Libertarian 101 - What is a Libertarian and Libertarianism?
Alex Merced explains what libertarianism is in it #39;s simplest sense. Learn more about libertarianism at libertarian101.com.
By: Alex Merced
Read more here:
Libertarian 101 - What is a Libertarian and Libertarianism? - Video
The next two years are crucial for the Republican Party. They been defeated in two straight presidential elections and some question the future of the GOP.
They have put up fairly weak candidates in John McCain and Mitt Romney, have successfully be painted as the party of "no" and have been blamed for the last government shutdown.
However, the 2014 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) sent an important message to the party. If the message isnt followed, the party will soon collapse.
That message? The party is moving in the libertarian direction.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky), a freshman that has pushed many libertarian causes, won the yearly straw poll conducted at CPAC in a landslide. Paul garnered 31 percent of the vote, while second place Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) finished a distant second, only receiving 11 percent.
Politico says that while only 2,459 votes were cast, nearly 50 percent of those votes were made by those in the 18-25 age group.
This result is more than just more talk for political pundits. It shows what the Republican Party must do in order to achieve success in future elections.
The ever-growing libertarian movement is making a large impact in the GOP, and Paul is quickly becoming the face of this movement. These people, including myself, are less conservative on social issues and are becoming more attractive to the young voter.
They generally push for civil liberties, decriminalization of marijuana, restraint in foreign affairs, and allowing gay marriage. The agenda is one that speaks of freedom, both for your wallet and for your life.
Other results from the CPAC straw poll reveal more libertarian leanings.
Follow this link:
Poverty is back in the news, for several reasons. The first is the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon Johnsons 1964 War on Poverty speech. In addition, Republican congressman and 2012 vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan has released a much-criticized report about federal poverty programs. In 2012 the Romney-Ryan ticket suffered from Mitt Romneys dismissive comments about the 47 percent and conservative caricatures of the poor as welfare-dependent moochers and takers. Ryans attempt at a version of what George W. Bush called compassionate conservatism appears to be an effort at rebranding the right as something other than an alliance of Have-Lots and Have-Somes against Have-Nots.
Public debate about poverty typically focuses on the causes of poverty, rather than the cures. The causes of poverty are many and various. You may be poor because you are the child of poor parents; or because you grew up in an economically distressed urban or rural region; or because you were bankrupted by unexpected medical bills; or because you lost all your money gambling on imaginary real estate in Second Life (this actually occurred, in a case of which I know). Because poverty has multiple causes, policies must be equally numerous, if the goal is to avert or prevent poverty in the future.
But its not necessary to avert or prevent poverty in the future in order to cure the poverty that already exists in the present, for whatever reason. Let me illustrate this point with an example. The treatment of victims of gunshot wounds in the emergency room may be identical even though one gunshot wound was caused by a shooting in the course of a robbery, another by a failed suicide attempt and a third by reckless play with a firearm. Doctors and nurses can treat the victims of the gunshot wounds now, while leaving others to propose better policing, better suicide-prevention counseling and better firearm safety training in the future.
Fortunately, drastically reducing existing poverty in the U.S. is not a difficult intellectual problem, even though it is a difficult political problem. With sufficient political will, we could slash existing poverty in the U.S. very quickly, while simultaneously trying to prevent as much poverty as possible in the future. Some public policy problems, like averting global warming or regulating shadow banking, are incredibly complex. By comparison, antipoverty policy is simple.
We know exactly what we need to do to radically reduce poverty in America. We know that it could be done, and we know how to do it, because many other First World democracies have slashed poverty already.
Among developed nations, the U.S. is an outlier in having a high proportion of its population living in poverty. Among the 34 member nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), in 2010 on average 11.1 percent of the population suffer from relative income poverty. In the U.S. , however, the number is 17.4 percent. Among developed countries, only Chile (18%), Turkey (19.3%), Mexico (20.4%) and Israel (20.9%) have more of their people living in poverty, according to the OECD.
The low-poverty nations tend to be Scandinavian countries like Sweden (9.1%), Norway (7.5%), Finland (7.3%) and Denmark (6.0%). Some on the right argue that it is wrong to compare small, relatively homogeneous countries with a giant, pluralistic, continental society like the U.S. Others argue that the English-speaking countries as a whole are willing to tolerate more poverty and inequality than the Nordic social democracies.
The numbers dont support these arguments. Among the most populous Western states are France (7.9%) and Germany (8.8%), both of which have around half as many people in poverty as the U.S., notwithstanding their own growing immigrant populations. And while all English-speaking countries tend to be less statist than continental European societies, all of the other anglophone nations have considerably less poverty than the U.S., including Australia (14.4%) and Canada (11.9 %). Indeed, three English-speaking countries Ireland (9.0%), the UK (10.0 %) and New Zealand (10.3%) have fewer citizens in poverty than the OECD average in 2010 of 11.1%.
How do other countries do it? They dont necessarily have fewer poor people to begin with. According to an OECD study, with respect to pre-tax, pre-transfer poverty, the U.S., at 13, ranked in the middle of 26 high-income nations. When it comes to post-tax, post-transfer poverty, however, the U.S. was nearly the worst, second only to Israel.
The difference is entirely the result of government social spending on the poor mostly in the form of transfer payments, like public pensions, unemployment insurance, child subsidies and/or wage subsidies. Many other developed democracies start out with lots of poor people, just like the U.S. But the countries with big welfare states remove most of them from poverty. The American welfare state does lower the poverty rate but not enough. The American welfare state is way too small to be effective in doing its job of lowering poverty.
Original post:
Paul Ryans worst nightmare: Heres the real way to cut poverty in America
Bryan Cutsinger "Philosophic Structure of Libertarianism" March 8, 2014
Bryan Cutsinger "Philosophic Structure of Libertarianism" March 8, 2014.
By: Liberty Toastmasters North
Read the original:
Bryan Cutsinger "Philosophic Structure of Libertarianism" March 8, 2014 - Video
Snowden's leaks about NSA surveillance have launched a broad discussion about civil liberties, and Rand Paulis using civil liberties and NSA overreach as themes with which to frame his brand of libertarianism.
Will Edward Snowden affect the 2016 presidential race? Yes, its early yet, so in some ways the question appears very premature. But Snowdens leaks about the extent of National Security Agency surveillance have launched a wide-ranging discussion about civil liberties in the US. And its already clear that the issue could play a part in the contest for the Republican presidential nomination in particular.
Washington Editor
Peter Grier is The Christian Science Monitor's Washington editor. In this capacity, he helps direct coverage for the paper on most news events in the nation's capital.
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
Click Here for your FREE 30 DAYS of The Christian Science Monitor Weekly Digital Edition
Thats because Sen. Rand Paul (R) of Kentucky is using civil liberties and NSA overreach as themes with which to frame his brand of libertarianism. This was on full display at the just-completed Conservative Political Action Conference in suburban Washington, D.C. Senator Pauls speech was almost entirely about the NSA and what he sees as its infringement on the rights of Americans.
Paul said the American Revolutions sons of liberty would make a bonfire of the secret orders that authorize NSA actions. In a reference to NSA monitoring of cell phone metadata, he said that I believe what you do on your cell phone is none of their [expletive] business.
Paul brought up the lawsuit hes filed against the NSA for its activities, and said he was talking about electing lovers of liberty, not just Republicans.
Dont forget, there is a great battle going on for the heart and soul of America, Paul said.
See the original post here:
Will Edward Snowden affect presidential race? Rand Paul hopes so.
Snowden's leaks about NSA surveillance have launched a broad discussion about civil liberties, and Rand Paulis using civil liberties and NSA overreach as themes with which to frame his brand of libertarianism.
Will Edward Snowden affect the 2016 presidential race? Yes, its early yet, so in some ways the question appears very premature. But Snowdens leaks about the extent of National Security Agency surveillance have launched a wide-ranging discussion about civil liberties in the US. And its already clear that the issue could play a part in the contest for the Republican presidential nomination in particular.
Washington Editor
Peter Grier is The Christian Science Monitor's Washington editor. In this capacity, he helps direct coverage for the paper on most news events in the nation's capital.
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
Click Here for your FREE 30 DAYS of The Christian Science Monitor Weekly Digital Edition
Thats because Sen. Rand Paul (R) of Kentucky is using civil liberties and NSA overreach as themes with which to frame his brand of libertarianism. This was on full display at the just-completed Conservative Political Action Conference in suburban Washington, D.C. Senator Pauls speech was almost entirely about the NSA and what he sees as its infringement on the rights of Americans.
Paul said the American Revolutions sons of liberty would make a bonfire of the secret orders that authorize NSA actions. In a reference to NSA monitoring of cell phone metadata, he said that I believe what you do on your cell phone is none of their [expletive] business.
Paul brought up the lawsuit hes filed against the NSA for its activities, and said he was talking about electing lovers of liberty, not just Republicans.
Dont forget, there is a great battle going on for the heart and soul of America, Paul said.
Link:
Will Edward Snowden affect presidential race? Rand Paul hopes so. (+video)
SFL Webinar Series: "Libertarianism and Peace" with Tom G. Palmer
Students For Liberty joined students from all over the world on Thursday February 27th at 8pm ET for a webinar discussion led by Dr. Tom G. Palmer, Executive...
By: StudentsForLiberty
See the rest here:
SFL Webinar Series: "Libertarianism and Peace" with Tom G. Palmer - Video
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
National Harbor, Maryland (CNN) -- It would be a mistake to read too much into the speeches, breakout sessions and late-night parties that took place at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference.
Thousands of right-leaning activists made the pilgrimage here this year, to a convention hall outside the nation's capital. They were greeted, as they are every year, by a bevy of candidates, bloggers, political operatives and more than a few hucksters out to make a buck.
But it's tough to glean any sweeping insight into the state of the conservative movement just by hanging out at CPAC for a few days and talking to its most rock-ribbed and outspoken partisans.
And yet: The confluence of big name Republican speakers -- many of them potential White House contenders -- makes the three-day event impossible to ignore.
CPAC crowd chants, 'Run, Sarah, run!'
Here are five big takeaways from CPAC 2014:
1. This is Rand's house: Rand Paul's blowout win in the presidential straw poll Saturday -- he won more than a third of the vote, easily besting second-place finisher Ted Cruz -- cemented his place as the King of CPAC.
Rand Paul convincingly wins CPAC straw poll
Paul's address here on Friday, unapologetically heavy with libertarian sentiment, was far and away the best-received speech of the weekend. The room was packed and Paul, wearing jeans, was interrupted repeatedly by standing ovations. After his appearance, he joined his wife, Kelley, across the street from the convention center at a packed restaurant for an open bar happy hour with fired-up supporters.
Link:
Freedom or Slavery? The Debate between Libertarianism/Voluntarism and Social Democrats/Socialists
Corey from newamericangovernment.org address the lack of clearness of terms that socialists use when debating vs libertarians. Read more about libertarianism...
By: governmentrepair
Read this article:
Libertarianism - Cast your Vote!
Edited by Alex Gonzalez Featured: Jake W. Calle, Robert Styles, Ben J. Jackson #46.
By: Alex Gonzalez
See original here:
Disagreeing with libertarianism 2
Does libertarianism really look toward results?
By: HowBlairYou
Go here to see the original:
John Glaser and Scott Horton - Libertarianism vs the Empire
"Libertarianism vs. the Empire" by John Glaser and Scott Horton was a speech sponsored by The Future of Freedom Foundation February 15, 2014 at the 2014 Inte...
By: Scott Horton
Here is the original post:
John Glaser and Scott Horton - Libertarianism vs the Empire - Video
Sen. Rand Paul on Wednesday pitched a socially conservative crowd on his brand of libertarianism, speaking in greater detail than usual about what that philosophy would include.
The Kentucky Republican, a likely 2016 contender, addressed a Four Seasons ballroom in Georgetown where Gov. Rick Perry (R-Texas), Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.), who is running for Senate, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council were all in attendance, among other leading conservatives. The GOP mega-donor Foster Friess and his wife were named as the legacy sponsors in the event program for the Weyrich Awards Dinner, named for the late conservative leader Paul Weyrich.
We need to extend our message to people who havent been listening to us, Paul told the crowd. To me, thats a message that may have a libertarian twist, which I think is the same as liberty, or Bill of Rights. It means the Fourth Amendment is as important as the Second Amendment, the Fifth Amendments important, the Sixth Amendment, the right to trial by jury.
(DRIVING THE DAY: Inside Reid, Cantors power plays)
The senator has long been urging the GOP to expand its tent to make minorities and young people feel comfortable. He singled out, as he has before, racial disparities in drug sentencing.
We need to be the party that says were not compromising on balancing budgets and lowering taxes and less regulations, he said. But why dont we be the party that has some compassion for people that arent being treated fairly by the criminal justice system?
Read the original here:
Mail bag # 2: Talking to friends about libertarianism, Stalkers, Challenges with show, Suggestions
Mail bag # 2: Talking to friends about libertarianism, Stalkers, Challenges with show, Suggestions Twitter: https://twitter.com/TruthRevolt FaceBook: https:/...
By: Aaron TruthRevoltNEWS
Read the original:
These days, to even suggest the possibility that a fiscally conservative economic outlook is compatible with faith is a matter of hypocrisy.
"I am afraid that (Rep. Paul) Ryan's budget reflects the values of his favorite philosopher, Ayn Rand, rather than the gospel of Jesus Christ," the Rev. Thomas Reese of Georgetown University told The Huffington Post not so long ago. "Survival of the fittest may be OK for social Darwinists, but not for followers of the gospel of compassion and love."
Surely, you recall this Bible passage: "Then the Lord said to Moses, 'Smite the supply-sider. I will utterly blot out the memory of all who back block grants from under heaven.'"
So it's refreshing, then, to hear would-be fusionist Rand Paul point out the distinction libertarian critics will not. At Robert P. George's American Principles Project recently, Paul argued that a dose of libertarianism not only would help the GOP broaden its base but also would be philosophically compatible with socially conservative values.
"Libertarian and liberty doesn't mean libertine," he explained. Paul might have added that libertarianism isn't synonymous with "being uncharitable" or "selfishness" or "social Darwinism," either. He might have argued that libertarianism would do a lot more than just help orthodox Christians politically. It may even be the most conducive political philosophy for their thriving.
Obviously, for those who measure the nation's virtue by the size of the Department of Health and Human Services budget, Rand's proposition must seem absurd. Take Elizabeth Stoker, who believes that "Rand Paul's audacious new sham" is "a phony religious epiphany." She wrote in Salon:
"If what Paul intends to say here is that Christianity and libertarianism are amenable to one another because Christianity provides the moral compass libertarianism doesn't have ... the question is: Why would someone with such a commitment to Christianity ever commit themselves to a political philosophy without a similar commitment?"
Why? Because these are two distinct and often nonconflicting ideas. Though votes are often informed by a person's faith, for many Americans, a political philosophy isn't a religion. I'm no theological scholar, but I tend to believe that one can do good works without supporting a top marginal tax rate increase. Christians commit themselves to God, which, as far as I can tell, doesn't prohibit them from supporting a political philosophy that emphasizes free will over a state-ordained "morality." No doubt, most Christians appreciate that our collective national political decisions and their personal moral compasses will not always be synchronized. That's where the religious freedom comes into play.
Should social conservatives "commit themselves" to a political philosophy that not only strives for gay equality but also seeks to impel others to participate in these new norms despite religious objections? Should they commit to a philosophy that impels them to fund contraception coverage and abortions through either direct funding or fungible dollars? A philosophy that continues to force them to send their kids to crappy public schools that often undermine their faith-based beliefs? A philosophy that attacks parents who seek alternative means of education, such as home schooling? Or should they be more interested in wedding themselves to a political philosophy that downgrades the importance of politics in everyday life and allows citizens to work together to structure their communities without interference?
The growing state, after all, not the atheist, is religion's biggest rival. And intentionally or not, government is crowding out parts of community life that have traditionally been taken care of by civil society. It's draining resources once used by communities to implement services and take care of their own. And even more destructive, perhaps, is that government is becoming a source of moral authority for so many.
See more here:
David Harsanyi Social conservatives would benefit by embracing libertarianism
Recently, some 1,500 students from all over the world gathered to discuss freedom at the Students for Liberty Conference in Washington, D.C.
Economist Donald Boudreaux showed the students a department store catalog from 1958 to underscore how the free market, while contributing to income inequality, also dramatically improved the lives of the poor: "The typical American worker back then had to work 30 hours to buy this vacuum cleaner. Today, a worker has to work only six hours to buy a much better vacuum cleaner. And that's true for clothing, food, all sorts of things."
That's how free markets work: quietly, gradually improving things. That doesn't always appeal to impatient young people or to radical old people who fancy themselves social engineers who should shape the world.
Such social engineering is revered on campuses. A student from Quebec complained that economists about whom his fellow students learn are "Keynesians, who believe that breaking windows is good for the economy, or neoclassicals, who believe in unrealistic assumptions like perfect competition and perfect information."
If there were a part of America for which the American students at this conference felt a special pride, it was the Constitution. "The Constitution of the United States is a promise about how government power will be used," Timothy Sandefur, author of "The Conscience of the Constitution," told them. "A promise was left to us by a generation who lived under tyrannical government and decided they needed a framework that would preserve the blessings of liberty."
These students appreciated that inheritance, although they said the Constitution is rarely discussed at their schools. They surprised me by knowing the correct answer to my question: How often is the word "democracy" used in the Constitution?
Answer: never. The founders understood that democracy may bring mob rule tyranny of a majority. So the Constitution focuses on restricting government to secure individual liberty.
If anything, these students were stauncher in their defense of liberty than the Founders.
Kelly Kidwell, a sophomore from Tulane University, said, "Regardless of what its intent was, we still have the (big) government that we have now so the Constitution has either provided for that government, or failed to prevent it."
That's an argument that libertarian economist Murray Rothbard used to make. He took the pessimistic view that the Constitution's "limited government" was an experiment that had already failed, since 200 years later, government was barely limited at all. He concluded that libertarians should be not just constitutionalists but anarchists get rid of government completely.
Read this article:
John Stossel Future of libertarianism bright, thanks to Students for Liberty
Does Libertarianism = Greed Selfishness?
I discuss the common objection to libertarianism claiming that it promotes greed and selfishness.
By: Josh Cardosi
Read more:
"Oliver Stone, Ayn Rand Pop Art, "Second-Wave Libertarianism": #ISFLC2014
Left-wing moviemaker Oliver Stone talking about his support for Barry Goldwater and Ron Paul. Student for Liberty #39;s Alexander McCobin laying out the basics o...
By: ReasonTV
Read the original:
"Oliver Stone, Ayn Rand Pop Art, & "Second-Wave Libertarianism": #ISFLC2014 - Video
Cathy Reisenwitz vs Julie Borowski on Stossel Debating Privilege and Libertarianism
http://cathyreisenwitz.com @CathyReisenwitz http://www.youtube.com/user/TokenLibertarianGirl @JulieBorowski.
By: Cathy Reisenwitz
Original post:
Cathy Reisenwitz vs Julie Borowski on Stossel Debating Privilege and Libertarianism - Video
Evidently sensing that the Republican Party may be in some kind of crisis, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., argued at a recent fundraiser that the GOP should embrace the tenets of his pet political philosophy, libertarianism. But Paul didnt just suggest a conversion from long-held Republican values to libertarian ones; rather he tried to make the case that libertarian values are already consonant with the moral systems that underpin many foundational Republican positions. One of his main rhetorical goals was, therefore, making Christianity and libertarianism seem compatible, to attract traditionally Christian GOP supporters to libertarian ideas.
Even leaving aside the bizarre gesture of pure convenience to Christianity, which seems to have been brought in here as a post-hoc rhetorical flourish to do little more than sweeten the libertarian pot, Paul didnt make a great case for the actual compatibility of Christianity and libertarianism.
Libertarian and liberty doesnt mean libertine, Paul claimed at the gala for the American Principles Project, referring to the tendency of libertarians to prefer government not intervene in various spheres of life, often including the realms of marriage, contraception and abortion. Paul was unclear as to whether he believes the state should have a role in the regulation of marriage and abortion, saying instead, rather cryptically, that Freedom needs tradition to give it its balance and its stability, its sense of family and community, but tradition needs freedom to invigorate it and give it spirit and excitement.
If what Paul intends to say here is that Christianity and libertarianism are amenable to one another because Christianity provides the moral compass libertarianism doesnt have that is, that one can protect marriage and defend against oft-objected to practices like abortion through the selective reference to Christian values by otherwise libertarian political agents the question is: Why would someone with such a commitment to Christianity ever commit themselves to a political philosophy without a similar commitment?
That libertarianism needs the moral framework of a separate philosophy imported into it to prevent it from becoming, as Paul put it, libertinism only indicates that libertarianism itself does not begin from the moral framework of Christianity. Instead, it requires that Christian ethics be tucked into it after the fact, if theres anywhere for them to fit. GOP Christians tempted by Pauls proselytizing should ask themselves this: If libertarianism arises out of a wholly separate ethical framework than Christianity, what authority underlies that framework, and why should they, Christians, respond to it? Moreover, why make oneself beholden to a philosophy that uses Christianity as a mere instrument to support itself morally, rather than one that responds to Christianity as its ultimate and final ethical authority?
When it came to the difficulties Paul had in making his Christo-libertarian case, this was only the tip of the iceberg. In arguing for his oft-cited policies of prison and sentencing reform, he said, As Christians who believe in forgiveness, noting that overly long sentences and penalties such as felon disenfranchisement violate that principle and harm those who deserve a second chance. Here, Paul seems right on the money: The reality for Christians is that the guiltiest are those most in need of mercy and forgiveness, and our current justice system promotes neither value, resulting in the unnecessary destruction of so many lives and communities.
Yet Pauls reasoning here doesnt stand up to the scrutiny of consistent application, which weakens his claim that libertarianism and Christianity are well-committed philosophies. Hes willing, for example, to have mercy on those guilty of crimes by reducing prison sentences, returning felons the right to vote, and doing away with mandatory minimum sentences. This all fits well with Christs call for service to the least of these outsiders, criminals, the poor, the hungry, the sick. But what does Paul imagine in terms of shaping the state to show mercy to people in those other categories? What provisions should the state make for, say, the sick and the poor?
In these arenas, Pauls interest in mercy and the justice of the Gospel seems to mysteriously dry up.
Consider his policy on the delivery of healthcare, as described to a group of University of Louisville medical students in 2013: I think we as physicians have an obligation. As Christians, we have an obligation I really believe that, and its a deep-held belief But I dont think you have a right to my labor. You dont have a right to anyone elses labor. Pauls gambit here was to define healthcare not as a right but as something altogether different and unenforceable. Of course, no one proposes any healthcare policy that would force doctors to labor, only those that would offer doctors money to work, a system under which they already presumably operate; in universal healthcare plans, the payment would just come from a different source than insurance companies or individuals. But Paul is clear: While physicians might have some kind of vague moral obligation to lend a hand to the poor, the state should not, in his view, legitimize that duty by expanding universal healthcare to all. Why the state should exemplify and extend Christian forgiveness and mercy to the criminal but not the ill is anyones guess.
The same curious hesitance toward outreach applies to Pauls policies on poverty. His solution for aiding the impoverished in America? Economic freedom zones, or areas targeted for tax decreases and other incentives to create jobs and generate wealth. Unfortunately for Paul, this hands-off approach to reducing poverty has been tried, tested and proven to fail, featuring no significant difference in economic growth or job creation inside the enterprise zones from the surrounding area.
More: