How long has Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden been in the political game? Long enough to have been at the center of a smear campaign during the Senate confirmation hearings of the longest-serving member of the current U.S. Supreme Court.

The 1991 showdown over Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas is mostly remembered today for the accusations of sexual misconduct leveled by Anita Hill. But the hearings actually kicked off with Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Joe Biden trying to discredit Thomas as a crazy libertarian and reckless judicial activist.

"I assure you I have read all of your speeches, and I have read them in their entirety," Biden told Thomas shortly after the nominee's opening statement. "And, in the speech you gave in 1987 to the Pacific Research Institute, you said, and I quote, 'I find attractive the arguments of scholars such as Stephen Macedo who defend an activist Supreme Court that would'not could, would'strike down laws restricting property rights.'"

"It has been quite some time since I have read Prof. Macedo," Thomas replied. "But I don't believe that in my writings I have indicated that we should have an activist Supreme Court."

Biden claimed that he didn't buy it. "Quite frankly, I find it hard to square your speeches," he told the nominee, "with what you are telling me today."

Thomas gave the speech in question at the Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco on August 10, 1987. It touched on a number of issues, including the views of Stephen Macedo, then an assistant professor in the government department at Harvard University and the author of The New Right v. the Constitution, a 1987 book published by the libertarian Cato Institute. The book made a case for "principled judicial activism."

Macedo's book was basically an extended critique of Robert Bork, the highly influential conservative legal thinker who championed a thoroughgoing doctrine of judicial deference. The "first principle" of the U.S. system, Bork insisted, was majority rule, not individual rights. What Bork's view meant in practice was that the federal courts should defer to lawmakers in most cases. "In wide areas of life," Bork argued, "majorities are entitled to rule, if they wish, simply because they are majorities."

Macedo advanced the opposite view. "When conservatives like Bork treat rights as islands surrounded by a sea of government powers," he countered, "they precisely reverse the view of the Founders as enshrined in the Constitution, wherein government powers are limited and specified and rendered as islands surrounded by a sea of individual rights."

Which brings us back to Thomas. Here is his 1987 Macedo quote in full:

I find attractive the arguments of scholars such as Stephen Macedo who defend an activist Supreme Court, which would strike down laws restricting property rights. But the libertarian argument overlooks the place of the Supreme Court in a scheme of separation of powers. One does not strengthen self-government and the rule of law by having the non-democratic branch of the government make policy. Hence, I strongly support the nomination of Bob Bork to the Supreme Court. Judge Bork is no extremist of any kind. If anything, he is an extreme moderate, one who believes in the modesty of the Court's powers, with respect to the democratically elected branches of government.

So yes, Thomas said he found Macedo's arguments "attractive." But then Thomas immediately faulted Macedo and endorsed Bork, the very figure that Macedo was trying to bring down. In other words, Biden ripped Thomas' words out of context to give them the opposite meaning of what Thomas actually said.

The whole episode reflects poorly on Biden.

Excerpt from:

When Joe Biden Tried To Paint Clarence Thomas as a Crazy Libertarian - Reason

The minute you see the boot at any political rally, you automatically know youre in the presence of a Vermin Supreme fan, or the man himself. The boot of course operates on a bunch of different levels, Supreme tells us, during our interview with the United States presidential candidate.

What else would you expect from the satirical artist who wants to give every American a pony? Starting in 1992, Vermin Supreme has run for president in every election cycle, with the intention of making the public more aware of how ridiculous the U.S. government can be.

Yet when 2020 came around, the tone of Supremes campaign transformed. Sure, the boot was still there, and he still toted his giant toothbrush but his campaign has taken a genuinely serious turn. Supreme ran a serious campaign for the Libertarian Party nomination in 2020 after being approached by the political organization.

My campaign manager Desire Lindsey reached out to me and asked me if I was interested in running a serious campaign. I had to really consider what that meant. Of course, it was a very different type of campaign, because I wasnt goofing; I wasnt spoofing. I still made jokes and could use my humor, but I was sort of in this other realm as another parallel character: you know, serious Vermin.

Just like serious Vermin, Vermin Supreme didnt arrive overnight. Vermins humble beginnings were as a booker/promoter for clubs in Baltimore, and since all of these promoters were vermin, he naturally wanted to be the vermin supreme.

But Supreme found himself getting burned out, looking for a fresh start. Coincidentally, the Great Peace March for Global Nuclear Disarmament was coming through Baltimore at the same time, and he found his new life at least for the time being.

I was inspired and started walking with them to DC. Met a bunch of anarchists, and decided that I wanted to be involved in this roving demonstration protest movement. Joining in on several other marches as well as teaming up with the collective Seeds for Peace, Supreme spent his time fighting alongside fellow anarchists in these protests.

Around the same time, Supreme also started attending Rainbow Gatherings. An anarchists dream, these events situated in nature claimed to offer freedom from capitalist society and focused on peace, mutual aid, and mutual respect. In this heady hippy atmosphere, Supreme found himself drawn to developing his clowning skills, as he puts it.

At that time, especially at the gatherings, because they allow you a whole amount of freedom, I spent the first several years honing my clowning skills, honing my audience/master of ceremonies skills at talent shows and things of that nature. Supremes time mastering these skills was put to the test when he later joined the Shanti Sena, a peacekeeping group designed to help de-escalate situations.

Specifically, Supreme spent time trying to smooth over tension with cops and walk with them during Rainbow Gatherings, helping destigmatize their relationship. Their purpose was trying to bring them over to a different way of seeing things they were propagandized about seeing. Using humor, Supreme helped try to build a better relationship with authorities.

While all of this was going on, Supreme found himself running for office, starting with the mayor of Baltimore in 1987. Of course, running for him meant just being funny, not any genuine political goal. As Supreme took his clowning skills to the outside world, using them at protests to help de-escalate and relax police and protestors alike, he would also campaign at such events.

The Rainbow Gatherings and political demonstrations were my first national audiences, as people come from all over. As Supremes desire grew further, he entered a New Hampshire U.S. Presidential party primary race; the state is known as being the earliest to hold its primary and therefore enjoys the loudest media buzz.

I was going up to New Hampshire, taking advantage of their first-in-the-nation primary status, and the vast, intense mediascape there. Interacting with the actual candidates, and using that as a vehicle to promote my message of absurdity, and me calling them on their stuff. There, the Vermin Supreme we know & love today was born.

Since 1992, Supreme has been on the ballot as part of New Hampshires primaries, running under different parties (just because candidates have to declare a party to run). He never truly was a Democrat running Democrat nor a Republican running Republican, but a man with his own views just wearing a varied hat each election cycle.

But come 2016, he found himself drawn to the Libertarian Party. When I ran as a Libertarian, even the first one I still wasnt totally there, but by 2016, I was a Libertarian running for the Libertarian nomination. Its part of the reason why he decided to run a more serious campaign in 2020, as he could use his views and the Libertarian Party to troll the duopoly of the American election system.

Even Supreme had to warm up to the Libertarian Party at first, as he felt his views and theirs would clash. As a left anarchist, mutual aid is a very important thing to me. But I was always a little bit leery of even bringing it up to my Libertarian friends because I was afraid they would corrupt the phrase and murder it.

The Libertarian Party as a party it acknowledges the state. If you look at the platform, its minimizing the military, minimizing this, and that. But the thing to understand is the Libertarian Party, number one, is a party comprised of anarchists and minarchists attempting to dismantle the state.

Thats just important for people to know. Its also important for people to know its not a right-leaning monolith. Thats one of the misunderstandings I had to 0vercome. It had its own interior right and left political spectrum.

As he opened up to the Libertarian Party, Supreme realized he finally landed with a party that, while not perfectly matching, did represent many of his ideals. So while his election in 2016 was still more for fun, it was the first time Supreme felt at home in the party he chose to run under. And when offered the chance to seriously run under the party, it was a no- brainer.

So, with such a long-standing political comedy career, how does one even begin to preserve the work done? Supreme has done his best to make his legacy known, as he started the non-profit Vermin Supreme Institute. We are putting out things where we recognize the good work that people are doing; were putting out little known history bits and trying to develop resources that offer mutual aid, information, and education.

Supreme also penned a book called I Pony: Blueprint for a New America, writing as a time-traveller from a Vermin Supreme-run America and why he needs to be stopped! But its not just Supreme trying to preserve his legacy.

Supreme told us about the strange way he got involved in the making of the documentary Who is Vermin Supreme?. I noticed someone following me and filming me, and it was Steve . He asked me if I was interested in participating in a documentary.

I agreed, just because I thought it would be a great way to get a bunch of my friends to say nice things about me and be able to see it before I die, Supreme joked. But Ondericks documentary is arguably the most intimate about Supreme, as not only does it dive deep into his campaigns, but also his childhood growing up in Rockport, Maine, and his time in Baltimore before joining anarchist movements.

I guess I was feeling old enough back in 2012 to be concerned about my legacy, Supreme noted. But Who is Vermin Supreme? is far from the only documentary to capitalize on his legacy. This is Vermin Supreme by political satire artist Rod Webber is another addition to the filmmakers extensive catalog of political documentaries.

When Webber ran as Flower Man in 2016, he was in the same circles as Supreme. So as Webber was filming a documentary about his campaign, a lot of the footage happened to feature our favorite boot-wearing candidate as well. That gave Webber a brilliant idea: This is Vermin Supreme.

Supreme explained. When was making his own documentary movie, he realized that he had a folder full of Vermin Supreme. Maybe not enough for a documentary he thought, but he started looking around, and started pulling stuff from the internet, and did interviews and things like that. He came up with enough for a very entertaining documentary.

In addition to the collection of documentaries about him, Supreme also helped write and starred in Vote Jesus: The Chronicles of Ken Stevenson. Initially a documentary about Supreme, Chronicles turned into a mockumentary about a more conservative character than Supreme named Ken Stevenson.

Interviewing leading figures in the Republican party, the film has yet to see the light of day, but Supreme promises it will eventually be released to the public. For now, check out the clips on director Vic Davids YouTube page to see a much more clean-cut Vermin Supreme, as well as the scathing review of the film from Film Threat magazine that Supreme reminisced about fondly during our interview.

What message does Supreme want to broadcast? You are the power; you can make a difference. It is not the government that has been getting us through these crises. It is compassion. It is love. It is volunteerism. It is mutual aid. It is people helping people. We can make a difference, and if were lucky well be able to overcome all these incredible obstacles that we have presented to us as a species.

The legacy of Supreme is very well documented, and even when Supreme decides to finally retire and step down from politics, people wont forget about him. Sure, he may be best known for his boot, bullhorn, and giant toothbrush, but its the messages behind those that will outlast the iconic objects themselves.

See the rest here:

The legacy of Vermin Supreme is anything but normal Film Daily - Film Daily

By Guy Daugherty

On the 100th anniversary of the womens suffrage movement, the Maricopa County Libertarian Party will lea a protest against presidential exclusion exclusion.

The event is scheduled 9 a.m. Saturday, Aug. 8 at the Youngtown Shopping Center, 11863 N. 111th Ave., Youngtown. Party members will lead a group of local community members in a COVID-safe demonstration, driving convoy style along main roads through Youngtown, El Mirage, Surprise, Sun City Grand, Sun City West and Sun City. They will be decorating their cars parade-style and will go live together on their social media channels.

This is a coordinated effort across the nation with hundreds of confirmed events and thousands of participants to protest the Commission on Presidential Debates decision to exclude all other parties who are listed on the presidential ballot from planned debates.

One hundred years ago, women led by the Women Voters Coalition were taking to the streets to protest the government to recognize their rights as sovereign citizens, and their right to be heard in elections. The WVC also created the first presidential debates to give American voters a greater understanding of all their presidential candidates. In 1987, the Commission on Presidential Debates was formed to take over sponsorship of the debate.

The CPD created polling restrictions to not allow third parties in the debate by selecting random polls to determine who is polling above 15%. However, most of these polls do not mention a third party candidate.

Libertarians and their supporters want polling restrictions changed to quantifiable results that cannot be manipulated by the CPD. Any political party listed as an option on American ballots should be allowed to debate so that Americans can determine the best candidate for their informed vote, according to Libertarian Party officials.

Editors Note: Mr. Daugherty is a Libertarian Party member and host for the Aug. 8 convoy event.

Originally posted here:

Group to 'convoy' through Sun City, other area communities - Your Valley

BERLIN Thousands marched in Berlin on Saturday to protest against measures imposed in Germany to stem the coronavirus pandemic, saying they violated people's rights and freedoms.

The gathering, estimated by police at 17,000, included libertarians, constitutional loyalists and anti-vaccination activists. There was also a small far-right presence with some marchers carrying Germany's black, white and red imperial flag.

Protesters danced and sang "We are free people!" to the tune of rock band Queen's "We Will Rock You". Others marched with placards saying "We are making a noise because you are stealing our freedom!" and "Do think! Don't wear a mask!".

"Our demand is to return to democracy," said one protester who declined to give his name. "The mask that enslaves us must go."

The protests followed a rallying call from Michael Ballweg, an entrepreneur and political outsider who has organised similar rallies in Stuttgart and is running to become mayor of the southwestern city.

Police filed a complaint against the organiser for failing to ensure marchers wore masks and kept their distance. Mainstream politicians criticised the protesters, with Social Democrat co-leader Saskia Esken calling them "covidiots".

"They not only endanger our health, they endanger our successes against the pandemic," tweeted Esken, whose party is Chancellor Angela Merkel's coalition partner.

After Germany's initial success in curbing the pandemic, infections are rising again. More than 200,000 people have caught COVID-19 and more than 9,000 have died from it.

Most people in Germany have respected measures that include wearing face masks in shops, while the government has just imposed mandatory tests for holidaymakers returning from high-risk areas.

But a vocal minority is chafing against the restrictions.

"Only a few scientists around the world who follow the government's lead are heard," said protester Peter Konz. Those who hold different views "are silenced, censored or discredited as defenders of conspiracy theories".

(Reporting by Reuters TV, Writing by Douglas Busvine; Editing by Giles Elgood)

View post:

Thousands March in Berlin to Protest Coronavirus Curbs - The New York Times

The high schoolers on your street who load up on Mountain Dew and play D&D (Dungeons & Dragons) all night may know more about the political spectrum than their parents.

Gary Gygax and David Armisen created D&D in 1974, the same year Richard Nixon resigned from office. It was a timelike nowwhen questions about the uses and abuses of legal and political power cast shadows over everyday conversations. In a stroke of genius, about which we know very little, Gygax and Armisen organized their fantasy world according to alignments: good, neutral, and evil, respectively. Each alignment was sub-divided further into another three sections: lawful, neutral, and chaotic. Any character (created and impersonated by a human player), and any non-player character (handled by the Dungeon Master or DM), had a designated alignment. This helped the DM and the players figure out how their characters would behave, how theyd interpret the events in each adventure, and how theyd react to each other.

Good and evil are as nebulous in the world of D&D as they are in the real world. In theory, certain characters are always good (soft-spoken healers), others predictably evil (undead sorcerers bent on world domination); in practice, the players usually perceive themselves as good, unless theyre weird. They also tend to believe that anything they want to stab is evil. Neutral, a bizarre category that borrowed heavily from J. R. R. Tolkiens charmingly indifferent minor characters, continues to baffle players ages 11+ to this day. All we can say for sure is that it has something to do with caring more about nature than people. D&D came out just two years after Arne Naess and George Sessions coined the term deep ecology. Apparently, Gygax and Armisen were listening. (That said, its too bad that Naess and Sessions didnt invent a role-playing game of their own, set on a planet imperiled by climate change and industrial pollution.)

Lets table good and evil, for the time being, and replace them with right and left. Im sure those strike you as slippery categories. Sometimes they get cleared up by the stands people take on individual issues, like abortion rights. Other times, theres a historical precedent: calling Communism leftism, for example, or assigning libertarianism to the Right. Youve probably heard someone say that the Left and Right meet at the extremes, which sounds counterintuitive and profound, but actually just muddies the waters. Former leftists sometimes veer to the right. Thats what happened to Benito Mussolini, William Wordsworth, and many former Communists in America. By the same token, I can give you countless examples of religious conversions. But the fact that a Lutheran in Minnesota has recently become Muslim doesnt mean Christianity and Islam meet at the extremes. People are fickle. Nonetheless our idea of a political Left and a political Right endure.

Contra Crispin Sartwell, who writes (both here and elsewhere) about this issue quite frequently, I have no trouble defining these opposing sides. People on the left are, as we say, progressives. They believe in the unfinished project of making society better in unprecedented ways. Their opponents on the right are conservative; they uphold the claims of tradition and existing social structures. Neither side is inherently more committed to individual rights. Conservatives believe in all the individual rights they perceive as vital within the traditions they cherish most. Progressives tend to want to extend individual rights, but not at the expense of the common good. For example, theyll happily defend the Endangered Species Act against challenges from individual property-holders, because they believe environmental protections promote the general welfare.

These are not vague distinctions, or prone to sudden eclipses, once you separate each concept from its shifting constituency. They are, instead, fundamental questions of political emphasis. Everyone believes somewhat in tradition, and somewhat in tinkering with the status quo, but individuals path-commit to one or the other in ways that snowball into lasting affiliations. How do we make sense of the way people on both sides of the spectrum disagree amongst themselves? Is everyone on the Right bound to support Donald Trump? Is everyone on the Left secretly hoping the nanny state will intervene and solve all their problems? This is where politics needs to borrow from D&D.

Lets say your alignment is Lawful Conservative. That means you believe in the rule of law pretty unconditionally. You may believe in the democratic process, and the right of a people to change the laws that govern thembut that doesnt mean you support tossing laws aside when they become inconvenient. Youre a consistent voter. You support laws that defend traditional institutionslike tax exemptions for religious organizationsand oppose laws you perceive as disruptive to the normal functioning of society. The American evangelical movement is lawful and conservative. So are Wall Street and most police officers. J. R. R. Tolkien is extremely biased in favor of legal precedents and comfortable observances; youll notice, in his novels, that every rebellious act of good is based on restoring lost traditions, reinstating monarchs, and upholding the placid, cyclical existence of the Hobbits. It isnt bizarre to range fascism among right-wing movements, either; fascists are nationalistic (conservative), nostalgic (conservative), and pro-industry (which, at this point, is conservative too). The Nazi state didnt cause trouble for loyal German families who believed in Jesus Christ. On the contrary: it did everything possible to empower their success.

The biggest difference between a lawful conservative and a lawful progressive is the way they talk and vote. Their actual lifestyles tend to converge, which is why interns from both parties love to hang out together in Washington bars. Extreme political thinkers, who want to overthrow the government, are still either right-wing or left-wing: theyre either trying something altogether new, or theyre trying to restore a tarnished Golden Age. Though a few decaying remnants of pastoral fictionsparticularly natural law and natural rightsstill carry some weight with the Left, most thoughtful leftists reject the notion of a pre-existing Golden Age. Most progressives with a college education can tell you that Jefferson owned slaves, and that the Greeks oppressed their women, and may well continue talking in this vein for a long time if you make the mistake of buying them a drink.

The sunset gleam of the pastoral is particularly discernible in the fantasies of anarchists, our apostles of chaotic leftism. Anarchists arent libertarians; they arent close to libertarians, although the two ideologies sometimes become bedfellows. Anarchists believe in voluntary associations among people: cooperative businesses, direct local democracy, and protecting individual rights through a moral consensus. This is pretty much a distant horizon, in terms of whats even been tried among human beings. Anarchists dont mind that; they rightfully consider themselves idealistic. Libertarians, on the other hand, are chaos-loving conservatives who simply dont trust the law. Theyd rather allow people to do all kinds of damn foolishness than try to restrain them. Libertarians dont think about corporate power often, although they deplore most legislation that increases it; to anarchists, meanwhile, corporations and governments are part of one interdependent, oppressive system of hierarchies. At its base, this speaks to a fundamental difference between two incompatible political visions: doing away with corporate hierarchies, in the name of progress, or assigning them a placeas limited, private institutionswithin a natural and timeless order.

Neutrality, on the Right and Left, is harder to pin down but no less important. Here are two very different misdemeanors: smoking marijuana, and driving faster than the speed limit. Intuitively, you probably see the first as vaguely progressive, the second as conservative. Thats truebut why? Because of the way people justify their acts. Marijuana, thanks to the Beats and the hippies and the Rastafarians, has a certain reformist cachet. It will expand your mind. Its an experiment. Its a spiritual practice. Its an analgesic, relieves anxiety, and could be used to treat other disorders as wellif the government would just stop making it so illegal. The marijuana lobby is basically neutral in disposition: legalize it if you can, hide it if you cant. Theyll take the laws cooperation, when they can get it, but they wont take the systems no for an answer. Either way, their ideological justifications are usually based on claims that pot makes people, and society, somehow better off. Thats progressive.

Speeding, on the other hand, isnt a religious experience, except in certain novels by J. G. Ballard and Jack Kerouac. Its personally motivated and privately justified: why is this road 30 mph? I want to drive it faster. We think to ourselves, I know how fast you can go on this roadknow it better than the bureaucrats in the government. Is that libertarian thinking? Almost. But then the person behind you, in the vintage convertible, comes alongside to pass. On a double-laned road. When you were already going as fast as anyone should go. I hope they get nabbed, you mutter. So much for libertarianism, eh? Taking a neutral stance towards the law implies that the ends always justify the means. Protest, if you can get the police to listen; riot, if you cant. Lobby for loopholes in your taxes and emissions; meanwhile, dump what you mustright into the river. In the long run, playing the law for a sucker isnt really politics at all; as Immanual Kant first argued, its a small (but significant) tearing of the social contract. But its also something we all do, in bigger or smaller ways, from time to timeand such sabotage becomes a sunk cost for any institution we depend on.

Incidentally, if you want to see the conservative version of this, watch the Fast and the Furious movies. Every film is another assembly line for convenient, nostalgic, made-to-fit neutrality, usually in the name of family. A cop goes undercover to bust an illegal drag racing ring. Then the cop becomes an illegal drag racer. Then he and his buddies protect their families against gangsters. Which means joining forces with the cops. Until theyre forced to go rogue. But not really. The reversals get dizzying, and its a goofy undertaking from the first five minutes on, but the series acrobatic, blas agnosticism towards the law ought to win some kind of prize: an award for cognitive dissonance turned all the way to 11.

As noted at the beginning, the kids who play D&D learn this stuff by heart. They know all about the chaotic goblin who resents his chieftain, and the lawful sheriff who takes our heroes into custody because the king hadnt signed off on their escapade. (He also thanks them, surreptitiously, for saving the townsfolk.) They know about the neutral druids who currently baffle Winterfrosts poachers and its licensed hunters, and wouldnt let a poor woodsman take one small wyvern home to eat. But something happens to these prodigies of political understanding. They put away childish things and unlearn the truth about alignments. They start insisting that all left-wing scholars are authoritarians at heart, or claiming that Republicans are corrupt by nature. They accuse libertarians of anarchism, anarchists of Communism, and socialism... well, they accuse socialism of making them wear a mask when they go outside. The political spectrum is more like a circle, really, they declare. Thats why Im an Independent. And the clarity we were granted, thanks to a lucky, lucid moment on the part of Gygax and Armisen, goes back on the shelf. Maybe those handbooks are still there, waiting to be recognized for unriddling our politics vis--vis the lawalongside the experiments that made us a better nation, and the traditions we try to keep from wobbling; things which, taken together, comprise our rightful vocation as Americans.

Read the rest here:

Reign of the Nerds - Splice Today

A telephone prayer lineis hosted Monday-Friday at 12:15 p.m. by Dothan Tabernacle Church of God in Christ in Dothan and Living Waters Church of God in Christ in Hartford. The public is invited to join the prayer line. Call 712-451-0464 and punch in the code 568383#. Participants should mute phones after successfully connecting.

The Disabled American Veterans Auxiliary Dothan Unit #87 will meet every third Thursday. Due to COVID-19, the location has been changed to Harvest Church at 2727 Fortner St. in Dothan. The group will follow guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, adhering to a 6-foot distance between participants and wearing masks. Call or text 334-596-9610 for more information.

Girl Scouts of Southern Alabama (GSSA) has partnered with the Alabama State Parks and Alabama Historical Commission for Every Girl In a Park, going on now through Oct. 31. All 21 Alabama State Parks and 14 Alabama Historic Sites are offering free admission for Girl Scouts and one accompanying adult, as long as they are wearing the Every Girl In a Park T-shirt. Alabama State Parks is also offering a 10% discount for campground rental or room rate at one of the lodges (discount does not apply to Gulf State Park). Discounts will be available now until Oct. 31 excluding Labor Day. For more information, visit http://www.girlscoutssa.org/everygirlinapark.

The Alfred Saliba Family Service Centers HIPPY Program, a free Kindergarten Readiness Program, is available in Barbour, Coffee, Dale, Geneva, Henry and Houston counties. HIPPY is Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters. A 30-week, age-appropriate curriculum designed for 2-, 3-, 4- and 5-year-olds. Parents and children work just 10-15 minutes per day to close the academic gap by improving literacy, language, math, science, and physical and motor skills. Parents may enroll by phone, in-person or via Facebook. The program is funded by the Alabama Department of Early Childhood Education, Childrens Trust Fund of Alabama, and Wiregrass Foundation.

See more here:

Around the Wiregrass - Dothan Eagle

On Wednesday, U.S. Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., and chairman of the House Judiciary Committees antitrust subcommittee, opened a half-virtual hearing on Online Platforms and Market Power with a combative opening statement: Our founders would not bow before a king. Nor should we bow before the emperors of the online economy.

That set the tone for the hours of sharp questioning of four of the wealthiest people on the planet: Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Tim Cook of Apple, Sundar Pichai of Google and Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, whose companies have a combined market value roughly equivalent to the GDP of Japan.

Given the history of Silicon Valleys relationship with Washington, the intensity and precision of some subcommittee members questions were remarkable. It is a sign that significant tech regulation may be closer than we think.

Despite its techno-libertarian image, the tech industry has had close political ties for decades and remarkable success in getting what it wants.

In the late 1970s, venture capitalists and semiconductor chief executives got Capitol Hill and the Carter White House to agree to tax cuts and looser financial regulations. In the 1980s, a group of young legislators became such boosters of the industry that they were known as Atari Democrats. Ronald Reagan extolled Silicon Valley entrepreneurship and helped tech companies fend off Japanese competition.

The bipartisan love affair intensified in the 1990s as Bill Clinton and Al Gore invited tech executives to shape early internet-era policymaking. Newt Gingrich, then the Republican speaker of the House, talked up cyberspace and formed close alliances with libertarian-minded tech thinkers. His partys leaders convened high-tech summits on Capitol Hill.

The lightly regulated online economy we have today is a product of that decade, when Silicon Valley leaders persuaded starry-eyed lawmakers that young, scrappy internet companies could regulate themselves.

Washingtons embrace of tech continued even as questions emerged about the industrys wealth and power. A 2013 Senate hearing to interrogate Cook about Apples tax avoidance quickly was sidetracked by lawmakers gushing to the chief executive about his companys innovative products. Pichai faced tough questions at a 2018 House Judiciary hearing, but also was showered with praise.

Google is still the story of the American dream, declared Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte of Virginia, the committees chairman at the time.

Those days seemed a dim memory Wednesday. Instead, the mood recalled the traffic safety debates of the mid-1960s that helped catalyze significantly more regulation for the auto industry. After a steady drumbeat of studies and some short-lived congressional inquiries, traffic safety exploded into the public consciousness starting with Senate hearings in the summer of 1965, where top auto executives faced sharp questions about their lax approach to safety.

The evening network news programs showed Robert F. Kennedy, a newly elected senator from New York, grilling the leaders of General Motors about the tiny amount the company spent on safety research. Later that year a young lawyer advising the Senate committee, Ralph Nader, published a blockbuster expos of the industry, Unsafe at Any Speed.

This combination of political and media scrutiny led to passage of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, which mandated seatbelts and additional car safety features, as well as road improvements like guardrails and traffic barriers.

Wednesday felt like Big Techs Ralph Nader moment: the pointed questioning by committee members, notably its Democratic women like Reps. Val Demings of Florida, Pramila Jayapal of Washington, Lucy McBath of Georgia and Mary Gay Scanlon of Pennsylvania; the crescendo of investigative journalism that, in part, led to this weeks hearing by shining a critical light on Big Techs practices. And now, this House subcommittee is merely one of several legislative or regulatory bodies considering limits on Big Techs power.

There are of course many reasons tech regulation may not come to pass. The issues at stake are wickedly complex, and quite different for each of these companies, something chief executives sought to underscore in the hearing.

It appears to me, Bezos observed, that social media is a nuance-destruction machine, and I dont think thats helpful for a democracy. (Zuckerbergs reaction to that statement sadly was not visible to the audience.)

Large tech companies also have prepared for the regulatory onslaught by starting some of the most well-funded lobbying operations in Washington. They learned a lesson from Microsoft, whose presence in the capital before its antitrust case in 1998 consisted of one employee who worked out of the back of his car because he lacked proper office space.

Although the trial didnt end with Microsoft being ordered to break itself apart, it taught the company that government regulators needed to be taken seriously. And as a result Microsoft tamped down its most aggressive market practices, and escaped much of the yearslong policy scrutiny now facing its peers.

Then there is the sticky problem of public opinion. During other seminal moments carmakers in the 1960s, tobacco in the 1990s the problems posed by unregulated bigness were clear-cut. Cigarettes killed people. Cars were unsafe.

Techs consumer dangers are harder to see and acutely feel on an average day: misinformation, an incomplete search result, a unfairly promoted link, privacy erosion, a skewed algorithm. We may wish we used our smartphones less, or worry about what overuse of social media is doing to our communities and brains.

But we still routinely check our Facebook pages, buy apps via Apple, and click buy on Amazon Prime. Even if, as some representatives noted, we do so because we have little alternative.

What happens next will depend on many things, including the November election. But this week marks the end of Washingtons great love affair with tech, one that helped make these companies bigness possible in the first place.

Margaret OMara is a contributing opinion writer for the New York Times and a history professor at the University of Washington in Seattle. She is the author of three books, most recently The Code: Silicon Valley and the Remaking of America, and has published widely on the history of the high-tech economy.

More here:

OPINION EXCHANGE | The last days of the tech emperors? - Minneapolis Star Tribune

BY LAURA BURROWSLos Alamos Libertarian Party

On August 8 at 10:30 a.m., protesters are gathering in the first nationwide #LetHerSpeak driving protest in counties all across the nation. The Los Alamos Libertarian Party will lead a group of local community members in a COVID-safe demonstration, driving convoy style down Trinity Drive, and Diamond and Central (see google maps specific route plan). They will be decorating their cars parade-style and will go live together on their social media channels.

This is a coordinated effort across the nation to protest the Commission on Presidential Debates continued decision to silence the Libertarian Nominee for the United States President, Dr. Jo Jorgensen, and all third parties are who are listed on the presidential ballot.

One hundred years ago this year, women were taking to the streets to protest the government to recognize their rights as sovereign citizens, and their right to be heard in elections, led by the Women Voters Coalition. The WVC also created the first presidential debates to give American voters a greater understanding of all their presidential candidates. In 1987, the Commission on Presidential Debates was formed to take over sponsorship of the debate and boxed the WVC out.

The CPD created polling restrictions to not allow third-parties in the debate by selecting random polls to determine who is polling above 15%. The catch? Most of these polls do not even mention a 3rd party candidate. In 2012, the minimum to participate was 10%, but when Gary Johnson got 12%, the CPD raised the polling requirement to 15%. Voters are being left in the dark with systemic voter manipulation.

We demand polling restrictions are changed to quantifiable results that cannot be manipulated by the CPD. Third parties who are listed as options on American ballots shall be allowed to debate so that Americans can properly compare their choices.

Its been 100 years since the 19th amendment was passed, and Dr. Jo Jorgensen, the only female candidate (who is highly qualified), is still being silenced by the CPD. Dr. Jo Jorgensen has her Ph.D. in Organizational Psychology, is a Senior Lecturer at Clemson University, is an accomplished entrepreneur, and has a pristine record. The Libertarian Party is one of the only parties in the U.S. that has secured ballot access for presidential candidates in all 50 states. She is an educated and articulate woman with fresh ideas, and with as divided as the American public is, she deserves to be heard.

Government is too big, too bossy, too nosy, and, worst of all, often hurts the very people it intends to help. The government doesnt work; liberty and freedom do Dr. Jo Jorgensen

We invite all local press to participate in this grassroots event and meet us at the Ashley Pond Parking Lot on 20th Street and Trinity Drive on August 8 at 9:45 a.m. for a short rally before the convoy begins and go live with this historic event!

All participants will be wearing masks and be staying with their cars.

Like Loading...

Related

See more here:

Voters Across The Nation Unite To #LetHerSpeak! - Los Alamos Reporter

(Adapted from The Libertarian Legacy of the Old Right: Democracy and Representative Government, Journal of Libertarian Studies23 (2019): 521.)

Albert Jay Nock (18701945) and Henry L. Mencken (18801956) were the two leading libertarian intellectuals of the Old Right,during the thirties of the twentieth century. Both defended laissez-faire but opposed the New Deal, any connections between big government and big business, the First World Warand the American policy of imperialism. They were also very polemical against various movements for cultural and moral elevation of the people, such as Prohibition and the battle for public education.

With Myth of a Guilty Nation, published in 1922, Nock influenced an entire generation of classical liberals, opposing Wilsonian internationalism and arguing for anti-militarism.From 1920 to 1924 he was editor of the weekly journal The Freeman. His writings are mostly elitist, based as they are on the fundamental role of the individual capable of elevating himself over the mass of the people. His thought is anchored in a strong individualism, explicitly critical of any forms of statism. Nock has a disenchanted approach to democracy, mainly based on the idea that the lowering of the level of culture and education is related to the democratic ideology. Enlarging the suffrage would not do any better and its only result would be the destruction of the highest ranks of culture. The policy, decided on by the government, of universal education is based on the theory that everyone is equally educable and that education has to be extended to the largest possible group. But, for Nock, this does not make sense, since we are not all equals in attitudes and capacities. The only true kind of equality is the equality of liberty and before the law. But the education system is based on a perversion of the idea of equality and on democracy. First of all, Nock clarifies, the Founding Fathers chose the republican system as the best way to secure the free expression of the individual in politics. A republic where everybody votes is considered ipso facto a democracy, but considering republican and democratic as synonymous is simply a confusion of terms. Actually, strictly speaking, democracy is simply a matter of counting the ballots, but it became an ideology. RepublicanismNock writesdoes notof itself even imply democracy.Democracy is not a matter of an extension of the suffrage.It is a matter of the diffusion of ownership; a true doctrine of democracy is a doctrine of public property. And this because we are aware that it is not, never was and never will be, those who vote that rule, but those who own. So democracy, being an economic status, is animated by a strong resentment toward the lite, the socially, economically and intellectually superior persons. The democratic ideology rejects the simple reality that some achievements and experiences are open only to some people and not to all. Democracy postulates that everybody has to enjoy the same things.

The whole institutional life organized under the popular idea of democracy, then, must reflect this resentment. It must aim at no ideals above those of the average man, that is to say, it must regulate itself by the lowest common denominator of intelligence, taste and character in the society which it represents.

In a democratic system, therefore, education would be common property and so what is not manageable by everybody must be disregarded. This leads to a low and poor level of education and to the destruction of the higher ranks of culture, art, taste and life itself. Moreover, Nocks theory of the state, as an enemy institution, founded on exploitation and robbery, sheds further light on his ideas about democracy. The doctrine of popular sovereignty was a structural alteration to the state, necessary to make people believe that the state was literally the expression of the popular will. Democratic representation has been an expedient in order to submit the subjects to a state they believed was legitimate. The most important expedient

was that of bringing in the so called representative or parliamentary system, which Puritanism introduced into the modern world, and which has received a great deal of praise as an advance towards democracy. This praise, however, is exaggerated. The change was one of form only, and its bearing on democracy has been inconsiderable.

Henry Louis Mencken was a leading protagonist of the American Old Right. In the weekly journal American Mercury, he and his colleagues bitterly criticized moral crusaders and the entire Wilsonian politics that considered the United States as the guardian of the world. Although he was a literary figure and did not elaborate a systematic system of political thought, he can rightly be considered a libertarian. Both Murray N. Rothbard and (Justin) Raimondo are convinced that there are many good reasons to place Mencken in the libertarian tradition. Rothbard defined him as the joyous libertarian for his witty and satirical prose.Mencken was, in Rothbards words, a serene and confident individualist, dedicated to competence and excellence and deeply devoted to liberty, but convinced that the bulk of his fellows were beyond repair. Mencken had a great influence on the Old Right during the twenties, rejecting the idea of a world war for peace and democracy,and defending laissez-faire in economics and in private life. His liberating force and his writings were not for the masses, but for the intelligent few who could understand and appreciate his message. Mencken believed that

government, in its essence, is a conspiracy against the superior man; its one permanent object is to oppress him and cripple him.One of its primary functions is to regiment men by force, to make them as much alike as possible, to search out and combat originality among them. The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regards to the prevailing superstitions and taboos.

The government is a separate, independent and often hostile power. Mencken perceived the deep sense of antagonism between the government and the people it governs. It isa separate and autonomous corporation mainly devoted to exploiting the population for the benefits of their own members, oppressing the taxpayers to their own gain. The best kind of government, he writes, is one which lets the individual alone, one which barely escapes being no government at all.

Menckens individualist perspective gives great consistency to his views on many topics, among the most important of which is democracy. Notes on Democracy, published in 1926, contains one of the most scathing critiques of the idea that the great masses of the people have an inalienable right to govern themselves and that they are competent to do it. A government is considered a good one if it can satisfy quickly the desires and ideas of the masses, that is to say of the inferior men. A good and democratic government is based on the idea of the omnipotence and omniscience of the masses. But, Mencken states, that there is actually no more evidence for the wisdom of the inferior man, nor for his virtue, than there is for the notion that Friday is an unlucky day.Mencken begins his analysis of democracy examining the psychology of the democratic man and clarifying that in an aristocratic society government is a function of those who have got relatively far up the poles.In a democratic society it is the function of all, and hence mainly of those who have got only a few spans from the ground.The democratic man contemplates with bitterness and admiration those who are above him. Bitterness and admiration form a complex of prejudices that, in a democracy, is called public opinion, which, under democracy, is regarded as something sacred. But, asks Mencken:

What does the mob think? It thinks, obviously, what its individual members think. And what is that? It is, in brief, what somewhat sharp-nosed and unpleasant children think. The mob, being composed, in the overwhelming main, of men and women who have not got beyond the ideas and emotions of childhood, hovers, in mental age, around the time of puberty, and chiefly below it. If we would get at its thoughts and feelings we must look for light to the thoughts and feelings of adolescents.

The main sentiment of humanity is fear and the main sentiment of the democratic man is envy. The democratic man hates the fellow who is having a better time in this world (Mencken 1926, 45), this is why, according to Mencken, envy is the origin of democracy. Politicians are well aware of the psychology of the masses, and those who know how to use the fears of the mob are the most successful. Politics under democracy consists almost wholly of the discovery, chase and scotching of bugaboos. The statesman becomes, in the last analysis, a mere witch-hunter; in fact the plain people, under democracy, never vote for anything, but always against something. Actually politics are not determined by the will of the people, but by small groups with special interests able to use the fears and to excite the envy of the masses. Public policies are determined and laws are made by small minorities playing upon the fears and imbecilities of the mob. Those who succeed in the realm of politics are not the best and most intelligent men, but are the ablest and cunning demagogues. Anticipating Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Mencken states that except for a miracle it would be very difficult for a man of value to be elected to office in a democratic state. The problem is that people believe that the cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy or something closer to direct democracy. The great masses of men, though free in theory, submit to oppression and exploitation. In fact, according to Mencken, the popular will remains purely theoretical in every form of democracy. Moreover, there is no reason for believing that its realization would change the main outlines of the democratic process, considering the low level of intelligence and knowledge of the mob.

Mencken examines the relationship between democracy and liberty and notes that the democratic man does not fight to gain more liberty but for more security and protection. The fact, he writes, is that liberty, in any true sense, is a concept that lies quite beyond the reach of the inferior mans mind.Liberty means self-reliance, it means resolution, it means enterprise, it means the capacity for doing without. But these are not the characteristics of the democratic masses. Actually, the masses longing for material goods can only be satisfied at the expense of liberty and property rights. It cannot be denied that freedom is an indispensable condition for the development of the personality of the individual, but if we look at the propensities of the masses we discover that frequently they prefer to sacrifice freedom in order to enjoy material or psychological advantages. The average man wants to feel protected even from himself. Writes Mencken:

The truth is that the commons man love of libertyis almost wholly imaginary.He is not actually happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed.He longs for the warm, reassuring smell of the herd, and is willing to take the herdsman with it. Liberty is not a thing for such as he.The average man doesnt want to be free. He simply wants to be safe.What the common man longs foris the simplest and most ignominious sort of peacethe peace of a trusty in a well-managed penitentiary. He is willing to sacrifice everything else to it. He puts it above his dignity and he puts it above his pride. Above all, he puts it above his liberty.

The average man tends to consider liberty as a weapon used against him in the hands of superior men but, recalling Edmund Burke, Mencken writes that

the heritage of freedom belongs to a small minority of men.It is my contention that such a heritage is necessary in order that the concept of libertymay be so much as graspedthat such ideas cannot be implanted in the mind of man at will, but must be bred in as all other ideas are bred in.It takes quite as long to breed a libertarian as it takes to breed a racehorse.

If one of the main purposes of civilized governments is to preserve and augment liberty of the individual, then surely democracy accomplishes it less efficiently than any other form of government, since the aim of democracy is to break all free spirits. Mencken describes the tyrannical consequences of the cultural levelling tendencies of democracy. Like Alexis de Tocqueville he realizes that the pressure of a mass society of men all alike and equal leads to ostracism of those superior individuals merely thinking unpopular thoughts. Once a man is accused of such heresy, the subsequent proceedings take on the character of a lynching. The democratic, egalitarian society is pledged to common cultural values resulting in a rigorous homogeneity of way of thinking and of life. So a man who stands in contempt of the prevailing ideology has no rights under the law. By the mid-thirties the influence of Nock and Mencken had begun to decline. The Old Right, after playing an important role opposing the New Deal and in the crucible of the First World War, almost disappeared. During the years of World War II, government banned any opposition to war, Roosevelt and the New Deal. The Old Right went underground for the duration of the war and when America emerged from the war a new generation of old style libertarians appeared. They believed in laissez-faire and nonintervention in foreign policy.

Continue reading here:

Nock and Mencken on Democracy and Equality - The Shepherd of the Hills Gazette

Classical liberalism rests on a presumption of libertythat is, on the presumption that the exercise of liberty does not require justification but that all restraints on liberty do. Libertarians have attempted to define the proper extent of individual liberty in terms of the notion of property in ones person, or self-ownership, which entails that each individual is entitled to exclusive control of his choices, his actions, and his body. Because no individual has the right to control the peaceful activities of other self-owning individualse.g., their religious practices, their occupations, or their pastimesno such power can be properly delegated to government. Legitimate governments are therefore severely limited in their authority.

According to the principle that libertarians call the nonaggression axiom, all acts of aggression against the rights of otherswhether committed by individuals or by governmentsare unjust. Indeed, libertarians believe that the primary purpose of government is to protect citizens from the illegitimate use of force. Accordingly, governments may not use force against their own citizens unless doing so is necessary to prevent the illegitimate use of force by one individual or group against another. This prohibition entails that governments may not engage in censorship, military conscription, price controls, confiscation of property, or any other type of intervention that curtails the voluntary and peaceful exercise of an individuals rights.

A fundamental characteristic of libertarian thinking is a deep skepticism of government power. Libertarianism and liberalism both arose in the West, where the division of power between spiritual and temporal rulers had been greater than in most other parts of the world. In the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), I Samuel 8: 1718, the Jews asked for a king, and God warned them that such a king would take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves; but the Lord will not answer you in that day. This admonition reminded Europeans for centuries of the predatory nature of states. The passage was cited by many liberals, including Thomas Paine and Lord Acton, who famously wrote that power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Libertarian skepticism was reinforced by events of the 20th century, when unrestrained government power, among other factors, led to world war, genocide, and massive human rights violations.

Libertarians embrace individualism insofar as they attach supreme value to the rights and freedoms of individuals. Although various theories regarding the origin and justification of individual rights have been proposede.g., that they are given to human beings by God, that they are implied by the very idea of a moral law, and that respecting them produces better consequencesall libertarians agree that individual rights are imprescriptiblei.e., that they are not granted (and thus cannot be legitimately taken away) by governments or by any other human agency. Another aspect of the individualism of libertarians is their belief that the individual, rather than the group or the state, is the basic unit in terms of which a legal order should be understood.

Libertarians hold that some forms of order in society arise naturally and spontaneously from the actions of thousands or millions of individuals. The notion of spontaneous order may seem counterintuitive: it is natural to assume that order exists only because it has been designed by someone (indeed, in the philosophy of religion, the apparent order of the natural universe was traditionally considered proof of the existence of an intelligent designeri.e., God). Libertarians, however, maintain that the most important aspects of human societysuch as language, law, customs, money, and marketsdevelop by themselves, without conscious direction.

An appreciation for spontaneous order can be found in the writings of the ancient Chinese philosopher Lao-tzu (6th century bce), who urged rulers to do nothing because without law or compulsion, men would dwell in harmony. A social science of spontaneous order arose in the 18th century in the work of the French physiocrats and in the writings of the Scottish philosopher David Hume. Both the physiocrats (the term physiocracy means the rule of nature) and Hume studied the natural order of economic and social life and concluded, contrary to the dominant theory of mercantilism, that the directing hand of the prince was not necessary to produce order and prosperity. Hume extended his analysis to the determination of interest rates and even to the emergence of the institutions of law and property. In A Treatise of Human Nature (173940), he argued that the rule concerning the stability of possession is a product of spontaneous ordering processes, because it arises gradually, and acquires force by a slow progression, and by our repeated experience of the inconveniences of transgressing it. He also compared the evolution of the institution of property to the evolution of languages and money.

Smith developed the concept of spontaneous order extensively in both The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) and An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776). He made the idea central to his discussion of social cooperation, arguing that the division of labour did not arise from human wisdom but was the necessary, though very slow and gradual, consequence of a certain propensity in human nature which has in view no such extensive utility: the propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another. In Common Sense (1776), Paine combined the theory of spontaneous order with a theory of justice based on natural rights, maintaining that the great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government.

According to libertarians, free markets are among the most important (but not the only) examples of spontaneous order. They argue that individuals need to produce and trade in order to survive and flourish and that free markets are essential to the creation of wealth. Libertarians also maintain that self-help, mutual aid, charity, and economic growth do more to alleviate poverty than government social-welfare programs. Finally, they contend that, if the libertarian tradition often seems to stress private property and free markets at the expense of other principles, that is largely because these institutions were under attack for much of the 20th century by modern liberals, social democrats, fascists, and adherents of other leftist, nationalist, or socialist ideologies.

Libertarians consider the rule of law to be a crucial underpinning of a free society. In its simplest form, this principle means that individuals should be governed by generally applicable and publicly known laws and not by the arbitrary decisions of kings, presidents, or bureaucrats. Such laws should protect the freedom of all individuals to pursue happiness in their own ways and should not aim at any particular result or outcome.

Although most libertarians believe that some form of government is essential for protecting liberty, they also maintain that government is an inherently dangerous institution whose power must be strictly circumscribed. Thus, libertarians advocate limiting and dividing government power through a written constitution and a system of checks and balances. Indeed, libertarians often claim that the greater freedom and prosperity of European society (in comparison with other parts of the world) in the early modern era was the result of the fragmentation of power, both between church and state and among the continents many different kingdoms, principalities, and city-states. Some American libertarians, such as Lysander Spooner and Murray Rothbard, have opposed all forms of government. Rothbard called his doctrine anarcho-capitalism to distinguish it from the views of anarchists who oppose private property. Even those who describe themselves as anarchist libertarians, however, believe in a system of law and law enforcement to protect individual rights.

Much political analysis deals with conflict and conflict resolution. Libertarians hold that there is a natural harmony of interests among peaceful, productive individuals in a just society. Citing David Ricardos theory of comparative advantagewhich states that individuals in all countries benefit when each countrys citizens specialize in producing that which they can produce more efficiently than the citizens of other countrieslibertarians claim that, over time, all individuals prosper from the operation of a free market, and conflict is thus not a necessary or inevitable part of a social order. When governments begin to distribute rewards on the basis of political pressure, however, individuals and groups will engage in wasteful and even violent conflict to gain benefits at the expense of others. Thus, libertarians maintain that minimal government is a key to the minimization of social conflict.

In international affairs, libertarians emphasize the value of peace. That may seem unexceptional, since most (though not all) modern thinkers have claimed allegiance to peace as a value. Historically, however, many rulers have seen little benefit to peace and have embarked upon sometimes long and destructive wars. Libertarians contend that war is inherently calamitous, bringing widespread death and destruction, disrupting family and economic life, and placing more power in the hands of ruling classes. Defensive or retaliatory violence may be justified, but, according to libertarians, violence is not valuable in itself, nor does it produce any additional benefits beyond the defense of life and liberty.

Read this article:

Libertarianism - Libertarian philosophy | Britannica

Want to know what is a classical liberal? Visit our Core Classical Liberal Principles page.

The libertarian perspective is that peace, prosperity, and social harmony are fostered by as much liberty as possible and as little government as necessary.

With a long intellectual tradition spanning hundreds of years, libertarian ideas of individual rights, economic liberty, and limited government have contributed to history-changing movements like abolition, womens suffrage, and the civil rights movement.

Libertarian is not a single viewpoint, but includes a wide variety of perspectives. Libertarians can range from market anarchists to advocates of a limited welfare state, but they are all united by a belief in personal liberty, economic freedom, and a skepticism of government power.

According to American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition, 2000:

NOUN: 1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.

The Challenge of Democracy (6th edition), by Kenneth Janda, Jeffrey Berry, and Jerry Goldman:

Liberals favor government action to promote equality, whereas conservatives favor government action to promote order. Libertarians favor freedom and oppose government action to promote either equality or order.

According to The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman, Open Court Publishing Company, 1973:

The central idea of libertarianism is that people should be permitted to run their own lives as they wish.

According to Libertarianism: A Primer by David Boaz, Free Press, 1997:

Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others. Libertarians defend each persons right to life, liberty, and property-rights that people have naturally, before governments are created. In the libertarian view, all human relationships should be voluntary; the only actions that should be forbidden by law are those that involve the initiation of force against those who have not themselves used force-actions like murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, and fraud.

Read this article:

What Is Libertarian - Institute for Humane Studies

Eat less, move more. The answer to tackling obesity, our most damaging health epidemic is simple, right? Except it really isnt despite the latest initiative from a born-again Prime Minister, whose personal Covid-19 experience has converted a libertarian to nannying.

With estimates suggesting that two-thirds of Britons are seriously overweight, the endless warnings, chastisements and diets are clearly not working. They do not address the greatest barrier to solving the problem: how we see ourselves.

Yes, I know the economic issue; that the poor spend a greater percentage of their earnings on food, much of which is so high in the fat, salt and sugar that contribute to obesity and the resulting Type 2 diabetes, heart disease and Covid-19 that are at least in part a result of so many of us being obese.

Whats needed is a way of getting through to our psyches, in the way we have with issues like smoking. We have all known for years that smoking kills. It still did not stop so many smokers for decades until it became socially unacceptable in so many contexts.

Sadly, obesity is not viewed in the same way yet. Despite Britain being the second most overweight nation in Europe (after Malta), there is currently still too much of the type of knee-jerk resistance to government interference that we see with face masks. We have to look at the complex, knotty issue of the balance between anti-obesity campaigning and the anti-fat-shaming lobby rather than the headline-grabbing easy win of banning junk food ads before the 9pm watershed.

Much centres on the word fat. We can scarcely use it for fear of appearing fattist. But mentioning someone has cancer, heart disease or Alzheimers is not deemed offensive. Yes, fat-shaming doesnt help. There is too much evidence that it leads only to resentment, anxiety and depression.

But too many who are overweight hide behind the observation that some cant help being fat. Many more can. The mistake is to believe in instant fixes.

We need re-education on both a personal and social level that obesity should not be a badge, but is a genuine problem, both for individuals and the NHS. We need more libertarians to have a Boris-like conversion to the nanny state.

The rest is here:

Obesity kills - it's important we realise this and stop making excuses - iNews

I dont need a mask! declared the San Diego woman to a Starbucks barista. The woman apparently believed she had a right to enter mask-free, contrary to the coffee bars policy. A surprising number of Americans treat expectations of mask-wearing during the coronavirus pandemic in a similar way as if these expectations were paternalistic, limiting peoples liberty for their own good. They are dead wrong.

Their thinking reflects what we might call faux libertarianism, a deformation of the classic liberal theory known as libertarianism. Libertarianism is the political and moral philosophy according to which everyone has rights to life, liberty and property and various specific rights that flow from these fundamental ones. Libertarian rights are rights of noninterference, rather than entitlements to be provided with services. So your right to life is a right not to be killed and does not include a right to life-sustaining health care services. And your right to property is a right to acquire and retain property through your own lawful actions, not a right to be provided property.

Libertarianism lies at the opposite end of the political spectrum from socialism, which asserts positive rights to such basic needs as food, clothing, housing and health care. According to libertarianism, a fundamental right to liberty supports several more specific rights including freedom of movement, freedom of association and freedom of religious worship. Neither the state nor other individuals may violate these rights of competent adults for their own protection. To do so would be unjustifiably paternalistic, say libertarians, treating grown-ups as if they needed parenting.

Why do I claim that Americans who resist mask-wearing in public embrace faux libertarianism, a disfigured version of the classic liberty-loving philosophy? Because they miss the fact that a compelling justification for mask-wearing rules is not paternalistic at all not focused on the agents own good but rather appeals to peoples responsibilities regarding public health. This point is entirely consistent with libertarianism.

Story continues

Consider your right to freedom of movement. This right does not include a right to punch someone in the face, unless you both agree to a boxing match, and does not include a right to enter someone elses house, without an invitation. Rights extend only so far. They do not encompass prerogatives to harm others (without their consent) or violate their rights. Once we appreciate that rights have boundaries, rather than being limitless, we can see the relationship between liberty rights and public health.

Your rights to freedom of movement, freedom of association, and so on do not encompass a prerogative to place others at undue risk; to endanger others in this way is to violate their rights, which you have no right to do. This idea justifies our sensible laws against drunk driving. So even a libertarian can, and should, applaud Starbucks and its barista for insisting on mask-wearing during the coronavirus pandemic. Whether or not the woman who said she didnt need a mask had a right to ignore her own health, she had no right to put other customers and Starbucks employees at risk either directly, by possibly spreading infection, or indirectly, by flouting a norm of mask-wearing that is reasonably related to public health and protecting other people from harm and rights violations.

The fallacy of faux libertarianism is thinking that liberty rights have unlimited scopes, that ones right to freedom of association, for example, means a right to get together with anyone, at any time, under any circumstances, even if doing so endangers others. If liberty rights had unlimited scopes, then there could be no legitimate laws or social norms since all laws and norms limit liberty in some way or another. That means that, if faux libertarianism were correct, then the only legitimate government would be no government at all, which is to say anarchy as opposed to civil society. And if no social norms were legitimate, then each of us would lack not only legal rights but also moral rights. In that case, we would have no right to liberty or anything else.

Unlike libertarianism, which is a coherent outlook, faux libertarianism refutes itself by destroying any intelligible basis for rights to life, liberty, and property. I am no fan of libertarianism, which I find problematic at various levels. But it is far more compelling than its incoherent impostor, faux libertarianism. Mask up, people, before you enter crowded, public spaces!

ABOUT THE WRITER

David DeGrazia (ddd@gwu.edu) is the Elton Professor of Philosophy at George Washington University.

2020 The Baltimore Sun

Visit The Baltimore Sun at http://www.baltimoresun.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Here is the original post:

Commentary: Mask wearing: Maybe you have a right to put your health at risk, but not that of others - Yahoo News

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis and more, subscribe to Mother Jones' newsletters.

Not long after the passing of John Lewis, tributes began pouring in from all points on the political compass, including some from ardent foes of the goals Lewis championed right up to his death on Friday. Vote suppressors praised the work of a public servant who had devoted his career to securing voting rights in America. Cop enablers praised a man who was nearly killed by a state troopers truncheon on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in 1965.The hypocrisy was too much to bear.

Below are a few of the worst offenders.

The praise: McConnell on Saturday called Lewis a pioneering civil rights leader who put his life on the line to fight racism, promote equal rights, and bring our nation into greater alignment with its founding principles.

Why thats so rich: The GOP leader is blocking action on voting rights legislation that Lewis championed, including a bill to restore keyprotections for voters that the Supreme Court removed in its 2013 Shelby County v. Holder ruling. Shelby County is in Alabama, the state where state troopers fractured Lewis skull in 1963 as he marched against poll taxes and other methods used to stop Black Americans from voting. As it was during the civil rights movement, the Senate is no ally to the cause; its the thing to overcome.

The praise: On Friday night, Loeffler, a Republican appointed to a Senate seat in Lewis home state of Georgia, tweeted about Lewis: Few people have his grit, tenacity or courage. Georgia & our entire nation are better because of his leadership & courage.

Why thats so rich: One way Lewis showed grit was by appearing last month with DC Mayor Muriel Bowser at the newly named Black Lives Matter Plaza in Washington, DC. Battling cancer, Lewis, in some of his last public remarks, celebrated the Black Lives Matter movement and praised recent demonstrations.

Loeffler, meanwhile, has capitalized on her ownership of a WNBA team in Atlanta, Lewis hometown, to push the league to stop its players from putting Black Lives Matter and Say Her Name slogans on their uniforms. We need lessnot more politics in sports, Loeffler wrote in a letter to the leagues commissioner. In a time when polarizing politics is as divisive as ever, sports has the power to be a unifying antidote.

The praise: In a statement on Saturday, Kemp called Lewis a Civil Rights hero, freedom fighter, devoted public servant, and beloved Georgian who changed our world in a profound way.

The praise: Rubio on Saturday tweeted a picture of himself with a person he apparently thought was John Lewis. It was actually the late Rep. Elijah Cummings.

Rubio, undaunted, corrected the error, displaying a picture of himself with the correct deceased Black guy and the words: John Lewis was a genuine American hero.

Why thats so rich: Rubio in the past hasnt much cared about voters waiting in line for hours to vote, a problem that tends to occur in heavily Black and Democratic areas in Republican-run states. Asked in 2016 by a voter about six-hour lines to vote in Miami, Rubio responded: That is only on Election Day.

The praise: The libertarian Cato Institute on Saturday tweeted a January article by one its scholar headlined John Lewis, Libertarian Hero. The article says that the right to vote, which Lewis championed, is a libertarian cause, which, yeah, OK, sure.

Why thats so rich: In 2013, Cato supported Shelby Countys successful bid to gut the Voting Rights Act.

Read more here:

They praise John Lewis but hate Black voting rights and Black Lives Matter. - Mother Jones

Amash isn't runningfor anything. After Rep. Justin Amash's brief foray into seeking the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination, many thought that Amasha Tea Party Republican turned Trump-era independent and, now, Congress' first and only Libertarian membermight try to hold his seat representing Michigan in the House of Representatives. That's not to be.

Following a Detroit News report Thursday night that Amash's congressional campaign was inactive, Amash tweeted:

I love representing our community in Congress. I always will. This is my choice, but I'm still going to miss it. Thank you for your trust.

Amash adviser Poppy Nelson had told The Detroit News earlier that Amash "hasn't been campaigning for any office and doesn't plan to seek the nomination for any office."

The paper notes that Amash's campaign "raised only $24,200 for the quarter ending June 30another indication he's not running for federal office. He previously raised over $1.1 million toward re-election."

Amash was first elected to Congress in 2010 and has served five terms.

Nicholas Sarwark, former chairman of the Libertarian National Committee, told The Detroit News that with Amash "as our first Libertarian congressmanI would like to keep that seat. But I understand if he thinks there's a better way for him to advance the Libertarian Party and improve the conditions of this countrythat he has to do what he thinks is right."

More horrifying scenes out of Portland.Earlier this week, it was federal agents shooting impact munitions at protesters in Portland, Oregonhitting one man directly in the head, knocking him over and putting him in the hospital. At the time, Sen. Ron Wyden (DOre.) accused the feds of acting like an "occupying army." Now, unidentified federal agents wearing camouflage have been driving around Portland, snatching people off the streets, and taking them away in unmarked vehicles.

"Federal law enforcement officers have been using unmarked vehicles to drive around downtown Portland and detain protesters since at least July 14," Oregon Public Broadcasting reports.

Personal accounts and multiple videos posted online show the officers driving up to people, detaining individuals with no explanation of why they are being arrested, and driving off.

The tactic appears to be another escalation in federal force deployed on Portland city streets, as federal officials and President Donald Trump have said they plan to "quell" nightly protests outside the federal courthouse and Multnomah County Justice Center that have lasted for more than six weeks.

Another good reason to wear a mask. A May 22 memo from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) explores the agency's fears that widespread mask wearing will thwart federal facial recognition programs. The memo was "drafted by the DHS Intelligence Enterprise Counterterrorism Mission Center in conjunction with a variety of other agencies, including Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement," and brought to the public's attention by The Intercept.

In its own words, the intelligence memo discusses "the potential impacts that widespread use of protective masks could have on security operations that incorporate face recognition systemssuch as video cameras, image processing hardware and software, and image recognition algorithms."

"Violent extremists and other criminals who have historically maintained an interest in avoiding face recognition" may "opportunistically seize upon public safety measures recommending the wearing of face masks to hinder the effectiveness of face recognition systems in public spaces by security partners," the feds fret, while noting that they have "no specific information" about this actually happening.

The Homeland Security memo also "cites as cause for concern tactics used in recent pro-democracy demonstrations in Hong Kong," notes The Intercept.

D.C. efforts to decriminalize psilocybin draw interference. Yesterday members of Congresswhich still has veto power over local D.C. lawsdebated a proposal to decriminalize psychedelic mushrooms in the District. "We certainlydon't want to be known as the drug capital of the world," said Rep. Andy Harris (RMd.), who had introduced an amendment to forbid D.C. from putting the issue up for a vote this fall.

"We all can agree that policies that increase the availability of psychedelic drugs in the nation's capitalthat's dangerous," Rep. Tom Graves (RGa.) said at the House Appropriations Committee hearing.

Not all of the committee agreed.

"If the district's residents want to make mushrooms a lower priority and focus limited law enforcement resources on other issues, that is their prerogative," said Rep. Mike Quigley (DIll.).

Harris ultimately withdrew his amendmentfor now. "This is a new issue to the committee," he said in a statement. "Between now and the meeting of the conference committee this fall, the issue of whether this will be on the ballot will be resolved. Fortunately, in that time, members will also have time to learn more about this complicated medical issue."

America is seeing a dramatic shift in party affiliation. Since the start of the year, "what had been a two-percentage-point Republican advantage in U.S. party identification and leaning has become an 11-point Democratic advantage, with more of that movement reflecting a loss in Republican identification and leaning (down eight points) than a gain in Democratic identification and leaning (up five points)," notes Gallup:

Currently, half of U.S. adults identify as Democrats (32%) or are independents who lean toward the Democratic Party (18%). Meanwhile, 39% identify as Republicans (26%) or are Republican leaners (13%).

These results are based on monthly averages of Gallup U.S. telephone surveys in 2020.

Another federal execution took place yesterday:

It's impossible to reform policing without taking on police unions.

Florida man does a few things right.

See the rest here:

Justin Amash's Tenure as the Libertarian Party's First Member in Congress Will Be Shortlived - Reason

"I don't need a mask!" declared the San Diego woman to a Starbucks barista. The woman apparently believed she had a right to enter mask-free, contrary to the coffee bar's policy.

A surprising number of Americans treat expectations of mask-wearing during the coronavirus pandemic in a similar way as if these expectations were paternalistic, limiting people's liberty for their own good. They are dead wrong.

Their thinking reflects what we might call "faux libertarianism," a deformation of the classic liberal theory. Libertarianism is the political and moral philosophy according to which everyone has rights to life, liberty and property and various specific rights that flow from these fundamental ones.

Libertarian rights are rights of noninterference, rather than entitlements to be provided with services. So your right to life is a right not to be killed and does not include a right to life-sustaining health care services. And your right to property is a right to acquire and retain property through your own lawful actions, not a right to be provided with property.

Libertarianism lies at the opposite end of the political spectrum from socialism, which asserts positive rights to such basic needs as food, clothing, housing and health care. According to libertarianism, a fundamental right to liberty supports several more specific rights, including freedom of movement, freedom of association and freedom of religious worship. Neither the state nor other individuals may violate these rights of competent adults for their own protection. To do so would be unjustifiably paternalistic, say libertarians, treating grown-ups as if they needed parenting.

Why do I claim that Americans who resist mask-wearing in public embrace faux libertarianism, a disfigured version of the classic liberty-loving philosophy? Because they miss the fact that a compelling justification for mask-wearing rules is not paternalistic at all not focused on the agent's own good but rather appeals to people's responsibilities regarding public health. This point is entirely consistent with libertarianism.

Consider your right to freedom of movement. This right does not include a right to punch someone in the face, unless you both agree to a boxing match, and does not include a right to enter someone else's house without an invitation. Rights extend only so far.

Once we appreciate that rights have boundaries, rather than being limitless, we can see the relationship between liberty rights and public health.

Your rights to freedom of movement, freedom of association, and so on do not encompass a prerogative to place others at undue risk. This idea justifies our sensible laws against drunk driving. So even a libertarian can, and should, applaud Starbucks and its barista for insisting on mask-wearing during the coronavirus pandemic.

The fallacy of faux libertarianism is thinking that liberty rights have unlimited scope. That would mean there could be no legitimate laws or social norms since all laws and norms limit liberty in some way or another. Then the only legitimate government would be no government at all. And if no social norms were legitimate, then each of us would lack not only legal rights but also moral rights. In that case, we would have no right to liberty or anything else.

I am no fan of libertarianism, which I find problematic. But it is far more compelling than its incoherent impostor, faux libertarianism. Mask up, people, before you enter crowded, public spaces!

David DeGrazia is the Elton Professor of Philosophy at George Washington University.

View post:

Theres no right to infect - The Ledger

We have now reached peak Libertarianism, and this bizarre experiment that has been promoted by the billionaire class for over 40 years is literally killing us.

Back in the years before Reagan, areal estate lobbying groupcalled the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) came up with the idea of creating a political party to justify deregulating the real estate and finance industries so they could make more money. The party would give them ideological and political cover, and they developed an elaborate theology around it.

It was called the Libertarian Party, and their principal argument was that if everybody acted separately and independently, in all cases with maximum selfishness, that that would benefit society. There would be no government needed beyond an army and a police force, and a court system to defend the rights of property owners.

In 1980, billionaire David Koch ran for vice president on the newly formed Libertarian Party ticket. His platform was to privatize the Post Office, shut down all public schools, privatize Medicare and Medicaid, end food stamps and all other forms of welfare, deregulate all corporate oversight, and sell off much of the federal governments land and other assets to billionaires and big corporations.

Since then, Libertarian billionaires and right-wing media have been working hard to get Americans to agree with Ronald Reagansstatementfrom his first inaugural address that, [G]overnment is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.

And Trump is getting us there now.

Every federal agency of any consequence is now run by a lobbyist or former industry insider.

The Labor Department is trying todestroy organized labor; the Interior Department is selling off our public lands; the EPA is promoting deadly pesticides and allowing more and more pollution; the FCC is dancing to the tune of giant telecom companies; theEducation Departmentis actively working to shut down and privatize our public school systems; the USDA is shutting down food inspections; the Defense Department is run by aformer weapons lobbyist; even theIRSandSocial Securityagencies have been gutted, withtens of thousands of their employeesoffered early retirement or laid off so that very, very wealthy people are no longer being audited and the wait time for a Social Security disability claim is now overtwo years.

The guy Trump put in charge of the Post Office is activelydestroyingthe Post Office, and the bonus for Trump might be that this willthrowa huge monkey wrench in any effort to vote by mail in November.

Trump hasremovedthe United States from the Paris Climate Agreement, and fossil fuel lobbyists nowcontrolAmericas response to global warming.

Our nations response to the coronavirus has been turned over toprivate testinganddrug companies, and the Trump administration refuses to implement any official government policy, with Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar saying that its all up toindividual responsibility.

The result is more than 140,000 dead Americans and 3 million infected, with many fearing for their lives.

While the Libertarian ideas and policies promoted by that real estate lobbying group that invented the Libertarian Party have made CEOs and billionaire investors very, very rich, its killing the rest of us.

In the 1930s and 1940s, Franklin Delano Roosevelt put America back together after the Republican Great Depression and built the largest and wealthiestmiddle classin the history of the world at the time.

Now, 40 years of libertarian Reaganomics have gutted the middle class, made ahandful of oligarchswealthier than anybody in the history of the world, and brought an entire generation of hustlers and grifters into public office via the GOP.

When America was still coasting on FDRs success in rebuilding our government and institutions, nobody took very seriously the crackpot efforts to tear it all down.

Now that theyve had 40 years to make their project work, were hitting peak Libertarianism and its tearing our country apart, pitting Americans against each other, and literallykillinghundreds of people every day.

If America is to survive as a functioning democratic republic, we must repudiate the greed is good ideology of Libertarianism, get billionaires and their money out of politics, and rebuild our civil institutions.

That starts with waking Americans up to the incredible damage that 40 years of libertarian Reaganism has done to this country.

Pass it on.

Thom Hartmann is atalk-show hostand the author ofThe Hidden History of American Oligarchyand more than30 other books in print. His most recent project is a science podcast calledThe Science Revolution. He is a writing fellow at theIndependent Media Institute.

This article was produced byEconomy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

then let us make a small request. AlterNets journalists work tirelessly to counter the traditional corporate media narrative. Were here seven days a week, 365 days a year. And were proud to say that weve been bringing you the real, unfiltered news for 20 yearslonger than any other progressive news site on the Internet.

Its through the generosity of our supporters that were able to share with you all the underreported news you need to know. Independent journalism is increasingly imperiled; ads alone cant pay our bills. AlterNet counts on readers like you to support our coverage. Did you enjoy content from David Cay Johnston, Common Dreams, Raw Story and Robert Reich? Opinion from Salon and Jim Hightower? Analysis by The Conversation? Then join the hundreds of readers who have supported AlterNet this year.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure AlterNet remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to AlterNet, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

More here:

We have now reached peak Libertarianism and it is literally killing us - AlterNet

I dont need a mask! declared the San Diego woman to a Starbucks barista. The woman apparently believed she had a right to enter mask-free, contrary to the coffee bars policy. A surprising number of Americans treat expectations of mask-wearing during the coronavirus pandemic in a similar way as if these expectations were paternalistic, limiting peoples liberty for their own good. They are dead wrong.

Their thinking reflects what we might call faux libertarianism, a deformation of the classic liberal theory known as libertarianism. Libertarianism is the political and moral philosophy according to which everyone has rights to life, liberty and property and various specific rights that flow from these fundamental ones. Libertarian rights are rights of noninterference, rather than entitlements to be provided with services. So your right to life is a right not to be killed and does not include a right to life-sustaining health care services. And your right to property is a right to acquire and retain property through your own lawful actions, not a right to be provided property.

Libertarianism lies at the opposite end of the political spectrum from socialism, which asserts positive rights to such basic needs as food, clothing, housing and health care. According to libertarianism, a fundamental right to liberty supports several more specific rights including freedom of movement, freedom of association and freedom of religious worship. Neither the state nor other individuals may violate these rights of competent adults for their own protection. To do so would be unjustifiably paternalistic, say libertarians, treating grown-ups as if they needed parenting.

Why do I claim that Americans who resist mask-wearing in public embrace faux libertarianism, a disfigured version of the classic liberty-loving philosophy? Because they miss the fact that a compelling justification for mask-wearing rules is not paternalistic at all not focused on the agents own good but rather appeals to peoples responsibilities regarding public health. This point is entirely consistent with libertarianism.

Consider your right to freedom of movement. This right does not include a right to punch someone in the face, unless you both agree to a boxing match, and does not include a right to enter someone elses house, without an invitation. Rights extend only so far. They do not encompass prerogatives to harm others (without their consent) or violate their rights. Once we appreciate that rights have boundaries, rather than being limitless, we can see the relationship between liberty rights and public health.

Your rights to freedom of movement, freedom of association, and so on do not encompass a prerogative to place others at undue risk; to endanger others in this way is to violate their rights, which you have no right to do. This idea justifies our sensible laws against drunk driving. So even a libertarian can, and should, applaud Starbucks and its barista for insisting on mask-wearing during the coronavirus pandemic. Whether the woman who said she didnt need a mask had a right to ignore her own health, she had no right to put other customers and Starbucks employees at risk either directly, by possibly spreading infection, or indirectly, by flouting a norm of mask-wearing that is reasonably related to public health and protecting other people from harm and rights violations.

The fallacy of faux libertarianism is thinking that liberty rights have unlimited scopes, that ones right to freedom of association, for example, means a right to get together with anyone, at any time, under any circumstances, even if doing so endangers others. If liberty rights had unlimited scopes, then there could be no legitimate laws or social norms since all laws and norms limit liberty in some way or another. That means that, if faux libertarianism were correct, then the only legitimate government would be no government at all, which is to say anarchy as opposed to civil society. And if no social norms were legitimate, then each of us would lack not only legal rights but also moral rights. In that case, we would have no right to liberty or anything else.

Unlike libertarianism, which is a coherent outlook, faux libertarianism refutes itself by destroying any intelligible basis for rights to life, liberty, and property. I am no fan of libertarianism, which I find problematic at various levels. But it is far more compelling than its incoherent impostor, faux libertarianism. Mask up, people, before you enter crowded, public spaces!

David DeGrazi is the Elton Professor of Philosophy at George Washington University.

View post:

Commentary: Mask wearing: Maybe you have a right to put your health at risk, but not that of others - West Hawaii Today

What is the difference between a riot and a protest and does that depend on who you ask? Dr Bradley Campbell believes so. He argues that we all make moral judgements based on what we believe. He says that 'we need to have clear definitions that allow us to classify similar behaviours consistently, regardless of whether we approve or disapprove of the cause that gave rise to these behaviours, whether we approve or disapprove of those involved, and whether we approve or disapprove of the behaviours themselves. To call something a riot, then, neednt be a way of taking sides in some larger conflict: it can just be a way of communicating whats happening'. If we has those clear definitions it 'would help us distinguish, for example, between agreeing with a cause and agreeing with a particular way of pursuing it'.

Then (at 13 mins) what would happen if the liberal order, set up in the aftermath of the second World War as a set of international institutions agreed upon by nation states, collapsed? Dr Benjamin Studebaker examines the history of the liberal order and how its changed. He argues that 'it has become an engine for globalisation, economically integrating the whole world into a singular system. The liberal order has transformed from a means of defending liberalism into a means of exporting it everywhere....it does this by making two things mobile: capital and labour'. He believes we are faced with a terrible choice, so what should we do?

Also, (at 28mins) the Australian Space Agency was established in July 2018. Two years later, how do we compare to the rest of the world? Professor Anna Moore explains that 'we are currently leaders in advanced and quantum communication that would make deep space communication possible, as well as creating unhackable communications on Earth'. We also help enable others. 'Space technologies are transferrable to Earth-bound sectors such as health and mining' and 'our nation is set to give rise to bespoke satellites that are proprietary to Australia. We will have our own satellite constellations to address critical issues like drought, water quality management and bushfires'.

Finally, (at 38 mins) it's often thought that science fiction 'is by its very nature progressive'. Jordan Alexander Hill believes otherwise. He has studied the libertarian history of science fiction. ' From conservatarian voices like Robert Heinlein, Larry Niven, Vernor Vinge, Poul Anderson, and F. Paul Wilson to those of a more flexible classical liberal bent like Ray Bradbury, David Brin, Charles Stross, Ken McLeod, and Terry Pratchett, libertarian-leaning authors have had an outsized, lasting influence on the field'. He argues that 'While dystopias satirize and allegorize the flawed political systems and social practices that govern the world we know, SF is more often about exploring new worlds and systems'. So grab a book and get reading, or put in that DVD and watch it anew.

View post:

Protests and imaginings - Counterpoint - ABC News

OK, election math fans, its time to sharpen your pencils.

Monday was the deadline for nomination petitions for third-party candidates, and although the ballot could still change with resignations, deaths, expulsions and so on (its hard to rule out anything in Illinois), in the larger sense the stakes are established for Novembers General Assembly races.

First, the baseline: there are 54 uncontested House seats, 45 will go to Democrats and nine to Republicans.

Of 64 contested races, 58 have a Democrat candidate and 55 have a Republican candidate. There now are 25 third-party candidates involved in 20 House races. Aside from five independents, there are six Green Party candidates, nine Libertarians, two from the Constitution Party and one each from the Bullmoose, Pro Guns Pro Life and Patriot parties.

A dozen House races have three official candidates, including three where no incumbent is on the ballot (the 52nd, 85th and 115th districts). Of the nine Libertarians, six are running in races with no GOP candidate. All six Green Party candidates have Republican opponents, four of those races also include a Democrat.

With a clean sweep, Democrats would have 103 of 118 House seats. They need to hold just six to retain their majority and must keep 17 for a supermajority.

If every Republican House candidate wins, the party would yield 64 seats. But with only nine guarantees theyll need to go 51-4 in contested races to reclaim the majority. File that under technically possible but highly unlikely.

There are 20 of 59 Senate seats up for election; 19 standard and one special election. Only nine are uncontested. Seven Democratic incumbents will cruise to new terms and two GOP vacancies will be filled by current House members moving up to the Senate Darren Bailey in the 55th and Terri Bryant in the 58th.

The filing deadline didnt change much here with only two third-party candidates independent Marcus Throneburg is challenging Republican Win Stoller for the right to replace retiring Sen. Chuck Weaver, and Mari Brown, of the Democracy in America party, wants to unseat Sen. Celina Villanueva in the 11th District special election.

That means Republicans and Democrats each could pick up 10 seats. The Democrats could make out at 41 of 59 seats, the GOP ceiling is 27. With 30 needed for a majority, control of the Senate is not in play, and should either of the independents win theyll likely caucus alone.

Change is a given: retirements, a primary defeat and incumbents pursuing higher office. The variety of third-party options is interesting give credit to eased ballot access requirements but ultimately, Democrats should control the Legislature.

One question remains: Will Speaker Mike Madigans bribery scandal jeopardize his House supermajority?

Scott T. Holland writes about state government issues for Shaw Media Illinois. Follow him on Twitter at @sth749. He can be reached at [ mailto:sholland@shawmedia.com ]sholland@shawmedia.com.

Read more:

EYE ON ILLINOIS: Filing deadline yields clearer picture of legislative election math - The Herald-News