Monthly Archives: April 2024

Student-Led Working Group to Abolish GUPD Calls for Greater Community Involvement – Georgetown University The Hoya

Posted: April 10, 2024 at 5:32 pm

A student-led working group calling for the abolition of university police amid ongoing complaints of hyperpolicing on campus is requesting greater community support and involvement in the groups advocacy.

The Georgetown University Police Department Abolition Working Group was established by the Georgetown University Student Association senators last October, according to GUSA Senator Makayla Jeffries (COL 23), who first organized the group. The working group is a subcommittee of the Policy and Advocacy Committee.

While the working group ultimately hopes to abolish GUPD, it is currently focusing on engaging with the university and educating the Georgetown community, according to GUSA Senator Ace Frazier (MSB 23), a member of the working group.

We really want to be entirely prepared because people dont really understand sometimes how abolition works, Frazier said in a phone interview with The Hoya. They think that its just immediately getting rid of and trying to force out whatever thing that youre against or thing you are trying to change, but in reality, it starts a lot more with preparing and building up whats going to replace that thing beforehand.

Calls for abolition come amid ongoing complaints of hyperpolicing, specifically from students of color who have shared experiences of unnecessary surveillance and excessive use of force from GUPD. Despite these experiences, there has only been one formal complaint against GUPD since 2014, which involved someone who was not a member of the Georgetown community.

Following the killing of George Floyd last summer, students also circulated a petition calling for the university to cease all relationships with police departments amid nationwide protests against police brutality in attempts to support Georgetowns Black community and combat racial injustice.

Recently, the working group has been researching preventative measures and alternatives to policing, including ways to protect communities through education and mental health support systems, according to Frazier.

We are really solidifying our own knowledge on the subject and what actions can be done by the university before making any direct acts to abolish or get rid of GUPD, Frazier said.

The working group is hoping to present a proposal to the university detailing alternative solutions to GUPD by April, according to Jeffries.

I ran for senator on the platform of abolishing the police because I think we should abolish the police, both in universities but also just generally, Jeffries said in a phone interview with The Hoya. I never want the university to feel like abolition is impossible because they lack the imagination.

GUPD is working to better engage with the Georgetown community and encourage an equitable environment, according to Associate Vice President for Public Safety and Chief of Police Jay Gruber.

The Georgetown University Police Department is committed to continuing to improve its processes and procedures, engaging with the campus community, and listening and responding to feedback to ensure there is no racial bias in its actions as it seeks to provide a safe campus, Gruber wrote in an email to The Hoya.

GUPD officers have been required to participate in training on reducing bias in policing, racial justice and community engagement since 2016, according to Gruber.

GUPD works 24/7, 365 days a year to protect the University from crime and numerous threats, and responds to thousands of calls each year to support students, faculty and staff who are in need, Gruber wrote. We also recognize that keeping the Georgetown community safe includes constantly working to eliminate structural racism and any form of bias in its operations.

No matter how much GUPD reforms, many students in the working group believe it is beyond repair. In addition, the working group is also advocating for expanding programs that already exist at the university, such as hiring transformative justice practitioners in health education services and providing a hotline for mental health crises, according to Jeffries.

Successful abolition depends on communities of care, and its not just about tearing down white supremacist systems, Jeffries said. It is also about, how can we depend on our community to mitigate harm?

To support mental health, the university launched HoyaWell, a new telehealth resource aiming to provide more virtual mental health services to students during the COVID-19 pandemic in January. The university also hired temporary mental health counselors last spring to offer free counseling services specifically to BIPOC survivors of sexual misconduct.

As students continue to raise concerns about GUPDs practices, the working group hopes the Georgetown community will recognize police violence goes beyond physical assault, according to Jeffries.

Just because a Black or Brown student on this campus has not been physically assaulted by GUPD, that doesnt mean that GUPD isnt actively enacting violence against Black and Brown people on this campus, Jeffries said. I feel like every time I hear a story about GUPD from someone that is Black and Brown, it is traumatic, and that is violent.

The working group is now calling for greater student and community involvement as it continues to advocate for reform, according to GroupMe messages.

Although abolition is a long-term project, establishing support systems and providing resources to the community is still important and necessary work, according to Jeffries.

I do not even know if I am going to see abolition at this university by the time I graduate, which is fine, Jeffries said. But at least for me, and I know for a lot of people in the working group, the work will never stop. The work for abolition, the work for getting resources for people, the work for building communities of care, that is never going to stop. We are all just in it for the long haul.

See the article here:

Student-Led Working Group to Abolish GUPD Calls for Greater Community Involvement - Georgetown University The Hoya

Posted in Abolition Of Work | Comments Off on Student-Led Working Group to Abolish GUPD Calls for Greater Community Involvement – Georgetown University The Hoya

N.Y. Libertarian Party launches petition drive for ballot – Spectrum News

Posted: at 5:32 pm

The New York state Libertarian Party is gearing up to get their presidential candidate on the ballot in the Empire State. Due to new ballot access provisions, the Libertarians and other parties without automatic ballot access will need to collect 45,000 signatures between April 16 and May 28 to get their party on the ballot.

The Libertarian Party has placed a candidate on the ballot for president in New York every cycle since 1976 with their best performance on their own line coming in 2020 with Jo Jorgenson receiving over 60,000 votes. In 2016, the partys ticket, which included former Massachusetts Governor and New York gubernatorial candidate Bill Weld, was cross endorsed by the Independence Party and received over 176,000 votes.

Candidates from a party that does not have ballot access must obtain 45,000 signatures or 1% of the total number of votes in the last gubernatorial election, whichever is less. At least 500 signatures each must come from 13 congressional districts.

Currently, the only parties in New York state that have automatic ballot access are the Democratic, Republican, Working Families, and Conservative parties. The Working Families Party has typically cross endorsed the Democratic candidate and the Conservative Party has done the same with the Republicans.

In 2020, the Green and Independence parties placed their own candidates on the ballot, Howie Hawkins and Brock Pierce respectively. This cycle, Dr. Jill Stein, the Green Partys nominee in 2012 and 2016, is leading in her partys primary and the Independence Party has slowed their activity with their party website not being active. The Greens will need to go through the ballot petitioning process as well.

Incumbent President Joe Biden and his predecessor, Donald Trump, are the presumptive nominees for the Democratic and Republican parties.

The Libertarians will select their official candidates for president and vice president at their national convention which will be held in Washington, D.C. at the end of May. Chase Oliver, the partys nominee for U.S. Senate in Georgia in 2022, has won five state primaries but other candidates for the nomination include 2000 vice presidential nominee Art Oliver and former party Vice Chair Joshua Smith.

Due to New Yorks petitioning process happening before the partys nominating convention, the party will be using stand-in candidates, which will step aside for the official candidates. The stand-in candidates will be former gubernatorial nominee Larry Sharpe and the partys second Vice Chair Rich Purtell. Sharpe briefly ran for the partys vice presidential nomination in 2016 and 2020.

The next major election in New York will be closed primaries for state and federal legislative offices on June 25with early voting running from June 15-23. The general election is set for Nov. 5with early voting running from Oct. 26 to Nov. 3.

More:
N.Y. Libertarian Party launches petition drive for ballot - Spectrum News

Posted in Libertarianism | Comments Off on N.Y. Libertarian Party launches petition drive for ballot – Spectrum News

Arizona voters question petition for Libertarian candidate: Not even close to my signature – Washington Examiner

Posted: at 5:32 pm

Multiple Arizona voters say their signatures were forged in Libertarian Michelle Martins paperwork to run in Arizonas 1st Congressional District.

Four people told the Arizona Republic that they had not signed the petition that their signatures were on. In order to appear on the ballot in Arizona, candidates must gain a number of signatures proportional to the number of registered voters in their district.

That is definitely not me. Not even close to my signature. Thats very upsetting, Stephen Riordan, a Phoenix resident whose name and signature were listed on Martins paperwork, said.

Martin submitted 1,200 signatures, which is more than the required at least one-half of one percent of registered voters in the district needed to get on the ballot.

Im disappointed, Shannon Speagle, another resident whose signature was allegedly forged, said. It completely delegitimizes this candidacy. She said her signature was bogus. Speagle said she asked three additional neighbors to verify their signatures on the petition. They say their signatures were also bogus.

Martin did not respond to the Arizona Republic for comment. Several signature gatherers also did not respond for comment.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Arizonas newly redrawn 1st District is now labeled a toss-up going into the 2024 general election.

Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ) has represented the district for more than a decade and will have to defend his seat in an area that has voted increasingly blue in recent years. In 2022, Schweikert kept his seat in the House by a narrow margin of 3,000 votes.

Go here to see the original:
Arizona voters question petition for Libertarian candidate: Not even close to my signature - Washington Examiner

Posted in Libertarianism | Comments Off on Arizona voters question petition for Libertarian candidate: Not even close to my signature – Washington Examiner

Understanding Freedom and Faith in Freedom The Future of Freedom Foundation – The Future of Freedom Foundation

Posted: at 5:32 pm

There are two major obstacles to achieving a genuinely free society in our lifetime: one, a lack of understanding of the genuine principles of freedom, and two, a lack of faith in freedom.

The first obstacle involves principally nonlibertarians. The second obstacle involves everyone, including libertarians.

If someone were to conduct a survey among the American people today in which people were asked if they felt they lived in a free society, I would bet that the vast majority of Americans would respond yes. Sure, Americans complain about how the federal government operates, about the large amount of federal spending and debt, about regulatory mishaps, about the adverse results of various foreign interventions and wars, and about various other aspects of the welfare-warfare state system under which Americans live. But I believe that most Americans would willingly agree with singer Lee Greenwalds refrain, Im proud to be an American where at least I know Im free.

My favorite quote is by the German thinker Johann Goethe: None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. That quote perfectly characterizes the plight of the American people. Americans honestly believe they are free, but it just aint so.

The first thing we need to do is to define what a genuinely free society is. A free society is one in which everyone is free to engage in any activity he wants so long as he is not violating the rights of everyone else to do the same thing that is, as long as he isnt initiating force or fraud against others.

A free society entails the exercise of such rights as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association. It also entails the right to keep and bear arms. These three rights and others are enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

It also entails what is known as economic liberty. Freedom entails the right to engage in any economic enterprise without permission of the state. It entails the right to enter into economic exchanges with anyone in the world, without first securing permission of the government. It entails the right to accumulate unlimited amounts of wealth and the right to decide what to do with it: save, invest, spend, donate, hoard, or squander it.

We do not live in a society that protects the exercise of economic liberty. We live in what is called a welfare state and a government-managed economy in which the state forces people to send their money to the government so that the government can give it to others. The government also regulates economic activity, such as with minimum-wage laws, and tightly controls trade with people in foreign countries. It also manages the monetary system, choosing paper money as a medium of exchange, whose value it has debased since its inception in the 1930s.

We also live under what is called a national-security state, one in which the national-security branch of the government wields omnipotent powers, such as assassination, torture, coups, and foreign interventions and wars. It is a system that is contrary to the limited-government system on which our nation was founded.

Libertarians hold that all of these aspects of Americas welfare-warfare state system violate the genuine principles of a free society. Nonlibertarians are falsely convinced that the welfare-warfare-state way of life has instead brought them freedom.

The first obstacle in achieving a free society is the lack of understanding among the American people as to what a genuinely free society entails. Now, granted, if Americans were to see what a free society entails, they might still conclude that they dont really want to be free. They might want to continuing living under a welfare-warfare-state form of governmental system. But at least then they would be making a conscious decision rather than one based on a false reality.

Since libertarians have an understanding of the importance of economic liberty, social liberty, and a limited-government republic, it is only libertarians who can lead America to freedom. But they can only do this by standing squarely for freedom and steadfastly making the case for freedom.

Many libertarians have given up on freedom and resigned themselves to making the case for welfare-warfare-state reform. Whats wrong with reform? Nothing, if all that one is looking for is an improved form of serfdom. Freedom entails identifying infringements on liberty and removing them. Reform entails leaving infringements on liberty in place and reforming or improving them.

Making the case for reform doesnt cause people to think about the principles of freedom. Instead, it focuses peoples attention on how to reform the serfdom under which they live. In the process, the lack of freedom continues.

The only way to achieve a genuinely free society is by arriving at a critical mass of people who understand what freedom is and who are passionately committed to attaining it. In order to find the people who fall within that category, it is necessary to make the case for genuine freedom. Making the case for reform doesnt do that.

Why have so many libertarians thrown in the towel and resigned themselves to making the case for reform rather than the case for liberty? The answer to that question leads us to the second principal obstacle for achieving freedom the lack of faith that so many libertarians (and nonlibertarians) have in freedom.

Why is faith in freedom important for libertarians? Given that libertarians have achieved the breakthrough that enables them to see that we are not free, obviously it is only libertarians who can lead America to freedom. But if libertarians lack a faith in freedom, how can they possibly lead anyone to freedom? Why would nonlibertarians be attracted to a philosophy that its proponents have little or no faith in?

Lets examine some real-life examples of this phenomenon.

Social Security and Medicare are the crown jewels of American socialism. These two welfare-state programs are based on the socialist principle of using the coercive force of government to take money from those who own it and give it to those who, the government claims, need it more. The system, proponents say, shows that Americans are good and caring.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Care and compassion come from the willing heart of the individual, not the coercive apparatus of the state. A free society entails everyone having the right to decide what to do with his own money.

Thus, freedom necessarily entails the immediate eradication of Social Security, Medicare, and all other socialist programs.

Many libertarians say that the system needs to be reformed, not abolished. Or they say that it must be gradually reduced over the next several years, perhaps even a generation. Or they call for opt out plans that entail letting young people opt out of the system but continue paying the taxes to fund Social Security and Medicare for those who choose to remain in the system. Or they propose a fascist type of plan that entails forcing people to invest in government-approved retirement accounts.

Why dont these libertarians favor simply repealing these socialist programs? Because they have convinced themselves that freedom wont work. They are convinced that freedom would mean that thousands of people would be dying in the streets.

America lived without Social Security, Medicare, and other socialist programs for more than a century. In fact, Americas system of economic liberty led not only to the greatest surge of economic prosperity but also to the greatest outpouring of voluntary charity that mankind has ever seen.

There is no doubt that if Social Security, Medicare, and other socialist programs were to be suddenly repealed today, everyone would be fine. The wealthy dont need the help. Those in the middle would have to adjust, perhaps by returning to work or reducing expenditures. For those truly in need, there would be more than sufficient help from children, grandchildren, church groups, charitable foundations, friends, relatives, physicians, hospitals, and neighborhood groups.

Permit me one example from personal experience. I grew up in Laredo, Texas, one of the poorest cities in the United States. There was no Medicare or Medicaid. Every day, doctors offices were filled with people, many of whom could not pay. Nonetheless, there was never an instance where a doctor refused to treat a patient based on inability to pay. They did it out of a sense of moral obligation. Thats what happens in a free society.

Lets take another example immigration. For our entire lives, we have lived under a socialist immigration system, one based on the core socialist principle of central planning. Under central planning, the government determines the total number of immigrants that will be permitted into the country, the number of immigrants allocated to each country, the qualifications necessary for entry, the number permitted to work (i.e. green cards), and other such things.

It simply cannot be done, at least not without what the famous free-market economist Ludwig von Mises called planned chaos. What better term to describe the situation on the U.S.-Mexico border for the last 80 years, at least? Immigration central planning is the cause of Americas decades-old, never-ending, ongoing immigration crisis.

The system comes with a massive police state along the border in order ensure that foreigners do not enter the country illegally or without an invitation. This system entails warrantless searches of farms and ranches within 100 miles of the border, highway checkpoints, roving Border Patrol checkpoints, boarding of Greyhound buses to check for peoples papers, and the criminalization of hiring, harboring, helping, or transporting immigrants who are here illegally. It is also a system that comes with death, suffering, humiliation, and abuse.

The solution is to eradicate the socialist cause of the problem. In the area of immigration, that means the immediate dismantling of the Border Patrol, the immigration service (ICE), and all restrictions on the freedom of goods, services, and people to cross political borders.

Economic liberty is the solution to the perpetual crisis, death, suffering, and police state that comes with socialism. I repeat what I have been saying for more than 30 years: Economic freedom is the only solution to the immigration morass caused by socialism.

Too many libertarians have lost faith in freedom. They have convinced themselves that freedom simply will not work, at least not in the area of immigration. What they fail to recognize is that the free market and the price system are the best and most efficient regulators of human activity. Think about the United States. It has the biggest open border area in history open borders between the states. In the past few years, countless Californians have flooded into Austin, Texas. Do you see any chaos there? Oh, sure, people have had to adjust to the massive influx of people. But as more people have moved into Austin, the prices have risen, which has induced other people to live further away or even in another part of the country. What you dont see is thousands of Californians at the Texas border clamoring to get into the state, like we see on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Another example: Every day, hundreds of thousands of people cross back and forth between Maryland and my state of Virginia. There are no border guards regulating the flow. No one is checking for terrorists, criminals, or people with Covid or other illnesses.

Libertarian proponents of immigration controls also point to the migrant crisis in American cities. What they forget is that the government prevents migrants from working without a green card. Thus, the state then feels the need to take care of the people they wont permit to work. In a free market, everyone would be free to work, and the state wouldnt need to be taking care of anyone.

A third example: education. The genuinely free society is based on the separation of school and state that is, the end of all government involvement in education, just as our ancestors did with religion. Thus, freedom necessarily means making the case for educational liberty.

All too many libertarians have thrown in the towel on this area of statism as well. They have convinced themselves that educational liberty simply will not work that children would simply not be educated if the state did not maintain its coercive apparatus of mandatory schooling.

Thus, many libertarians have chosen to go down the road to reform with the advocacy of school vouchers, a reform program that leaves the public-school system intact but uses the coercive apparatus of the state to take money from people to whom it belongs in order to fund the education of children from other families.

Making the case for vouchers is totally different from making the case for educational liberty. Vouchers leaves the socialist educational system intact and purports to make it better through choice and competition. Educational liberty entails making the much more difficult case of ending all governmental involvement in education.

A fourth example of this phenomenon involves the drug war. The government punishes people for ingesting substances that the government disapproves of. Genuine freedom entails the immediate repeal of all drug laws that is, it involves the right of people to ingest whatever they want, no matter how harmful or destructive.

All too many libertarians have given up in this area as well and have settled for calling for reform, such as the repeal or reform of mandatory-minimum sentences or asset-forfeiture laws or the legalization of only marijuana and not the so-called hard drugs. They have convinced themselves that if drugs were legalized, most everyone in society would become drug addicts. Since many addicts would undoubtedly go on Medicaid to seek treatment for their addiction, some libertarians undoubtedly have concluded that we cant end drug laws until weve ended Medicaid. Thus, like with Social Security, Medicare, immigration, and education, they continue supporting a program that brings with it perpetual crisis, chaos, death, suffering, and police-state coercion.

Libertarians are the only ones who can lead America to freedom because libertarians have a firm grip on reality when it comes to freedom. But leading America to freedom requires a faith in freedom. If libertarians are to lead America to freedom in our lifetime, it is necessary for libertarians to restore a faith in freedom in themselves.

This article was originally published in the March 2024 issue of Future of Freedom.

Link:
Understanding Freedom and Faith in Freedom The Future of Freedom Foundation - The Future of Freedom Foundation

Posted in Libertarianism | Comments Off on Understanding Freedom and Faith in Freedom The Future of Freedom Foundation – The Future of Freedom Foundation

Intentional Community and Capitalism – Shareable

Posted: at 5:32 pm

Challenges and strategies for anti-capitalist community design (part 1)

Capitalism isnt just an economic system we live inside. It is a culture that lives inside of us. It influences our psychology, how we design our communities, how we relate to each other, the kind of culture we create, and whats possible for us to do together.

Capitalism is one of the most harmful aspects of mainstream society and is deeply entwined with white supremacy, patriarchy, colonialism, and imperialism. Societies, including micro-societies like intentional communities (ICs), are a mixture of structures and culture, and economies are a key aspect with implications for both. Capitalism is a structure that encourages individual finances and embeds commodification and transaction into our relationships with each other and the world around us. This fosters and reinforces a culture of hyper-individualism, privacy, competition, objectification, and entitlement. It creates an experience of separation, isolation, loneliness, and fear, and normalizes inequality, oppression, exploitation, and violence.

ICs are idealistic responses to the problems of society. We see and experience the harm caused by human civilization on people and ecosystems. We want to live in a way that is more healthy and satisfying, where we can have a different relationship to people and place. We want lifestyles that align with our values and help make the world better. But as much as we want something different, we are susceptible to recreating the problems we want to solve.

At their core, ICs are about sharing. As places for sharing lives, resources, land, and purpose, they provide and maximize an interconnected set of ecological, social, and economic benefits. ICs integrate aspects of our lives that are usually kept separate. The experience cultivates belonging and accountability, which inspires us to act from a deep understanding of our interdependence. ICs are spaces that allow for experimentation and learning about ourselves, relationships, culture, and systems in a unique way.

The more we share, the more opportunities we have to practice.

An essential task we face as a species is to learn how to share resources equitably, democratically, and peacefully, within the bounds of what our ecosystems can support. But sharing is hard. Mainstream society does not prepare us for living in community, and we dont magically know how to do it simply by stepping into it. We underestimate how deeply the culture of capitalism is ingrained in us, and the extent to which we make choices that are antithetical to our desires for community.

Because of the trauma and enculturation, the lack of experience and availability of alternative models, as well as the unavoidability of operating within capitalism, the gravity will always be towards capitalist ways of doing things. Unwittingly trying to live our values using capitalist vehicles makes things more complicated and less satisfying, but we dont understand why.

Alternatives that would align better with our values, but would involve being more economically entwined, if we are even aware of them, are mostly rejected at the outset for reasons we dont fully explore. Even if we understand the benefits intellectually, we have to believe that its possible, and that its worth the risk and discomfort to do the work to create an experience of it.

(I offer this brief analysis as a basis for what Im advocating. Please see the references section for more in-depth works on the subject.)

When I say capitalism, I dont mean the use of money as a medium of exchange for goods and services, which is separate from and predates capitalism. Im talking about the modern, dominant, global capitalist economy, largely established and perpetuated by the US and Europe starting around the industrial revolution.

Capitalism revolves around capital, defined as anything that confers value or benefit to its owners, such as a factory and its machinery, intellectual property like patents, or the financial assets of a business. It is based on a central mechanic: The control and investment of capital to make a profit, which is then reinvested to make more profit, and so on.

A system designed around the perpetual generation of profit depends on infinite growth. This growth comes from the extraction and exploitation of natural and human resources. Infinite growth is fundamental to capitalism, but the resources needed for this growth are finite, which makes this system inherently unsustainable.

Capitalism perpetuates inequality because it relies on it. There must always be people who rely on wage-earning jobs. Through their labor, these people create value for those who own the means of production. This owning class can make money by doing nothing more than investing money. In this system, wealth will tend to consolidate into fewer hands, who will have an outsized influence on government, causing it to pass laws designed to benefit them, which are protected by the threat or use of violence and imprisonment by the state. This is inherently unjust.

Capitalism has become what it is today because of imperialism, colonialism, genocide, and slavery. It is based on laws protecting private property ownership, which are based on racist, dehumanizing ideologies like the Doctrine of Discovery, and the subjection of nature characterized by mechanistic philosophy. A core assumption embedded deep in our collective psyche is that I should be able to do whatever I want with my property regardless of how it impacts others, and that I should get to keep people off my property even if there are people who dont have access to the basic resources they need to survive.

All wealth is stolen or based on stolen wealth: it is accumulated by some at the expense of others and in ways that are unsustainable for the ecosystems on which we all depend with no possibility for meaningful accountability.

Scarcity and competition are built into the financial system. Money is created when debt is issued, but the money needed to pay the interest is not created, which means there is always more debt in the system than there is money. Any amount of wealth we gain comes at the expense of someone else, and some people will always lose the game regardless of how well they play.

Capitalist culture is highly aligned with what are widely discussed as the characteristics of white supremacy culture, and we internalize it in various ways.

We subconsciously believe that we deserve to be where we are in the class structure, are entitled to whatever level of wealth we have access to, and that if someone makes less money than us its because they havent worked as hard.

One of the central deceptions of the American Dream is the idea that anyone can make it. While it may be true that anyONE can make it, this is unconsciously interpreted to mean that EVERYone can make it, which is not true. But this drives people to unrealistically pursue success in capitalism and even defend it against their own best interests.

Capitalism tells us, Youre not enough, There isnt enough, Youre alone, Youre not safe, and any problems or failures we experience are because theres something wrong with us. It ingrains a connection between production and our sense of self-worth, and turns busyness and material accumulation into badges of honor. It exacerbates our tendency to compare ourselves to others and see ourselves as separate. Everything is seen through the lens of private ownership and its monetary value as a commodity in a marketplace, including our own identities, extending into the need for personal branding. Cooperation is portrayed as risky, inefficient, and counterproductive to the goal of individual security.

Capitalism robs us of our ability to get along and our sense of belonging. Its no accident that its hard for us to be vulnerable, to trust each other, that were emotionally fragile, terrible communicators, and conflict-avoidant. We werent raised knowing how to work things out with each other or even to feel comfortable being close. But more than that, were traumatized by the lack of connection and belonging we experienced growing up. That trauma interferes with our ability to experience belonging by making us avoid or even sabotage situations that would foster it but are unbearably uncomfortable.

Capitalism is designed to keep us separate from each other so that we can be the best consumers we can be. It trains us paradoxically to operate in a hyper-individualistic way within a system that we are utterly dependent on for survival. An increasing majority of people around the world do not have the skills or access to resources for self-sufficiency. We dont have access to the social or practical skills to be able to get along with each other, nor the resources to have a reasonable shot at collective self-determination.

There is no way to avoid participating in capitalism. To whatever extent ICs create a semipermeable membrane that allows for an internal self-sufficient economic system that operates differently from capitalism, the community and its members still have to make some amount of money.

Since its the only game in town, if were to have any hope of creating systems that disrupt it, we need to know how to play it, regardless of the moral dilemma that represents. This includes understanding financial and business management and dealing with the baggage we have around money because of our class background and financial circumstances.

It would be wonderful if people could simply live lives that do no harm to the world. However, in societys current state of oppression and exploitation, death and destruction, there is no neutral ground, no option to step to the side, live well, and be absolved. To some degree we have no choice about whether we participate in capitalism. But we do have a degree of choice over how much we work against it and create alternatives.

Ultimately the question is, what are we going for with this crazy thing called intentional community? What do we want? What do we think and say we want but find deeply uncomfortable and dont actually pursue? What would we actually find satisfying if we did the work? How do our choices support or undermine that?

Active resistance to harmful systems is crucial. Creating alternatives that meets peoples needs outside of harmful systems is also crucial. And this needs to happen at scale. If we dont seek to affect change in the world at a scale that can have a meaningful impact on the direction society is heading, even alternative systems will get run over. At some point simply creating nice places to live that buffer against the worst of mainstream society will no longer be tenable.

Sharing is an important part of the strategy. In our struggle with capitalism, sharing is power. Leaning into greater sharing, and being in solidarity, can generate greater capacity. This can be used to make our ICs more supportive and accessible, and can be leveraged to support the equitable and democratic development of just and regenerative local and regional social, governance, and economic systems. This will require getting comfortable with being uncomfortable, letting go of whatever sense of entitlement we have, and leveraging whatever privilege we have for collective benefit.

Its not just that it is in our self-interest to participate in this effort, it is our moral imperative.

This is the first in a three-part series by Sky Blue. The next parts will cover the economies of intentional communities and key-choice points for building ones.

Originally posted here:

Intentional Community and Capitalism - Shareable

Posted in Intentional Communities | Comments Off on Intentional Community and Capitalism – Shareable

This Low-cost Airline Just Launched a New Route to Las Vegas With $57 Flights – Travel + Leisure

Posted: April 8, 2024 at 4:57 pm

California residents have a new option for a weekend getaway to Las Vegas.

This week, discount airline Avelo launched a new route from LAs Hollywood Burbank Airport (BUR) to Las Vegas Harry Reid International Airport (LAS). In celebration of the new route, the airline is offering introductory one-way fares for $57.

The new flight route begins next month on May 3 just in time for Memorial Day holiday weekend and the summer travel season. The flight was piloted during the Super Bowl, which Las Vegas hosted earlier this year, the airline shared in a news release.

We were very encouraged by the strong Customer response we received when we offered special flights between BUR and LAS for footballs big game in February. We look forward to offering travelers Avelos everyday affordability, convenience, and reliability between these two vibrant cities, Avelo Airlines Founder, Chairman, and CEO Andrew Levy said in the release.

The route will operate on a Boeing 737 aircraft and operate every Friday and Sunday. The flights depart Burbank on Fridays at 12:45 PM, and arrive in Las Vegas at 1:50 PM. The return flight departs Las Vegas at 2:20 PM and arrives in Burbank at 3:25 PM. A representative for Avelo told Travel + Leisure they designed the flight schedule to be accommodating for people visiting Las Vegas on a weekend.

Avelo, which was founded in April 2021, currently flys 14 different routes from Burbank Airport including Sonoma, CA and Portland, OR. The airline says they achieved the most reliable air service in 2023, as measured by the lowest cancellation rate, ranked by independent firm Anuvu.

Las Vegas has seen a surge of tourism over the last year, with a record-setting 57 million passengers in 2023. The entertainment town will welcome new and returning performers in 2024 including David Blaine at Wynn Las Vegas, and Garth Brooks at Caesars Palace.

Follow this link:

This Low-cost Airline Just Launched a New Route to Las Vegas With $57 Flights - Travel + Leisure

Posted in Las Vegas | Comments Off on This Low-cost Airline Just Launched a New Route to Las Vegas With $57 Flights – Travel + Leisure

Scholz warns of the rise of right-wing populists ahead of EU elections – Euronews

Posted: at 4:56 pm

Germany's Chancellor Olaf Scholz warns of the rise of right-wing populists ahead of EU elections.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz warned of threats posed by right-wing populists Saturday as he addressed a gathering of centre-left European parties ahead of elections for the European Parliament in June.

Scholz arrived in Romania's capital Bucharest for a conference of the Party of European Socialists, part of the Socialists and Democrats group, the second biggest in the Parliament. Voters in the 27 EU member states go to the polls 6-9.

Right-wing populists are running election campaigns against our united Europe, the German leader said at the Palace of the Parliament, which hosted the conference. They are ready to destroy what we have built for the kids; they stir up sentiment against refugees and minorities."

Opinion polls indicate a significant shift to the right in the upcoming election, with the radical right Identity and Democracy group likely to gain enough seats to become the third largest group in the legislature, mainly at the expense of the Greens and the centrist Renew Europe group.

Scholz said a prosperous EU capable of getting things done is the best response to populism and autocrats. He also pledged continued support for Ukraine, saying its key to restoring peace in Europe.

Scholz leads an unpopular three-party coalition. Recent national polls have shown his centre-left party far behind Germanys main centre-right opposition bloc and at best roughly level with the far-right Alternative for Germany party.

The Socialists and Democrats President Iratxe Garca Prez also addressed the issue of rising populism in the June elections, saying those parties only pose a threat to our European project.

The meeting comes after the EUs largest political party, the centre-right European Peoples Party, also met in Bucharest last month, where representatives endorsed Ursula von der Leyens bid for a second five-year term leading the blocs powerful Commission.

Jobs and Social Rights Commissioner Nicolas Schmit from Luxembourg, was chosen as the Socialists and Democrats lead candidate for Brussels top job. The next Commission chief will require approval from leaders of all EUs member states. Almost half of the EUs 27 national leaders are members of the European Peoples Party.

Read more here:

Scholz warns of the rise of right-wing populists ahead of EU elections - Euronews

Posted in Populism | Comments Off on Scholz warns of the rise of right-wing populists ahead of EU elections – Euronews

Greatest threat facing EU is populism, Mitsotakis tells ND faithful – Kathimerini English Edition

Posted: at 4:56 pm

Populism in its various forms, be it from the far right or far left, is the greatest danger facing all the European countries, Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis has told the final day of his New Democracy partys congress.

The populist demagogues want to raise artificial divisions, which as [European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen] pointed out, was something that Greece has paid a high price for in the past. We will never allow the things that happened in the past decade to happen again, he said.

The economic crisis lasted longer in Greece because populism prevented the country from rallying round. Syntagma Square is not far from here. We remember the two sides of the lie uniting in anti-European, supposedly anti-systemic demonstrations, he continued, referencing the Indignant protests that took place there at the height of the crisis.

He said that Greece has progressed from laggard to leader in economic growth, with an increase in investments, a reduction of unemployment and an easing of public debt and higher wages and pensions.

We are closing the gap with Europe and we want to close it everywhere. In this effort, we have the support of the EU, Mitsotakis said, accusing the opposition parties of seeking to stop this progress and of polluting the political dialogue with toxicity.

He said the instrumentalization of pain from the 2023 railway collision which cost 57 people their lives was an example. As if there are some Greeks who are more greatly grieved by this tragedy. On the way to the polls we must turn our backs on division.

He concluded by noting that a vote for ND in the upcoming European elections was a vote for the stability and progress of the country.

Addressing the delegates, von der Leyen described Greece as a pillar of stability and security, a pillar of NATO and the European Union, that has helped Ukraine defend itself. [AMNA]

Go here to see the original:

Greatest threat facing EU is populism, Mitsotakis tells ND faithful - Kathimerini English Edition

Posted in Populism | Comments Off on Greatest threat facing EU is populism, Mitsotakis tells ND faithful – Kathimerini English Edition

The Polish response to the WCK incident exposes the dangers of populism – Ynetnews

Posted: at 4:56 pm

Currently, Poland is grieving over the loss of Polish athlete Dayman Sobol, one of the casualties from the incident. Despite Israel taking responsibility for the incident, Polish citizens from the left, right, and center, are using extreme anti-Israeli rhetoric following the accident. Poland's popular "Gazeta" newspaper devoted an extensive amount of articles to honor Sobol's death.

In some of the pieces, Israel is accused of war crimes, where the IDF's mistake is being compared to the Hamas massacre of October 7. The presumptuous comparison of Hamas' atrocities and crimes against humanity with Israel's operational mistake in which one Polish citizen was killed with six others was not made by any other Western media outlets.

For some reason, we didn't see a public outcry from Poland in response to the kidnapping of Alex Dancyg, a 75-year-old Israeli-Polish historian by Hamas.

Meanwhile, Poland's Foreign Minister Radosaw Sikorski's condemnation in his conversation with Foreign Minister Israel Katz was balanced, fair, and accurate, similar to many Polish officials and the "World Central Kitchen" organization. However, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk tweeted that the incident is putting Polish solidarity with Israel to a "hard test."

Does Prime Minister Tusk think that someone in the country intended to harm a Polish volunteer of an international food organization to undermine that solidarity, which seems to be conditional? For some reason, we didn't see a public outcry from Poland in response to the kidnapping of Alex Dancyg, a 75-year-old Israeli-Polish historian by Hamas.

On Friday, there was also an official Polish demand for compensation to the family of the killed Polish volunteer. The demands are coming in supposedly since the IDF has yet to publish the findings of the investigation. When politicians are swayed by populist rhetoric, they adopt an extreme stance to appease the masses.

Read the original post:

The Polish response to the WCK incident exposes the dangers of populism - Ynetnews

Posted in Populism | Comments Off on The Polish response to the WCK incident exposes the dangers of populism – Ynetnews

Thinking About A Truly Populist Party – Above the Law

Posted: at 4:56 pm

(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Donald Trump has given populism a bad name.

Populism is okay, even if Trump isnt.

I can imagine a successful political party in the United States that advocated populist positions. Some of those positions would mirror policies that Trump is advocating; some would not.

My populist party would favor high tariffs, to protect American businesses and middle-class jobs. Im not sure this analysis is correct. For example, some economists say that by increasing the cost of raw materials, such as steel, tariffs actually hurt automobile manufacturers, ultimately reducing jobs. But high tariffs feel as though they protect domestic jobs, so my populist party would favor them.

Trump, of course, favors high tariffs, so he is, in that sense, a populist.

My populist party would restrict immigration, so that foreign workers werent competing with domestic ones for jobs. Again, Im not sure this is correct, since many open jobs arent being filled by Americans, so maybe we could use immigrants to fill those jobs. But low immigration feels as though it protects domestic jobs, so my party would favor them.

Trump, of course, favors restricting immigration, so he is, in that sense, a populist.

My populist party would want to raise the minimum wage, so that low-income workers could support themselves. On this issue, too, the policy could be misguided. Some economists say that raising the minimum wage increases unemployment: If the economics of a job justifies paying $10 an hour, but the minimum wage is $15 an hour, then there will be no $10-an-hour job. Thats increased unemployment. But I dont think people focus on this. I think the average person earning the minimum wage thinks, Thank God for the minimum wage! Without it, Id be earning even less! The average unemployed person does not think, If the government only lowered the minimum wage, then more jobs would exist, and I might land one of them. Damn the high minimum wage! So my populist party would favor a high minimum wage.

Most recently, Trump has opposed raising the minimum wage. In that sense, hes not a populist.

My populist party would be pro-union, so that unions could advocate for better pay and working conditions for middle-income workers. Again, this might be the wrong policy: Some economists say that raising wages makes domestic industries noncompetitive, actually harming American manufacturing. Im not passing judgment on whos right about this. Im just saying that people are more likely to think, The union raised my wages than The union decreases employment in the United States, and thats why Im unemployed. My populist party would be pro-union.

Trump is generally anti-union.

My populist party would support lowering taxes on the poor and middle-class and raising taxes on the rich. This probably helps the poor and middle-class, which is what my partys trying to do. And this is great politics: This country has many more poor and middle-class people than rich ones; if you win the votes of the poor and middle-class, and you lose the votes of the rich, youve been elected. Im once again agnostic on the merits of this: Perhaps raising taxes on the rich creates some disincentives to working hard or maybe trickle-down economics really works. My populist party doesnt care; it would favor low taxes on the poor and high taxes on the rich.

Trump generally favors tax cuts for everyone. (I guess I do, too, but I recognize the need to pay for government services and control the deficit.)

My populist party can take whatever position it likes on social issues. Just look at the polls and pick the positions the public prefers on abortion, gun control, transgender rights, and the like. Im thinking only about economics here; beyond that, lets take whatever position will win the most votes.

So, too, on foreign policy. If the majority of the voting public thinks that NATOs a waste of money, then my party should want to pull out. If the majority likes NATO, then stay in. The same with supporting Ukraine, or Israel, or any of the rest of the hot-button issues. I dont think theres a populist position on those subjects, so my party can do as it likes.

I think my hypothetical party could do pretty well at the ballot box. My party would support economic issues that favor the majority (the little guy) and would hold positions with majority support on social issues and foreign policy (because Im insisting that my party stake out positions favored by the majority on those issues).

My party would differ from the Trumpian Republican Party in one other way: My party wont be nasty. My party wont make up insulting nicknames for our opponents; we wont call anyone vermin; we wont say that the country wont exist in four years if you dont vote for the populist candidate. Well just lay out the issues, garner majority support, and take over the country. (I sure hope that Trumps nastiness reflects simply the character of the candidate and is not the reason why people support him. If being a jerk is now the preferred quality in a candidate, well be walking a long and ugly road.)

I wouldnt necessarily vote for a candidate that espoused populist positions; indeed, I havent said a word about where I come down on the issues. Im just saying that an intelligent populist party, led by a pleasant and engaging candidate, could succeed in the United States.

Trump, of course, is not that candidate.

MarkHerrmann spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and later oversaw litigation, compliance and employment matters at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeons Guide to Practicing LawandDrug and Device Product Liability Litigation Strategy(affiliate links). You can reach him by email atinhouse@abovethelaw.com.

See more here:

Thinking About A Truly Populist Party - Above the Law

Posted in Populism | Comments Off on Thinking About A Truly Populist Party – Above the Law