Liberty Mutual to create 150 jobs

Posted on by

Liberty Mutual to create 150 jobs

Friday, December 20, 2013

Liberty Mutual has bought the remaining portion of the former Quinn Insurance and announced the creation of 150 jobs in Dublin.

Liberty, based in Boston, and IBRCs predecessor, Anglo Irish Bank Corp, took control of Quinn Insurance two years ago, after the Irish insurer was placed into administration in 2010 amid concerns about the companys solvency. The sale of the remaining stake in the company, since renamed Liberty Insurance, is a result of IBRCs liquidation, ordered by the State in February.

CEO of Liberty Insurance Patrick OBrien said that the developments were a sign of the companys commitment to Ireland.

We are pleased that Liberty Mutual has confirmed its commitment to Ireland with the completion of the acquisition of 100% of Liberty Insurances parent company. Over the past two years Liberty Insurance has made substantial progress in the Irish market and todays announcement positions us for further growth, he said.

Minister for Jobs Richard Bruton said that they were targeting the international financial services sector as part of the plan to get Ireland back to work

International financial services is a sector which we have targeted as part of our Action Plan for Jobs, and over recent months we have seen significant jobs growth in this area, he said.

Chief information officer of Liberty Mutual Insurance Group James McGlennon said that Irelands geographic location allowed them to provide support globally around the clock.

Expanding our IT operations in this way strengthens our global software engineering and advanced development capabilities. It also enables a follow the sun strategy for technical support and security operations. The decision to invest in Dublin reflects the quality of IT graduates and experienced professionals available to support future growth.

See the original post here:

Liberty Mutual to create 150 jobs

2 arrested in vandalism of Comcast lines in Liberty

Posted on by

Liberty police have arrested two people suspected of cutting fiber optic cable, interrupting TV, phone and Internet service to thousands of Comcast customers, authorities said.

Benjamin Michel Alexander, 38, of Liberty, and Bobby Lynn Nettles, 33, of Crosby, were arrested Dec. 12 on charges of criminal mischief, a state jail felony, according to a news release from the Liberty Police Department.

Alexander was released on bond, while Nettles remained Tuesday in the Liberty County Jail on $5,000 bond, according to online law enforcement records.

An investigation into the vandalism, which has no clear motive, continues, said Liberty police detective Jennifer Bowles.

The latest incident, which caused an estimated $12,000 in damage, occurred Dec. 6 near U.S. 90 at Texaco Road in Liberty, Comcast officials said in a news release.

"We applaud the efforts of the Liberty Police Department in their apprehension of these two individuals," Ralph Martinez, senior vice president for Comcast's Houston region, said in a prepared statement. "Over the course of the last several months, there have been continued incidents of fiber optic cables being intentionally severed. In each case the disruption of service prevents people from utilizing the 9-1-1 system to contact the first responders sworn to protect them."

Police investigators are working with Comcast and the Harris County Sheriff's Department on cases with similar circumstances, the Comcast release said.

Last month, Crime Stoppers of Houston and the Harris County Sheriff's Office announced a reward of up to $30,000 for information leading to the filing of felony charges or an arrest of a suspect.

In Harris County, the incidents started in September in unincorporated areas.

Comcast urged the public to contact local law enforcement if they see anyone who appears to be working on the cables but is not clearly identifiable by a company vehicle, uniform or badge.

Here is the original post:

2 arrested in vandalism of Comcast lines in Liberty

Libertarianism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Posted on by

First published Thu Sep 5, 2002; substantive revision Tue Jul 20, 2010

Libertarianism, in the strict sense, is the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things. In a looser sense, libertarianism is any view that approximates the strict view. This entry will focus on libertarianism in the strict sense. For excellent discussion of the liberty tradition more generally (including classical liberalism), see Gaus and Mack (2004) and Barnett (2004).

Libertarianism is sometimes identified with the principle that each agent has a right to maximum equal empirical negative liberty, where empirical negative liberty is the absence of forcible interference from other agents when one attempts to do things. (See, for example, Narveson 1988, 2000, Steiner 1994, and Narveson and Sterba 2010.) This is sometimes called Spencerian Libertarianism (after Herbert Spencer). It is usually claimed that this view is equivalent to above self-ownership version of libertarianism. Kagan (1994), however, has cogently argued that the former (depending on the interpretation) either leads to radical pacifism (the use of force is never permissible) or is compatible with a wide range of views in addition to the above self-ownership libertarianism. I shall not, however, attempt to assess this issue here. Instead, I shall simply focus on the above self-ownership version of libertarianism.

Libertarianism can be understood as a basic moral principle or as a derivative one. It might, for example, be advocated as a basic natural rights doctrine. Alternatively, it might be defended on the basis of rule consequentialism or teleology (e.g., Epstein 1995, 1998; Rasmussen and Den Uyl 2005; or Shapiro 2007) or rule contractarianism (e.g., Narveson 1988 and roughly Lomasky 1987). Instrumental derivations of libertarianism appeal to considerations such as human limitations (e.g., of knowledge and motivation), incentive effects, administrative costs, the intrinsic value of liberty for the good life, etc. This entry will not address arguments for libertarian principles on the basis of other moral principles. Instead, it will simply address the plausibility of libertarian principles in their own right.

Although libertarianism could be advocated as a full theory of moral permissibility, it is almost always advocated as a theory of justice in one of two senses. In one sense, justice is concerned with the moral duties that we owe others. It does not address impersonal duties (duties owed to no one) or duties owed to self. In a second sense, justice is concerned with the morally enforceable duties that we have. It does not address duties for which it is impermissible to use force to ensure compliance or to rectify (e.g., punish) non-compliance (e.g. a duty to see your mother on her birthday). We shall here consider libertarianism as a theory of justice in each sense.

Libertarianism is often thought of as right-wing doctrine. This, however, is mistaken for at least two reasons. First, on socialrather than economicissues, libertarianism tends to be left-wing. It opposes laws that restrict consensual and private sexual relationships between adults (e.g., gay sex, extra-marital sex, and deviant sex), laws that restrict drug use, laws that impose religious views or practices on individuals, and compulsory military service. Second, in addition to the better-known version of libertarianismright-libertarianismthere is also a version known as left-libertarianism. Both endorse full self-ownership, but they differ with respect to the powers agents have to appropriate unowned natural resources (land, air, water, minerals, etc.). Right-libertarianism holds that typically such resources may be appropriated by the first person who discovers them, mixes her labor with them, or merely claims themwithout the consent of others, and with little or no payment to them. Left-libertarianism, by contrast, holds that unappropriated natural resources belong to everyone in some egalitarian manner. It can, for example, require those who claim rights over natural resources to make a payment to others for the value of those rights. This can provide the basis for a kind of egalitarian redistribution.

The best known early statement of (something close to) libertarianism is Locke (1690). The most influential contemporary work is Nozick (1974).

Libertarianism holds that agents are, at least initially, full self-owners. Agents are (moral) full self-owners just in case they morally own themselves in just the same way that they can morally fully own inanimate objects. Below we shall distinguish between full (interpersonal) self-ownership and full political self-ownership. Many versions of libertarianism endorse only the latter.

Full ownership of an entity consists of a full set of the following ownership rights: (1) control rights over the use of the entity: both a liberty-right to use it and a claim-right that others not use it, (2) rights to compensation if someone uses the entity without one's permission, (3) enforcement rights (e.g., rights of prior restraint if someone is about to violate these rights), (4) rights to transfer these rights to others (by sale, rental, gift, or loan), and (5) immunities to the non-consensual loss of these rights. Full ownership is simply a logically strongest set of ownership rights over a thing. There is some indeterminacy in this notion (since there can be more than one strongest set of such rights), but there is a determinate core set of rights (see below).

At the core of full self-ownership, then, is full control self-ownership, the full right to control the use of one's person. Something like control self-ownership is arguably needed to recognize the fact there are some things (e.g., various forms of physical contact) that may not be done to a person without her consent, but which may be done with that consent. It wrongs an individual to subject her to non-consensual and unprovoked killing, maiming, enslavement, or forcible manipulation.

Here is the original post:

Libertarianism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Libertarianism [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

Posted on by

What it means to be a libertarian in a political sense is a contentious issue, especially among libertarians themselves. There is no single theory that can be safely identified as the libertarian theory, and probably no single principle or set of principles on which all libertarians can agree. Nevertheless, there is a certain family resemblance among libertarian theories that can serve as a framework for analysis. Although there is much disagreement about the details, libertarians are generally united by a rough agreement on a cluster of normative principles, empirical generalizations, and policy recommendations. Libertarians are committed to the belief that individuals, and not states or groups of any other kind, are both ontologically and normatively primary; that individuals have rights against certain kinds of forcible interference on the part of others; that liberty, understood as non-interference, is the only thing that can be legitimately demanded of others as a matter of legal or political right; that robust property rights and the economic liberty that follows from their consistent recognition are of central importance in respecting individual liberty; that social order is not at odds with but develops out of individual liberty; that the only proper use of coercion is defensive or to rectify an error; that governments are bound by essentially the same moral principles as individuals; and that most existing and historical governments have acted improperly insofar as they have utilized coercion for plunder, aggression, redistribution, and other purposes beyond the protection of individual liberty.

In terms of political recommendations, libertarians believe that most, if not all, of the activities currently undertaken by states should be either abandoned or transferred into private hands. The most well-known version of this conclusion finds expression in the so-called minimal state theories of Robert Nozick, Ayn Rand, and others (Nozick 1974; Rand 1963a, 1963b) which hold that states may legitimately provide police, courts, and a military, but nothing more. Any further activity on the part of the stateregulating or prohibiting the sale or use of drugs, conscripting individuals for military service, providing taxpayer-funded support to the poor, or even building public roadsis itself rights-violating and hence illegitimate.

Libertarian advocates of a strictly minimal state are to be distinguished from two closely related groups, who favor a smaller or greater role for government, and who may or may not also label themselves libertarian. On one hand are so-called anarcho-capitalists who believe that even the minimal state is too large, and that a proper respect for individual rights requires the abolition of government altogether and the provision of protective services by private markets. On the other hand are those who generally identify themselves as classical liberals. Members of this group tend to share libertarians confidence in free markets and skepticism over government power, but are more willing to allow greater room for coercive activity on the part of the state so as to allow, say, state provision of public goods or even limited tax-funded welfare transfers.

As this article will use the term, libertarianism is a theory about the proper role of government that can be, and has been, supported on a number of different metaphysical, epistemological, and moral grounds. Some libertarians are theists who believe that the doctrine follows from a God-made natural law. Others are atheists who believe it can be supported on purely secular grounds. Some libertarians are rationalists who deduce libertarian conclusions from axiomatic first principles. Others derive their libertarianism from empirical generalizations or a reliance on evolved tradition. And when it comes to comprehensive moral theories, libertarians represent an almost exhaustive array of positions. Some are egoists who believe that individuals have no natural duties to aid their fellow human beings, while others adhere to moral doctrines that hold that the better-off have significant duties to improve the lot of the worse-off. Some libertarians are deontologists, while others are consequentialists, contractarians, or virtue-theorists. Understanding libertarianism as a narrow, limited thesis about the proper moral standing, and proper zone of activity, of the stateand not a comprehensive ethical or metaphysical doctrineis crucial to making sense of this otherwise baffling diversity of broader philosophic positions.

This article will focus primarily on libertarianism as a philosophic doctrine. This means that, rather than giving close scrutiny to the important empirical claims made both in support and criticism of libertarianism, it will focus instead on the metaphysical, epistemological, and especially moral claims made by the discussants. Those interested in discussions of the non-philosophical aspects of libertarianism can find some recommendations in the reference list below.

Furthermore, this article will focus almost exclusively on libertarian arguments regarding just two philosophical subjects: distributive justice and political authority. There is a danger that this narrow focus will be misleading, since it ignores a number of interesting and important arguments that libertarians have made on subjects ranging from free speech to self-defense, to the proper social treatment of the mentally ill. More generally, it ignores the ways in which libertarianism is a doctrine of social or civil liberty, and not just one of economic liberty. For a variety of reasons, however, the philosophic literature on libertarianism has mostly ignored these other aspects of the theory, and so this article, as a summary of that literature, will generally reflect that trend.

Probably the most well-known and influential version of libertarianism, at least among academic philosophers, is that based upon a theory of natural rights. Natural rights theories vary, but are united by a common belief that individuals have certain moral rights simply by virtue of their status as human beings, that these rights exist prior to and logically independent of the existence of government, and that these rights constrain the ways in which it is morally permissible for both other individuals and governments to treat individuals.

Although one can find some earlier traces of this doctrine among, for instance, the English Levellers or the Spanish School of Salamanca, John Lockes political thought is generally recognized as the most important historical influence on contemporary natural rights versions of libertarianism. The most important elements of Lockes theory in this respect, set out in his Second Treatise, are his beliefs about the law of nature, and his doctrine of property rights in external goods.

Lockes idea of the law of nature draws on a distinction between law and government that has been profoundly influential on the development of libertarian thought. According to Locke, even if no government existed over men, the state of nature would nevertheless not be a state of license. In other words, men would still be governed by law, albeit one that does not originate from any political source (c.f. Hayek 1973, ch. 4). This law, which Locke calls the law of nature holds that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, liberty, or possessions (Locke 1952, para. 6). This law of nature serves as a normative standard to govern human conduct, rather than as a description of behavioral regularities in the world (as are other laws of nature like, for instance, the law of gravity). Nevertheless, it is a normative standard that Locke believes is discoverable by human reason, and that binds us all equally as rational agents.

Lockes belief in a prohibition on harming others stems from his more basic belief that each individual has a property in his own person (Locke 1952, para. 27). In other words, individuals are self-owners. Throughout this essay we will refer to this principle, which has been enormously influential on later libertarians, as the self-ownership principle. Though controversial, it has generally been taken to mean that each individual possesses over her own body all those rights of exclusive use that we normally associate with property in external goods. But if this were all that individuals owned, their liberties and ability to sustain themselves would obviously be extremely limited. For almost anything we want to doeating, walking, even breathing, or speaking in order to ask anothers permissioninvolves the use of external goods such as land, trees, or air. From this, Locke concludes, we must have some way of acquiring property in those external goods, else they will be of no use to anyone. But since we own ourselves, Locke argues, we therefore also own our labor. And by mixing our labor with external goods, we can come to own those external goods too. This allows individuals to make private use of the world that God has given to them in common. There is a limit, however, to this ability to appropriate external goods for private use, which Locke captures in his famous proviso that holds that a legitimate act of appropriation must leave enough, and as good in common for others (Locke 1952, para. 27). Still, even with this limit, the combination of time, inheritance, and differential abilities, motivation, and luck will lead to possibly substantial inequalities in wealth between persons, and Locke acknowledges this as an acceptable consequence of his doctrine (Locke 1952, para. 50).

See original here:

Libertarianism [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

Libertarianism (metaphysics) – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Posted on by

Libertarianism is one of the main philosophical positions related to the problems of free will and determinism, which are part of the larger domain of metaphysics.[1] In particular, libertarianism, which is an incompatibilist position,[2][3] argues that free will is logically incompatible with a deterministic universe and that agents have free will, and that, therefore, determinism is false.[4] Although compatibilism, the view that determinism and free will are not logically incompatible, is the most popular position on free will amongst professional philosophers,[5] metaphysical libertarianism is discussed, though not necessarily endorsed, by several philosophers, such as Peter van Inwagen, Robert Kane, Robert Nozick,[6]Carl Ginet, Hugh McCann, Harry Frankfurt, E.J. Lowe, Alfred Mele, Roderick Chisholm, Daniel Dennett,[7]Timothy O'Connor, Derk Pereboom, and Galen Strawson.[8]

The term "libertarianism" in a metaphysical or philosophical sense was first used by late Enlightenment free-thinkers to refer to those who believed in free will, as opposed to determinism.[9] The first recorded use was in 1789 by William Belsham in a discussion of free will and in opposition to "necessitarian" (or determinist) views.[10][11] Metaphysical and philosophical contrasts between philosophies of necessity and libertarianism continued in the early 19th century.[12]

Metaphysical libertarianism is one philosophical view point under that of incompatibilism. Libertarianism holds onto a concept of free will that requires the agent to be able to take more than one possible course of action under a given set of circumstances.

Accounts of libertarianism subdivide into non-physical theories and physical or naturalistic theories. Non-physical theories hold that the events in the brain that lead to the performance of actions do not have an entirely physical explanation, and consequently the world is not closed under physics. Such interactionist dualists believe that some non-physical mind, will, or soul overrides physical causality.

Explanations of libertarianism that do not involve dispensing with physicalism require physical indeterminism, such as probabilistic subatomic particle behavior theory unknown to many of the early writers on free will. Physical determinism, under the assumption of physicalism, implies there is only one possible future and is therefore not compatible with libertarian free will. Some libertarian explanations involve invoking panpsychism, the theory that a quality of mind is associated with all particles, and pervades the entire universe, in both animate and inanimate entities. Other approaches do not require free will to be a fundamental constituent of the universe; ordinary randomness is appealed to as supplying the "elbow room" believed to be necessary by libertarians.

Free volition is regarded as a particular kind of complex, high-level process with an element of indeterminism. An example of this kind of approach has been developed by Robert Kane,[13] where he hypothesises that,

In each case, the indeterminism is functioning as a hindrance or obstacle to her realizing one of her purposesa hindrance or obstacle in the form of resistance within her will which has to be overcome by effort.

Although at the time C. S. Lewis wrote Miracles,[14]Quantum Mechanics (and physical indeterminism) was only in the initial stages of acceptance, he stated the logical possibility that if the physical world was proved to be indeterministic this would provide an entry (interaction) point into the traditionally viewed closed system, where a scientifically described physically probable/improbable event could be philosophically described as an action of a non-physical entity on physical reality. He states, however, that none of the arguments in his book will rely on this.

Nozick puts forward an indeterministic theory of free will in Philosophical Explanations.[6]

When human beings become agents through reflexive self-awareness, they express their agency by having reasons for acting, to which they assign weights. Choosing the dimensions of one's identity is a special case, in which the assigning of weight to a dimension is partly self-constitutive. But all acting for reasons is constitutive of the self in a broader sense, namely, by its shaping one's character and personality in a manner analogous to the shaping that law undergoes through the precedent set by earlier court decisions. Just as a judge does not merely apply the law but to some degree makes it through judicial discretion, so too a person does not merely discover weights but assigns them; one not only weighs reasons but also weights them. Set in train is a process of building a framework for future decisions that we are tentatively committed to.

Read more:

Libertarianism (metaphysics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Libertarianism and Objectivism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Posted on by

Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism has been and continues to be a major influence on the libertarian movement, particularly in the United States. Many libertarians justify their political views using aspects of Objectivism.[1] However, the views of Rand and her philosophy among prominent libertarians are mixed and many Objectivists are hostile to non-Objectivist libertarians in general.[2]

Some libertarians, including Murray Rothbard and Walter Block, hold the view that the non-aggression principle is an irreducible concept: it is not the logical result of any given ethical philosophy but, rather, is self-evident as any other axiom is. Rand, too, argued that liberty was a precondition of virtuous conduct,[3] but argued that her non-aggression principle itself derived from a complex set of previous knowledge and values. For this reason, Objectivists refer to the non-aggression principle as such, while libertarians who agree with Rothbard's argument call it "the non-aggression axiom." Rothbard and other anarcho-capitalists hold that government requires non-voluntary taxation to function and that in all known historical cases, the state was established by force rather than social contract.[4] They thus consider the establishment and maintenance of the night-watchman state supported by Objectivists to be in violation of the non-aggression principle.[citation needed]

Jennifer Burns in her biography Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right, notes how Rand's position that "Native Americans were savages", and that as a result "European colonists had a right to seize their land because native tribes did not recognize individual rights", was one of the views that "particularly outraged libertarians."[5] Burns also notes how Rand's position that "Palestinians had no rights and that it was moral to support Israel, the sole outpost of civilization in a region ruled by barbarism", was also a controversial position amongst libertarians, who at the time were a large portion of Rand's fan base.[5]

Libertarians and Objectivists often disagree about matters of foreign policy. Rand's rejection of what she deemed to be "primitivism" extended to the Middle East peace process in the 1970s.[5][6] Following the Arab-Israeli War of 1973, Rand denounced Arabs as "primitive" and "one of the least developed cultures" who "are typically nomads."[6] Consequently, Rand contended Arab resentment for Israel was a result of the Jewish state being "the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their (Arabs) continent", while decreeing that "when you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are."[6] Many libertarians were highly critical of Israeli government at the time.[citation needed]

Most scholars of the libertarian Cato Institute have opposed military intervention against Iran,[7] while the Objectivist Ayn Rand Institute has supported forceful intervention in Iran.[8][9]

The United States Libertarian Party's first candidate for President of the United States, John Hospers, credited Rand as a major force in shaping his own political beliefs.[10]David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, an American libertarian think tank, described Rand's work as "squarely within the libertarian tradition" and that some libertarians are put off by "the starkness of her presentation and by her cult following."[11]Milton Friedman described Rand as "an utterly intolerant and dogmatic person who did a great deal of good."[12] One Rand biographer quoted Murray Rothbard as saying that he was "in agreement basically with all [Rand's] philosophy," and saying that it was Rand who had "convinced him of the theory of natural rights..."[13] Rothbard would later become a particularly harsh critic of Rand, writing in The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult that:

The major lesson of the history of the [objectivist] movement to libertarians is that It Can Happen Here, that libertarians, despite explicit devotion to reason and individuality, are not exempt from the mystical and totalitarian cultism that pervades other ideological as well as religious movements. Hopefully, libertarians, once bitten by the virus, may now prove immune.[14]

Some Objectivists have argued that Objectivism is not limited to Rand's own positions on philosophical issues and are willing to work with and identify with the libertarian movement. This stance is most clearly identified with David Kelley (who separated from the Ayn Rand Institute because of disagreements over the relationship between Objectivists and libertarians), Chris Sciabarra, Barbara Branden (Nathaniel Branden's former wife), and others. Kelley's Atlas Society has focused on building a closer relationship between "open Objectivists" and the libertarian movement.[citation needed]

Rand condemned libertarianism as being a greater threat to freedom and capitalism than both modern liberalism and conservatism.[15] Rand regarded Objectivism as an integrated philosophical system. Libertarianism, in contrast, is a political philosophy which confines its attention to matters of public policy. For example, Objectivism argues positions in metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, whereas libertarianism does not address such questions. Rand believed that political advocacy could not succeed without addressing what she saw as its methodological prerequisites. Rand rejected any affiliation with the libertarian movement and many other Objectivists have done so as well.[16]

Rand said of libertarians that:

See the original post:

Libertarianism and Objectivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Juan Williams Defines Himself As A Libertarian – Is Juan trying to one up for LIE of the Year? – Video

Posted on by


Juan Williams Defines Himself As A Libertarian - Is Juan trying to one up for LIE of the Year?
Please: Like, Share and Subscribe ...Thanks!!! Credit:Fox News Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair ...

By: Disillusioned

The rest is here:

Juan Williams Defines Himself As A Libertarian - Is Juan trying to one up for LIE of the Year? - Video

Montgomery County, PA Libertarian Holiday Party and Monty Award Ceremony 2013 – Video

Posted on by


Montgomery County, PA Libertarian Holiday Party and Monty Award Ceremony 2013
Monty award recipients include Josie the Outlaw, Steve Piotrowski of Citizens for Liberty, NA Poe and Steve Miller-Miller of The Panic Hour, Fernando Salguer...

By: Darren Wolfe

More here:

Montgomery County, PA Libertarian Holiday Party and Monty Award Ceremony 2013 - Video

Libertarianism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Posted on by

Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free")[1] is a set of related political philosophies that uphold liberty as the highest political end.[2][3] This includes emphasis on the primacy of individual liberty,[4][5]political freedom, and voluntary association. It is the antonym to authoritarianism.[6] Different schools of libertarianism disagree over whether the state should exist and, if so, to what extent.[7] While minarchists propose a state limited in scope to preventing aggression, theft, breach of contract and fraud, anarchists advocate its complete elimination as a political system.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13] While certain libertarian currents are supportive of laissez-faire capitalism and private property rights, such as in land and natural resources, others reject capitalism and private ownership of the means of production, instead advocating their common or cooperative ownership and management. [14][15][16][17]

In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, libertarianism is defined as the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things.[18] Libertarian philosopher Roderick Long defines libertarianism as "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals", whether "voluntary association" takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives.[19]In the United States, the term libertarianism is often used as a synonym for economic liberalism.

Many countries throughout the world have libertarian parties (see list of libertarian political parties).

The term libertarian in a metaphysical or philosophical sense was first used by late-Enlightenment free-thinkers to refer to those who believed in free will, as opposed to incompatibilist determinism.[20] The first recorded use was in 1789 by William Belsham in a discussion of free will and in opposition to "necessitarian" (or determinist) views.[21][22]

Libertarian as an advocate or defender of liberty especially in the political and social spheres was used in 1796 in London Packet on the 12th of February:

Lately marched out of the Prison at Bristol, 450 of the French Libertarians.[23]

The word libertarian was used also in a political sense in 1802, in a short piece critiquing a poem by "the author of Gebir":

The author's Latin verses, which are rather more intelligible than his English, mark him for a furious Libertarian (if we may coin such a term) and a zealous admirer of France, and her liberty, under Bonaparte; such liberty![24]

The use of the word "libertarian" to describe a new set of political positions has been tracked to the French cognate, libertaire, which was coined in 1857 by French anarchist Joseph Djacque who used the term to distinguish his libertarian communist approach from the mutualism advocated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.[25] By 1878, Sir John Seeley could characterize a person "who can properly be said to defend liberty" (by opposing tyranny or "resist[ing] the established government") as a "libertarian."[26]Libertarian has been used by some as a synonym for anarchism since the 1890s.[27] By 1901, Frederic William Maitland could use the term to capture a cultural attitude of support for freedom. Observing that "the picture of an editor defending his proof sheets [...] before an official board of critics is not to our liking," Maitland emphasized that "[i]n such matters Englishmen are individualists and libertarians."[28] As early as 1923, H. L. Mencken could write: "My literary theory, like my politics, is based chiefly upon one idea, to wit, the idea of freedom. I am, in belief, a libertarian of the most extreme variety."[29]Albert Jay Nock and Mencken were the first prominent figures in the US to call themselves "libertarians," which they used to signify their allegiance to individualism and limited government, feeling that Franklin D. Roosevelt had co-opted the word "liberal" for his New Deal policies, which they opposed.[30]

In the United States, where the meaning of liberalism has parted significantly from classical liberalism, classical liberalism has largely been renamed libertarianism and is associated with "economically conservative" and "socially liberal" political views (going by the common meanings of "conservative" and "liberal" in the United States),[31][32] along with a foreign policy of non-interventionism.[33][34]

Read the rest here:

Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Libertarian Party (United States) – Wikipedia, the free …

Posted on by

Libertarian Party Chairman Geoff Neale Founded December 11, 1971 (1971-12-11) (42years ago) Headquarters 2600 Virginia Avenue NW, Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20037 Student wing College Libertarians Membership (January 2013) >330,811 [1] Ideology Libertarianism (American) Internal factions: Anarcho-capitalism[2] Paleolibertarianism[3] Classical liberalism Minarchism Austrian economics Left-libertarianism Non-interventionism Voluntaryism Political position

Economic policy: Free market, Laissez-faire[4] Social policy: Civil libertarianism, Cultural liberalism[5]

The Libertarian Party is an American national political party that reflects, represents and promotes the ideas and philosophies of libertarianism. The Libertarian Party was formed in Colorado Springs, Colorado, in the home of Luke Zell on December 11, 1971.[7] The founding of the party was prompted in part due to concerns about the Vietnam War, conscription, and the end of the gold standard.[8] Although there is not an explicitly-labeled "left" or "right" designation of the party, many members, such as 2012 presidential nominee Gary Johnson, state that they are more socially liberal than the Democrats, but more fiscally conservative than the Republicans. The party has generally promoted a classical liberal platform, in contrast to the modern liberal and progressive platform of the Democrats and the more conservative platform of the Republicans.[9]Current policy positions include lowering taxes,[10] allowing people to opt-out of Social Security,[11] abolishing welfare,[12] ending the prohibition on illegal drugs,[13] and supporting gun ownership rights.[14]

In the 30 states where voters can register by party, there is a combined total of 330,811 voters registered under the party.[1] By this count the Libertarian Party is the third-largest party by membership in the United States and it is the third-largest political party in the United States in terms of the popular vote in the country's elections and number of candidates run per election. Due to this, it has been labelled by some as the United States' third-largest political party.[15] It is also identified by many as the fastest growing political party in the United States.[16][dated info]

Hundreds of Libertarian candidates have been elected or appointed to public office, and thousands have run for office under the Libertarian banner.[17][18][19] The Libertarian Party has many firsts to its credit, such as being the party under which the first electoral vote was cast for a woman in a United States presidential election, due to a faithless elector.[20] The party has also seen electoral success in state legislative races. Three Libertarians were elected in Alaska between 1978 and 1984, with another four elected in New Hampshire in 1992.[21][22]

The first Libertarian National Convention was held in June, 1972. In 1978, Dick Randolph of Alaska became the first elected Libertarian state legislator. Following the 1980 federal elections, the Libertarian Party assumed the title of being the third-largest party for the first time after the American Independent Party and the Conservative Party of New York, which were the other largest minor parties at the time, continued to decline. In 1994, over 40 Libertarians were elected or appointed which was a record for the party at that time. 1995 saw a soaring membership and voter registration for the party. In 1996, the Libertarian Party became the first third party to earn ballot status in all 50 states two presidential elections in a row. By the end of 2009, 146 Libertarians were holding elected offices.

Tonie Nathan, running as the Libertarian Party's vice-presidential candidate in the 1972 Presidential Election with John Hospers as the presidential candidate, was the first female candidate in the United States to win an electoral vote.[7][20] The 2012 election Libertarian Party presidential candidate, former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, was chosen on May 4, 2012 at the 2012 Libertarian National Convention in Summerlin, Nevada.[23]

In 1972, "Libertarian Party" was chosen as the party's name, selected over "New Liberty Party."[24] The first official slogan of the Libertarian Party was "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch" (abbreviated "TANSTAAFL"), a phrase popularized by Robert A Heinlein in his 1966 novel The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, sometimes dubbed "a manifesto for a libertarian revolution". The current slogan of the party is "The Party of Principle".[25]

Also in 1972, the "Libersign"an arrow angling upward through the abbreviation "TANSTAAFL" (There ain't no such thing as a free lunch)was selected as the party's emblem.[24] Sometime after, this was replaced with the Lady Liberty, which has, ever since, served as the party's symbol or mascot.[26][27]

In the 1990s several state libertarian parties adopted the Liberty Penguin ("LP") as their official mascot.[28] Another mascot is the Libertarian porcupine, an icon designed by Kevin Breen in March 2006 and is often associated with the Free State Project.[29] Unlike the Republican and Democratic logos, the stars in the porcupine are not inverted, and as such are not considered Satanic or evil references.

Read the rest here:

Libertarian Party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free ...

Libertarians Recruiting More Candidates in Pursuit of Election Success

Posted on by

Libertarians Recruiting More Candidates in Pursuit of Election Success

December 12, 2013

Central Texas is home to many Libertarians, as shown by this map of the percentage of votes Libertarians received by county. Map by Roy Varney.

By Roy Varney

For Reporting Texas

The shorthand for the original slogan of the Libertarian Party could easily be confused with an anagram or a new strand of flu. But TANSTAAFL pronounced tanstaffel and standing for There aint no such thing as a free lunch was the 1971 launch of an effort to shake up the countrys traditionally two-party political system.

The first platform promised to challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

We kind of half-jokingly said there was something in that platform that could offend anyone, recalls Roger Gary, a party member since 1977.

Gary said hes seen the meaning of Libertarianism in Texas change dramatically during his tenure. He has also see significantgrowth in the partys ability to attract voters.

Libertarianism was once considered a fringe party in Texas, but thanks to improved leadership, prolonged public exposure and indirect benefits from the decline of the state Democratic Party, Texas is now the top producer of Libertarian candidates.

Link:

Libertarians Recruiting More Candidates in Pursuit of Election Success

Libertarian enters crowded District 58 race

Posted on by

With six candidates, the District 58 state representative open seat is the most crowded of next years races. Candidates began to declare their intentions to enter the race earlier this year shortly after state Rep. Rob Orr, R-Burleson, announced he will not seek re-election. District 58 includes Johnson and Bosque counties.

In addition to four Republicans and one Democrat, Libertarian candidate Jesse Pistokache Jr. also filed for the race.

Dont look for him on the Texas Secretary of States websites list of candidates.

These candidate listings are specifically for candidates running in the primary elections, Pistokache said. Currently, only the Republican and Democratic parties hold primary elections in Texas. The [Libertarian and other parties] often nominate their candidates at conventions.

Not that it matters much since Pistokache is the sole Libertarian candidate in the race and will go on to face the winner of the March 4 Republican Primary and Democratic candidate Greg Kauffman in Novembers general election.

The 31-year-old Joshua resident said this marks his first run for office.

I decided to run because I wanted to give voters an option other than the status quo of Republicans and Democrats, Pistokache said.

Pistokache attended Godley and Joshua high schools and Hill College and previously served as a volunteer firefighter for the Mid-North Volunteer Fire Department and described himself as someone who cares about and likes to help his community and as a voice for the people.

I probably dont appear too politically correct, Pistokache said. Im not much of a suit and tie guy; Im more Wranglers, boots and a hat.

Pistokache said he has no plans to start a political Facebook site, but welcomed voters to friend him on his personal Facebook page and to stop and visit with him should they see him out and about the district.

More:

Libertarian enters crowded District 58 race

Fox Panelists Laugh at Juan Williams for Calling Himself a ‘Libertarian’

Posted on by

Juan Williams is best known as one of Fox News resident liberals, but is he also a libertarian? When Williams made that assertion on this weekends edition of Cashin In on Fox, he was met with some uproarious laughter from host Eric Bolling and the shows other panelists.

Bolling was telling Williams how worried he is about the NSAs supposed ability to remotely turn on a laptops camera, when Williams shot back, You guys should be worried about terrorists. When he added that hes a libertarian on privacy rights issues, the panel exploded into simultaneous laughter and protestations.

We cant let you get away with that, Bolling responded. You cant say Im a libertarian and Im O.K. with this.

While Williams comment got a lot of incredulous reactions from the group, the best one definitely came from contributor Michelle Fields:

Watch video below, via Fox News:

[photo via screengrab]

>> Follow Matt Wilstein (@TheMattWilstein) on Twitter

More:

Fox Panelists Laugh at Juan Williams for Calling Himself a ‘Libertarian’

Island – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Posted on by

An island // or isle // is any piece of sub-continental land that is surrounded by water. Very small islands such as emergent land features on atolls can be called islets, skerries, cays or keys. An island in a river or a lake island may be called an eyot or ait, or a holm. A grouping of geographically or geologically related islands is called an archipelago, e.g. the Philippines.

An island may be described as such despite the presence of an artificial land bridge, for example Singapore and its causeway, or the various Dutch delta islands, such as IJsselmonde. Some places may even retain "island" in their names for historical reasons after being connected to a larger landmass by a wide land bridge, such as Coney Island. Conversely, when a piece of land is separated from the mainland by a man-made canal, for example the Peloponnese by the Corinth Canal, it is generally not considered an island.

There are two main types of islands: continental islands and oceanic islands. There are also artificial islands.

The word island comes from Middle English iland, from Old English igland (from ig, similarly meaning 'island' when used independently, and -land carrying its contemporary meaning; cf. Dutch eiland ("island"), German Eiland ("small island")). However, the spelling of the word was modified in the 15th century due to an incorrect association with the etymologically unrelated Old French loanword isle, which itself comes from the Latin word insula.[1] Old English ig is actually a cognate of Latin aqua (water).[2]

Greenland is the world's largest island [3] with an area of over 2.1 million km, while Australia, the world's smallest continent[4] has an area of 7.6 million km, but there is no standard of size which distinguishes islands from continents,[5] or from islets.[6] There is a difference between islands and continents in terms of geology. Continents sit on continental lithosphere which is part of tectonic plates floating high on Earth's molten mantle. Oceanic crust is also part of tectonic plates, but it is denser than continental lithosphere, so it floats low on the mantle. Islands are either extensions of the oceanic crust (e.g. volcanic islands) or geologically they are part of some continent sitting on continental lithosphere(e.g. Greenland).[7] This holds true for Australia, which sits on its own continental lithosphere and tectonic plate.

Continental islands are bodies of land that lie on the continental shelf of a continent. Examples include Borneo, Java, and Sumatra off Asia; New Guinea, Tasmania, and Kangaroo Island off Australia; Great Britain, Ireland, and Sicily off Europe; Greenland, Newfoundland, Long Island, and Sable Island off North America; and Barbados and Trinidad off South America.

A special type of continental island is the microcontinental island, which results when a continent is rifted. Examples are Madagascar and Socotra off Africa, the Kerguelen Islands, New Caledonia, New Zealand, and some of the Seychelles.

Another subtype is an island or bar formed by deposition of tiny rocks where a water current loses some of its carrying capacity. An example is barrier islands, which are accumulations of sand deposited by sea currents on the continental shelves. Another example is islands in river deltas or in large rivers. While some are transitory and may disappear if the volume or speed of the current changes, others are stable and long-lived. Islets are very small islands.

A desert island is an island with no people. Typically, a desert island is denoted as such because it exists in a state of being deserted, or abandoned. An arid desert climate is not typically implied; one dictionary uses the phrase 'desert island' to illustrate the use of 'desert' as an adjective meaning "desolate and sparsely occupied or unoccupied".[8] According to another, "A desert island is a small tropical island, where nobody lives or an undiscovered island."[9]

Oceanic islands are ones that do not sit on continental shelves. The vast majority are volcanic in origin.[10] The few oceanic islands that are not volcanic are tectonic in origin and arise where plate movements have lifted up the deep ocean floor to above the surface. Examples of this include Saint Peter and Paul Rocks in the Atlantic Ocean and Macquarie Island in the Pacific.

Read this article:

Island - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia