Monthly Archives: October 2015

Libertarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know

Posted: October 26, 2015 at 9:41 am

Historically, Americans have seen libertarians as far outside the mainstream, but with the rise of the Tea Party movement, libertarian principles have risen to the forefront of Republican politics. But libertarianism is more than the philosophy of individual freedom and unfettered markets that Republicans have embraced. Indeed, as Jason Brennan points out, libertarianism is a quite different--and far richer--system of thought than most of us suspect.

In this timely new entry in Oxford's acclaimed series What Everyone Needs to Know, Brennan offers a nuanced portrait of libertarianism, proceeding through a series of questions to illuminate the essential elements of libertarianism and the problems the philosophy addresses, including such topics as the Value of Liberty, Human Nature and Ethics, Economic Liberty, Civil Rights, Social Justice and the Poor, Government and Democracy, and Contemporary Politics. Brennan asks the most fundamental and challenging questions: What do Libertarians think liberty is? Do libertarians think everyone should be selfish? Are libertarians just out to protect the interests of big business? What do libertarians think we should do about racial injustice? What would libertarians do about pollution? Are Tea Party activists true libertarians? As he sheds light on libertarian beliefs, Brennan overturns numerous misconceptions. Libertarianism is not about simple-minded paranoia about government, he writes. Rather, it celebrates the ideal of peaceful cooperation among free and equal people. Libertarians believe that the rich always capture political power; they want to minimize the power available to them in order to protect the weak. Brennan argues that libertarians are, in fact, animated by benevolence and a deep concern for the poor.

Clear, concise, and incisively written, this volume explains a vitally important philosophy in American history--and a potent force in contemporary politics.

What Everyone Needs to Know is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press.

Read the original here:
Libertarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know

Posted in Libertarianism | Comments Off on Libertarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know

International Encyclopedia of Economic Sociology: Libertarianism

Posted: at 9:41 am

This essay first appeared in the International Encyclopedia of Economic Sociology, edited by Jens Beckert and Milan Zafirovski (London and New York: Routledge, 2006, pp. 403-407). It was posted as a Notablog entry on 5 January 2006. Comments welcome (post here).

Notablog Posts (previous and next)

<< Song of the Day #509 Main David Mayer's Annual Report on "Prospects for Liberty" >>

"LIBERTARIANISM"

By Chris Matthew Sciabarra

Libertarianism is the political ideology ofvoluntarism, a commitment to voluntary action in a social context, where no individual or group of individuals can initiate the use of force against others. It is not a monolithic ideological paradigm; rather, it signifies a variety of approaches that celebrate therule of law and the free exchange of goods, services, and ideas a laissez-faire attitude towards what philosopher Robert Nozick (1974) once called capitalist acts between consenting adults.

Modern libertarians draw inspiration from writings attributed to the Chinese sage Lao Tzu, as well as the works of Aristotle, among the ancients; [seventeenth-,] eighteenth- and nineteenth-century classicalliberalism (e.g. John Locke, the Scottish Enlightenment, the American founders, Carl Menger, andHerbert Spencer); individualist anarchism (e.g. Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner); Old Right opponents of Franklin D. Roosevelts New Deal (e.g. Albert Jay Nock, John T. Flynn, Isabel Paterson andH. L. Mencken); modern Austrian economics (e.g. Ludwig von Mises, F. A. Hayek and Murray Rothbard), as well as the economics of the Chicago school(Milton Friedman) and Virginia school (James Buchanan); and the Objectivist philosopherAyn Rand.

Classical liberalism is the most immediatepredecessor of contemporary libertarianism. Locke and the American founders had an impact on those libertarians, such as Rothbard and Rand, who stress individual rights, while the Scottish Enlightenment and Spencer had a major impact on thinkerssuch as Hayek, who stress the evolutionary wisdom of customs and traditions in contradistinctionto the constructivist rationalism of state planners.

Among evolutionists, Spencer in particularmade important contributions to what would become known as general systems theory; some consider him to be the founder of modern sociology. Indeed, he authored Principles of Sociology and TheStudy of Sociology, which was the textbook used for the first sociology course offered in the United States, at Yale University. A contemporary of Charles Darwin, he focused on social evolution the development of societies and organizational structuresfrom simple to compound forms. In such works as The Man Versus the State, he presented a conception of society as a spontaneous, integrated growth and not amanufacture, an organically evolving context for the development of heterogeneity and differentiation among the individuals who compose it. Just as Spencer emphasized organic social evolution, so too did he focus on the organic evolution of the state with its mutually reinforcing reliance onbureaucracy and militarism, and how it might be overcome.

The Austrian-born Carl Menger, a founder along with W. S. Jevons and Lon Walras of the marginalist revolution in economics, held a similar view of social life as a dynamic, spontaneous, evolving process. Influenced by Aristotle in his methodological individualism, Menger wasfervently opposed to the historical relativism of the German historicists of the Methodenstreit. Menger focused on the purposeful actions of individuals in generating unintended sociologicalconsequences a host of institutions, such as language, religion, law, the state, markets, competition and money.

In the twentieth century, the Nobel laureate Austrian economist F. A. Hayek carried on Mengers evolutionist discussion and praised it for providing outstanding guidelines for general sociology. For Hayek (1991), Menger was among the Darwinians before Darwin those evolutionists,such as the conservative Edmund Burke and the liberals of the Scottish Enlightenment, who stressed the evolution of institutions as the product of unintended consequences, rather than deliberate design. Hayek drew a direct parallel between hisown concept of spontaneous order and Adam Smiths notion of the invisible hand. Hayek argued that, over time, there is a competition among various emergent traditions, each of which embodies rivalrules of action and perception. Through a process of natural selection, those rules and institutions that are more durable than others will tend to flourish, resulting in a relative increase in population and wealth. Though he didnt argue for a theory of inevitable progress, as Spencer had, heclearly assumed that liberalism was the social system most conducive to such flourishing.

Like Karl Marx, Hayek criticized utopiansfor their desire to construct social institutions as if from an Archimedean standpoint, external to history and culture. But Hayek turned this analysis on Marx; he developed a full-fledged critique of socialism and central planning as utopian requiring an unattainable synoptic knowledge of all the articulated and tacit dimensions of social life. Hayek argued that market prices were indispensable to rational entrepreneurial calculation. He also focused on the sociological and psychological ramifications of the movement away from markets. He maintains in The Road to Serfdom (1944), for example, that there is a structural connection between social psychology and politics: to the extent that the stateimposes collectivist arrangements on individuals, it is destructive of individualchoice, morals and responsibility, and this destruction of individualism reinforces the spread of statism. And the more the state comes to dominate social life, says Hayek, the more state power will be the only power worth having which is why theworst get on top.

The Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises was similarly opposed to statism and collectivism, and presented, in [1922], an influential book entitled Socialism, which was an economic and sociological analysis of all forms of state intervention from fascism to communism. Mises used the tools of praxeology, the science of humanaction, to demonstrate the calculational problems that all non-market systems face, due to their elimination of private property, entrepreneurialism and the price system. More important, perhaps, is Misess development of a non-Marxist, libertarian theoryof class. Like Charles Dunoyer, Charles Comte, James Mill and other classical liberals, Mises argued that traders on the market share a mutuality of benefit that is destroyed by political intervention. For Mises, the long-term interests of marketparticipants are not in fundamental conflict. It is only with government action that such conflict becomes possible, Mises claims,because it is only government that can create a caste system based on the bestowal of special privileges.

Mises located the central caste conflictin the financial sector of the economy. In such books as The Theory of Money and Credit, he contends that government control over money and banking led to the cycle of boom and bust. A systematicincrease in the money supply creates differentialeffects over time, redistributing wealth to those social groups, especially banks and debtor industries, which are the first beneficiaries of the inflation.

Mises student, Murray Rothbard, developed this theory of caste conflict into a full-fledged libertarian class analysis. Rothbard views central banking as a cartelizing device that has created a powerful structure of class privilege in modern political economy. These privileges growexponentially as government restricts market competition and free entry, thereby creating monopoly through various coercive means (e.g. compulsory cartelization, price controls, output quotas, licensing, tariffs, immigration restrictions, labourlaws, conscription, patents, franchises, etc.).

Rothbards view of the relationship between big business and government in the rise of American statism draws additionally from the work of New Left historical revisionists, such as Gabriel Kolko andJames Weinstein. These historians held that big business was at the forefront of the movement towards government regulation of the market. That movement, according to Rothbard, had both a domestic and foreigncomponent, since it often entailed both domestic regulation and foreign imperialism to secure global markets. The creation of a welfare-warfare state leads necessarily to economic inefficiencies and deep distortions in the structure of production. Like Marx, Rothbard views these internal contradictions as potentially fatal to the economic system; unlike Marx, Rothbard blames these contradictions not on the free market, but on the growth of statism.

Drawing inspiration from Franz Oppenheimers and Albert Jay Nocks distinction between state power and social power, or state and market, and from John C. Calhouns class theory, as presented in Disquisition on Government, Rothbard sawsociety fragmenting, ultimately, into two opposing classes: taxpayers and tax-consumers. In his book Power and Market, Rothbard identifies bureaucrats, politicians and the net beneficiaries of government privilege as among the tax-consumers. Unlike his Austrian predecessors Hayek andMises, however, Rothbard argues that it is only with the elimination of the state that a fully just and productive society can emerge. His anarcho-capitalist ideal society would end the states monopoly on the coercive use of force, as well as taxation and conscription, and allow for the emergence of contractual agencies for the protectionof fully delineated private property rights (thereby resolving the problems of externalities and public goods) and the adjudication of disputes. His scenario had a major impact on Nozick, whose Anarchy,State, and Utopia was written in response to the Rothbardian anarchist challenge.

Ayn Rand, the Russian-born novelist and philosopher, author of best-selling novels TheFountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, was one of those who eschewed the libertarian label, partially because of its association with anarchism. An epistemological realist, ethical egoist and advocate of laissez-faire capitalism, Rand maintained that libertarians had focused too much attention on politics to the exclusion of the philosophical and cultural factors upon which it depended. But even though she saw politics as hierarchically dependent on these factors, she often stressed the reciprocal relationships among disparate elements, from politicsand pedagogy to sex, economics and psychology. She sought to transcend the dualities of mind and body, reason and emotion, theory and practice, fact and value, morality and prudence, and theconventional philosophic dichotomies of materialism and idealism, rationalism and empiricism, subjectivism and classical objectivism (which she called intrinsicism). Yet, despite her protestations, Rand can be placed in the libertarian tradition, given her adherence to its voluntarist political credo.

From the perspective of social theory, Rand proposed a multi-level sociological analysis of human relations under statism. Echoing the Austrian critique of state intervention in her analysis of politics and economics, Rand extended her critique toencompass epistemology, psychology, ethics and culture. She argued that statism both nourished and depended upon an irrational altruist and collectivist ethos that demanded the sacrifice of the individual to the group. It required and perpetuated a psychology of dependence and a groupmentality that was destructive of individual authenticity, integrity, honesty and responsibility. Rand also focused on the cultural preconditions and effects of statism since coercive social relations required fundamental alterations in the nature of language, education, pedagogy, aesthetics and ideology. Just as relations of power operatethrough ethical, psychological, cultural, political and economic dimensions, so too, for Rand, the struggle for freedom and individualism depends upon a certain constellation of moral, psychological, cultural and structural factors that support it. Randadvocated capitalism, the unknown ideal, as the only system capable of generating just social conditions, conducive to the individuals survival and flourishing.

See also: inflation; laissez faire; monopolyand oligopoly.

References and further reading

Calhoun, John C. ([1853]1953) A Disquisition onGovernment and Selections from the Discourse on the Constitution and Government of the United States, Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.

Hayek, F. A. (1944) The Road to Serfdom, Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

(1991) The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek,Volume 3: The Trend of Economic Thinking: Essays on Political Economists and Economic History, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mises, Ludwig von ([1912]1981) The Theory ofMoney and Credit, Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Classics.

(1936) Socialism: An Economic and SociologicalAnalysis, London: Jonathan Cape.

Nozick, Robert (1974) Anarchy, State, and Utopia,New York: Basic Books.

Rand, Ayn (1967) Capitalism: The UnknownIdeal, New York: New American Library.

Rothbard, Murray ([1970]1977) Power and Market:Government and the Economy, Kansas City, MO: Sheed Andrews and McMeel.

(1978) For a New Liberty: The LibertarianManifesto, revised edition, New York: Collier Books.

Sciabarra, Chris Matthew (1995) Ayn Rand: TheRussian Radical, University Park, PA: PennsylvaniaState University Press.

(1995) Marx, Hayek, and Utopia, Albany,NY: State University of New York Press.

(2000) Total Freedom: Toward a DialecticalLibertarianism, University Park, PA: PennsylvaniaState University Press.

Spencer, Herbert (1873) The Study of Sociology,New York: D. Appleton.

(188298) The Principles of Sociology, threevolumes, London: Williams and Norgate.

([1940]1981) The Man Versus the State, withSix Essays on Government, Society, and Freedom, Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Classics.

CHRIS MATTHEW SCIABARRA

______ Note: [bracketed words] above are corrections to online version

| FREEDOM | RAND | UTOPIA | ESSAYS | FEMINIST | THESIS | SEARCH | ABOUT | FUTURE | SEMINAR | DOG | LINKS |BLOG |

Continued here:
International Encyclopedia of Economic Sociology: Libertarianism

Posted in Libertarianism | Comments Off on International Encyclopedia of Economic Sociology: Libertarianism

Transhuman Singularity

Posted: at 9:40 am

A list of links to my science fiction short stories:

I am a Hummingbird After my body died the surgeons put me in a hummingbird. It took a while to get use to having my perspective darting around so quickly, but my mind had finally adapted to it.

Sneeze! A few days Mr. Anderson. Don't worry, it's a positive virus, I'm origin zero. Then you'll be one of us, welcome to the new global hivemind, we-I always choose well. It will be unlike anything you have ever experienced or imagined. Expect a mental call, anything will be possible, said Kay, a future echo ... Kay Noble replied, then collected the documents, velvet and all, and left the room without a further word.

Muffy the Time Traveling Chihuahua Muffy was a loyal pack dog on the locally collapsed time-day of his death, which varied in fractal quantum probability across a multitude of bifurcated futures or space-time universes.

Lunch 2032 Her IQ was probably skyrocket norm. It seems the gene engineers had given her both great brains and beauty. She wanted to be a Terraforming Research Scientist, but on Earth she would have to settle for other work. Her parents had lost most of their money in a wild Marsearth start-up investment, so she had to work her way through the university, no one would give a genmod scholarship. It was just plain and simple prejudice.

Virtuality Zane Pax hid behind a large bolder as the black alien warship flew overhead. NaHan had swarmed the cities of the world laying waste to human civilization. Humanity was on the endangered species list, on our way out for good.

The Alien Time-Traveler Historian Mathew answers, Variations of me exist in most all future branches. Thats really rare, and thats why Im allowed to speak to you. To help you understand. You see, those that are still basically human in the future have great compassion. They want to help reduce the suffering. Im here on their behalf to try and influence things.

The Galactic Culture Finally, in order to survive the approaching technological singularity and remove their aggressive and self-destructive evolved behaviors, pre-type 1 species sometimes begin an extensive program of self-initiated genetic re-engineering and intelligence amplification (usually proceeded by development of a global computing system -Internet). Sometimes this is successful, other times not.

Lunar CityOutward space exploration and expansion grew at a rapid pace, due to the privatization of all space exploration and its subsequent exploitation. Corporations headed by forward thinking executives now controlled access to space. Spaceports have sprouted up all over the world, giving average citizens access to affordable space travel. Now space stations, moon bases and asteroid factories, which provided most of the raw materials, have become independent space communities. Distant science outposts have been constructed on the outer planets and moons. The solar system has become the playground of humanity.

VR Prototype Jason Chen bent over in his subway seat to pick up a rarely seen plastic penny he spotted face-up on the train floor. A penny existed today only to make exact change for those who still stubbornly used physical money. He didnt understand why, but somehow its continued existence was comforting for some. Angling the lucky coin in his fingers to see the three-dimensional head of Abraham Lincoln, he noted the year on the coin was 2053, the year of his birth.

Dr. Xanoplatu Dr. Xanoplatu, an alien anthropologist, historian, and time traveler, materialized on stage wearing the body of his ancestors, a giant green Praying Mantis with large yellow eyes and small black pupils. He was speaking at a galactic cultural lecture, inside a de-localized spherical space station, somewhere and some when in a multi-versed space-time reality.

Virtuality Mind Marcus replies, Yes, you can assume Im crazy. But, Im just communicating to you through this mans body. For a short period of time, I can do this, without his knowing it. When I leave and his consciousness re-awakens, this memory will seem like a daydream to him.

Resurrection Birth Jason awoke to a static humming sound.It was so annoying, grating on his nerves more than a badly tuned alarm clock.He lifted his heavy eyelids to blinding light, and out of focus images.His vision slowly cleared and he realized he was inside a plastic coffin thing.

Read the original post:
Transhuman Singularity

Posted in Transhuman | Comments Off on Transhuman Singularity

Censorship and Free Speech | Amnesty International USA

Posted: at 1:41 am

"Free speech" isn't so free when it costs you your liberty. In countries around the world, the right to express one's thoughts and beliefs is under assault.

Throughout the world individuals face harassment and imprisonment as a result of exercising their right to freedom of expression.

Everyone has the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas without fear or interference.

This right is important for the personal development and dignity of every individual and is vital for the fulfillment of other human rights.

Freedom of expression has always been a core part of Amnesty International's work and is closely linked to the right to hold opinions and the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

Amnesty International has campaigned on behalf of thousands of prisoners of conscience people who are imprisoned because of their political, religious or other conscientiously held beliefs, ethnic origin, sex, color, language, national or social origin, economic status, birth, sexual orientation or other status.

Amnesty International calls for the immediate and unconditional release of all prisoners of conscience

Human rights defenders are individuals, groups of people or organizations who promote and protect human rights through peaceful and non-violent means. Their actions depend on, and fuel, freedom of expression.

Because of their activities, human rights defenders can become a target of abuse. Governments, security forces, business interests, armed groups, religious leaders and sometimes even their own families and communities can try and silence their dissenting opinions or actions.

The internet has opened up new possibilities for individuals and groups to seek and impart information and ideas. Yet, the internet is also a new frontier where freedom of expression is being challenged.

Read the rest here:
Censorship and Free Speech | Amnesty International USA

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on Censorship and Free Speech | Amnesty International USA

Amazon.com: Free Speech: A Very Short Introduction (Very …

Posted: at 1:41 am

Warburton writes, "John Stuart Mill was explicit that incitement to violence was the point at which intervention to curb free speech was appropriate. Mere offensiveness wasn't sufficient grounds for intervention and should not be prevented by law, by threats, or by social pressure." "A spirit of toleration should not include a prohibition on causing offence." Times columnist Oliver Kamm agreed, "Free speech does indeed cause hurt - but there is nothing wrong in this."

As US Justice Brennan said in Texas v. Johnson, which upheld the right of dissenters to burn the US flag as a protest, "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."

Virtually anything can be seen as offensive, and something that is both true and important is bound to offend somebody.

But in Britain today, it seems that we have the right to have free speech, as long as we don't use it. So members of the English Defence League are arrested and the group Muslims against Crusades is disbanded for saying things that some find offensive. But it is legitimate, if unjust and idiotic, to call for Sharia law here, and it is also legitimate, and just, to oppose Sharia law.

This government is trying to suppress dissent. It is expanding its police powers to control and limit expression, narrowing our rights of democratic participation.

The meanings of symbols like the poppy are in the realm of opinion and argument, so the state must not impose a politically correct interpretation on us.

See the original post:
Amazon.com: Free Speech: A Very Short Introduction (Very ...

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on Amazon.com: Free Speech: A Very Short Introduction (Very …

Free speech on public college campuses overview | First …

Posted: at 1:41 am

Friday, September 13, 2002

Free speech at public universities and colleges is at once the most obvious and the most paradoxical of constitutional principles. It is obvious because given the nature of academic inquiry, only an open, robust and critical environment for speech will support the quest for truth. At the same time, universities are at once communities that must balance the requirements of free speech with issues of civility, respect and human dignity. They are also part and parcel of the larger social order with its own, often competing set of values.

Public universities are particularly rich grounds for conflict over matters of speech. They bring together persons with often strongly held yet contradictory views. Universities, for example, have their own newspapers, some of which may be operated by the university, by the students or by an off-campus group. Public institutions in their diversity often have students and faculty of different political persuasions, sexual orientations and religious commitments. Moreover, one of the driving concepts of the university campus is academic freedom, the right to inquire broadly, to question and to promote an environment where wrong answers, seemingly absurd ideas and unconventional thought are not just permitted but even encouraged.

As Robert M. ONeil, a former university president and expert on First Amendment issues, wrote in his book Free Speech in the College Community, the fate of free speech on public campuses became increasingly important, considerably more controversial, and generally more supportive of openness over the course of the 20th century. In recent times the most contentious issues have involved the development of so-called speech codes designed to restrict certain kinds of speech deemed by the administration to be offensive.

But the issue of free expression on campus goes beyond speech codes and involves a host of other matters. They include outspoken university faculty; technologically mediated discussions that transcend through the World Wide Web the requirements of time and place so essential to traditional First Amendment analysis; visiting speakers expressing controversial views; the use of student fees to support gay, lesbian and other organizations; the reporting and editorializing of the campus newspaper; artistic expression; and the facultys freedom to pursue, publish and proclaim their research findings. In each of these instances, the underlying issue for a university is its duty to teach its students the lessons of responsibility that accompany the privilege of academic freedom.

The concept of academic freedom The concept of academic freedom and its connection to freedom of expression received full treatment in the landmark 1957 decision Sweezy v. New Hampshire. In that case, the attorney general of New Hampshire, acting on behalf of the state Legislature under a broad resolution directing him to determine whether there were subversive persons working for the state, had charged Paul Sweezy, a visiting lecturer at the University of New Hampshire, with failing to answer questions. The questions were about whether he had delivered a lecture with leftist contents at the university and about his knowledge of the Progressive Party of the state and its members. Sweezy refused to answer those questions, on the grounds that doing so would violate his rights under the First Amendment and the freedom that it provided him to engage in academic pursuits.

In 1957 the U.S. Supreme Court, in a plurality opinion by Chief Justice Earl Warren, held in Sweezys favor and in so doing authored a ringing endorsement of academic freedom. The essentiality of freedom in the community of American universities is almost self-evident. Scholarship cannot flourish in an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust. Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding, otherwise our civilization will stagnate and die. In recent times, however, this broad statement in support of academic freedom has come under increasing attack, and ironically that attack has come from the liberal side of the political spectrum that the Supreme Court sought to protect in Sweezy.

Despite that seemingly ringing declaration, the justices have failed to define the exact nature and scope of academic freedom. They have also failed to develop a real constitutional theory to support it. Generally, the concept, as applied to public universities, is rooted in the First Amendments concern with free inquiry and promotion of heterodox views that critically examine conventional wisdom.

As with related areas of First Amendment jurisprudence, the justices have subscribed to the view that truth is discovered in the marketplace of ideas, culled from a cacophony of diverse views. Indeed, the Court has referred interchangeably to academic freedom and the right to political expression. The Court, however, has imposed certain limitations upon academic freedom, because employees of academic institutions are treated almost identically to all other public employees. Although the Court has not directly limited academic freedom through the public-employee doctrine, it has constricted the rights of faculty at public institutions. According to case law, speech on matters of public concern is constitutionally protected, while speech on internal institutional matters is entitled to considerably less protection. The justices have accepted that a university has a legitimate need to maintain orderly operations and to regulate its own affairs, and that its duty to do so may outweigh the employees free-speech interests. Furthermore, the Court has concluded expressly that academic freedom protects neither intimidating acts, actual threats nor disruptive acts interfering with an educational program.

Speech codes Speech codes have emerged from this constitutional milieu. They are the most controversial ways in which universities have attempted to strike a balance between expression and community order. Many major universities have introduced these codes to deal especially with so-called hate speech; that is, utterances that have as their object groups and individuals that are identified on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation.

Beginning in the 1980s, a variety of studies, including one by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching titled Campus Tensions, highlighted instances of racial hatred and harassment directed at racial minorities. Over the past two decades the harassment has grown to include gays and lesbians, women and members of other ethnic groups. On several campuses white students have worn blackface for sorority and fraternity parties. On one campus a flier was distributed that warned: The Knights of the Ku Klux Klan Are Watching You.

Many campuses responded to such actions by adopting policies that officially banned such expression and made those found guilty of engaging in it susceptible to punishments ranging from reprimands to expulsion. The idea, of course, was to chill the environment for such expression by punishing various forms of speech based on either content or viewpoint. These codes found strong support from some administrators, faculty and students who were convinced that by controlling speech it would be possible to improve the climate for racial and other minorities. The assumption behind the codes was that limiting harassment on campus would spare the would-be victims of hate speech psychological, emotional and even physical damage. The supporters of such codes also argued that they represented good educational policy, insisting that such bans meant that the learning process on campus would not be disrupted and that the concept of rational discourse, as opposed to hate-inspired invective and epithet, would be enshrined.

In developing these codes, university administrators relied on a well-known Supreme Court doctrine i.e., the fighting words exception developed in the 1942 decision Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. Justice Frank Murphy, writing for a unanimous court, found that Walter Chaplinsky had been appropriately convicted under a New Hampshire law against offensive and derisive speech and name-calling in public. Murphy developed a two-tier approach to the First Amendment. Certain well-defined and narrowly limited categories of speech fall outside the bounds of constitutional protection. Thus, the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and insulting or fighting words neither contributed to the expression of ideas nor possessed any social value in searching for truth.

While the Supreme Court has moved away from the somewhat stark formation given the fighting-words doctrine by Justice Murphy, lower courts have continued to invoke it. More important, universities have latched on to it as a device by which to constitutionalize their speech codes. The University of California in 1989, for example, invoked the fighting-words doctrine specifically, and other institutions of higher learning have done the same. Some institutions have recognized that the protean and somewhat vague nature of the fighting-words doctrine had to be focused. In 1990 the University of Texas developed a speech code that placed emphasis on the intent of the speaker to engage in harassment and on evidence that the effort to do so had caused real harm. Still other institutions, most notably the University of Michigan, attempted to link their speech codes to existing policies dealing with non-discrimination and equal opportunity. That tactic aimed to make purportedly offensive speech unacceptable because it had the consequence of producing discriminatory behavior.

These codes frequently became parodies of themselves and even the subject of satirical skits on late-night television programs such as Saturday Night Live. As Robert ONeil points out, perhaps the most notable example came from the University of Connecticut. Its policy, which was struck down by a federal court, went so far as to make inappropriately directed laughter and conspicuous exclusion from conversations and/or classroom discussions violations of its speech policy.

Political correctness The Connecticut example, however, raises a far more disquieting issue. The erection of these codes in the late 1980s and the early 1990s was done, at least in part, in response to dogged pressures brought by groups determined to use the authority of the university to eliminate harassment and discrimination while pressing their own causes. As former university president Sheldon Hackney has observed: [I]n this kind of argument, one is either right or wrong, for them or against them, a winner or a loser. Real answers are the casualties of such drive-by debate. This may be good entertainment, but it only reinforces lines of division and does not build toward agreement.

As so-called political correctness ignited a nationwide debate about what universities could and should restrict, many liberals found themselves in the awkward position of supporting the very limitations on expression that they had fought against during and after the great McCarthy Red Scare of the 1950s and 1960s, and campuses divided into camps for and against. Moreover, states during these years also adopted bans on speakers, most notably those associated with the Communist Party. Hence, a new and left-wing form of political oppression seemed to be replacing an older, right-wing one, with the same effect: The views and voices of some were curtailed.

Overbreadth, vagueness & content discrimination Speech codes are vulnerable in several ways and many have been struck down on constitutional grounds. Courts have viewed the codes as failing on two important points. First, they have been deemed to be overly broad and vague, reaching groups and persons not appropriately covered by such codes. In 1989, for example, a federal judge in Doe v. The University of Michigan, threw out the universitys code because it was overly vague when it proscribed language that stigmatizes or victimizes an individual. The guidebook that went along with enforcing the code, the judge found, included a provision that restricted speech that might prompt someone to laugh at a joke about a fellow student in class who stuttered. Such speech would have been protected off campus and, therefore, it could not be excluded on campus, the judge found. Moreover, the same judge found that comments made by a social-work student to the effect that homosexuality was a disease should not have been punished. [T]he university, the judge wrote, considered serious comments in the context of the classroom discussion to be sanctionable under the policy. As such, the court condemned the universitys policy as vague and potentially without limitation in its impact on members of the academic community.

Second, and related to the issue of vagueness, the speech codes have been attacked successfully because they involve a regulation of either the content or viewpoint, not just its time, place and manner. While advocates of speech codes argued that they were essentially content neutral and protected by the fighting-words doctrine, federal judges found otherwise. In the case of the University of Wisconsin code, a federal judge in the 1991 case of UWM Post v. Board of Regents, held that the fighting-words doctrine had little value as a guide, since the code pronounced the utterance of certain kinds of speech unacceptable even if they were unlikely to result in a breach of the peace. In fact, such codes were meant specifically to exclude certain kinds of content in speech. These codes prevented a speaker from ever having a chance to convince the listener of the correctness of his or her positions, since the words to do so could never be uttered or written.

In many ways the Supreme Court dealt speech codes a seemingly devastating blow in its 1992 decision R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul. Though the case dealt with a St. Paul, Minn., ordinance that made it a crime, among other things, to place on public or private property a burning cross or Nazi swastika, which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender, it also had broad implications for universities. The unanimous Court held the ordinance unconstitutional on the grounds that it sought to ban speech based on content. The effect of the decision was to slow but not altogether end the use of bans on hate speech, either on or off campus.

Judicial precedent vs. collegiate action Yet just because federal courts, both high and low, have severely restricted speech codes, it does not follow that the universities have altogether complied.

As John B. Gould reports in his ground-breaking study, The Precedent That Wasnt: College Hate Speech Codes and the Two Faces of Legal Compliance, college hate-speech codes are far from dead. His careful analysis of codes enacted between 1992 and 1997 demonstrates that hate-speech policies not only persist, but have also actually increased in number despite court decisions striking them down. By 1997 the percentage of schools with speech policies had actually jumped 11% from 1992, Gould found, and, while policies against verbal harassment of minorities had dropped 3%, those covering other kinds of offensive speech had tripled. As Gould notes, this apparent contradiction between judicial precedent on one hand and collegiate action on the other is hardly surprising to students of judicial impact, but it does highlight the tenacious efforts by advocates of speech codes to continue to use institutional authority to limit speech.

The matter of the legal standing of such codes, however, can obscure the larger issue of whether they should exist at all. Of course, expression on a campus is not a free-for-all; there are limits. There are clearly forms of expression associated with conduct that can be banned, including fighting words, libel, falsification of research findings, plagiarism and cheating. In these instances, as ONeil notes, the limitation placed on expression is not a matter of the speakers viewpoint or message. Universities, he warns, need to be wary of picking and choosing which speech they will and will not support and in so doing protecting some groups by curbing the speech of others. Moreover, most university speech codes have been condemned by the American Civil Liberties Union, although the ACLU has also insisted that universities can draft disciplinary codes that are narrowly tailored to prevent and punish such behavior as intimidating phone calls, threats of attack, and extortion. However, speech that merely creates an unpleasant learning environment is not, according to the ACLU, susceptible to being regulated. That position has been generally adopted by the federal courts.

Universities are not islands The debate over speech codes reminds us of the ongoing importance of free expression on campus and the often controversial nature of its practice. Universities above all other institutions must welcome a broad range of views and protect speech that has a strong viewpoint or content in its message. New technology, for example, has created novel issues for campuses, with students and faculty using the World Wide Web to communicate disputed ideas, such as that the Holocaust did not occur, that either are offensive to many and arguably wrong, or to provide access to materials such as pornography that some find repulsive.

The list could be extended to other areas as well: the radical speaker, the dissident faculty member, the religious fundamentalist, the artist pressing the boundaries of civility and so on. As thorny and troubling as these issues may be, the history of free expression suggests that these and other matters are not going away; indeed, they are inherent in a free society generally and especially on a public university campus, bound as it is by the federal and state constitutions. Efforts to restrict the viewpoint or message of anyone on a campus puts the institution at odds with its primary educational mission: to give students the opportunity to sort through opposing ideas.

The First Amendment generally, and freedom of expression in particular, are not absolute concepts, and that is why they are at once so difficult to administer and so essential to a free society and an educated citizenry. Community interests and civility have always to be weighed in the balance. Campuses are in no way obliged to permit speech that poses a threat of imminent danger, lawlessness or the destruction of either public or private property. Campus newspapers are not free to print whatever they want; the law of libel applies to them just as it applies to every other journalistic enterprise. Child pornography is unacceptable, whether on or off the campus. What is criminal away from the campus is criminal on campus. Universities are not islands. They are part of a larger community of values and interests, albeit that they enjoy the special privilege of and responsibility for their academic freedom and the goal of unfettered inquiry that animates it.

Tags: free speech, public college

More articles related to Free Speech on Public College Campuses | Speech Research | free speech, public college. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

View post:
Free speech on public college campuses overview | First ...

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on Free speech on public college campuses overview | First …

LIBERTARIANISM 101 – The Advocates for Self-Government

Posted: October 25, 2015 at 2:41 am

Your Way to Freedom, Abundance, Peace, and Justice

Libertarianism is, as the name implies, the belief in liberty. Libertarians strive for the best of all worlds a free, peaceful, abundant world where each individual has the maximum opportunity to pursue his or her dreams and to realize his full potential.

The core idea is simply stated, but profound and far-reaching in its implications. Libertarians believe that each person owns his or her own life and property, and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life and uses his property as long as he simply respects the equal right of others to do the same.

Another way of saying this is that libertarians believe you should be free to do as you choose with your own life and property, as long as you dont harm the person or property of others.

Libertarianism is thus the combination of liberty (the freedom to live your life in any peaceful way you choose), responsibility (the prohibition against the use of force against others, except in defense) and tolerance (honoring and respecting the peaceful choices of others).

Libertarians believe that this combination of personal and economic liberty produces abundance, peace, harmony, creativity, order and safety. Indeed, that is one of the central lessons of world history. Virtually all the progress the human race has enjoyed during the past few centuries is due to the increasing acceptance of these principles. But we are still far from a truly libertarian world. Libertarians believe we would see far more progress, abundance and happiness if the ideas of liberty were fully accepted and allowed to work their miracles.

Our goal as libertarians is to bring liberty to the world, so that these humane and proven ideas can be put into action. This will make our world a far better place for all people.

If this interests you, please explore the material at this site. Evaluate these ideas. Kick their tires and take them for an intellectual test drive.

We hope you will join us in embracing this ideal and in taking a stand to personally help bring about a world of liberty, abundance and peace.

Theres more than just left or right.

Libertarians offer you a better choice than just left or right. The libertarian way gives you more choices, in politics, in business, your personal life. Libertarians advocate both personal and economic liberty. Todays liberals like personal liberty but want government to control your economic affairs. Conservatives reverse that, advocating more economic freedom but wanting to clamp down on your private life.

Libertarian positions on the issues are neither left nor right, nor a combination of the two. Libertarians believe that, on every issue, you have the right to decide for yourself whats best for you and to act on that belief as long as you respect the right of other people to do the same and deal with them peacefully and honestly.

In a sense, true conservatives tend to be libertarian on most economic issues, and true liberals tend to be libertarian on most social issues. Libertarians call for freedom across the board, on both economics and social issues, coupled with a foreign policy of peace as described by Thomas Jefferson:Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations entangling alliances with none.

Libertarianism offers the opportunity to go beyond the stale left versus right debate and embrace liberty on every issue.

More here:
LIBERTARIANISM 101 - The Advocates for Self-Government

Posted in Libertarianism | Comments Off on LIBERTARIANISM 101 – The Advocates for Self-Government

DNA Sequencing Costs – Genome.gov | National Human Genome …

Posted: October 24, 2015 at 12:42 pm

DNA Sequencing Costs Data from the NHGRI Genome Sequencing Program (GSP) Overview

For many years, the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) has tracked the costs associated with DNA sequencing performed at the sequencing centers funded by the Institute. This information has served as an important benchmark for assessing improvements in DNA sequencing technologies and for establishing the DNA sequencing capacity of the NHGRI Genome Sequencing Program (GSP). Here, NHGRI provides an analysis of these data, which gives one view of the remarkable improvements in DNA sequencing technologies and data-production pipelines in recent years.

The cost-accounting data presented here are summarized relative to two metrics: (1) "Cost per Megabase of DNA Sequence" - the cost of determining one megabase (Mb; a million bases) of DNA sequence of a specified quality [see below]; (2) "Cost per Genome" - the cost of sequencing a human-sized genome. For each, a graph is provided showing the data since 2001; in addition, the actual numbers reflected by the graphs are provided in a summary table. NHGRI welcomes people to download these graphs and use them in their presentations and teaching materials. NHGRI plans to update these data on a regular basis.

To illustrate the nature of the reductions in DNA sequencing costs, each graph also shows hypothetical data reflecting Moore's Law, which describes a long-term trend in the computer hardware industry that involves the doubling of 'compute power' every two years (See: Moore's Law [wikipedia.org]). Technology improvements that 'keep up' with Moore's Law are widely regarded to be doing exceedingly well, making it useful for comparison.

In both graphs, note: (1) the use a logarithmic scale on the Y axis; and (2) the sudden and profound out-pacing of Moore's Law beginning in January 2008. The latter represents the time when the sequencing centers transitioned from Sanger-based (dideoxy chain termination sequencing) to 'second generation' (or 'next-generation') DNA sequencing technologies. Additional details about these graphs are provided below.

These data, however, do not capture all of the costs associated with the NHGRI Large-Scale Genome Sequencing Program. The sequencing centers perform a number of additional activities whose costs are not appropriate to include when calculating costs for production-oriented DNA sequencing. In other words, NHGRI makes a distinction between 'production' activities and 'non-production' activities. Production activities are essential to the routine generation of large amounts of quality DNA sequence data that are made available in public databases; the costs associated with production DNA sequencing are summarized here and depicted on the two graphs. Additional information about the other activities performed by the sequencing centers is provided below.

The expenditures included in each category were established based on discussions between NHGRI staff and sequencing center personnel.

For the two graphs ("Cost per Megabase of DNA Sequence" and "Cost per Genome"), the following 'production' costs are accounted for:

In the case of costs covered by significant subsidies to a sequencing center (e.g., a grantee institution providing funds for purchasing large equipment), NHGRI has attempted to appropriately account for such costs in these analyses.

The costs associated with the following 'non-production' activities are not reflected in the two graphs:

In both graphs, the data from 2001 through October 2007 represent the costs of generating DNA sequence using Sanger-based chemistries and capillary-based instruments ('first generation' sequencing platforms). Beginning in January 2008, the data represent the costs of generating DNA sequence using 'second-generation' (or 'next-generation') sequencing platforms. The change in instruments represents the rapid evolution of DNA sequencing technologies that has occurred in recent years.

For the Sanger-based sequence data, the cost accounting reflects the generation of bases with a minimum quality score of Phred20 (or Q20), which represents an error probability of 1 % and is an accepted community standard for a high-quality base. For sequence data generated with second-generation sequencing platforms, there is not yet a single accepted measure of accuracy; each manufacturer provides quality scores that are, at this time, accepted by the NHGRI sequencing centers as equivalent to or greater than Q20.

In the "Cost per Megabase of DNA Sequence" graph, the data reflect the cost of generating raw, unassembled sequence data; no adjustment was made for data generated using different instruments despite significant differences in the sequence read lengths. In contrast, the "Cost per Genome" graph does take these differences into account since sequence read length influences the ability to generate an assembled genome sequence.

The "Cost per Genome" graph was generated using the same underlying data as that used to generate the "Cost per Megabase of DNA Sequence" graph; the former thus reflects an estimate of the cost of sequencing a human-sized genome rather than the actual costs for specific genome-sequencing projects.

To calculate the cost for sequencing a genome, one needs to know the size of that genome and the required 'sequence coverage' (i.e., 'sequence redundancy') to generate a high-quality assembly of the genome given the specific sequencing platform being used. For generating the "Cost per Genome" graph, the assumed genome size was 3,000 Mb (i.e., the size of a human genome). The assumed sequence coverage needed differed among sequencing platforms, depending on the average sequence read length for that platform.

For data since January 2008 (representing data generated using 'second-generation' sequencing platforms), the "Cost per Genome" graph reflects projects involving the 're-sequencing' of the human genome, where an available reference human genome sequence is available to serve as a backbone for downstream data analyses. The required 'sequence coverage' would be greater for sequencing genomes for which no reference genome sequence is available.

See: http://www.genome.gov/10001691

Mardis E. A decade's perspective on DNA sequencing technology. Nature, 470: 198-203. 2011. [PubMed]

Metzker M. Sequencing technologies - the next generation. Nature Genetics, 11: 31-46. 2010. [PubMed]

Stein L. The case for cloud computing in genome informatics. Genome Biology, 11: 207-213. 2010. [PubMed]

Human genome at ten: the sequence explosion. Nature, 464: 670-671. 2010. [PubMed]

Wetterstrand KA. DNA Sequencing Costs: Data from the NHGRI Genome Sequencing Program (GSP) Available at: http://www.genome.gov/sequencingcosts. Accessed [date of access].

Kris Wetterstrand, M.S. Scientific Liaison to the Director for Extramural Activities National Human Genome Research Institute, NIH Phone: 301-435-5543 E-mail: wettersk@mail.nih.gov

Top of page

Last Updated: October 2, 2015

The rest is here:
DNA Sequencing Costs - Genome.gov | National Human Genome ...

Posted in Genome | Comments Off on DNA Sequencing Costs – Genome.gov | National Human Genome …

Ron Paul Wikipedia

Posted: at 12:41 pm

Ronald Ernest Ron Paul (* 20. August 1935 in Green Tree, Pennsylvania) ist ein US-amerikanischer Arzt und Politiker. Er ist Mitglied der Republikanischen Partei und war zwischen 1976 und 2013 (mit Unterbrechungen) Abgeordneter im Reprsentantenhaus der Vereinigten Staaten. Paul war bei der US-Prsidentschaftswahl 1988 Kandidat der Libertarian Party und war ein Bewerber um die republikanische Kandidatur fr die US-Prsidentschaftswahl 2008 und 2012.

Ron Paul hat einige Vorfahren, die aus Hessen stammen.[1] Seine Eltern heirateten im Jahr 1929.[2] Er wurde als der dritte von fnf Shnen geboren und musste mit seinen Brdern im Milchladen der Familie mitarbeiten.[3] Nach dem Besuch der High-School in Dormont studierte er am Gettysburg College, an dem er 1957 mit einem Bachelor of Sciences in Biologie abschloss. Im gleichen Jahr heiratete er Carol Wells. Anschlieend studierte Paul an der Duke University Medizin. Als Arzt arbeitete er berwiegend in der Geburtshilfe und als Gynkologe in Lake Jackson, Texas.

Ron Paul hat mit seiner Frau Carol fnf Kinder, sein Sohn Rand Paul, ebenfalls Arzt, kandidierte bei den Wahlen im November 2010 fr die Republikaner in Kentucky erfolgreich fr den Senat der Vereinigten Staaten.

Paul begann 1971 sich aktiv in der Republikanischen Partei zu engagieren. Prsident Richard Nixon hatte den Goldstandard fr den Dollar aufgehoben eine Entscheidung, die Paul bis heute ablehnt.[4] 1974 kandidierte Paul erstmals fr den Kongress im 22. Wahlbezirk von Texas, verlor jedoch gegen den Demokraten Robert R. Casey. Von 1976 bis 1977 und von 1979 bis 1985 war er der Abgeordnete des 22. Wahlbezirks von Texas. Von seiner Wiederwahl 1997 an vertrat er bis zum 3. Januar 2013 den 14. texanischen Distrikt im US-Abgeordnetenhaus.

Bei den US-Prsidentschaftswahlen 1988 trat Paul als Kandidat der Libertarian Party an, nachdem er sich gegen den Sioux-Aktivisten Russell Means bei den Vorwahlen durchgesetzt hatte. Als Motivation fr die Kandidatur nannte Paul seine Unzufriedenheit mit der Finanzpolitik und dem hohen Defizit der Regierungen unter Prsident Reagan und Vizeprsident Bush. Am Ende erhielt er 431.750 (0,47%) Stimmen.[5]

Am 11. Januar 2007 gab Paul sein Interesse an einer Kandidatur fr die Prsidentschaftswahl 2008 bekannt und verkndete am 12. Mrz 2007 als Gast im Washington Journal des Senders C-SPAN offiziell seine Kandidatur.[6] Paul galt von Anfang an als Auenseiterkandidat, was sich im Echo der Printmedien und des Fernsehens niederschlug. Da Pauls Ansichten in mehreren Aspekten dem Mainstream der Republikanischen Partei widersprechen und er zudem weit weniger bekannt ist als Mitbewerber wie Rudolph Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson und John McCain, wurden ihm bei der parteiinternen Kandidatenwahl hufig wenig Chancen eingerumt. Entsprechend erreichte Paul bei den nationalen Wahlumfragen von Meinungsforschungsinstituten lediglich zwischen 1 und 6%.[7] Er hielt seine Kandidatur bis zum 12. Juni 2008 aufrecht, obwohl John McCain seit Anfang Mrz eine absolute Mehrheit der Delegierten hinter sich versammelt hatte.[8]

Paul hatte whrend des Wahlkampfes eine aktive Untersttzergemeinde gewonnen, die sich berwiegend ber das Internet koordiniert. Laut Serverdiensten wie Alexa Internet wurde Pauls Website weitaus hufiger besucht als die Seiten der republikanischen und demokratischen Topkandidaten wie Rudolph Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama oder John Edwards. Die groe Diskrepanz zwischen Popularitt im Internet und Berichterstattung in traditionellen Medien wird hufig von Kommentatoren bemerkt und ist bei Paul-Anhngern Anlass zu einer scharfen Kritik der Medien. Andere dagegen verweisen darauf, dass es sich dabei um informelle Umfragen handele (wie z.B. bei den Telefon- und Onlineumfragen, aus denen Ron Paul nach fnf der sechs TV-Debatten als Sieger hervorging), bei denen zum Beispiel mehrfaches Anklicken durch eine Person mglich sei und die daher wissenschaftlich nicht verwertbar seien. Bei serisen Umfragen hielten sich seine Werte im unteren einstelligen Bereich.[9]

Bei vielen der sogenannten Straw Polls Testwahlen, bei denen meistens eine Anwesenheit des Whlers erforderlich ist, der fr die Teilnahme Eintritt bezahlt schnitt Paul ebenfalls gut ab. So konnte Paul etwa Straw Polls in Regionen von Nevada, Alabama, Oklahoma, Oregon, Georgia, New Jersey, Maryland, New Hampshire, Texas, New York und Pennsylvania gewinnen. [10] Weitere Erfolge konnte Paul im Bereich des Fundraisings erzielen. So wurden im dritten Quartal 2007 gut fnf Millionen Dollar gespendet, was einen Anstieg von 114% gegenber dem zweiten Quartal bedeutete. Schlagzeilen machten zudem Berichte, dass Paul als einziger republikanischer Gegner des Irakkriegs mehr Spenden von Militrangehrigen erworben hat als jeder andere Bewerber, ob republikanisch oder demokratisch.[11]

Die uerst widersprchlichen Ergebnisse der Meinungsumfragen und die starke Zunahme von Spenden und Medienberichterstattung machten es schwer, im Vorfeld der Primaries das Abschneiden Pauls vorherzusagen. Bisweilen wurde Paul in den amerikanischen Massenmedien als dark horse (in etwa unbekannte Gre oder berraschungskandidat) beschrieben[12], allerdings hielten es die meisten Kommentatoren fr unwahrscheinlich, dass Ron Paul als Irakkriegsgegner die Vorwahlen in der republikanischen Partei gewinnen knnte.

Am 15. Mai 2007 rief Paul starken Widerspruch und ffentliche Reaktionen hervor, als er bei einer auf dem Fox News Channel ausgestrahlten Debatte der republikanischen Prsidentschaftskandidaten in Columbia (South Carolina) die amerikanische Auenpolitik mit fr die Terroranschlge am 11. September 2001 verantwortlich machte.[13][14]Rudolph Giuliani griff Paul daraufhin an, bezeichnete dessen Aussage als absurd und versuchte den Eindruck zu erzeugen, Paul htte die amerikanische Bevlkerung fr die Terroranschlge verantwortlich gemacht. In Interviews nach der Diskussion betonte Paul, dass er keineswegs die amerikanische Bevlkerung, sondern die Auenpolitik fr die Anschlge mitverantwortlich mache, und verwies auf das gleich lautende Urteil des Berichts der offiziellen Untersuchungskommission zu den Anschlgen am 11. September 2001.

Im September 2008 erklrte Paul, er werde keine Untersttzungserklrung (endorsement) der Kandidatur des republikanischen Prsidentschaftskandidaten McCain abgeben. Er begrndete dies mit grundlegenden inhaltlichen Differenzen, insbesondere in der Auen- und der Finanzpolitik.[15]

Siehe auch: Vorwahlergebnisse der Prsidentschaftswahl in den Vereinigten Staaten 2008

Am 13. Mai 2011 gab Ron Paul in der Sendung Good Morning America auf dem Sender American Broadcasting Company formell seine Kandidatur fr die Prsidentschaftswahl im Jahr 2012 bekannt.[16] Paul nahm daraufhin an verschiedenen Fernsehdebatten teil, wozu er im Gegensatz zu seiner Prsidentschaftskampagne 2008 bei allen greren Veranstaltungen eingeladen wurde. Einzig die Jewish Republican Coalition beschloss Paul von der Debatte auszuschlieen, da seine Positionen zum Verhltnis der USA mit Israel zu extrem seien. Paul hatte sich gegen die jhrliche Militrhilfe der USA an Israel in Hhe von 3 Milliarden US-Dollar ausgesprochen und angekndigt, sich im Konflikt zwischen Israel und dem Iran neutral zu verhalten.[17]

Mit den bereits aus 2008 bekannten Moneybombs konnte die Kampagne groe Spendenbetrge erzielen. Im dritten Quartal 2011 sammelte Paul Spenden im Umfang von 8 Millionen Dollar, von 100.000 verschiedenen Spendern. Der durchschnittlich gespendete Betrag ist somit 80 Dollar, sein Parteikollege Rick Perry, der wie Paul ebenfalls aus Texas stammt, sammelte im gleichen Zeitraum 15 Millionen Dollar, jedoch von nur 20.000 Spendern, was eine durchschnittliche Spendensumme von 750 Dollar ergibt. Daraus wird die groe Untersttzung der Graswurzelbewegung fr Paul deutlich.[18]

Groes Aufsehen erregte ein Beitrag der Daily Show mit deren Moderator Jon Stewart, worin Stewart die tendenzise Berichterstattung der groen Fernsehnetworks zum Ames Straw Poll satirisch verarbeitete. Paul schloss bei diesem Straw Poll mit 0.9% Rckstand als zweiter hinter Michele Bachmann ab, wurde aber bei den Kommentarrunden von CNN, MSNBC, CBS und Fox News nicht einmal erwhnt. [19]

Bei der wichtigen ersten Vorwahl in Iowa belegte Paul den dritten Platz mit 21.4% aller Stimmen. Bei der zweiten Vorwahl in New Hampshire erreichte Paul mit 22.9% der Stimmen den zweiten Platz, hinter dem Favoriten Mitt Romney.[20]

Seit am 10. April Rick Santorum und am 27. April Newt Gingrich ihre Rckzge verkndeten, waren nur noch zwei Bewerber im Rennen: Romney und Paul. Paul hatte wegen schwacher Wahlergebnisse kaum noch Chancen, von seiner Partei aufgestellt zu werden. Paul hat dennoch immer wieder erklrt, bis zum Ende des Nominierungsprozesses im Rennen bleiben zu wollen.[21] Am 14. Mai 2012 setzte er jedoch den Wahlkampf in den Primary-Staaten, die noch nicht gewhlt hatten, aus. Er werde lediglich weiter um Delegierte in den Staaten kmpfen, in denen die Vorwahlen stattgefunden hatten.[22] Paul beendete seinen Wahlkampf mit einer sechsstndigen Veranstaltung im Sun Dome in Tampa. Gem Ron Paul nahmen daran 11.000 Personen teil.[23]

Am 28. August 2012 wurde Mitt Romney offiziell zum republikanischen Prsidentschaftskandidaten gekrt; die Proteste Pauls, er sei beim Nominierungsparteitag bewusst an den Rand gedrngt worden, blieben folgenlos.

Innerhalb eines Tages, des 5. November 2007, mit Anlehnung an den Jahrestag des Gunpowder Plots, nahm Ron Paul durch eine von Graswurzelaktivisten gestartete, nicht mit der offiziellen Wahlkampagne abgestimmte Aktion[24] ca. 4,38 Mio. Dollar online ein.[25] Insgesamt spendeten rund 40.000 Untersttzer einen durchschnittlichen Betrag von 103 Dollar.[26] Dieses sogenannte Money Bomb Event fhrte zudem zu einer erhhten Aufmerksamkeit der TV-Nachrichtensender[27] und der Presse.[28][29]

Am 16. Dezember 2007, mit Anlehnung an die Boston Tea Party von 1773, konnte Ron Paul erneut durch eine weitere Graswurzel-Aktion[30] ca. 6,04 Mio. Dollar online einsammeln.[31] Diese Summe ist die hchste Summe, die weltweit ein Politiker innerhalb von 24 Stunden eingenommen hat.[32] Der bisherige Rekordhalter fr Off- und Online-Spenden war der ehemalige Prsidentschaftskandidat John Kerry im Jahr 2004 mit ca. 5,7 Mio. Dollar.[33]

Insgesamt spendeten rund 58.407 Untersttzer, wovon 24.915 erstmalige Spender waren, einen durchschnittlichen Betrag von 102 Dollar.[34] Erneut gelang es Paul, die Aufmerksamkeit der Medien auf sich zu ziehen.[35][36] Insgesamt betrugen 2007 die Spendeneinknfte von Paul ca. 28 Millionen Dollar, wovon ber 19,7 Millionen Dollar auf das vierte Quartal entfielen.

Nach Beendigung seiner Kampagne 2008 grndete Ron Paul mit den brigen Spendengeldern die Campaign for Liberty, eine Organisation welche sich gem eigner Beschreibung fr Individuelle Freiheit, eine verfassungsgeme Regierung, solides Geld, freie Mrkte und eine Auenpolitik des Nicht-Interventionismus mittels Bildung, Interessensvertretung und Mobilisierung einer Graswurzelbewegung einsetzt. Die Campaign for Liberty gab einen wichtigen Ansto zur Tea-Party-Bewegung.

Zusammen mit bekannten amerikanischen Anti-Kriegs-Politikern beider Parteien wie Dennis Kucinich und Walter B. Jones sowie weiteren Exponenten grndete Ron Paul 2013 das Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. [37] Unter akademischer Leitung von Gary North bietet Ron Paul eine Homeschooling-Platform fr die Stufen von Kindergarten bis High-School an. Seit August 2013 betreibt Ron Paul - nachdem er sich ber mangelnde Aufmerksamkeit in den US-Medien beklagt hatte - einen kostenpflichtigen Internetfernsehkanal unter dem Namen "Ron Paul Channel", welcher mehrmals wchentlich Interviews, News- und Kommentarbeitrge zu aktuellen Themen aus libertrer Perspektive bietet.[38] Sein Institut wurde whrend der Ukrainekrise 2014 ausgiebig von russischen Medien zitiert[39], wie er frher Kronzeuge der Friedensbewegung gegen einen "Krieg mit den Iran" war[40].

Pauls politische Einstellung wird von Beobachtern als palolibertr, konstitutionalistisch, isolationistisch und konservativ beschrieben. Grundlage der politischen Ansichten Ron Pauls ist ein strikter Konstitutionalismus, eine einflussreiche rechtspolitische Auffassung in den USA, der zufolge allen Verfassungsorganen nur genau diejenigen Handlungen erlaubt sind, die die Verfassung der Vereinigten Staaten ausdrcklich erlaubt, im Gegensatz zu derjenigen Auffassung, die der Politik ausschlielich ausdrckliche Verbote auferlegt. Darber hinaus befrwortet Paul individualistische Freiheit, die auch beinhaltet, dass jeder Brger seine Vorsorge fr Alter, Krankheit, Arbeitslosigkeit etc. selbst regelt und jede staatliche Verantwortung fr Sozialversicherungen wie Rentenversicherung, Krankenfrsorge etc. abgeschafft wird. Sich selbst sieht Paul in der Tradition der Grndervter. Dabei versteht er sich selbst als Republikaner der alten Schule und grenzt sich aktiv vom Neokonservatismus und von der Bush-Regierung ab. Seiner Ansicht nach vertritt er die ursprnglichen Ideale der Republikaner und wirft anderen Parteimitgliedern vor, sie htten diese Linie verlassen, da die Grnder der republikanischen Partei die Ziele seiner Politik verfolgt htten.[41]

Paul war bekannt fr seine Ablehnung des Irakkrieges und die Idee einer isolationistischen, nicht-interventionistischen Auenpolitik in der Tradition von George Washington und Thomas Jefferson[42] (siehe auch Monroe-Doktrin). Paul stimmte gegen die Irak-Kriegs-Resolution[43] und setzt sich fr einen unverzglichen Abzug der US-Armee aus allen Lndern ein. Die Untersttzung libyscher Rebellen im Verlauf des Arabischen Frhlings lehnte er folglich ebenso ab.[44] Pauls nichtinterventionistische Haltung geht so weit, dass er einen Austritt der USA aus NATO, UN und WTO befrwortet,[45] eine Position, die ihm den Vorwurf des Isolationismus eingetragen hat. Jedoch spricht er sich selbst deutlich gegen das aus, was er selbst unter Isolationismus versteht, und fordert ein starkes Amerika, das mit anderen Nationen offenen Handel treibt, sie bereist, mit ihnen kommuniziert und diplomatische Beziehungen aufrechterhlt. Paul erklrt zu seinen Gunsten, dass es stets republikanische Prsidenten wie Eisenhower gewesen seien, die die Streitkrfte aus aussichtslosen Engagements befreit htten. Darber hinaus wies er darauf hin, dass George W. Bush im Prsidentschaftswahlkampf 2000 noch mit einer explizit nichtinterventionistischen Auenpolitik geworben und seine Ablehnung von Militreinstzen und Nation building zum Ausdruck gebracht habe. Der Prsident sei diesen Grundstzen untreu geworden.

Entsprechend seiner nichtinterventionistischen Haltung bevorzugt er eine diplomatische Lsung internationaler Spannungen. So lehnt er einen Krieg gegen den Iran kategorisch ab und sieht darin eine Wiederholung des 'sinnlosen' Irak-Krieges.[46]

2014 erklrte Ron Paul, dass es die westlichen Mchte (USA) sind, die fr die Unruhen in der Ukraine gesorgt haben und es sie sind, die fr die Aufrechterhaltung der Spannungen verantwortlich sind.[47] Er kritisierte, die USA htten Russland den Krieg erklrt.[48]

Pauls innenpolitische Positionen brachten ihn ebenfalls in Konflikt mit weiten Teilen der Republikanischen Partei und der Regierung Bush. Er stimmte schon 2001 gegen den USA PATRIOT Act und erklrte: Alles, was wir als Antwort auf die Angriffe vom 11. September getan haben vom Patriot Act bis zum Irakkrieg , hat nur die Freiheit in Amerika verringert. [49] Er befrwortet eine Auflsung des Department of Homeland Security. Paul setzt sich zudem fr ein Ende des sogenannten War on Drugs und aufgrund seines Verstndnisses individueller Freiheit fr eine liberalere Drogenpolitik sowie die medizinische Nutzung von Cannabis ein. Paul befrwortet auch den Schutz der Meinungsfreiheit von Julian Assange und WikiLeaks im selben Ausma wie fr Mainstream-Medien in Bezug auf die Verffentlichung von Informationen.[50]

Bei anderen innenpolitischen Themen stimmt Paul mit konservativen Republikanern berein und weicht weit von den Position der Demokraten ab. Teil der persnlichen Selbstbestimmung ist nach Paul etwa das Recht, Waffen zu tragen; die Lobbyorganisation Gun Owners of America vergab an Paul als einzigem Prsidentschaftskandidaten ein A+ Rating (1+-Bewertung). Paul tritt zudem fr eine striktere Migrationspolitik ein und hat fr den Secure Fence Act of 2006 gestimmt, der den Bau eines ca. 1100 km langen Zauns an der Grenze zu Mexiko vorsieht, wobei er hervorhebt, dass er gegen dieses Abkommen stimmen wrde, wenn es keine staatlichen Sozialprogramme gbe.

Paul lehnt nationale Regelungen der gleichgeschlechtlichen Ehe ab und erklrt, dass die einzelnen Staaten jeweils ber ihre Einfhrung entscheiden sollen. Auf die Frage, ob er gleichgeschlechtliche Ehen untersttze, erklrte Paul: Ich untersttze jede freiwillig eingegangene Bindung, wie immer die Leute sie dann nennen mgen. [51] Paul beschreibt sich selbst als pro-life, also als Abtreibungsgegner. Er hat einen Gesetzentwurf initiiert, der festlegen soll, dass menschliches Leben mit der Empfngnis beginnt. Auerdem kmpft er dafr, den Bundesgerichten das Recht zu entziehen, von Bundesstaaten erlassene Abtreibungsgesetze zu berprfen, was auf eine Annullierung des Roe v. Wade-Urteils des Supreme Courts hinauslaufen wrde.[52]

Paul nennt die amerikanischen Sozialprogramme ein Kartenhaus, da die demographische Entwicklung die Programme in einigen Jahrzehnten unbezahlbar mache. Da er zudem rztliche Behandlung nicht als Menschenrecht ansieht, setzt er sich dafr ein, dass Arbeitnehmer eine Teilnahme an Sozialversicherungen wie Medicare und Medicaid ablehnen knnen, mit der Folge, dass sie keine Sozialbeitrge (payroll-tax) mehr zahlen mssen und dafr keinerlei Ansprche mehr haben [53]. Er ist ein Kritiker des amerikanischen Gesundheitssystems. Dabei lehnt er sowohl universal healthcare nach europischem Vorbild als auch private Krankenversicherungen ab, da deren Kosten immer weiter steigen wrden, solange nicht der Patient, sondern eine dritte Partei die Rechnungen bezahlt.[54]

Paul versteht sich als Vertreter der freien Marktwirtschaft im Sinne der sterreichischen Schule der Nationalkonomie. Ziele seiner Politik sind Deregulierung und geringe Steuern. Entsprechend schlgt er eine Auflsung der nationalen Steuerbehrde IRS und der Federal Reserve Bank (unter gleichzeitiger Wiedereinfhrung des Goldstandard) vor und spricht sich fr einen schlanken Staat aus. Paul lehnt das Handelsabkommen NAFTA und die Mitgliedschaft in internationalen Institutionen wie der WTO als Bedrohung der Souvernitt der Vereinigten Staaten ab. Zudem mchte er die bundesweit erhobene Einkommensteuer abschaffen.[55]

Im Januar 2008 geriet Ron Paul unter Druck, als The New Republic Auszge aus Newslettern verffentlichte, die in den 1980er und 1990er Jahren unter seinem Namen verffentlicht worden waren.[56] Diese Publikationen (Ron Pauls Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report und The Ron Paul Investment Letter) enthielten Kommentare, die als rassistisch, schwulenfeindlich und verschwrungstheoretisch kritisiert wurden.[57] Ron Paul erklrte dazu, er habe die kritisierten Beitrge weder selbst verfasst noch gelesen und wisse nicht, wer sie geschrieben habe; auerdem knne er als Libertrer kein Rassist sein, weil Rassismus eine kollektivistische Idee sei.[58] Die libertre Zeitschrift Reason benannte unter Berufung auf Quellen in der palolibertren Bewegung Lew Rockwell, der von 1978 bis 1982 Pauls Stabschef in dessen Kongressbro war und heute das Webmagazin LewRockwell.com betreibt, als den Ghostwriter, der in erster Linie die Beitrge in den Newslettern verfasste. Auerdem zitierte Reason einen Steuerbescheid aus dem Jahr 1994, dem zufolge die jhrlichen Einknfte der Firma Ron Paul & Associates, die die Newsletter publizierte, $ 940.000 betrugen.[59]

Read the original here:
Ron Paul Wikipedia

Posted in Ron Paul | Comments Off on Ron Paul Wikipedia

Ron Paul on Federal Reserve, banking and economy – YouTube

Posted: at 12:41 pm

Excepts of Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) from the documentary "FIAT EMPIRE - Why the Federal Reserve Violates the U.S. Constitution." Dr. Paul discusses the origins, operations and results of the Federal Reserve System and fiat currency on the U.S. and global economy.

The entire film, Fiat Empire, can be accessed at http://www.FiatEmpire.com or directly at Google Video at http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...

"This Telly Award-winning documentary on the Federal Reserve System was inspired by the well-known book, "The Creature From Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin, and features presidential candidate, RON PAUL.

To order a high-quality DVD or VHS tape (by mail) with up to 160-minutes of additional interviews, go to http://www.FiatEmpire.com/screener. To get instant downloads in a range of qualities, go to http://www.mecfilms.com/mid/ppv/ppvho... and select from the "Documentaries" menu.

Find out why some feel the Federal Reserve System is a "bunch of organized crooks" and others feel its practices "are in violation of the U.S. Constitution." Discover why experts agree the Fed is a banking cartel that benefits mainly bankers, their clients in need of easy money and a Congress that would rather increase the National Debt than raise taxes.

Produced by William L. Van Alen, Jr., the 1-hour documentary is a co-production between Matrixx Productions and Cornerstone Entertainment and features interviews by, not only G. Edward Griffin, but Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas); MOVIEGUIDE Founder, Ted Baehr; and constitutional attorney, Edwin Vieira (4 degrees from Harvard). FIAT EMPIRE was written and directed by James Jaeger and narrated by Kris Chandler. Associate producers are Ted Pollard, author and former Commissioner of Radnor Township and James E. Ewart, well-known author of MONEY.

Use a DVD for personal screenings and a VHS tape for free public and private screenings.

For more information on FIAT EMPIRE visit http://www.FiatEmpire.com or the mirror site at http://www.mecfilms.com/fiat. For various political, economic, sociological, media-related and philosophical essays by James Jaeger and others, visit UNIVERSAL ISSUES at http://www.mecfilms.com/universe.

For new films and updates on Matrixx Entertainment's activities, visit http://www.mecfilms.com/update.htm

Continued here:
Ron Paul on Federal Reserve, banking and economy - YouTube

Posted in Ron Paul | Comments Off on Ron Paul on Federal Reserve, banking and economy – YouTube