Can libertarians mediate the divide? – Newsday

Cathy Young

Cathy Young is a regular contributor to Reason magazine and Real Clear Politics.

The people who gathered for the 10th annual conference of the International Society of Students for Liberty in Washington last weekend were a motley crowd that included anti-war activists with neon-colored hair and law students in three-piece suits. In the exhibit hall, a display honoring Ronald Reagan was only a few feet away from a LGBT group with a rainbow version of the Dont Tread on Me Gadsen flag and from the table of a group called Muslims for Liberty.

Despite the festive atmosphere, this years speakers at the libertarian event were mostly in a dark mood worse than last year, when many warned about a rising authoritarian tide. While libertarians tend to be at the Republican end of the two-party spectrum, Donald Trump Republicanism is about as un-libertarian as you get. There was raucous applause when Katherine Mangu-Ward, editor of Reason magazine (where I am a contributing editor), declared at the opening-night session, Free movement of people and goods across the border is good. Another Reason editor, Nick Gillespie, contrasted the libertarian spirit of cosmopolitanism and tolerance with Trumps demonization of undesirables and with the lefts anti-pluralist drive to silence politically incorrect speech.

Tom Palmer, vice president for international programs at the nonprofit Atlas Network, also spoke of illiberal trends on both the left and the right in his talk on global anti-libertarianism. But while Palmer named left-wing identity politics and thought-policing as part of the problem, his focus was the threat from the right: in America, Trumpism, with its cult of the leader who embodies the peoples will and its paranoia about the foreign; in Europe, populist, nationalist, and sometimes outright fascist movements, many financed by Russias authoritarian regime.

Social psychologist and New York University professor Jonathan Haidt, whose talk on the rise of the safety culture in colleges was probably the biggest hit of the conference, warned that the end of liberal democracy was a real threat. Haidt, whose 2012 book, The Righteous Mind, examined the moral foundations of political beliefs, painted a dire picture of polarization in America and of the drift toward a leftist echo chamber on college campuses. Social justice, Haidt said, is replacing pursuit of knowledge as the central mission of universities, and there is less and less tolerance for dissent. The result is a generation sympathetic to censorship of offensive speech.

Haidt argued that diversity of thought is desperately needed on campus, and that libertarians may be the key. Conservatives are seen as poison in the academy, while libertarians are merely viewed with wariness and confusion, and are thus in a far better position to get unorthodox opinions heard. Do something about the mess that were descending into, he implored the audience, mostly of libertarian students.

In the age of Trumpian populism versus political correctness run amok, libertarianism offers promise beyond the campus, too if it doesnt descend into laissez-faire utopianism at home and isolationism abroad. Gillespie noted that if libertarianism is defined as a preference for less government involvement in both economic and moral matters, at least one poll finds that libertarian leaners are now the single largest group of voters, at 27 percent (while 26 percent are conservative, 23 percent liberal, and 15 percent populist).

While parts of the conference had a decidedly pessimistic tone, there was optimism as well and discussion of libertarian victories from deregulation to gay civil rights. Libertarianism may not have all the answers; but right now, it may be our best hope for rebuilding a culture of freedom and tolerance.

Cathy Young is a regular contributor to Reason magazine and Real Clear Politics.

See original here:

Can libertarians mediate the divide? - Newsday

Seven questions with Greg Brophy: ‘Slightly more libertarian … a lot more cynical’ – Colorado Springs Gazette

Colorado State Senator Greg Brophy speaks about his concern that new gun laws would hurt the local economy, during a debate period on a day of voting on gun control bills before the Colorado Legislature, at the State Capitol, in Denver, Friday March 8, 2013. Colorado Democrats are on the cusp of advancing gun-control proposals Friday in a state balancing a history of heartbreaking shootings with a Western heritage where gun ownership is treasured by many. (AP Photo/Brennan Linsley)

Greg Brophy has racked up plenty of political mileage in his 50 years. The Republican served two sessions in the state House starting in January 2003 before moving up to the Senate, where for nearly 10 years he represented an immense swath of Colorado's eastern plains. He also made a brief run for governor in 2014. Then, it was off to the nation's capital for a stint as U.S. Rep. Ken Buck's chief of staff. Now, Brophy's back in Colorado, where he resides in the Denver area with wife Angela and works in public affairs. Always a farmer (he holds an ag science degree from CSU in Fort Collins), he still helps run the family farm back in his hometown, Wray. The prep wrestler-turned-avid bicyclist won friends across the aisle for his two-wheel obsession and may well have been one of the most physically fit Coloradans ever to take a seat in the legislature. And though his grappling days are long past, Brophy is known for being as scrappy off the mat as he was on it back in high school.

Catch us up on your family, and tell us about your new gig.

The most important family news is that Angela and I are grandparents! Our youngest is a freshman in high school, so we will be empty nesters before too long.

I took a position with Michael Best Strategies as the V.P. of Western States. MIchael Best is a public affairs company with offices in D.C., Wisconsin, Colorado, Illinois, Texas and Utah. The firm has excellent relationships with the Trump Administration, Congress and the Senate, with a powerhouse in Colorado including Jeff Thormodsgaard, myself, Katie Wolf, Jenise May, and Alex Hayes.

You won a seat in the state House of Representatives in 2002 as easily one of the most conservative members of the General Assembly. Have you evolved in any way philosophically?

I'm slightly more libertarian now than I was, a lot more cynical, and much, much, much more cognizant of the need to maintain the majority (something we all took for granted in 2004 to our detriment).

What did you learn as a senior congressional staffer during your time in D.C.? Any eye-openers?

It's dysfunctional, and it's truly a swamp. Under (former House Speaker John) Boehner, PAC contributions were used to enforce party discipline. (Current House Speaker Paul) Ryan is changing that, thank goodness. I became a much bigger fan and advocate for returning power to the states; it's the only way to really "drain the swamp."

It seems the state's transportation grid is always in crisis, yet the legislature never comes up with a lasting solution. Everybody says this year is different - but will it be?

Probably not.

It is true we need more money. It is also true that we waste entirely too much money on studies and environmental mitigation. My county commissioner friends swear they can build roads for way less than half. That's directly related to red tape and regulation. A grand bargain would address both and make both sides uncomfortable. In my opinion, that takes the kind of leadership that Gov. Owens brought. We haven't had that kind of leadership since he left.

What was your proudest achievement - and what was your biggest disappointment - during your dozen years in the General Assembly?

Proudest: Winning the argument on gun control even though we lost the vote. Plus, I led the way to modernizing trucking laws in Colorado even though the bill was taken away by the majority party. Biggest disappointment: never being a chairman.

You used to host an annual shooting event out at your farm and invited a wide swath of Colorado's political firmament. Who was the most unlikely participant ever to show up?

Well, this is easy, (former New York City Mayor Michael) Bloomberg's lobbyist for gun control came and shot a lot of watermelons. It's interesting to note that during the 2012 Pedal the Plains, Gov. Hickenlooper was in my house in Wray practically begging for an invitation to shoot the following year - a mere three months before introducing the (Democrats') gun-control legislation.

How much mileage do you put in on your bike these days?

Last weekend was spectacular - 70 miles! My ideal ride is four hours and close to 50 miles in the summer.

See the rest here:

Seven questions with Greg Brophy: 'Slightly more libertarian ... a lot more cynical' - Colorado Springs Gazette

Iowa Libertarian Party to Have Major Party Status in 2018 Elections – IVN News

The 2016 election wasthe gift that keeps on giving for the Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Party ofIowa (LPIA) will soon officially be given major party status, allowinglibertarians to be on the ballot in future state elections, and greater exposure for its candidates.

We plan to have a record number of candidates in 2018, said LPIA Chair Keith Laube in an interview for IVN. There were a record 25 Libertarian candidates on the ballot in Iowain 2016.We have been building a base of Libertarian registered voters in Iowa since 2008, the first year Iowa voters could register as a Libertarian.Our plan istoreach out to voters to continue increasing the number of registered Libertarians in Iowa.

Iowa state law allows political parties to gain status when 2 percent of the vote is earned by the partys presidential candidate. Gov. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian presidential candidate in 2016, received a little over 3 percent in the state about the same percentage he got at the national level.

We plan to have a record number of candidates in 2018.

American elections have always been dominated by the two-party system at every institutional level of elections and the political landscape. The plight of third parties to get on the ballot has been a long struggle. Ballot access is easy for Democrats and Republicans, but that isnt the case for Libertarians or other third party candidates.

And while the Libertarian Party has garnered ballot access and party status in several states after 2016,Laube says obstacles remain to keeping the LPs party status.

Per Iowa code, to maintain party status in Iowa a party must receive at least 2% of the vote for the top of the ticket. So in 2018, our governor candidate must receive at least 2% of the vote, he explained. We met with state officials and have been conversing back and forth with them as we go through the transition in party status. The state officials have been very professional and good to work with.

Laube added:

We need to continue to educate voters thatLibertarian candidates are very capable of serving at the State and Federal level. Libertarian views attractqualified candidates who run for office because they want positivechange to occur in Iowa.Libertarian candidates are often independent thinkers whodo not want to be draggedalong with the partisan political baggage that comes with the two older parties.

And theremay be no greatertime to be a libertarian. The Libertarian Party has gained popularity amongst voters as more people break off from the Democratic and Republican parties in dissatisfaction. Supporters of the Libertarian party share a common belief that the government should be less involved in peoples lives, in the household and with their wallets.

As such, libertarians tend to be viewed as fiscally conservative and socially open or liberal or tolerant. Such a stance on government and domestic and foreign policy is making the party more attractive to many voters because such an approach looks outside the current political establishment for solutions.

I believe Libertarian candidatesin 2018 will rely on the majority of the population who want tohave their individual liberties restored and who desire a more accountable,Laube said. As a major party,2018will be the first year our candidateswill beable to participate in the Primary Election. Candidates will know they are on the ballot in early June rather than late August. This will create stronger campaigns and allow voters to learn about our candidates andissues earlier in the election cycle. Having more candidates talk aboutissuesearlier in the election cycle isa positive forIowans.

Iowas secretary of state will make LPIAs party status official on March 1.

See the original post here:

Iowa Libertarian Party to Have Major Party Status in 2018 Elections - IVN News

The libertarians versus the conservatives – Washington Times

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

SELFISH LIBERTARIANS AND SOCIALIST CONSERVATIVES?: THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE LIBERTARIAN-CONSERVATIVE DEBATE

By Nathan W. Schlueter and Nikolai G. Wenzel

Stanford University Press, $24.95, 232 pages

While libertarians and conservatives have some similar outlooks on politics, economics and culture, many profound differences have kept them apart. Attempts to bridge this gap, including Frank S. Meyers theory of fusionism (combining elements of libertarianism and traditional conservatism), have largely been unsuccessful.

Nevertheless, these two right-leaning ideological groups have more than enough in common to discuss ideas in an intelligent, thoughtful manner. Nathan Schlueter and Nikolai Wenzels Selfish Libertarians and Socialist Conservatives? serves as an important backdrop in ensuring the libertarian-conservative debate never turns into a libertarian-conservative divide.

Mr. Wenzel, the libertarian, is a research fellow at the University of Paris Law Schools Center for Law & Economics. Mr. Schlueter, the conservative, is a professor of philosophy and religion at Hillsdale College. In their view, a civil, informed, and energetic argument between these two political opposites offers a more interesting, illuminating, and engaging format for readers than an impartial survey of the issues.

Are they right? For those who identify as conservatives, libertarians or one of the worlds few remaining fusionists (like me), their information and analysis is nothing new. But the authors ability to create succinct philosophical arguments for intellectuals and the masses is both admirable and educational.

Each author contributes four chapters. They provide explanations of what their political ideologies entail, whats wrong with each others ideological position, relevant case studies, and final conclusions.

Mr. Schlueter posits that conservatism is not a specific philosophy of government but a generic term that can have a wide range of specific meanings, depending on context. Hence, to create a unified conservatism from its three primary strains (libertarianism, traditional conservatism and neoconservatism), these principles are necessary for human flourishing and that, although they are in some tension with one another, the three principles are interdependent.

Moreover, the author argues, the principles of the American founding that conservatives defend are a form of classical liberalism. This, in turn, has led modern conservatives to defend traditional concepts like natural law and the common good, along with newer concepts like limited government and property rights.

Mr. Wenzel sees libertarianism as a political philosophy about the protection of individual rights. Adherents to this ideology consider liberty to be the highest political good, and believe that government should be viewed as a protector of rights, to provide an umbrella within which individuals can peacefully go about their business, interact, and thrive. Libertarianism also relies heavily on markets and civil society to supplement that which individuals cannot complete on their own and that which government cannot deliver without violating individual rights.

Naturally, the two authors respectfully feel that each others political philosophy is, as they put it, wrong.

Mr. Wenzel believes Mr. Schlueter makes one of the clearest expositions of conservatism I have seen, but that much in conservatism is problematic. For instance, he perceives natural law liberalism, which his co-author defends as a component of unified conservatism, rests on the claim that there exists an objective moral order but that it has also been used to justify ugly things like slavery, absolute monarchy, or Sharia. At the same time, he wonders if this contradictory hodgepodge of different conservatisms is arbitrary in its claims because it seeks justification for the public imposition of private preferences.

Mr. Schlueter admires Mr. Wenzels able defense of libertarianism, but believes [i]n the most fundamental sense, the difference between conservatism and libertarianism turns on the degree to which politics can be understood in terms of economics. By and large, conservatives dont believe that economics defines political life and human beings can only fully flourish through their own self-constituting choices. Also of note, when it comes to public choice theory a popular topic in libertarian circles he feels the major flaw is that its either descriptive, or is it prescriptive. The former is undermined by empirical evidence, and the latter is undermined by political life altogether.

Their case studies and conclusions dont lead to any surprising revelations: Mr. Schlueter supports conservatism, and Mr. Wenzel supports libertarianism. But their discussions about economics, immigration, education and marriage are intriguing. The differences between the two ideologies are subtle in some ways, and more stark in others.

Neither Mr. Schlueter nor Mr. Wenzel believe his political ideology is the model of perfection. There are flaws in libertarianism and conservatism, as there are in all philosophical models. At the same time, they obviously both feel that their respective ideology is better for our society, warts and all.

In this civil debate of ideas, thats the best closing argument we could ever hope for.

Michael Taube is a contributor to The Washington Times.

Continued here:

The libertarians versus the conservatives - Washington Times

CPAC Organizer Tries To Pawn Off Milo Yiannopoulos as "Libertarian" – Reason (blog)

Breitbart.comWhat do you do when you're Matt Schlapp, the guy heading up the American Conservative Union, which runs the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (emphasis added), and it turns our your biggest draw to this year's event defends pedophilia? Well, first you disinvite him and then you bluster your way through an excrutiatingly painful few minutes on Morning Joe before trying to pawn Milo Yiannopoulos off as a libertarian:

"He doesn't call himself conservative. He calls himself more of a libertarian.... Some libertarians would deny that he's a libertarian."

On that much, we agree. Most libertarians I know wouldn't claim Milo as one of our own. You know who else says Milo isn't a libertarian? Well, Milo himself, it turns out:

"Libertarians are children. Libertarians are people who have given up looking for an answer. This whole 'everybody do what they want' is code for 'leave me to do what I want.' It's selfish and childish. It's an admission that you have given up trying to work out what a good society would look like, how the world should be ordered and instead just retreated back into selfishness. That's why they're so obsessed with weed, Bitcoin, and hacking."

Read more about that here and here.

Milo's critique of libertarianism is not so strong, is it? As it happens, the policy work being done by folks at Reason Foundation (the nonprofit that publishes this website) is revolutionizing K-12 education, public-sector pensions, transportation infrastructure, and more. Same goes for ideological compadres at the Cato Institute and elsewhere. To the extent that there's a principled opposition to really dumb military interventions, runaway spending, and conservative-approved idiocies such as a border wall and trade protectionism, well, it's not conservatives pushing it. And none of that is to deny one bit that drug policy, criminal justice reform, crypto-currencies, and forced transparency of government overreach are in any way about "selfishness."

What does it say about the modern conservative movement that CPAC was so desperate to get Milo on its stage in the first place? Nothing good. He's outrageous (not really "dangerous" in any meaningful sense of the word) and he is fully capable of bringing out the worst elements of the idiot-progressive left. But does he have anything to say when he's actually allowed to speak? Derp, not really. Schlapp can say that ACU wants to teach the controversy and all that, but the fact of the matter is that as an intellectual force and a serious place for discussion about policy, CPAC has been more watered-down than the beer at Delta House for a very long time. It's a good sign that someone with the last name Paul won five of the last seven presidential straw polls, but conservatives and Republicans have almost completely squandered their power and influence throughout the 21st century. When George W. Bush and the GOP ran the federal government, they busted the budget in a way that would embarrass drunken sailors the world over. When Obama was in power, they did virtually nothing to demand actual budgets or restrain executive power, and they're still pretending that they are really...just...about...ready...to...reveal an alternative health-insurance plan. They nominated and elected Donald Trump for president and it's surprising that CPAC invited/disinvited a flyweight trash talker to their big shindig? It's almost as if they didn't kick out the gays a couple of years ago or that Newt Gingrich doesn't show up every year and talk about the need for flag-burning amendments and English-only laws.

It's never easy for a movement founded on the cry of standing athwart history, yelling Stop to move forward, but this is simply ridiculous.

Here's Matt Schlapp on Morning Joe:

Continued here:

CPAC Organizer Tries To Pawn Off Milo Yiannopoulos as "Libertarian" - Reason (blog)

Richard Spencer attempted to crash a Libertarian conference and was shown the door – Salon

Richard Spencer the alt right leader who vowed were not going awayafter Donald Trump won the presidency, was caught leadinga Nazi salute for Trumpand who got punched in the face at his heros inauguration was evicted from the 10th annual International Students for Liberty Conference after trying to crash itsparty.

Spencer, a self-declared white nationalist who believes the U.S. is losing its white identity, had no business attending a gathering of libertarian students, and conference organizers had every right to eject him, Robby Soave wrote in Reason Magazine. Indeed, their decision to do so was a valid exercise of libertarian principles in action.

Soave described how Spencer set himself up in the bar of the hotel in Washington D.C. where the event was being held and attempted to host an unscheduled and unwanted conversation about his despicable views. He was eventually confronted by libertarian punditJeffrey Tucker, who confronted Spencer and made clear to the alt-right provocateur that he did not belong at ISFLC. Some shouting ensued, and hotel staff intervened. Shortly thereafter, Spencer left.

In characteristic libertarian fashion, Soave pointed out that the Marriott Wardman hotel is private property, and should enjoy the absolute right to evict irksome and unwelcome guests from its premises.

Spencer has naturally availed himself of the opportunity to troll libertarians on his Twitter account. Some of his tweets are included below, although for spatial reasons we have not included all of them.

Attempts to disrupt the conference, both from the far left and far right, were not entirely unexpected, but the appearance of Mr. Spencer and alt-right activists at the hotel demonstrated the alt-rights hostility to the ideas of liberty and freedom, said Students for Liberty CEO Wolf von Laer in a statement. Although we support freedom of speech and thought, we did not invite Mr. Spencer. We reject his hateful message and we wholeheartedly oppose his obsolete ideology.

Excerpt from:

Richard Spencer attempted to crash a Libertarian conference and was shown the door - Salon

A Libertarian Look at Free College – Being Libertarian

There has been a lot of talk lately about free college. Being a Libertarian I initially scoffed at the idea. Then, as I normally do, I started to wonder if there was any idea that could improve the current college business model to attain most of the same perks that free college would be able to attain.

It would be nice if money were off the table when it came to choosing where to attend college. It would be nice if my income, or my familys income or social status, was not a factor. It would be nice if students were accepted solely based on their merit and potential, disregarding all other factors. To me, this is a principle that makes me want to find a solution as a Libertarian. I believe that I have done just that.

What if we had a business model that could remove the need for tuition, while making a college more profitable? What if colleges viewed students as investments and it was in their best interest to provide them with competitive degrees and to help them find employment quickly upon graduation? What if a college based its profitability off of the profitability of its alumni? What if colleges understood the needs of the market and focused its degrees on these areas to not only meet the needs of the market, but also to maximize alumni income? What if students that could not complete their program, and had to drop out, could walk away debt-free? What if the answer to all these questions is yes? Well, it is.

I have developed a business model that requires no upfront tuition to be paid by students. Instead, students agree that upon graduation, they will pay 12% of their income to the college for the next 12 years. With this basic agreement, the colleges profitability is not interlaced with the profitability of the student upon graduation. The college will want the student to find a high paying job quickly, and could offer services to help the student in this manner, and since the student is bound by this contract for 12 years, it is in the colleges interest to help its alumni for this entire time. The college wants to produce graduates that will earn a higher wage to maximize their profits.

In order to accomplish this, the college will focus degree programs on areas where there is a need in the market. Colleges would shift away from degree programs that earn little money and have little need in the market. Colleges would offer degree programs that would best fit the skill-set of the student and help the individual to be as successful as they can. The college now cares about counseling and motivating students to not drop out. The college now cares about each class within the degree program because it is in their interest to be as efficient as possible. Each class would be taking up vital space in a streamlined degree program designed to provide the best skill and knowledge to students to help them be as successful as possible.

Now the college would start to earn a reputation for itself and its alumni because of its better degrees. The market would constantly change and the degree programs would change in order to keep up, because that would be in the best interest of the college. This business model would remove the government from being loan officers, remove the need for grants for education, remove the debt that students face for decades, and create a contract between the college and its alumni that would be a mutually-profitable partnership.

In order to move this business model away from the theory and to test its validity, I took a look at the University of Colorado. During the Fiscal Year 2015-16 the University of Colorados revenue by tuition was $872.3 million, with a student headcount enrollment of 63,202 and awarded 14,479 degrees. If each of these graduates started out earning an average of $40,000 a year and received a 3% increase each year either through changing jobs or regular pay raises, once the 12 year span of alumni was full, the University of Colorado would be bringing in over $986 million dollars, an increase in revenue of over 13%. The average student would end up paying back $68,121 without any interest. These same 4 year degrees currently cost close to $120,000 with in-state tuition. If the average earnings of the alumni are $50,000 a year, the colleges income can increase to $1.2 billion, which would be an increase of over 41%. Understanding this, one can see why the colleges would focus on finding the best possible opportunities for its alumni.

I can hear you asking how does the university make more money while the student pays less? Its simple; we have removed the middle-man, the government. By doing so, we have removed compounding interest and all payments start off based on the graduates current income. If the college has graduates that are earning less than their peers, it is in everyones interest for the college to assist the graduate to find a higher paying job.

Students that attend college, but fail to graduate, owe nothing. This prevents the current problem of student debt without a degree. The student can always return later and complete their degree, or transfer to another college. Transferring credits would have the same effect as the college owning stock in the transfer student. The 12% that the student would pay upon graduation would be split based on their credits among the two colleges. There are sure to be challenges to this business model, but they could be overcome with creativity and resources.

The biggest challenge will be in the initial years until the college attains a full 12 year span of alumni that are paying their 12% payments. This could be overcome by using a hybrid of the tuition system with the 1212 program, or colleges with a large endowment might use some of it to attain this model. Harvard currently has the largest endowment in the world, just over $36 billion. It could be the first university to implement this business model as a social experiment.

There are solutions to these challenges, and these solutions lead us to a better business model when it comes to education costs in America.

* Jeffrey Smith served in the Army for 13 years, currently working as a Senior Operations Specialist and Analyst for a not-for-profit that proctors the clinical skills exam for medical students and has a masters degree in business administration from Excelsior College. Jeff is a long time Libertarian looking for opportunities to bring the Libertarian platform to everyday people.

Like Loading...

Read the original post:

A Libertarian Look at Free College - Being Libertarian

WATCH: Libertarian Destroys Tucker Carlson’s Immigration Strawman – The Libertarian Republic

LISTEN TO TLRS LATEST PODCAST:

By: Elias J. Atienza

Tucker Carlson, host ofTucker Carlson Tonightand former senior fellow for the Cato Institute, debated immigration policy analyst Alex Nowrasteh. The twos debate covered welfare benefits for legal immigrants and illegal immigrants, along with the ideal level of immigration. Carlson favored limiting immigration while Nowrasteh believes in not letting Washington bureaucrats limit immigration.

The twos debate is just another battle in the never ending battle in libertarian circles about borders and immigration. Mainstream libertarians, such as those from the Cato Institute, believe in opening up the borders, while some schools of libertarian thought believing in closing the borders, such as Murray Rothbard and Hans Herman Hoppe. Ron Paul seems to be favor of killing the welfare state before increasing immigration, writing on it just last year:

How to tackle the real immigration problem? Eliminate incentives for those who would come here to live off the rest of us, and make it easier and more rational for those who wish to come here legally to contribute to our economy. No walls, no government databases, no biometric national ID cards. But not a penny in welfare for immigrants. Its really that simple.

So watch Carlson and Nowrasteh argue about their positions on immigration.

WATCH:

cato instituteHans Hermann Hoppemurray rothbardron paultucker carlson

See the original post here:

WATCH: Libertarian Destroys Tucker Carlson's Immigration Strawman - The Libertarian Republic

Student senate approves Libertarian student organization – Times-Delphic

Photo by Jake Bullington.

BY JAKE BULLINGTON

Student senate approved a total of six motions, including a motion approving Drakes chapter of Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) as a recognized student group. The Libertarian advocacy group was founded by the partys champion, Ron Paul in 2008, and claims more than 800 chapters have been established at college campuses across the country, according to their website.

The proposal for organizational status reads that YAL intends to spread Libertarianism in the greater Des Moines area and Drake campus. President of Drakes YAL chapter, first-year Jake Dorsch said that they currently have eight active members, but hope to expand the group through bringing elected officials and candidates to speak to students.

We had a state senator come by, a house candidate, a couple political activists, everything, Dorsch said, citing some of the events Drakes YAL chapter has put on thus far.

Senator Grace Rogers asked Dorsch what he looked to gain from having YAL become an official organization on campus.

I think that I was kind of annoyed when I first came here, because theres only Democrats and Republicans represented at Drake University and I believe we need to hear more voices, Dorsch said.

Dorsch also stated that there are YAL chapters at Iowa State, University of Iowa, University of Northern Iowa and Coe College.

There was a consensus among senators about the desire to bring more political ideologies to campus.

Senator AJ Treiber also supported approving YAL for Drakes campus.

I think its a great idea to have more political discussion on campus, Treiber said. Seeing that Iowa kind of leads the nation, quite literally with the caucuses, I think its great to have that diversity.

Although YAL has been inactive at Drake for multiple years, senators were not completely unfamiliar with the organizations name.

Nearly a year ago, a conservative group called Turning Point USA (TPUSA) came to senate for organizational approval. One of several reasons senate cited for denying this group was allegations that the TPUSA chapter at Iowa State stole contact information from YAL members. There were concerns of student privacy from members, including then-senator Kevin Kane, according to a 2016 Times-Delphic article.

No questions about this concern arose at the meeting. The motion also clearly stated that YAL is a nonprofit organization and cannot endorse any candidates, only Libertarian ideals and philosophy.

According to public filings to the IRS, made accessible by ProPublica, YAL is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, classified as a youth development program.

Senate approved the motion, allowing YAL at Drake to become an official organization and to enjoy the rights and privileges thereof, according to the motion.

See original here:

Student senate approves Libertarian student organization - Times-Delphic

Libertarians clash with Richard Spencer in DC | Washington Examiner – Washington Examiner

There were some unhappy people at this weekend's libertarian conference when they found Richard Spencer in the building.

Videos posted to social media Saturday showed the white nationalist, often associated with the alt-right movement, attracted a crowd at the International Students for Liberty Conference at a Washington, D.C., hotel.

Sitting at a table with a large white sign bearing his name, Spencer was met with chants of "fuck you," but offered to talk with those who were willing. He mentioned he was invited to speak at the conference by people attending the event, though one account, citing a libertarian press source, disputed the claim.

Spencer broached topics such as President Trump's travel ban and getting sucker-punched in the face in Washington, D.C., in January.

Stay abreast of the latest developments from nation's capital and beyond with curated News Alerts from the Washington Examiner news desk and delivered to your inbox.

Sorry, there was a problem processing your email signup. Please try again later.

Processing...

Thank you for signing up for Washington Examiner News Alerts. You should receive your first alert soon!

At one point Spencer called Jeffrey Tucker, the content director for the Foundation for Economic Education, "totally awful."

Later, Tucker himself confronted Spencer, saying, "You don't belong here. Students for Liberty opposes everything that you stand for." He called Spencer a "troll," a "fascist" and a "liar."

Spencer made headlines in November after he gave a toast in Washington, D.C., that drew approving Nazi-style salutes from several conferencegoers. "Hail Trump! Hail our people! Hail victory!" boomed Spencer, popularizer of the term "alt-right" to describe white nationalists, at a National Policy Institute gathering in the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center.

Spencer then extended his right arm with a glass to toast that victory. Most members of the audience cheered. Some can be seen in a video excerpt of a forthcoming documentary extending their right arms and palms instead in unmistakable Nazi-style salutes.

Also from the Washington Examiner

The Odd Couple: Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell.

02/21/17 12:01 AM

Multiple accounts on social media said Spencer was eventually removed from the conference Saturday.

Spencer himself tweeted: "Looks like I was deported by a 'libertarian' lover of the deep state guys," referring to Tucker. Deep state is when government and military officials are involved in secretly guiding the direction of government policy.

Top Story

H.R. McMaster replaces Mike Flynn as Trump's national security adviser.

By Caitlin Yilek, Kelly Cohen

02/20/17 3:03 PM

Follow this link:

Libertarians clash with Richard Spencer in DC | Washington Examiner - Washington Examiner

Libertarian author Steven Greenhut will talk public employee pensions at Maui County Club – MauiTime Weekly

And now for something fun: Steven Greenhut, a very intelligent and conscientious writerand one of my former editors from my time in Californiawill be on Maui this weekend to do a talk for the Grassroot Institute of Hawaiiabout public employee unions and pensions.

County public employees in the state of Hawaii make among the highest wages in the nation, even after adjusted for Hawaiis high cost of living, states the lecture notice. Steven Greenhut is the author of Plunder! How public employee unions are raiding treasuries, controlling our lives and bankrupting the nation. He will open the books on police and fire departments across the country, and show that the problems of pension spiking, overtime, and Cadillac benefits are also happening in Hawaii.

Greenhut is the Western Region Director for the R Street Institute, a columnist for the Orange County Register and a true libertarian. He opposes public employee unions, big public pensions, eminent domain (which he also wrote a book about), civil asset forfeiture, the drug war, militarized law enforcement and interventionist wars of all types, shapes and sizes.

Seriously, this will be a good talk. Greenhut will speak at 11:30am on Friday, Feb. 24 at the Maui Country Club (48 Nonohe Pl., Paia). The cost is $20, and it includes lunch. Click here for more information.

Photo courtesy Steven Greenhut

More here:

Libertarian author Steven Greenhut will talk public employee pensions at Maui County Club - MauiTime Weekly

Trump’s Dangerous Anti-Libertarian Nationalism – Hit & Run … – Reason (blog)

President Donald Trump has signed an executive order claiming that in the future the total number of federal regulations will shrink, via the elimination of two regulations for every new one. He has nominated an FCC chief and a department of education chief who advocate choice-enhancing changes in the way their agencies run. He says he's a hardcore Second Amendment supporter (although he also supports taking away the right to bear arms based on mere suspicion). He's offered up a Supreme Court justice willing to seriously question government regulatory and police powers. He at least claims he wants to see spending cuts and tax cuts.

Ron Sachs/dpa/picture-alliance/Newscom

Should libertarianswho are supposed to advocate those goals as part of a larger vision of reducing government power over our property and choicesadmire and support Trump? Even a little?

Libertarianism is more than just advocating a random checklist of disconnected actions that in some respect limit government's reach or expense. (See Steven Horwitz, an economist in the Hayekian tradition, for valuable thoughts on why judging Trump via a checklist of discrete changes in specific government behavior doesn't work in libertarian terms.)

Libertarianism is a unified skein of beliefs about how the human social order should be shaped. What binds the philosophy is the understanding (or belief, for the skeptical) that using violent force against the peaceful both makes us, overall, poorer and is, at any rate, almost always or always wrong.

For most libertarians, the practical and moral arguments against aggressive force on the innocent support each other; the sense of what's morally right for most libertarians is rooted in a generally rule-based sense of what furthers human flourishing overall. To most libertarians, that is, freedom is both a valuable part of human flourishing, and a necessary part of most other aspects of it.

That we should be free to do what we want with ourselves, and with our justly owned property, is the core of libertarianism. (A swirling, complicated debate surrounds questions about what behavior is truly about ourselves alone, and how, why, and under what circumstances property is justly owned and what that implies about how we can use it. Such questions can't be resolved in a blog post.)

Given the nature of human beings' productive powers, the best way to ensure the collective "we" gets richer faster is to ensure the individual freedom to exchange with others as we choose, and by doing so build long and complex chains of production and exchange that benefit us all (or even just some/many of us), irrespective of accidents like national boundaries.

Free trade and free migration are, then, the core of the true classical liberal (libertarian) vision as it developed in America in the 20th century: if you don't understand and embrace them, you don't understand liberty, and you are not trying to further it.

The Trump administration may not in every specific policy area do the wrong thing in libertarian terms. But whatever it gets right is more an epiphenomenon of certain alliances within the Republican Party power structure or the business interests he's surrounding himself with. Trump and his administration can't be trusted to have any principled and reliable approach to shrinking government or widening liberty, since Trumpism at its core is an enemy of libertarianism.

What appears to be the core of Trumpism, based on his earliest priorities and his closest advisers? The blatant, energetic, eager violation of the right to freely choose what to do with one's justly owned property and energy, and fierce denial of the principle that through such freedom we create immense and unprecedented wealth for the human race. (Again, most libertarians don't just clutch "freedom" as a value disconnected from all other values, although they privilege it in most cases. They also believe freedom is conducive to the greatest human wealth and happiness, overall. It's a philosophy of social betterment as well as a philosophy of individual rights.)

Not yet a month into his administration, Trumpism is most surely centered on a poorly considered nationalism. His administration, with each swift and relentless bit of dumb bullying over our businesses' right to choose what to do with capital, our right to buy from abroad unmolested, other humans' ability to move peacefully into our country, acts on the principle that it's best if we don't trade with people outside our borders, that the Leader gets to decide what private businesses do with their capital and resources, and that we should beggar ourselves for the sour joys of keeping fewer people not born here from coming here (in a time when that alleged "problem" barely exists).

Trump is openly a type of illibertarian leader we haven't seen in a while. The "open" part is important. Those wanting to downplay the threat of Trump can, justly, point to all sorts of crummy and illiberal policies that past administrations and imagined alternate administrations did or might also pursue. In the context of the current political debate, that scarcely matters. Trump is the president we have, and his policies are what we have to face, and fight. It may fit any given person's amour propre to not ever risk seeming to overstate or overguess exactly how bad Trump is or might be, but it doesn't necessarily help the cause of promoting liberty.

It does matter whether a president encases even protectionist or trade-managing or restrictionist policies with a stated appreciation for lower tariffs and more open migration, which at least on the margins likely keeps bad things from happening. By paying that tribute of statist vice to libertarian virtue, at least doesn't deliberately imbue Americans with the belief that the country will be stronger by making goods and labor more expensive.

A president who openly and firmly rejects the principle of, and fails to grasp the benefits of, economic liberty is indeed worse than one who merely casually violates those principles. (And economic liberty is the core of human liberty, in a world where we must produce and trade to live).

Trump and his administration don't merely violate the core principles of individual liberty carelessly or as a byproduct of other goals; he is against economic liberty, deeply and sincerely. More than anything else, Trump is a loud and proud enemy of libertarianism.

The continued presence and dominance of Steve Bannon in his inner circle indicates that Trumpian nationalism, though the administration doesn't spell this out explicitly, yearns toward ethno-nationalism. Bannon believes American "civic society" necessarily excludes too many immigrants from Asia (even though people of that descent make up over 5 percent of America.)

While he's been careful since taking his powerful position in the White House not to say much of what he thinks about anything, Bannon's stated belief that the news organization he ran, Breitbart, was "a platform for the alt-right" and his own site's definition of that often deliberately ill-defined term, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that his nationalism has an ethnic component.

The administration's choice, apparently at the driving of Bannon and his ally Steven Miller, to launch their administration with an expensive and absurd "border wall" and for a spate of pointless (except in their disruptive cruelty) blows at movement of people from a small set of mostly-Muslim countries (that are not the Muslim countries from which any serious terror threat to the U.S. has ever actually arisen) show that the "public safety" rationale doesn't hold up. They are either idiots, or the restriction has another purpose.

What the limited travel restrictions so vital to the Trump administration have demonstrated is that they are eager to build from the most speculative and phantom of fears an expensive and disruptive apparatus of control, one that Miller considers a test run to prove the president's unrestricted power over certain matters, even in the face of the courts. And the fears they decide to focus on are fears of the foreign "other," even if that foreign other is a legal resident of the United States or wants nothing more than to work for or with existing Americans.

If you are judging how to view Trump's administration, and make reasonable guesses about its future actions based on demonstrated core commitments, those demonstrated preferences, goals, and methods are seriously bad, and more serious than (so far) semantic stunts about cutting regulation or taxes.

Trump v. Mises

Free trade and migration is not just one of a random pile of "freedom-increasing policies" that one can grab from and hope the whole number ends up large enough. It's the heart. Trump's disdain for them shows he can't be trusted to stand for our core freedoms, for any reason other than pure political contingency, or perhaps as part of his unlovely desire to humiliate the enemies and opponents his administration is obsessed with. (Yes, someone out to stick it to the modern liberals may occasionally posit a freedom-enhancing policy. This doesn't make "sticking it to the liberals" itself inherently a libertarian attitude.)

Is it just a sign of pants-wetting Trump Derangement Syndrome to call Trump the quintessential anti-libertarian? The modern American libertarian tradition is not unitary or invented by one personI wrote an over-700-page book about it, called Radicals for Capitalism.

That said, given his influence on nearly every thinker or institution that comprised modern American libertarianism from World War II to the dawn of the 21st century, Ludwig Von Mises, the Austrian emigre economist and social philosopher, can be relied on to reveal what is core about modern American libertarianism.

Mises, driven from his beloved Austria by the Nazis and firsthand witness to the death of liberal principles via strongman ethno-national fascism, thought and wrote diligently and brilliantly about every aspect of social philosophy. From the start of his career to the end he identified free trade and free migration in a regime of legal respect for individual private property as the core of a free society. Those, again, are the principles Trump has nothing but contempt for.

Mises' personal and intellectual experience taught him vividly why the nationalism at the heart of Trumpism is the worst enemy of classical liberalism, the humane and liberating and wealth-generating tradition Mises sustained and furthered.

Mises' liberalism, and thus modern libertarianism, was built not solely in reaction to Marxist communism but equally against the wealth- and life-destroying evils of autocratic ethno-nationalist autarkic statism.

As Mises wrote in his first magisterial work of social and political philosophy, Socialism (1922), almost as if he foresaw a Trump who would try to bamboozle a nation into thinking it could enrich "the people" as opposed to special interests via protectionism and exclusionary immigration policies, and wanted to warn the liberty-minded that would be not just one concession on a liberty checklist but the end of the benefits and glories of free markets (as well as a clear violation of any pretense that one is working for "the people" vs some privileged elite):

It becomes a cardinal point of the particularist policy...to keep newcomers out.

It has been the task of Liberalism to show who bear the costs of such a policy....

A system that protects the immediate interests of particular groups limits productivity in general and, in the end, injures everybodyeven those whom it began by favouring. How protection finally affects the individual, whether he gains or loses, compared with what he would have got under complete freedom of trade, depends on the degrees of protection to him and to others....

As soon as it is possible to forward private interests in this way and to obtain special privileges, a struggle for pre-eminence breaks out among those interested. Each tries to get the better of the other. Each tries to get more privileges so as to reap the greater private gain. The idea of perfectly equal protection for all is the fantasy of an ill-thought out theory.

For, if all particular interests were equally protected, nobody would reap any advantage: the only result would be that all would feel the disadvantage of the curtailment of productivity equally. Only the hope of obtaining for himself a degree of protection, which will benefit him as compared with the less protected, makes protection attractive to the individual. It is always demanded by those who have the power to acquire and preserve especial privileges for themselves.

In exposing the effects of protection, Liberalism broke the aggressive power of particular interests. It now became obvious that, at best, only a few could gain absolutely by protection and privileges and that the great majority must inevitably lose....

In order to rehabilitate protection, it was necessary to destroy Liberalism....Once Liberalism has been completely vanquished, however, and no longer menaces the protective system, there remains nothing to oppose the extension of particular privilege.

When it came to free immigration, Mises was so intellectually and emotionally attached to it that this generally quite pacific man thought that immigration barriers nearly rose to a legitimate excuse for the excluded to wage war.

His writing after seeing the horrors that ethno-national autarky brought to Europe in his 1944 book Omnipotent Government bookend his explanation of the vital, core importance of free trade and migration:

....imagine a world order in which liberalism is supreme....In this liberal world, or liberal part of the world, there is private property in the means of production. The working of the market is not hampered by government interference. There are no trade barriers; men can live and work where they want. Frontiers are drawn on the maps but they do not hinder the migrations of men and shipping of commodities. Natives do not enjoy rights that are denied to aliens. Governments and their servants restrict their activities to the protection of life, health, and property against fraudulent or violent aggression. They do not discriminate against foreigners. The courts are independent and effectively protect everybody against the encroachments of officialdom. Everyone is permitted to say, to write, and to print what he likes. Education is not subject to government interference. Governments are like night-watchmen whom the citizens have entrusted with the task of handling the police power. The men in office are regarded as mortal men, not as superhuman beings or as paternal authorities who have the right and duty to hold the people in tutelage. Governments do not have the power to dictate to the citizens what language they must use in their daily speech or in what language they must bring up and educate their children....

....In such a world the state is not a metaphysical entity but simply the producer of security and peace. It is the night-watchman....But it fulfills this task in a satisfactory way. The citizen's sleep is not disturbed, bombs do not destroy his home, and if somebody knocks at his door late at night it is certainly neither the Gestapo nor the O.G.P.U.

The reality in which we have to live differs very much from this perfect world of ideal liberalism. But this is due only to the fact that men have rejected liberalism for etatism.

It's not merely that of a grabbag list of "libertarian positions" Trump is picking a few and neglecting the others and thus libertarians have reason to be hopeful; it's not merely that, oh, free trade and immigration were among Mises' many positions, and his reasons for positing them as core to liberalism were whimsical.

They were, as he explained and knew in his bones from the horrible history of Austria and Germany he lived through, the core of liberalism (libertarianism). If one doesn't understand that, as Trump and his people do not, then their instincts and intelligence can't be trusted for anything when it comes to liberty.

Why Some Libertarians Might Not Seem Particularly Alarmed by Trump

Conflicting concerns and perspective have dictated many libertarians' reactions to Trump. (In the social networking age, it is much easier, for better or worse, to understand a very wide range of perspectives not mediated through existing approved brands.) Libertarians tend to already see so much of what the American state has done, under control of both parties and a variety of politicians, as hideous evils that our sense of loud public outrage at what the government is up to generally has had to be kept in some form of polite abeyance, lest we become the sort of constant wild ranters that tend to be filtered out of any public discussion.

This sociological reality, perhaps, makes libertarians less likely to be the loudest and most panicked about Trump. Trump is, as we've heard from many in the past few weeks, inheriting powers and a system that have long existed and long been abused, from travel restrictions to deportations. I have seen an understandable wave from those of libertarian bent of "wait, you are telling me the government is scary now?" reaction to the more, let's say, acutely panicked complaints about Trump.

This is a time of high rhetorical tension in American political discourse. One with a contrarian streak (and libertarians of necessity have contrarian streaks) might be inclined to discount the apocalyptic sense that Trump represents a unique and freshly unacceptable blow to American liberty. Predicting an unusually dire event occurring has social and intellectual costs; even someone highly alarmed by Trump might be reluctant to predict severe and unprecedented domestic repression.

But Trump's very rise to power was unprecedented in many respects, and his core and proud illiberalism is fresh in modern America. (Again, governmental vice paying some tribute to the virtues of liberty is important.) The presence and growing power of Steve Bannon, a man near as we can tell genuinely and enthusiastically dedicated to ethno-nationalism, is what makes it hard to believe that Trump doesn't want to take his economic autarky and restrictionism as far as he can get away with.

And from the perspective of the first few weeks of Trump, any remnants of dedication to free markets and freedom in these realms has seemingly already been flushed out of the body of the GOP in order to make room for an injection of pure malignant Trumpism, so we can't count on his Party or its old rhetorical commitments to hold him back.

Trumpian nationalism and restrictionism is a philosophy that has already caused and will continue to cause misery, both direct and obvious in the lives of people whose movement is restricted and indirect and harder to see in the choking of the wealth-generating properties of international trade.

The president has chosen to make his leading adviser, one who seems to have outsized influence on the administration, a man whose sole political concern is both dumb and evil, and whose approach to that goal is, according to something historian Ronald Radosh reports Bannon said to him (though Bannon later said he did not recall saying this to Radosh, or meeting him at all), "Leninist," that is, dedicated to the revolutionary scorched-earth destruction of all existing institutions.

I know many libertarians who smile at that. Why, even early libertarian movement linchpin Murray Rothbard at times thought in Leninist strategic terms! Don't libertarians hate the system and want to see it fall?

I, and most libertarians, hate lots about the "system" and would like to see lots about it fall. But Bannon's hatred for modern institutions has almost no overlap with libertarians'. He doesn't want more freedom. He wants ruthless state power supporting his particular vision of a favored class.

He doesn't hate modern institutions for being tyrannical, for illegitimately bossing around or destroying people's lives. Bannon sees libertarians as his enemies, and he's right to do so. He hates the current establishment because he feels it insufficiently promotes war to the death against radical Islam. He hates it for insufficiently pushing an autarkistic ethno-nationalism that will make poorer and more miserable not only Americans but the world.

Trump's Temperament (And Why it Matters)

There is another reason to find Trump especially alarming as president. It touches on what's always undergirded why I was attracted to libertarianism on a sub-intellectual level when I was young, an inclination that made the explicit philosophy ring true. It is another reason I find it wrongheaded from a libertarian perspective to be a bloodless Vulcan tallyer of pluses and minuses for specific policies Trump has spouted or appointments he's made.

Many libertarians don't dislike the state out of some disconnected dislike for "government" qua government, but because they dislike cruelty and the needless causing of pain and misery to other human beings, and that underlies most of what government does, and appears to be Trump's favorite parts of government.

Yes, government is an institution whose very function is control backed by violence and funded via extortion and is thus inherently cruel. But not everything government does is inherently wrong, considered outside the funding mechanism. Some things government does, were they not done by government, are perfectly proper things to do. Trump and his people seem most focused on the things that aren't, like punishing and restricting the harmless and taking away our rights to trade outside barriers the leader thinks are appropriate.

From immigration to eminent domain to the drug war to asset forfeiture Trump seems to be particularly malign, particularly contemptuous of the shopkeeper virtues of trade and the American virtues of live and let live liberty, with a sort of Viking streak that appeals to many of his fans who love seeing an "alpha male leader" take the reins and punish their perceived enemies.

Trump tries very hard to delegitimize any countervailing structures, such as a free press or the courts, that could possibly make it harder for him to do what he wants. He is for making police stronger and will lie to make you agree with that. His attorney general Jeff Sessions is a pure exemplar of governing as a source to punish.

Even given any particular set of policies, even given whatever you know or think about past or potential other future presidents, these are a terrible, terrible set of attributes from a libertarian perspective for the president. Those long concerned about the fragility of our debt and monetary structures, or potential reactions to a new terror attack, should indeed I think be uniquely frightened by this caudillist sitting in the White House.

Some in the libertarian thoughtworld believe passionately that Trump will prove to be less likely to cause destruction and death abroad via war than the average American president. I simply don't think there is a good reason to believe that will prove true, though it will be wonderful if it does.

Trump's first week priorities indicate that what motivates him the most is ignorant malign cruelty, autocratic acts that disrupt other peaceful human beings' plans and lives and business, acts that don't need to be done and that cause immense harm.

Such acts are embraced by Trump and his supporters through some combination of economic ignorance (the trade autarky and desire to force companies to do with their property as the leader wishes) and mindless unsupported fearmongering (the border wall, the immigrant and refugee foolishness).

One may temperamentally enjoy seeing modern liberals cry because they presided over a growing state, or are contemptuous of other people's peaceful chosen values, or are smug, or you don't like the way they look, or whatever, but the ol' drinking of modern liberal tears is a large price to pay for someone who likely doesn't care if he wrecks international trade to show he's tough.

Through the bad luck of elections, Trump runs a pretty much one-party state. He is advised by a proud ethno-nationalist. He likes to govern by executive ukase. None of these clear and dominant qualities of Trump and his administration are at all promising for a libertarian.

The best one could say about Trump for libertarians playing the long game in American political culture is it could be a teaching moment about the dangers of centralized executive power, of centralizing our culture's institutions of humane care in a machine whose lever of control is won and lost as easily as is control of the federal government.

Previous administrations of course violated the principles of free trade and cosmopolitanism. But they did not gleefully and malignly and publicly reject them and expect the nation to come along. This devotee of Ludwig Von Mises is suitably alarmed. Instructing other libertarians on specific strategies isn't really my bag. But not being publicly obstructionist regarding Donald Trump, who represents a special and revived threat to liberty from the populist right, well, I can't see how it will do libertarianism's future in the United States in the 21st century much good.

Anti-regulatory preening or not, libertariansthose dedicated to the entire fabric of liberty and social peace and prospertyshould consider it vital to defend the entire edifice of libertarianism, particularly in the face of a leader such as Trump who, no matter what else he does, admires authoritarian strength, hates allowing people or companies to make their own choices about what to do with their money and property, and has chosen, of everyone in the world he could have chosen, as his ideological consigliere a man like Bannon willing to tear down the fragile but vital benefits of modern international civilization in pursuit of his mad, ugly dream.

It might not end up as bad as it looks for libertarians, and those who paint the ugliest picture of the next four years may end up seeming overwrought. But from what has already happened with travel restrictions and trade restrictions and the overarching ideas and attitudes that infuse the Trump administration, it looks extraordinarily bad.

Continued here:

Trump's Dangerous Anti-Libertarian Nationalism - Hit & Run ... - Reason (blog)

Libertarians And President Trump – Daily Caller

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

We Need to Fix the Libertarian National Convention – Being Libertarian


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

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

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

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


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

Maybe it’s time to be more libertarian – LancasterOnline

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

Blasphemy Controversy Plagues Jakarta Gubernatorial Election – Being Libertarian

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

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

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

Feeding the Homeless: Activist Stands Up to City Government – 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