none other than Senator Elizabeth Warren. The very senator who recently found herself subject to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnells blundered attempt to silence her during debate on Senator Jeff Sessions confirmation as Attorney General. This monumental mistake on part of the Republican leadership has now only thrown her further into the liberal progressive spotlight that was already warming towards her.

The Democrats, particularly the partys most vocal and active progressive wing, are bitter and seething with contempt, and angered with their own party that took actions to suppress socialist Bernie Sanders during the primaries, and angered with the larger American electorate, who denied them the chance to coronate their queen um, I mean, elect the first female President.

With Warren, they have the chance to right both of these perceived wrongs cast upon them; if they are successful, the policies sure to be enacted by a Warren presidency would turn any foe of Clinton from the chant of Lock Her Up! to Im With Her!

Clinton supported increasing the federal minimum wage to $12, and luke-warmly supported local and state attempts to increase it to $15, while Senator Warren highlighted in 2013 that the minimum wage should be at $22+ if it were continually tied to the standard of living.

Clinton, a staunch supporter of entitlement spending, such as Social Security, was pragmatic enough to not completely rule out the possibilities of cuts or restructuring the system. By contrast, Warren is a hardliner who not only refuses to cut or restructure Social Security, but wishes to expand the program already operating under financial strain.

Clinton was reluctant to withdraw her support of trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and once in office would likely have waffled on doing anything about stopping them, while Warren was a fierce advocate against them. This comes at a time when the Republican Party has become skeptical of trade under the leadership of President Donald Trump. Losing even more ground for pro-trade ideals could threaten our national economy, which even I, who am critical of multi-lateral trade deals, admit could be a problem, because a counterbalancing view always helps moderate extremes, in this case extremes of economic protectionism.

So while we all loved to hate her, Hillary Clinton may soon become a name we fondly look back upon. What strange times in which we find ourselves.

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 the rest here:

The New Nasty Woman: We Will Miss the Old One - Being Libertarian

The White House has riled the country's civil libertarian wing after President Trump enthusiastically voiced support for a controversial law enforcement tool that allows an individuals property or assets to be seized without a guilty verdict.

The president weighed in on what's known as "civil asset forfeiture" during an Oval Office meeting last week with sheriffs. Thepresident, who ran on a law-and-order message, said he shared their desire to strengthen the practice and even said he would destroy the career of a Texas politician trying to end it.

The comments revived tensions with libertarians who have been fighting the practice under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Already piqued by the selection of former Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, a vocal supporter of asset forfeiture, to lead the Justice Department, the Libertarian Party itself condemned the comments.

It was really disappointing to hear those words. He campaigned on the idea of helping people who are on the low end of the economic spectrum and this [law] disproportionately affects minorities and those who do not have the means to hire an attorney, Libertarian National Committee Chair Nicholas Sarwark told Fox News.

Sarwark called the practice "immoral," adding that it is simply government theft of individual property that flips the nations legal system on its head.

While laws differ across the country, most states allow law enforcement to seize an individuals assets or property on the suspicion they have been involved in criminal activity. Even if a person is found to be not guilty, some jurisdictions allow the government to keep their property.

Sheriff John Aubrey of Louisville, Ky., said he was heartened by his meeting with Trump because he, unlike the last administration, will give them a "fair hearing" on asset forfeiture.

He also believes there is a misconception that police just take property but stressed that they cannot do so before gettinga court order.

Trump signaled he would fight reform efforts in Congress, saying politicians could get beat up really badly by the voters if they pursue laws to limit police authority.

The comments could signal an abrupt halt to efforts to curb the practice under the Obama administration, which also had faced heavy criticism from civil libertarians and criminal justice reform advocates.

Brittany Hunter of the free-market Foundation for Economic Education wrote that the presidents egregious comments effectively destroy any hope that his administration will be better on this issue than President Obama. In fact, the situation may very well become worse.

According to the Institute for Justice, a civil liberties law firm, the Department of Justices Assets Forfeiture Fund generated $93.7 million in revenue in 1986. By 2014, the annual figure had reached $4.5 billion -- a 4,667 percent increase. The practice surged for years under the Obama administration.

While critics believe the policy creates a profit incentive for law enforcement, police organizations say it is an important tool and charges of abuse have been blown out of proportion.

There are those who see an incident of one and want to apply the rule of many, but we have found the annual number of incidents [of abuse] is miniscule, Jonathan Thompson of the National Sheriffs Association told Fox News.

Thompson said the issue was addressed in a conversation with Sessions, who views it as a priority, and he believes the Trump administration will be more supportive than the Obama administration in lifting the burden on local law enforcement.

He added that law enforcement are not opposed to reforms and that he plans to keep his focus on increasing independent judicial review and transparency.

Candidates running on the Libertarian ticket in the midterm elections are likely to make Trumps record on criminal justice reform and the Sessions selection an issue, in a bid to peel off voters from across the political spectrum.

Our candidates will make [asset forfeiture] an issue for Republicans and Democrats on the state and federal level in 2018. We will make them answer to voters on these issues, Sarwark warned.

Many of the states key to Trumps victory have passed reforms.

Last year, Ohio passed a law that prohibits taking assets valued at less than $15,000 without a criminal conviction. Other states also passed differing degrees of reform, including New Hampshire, Florida, Montana, Nebraska, Minnesota, Maryland and New Mexico.

Largely an uncontroversial issue for decades, the governments war on drugs in the 1980s led to its rapid expansion, but media coverage of abuses has led to a public blowback.

A 2015 report by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), found that of those Philadelphia residents who had their assets taken, nearly one-third were never convicted of a crime and that almost 60 percent of cash seizures were for amounts less than $250.

Civil asset forfeiture reform is an area where you cannot ignore the public demand, said Kanya Bennett, legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union.

Read more:

Libertarians split with Trump over controversial police tactic | Fox News - Fox News

My thirties started off in countries ravaged by environmental destruction and dictatorships. Back then, I was a journalist for National Geographic, spending most of my time abroad, even though I still called Los Angelesmy birth cityhome. In the 100+ countries I visited, I reported on some harrowing stories: the Killing Fields in Cambodia, the near total deforestation of Paraguay, and the tense nuclear stand-off between India and Pakistan. I always hoped my words and on-camera television commentary brought some sanity and peace to the chaos.

While on assignment in Vietnam near the demilitarized zone, a near-miss with a landmine that could have been catastrophic sent me back home to the safety of the United States. Desiring stability, I started a real-estate development business with capital saved from my journalism. America was booming and my business thrived. I soon sold most of my real-estate portfolio, allowing me to live off my long-term investments.

I was lucky, for sure. Only a year later, I watched America, its banking system, and its real-estate market collapse. I watched friends lose everything, and my government try to fix something it had partially caused. The lessonsthe distrust of big government, crony capitalism and unmanageable debtseared themselves into my value system.

Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week

Zoltan Istvan and Libertarian candidate John McAfee stand next to the Immortality Bus in Charlotte, North Carolina, December 5, 2015. The pair met while on the U.S. presidential campaign trail. Anthony Cuthbertson

Like many entrepreneurs, I became a libertarian because of one simple concept: reason. It just made sense to embrace a philosophy that promotes maximum freedom and personal accountability. Hands off was my mottoand in business, if you wanted to succeed, those words are sacred. But hands off applies to more than just good entrepreneurial economics. It applies to social life, politics, culture, religion, and especially how innovation occurs.

Ive been a passionate science and technology guyan advocate of radical innovationever since I can remember. In college, I focused on the ethics and challenges of science for my Philosophy degree. But my stories for National Geographic and my witnessing of the Great Recession viscerally reminded me that government and the growing fundamentalism in Congress was desperately trying to control innovation and progresseven at the expense of peoples health, safety, and prosperity. With plenty of free time after the sale of my business to mount a challenge, I decided to use my writing skills to fight this backward thinking.

I began penning The Transhumanist Wager, a philosophical novel published in 2013 that blasts Luddism. The controversial libertarian-minded manifesto has now been compared to Ayn Rands work hundreds of times in reviewsthough I often point out my book is quite different to Atlas Shrugged. Nonetheless, the popularity of my novel thrust me into the radical science and tech movement as a public figure, whose main hub was right where I live in the San Francisco Bay area.

Looking for a way to take science and technology into the political realm, I decided to make a run for the U.S. presidency in 2016 as the self-described science candidate. I knew I couldnt win the election, but it was a great way to awaken many Americans to the desperate plight of our countrys increasingly stifled science and innovation sector. My experience in media has helped propel my candidacy. I spoke at the World Bank, appeared on The Joe Rogan Experience podcast, was interviewed by the hacker collective Anonymous, and consulted for the U.S. Navy about technology, among other things. Even 2016 Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson invited me to interview as his possible vice president. Alone in his New Mexico house, we talked shop for 24 hours solid. He chose Governor Bill Weld as his VP, but I left Johnson knowing I would soon be making a stand for the Libertarian Party.

Due to the fact I was arguably the first visible science presidential candidate in American history, I ran a very centric, science and tech-oriented platform, one that was designed to be as inclusive of as many political lines as possible. With leadership comes some compromise, and I veered both right and left (mostly left) to try to satisfy as many people as I could, even when it meant going against some of my own personal opinions. I believe a politician represents the people, and he or she must never forget thator forget the honor that such a task carries.

The front view of California State Capitol. Zoltan Istvan has announced he is to run for California governor in 2018. David Fulmer/ Creative Commons

One thing I didnt stray from was my belief that everything could be solved best by the scientific methodthe bastion of reason that says a thing or idea works only if you can prove it again and again via objective, independent evaluation. Ill always be a pragmatic rationalist, and reason to me is the primary motivator when considering how to tackle problems, social or otherwise. I continue to passionately believe in the promise of using reason, science and technology to better California and the world. After all, the standard of living has been going up around the globe because of a singular factor: more people have access to new science and technology than ever before. Nothing moves the world forward like innovation does.

Yet, in the political climate of 2017, few things seem more at risk as innovation. A conservative, religious government stands to overwhelm California with worries about radical tech and science, such as implementing Federal regulation that stifles artificial intelligence, driverless cars, stem cells, drones, and genetic editing.

Sadly, the same could be said of immigration, womens rights, and environmental issues. Then theres Americas move towards expanding its already overly expensive military, which you and I pay for out of our pockets so that generals can fight far-off wars. America can do better than this. California can do better than this.

And we must. After all, the world is changingand changing quite dramatically. Even libertarians like me face the real possibility that capitalism and job competitionwhich we always advocated forwont survive into the next few decades because of widespread automation and the proliferation of robot workers. Then theres the burgeoning dilemma of cyber security and unwanted tracking of the technology that citizens use. And what of augmenting intelligence via genetic editingsomething the Chinese are leading the charge on, but most Americans seem too afraid to try? In short, what can be done to ensure the best future?

Much can be done. And I believe it can all be done best via a libertarian framework, which is precisely why I am declaring my run for 2018 California governor. We need leadership that is willing to use radical science, technology, and innovationwhat California is famous forto benefit us all. We need someone with the nerve to risk the tremendous possibilities to save the environment through bioengineering, to end cancer by seeking a vaccine or a gene-editing solution for it, to embrace startups that will take California from the worlds 7th largest economy to maybe even the largest economybigger than the rest of America altogether. And believe me when I say this is possible: artificial intelligence and genetic editing will become some of the first multi-trillion dollar businesses in the near future.

We can do this, California, and it doesnt have to be through stale blue or red political parties, which have left many of us aghast at the current world. It can be done through the libertarian philosophy of embracing all that is the most inventive and unbridled in usand letting that pave the way forward. A challenging future awaits us, but we can meet it head on and lead the way not just for California and America, but for all of humanity.

Zoltan Istvan is a futurist and ran in the 2016 U.S. presidential election as a candidate of the Transhumanist Party.

See the original post here:

Why I'm Running for California Governor as a Libertarian - Newsweek - Newsweek

WICHITA, Kan. (KSNW) The Kansas Libertarian Party has nominated Chris Rockhold to replace Mike Pompeos 4th District congressional seat.

Pompeo has been tabbed by President Donald Trump to run the CIA.

Rockhold is a flight instructor for FlightSafety. In a 17-3 vote, Rockhold won over former Libertarian presidential candidateGordon Bakken.

The nominee will join Ron Estes andJames Thompson in a special election for the 4th District seat.

The election will be on April 11.

Republicans have represented the district since Todd Tiahrt unseated veteran Democratic Rep. Dan Glickman in 1994.

Like Loading...

KSN.com provides commenting to allow for constructive discussion on the stories we cover. In order to comment here, you acknowledge you have read and agreed to our Terms of Service. Commenters who violate these terms, including use of vulgar language, racial slurs or consistent name calling will be banned. Please be respectful of the opinions of others. If you see an inappropriate comment, please flag it for our moderators to review.

Read the rest here:

Kansas Libertarians nominate Chris Rockhold for 4th District seat - KSN-TV

Switzerland voted to ease the citizenship process for third-generation immigrants on Sunday, going against the anti-immigration sentiment that has swept Western Europe in recent years.

Over 60% of votes were in favor of the nationwide referendum, which eases,via constitutional amendment, the stringent citizenship requirements for third-generation Swiss immigrants.

Swiss law previously required immigrants to live within Switzerland for at least twelve years before having the ability to apply for citizenship, after passing a series of tests and suitability measures. The referendum doesnt alter these existing laws; rather, the referendum speeds up the process by creating a set of uniform criteria that would apply to third-generation immigrants.

Applicants are still required to prove they are 25 years of age or older, were born in Switzerland, attended school within the country for a minimum of five years, share Swiss cultural values, speak a national language (either French, Romansh, German, or Italian) and do not depend on state aid.

These restrictions are still fairly tight, which wasnt apparent in the public debate. The contentious debate centered around a poster of a woman in a niqab with the caption uncontrolled citizenship, when, in fact, the referendum still leaves a lot of strictrequirements in place for citizenship to be attained, which still restrict and/or prevent freedom of movement.

Research by Geneva University, done specifically for the government, suggests that around 25,000 people will benefit from these adjustments.

Prior to the vote, the right-wing Peoples Party came out in impassioned opposition of this bill.

In one or two generations, who will these third-generation foreigners be? cautioned Jean-Luc Addor, a lawmaker for the party.They will be born of the Arab Spring, they will be from sub-Saharan Africa, the Horn of Africa, Syria or Afghanistan.

We dont see any reason whatsoever to make [immigration] easier, said Luzi Stamm, a legislator also from the Peoples Party. The movement of people in the world has increased considerablyYou have an increased probability of problem-makers coming here.

The only fast-track route to citizenship that has existed in Switzerland applies to foreigners who had been married to Swiss citizens for more than six years, including those who have never lived in the country.

Photo Credit:Komitee Gegen Erleichterte Einbuergerung (Committee Against Facilitated Naturalization)

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...

Continue reading here:

Switzerland Votes In Favor of Easier Citizenship Process - Being Libertarian

Libertarians, in general terms, have long supported legalization and/or decriminalization of drugs, and there seems to be growing support in the American population for these ideas.

One example is the developments in the State of Oklahoma a very conservative State that, in the past, held strongly to sentiment of more severe punishment for all crimes, including criminal possession and distribution of drugs.

A Governor-appointed task force recently finished up its report on reducing prison populations in the state.

Oklahoma currently ranks second in the nation for incarceration rates, with a prison population at 109%, which is the highest in the country. With an additional 7,200 inmates expected in the next ten years (and a dramatically increasing budget deficit), Oklahoma is desperate to reduce its inmate population.

In November of 2016, two state questions were approved by voters: one which reduces possession of small amounts of drugs and stolen property to a misdemeanor, instead of a felony; and one which provides funding to mental health and drug addiction treatment services for minor offenders.

Efforts are underway from a small number of state legislators to overturn the decision of voters, but will likely fail. In addition to these measures, the task force, ordered [by Governor Mary Fallin] to find solutions to the incarceration rate, made its recommendations. They are also mostly leaning toward easing sentencing for small time drug offenders.

The task force believes that, if their recommendations are followed, the prison population can be reduced by 7% over the next ten years through a combination of measures that include: sentence reductions, and funding for additional mental health and drug addiction treatment.

Even this does not reduce the population enough, but it is certainly a start in the right direction.

The task force has recommended that sentencing for possession, with intent to distribute, of meth, crack, or heroin should be reduced to 0 5 years; down from 5 years to life for first time, non-violent offenders. Also, inmates are to become eligible for parole after serving just 1/4 of their sentence, rather than the current 1/3.

There have also been changes implemented at a more local level. In Oklahoma County (the most populated county in the state and host to Oklahoma City), Commissioner Brian Maughan introduced the SHINE program in 2010. The program offers opportunities for voluntary work, but it is also a program which acts as alternative sentencing for small crimes: such as possession of drugs with intent to distribute, in cases where there are relatively small amounts of drugs being carried.

It is a community service program whereby community service can be served in lieu of jail or prison time; with many community projects targeted primarily at cleaning up the county and beautifying blighted areas.

The states other counties have been considering similar programs that work in conjunction with drug courts and offer alternatives to sentencing such as: mental health services and addiction treatment for those guilty of possession of illegal substances, or driving under the influence (DUI).

Oklahoma is justified in these efforts. Since 2010, 31 states have managed to decrease incarceration rates, while at the same time reducing crime rates. There has been a change in attitudes across the United States regarding smaller drug offenses that has been building over the past decade. With cannabis consumption legalized to various degrees in many states, prison populations (as well as crime rates in general) have been decreasing.

There have not only been a decrease in crimes related to drug possession but also in property crimes (on the order of 2% to 3.5%), as well as homicides (on the order of 12% to 19%) in the States that have implemented programs in reduced sentencing or decriminalization.

Going forward, it is likely the trend of reduced sentencing for small time drug offenders will continue, as will a wave of decriminalization. With so many States and local governments considering such measures to reduce incarceration rates in tremendously overcrowded prison populations, that are becoming unsustainable, it wont be long before the Federal Government follows suit for the same reasons. It remains to be seen whether the current administration is supportive. But for now, it looks as though that it is not a priority.

However, it is very early, much too early to tell.

This post was written by Danny Chabino.

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

Like Loading...

See the article here:

Reduced Sentences Trending in Oklahoma - Being Libertarian (satire)

Wichita Eagle

Chris Rockhold earns Libertarian nod for 4th District special election Wichita Eagle Chris Rockhold was selected Saturday by a small group of Libertarians to be the party's standard bearer in a special election scheduled for April 11 to fill a vacancy for the Kansas 4th Congressional District. The seat was vacated when Republican Mike ... Chris Rockhold selected as Libertarian nominee for Special Election 2017KWCH Kansas Libertarians nominate Chris Rockhold for 4th district seat.KSN-TV Kansas Libertarians nominate Chris Rockhold for 4th districtKSNT The Daily Progress all 6 news articles »

Read this article:

Chris Rockhold earns Libertarian nod for 4th District special election - Wichita Eagle

An eternal problem for Libertarian candidates is that they are not taken seriously. This is in part the product of the psychological and institutional duopoly created by the Democratic and Republican parties across the United States. Yet, it is also the product of never running candidates with serious name recognition in their own rights. That should change in 2018.

We should run for Governor of Nevada.

Penn Jillette has a mainstream profile in Nevada, and the broader country, that even the most influential libertarians can only dream of. As a magician and television personality, Jillette has built a dedicated following and a general reputation for intelligence and cleverness. He has also been a vocal advocate for libertarian principles on stage and screen, enough to earn him a position as a fellow of the Cato Institute.

In 2016, Jillette stepped up his involvement in the Libertarian Party proper. He moderated a presidential debate and was a firm advocate of Gary Johnsons campaign. Now he has to be convinced to run in his own right.

Nevada has always had a deep libertarian streak. From gambling to prostitution, the good citizens of Nevada have preferred a live and let live philosophy of governance. A Libertarian candidate could leverage that spirit and find points of difference from either major party.

The popular Republican Governor Brian Sandoval is term-limited, and his potential replacements are not nearly so exciting to Nevada voters. Meanwhile, the Nevada Democratic Party is fairly strong, thanks in large part to the electoral machine created by former Senate leader Harry Reid. As the GOP is saddled with a Trump administration that seems hell-bent on alienating the Latino community, and a Democratic Party ever more committed to nanny-state progressivism, Penn Jillette could be just the right man for the job of expressing and spreading a distinctly libertarian message.

Jillette has immediate name recognition and very significant personal financial resources, as well as a wide network of wealthy friends in the show business industry. There are few Libertarians who could boast either his profile or his resources. He has also been a Nevadan for many years, and has built rapport in the dominant industry sector.

Comedians and performers may seem like light-weights, yet Jillette has proven himself countless times to be both well-informed about, and gifted in communicating, ideas of liberty. And it is hardly without precedent. Al Franken, the former Saturday Night Live performer, is currently a senator from Minnesota (and was even considered a dark horse candidate for Hillary Clintons running mate). Comedy can be persuasive and the ability to understand and play to a crowd are invaluable political skills, ones that Jillette clearly has in abundance.

If he could be convinced to run, it would be an opportunity for the party like never before. Our highest-profile candidates are usual on presidential ballots, but 2018 could provide the chance to make real electoral breakthrough. In our winner-take-all electoral system, we would only need to convince a plurality of voters. That is doable in a state like Nevada.

The problem, then, is getting Jillette to agree to run.

This is a mission the National Committee and Nevada state party ought to begin pursuing immediately. It would be a perfect chance to bring the disparate threads of party resources to bear on a key race. It should be treated like a presidential race, and be considered the cornerstone of a national campaign. Jillettes profile would garner national attention and could be leveraged to help down-ballot candidates and federal candidates in a few other prime target states.

Jillette would have to be convinced he could win. If the party worked to move volunteers and financial resources into the state to help that cause, he might well see it as a winnable opportunity.

Featured image: ComingSoon.Net

This post was written by John Engle.

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

John Engle is a merchant banker and author living in the Chicago area. His company, Almington Capital, invests in both early-stage venture capital and in public equities. His writing has been featured in a number of academic journals, as well as the blogs of the Heartland Institute, Grassroot Institute, and Tenth Amendment Center. A graduate of Trinity College Dublin, Ireland and the University of Oxford, Johns first book, Trinity Student Pranks: A History of Mischief and Mayhem, was published in September 2013.

Like Loading...

Visit link:

Penn Jillette: The Ideal Libertarian Candidate - Being Libertarian