Daily Archives: September 24, 2019

"The Libertarian Party should never again put up national candidates whose views are similar to those of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld."

That was the resolution of a public debate hosted by the Soho Forum in New York City at the SubCulture Theater on September 10, 2019. It featured comedian and podcast host Dave Smith and Nicholas Sarwark, the chairman of the Libertarian National Committee. Soho Forum director Gene Epstein moderated.

Arguing for the affirmative was Dave Smith, whose 2017 comedy specialLibertas was ranked as the number 1 comedy special on iTunes for three weeks. Smith is the host of the popular libertarian podcast Part of the Problem and a co-host of the comedy podcast Legion of Skanks.

Nicholas Sarwark argued for the negative. Sarwark is currently serving his third term as chairman of the Libertarian National Committee, which is the executive body of the Libertarian Party.

It was an Oxford-style debate: The audience votes on the resolution at the beginning and end of the event, and the side that gains the most ground is victorious. Smith won the night by convincing 20 percent of the audience, while Sarwark convinced 16.8 percent.

The Soho Forum, which is sponsored by the Reason Foundation, is a monthly debate series at the SubCulture Theater in Manhattan's East Village.

Produced by John Osterhoudt.

Photo credit: Brett Raney

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

Read the original post:
What Is the Ideal Strategy for the Libertarian Party? A Soho Forum Debate - Reason

SCOTTSBLUFF, Neb. A new candidate has thrown their hat in the ring for Governor.

Cory Ewing is running for Libertarian candidate to be Governor of Nebraska in 2022.

Ewing says the biggest reason he wants to run is to better represent the entire state of Nebraska and not just the Eastern part.

Ewings issue involves Republicans no longer being conservative fiscally. Ewing wants to bring back the fiscal conservationism.

Ewings inspiration comes from Ron Pauls election back in 2012. Ewing likes the thought of bringing back the Libertarian mindset.

Ewings biggest goal if elected is meeting with state legislature to find out what they can jointly work on. Ewing wants to know more of what people think and want.

Being a Libertarian candidate, Ewing feels it gives more options than just the Democratic and Republican parties.

Ewing says it is important to vote for the candidate you want to see in office.

People are disenfranchised with the candidates that they are left with, said Cory Ewing, Libertarian Candidate for Governor of Nebraska. They are tired of choosing the lesser of two evils. I think people need to remember to vote for the candidate that they believe in. Thats where I think those third party options come in if they dont support the major parties candidates.

The 2022 Nebraska Gubernatorial Election is on November 8th.

See the original post:
Cory Ewing running for Libertarian candidate to be Governor of Nebraska - KSNB Local 4

Over 100 fans of the podcast Contra Krugman, which rebuts arguments made by the New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, went on a seven-day cruise, Bloomberg's Lizzie O'Leary reported.

The cruise took place on Celebrity Cruises' Celebrity Solstice ship and reportedly featured seminars, debates, and games centered around libertarianism. The games included libertarian-themed versions of Pictionary and Family Feud, according to Bloomberg's report.

Read more: Cruise ship workers reveal the 7 most annoying things you can do as a passenger

At one point, a passenger reportedly performed an interpolation of the Linda Ronstadt song "You're No Good" titled, "Krugman, You're So Wrong."

O'Leary recounts the following exchange during a round of libertarian-themed Family Feud.

"Name something," he said into the microphone, "you associate with California."

"Taxes!" shouted one of the contestants. Ding, ding, ding! On to the second contestant.

"Nuts and flakes!"

Wrong, though "insanity" later appeared on the board. Other correct answers: "bad for business," "communism," and "marijuana."

Another question: "If Paul Krugman retires, who should Bob and Tom refute?"

"Alexandra something!"

Krugman has been a columnist for The New York Times since 1999 and won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 2008 for his work on international trade and economic geography.

See also: Apply here to attend IGNITION: Transportation, an event focused on the future of transportation, in San Francisco on October 22.

The Contra Krugman podcast debuted in 2015 and is hosted by Robert Murphy, a research assistant professor at Texas Tech University's Free Market Institute, and Tom Woods, a senior fellow at the Mises Institute. The fifth "Contra Cruise" will take place next October.

Continue reading here:
Fans of anti-Paul Krugman podcast go on 7-day cruise - Business Insider

Over the summer, Michigan Representative Justin Amash proved that he knew how to get the attention of the national media.

First, he announced that he supported impeaching President Donald Trump over the findings of the Mueller Report. That dominated headlines for quite a while, especially since Amash was a Republican at the time. It was such a big story that CNN even televised Amashs first town hall with constituents after coming out in support of impeachment.

That was in May. By July, the daily headlines about Amash had more or less subsided. But on July 4th, Amash thrust himself back into the national spotlight yet again by declaring his independence from the Republican party and registering as an independent.

Many thought it was a precursor to Amash announcing hed run for president with the Libertarian party, but here we are at the end of September and no announcement has been made.

There was speculation within Libertarian party circles that Amash might seek to make such an announcement on September 17, seeing as that marked Constitution Day and Amash frequently brings up the Constitution in defending his positions (a rare thing to see these days). Yet, Constitution Day came and went with no announcement from Amash.

The last we heard from Amash about his electoral future was that hes still trying to figure out what will be the best way for him to spread his message and advance the liberty movement. But Amash is starting to run out of time.

While he can technically wait all the way up until the start of the 2020 Libertarian national convention beginning on May 21 next year, the longer he waits to announce, the longer he risks angering party members who will ultimately decide the nomination at the convention.

Thats not to say he couldnt still win the nomination, but there are other big names, such as former senator and governor Lincoln Chafee, who are weighing bids with the Libertarian party as well. If Amash were to announce his candidacy, then Chafee and others would probably be persuaded not to run given the high amount of national media Amash already commands.

Furthermore, Amash is already at the same starting point Gary Johnson was at the 2016 Libertarian convention, according to a GQR Research poll conducted earlier in September. In three different three-way matchups featuring Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders as the potential Democratic nominees, Amash polled between 4 and 5% as the Libertarian nominee.

Considering Amash hasnt even announced yet, let alone done any actual campaigning, thats pretty good. Johnson was hovering around that realm as he received the partys nomination, and went on to set party records with his final vote totals. With his command of the national media spotlight, Amash would stand at least as good a chance as Johnson did at the start of his campaign.

But the clock is ticking for the libertarian-leaning congressman to make up his mind. He recently offered, though perhaps tongue-in-cheek, to serve as the Speaker of the House if Nancy Pelosi is not willing to pursue impeachment inquiries. However, that seems unlikely, to say the least.

Its respectable that Amash is giving serious consideration to a decision that is made seemingly on a whim by many Republicans and Democrats these days, but reality has to set in at some point. Amash cant keep taking his time on this. He needs to make a decision soon or others will make it for him.

Continue reading here:
Amash 2020? The Time to Decide is Now - The Libertarian Republic

Libertarian candidate Rob Ferguson has withdrawn as a candidate in Brantford-Brant in the Oct. 21 federal election. SubmittedSunMedia

Libertarian Rob Ferguson is withdrawing as a candidate in Brantford-Brant for the Oct. 21 federal election.

Ferguson, 44, cited health reasons in announcing his withdrawal Tuesday.

I have to put my health first, he said. I had a massive heart attack after the last federal election (in 2015) and recently I was starting to feel fatigued and seeing some of the signs of ill health.

I spoke with my family and my physician and we all agreed that its probably best that we sit this one out.

He said running for office is stressful because candidates must knock on a lot of doors, attend all-candidates meetings and be prepared for questions from voters.

Im thankful for the support I have had over the years from the public groups and the inclusion of Libertarians here in Brant surpasses any riding across the county, said Ferguson said. Once my health is better I plan to return to fight for the cause.

The riding of Brantford-Brant has been good to me as a candidate.

The Brantford resident received 515 votes in the 2015 federal election. He has also run municipally and provincially and has served as interim leader and deputy leader for the Ontario Libertarian Party.

That leaves six candidates seeking to challenge Conservative Phil McColeman, who is running for a fourth team. They are Bob Jonkman of the Green Party, Sabrina Sawyer, of the NDP, Liberal Danielle Takacs, Dave Wrobel, of the Peoples Party of Canada, independent Leslie Bory and perennial candidate John Turmel.

But, as of Tuesday afternoon, only three McColeman, Jonkman and Bory had officially registered with Elections Canada. Candidates have until Sept. 30 to register.

Voters will get several chances to hear from the candidates.

On Sept. 30, the Chamber of Commerce Brantford-Brant, in partnership with Rogers Community Television, is hosting a televised debate from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. The debate will be rebroadcast leading up to voting day.

On Oct. 9, the Womens Institute and Brant County Federation of Agriculture are hosting a meeting at 7 p.m. at Bethel Community Hall, 154 Bethel Rd., Paris.

And, on Oct. 15, the Canadian Federation of University WomenBrantford, with support of the Retired Teachers of Ontario BrantDistrict 40, is hosting a meeting in the mini-theatre of North Park Collegiate, 280 North Park St. Entry to the school is through the door at the north side of building in the student parking lot and drop-off area.

Advance voting is scheduled for Oct. 11, 12, 13 and 14.

The Elections Canada office for Brantford-Brant is at 225 Henry St., Suite 1. It is open Monday to Friday, 9 a.m. to 9 p.m.; Saturday, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., and Sunday, noon to 4 p.m.

The office can be reached toll free at 1-866 238-4181. The fax number is 1-888-263-3181.

Voter registration cards were to be mailed out this week.

Vball@postmedia.comtwitter.com/EXPVBall

Visit link:
Libertarian candidate withdraws from federal election - Brantford Expositor

In this September 19 post, Kevin Williamson took issue with my contention that the American higher education system is not the envy of the world, then upbraided me for engaging in what he terms lazy libertarianism. I feel the need to reply.

What I wrote in this article published by my employer, the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal (and I thank Williamson for his good words on our continuing efforts at exposing the many flaws in American postsecondary education) is that our system is not the envy of the world. I have been making that argument for more than twenty years, as I look at the high cost and low educational value of our higher education system generally.

Williamson says Im wrong because so many students from around the world come to the U.S. to study. That is true about one million foreign students are enrolled in our colleges and university. But it is also true that around 300,000 American students are enrolled in colleges and universities around the world. Thus, a far higher percentage of Americans choose to study abroad than do foreigners choose to study here. Does that prove hes wrong and Im right?

No. The decisions those individuals make tell us nothing about the overall merits of any countrys higher education system. America has many superb educational programs. Some brilliant foreign students want to study physics, for example, at M.I.T. or Cal Tech; many dull foreign students from rich families also come to easy schools here because its a sign of prestige to hold an American degree, no matter that daddy bought a place for them by paying full tuition.

What is excellent about American higher education has nothing to do with our higher ed policy. Our great institutions were great long before the federal government started to meddle in higher education and have remained so despite more than 50 years of harmful intervention. On the other hand, what is bad about our colleges and universities is the result of federal subsidies and regulations. That was the argument I made in my article just as in all other markets, when politicians start making decisions, the consequences are almost certain to be bad.

Therefore, I argued that if a nation wants its education system to be the best it can be, the right policy to pursue is laissez-faire. It should, in other words, leave the education decisions in the hands of people who will pay the cost, reaping the benefits if they choose wisely and suffering the losses if they dont. Williamson himself has advocated the radical step of eliminating federal student loans, which would take us most of the way back to the overwhelmingly laissez-faire days before LBJ made higher education a federal priority. I cannot see that there is any useful (or constitutional) role for the federal government and advocate its complete withdrawal.

But because I did not offer a thorough case for that, Williamson says Im guilty of lazy libertarianism. Who among us, however, has never said, The government should never have gotten involved with X, without following up with a complete case against government meddling? I did note in my article that American higher education was of mostly of good quality and quite affordable prior to federal intervention, but that apparently was not enough for me to escape the charge.

Well, I think that I made a prima facie case for keeping government out of higher education and am ready to elaborate on that case to anyone who believes that government intervention can make it better. Laissez-faire wont give us perfection, but it avoids the deep, ingrained imperfections that government inevitably causes.

See the article here:
Kevin Williamson and I Debate American Higher Education - National Review

The field in this years mayoral race has diminished by one.

Last Friday Libertarian candidate for mayor Michael Virgin announced he was withdrawing his bid for mayor. In doing so, he endorsed Republican candidate for mayor Tyler Moore. Virgins name still will appear on the ballot in the upcoming election, as the deadline for official withdrawal already passed, but Virgin encouraged his supporters to align with the Republican candidate.

In a campaign release, Virgin said the move partially was driven by a job opportunity.

Oftentimes when we find that golden apple, we forget to look at where it came from, and we overlook the entire tree full of golden apples. Well, I looked past that single apple and noticed the tree. I have been given an opportunity at a job I have thought about for quite some time in my life, since 2013 to be quite honest. That is my golden apple. While I may not end up getting the job not sure why that would happen, but there is always the slim chance I have to pick that apple up and take the chance.

Virgin first entered this years political fray in March after the Libertarian Party of Indiana elected him to represent this party in the citys municipal election. Since then his campaign focused on increasing the number of public safety personnel, while also calling for improved road infrastructure as well as encouraging economic development through deregulation.

In announcing his withdrawal, the 49-year-old Lafayette-native said he and Moore met last week, giving rise to his decision to withdraw from the race.

I met with Tyler on Sept. 20 at the Republican headquarters, just him and me, said Virgin. We sat there together and discussed our mutual goals for the city of Kokomo ... We discussed the future of Kokomo in general, and there really was no difference in what we wanted.

I was able to share with him a few ideas that I had not talked about publicly. We discussed that both of us had heard that our ideas were similar enough that some people were actually torn between whether they should vote for him or for me and that it could impact our runs and act as a free pass to the third candidate.

VIrgins withdrawal means Moore and Democrat Abbie Smith will be the lone mayoral candidates campaigning in the lead up to the General Election on Nov. 5.

Follow this link:
Virgin withdraws from mayoral race | News - Kokomo Perspective

President Trump has used his power to set tariffs to wage multiple trade wars that have already inflicted major costs on the American economy, and threaten to cause even greater harm. That restrictions on international trade damage the economy is one of those areas on which economists across the political spectrum agree. Nonetheless, Trump has persisted. In a recent column in the Washington Examiner, conservative political commentator Quin Hillyer urges Congress to repeal the president's power to set tariff, unwisely delegated by Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act:

It is long past time for Congress to reclaim from the president the authority to levy tariffs at his own discretion.

On the legislative front, a new coalition of industry groups is pushing Congress to pass a law reining in presidential tariff-levying powers. A number of lawmakers are pushing various proposals to do so. The conservative Heritage Foundation suggests that the power should be entirely abolished.

The delegation of this authority is a relatively recent thing, having come 57 years ago via through one small section of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. Section 232 (as subsequently slightly amended) provides that if the president, on the advice of the Commerce Department, determines that if particular imported goods somehow threaten national security, he can ban their import or impose tariffs or quotas on them. The section does not require him to secure Congress' approval.

In 54 years, presidents had used that power only six times. Trump, however, has used it repeatedly, against multiple products from multiple nations. In doing so, he has vastly expanded the ordinary meaning of "national security" to include virtually any perceived harm to the economic interests of the United States. Such expansive interpretations of "national security" are themselves objectionable, being clearly outside the original spirit of Congress' delegation of power as a Cold War measure.

He also argues that Section 232's extremely broad grant of power to the president is unconstitutional, and should be invalidated by the courts:

The Constitution provides that "all bills for raising revenue shall original in the House of Representatives." Moreover, only "the Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises" and to "regulate commerce with foreign nations." ("Duties" are a type of tax synonymous with "tariffs.")

Nowhere does the Constitution even hint at giving the president unilateral authority to lay any sort of tax or duty or to regulate commerce.

It is true that for years Congress has delegated various powers to the discretion of the executive branch. In most cases, those delegations have involved mere details, with Congress making fairly clear what its law entails but leaving specifics on how to implement it, via regulatory authority, to the executive bureaucracy. These other delegations, however, usually don't cede core congressional powers to the president.

As cited above, the powers to tax and to regulate commerce with foreign nations are core constitutional roles of Congress. Unlike most issues of delegated authority, they include not merely matters of interpreting Congress' slightly ambiguous will, but instead the forfeiture of entire congressional prerogatives specifically delineated in the Constitution.

The delegation of the power is itself abusive, on its face, of constitutional design. Trump's expansive use of it is not just abusive, but abominably so. It should not stand.

I agree with Hillyer on both the legislative and constitutional points. I am not optimistic, however, that Congress will actually pass a bill to repeal Section 232 anytime soon, or even significantly narrow its scope. Many Republicans will be reluctant to challenge Trump on an issue that is central to his political agenda. Many Democrats are protectionists themselves, and prominent Democratic presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have protectionist agendas at least as far-reaching as Trump's. Protectionist Democrats may be reluctant to curtail a power that could come in handy for a president of their own party. Even if a bill curbing Section 232 passes, it is unlikely to get a large enough majority to override Trump's virtually inevitable veto.

A legal challenge could potentially be more promising. However, it is worth noting that Hillyer isn't quite right to say that there is a "lack of court challenges against the delegation of that power to the president in the first place." Earlier this year, the United States Court of International Trade issued a decision rejecting a challenge to Section 232 brought by business interests harmed by Trump's steel tariffs.

The court recognized that "the broad guideposts of subsections (c) and (d) of section 232 bestow flexibility on the President and seem to invite the President to regulate commerce by way of means reserved for Congress, leaving very few tools beyond his reach." It also concedes that Section 232 effectively allows the president to impose tariffs on almost any imports of any kind, based on bogus "national security" concerns, because the statute does not permit courts to review either the president's motives or his "fact-finding." In addition, as the majority explains, the law does not limit the countries whose products are subject to the president's power, the amount of the tariff he is allowed to impose, or its duration. While the statute creates a procedure for the Commerce Department to make findings on whether there is a genuine threat to national security, the president is not bound by those findings. Thus, we get such absurdities as Trump's imposition of tariffs on Canadian steel (albeit, recently lifted), on the theory that they somehow pose a threat to "national security."

But the Court of International Trade still concluded that the Supreme Court's extremely permissive non-delegation precedents still required it. Those cases uphold delegation anytime it is based on an "intelligible principle," and that concept is defined so broadly that virtually any delegation can pass muster.

In a separate opinion, Judge Gary Katzmann implicitly urged the Supreme Court to strengthen the non-delegation doctrine and strike down Section 232. He pointed out that imposing tariffs is a "core legislative function" and asked: "If the delegation permitted by section 232, as now revealed, does not constitute excessive delegation in violation of the Constitution, what would?" Judge Katzmann is right. Giving the president the power to impose tariffs on virtually any imports for virtually any reason (so long as he claims it somehow relates to "national security") is surely an example of unconstitutional delegation, if anything ever can be.

In fairness, at the time Section 232 was enacted in 1962, there was a widespread assumption that the president could be trusted with the power to impose tariffs, because he was less likely to be "captured" by protectionist interests than more parochial members of Congress, some of whom are susceptible to lobbying by business and union interests who seek to keep out foreign competition. But even if this was true at the time, it's a questionable assumption in the age of Trump, who made protectionism one of his key issues in winning the GOP primary in 2016.

The fact that Democrats like Sanders and Warren have adopted the same strategy suggests that the trend towards presidential protectionism may not be unique to Trump, and could outlast him. While majority public opinion has become more favorable to free trade in recent years, the bases of both major parties include a substantial number of economically ignorant voters who are susceptible to protectionist appeals. As Trump demonstrated in 2016, trade is one of those issues that most cleanly separates relatively knowledgeable voters from those who are much less so, and the latter have considerable clout in the primary process. A similar dynamic in the Democratic Party may help explain why most of the party's current presidential candidates have been unwilling to take a strong stance in favor of free trade, despite Democratic opinion increasingly trending in that direction.

Even if the average president remains likely to be less protectionist than the average member of Congress, getting protectionist legislation through Congress is still likely to be more difficult than for a president to decide to impose tariffs at the stroke of his pen, if only because of the difficulty of getting Congress to pass major legislation of any kind.

In my view, the Founding Fathers made a mistake when they gave the federal government nearly unconstrained power to enact restrictions on international trade. But that error is exacerbated when the authority to impose tariffs is concentrated in the hands of a single man or woman, who can slap them on virtually any goods for any reason.

Unfortunately, in June the Supreme Court refused to hear the Section 232 case decided by the Court of International Trade. But, around the same time, in the Gundy case, the conservative majority on the Court signaled that they might be willing to tighten up non-delegation standards in the future. If so, Section 232 would be a great place to start. It is a particularly egregious case of overbroad delegation, it causes great harm, and the issue does not divide people along strictly partisan lines.

There are both Republican and Democratic protectionists, but also many in both major parties who support free trade and recognize the great harm caused by tariffs. A Supreme court ruling invalidating Section 232 could not easily be condemned as narrowly ideological or partisan.

Ultimately, ending the unconstitutional delegation of tariff authority to the White House will probably require a combination of both legal and political action. The two are often mutually reinforcing, as was the case with many previous successful efforts to strengthen enforcement of constitutional constraints on abuses of government power.

The Court is more likely to strike down Section 232 if key swing justices believe they have the support of a formidable political movement that can minimize any potential backlash against the justices. And political leaders are more likely to stand up for free trade if there is a likelihood that doing so can help produce success in court, as well as in the legislative process.

UPDATE: I have made a few small additions to this post.

Read more:
Abolish the President's Virtually Unconstrained Power to Impose Tariffs - Reason