Category Archives: Libertarianism

In his book, A Libertarian Walks into a Bear, the journalist Matthew Hongoltz-Hetling details the turbulent, in some ways tragic history of the ambitious political project to turn a small, New Hampshire town into a free market, capitalist paradise. In the process, he relates how those pursuing the project ran into the complications caused by nature, the people already living there, and eachother.

And I dont have enough good things to say aboutit.

A Libertarian Walks Into A Bear: The Utopian Plot to Liberate An American Town (And Some Bears) by Matthew Hongoltz-Hetling (Hardcover, PublicAffairs)

From the entry point of interviewing a disabled veteran about her troubles getting the Department of Veterans Affairs to cover the expenses of making her rural home actually accessible to her, Hongoltz-Hetling felt the need to delve into U.S. history, political extremism, environmentalism, philosophy, government, class, parasitism, religion, and fire safety.

Across two hundred and fifty-three pages that often read as much like a novel as a work of nonfiction with its intrigue and frequent credible threats of gun violence, he paints a series of surprisingly sympathetic portraits of figures who its also clear most would not willingly share a community with given their strong political opinions on what obligations, but mostly lack thereof, members of a community actually owe one another.

Starting in 2004, several hundred people from around the United Stateslargely white, largely male but exceedingly diverse in their eccentricitiesmoved to the about 1,100-person city of Grafton, N.H., as part of the Free Town Project.

A small core had picked it specifically thinking the people there were already predisposed to liberty and anti-government sentiment and would welcome the changes brought by this unannounced influx.

Largely, this was not existing residents feelings toward the new arrivals.

If youre a reader of the Cascadia Advocate, there wont be a surprise in Hongoltz-Hetlings descriptions chapter by chapter, person by person, of the corrosive, compounding effect had on society through a concerted effort to keep taxes low by avoiding investment in any public resources or services.

Even the roads worsened, but the town also refused to take ownership of any new public spaces, such as an old church offered by the previous congregation for free. They frequently voted down funding for such needs as the volunteer fire department, and therefore regularly had need of the resources of the surrounding communities which did fund their own departments sufficiently.

One of the major points of division between local Libertarians was overfires.

One of the existing residents and, by most standards, fringe political figures John Babiarz had helped kick off everything by inviting outside Libertarians to come take over the town, but he also was the Grafton Volunteer Fire Chief and took fire safety quite seriously.

This makes sense to the rest of us as fires are not a threat that can be privatized; actions on ones own sovereign property affects everyone around them as well. But this is also dangerous logic if naturally extended to, well, any other subject, so Babiarz found himself on the outs when he came to put out dangerous campfires during dry seasons, thereby representing the repressive government jackboot he claimed to oppose, or at least this is what he represented to even more extreme members of the community.

The book, subtitled, The Utopian Plot To Liberate An American Town (And Some Bears) does keep coming back to that problem of overly familiar to the point of aggressive bears showing no real fear of people and even willing to invade isolated peopleshomes.

Like with fires like with many things the fundamental assumption of those in the community that what I do with my property is my business does not hold up against the reality that some people living in unzoned camps and no garbage collection service will provide a lot of food for bears; some people covering their trash in cayenne pepper to try to keep bears away; some stringing up electric fences; some shooting at them; and at least one woman going out of her way to buy doughnuts because she thought they looked awfully thin, is very confusing for the bears! The conditions a person creates on one sovereign property does not stop magically at the boundary line of sovereignty.

All sorts of utopian projects run into challenges, and perhaps its not fair to blame these Libertarians for not having foreseen the troublesome effects of inconsistent bear policies when they chose a location.

But if the last year of pandemic has taught us anything, its that this sort of political and philosophical orientation isnt something thats just a weird quirk or harmless bit of polite, abstract disagreement.

The philosophy boils down to, If I have the power to do something, I have the right to do it, and not only the right to do it, it is good for me to do so and an increase in liberty, regardless of what impact there is on anyoneelse.

It is a real danger.

We see it has a real cost, socially, publicly, universally. The tyranny of this sort of liberty has meant many of us with what would be called underlying conditions on our death certificates have in our homes for coming up on ayear.

You cant tell me I have to wear a mask, or close my business, or not travel, or get vaccinated. Or tell me not to bring my gun anyway I want to defend myself with it, even when Im instigating confrontations and taking umbrage at perceived slights.

Multiple times, the author relates how he is implicitly and explicitly threatened by the people hes interviewing, usually for just being a journalist, asking questions. Yeah, strict constitutionalists respect the First Amendment, but what does it say in the Second about the right to bear arms

In a pivotal chapter, just before he tells the story of how, in 2012 after many threatening could-have-beens, a bear actually came to attack a middle-aged, single woman inside her own rural home, nearly killing her among that would-be Libertarian utopia, Hongoltz-Hetling includes this short passage from theBible:

While Elisha was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead! And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of theboys.

2 Kings 2:2324

This story is one of the most infamous passages in the entirety of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, and deservedlyso.

Traditionally, Jewish commenters have characterized the prophet Elishas behavior in negative terms, drunk with his newfound power, left alone after his master Elijah went up to heaven in a chariot but newly blessed with a double portion of Elijahs spirit. For early rabbis, the debate was not over whether it was OK to use miraculous powers to murder dozens of young lads (it was not); the debate was over how many miracles were included as described; was it just the bears or the appearance of a forest, too? The related phrase neither bears nor forest (lo dubim ve lo yaar) even became idiomatic for something that never happened.

For some Christians, particularly white evangelicals, the takeaway from the story is quite different. They tend to tie themselves into knots to explain how actually, the 42 dead lads might have been young men as old and as thirty.

And actually,baldhead was a terrible sort of insult, and meaning they were insulting Elijah and God, not Elisha. And anyway, they shouldnt have jeered a man as powerful as a prophet of God, so actually,they had it coming.

Right-wing Libertarians are disproportionately Protestant, but even when atheist or otherwise religiously unaffiliated, cultural Protestantism predominatesCalvinism without any gods but Mammon superseding.

Following the attack, a gang of the Libertarians in Grafton eventually expressed their understanding of freedom by ambushing multiple hibernating bears and blowing them away in a hail of gunfire as they slept in theirdens.

This was good, in their minds, because it wasnt the government, and they and their guns had the power to do so. In the long run, it ended up not solving the problem but just hurting a lot of people and animals under the maximal pursuit of narrow selfishness, but whatever.

Thats the price of freedom.

View post:
Book Review: When A Libertarian Walks Into a Bear, nobody wins (except the reader) - NPI's Cascadia Advocate

Obama-era CIA Director John Brennan said federal intelligence agencies top priority, under the leadership of President Joe Biden, is seeking to root out people in pro-Trump insurgency groups filled with white supremacists.

I know, looking forward, that the members of the Biden team who have been nominated or have been appointed are now moving in laser-like fashion, to try to uncover as much as they can about what looks very similar to insurgency movements that weve seen overseas, where they germinate in different parts of the country and they gain strength, and it brings together an unholy alliance frequently of religious extremists so authoritarians, fascists, bigots, racists, nativists, and even libertarians, Brennan said on MSNBC.

The decision to target these groups, Brennan admitted, stemmed from the recent riot at the Capitol and the administrations belief that then-President Donald Trump incited an insurrection among his supporters that could continue to be a threat to our democracy and our republic.

Unfortunately, I think there has been this momentum that has been generated as a result of unfortunately the demagogue of rhetoric of people that just departed government, but also those who continue in the halls of Congress, Brennan continued. And so I really do think that the law enforcement, Homeland Security Intelligence, and even the defense officials are doing everything possible to root out what seems to be a very, very serious and insidious threat to our democracy and our republic.

Despite repeatedly insisting that Obamas intelligence agencies conducted no spying on Donald Trumps campaign, a claim contradicted by inspector general reports, a two-year special counsel probe, congressional inquiries, and continued investigation, Brennan has repeatedly lied about the role Christopher Steeles dossier played in the FBI and CIAs review of disproven collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. He is also well-known for other public lies on TV and to Congress while under oath.

Jordan Davidson is a staff writer at The Federalist. She graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism.

See the article here:
Brennan: Intel Agencies To Probe The 'Bigots' Behind US 'Insurgency' - The Federalist

The Allies entered Auschwitz 76 years ago this week, far too late for the 1.1 million men, women, children, and babies, nearly all of them Jews, who had been murdered there in the previous five years. Among the dead were my fathers parents, sisters, and brothers, who had died in the Auschwitz gas chambers the previous spring. The camps liberation came too late for my father as well. Ten days earlier, he had been sent on a forced march to the west, ending up at the Ebensee concentration camp in Austria. Not until May 1945 did the US Armys 80th Infantry Division reach Ebensee. By then, my father, who was 19, was nearly dead. The Americans arrived just in time to save his life.

In 2005, the UN General Assembly designated Jan. 27, the day Auschwitz was liberated, as International Holocaust Remembrance Day. The occasion will be marked by many memorial and educational events, online this year because of the pandemic. Doubtless there will be words of tribute to the dwindling band of survivors like my father, who is now 95.

Yet for much of his life, my father didnt think of himself as a Holocaust survivor. The term itself only came into use in the late 1970s, and in any case he, like most survivors, spent the decades after the war engaged in the business of living: finding work, joining communities, getting married, raising a family. Not until he was nearly in his 50s would my father have considered Holocaust survivor to be an identity, let alone one with a unique moral and historical resonance.

But it was different for their children. We grew up with it.

Unlike my father, whom I never knew to dwell on what had happened to him during the Holocaust, I barely remember a time when awareness of his experience didnt haunt me. From early childhood, I knew that my fathers family had been murdered by Jew-haters. I vividly recall myself as a little boy, paging again and again through a book with photographs from the Nazi era, gripped by the understanding that they were connected to my family history. When I was in second or third grade, I would write Hitler on the sole of my shoe, so that I could obliterate the name as I walked.

I have been conscious of my identity as the child of a Holocaust survivor virtually all my life. That identity has affected me in multiple ways, above all, perhaps, when it comes to my political and civic values.

My most deeply rooted ideological conviction is a deep distrust of coercive government. Since my teens I have been a libertarian-leaning conservative, an outlook molded by my knowledge that the horrors of the Holocaust were engineered by government by a totalitarian regime empowered to act with impunity and supported by a vast, intrusive bureaucracy. That some government is necessary I accept, but too much government, in my view, will always be a graver threat than too little. Power tends to corrupt, Lord Acton famously observed. The Holocaust is the ultimate demonstration of how murderous the corruption of a too-powerful state can become.

A related conviction is my intense antipathy to glorifying politicians. I realize that public support is vital in a democratic republic, yet there is an intoxicating derangement in crowds that gives me the creeps. The surging, enthusiastic adoration that political figures as different as Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, and Sarah Palin inspired in their followers filled me not with admiration, but with something closer to alarm. More sinister by far, to my mind, was the cult of personality that formed around Donald Trump. In no way do I liken American democracy today to what occurred in Germany in the 1930s. All the same, I have never been able to see images of mass rallies, even rallies for causes I admire, without a sense of foreboding.

Equally menacing is an obsession with race and racial distinctions. Hitlers Germany deemed Aryans the highest race and Jews the lowest. In their fanaticism on the subject, the Nazis demonized Jews, denied them legal rights, deprived them of their livelihoods, drove them from their homes, and finally destroyed them by the millions. As the son of a Holocaust survivor, I consider all racial categories fundamentally illegitimate. I abhor the labeling and sorting of Americans by race. Classifications and distinctions based on race or color, argued the NAACP Legal Defense Fund in a 1947 brief, have no moral or legal validity in our society. That has always been my position. It makes me heartsick that 50 years after the civil rights movement, Americas leading institutions have become more race-obsessed than ever.

Im sure that some of the stands I take in public-policy debates have been influenced by my experience growing up with a father who survived the death camps and being raised in a community that was home to other survivors. I fervently opposed the Bush administrations reliance on torture to extract information from Al Qaeda detainees, for example. I have always condemned the scapegoating of immigrants, whether it came from the left or from the right. I have no patience with foreign-policy realists who downplay human rights in dealing with other governments.

Above and beyond politics, however, my lifelong awareness of the Holocaust has made it impossible for me not to know that human goodness is fragile. It doesnt come naturally but must be honed and practiced, etched into our nature one good deed at a time. Civility and civilization are only veneers, stretched like a bandage over an ugly wound. More easily than we like to think, that bandage can be pulled off, exposing the putrescence beneath. It was pulled off in Europe in the middle of the 20th century, and the consequences were diabolical for the world, for the Jews, for my father and his family. Those consequences are never far from my mind. They shape my thinking to this day.

Jeff Jacoby can be reached at jeff.jacoby@globe.com. Elements of this column were adapted from Arguable, his weekly e-mail newsletter. To subscribe to Arguable, visit bitly.com/Arguable.

Go here to see the original:
The politics of an Auschwitz survivors son - The Boston Globe

Sedition charges in the works for Capitol rioters. On Tuesday, the Department of Justice announced that it will bring sedition charges against people who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6. The punishment for seditious conspiracy is up to 20 years in prison.

So far, the Capitol riot has spawned more than 150 federal cases and more than 50 cases in D.C. court, FBI Assistant Director in Charge Steven D'Antuono said yesterday, adding that the FBI has opened more than 400 subject case files. (Back on January 15, only 42 people faced federal charges.)

As for seditious conspiracy cases: "Yes, we're working on those cases, and I think those results will bear fruit very soon," D'Antuono said.

Calls for sedition charges haven't stopped with people who stormed the Capitol, with some raising the possibility of sedition charges against politicians who spread election fraud conspiracy theories or encouraged people to come to D.C. to protest.

Under federal law, the crime of seditious conspiracy is defined as two or more people conspiring "to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof."

While this might technically apply to some folks involved in the events of January 6, "sedition charges are almost always a terrible idea," cautions Reason's J.D. Tuccille.

"Sedition prosecutions in the U.S. have a particularly shameful history," asBloomberg's Noah Feldman pointed out last fall in a piece titled "Sedition laws are the last resort of weak governments."

Not only is their historical use full of horror stories, but their very nature makes them ripe for abuse at any time, as a catchall threat against anyone who challenges government policy or criticizes government actions. They can also be used to escalate criminal acts at any protest around the country into a federal case, as former Attorney General William Barr endorsed last year.

Many of the people who stormed the Capitol deserve some charges, and seditious conspiracy might seem as good as any at a glance. But reviving the use of sedition charges like this could backfire against free speech and protests more broadly.

Law professor and blogger Eugene Volokh explains a little bit more about sedition and seditious conspiracy charges:

This is just a special case of the broader proposition that conspiring to commit a crime can itself be a crime. You can be punished under state law for conspiring to commit murder or theft or what have you. You can be punished under federal law for conspiring to commit bank robbery, or to defraud the federal government. Likewise, you can be punished under the "seditious conspiracy" statute for conspiring to illegally oppose the enforcement of the law.

The current federal statute on sedition is, at the very least, much less severe than its historical counterpart:

[Seditious conspiracy] is quite a different statute from the Sedition Act of 1798 (or from the common-law crime of seditious libel), which punished (among other things) false and malicious speech intended to defame the federal government. And to the extent that the seditious conspiracy law punishes agreements to commit crime, which may be expressed by speech, such conspiracy is viewed as constitutionally unprotected, because it is speech integral to the criminal conduct that is being planned. For more on this, seeU.S. v. Rahman(2d Cir. 1999).

Republicans declare impeachment trial itself unconstitutional. The majority of GOP senators designating the latest Trump impeachment trial unconstitutional wasn't enough to stop it from moving forward. But its ultimate prospects aren't good. "Lawmakers narrowly killed a Republican effort to dismiss the impeachment charge as unconstitutional," says The New York Times. But the 5545 vote "strongly suggested that the Senate would not be able to convict the former president." All Democrats plus at least 17 Republican senators need to vote to convict Trump in order for it to happen.

Indiana lawmakers are trying to make it harder for Libertarians to get on ballots. A new measure (House Bill 1134) from state Rep. Ethan Manning (RDenver) "would require Libertarians to collect signatures of registered voters to run for governor or U.S. Senate. Under current law, Libertarians nominate those offices in a primary convention and are not required to gather signatures required of Republicans and Democrats as part of the primary ballot process," notes TheJournal Gazette.

Manning's bill would still allow Libertarians to nominate governor and U.S. Senate candidates via convention but would then also require the nominee to meet the signature requirement, which is 500 registered voters for each of the state's nine congressional districts."

"Rep. Matt Pierce, D-Bloomington, said a cynical person would see it as a bill to punish Libertarians because they did well in the last gubernatorial election, and some believe they siphon votes from Republicans.

Rep. Cherrish Pryor, D-Indianapolis, said the bill adds more requirements on Libertarians without giving them any new powers or advantages."

Apple and Google sued over Telegram posts. "Here's an interesting lawsuit, brought to you by some familiar names," writes Tim Cushing at Techdirt. "And by 'interesting,' I mean 'exceedingly stupid.'"

Apparently, former U.S. ambassador and Coalition for A Safer Web head Marc Ginsberg is suing Apple over content posted to encrypted messaging app Telegram, which is not affiliated with Apple except insofar as the Telegram app is available through the Apple app store. Ginsberg argues that some Telegram posts and chats are bad, so Apple shouldn't even make Telegram available. More from Cushing:

Ginsberg claims the Telegram app violates Apple's developer guidelines and California's hate speech law and should be removed from the app store. Because Apple hasn't removed the app, it has been downloaded and used by people who engage in anti-Semitic speech. (Ginsberg is Jewish.) Because Telegram refuses to remove this content, it somehow leaks into Ginsberg's life through the app storeeven if Ginsberg has never downloaded the app or engaged with its users.

Ginsberg is also suing Google over making Telegram available through the Google Play store.

Those who want to get rid of Section 230 say this would stop social networks and websites from unfairly censoring their users' political comments. In reality, it would give them an incentive to censor far more aggressively. To protect themselves from being sued over content, they would remove anything remotely controversial. Users would be spied on constantly.

Ironically, this would help Facebook, Twitter, Google and other social-media giants while hurting smaller companies and new startups.

View post:
Sedition Cases Against Capitol Rioters 'Will Bear Fruit Very Soon,' Says FBI - Reason

Former Rep. Justin Amash, who repeatedly sparred with President Trump during his time in office, called Thursday for Republicans to join the Libertarian Party.

Mr. Amash represented Michigans 3rd Congressional District from 2011 to 2021. He was a Republican but ended up leaving the party and becoming an independent in 2019 before officially joining the Libertarian Party last year over his opposition to Mr. Trump.

The GOP isnt getting better anytime soon. If youre a Republican whos had enough, join me in the Libertarian Party. Reach out to me. Im happy to answer questions about making the switch. Were readying to make a big impact over the next few years, he said on Twitter.

Mr. Amash voted to impeach Mr. Trump in 2019 over the Ukrainian scandal.

He has toyed with running for the presidential nomination for the Libertarian Party.

Go here to see the original:
Former GOP congressman urges Never Trumpers to join Libertarian Party - Washington Times

Journal-Courier staff, dbauer@myjournalcourier.com

Letter to the editor: There are options to political dissatisfaction

To the editor:

The Non-Aggression Principle is a central philosophy of Libertarianism. It is defined that any aggression initiated by force, threats or coercion to make any forceful interference with either a person or their property is inherently wrong. It does not forbid forceful defense.

There are several arguments around the principles definitions and philosophy, which is encapsulated within each of the different caucuses of the Libertarian Party. Like both major parties, we have many competing ideologies. It can sometimes lead to the frustrations we commonly see in the world of politics and to the gridlock that slows down the machinations of government. We are not a perfect party, but we do have a large tent to welcome all who wish to join.

Like the rioting and burning that took place in several major cities across the country this past summer, the Morgan County Libertarians condemn any and all acts of violence and destruction, especially those that occurred in our nations capital this week. We are against the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals. There are real grievances on both sides of the political spectrum that need to be earnestly and honestly addressed in the highest echelons of our government. Both sides have exploited the government to their own benefit and have disregarded and disenfranchised others. Those loopholes and deficiencies in our laws must be stopped and things must be changed. Libertarians wish to see a very different government and set of public policies that listen to all grievances and petitions with equality and fairness. Libertarians are committed to achieving that end peacefully by persuasion, peaceful protest and demonstration, and through winning elections at all levels of government.

It is time for you, dear reader, to decide if you wish to continue the madness of voting against your own self-interests through re-electing Democrats and Republicans or if you are willing to try something more principled.

If you are a Republican that is shocked and angered by your party giving succor to an authoritative, seditious tyrant wishing to overthrow the general tenants of our democracy, inciting a cult-mob to acts of violence to retain power, or are a Democrat that feels that socialism is a failed economic philosophy that will only take more of your money and expand the size of government and debt your grandchildren will owe or are simply a common citizen that is tired by the response from both parties saying more government is the solution to all of the nations ills, there is another way. If you want a party that follows the Constitution and wants to leave you alone to live your life as you see fit as long as you are not hurting anybody else, please reach out to the Morgan County Libertarians or the Illinois Libertarian Party.

Even if you are not convinced, simply ask questions you may be surprised by the answers.

Ben Cox

Jacksonville

Read more here:
Letter to the editor: There are options to political dissatisfaction - Jacksonville Journal-Courier

The rat-tat-tat of takedowns was a striking display of the tech industrys power to shape the fate of even the president of the United States. And it comes after years of efforts by both Democrats and Republicans in Washington to cut Silicon Valley down to size including lawsuits that Trumps antitrust enforcers have filed in recent months against Facebook and Google, plus efforts on both the right and left to challenge Section 230, the provision in communications law that limits online platforms liability for what users post to them.

Those lawsuits, legislative efforts and a potential antitrust investigation of Apples App Store echo the complaint that, remarkably, Trump supporters, civil libertarians and some prominent Democrats are airing this weekend: No handful of companies should have this much unilateral authority.

[I]t should concern everyone when companies like Facebook and Twitter wield the unchecked power to remove people from platforms that have become indispensable for the speech of billions especially when political realities make those decisions easier, American Civil Liberties Union senior legislative counsel Kate Ruane said in a statement.

Of course, many on the left cheered Twitters takedown of Trump. Rashad Robinson, president of the advocacy group Color of Change which has long argued that Trump and his allies have used social media to stoke racism in the United States called the move in a statement overdue but monumental progress. Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, called himself relieved, and House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) tweeted that social media companies have allowed this vile content to fester for too long, and need to do much more.

Democrats' anger at the tech industry remains real, however and their looming full control over Congress and the executive branch will give them the opportunity to try to tame Silicon Valley.

President-elect Joe Biden's administration is expected to continue pursuing the big-tech antitrust cases that Trump's agencies filed. Just this week Biden chose a prominent Facebook critic, civil rights attorney Vanita Gupta, to be the No. 3 official in his Justice Department. House Democrats have proposed a raft of major legislative changes over some Republicans' objections to make it easier to break up giant tech companies and keep them from getting bigger.

Conservatives' Trump-era grievances against Silicon Valley have focused largely on accusations of censorship and cancel culture. The left has a different critique: If powerful companies like Twitter and Facebook had more competition, theyd behave more responsibly even before that became the smart political move.

It took blood and glass in the halls of Congress and a change in the political winds for the most powerful tech companies in the world to recognize, at the last possible moment, the profound threat of Donald Trump, said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) in a statement. And tweeted Jennifer Palmieri, former communications director both in the Obama White House and the 2016 presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, It has not escaped my attention that the day social media companies decided there actually IS more they could do to police Trumps destructive behavior was the same day they learned Democrats would chair all the congressional committees that oversee them.

As a long line of court cases points out, online platforms are private businesses that can host or kick out anyone they want. Still, for four long years, Silicon Valleys companies had tried to carve out paths through the Trump presidency that minimized the harm he could cause while skirting the idea that it was censoring the political free speech of Americans. All the while, they were under intense pressure from Democrats, many in the civil rights world, and others to simply turn off Trumps digital microphone.

So why did Silicon Valley decide it had had enough of Trump now, this week, after so many years of turmoil?

In retrospect, the arc of Trumps presidency and the course of recent events conspired to make what we're witnessing nearly inevitable.

Jump back to last winter. Twitter and others in Silicon Valley have said that their experience with tackling bad information circulating about Covid-19 in its early days was a powerful lesson: They could throttle information they thought threatened the public good and the sky wouldnt fall down.

Fast forward some months, and in November Trump became a lame duck and a much less scary political enemy.

Trumps loss also undercut one of the social media companies loudest arguments for keeping Trump on board: Voters should know what their elected leaders thinks so they can decide whether to vote for them. As of Nov. 3, that ship had sailed.

More recently, and most horrifically, was this weeks violence on Capitol Hill that left five people, including a Capitol police officer, dead. Tech companies had, in recent years, landed on the idea that they had to act when online rhetoric caused offline harm. The facts smacked them in the face: What Trump was saying online was fueling violence in the real world.

POLITICO NEWSLETTERS

Technology news from Washington and Silicon Valley weekday mornings, in your inbox.

And, they feared, the worst was yet to come. Inauguration Day is looming, less than two weeks away, and the companies worried that Trump and his supporters would use social media in their bid to cause havoc around Biden's swearing-in.

Then Trump, on Friday, tweeted that he wouldnt be attending the transfer of power, tweeting: "To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th. (With Trumps account suspended, the tweet is no longer viewable.)

While a bland and fairly unsurprising statement of facts on its face, the post was interpreted inside Twitter as a potential signal to supporters that they should feel free to once again gather in D.C. and get violent.

Twitter said as much in its blog post announcing the Trump ban. Factoring into its decision, the company said, was that [p]lans for future armed protests have already begun proliferating on and off-Twitter, including a proposed secondary attack on the US Capitol and state capitol buildings in the run-up to the inauguration.

Kicking Trump off right now solved both a long-term headache and immediate crisis for Twitter.

Also, importantly, it had the benefit of a bit of cover from Facebook. When it comes to politics, Silicon Valley companies have traditionally been extraordinarily reluctant to get ahead of others in their industry. Facebook opened the door with its short-term restriction on Trump, freeing Twitter to jump through it.

But as popular as Silicon Valleys moves were with many Democrats newly in power in Bidens Washington, it is at best a brief reprieve for the industry.

An overdue step, tweeted Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. But its important to remember, this is much bigger than one person. Its about an entire ecosystem that allows misinformation and hate to spread and fester unchecked.

Read the original here:
The war between Silicon Valley and Washington takes a new turn - POLITICO

The News Herald

Two years ago, the CBS broadcast of "Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer"was attacked by cancel culture. Somecalled for its removal, due to Rudolph being bullied. Yet, they fail seeing Rudolph overcomes it and becomes Santa's lead reindeer.

There's also a libertarian message, in a subplot.

More: Have an opinion? Submit a Letter to the Editor

My favorite characterof this specialis Yukon Cornelius. He struck meas the main comedy relief. As I watched him in my adulthood, I discovered a hidden fact. Yukon is a libertarian.

Libertarianism always existed in the U.S.While the Libertarian Party beganin 1971, libertarianism was well before then. This includes our pop culture. Yukon's character, is a libertarian personificationin a Christmas icon.

He owns the land Rudolph and Herbiemeet him in. He originally prospectsfor silver and gold, which libertarians say is real/solid wealth. He voluntarily asks Rudolph and Herbieto join himin his prospecting. After escaping from Bumbles, he changes his mind and decides to prospect silver.

When going through the fog, Yukon calls it "thick as peanut butter."Herbie tries correcting him, saying, "You mean pea soup." Yukon replies, "You eat what you like and I'll eat what I like." After rescuing Rudolph and friends from Bumbles, he helps Bumbles reform. Bumbles voluntarily changes and accepts Yukon's help. He learns new skills and takes a job, helping Santa decorate tall Christmas trees.

At the special's end Yukon discovers a peppermint vein. Knowing he's now in Christmas Land he decides to open a peppermint mine and sell the mineralfor future Christmases. He makes Bumbles his partner and they go into business together.

His story continuesin the DVD sequel, "Rudolph and the Island of Misfit Toys."

He and Bumbles' peppermint vein runs out and he'sfacing closing the mine. Underneath the final vein, Yukon discovers gold. His hard workpays off.

On a final note, Yukon carries a pistol, but he never uses it. The fact he carries itshows he believes in private gun ownership.

Overall, Yukon Cornelius proves he's a libertarian and shows the long-term successesthat come from it. See it yourself, next time you watch it.

David Agosta, Secretary Bay County Libertarian Party

More here:
LETTER: Yukon the Libertarian friend of a reindeer? - The News Herald

For the past few years, Ive been keeping track of everything I read, watch, listen to, and experience in my media diet posts. As a media diet wrap-up, heres the most compelling content & experiences from 2020, stuff that helped stimulate and sustain me in a year of isolation and pandemic.

Portrait of a Lady on Fire. This was the final movie I saw in a theater before the pandemic hit; I chose well. Not a week has gone by this year that I didnt think about some aspect or another of this film.

Youre Wrong About. By far my favorite episodic podcast. The joy with which the hosts delight each other with insights and humorous asides is the engine that drives the show. Literally my only complaint: I wish they hadnt changed the theme music.

The Queens Gambit. Seems like everyone watched this miniseries this fall and I loved it just as much as anyone.

The Rain Vortex at Singapores Changi Airport. An enchanting oasis in the middle of an airport indicative of Singapores incorporation of natural elements into urban spaces.

MASS MoCA. For my birthday, I treated myself with a road trip to this superb museum. The Sol LeWitt, James Turrell, and Jenny Holzer exhibitions alone were worth the trip. I sorely miss museums.

Ted Lasso. Mister Rogers Neighborhood + Major League. Who knew you could make radical empathy funny? Everyone Ive recommended this show to has loved it.

The Land That Never Has Been Yet from Scene on Radio. An essential series on American democracy. Like, do we even have one? Its hard to choose, but the episode on how the libertarianism of the contemporary Republican Party was the result of a deliberate campaign by just a few people that increasingly came to dominate American politics is my favorite.

Carol. I remember liking this back when it came out, but my rewatch a couple of months ago was a revelation. A remarkable, sparkling film.

Caste by Isabel Wilkerson. Wilkerson has a gift for finding new ways for her readers to think about entrenched systems and behaviors.

Devs. This show got neglected a little in the end-of-year lists because of an early-in-the-pandemic release, but it was one of my top 2-3 shows this year.

The Great. I really enjoyed this Hulu show as I watched it and its grown in my esteem in the months since. Its one of the first shows I recommend when friends ask what Ive been watching lately. Huzzah!

Nintendo Switch. To distract themselves from the pandemic, did America spend more hours playing video games or watching TV? I did both. Mario Kart 8, Super Mario 35, Rocket League, Fortnite, Minecraft, Among Us, and all the old NES games were popular in our household this year.

Conversations with Friends by Sally Rooney. I found reading difficult for most of the year I only finished three books in the past 10 months. But this one I couldnt put down; finished it in two days.

Exhalation by Ted Chiang. Perfect little stories expertly told. Dont miss the endnotes, where Chiang reveals where the ideas for each of his stories came from.

AirPods Pro. The best augmented reality device yet devised the music feels like its actually in your head more seamlessly than ever before.

Little Women. Fantastic casting, performances, and direction. Waiting patiently for whatever Gerwig does next.

My Brilliant Friend (season 2) & Normal People. I didnt think anyone could effectively adapt either of these authors, but somehow the shows nearly equalled the books.

The Splendid and the Vile by Erik Larson. Everything from Larson is great and this book about the Battle of Britain and the triumph of leadership resonated throughout this pandemic year.

Future Nostalgia. I listened to this more than anything else in 2020. Also notable because IMO there are no skippable songs on this album.

Tomidaya shoyu ramen. This tiny ramen shop in the Little Tokyo section of Saigon is supposed to closely resemble Japan shops. One of the best bowls Ive ever had.

The Mandalorian. I was lukewarm on season one but loved season two. Of all the recent Star Wars things, this show best channels the sometimes goofy/campy magic that made the original movie so compelling.

The image above is an overhead view of my home office, where all the kottke.org magic happens.

More about...

Original post:
21 Things That Kept Me Going In 2020 - kottke.org

In the 2020 presidential election, the Libertarian Party candidate, Jo Jorgensen, gained 1.2 percent of the vote, less than half the partys 2016 election result.Jeffrey MichelsandOlivier Lewiswrite that despite signs that pointed towards the potential for libertarian voters to beking makersin the 2020 election, their dislike of DonaldTrump turned many to Joe Biden and the Democratic Party.

In the 2016 US Presidential election,the former RepublicanGovernor of New Mexico,Gary Johnsongained3.3 percentof the national vote share,the highest on record foraLibertarian Partypresidential candidate.This modest milestonecould have been written off as the result of a race featuring two highly unpopular mainstream candidates, Donald Trump andformer Secretary of State,Hillary Clinton. But itmightalso haveportendeda more meaningful movement inUSelectoral politics,onein which a growing Libertarian Party or at least an increasingly independent bloc of libertarian voters gainsthecriticalmass totip the race.Infiercely competitive bipartisancontests, protests voterscould position themselvesaspower brokers.

When we entertained this possibilityduring the primary season,plenty ofsigns were pointing toanother strongresult for the LibertarianParty.The frontrunners of the Democratic Party primaries were relativelyradicalcandidateslike Senators Elizabeth Warren and BernieSanders,who were proposinga new pushofstateintervention in the economyanathemaof courseto libertarian ideology.Meanwhile,Trumps dominanceofthe Republic Party was unquestioned, blocking any attempt to move the party away from the incumbents brand ofblunt nativism.And the one RepublicanHouse Representative, JustinAmash,whodiddare questionthisdominanceand in doing so became a minorcult hero threw in his hatfor the Libertarian Party ticket.

But then, alotchanged. Democratsrallied behindmoderateformer Vice-President Joe Biden, while LibertarianschoseJo Jorgensen, a familiar face within the partybuta strangerbeyond it.TheCOVID-19 pandemicthenrenderedimpossible thein-personcanvassingnecessaryto raise Jorgensens profile. And itleftlittle place for libertarian discourse in public debate. In the run up to the election, thequestionwasnot whethergovernment interventionwasjustifiable, butratherhow much and what kind was needed.

As a result,inLibertarian candidatesfinished withjust under 1.2 percentof the vote in the 2020 election, losingnearlytwo-thirdsof theirsharecompared to 2016.

Did the2020setbackconfirm that theLibertarian spike of2016wasnot asignbut a fluke?Looking at the bigger picture,was it rash to consider thatlibertarianvoterscould becomekingmakersin US Presidentialelections?

One straightforwardresponsewas put forthimmediately after the electionbycommentatorsandpoliticianswho argued that the Libertarian Party nonetheless decided the election, spoiling a Republican victory. Despite underperforming relative to the previous election, Jo Jorgensons ticket still was the second-best result in Libertarian Party history, and it was enough to cover the difference between Trump and Biden in several swing states.

Thisspoiler argument rests on the false assumption that voters of the Libertarian Party, and moregenerallyvoterswhoseidentificationwithlibertarian valuesrivals their loyalty toany particular party, belong, in the end,totheGOP. It was precisely the extent to which this assumption was false thatprovides a key to answering the questions set out above.TheRepublican Party showed in 2016 that its turn to Trump could cost it a large portion of voters to a Libertarian Party protest ticket. Doubling down on Trump in 2020, the GOP proved it could pushthelions share of these same voters into the enemy camp,assuringits defeat.

Indeed, the story of 2020 is not the number of those who turned to the Libertarian ticket, but those who turned away from it, in favour of the Democrats.Among theeightmillion peoplewho voted for a third-party candidate in 2016 (half of which voted for the Libertarian Party), an overwhelming majority sided with Biden in 2020.The main indicator is thatwhile Trumps 2020 results are similar to those of 2016,Bidens are much better than Clintons in 2016.Some of these not-Clinton-but-yes-Biden votersmight be new votersor former Republicans, butexit poll surveyscorroborate the hypothesis that a significant number of 2016 Libertarian voters opted for Biden in 2020.

They did this despitethe fact thatJoe Bidenscareerrecord andelectoralcampaignstillpresenteda number of red flags for libertarians.Mostnotably, heproposedwhat could be become the mostambitious planof government spending in decades.But these concerns were evidently outweighed by the prospect of another four years of a Trump presidency. If there is any libertarian case for Biden, as onelibertarian commentatorput it, its situational, and that situation ends on January 20.

The 2020 elections showed then that theblocfrom 2016is still there and is still important, but that itspotential to determine electionscomes fromswingingfrom one party toanotherinstead of settling onand leveragingits own.

Unfortunately for libertarian-minded voters, thisleavesthem with onlyrelatively pooroptionsin future elections. There is apossibilitythat many of them will turn back to the Republican Party once it puts forth a less offensive candidate. ButtheGOPwill likely remain in thrall of thebloc that Trump forged,a bitter reality for libertarians whojust a decade ago seemed totake the reinswiththesuccess of theTea Party movement.The Democratic Party will surely keep some of the votes it won from this bloc as well.But the pressure to placate its far-left wing will likely outweigh its desire to permanently win over the moderate libertarians. And for the Libertarian Party to beanything more than a last resort,it wouldhave to prove itself capable of exactly that which it failed to do this election: rally this bloc under a common banner with a shared strategy, in so doing convincing mainstream parties that it cannot be ignored.

In the next Presidential election, theblocs voteswill likely be dividedbetween thesethree options,weakening theefficacyof eachand likelystokinga fourth option:abstention.

There is aparadox that limits the blocs potential.The same characteristics that predispose libertarians to be swing voters their pride in rational, independent behaviour,and their resistance to organised politics,if not outrightanarchism also makes them unlikely tocoordinate their actionon a large scale to optimallyleverage this position.Perhaps they could rally together through another groundswell movement like the Tea Party, not a totally fantastic scenario considering that resistance to governmentspending and restriction ofcivil liberties willsurely mount as Covid-19 recedes. Butcould this feed into an independent forcethat would break thetwo-party doom loop,withoutbeing co-opted by the general anti-establishment rage buoying the Republican Party?

Instead,Libertarian Party and independent libertarian voterswill havetosettle forgettingcreative andpickingsmallerstrategically placedbattles. We have alreadyobservedthis inthe elections for Senate, where libertariancandidates in Georgiahelped toforce two run-offs, the results of which will decide the majority. Therun-offsarestillmostly alose-losefor libertarians, butthereissurely athrill in throwinga spanner in the workingsof the major parties, especially if thisincitesthe opposition to offermore libertarian policies.AsLibertariancandidatein Georgia Shane Hazelnoted:I hope people understand that creating a run-off should be the primary mission until the party is much stronger.

Of course, the Libertarian Party can also think global, act local. In Wyoming,Marshall Burtbecame the first Libertarian to win a statehouse seatsince 2002, andthe fifthin US history. Via its Frontier Project, the Libertarian Party hopes to wina fewmore state-level seatsinNorth and South Dakota, Montana, Utah, and Wisconsin.There is also the possibility of winning more specific, less party-political ballots,viareferendums.In 2020,many referendumspassed seemingly libertarianproposals ondrugs, taxes, rent, voting rights,ranked-choice voting,andlabour regulations.Californian referendumsare a prime example of this, butAlaskaandColoradoare also interesting cases.

The questionofwhether the Libertarian Party or a bloc of libertarian voters emerges as a swing factor andkingmakerin future US elections will depend on the success of a project to carve a common identity and settle on a shared strategy.They could do this autonomously with their own party or by fitting into a spaceleft by one of themainstream parties.But neitherscenarioappears likely in the short-term,meaningthe battle for libertarian values will likely be waged where it has been waged best,far from the centreofthebiggestelectoral stage.

Please read our comments policy before commenting.

Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of USAPP American Politics and Policy, nor the London School of Economics.

Shortened URL for this post:https://bit.ly/34EqYVU

Jeffrey MichelsCollege of EuropeJeffrey Michels is a Parliamentary Assistant at the European Parliament and an Academic Assistant at the College of Europe,Natolincampus.

Olivier LewisCollege of EuropeOlivier has been a Research Fellow at the College of Europe, Natolin campus, since August 2019.Olivier is currently writing his first book,Security Cooperation between Western States, to be published with Routledge. He is also working on shorter publications related to counterterrorism, counterinsurgency,and Brexit.

See more here:
What Happened?: The 2020 election showed that libertarians have a long way to go before they can become a national movement. - USAPP American Politics...