Category Archives: Libertarian

LAS CRUCES I was originally not going to include Libertarian candidate Bob Walsh in the U.S. Senate election interviews we conducted recently on community radio, but my co-host, Peter Goodman, argued that if Walsh was on the ballot he needed to be invited.

Im glad he did, as Walsh provided my favorite moment of all the campaign interviews this year.

I asked him about the governments role in healthcare, and put it in the most basic terms I could think of.

I have no money. I have no insurance. I get in a car crash. What should happen?

Well, youre going to be broke, he said.

Im already broke. My question is, should they send an ambulance and take me to the hospital or should they let me bleed to death in the streets?

After a long pause, he replied, For one thing, youve been totally irresponsible for not having money and not having insurance.

There was no second thing. That was it. Maybe some good-hearted person will stop and help. Maybe not. I suspect the government would at least be allowed to drag me to the side of the road, so as to avoid a traffic hazard.

Of all the answers given by all the candidates this year in both the primary and general elections, that one might have been the most honest. Walsh could afford to be honest, given the impossibility of his potential victory.

Republicans cant afford to be that honest. And, to be clear, I dont believe they share Walshs view that emergency services should be reserved for those who can afford them. But on the issue of healthcare, they dont have a better answer than he does.

For the past 10 years, the GOP has been united in its opposition to the Affordable Care Act, but divided on what should replace it. Thats why former Sen. John McCain famously turned his thumb down on the final attempt by Congress to repeal and replace Obamacare. He knew, just like we all knew, that there was no replacement.

The ACA was passed with no Republican votes. Thats been a bitter pill that still hasnt been swallowed. They will keep chipping at it and fighting against it forever.

Its time for something new, using many of the principles of the ACA. Even Republicans now agree that those with pre-existing conditions should not be charged more for their health insurance. Their problem is how to pay for it.

Thats always been their problem. How does the free-market system provide basic human services for those without money?

I dont have the answer to that question. But Im certain the next healthcare plan that gets passed will be more inclusive, providing more services to more people, than the one that is in place now. And thats a good thing.

Republican leaders need to understand thats the goal, and figure out how they can contribute to getting there.

Walter Rubel is the former opinion page editor of the Las Cruces Sun-News. He lives in Las Cruces, and can be reached at:

[emailprotected] gmail.com

See more here:

Opinion: Please don't let me bleed to death in the street - easternnewmexiconews.com

Johnsons relatively strong showing in 2016 bespoke significant right-leaning dissatisfaction with Trump. The defeated ranks of the Never Trump crowd might easily have defected to the Libertarian Party in 2017, carrying a significant portfolio of media and donor assets out of the Republican tent along with them. Indeed, most of that cohort fit a socially liberal, fiscally conservative profile that would have required little ideological accommodation on either side. Instead, this faction gravitated toward novel enterprises like the Lincoln Project and formed a de facto armistice with Democrats in an effort to deny Trump reelection.

Rather than consolidating a newly aggrieved legion of supporters, movement libertarianism has spent the last few years in a state of reflective evolution. Prominent commentators like economist Tyler Cowen have observed the birth of a state capacity libertarianism, embodied in new groups like the Niskanen Center, that is more agnostic about the scope of government than traditional organizations like the Cato Institute. Meanwhile, activists and commentators have cast about for new identifying labels, some discarding libertarian for the more nebulous concept of classical liberalism.

Above all else, the chief obstacle to a growing Libertarian Partyone that actually wins office from time to time, or at least regularly claims a vote share in the high single digitsis simply the architecture of the American electoral system, which tends to sideline minor parties. Independent and third-party bids have, at times, broken through, as with Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, George Wallace in 1968, and Ross Perot in 1992. But those men were nationally known figures, each offering a true ideological alternative to what the Democrats and Republicans were serving up.

There might have been such a man for the moment this year: Justin Amash. The Michigan Republican, who won national headlines for breaking with his party and voting to impeach Donald Trump, explored the possibility of running for the Libertarian Party nomination about six weeks into the coronavirus lockdown, a notion that seemed to cause much more anxiety among establishment Democrats than the Trump camp. Amash, however, withdrew his short-lived campaign for the Libertarian Party nomination later in the spring. It seems quite likely in retrospect that he might have been blazing a brighter electoral path than Jorgensen is at the moment, but well never know. Its difficult, and perhaps impossible, to bring capable, ambitious leaders to moribund parties.

Link:

The Libertarian Moment That Never Comes - The New Republic

Given the party's track record, any Libertarian running for a state-level office would have to be full of almost nutty hubris to expect to win. But next year Marshall Burt will become the only sitting Libertarian state legislator, in Wyoming, and one of only five persons to ever win such a seat solely as a Libertarian. And he says he entered his race certain that he not only could but would win it.

"Being a Marine, I don't have a notion of failure, right? I didn't have the notion of failing or I wouldn't have started," Burt said in a phone interview yesterday. There were other ways he could have spent $10,000 and months of his time than on a failing political campaign, and he thinks anything less than running to win is just useless "lip service" to the cause.

Burt believed in the plausibility of the party's "Frontier Project" model. Libertarian political operative Apollo Pazell saw that chances for actual victory likely involved races where a very small number of total votes was required to win, and where only one major party opponent was on the ballot. Pazell pushed hard this year in a handful of Wyoming races with those qualities, and Burt pushed over the topwith a 276-vote edge over incumbent Democrat Stan Blake, and a total of 1,696 votes.

It's a model that may not be not widely transferable elsewhere. Given Wyoming's Trumpian tilt (the president got 70 percent of the vote there), it is no coincidence that the only Wyoming race the Libertarian Party actually won is Burt's, since he was the only one up against a Democrat and not a Republican. The GOP overwhelmingly won seats both contested and uncontested for Wyoming's state House. Despite having very high expectations for returning candidate Bethany Baldes in District 55, who lost a race in 2018 by only 53 ballots, she lost again this year, against a Republican, by 32 votes.

Burt spent nine years in the Marine Corps and currently works as a track inspector for Union Pacific railroads. Pazell recruited Burt off a party membership roll, then found his civic activism over such issues as an effort to save a local American Legion Hall in Burt's hometown of Green River made him a good pick.

A thorough ground gameincluding up to eight door knocks per voter, including some uncoordinated outside help from Young Americans for Liberty canvasserswon Burt his slim victory.

Burt's ideological backstory is not unusual for a Libertarian. He found himself "fed up with the government" for its "overreach" into Americans' lives and fortunes, a set of intrusions he says is becoming "astronomically out of hand." Being the kind of guy who "votes andcomplains," he decided to do something about it by running for office. He saw neither major party respecting citizens' rights sufficiently, so he went Libertarian.

Burt did, however, have to go through a couple of rounds of convincing from Pazell before Burt stopped "blowing him off" and agreed to runafter getting his wife to sign off on the idea. Burt went through meetings with other area and national Libertarian politicos to see how it could all work out before finally committing.

Burt's local activism, on behalf of local Marines and vets and with the fire department, likely gave him a head start with local voters, since many already had some reason to know and trust him. Burt ran a largely Republican-friendly campaign that emphasized the Second Amendment, new ideas in education, and making the state more attractive to diversified industries without relying on taxes and regulations. He was especially against any attempts to pass "red flag" laws that might allow unelected officials to "come in and confiscate guns, and put the burden on the [citizen] to prove they meet legal requirements to get their guns back."

In canvassing, Burt says he never encountered voters for whom the "Libertarian" label was a dealbreaker, and was often able to explain the party's beliefs about freedom and less government in ways that appealed to Republican voters. The "elevator pitch" version of the message, he says, was "basically, limited government, balanced budget, do what you want in your life without being infringed upon by anyone else"; he could then "expand from that thought process" to specific issues voters might be worried about.

Burt is sure the heavy ground game was important to his victory, though he jokes that some voters may have started to feel inclined not to vote for him because they heard from him so often that it became a near nuisance. He made his home number available to voters, and he fielded many personal calls. Burt was surprised how many voters had never met his incumbent opponent or even knew who he was.

As one man without any party comrades in a 60-person legislature, Burt knows he's unlikely to become an immediate law-passing powerhouse. But he says he'd like to try to work for a balanced budget while lessening the tax and regulatory burdens on Wyoming's "families and children." He says he's already had a "cordial" discussion with the GOP majority leader but he's not yet sure how caucusing will work as the body's sole Libertarian.

Burt has told the Casper Star-Tribune that "I think it's irresponsible to come out and say, 'This is what I'm going to do in my first hundred days' because, in reality, the Libertarian Party does not have a majority, so we do have to see how things fall in place and work with what we have available."

Pazell says he's learned over the years that it's good to start with freshly recruited and trained candidates, not ones who might be stuck in old patterns. He also thinks the Libertarian Party needs more trained campaign managers to take the pressure off of him. He believes that various manpower and money problems caused by COVID-19 cost the party some likely wins, and so he hopes his strategy will bear more fruit in a pandemic-free future election. The state operation was not extraordinarily expensive, with various forcesfrom the national and state party to individual candidates to outside supportcontributing around $200,000, all told.

Wyoming allows same-day voter registration, so Pazell thinks the early surveying that led him to think Baldes could win were likely skewed by hundreds of new GOP voters coming in on Election Day to vote the party linevoters the canvassers never had a chance to persuade.

The Frontier Project's goal, Pazell says, is to "guide candidates from activist to election then reelection" and help them to craft intelligent policy positions. Pazell's strategic vision has earned the Libertarian Party a very rare state-level victory, and he predicts the party will "continue to grow and adapt" to new possibilities as they arise.

Excerpt from:

Meet Marshall Burt, Who's About To Become the Libertarian Party's Only Sitting State Legislator - Reason

Shannon Bray only spent $400 on his campaign, but he came away with 3% of the vote in the U.S. Senate race in North Carolina.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. His name is Shannon Bray. His campaign staff was one person, just him. He only spent $400 on his run but he came away with roughly 168,000 votes.

There's only a difference of 97,000 votes between Republican Senator Thom Tillis and Democrat Cal Cunningham.

"None of us really come in expecting to win," said Shannon Bray, the libertarian candidate who ran to represent North Carolinians in the U.S. Senate.

Bray didn't win. It wasn't even close. However, he's happy with his small, but notable performance in the race.

"I was ecstatic," said Bray.

Currently, roughly 96,707 votes separate Sen. Tillis and Cunningham. Bray raked in 167,968 votes that some say could've made an impact on the overall race, and contributed to nobody being declared a winner yet, although Tillis has already claimed victory.

"Maybe I did take some republican votes, and maybe I did take some democratic votes, it's almost impossible to tell without me in the race, who would have gotten those," Bray said.

Bray believes half of the people who voted for him did so because they were fed up with their options on the red and blue ticket.

The number of people who voted for Bray is also far greater than the 46,363 voters who have registered libertarians in the state, as of Election Day. Mecklenburg County is home to 5,790 of them.

"We want the right to make our own choices in our homes and we don't want government interference," Bray said.

Bray said he has received calls from those blaming him for the race still in limbo, but he said, it's important those with his views are represented as well.

"The people of North Carolina chose to vote for me because the message must be resonating," he said.

Bray said his run was all an experiment, a litmus test, to see how he could do.

He admitted he never saw himself getting so much support and he now plans to run again for U.S. Senate in 2022.

See the original post:

Libertarian U.S. Senate candidate puts a wedge in a race that is too close to call - WCNC.com

This past summer, third-years Audrey Unverferth and Evita Duffy founded the Chicago Thinker, a student newspaper publishing news and opinions from conservative and libertarian points of view. The papers purpose is to defend conservative and libertarian perspectives in a community that is increasingly intolerant of such voices, according to the Thinkers mission statement.

Unverferth, who serves as both editor-in-chief and publisher, and Duffy, the papers managing editor, hope that the Thinker provides a platform for conservative and libertarian students to express their ideas to the University of Chicago community. I think it's necessary to have a platform for conservatives and libertarians to thoughtfully speak, and then to hopefully engage with others, Unverferth said.

Part of our mission is to expose the student body to a different school of thought, to expose them to conservative and libertarian ideas that aren't usually seen in the campus community, Duffy said.

Duffy and Unverferth said the Thinkers founding was prompted by their perception that the campus community is unwilling to engage with conservative and libertarian ideas.

Last March, a post by the University of Chicagos Institute of Politics (IOP) featured Duffy holding a sign that read I vote because the coronavirus wont destroy America, but socialism will. The photo sparked widespread controversy, inspiring hundreds of posts on social media, some substantive and some aimed at Duffys personal character. The incident drew a response from IOP Director David Axelrod.

In May 2019, hundreds of students gathered to protest a bill that Brett Barbin, then a fourth-year College Council representative and head of the University of Chicago College Republicans, proposed to College Council that would have banned student life fees from being used to fund abortions.

The problem that we're currently facing on campus right now is that conservatives and libertarians are too afraid to speak because of the extraordinary social consequences that individuals like Evita and Brett Barbin have experienced, Unverferth said.

Nonetheless, Unverferth said the editors of the Thinker are open to publishing work that reflects other points of view. We happily consider work by those from across the political spectrum, she said. We love to communicate across the political aisle, and we disagree, behind closed doors, and also in our pages frequently, so we're not an echo chamber.

Most of the articles published so far by the Thinker address expressly political topics like qualified immunity and the 2020 elections, but Unverferth wants to publish other content in the future. I think it would be boring for our readers if we only focused on politics, she said. And so I would really like to expand to cover various arts events and sports games, et cetera.

Writers are going to focus on stories that they think are important to inform the student body [about] at UChicago, she said. They'll cover subjects on everything from what's happening on campus to what's happening abroad.

The Chicago Thinker is currently a digital-only publication, but Unverferth hopes to publish a physical edition in the future. Her plans, however, have been complicated given the ongoing pandemic. My goal is to go into print as soon as feasible, she said. I think life needs to resume a little bit more to normal, but I would really love to have a print edition by the end of the school year.

Unverferth confirmed that the Thinker received grant funding from Collegiate Network, a program that supports conservative and libertarian publications on college campuses. The organization is operated by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI), a nonprofit that supports conservative college students by hosting debates and lectures, providing networking opportunities, and funding conservative student organizations, publications, and fellowships.

They provided us with a grant to launch our newspaper, said Unverferth. They provide mentorship. And in the case of the Chicago Thinker, they provided the funding to build our website.

Publications supported by Collegiate Network include The Princeton Tory, The Dartmouth Review, and the recently launched Danforth Dispatch at Washington University in St. Louis. ISIs website lists Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, who started The Federalist as an undergraduate at Columbia University, and venture capitalist Peter Thiel, who started The Stanford Review as an undergraduate, among the organizations alumni.

Unverferth said that backing by the ISI will not influence editorial decisions at the Thinker. We choose how to spend our grant money, we choose what to publish, we chose our name, she said. They do not possess any editorial control whatsoever upon what we publish, but they have provided our primary source of funding.

Looking forward, Unverferth and Duffy hope to raise money to start printing physical copies of the paper. We're planning to create some form of fundraisers so that we can raise money in order to go into print, and more in conversations with various organizations and alumni and others to obtain funding, Unverferth said.

Continued here:

Newly Launched Chicago Thinker Aims to Promote Conservative and Libertarian Views on Campus - The Chicago Maroon

As dawn broke on the final day of voting in election 2020, Libertarian Party (L.P.) presidential nominee Jo Jorgensen was polling nationally at around 1.8 percent, and above the margin between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden in five states: Ohio, Texas, Georgia, Iowa, and (in scant polling) Alaska.

That's a far cry from 2016 Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson's last pre-election polling average of 4.8 percent, or even the former New Mexico governor's disappointing-to-many final tally of 3.28 percent.

"Beating Gary's last numbers would be success," Jorgensen told Reason's Eric Boehm one month ago, while also complaining about not being included in nearly as many polls this cycle. "I'm hoping to beat his second run. But, you know, put it this way: I will consider it not a success if I don't at least his beat his numbers from his first run."

Johnson's 2012 exertions won him 0.99 percent of the national vote, or just a hair under the L.P.'s then-record haul of 1.06 percent in 1980, in a ticket headed by Ed Clark and financed by deep-pocketed vice presidential nominee David Koch (yes, that one). So what Jorgensen is saying that anything below 1 percent would be a disappointment.

Certainly, many Libertarians would consider even a 1.1 percent showingjust one-third of 2016!to be a bummer, while many two-party voters (including not a small number of self-described small-l libertarians) would use it as an opportunity for ridicule, or at least critique of how the party always seems to squander its opportunities. Democrats and Republicans aren't even talking about reducing government and expanding freedom anymore, in a country where those issues have resonated historically, and all you got was this lousy one percent?

But as the clock ticks toward the first poll-closings at 7 p.m. eastern, I would suggest at least entertaining another interpretation. Maybe 1.1 percent in this third-party-unfriendly environment would be an accomplishment, cementing the L.P.'s transformation over the past decade from a mostly non-podium performer that couldn't win over even half of a percent of the electorate from 19842008, to the third party in the United States. (Yes, yes, insert "tallest dwarf" joke here.)

Consider: As of late October (per the indispensable Richard Winger), in the 32 states that register voters by party, there were 47.1 million Democrats, 35 million Republicans, and 33.7 independents. Libertarians, while a distant third at 652,000, towered above Greens (240,000), the Constitution Party (130,000), the New Yorkbased Working Families (50,000), and the desiccated husk of Ross Perot's Reform Party (9,000).

Jorgensen, with a fraction of the name recognition of 2008 Libertarian nominee Bob Barr (then an ex-GOP congressman who made his name in the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton), is polling ahead of all third-party and independent presidential candidates in every state except New York (where, after just two polls, she trailed independent Brock Pierce and Green Party nominee Howie Hawkins). This on the heels of Gary Johnson beating all third-party comers in all 50 states.

Barr, on the other hand, finished with just 0.4 percent of the vote, behind the 0.56 percent of four-time independent candidate Ralph Nader, who Barr beat in just six states.

When Jorgensen, the party's vice presidential nominee in 1996 (Harry Browne won just 0.5 percent of the vote that year, behind both Nader and Perot), finishes in third place tonight, that will mark the third consecutive presidential bronze medal for the L.P.something no political party has pulled off since the Socialists between 19161932.

Put another way, of all voters who selected neither a Democrat nor a Republican for president, 57 percent of them chose a Libertarian in both 2012 and 2016, the party's highest-ever such share, topping Ron Paul's 48 percent in 1988. Polling suggests that Jorgensen is likely to repeat that performance, even with such luminaries as Kanye West on some ballots. The dominant alternative to the political status quo is called "Libertarian."

And contrary to a common critique, it's not just about presidential elections. The party has more than 200 elected officials, mostly in state and local positions, though since April their ranks have included for the first time a sitting (if lame-duck) member of Congress, Rep. Justin Amash (LMich.). Elected Libertarians do useful stuff, like pass occupational licensing reform, remove ancient prohibitions from the books, and reform public-sector pensions.

That sound you hear is aggressive eye rolling from Democratic and Republican voters, who are busy battling the most important election in the history of mankind, and have no patience left for political LARPers. And fair enoughmarginal blocs will always be treated marginally, at least until we're needed to help push through the types of libertarian reforms that major-party politicians talk about but rarely accomplish: ending the drug war, bringing the troops home, reducing the size of government, protecting free speech, even helping improve infrastructure.

But the more that libertarians retain their own discrete political identity, rather than latching on like barnacles to the rusty tankers of the two major parties, the more likely that their affections will be solicited, rather than taken for granted. President Donald Trump is out there stressing anti-war themes to 2016 Johnson voters, and that's not a bad outcome at all (if inferior to actually ending our Forever Wars).

The past week has featured many semi-prominent libertarian media personalities ripping each other's faces off (rhetorically) in advance of the election. It will ever be thushave you met libertarians? There is a powerful lure to be part of something that could be, if you squint at it just right, characterized as winning. It would be pretty to think that this Republican or that Democrat is gonna really do the libertarian things just as soon as he/she wins the next election.

In the face of those temptations, and the motivating negative polarization of seeing awful politicians and ideologies in or near power, it's a wonder there's much of any third-party juice left four years after a bitterly divided election. If in this context, a relative no-name candidate produces the party's second-best-ever result, while beating all other third partiers in all 50 states, I'd call that an accomplishment.

Who knows if and when our 19th century political groupings will transmogrify into something new, or even perhaps stumble off into the sunset. When that day nears, people will be looking anew toward the next available alternative. Right now, for better and for worse, wartsso many warts!and all, that alternative is called "Libertarian." And will be on Wednesday, too.

Read the original:

Maybe Jo Jorgensen Finishing With 1% Would Actually Be Pretty Good? - Reason

Liz Terwilliger, Libertarian candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from PAs 12th District, and Noyes Lawton, Libertarian candidate for PA State Representative from District 68, met with residents at Clock Works Coffee in Westfield.

Discussion included topics of small businesses, difficulties getting signatures during the COVID-19 season, inflation and over-regulation.

The Oct. 28 event was held so locals could share what was on their minds before the election. Terwilliger and Lawton both said they have tried to help people understand there are parties for election other than just Republican or Democrat.

We need to start discussing everybody. It doesnt matter what party. We need to talk to each other and come up with solutions. I think through conversation we will have solutions, said Lawton.

The candidates agreed that people of opposing views today are yelling at each other instead of talking. They said its important to talk to find solutions, rather than team-picking. If there can be civil conversations, areas of agreement can be found.

Even though strong emotions can be generated, we need to let each other be human so that we can have a conversation and not just shut down. Lets have a conversation so we can see each others point of view, said Terwilliger.

Lawton said it is important to pay attention to local elections. The decisions of the state representatives and county commissioners have a more immediate impact on community residents versus the decisions of the president, which are watered down and filtered through federal and state departments.

We have become addicted to government and, as soon as we have a problem, we say, Whats the government going to do to fix the problem? instead of saying, What am I going to do to fix the problem? or What are we as a community going to do to fix the problem? said Lawton.

Terwilliger said the community needs to serve the community rather than looking to the government to take over. She said it is important to have representatives who are representative of the people and not just the party or finances.

One of the reasons that I want to keep doing these kinds of things is to keep people connected and have these kinds of conversations about what people would like to see. It is important to be in touch with constituents, said Terwilliger.

The Libertarian candidates said as long as people do not take what does not belong to them and do not hurt people or infringe on their rights, they want people to live their life.

Continued here:

Libertarian candidates share conversation and coffee - The Wellsboro Gazette

LITTLE ROCK Ricky Dale Harringtons landslide loss to Republican U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton on Tuesday represents a high-water mark, thus far, for the Libertarian cause in Arkansas and across the nation.

In unofficial returns, with 2,545 of 2,575 precincts reporting, it was:

Cotton.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 787,542

Harrington. . . . . . . . . . 393,110

The former prison chaplain from Pine Bluff, thus far, had 33.3% of the vote. Two-thirds of the ballots were for Cotton, a first-term incumbent from Little Rock.

Its a record for a Libertarian U.S. Senate candidate anywhere in the United States. Ever. So were absolutely enthusiastic and appreciative of that showing, said Joe Bishop-Henchman, the national party chairman.

Brian Colas, Cottons political director, said 66.6% is also a high water mark for an Arkansas Republican in a major statewide race.

We wanted to break 60%. We broke 66%, he said. Were thrilled.

Both sides fared well because they didnt have to split votes with a Democrat.

Josh Mahony of Fayetteville, the partys only candidate, dropped out of the race hours after the filing deadline. Dan Whitfield, a Bella Vista independent, failed to collect enough signatures to qualify for the ballot.

That left voters with just two options: Cotton or Harrington.

Until now, Alaskan Joe Miller was the top-performing Libertarian Senate candidate; he captured 29.2% of the vote when he ran in 2016.

Miller was well-known by voters hed lost a Senate bid in 2010, despite winning the Republican Party nomination.

Harrington, on the other hand, was a political newcomer.

Despite having minimal name recognition and even less money, Harrington, 35, captured nearly as many votes in Arkansas as Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.

He easily outpaced other Libertarians on the Arkansas ballot, including the partys presidential nominee, Jo Jorgensen of South Carolina, who finished with 13,024 votes.

Cotton was leading in 72 of the states 75 counties, but Harrington finished ahead in Pulaski, Jefferson and Phillips counties. All three are Democratic strongholds.

Hal Bass, a political science professor emeritus at Ouachita Baptist University, portrayed Tuesdays vote as an aberration.

It was just a protest vote by Democrats, he said.

That does not indicate that there is a Libertarian constituency of that magnitude in Arkansas. It does indicate that theres an anti-Cotton constituency of that magnitude in Arkansas, he said.

Harrington, who could not be reached for comment Wednesday, fared relatively well despite being heavily outspent.

His campaign had collected $68,191 as of Oct. 14; Cotton had collected more than $12.8 million.

Harrington surpassed the most recent pollsters predictions.

A Talk Business & Politics-Hendrix College survey Oct. 19 Monday showed Cotton winning, 62% to 27% with 10% undecided.

The Arkansas Poll, released Oct. 28, had Cotton even further ahead, 75%-20%.

Cottons internal polling had pointed to a closer race. In the closing days, he made repeated trips to Arkansas, while also working elsewhere to push for continuing Republican control of the Senate.

Rather than criticizing his opponent, Cotton talked about his own record and priorities. The campaign knew that the vast majority of Arkansans agreed with Sen. Cotton on the issues, so thats what our campaign prioritized, Colas said.

In addition to campaigning in Arkansas, Cotton also campaigned for vulnerable Senate colleagues, making stops in Georgia, Montana, Colorado and elsewhere.

Most of the candidates he backed ended up winning.

Go here to see the original:

Cotton win good news, say parties of two rivals - Arkansas Online

It seems that internet friends and atheist You Tube sensations CosmicSkeptic and Rationality Rules have either read my book at some point or are just hitting a rich vein of Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) criticism by mutual awesomeness.

I recently posted about my thoughts concerning CosmicSkeptics debate with William Lane Craig and you can see my three videos I did on the subject here.

Rationality Rules (RR) recently did a couple of videos showing how the KCA and libertarian free will are incompatible, something that features as a strong claim in my book Did God Create the Universe from Nothing? Countering William Lane Craigs Kalam Cosmological Argument(UK). See my posts here:

Rationality Rules (aka Stephen Woodford) just responded to an apologist defending the coherence of the KCA and libertarian free will in his video here:

I was particularly intrigued with this video, not just because I was conceited enough to think that RR had read my book, but more importantly due to the T-shirt he was wearing: A Fallen Acorn brewery one. Fallen Acorn is my local beer/brewery in Gosport that was so named for the metaphor by point of fact it was the resurrection of the previous brewery, the Oakleaf Brewery, that went under. I love the name and what they are doing with their beers. So for him to wear the T-shirt made me think he was local to me. I shot him a message that he immediately returned asking if he had read my book and whether he was local, vis-a-vis the T-shirt. To my disdain, he had not heard of my book (though promised to grab a copy), but to my joy he is not only local to me, but actually designed the brewerys logo!

The long and the short of it is that we may well do a video together discussing the Kalam and drinking ale, after having a brief discussion, united by the love for good beer and the contempt for rubbish apologetics.

This is a win win. Tippling AND philosophising. Whats not to like with that?

Stay in touch! Like A Tippling Philosopher on Facebook:

Here is the original post:

Libertarian Free Will and the Kalam, Revisited | Jonathan MS Pearce - Patheos

But Chen claims that Oceanix City will be different, partly because of lessons hes learned from working with TSI. During his time as Tahitis minister of tourism, Collins Chen helped connect his native French Polynesia with TSI to establish a self-sufficient floating city within the territorys Special Economic Zone and to test its viability as a climate-change solution. After both parties signed an MOU in early 2017, Collins Chen co-founded the Blue Frontiers company to develop and construct The Floating Island Project.

Mounting opposition from Tahitian locals to what appeared to be a floating tax-free haven for the wealthy, however, ended government support for the project in 2018. Borrowing elements from the failed project, Collins Chen moved on to found the floating cities company Oceanix, which he says will be free of the political baggage that sank the French Polynesian prototype.

Unlike TSIs autonomous libertarian utopias, Oceanix settlements will be floating extensions of host nations and subject to government rule. Most importantly, he adds, Oceanix City is being developed with a focus on egalitarian principles and environmentalism, rather than governmental reform and a bias towards the wealthy.

Oceanix has put together an impressive teamincluding MIT scientists and Danish architecture firm Bjarke Ingels Groupto develop designs based on TSIs principles of modularity and self-sufficiency. Created to withstand extreme climate events such as Superstorm Sandy, an Oceanix City comprises hexagonal modules constructed from hollow concrete caissons that buoy the flood-proof city upwards in the event of rising waters.

Since the company will market the Oceanix City concept to governments worldwide, modularity is a key feature of the customizable design. Prefabricated off site, the 4.5-hectare floating platforms, which house 300 people each, can be joined together in a variety of configurations, with modules added or subtracted as needed. Six combined modules form a village, while six connected villages add up to an Oceanix City of 10,000 residents.

In reframing floating cities as a climate-change solution, Oceanix has earned support from the UN. Packed to the gills with sustainable techfrom locally grown food to water-to-energy plants, Oceanixs floating city redesign promises zero-waste, self-sufficient living. One notable example is the unique application of Biorock to anchor the settlements while simultaneously creating artificial reefs for marine ecosystem regeneration. Developed in the late 1970s, the mineral-accretion technology uses electric currents in seawater to crystallize dissolved minerals into heavy limestone coatings that are two to three times stronger than ordinary concrete.

More:

Floating Cities and Sea-Level Rise - an unsinkable idea - Anthropoce