Category Archives: Libertarian

Being Libertarian

China Begins Talks to Regulate Bitcoin Being Libertarian China's central bank held a meeting on Wednesday with several different Bitcoin exchanges amidst rumors that China could begin to strengthen regulations and oversight of digital currencies. Representatives from China's digital currency trading venues ... China Central Bank Said to Call Bitcoin Exchanges for TalksBloomberg all 41 news articles »

Here is the original post:

China Begins Talks to Regulate Bitcoin - Being Libertarian

Being Libertarian

Does The United States Lack Innocence? Being Libertarian During President Trump's recent appearance on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly was startled by the President's respect for Russian President Vladimir Putin. O'Reilly remarked to Trump that Putin was a killer, and Trump replied by saying ...

Read more:

Does The United States Lack Innocence? - Being Libertarian

Being Libertarian

Digital Privacy Further Eroded By US Dept. of Justice Being Libertarian A U.S. magistrate ruled this past Friday that Google has to comply with FBI search warrants seeking customer emails stored on their company servers located outside of the USA, despite a prior court ruling in July of 2016 stating that the government is ... and more »

Read the original here:

Digital Privacy Further Eroded By US Dept. of Justice - Being Libertarian

UPDATED (2:20 P.M.): The Texas state senator in question below turns out to be a complicated matter; it could be as many as four, three of whom are Republicans. Scroll down for new information.

Donald Trump campaigned as "the law and order" candidate, so it's not surprising that he is likely to govern as one, too.

Still, when it comes to the issue of civil-asset forfeiture laws, even the dirtiest of Dirty Harry wannabes will grant there's something really creepy about the cops and the courts having the ability to take your stuff without even charging you with anything, much less convicting you of anything.

But here's an exchange via the Twitter feed of CNBC's Steve Kopack that should send chills down the spineand bile up the windpipeof every American who gives a damn about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and whether or not Lady Gaga included "under God" during her satanic Super Bowl incantations (she did).

Civil-asset forfeiture, which often doesn't require any sort of criminal charge, is big bucks. As Scott Shackford has noted, in 2014, the FBI alone snatched up $5 billion in seized assets. It's common for local police departments to grab whatever they can from whomever they can (often, the relatives or friends of people assumed to be drug dealers and the like). C.J. Ciaramella took a long, disturbing look at the way the state of Mississippi gilds its budget with seized assets.

Again, we're not talking about drug lords who are charged, have their assets frozen, are found guilty, and then have their assets sold at auction to pay reparations, or anything like that. The way a ton of asset forfeiture works is that the cops, or a prosecutor, or somebody else takes your stuff, claiming that it's connected to some sort of illegal activity. You may or may not be involved in anything illegal, but it's on you to get your stuff back. The likely next attorney general, Sen. Jeff Sessions, is a big fan of asset forfeiture, so it's likely to be an issue, even in states that are trying to rein it in. And it should be reined in, like a crazy horse: It's not about law and order, it's about unaccountable power.

Konni Burton, Texas ObserverThe Texas state senator referred to in the video above appears to be Konni Burton of Colleyville. Get this, too: She's a libertarian-leaning Republican and here's how she explained the situation to the Texas Observer:

"Right now, law enforcement can seize property under civil law, and it denies people their basic rights," said Burton, who sits on the Senate Criminal Justice Committee. "There's a basic problem with this process that I want to correct."...

Now it's uniting politicians who might not otherwise be willing to break bread, according to Matt Simpson, senior policy strategist for ACLU Texas.

"It's an issue that crosses party lines; it's not Democrat versus Republican or liberal versus conservative," he told the Observer, adding that he hasn't "seen a bill we wouldn't support in relation to civil asset forfeiture reform, especially some of the stronger ones."

Local police departments and other law enforcement agencies in Texas get about $42 million a year from seized assets, creating a moral hazard that even Donald Trump would recognize. And as far as ruining Burton's careeror that of anyone else involved in the effortthe president might want to consider that regular Americans understand that there's been a massive decrease in violent and property crime over the past couple of decades. These days, people are often worried about how bullying authorities are likely to act, creating a bipartisan push for all sorts of criminal-justice reform.

Hat tip: BalkansBohemia's Twitter feed.

Update: Various Texas media sources say that it's not actually clear whom Trump and Sheriff Harold Eavenson are discussing in the video clip above. Eavenson has refused to name the senator directly and now the Dallas Morning News reports that in addition to Burton, other possible senators include en. Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa (D-McAllen), Bob Hall (R-Rockwall), and Don Huffines (R-Dallas).

"He was just being emphatic that he did not agree with that senator's position," Eavenson said, adding of the senator in question, "I'm not into assassinating his character."

Eavenson will become president of the National Sheriff's Association in June. He has been active in the Sheriff's Association of Texas.

Well, sure, maybe. Then again, the fact that there are so many suspects underscores how unpopular civil-asset forfeiture is across traditional political parties.

See original here:

Updated! Meet the Libertarian-Leaning GOP Texas State Senator[s] Whose Career[s] Donald Trump Wants To Destroy - Reason (blog)

Laura Ingalls Wilder as a schoolteacher, c. 1887. (Credit: Fine Art Images/Heritage Images/Getty Images)

Born on the American frontier on February 7, 1867, Laura Ingalls Wilder turned her memories of being a pioneer girl into the Little House on the Prairie books, one of the most popular childrens series of all time. Unknown to many, however, is that Wilder didnt write the books alone. On the 150th anniversary of Wilders birth, learn about her secret collaborator on the Little House on the Prairie books and her little-known connection to the Libertarian Party.

Laura Ingalls Wilder wasnt your typical debut novelist when her first book, Little House in the Big Woods, was published in 1932. She was 65 years old, decades removed from the childhood memories that provided the foundation for her colorful story of hardship, adventure and survival on the Wisconsin frontier that struck a chord in Depression-era America.

Children devoured the wholesome tales celebrating family, self-reliance, hard work and neighbor helping neighbor. There had never been anything like this for children, telling them what the pioneer daysa time in history that was still pretty recentwere like, says Christine Woodside, author of the new book Libertarians on the Prairie: Laura Ingalls Wilder, Rose Wilder Lane, and the Making of the Little House Books.

Wilder authored seven more books over the next 11 years, including Little House on the Prairie, which chronicled the exploits of the itinerant Ingalls family as they endured everything from blizzards of grasshoppers to plagues of snow as they rattled westward in their covered wagon across the wilderness and plains of the upper Midwest in the late 1800s before finally settling in the Dakota Territory.

While only the name of Laura Ingalls Wilder was emblazoned on the book covers of one of the most popular series in American literary history, scholars researching her family papers slowly came to the conclusion in the decades following her 1957 death that the beloved stories of Pa, Ma and sisters Mary, Carrie and Grace were the product of not just one womanbut two.

Unknown to readers at the time, Wilder secretly received considerable assistance from her only adult child, Rose Wilder Lane. While Wilder was an unknown author when Little House in the Big Woods was published, Lane was one of the most famous female writers in the United States, having penned novels, biographies of Charlie Chaplin and Herbert Hoover and short stories for magazines such as Harpers, Cosmopolitan and Ladies Home Journal.

Unlike her mother, however, Lane had little affinity for the hardscrabble life of the American heartland and left the familys Missouri farm as a teenager, eventually moving to San Francisco. Able to speak five languages, she traveled extensively and by the 1920s was living in Albania in a large house staffed by servants. Although she always had a tense relationship with her mother, Lane began to long for home and returned to the family farm in 1928.

Knowing a good story when she heard one, Lane prodded her mother to put her childhood experiences to paper. Wilder, however, had little literary experience outside of pieces that she wrote for rural newspapers. Lane, though, knew how to make a manuscript sing and hold chapters together, and she used her contacts in the publishing industry to sell Little House in the Big Woods.

Laura had lived the life. She had the memory. However, she didnt have any experience making a novel, Woodside tells HISTORY. Rose knew how to do that. They were each crucial to the book. Laura couldnt have written the books without Rose, and Rose couldnt have written them without Laura.

Lane not only polished her mothers prose but infused Wilders stoic outlook with the joy and optimism that connected with many readers. The authors secret collaborator also sanitized Wilders real-life experiences for an audience of children, scrubbing away the hard edges such as the death of a baby brother at 9 months of age and replacing stories of murders on the frontier with images of swimming holes and bonneted girls in dresses skipping through tall grasses and wildflowers.

Woodsides book also shines light on the political views of Wilder and her secret collaborator that were below the surface of the Little House series. Like many Americans, the Wilders were hit hard by the Great Depression. Both mother and daughter were dismayed with President Franklin D. Roosevelts New Deal and what they saw as Americans increasing dependence on the federal government. A life-long Democrat, Wilder grew disenchanted with her party and resented government agents who came to farms like hers and grilled farmers about the amount of acres they were planting.

They both hated the New Deal, Woodside says of Wilder and Lane. They thought the government was interfering in peoples lives, that individuals during the Depression were becoming very whiny and werent grabbing hold of their courage. The climate of America was really irritating them. The New Deal, for a lot of farmers and definitely the Wilders, made them change their politics.

An acquaintance of Ayn Rand and a critic of Keynesian economics, Lane would become an early theorist of the fledgling political movement that would eventually form the Libertarian Party in 1971. Neither woman set out to indoctrinate children with their political views, but their beliefs in individual freedom, free markets and limited government can be seen in the pages of the Little House books. Lane didnt explicitly use it as a political manifesto, Woodside says. She was being who she was, and they both felt strongly that the pioneers should be examples to people. It was inevitable she was going to flesh out the story by focusing things like free-market forces at work in the general store and farmers being free and independent.

While the Little House books emphasized self-reliance, at least two instances of government assistance that benefited the Ingalls family were downplayed. In addition to receiving their land in the Dakota Territory through the Homestead Act, it was the Dakota Territory that paid for the tuition of Mary Ingalls at the Iowa School for the Blind for seven years. Its an inconvenient fact, Woodside says. Rose suppressed that detail.

Ultimately, close quarters and close collaboration caused the fault lines between mother and daughter to reappear. The pair became estranged, and Lane moved to Connecticut, where in 1943 she wrote The Discovery of Freedom: Mans Struggle Against Authority, considered to be a libertarian manifesto. By World War II, Lane refused a ration card, grew and canned most of her food and deliberately curtailed her writing in order to pay as little tax as possible.

After inheriting the royalty rights to the Little House series after Wilders death in 1957, Lane donated money to the Freedom School in Colorado, a free-market academy that taught libertarian theory. When she died suddenly in 1968, future Little House royalties were bequeathed to her sole heir and political disciple, lawyer Roger Lea MacBride. In addition to becoming the first person to cast an electoral vote for a Libertarian Party ticket in 1972, MacBride was the Libertarian Party candidate for president four years later.

Both mother and daughter carried the secret of their collaboration to their graves. By the time a new generation of children were becoming exposed to Wilders stories through the Little House on the Prairie television show, on which MacBride served as a co-creator and co-producer, scholars were learning of the partnership from the womens letters and diaries. Laura and Rose were very clearly collaborators from day one on these books, Woodside says. Our understanding and celebrating that is essential to understanding why these books are so wonderful.

Continue reading here:

Little Libertarians on the Prairie: The Hidden Politics Behind a ... - History

This Futile Goal Is Not What Our Founders Wanted For Us

Nothing, no matter what it is, will ever be perfect.

Herein lies the problem we have in America; we want everything to be perfect! However, this is not rational, and is quite frankly ridiculous, when it comes to realism and our individual freedoms.

Perfectionism requires the removal of individual freedoms to attain a societal goal of perfect peace, protection, and safety. This is, literally, impossible to accomplish, because every one of us is a unique individual.

The preamble of our Constitution should have been the last time the phrase to form a more perfect anything was ever used.

As a nation, we strive like hell in every effort to make our cities, our states, and our country more perfect. We do this by continuously passing an avalanche of city ordinances, state statutes, and federal laws all in the supposed name of public safety, to control every aspect of our individual lives.

It is a futile attempt, however, because it is based on control. You cannot, through government control or any other fashion, make anything or anyone perfectly safe and secure. In short, you cannot legislate morality for individuals.

Plato once said Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws. We have so many laws at the local, state, and federal levels, that no one can even keep up with all of them anymore. How is the average citizen supposed to know every single law in existence, when even judges and attorneys have to look them up?

To attempt to create such an environment of control over the citizenry equates to socialism or totalitarianism. It creates an invisible prison that most of the public dont even realize they are living in. This is quite the opposite of what our founders envisioned, and is why all victimless crimes quite frankly need to die in a fire.

Throughout history, whenever those in power sought to control the masses they eventually failed, no matter what means they used (except for North Korea because theyll just kill you instead). Any empire attempting to enforce perfection eventually crumbled, for various reasons.

One of the reasons why Rome fell was because it started more wars than it could afford, in an effort to control the world.

When are we going to learn from our own world history, this does not work? You cant have the level of freedom our founders meant for us to have, and at the same time, allow the government so much control over our personal lives that we dont know when we may be breaking the law in some idiotic, victimless crime. When will we learn that allowing people to be free in their pursuits, as our founders said, is the only way to perpetuate a long lasting and successful society and country?

We have the 2nd Amendment for a reason, and that is so individuals, not the government, can take care of ourselves.

The far right love the law, and those that enforce it, your rights be damned! I cannot tell you how many times one of my hard-core right wing friends would say f*ck their rights, or screw the 4th Amendment, I dont care when referencing a criminal act of another American; all while hypocritically claiming to love the Bill of Rights and be an avid 2nd Amendment supporter.

The far-left hate laws all together and want complete freedom with no rules at all. They then, hypocritically, want big government to take care of them in a never-ending system of welfare.

Neither of these systems can, or will, work long term; our founders understood this. To quote Thomas Jefferson The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining, nor aiding them in their pursuits. I would argue that this same idea should be applied to the state and local governments as well today. I mean this sincerely.

I know its a lot of reading, but seriously, take the time to read what our founders wanted for us. Here are some links to the actual words they spoke, rather than random memes you read on social media.

Our country is in massive disarray. Not because of Trump (I mean hell I voted for him), but because of decades upon decades of policies and laws that were never meant to exist in the first place.

Rediscover what Liberty means again!

* Shane Foster has worked his entire career in military, law enforcement, corrections, and as a private investigator. He has a unique perspective into how law enforcement and our judicial system operates from within its ranks, as well as knowledge on our privacy laws, in which, every day, our individual freedoms and liberties are gradually taken away from us and our individual rights are abused.

The main BeingLibertarian.com account, used for editorials and guest author submissions. The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions. Contact the Editor at editor@beinglibertarian.email

Like Loading...

Read more:

Perfectionism Is Insanity And Impossible To Accomplish - Being Libertarian

February 6, 2017 by Edwin G. Dolan

Edwin G. Dolan is an economist and educator whose writings regularly appear at EconoMonitor.The Niskanen Center is excited to welcome him as a new Poverty and Welfare adjunct focusing on Universal Basic Income research.

In recent post on EconLog, Bryan Caplan writes, Im baffled that anyone with libertarian sympathies takes the UBI [universal basic income] seriously. I love a challenge. Let me try to un-baffle you, Bryan, and the many others who might be as puzzled as you are. Here are three kinds of libertarians who might take a UBI very seriously indeed.

Libertarian pragmatists

Philosophical issues aside, what galls many libertarians most about government is the failure of many policies to produce their intended results. Poverty policy is Exhibit A. By some calculations, the government already spends enough on poverty programs to raise all low-income families to the official poverty level, even though the poverty rate barely budges from year to year. Wouldnt it be better to spend that money in a way that helps poor people more effectively?

A UBI would help by ending the way benefit reductions and welfare cliffs in current programs undermine work incentives. When you add together the effects of SNAP, TANF, CHIP, EITC and the rest of the alphabet soup, and account for work-related expenses like transportation and child care, a worker from a poor household can end up taking home nothing, even from a full-time job. A UBI has no benefit reductions. You get it whether you work or not, so you keep every added dollar you earn (income and payroll taxes excepted, and these are low for the poor).

But, wait, you might say. Why would I work at all if you gave me a UBI? That might be a problem if you got your UBI on top of existing programs, but if it replaced those programs, work incentives would be strengthened, not weakened. In which situation would you be more likely to take a job: one where you get $800 a month as a UBI plus a chance to earn another $800 from a job, all of which you can keep, or one where your get $800 a month in food stamps and housing vouchers, and anything extra you earn is taken away in benefit reductions?

Or, you might say, a UBI might be fine for the poor, but wouldnt it be unaffordable to give it to the middle class and the rich as well? Yes, if you added it on top of all the middle-class welfare and tax loopholes for the rich that we have now. No, if the UBI replaced existing tax preferences and other programs that we now lavish on middle- and upper-income households. Done properly, a UBI would streamline the entire system of federal taxes and transfers without any aggregate impact on the federal budget.

Classical liberals

Not all of those with libertarian sympathies are anarcho-capitalist purists. Many classical liberals, even those whom purist libertarians lionize in other contexts, are more open to the idea of a social safety net as a legitimate function of a limited government.

In his book Law, Legislation, and Liberty, classical liberal Friedrich Hayek wrote,

The assurance of a certain minimum income for everyone, or a sort of floor below which nobody need fall even when he is unable to provide for himself, appears not only to be a wholly legitimate protection against a risk common to all, but a necessary part of the Great Society.

Philosophically, classical liberals see social insurance of this kind as something to which they would willingly assent if they considered it behind a veil of ignorance, where they did not know if they themselves would be born rich or poor. Once the philosophical hurdle is overcome, the practical advantages of a UBI become highly attractive. In terms of administrative efficiency and work incentives, a UBI wins hands down over the current welfare system, and beats even the negative income tax famously championed by Milton Friedman, another classical liberal,.

Lifestyle libertarians

The libertarian sympathies of still others arise from the conviction that all people should be able to live their lives according to their own values, so long as they dont interfere with the right of others to do likewise. These lifestyle libertarians are drawn to a UBI because of its contrast with the nanny state mentality that characterizes current policies. Why should social programs treat married couples differently from people living in unconventional communal arrangements? Why should welfare recipients have to undergo intrusive drug testing? Why should food stamps let you buy hamburger and feed it to your dog, but not buy dog food?

Writing for Reason.com, Matthew Feeney urges libertarians to stop arguing in principle against the redistribution of wealth. Instead, he says, scrap the welfare state and give people free money. Feeney sees a UBI as an alternative that promotes personal responsibility, reduces the humiliations associated with the current system, and reduces administrative waste in government.

So there you are. A UBI is a policy for pragmatic critics of well-intentioned but ineffective government, for classical liberals, and for advocates of personal freedom. No wonder so many libertarians take the idea seriously.

See the original post:

Why Should a Libertarian Take Universal Basic Income Seriously? - Niskanen Center (press release) (blog)

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

George Ciccariellowas the first person to claim that MILO was planning this:

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

MILO responded to Ciccariellos tweet on his Facebook shortly afterwards. This is a total fabrication. A complete lie. I had no intention of doing so. Watch out for the old reliable sources very often a sign youre being lied to, he wrote. However, this did not stop Sarwark from repeating it on his page.

Sarwark did not mention MILO by name, referring to him only as a gentleman who was scheduled to speak at a University of California campus. He decried MILOs fabricated potential actions as despicable behaviour, and even argued that it helped why others made the choice to use violence to try to stop or disrupt his speech.

Sarwark went on to say that the only thing more despicable is that we have a government that will forcibly remove peaceful people from our country because they were born on the wrong side of an imaginary line.He then went on to claim in the comments that the point holds whether the rumors are correct or not.

Unfortunately for Sarwark, not every libertarian agrees with him, and he faced significant backlash in the comments. Shane Trejo thanked God that Milo is not a coward like so many Libertarians clearly are because of smug full-of-shit pussies like Nicholas Sarwark, no self-respecting person can call even publicly themselves a libertarian these days without feeling embarrassed.

Another user agreed: It seems like libertarian, for many, is just a code word for social justice warrior.

Prominent libertarians also have contradicting views to Sarwark on the concept of open borders itself. Ron Paul, beloved by libertarians in both the LP and Republican party, has argued for the abolishing of birthright citizenship.Hans Herman Hoppe, Murray Rothbards protege, noted that open borders are an infringement on private property rights, and that people should be physically removed from a society if they provide a threat to the libertarian way of life.

Otherlibertarians raise the issue of the social ramifications of permitting mass immigration from cultures that are not friendly to libertarian ideals. Would we have allowed thousands of Bolsheviks to emigrate during the Cold War? asks libertarian commentator Lauren Southern. I dont think we would, because we knew they didnt believe in a free society. In her video, Southern applies the analogy to argue against Muslim immigrationfrom a libertarian perspective.

MILOs provided a short response to Sarwarks post: this idiot should stick to what libertarians actually know about weed, Bitcoin and hacking and leave slanderous rumor where it belongs. On CNN.

DANGEROUS is available to pre-order now via Amazon, in hardcover and Kindle editions. And yes, MILO is reading the audiobook version himself!

Jack Hadfield is a student at the University of Warwick and a regular contributor to Breitbart Tech. You can follow him on Twitter @ToryBastard_, on Gab @JH or email him at jack@yiannopoulos.net.

Read more from the original source:

Libertarian Party Chairman Repeats Lie About MILO Outing Illegals At Berkeley - Breitbart News

Ticket screening was supposed to begin at 7:00 pm, so at around 6:15 pm I started walking up Telegraph Avenue towards the event at the Pauley Ballroom on the UC Berkeley campus. On my way there, I was already seeing ubiquitous anti-Milo Yiannopoulos signs calling this gay, Jewish, immigrant (who predominantly dates black men) a Nazi, a fascist, and many other unoriginal epithets sufficient to excite the decently large low information crowd around here.

I continued on through Sather Road coming closer to the Ballroom venue. I briefly walked into the supposed ticketing area, by the Amazon store, to get a better idea what was happening, but rioters were already throwing rocks, paintballs, and burning objects in that direction. Some of the store windows had been smashed in or blown out completely, barricades were torn down, and the attendees were totally exposed to the rioters standing a little further North (behind some weak metal barricades that were going not to last much longer). To me it was not clear where we were supposed to stand or have our tickets screened, it was all very chaotic, and things began to get dangerous for event attendees.

A big fire had erupted near where I stood because rioters had thrown a Molotov cocktail at a container that seemed to be leaking gasoline. At some point I heard a loud explosion, maybe even two. Firecrackers were continually being thrown in the general vicinity and a lamp pole had been torn down to the sound of cheers. The Cops were mostly inside the buildings staring outside, but they were not intervening at all as far as I could see. Id say there were about 30-40 cops, vs hundreds if not thousands of rioters and supporters.

I tried to connect with a fellow Being Libertarian writer in attendance, but it was difficult to find one another and his phone was dying.

Virtually everyone I saw, across the entire area all the way back to Bancroft & Telegraph, was excited, happy, giggling, taking photos, and basically having quite a blast. Behind the front line of rioters there were drummers, and a DJ, there was a real dance party going on. After theyd officially succeeded in shutting down the event, naturally followed by massive cheers of joy across what seemed like the entire campus, they broke through the barricades completely and moved towards Telegraph & Bancroft.

The rioters, who largely consisted of masked individuals brandishing Antifa flagpoles, lead the march; they were accompanied by continuous drum beats, hip hop music, and people dancing behind them, I could hear a rap song with the profound hook line Fuck Donald Trump.

Having attended alone, Id now successfully connected with another person on the events Facebook group and we met up on Bancroft and Sather Lane (note: its Lane now, not Road). Thats when the atmosphere turned from dark to terrifying!

Suddenly serious scuffles started in that area, Antifa rioters began to chase down, or sucker punch, Trump supporters and Miloattendees. I heard one Antifa protester, a woman, proudly proclaiming Hey, we found a bunch of Nazis over there! I saw a small group help a woman who was wearing a Make Bitcoin Great Again hat, who had been sucker punch pepper sprayed during a TV interview by a masked individual.

I saw one guy, surrounded by Antifa rioters, getting bludgeoned really bad as more backup, armed with flagpoles that were gratuitously utilized, came flooding in from behind. I suspect thats the body I later saw in this footage, where you can see him motionless on the road, surrounded and beaten with a flapole some more for good measure. I wonder if hes alive.

I saw two Trump supporters, one wearing a MAGA hat, chased down Bancroft Way towards Dana Street by another Antifa mob who were shouting things like Beat his ass!, and Get out Nazi scum!.

Here you can see the official protest organizer, Berkeley school district teacher Yvette Felarca, (who recently returned to her job after having been placed on leave pending an investigation into concerns that have been raised) explain how doing whatever is necessary to shut down Milos event is their right to self defense, thus clearly condoning the violence, arson, and destruction; how else would they have shut down the event? Its good to know that this unstable, and insecure cliche of a mental patient, is instructing children with your tax dollars, isnt it?

At this point I, and the friend Id made here, somehow got pepper sprayed or tear gassed, were still unsure where it came from. There was no police presence at all around here. With impaired vision, we fled in a direction that seemed to be the safest way to escape the violence.We managed to connect with a few more friendly event attendees down the street and exchanged experiences and information before we got out of the general area. It was a crazy night!

Heres an official legal definition of terrorism from Merriam Webster:

terrorism the unlawful use or threat of violence especially against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion.

In my opinion, this was not a protest, this was not even just a riot, this was well planned and coordinated domestic terrorism! The same kind of terrorism that we can [currently] observe all over the Western world, with matching signage, symbols, names, weapons, flags, strategies, chants, intimidation techniques, violent professional agitators, and so on.

So why not deal with it accordingly? How much longer will this behavior be tolerated?

If youre interested in more discussion on the topic, here is my call in to Freedomain Radio, together with my friend:

And here is a recorded conversation with another friend regarding the event, including some footage that he mixed in:

This post was written by Nima Mahdjour.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

Nima is an entrepreneur and Bitcoin advocate who writes about economics and freedom. He was born and raised in Berlin and received his Master's degree in the US in 2004. He co-founded an auction software company in San Francisco and successfully sold it in 2015. (Twitter: @economicsjunkie)

Like Loading...

Read the rest here:

What I Saw at the Anti-Milo, UC Berkeley Riots! - Being Libertarian

Libertarian candidates seek Pompeo seat Wichita Eagle Three Libertarian candidates will square off on Feb. 11 to be the third choice in the special election to replace former U.S. Rep. Mike Pompeo, who left his congressional seat to serve as CIA director in the Trump administration. But there probably ...

See more here:

Libertarian candidates seek Pompeo seat - Wichita Eagle