Category Archives: Libertarianism

Aaron Swartz in Miami Beach in 2009. He died Jan. 11, 2013 at age 26 in New York City. (Michael Francis McElroy/The New York Times)

WASHINGTON The pushback by some in the Republican Party against the Obama Administrations embattled defense of secrecy and surveillance is well-documented. Tea Party champion Rand Paul, with a strong libertarianism strain, has promised to file a class-action suit aimed at the National Security Administrations massive snooping operations.

Sen. Ted Cruz, another of the movements bannermen, has kept mostly quiet so far on many of the issues that have so riled up Paul and a small band of others.

But on Thursday a very different kind of Republican, Sen. John Cornyn, weighed in on a related issue, raising his own objections to what he called the reckless way in which the Department of Justice under President Obama has wielded its powers against individuals.

It was an interesting move for Cornyn, who as a former Texas Supreme Court justice and attorney general is about as conservative, as law-and-order as any senator in Washington.

He engaged the debate by evoking a name that hasnt been much discussed in Texas political circles, a name I first heard a year ago this Saturday.

I was sitting in funky little coffee shop in San Francisco trying to make sense of a piece of fiction that I had begun. I was on leave, and it was a year for trying new things. Across the table was a young guy in his late 20s looking like he had lost his iPad somewhere or dropped one of the gadgets that seemingly everyone in Northern California carried like ammunition. I asked him how he was. His response: Im just devastated by Aaron Swartzs death. I cant believe it.

Aaron Swartz. I had heard a report of his suicide at age 26 that morning on the way into the city from my home in Palo Alto, and seemingly alone in that tech-juiced city, hadnt recognized the name. Turns out, seemingly everyone I met that day and the next was reeling from the news.

Aaron was the computer wunderkind who as a teenager had emerged as kind of a hacker white knight and thinker that made the computerati take notice. One of his earliest achievements was to help write the code for what became RSS newsfeed software. His close mentors as a teen were MIT professor Tim Berners-Lee, who invented the, well, the Internet, and Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig. The New Republic would write in a February obituary that Swartz was welcome on any e-mail thread or chat room populated by the worlds leading hackers before he could shave.

But of course all that had seemed like an eternity ago for Swartz in January of last year, when he killed himself. He had been pursued for two years or more by the Department of Justice for the crime of illegally downloading 4 million articles from an academic database and making them available to the public. Trouble was, none of the articles belonged to him. That Friday a year ago was the first day I had heard his name.

See the article here:
John Cornyn again questions feds' pursuit of late hacker-activist Aaron Swartz

BILL MAHER ON LIBERTARIANISM AND DRUGS
One of the many Larry King interviews with Bill Maher on CNN.

By: nick charles

Original post:
BILL MAHER ON LIBERTARIANISM AND DRUGS - Video

One of the main problems with an unremittingly hostile view of government -- held by many associated with the tea party, libertarianism and "constitutionalism" -- is that it obscures and undermines the social contributions of conservative vision.

Shutterstock

Enlarge photo

WASHINGTON One of the main problems with an unremittingly hostile view of government held by many associated with the tea party, libertarianism and "constitutionalism" is that it obscures and undermines the social contributions of a truly conservative vision of government.

Politics requires a guiding principle of public action. For popular liberalism, it is often the rule of good intentions: If it sounds good, do it. Social problems can be solved by compassionate, efficient regulation and bureaucratic management which is seldom efficient and invites unintended consequences in complex, unmanageable systems (say, the one-sixth of the U.S. economy devoted to health care). The signal light for government intervention is stuck on green.

For libertarians and their ideological relatives, the guiding principle is the maximization of individual liberty. It is a theory of government consisting mainly of limits and boundaries. The light is almost always red.

Conservatism (as my co-author Peter Wehner and I explain in our recent National Affairs essay, "A Conservative Vision of Government") offers a different principle of public action though a bit more difficult to explain than "go" or "stop." In the traditional conservative view, individual liberty is ennobled and ordered within social institutions families, religious communities, neighborhoods, voluntary associations, local governments and nations. The success of individuals is tied to the health of these institutions, which prepare them for the responsible exercise of freedom and the duties of citizenship.

This is a limiting principle: Higher levels of government should show deference to private associations and local institutions. But this is also a guide to appropriate governmental action needed when local and private institutions are enervated or insufficient in scale to achieve the public good.

So conservatism is a governing vision that allows for a yellow light: careful, measured public interventions to encourage the health of civil society. There are no simple rules here. Some communities disproportionately affected by family breakdown, community chaos or damaging economic trends will need more active help. But government should, as the first resort, set the table for private action and private institutions creating a context in which civil society can flourish.

This goal has moral and cultural implications. Government has a necessary (if limited) role in reinforcing the social norms and expectations that make the work of civic institutions both possible and easier. Some forms of liberty say, the freedom to destroy oneself with hard drugs or to exploit other men and women in the sex trade not only degrade human nature but damage and undermine families and communities and ultimately deprive the nation of competent, self-governing citizens. (The principle applies, more mildly, to softer drugs. By what governing theory did the citizens of Colorado surveying the challenges of global economic competition, educational mediocrity and unhealthy lifestyles decide that the answer is the proliferation of stoners?)

Read the rest here:
Michael Gerson: A yellow light for government

This page is about free-market individualism. Some people (especially in Europe and Latin America) use the word libertarianism to refer to "libertarian socialism" (see anarchism)

Libertarianism is an idea in ethics and politics. The word comes from the word "liberty". Simply put, Libertarians believe that people should be able to do whatever they desire as long as their actions do not harm others. As a result, Libertarians want to limit the government's power so people can have as much freedom as possible.

Libertarianism grew out of liberalism as a movement in the 1800s. Many of the beliefs of libertarianism are similar to the beliefs in classical liberalism. It also has roots in anarchism and the Austrian School of economics.

Libertarians oppose slavery, rape, theft, murder, and all other examples of initiated violence.

Libertarians believe that no person can justly own or control the body of another person, what they call "self-ownership" or "individual sovereignty." In simple words, every person has a right to control her or his own body.

In the 19th century, United States libertarians like William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglass, and Lysander Spooner were all abolitionists. Abolitionists were people who wanted to end slavery right away.

Garrison based his opposition to slavery on the idea of self-ownership. Since you have a natural right to control your own body, no one else has any right to steal that control from you. Garrison and Douglass both called slave masters "man stealers."

If you have a right to control your own body, then no one has a right to start violence (or force) against you.

Some libertarians believe that all violence is unjust. These libertarians are often called "anarcho-pacifists". Robert LeFevre was a libertarian who rejected all violence. However, most libertarians believe that there are some ways violence can be justified.

One thing that justifies violence is self defense. If someone is violent towards you, you have a right to defend yourself with equal force.

Read the original here:
Libertarianism - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fair warning: This is about the Duck Dynasty controversy. Yes, I know. Im sick of it, too.

Still, relying upon my First Amendment right to freedom of speech, I will make a few observations about Phil Robertson, the grizzled Louisiana duck hunter turned reality TV star whose comments about black and gay people recently got him suspended and then unsuspended by A&E. If you find my observations disagreeable you may, relying upon your own First Amendment rights, protest to my employer. Assuming enough of you bring enough pressure, my employer may dump me. Feeling angry and betrayed, I might heres that First Amendment again blast my now-former bosses for defects of character, courage or cognition.

But one thing I could not say at least not credibly is that theyd violated my First Amendment rights. There is nothing in the First Amendment that says a private company cant fire you.

Well return to the First in a second. Right now, let me offer the promised observations about Mr. Robertson: The man really needs to wake up and smell the 21st Century.

His comments, made in an interview with GQ, are almost cartoonish in their stupidity. They sound less like they were made by a backwoods ignoramus than by someone doing a takeoff on a backwoods ignoramus.

For instance, Robertson explains his aversion to homosexuality by discoursing on the comparative merits of the male anus and the vagina. For good measure, he invokes bestiality and the Bible. He also notes how black people were singing and happy when he was young. Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare they were godly, they were happy; no one was singing the blues.

Ahem.

So anyway, A&E was shocked shocked, I say, shocked! to learn that a self-described redneck from the Louisiana woods harbored such illiberal views. It suspended Robertson, thereby igniting a scrum of conservative pols jockeying to express newfound love for the First Amendment.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal says he can remember when TV networks still believed in it. Sarah Palin calls free speech an endangered species. Mike Huckabee says, Stand with Phil and support free speech.

Yeah. Because freedom of speech means you can say any asinine thing you want and nobody can call you on it or punish you for it. Right?

Excerpt from:
Leonard Pitts Jr.: Idiocy is not a First Amendment offense

One of the main problems with an unremittingly hostile view of government held by many associated with the tea party, libertarianism and constitutionalism is that it obscures and undermines the social contributions of a truly conservative vision of government.

Politics requires a guiding principle of public action. For popular liberalism, it is often the rule of good intentions: If it sounds good, do it. Social problems can be solved by compassionate, efficient regulation and bureaucratic management which is seldom efficient and invites unintended consequences in complex, unmanageable systems (say, the one-sixth of the U.S. economy devoted to health care). The signal light for government intervention is stuck on green.

Michael Gerson

Gerson writes about politics, religion, foreign policy and global health and development in a twice-a-week column and on the PostPartisan blog.

Archive

For libertarians and their ideological relatives, the guiding principle is the maximization of individual liberty. It is a theory of government consisting mainly of limits and boundaries. The light is almost always red.

Conservatism (as Peter Wehner and I explain in our recent National Affairs essay, A Conservative Vision of Government) offers a different principle of public action though one a bit more difficult to explain than go or stop. In the traditional conservative view, individual liberty is ennobled and ordered within social institutions families, religious communities, neighborhoods, voluntary associations, local governments and nations. The success of individuals is tied to the health of these institutions, which prepare people for the responsible exercise of freedom and the duties of citizenship.

This is a limiting principle: Higher levels of government should show deference to private associations and local institutions. But this is also a guide to appropriate governmental action needed when local and private institutions are enervated or insufficient in scale to achieve the public good.

So conservatism is a governing vision that allows for a yellow light: careful, measured public interventions to encourage the health of civil society. There are no simple rules here. Some communities disproportionately affected by family breakdown, community chaos or damaging economic trends will need more active help. But government should, as the first resort, set the table for private action and private institutions creating a context in which civil society can flourish.

This goal has moral and cultural implications. Government has a necessary (if limited) role in reinforcing the social norms and expectations that make the work of civic institutions both possible and easier. Some forms of liberty say, the freedom to destroy oneself with hard drugs or to exploit other men and women in the sex trade not only degrade human nature but also damage and undermine families and communities and ultimately deprive the nation of competent, self-governing citizens. (The principle applies, more mildly, to softer drugs. By what governing theory did the citizens of Colorado surveying the challenges of global economic competition, educational mediocrity and unhealthy lifestyles decide that the answer is the proliferation of stoners?)

See the rest here:
Gerson: How the tea party undermines conservatism

WATCH Krauthammer #39;s Take: Other than Obamacare, Biggest 2013 Story is Rising Libertarianism
WATCH Krauthammer #39;s Take: Other than Obamacare, Biggest 2013 Story is Rising Libertarianism WATCH Krauthammer #39;s Take: Other than Obamacare, Biggest 2013 Stor...

By: GOLDEN MAN

Visit link:
WATCH Krauthammer's Take: Other than Obamacare, Biggest 2013 Story is Rising Libertarianism - Video

The Word That Best Defines Libertarianism Is Non Intervention Ron Paul1].3gp
The Word That Best Defines Libertarianism Is Non Intervention Ron Paul1].3gp.

By: Ayesha Noreen

More here:
The Word That Best Defines Libertarianism Is Non Intervention Ron Paul1].3gp - Video

Right-wing libertarian that he is, Rand Paul isnt much for using the federal government to make the world a slightly less terrible place. It was hardly a surprise, then, to find out the Kentucky senator opposed extending emergency unemployment compensation, preferring instead to let it expire for some 1.3 million in late December, with millions more to come after that. EUC is a federal government program, after all; and worse still, its one whose primary beneficiaries are the unemployed, a population with little political influence or social standing. Youd expect, in other words, Rand Paul to leave these people shuddering in the winter cold. Its what his rigid vision of libertarianism requires.

What was less predictable, however, was Pauls stated justification for opposing EUC. Rather than talk about makers and takers and the economys winners and losers, Paul attempted to repackage his laissez faire absolutism as a kind of tough love empathy. He pointed to a study that, he claimed, showed those on EUC had a harder time reentering the workforce (an interpretation one of the studys authors subsequently differed with). He talked about how those advocating for an EUC extension were doing a disservice to Americas long-term unemployed workers. He made kicking millions to the curb sound like nothing less than an act of benevolence, bordering on charity. Whether it was a feat of self-delusion or chutzpah, only Paul can really say. (My guess is somewhere in-between.)

But as is so often the case with right-wing libertarianism, Pauls flimsy moral reasoning simply disintegrates once it comes into contact with the facts on the ground. Implicit in Pauls formulation is the idea that there are jobs to be had, if only the long-term unemployed would stop relying on government checks and go and have them. Considering that the total number of long-term unemployed set to be sent adrift by the expiration of EUC is somewhere in the vicinity of 5 million, its quite likely that, in some instances, this is true. But for the vast, vast majority of those on EUC, the reality is that there simply are not enough jobs to go around. A Bureau of Labor Statistics study found the ratio of job seekers to job openings to be nearly 3-to-1, and thats the national figure in many regions, the chances of finding employment are considerably worse.

Whats more, Pauls understanding of the long-term unemployed also betrays a shameful ignorance as to what life on EUC is actually like. People on EUC arent collecting their former paycheck while sitting around and waiting for work to come to them. Theyre receiving a mere fraction of their former salary and are under constant pressure to prove that they are indeed searching for new employment. As Kim Merryman, a former water quality technician for an Indian reservation who was laid off in April, told me, Its not like [EUC] allows me to live this comfortable, cushy life. In 2012, the average weekly compensation for those on EUC was $300.

What EUC does do for Merryman and millions like her is allow her to have a roof over my head, have gas in my car, get down to the employment agency, [and] to get my rsums out. Rather than keep Merryman out of the workforce, in other words, EUC keeps her in it by helping her to continue to search for a job. Thats why economists believe ending EUC will lead to many of the unemployed simply giving up on finding a new job and dropping out of the workforce entirely. While this would technically reduce the unemployment rate, it would do little to actually improve the labor market or the economy on the whole. In fact, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, because recipients of EUC tend to, out of necessity, spend the money right away, the expiration of the program could deprive the economy of as many as 200,000 jobs and 0.2 percent of GDP.

For these both moral and technocratic reasons, extending EUC is the mainstream position. A recent poll found that 55 percent of Americans support an extension, while only 34 percent oppose one. The Rand Paul school of thought, that those on EUC are layabouts turning down work in order to bask in the glow of their government-provided largess, is, thankfully, an outlier. And theres concrete political action taking place in Washington, too. With the White Houses backing, Democrats like Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed are already trying to pass a three-month extension of EUC that will keep the 1.3 million cut off on Dec. 28 afloat while Congress hashes out a longer-term agreement. Nothings ever certain with Republicans in Congress, of course, but its in the GOPs self-interest to move the issue to the political sidelines, so theres reason for optimism that such a deal will ultimately pass.

All the same, that 1.3 million Americans have been forced to greet the new year with little to no idea how theyll next make ends meet is still a national disgrace. That so many Americans have been left to suffer through the hell of long-term unemploymentis itself a national disgrace. And even if this round of economic Darwinism proves to be short-lived, the reality ofa joblessrecovery meanstheres little doubt that millions more will soon find themselves in the impossible situation now confronting Merryman and so many like her. If thats the case, lets hope the long-term unemployed continue to have better friends in high places than the junior senator from Kentucky.

Link:
Rand Paul is totally, shamefully wrong about the long-term unemployed

Anarchism and Libertarianism

By: LuckyShitZu

See the rest here:
Anarchism and Libertarianism - Video