A look at the political landscape of Wyoming.

Go here to read the rest:

FiveThirtyEight: Wyoming, Energy and Libertarianism

Glenn Beck. Photograph: Getty Images

In a bizarre story of unrequited love, American conservative political commentator Glenn Beck has written a heartfelt open letter to Muse frontman, Matt Bellamy.

The Fox News pundit, famous for his sharp tongue, was responding to recent comments made by the singer in an interview with the Observer on Sunday, in which Bellamy revealed that the band had repeatedly denied the use of the track Uprising for American political campaigns, calling its popularity among the farright weird.

In the US, the conspiracy theory subculture has been hijacked by the right to try to take down people like Obama and put forward rightwing libertarianism, he said, before going on to describe himself as a leftleaning libertarian.

Muse and Glenn Beck have a history: Beck previously endorsed Muses 2009 album The Resistance on his radio show and even likened their lyrical content to his own brand of republicanism, prompting drummer Dom Howard to label Beck a crazy rightwinger.

As uncomfortable as it might be for you, I will still play your songs loudly, the letter reads. To me your songs are anthems that beg for choruses of unity and pose the fundamental question facing the world today can man rule himself?

Beck then goes on (and on) to suggest that Bellamys own ideology isnt far off his own principles: in the Venn Diagram of American politics, where the circles of crimson and blue overlap, theres a place where you and I meet.

The rest of the letter then protractedly explains why he believes in Libertarianism before puzzlingly quoting lyrics from their fourth album and wishing them the best of luck on their new record.

Experience the madness, in full, below:

Dear Matthew, I read your comments in the Guardian via Rolling Stone last week and feel like with a little work we could better understand each other.

Read the original:

Glenn Beck's extraordinary open letter to Muse

Muse frontman Matt Bellamy has spoken out against the use of the Brit rockers' songs by right wing politicians and media figures. In a new interview with Britain's Observer On Sunday, the singer/guitarist says, "In the U.S. the conspiracy theory subculture has been hijacked by the right to try to take down people like Obama and put forward rightwing libertarianism." He added that the band's 2009 single "Uprising "was requested by so many politicians in America for use in their rallies and we turned them down on a regular basis." Bellamy adds that "When I dabble in watching the news and reading about current events I tend to get a future negative view and that's something I've dealt with through music. It's quite possible I'm slightly paranoid. But I'd say making music is an expression of feelings of helplessness and lack of control that I think a lot of people can relate to." Muse's new album The 2nd Law is in stores next week.

Christina Aguilera has released the video for "Your Body," the lead single from her upcoming album Lotus, due out November 13. In the clip, Aguilera goes on a rampage, seducing then destroying a series of men. You can see the "Your Body" video below:

Read the original here:

Quick Hits: Muse, Christina Aguilera, Nicki Minaj, Outasight, Interpol

Jason Brennan, an outstanding libertarian political philosopher who teaches at Georgetown University, has written Libertarianism as an introductory guide, and much of the material in it will be familiar to readers of the Mises Daily; but it deserves careful study by anyone interested in its subject. Brennan has a talent for explaining libertarian views in striking and effective ways. The book consists of 105 questions about libertarianism and Brennan's responses to them.

In defending libertarianism, Brennan stands resolutely against the consensus position of his fellow political philosophers. Today, books touting the virtues of deliberative democracy are ubiquitous; but Brennan dissents.[1] Libertarians

do not regard democratic participation and deliberation as the highest form of life. Many nonlibertarians have an almost religious reverence for democracy. They love democracy so much that they wish to see democracy in every aspect of life. They want democracy to be a way of living. They want everything open to democratic deliberation and decision making. Libertarians instead want to insulate people from political control. They do not want every decision to be subject to discussion. They believe one of the greatest freedoms of all is not having to justify yourself to others. If your entire life resembles a committee meeting, you are not free. (p. 69)

Brennan's objections would apply even to a democracy of the intelligent and informed; but in practice, democracy turns out to be rule by the incompetent. Brennan in his comments suggests a reborn Mencken:

Voters not only are systematically mistaken about basic economics, but they cannot figure out which candidates know more than they do in democracy incompetent leaders with false beliefs win. Libertarians say: If the candidates seem clueless, it is because the system works. (p. 72)

Brennan displays little respect for the chief icon of the American democratic tradition. He notes that

many Americans would rate Abraham Lincoln as the greatest president. Yet Lincoln fought the civil war not to free slaves, but to force the South to remain part of the United States. In the course of war, Lincoln suppressed habeas corpus, created the first national draft, suppressed free speech, censored and punished newspaper editors who criticized his war efforts, and was at least complicit in waging total war against innocent Southern civilians. By normal standards, this makes him a monster. (If I did these things, you would regard me as a vile and despicable person.)[2] (pp. 623)

If Brennan rejects democracy, what has he to put in its place? It will come as no surprise that his answer is libertarianism, but it is a different sort of libertarianism from that which the term will suggest to many of my readers. Followers of Murray Rothbard regard each person as a self-owner. Self-owners have the right to acquire property; and although the free market that results from implementing libertarian rights leads to greater prosperity than any alternative arrangement, the principal justification for these rights does not lie in their good consequences. To the contrary, they are natural rights.

To Brennan, this is not libertarianism sans phrase, but "hard libertarianism." It is but one of three forms of libertarianism, and not the one he prefers. Indeed, he says that in "some respects, it is an aberration inside classical liberal political thought" (p. 11).

What are the other forms? First is classical liberalism. Supporters of this position, though they favor the free market,

Go here to see the original:

What Is Neoclassical Liberalism?

[This essay is based on a paper presented at the April 1979 national meeting of the Philadelphia Society in Chicago. The theme of the meeting was "Conservatism and Libertarianism."]

Libertarianism is the fastest growing political creed in America today. Before judging and evaluating libertarianism, it is vitally important to find out precisely what that doctrine is, and, more particularly, what it is not. It is especially important to clear up a number of misconceptions about libertarianism that are held by most people, and particularly by conservatives. In this essay I shall enumerate and critically analyze the most common myths that are held about libertarianism. When these are cleared away, people will then be able to discuss libertarianism free of egregious myths and misconceptions, and to deal with it as it should be on its very own merits or demerits.

This is a common charge, but a highly puzzling one. In a lifetime of reading libertarian and classical-liberal literature, I have not come across a single theorist or writer who holds anything like this position.

The only possible exception is the fanatical Max Stirner, a mid-19th-century German individualist who, however, has had minimal influence upon libertarianism in his time and since. Moreover, Stirner's explicit "might makes right" philosophy and his repudiation of all moral principles including individual rights as "spooks in the head," scarcely qualifies him as a libertarian in any sense. Apart from Stirner, however, there is no body of opinion even remotely resembling this common indictment.

Libertarians are methodological and political individualists, to be sure. They believe that only individuals think, value, act, and choose. They believe that each individual has the right to own his own body, free of coercive interference. But no individualist denies that people are influencing each other all the time in their goals, values, pursuits, and occupations.

As F.A. Hayek pointed out in his notable article, "The Non Sequitur of the 'Dependence Effect,'" John Kenneth Galbraith's assault upon free-market economics in his best-selling The Affluent Society rested on this proposition: economics assumes that every individual arrives at his scale of values totally on his own, without being subject to influence by anyone else. On the contrary, as Hayek replied, everyone knows that most people do not originate their own values, but are influenced to adopt them by other people.[1]

No individualist or libertarian denies that people influence each other all the time, and surely there is nothing wrong with this inevitable process. What libertarians are opposed to is not voluntary persuasion, but the coercive imposition of values by the use of force and police power. Libertarians are in no way opposed to the voluntary cooperation and collaboration between individuals: only to the compulsory pseudo-"cooperation" imposed by the state.

This myth has recently been propounded by Irving Kristol, who identifies the libertarian ethic with the "hedonistic" and asserts that libertarians "worship the Sears Roebuck catalogue and all the 'alternative life styles' that capitalist affluence permits the individual to choose from."[2]

The fact is that libertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life.

"What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism."

More here:

Myth and Truth About Libertarianism

In a two-part column over at Breitbarts Big Government, Kurt Schlichter practically begs libertarians to support our Constitution and vote for Mitt Romney this November in order to avoid not only the destruction of this country by way of a second Obama term, but also to avoid the destruction of libertarianism by way of the Libertarian Party becoming a pariah.

The begging will not work, especially when it comes with the usual platitudinous overtures to America and the Constitution being at stake; and the suggestion that not supporting Romney is to selfishly disregard of the Constitution in the name of ideology. No matter how you dice the logic, a committed Republican accusing libertarians of not supporting the Constitution is nothing short of laughable.

Schlichters misunderstanding of the libertarian mentality doesnt help, either. The first and most obvious mistake he makes is to conveniently overlook the fact that small-L libertarians are truly unconcerned with the Libertarian Party. Remember the Greens? he ominously asks libertarians, alluding to the fact that following the Green Partys role as spoiler in Al Gores 2000 presidential bid, the Greens died off and became a punchline.

He naively assumes libertarians actually care what happens to the party that, for years, has been mismanaged and run by glibertarians like Wayne Allyn Root, a birther who only recently realized its time to give up the act and join the GOP. For many libertarians, the party already is a punchline. And looking at this years none of the above incident at the Libertarian National Convention, can you blame them?

Schlichter makes the case that libertarians will sure-as-Hell never find a home in the Democratic Party, what with the partys free this, free that, bailouts this, bailouts that spectacle at the 2012 DNC. He rightfully points out that the Dems only occasionally make attempts to reach out to libertarians, but are happy to eliminate that support at the drop of a hat. This is probably true. But dedicated libertarians find themselves politically homeless mostly because the corrupting forces of party politics are inherently in conflict with remaining ideologically principled. For many libertarians, a functioning political party to call home is not the desired end-game.

Schlichters blind partisanship is unlikely to convince libertarians either. Whats most insulting about the column is how he lectures libertarians about how President Obama is on an unstoppable path of trampling the Constitution and Bill of Rights, one amendment at a time. He notes in terribly overwrought language that Obamas spent nearly four years trampling the First Amendment, and that the Second Amendment is just one Supreme Court vote from being snatched away. Look, its no secret that the Obama administration has a seeming disregard for the Constitution. Schlichter suggests that, therefore, libertarians who are truly dedicated to the age-old document need to support Romney and the Republican Party because they are different they will save the Constitution and end the madness.

But hey, guess what? Many of President Obamas constitutional abuses are simply extensions of the ones initiated under President George W. Bush you know, that other unsupportable Republican that we libertarians were all told to shut up and vote for in 2004.

It was the Republican Party that rammed through the PATRIOT Act that Obama reauthorized last year. It was the Republican Party that set the precedent for the use of indefinite detention, torture, executive overreach, and the crackdowns on government whistleblowers. It was the Republican Party that heightened the crackdown on medical marijuana dispensaries operating legally under their states laws. It was the Republican Party that voted for Bushs spending spree and expansion of federal powers under Medicare Part D, the No Child Left Behind Act, etc.

Schlichter points to the administrations recent rousting of the Innocence of Muslims filmmaker as an Obama First Amendment abuse. The presidents handling of this entire movie-causing-riots debacle was, indeed, frustrating to libertarians. And so we libertarians should support Romney because hes dedicated to the First Amendment, right?

Not quite. This is the same candidate who pledged to vigorously fight the scourge that is all forms of adult pornography. Oh, and under the last Republican president, we saw an increase of pointless federal prosecutions of porn-makers like John Stagliano, who film consenting adults doing consensual things you know, the kind of stuff Republicans hate when it involves sex, drugs, or gambling.

More:

Breitbart Writer Begs Libertarians To Vote Romney — Sorry, It Ain’t Going To Work

A specter is haunting Robert Frank's latest book the specter of libertarianism. For him, it is a doctrinaire view with little to recommend it; yet he again and again seems drawn both to try to refute it and to deflect it. Libertarianism he takes to be wrong; but even those who accept it, he thinks, ought to see that his proposals for progressive taxation and assorted welfare measures are reasonable. One might at first be inclined to explain Frank's behavior by saying that it responds to the bad influence, as he sees it, that libertarian positions have on discussions of public policy. I suspect that there is more to it than that, though. Libertarianism exerts a peculiar fascination over him.

He says about libertarianism,

Unlike most critics on the left, I will grant the libertarians' most important basic assumptions about the world that markets are competitive, that people are rational, and that the state must meet a heavy burden of proof before restraining any individual citizen's liberty of action. Although there are reasons to question each assumption, the internal contradictions of the libertarian framework emerge clearly even if we accept these assumptions uncritically. (p. 11)

What is the internal contradiction at the heart of libertarianism that Frank claims to discern? Here Frank reprises a theme familiar to readers of his earlier books.

The fatal flaw in that [libertarian] framework stems from an observation that is itself completely uncontroversial namely that in many important domains of life, performance is graded on the curve. The dependence of reward on rank eliminates any presumption of harmony between individual and collective interests, and with it, the foundation of the libertarian's case for a completely unfettered market system. (p. 11)

A recent news item illustrates what Frank has in mind. The US Anti-Doping Agency has stripped Lance Armstrong of his Tour de France victories on the grounds that he used forbidden performance-enhancing drugs. The merits of that controversy aren't here our concern, but it serves to raise the question, Why do athletes ingest substances that may harm them? Obviously, they do so to gain an advantage over their competitors. But so long as a substantial number of rival athletes do this, none will gain an advantage over the others. You would get a jump on the competition if only you took the substances and no one else did, but this is irrelevant to what happens in the actual world. Athletes have gone to useless trouble and put their health at risk, and the result is that they are exactly where they were before in their battles with one another.

The dependence of reward on rank of course affects many others besides athletes, and one particular instance of it especially bothers Frank. People want their children to attend the best available school, and schools in richer neighborhoods are better than those in poorer areas. This leads parents to work longer and harder and under riskier conditions than they otherwise would have, in order to afford to move into a better neighborhood. Once more, though, their efforts do not gain for them the result they hope for: each parent is thwarted by the similar efforts of other parents.

A worker might well accept a riskier job at a higher wage because doing so would cover the monthly payments on a house in a better school district. But the same observation applies to other workers. And because school quality is an inherently relative concept, when others also trade safety for higher wages, no one will move forward in relative terms. They'll succeed only in bidding up the prices of houses in better school districts. (p. 40)

Frank draws an analogy between this type of futile struggle and a phenomenon studied by Charles Darwin. An example is the bull elk, which has developed outsized antlers. These "function not as weaponry against external predators but in the competition among bulls for access to females" (p. 21). The antlers make them less speedy and thus easier for wolves to attack them. They are even worse off than Lance Armstrong and his fellow cyclists. Darwin's study of this phenomenon leads Frank to "offer the following prediction. One century hence, if a roster of professional economists is asked to identify the intellectual father of their discipline, a majority will name Charles Darwin" (p. 16).

This is all very well, you may say or actually, as we'll soon see, not so very well but what does it have to do with libertarianism? The answer is simple. The government can rescue us from these futile competitive struggles by imposing a heavy progressive consumption tax. People would then have less money to waste on trying to get ahead of one another, but they would be no worse off: remember, the money that we spend on clawing our way to the top does us no good. All of our efforts leave us where we were before we spent the money. Given the good offices of the government, people could still attempt to surpass one another, but the government can now spend the money it extracted in all sorts of useful projects.

Visit link:

Taxing "Darwinian" Consumption

Rep. Ron Paul did not get a speaking slot at the GOP convention. But a video paid tribute to him,and his son Sen. Rand Paul let Republicans know that his fathers brand of libertarianism remains a force within the party.

It wasnt billed as such, but Ron Pauls moment at the Republican Convention Wednesday evening marked the effective end of a long and remarkable political career as the libertarian gadfly within the GOP.

Subscribe Today to the Monitor

Click Here for your FREE 30 DAYS of The Christian Science Monitor Weekly Digital Edition

He gave no scheduled speech here; he had refused to let the Romney campaign pre-approve any comments he might have made. And his supporters fought hard and very vocally to the end unsuccessfully, as it turned out against the Republican Partys last-minute efforts to restrict the number and voice of future insurgents, obviously referencing the 177 delegates Mr. Paul had won in the partys presidential caucuses and primaries and were pushing to have his name at least entered into nomination before the roll call vote.

But it does the Republican Party and Mitt Romneys presidential campaign no good to alienate an active and unique slice of conservatism one with considerable overlap with the tea party movement.

Are you a true Ron Paul supporter? Take our quiz!

So early Wednesday evening (before prime-time convention broadcasts), US Rep. Paul received a video tribute to his career. And in a speech a few minutes later, his son US Sen. Rand Paul let Republicans know that his fathers brand of libertarianism remains a force within the party.

In comments from a range of politicians at least one of whom confessed that at first he thought Ron Paul was crazy the 12-term Texas congressman was lauded as one who never wavered, never backed down.

I used to tell new members that they could make a difference or they could make a point, said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell. Ron Paul is the only one whos made a difference by making a point.

Excerpt from:

Ron Paul finally gets his moment at the Republican Convention (+video)

Under pressure to show loyalty to his party and to critique its heresies against libertarianism, he does a lot of the former, not much of the latter.

YouTube

At the same time, his libertarian supporters, another key to his political future, are forever wary of being betrayed by a sellout, and uninclined to lend their time and money for someone who isn't delivering. Basically, Senator Paul has to retain a lot of supporters accustomed to the uncompromising purity and outspokenness of his father (the subject of a tribute video at the RNC extolling his refusal to compromise), but without being quite so pure, uncompromising or outspoken.

Needing to please his party on the one hand, and his core supporters on the other, Sen. Paul erred on the side of pleasing the party Wednesday with an on message speech. He attacked President Obama for his "You didn't build that" comment, in keeping with the GOP's major theme. He focused on subjects of agreement between libertarians and establishment Republicans.

And he eschewed opportunities to chide fellow Republicans. In the beginning of his speech, for example, he invoked James Madison and the notion of enumerated powers, as if Mitt Romney and many other Republicans are reliable champions of a severely limited federal government. And though Paul used inspirational immigrant stories to extol the American Dream, specifically invoking Vietnamese boat people, he didn't advocate for allowing more immigrants to come here legally.

He did nod to his supporters later in the speech, however subtly.

"Republicans and Democrats alike must slay their sacred cows," he stated. "Republicans must acknowledge that not every dollar spent on the military is necessary or well-spent, and Democrats must admit that domestic welfare and entitlements must be reformed." I'm glad he included that line. But asking Republicans to acknowledge that a little bit of military spending is wasted isn't enough. Sen. Paul himself favors deeper cuts to military spending than his speech suggests.

"Republicans and Democrats must replace fear with confidence, confidence that no terrorist, and no country, will ever conquer us if we remain steadfast to the principles of our Founding documents," Sen. Paul said. Were delegates in the hall aware that the GOP hasn't remained steadfast to those documents, and that Mitt Romney's avowed policies are deeply at odds with them?

If not Senator Paul didn't give them any hint.

Read more here:

Rand Paul Plays It Safe in His RNC Speech

Rep. Ron Paul did not get a speaking slot at the GOP convention. But a video paid tribute to him,and his son Sen. Rand Paul let Republicans know that his fathers brand of libertarianism remains a force within the party.

It wasnt billed as such, but Ron Pauls moment at the Republican Convention Wednesday evening marked the effective end of a long and remarkable political career as the libertarian gadfly within the GOP.

Subscribe Today to the Monitor

Click Here for your FREE 30 DAYS of The Christian Science Monitor Weekly Digital Edition

He gave no scheduled speech here; he had refused to let the Romney campaign pre-approve any comments he might have made. And his supporters fought hard and very vocally to the end unsuccessfully, as it turned out against the Republican Partys last-minute efforts to restrict the number and voice of future insurgents, obviously referencing the 177 delegates Mr. Paul had won in the partys presidential caucuses and primaries and were pushing to have his name at least entered into nomination before the roll call vote.

But it does the Republican Party and Mitt Romneys presidential campaign no good to alienate an active and unique slice of conservatism one with considerable overlap with the tea party movement.

Are you a true Ron Paul supporter? Take our quiz!

So early Wednesday evening (before prime-time convention broadcasts), US Rep. Paul received a video tribute to his career. And in a speech a few minutes later, his son US Sen. Rand Paul let Republicans know that his fathers brand of libertarianism remains a force within the party.

In comments from a range of politicians at least one of whom confessed that at first he thought Ron Paul was crazy the 12-term Texas congressman was lauded as one who never wavered, never backed down.

I used to tell new members that they could make a difference or they could make a point, said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell. Ron Paul is the only one whos made a difference by making a point.

View original post here:

Ron Paul finally gets his moment at the Republican Convention

Enlarge Photo

GOFFSTOWN, N.H. Borrowing a key element of the anti-government libertarianism that fueled rival Ron Pauls presidential campaign, Mitt Romney said Monday that he thinks the Federal Reserve should face an audit.

Very plain and simple, the answer is yes. The Federal Reserve should be accountable. We should see what theyre doing, Mr. Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, said at a town hall in New Hampshire.

Mr. Romney also pushed back against President Obamas claims that the former Massachusetts governor would raise taxes on the middle class if elected.

Let me tell you the heart of my tax proposal: I will not raise taxes on the American people, I will not raise taxes on middle-income Americans, Mr. Romney told supporters at St. Anselm College, where he and running mate Rep. Paul Ryan made a grand entrance to the theme song from the movie Rudy.

The visit marked the first joint appearance for Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan in New Hampshire a state that could prove pivotal come Election Day.

The event gave Mr. Romney a chance to fire back at Mr. Obama, who two days earlier in nearby Windham told voters that Mr. Romneys tax plan would mean that the wealthy get a tax cut and middle-class families will pay more.

They have been trying to sell this trickle-down snake oil before, he said Saturday. It did not work then. It will not work now.

Mr. Romney fielded seven questions during the town hall, including the question about auditing the Fed.

Mr. Romneys answer puts him on the same page of the issue as Mr. Paul, the congressman from Texas who is Mr. Romneys only remaining active opponent in the GOP presidential race.

See the original post:

Romney backs audit for Fed, vows to not raise taxes on middle class

Is libertarianism, the philosophy of voluntary arrangements, free markets and individual liberty, en vogue? After years of overreaching government by the Republican and Democratic parties, there are signs that a freedom movement is beginning to bristle.

The Associated Press moved a story July 7 with the headline: With freedom in fashion, is libertarianism back? AP reporter Pauline Arrillaga wrote: Somethings going on in America this election year: a renaissance of an ideal as old as the nation itself that live-and-let-live, get-out-of-my-business, individualism vs. paternalism dogma that is the hallmark of libertarianism. She is correct.

Those yearning for a liberty movement in the United States often cite the 2010 midterm elections, where voters, some reacting to the passage of President Barack Obamas health care overhaul, ousted Democrats from office throughout the country and gave control of the House of Representatives to the Republicans. But even before that, liberty-minded voters began rejecting intrusive government policies.

In 2006, Republicans lost control of the House and Senate and a majority of the contested governorships. In 2008, Democrats won the White House, and increased their majorities in both chambers of Congress.

Those discouraging reversals for Republicans were due, at least in part, to the disenfranchisement felt toward the GOP by freedom-focused voters and the Libertarian wing of the Republican Party. Too many policies enacted by the GOP during the George W. Bush presidency, especially when the GOP controlled both houses of Congress, were suspect. Republicans went along with bailouts, stimulus packages, unpopular wars and an arguable precursor of Obamacare, the Medicare Part D prescription drug program.

Every time politicians of either major party step on liberty, which they do far too frequently, voters react. Now, with the odious requirement in Obamacare that all Americans buy government-approved health insurance or pay what a Supreme Court majority decided to call a tax, the libertarian streak within many American voters may play a deciding role in the presidential election, now less than four months away.

Judging by this weeks annual FreedomFest (freedomfest.com) conference in Las Vegas, the liberty movement is gaining momentum. Thousands poured into the largest city in Nevada, a key swing state, to promote all things free-market and pro-liberty. FreedomFest typically provides insight into what liberty-leaning voters are thinking. This years event could even turn out as the unofficial kickoff of a push that decides the winners in November. From the Orange County Register, a Freedom Communications newspaper.

Read the original here:

OUR VIEW: Freedom-focused voters increasing

July 11, 2012 11:23:34 PM

Is libertarianism, the philosophy of voluntary arrangements, free markets and individual liberty, en vogue? After years of overreaching government by the Republican and Democratic parties, there are signs that a freedom movement is beginning to bristle.

The Associated Press moved a story on Saturday with the headline: "With 'freedom' in fashion, is libertarianism back?" AP reporter Pauline Arrillaga wrote: "Something's going on in America this election year: a renaissance of an ideal as old as the nation itself that live-and-let-live, get-out-of-my-business, individualism vs. paternalism dogma that is the hallmark of libertarianism." She is correct.

Those yearning for a liberty movement in the United States often cite the 2010 mid-term elections, where voters, some reacting to the passage of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, ousted Democrats from office throughout the country and gave control of the House of Representatives to the Republicans. But even before that, liberty-minded voters began rejecting intrusive government policies.

In 2006, Republicans lost control of the House and Senate and a majority of the contested governorships. In 2008, Democrats won the White House, and increased their majorities in both chambers of Congress.

Those discouraging reversals for Republicans were due, at least in part, to the disenfranchisement felt toward the GOP by freedom-focused voters and the libertarian wing of the Republican Party. Too many policies enacted by the GOP during the George W. Bush presidency, especially when the GOP controlled both houses of Congress, were suspect. Republicans went along with bailouts, stimulus packages, unpopular wars and an arguable precursor of Obamacare, the Medicare Part D prescription drug program.

Every time politicians of either major party step on liberty, which they do far too frequently, voters react. Now, with the odious requirement in Obamacare that all Americans buy government-approved health insurance or pay what a Supreme Court majority decided to call a tax, the libertarian streak within many American voters may play a deciding role in the presidential election, now less than four months away.

Judging by this week's annual FreedomFest conference in Las Vegas, the liberty movement is gaining momentum. Thousands will pour into Nevada, a key swing state, to promote all things free-market and pro-liberty. FreedomFest provides insight into what liberty-leaning voters are thinking. This year's event could even turn out as the unofficial kickoff of a push that decides the winners in November.

Here is the original post:

Our View: Political parties earn freedom more fans

Posted // July 11,2012 -

In a state dominated by Republican politics, the minority party may be the Democrats, but the runner up in ideology has to be Libertarianism, whose followers take Republicans distrust of big government and apply it to all scenarios. Not only do Libertarians not like government interfering in the market, they also dont like government interfering in peoples private liveseven if that means having to support legalized marijuana, gay marriage and other controversial views that send traditional Republicans running in the other direction.

Because of such baggage, most Libertarian political candidates are perennial third-party participants throughout the country and in Utah. Now, Libertarian activist Connor Boyack has created a Libertarian think tank to push Libertarian ideas and policiesas opposed to Libertarian candidatesin government and the Legislature. Hes also flanked by a newly formed nonprofit law firm that plans to lobby elected officials on Libertarian principles and take the government to court if necessary.

Boyack sees his Libertas Institute think tank as being one that can unite consensus support around ideasideas that may be proposed by Republicans or Democrats.

You cant put Libertarians into a box, Boyack says. And thats a good thing for us because it makes it so we can work with who we wantsuch as Republicans on free-market issues and Democrats on social issues.

The institute already plans to host educational events and is holding an essay contest on its website, LibertasUtah.org. The website also features scorecards for legislators for the past three sessions, rating them on how well their votes align with individual liberty.

Paul Mero, executive director of conservative think tank the Sutherland Institutewhich has, in the past, lobbied for such issues as compassionate immigration reform and for not allowing state discrimination protections for LGBT Utahnsdoubts that a Libertarian think tank will have much more traction than a Libertarian candidate. Mero says Libertarian ideology just doesnt mesh with the values of everyday Utahns, although Boyack has made a favorable reputation for himself as a Libertarian and a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, having written two booksLatter-Day Liberty and Latter-day Responsibilityabout Libertarianism and Mormonism.

While Mero says that Libertarians believe 80 to 90 percent of the same things that conservatives do, he says, If you go to their website, my guess is you wont find on the front page this disclosure that: Oh, by the way, as Mormon Libertarians, we also support the legalization of drugs, prostitution, gambling and we favor gay marriage.

But the Libertas Institute doesnt have to champion every value of every Libertarian. Thats part of the reason Boyack believes the organization can be an effective lobby for liberty, as it can get behind individual laws, policies and ideas instead of trying to push candidates for office.

Unlike a candidate that can get in trouble for having an [unpopular] position, think tanks dont necessarily have to do that, says University of Utah political-science professor Matthew Burbank. Theyre not running for public office, so they dont have to take positions on things if they dont think its in their political interest.

Continue reading here:

Libertarians on the Rise

Is libertarianism, the philosophy of voluntary arrangements, free markets and individual liberty, en vogue? After years of overreaching government by the Republican and Democratic parties, there are signs that a freedom movement is beginning to bristle.

The Associated Press moved a story July 7 with the headline: "With 'freedom' in fashion, is libertarianism back?" AP reporter Pauline Arrillaga wrote: "Something's going on in America this election year: a renaissance of an ideal as old as the nation itself that live-and-let-live, get-out-of-my-business, individualism vs. paternalism dogma that is the hallmark of libertarianism." She is correct.

A screen shot of the FreedomFest website.

ADVERTISEMENT

Those yearning for a liberty movement in the United States often cite the 2010 midterm elections, where voters, some reacting to the passage of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, ousted Democrats from office throughout the country and gave control of the House of Representatives to the Republicans. But even before that, liberty-minded voters began rejecting intrusive government policies.

In 2006, Republicans lost control of the House and Senate and a majority of the contested governorships. In 2008, Democrats won the White House, and increased their majorities in both chambers of Congress.

Those discouraging reversals for Republicans were due, at least in part, to the disenfranchisement felt toward the GOP by freedom-focused voters and the libertarian wing of the Republican Party. Too many policies enacted by the GOP during the George W. Bush presidency, especially when the GOP controlled both houses of Congress, were suspect. Republicans went along with bailouts, stimulus packages, unpopular wars and an arguable precursor of Obamacare, the Medicare Part D prescription drug program.

Every time politicians of either major party step on liberty, which they do far too frequently, voters react. Now, with the odious requirement in Obamacare that all Americans buy government-approved health insurance or pay what a Supreme Court majority decided to call a tax, the libertarian streak within many American voters may play a deciding role in the presidential election, now less than four months away.

Judging by this week's annual FreedomFest conference in Las Vegas, the liberty movement is gaining momentum. Thousands will pour into the largest city in Nevada, a key swing state, to promote all things free-market and pro-liberty. FreedomFest typically provides insight into what liberty-leaning voters are thinking. This year's event could even turn out as the unofficial kickoff of a push that decides the winners in November.

FOLLOW US @OCRegLetters

See the original post:

Editorial: Political parties earning freedom more fans

Source: Wikimedia Commons One discussion absent in the recent debate on libertarianism and working conditions is: if they don't want more labor laws, then how would libertarians improve working conditions? Some may guffaw at the notion that libertarians think working conditions should improve, but this is to confuse the desire for [...]

View post:

How to Improve Working Conditions

Stefan Molyneux is a popular libertarian broadcaster who has in recent years acquired a considerable following. In Universally Preferable Behavior, he takes on an ambitious task. He endeavors to provide a rational basis for morality. Should he succeed, he would not only have achieved something of monumental importance; he would also have rendered a great service to libertarianism. Molyneux's system of morality has resolutely libertarian implications. If he is right, surely a time for rejoicing is at hand.

It would be cruel to arouse false expectations, so I had better say at once that Molyneux does not succeed in his noble goal. He fails, and fails miserably. His arguments are often preposterously bad.

Let us first be clear, in his own words, on what Molyneux wishes to accomplish:

The question before us is thus: can some preferences be objective, i.e., universal? When I talk about universal preferences, I am talking about what people should prefer, not what they always do prefer. (p. 33, emphasis omitted)

These preferences, furthermore, have to do with morality, behavior that can be forcibly imposed on people. "Those preferences which can be considered binding upon others can be termed 'universal preferences' or 'moral rules'" (p. 40).

Is there, then, behavior that is in his sense universally preferable? Our ever-generous author has an abundance of arguments in support of a positive answer to this question. His first claim is that the very fact of engaging in inquiry over the existence of universally preferable behavior suffices to answer the question in the affirmative. If I am engaged in debate about this topic, must I not prefer truth to falsehood? An attempt to deny this leads to contradiction: "If I argue against the proposition that universally preferable behavior is valid, I have already shown my preference for truth over falsehood as well as a preference for correcting those who speak falsely" (p. 40).

Molyneux is certainly right that someone who wants to discover whether universally preferable behavior exists, prefers, while trying to find the answer, truth over falsehood; but how does this generate a preference to correct others with mistaken views? Molyneux wrongly supposes that if someone wants to discover the truth, he must be in engaged in an actual debate with someone else. Why must he? Further, what has any of this to do with enforceable obligations, the ostensible subject of his inquiry?

Molyneux has many more arguments on offer. How can we deny the existence of universally preferable behavior, he asks: does not life itself depend on it? "Thus it is impossible that anyone can logically argue against universally preferable behavior, since if he is alive to argue, he must have followed universally preferable behaviors such as breathing, eating and drinking."

Is it not obvious that Molyneux has confused two different senses of "universally preferable behavior"? Biological laws are, as even our author elsewhere realizes, descriptive regularities; Molyneux fails utterly to show that acting in accord with such laws to keep oneself alive has anything to do with moral obligation.

Molyneux is not content with "proving" that moral obligations exist. He also has distinctive views about the nature of these obligations. Moral rules must be universal, in a very strong sense:

View post:

The Molyneux Problem

The Affordable Care Act is not "the largest tax increase in the history of the world," despite what you might have heard on The Rush Limbaugh Show. In fact, it's not even the largest tax increase in the history of The Rush Limbaugh Show. Two years after Rush's national syndication, President George H. W. Bush signed a slightly bigger tax increase in 1990. And Reagan's tax increase from 1982 was bigger than both of them.

The following graph of the biggest tax increases since 1950 is Kevin Drum's data graphed by Austin Frakt (via Ezra Klein):

Obamacare tax chart

If you're looking for something/anything superlative to say about the ACA, you could say it's the biggest tax increase of the entire millennium (!!!) or perhaps that it's the second-biggest tax increase signed by a Democrat since LBJ. As for the biggest tax acts in "history," health care reform barely cracks the top ten ... for the last 60 years.

More From The Atlantic

Originally posted here:

2 of the Last 3 GOP Presidents Signed Larger Tax Increases Than Obamacare

Death may be permanent, but headstones are always changing.

That is, unless you paste a QR code sticker onto one of them, which is newly possible thanks to at least one Seattle company. Buried at the end of Business Week's QR-code takedown, we find the following nugget:

But there is one important way in which the QR code differs from the gravestone technologies that came before it. Whereas all previous technologies required only the eyes and a basic sense of literacy, a QR code is not legible without a third-party device. It is worth noting, however, that they do have a key predecessor in the symbols, a kind of afterlife code, that members of fraternal organizations often placed on tombstones around the turn of the last century. These symbols -- an elk, two shepherds crooks crossing -- would have been easily recognizable at the time they were affixed on the headstones, but now they are as mysterious as the QR code will probably be to our descendents.

More From The Atlantic

Go here to see the original:

Finally, You Can Have a QR Code On Your Headstone

By: Roderick T. Long of Auburn | Letter to the editor Published: July 02, 2012 Updated: July 02, 2012 - 9:14 PM

In his letter on June 19, Edzard van Santen quotes the saying that one person's right to swing his fist ends where another person's nose begins.

Well and good; but what puzzles me is that he cites this saying as though it's meant to be a critique of libertarianism. On the contrary, that saying encapsulates the essence of libertarianism.

In the 19th century, Herbert Spencer stated the same principle less metaphorically:Each has freedom to do all that he wills provided that he infringes not the equal freedom of any other.And in the 20th century, Murray Rothbard explained it more fully:"No one may threaten or commit violence (aggress) against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a non-aggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory."

Van Santen also quotes the saying that no one is an island, again as though this conflicted with libertarianism.But libertarianism is the only political philosophy that actually takes seriously the idea that no one is an island.

Other ideologies assume, explicitly or implicitly, that human beings are inherently atomistic, with naturally conflictual interests, and so that society needs to have order imposed on it by top-down authority. Libertarians, by contrast, have traditionally rejected this atomistic vision of society, emphasizing that a human being is, in Emerson's words, "all made of hooks and eyes, and links himself naturally to his brothers."

It's precisely because we recognize that no one is an island that social order arises spontaneously and organically through voluntary, nonhierarchical relations among equals that we are libertarians in the first place.

More here:

We were libertarians in the first place