Nothing screams Im a libertarian like a creepy, cultish, rhyming campaign slogan, dont you think? Something like Defeat the Washington machine. Unleash the American dream, Sen. Rand Pauls new motto (as leaked to Politico), teasing the kickoff to his 2016 presidential campaign?

Cant you imagine glassy-eyed, libertarian-minded Millennials chanting that slogan, maybe wearing some kind of military-style yet vaguely hipsterish campaign uniform?

No, actually, I cant either. Rhyming slogans dont say libertarian to me; Pauls tweet seemed weirdly authoritarian, in fact. But on the eve of Pauls announcing a 2016 presidential run, nothing makes sense about his campaign branding, or the way the media simply accept it, in all its messy, massively self-contradictory glory.

So I write to give my colleagues one simple tip to improve their Paul campaign coverage: Stop calling him a libertarian. Stop it right now.

And a related piece of advice: Stop reflexively insisting hes going to appeal to supposedly libertarian-minded Millennials. Because hes not.

Robert Draper didnt create the Paul charade, but he seriously helped it along, in his New York Times magazine piece on the nations supposed libertarian moment last August. He saw the moment well-captured by Rand Paul, who was to the libertarian movement what Pearl Jam is to rock, Draper wrote, explaining.On issues including same-sex marriage, surveillance and military intervention, his positions more closely mirror those of young voters than those of the G.O.P. establishment.

Many good reporters and analysts have spent many long hours debunking Drapers assumptions. (I tried it here.) On issues of womens rights and LGBT rights, immigration, drug legalization and even military spending and intervention, Paul has either always been or has become a fairly standard issue Republicans.

Think Progresss Judd Legum runs exhaustively through the record, but here are a few highlights. First of all, hes staunchly anti-choice, supporting the Life begins at Conception Act and pretty much every other piece of anti-abortion legislation thats come before him. Hes got a 100 percent rating from the National Right to Life Committee. To be fair, other libertarians have gotten away with being pro-liberty for everyone but women. Pauls father Ron, who was somewhat more genuinely libertarian than his son, likewise supported draconian anti-abortion laws.

And while Paul used to sound vaguely live-and-let-live when it came to gay marriage, he has toughened his rhetoric. He now says the idea of a marriage between a same-sex couples offends myself and a lot of people, and hes joined Rick Santorum in suggesting it may lead to interspecies intimacy. We learned last week that he doesnt even believe in the concept of gay rights, telling an interviewer in 2013, I really dont believe in rights based on your behavior.

Where libertarians tend to support liberalizing immigration laws and promoting more open borders, Paul has voted against any liberalization of U.S. immigration policy. He even cosponsored a bill with Sen. David Vitter to end citizenship rights for the children of foreigners born on this soil, when he first got to the Senate. Citizenship is a privilege, Paul said at the time, and only those who respect our immigration laws should be allowed to enjoy its benefits.

See the original post here:

Stop calling this man a libertarian: What 2016 campaign journos miss about Rand Paul

The Libertarian Angle - Communism and the Cold War
Each week, FFF president Jacob Hornberger discusses the hot topics of the day. This week: the national-security state #39;s hardening during the Cold War. The Libertarian Angle airs weekly. Go...

By: The Future of Freedom Foundation

Go here to read the rest:

The Libertarian Angle - Communism and the Cold War - Video

When the presidential buzz began building around Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) a couple of years ago, the expectation was that his libertarian ideas could make him the most unusual and intriguing voice among the major contenders in the 2016 field.

But now, as he prepares to make his formal announcement Tuesday, Paul is a candidate who has turned fuzzy, having trimmed his positions and rhetoric so much that its unclear what kind of Republican he will present himself as when he takes the stage.

Hes going to get his moment in the sun, said David Adams, who served as campaign chairman for Pauls insurgent 2010 Senate campaign. What he does with it from there will have bearing on the Republican Party.

There are at least two areas where Paul has moved more in line with the conservative Republican base, somewhat to the consternation of the purists in the libertarian movement: adopting a more muscular posture on defense and foreign policy, and courting the religious right.

Where he once pledged to sharply cut the Pentagons budget, for instance, Paul late last month proposed a $190billion increase over the next two years albeit one that would be paid for by cutting foreign aid and other government programs. A tour to support his announcement will include an event at Patriots Point in South Carolinas Charleston harbor, with the World War II-era aircraft carrier USS Yorktown as a backdrop.

[What Rand Pauls defense spending proposal tells us about his 2016 strategy]

The mystery over Pauls positions increased last week with his conspicuous silence on controversies in the realms of both national security and the cultural fronts.

Nearly all of his potential rivals for the 2016 GOP nomination have been vocal in their support for Indianas new religious-liberties law, which critics say would allow discrimination against gays. And the Republican response to President Obamas nuclear negotiations with Iran has been widespread skepticism.

In both instances, Pauls office said he was vacationing with his family and would not comment.

What Paul says Tuesday and in several stops in the following days will be closely watched by a handful of disparate constituencies into which he has tried to make inroads over the past year, including Silicon Valley executives attracted to his libertarian ways and more traditional Republican business leaders who are wary of them. Attracted to his promise of expanding the GOP electorate, they have met with Paul, but many remain unsure of his electability, as well as his views.

See the original post:

Rand Pauls delicate balancing act

Glenn "Kane"Jacobs Libertarian Superstar of Professional Wrestling
Glenn Jacobs, also known as WWE superstar "Kane", is our guest this week. He #39;s not only a tremendous performer and athlete, but also tremendous intellectual, a voracious reader, a dedicated...

By: samuel ezerzer

View post:

Glenn "Kane"Jacobs Libertarian Superstar of Professional Wrestling - Video

Senator Lindsey Graham isnt the biggest fan of his more libertarian colleagues, but he insists that their differences are only tactical and believes they have lots of common ground to work from.

In an interview with The Gazette this week, Graham talks about his potential 2016 candidacy and talks up his ability to solve hard problems. He says his philosophy is All right, if I get 80 percent of what I want, thats a good day.

Some of Grahams views, especially his foreign policy hawkishness, dont exactly make him the favorite of more libertarian Republicans, but he has this to say in response:

Libertarians want smaller government. Count me in. Libertarians want oversight of government programs and making sure that your freedoms are not easily compromised. Count me in. Ted Cruz wants to fight Obamacare. Count me in What we wind up doing is having tactical differences.

The difference, as Graham put it, is that I want to fix it rather than yell about it.

One of Grahams House colleagues, Republican Justin Amash, responded to some of what he said:

[h/t Reason] [image via Frank Plitt]

Follow Josh Feldman on Twitter: @feldmaniac

View original post here:

Lindsey Graham: Im with Libertarians, but I Want to Fix Problems, Not Just Yell

Can You Argue (Without Contradiction) Against Libertarian Principles?
Stephan Kinsella joins Tom to discuss argumentation ethics, a recent innovation in libertarian thought. Subscribe to the Tom Woods Show: ...

By: TomWoodsTV

Read the original here:

Can You Argue (Without Contradiction) Against Libertarian Principles? - Video

Over at the Huffington Post, the Institute for Justices Evan Bernick jumps into an ongoing debate about the proper exercise of the judicial power. On one side, libertarian constitutionalists (like Bernick and Damon Root) disparage judicial deference and encourage judicial activism on behalf of (what they think are) constitutional rights. On the other side, conservatives (like me and Ramesh Ponnuru) contend that judicial deference or restraint is appropriate because it is the kind of exercise of the judicial power that the American founders endorsed.

Bernicks defense of Roots position adds a potentially helpful clarification of the issues. At the same time, however, I would say that his argument in the end simply adds more evidence that conservatives should reject the libertarian constitutionalists judicial activism as inconsistent with the Founders Constitution.

To review the argument: Root contends that the judicial deference championed by modern judicial conservatives can be traced to the Progressives of about 100 years ago, who also defended judicial deference. I, on the other hand, contend that judicial deference can in fact be traced to the Founders and can be seen, for example, in the great opinions written for the Supreme Court by Chief Justice John Marshall.

Bernick argues in defense of Root by way of a distinction. According to him, the specific kind of deference defended by conservative jurists (like Robert Bork) is actually rooted in the thought of Progressives like James Bradley Thayer, and not in the jurisprudence of John Marshall. Thayer held that the Constitution is often unclear, and that where it is unclear the Legislature has a right to adopt whatever interpretation it wants, so long as it is rational. In contrast, Marshall believed that the Courts job was to try to render the Constitution clear through the standard tools of judicial interpretation.

This is a potentially helpful distinction because it may well be that the kind of judicial review advocated by Thayer is excessively deferential to the Legislature. Certainly I would agree with the idea that contemporary conservatives should take their understanding of the proper use of the judicial power from Marshall, and the founders more generally, rather than from the restatements of it (and perhaps reinterpretations of it) offered by later commentators like Thayer.

Nevertheless, this distinction does not take us as far as Bernick would like. In the first place, his argument still does not show the invalidity of a certain kind of judicial deference, properly understood. If Thayer argued for an excessive deference, it does not follow that there is not an appropriate kind of judicial deference or judicial restraint, such as is found in the work of John Marshall.

Bernick tries to discredit my claim that judicial deference can be traced to Marshall by noting that the same claim was made by Thayer. But even if Thayer did not understand Marshall as precisely as he should have, it is still the case that Thayer could make this claim precisely because there is evidence to support it. As I noted, and as Bernick notes in summarizing my argument, Marshall, in Fletcher v. Peck, said for the Court that judges should seldom if ever declare a law to be unconstitutional in a doubtful case. This is undoubtedly an endorsement of judicial deference, and Bernick does not even bother to deny it. In this passage, Marshall says that there will be doubtful cases, cases in which it may not be possible to render the Constitution perfectly clear, and that in such cases the Court should seldom if ever declare a law unconstitutional which is as much as to say that the Court should defer to the interpretation of the Constitution on which the Legislature acted when it made the law unless there is a clear argument for doing otherwise.

Moreover, we should also keep in view that the libertarian constitutionalists are not merely criticizing judicial restraint but advancing an alternative: judicial activism in defense of a libertarian understanding of rights. This activism, they say, should be guided not by a presumption of constitutionality the traditional approach associated with judicial deference but instead by a presumption of liberty. But even if we were to grant that the progressives took a too narrow view of the judicial power, this would not do anything to justify the sweeping power for Courts that the libertarian constitutionalists want to unleash by positing a presumption of liberty. Every law impedes somebodys liberty. Therefore, beginning from a presumption of liberty is the same thing as beginning from a presumption of unconstitutionality for every law that is passed.

I can see why, as a policy matter, libertarian constitutionalists would advocate this presumption of liberty. They want as little government as possible, and it would be hard to think of a better tool for accomplishing this than a presumption of liberty in the hands of judges. Ill even agree that it would be good for legislators to keep this presumption in mind. They often seem to want to legislate just for the sake of being able to claim some political accomplishment. They should instead start from a presumption of liberty and ask whether society really needs the laws that they are often itching to write.

This is very different, however, from saying that courts should start from a presumption of liberty when judging the constitutionality of laws that have been enacted. Their job, in constitutional cases, is simply to give force to the Constitution. And the Constitution is not designed to guarantee that libertarian policy preferences will prevail.

Read the original here:

No, Judicial Restraint Isnt Progressive

Jake Otter - Half-Cooked Libertarian With Mushrooms (Radio Edit)
ebun.

By: jakeottertv

Read more from the original source:

Jake Otter - Half-Cooked Libertarian With Mushrooms (Radio Edit) - Video

Teen libertarian is face of Brazils young free-market right

By: mikeroweRules12

Read more:

Teen libertarian is face of Brazils young free-market right - Video

LIBERTARIAN | Arkansas Passes Religious Freedom from Government Intrusion

By: shakaama

Link:

LIBERTARIAN | Arkansas Passes Religious Freedom from Government Intrusion - Video

With the recent and continuing hulabaloo over conflicts between antidiscrimination laws and freedom of religion, the charge inevitably arises that anyone who is opposed to, or even skeptical of, antidiscrimination laws that apply to private partieswhich means most people who identify themselves as libertariansis effectively not pro-liberty, but pro-discrimination. I therefore thought it was a good time to reprint my rebuttal of that argument from Cato Unbound, published in 2010, below.

The most serious charge has been that libertarian skepticism of antidiscrimination laws that apply to private entities reflects, at best, insensitivity to race discrimination. One blogger, reflecting a significant swath of progressive sentiment, argued that no matter how committed to racial egalitarianism any individual libertarian claims to be, Libertarianism is a racist philosophy. Libertarians are racists.

This is a rather odd criticism. For both philosophical and utilitarian reasons, libertarians are presumptively strongly opposed to any government regulation of the private sector. It naturally follows that libertarians presumptively oppose restrictions on private sector discrimination. Its hardly an indication of racial animus, or even insensitivity, for libertarians to enunciate theexact same positionon antidiscrimination laws that they take in all other contexts.

The progressive libel of libertarians as racial troglodytes for their consistent defense of private-sector autonomy is ironic, given that similar illogic has so frequently been used against modern liberals. When liberals defended Communists free speech and employment rights in the 1950s, their critics accused them of being Communist sympathizers, if not outright Communists. More recently, progressives have been accused of being American-hating jihadist sympathizers when they stood up for the rights of terrorism suspects. Critics have even charged civil libertarians with abetting racism for opposing hate speech laws.

The hate speech example is particularly telling. Some progressives argue that if libertarians were more sensitive to the concerns of minorities, they would sacrifice their anti-statist principles to the goddess of antidiscrimination. If so, progressives should similarly sacrifice their support for freedom of speech.

Confronted with the hate speech analogy, progressives will typically reply that supporting freedom of speech is completely different from supporting the right to engage in discriminatory action. After all, speech is just speechsticks and stones, and whatnotwhile discriminatory actions cause real distress to the victims. And besides, they argue, the marketplace of ideas can be trusted to ensure that egalitarian views will emerge victorious.

This argument does not stand up to close scrutiny. Hate speech can directly harm members of minority by causing psychological distress or inciting violence. And indirect harms from hate speech can be catastrophic if advocates of racist views are able to win control of the government. While minorities can generally find productive economic niches in even highly prejudiced but market-oriented societies, there is no safe haven for minorities if racist ideas dominate politics and lead to harsh discriminatory legislation.

Also, a free economic market protects minorities from discrimination to some degree because businesspeople have an economic incentive to hire the most productive workers and to obtain the most customers. By contrast, individual voters and political activists have no corresponding incentive to overlook or overcome their personal prejudices. Concern for the financial bottom line mitigates the temptation of economic entrepreneurs to discriminate; concern for the electoral bottom line, meanwhile, often leads politicians to stir up resentment against minorities.

As suggested above, supporters of antidiscrimination laws typically focus on laws banning racial discrimination. They do so because opposition to race discrimination has great historical and emotional resonance in a nation that had institutionalized racial oppression, including chattel slavery, for hundreds of years. However, federal antidiscrimination laws also apply to discrimination based on religion, sex, age, disability (including ones status as a recovering drug or alcohol addict), pregnancy, marital status, veteran status, and even military recruiters. State and local antidiscrimination laws cover everything from sexual orientation to political ideology to weight to appearance to membership in a motorcycle gang.

The proliferation of antidiscrimination laws explains why libertarians are loath to concede the principle that the government may ban private sector discrimination. There is no natural limit to the scope of antidiscrimination laws, because the concept of antidiscrimination is almost infinitely malleable. Almost any economic behavior, and much other behavior, can be defined as discrimination. Is a school admitting students based on SAT scores? That is discrimination against individuals (or groups) who dont do well on standardized tests! Is a store charging more for an item than some people can afford? That is discrimination against the poor! Is an employer hiring only the best qualified candidates? That is discrimination against everyone else!

Continue reading here:

Volokh Conspiracy: Explaining the libertarian position on antidiscrimination laws

The Libertarian Party of Canada has nominated Lauren Southern for the federal riding of Langley-Aldergrove.

Lauren Southern was born and raised in Surrey and is currently living Langley. Lauren became an advocate of Libertarian values when she began discovering the works of Libertarian philosophers at a young age. She adopted the belief that the government does not know how to spend an individuals money better than they do. Nor should the government have the right to instruct people on how to live their lives when their way of life is causing no harm to those around them.

She is currently studying political sciences at the University of the Fraser Valley and where she provides a strong voice for liberty on the campus. She previously hosted the radio show Liberty Now from the university broadcast station where she discussed current affairs from a libertarian viewpoint. Since then, she has moved on to more studies and volunteering, and is now looking for more opportunities to promote Libertarian ideals in any way she can.

Lauren plans on running a strong campaign in order to spread the libertarian message, as well as move power away from the government and back to the people. She feels strongly about issues such as corporate welfare, criminalization of victimless crimes and taxation. In promoting liberty, Lauren hopes to create a better, freer Canada for current and future Canadians.

Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem, says Southern.

Libertarian leader Tim Moen

Tim Moen grew up on a farm in Northern Alberta where he learned the value of freedom, hard work, responsibility, respect for property and community. He has served his community as a firefighter, paramedic, business owner, writer, filmmaker and volunteer. In 2013 after working with Neil Young, who slammed his community and the oil sands industry, Tim gained national media attention by writing an article revealing Neils hypocrisy. In 2014 he ran a highly visible by-election that caught the attention of Fox Business, CNN, Reason Magazine, Gawker, This Hour Has 22 Minutes and numerous other media outlets.

Tim has extensive experience leading high performance teams and has a graduate degree in leadership where his thesis examined the ways in which high performance teams employ libertarian principles. Since Tim was elected leader of the Libertarian Party of Canada in May 2014, the Party has witnessed an explosive growth in membership, engagement and funding.

Tim has spent his career protecting life and property from mindless destructive forces. Now as leader of the Libertarian Party of Canada he is focusing his attention on the destructive force of government which has an unquenchable appetite for money and power at the expense of its citizens.

Mission

Here is the original post:

Libertarians nominate Lauren Southern for Langley-Aldergrove

Story highlights Penn Jillette: I'm in favor of many kinds of sex; everyone has different preferences and that's okay He says that people have a right to be stupid, but what's so wrong with selling cake to gay people?

I've read the Bible cover to cover, and I've never seen that in there, but, I'm an atheist, so I may have scales over my eyes while I read -- what do I know?

I was listening to some whack job (I should say some other whack job, because I was on the same TV panel) talk about how some Christians might not think gay sex was right and needed the legal right to act on that belief.

It's OK to not like some forms of sex. I'm sure there's some form of sex that I don't like, I just haven't encountered it yet. If anyone invites me to a kind of sex I don't want -- I will say no ... at least after I've tried it a couple times.

Indiana governor signs 'fix' for religious freedom law

My job is doing a Vegas magic show. I bet if I really researched all the people in our audiences, I would find people in our crowds who I had fundamental disagreements with. I would still want to do the show for them. That's my job. I'm trying to sell about a quarter of a million tickets a year to Penn & Teller, and that ain't easy.

I might not agree with Scientologists or chiropractors, but I want them to come to my show. Who knows, just being around us, might wise them up, or even better, might wise me up. I like to change my mind and it's good business to be in business with people you don't agree with.

All that being said, as a libertarian, I believe that people have the right to be stupid and run their businesses in a stupid way. And then the big old invisible hand gets visible and the stupid businesses go out of business. It doesn't always work, but it often does.

Pizzeria finds itself at the center of religious freedom debate

I don't think we need a special law that says certain people get to be rude to other people because they think God is on their side, but I also don't want a law that says I have to do business with people I disagree with if I'm a really stupid business person.

Excerpt from:

Penn Jillette: People have the right to be stupid

Is Ted Cruz A Libertarian Manchurian Candidate?
Caller tells David Knight that senator Ted Cruz is not eligible to run for president. Mr Knight points out that he hopes Cruz is not a libertarian manchurian candidate. http://www.infowars.com/vide...

By: The Alex Jones Channel

See more here:

Is Ted Cruz A Libertarian Manchurian Candidate? - Video

By Russell Moore March 31 at 7:29 PM

In all the furor over Indianas controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act, perhaps the answer to the culture war impasse wont be found in Indianapolis but in Pawnee. Pawnee, of course, is the fictional town inhabited by long-running NBC sitcom Parks and Recreation, which orbited around the often clashing visions of Parks director Ron Swanson and his crusading deputy Leslie Knope. The two could agree on little, but I think they could agree on Indianas RFRA as it originally passed, and so should we.

Ron Swanson and Leslie Knope are relevant to this discussion not despite the fact that they are fictional Hoosiers but precisely because they are. They stand in for two powerful impulses in American cultural and political life: leave me alone libertarianism and common good progressivism. Both of these strains are part of the rich heritage of religious freedom, and neither strain should go wobbly on that heritage now.

Swanson, of course, was the grumpy, just-this-side-of-cynical libertarian who feels guilty for working for the government. What he wanted to see done, more than anything, within his tiny towns parks department is for it to do just this side of nothing. He kept his money in gold, buried somewhere in the yard. His hatred of government regulations and government expenditures, of almost any kind, were second only to his hatred for skim milk (which he famously called water, lying about being milk).

Swanson, like most libertarians, probably would support same-sex marriage, if he supported any sort of government-recognized marriage at all. But his libertarianism wouldnt want the government dictating either the prohibitionor the celebrationof such unions.

The libertarian vision is one that recognizes that pluralism in the public square is not an evil to be stamped out by government fiat. And that vision is especially true when it comes to the most personal arena of a persons life: his or her conscience. We may disagree on how much government is necessary, but libertarians have consistently warned us that a government that takes upon itself the burden of paving over consciences is a government that can do anything.

The libertarian vision is true in the area of religious liberty both on the Right (when some have wanted state-written school prayers or mosques zoned out of existence) or on the Left (where now many want to force celibate nuns to pay for birth control insurance or force evangelical adoption agencies out of existence).

The federal RFRA and its counterparts in the states were designed to protect individual consciences from a Leviathan government. The point of RFRA, from the beginning, was to assert that unpopular religious views (whether of peyote-smoking native Americans, hijab-wearing Muslims or something similar) ought to be protected by more than just the whim of the majority.

Leslie Knope, on the other hand, was the office progressive, fueled by idealism about what government can do, if only given the chance. With her office filled with pictures of her women heroes from Madeleine Albright to Hillary Clinton, Knope wanted to break glass ceilings, to fill in sand pits and build parks for the sake of the flourishing of her community.

Now, as a liberal Democrat, Knope, too, probably would support same-sex marriage. But its hard to imagine that Knope would feel comfortable with the hysteria weve seen over the Indiana RFRA. The primary pressure to abandon this act, along with the (flat-out misrepresented) line that it is a freedom to discriminate bill has come from big corporate interests threatening to boycott the state.

See the rest here:

Why Parks and Recreations Ron Swanson and Leslie Knope could agree on Indianas religious freedom law

Queensland civil libertarian Terry O'Gorman has asked the state's chief justice to clarify allegations he insulted colleagues and inappropriately interfered with judicial appointments.

In an open letter to Chief Justice Tim Carmody, the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties vice-president called for a fuller explanation of recent allegations levelled at Justice Carmody by a retiring judge.

Last week outgoing Supreme Court Justice Alan Wilson used his valedictory speech to declare the chief justice was not performing, and accused him of inappropriately interfering with the Court of Disputed Returns following the state election, among other claims.

Justice Carmody responded in a letter to barristers on Monday that said the allegations were a slur on his integrity and an inappropriate use of the forum of the court.

Mr O'Gorman's open letter, sent on Wednesday, demanded a better explanation of Justice Wilson's claims, including whether Justice Carmody had called other judges "snakes" and "scum".

The civil liberties lawyer, who has previously said the chief justice should consider resigning, also called for more detail of the circumstances surrounding Justice Carmody's intervention in the appointment of judges to the Court of Disputed Returns.

"The court is, on any view, now clearly deeply divided," Mr O'Gorman wrote.

"I was very disturbed by the remarks made by Wilson J at his valedictory late last week."

The letter comes amid revelations another senior judge was grateful for outgoing Justice Alan Wilson's comments.

Supreme Court Justice Roslyn Atkinson reportedly said in open court immediately after the retiring judge's valedictory ceremony that everything Justice Wilson said was true and she was "extremely grateful" to him for making the comments.

Read the original post:

Carmody asked to explain judge's claims

Given that it's hardly been a controversy in nine other provinces, one might wonder why banning children from using tanning beds would be controversial here.

But the Saskatchewan Party seemed to struggle with imposing regulations prohibiting the use of indoor tanning beds for those under 18 years of age. In fact, just six days ago Health Minister Dustin Duncan told reporters his government wasn't about to follow Alberta's lead and pass such a law.

In fairness, Duncan did talk about "ongoing discussions" and maybe looking at Alberta's decision.

But protecting children's health should be an automatic no-brainer and tanning regulations should have been in place in Saskatchewan long before now. Or so the Sask. Party seemed to conclude as it announced Monday Saskatchewan youth would be prohibited from using tanning salons by this summer.

"Our government's goal is to protect the health of Saskatchewan residents," Duncan said in a news release.

"Our young people are particularly vulnerable to the effects of indoor tanning, and this is one way we can help them lower their risk of melanoma."

That said, maybe the Sask. Party government's news release still wasn't quite as assertive as it could have been.

It stressed the need to carefully monitor "developments on the issue" and make "every effort to be thoughtful about this issue, to gather as much information as possible, and to be aware of different perspectives before proceeding."

Regulations will be developed through consultations with interested stakeholders and government will "continue to support public education efforts aimed at raising awareness of the risks of indoor tanning, and encouraging people to make healthy lifestyle choices."

Really? Why would you need to throw a conciliatory bone to anyone? You just acknowledged: "Young people are particularly vulnerable to the effects of indoor tanning and this is one way we can help them lower their risk of melanoma." What is there still to consider?

Continued here:

Mandryk: Premier Wall battling libertarian views

For a New Ascendancy
TEXT: http://libertarianrealist.blogspot.com/2015/03/libertarian-bionationalism.html Libertarians need nations. No amount of theorizing about imaginary anarcho-capitalist legal agencies has...

By: Libertarian Realist

Originally posted here:

For a New Ascendancy - Video

The Canadian Libertarian #39;s first ever video and introduction.
This is my very first video for the Next Gen News and Views YouTube Channel. I go by the username Canadian Libertarian. I plan on making relevant videos on a regular basis to cover all aspects...

By: NextGen NewsAndViews

View post:

The Canadian Libertarian's first ever video and introduction. - Video

Microphone in hand and standing atop the sound truck, the raspy-voiced protest leader jabbed his finger into the air shouting for the ouster of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, igniting wild cheers from the crowd below him.

"What Lula and Dilma have done shouldn't just result in their being banned from politics. It should result in them being in jail!" Kim Kataguiri yelled, denouncing Rousseff and her predecessor, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

The March 15 demonstration was the largest Sao Paulo had seen in more than three decades, since 1984 protests demanding democratic elections after a long dictatorship.

But more surprising than the crowd of over 200,000, according to the Datafolha polling and statistics agency, was the fact it was being led by Kataguiri, a skinny, 19-year-old college dropout, and other young Brazilian activists inspired by libertarianism and conservative free-market ideals.

The grandson of Japanese immigrants, Kataguiri is a social media star whose quirky videos skewer Rousseff and the ruling party's social welfare policies. His ascent as a protest figure has been rapid. Two years ago, when protests erupted across Brazil over corruption and poor public services, Kataguiri was a high schooler who avoided the unrest.

Today, he is the public face of the Free Brazil Movement, a growing force that is more focused than the 2013 unrest that expressed a wide range of middle-class anger. Brazil's new wave of protests are seen as a right-leaning movement clearly channeled against Rousseff and her Workers' Party.

A widening kickback scandal at Petrobras, the state oil company, is one of several complaints undermining the administration. Kataguiri and others are striking a chord with Brazilians fed up with soaring inflation, a high and growing tax burden, and those who blame government intervention for hobbling Brazil's economy, which grew just 0.1 percent last year and is expected to shrink in 2015.

"We are starting to see an agenda that is very politically driven and clearly against the federal government and President Dilma," said Carlos Melo, a political scientist at the Sao Paulo-based Insper business school. Compared to 2013, "these protests are presenting very different visions."

Kataguiri says he had a political awakening two years ago when he began questioning a classmate's position that a popular cash transfer program applauded by many experts around the globe was responsible for the expansion of Brazil's middle class and for lifting millions of citizens from poverty during the last decade.

He believed the credit instead should go to the country's commodities boom. "That's what has helped the poor," he said.

Read the original here:

Teen Libertarian Is Face of Brazil's Young Free-Market Right