Monthly Archives: February 2017

5489504

In DecemberPoliticoargued that libertarians were emerging as the opposition to then President-elect Trump, and Nick Gillespie, one of the editors at the flagship libertarian publication, Reasonmagazine, agreed. James Hohman and Matea Gold wrote in The Washington Post about how libertarian philanthropist Charles Koch was emerging as a major force of opposition to the Trump administration.

Onimmigrationpolicy that may be true, but as several writers have pointed out the Koch-seeded world of libertarian-lite non-profits that attempt to influence the GOP have many connections to both Vice PresidentPenceand to the people likely to staff the TrumpEPA. If you apply for ajob listedwith one of the many Koch-connected firms FreedomPartners, I360 and ask the recruiter (as I have) why so many jobs are open at these campaign and data science firms, you may be told that it is because many people have left their old jobs to work for the Trump administration.

But what about the young people?

You might expect the oppositional, radical, protesting, left libertarians to be found among the young. This weekend marks the 10th International Students for Liberty Conference, where a couple of thousand libertarians descend on D.C. for their own 3 day version of next weeks CPAC (the Conservative Political Action Conference). The libertarians have even moved as theyve grown to the Woodley Park Marriot Wardman Hotel, which was the venue for CPAC through the last CPAC that flame throwing publisher Andrew Breitbart attended before he passed away. (Officially CPAC moved out to the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center because it had outgrown the Marriot, though if you check the number of voters before and after the move in its presidential straw poll, the numbers did not grow. Some say it moved to the inaccessible Gaylord in Oxon Hill, Maryland because Occupy protesters some hired off Craigslist were protesting CPAC. So far, they dont protest the libertarians.)

SFL was started by a small group of east coast, mainly Ivy-educated students, including Alexander McCobin, who very ably ran and grew the group to ahuge international federation operating on every inhabited continent, whilesimultaneously trying to finish a graduate degree in philosophy. McCobin, who speaks at ISFLC this weekend, has left the group to run an SFL for adults, Whole Foods founder John Mackeys organizationConscious Capitalism. Besides a change in leadership, this years ISFLC seems to have a change in political coloration.

In the past the libertarian students keynote speakers have included former Mexican president Vincente Fox (best known as an answer to a trivia question about Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnsons memory lapse) on ending the drug war, and featured panelists have included film maker Oliver Stone andInterceptfounding editor Jeremy Scahill. Edward Snowden has Skyped in as a speaker.

This years keynote speaker is Senator Rand Paul, only a day after appearing on TV standing behind President Trump with Senator Manchin and other coal country union leaders and politicians, as the President signed directives easing regulations that had decimated that industry. Other speakers include Steve Forbes, tax cut advocate Grover Norquist, and historian Amity Shlaes.

The optics are more accommodation and less opposition, or if opposition definitely a GOPish, right of center, free trader, #NeverTrump opposition.

These more GOP-leaning, conservative-seeming panelists are mainly Friday afternoon and evening. Saturday and Sunday pick up with a more left-leaning or liberal-tarian assortment of speakers: AntiWar.coms Angela Keaton, Israel critic Sheldon Richman, Institute of Justice litigator Rob Pecola on civil asset forfeiture, Electronic Frontier Foundation anti-surveillance state critic and organizer ShahidButtar, and Cato Institute pollster Dr. Emily Ekin on the central question for libertarians now President Trump: How did we get here, and where do we go now?

For the past several years many of the major speakers at ISFLC would be featured on John StosselsFox Businessshow, which mined ISFLC for content in a happysymbiotic relationship. No one else (Kennedy? Tucker?) seems to have picked that up this year, so to learn what the future of the libertarian movement is thinking, youll actually have to travel to Woodley Park.

Originally posted here:

Libertarians And President Trump - Daily Caller

If you want to be taken seriously, you have to act seriously.

Thats a fairly simple maxim, yet it is one the Libertarian Party has frequently ignored, to its detriment. In 2016, when many Americans began flailing about, searching for an alternative to the least popular mainstream candidates in history, the Libertarian Party was supposed to provide a viable solution. Yet, despite an unprecedented degree of attention from the media and public, the party failed to deliver. This was not just a product of the repeated stumblings of the partys eventual presidential candidate, Gary Johnson; it was the product of a failure of organization at all levels. No one watching clips from the National Convention could be faulted for thinking the Party was a shower of amateurs with no real interest in seriously contending.

It is a challenge to run a political party at the best of times, so the Libertarian National Committee (LNC), and the party faithful, more broadly, can hardly be faulted for doing its best in the face of unexpected scrutiny and limited resources. With a largely volunteer structure, the party was always going to have trouble presenting an organization that could credibly stand alongside the wealthy GOP and Democrats. Yet there were several steps that could have been taken (and that should be taken in the future) that could turn the Libertarian Party towards success. One such move is to reform how the convention itself is structured, and concurrently reform how the national ticket is selected.

Here is what we have to do to turn the party convention into an asset rather than a liability.

With media attention extremely limited, it is vital to leverage every second that is given to full advantage. The National Convention is one of these vital occasions. 2016 may have been special because of the extreme levels of disaffection with the major party nominees, yet it will always be a time of particular interest to the outside world. The Party should thus endeavor to use the opportunity not to air grievances or fight petty battles, but as a method of projecting a unified message around the Partys core principles.

This is a big step away from conventions of the past, which have been raucous affairs. At the 2016 convention, delegates (and anyone tuning in online or on television) were treated to the shenanigans of Vermin Supreme and a striptease by an erstwhile candidate for LNC chair. While these may be amusing in the moment, they do not bespeak a party interested in seriously competing in elections. I have written before about the need for professionalization of the party apparatus, and I would argue that the professionalization of the convention, which is the launch-pad for national and local campaigns alike, should be made a top priority.

This does not mean the convention has to be a boring affair. After all, it is an opportunity for delegates and party leaders from around the country to both organize and celebrate. But at its core, it has to be a professional event aimed at conveying a message beyond the convention hall. We have to look outward in our messaging, not just inward. It is that fundamental shift of focus that is crucial to the success of future conventions, and to the success of future candidates.

A core component of reforming the convention structure is by professionalizing its organization. The party has always had to do things on a shoe-string, but 2018 and 2020 should be different from past cycles. Despite his polarizing effect within the party, Gary Johnson did succeed in garnering by far the highest vote total of any Libertarian candidate in history. It is true that his final vote total was lower than many had hoped, but it was still a valuable achievement in terms of laying the groundwork for successive races.

Johnsons numbers were enough to grant automatic access in many states, which will free up millions of dollars the party previously had to spend just to get on the ballot of all fifty states. This leaves a windfall in real terms, especially if fundraising can be improved due to the progress made from the 2016 cycle. This money should be guarded fiercely by the LNC, and deployed to maximum electoral advantage.

The convention is an event worthy of some of that windfall. We will never be able to match the spectacle of the Democrats or Republicans; both parties spend tens of millions of sponsorship dollars to produce political theater seen nowhere else in the world. But with some additional planning and a bit more funding, a Libertarian National Convention could be a far more impressive affair.

The Party should establish a permanent sub-committee to organize the event, one with the remit to study and emulate the successes of parties in other countries that have far stricter rules on funding conventions and annual meetings; even the comparatively cheap party conferences of European parties are able to capture a sense of grandeur and elicit a sense of party identity and mission.

Take the Liberal Democrats (Lib Dems), a small party in the United Kingdom. I have argued in the past that there is much to be learned about how the Lib Dems organize campaigns and prioritize winnable races, and I would again draw on them as a great example for convention organizers. Despite being in the perpetual minority, and after suffering brutal losses in the most recent general election, the party conference is still a highly professional affair with the trappings of elegance and slick style that are vital to showing its seriousness as a political force. The Libertarian Party should do likewise.

National conventions were once a place for hashing out party platforms and selecting candidates; the days of floor fights are largely things of the past, for the two major parties anyway.

The Libertarian National Convention is still a contentious affair. In 2016, the presidential balloting had to go to a second round when Gary Johnson failed to get a majority on the first attempt. Likewise, the contest for the vice presidential spot was up in the air, with many believing Bill Weld, Johnsons chosen running mate, would fail to make the ticket. Because it was not a done deal until the convention, there was no candidate for the party to rally around beforehand, losing precious time to campaign against the real opposition, the Democrats and Republicans. Instead of building a convention around the party standard-bearer, it was a study in political in-fighting.

A far better strategy would be to have the presidential ticket decided before the convention commences. One way to do this would be to make the votes at state party conventions binding on delegates. While this is hardly a perfect solution, it would remove much of the uncertainty pre-convention and allow the party to prepare for the general election.

No doubt there are many within the party who would take issue with the idea that the convention should be a rubber-stamp of candidates and their message. We are, after all, individualists who chafe at conformity. But, if we are going to make the best use of our resources, we need to leverage them to maximum effect. This reform would be one powerful method of doing so.

This post was written by John Engle.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

John Engle is a merchant banker and author living in the Chicago area. His company, Almington Capital, invests in both early-stage venture capital and in public equities. His writing has been featured in a number of academic journals, as well as the blogs of the Heartland Institute, Grassroot Institute, and Tenth Amendment Center. A graduate of Trinity College Dublin, Ireland and the University of Oxford, Johns first book, Trinity Student Pranks: A History of Mischief and Mayhem, was published in September 2013.

Like Loading...

View original post here:

We Need to Fix the Libertarian National Convention - Being ... - Being Libertarian

The story of Joe Miller

Of the many controversial moves that Bill Weld made, one that seems particularly confounding was his endorsement of Lisa Murkowski in the Alaska Senate race last October. The Libertarian Candidate, Joe Miller, made history this year as the best Senate Candidate in the partys history, netting a record 29.1% of the vote and coming second to incumbent Republican, Lisa Murkowski. Critics pointed to this as another example of Welds lack of commitment to the movement, but in reality, it was an example of Weld following principle.

Joe Miller is a supporter of a presidential line-item veto amendment, a balanced budget amendment, suspending all new entitlements, suspending earmarks, reducing foreign aid, and abolishing the Department of Education. He is also opposed to federal farm subsidies, the federal minimum wage, unemployment benefits, and the affordable care act. These are all fairly libertarian stances, so on what grounds did Weld oppose Miller?

First, there are the clear reasons Tea Party does not equal libertarian. While groups like the Niskanen Center and the Property and Environment Research Center discuss free market solutions to climate change, Joe Miller denies it exists. While the Libertarian Party opposes the death penalty, Joe Miller is for it. Libertarians are for the legalization of same-sex marriage, and Joe Miller is opposed to it. Where libertarians are noninterventionist, Joe Miller is a hawk. Where libertarians tend to stand up for the rights of migrants to the United States yearning to be free, Joe Miller opposes any form of amnesty. Miller has said that the totalitarian East Germany of Berlin Wall infamy is a strong example of a country taking action to control the flow of people across its borders ironic given how Ron Paul said that border fences would ultimately be used to keep citizens *in* the country.

Joe Miller said that hed caucus as a Republican and months before Weld arrived in Alaska that hed be voting for Donald Trump and not Gary Johnson while he may be principled in his own views as a Tea Party conservative, Joe Miller is not a libertarian. The main reason he was the 2016 Libertarian Senate nominee was because the Libertarian candidate chosen by the convention dropped without warning and the state party board replaced her with Joe Miller in such haste that party members had no opportunity to comment or react.

If one looks back to 2010, theyd see a familiar race Lisa Murkowski came first and Joe Miller came second, but both ran as Republican candidates. In 2010 Joe Miller, running as a Tea Party Republican, won the primary over Lisa Murkowski. But Murkowski wasnt finished, she went on to become the second Senator in United States history to win via a write-in campaign. Murkowskis first choice after losing the primary wasnt to run via write-in. Lisa Murkowski first attempted to run as a Libertarian. In talking with the Party, she said that shed even form her own Libertarian Caucus in the Senate rather than go back to caucusing with the Republicans.

Unfortunately for the Libertarian Party, the state party chair went so far as to cancel the Libertarian convention, the end result being that the Libertarian Party missed out on an opportunity to not only have a Senator (finally) but have a Senator who is experienced and a well-known figure in Washington. One whod have considerable fundraising capacity and ability to build party infrastructure. Looking at 2016, Bill Weld put principle first in his endorsement of Murkowski.

So, there you have it, a story of a high-profile potential defector; a tea party opportunist; a party apparatus that continually made detrimental decisions; and an odd circumstance where Bill Weld, of all people, ended up taking the purist route.

If there are two lessons to be learned, its that Libertarians shouldnt simply try to tie themselves to the Tea Party and that Libertarian allies can be found in some unlikely places.

Jacob Linker is a Campus Coordinator with Students For Liberty and the State Chair of Young Americans for Liberty in his state.

Like Loading...

Read more from the original source:

Joe Miller, Bill Weld, and Following Principle over Party - Being Libertarian

Courtesy Illustration

This article is part of a Point/Counterpoint series. Click here to see the initial response about Liberal Capitalism.

~

You never change things by fighting the existing reality.

To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.

-Buckminster Fuller

We live in a cage that prevents sincere freedom and justice, and ultimately deeper democracy and peace. The bars of this cage are comprised of power hierarchies, which divide people into classes and countries that childishly wage endless, costly wars. Consequently, this locks up the highest potential for humanity by constraining our psychologies, relationships, and peaceful socioeconomic evolution.

When speaking of politics, the core issue is power. The question becomes: is power concentrated in the hands of one person or a few people in de facto dictatorship? This applies not just to political power, but also centralized economic power in the form of dictatorial private corporations.

Clearly, wealth is power. In our system of extreme inequality, the wealthiest few have far more power to buy property resources, politicians, elections, laws and entire governments. That is oligarchy, and a 2014 Princeton study found this is what we have, not democracy.

Dismantling power imbalances, and building something with deeper freedom and justice, has been the aim of libertarian socialism since the Enlightenment, from Godwin to Chomsky. Institutions targeted for dissolution are the coercive state, the oppressive security apparatus for the wealthiest few, and capitalism itself, which inherently generates vast inequality and injustice.

This rich philosophical tradition of more traditional anarchism has largely remained hidden from Americans by information gatekeepers. Few teachers, politicians or media institutions intelligently mention it. Despite capitalist and communist distortions creating manifold misunderstandings, the historical fact remains that libertarian socialism has always meant a highly organized system where people govern themselves, without rulers.

Philosopher Rudolph Rocker wrote, (Anarchism is) a definite trend in the historical development of mankind, whichstrives for the free unhindered unfolding of all the individual and social forces in life. (Anarchists would replace political and capitalistic economic dictatorships that divide) every country into hostile classes internally, and externallyinto hostile nations; (causing) open antagonism and by their ceaseless warfare keep the communal social life in continual convulsions.

Importantly, we have examples of libertarian socialism succeeding. In addition to thousands of functional worker co-operatives globally, examine the 1936 Spanish Revolution. Anarchists took over considerable regions of Spain, arguably the best modern example of true civilization, before communists, fascists and capitalists crushed them.

George Orwell described the Spanish Revolution well: (The) normal motives of civilized lifesnobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc ceased to existclass-division of society (disappeared and) no one owned anyone else as his master. (There was) a feeling of having suddenly emerged into an era of equality and freedom. Human beings were trying to behave as human beings and not as cogs in the capitalist machine.

As in Spain, this more evolved order must be organized based on smaller organic units of power, such as democratized workplaces, villages and neighborhoods. According to Dunbars Number, derived from measuring the neocortex ratio of primates, the ideal unit is approximately 150 people.

These smaller units would make local decisions, and elect representatives that can be immediately recalled in a global federation. Collective, federated decision-making is essential for peace and fearless disarmament. A more just system of wealth and property decentralization would also vastly reduce or eliminate crime.

A federated architecture would also protect the most vital human needs of clean water and healthy soil for food production, the most fundamental basis of a sane, sustainable economy. Indeed, capitalist destruction of soil and water is the most unsustainable and violently impoverishing human activity. Soil takes thousands of years to form, so its ruin promises reverberation for millennia and untold generations. Even progressive Fayetteville endlessly paves paradise for parking lots, in the words of Joni Mitchell.

To evolve beyond the destructive dominator paradigm, the dictatorial state and capitalist corporations must be replaced. However, other hierarchies demand dissolution as well, including patriarchy, racial supremacy, Nature domination and middle man religion. Christian Anarchists took steps on the latter, with Leo Tolstoys Kingdom of God is Within being a foundational document, inspiring Gandhi, Dr. King and the Berrigan brothers.

Ultimately, the current system is a chaotic house of cards that must transform or crumble. An evolutionary social vision is mandatory to alter the structures threatening our survival, particularly in terms of climate change and nuclear war. These problems go deeper than Trump, since both Wall Street war parties sell bombs to dictators, and profit from war and environmental holocaust.

People speak of Trump not representing our values, but the reality is, mainstream American culture has none. He is the unmasked face of the corporatist empire where money is the American idol, where profit matters more than human life. It is painfully unjust, disgusting and embarrassingly cruel when capitalist tycoons drown in money while workers struggle to afford medicine, pay rent and feed their children. Trump is the American mirror.

We must peer into the mirror, and ignite a revolution in the mind, as Krishnamurti insisted. Begin with a few leaves, some beautiful ideas, and then a spark. From there, breathe life into this fire until it is a raging revolutionary inferno, impossible to extinguish.

Social evolution is a developing child, first an infant, then toddler, and now selfish warring juveniles. A Newer World awaits adult cage free humanity.

Read the original post:

Point/Counterpoint: Key to Escape Political and Economic Prison, Libertarian Socialism - The Free Weekly

On the same day Donald Trump is visiting Boeing in South Carolina, one of that states most prominent congressmen is making it known that just because they belong to the same party, that doesnt mean the president will get a free pass.

In a lengthy profile of Rep. Mark Sanford published Friday, Politico explores the congressmans openness in discussing the 2009 controversy over his extra-marital affair when he was governor of South Carolina. But the congressmans take on President Trump, particularly within the context of the unique freedom Sanfordbelieves he has given his past, is perhaps most interesting.

RELATED:Rep. Mark Sanford: Heres my plan to repeal and replace Obamacare

All this gives Sanford a unique sense of liberation to speak his mind about a president whose substance and style he considers a danger to democracy, writes Politicos Tim Alberta. Im a dead man walking, (Sanford) tells me, smiling. If youve already been dead, you dont fear it as much. Ive been dead politically.' []

Politico continues:

Sanford swears he has nothing personal against the new president; in fact, hes heard good things about him personally from several mutual acquaintances. But, he says, he cant look the other way as Trump peddles false information to suit his political aims. I believe in a war of ideas and I tell the staff all the time: Look, were in the business of crafting and refining our arguments that are hopefully based on the truth, he adds. Truth matters. Not hyperbole, not wild suggestion, but actual truth.

He stops himself. Our republic was based on reason. The Founding Fathers were wed to this notion of reason. It was a reason-based system. And if you go to a point wherein it doesnt matter, I mean, that has huge implications in terms of where we go next as a society.

You want to give anybody the benefit of the doubt. I mean, Ive learned that through my own trials and tribulations, Sanford told Politico referring to President Trump, while also citing the Appalachian Trail episode of 2009. But if you see a pattern of over and over and over again, wherein facts dont matter and you can just make up anything

RELATED:Rand Paul: I dont think ObamaCare-lite is what we should do

Sanfords record as a congressman in the 1990s, South Carolinas governor nearly a decade ago and representing that states1st Congressional District today reveals a voting record that is line with some of the most libertarian members of Congress, on everything from foreign policy to civil liberties to spending. Former Texas Congressman Ron Paul has noted that often the only two no votes coming from Republicans in the 90s against military intervention or big government expansions came from himself and Sanford.

Politico speculates whether Sanfords controversial history combined with his libertarian Republican brand might pose a challenge to one of South Carolinas sitting senators:

The scenario of Sanford challenging Lindsey Graham in a 2020 Republican primary has been the subject of excited whispers in Columbia and Washington since Trumps inauguration. Blackstone, Sanfords longtime friend, former staffer and the current Chamber of Commerce chief, brings it up unsolicited when I ask about the possibility of Sanford running for governor. Deep down hes an adventurer, he likes to try different things. So quite frankly youve got to look at other races, Blakstone tells me. Lindsey is always going to be vulnerable to his right. And Sanfords got the conservative credentials. Hes got baggage as well.

When I ask whether hell rule out running against Graham, Sanford is less than equivocal, Politico notes. I dont know where life goes, he says. All I know is that I believe Im supposed to try and be the greatest House member that I can be for the 1st Congressional District, and thats where Im focused.

Libertarian Republican Rep. Justin Amash, who also has often been an outspoken Trump critic, emphasized to Politico how dedicated the South Carolina congressman is to conservative principles. Sanford will never back down, Amash said.

On Tuesday, Sanford penned an op-ed for Rare announcing his plan to repeal and replace Obamacare. His bill is the companion legislation to Sen. Rand Paulsplan to replace the Affordable Care Act.

Read more from the original source:

Libertarian-leaning Republican Mark Sanford isn't afraid to criticize President Trump - Rare.us

US actor Shia LaBeouf during his He Will Not Divide Us livestream outside the Museum of the Moving Image in Astoria, in the Queens borough of New York on Jan. 24, 2017, as a protest against President Donald Trump (AFP photo).

The profession of pretending to be other people, or things, for the entertainment of an audience stretches back in history to before the ancient Greeks. The individuals performing in ancient times grasped with complex ideas such as the philosophy of liberty, citizenship, and acted out the philosophical tales of the gods, rife with messages of morality. Early actors portrayed thought-provoking situations in every performance. Then came the medieval ages of Europe. Plays were no longer written by great philosophers solely to promote ideas of import. Playwrights and poets now had a much more important goal to entertain the powerful and wealthy.

Enter the fool.

Since medieval times, fools, or as they are colloquially referred to, celebs, have been focused on using flattery, comical distress and exaggerated action to distract others from the woes of day to day life. Even when writers such as Shakespeare and Chaucer, exceptions proving the rule, make an appearance, it must be remembered that the most serious of themes throughout a literary masterpiece could be undermined by the drag queens which then pranced on stage in imitation of women.

We should rejoice that the preforming arts are no longer bound by discriminatory rules, and that women are free to participate. It remains the case, however, that much of the modern entertainment industry is unwilling to make an audience uncomfortable to think. It is far easier to use ever-increasingly crass and base humour to elicit a few laughs, or to turn the cheese, nostalgia or exaggerated gore up to 11 to get a response. Should anyone dare to attempt breaking this practice becoming a true provocateur they are often pushed outside the mainstream as if they had said something truly dangerous. Perhaps those who would hark back to the Greeks have done something dangerous; dangerous to their fellow performers. God forbid too many people should wake up.

Possibly the most worrying trend with modern fools is their belief that their fame gives them special insight into politics, economics, science and philosophy. Regardless of the topic, actors seem to think that they have a deeper understanding of the world, and as such will fight for what they know to be right. They, of course, insist that their position is the rebellious one, never once taking a second to look around and realise that they are the un-silent minority, so full of hyperbole that most people will agree with them just to shut them up. Hopefully, after the battering the illiberal regressive left took in 2016, they are starting to get the message.

We cannot, however, place blame for their actions solely with themselves. After all, the public will often not speak out denouncing their drivel and, on occasion, seem to actually listen. This is, of course, because the profession of the fool is to portray emotions, often in a bloated sense; as such it comes naturally to most actors to seem very certain about their opinions on any number of topics which they know nothing about. The result, unfortunately, is certain members of the public are convinced.

Would you trust a carpenter to remove a wisdom tooth? Would you hire a dentist to fix your boiler? If you wouldnt trust fashion designer to repair your car, then why on Earth would you trust an actor to inform you about politics and morality? Considering how often those working in Hollywood are revealed to have a substance, or drinking, or gambling, or prostitution problem then why would you take advice from them on making smart, rational and informed decisions about how you want your life to be governed? Worse still, some might listen to those actors who come across as genuine and seem to understand what life is like for everyday individuals, but it is most often the case that this could not be further from the truth. As if the huge pay checks werent enough, fame often excuses payment altogether for things we ordinary citizens have to pay for. Add the glamourous lifestyles, the nature of the work they do, and the people they are surrounded by, and eventually we can see that most actors and entertainers are so far removed from the lives of their audiences, and so out of touch with the public, that they cannot possibly understand what day to day life is like for the masses.

We dont necessarily need to ignore celebs; in fact, when Jay-Z raps about crack and hoes, just before endorsing the next cultural Marxist the Democrats field, Id strongly urge everyone to take note of what he represents and the hypocrisy on display. We do, however, need to stop placing their opinions above our own reasoning. Treat everything they say as if they were just another person standing in line to get their morning coffee. If they put forward reasonable thought through arguments that strike a chord, then take note.

It shouldnt matter how much they or anyone else cries and screams that the Earth is flat, you know better. While modern fools might be only one weapon the illiberal regressive left use, they are a particularly nauseating one, so can we please tell them to shut up already.

* Nathan Brown is a 24 year old politics student. He is a member of the Conservative Party in Great Britain and a self-proclaimed one-nation libertarian, with influences such as Milton Friedman, Ron Paul, Benjamin Disraeli, and Margret Thatcher. When not talking politics, Nathan enjoys spending his time pursuing outdoor activities or relaxing with a single malt scotch and a cigar.

The main BeingLibertarian.com account, used for editorials and guest author submissions. The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions. Contact the Editor at editor@beinglibertarian.email

Like Loading...

Read more here:

Protesting celebs aren't just idiots, they're fools! - Being Libertarian