Category Archives: Libertarian

While the talk is about free markets and private propertyand it is more respectable than it was a few decades ago to defend near-complete laissez-fairethe bulk of the intellectual community almost automatically favors any expansion of government power so long as it is advertised as a way to protect individuals from big bad corporations, relieve poverty, protect the environment, or promote equality.

Milton Friedman, introduction to The Road to Serfdom 50th-anniversary edition, 1994

Originally published at Josiah Barlett Center for Public Policy

The right-of-center movement in the United States is shifting toward statism in a way even many of its self-proclaimed liberty activists dont realize.

Responding to relentless left-wing provocation, people on the right think theyre defending liberty by using the state to block or punish private-sector actions they dislike. Instead, theyre expanding state control over private behavior.

The Live free or die state is not immune to this shift. Here, lawmakers who believe themselves to be righteous champions of liberty are trying to extend state control over private contracts and decisions.

To pick one example, considerHouse Bill 1210, relative to exemptions from vaccine mandates. The bill requires any employer that receives any public funds, including grants or contracts, to allow a right of conscience exemption from vaccination.

Framed as a defense of individual liberty, the bill actually would reduce liberty.

If enacted, it would weaken the right of free individuals to associate only with others who accept their dedication to fighting infectious diseases through vaccination.

Vaccination status is not an immutable characteristic like race or sex. It is a choice, and not a purely individualistic one. It can have profound, even life or death, consequences for others.

Were the bill to pass, health care facilities such as nursing homes and hospitals would be required by law to hire employees who refuse to vaccinate themselves against any and all infectious diseases. The bill covers all vaccines, not just those for COVID-19.

The bill restricts freedom of association in the name of bodily integrity. But someone who refuses to vaccinate is making a choice to give up bodily integrity.

A virus is a foreign living organism that invades a body and uses it as a host. Viruses cannot replicate by themselves. They infect host cells and use them for reproduction, usually killing them in the process. Vaccines are designed to protect cells against invasion and destruction by alien organisms. Their purpose is to preserve bodily integrity.

Viruses arent libertarian. Theyll infect anyone they can. People have a right to choose to associate with others who agree to vaccinate. This bill would violate that right in pursuit of a non-existent right to join a group without agreeing to its terms.

Conservatives can easily see that it would be a violation of individual rights for the state to require religious employers or ideological organizations to hire anyone regardless of their beliefs. This bill violates the freedom of association in a similar way.

Should HB 1210 become law, a cancer patient would be unable to seek medical care in New Hampshire in a facility with a fully vaccinated staff. Thats not protecting peoples rights. Its forcing people to associate with others who might be a danger to themselves.

The libertarian saying that your rights end where my nose begins applies here. Going unvaccinated (or not) is not a lifestyle choice like getting tattooed or piercing ones nose. It can have a direct, potentially catastrophic effect on others. And others have a right to protect themselves against that through their associations.

LikeHouse Bill 1469, which seeks to restrict the free association rights of all New Hampshire businesses under the guise of regulating banks, HB 1210 would expand the power of the state to regulate economic transactions in new ways.

Supporters of such market interventions honestly think they are taking steps to protect individuals. But theyre mistaken. Unwittingly, they are moving to empower collectivism and weaken the liberty of the individual.

See more here:

From Vaccines to Banks, NH Sees Misguided Efforts To Restrict Freedom in the Name of Liberty - NH Journal

Longtime lawmaker Lester Jackson is leaving the Senate, setting up a four-candidate race to succeed him

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger on the lingering effects of 2020 election

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger talks about how the results of the 2020 election and lawsuits have lingered in state politics ever since.

Savannah Morning News

Around the Georgia Capitol, the Savannah senators are among the most familiar faces in the building.

Lester Jackson (D-District 2) has served in the Georgia General Assembly for 24 years and previously chaired the Georgia Legislative Black Caucus. Ben Watson (R-District 2) joined the Legislature in 2011 and chairs one of the Senates highest-profile committees, Health and Human Services.

Georgia Senate: After 24 years, Lester Jackson completes his final session as a state representative

The 2022 election will introduce at least two new faces to the ranks of Savannah-area members.

Watson is likely to return, but Jackson isnt running for re-election to his Senate seat, choosing instead to mount a statewide campaign for Georgia Labor commissioner. Additionally, the 2021 redistricting session added a third Senate district, District 4, to Chatham County.

Georgia Senate map surprise: Chatham adds third Senate post as part of redistricting

Two Democrats are challenging Watson while four candidates - two Democrats, two Republicans - are running for Jacksons open seat. Republican Billy Hickman, who resides in Statesboro, is running unopposed in District 4 and will represent a swath of West Chatham residents.

That primary will be held on May 24, with early voting beginning May 2.

Heres a look at the candidates for the local Georgia Senate posts.

Story continues below

Savannah-area election races

U.S. House, District 1

Georgia General Assembly, House races

Georgia General Assembly, Senate races

Georgia voting laws, what you need to know

Jones serves as the chairman of the Chatham Democratic Committee and previously sat on the Chatham County Commission. He mounted an unsuccessful campaign for Chatham Commission chairman in 2020, losing to Chester Ellis.

Niquette previously ran for the Georgia House in 2020, mounting an unsuccessful challenge for the seat held by Rep. Ron Stephens. He is campaigning on updating technology in public schools, protecting the environment, expanding Medicaid and criminal justice reform.

A physician and the brother-in-law of former U.S. Congressman Jack Kingston, Watson served two terms in the Georgia House before being elected to the Georgia Senate. He has championed health care reform throughout his political career.

Mallow joined the Georgia House in 2021 after winning a 2020 election runoff by 19 votes. A district executive with the Boy Scouts of America, Mallow is a champion for Georgias youth and also advocates for health care reform and improving mental health services

Scott is a district manager for Advance Auto Parts and a ministry leader with Overcoming by Faith church. He ran unsuccessfully for a Chatham County Commission post in the 2020 election.

Yasger is a U.S. Army veteran and member of the Georgia Army National Guard. His platform includes many Libertarian-leaning views, such as decriminalization of marijuana. He ran for U.S. House in 2020, finishing third in the Republican primary.

Young switched parties to run for the Senate post after a failed bid to win a Georgia House seat in 2020 and 2021 elections. He is a military veteran and a retired vending machine business owner.

A Statesboro accountant, Hickman joined the Georgia General Assembly in 2020 by winning the seat long held by Georgia political Icon Jack Hill. Hickman said he feels a strong connection to Chatham County, as his wife is a native of Bloomingdale.

Read more from the original source:

Who is running for Georgia Senate in the 2022 primary? - Savannah Morning News

Republican governors and legislators have embarked on new campaigns to restrict the rights of their constituents and punish those who voice dissent, flexing the power of government run by a party that once pledged to keep government out of private life.

On issues ranging from transgender rights to cross-border trade and private business decisions related to the coronavirus pandemic, Republican lawmakers have advanced measures this year that insert government into many facets of American life.

Twenty-six years after a Democratic president declared an end to the era of big government, that era is back but now its being driven by the Republican Party.

As the right moves into post-liberalism and away from what traditionally has been defined as conservative, it is much more comfortable with wielding state power to own the libs, said Geoffrey Kabaservice, vice president of political studies at the Niskanen Center and author of Rule and Ruin: The Downfall of Moderation and the Destruction of the Republican Party. They would say the state is the only major institution in American life that conservatives now control they have to make full use of whatever power is available to them.

Legislatures in Alabama approved measures barring doctors from providing medical care to transgender youth, over the objections of every major medical association in the country. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) issued an order classifying the provision of gender-affirming care including the use of puberty-delaying hormones as child abuse.

Supporters of those measures focus on and, in one recent case in Michigan, even fundraise off of gender-affirming surgeries, glossing over provisions that would restrict a doctor from prescribing common medicines for treatment.

Lawmakers in two states have sought to ban people from seeking treatment in other states: An Idaho bill that died in the state Senate would have made a felon of anyone who helped a transgender child travel out of the state to seek treatment. A Missouri lawmaker has proposed a similar penalty for those who help women obtain an abortion in another state.

Republican opponents of abortion access have long carved out exceptions for pregnancies caused by rape or incest, or that endanger the life or health of the mother. Measures dropping exceptions for rape or incest have passed in Oklahoma and New Hampshire this year; the Utah Republican Party has proposed eliminating exceptions for the health of the mother in its official platform. The Oklahoma measure makes it a felony to perform an abortion.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) last month signed legislation that will bar teachers from discussing sexual orientation or gender identity in front of young children, a bill opponents call the Dont Say Gay law. Officials in other states, led by Texas Gov. Abbott (R) and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R), say they will make a similar measure a priority when legislators reconvene next year.

When the Disney Corporation voiced its opposition to the Florida law, the Republican-controlled legislature voted to punish the company by eliminating its special tax district which may have the unintended consequence of providing Disney a massive tax break at a cost borne by Florida taxpayers.

Abbott, playing on fears of a tidal wave of migrants poised to cross the southern border, offered his own big-government plan to add new checks on cargo coming into his state. Eight days of inspections cost Texas consumers and businesses an estimated $4.3 billion in lost revenue and turned up no drugs and no undocumented immigrants.

Historians say it is not uncommon for parties to alter their views on government intervention when it suits their purposes. Eric Foner, a political scientist at Columbia University and author of Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men, a history of the ideology of the Republican Party before the Civil War, said the era marked a similar shift among Southern Democrats.

Before the Civil War Democrats advocated limited government.Yet when it came to protecting and expanding slavery they insisted on vigorous federal action for example the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, the strongest federal intervention in the states of the entire era, Foner wrote in an email.

Other Republicans showed no qualms about the exercise of federal power. Kabaservice, of the Niskanen Center, pointed to Theodore Roosevelt, who used the Sherman Antitrust Act to break up Standard Oil and J.P. Morgans Northern Securities Company.

More recently, Republican presidents who dared stray from small-government orthodoxy were attacked as apostates. George H.W. Bush suffered the slings and arrows from the libertarian right when he signed the Americans with Disabilities Act into law in 1990. His son, George W. Bush, called himself a compassionate conservative and took heat from Republicans who opposed a Medicare expansion measure that bitterly divided his own party.

Todays Republican Party is more influenced by former President Trump, whose ideological inconsistencies have never troubled his most ardent fans and imitators. Trump never offered a paean to limited government, if power could be used to punish blue states and political opponents.

Kabaservice said he saw parallels between the recent Republican exercises in power and the McCarthy era, when conservatives like William F. Buckley and Brent Bozell approved of McCarthyism because they saw it as a template for a much more thoroughgoing government repression of dissent, Kabaservice said in an email.

They wanted to use the state as an instrument of coercion to enforce social conformity, to regulate and control human behavior, and to drill into Americans the principles of duty, order, obedience and authority, he wrote.

Rick Wilson, the onetime Republican strategist-turned-Trump critic, said Trump revived the clash between small-government conservatism and the inclination of those who hold power to exercise it.

Trumps natural leanings toward authoritarianism merged with the post-libertarian moment of conservatism. As nationalism and populism replaced it, the argument against using the power of the state for ideological ends became weaker and weaker, Wilson said. I fear that once the demon is out of the pentagram, its hard to put it back.

On The Trail is a reported column by Reid Wilson, primarily focused on the 2022 elections.

Follow this link:

On The Trail: The era of big government Republicanism - The Hill

Lincoln County Election Board

The Lincoln County Election Board offers the following information on upcoming deadlines, elections and candidate filing periods.

DEADLINE TO CHANGE PARTY AFFILIATION APPROACHES

Oklahomans who want to change party affiliation, must submit their change no later than Thursday, March 31, Lincoln County Election Board Secretary Melissa Stambaugh said. Voters may change their party affiliation online using the OK Voter Portal at oklahoma.gov/elections/ovp or by completing a new Voter Registration Application.

Stambaugh reminds voters that no party changes are allowed between April 1 and August 31 during an even-numbered year.

If we receive your request after March 31, we are required by law to hold that request and process it in September, Stambaugh said.

Oklahoma has three recognized parties: Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian.

In Oklahoma, voters must be a registered member of a party to vote in that partys primary election. Independents are permitted to participate in a primary election, only if a party officially requests its elections be opened to Independent voters. Currently, only the Democratic Party allows Independents to vote in its primary elections.

All registered voters, regardless of political affiliation, can vote for any candidate during a General Election.

Voter Registration Applications can be downloaded from the State Election Board website at oklahoma.gov/elections. Applications are also available at the Lincoln County Election Board located in the courthouse at 811 Manvel Avenue, Suite 15, Chandler. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. For questions, contact the County Election Board at (405) 258-1349 or lincolncounty@elections.ok.gov.

APRIL 5 ELECTION DAY REMINDERS AND TIPS; EARLY VOTING BEGINS MARCH 31

Polls will be open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Tuesday, April 5, 2022, for the McLoud School District and the Perkins-Tryon School District Board of Education General Election. Lincoln County Election Board Secretary, Melissa Stambaugh, offers these important tips to votersespecially those who will be casting a ballot for the first time.

Early voting for the April 5 election begins Thursday, March 31, 2022, for voters in Lincoln County. Voters who will not be able to make it to the polls on Election Day, have the option of voting early at their County Election Board.

***

CANDIDATE FILING TO BEGIN APRIL 13

The statewide candidate filing period officially begins at 8 a.m., Wednesday, April 13, said Melissa Stambaugh, Secretary of the Lincoln County Election Board.

Filing will be from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Wednesday through Friday. The deadline for filing as a candidate is 5 p.m. Friday, April 15, no exceptions.

Candidates for state offices file with the Secretary of the State Election Board. Candidates for county offices file with the Secretary of the County Election Board.

Stambaugh said the following offices are expected to be filled this year in Lincoln County: Assessor, Treasurer, District 1 and District 3 County Commissioner.

Filing forms and information may be obtained by contacting the Lincoln County Election Board at (405) 258-1349 or lincoln

View post:

Lincoln County Election Board: Deadlines, election dates and filing - The Shawnee News-Star

Telegram is the last major social network that refuses to moderate misinformation. The app, which has over 500 million users, is run by a libertarian founder and a small team of programmers who are philosophically opposed to taking down almost any content (unless it incites violence or spreads child porn). Its public channels have become a haven for conspiracy theorists and extremists who have been kicked out of other platforms, like Facebook and Twitter.

But a ban in Brazil has forced Telegram to reverse its position on content moderation. On March 18, Brazils Supreme Court ordered internet service providers and Apple and Googles app stores to block access to Telegram because it had ignored the courts orders to take down accounts spreading misinformation. Two days later, the court lifted its ban after Telegram deleted posts from Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro, banned an account from a Bolsonaro supporter accused of spreading misinformation, and vowed to begin monitoring the 100 most popular channels in Brazil for viral lies.

Telegram has grown, in part, because it takes a more laissez-faire stance on content moderation than its competitors. The app saw its biggest spike in downloads in January 2021, shortly after Facebook and Twitter banned former US president Donald Trump for inciting a riot at the US Capitol; over the next few days, far-right influencers promoted their censorship-free public channels on Telegram and attracted millions of followers.

Telegram is grappling with its position on content moderation at a critical inflection point for the company. As the apps user base has grown quickly over the past year, its founders hope to capitalize on that growth with a stock listing in 2023. But their efforts to grow and monetize Telegram could be stymied if courts and lawmakers in important markets like Brazil block the app over its lax moderation practices.

Telegram does not yet generate revenue. Founder Pavel Durov has funded Telegram since its 2013 launch with the fortune he made developing VK, a Russian Facebook clone, as well by selling $1 billion worth of bonds that could be converted into stock upon an IPO to private investors last year. Telegram competes against encrypted messaging apps like Signal and WhatsApp, but it also features public channels with millions of followers that fill a niche closer to platforms like Facebook and Twitter.

Durov is reportedly planning to list Telegram on the stock market next year to raise money. Like right-wing Twitter clone Parler, Telegram appears to be learning the lesson that platforms cant survive long without meaningful content moderation. And like Reddit, Telegram is now taking steps to clean up its content ahead of an IPO.

Go here to see the original:

A ban in Brazil made Telegram change its stance on misinformation - Quartz

During the Senate confirmation hearings for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson President Joe Biden's nominee to replace the retiring Justice Stephen Breyer on the U.S. Supreme Court Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennesseehas resorted to nonstop buffoonery while playing the culture war card. And the GOP senator was clearly pandering to far-right evangelical voters when, on March 23, she tweeted, "The Constitution grants us rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness not abortions."

But as Blackburn's critics are pointing out, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" isnot mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. It's in the Declaration of Independence.

HuffPost's Ed Mazza notes, "Blackburn has something of a history of constitutional screwups. Last year, she vowed: 'We will never rewrite the Constitution of the United States,' seemingly ignoring the 27 times it's been amended. Blackburn even co-sponsored resolutions in support of three potential amendments."

After Blackburn confused the U.S. Constitution with the Declaration of Independence on March 23, her critics were quick to call her out. One of them was CNN/Telemundo pundit Ana Navarro, a Never Trump conservative and Florida-based GOP strategist. Navarro tweeted:

Another Never Trumper, former Rep. Justin Amash, posted:

Veteran rocker Gene Simmons, who has been with the heavy metal band Kiss for almost 50 years and leans libertarian politically, slammed Blackburn as well:

Here are some more responses to Blackburn's embarrassing tweet:

More:

Marsha Blackburn mistook the Constitution for the Declaration of Independence - Salon

BOISE - This year, theLibertarian Party of Idaho will hold its first gubernatorial primary after Paul Sand and John Dionne both filed to run for Governor of Idaho as Libertarians.This is the first time that any party other than the Democratic or Republican Parties has had a contested gubernatorial primary in Idaho since the state began holding primaries in 2011.

The upcoming primary will allow libertarians to challenge or affirm their principles, stated the party Chair, Jennifer Imhoff. Your vote is an endorsement. And Im encouraged to see Libertarians affirm the values they want to see at the highest level in Idaho.

John Dionne

John Dionne, a native Idahoan, announced his run for libertarian campaign for Governor of Idaho. Dionne launched his campaign early in the race on a platform focused on prioritizing the bill of rights in Idahoan politics.

Dionne says he hopes to use his first term in office to repeal the grocery sales tax, enact legislation on fair property tax, institute his Seniors Care Act, and remove the Idaho government from the liquor business.

This Country, nor this State, were founded with the Idea that the government would control the lives of its citizens. Control needs to be given back to the people," Dionne stated. I believe all levels of government have their functions. However the lowest levels should hold the most power.

Paul Sand

Paul Sand has also officially announced his run for Governor of Idaho. Sand served ten years on the White Bird City Council and is a former member of the White Bird Volunteer Fire Department.

Workers should not have to worry about the economy, politics, taxes, social problems, healthcare, retirement, climate change, etc. We put all this stress on workers and then wonder why they are angry and not happy, Sand said. It is time to move on to the future with a new paradigm for the human species based on peace, freedom, equality, transparency, and economic and social opportunity for everyone.

Any registered Libertarian will be able to vote in the Libertarian primary on May 22, 2022. Unaffiliated voters will have the opportunity to choose to vote in the Libertarian Primary on the day of.

More here:

Libertarian Party to Hold Primary for Governor of Idaho - bigcountrynewsconnection.com

It's rocky times for the conservative-libertarian partnership that characterized American right-of-center politics in the second half of the 20th century.

Considerable attention has recently been paid to the rise of post-liberalism: the right-wing populists, nationalists, and Catholic integralists who fully embrace muscular government as a force for good as they define it. But there's little evidence as yet that most conservatives share such an affinity for big government. The simpler explanation is more banal: Often, when conservatives reject libertarianism, it's because of the cultural associations the word has for them.

Conservatives, after all, are much more likely than other ideological demographics to believe in God and say faith is an important part of their lives; to feel unapologetically proud of American greatness; and generally to hold views regarding personal morality that might be described associally conservative. Of course they would be reluctant to throw in with a group famed in large part for its licentiousness, hostility to religion, and paucity of patriotic zeal.

But what if those associations are mistaken? If libertarianism properly understoodhasno cultural commitments, shouldn't that open up room to parley? Such a hope seems to have animated Murray Rothbard when he wrote in 1981 that "libertarianism is strictly a political philosophy, confined to what the use of violence should be in social life." As such, he added, it "is not equipped" to take one position or another on personal morality or virtue.

How convenient it would befor this Catholic libertarian as much as anyoneif that were the end of that. But the big tent of libertarianism clearly houses many adherents whose self-understanding goes quite a bit further than Rothbard's. In fact, one useful way to divide and corral the unruly menagerie under our great circus pavilion is to ask the question Rothbard begs: Is individual liberty merely the highestpoliticalprinciple, the thing for which government exists, or is it a philosophical north star by which to directallaspects of our lives? Let us call the two groups "political libertarians" and "comprehensive libertarians."

(What of "lifestyle libertarians" who think we should maximize liberty in our private lives but say the state may prioritize other goodsequality, say, or securityahead of freedom? I submit that these are not libertarians at all. They're libertines. Libertarianism requires a commitment, at minimum, to prioritizing liberty in the governmental sphere.)

* * *

In a thought-provoking 2015 book, the McGill University political theorist Jacob T. Levy differentiated between two tendencies in the liberal tradition. Pluralism places a high value on individuals' freedom to form associations that will then shapeeven constraintheir lives in diverse ways. Rationalism, meanwhile, is concerned with the protection of individual freedom even when private or voluntary institutions threaten it.

John Stuart Mill could be the patron saint of rationalist liberalism. HisOn Liberty, Levy wrote, "aims to defendindividuality, not merelynot even primarilyformal freedom from state regulation." Liberals of the Millian type are not quite coterminous with the group I'm calling comprehensive libertarians. Levy acknowledges that rationalists often support the existence of a powerful central state, equipped with authority to step in and rescue individuals from tyrannies visited by religious organizations, patriarchal family structures, and other private institutions. Expansive support for government interference in private life may be "liberal" in this sense, but it isn't very libertarian.

Still, there is significant overlap between Levy's rationalists and comprehensive libertarians. It's not uncommon in libertarian circles to hear that although a private entity has everylegalright to behave in a certain manner, we have an obligation to use our nongovernmental powers to oppose it. For comprehensive libertarians, it's not enough for the state to allow drugs or gay marriage or music with explicit lyrics; we should do what we can to ensure that new forms of creative expression and experiments in living are accepted, even celebrated, at a cultural level. If traditional manners and customs and institutions are in the way, in this view, our job is to stand against them, just as we stand against the government when it infringes on people's liberty.

Violence and the threat of violence are hard infringements on freedom. But culture can limit people's freedom in softer ways, and comprehensive libertarians think that should matter to us too.

* * *

From this perspective, lifestyle freedom is just as much a component of libertarianism as is political freedom. That makes comprehensive libertarianism a "thick" worldview, as laid out in a much-debated 2008 blog post by the philosopher Charles W. Johnson.

"Should libertarianism be seen as a 'thin' commitment," Johnson asked, "which can be happily joined to absolutely any set of values and projects, 'so long as it is peaceful,' or is it better to treat it as one strand among others in a 'thick' bundle of intertwined social commitments?" A thick libertarian might think, for instance, that libertarians should also be feminists out of a desire to free people from the patriarchy.

Yetcomprehensive libertarianismandthick libertarianismare not quite synonyms, either. The first is an example of the second, but it isn't alone. Plenty of libertarians see their political worldview as embedded in a larger moral philosophy that their fellow libertarians ought to share, but they don't all agree about what that comprehensive philosophy is.

Consider virtue libertarianism, which recognizes "a duty to respect our own moral nature and to promote its development in others in proportion to the responsibility we have for them," according to a 2016 essay by the political scientists William Ruger and Jason Sorens. "In some cases, this means providing approbation and disapproval of certain choices to foster a culture consistent with human flourishing and a free society."

Clearly, comprehensive libertarians and virtue libertarians both have worldviews in which political and nonpolitical commitments are bundled together. Taken as a whole, however, those bundles are at odds. While members of the two camps will agree that prostitution should be decriminalized, say, they may disagree about its moral valence, with one side viewing sex work as liberating (and thus worth normalizing or even applauding) and the other side viewing it as degrading (and thus worth lamenting or even working to end through noncoercive means).

Political libertarianism would seem to encompass Johnson's thin libertarianism, but it may coincide with some fairly thick worldviews. A political libertarian can believe, as I do, that a virtuous society is important. But political libertarians see our opinions about how the nongovernmental sphere of life should be ordered as falling outside the scope of libertarianism per se, which for us, as for Rothbard, is "strictly a political philosophy" about "what the use of violence should be in social life." Someone who shares all of my political commitments but dissents from my broader moral outlook is no less a libertarian for it.

* * *

There is at least a loose consensus among libertarians about the proper role of the state. Not so when you move beyond government policy and start asking what it means to build a good society or to live a good life.

For comprehensive libertarians, as we've seen, a good society is one in which people are maximally free to be who they want to be, pursuing the good life according to whatever that means to them. Comprehensive libertarians are reflexively opposed to both hard and soft infringements on liberty. The only limitthough it is a crucial oneis that someone's pursuit of happiness can't forcibly interfere with anyone else's. (Kinky sex? Groovy, if that's what you're into. Rape or human trafficking? Of course not! Do you understand libertarianism at all?!)

Political libertarians don't have this sort of straightforward heuristic to fall back on. On any given question in the non-governmental domain, we might see liberty as one of many competing values. It won't always be the most important. Faced with decisions that have nothing to do with the use of coercionhow to structure a business relationship, which causes or community organizations to support, whether to go along to get along with our neighborsfreedom gives us a choice, but it doesn't help us choose.

To be sure, greater cultural freedom can be a wonderful thing. None of us, regardless of our politics, should want to live in a society in which religious, ethnic, or sexual minorities are denigrated or excluded. In this, we can learn from our comprehensive libertarian friends not to undervalue social advances that allow more people to live fuller lives of dignity. The fact that women today can choose among a far wider array of professional opportunities than we once had access to makes this a freer society, and also a better one.

At the same time, political libertarians are on strong footing when we insist that other goods mustsometimestake precedence. It is often noble to sacrifice some aspect of your freedom for your family, country, or religion. Yet a strict comprehensive libertarianism would leave no space to appreciate the triumph of loyalty or honesty or bravery or humility or piety or generosity over liberty.

Nor does comprehensive libertarianism grapple with the reality that people can (and frequentlydo) exercise their liberty in ways that are immoral and/or destructive. Not every free choice is a good choice. Even when the harms from someone's actions are wholly internalized, they still may be tragic: A life is a terrible thing to waste. And don't kid yourself: Bad choices are rarely fully internalized. An absentee father's actions affect his kids, and a culture that is affirming toward men who abandon their families will end up with more of them. The men are arguably freer, but is the society better off?

As good libertarians, we know better than to ask the state to solve these sorts of problems, but we don't have to pretend they aren't real. To say that a good society justisa free society and a good life justisa free life is to miss all of that. Greater freedom from force and fraud is always a positive thing. Greater freedom from cultural constraints may not be.

* * *

For questions in the nongovernmental sphere, comprehensive libertarians have a default answer. Political libertarians have a parable about a fence.

In 1929, the English Catholic G.K. Chesterton asked his readers to imagine "a fence or gate erected across a road." He then described two reformers: "The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, 'I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away.' To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: 'If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.'"

This story has given aid and comfort to many an arrogant conservative in possession of exactly half the point. It's true that it counsels respect for traditionfor the wisdom, dearly bought, of those who came before us. Manners and customs and institutions can be obstacles to the cultural liberalization that comprehensive libertarians desire. They also may reflect lessons learned through trial and error, evolved solutions to genuine problems. If we smash any aspect of the culture that isn't fully committed to the project of maximizing lifestyle experimentation, we are meddling in something we do not understand.

Religion arguably is the archetype of soft infringements on personal freedom. Should we favor a culture devoid of religious faith and fervor? Or is it possible that hostility to religion draws people away from a deep source of meaning and belonging in their lives, producing alienation, deaths of despair, and a toxic politics in which people desperate for spiritual succor invest their identities in cult-like movements and embrace power-hungry leaders who assure them they're on the right side of a battle with apocalyptic stakes? We should care about such questions.

Nevertheless, the moral of Chesterton's parable is not that tradition is sacrosanct. The lesson is to use our brains: "Go away and think." He's telling us to reduce our own ignorance, especially bylooking to the pastat which point we may reasonably conclude that the fence was ill-considered in the first place, or that it once served a purpose that no longer obtains, or that the problem still exists but there are better ways to address it, or that the potential upside to clearing it away is worth the calculated risks. We are not slaves to those who came before. We need not defer to the way things have always been done.

Chesterton is calling us to exercise prudence, "the charioteer of the virtues." That is, he's calling us to use practical reason to discern the best path forward, ends as well as means, in light of the particular circumstances. Some fences continue to serve valuable purposes. Otherslike the one that informally barred generations of women from most careersdeserve to come down. Comprehensive libertarians commit themselves to a blanket fence removal policy. Political libertarianism leaves open the possibility of a more prudent approach.

* * *

Rothbard's definition of libertarianism as "strictly a political philosophy" appeared in a 1981 essay challenging the lateNational Review literary editor Frank S. Meyer, whose ideas, nearly a decade after his death, continued to have outsize influence on the blossoming conservative intellectual scene.

Meyer's position was that conservatives in America should commit themselves to two nonnegotiable pillars. First, that government exists only to protect life, liberty, and propertynothing more. Second, that people exist to pursue rich and upright lives, traditionally understood, a task made easier when the state does its job well. Against Meyer's will, this philosophical orientation took on the sobriquetfusionismbecause of the way it joined an emphasis on freedom (in the governmental realm) with an emphasis on virtue (in the nongovernmental realm).

Rothbard wasn't having it. "At the heart of the dispute between the traditionalists and the libertarians is the question of freedom and virtue: Should virtuous action (however we define it) be compelled, or should it be left up to the free and voluntary choice of the individual?" he wrote. "Frank Meyer was, on this crucial issue, squarely in the libertarian camp." Thus, Rothbard concluded that "the fusionist positionissimply the libertarian position," that "Frank Meyer was not a 'fusionist' but quite simply a trenchant individualist and libertarian," and that fusionism "is no 'third way,' but simply libertarianism."

This surely isn't right. While Meyer's first pillar is practically indistinguishable from political libertarianism, fusionism isdistinguished from political libertarianism by the addition of a second nonnegotiable pillar. The wordfusionistcarries extra information, identifying a subset of political libertarians with a particular commitment to virtue (and a Chestertonian respect for fences) in the private sphere.

It's well and good to point out that there's space for fusionists of Meyer's kind under the libertarian big top. I too want my small-government-conservative friends to know they have a place in the libertarian movement if they should want it, particularly as movement conservatism continues its frightening post-liberal drift.

But Rothbard seems to think he can use smoke and mirrors to erase comprehensive libertarians from sight, writing, for example, that "only an imbecile could ever hold that freedom is the highest or indeed the only principle or end of life." This claim, which would come as a surprise to any number of my associates, offers a poignant reminder of why Rothbard is remembered as many libertarians' least favorite libertarian.

In truth, there are a variety of libertarianisms. For better or worse, our big tent has always contained a messy congeries of views. So walk the stalls and see what appeals to you. Welcome to the show.

Visit link:

Must Libertarians Care About More Than the State? - Reason

Cherry Hill, NJ, March 20, 2022: This Tuesday, March 22, 2022, American Promise, New Jersey is virtually hosting a cross-partisan candidate forum on zoom- Big Money Shuts Out NJ Candidates and Voters for a discussion of the toxic influence of unlimited money in our elections -a huge impediment to the successful election of new candidates with fresh ideas and to the successful enactment of policy in the interest of the majority of citizens. Our guest speaker will be Dr. Julia Sass-Rubin, Director, Public Policy Program, Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, Rutgers University.Our candidate panelists are Madelyn Hoffman, Green Party candidate for New Jersey Governor 2021, and US Senate 2020,

Gregg Mele, Republican candidate for US House of Representatives NJ 6 2022, and Libertarian candidate New Jersey Governor 2021, Peter Jacob, Democratic Party candidate for US House of Representatives NJ 7 in 2016 and 2018, andPaul Dilks, Republican Party candidate for NJ General Assembly LD 4 in 2019 and candidate for US House of Representatives NJ 1 in 2018.

Americans across the political spectrum widely support reducing the powerful influence of drastically increased political spending of the donor class by a constitutional amendment that allows Congress and the states to place reasonable limits on election contributions and spending. American Promise does not endorse candidates but works to educate voters on this crucial issue through educational forums and sharing candidates positions on this initiative. American Promise New Jersey will present their plans for the 2022 election to encourage New Jersey citizens to ask our candidates to support representation of the voices of the citizens, not the money of donors.

Meeting Information: Tuesday March 22, 2022 7pm to 8:30pmRegister to receive zoom link: bit.ly/3KqYt0G

American Promise is a cross-partisan, non-profit organization empowering citizen action nationwide to pass a constitutional amendment to re-balance our politics and government and put the rights of individual citizens before the privileges of concentrated money, corporations, unions, political parties, and superPACs. For more information on the New Jersey candidate pledge campaign and how you can get involved, contact Marie Henselder-Kimmel at americanpromiseNJ@gmail.com To learn more about American Promise and the candidate pledge initiative, go to americanpromise.net/take-action/join-a-program/pledge-campaign/

(Visited 34 times, 17 visits today)

Read more here:

Cross-partisan Panel Discussion of How Big Money Shuts Out NJ Candidates and Voters - InsiderNJ

Dont get Marla Thompson-Kendall started about Americas two-party political system.

Theyre both ineffective, the Riverdale resident said of the Democratic and Republican parties. Although shes voted for Democrats over the years, she remained open to what Republicans had to say and even came to appreciate some Republicans such as former president George W. Bush.

He had Republican views but he wasnt spiteful and vindictive or condescending. He just went in there and did the right thing for the most part for the people, she said.

But now shes losing patience with both parties.

Its just internal fighting. They come into office and say Im going to do everything I can do to make sure [the other party] doesnt get their agenda across. Thompson-Kendall, an adjunct business professor at Life University, told Atlanta Civic Circle. There needs to be a bridge-building kind of system because right now theres a major disconnect.

Thompson-Kendall thinks a third party could be the solution. Im all for it because in the past 10 years we havent gotten anything done, she said.

Thompson-Kendall isnt alone in her frustration with todays polarized political landscape. Fewer Americans are aligning with either Democrats or Republicans. In fact, a December 2020 Gallup Poll found that only 31% identified as Democrats and 25% as Republicans, while 41% considered themselves independent. Whats more, a majority of Americans six in 10 want a third party option, a separate Gallup Poll showed.

The two-party system has dominated American politics for most of the nations existence, enduring through wars, civil, and societal upheaval. But lately, American politics have been paralyzed by legislative logjams, political extremism, racial strife, and a recalcitrant ex-president still refusing to acknowledge his 2020 election loss, sparking the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.

The divide is only growing between Democrats and Republicans on the economy, racial justice, climate change, law enforcement, foreign affairs, and plenty of other issues, according to Pew Research Centers studies over the past few years.

While lawmakers nationally and locally continue to lock horns, many Americans are tuning out. One in four are politically disengaged, and nearly 70% are distrustful and disillusioned with politics, falling in the exhausted majority, according to a report looking at the polarized political landscape during the Trump administration from More in Common, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit which promotes finding common ground among voters.

With public support for a third party at an all-time high, is the two-party system still viable, despite over 150 years of dominance?

Even with all of its current flaws, Americas two-party system is not going away anytime soon, says University of Georgia political science professor Charles Bullock, whos written about American politics for over 50 years.

If you want stability, the two-party system is going to promote that, Bullock told Atlanta Civic Circle. Multi-party systems give voters a much wider range of choices, but they have their own problems, Bullock said, pointing to Israel and the Netherlands.Thereve been examples in Holland where its taken more than a year after the election to figure out whos [running] the government.

With as many as 14 competing parties, nobody comes anywhere close to getting a majority, Bullock explained. Once the election is over, you dont really know whos going to be governing the country, he said. Instead, the different factions must start negotiating to see if they can somehow stitch together an agreement among various parties to get to a 50% majority of the legislature.

But Dutch political scientist Cas Mudde isnt counting out a multi-party system for the United States, because of the strong voter dissatisfaction for the two-party one. Mudde is an expert on European politics, particularly populism and political extremism in Western democracies.

Very few of the more established [European] democracies have two-party systems, as very few countries have a first-past-the-post electoral system like the United States, where the winner is chosen by a simple majority, Mudde, a professor in the School of Public & International Affairs at University of Georgia, told Atlanta Civic Circle.

The U.K. is one of the few that do, but its two-party system also has attracted many opponents, Mudde said. Its biggest advantage is that its easy to understand since the candidate with the most votes wins the seat, he added. It also tends to produce clear winners and losers, which many people also like and understand.

While U.S. elections generally produce clear winners and losers, the two-party system still is leaving many voters unhappy.

A very large percentage of people are not represented at times even majorities which is less often the case in multiparty systems, Mudde said. International research has shown that, on average, people in two-party systems are less satisfied with their democracy than those in multiparty systems.

Despite the appetite among voters, creating a path for third-party candidates faces daunting odds, especially in Georgia which has the most restrictive ballot-access laws in the country, particularly for local Congressional races.

Last month, the Libertarian Party of Georgia asked the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to re-hear its challenge to a state law that has prevented a third-party candidate from getting on the ballot for a U.S. House seat for over 80 years.

Voters in Georgia and elsewhere ought to be free to vote for people who are not in the two major parties if they so choose, the Libertarians lawyer, Brian Sells, told Atlanta Civic Circle. But, Sells said, the rules are made by the Democratic and Republican partiesand most politicians Ive ever known preferred not to have competition.

Libertarian candidate Angela Pence is putting Georgias ballot-access law to the test, running for the 14th Congressional District seat against Marjorie Taylor-Greene, the polarizing Republican incumbent. But its a long shot. Pence must collect 23,000 voter signatures for her name even to appear on the Nov. 8 ballot.

We have a plan in place. Its daunting, Pence told Atlanta Civic Circle.

What will it take to break the current political impasse? Bullock thinks it could take a crisis to convince enough political leaders they need to join hands for the good of the country Leadership will say its better for each side to get half the loaf rather than nothing.

Meanwhile, Thompson-Kendall says shell continue to vote for the person who represents my interests. If thats a Democrat or Republican, it doesnt matter.

Lately, thats been Democrats, she added. Republicans used to have concrete goals that made sense, but now theyre all [for] Trump.

Thompson-Kendall also said shed like to see term limits instituted in Congress and more mentoring and coaching to prepare new candidates. People dont need to be running for office forever and staying in those offices until they die, she said. Id like to see some new blood come in with some fresh ideas because what we did in 1924 is not what we should be doing today.

People dont need to be running for office forever and staying in those offices until they die, she said. Id like to see some new fresh blood come in with some fresh ideas because what we did in 1924 is not what we should be doing today.

As for moving beyond the current political chasm?

Im an eternal optimist, she said. The only way were going to be able to do it is if we get out and vote. We have to vote those people out of office who are not doing what we need them to do.

What can be done to address Americas entrenched political divide?

Read what some of the nations psychologists have to say here and here.

Read what one Time magazine columnist suggests here.

Read what two top experts on democracy, conflict, and governance have to say here.

Read more:

What will it take to shake up Americas two-party political system? - Atlanta Civic Circle