The logic is irresistible. What with its celebration of personal autonomy and private enterprise, its dependence on a rules-based system and its ability to generate instinctive suspicion of outsiders, I have long thought of driving as mere libertarianism in motion. Thats one reason Ronald Reagan was so fond of using it in his political metaphors.

And yet a funny thing has happened. The experience has actually turned me into something of a hippy, a loved-up citizen rather than a hyper-rational hater. Ive found talking to Taz, my instructor, therapeutic: his 10 siblings and four daughters seem like old friends already, even when he is screaming RELAX, bruvva! CALM your BEANS, my son! as we reverse- park into a bay in Wood Green.

Despite such commotion, being behind the wheel has struck me as a beautiful vantage point. Like Louis Armstrong, I see trees of green, red roses too, I see them bloom, for me and you. Like with cycling, I find driving helps me appreciate the beauty of our environment. Best of all, Ive found other drivers to be communicative and kind, albeit probably looking after their own interests when they see a learner driver.

All this is cheering. Theres just one drag, which is that I hate traffic so much it might stop me driving altogether.

I know everyone hates traffic. But I really, really cannot bear it. Traffic is like a huge grater scratching away at my soul. I feel like my whole life is a war against time, with a constant sense that there is so much to do. Traffic, even with the radio on, is dead time.

And these two sentiments surprise at the generosity of fellow drivers, and hatred of traffic combine to give me an idea. Its bonkers but should we think about abolishing traffic lights? If not all, then some at least?

I know anecdotal evidence is the worst kind but I cant help but make the comparison with India, whose roads I have spent ages on, including recently. Yes, there are 150,000 road deaths in India each year, half a million recorded accidents, and the new government is planning radical action.

But in many cities, the crazy traffic, with cows, rickshaws, mopeds, bikes, lorries and cars in constant, frenzied negotiation, just seems to work, like a highly adaptable organism. People pull off the most outlandish manoeuvres and constantly get away with it.

They do this, I think, because there is a presumption toward maximum communication which traffic lights (which Indians do have, at big junctions) censor. When we come to a traffic light, we all look at the lights one reason nearly half of personal injury accidents happen there.

What if we looked at each other instead? Sure, traffic lights send much clearer signals than the infinitely complex human face. But over time wed learn to trust each other.

See more here:

Amol Rajan: Its about time we abolished traffic lights in the capital

Jeffrey Tucker:

Stephan Kinsella, it's a pleasure to have you here today. Welcome.

Thank you. It's good to be here.

We're going to talk about your class for the Mises Academy, on intellectual property.

Yes, I'm looking forward to it. We've been planning it for quite a while, as you know. I think the first course will be on November 1st for six weeks and then we'll take a week off. We'll have time to go in depth into many of the issues about intellectual property and its relationship to libertarianism, economic theory, and various other areas.

Why is this an important issue?

Well, it's becoming a more and more important issue as we've seen in our circles and as seen on the internet. Daily, we see horror stories and crazy examples of abuses of IP. People are starting to wonder if these are really abuses of IP or if there's something wrong with IP itself.

In the past, free-market economists and libertarians have sort of given this issue a pass. They took it for granted. It's been in a corner all by itself. Now people are wondering, and as we start looking more closely at it, we can see that a lot of the assumptions about IP have been wrong.

It's striking you mention the history of thought here and why this issue is sort of crystallizing in our time, especially with your pioneering monograph on that subject, Against Intellectual Property.

It's generally true, isn't it, that that theoretical element of economics or law or whatever catches up when the practical need for that new theory comes along. For example, the theory of money and credit was made necessary by the advent of central banking.

Go here to see the original:

Understanding IP: An Interview with Stephan Kinsella

Cato #39;s David Boaz Talks Politics, History, and His Path to Libertarianism
"I think the general idea of #39;it #39;s your life you get to run it the way you want to #39; is an appealing aspect of libertarianism," says David Boaz executive vice...

By: ReasonTV

Read more:

Cato's David Boaz Talks Politics, History, and His Path to Libertarianism - Video

Excursions, Ep. 29: Neoconservatism Versus Libertarianism, Part 2
George H. Smith tells the story of how a disagreement with Roy Childs over the ideas of Irving Kristol resulted in a serious argument. George H. Smith begins his series on neoconservatism...

By: Libertarianism.org

Read more from the original source:

Excursions, Ep. 29: Neoconservatism Versus Libertarianism, Part 2 - Video

What is Libertarianism?

Libertarianism is a political philosophy that believes that liberty and individual freedom are the most important characteristics of a free and prosperous society. Although there are many kinds of libertarianism, the one that I will be discussing in this article would advocate the following principles:

Libertarians are very weary of the coercive authority of the government and believe that the state should always only be the servant of the people and never the master. Bigger government only leads to bureaucracy, overspending, deficits, and corruption. In our world today, the many governments are getting more authoritarian and there is so much intervention going on and in this article I will be discussing why this should make us worried and at times even outraged.

There are actually two kinds of libertarianism. Consequentialist Libertarianism believe that the maximization of liberty should be enforced while the advocates Deontological Libertarianism believe that any use of force is corruptive and will lead to fraud regardless of the effects that it will entail.

In Deontological Libertarianism, they believe in the non-aggression principle that states no man has the right to initiate force against man or property of another human being no matter what circumstance. There are some such as Murray Rothbard who believe that governments are institutionalized initiation of force and taxation and should be abolished.

The consequentialists on the other hand believe that liberty should be supported because maximized personal and economical liberty lead to happiness and prosperity. Some notable Consequena

Libertarians believe that every individual has the right to his own decisions and should never be opposed unless his/her actions are interfering with the liberties of others. This is why libertarians strongly oppose punishment of victimless crimes such as the War on Drugs.

There is also strong opposition against any form of intrusion of privacy by the people and most importantly by the government. Libertarians oppose unjust and unconstitutional searches by police or authority.

Libertarians also believe that taxation is the state's burden to the people. Taxation is legal plunder and the hardworking man's earnings are forcibly taken from him for the supposed welfare of society.

Libertarians, are also in favor of the free market because it gives choice to the people and a chance for the people to freely spend and invest their hard-earned work. The free market is also very beneficial to the consumers because competition will increase quality and lower the price.

Go here to read the rest:

Definition of Libertarianism -- what are the core values ...

An ad-hominem rant by "Lazarus Long", based on the presumption that his opponents use the same attack tactics he does. His most glaring double-speak is that he claims the arguments are strawmen, but he defends them anyway instead of disclaiming them.

My normal policy is not to engage in ad-hominem pissing matches with libertarians, but Lazarus Long has been impugning me for quite a while now. So, I'd like to set the following straight, since it illustrates his debate style. Also, this can serve as an example of how argument with him can mire you endlessly, even when he is grossly wrong.

In his FAS , he writes: Incidentally, even though this article was not written at the time of Huben's e-mail to me, he stated "I'm hardly upset by your "refutation" or any of the other rather pathetic attempts (and yours is indeed the weakest by far.)" In other words... although the refutation had not been written, Huben miraculously claims that it is the weakest by far.

In an ad-hominem web page titled Who is Mike Huben , he writes: An example of his obsession, and lack of intellectual integrity can be seen by a visit to his "Critique of Libertarianism" site. He listed a link to my critique of his Non-Libertarian FAQ, before the critique had been written, along with a description of what was contained in the critique. A most impressive stunt, considering that the critique, not only was not on this site at the time, but hadn't been written.

Now, I'm not known for my psychic powers: how could I have known about his document to criticize it or create a link to it?

Very simple. He had posted it (or an early version) as Huben's FAS (Frequently Asserted Strawmen). in talk.politics.libertarian July 2, 1996. He wrote: This article will appear in full form on my webpage as http://vaxxine.com/rational/huben-bs-fas.htm within the next few weeks. I criticized his post by email, and made a link to the URL he had announced. No magic involved: I was just responding to the information he made publicly available. I'd like to know how he construes this as "obsession, and lack of intellectual integrity".

Most of his attacks and his FAS can be similarly handled. However, responding to them just gives him more material to similarly misuse. He likes to misinterpret non-response as his own triumph over the cowardly, but I trust most readers can see that he's a legend in his own mind.

[4/13/99: "Prince Lazarus", age 67, given name Howard Turney, has been hit with an SEC restraining order for his New Utopia internet scam.]

The rest is here:

Critiques Of Libertarianism: All links. - http://www.TheWorld.com ...

Excursions, Ep. 28: Neoconservatism Versus Libertarianism, Part 1
George H. Smith begins his series on neoconservatism by exploring some of its fundamental differences with libertarianism. Read this essay: http://bit.ly/1K7...

By: Libertarianism.org

View original post here:

Excursions, Ep. 28: Neoconservatism Versus Libertarianism, Part 1 - Video

A Left-Libertarianism I Dont Recognize
Intro/Outro by Jeff Riggenbach Written by Jeff Ricketson Read by Tony Dreher Edited by Nick Ford Online article: http://c4ss.org/content/29301 Excerpt: "In f...

By: C4SS Feed 44

See the article here:

A Left-Libertarianism I Dont Recognize - Video

City Police Commissioner A.B. Venkateswara Rao on Sunday advised students to understand various philosophies and study libertarianism that helped develop society.

He was addressing a workshop on Free Enterprise and Entrepreneurship organised by the Department of Business Management, V.R. Siddhartha Engineering College, in association with the Language of Liberty Institute, USA.

Self-philosophy

He said students should develop self-philosophy to gain clarity in personal and professional lives.

College convenor M. Rajaiah observed that the difference between developing and developed nations was the concept of free market reforms.

Please Wait while comments are loading...

1. Comments will be moderated by The Hindu editorial team. 2. Comments that are abusive, personal, incendiary or irrelevant cannot be published. 3. Please write complete sentences. Do not type comments in all capital letters, or in all lower case letters, or using abbreviated text. (example: u cannot substitute for you, d is not 'the', n is not 'and'). 4. We may remove hyperlinks within comments. 5. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name, to avoid rejection.

Link:

Students told to study libertarianism

Republican Makes the Case for Libertarianism: Restaurant Workers Should NOT Have to Wash Their Hands
GOP Senator Thom Tillis has a real problem with Employees Must Wash Hands signs and doesn #39;t believe food workers should be forced to have to wash their han...

By: Sam Seder

Originally posted here:

Republican Makes the Case for Libertarianism: Restaurant Workers Should NOT Have to Wash Their Hands - Video

Right-libertarianism (or right-wing libertarianism) refers to libertarian political philosophies that advocate both self-ownership and the unequal appropriation of natural resources,[1] leading to strong support of private property rights and free-market capitalism. This position is contrasted with that of left-libertarianism, which maintains that natural resources belong to everyone in some egalitarian manner, either unowned or owned collectively.[2] Right-libertarianism includes anarcho-capitalism and laissez-faire, minarchist liberalism.[note 1]

The non-aggression principle (NAP) is the foundation of most present-day right-libertarian philosophies.[3][4][5] It is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate. NAP and property rights are closely linked, since what constitutes aggression depends on what rights a person has.[6] Aggression, for the purposes of the NAP, is defined as the initiation or threat of violence against a person or his legitimately owned property. Specifically, any unsolicited action that physically affects another individual's property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner's will and interfere with his right to self-ownership and self-determination.

Supporters of the NAP often appeal to it in order to argue for the immorality of theft, vandalism, assault, and fraud. In contrast to nonviolence, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violence used in self-defense or the defense of others.[7] Many supporters argue that the NAP opposes such policies as victimless crime laws, coercive taxation, and military drafts.

There is a debate amongst right-libertarians as to whether or not the state is legitimate: while anarcho-capitalists advocate its abolition, minarchists support minimal states, often referred to as night-watchman states. Minarchists maintain that the state is necessary for the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud. They believe the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts, though some expand this list to include fire departments, prisons, and the executive and legislative branches.[8][9][10] They justify the state on the grounds that it is the logical consequence of adhering to the non-aggression principle and argue that anarchism is immoral because it implies that the non-aggression principle is optional, that the enforcement of laws under anarchism is open to competition.[citation needed] Another common justification is that private defense agencies and court firms would tend to represent the interests of those who pay them enough.[11]

Anarcho-capitalists argue that the state violates the non-aggression principle by its nature because governments use force against those who have not stolen or vandalized private property, assaulted anyone, or committed fraud.[12][13] Many also argue that monopolies tend to be corrupt and inefficient, that private defense and court agencies would have to have a good reputation in order to stay in business. Linda & Morris Tannehill argue that no coercive monopoly of force can arise on a truly free market and that a government's citizenry can't desert them in favor of a competent protection and defense agency.[14]

Libertarian philosopher Moshe Kroy argues that the disagreement between anarcho-capitalists who adhere to Murray Rothbard's view of human consciousness and the nature of values and minarchists who adhere to Ayn Rand's view of human consciousness and the nature of values over whether or not the state is moral is not due to a disagreement over the correct interpretation of a mutually held ethical stance. He argues that the disagreement between these two groups is instead the result of their disagreement over the nature of human consciousness and that each group is making the correct interpretation of their differing premises. These two groups are therefore not making any errors with respect to deducing the correct interpretation of any ethical stance because they do not hold the same ethical stance.[15]

While there is debate on whether left, right, and socialist libertarianism "represent distinct ideologies as opposed to variations on a theme," right-libertarianism is most in favor of private property.[16] Right-libertarians maintain that unowned natural resources "may be appropriated by the first person who discovers them, mixes her labor with them, or merely claims themwithout the consent of others, and with little or no payment to them." This contrasts with left-libertarianism in which "unappropriated natural resources belong to everyone in some egalitarian manner."[17] Right-libertarians believe that natural resources are originally unowned, and therefore, private parties may appropriate them at will without the consent of, or owing to, others (e.g. a land value tax).[18]

Right-libertarians (also referred to as propertarians) hold that societies in which private property rights are enforced are the only ones that are both ethical and lead to the best possible outcomes.[19] They generally support the free market, and are not opposed to any concentrations of economic power, provided it occurs through non-coercive means.[20]

Libertarianism in the United States developed in the 1950s as many with Old Right or classical liberal beliefs in the United States began to describe themselves as libertarians.[21]H. L. Mencken and Albert Jay Nock were the first prominent figures in the United States to call themselves libertarians.[22] They believed Franklin D. Roosevelt had co-opted the word liberal for his New Deal policies, which they opposed, and used libertarian to signify their allegiance to individualism. Mencken wrote in 1923: "My literary theory, like my politics, is based chiefly upon one idea, to wit, the idea of freedom. I am, in belief, a libertarian of the most extreme variety."[23]

In the 1950s, Russian-American novelist Ayn Rand developed a philosophical system called Objectivism, expressed in her novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, as well as other works, which influenced many libertarians.[24] However, she rejected the label libertarian and harshly denounced the libertarian movement as the "hippies of the right."[25] Philosopher John Hospers, a one-time member of Rand's inner circle, proposed a non-initiation of force principle to unite both groups; this statement later became a required "pledge" for candidates of the Libertarian Party, and Hospers himself became its first presidential candidate in 1972.[citation needed]

Continue reading here:

Right-libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Criticism of libertarianism includes ethical, economic, environmental, and pragmatic concerns. Critics have claimed the political philosophy does not satisfy collectivist values, and that private property does not create an egalitarian distribution. It has also been argued that laissez-faire capitalism does not necessarily produce the best or most efficient outcome, nor does its policy of deregulation prevent the abuse of natural resources. Furthermore libertarianism has been criticized due to the lack of any actual such societies today.

Some critics, including John Rawls in Justice as Fairness, argue that implied social contracts justify government actions that violate the rights of some individuals as they are beneficial for society overall. This concept is related to philosophical collectivism as opposed to individualism.[1]

Libertarian philosophers such as Michael Huemer have raised criticisms targeted at the social contract theory.[2]

In his essay "From Liberty to Welfare," philosopher James P. Sterba argues that a morally consistent application of libertarian premises, including that of negative liberty, requires that a libertarian must endorse "the equality in the distribution of goods and resources required by a socialist state." Sterba presents the example of a typical conflict situation between the rich and poor "in order to see why libertarians are mistaken about what their ideal requires." He argues that such a situation is correctly seen as a conflict of negative liberties: the right of the rich not to be interfered with in the satisfaction of their luxury needs is morally trumped by the right of the poor "not to be interfered with in taking from the surplus possessions of the rich what is necessary to satisfy their basic needs."

According to Sterba, the liberty of the poor should be morally prioritized in light of the fundamental ethical principle "ought implies can" from which it follows that it would be unreasonable to ask the poor to relinquish their liberty not be interfered with, noting that "in the extreme case it would involve asking or requiring the poor to sit back and starve to death" and that "by contrast it would not be unreasonable to ask and require the rich to sacrifice their liberty to meet some of their needs so that the poor can have the liberty to meet their basic needs." Having argued that "ought implies can" establishes the reasonability of asking the rich to sacrifice their luxuries for the basic needs of the poor, Sterba invokes a second fundamental principle, "The Conflict Resolution Principle," to argue that it is reasonable to make it an ethical requirement. He concludes by arguing that the application of these principles to the international context makes a compelling case for socialist distribution on a world scale.[3]

Jeffrey Friedman argues that natural law libertarianism's justification for the primacy of property is incoherent:

[W]e can press on from [the observation that libertarianism is egalitarian] to ask why, if [...] the liberty of a human being to own another should be trumped by equal human rights, the liberty to own large amounts of property [at the expense of others] should not also be trumped by equal human rights. This alone would seem definitively to lay to rest the philosophical case for libertarianism. [...] The very idea of ownership contains the relativistic seeds of arbitrary authority: the arbitrary authority of the individual's "right to do wrong."[4]

Robert Hale has argued that the concept of coercion in libertarian theory is applied inconsistently, insofar as it is applied to government actions but is not applied to the coercive acts of property owners to preserve their own property rights.[5]

Jeffrey Friedman has criticized libertarians for often relying on the unproven assumption that economic growth and affluence inevitably result in happiness and increased quality of life.[6]

Critics of laissez-faire capitalism, the economic system favored by some libertarians, argue that market failures justify government intervention in the economy, that nonintervention leads to monopolies and stifled innovation, or that unregulated markets are economically unstable. They argue that markets do not always produce the best or most efficient outcome, that redistribution of wealth can improve economic health, and that humans involved in markets do not always act rationally.[citation needed]

Read the rest here:

Criticism of libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In a scathing editorial this week, The Oregonian called on Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber -- a Democrat whom the paper has supported for decades -- to step down following revelations that he may have allowed his fiance, Cylvia Hayes, to use her position for private gain and professional advancement.

"To recite every reported instance in which Hayes, ostensibly under Kitzhaber's watchful eye, has used public resources, including public employee time and her 'first lady' title, in pursuit of professional gain would require far more space than we have here," the editors wrote. "Suffice it to say there's a pattern, and the person who bears the responsibility for allowing it to form and persist is Kitzhaber, who should know better. After all, as he pointed out during Friday's press conference, he's been serving in public office on and off since the 1970s."

That press conference was in response to reporting by the paper revealing that Hayes had been paid as a consultant for advocacy organizations while she was working as an unpaid adviser on energy policy to Kitzhaber's office, and that the two men who arranged these gigs for her subsequently got jobs in the administration.

Hayes has left her policy role in the administration, and the governor has said that his office took steps to separate Hayes's work as a paid consultant and her public duties. He has said he has no intention of resigning and intends to do the job Oregon's citizens elected him to do.

"For a newspaper editorial board to call for a governor's resignation is rare," notes The Washington Post's Hunter Schwarz.

Welcome to Wonkbook. To subscribe by e-mail, clickhere. Send comments, criticism or ideas to Wonkbook at Washpost dot com. Follow Wonkblog onTwitterandFacebook.

What's in Wonkbook:1) The immigration stalemate 2) Opinions, including Gerson and Strassel on vaccines and the G.O.P. primary 3) Conservatives object to climate science in the classroom, and more

Number of the day: $57 trillion. That's the increase in global public and private debt since the financial crisis, according to a new report from McKinsey. Neil Irwin in The New York Times.

1. Topstory:Congress at impasse on immigration

It's unclear whether and how lawmakers will extend funding for border security past this month. "With just two legislative weeks to go before the Homeland Security Department shuts down, Republicans still don't have a plan. For the third time, Democrats blocked a funding bill that would keep the department running on Thursday, and they show no signs of letting up. If Democrats remain unwilling to accept anything less than a clean DHS billwith no provisions blocking President Obama's executive actions on immigrationRepublicans will be forced to pick from an arsenal of limited options. And of those that remain, none look good for the GOP. If Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has a plan, he isn't sharing it with his members, much less the public. Sen. John Thune, McConnell's number three, said Thursday that his party's strategy had 'yet to be determined' and called it 'a work in progress,' while Sen. Jeff Flake said simply: 'We don't know yet.' " Sarah Mimms and Lauren Fox in National Journal.

Read more:

Wonkblog: The politically toxic relationship between Oregons governor and his fiance

It has become the Rand Paul pattern: A few weeks paddling vigorously in the mainstream, followed by a lapse into authenticity, followed by transparent damage control, followed by churlishness toward anyone in the media who notices. All the signs of a man trying to get comfortable in someone elses skin.

The latest example is vaccination. I have heard of many tragic cases, said Dr. Paul, of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines. Following the ensuing firestorm, the Republican senator from Kentucky insisted, I did not say vaccines caused disorders, just that they were temporally related.

In effect: I did not sleep with that causation.

Paul blamed his troubles on the liberal media which, after a little digging, reported that, in 2009, he had called mandatory vaccinations a step toward martial law.

When Chris Christie commits a gaffe on vaccination and reverses himself, it indicates a man out of his depth. With Paul, it reveals the unexplored depths of a highly ideological and conspiratorial worldview.

The same dynamic was at work when Paul accused public health authorities of dishonesty about the true nature of the Ebola threat; or when he raised the prospect of Americans typing an e-mail in a cafe being summarily executed by a Hellfire missile; or when he accused Dick Cheney of supporting the Iraq war to benefit Halliburton; or when he accused the United States of provoking Japan into World War II; or when he criticized the application of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to private enterprise. Wherever you scratch the paint, there is some underlying, consistent philosophy at work.

This, of course, is true of any thoughtful politician (which Paul certainly is). But while many prospective presidential candidates seek catchier ways to express their political philosophy, Paul must take pains to conceal the ambition of his ideals.

His domestic libertarianism provides no philosophical foundation for most of the federal government. As a practical matter, he can call for the end of Obamacare but not for the abolition of Medicare or Medicaid or the National Institutes of Health. Yet these concessions to reality are fundamentally arbitrary. The only principle guiding Pauls selectivity is the avoidance of gaffes. Of which he is not always the best judge.

The same is true of Pauls constitutional foreign policy, which he now calls (as evidence of his evolution) conservative realism. There is no previously existing form of realism that urges a dramatically weakened executive in the conduct of foreign and defense policy which is Pauls strong preference. He denies the legal basis for the war on terrorism, warns against an oppressive national security state and proposes to scale back American commitments in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Paul is properly described as a libertarian noninterventionist.

His father, Ron Paul, is gleefully specific in his charge that American aggression creates the blowback of terrorism. The son qualifies the argument without repudiating it. Some anger is blowback, he now says. In 2009, he called his fathers theory a message that can be presented and be something that Republicans can agree to. A recommended reading list posted (briefly) last year on Pauls Senate Web site included Chalmers Johnsons Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire and Ron Pauls A Foreign Policy of Freedom.

Read the original here:

Rand Pauls gaffes offer a glimpse of his worldview

By The Washington Post5 p.m.Feb. 5, 2015

It has become the Rand Paul pattern: A few weeks paddling vigorously in the mainstream, followed by a lapse into authenticity, followed by transparent damage control, followed by churlishness toward anyone in the media who notices. All the signs of a man trying to get comfortable in someone elses skin.

The latest example is vaccination. I have heard of many tragic cases, said Dr. Paul, of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines. Following the ensuing firestorm, Paul insisted, I did not say vaccines caused disorders, just that they were temporally related.

In effect: I did not sleep with that causation.

Paul blamed his troubles on the liberal media which, after a little digging, reported that Paul, in 2009, had called mandatory vaccinations a step toward martial law.

When Chris Christie commits a gaffe on vaccination and reverses himself, it indicates a man out of his depth. With Paul, it reveals the unexplored depths of a highly ideological and conspiratorial worldview.

The same dynamic was at work when Paul accused public health authorities of dishonesty about the true nature of the Ebola threat; or when he raised the prospect of Americans typing emails in a cafe being summarily executed by a Hellfire missile; or when he accused Dick Cheney of supporting the Iraq War to benefit Halliburton; or when he accused the United States of provoking Japan into World War II; or when he criticized the application of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to private enterprise. Wherever you scratch the paint, there is some underlying, consistent philosophy at work.

This, of course, is true of any thoughtful politician (which Paul certainly is). But while many prospective presidential candidates seek catchier ways to express their political philosophy, Paul must take pains to conceal the ambition of his ideals.

Pauls domestic libertarianism provides no philosophic foundation for most of the federal government. As a practical matter, he can call for the end of Obamacare but not for the abolition of Medicare, or Medicaid, or the National Institutes of Health. Yet these concessions to reality are fundamentally arbitrary. The only principle guiding Pauls selectivity is the avoidance of gaffes. Of which he is not always the best judge.

The same is true of Pauls constitutional foreign policy, which he now calls (as evidence of his evolution) conservative realism. There is no previously existing form of realism that urges a dramatically weakened executive in the conduct of foreign and defense policy which is Pauls strong preference. He denies the legal basis for the war on terrorism, warns against an oppressive national security state and proposes to scale back American commitments in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Paul is properly described as a libertarian noninterventionist.

See the original post here:

Michael Gerson: Unmasking Rand Paul

After 13 short days of trial, Ross Ulbricht has been convicted of running the unprecedented, anonymous online black market known as the Silk Road. In terms of drama, those days included everything: a hidden drug empire, a secret journal, lofty ideals, friendship and betrayal, deception, threats of violence, and in the end, a highly coordinated law enforcement sting operation.

The jury in Ulbrichts case deliberated for only three and a half hours before convicting him on all counts, including conspiring to sell narcotics, hacking software and counterfeit documents, and a kingpin charge usually reserved for organized crime bosses. But despite that quick outcome, the case will be remembered for delving into issues as varied as bitcoins legal status as money, the FBIs right to warrantlessly hack into foreign servers used by Americans, and the power and limits of anonymity on the internet.

American law enforcement has used the case as a chance to make an example of the Silk Road for anyone seeking to replicate its anonymous marketplace. Ulbrichts arrest and convictionand our seizure of millions of dollars of Silk Road Bitcoinsshould send a clear message to anyone else attempting to operate an online criminal enterprise, wrote U.S. attorney Preet Bharara in a press release Wednesday. The supposed anonymity of the dark web is not a protective shield from arrest and prosecution.

But the trials real lessons, for the burgeoning online drug trade that now dwarfs the Silk Road, will be how not to get caught. For a new generation of online drug lords inspired by Ulbrichts creation, the transcript of his trial will be required reading. For everyone else, its a fascinating tale of dark web intrigue.

Heres WIREDs gavel-to-gavel coverage, starting with the pre-trial hearings after Ulbrichts arrest:

November 21, 2013 Alleged Silk Road Owner Denied Bail; Prosecutors Say He Ordered 6 Murders Despite Ulbrichts family raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for bail, a judge cites his potential for violence to keep him in a Brooklyn jail.

July 9, 2014 Judge Shoots Down Bitcoin Isnt Money Argument in Silk Road Case Ulbrichts first defense was that he couldnt have been guilty of money laundering if bitcoin isnt money. The judge doesnt buy it.

August 2, 2014 Feds Silk Road Investigation Broke Privacy Laws, Defendant Tells Court Ulbrichts defense team attacks the murky surveillance techniques that tracked down the Silk Roads server in Iceland.

September 5, 2014 The FBI Finally Says How It Legally Pinpointed Silk Roads Server The prosecution responds to Ulbrichts defense with an explanation from the FBI: The Silk Roads security was unraveled by a leaky captcha.

September 8, 2014 FBIs Story of Finding Silk Roads Server Sounds a Lot Like Hacking Security experts weigh in, pointing out that the FBIs leaky captcha story doesnt hold water. Ulbricht defense will take the same argument to court.

Visit link:

The Silk Road Trial: WIREDs Gavel-to-Gavel Coverage

By Editorial Board February 3

TWO POTENTIAL Republican presidential candidates, Sen.Rand Paul (Ky.) and New Jersey Gov.Chris Christie, have made irresponsible comments about vaccines at a time when measles has reappeared in the United States. Their remarks call into question their judgment and their fitness for higher office.

Mr.Paul, an ophthalmologist, said in a television interview, Ive heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines. He added that he vaccinated his own children: Im not arguing vaccines are a bad idea. I think theyre a good thing. But I think parents should have some input. Mr.Christie, visiting a medical research laboratory in Cambridge, England, said that he, too, had vaccinated his children, but I also understand that parents need to have some measure of choice in things as well. So thats the balance that the government has to decide.

Both comments reflect a streak of libertarianism, a political philosophy that champions the individual and freedom to choose. In principle, this isnt irrational. The United States has often stood as a beacon of individual liberty over tyranny. But it becomes destructive when people resist government because of irrational fears and suspicions. To protect people from threats, government has a legitimate role. In the case of measles, the threat is a highly contagious virus that can bring serious consequences. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Measles is so contagious that if one person has it, 90% of the people close to that person who are not immune will also become infected. This is why states have passed laws mandating vaccination for children attending public schools (although 17 states, including California, scene of the outbreak at Disneyland, have waivers for personal beliefs, and 48 have waivers for religious beliefs).

Both the governor and senator seem to be suggesting that it is fine for parents to avoid vaccinations for their children. But is this really a matter of individual rights? Liberty does not confer the right to endanger others whether at a school or Disneyland or anywhere else.

More broadly, a president must make decisions every day about science, and it is not always easy; consider the struggle over climate change, the hard-fought debate over the impact of the Keystone XL pipeline, the promise of genetically modified foods, the intensifying threat of cyberattacks and the growing danger of antimicrobial resistance. Every one of these requires decision-makers to be rational and clear-eyed, the president most of all.

In the case of measles, proven science is well in hand. The vaccine has a half-century record of safety and effectiveness. The study linking it to autism has been discredited and retracted. Mr.Pauls reporting of anecdotes that he has heard is particularly insidious. Measles was eliminated in the United States by 2000 with widespread use of the vaccine. No presidential candidate should endorse parental choice that could reopen the door to an ugly and preventable disease.

Read this article:

Editorial: Mr. Pauls and Mr. Christies irresponsible comments about measles vaccinations

Juniper Russo walks her dogs with her daughter Vivian (left). Courtesy of Juniper Russo hide caption

Juniper Russo walks her dogs with her daughter Vivian (left).

The ongoing measles outbreak linked to Disneyland has led to some harsh comments about parents who don't vaccinate their kids. But Juniper Russo, a writer in Chattanooga, Tenn., says she understands those parents because she used to be one of them.

"I know what it's like to be scared and just want to protect your children, and make the wrong decisions," Russo says.

Juniper Russo with her daughter Vivian. Courtesy of Juniper Russo hide caption

Juniper Russo with her daughter Vivian.

When her daughter Vivian was born, "I was really adamant that she not get vaccines," Russo says. "I thought that she was going to be safe without them and they would unnecessarily introduce chemicals into her body that could hurt her."

That's a view shared by many parents who choose not to vaccinate. And in Russo's case, it was reinforced by parents she met online.

"I had a lot of online acquaintances who claimed that their kids had become autistic because of vaccines," Russo says. "I got kind of swept up in that."

But fear of autism was only part of the reason Russo didn't want vaccines for her daughter. She says at that point in her life she identified strongly with what she calls "crunchy moms" who question mainstream medicine and things that aren't natural.

Read more here:

Once A Vaccine Skeptic, This Mom Changed Her Mind

A lawyer friend of mine passed along this idea,

New cause of action: Tortious Non-Vaccination.

This is when a person who could be vaccinated but chooses not to (or his parents choose not to) becomes infected and then infects someone else who could not be vaccinated such as a someone with leukemia or some other immune deficiency or sensitivity to vaccinations. What victims of Tortious Non-Vaccination should do is file a complaint seeking to certify a defendant class action and bring a claim against all Tortious Non-Vaccinators [who had gotten the disease].

I think the kind of burden of proof shifting along the lines of Summers v. Tice would be appropriate. Thus, here, a member of the defendant class would have the opportunity to, say, prove that he could not have infected anyone.

[A]nd since its a negligence claim, you target the homeowners insurance policy. Anti-vaxers insurance rates will rise to internalize the cost of non-vaccination.

Summers v. Tice is a famous tort case in which plaintiff was allowed to recover from his two fellow hunters, when he was injured by one of them but it wasnt clear which one. Usually, a plaintiff has to show that theres a greater than 50% chance that the particular defendant he is suing caused his injury; but in this instance the court relaxed the requirement. (I include an edited version of Summers below.)

Im skeptical about my friends theory. Summers, I think, is a limited exception to the general tort law rule that the plaintiff must show that his injury was likely caused by the defendant. And I doubt that Summers would be extended to a situation such as communicable disease, given how unrelated and variegated the potential tortfeasors are, how many there are, and how unlikely each one is to have injured this particular plaintiff.

I agree that if you know that D has infected P, and D failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent this (e.g., getting vaccinated), this would be tortious under normal negligence principles. (This is often litigated in sexually transmitted disease cases, but historically that came out of other communicable disease cases, where the source of the infection was known; the principle dates back to the late 1800s and early 1900s.) But if a plaintiff is suing everyone who hasnt been vaccinated and has contracted the disease some of whom had more serious forms of the disease and some of whom had less serious forms, some of whom spent a lot of time during their illness around other people and some of whom spent less, and nearly of all whom are likely not to have caused plaintiffs illness, directly or indirectly I dont think the Summers theory would or should apply to defendants.

Indeed, this pretty closely tracks the way the law deals with pollution. In some situations, particular polluters can indeed be sued under general tort law principles for harm to particular plaintiffs. But in large part because of the difficulty proving causation, the tort route is often unavailable. The law has (generally) dealt with this not by relaxing the causation requirement, but by setting up a regulatory scheme requiring polluters to take various steps to diminish pollution.

And I think pollution in general is a good metaphor for non-vaccination. Factories sometimes emit chemical pollutants. Factory owners have a legal duty to take various reasonable steps to reduce the risk and magnitude of such emissions.

Read more from the original source:

Volokh Conspiracy: Not vaccinating = failure to reasonably avoid polluting

I do not recall, when I was growing up or as a young adult, ever thinking that the issue of vaccinations was a political issue. Now, thanks to the infusion of libertarian sensibilities into the body politic, and a culture in which choice is always the ace of trumps, vaccinations are a political football. It is to weep.

First, there was Gov. Chris Christie on a trip to the United Kingdom. He was trying to demonstrate his foreign policy bona fides I suppose, and certainly the issue of vaccines was not on the top of his list of things to be prepared to discuss while taking questions in the streets of London. But, the sudden outburst of measles stateside, which unlike Ebola is highly contagious, led to the question and, in his answer, Christie gave an unnecessary nod to parental choice. Somewhere, deep in the recesses of his intellect, there was a default switch that clicked on: When discussing family issues, do not forget to mention parental choice. And so he did. And so he looked very foolish.

Gov. Christie is not a libertarian in any meaningful sense of the word. But, Sen. Rand Paul swims in those waters, indeed we could say he was baptized politically in those waters. As if on cue, and ignoring the fact that for vaccines to achieve their medical benefit, we all have to take them, Sen. Paul turned to his binary view of the world in which the state is Leviathan, eager to devour first your rights and then, apparently, your children. The state doesnt own your children, he said eagerly. Parents own the children. And it is an issue of freedom and public health. The choice of the verb own to describe the relationship between children and parents is a little frightening. And, he does not square freedom and public health, which may make separate conclusions, on this issue, just leaves them out there like exclamation marks in search of a sentence.

The episode shows everything that is deplorable about libertarianism. First, and I invite my conservative Catholic friends to take special note of this, in Sen. Pauls binary vision of the state versus individual freedom there is as little room for civil society, and the Church, as there is in your worst collectivist nightmare. If it is all one or the other, there is no role for mediating institutions or, at least, they will quickly be relegated to the sidelines of political and intellectual discourse. Before the god freedom, all libertarians bow and grovel.

Second, as was pointed out by E.J. Dionne on one of the talk shows last night, the episode highlights another problem with libertarianism. While it can provide a certain cast of mind with a neat, tidy intellectual framework for explaining the world, once libertarianism gets applied to reality, it tends not to bear up very well. The real world exhibits nuance and conflicting values that must be weighed, it has exceptions to be sure, but more than exceptions it has an uncanny knack for requiring similar ideals to be applied differently in different situations. As an ideological construct, I am not much of a fan of libertarianism, but even if you are, you need to recognize, as Sen. Paul never really does, that in the application of those ideas, libertarianism tends to become either too rigid or too brittle to work.

When Pope Francis says that reality is superior to ideas, he is telling us Catholics something very important about the very heart of our faith. Our incarnational faith certainly recognizes the importance and value of reason, but it tethers reason to both faith on the one hand and real-lived experience on the other. Pope Benedict XVI emphasized this as well, stating in the opening sentences of his first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est: We have come to believe in God's love: in these words the Christian can express the fundamental decision of his life. Being Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction. Saint John's Gospel describes that event in these words: God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should ... have eternal life (3:16). The historic vocation of the Catholic Church in civil society is to provide a bulwark against any ideology that denies the human persons transcendence. And, in our day, the principle method of denying such transcendence is choice and freedom understood as ideological constructs and political tools.

Let us be clear: This cuts against both the left and the right. It always makes me laugh when I watch MSNBC and they are discussing abortion and they warn against the dangers of having the government in the examining room and then you flip to Fox, and they are discussing the Affordable Care Act and they, too, frighten everyone with the prospect of the government in the examining room. Neither side seems to even recognize the irony because their fear of government intrusion is not principled in the least.

Libertarians, at least, get high marks for consistency. But, in a culture in which choice is the preeminent value, there are many, many things that culture cannot accomplish because they require everyone to buy in, if I may be permitted a commercial metaphor. Vaccines are ones such issue. They dont work if only half the population gets them. To work, the compliance rate has to be above 97%. Of course, in Europe, where medical care actually is socialized, very few countries require vaccinations but they have an almost 100% compliance rate nonetheless. Sen. Paul can put that sociological datum into his libertarian pipe and smoke it.

Which leads to one other aspect of libertarianism today: I do not know what they have been smoking, but they have a penchant for embracing some really bizarre ideas. In an interview yesterday, Sen. Paul did his best imitation of former Cong. Michelle Bachmann. She once said that she knew a woman whose child was vaccinated and the vaccine caused mental retardation. Yesterday, Sen. Paul noted there were many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines. Really? This is the medical equivalent of the Gold Standard, which many libertarians also embrace, or the idea that mammoth new trees can be genetically created to deal with climate change. Libertarianism seems almost uniquely to be the part of American politics where conspiracy theories and other idiocies find fertile soil.

That said, both parties suffer from the libertarian impulse, but the danger for the Republican Party is the more imminent in part because their whole party has indulged libertarian sensibilities on economic issues which tend to dominate politics these days. The problems our nation faces will not be solved by making choice more available we have plenty of choices. The problems are nation faces can only be addressed if we delineate, carefully and with a view towards real world consequences, what obligations we owe to each other and to future generations, always defending mans freedom to be sure, but balancing that freedom with a recognition that the transcendence of the human person is evidenced not primarily in an exercise of choice, but in the exercise of love. The experience of transcendence begins with transcending the individual with the family, then the community, and latterly, the society and beyond. Invoking choice and freedom as a battering ram is only half the equation and there is no society that can long stand on one leg.

Read more:

The latest news... right to your inbox. Sign up for NCR email alerts .