These days, to even suggest the possibility that a fiscally conservative economic outlook is compatible with faith is a matter of hypocrisy.

"I am afraid that (Rep. Paul) Ryan's budget reflects the values of his favorite philosopher, Ayn Rand, rather than the gospel of Jesus Christ," the Rev. Thomas Reese of Georgetown University told The Huffington Post not so long ago. "Survival of the fittest may be OK for social Darwinists, but not for followers of the gospel of compassion and love."

Surely, you recall this Bible passage: "Then the Lord said to Moses, 'Smite the supply-sider. I will utterly blot out the memory of all who back block grants from under heaven.'"

So it's refreshing, then, to hear would-be fusionist Rand Paul point out the distinction libertarian critics will not. At Robert P. George's American Principles Project recently, Paul argued that a dose of libertarianism not only would help the GOP broaden its base but also would be philosophically compatible with socially conservative values.

"Libertarian and liberty doesn't mean libertine," he explained. Paul might have added that libertarianism isn't synonymous with "being uncharitable" or "selfishness" or "social Darwinism," either. He might have argued that libertarianism would do a lot more than just help orthodox Christians politically. It may even be the most conducive political philosophy for their thriving.

Obviously, for those who measure the nation's virtue by the size of the Department of Health and Human Services budget, Rand's proposition must seem absurd. Take Elizabeth Stoker, who believes that "Rand Paul's audacious new sham" is "a phony religious epiphany." She wrote in Salon:

"If what Paul intends to say here is that Christianity and libertarianism are amenable to one another because Christianity provides the moral compass libertarianism doesn't have ... the question is: Why would someone with such a commitment to Christianity ever commit themselves to a political philosophy without a similar commitment?"

Why? Because these are two distinct and often nonconflicting ideas. Though votes are often informed by a person's faith, for many Americans, a political philosophy isn't a religion. I'm no theological scholar, but I tend to believe that one can do good works without supporting a top marginal tax rate increase. Christians commit themselves to God, which, as far as I can tell, doesn't prohibit them from supporting a political philosophy that emphasizes free will over a state-ordained "morality." No doubt, most Christians appreciate that our collective national political decisions and their personal moral compasses will not always be synchronized. That's where the religious freedom comes into play.

Should social conservatives "commit themselves" to a political philosophy that not only strives for gay equality but also seeks to impel others to participate in these new norms despite religious objections? Should they commit to a philosophy that impels them to fund contraception coverage and abortions through either direct funding or fungible dollars? A philosophy that continues to force them to send their kids to crappy public schools that often undermine their faith-based beliefs? A philosophy that attacks parents who seek alternative means of education, such as home schooling? Or should they be more interested in wedding themselves to a political philosophy that downgrades the importance of politics in everyday life and allows citizens to work together to structure their communities without interference?

The growing state, after all, not the atheist, is religion's biggest rival. And intentionally or not, government is crowding out parts of community life that have traditionally been taken care of by civil society. It's draining resources once used by communities to implement services and take care of their own. And even more destructive, perhaps, is that government is becoming a source of moral authority for so many.

See more here:

David Harsanyi Social conservatives would benefit by embracing libertarianism

Recently, some 1,500 students from all over the world gathered to discuss freedom at the Students for Liberty Conference in Washington, D.C.

Economist Donald Boudreaux showed the students a department store catalog from 1958 to underscore how the free market, while contributing to income inequality, also dramatically improved the lives of the poor: "The typical American worker back then had to work 30 hours to buy this vacuum cleaner. Today, a worker has to work only six hours to buy a much better vacuum cleaner. And that's true for clothing, food, all sorts of things."

That's how free markets work: quietly, gradually improving things. That doesn't always appeal to impatient young people or to radical old people who fancy themselves social engineers who should shape the world.

Such social engineering is revered on campuses. A student from Quebec complained that economists about whom his fellow students learn are "Keynesians, who believe that breaking windows is good for the economy, or neoclassicals, who believe in unrealistic assumptions like perfect competition and perfect information."

If there were a part of America for which the American students at this conference felt a special pride, it was the Constitution. "The Constitution of the United States is a promise about how government power will be used," Timothy Sandefur, author of "The Conscience of the Constitution," told them. "A promise was left to us by a generation who lived under tyrannical government and decided they needed a framework that would preserve the blessings of liberty."

These students appreciated that inheritance, although they said the Constitution is rarely discussed at their schools. They surprised me by knowing the correct answer to my question: How often is the word "democracy" used in the Constitution?

Answer: never. The founders understood that democracy may bring mob rule tyranny of a majority. So the Constitution focuses on restricting government to secure individual liberty.

If anything, these students were stauncher in their defense of liberty than the Founders.

Kelly Kidwell, a sophomore from Tulane University, said, "Regardless of what its intent was, we still have the (big) government that we have now so the Constitution has either provided for that government, or failed to prevent it."

That's an argument that libertarian economist Murray Rothbard used to make. He took the pessimistic view that the Constitution's "limited government" was an experiment that had already failed, since 200 years later, government was barely limited at all. He concluded that libertarians should be not just constitutionalists but anarchists get rid of government completely.

Read this article:

John Stossel Future of libertarianism bright, thanks to Students for Liberty

Does Libertarianism = Greed Selfishness?
I discuss the common objection to libertarianism claiming that it promotes greed and selfishness.

By: Josh Cardosi

Read more:

Does Libertarianism = Greed & Selfishness? - Video

"Oliver Stone, Ayn Rand Pop Art, "Second-Wave Libertarianism": #ISFLC2014
Left-wing moviemaker Oliver Stone talking about his support for Barry Goldwater and Ron Paul. Student for Liberty #39;s Alexander McCobin laying out the basics o...

By: ReasonTV

Read the original:

"Oliver Stone, Ayn Rand Pop Art, & "Second-Wave Libertarianism": #ISFLC2014 - Video

Cathy Reisenwitz vs Julie Borowski on Stossel Debating Privilege and Libertarianism
http://cathyreisenwitz.com @CathyReisenwitz http://www.youtube.com/user/TokenLibertarianGirl @JulieBorowski.

By: Cathy Reisenwitz

Original post:

Cathy Reisenwitz vs Julie Borowski on Stossel Debating Privilege and Libertarianism - Video

Evidently sensing that the Republican Party may be in some kind of crisis, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., argued at a recent fundraiser that the GOP should embrace the tenets of his pet political philosophy, libertarianism. But Paul didnt just suggest a conversion from long-held Republican values to libertarian ones; rather he tried to make the case that libertarian values are already consonant with the moral systems that underpin many foundational Republican positions. One of his main rhetorical goals was, therefore, making Christianity and libertarianism seem compatible, to attract traditionally Christian GOP supporters to libertarian ideas.

Even leaving aside the bizarre gesture of pure convenience to Christianity, which seems to have been brought in here as a post-hoc rhetorical flourish to do little more than sweeten the libertarian pot, Paul didnt make a great case for the actual compatibility of Christianity and libertarianism.

Libertarian and liberty doesnt mean libertine, Paul claimed at the gala for the American Principles Project, referring to the tendency of libertarians to prefer government not intervene in various spheres of life, often including the realms of marriage, contraception and abortion. Paul was unclear as to whether he believes the state should have a role in the regulation of marriage and abortion, saying instead, rather cryptically, that Freedom needs tradition to give it its balance and its stability, its sense of family and community, but tradition needs freedom to invigorate it and give it spirit and excitement.

If what Paul intends to say here is that Christianity and libertarianism are amenable to one another because Christianity provides the moral compass libertarianism doesnt have that is, that one can protect marriage and defend against oft-objected to practices like abortion through the selective reference to Christian values by otherwise libertarian political agents the question is: Why would someone with such a commitment to Christianity ever commit themselves to a political philosophy without a similar commitment?

That libertarianism needs the moral framework of a separate philosophy imported into it to prevent it from becoming, as Paul put it, libertinism only indicates that libertarianism itself does not begin from the moral framework of Christianity. Instead, it requires that Christian ethics be tucked into it after the fact, if theres anywhere for them to fit. GOP Christians tempted by Pauls proselytizing should ask themselves this: If libertarianism arises out of a wholly separate ethical framework than Christianity, what authority underlies that framework, and why should they, Christians, respond to it? Moreover, why make oneself beholden to a philosophy that uses Christianity as a mere instrument to support itself morally, rather than one that responds to Christianity as its ultimate and final ethical authority?

When it came to the difficulties Paul had in making his Christo-libertarian case, this was only the tip of the iceberg. In arguing for his oft-cited policies of prison and sentencing reform, he said, As Christians who believe in forgiveness, noting that overly long sentences and penalties such as felon disenfranchisement violate that principle and harm those who deserve a second chance. Here, Paul seems right on the money: The reality for Christians is that the guiltiest are those most in need of mercy and forgiveness, and our current justice system promotes neither value, resulting in the unnecessary destruction of so many lives and communities.

Yet Pauls reasoning here doesnt stand up to the scrutiny of consistent application, which weakens his claim that libertarianism and Christianity are well-committed philosophies. Hes willing, for example, to have mercy on those guilty of crimes by reducing prison sentences, returning felons the right to vote, and doing away with mandatory minimum sentences. This all fits well with Christs call for service to the least of these outsiders, criminals, the poor, the hungry, the sick. But what does Paul imagine in terms of shaping the state to show mercy to people in those other categories? What provisions should the state make for, say, the sick and the poor?

In these arenas, Pauls interest in mercy and the justice of the Gospel seems to mysteriously dry up.

Consider his policy on the delivery of healthcare, as described to a group of University of Louisville medical students in 2013: I think we as physicians have an obligation. As Christians, we have an obligation I really believe that, and its a deep-held belief But I dont think you have a right to my labor. You dont have a right to anyone elses labor. Pauls gambit here was to define healthcare not as a right but as something altogether different and unenforceable. Of course, no one proposes any healthcare policy that would force doctors to labor, only those that would offer doctors money to work, a system under which they already presumably operate; in universal healthcare plans, the payment would just come from a different source than insurance companies or individuals. But Paul is clear: While physicians might have some kind of vague moral obligation to lend a hand to the poor, the state should not, in his view, legitimize that duty by expanding universal healthcare to all. Why the state should exemplify and extend Christian forgiveness and mercy to the criminal but not the ill is anyones guess.

The same curious hesitance toward outreach applies to Pauls policies on poverty. His solution for aiding the impoverished in America? Economic freedom zones, or areas targeted for tax decreases and other incentives to create jobs and generate wealth. Unfortunately for Paul, this hands-off approach to reducing poverty has been tried, tested and proven to fail, featuring no significant difference in economic growth or job creation inside the enterprise zones from the surrounding area.

More:

Rand Pauls audacious new sham: A phony religious epiphany

FFF Webinar: Libertarianism: The Moral and the Practical

By: The Future of Freedom Foundation

Continued here:

FFF Webinar: Libertarianism: The Moral and the Practical - Video

This Wednesday I stumbled upon an article in Richmonds Style Weekly magazine covering the Feb. 8 convention of the Libertarian Party of Virginia. According to the articles author Tom Nash, this convention was the biggest and most important for Virginia Libertarians for quite some while. Given the recent relative success of the partys gubernatorial candidate Robert Sarvis (who made his mark by running a seemingly honest, intellectual campaign and winning 6.5 percent of the vote), Nash contends that the party hopes to maintain this momentum by having as many Libertarians as possible on the upcoming ballots.

Apparently, the tactic to achieve this involves inviting everyone on the partys email list to run for office, even if they have no chance of winning. One person who received this invitation was a high school student from the Maggie L. Walker Governors School for Government and International Studies. The student told Nash that he would consider running for office after finishing college.

Anyone who knows me also knows that my politics tend to fall so far left that they occasionally slip off the scale into an alternate universe where the gender binary has been all but eradicated, socialism reigns and everyone is free to sip tea and play with their cats in a borderless world of total equality.

Needless to say, libertarianism is not always consistent with these ideals. I do, however, hold a soft spot in my heart for the well-intentioned rationality of the party, so Nashs article made me wonder how many capable, up-and-coming young people might be drawn into politics by what is essentially a power vacuum in the Libertarian party.

One member of the University of Richmonds chapter of Young Americans for Liberty, Kelly Farley, WC17, said she planned on pursuing business as a career, but could easily see herself in politics: Libertarians are the party of the individual, liberty and, in my opinion, self-responsibility. I would be honored and proud to represent the libertarian opinion some day.

Another UR student, Martha Ashe, WC15, said that although she identified with the Libertarian party philosophically, she chooses to vote Republican because she is fiscally conservative and the party has more traction. She said, While I dont think I would ever run for politics, if I did, it would be hard for me to run as a Libertarian because I dont think the party has as much traction at this time. Ashe added, however, that she is confident we are trending toward a greater support of libertarianism: I do believe that most young people in my generation are Libertarian, whether they realize it or not, and that as my generation matures, the libertarian party will start to gain popularity.

While the upper levels of the two dominant parties in this country can seem like private clubs that require 80 percent networking and 20 percent underhanded dealing to gain entry, it might be that all it takes in Virginias Libertarian party right now is to show up.

Since the platform tends to attract a mixture of young people who are intelligent, ambitious or radical (and occasionally all three), I can happily picture a future where the party is dominated not by gun- and flag-toting old men, but by recent college graduates with clear plans for a more free country. Whether or not I support the whole ideology, I would rather have a relevant faction of young, educated people than not.

Read more:

Recruiting the next generation of political leaders

(Thinkstock Image)

On Saturday, about 1,500 students from all over the world gathered to discuss freedom at the Students for Liberty Conference in Washington, D.C.

Economist Donald Boudreaux showed the students a department store catalog from 1958 to underscore how the free market, while contributing to income inequality, also dramatically improved the lives of the poor: "The typical American worker back then had to work 30 hours to buy this vacuum cleaner. Today, a worker has to work only six hours to buy a much better vacuum cleaner. And that's true for clothing, food, all sorts of things."

That's how free markets work: quietly, gradually improving things. That doesn't always appeal to impatient young people or to radical old people who fancy themselves social engineers who should shape the world.

Such social engineering is revered on campuses. A student from Quebec complained that economists about whom his fellow students learn are "Keynesians, who believe that breaking windows is good for the economy, or neoclassicals, who believe in unrealistic assumptions like perfect competition and perfect information."

If there were a part of America for which the American students at this conference felt a special pride, it was the Constitution. "The Constitution of the United States is a promise about how government power will be used," Timothy Sandefur, author of The Conscience of the Constitution, told them. "A promise was left to us by a generation who lived under tyrannical government and decided they needed a framework that would preserve the blessings of liberty."

These students appreciated that inheritance, although they said the Constitution is rarely discussed at their schools. They surprised me by knowing the correct answer to my question: How often is the word "democracy" used in the Constitution?

Answer: never. The founders understood that democracy may bring mob rule tyranny of a majority. So the Constitution focuses on restricting government to secure individual liberty.

If anything, these students were stauncher in their defense of liberty than the Founders.

Kelly Kidwell, a sophomore from Tulane University, said, "Regardless of what its intent was, we still have the [big] government that we have now so the Constitution has either provided for that government, or failed to prevent it."

See more here:

Students for Liberty conference shows a young approach to libertarianism

How to Talk to Left and Right About Libertarianism: Anthony Gregory on the Tom Woods Show
Anthony Gregory joins Tom to talk about how libertarians can reach the Left and the conventional Right. Subscribe to the Tom Woods Show: http://www.TomWoodsR...

By: TomWoodsTV

Follow this link:

How to Talk to Left and Right About Libertarianism: Anthony Gregory on the Tom Woods Show - Video

February 18, 2014|9:30 am

Leah Stiles Hughey speaks at the Christianity and Libertarianism Panel at the International Students for Liberty Conference while her husband, Jason Hughey, and Philip Luca look on in Washington, D.C. Feb. 15, 2014.

Correction Appended

WASHINGTON Young Evangelicals argued that Christianity and libertarianism are compatible, and some even claimed that Christians should advocate for libertarian causes.

"Christians actually ought to feel outraged that the redemptive power of charity has been taken from us and given to an unfeeling, coercive state," Leah Stiles Hughey declared at a Saturday panel at The International Students for Liberty Conference. She claimed that when government gets involved in giving to the poor it denies the God-given human dignity of both giver and receiver.

Hughey's husband Jason explained that "the Bible is not a book of political theory." Nevertheless, "there are themes we get from the Bible that give a good foundation for Christians to embrace libertarianism or even anarchy," Jason Hughey said.

The Hugheys and three other panelists provided 5 reasons why they believe Christians can be libertarian in their political beliefs.

1. Christianity Celebrates Voluntary Action, Value Creation

Jacqueline Otto Isaacs speaks at the Christianity and Libertarianism Panel at the International Students for Liberty as Elise Amyx and Taylor Barkley look on, Washington, D.C. Feb. 15, 2014.

Jacqueline Otto Isaacs, a blogger at Values & Capitalism, explained that the Christian worldview also supports libertarianism. "The message of the Gospel, the good news, is that salvation from our sins is offered through Christ this salvation is voluntary and individual, and this is the core message of Christianity," Isaacs declared.

Originally posted here:

5 Reasons Christianity and Libertarianism are Compatible, Young Evangelicals Say

WOW MUST SEE George Galloway vs. Libertarianism : Ron Paul " MLK day is hate whitey day " !
1 strike PLZ sub to my back up channel http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC06StA75rt3uUM_EKXC413g Join Cip n Kev on our Radio show G.U.N.N Sundays 6pm - 8pmUK t...

By: cip1883

View original post here:

WOW MUST SEE George Galloway vs. Libertarianism : Ron Paul " MLK day is hate whitey day " ! - Video

RE: Debunking Libertarianism Part 1
http://neoclassicalginger.blogspot.com/ In this Video I go over argument by argument of Jason Unruhe #39;s Debunking Libertarianism video. All footage in questio...

By: neoclassicalginger

Read more:

RE: Debunking Libertarianism Part 1 - Video

There isn't much political logic to dredging the old scandal upexcept as a move to shore up his credibility with social conservatives skeptical of libertarianism.

In recent weeks, one Republican after another has come forward to rebut the Democratic claim that the GOP is waging a war on women. The responses have ranged from homey (Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers responding to Barack Obamas State of the Union address by noting that shed given birth just eight weeks earlier) to creepy (former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee saying Democrats think women cant control their libidos.) But perhaps most puzzling has been the tack taken by Rand Paul, who in interview after interview after interview has accused Democrats of hypocrisy for claiming to support womens rights while giving Bill Clinton a pass for his predatory behavior towards Monica Lewinsky.

Yes, Monica Lewinsky, who enjoyed her 15 minutes of fame 16 years ago. Luckily for Democrats, Paul hasnt cottoned on to their affection for John F. Kennedy (naked White House pool parties with suspected communist spies) and Franklin Roosevelt (died in the presence of his mistress).

It doesnt take long to grasp the flaws in Pauls strategy. For starters, Clintons infidelities didnt hurt his popularity at the time. Between January 1998, when the Lewinsky scandal broke, and February 1999, when the senate voted not to impeach him, Clinton registered the highest approval ratings of his presidency:

And women backed him at higher rates than men. Hillary Clinton, who many consider Pauls real target, registered her highest popularity during that same period:

Once the impeachment circus ended, Bill Clintons popularity did dip, leading some to suggestas they continued too throughout the 2000 campaignthat the country was suffering Clinton fatigue. But the problem for Paul is that these days, Americans seem fatigued with the fatigue. A July 2012 Gallup poll found Clintons approval at an impressive 66 percent, higher than it had been since he left office. Among women, Clintons approval rating was 63 percent. It was 44 percent among Republicans. By comparison, President Obamas most recent approval ratings are 43 percent among women and 12 percent among Republicans. Which helps explain why Paul is the only prominent figure in todays GOP spending as much time attacking the last Democratic president as the current one.

So why the anti-Clinton offensive? Because Paul isnt speaking to most Americanshes speaking to the Christian right. Paul is presumably well aware that while economic conservatives loved his father, social conservatives did not. In the Iowa caucuses, for instance, Ron Paul won 28 percent among voters who said the deficit was their primary issue but only seven percent among those who said it was abortion.

For months now, Rand Paul has been trying to make inroads where his father did not. Last June, at a conference organized by former Christian Coalition Executive Director Ralph Reed, he put a new twist on his skepticism about foreign aid, arguing that America is funding Islamic regimes that oppress Christians. There is a war on Christianity, he insisted, and your government, or more correctly, you, the taxpayer, are funding it. Last October, he told students at the Jerry Falwell-founded Liberty University that America is in a full-blown spiritual crisis. And last week, he told the anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage American Principles Project that Libertarian doesnt mean libertine I dont see libertarianism as, you can do whatever you want. There is a role for government, theres a role for family, theres a role for marriage, theres a role for the protection of life.

Pauls effort to revive Lewinsky-gate is best seen as part of this effort. Given that one of his key selling points in the GOP primary will be his (relative) support among younger Americans, Paul cant exactly crusade against gay marriage or the legalization of pot. Bashing Bill Clinton provides a politically safer way to champion moralism. It certainly helped George W. Bush, who in 2000 won Christian right votes, despite playing down social issues, because he played up his personal, anti-Clintonian religious and moral code. Paul seems to be attempting something similar, telling Maureen Dowd, In my small town, we would disassociate, we would in some ways socially shun, somebody that had an inappropriate affair with someones daughter or with a babysitter or something like that. (Paul actually lives in the third biggest city in Kentucky, but you get the point).

Pauls anti-Clinton gambit reminds us that, ideologically, the GOP is divided into three parts, not two. Theres a Tea Party wing focused primarily on debt and the size of government, a socially conservative wing concerned primarily about abortion and the governments alleged hostility to people of faith, and a party establishment thats more hawkish on foreign policy and more willing to make the ideological compromises necessary to win. Pauls challenge is to solidify his support among the first group while making gains with the second two. Its no coincidence that as he was courting social conservatives last week by bashing Bill Clinton, he was courting establishment hawks by writing a letter to Obama arguing that only Congress should have the power to lift sanctions on Iran.

See original here:

Why Is Rand Paul Talking About Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky?

The Case Against Libertarianism (Starmexus Classic)
I was watching some old videos from back in the day when I was starmexus. I realized that many of my arguments still apply today.

By: Yewon2001

See the original post here:

The Case Against Libertarianism (Starmexus Classic) - Video

February 6, 2014|5:20 pm

Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul addresses the American Principles Project Annual Gala in Washington, DC on Wednesday night.

WASHINGTON U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) argued for libertarianism, saying it is compatible with Christianity and will help Republicans win elections and attract minorities, at the gala for The American Principles Project, a socially conservative group founded by Robert P. George.

"There are some issues that can move the party forward, and some of those issues I would call libertarian issues," Paul declared. He admitted that "to some that's a bad word, but to others I think it's a word that may expand the party."

Paul argued that these issues do not have to come at the expense of social issues, such as life and marriage. "Libertarian and liberty doesn't mean libertine," he argued. The Senator referred to Don Devine's book America's Way Back, explaining that liberty and tradition go hand in hand.

Freedom and Tradition

"Freedom needs tradition to give it its balance and its stability, its sense of family and community, but tradition needs freedom to invigorate it and give it spirit and excitement," Paul declared. He claimed that, in libertarianism, there is a role for government, family, marriage, and the protection of life. "I asked last year at the March [for Life], 'Can a nation or a civilization long endure that doesn't respect life?' I don't think they can."

Paul also emphasized the marriage issue. "I think marriage is important, not only for social and religious and moral reasons, but it's incredibly important just for economic reasons," the Senator declared. He cited Charles Murray's book Coming Apart, explaining that the rich and the poor live in "two worlds" with different choices. "There's enormous amounts of poverty in the world that doesn't make it to college and doesn't get married," Paul summarized.

"This isn't a problem that government can always fix," the Senator warned, "but we all need to be part of trying to fix it."

Christian Forgiveness

See the original post:

Rand Paul: Libertarianism is Compatible With Christianity, Will Help Republicans Win Elections, Attract Minorities

Harvard Law Professor (and recent OIRA head) Cass Sunstein has had some columns lately on Bloomberg View that seem to be squarely in my wheelhouse as an originalist and a libertarian. The most recent one is Resist the Sirens Call of Originalism. Before that was How to Spot a Paranoid Libertarian.

The columns have a striking similarity, in that they both attack extremist or caricatured versions of originalism and libertarianism, and appear to concede that the moderate version has some virtues.

Paranoid libertarianism, says Sunstein, is defined by five characteristics: 1, a belief that government will inevitably abuse its authority in any given area; 2, a presumption of bad faith by government officials; 3, a sense of victimization; 4, a refusal to engage in tradeoffs; and 5, an enthusiasm for slippery slope arguments. (These characteristics seem overlapping to me.)

Yet so far as I can tell, Sunsteins criticism of the category has nothing to do with non-paranoid libertarians, or with those who identify as classical liberals. For a good example on the other side, see this recent column by Richard Epstein, who distinguishes classical liberalism from libertarianism.

It is a little less transparent, but the same thing seems to be going on in Sunsteins column on originalism. Sunsteins three objections to originalism are 1, that the Constitution itself may not embrace originalism since it uses abstract terms; 2, some things (like wire-tapping) were unanticipated by the framers; and 3, originalism would deeply unsettle modern law, unless it embraces precedent, in which case it doesnt count as originalism.

Objections 1 and 2 are simply not true of most sophisticated originalists, who acknowledge that when a constitutional provision was intended to have broad or evolving scope, the originalist thing to do is to give it broad or evolving scope. (This also makes it easy to accommodate new situations.)

To be sure, originalists do sometimes argue that people like Sunstein are far too quick to assume that a provision is broad and abstract, but this a difference in application, not theory. Serious originalists ought to agree with Sunstein that a provision should not be interpreted to be more originalist than it was originally intended to be.

Objection 3 brings us back to a recurring theme of my recent originalist posts. Critics of originalism dont get to just declare that embracing precedent which nearly all originalists do, to differing extents is not the originalist position. Or if they do wish to define originalism so as to exclude most of its practioners, then they ought to be clear that they are attacking only an extreme version of the theory.

So it seems to me that the upshot of Sunsteins columns ought to be: extreme originalism and paranoid libertarianism are bad, though regular originalism and libertarianism are (apparently?) fine. Yet I fear that by the fallacy of mood affiliation, readers may think Sunstein has also struck a blow against regular originalism and regular libertarianism.

Visit link:

Thoughts on Cass Sunsteins criticisms of libertarianism ...

The idea that one may get along without the help of others is so obviously false that its affirmation amounts to a confession of some form of ignorance at best. One cannot grow to adulthood without help from others. That should settle the matter. Apparently however, some adults believe themselves capable of getting along without the help of others. To this I would simply say Show me. Can the entrepreneur get along without customers, or the industrialist without workers? The simple truth is, they cannot. Yet somehow I dont expect the simple truth to be taken seriously, which is a sign of something. They tend to regard their customers or workers as interchangeable parts. They tend to think that they are therefore more needed than in need. But this is not the normal state of affairs. Yes, the addict needs the dealer more than the dealer needs him. But non-addicts do not need the dealer at all. Likewise, those not addicted to convenience can do without the vast majority of what the industrialist and the entrepreneur have to offer. Now all of this is rather obvious. What blinds us to it is our addiction to convenience. (I say our to include myself as such an addict. My only advantage is to have recognized the problem.)

Like Loading...

. Bookmark the

.

Go here to read the rest:

Libertarianism | graalbones

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul is, from all indications, planning to run for president in 2016. Yet while Tea Party Republicans love Paul in part for his known affinity for libertarianism, that same reputation poses a bit of an obstacle for Paul when it comes to wooing social conservatives, who tend to see libertarianism as morally bankrupt and depraved. If Paul wants to have any shot at being the GOPs nominee in 2016, hell have to either win over, or at least placate, these still-vital members of the GOP coalition.

Thats the context you need to understand to interpret Pauls recent speech for the American Principles Project(APP), a right-wing activist group that holds very conservative views on abortion and same-sex marriage.

While speaking to the APP, the anti-choice Paul tried to assuage his audiences fears by insisting that libertarianism and social conservatism can work together in perfect harmony. To some, thats sort of still a bad word, Paul said of libertarianism. To others, its a word that may expand the party.

Libertarian doesnt mean libertine, Paul continued. To many of us, libertarian means freedom and liberty. But we also see that freedom needs tradition.

Paul then tried to tie his support for prison reform as fundamentally Christian in nature. I think there are things we can and should talk about, as Christians, who believe in forgiveness, Paul said.I think the criminal justice system should have some element of forgiveness.

Hoping to seal the deal, Paul then played his trump card: implicitly comparing himself to Ronald Reagan.

Everybody else told Reagan to shut up, too, he said. They said, Shut up and wait your turn.

Go here to see the original:

Rand Paul tries to sell social conservatives on libertarianism

Five Stupid Things About Libertarianism REBUTIFIED!
This is a response to Steve Shives "Five Stupid Things About Libertarianism". See the original here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJwN-EwBOgM Download MP3 ...

By: Counter Intuition

Read the original here:

Five Stupid Things About Libertarianism REBUTIFIED! - Video