Libertarianism speech

By: j.t. German

Read more from the original source:

Libertarianism speech - Video

Victor Pickard celebrated the Federal Communication Commissions vote Thursday to regulate the internet as a public utility at an internet victory party in Washington, DC. For Pickard, an assistant professor at the Annenberg School of Communications, and an expert on global media activism, the decision is a win for the public good, and maybe even the future of journalismtwo concerns that are very much on his mind as he sits down to write his next book.

Even though its still in its earliest stages, the book will stand on the shoulders of Pickards most recent work, Americas Battle For Media Democracy: The Triumph of Corporate Libertarianism and the Future of Media Reform, which he is currently on tour promoting. A slim, fast-paced account, it digs into a series of media policy battles that played out in the 1940s, when government and media activists fought to rein in powerful broadcasters and to articulate a role for radio and newspapers that served the public good, as opposed to commercial interests.

Their vision might have succeeded, were it not for Cold War paranoia, and an interpretation of freedom of speech that favored the rights of corporations over the rights of individuals. By the time the smoke had cleared, antitrust action had split NBC into two, but the efforts to make the news more local and less commercial were largely defeated. To Pickard, this failure to unhook the news from commercial pressures, and the subsequent triumph of corporate libertarianism, was a critical juncture in journalism that shaped the course of its future.

Now, while the impact of the FCCs ruling remains uncertain, and native advertising colonizes the Web, journalism has arrived at another critical juncture. As policy makers seek to define the public interest in a digital age, Pickards body of scholarship may provide a useful, if controversial, road map to our current media environment. As he sees it, technology has changed, but the concerns of the 1940saccess, sustainable business models for the news, and the role of regulationwill be central to maximizing the democratic potential of the web, and nurturing the future of public service journalism.

I spoke with Pickard by phone. Our conversation has been lightly edited and abridged.

Your previous book argues that the commercial internet faces a norm-defining moment similar to that of commercial radio in the 1940s. How so? What is at stake?

In the 1940s, as a society, we were asking big, normative questions about what the role of media should be in a democratic society. Questions that sought to define a kind of social contract between media institutions, the public, and the government. That asked whether it was healthy to have a news media system so dependent on the market, or whether we should be creating structural alternatives. I think were facing a similar crossroads for determining whether our new mediaor newish mediawill become captured by commercial interests, or whether they are able to serve a higher democratic purpose.

So those earlier battles to keep the airwaves free of corporate monopolies, and the moral concerns about ads invading the news, are being repeated today?

Yes, and net neutrality is kind of exhibit A. If we preserve net neutrality protections, our internet will develop one way. If we lose those protections our internet will develop in a very different way. So were certainly in a pivotal moment.

How do native ads fit in? Whats your take on them?

More here:

Victor Pickard on native ads and the new journalism economy

On Tuesday, Alaska became the first red state to legalize the smoking, growing, and owning of small amounts of marijuana, bringing the decriminalization movement to a conservative stronghold.

The frontier state narrowly approved the measure last fall, by 53 percent, joining Colorado and Washington states in legalizing recreational use.

Under the law,adults 21 and older may possess up to anounce of potandgrow as many as six plants. But smoking in public and buying and selling the drug remains illegal, which makes it difficult to (legally) acquire.

"You can still give people marijuana, but you can't buy it or even barter for it," Alaska Public Media's Alexandra Gutierrez reports. "So, it's a pretty legally awkward spot. That probably won't stop people from acquiring it, though."

Alaska is the third state to legalize recreational marijuana after Colorado and Washington. Oregon and Washington, DC, are expected to follow later this year. But Alaska is unique in that it is the first solidly red state to legalize the drug.

Why did a conservative state take a decidedly liberal position on marijuana?

Although it is a Republican stronghold, Alaskans are known for their rugged individualism and libertarianism.

"This is a conservative state, but it's a state with a heavy libertarian streak," Bickford said. "People here generally want to be left alone and really don't think the government is the solution to their problems," Taylor Bickford, a spokesperson for the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol in Alaska, told Vox News.

And it turns out Alaska has always been on the forefront of pot legalization. It was one of the first states to decriminalize marijuana in 1975, and voters in 1998 legalized the drug for medicinal purposes, according to the site.

This time, an unlikely coalition of libertarians, individualists and small-government minded Republicans helped legalize recreational marijuana last fall.

Read more here:

Why conservative Alaska legalized marijuana. Who's next? (+video)

On Tuesday, Alaska became the first red state to legalize the smoking, growing, and owning of small amounts of marijuana, bringing the decriminalization movement to a conservative stronghold.

The frontier state narrowly approved the measure last fall, by 53 percent, joining Colorado and Washington states in legalizing recreational use.

Under the law,adults 21 and older may possess up to anounce of potandgrow as many as six plants. But smoking in public and buying and selling the drug remains illegal, which makes it difficult to (legally) acquire.

"You can still give people marijuana, but you can't buy it or even barter for it," Alaska Public Media's Alexandra Gutierrez reports. "So, it's a pretty legally awkward spot. That probably won't stop people from acquiring it, though."

Alaska is the third state to legalize recreational marijuana after Colorado and Washington. Oregon and Washington, DC, are expected to follow later this year. But Alaska is unique in that it is the first solidly red state to legalize the drug.

Why did a conservative state take a decidedly liberal position on marijuana?

Although it is a Republican stronghold, Alaskans are known for their rugged individualism and libertarianism.

"This is a conservative state, but it's a state with a heavy libertarian streak," Bickford said. "People here generally want to be left alone and really don't think the government is the solution to their problems," Taylor Bickford, a spokesperson for the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol in Alaska, told Vox News.

And it turns out Alaska has always been on the forefront of pot legalization. It was one of the first states to decriminalize marijuana in 1975, and voters in 1998 legalized the drug for medicinal purposes, according to the site.

This time, an unlikely coalition of libertarians, individualists and small-government minded Republicans helped legalize recreational marijuana last fall.

See the rest here:

Why conservative Alaska legalized marijuana. Who's next?

Excursions, Ep. 30: Neoconservatism Versus Libertarianism, Part 3
George H. Smith explores the ideas of Irving Kristol and Robert Bork on culture. He begins with a discussion of the anti-jazz crusade of the 1920s. Read this...

By: Libertarianism.org

Go here to see the original:

Excursions, Ep. 30: Neoconservatism Versus Libertarianism, Part 3 - Video

Rand Paul wasn't a conventional Republican when he won a U.S. Senate seat in Kentucky, and he's not mapping out a predictable strategy as he ponders a 2016 bid for the White House.

Paul confirmed Friday that he will announce his intentions in April or May, and then he spent the day displaying an ideological and political balancing act.

"We have to be a bigger party," he told Alabama Republicans at a fundraising gala Friday evening. "I want to take that message across America. I've shown I'll go anywhere."

He takes with him the small-government libertarianism of his father, former congressman and failed presidential candidate Ron Paul. But the senator also mixes in frequent references to his "Christian faith" as he courts cultural conservatives who were wary of his father.

There's the usual blistering of President Barack Obama and his executive orders, but Paul reminds his partisan audiences that the expansion of presidential authority has spanned decades, through administrations of both major parties.

Paul calls for the conservative "boldness" of Ronald Reagan and offers GOP orthodoxy on tax and spending cuts, making him a tea party darling.

He talks tough on national defense, but also staged an actual Senate filibuster talking for hours on the chamber floor, rather than just using procedural paper delays to protest the American government's use of drones.

Meanwhile, he chides Republicans to reach into the cities for non-white votes that have eluded the GOP by particularly wide margins in Obama's two national victories. And Paul champions criminal-justice reform and plugs his work with New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, a black Democrat, on the issue.

It adds up to a politician who is difficult to put into a box.

"Maybe a different kind of Republican might be the kind of Republican that can win," Paul told reporters Friday in Kentucky.

Read the original post:

In Early White House Maneuvering, Paul Avoids Predictability

The logic is irresistible. What with its celebration of personal autonomy and private enterprise, its dependence on a rules-based system and its ability to generate instinctive suspicion of outsiders, I have long thought of driving as mere libertarianism in motion. Thats one reason Ronald Reagan was so fond of using it in his political metaphors.

And yet a funny thing has happened. The experience has actually turned me into something of a hippy, a loved-up citizen rather than a hyper-rational hater. Ive found talking to Taz, my instructor, therapeutic: his 10 siblings and four daughters seem like old friends already, even when he is screaming RELAX, bruvva! CALM your BEANS, my son! as we reverse- park into a bay in Wood Green.

Despite such commotion, being behind the wheel has struck me as a beautiful vantage point. Like Louis Armstrong, I see trees of green, red roses too, I see them bloom, for me and you. Like with cycling, I find driving helps me appreciate the beauty of our environment. Best of all, Ive found other drivers to be communicative and kind, albeit probably looking after their own interests when they see a learner driver.

All this is cheering. Theres just one drag, which is that I hate traffic so much it might stop me driving altogether.

I know everyone hates traffic. But I really, really cannot bear it. Traffic is like a huge grater scratching away at my soul. I feel like my whole life is a war against time, with a constant sense that there is so much to do. Traffic, even with the radio on, is dead time.

And these two sentiments surprise at the generosity of fellow drivers, and hatred of traffic combine to give me an idea. Its bonkers but should we think about abolishing traffic lights? If not all, then some at least?

I know anecdotal evidence is the worst kind but I cant help but make the comparison with India, whose roads I have spent ages on, including recently. Yes, there are 150,000 road deaths in India each year, half a million recorded accidents, and the new government is planning radical action.

But in many cities, the crazy traffic, with cows, rickshaws, mopeds, bikes, lorries and cars in constant, frenzied negotiation, just seems to work, like a highly adaptable organism. People pull off the most outlandish manoeuvres and constantly get away with it.

They do this, I think, because there is a presumption toward maximum communication which traffic lights (which Indians do have, at big junctions) censor. When we come to a traffic light, we all look at the lights one reason nearly half of personal injury accidents happen there.

What if we looked at each other instead? Sure, traffic lights send much clearer signals than the infinitely complex human face. But over time wed learn to trust each other.

See more here:

Amol Rajan: Its about time we abolished traffic lights in the capital

Jeffrey Tucker:

Stephan Kinsella, it's a pleasure to have you here today. Welcome.

Thank you. It's good to be here.

We're going to talk about your class for the Mises Academy, on intellectual property.

Yes, I'm looking forward to it. We've been planning it for quite a while, as you know. I think the first course will be on November 1st for six weeks and then we'll take a week off. We'll have time to go in depth into many of the issues about intellectual property and its relationship to libertarianism, economic theory, and various other areas.

Why is this an important issue?

Well, it's becoming a more and more important issue as we've seen in our circles and as seen on the internet. Daily, we see horror stories and crazy examples of abuses of IP. People are starting to wonder if these are really abuses of IP or if there's something wrong with IP itself.

In the past, free-market economists and libertarians have sort of given this issue a pass. They took it for granted. It's been in a corner all by itself. Now people are wondering, and as we start looking more closely at it, we can see that a lot of the assumptions about IP have been wrong.

It's striking you mention the history of thought here and why this issue is sort of crystallizing in our time, especially with your pioneering monograph on that subject, Against Intellectual Property.

It's generally true, isn't it, that that theoretical element of economics or law or whatever catches up when the practical need for that new theory comes along. For example, the theory of money and credit was made necessary by the advent of central banking.

Go here to see the original:

Understanding IP: An Interview with Stephan Kinsella

Cato #39;s David Boaz Talks Politics, History, and His Path to Libertarianism
"I think the general idea of #39;it #39;s your life you get to run it the way you want to #39; is an appealing aspect of libertarianism," says David Boaz executive vice...

By: ReasonTV

Read more:

Cato's David Boaz Talks Politics, History, and His Path to Libertarianism - Video

Excursions, Ep. 29: Neoconservatism Versus Libertarianism, Part 2
George H. Smith tells the story of how a disagreement with Roy Childs over the ideas of Irving Kristol resulted in a serious argument. George H. Smith begins his series on neoconservatism...

By: Libertarianism.org

Read more from the original source:

Excursions, Ep. 29: Neoconservatism Versus Libertarianism, Part 2 - Video

What is Libertarianism?

Libertarianism is a political philosophy that believes that liberty and individual freedom are the most important characteristics of a free and prosperous society. Although there are many kinds of libertarianism, the one that I will be discussing in this article would advocate the following principles:

Libertarians are very weary of the coercive authority of the government and believe that the state should always only be the servant of the people and never the master. Bigger government only leads to bureaucracy, overspending, deficits, and corruption. In our world today, the many governments are getting more authoritarian and there is so much intervention going on and in this article I will be discussing why this should make us worried and at times even outraged.

There are actually two kinds of libertarianism. Consequentialist Libertarianism believe that the maximization of liberty should be enforced while the advocates Deontological Libertarianism believe that any use of force is corruptive and will lead to fraud regardless of the effects that it will entail.

In Deontological Libertarianism, they believe in the non-aggression principle that states no man has the right to initiate force against man or property of another human being no matter what circumstance. There are some such as Murray Rothbard who believe that governments are institutionalized initiation of force and taxation and should be abolished.

The consequentialists on the other hand believe that liberty should be supported because maximized personal and economical liberty lead to happiness and prosperity. Some notable Consequena

Libertarians believe that every individual has the right to his own decisions and should never be opposed unless his/her actions are interfering with the liberties of others. This is why libertarians strongly oppose punishment of victimless crimes such as the War on Drugs.

There is also strong opposition against any form of intrusion of privacy by the people and most importantly by the government. Libertarians oppose unjust and unconstitutional searches by police or authority.

Libertarians also believe that taxation is the state's burden to the people. Taxation is legal plunder and the hardworking man's earnings are forcibly taken from him for the supposed welfare of society.

Libertarians, are also in favor of the free market because it gives choice to the people and a chance for the people to freely spend and invest their hard-earned work. The free market is also very beneficial to the consumers because competition will increase quality and lower the price.

Go here to read the rest:

Definition of Libertarianism -- what are the core values ...

An ad-hominem rant by "Lazarus Long", based on the presumption that his opponents use the same attack tactics he does. His most glaring double-speak is that he claims the arguments are strawmen, but he defends them anyway instead of disclaiming them.

My normal policy is not to engage in ad-hominem pissing matches with libertarians, but Lazarus Long has been impugning me for quite a while now. So, I'd like to set the following straight, since it illustrates his debate style. Also, this can serve as an example of how argument with him can mire you endlessly, even when he is grossly wrong.

In his FAS , he writes: Incidentally, even though this article was not written at the time of Huben's e-mail to me, he stated "I'm hardly upset by your "refutation" or any of the other rather pathetic attempts (and yours is indeed the weakest by far.)" In other words... although the refutation had not been written, Huben miraculously claims that it is the weakest by far.

In an ad-hominem web page titled Who is Mike Huben , he writes: An example of his obsession, and lack of intellectual integrity can be seen by a visit to his "Critique of Libertarianism" site. He listed a link to my critique of his Non-Libertarian FAQ, before the critique had been written, along with a description of what was contained in the critique. A most impressive stunt, considering that the critique, not only was not on this site at the time, but hadn't been written.

Now, I'm not known for my psychic powers: how could I have known about his document to criticize it or create a link to it?

Very simple. He had posted it (or an early version) as Huben's FAS (Frequently Asserted Strawmen). in talk.politics.libertarian July 2, 1996. He wrote: This article will appear in full form on my webpage as http://vaxxine.com/rational/huben-bs-fas.htm within the next few weeks. I criticized his post by email, and made a link to the URL he had announced. No magic involved: I was just responding to the information he made publicly available. I'd like to know how he construes this as "obsession, and lack of intellectual integrity".

Most of his attacks and his FAS can be similarly handled. However, responding to them just gives him more material to similarly misuse. He likes to misinterpret non-response as his own triumph over the cowardly, but I trust most readers can see that he's a legend in his own mind.

[4/13/99: "Prince Lazarus", age 67, given name Howard Turney, has been hit with an SEC restraining order for his New Utopia internet scam.]

The rest is here:

Critiques Of Libertarianism: All links. - http://www.TheWorld.com ...

Excursions, Ep. 28: Neoconservatism Versus Libertarianism, Part 1
George H. Smith begins his series on neoconservatism by exploring some of its fundamental differences with libertarianism. Read this essay: http://bit.ly/1K7...

By: Libertarianism.org

View original post here:

Excursions, Ep. 28: Neoconservatism Versus Libertarianism, Part 1 - Video

A Left-Libertarianism I Dont Recognize
Intro/Outro by Jeff Riggenbach Written by Jeff Ricketson Read by Tony Dreher Edited by Nick Ford Online article: http://c4ss.org/content/29301 Excerpt: "In f...

By: C4SS Feed 44

See the article here:

A Left-Libertarianism I Dont Recognize - Video

City Police Commissioner A.B. Venkateswara Rao on Sunday advised students to understand various philosophies and study libertarianism that helped develop society.

He was addressing a workshop on Free Enterprise and Entrepreneurship organised by the Department of Business Management, V.R. Siddhartha Engineering College, in association with the Language of Liberty Institute, USA.

Self-philosophy

He said students should develop self-philosophy to gain clarity in personal and professional lives.

College convenor M. Rajaiah observed that the difference between developing and developed nations was the concept of free market reforms.

Please Wait while comments are loading...

1. Comments will be moderated by The Hindu editorial team. 2. Comments that are abusive, personal, incendiary or irrelevant cannot be published. 3. Please write complete sentences. Do not type comments in all capital letters, or in all lower case letters, or using abbreviated text. (example: u cannot substitute for you, d is not 'the', n is not 'and'). 4. We may remove hyperlinks within comments. 5. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name, to avoid rejection.

Link:

Students told to study libertarianism

Republican Makes the Case for Libertarianism: Restaurant Workers Should NOT Have to Wash Their Hands
GOP Senator Thom Tillis has a real problem with Employees Must Wash Hands signs and doesn #39;t believe food workers should be forced to have to wash their han...

By: Sam Seder

Originally posted here:

Republican Makes the Case for Libertarianism: Restaurant Workers Should NOT Have to Wash Their Hands - Video

Right-libertarianism (or right-wing libertarianism) refers to libertarian political philosophies that advocate both self-ownership and the unequal appropriation of natural resources,[1] leading to strong support of private property rights and free-market capitalism. This position is contrasted with that of left-libertarianism, which maintains that natural resources belong to everyone in some egalitarian manner, either unowned or owned collectively.[2] Right-libertarianism includes anarcho-capitalism and laissez-faire, minarchist liberalism.[note 1]

The non-aggression principle (NAP) is the foundation of most present-day right-libertarian philosophies.[3][4][5] It is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate. NAP and property rights are closely linked, since what constitutes aggression depends on what rights a person has.[6] Aggression, for the purposes of the NAP, is defined as the initiation or threat of violence against a person or his legitimately owned property. Specifically, any unsolicited action that physically affects another individual's property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner's will and interfere with his right to self-ownership and self-determination.

Supporters of the NAP often appeal to it in order to argue for the immorality of theft, vandalism, assault, and fraud. In contrast to nonviolence, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violence used in self-defense or the defense of others.[7] Many supporters argue that the NAP opposes such policies as victimless crime laws, coercive taxation, and military drafts.

There is a debate amongst right-libertarians as to whether or not the state is legitimate: while anarcho-capitalists advocate its abolition, minarchists support minimal states, often referred to as night-watchman states. Minarchists maintain that the state is necessary for the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud. They believe the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts, though some expand this list to include fire departments, prisons, and the executive and legislative branches.[8][9][10] They justify the state on the grounds that it is the logical consequence of adhering to the non-aggression principle and argue that anarchism is immoral because it implies that the non-aggression principle is optional, that the enforcement of laws under anarchism is open to competition.[citation needed] Another common justification is that private defense agencies and court firms would tend to represent the interests of those who pay them enough.[11]

Anarcho-capitalists argue that the state violates the non-aggression principle by its nature because governments use force against those who have not stolen or vandalized private property, assaulted anyone, or committed fraud.[12][13] Many also argue that monopolies tend to be corrupt and inefficient, that private defense and court agencies would have to have a good reputation in order to stay in business. Linda & Morris Tannehill argue that no coercive monopoly of force can arise on a truly free market and that a government's citizenry can't desert them in favor of a competent protection and defense agency.[14]

Libertarian philosopher Moshe Kroy argues that the disagreement between anarcho-capitalists who adhere to Murray Rothbard's view of human consciousness and the nature of values and minarchists who adhere to Ayn Rand's view of human consciousness and the nature of values over whether or not the state is moral is not due to a disagreement over the correct interpretation of a mutually held ethical stance. He argues that the disagreement between these two groups is instead the result of their disagreement over the nature of human consciousness and that each group is making the correct interpretation of their differing premises. These two groups are therefore not making any errors with respect to deducing the correct interpretation of any ethical stance because they do not hold the same ethical stance.[15]

While there is debate on whether left, right, and socialist libertarianism "represent distinct ideologies as opposed to variations on a theme," right-libertarianism is most in favor of private property.[16] Right-libertarians maintain that unowned natural resources "may be appropriated by the first person who discovers them, mixes her labor with them, or merely claims themwithout the consent of others, and with little or no payment to them." This contrasts with left-libertarianism in which "unappropriated natural resources belong to everyone in some egalitarian manner."[17] Right-libertarians believe that natural resources are originally unowned, and therefore, private parties may appropriate them at will without the consent of, or owing to, others (e.g. a land value tax).[18]

Right-libertarians (also referred to as propertarians) hold that societies in which private property rights are enforced are the only ones that are both ethical and lead to the best possible outcomes.[19] They generally support the free market, and are not opposed to any concentrations of economic power, provided it occurs through non-coercive means.[20]

Libertarianism in the United States developed in the 1950s as many with Old Right or classical liberal beliefs in the United States began to describe themselves as libertarians.[21]H. L. Mencken and Albert Jay Nock were the first prominent figures in the United States to call themselves libertarians.[22] They believed Franklin D. Roosevelt had co-opted the word liberal for his New Deal policies, which they opposed, and used libertarian to signify their allegiance to individualism. Mencken wrote in 1923: "My literary theory, like my politics, is based chiefly upon one idea, to wit, the idea of freedom. I am, in belief, a libertarian of the most extreme variety."[23]

In the 1950s, Russian-American novelist Ayn Rand developed a philosophical system called Objectivism, expressed in her novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, as well as other works, which influenced many libertarians.[24] However, she rejected the label libertarian and harshly denounced the libertarian movement as the "hippies of the right."[25] Philosopher John Hospers, a one-time member of Rand's inner circle, proposed a non-initiation of force principle to unite both groups; this statement later became a required "pledge" for candidates of the Libertarian Party, and Hospers himself became its first presidential candidate in 1972.[citation needed]

Continue reading here:

Right-libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Criticism of libertarianism includes ethical, economic, environmental, and pragmatic concerns. Critics have claimed the political philosophy does not satisfy collectivist values, and that private property does not create an egalitarian distribution. It has also been argued that laissez-faire capitalism does not necessarily produce the best or most efficient outcome, nor does its policy of deregulation prevent the abuse of natural resources. Furthermore libertarianism has been criticized due to the lack of any actual such societies today.

Some critics, including John Rawls in Justice as Fairness, argue that implied social contracts justify government actions that violate the rights of some individuals as they are beneficial for society overall. This concept is related to philosophical collectivism as opposed to individualism.[1]

Libertarian philosophers such as Michael Huemer have raised criticisms targeted at the social contract theory.[2]

In his essay "From Liberty to Welfare," philosopher James P. Sterba argues that a morally consistent application of libertarian premises, including that of negative liberty, requires that a libertarian must endorse "the equality in the distribution of goods and resources required by a socialist state." Sterba presents the example of a typical conflict situation between the rich and poor "in order to see why libertarians are mistaken about what their ideal requires." He argues that such a situation is correctly seen as a conflict of negative liberties: the right of the rich not to be interfered with in the satisfaction of their luxury needs is morally trumped by the right of the poor "not to be interfered with in taking from the surplus possessions of the rich what is necessary to satisfy their basic needs."

According to Sterba, the liberty of the poor should be morally prioritized in light of the fundamental ethical principle "ought implies can" from which it follows that it would be unreasonable to ask the poor to relinquish their liberty not be interfered with, noting that "in the extreme case it would involve asking or requiring the poor to sit back and starve to death" and that "by contrast it would not be unreasonable to ask and require the rich to sacrifice their liberty to meet some of their needs so that the poor can have the liberty to meet their basic needs." Having argued that "ought implies can" establishes the reasonability of asking the rich to sacrifice their luxuries for the basic needs of the poor, Sterba invokes a second fundamental principle, "The Conflict Resolution Principle," to argue that it is reasonable to make it an ethical requirement. He concludes by arguing that the application of these principles to the international context makes a compelling case for socialist distribution on a world scale.[3]

Jeffrey Friedman argues that natural law libertarianism's justification for the primacy of property is incoherent:

[W]e can press on from [the observation that libertarianism is egalitarian] to ask why, if [...] the liberty of a human being to own another should be trumped by equal human rights, the liberty to own large amounts of property [at the expense of others] should not also be trumped by equal human rights. This alone would seem definitively to lay to rest the philosophical case for libertarianism. [...] The very idea of ownership contains the relativistic seeds of arbitrary authority: the arbitrary authority of the individual's "right to do wrong."[4]

Robert Hale has argued that the concept of coercion in libertarian theory is applied inconsistently, insofar as it is applied to government actions but is not applied to the coercive acts of property owners to preserve their own property rights.[5]

Jeffrey Friedman has criticized libertarians for often relying on the unproven assumption that economic growth and affluence inevitably result in happiness and increased quality of life.[6]

Critics of laissez-faire capitalism, the economic system favored by some libertarians, argue that market failures justify government intervention in the economy, that nonintervention leads to monopolies and stifled innovation, or that unregulated markets are economically unstable. They argue that markets do not always produce the best or most efficient outcome, that redistribution of wealth can improve economic health, and that humans involved in markets do not always act rationally.[citation needed]

Read the rest here:

Criticism of libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In a scathing editorial this week, The Oregonian called on Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber -- a Democrat whom the paper has supported for decades -- to step down following revelations that he may have allowed his fiance, Cylvia Hayes, to use her position for private gain and professional advancement.

"To recite every reported instance in which Hayes, ostensibly under Kitzhaber's watchful eye, has used public resources, including public employee time and her 'first lady' title, in pursuit of professional gain would require far more space than we have here," the editors wrote. "Suffice it to say there's a pattern, and the person who bears the responsibility for allowing it to form and persist is Kitzhaber, who should know better. After all, as he pointed out during Friday's press conference, he's been serving in public office on and off since the 1970s."

That press conference was in response to reporting by the paper revealing that Hayes had been paid as a consultant for advocacy organizations while she was working as an unpaid adviser on energy policy to Kitzhaber's office, and that the two men who arranged these gigs for her subsequently got jobs in the administration.

Hayes has left her policy role in the administration, and the governor has said that his office took steps to separate Hayes's work as a paid consultant and her public duties. He has said he has no intention of resigning and intends to do the job Oregon's citizens elected him to do.

"For a newspaper editorial board to call for a governor's resignation is rare," notes The Washington Post's Hunter Schwarz.

Welcome to Wonkbook. To subscribe by e-mail, clickhere. Send comments, criticism or ideas to Wonkbook at Washpost dot com. Follow Wonkblog onTwitterandFacebook.

What's in Wonkbook:1) The immigration stalemate 2) Opinions, including Gerson and Strassel on vaccines and the G.O.P. primary 3) Conservatives object to climate science in the classroom, and more

Number of the day: $57 trillion. That's the increase in global public and private debt since the financial crisis, according to a new report from McKinsey. Neil Irwin in The New York Times.

1. Topstory:Congress at impasse on immigration

It's unclear whether and how lawmakers will extend funding for border security past this month. "With just two legislative weeks to go before the Homeland Security Department shuts down, Republicans still don't have a plan. For the third time, Democrats blocked a funding bill that would keep the department running on Thursday, and they show no signs of letting up. If Democrats remain unwilling to accept anything less than a clean DHS billwith no provisions blocking President Obama's executive actions on immigrationRepublicans will be forced to pick from an arsenal of limited options. And of those that remain, none look good for the GOP. If Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has a plan, he isn't sharing it with his members, much less the public. Sen. John Thune, McConnell's number three, said Thursday that his party's strategy had 'yet to be determined' and called it 'a work in progress,' while Sen. Jeff Flake said simply: 'We don't know yet.' " Sarah Mimms and Lauren Fox in National Journal.

Read more:

Wonkblog: The politically toxic relationship between Oregons governor and his fiance

It has become the Rand Paul pattern: A few weeks paddling vigorously in the mainstream, followed by a lapse into authenticity, followed by transparent damage control, followed by churlishness toward anyone in the media who notices. All the signs of a man trying to get comfortable in someone elses skin.

The latest example is vaccination. I have heard of many tragic cases, said Dr. Paul, of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines. Following the ensuing firestorm, the Republican senator from Kentucky insisted, I did not say vaccines caused disorders, just that they were temporally related.

In effect: I did not sleep with that causation.

Paul blamed his troubles on the liberal media which, after a little digging, reported that, in 2009, he had called mandatory vaccinations a step toward martial law.

When Chris Christie commits a gaffe on vaccination and reverses himself, it indicates a man out of his depth. With Paul, it reveals the unexplored depths of a highly ideological and conspiratorial worldview.

The same dynamic was at work when Paul accused public health authorities of dishonesty about the true nature of the Ebola threat; or when he raised the prospect of Americans typing an e-mail in a cafe being summarily executed by a Hellfire missile; or when he accused Dick Cheney of supporting the Iraq war to benefit Halliburton; or when he accused the United States of provoking Japan into World War II; or when he criticized the application of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to private enterprise. Wherever you scratch the paint, there is some underlying, consistent philosophy at work.

This, of course, is true of any thoughtful politician (which Paul certainly is). But while many prospective presidential candidates seek catchier ways to express their political philosophy, Paul must take pains to conceal the ambition of his ideals.

His domestic libertarianism provides no philosophical foundation for most of the federal government. As a practical matter, he can call for the end of Obamacare but not for the abolition of Medicare or Medicaid or the National Institutes of Health. Yet these concessions to reality are fundamentally arbitrary. The only principle guiding Pauls selectivity is the avoidance of gaffes. Of which he is not always the best judge.

The same is true of Pauls constitutional foreign policy, which he now calls (as evidence of his evolution) conservative realism. There is no previously existing form of realism that urges a dramatically weakened executive in the conduct of foreign and defense policy which is Pauls strong preference. He denies the legal basis for the war on terrorism, warns against an oppressive national security state and proposes to scale back American commitments in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Paul is properly described as a libertarian noninterventionist.

His father, Ron Paul, is gleefully specific in his charge that American aggression creates the blowback of terrorism. The son qualifies the argument without repudiating it. Some anger is blowback, he now says. In 2009, he called his fathers theory a message that can be presented and be something that Republicans can agree to. A recommended reading list posted (briefly) last year on Pauls Senate Web site included Chalmers Johnsons Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire and Ron Pauls A Foreign Policy of Freedom.

Read the original here:

Rand Pauls gaffes offer a glimpse of his worldview