Category Archives: Libertarian

With campaigning for next years elections underway, the countys redistricting commission will soon start drawing maps proposing new County Council districts.

The commission met last week and expects to have final data compiled from the U.S. census by Monday, allowing members to begin drawing maps.

Nicholas Holdzkom, a research planner for the county, said he and colleagues are working to collect and import the data, so the process can begin next week.

By the meeting of [Sept. 23], our big hope is that people will be able to show up with maps, Holdzkom said.

Pamela Dunn, a senior legislative analyst for the County Council who is assisting the commission, said a map-drawing tool should be available to the public by Sept. 16.

The commission is tasked with drawing a map dividing the county into seven County Council districts. Last November, voters approved a charter amendment that increased the number of council members from nine to 11.

Seven members will represent districts, up from the current five. Four at-large members will continue to represent the entire county.

For the proposed districts, the commissioners will focus on:

Their draft maps will be finalized and available for public comment in October.

The commission will submit its report with one or more recommended maps, and present them to the County Council by Nov. 15. The council decides what the final map will be.

Commission members agreed that it would be beneficial to split into smaller groups of about four or five people, preferably of differing party affiliations, to start drawing maps. They then would reconvene to compare maps and eventually agree on a final map to present to the County Council, but also provide back-up maps, in case a full consensus cant be reached.

Commissioner Valerie Ervin, a former County Council member, told her colleagues last week that the commissions work is important, but reminded them they have limited time before the final Nov. 15 deadline.

The calendar is not our friend right now, Ervin said.

Ervin predicted that the County Council public hearing on the final proposal will be well attended, and that the community will be heard then.

It will be important to give council members one preferred map, but also provide alternatives, so the council has a choice, commissioners said.

Commissioner Sam Statland said he hopes the County Council follows the commissions recommendations in its final report. He added that it would be smart to do so, because the commission consists of Democrats, Republicans, a Libertarian and registered independents.

I think that gives us a lot of firm ground to stand on, in what our selections are, Statland said.

Steve Bohnel can be reached at steve.bohnel@bethesdamagazine.com

Go here to read the rest:

Montgomery County redistricting commission will soon begin map drawings - BethesdaMagazine.com

Letters to the Editor| The News Herald

It is indeed true that conservatives have lost their way. I supported the Republican Party for a while, then switched to vote for the Constitution Party. No matter how things go, Republicans and conservatives tend to roll over and let nature take its course, rather than take action. Its not just that conservatives have lost their way; they are weak, spineless, and complicit in the destruction of America by the rootless transnational elites in power.

As a conservative, it pains me that modern day Republicans care more about the GDP, tax cuts, and foreign wars than they do for the American people. Many people in the GOP are libertarians or adhere to the libertarian philosophy; they care about money, free trade, and property rights. They totally disregard our culture, heritage, and history. They are complicit that millions of immigrants come into the country who hurt our country economically, demographically, culturally, and politically (7/10 immigrants vote for Democrat, PewResearch). Whenever conservatives are given power, they never do or accomplish anything; when Democrats obtain power, they use it to pass legislation, whether it be more immigration, higher taxes, as well as the acceptance of transgenders competing with the gender they identify with.

Enough is enough. It is ridiculous that people place their faith in conservatives to save America, and they get legislation that hurt the nation, while conservatives are either complicit or supporting it. The conservative movement, or The Right, has to be nationalistic and patriotic; it has to be America First. This includes shutting down the border, bringing all our troops home and defending our homeland, as well as implementing trade policies that benefit Americans while restricting corporations from engaging in unethical practices.

For too long has America been slipping through our fingers. For too long have Republicans been lazy while they lose political capital, as well as voters. It is time for Republicans to take a stand for right-wing beliefs, and they must fight if they want to save America, and put the interests of America First.

Sam Rix,Lynn Haven

Submit aletter to the editor atnhletters@pcnh.com.

Go here to read the rest:

LETTERS: Conservatives have indeed lost their way - The News Herald

Kabul streets turn to chaos as Taliban returns

Omid Mahmoodi, an Afghan man who worked with the U.S. military for as a translator, captured the streets of Kabul as the Taliban returned.

Omid Mahmoodi, USA TODAY

All eyes were on Afghanistan as the Taliban took control and the capital city of Kabul fell on Aug. 15. In the aftermath, CNN is taking heat for a report and graphic it did not air.

Fact check: Viral video shows Syrian rebels in 2015, not Taliban in Kabul

VIOLENT BUT MOSTLY PEACEFUL TRANSFER OF POWER, reads the graphic in a widely shared image. The Aug. 15 post has garnered thousands of shares and reactions.

The image shows a reporter with a gas mask and goggles. Behind him is a military helicopter. Another graphic in the top left corner of the image identifies the scene as Kabul, Afghanistan.

Several FacebookandInstagram accounts have shared this image since Aug. 15.

Instagram user@the_18a_chronicles told USA TODAY they posted the image knowing it was altered but intending it to be understood as a joke.

Robert Hobbs from the Facebook page Being Libertarian told USA TODAY he also intended the post as "as a joke and reference our followers are aware of - as should just about anyone else that follows Facebook meme pages."

However, the comments indicate many users interpreted the post as a real CNN report.

"What a stupid comment," one wrote.

Another comment equated CNN to a trashcan emoji.

The altered image combines elements from three different photos: one promotingCNN's coverage of the 2020 Republican National Convention,one from an August2020 CNN report on protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin,and one from Kabul.

Matt Dornic, head of strategic communications for CNN Worldwide, told USA TODAY CNN never produced thereportshown in the viral image. According to Dornic, whoever altered the image pulled the graphic from unrelated coverage.

Fact check: CNN chyron praising Taliban for wearing face masks originated as satire

"Its a ridiculously fake image using graphics from our Republican National Convention coverage, a domestic correspondent and a fake chyron in the wrong font," he said.

The phrase in the graphicis similar to a controversial chyron CNN aired in August 2020.CNN was criticized after it reported that protests in Kenosha following the police shooting of Jacob Blakewere FIERY BUT MOSTLY PEACEFUL.

The report included a graphic with thatphrase and footage of Chicago-based correspondent Omar Jimenezstanding in front of a burning building. CNN faced ridicule for the graphicand scenery,which some said werecontradictory.

"What you are seeing now, these images, came and come in stark contrast to what we saw over the course of the daytime hours in Kenosha and into the early evening, which were largely peaceful demonstrations in the face of law enforcement, Jimenez reported.

An image of Jimenez making this report was superimposed onto a backdrop of Kabul to create the altered image. This is clear as Jimenez is wearing the same outfit, gas mask and goggles that he wore in Kenosha.

Fact check:The story of a soldier who drove a jeep without an engine is unproven

Additionally, Jimenez is not in Kabul.

According to a recent tweet, he was in Chicago as of Aug. 13. USA TODAY could not find any evidence Jimenez, a domestic correspondent, has reported from Kabul in the days since.

Associated Press photojournalist Rahmat Gul photographed the background image of the U.S. Embassy in Kabul on Aug. 15.

The caption reads, "A U.S. Chinook helicopter flies over the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, Sunday, Aug. 15, 2021. Helicopters are landing at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul as diplomatic vehicles leave the compound amid the Taliban advance on the Afghan capital."

Jimenez was not in the original photo.

Reuters, PolitiFact, the Associated Press and Check Your Fact all concluded the image in the social media post was altered.

Based on our research, a viral image that purports to showthat CNN reported Afghanistan is having a "violent but mostly peacefultransfer of power" is ALTERED. The widely shared imageis altered to include elements froman image of unrelated coverage, an image of an August 2020 CNN broadcast and anAP image of the evacuation in Kabul. A CNN spokesperson confirmed the network never aired this report.

Thank you for supporting our journalism.You cansubscribe to our print edition, ad-free app or electronic newspaper replica here.

Our fact-check work is supported in part by a grant from Facebook.

Read the original here:

Fact check: Image altered to show CNN report saying Taliban takeover was 'violent but mostly peaceful' - USA TODAY

By Brendan LaChance on August 11, 2021

CASPER, Wyo. The Libertarian Party of Wyoming said on August 6 that people can ask to join a private Facebook group if they are interested in helping with efforts to enact marijuana law reform in the state.

Access to medicine should never be a crime, the Libertarian Party of Wyoming said. Criminal charges for recreational cannabis use should never ruin a persons life. Wyoming can do better!

The party encouraged people who agree and want to actively help make a difference in allowing the voice of Wyoming to be heard in next years mid-term election to join the Compassionate Options Wyoming Medical Cannabis Initiative Street Team private Facebook group

Article continues below...

On Wednesday, August 11, the National Libertarian Party announced that the Wyoming Secretary of State has given the green light for signature collection efforts to begin, certifying the first 100 signatures required for this to happen.

In order to get questions on the 2022 general election ballot that would ask voters to consider legalizing medical marijuana and/or decriminalizing person possession, 41,776 petition signatures will be needed.

Libertarian Party political consultant Apollo Pazell said on Wednesday that the initiative submitted over 250 signatures of the required 100 signatures after only 48 hours of signaturegathering.

With the assistance of the Attorney Generals Office, the Secretary of States office will produce a summary of the legislation and print petition packets for the campaign, Pazell added.

Oil City News welcomes questions related to our coverage of community issues. If theres something more youd like to know related to this story, please submit your questionusing this form. Well do our best to address it in a future story or direct reply.

Related Stories from Oil City News:

Report a correction or typo.

See the rest here:

Campassionate Options Wyoming Street Team to help with marijuana ballot initiative drive - Oil City News

Wyoming Secretary of State Ed Buchanan certified two marijuana ballot initiatives Wednesday, clearing the way for the initiatives to begin collecting signatures for placement on the 2022 general election ballot.

The announcement was made on Aug. 11 by the Wyoming Libertarian Party, which states the initiatives need to collect 41,776 petition signatures before Wyoming voters can decide if they want cannabis decriminalized for personal use and legalized for medical use.

The Wyoming advocates behind this effort have worked very hard to draft initiatives that will work for the people of Wyoming, Christine Stenquist, initiative senior strategist, said in a statement. We are excited to begin the signature-gathering process to let everyone in Wyoming have a voice.

The news comes months after the initiatives were first announced by the Libertarian National Committee (LNC) in June 2021, which announced that both measures were in response to the defeat of two marijuana bills in the Wyoming Legislature earlier this year.

House Bill 82 (HB082) had called for a study to identify medical conditions that benefit from the use of marijuana and called for the draft and implementation of regulations for medical marijuana in Wyoming.

-- Advertisement Story Continues Below --

House Bill 209 (HB209) would have legalized the regulation, sale, and use of marijuana in general.

Both bills were advanced out of committee during the 2021 Wyoming Legislative Session but missed the March 22 deadline for initial consideration.

Despite their fate in the legislature, the LNC feels now is the right time to push for a vote allowing the Wyoming people to decide for themselves what they want to do regarding marijuana laws, per LNC.

The Wyoming Legislature has debated marijuana legislation off and on for 30 years, LNC stated, but this time both bills were voted out of committee by the House Judiciary Committee with a favorable recommendation that both bills pass during a full discussion on the House floor.

Unfortunately, the legislative session year ended before the full House could take up the bills for a vote, the LNC wrote in a June 2021 statement, adding that the initiatives would take the issues out of the hands of lawmakers and place them in the hands of the Wyoming people.

The rest is here:

Marijuana ballot initiatives clear another state hurdle - County 17

WEST WHITELAND The West Chester Area School Board is set to meet later this month for its regular public session. Normally, that caucus would be held at the school districts offices in West Whiteland.

But these are not normal times, as those paying attention to recent controversies might note.

Citing a concern for public safety, and after reports of out-of-state email, phone and social media threats that were received by the West Chester district targeting school board President Chris McCune, the district has moved its August committee and board meetings to a virtual format. No public meetings will be held this month, the district said.

Those threats which a district spokeswoman declined to discuss in detail last week are now being investigated by local police and the FBI, according to a posting on the districts website, where the change in venue was announced.

They came after news was circulated nationally of a contentious confrontation between McCune and an East Bradford woman over the issue of whether the district of some 12,000 students currently teaches Critical Race Theory (CRT) in its 16 elementary and secondary schools. McCune, upset by the womans insistence at speaking beyond her allotted time, forcibly grabbed a microphone away from her and directed that she be escorted out of the meeting room by a police officer.

The exchange, which was captured on the districts video and which came at the end of a series of comments about the controversial CRT education concept, has generated calls for McCune to resign his post as a board member and give up his campaign for a third term on the board. It also led to damning reports in conservative media across the county, including Fox News and the National Review, in which the incident was described as reminiscent of the authoritarian crackdown in the womans native Iran in 1979.

McCune said on Wednesday that the districts meeting procedures are in place to foster the civil exchange of ideas, but at the July 26 meeting there was a breakdown in this process that led to resident Anita Edgarians ouster. He apologized for having not handled the situation more deftly, and not simply cutting off the speakers microphone instead of taking it away.

There is certainly opportunity for improvement all the way around, which includes me, he wrote in an email. We are taking steps that will help avoid unpleasant situations like this in the future.

Although McCune, in the last year of his second four-year term on the board, having been first elected in 2013, says he is a life-long Republican, several members of the GOP in the county have called for his resignation over the incident.

In a letter, Marian McGrath, chairwoman of the East and West Bradford Republican Committees; Thomas Foster, chairman of the Westtown-Thornbury Republican Committee; Felice Fein, chairwoman the West Goshen Republican Committee; and Jessica Curtis, president of the Republican Women of Chester County, along with 26 others, condemned McCune for what they said was his reprehensible actions.

The Republican leaders support Edgarian, they wrote. As a legal immigrant from Iran, who has experienced first-hand the threat of communism and Muslim theocracy, the speaker was cautioning against the same thing happening here, reads the missive. (The school district) has a zero-tolerance policy toward bullying, the very behavior Mr. McCune displayed as he was unable to control his anger.

He used his power and physical presence to try to intimidate an ethnic-minority immigrant woman, the letter states.

Likewise, leaders of the countys Libertarian Party, a small but significant Third Party group in Chester County, called for McCunes dismissal.

We have had enough, reads the letter penned by Stephen Wahrhaftig and Jacquelyn Crane, the Libertarians.Many members of the Libertarian Party of Chester County currently have students in the West Chester Area School District or have had children graduate from these schools

We want this district to maintain its reputation of excellence and integrity. Therefore, we believe it is time to clean house, they said. In November the voters will have the ability to elect new board members who are unafraid to stand against this type of business as usual arrogance.

Following the incident and its harsh reaction,however, other members of the school board composed a letter expressing their support for McCune, the board's presidentsince 2017, whom they described as having displayed, wise, common-sense leadership and a strong track record of sifting through competing and contradictory opinions, data, and demands.

Mr. McCune is a conscientious, collaborative, and respectful colleague, and he consistently seeks to find the right balance between fiscal responsibility and educational excellence for the district, the letter signed by the board members read. Just as important, Mr. McCune brings a commitment to reasonable debate and a desire to reach consensus to every conversation and decision.

A statement requested by the head of the Chester County Democratic Committee, Charlotte Valyo, on the other hand, seemed less than enthusiastic about the entire matter, although it was not openly critical of either McCune or his oppoents. McCune is listed on the Novemberballot for school director as a Republican in Region 3 with fellow GOP candidate Stacey Whomsley, running against two Democrats, Laura Detre and Carrie Stare.

"Unfortunately we are living in a heated social and political environment, the chairwoman wrote. I hope this situation can be resolved between the (school board) and their constituents. Whether or not Mr. McCune should resign is not for me to decide or comment upon. But we can all agree the focus should be on what is best for the children and not on the hot topic of the moment."

Edgarian, a mother of three and local Republican supporter, was removed from the meeting at the East High School auditorium by police after she exceeded a district-imposed two-minute time limit set for public speakers. She was decrying what she claimed were the vestiges of CRT in school curriculum, although district officials have repeatedly stated that the theory a graduate-level teaching premise that examines how racism has influenced portions of American society for hundreds of year is not taught in the district.

Many critics noted that several of the more than two-dozen other speakers who were addressing the school board of CRT also exceeded their time limit, but were not treated as Edgarian was. But while most of those participants seemed simply annoyed when told by McCune that they had exceeded the limit, they stopped speaking immediately, or continued for only a brief period of time. On the other hand, Edgarian shouted No! and refused to stop talking when asked to.

At that point, McCune leapt from his seat on the dais, strode purposely to the podium and flipped the microphone away from Edgarian, with whom he was previously acquainted. Go! the board president exclaimed. This is shameful.

McCune said that Edgarian had bombarded the meeting, likely referring to a moment earlier when she rushed to the stage and asked to be included as a public speaker, past the normal deadline. McCune had then granted permission. And now you want to monopolize the meeting, McCune told the mother of three as she was led out by an officer. Youre gone.

Retiring Superintendent Jim Scanlon has said that Edgarian was removed because she did not follow proper speaking protocol and decorum by refusing to stop speaking after the time limit was up. Scanlon also said she was yelling very loudly at the board and him and that police were required to escort her out. Edgarian, on the other hand, told a Fox News interviewer that although she was passionate she had not been rude.

In an interview Wednesday, McCune that the CRT debate and his rejection by members of his own political party is an example of the rising anger in America. He blamed some local Republicans of spewing racist and religious statements, or any slanderous words they can.

In my eight years on the board, not a single parent has ever approached me with a concern (about Critical Race Theory) or has it ever been discussed at a single education meeting, he said in a letter. I have met with representatives from the Chester County Republican Committee several times this year at their request to discuss their concerns about equity.

They have been unable to provide sufficient evidence to support their assertions within WCASD, he said.

As a lifelong Republican, it is sad to me that a far-right faction of the Republican Party is disrupting and dividing local communities like our own, he wrote. And over what? Until recently, most of us had never even heard of Critical Race Theory and it is not a part of our curriculum.

More here:

Critical Race Theory debate intensifies in West Chester - Daily Local News

As the super-contagious Deltavariant of Covid rips across the country, in no small part due to the behavior of the millions of Americans who have so far chosen to remain unvaccinated, the question of whether to make jabs mandatory is becoming urgent. A lot of libertarians are still voicing opposition. What gives?

An expanding list of employers, universities, and businesses are now requiring vaccines and stipulating that those who remain unvaccinated undergo testing and other protocols, such as masking. As many asseven million federal workershave to show proof of vaccination or be tested weekly and wear masks. Defense Secretary Austin is indicating that will soon hold for the armed forces and military employees. North Carolina, New York, and California are asking the same of their state employees.

As of August 9, United Airlines, Tyson Foods, and Microsoft have mandated vaccines for workers, as have1,500 health systems. The secondlargest U.S. teachers unionhas also indicated that all teachers should be vaccinated to protect children. If youre a student wanting to attend classes in-person this fall, youll need to roll up your sleeve and get vaccinated at over 500 colleges and universities, including several large state systems.

If libertarians wish to maintain their self-centered fixation on their own freedoms without considering others, let them do soin indefinite quarantine from the rest of us.

On August 3, New York City became the first big city in the country torequire proof of vaccination at restaurants, gyms, and other businessesthough the verification system has proven buggy and easy to manipulate.

All this has many libertarians in a tizzy.

Libertarians, known for their free-market ideology and promotion of an idiosyncratic concept of individual liberty, are split badly on the issues. Some, especially in academia, are unwilling to ride on theoretical magic carpets that dont go very far in the real world when it comes to Covid. This group supports mandatory vaccines, admitting that its not really okay to infringe upon the freedom of others to remain alive and healthy. But many, especially the activist anti-vaxxers and their enablers in the political sphere, argue vociferously against vaccine requirements no matter what the consequences to others. Even if that consequence is death.

These zealots shout: My body, my decision! But when it comes to your body and your risks, apparently thats your problem. People like babies and kids, vulnerable to Covid because they arent eligible for vaccines (currentlyfilling up childrens hospitals in many parts of the country), and the immunocompromised, which includes cancer patients, people with diabetes, and pregnant women, are supposed to take all risks of exposure on the chin, including those created by recalcitrant caregivers. At hospitals still without mandates, a person undergoing chemotherapy is expected to accept being surrounded by unvaccinated medical workers whose choices put them in constant mortal danger.

Governor Chris Sununu of New Hampshire, a Republican, just signedone of the medical freedom bills currently circulating, which grandly asserts that people have a natural, essential and inherent right to bodily integrity, free from any threat or compulsion by government to accept an immunization. Tellingly, it doesnt address state laws compelling children to receive various vaccines in order to attend school. Thats because the citizens of New Hampshire are unwilling to let deadly diseases like measles and polio tear through their classrooms and disable or kill their kids. Some states allow controversial exceptions to this mandate, such as religious objections, but you dont get out of the requirement by making speeches about bodily integrity.

Lets be clear: Americans have all kinds of awesome rights as individuals. In the majority of cases, you get to decide what risks to take with your own life and property. If youd like to win the Darwin Award andtry to jet ski off Niagra Falls, you can do that.

But you arent free to subject others to deadly harm. Youre not allowed to drive your Corvette at 100 mph and spin donuts on the freeway, because you might hurt somebody. You dont get to fire your AK 47 into the air at a Fourth of July picnic. And you wont be lighting up a Marlboro on an airplane. Your personal liberty, in such cases, is curtailed in order to ensure the safety of others.

You may not like it, but the Supreme Court has supported intrusions on your body in a number of cases in the name of public and individual safety. These include things like blood alcohol testing and strip and body cavity searches. If you are having a psychotic breakdown and you are a criminal defendant, the state canforce you to take medication to make you competent to stand trial.

For quite some time, American law has been clear that the bodily intrusion of mandatory vaccinations is necessary in order to shield citizens from harm.

In 1905, inJacobson v. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court explained that people living in a civil society have obligations to protect one another from dangerous diseases: In every well-ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members, the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand.

In that particular case, Cambridge pastor Henning Jacobson had argued that he and his kids had experienced a bad reaction to prior vaccines and so should be given an exemption, but the Court said that he had no proof and would not be getting a pass. As a citizen and a parent, he wasnt permitted to expose anyone, including his own kid or anybody elses, to smallpox, which was raging at the time. The Court sent the message that your individual liberty is never absolute and can be subject to the police power of the state.

There is a teeny tiny risk in taking a vaccine for a disease like Covid, though it is far less of a risk than contracting the disease itself. But there are vastly more risky things a citizen can be required to do for what is determined to be the greater good.

Take national defense. Libertarians get uncomfortable on this subject, and many like to pretend that you can rely on volunteers to get the job done. Reality check: Though its been almost a half-century since Americans were drafted into military service, the fact is that conscription has been necessary for every major war. Yes, its often possible to find enough people to volunteer for military service during peacetime, at least if you pay them, but people are generally unenthusiastic about getting maimed or killed during wartime.

During the U.S. Civil War, trying to get anyone to fight was a nightmare. Wealthy people were paying poor people to be cannon fodder in their place. In 1863, New York City erupted in a4-day deadly riotbecause people opposed the Civil War draft law which allowed rich men like J.P. Morgan and Andrew Carnegie to pay off substitutes. That racially charged riot, which saw whites attacking blacks throughout the city, was one of the bloodiest in U.S. history.

Certainly, you can argue that the U.S. conscription system is sexist and arbitrary because it only pertains to young men. But the fact is, when American men turn 18, the federal government requires them to register for the Selective Service. Doing so is a prerequisite for things like obtaining student loans or being hired for a federal job, and 41 states make it part of getting a drivers license. Failure to register is a felony offense.

In a1918 opinion, the Supreme Court equated Congresss constitutional power to raise and support armies with the authority to force citizens into service.

The governmentappeals to fairness in stating why registration is necessary: Selective Services mission is to register virtually all men residing in the United States. If a draft is ever needed, the process must be fair, and that fairness depends on having all eligible men register. In the event of a draft, for every man who fails to register, another man would be required to take his place in service to his country.

Recently, Minnesota Vikings quarterback Kirk Cousins, who presumably has registered for Selective Service, decided to refuse to be vaccinated for Covid. He states that he is willingsurround himself with plexiglassin the teams quarterback room in order to avoid getting jabbed. Unfortunately, theresnot much evidence that plexiglass barriers prevent the spread of Covid, because the aerosol particles move through the air like cigarette smoke. Therein lies the problem. Theres really no way to seal yourself off from your fellow citizens unless you live alone in quarantine. And the frequency of asymptomatic transmission means you cant tell whether many people near you have the disease or not.

Even when the unvaccinated receive weekly testing, its still not enough to protect other people, because the virus spreads exponentially, which means that it proliferates in much shorter periods of time. This is particularly concerning in medical facilities, where testing unvaccinated workers once a week risks exposing immunocompromised people to life-threatening conditions. The same goes for nursing homes.

The issue of twice-a-week testing opens yet another can of libertarian worms. Who is expected to pay the hundreds of dollars a week that multiple tests of the unvaccinated will cost in the case, say, of government workers or state university students? The taxpayers? Oh really? Among some libertarians, taxation is regarded as theft. Would they agree that the cancer patient can be taxed to support the constant testing of medical workers whose behavior threatens her life? Lets askSenators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul about that.

According to Larry Brilliant, a prominent epidemiologist and part of the WHO team that helped eradicate smallpox,the Covid pandemic is nowhere near over, and the Delta variant may be the most contagious virus ever seen. He believes that the likelihood of more variants arising due to lack of vaccinations is high, and there is even a possibility of a super variant emerging that vaccines dont work against. This possibility is currently low, he explains, but we must do everything possible to prevent it now. That means jabs for the unvaccinated ASAP.

John Stuart Mill, a philosopher oft cited by libertarians, wrote in 1859 about the harm principle, which holds that the state can restrict the actions of individuals to prevent harm to others: The liberty of the individual must be limited: he must not make himself a nuisance to other people the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant, and in the part, which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

Clearly, people electing to remain unvaccinated are violating Mills harm principle.

Committing suicide by virus is one thing, but inflicting mortal harm on others is another. If libertarians wish to maintain their self-centered fixation on their own freedoms without considering how their behavior injures others, let them do soin indefinite quarantine from the rest of us.

Lynn Parramore

Crossposted with permission from Common Dreams

Read the original here:

Give Me Liberty and Give Them Death - LA Progressive

This article was written exclusively for Investing.com.

, , and other cryptocurrencies made a substantial comeback from their lows following the steep correction that occurred after the April and May peaks. Bitcoin dropped from $65,520 on Apr. 14 to a low of $28,800 in late June or over 56%. Ethereum reached its peak at $4,406.50 in mid-May and fell to a low of $1697.75 in late June, a decline of nearly 61.5%.

The market cap of the entire asset class of over 11,180 digital tokens more than halved from around the $2.5 trillion level.

While prices plunged, the speculative frenzy in the cryptocurrency asset class continues to attract new participants each day. On Sunday, Aug. 8, Bitcoin was back above the $43,800 level, with Ethereum at just over $3000 per token. The market cap for the entire class was nearly $1.775 trillion.

Stories of incredible wealth creation from those with the foresight to turn a $1 investment in Bitcoin at five cents in 2010 into over $2 million is a powerful catalyst. Moreover, technology companies continue to embrace the libertarian form of money, with Squares (NYSE:) Jack Dorsey leading the way.

At the , the CEO of both SQ and Twitter (NYSE:) called cryptocurrency the internets form of money. As more businesses begin accepting tokens for payment, governments are not likely to stand by idly.

Governments have repeatedly challenged cryptos because of their nefarious uses. However, it is control of the money supply that is at the root of their concerns.

Control of the purse strings is the most significant factor in retaining power. Surrendering the money supply to any libertarian currency diminishes control.

The status quo means governments can expand or contract the money supply with the push of a button. The ideological divide between governments and a form of money that transcends borders creates a vast gulf.

Governments embrace Blockchain as it represents the technological evolution of finance. The speed and efficiency of fintech have broad appeal. However, the digital currencies themselves pose a massive threat to power.

China appears to be the first government to issue a digital form of its currency, the yuan. In preparation, the Chinese have cracked down on Bitcoin and other cryptos. It will not be long before the US and Europe roll out digital dollars and euro. Washington DC and the EU are more than likely to follow Chinas lead to retain control of the money supply and hold onto financial power.

Post-2008, in the aftermath of the financial markets crash, the stage was set for cross-border regulatory cooperation. Given the move towards globalism under the Biden administration, we are likely to see regulators in the US, UK, and EU work together to establish a framework for cryptocurrency regulation.

While they will present this as a regulatory environment to protect investors, traders, and the sanctity of money, the underlying factor will be control and maintenance of the monetary status quo.

I expect that fintech will bifurcate into two regulatory protocols. One will cover government-issued digital currencies and could include so-called stablecoins that reflect hard asset values.

These are likely to be the blue chips that will face a more lenient regulatory landscape as control will continue to come from governments, treasuries, central banks, and monetary authorities.

Cryptocurrencies, on the other hand, could face far more regulatory hurdles to mitigate their threat to established power bases.

One of the most potent tools governments have at their disposal is taxation. A sign that cryptocurrencies are already in the US governments crosshairs are two competing crypto tax amendments in the Senates infrastructure legislation. The taxation comes down to defining the role of a broker in cryptocurrencies.

Ironically, Senators initially looked to impose stricter rules on taxing cryptocurrencies to help fund the infrastructure bill. The Wyden-Toomey-Lummis amendment would narrow the broker definition to exclude miners and validators, hardware and software makers, and protocol developers from the designation. The amendment would seek to keep the crypto business and market from moving overseas to less restrictive jurisdictions.

Meanwhile, the Portman-Warner-Sinema amendment would only protect proof of work (PoW) miners from the newly proposed reporting requirement. The amendment would not make proof of stake (PoS) developers, operators, validators, or liquidity providers from the reporting requirements.

The bottom line: strict taxation is on the horizon in some form. Taxation is the most significant device governments can use to maintain a grip on the asset class and exert control.

Under the umbrella of paying for infrastructure, the IRS and other government agencies would have the power to control money flows with complete transparency. Moreover, cross-border cooperation could be a silver bullet that drives the market away from cryptos toward government-issued digital currencies and stable coins that reflect the value of regulated assets.

Libertarian ideology shifts power from the state to individuals. Libertarians believe in free markets where prices come from transparent transactions without government interference. Ironically, many believe that libertarianism is a right-wing doctrine.

When it comes to money, it decreases the governments role. However, socially, libertarianism can also appeal to the political left. Right and left political ideologies embrace different forms of libertarianism.

When it comes to cryptocurrencies, neither the government nor proponents of the burgeoning asset class will be pleased with the outcome. In the US and Europe, the growth of technology companies that have created oligarchies sets the stage for an epic battle over the future of the money supply.

Government officials are on one side, with Jack Dorsey, Tesla's (NASDAQ:) Elon Musk, Amazon's (NASDAQ:) Jeff Bezos, and other titans embracing a fintech world that transcends government control on the other.

Both sides have vested interests. The governments will do anything to preserve their hold on power. The crypto market and technology companies seek to return power to individuals, but they stand to be financial benefactors.

The bottom line: regulations are on the horizon, and they are likely to create a class system where digital currencies and stablecoins are not subject to the same treatment as cryptos.

Two competing payment systems could become mutually exclusive, creating lots of volatility and an epic financial battle for control. Governments may have the right to taxation, regulations, and armies of agents at their disposal. However, the technology sector has know-how and skills that dwarf the capabilities of those looking to maintain the status quo.

Speculative interest is currently fueling the libertarian asset class, which is why Chinese regulators have put their foot down. China is an authoritarian system, making it easy to suppress anything that is not in the governments interest.

Expect the US and Europe to try to do the same. However, in social democracies, that task is far from easy.

Source: CQG

The monthly chart of , above, shows that the speculative frenzy is likely to continue. Nearly 11,200 cryptocurrencieswith more coming to the market each dayis another sign that the asset class has rising appeal. Moreover, the existence of Bitcoin and means the cat is already out of the bag, and the US and Europe will now seek to tax and regulate from a weakened position.

Many agree that Blockchain is the future of the payments system. However, the form of money is an issue that will continue to stoke controversy for years to come.

See the original post here:

Cryptocurrency Regulations On The Horizon; Expect 2 Sets Of Protocols - Investing.com

Shutterstock

Many scientific findings continue to be disputed by politicians and parts of the public long after a scholarly consensus has been established. For example, nearly a third of Americans still do not accept that fossil fuel emissions cause climate change, even though the scientific community settled on a consensus that they do decades ago.

Research into why people reject scientific facts has identified peoples political worldviews as the principal predictor variable. People with a libertarian or conservative worldview are more likely to reject climate change and evolution and are less likely to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

What explains this propensity for rejection of science by some of the political right? Are there intrinsic attributes of the scientific enterprise that are uniquely challenging to people with conservative or libertarian worldviews? Or is the association merely the result of conflicting imperatives between scientific findings and their economic implications? In the case of climate change, for example, any mitigation necessarily entails interference with current economic practice.

We recently conducted two large-scale surveys that explored the first possibility that some intrinsic attributes of science are in tension with aspects of conservative thinking. We focused on two aspects of science: the often tacit norms and principles that guide the scientific enterprise, and the history of how scientific progress has led us to understand that human beings are not the centre of the universe.

Sociologist Robert Merton famously proposed norms for the conduct of science in 1942. The norm of communism (different from the political philosophy of communism) holds that the results of scientific research should be the common property of the scientific community. Universalism postulates that knowledge should transcend racial, class, national or political barriers. Disinteredness mandates that scientists should conduct research for the benefit of the scientific enterprise rather than for personal gain.

Story continues

These norms sit uneasily with strands of standard contemporary conservative thought. Conservatism is typically associated with nationalism and patriotism, at the expense of embracing cooperative internationalism. And the notion of disinterestedness may not mesh well with conservative emphasis on property rights.

Science has enabled us to explain the world around us but that may create further tensions especially with religious conservatism. The idea that humans are exceptional is at the core of traditional Judeo-Christian thought, which sees the human as an imago Dei, an image of God, that is clearly separate from other beings and nature itself.

Against this human exceptionalism, the over-arching outcome of centuries of research since the scientific revolution has been a diminution of the status of human beings. We now recognise our planet to be a rather small and insignificant object in a universe full of an untold number of galaxies, rather than the centre of all creation.

We tested how those two over-arching attributes of science its intrinsic norms and its historical effect on how humans see themselves might relate to conservative thought and acceptance of scientific facts in two large-scale studies. Each involved a representative sample of around 1,000 US residents.

We focused on three scientific issues; climate change, vaccinations, and the heritability of intelligence. The first two were chosen because of their known tendency to be rejected by people on the political right, allowing us to observe the potential moderating role of other predictors.

The latter was chosen because the belief that external forces such as education can improve people and their circumstances is a focus of liberalism. Conservatism, on the other hand, is skeptical of that possibility and leans more towards the idea that improvement comes from the individual implying a lesser role for the malleability of intelligence.

The fact that individual differences in intelligence are related to genetic differences, with current estimates of heritability hovering around 50%, is therefore potentially challenging to liberals but might be endorsed by conservatives.

The two studies differed slightly in how we measured political views and peoples endorsement of the norms of science, but the overall findings were quite clear. Conservatives were less likely to accept the norms of science, suggesting that the worldviews of some people on the political right may be in intrinsic conflict with the scientific enterprise.

Those people who accepted the norms of science were also more likely to endorse vaccinations and support the need to fight climate change. This suggess that people who embrace the scientific enterprise as a whole are also more likely to accept specific scientific findings.

We found limited support for the possibility that belief in human exceptionalism would predispose people to be more sceptical in their acceptance of scientific propositions. Exceptionalism had little direct effect on scientific attitudes. Therefore, our study provided no evidence for the conjecture that the long history of science in displacing humans from the centre of the world contributes to conversatives uneasiness with science.

Finally, we found no strong evidence that people on the political left are more likely to reject the genetic contribution to individual variation in intelligence. This negative result adds to the evidence that science denial is harder to find on the left, even concerning issues where basic aspects of liberal thought in this case the belief that people can be improved are in potential conflict with the evidence.

The two studies help explain why conservatives are more likely to reject scientific findings than liberals. This rejection is not only dictated by political interests clashing with a specific body of scientific knowledge (such as human-caused climate change), but it appears to represent a deeper tension between conservatism and the spirit in which science is commonly conducted.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The Conversation

Stephan Lewandowsky receives funding from the Australian Research Council; Horizon 2020, European Commission (JITSUVAX); Jigsaw (technology incubator created by Google); UKRI (through Centre of Excellence REPHRAIN); Volkswagen Foundation (Germany); European Research Council (Advanced Grant PRODEMINFO); and the John Templeton Foundation (via Wake Forest Universitys Honesty Project). He also receives funding from the Humboldt Foundation in Germany through a Research Award.

Klaus Oberauer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Read the original post:

Many conservatives have a difficult relationship with science we wanted to find out why - Yahoo News UK

Mandates for the COVID-19 shots are popping up all over the country now, which means you may soon have to show proof of vaccination if you want to go to work, the gym or an indoor public event.

The requirements are a reaction to slowed vaccination rates that have left significant parts of the population without protection from the virus, just as the highly contagious delta variant is spreading. Among those supporting the new requirements is President Joe Biden, who has issued one for federal workers and encouraged both private and public employers to do the same.

The requirements seem to be relatively popular. As many as two-thirds of Americans support them, if some recent polling is correct. But there are plenty of opponents out there. Among the loudest are some high-profile leaders in the Republican Party.

Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) says vaccine requirements are products of the lefts authoritarian instincts. Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) describes the push for requirements as vaccine fascism. House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik (N.Y.) responded to Bidens announcement by tweeting, No mandates for anyone, and vowing that Americans will stand for freedom and then punctuating the line with an American flag emoji.

Republicans at the state level are saying similar things and they are acting too, putting in place prohibitions on vaccine requirements in more than a dozen states. One of them is Florida, where Gov. Ron DeSantis has issued orders and signed legislation thatbansvaccine requirements by private companies as well as local government agencies.

Florida is a free state, and we will empower our people, DeSantis said in a fundraising letter this week. We will not allow Joe Biden and his bureaucratic flunkies to come in and commandeer the rights and freedoms of Floridians.

The virtual flag-waving, appeals to personal liberty, and warnings about fascism suggest there is something fundamentally un-American about vaccine mandates.But requirements to get inoculations have been around since the very first days of the republic, claiming broad support and withstanding legal challenges.

This isnt because officials or judges are ignoring freedom. Its because they believe vaccination is a key to securing it.In fact, among those who support vaccine requirements today are some well-known conservative judges and libertarian scholars in other words, precisely the sort of people you would expect to protest government overreach most vociferously.

What Liberals And Conservatives Say About Vaccine Mandates

A basic justification for vaccine mandates is that your freedom doesnt include the freedom to endanger the rest of your community.The principle is a bedrock of democratic philosophy and the American legal tradition, with courts applying it to a variety of contexts including public health.

You cant walk around assaulting people just because you feel like its an important part of your self-expression, Nicholas Bagley, a University of Michigan law professor, said in an interview. And you cant dump pollutants into a towns drinking water just because youd rather not pay for cleanup. By the same token, we require kids to get vaccinated for all sorts of illnesses before they go to public school. Otherwise, their bodies could be used as vectors to harm others.

SOPA Images via Getty ImagesFlorida Gov. Ron DeSantis, whose state's hospitals are filling up with COVID-19 patients, has said that vaccination requirements threaten freedom.

The most important legal precedent on vaccines specifically is a 1905 case called Jacobson v. Massachusetts, in which the Supreme Court upheld a state law requiring smallpox vaccination for adults. Just this week, a panel from a federal appeals court cited Jacobson when it upheld, unanimously, a new COVID-19 vaccine requirement for students at Indiana University.

The author of that ruling, Frank Easterbrook, is a well-respected conservative first put on the bench by President Ronald Reagan. In the opinion, Easterbrook argued that the Indiana University requirement was actually less onerous than the old Massachusetts requirement, because it applied only to people who are choosing to enroll at the university.

People who do not want to be vaccinated may go elsewhere, Easterbrook wrote.

That appears to be true for all of the vaccine mandates now in place or under discussion: They are not requirements per se, but rather conditions for some kind of voluntary activity. Although the consequences can still be harsh say, if it means giving up a job many of the mandates, including the one Biden introduced for federal workers, offer alternatives like undergoing frequent testing plus a promise to observe social distancing.

Thats in addition to exceptions for people who can cite legitimate religious grounds or who cant get shots for medical reasons.

In the eyes of the law, nothing under discussion is actually a mandate, in the sense of a government command backed up by coercion, Bagley said.

What Some Libertarians Say About Vaccine Mandates

Bagley is generally thought of as a liberal, but its not hard to find conservatives and libertarians who take the same view.

In a 2013 paper titled A Defense of Compulsory Vaccination, Jessica Flanigan, a University of Richmond professor known for libertarian writings on bioethics, cited the example of people firing guns into the air in order to celebrate Independence Day. Governments can and do prohibit such behavior even though its a form of expression, Flanigan explained, because the bullet could end up hitting and even killing somebody.

People are not entitled to harm innocents or to impose deadly risks on others, Flanigan wrote.

Georgetown University professor Jason Brennan made a similar argument in a 2018 journal article called A Libertarian Case for Mandatory Vaccination. That was two years before COVID-19, but, he told HuffPost last week, he thinks the case for mandates now remains strong.

Bill Clark via Getty ImagesElise Stefanik, the House Republican Conference chair from New York, punctuated her tweets on vaccine mandates with an American flag emoji.

In my view, people have the right to harm themselves by making bad choices, Brennan said. This is about protecting others from the undue risk of harm you impose upon them by being unvaccinated. The lower the personal costs/risks of the vaccine and the higher the risk that the unvaccinated impose upon others the stronger the case is for mandating vaccines.

And then there is Ilya Somin, whom nobody would mistake for a fan of government power.

A professor at George Mason University and an adjunct scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute, he has spent much of his professional life decrying what he sees as state encroachments on personal liberty, whether its local authorities taking property under eminent domain or the federal governmentpenalizing people for not getting health insurance.

But Somin said in an interview that vaccine mandates make sense under certain circumstances and that the present situation qualifies. He described taking the shot as a small burden for the sake of much larger benefits, like slowing transmission and reducing the opportunities for new, more dangerous variants to emerge.

The issue here is not just that it saves lives, but that it potentially saves a great many of them, and not just those of the vaccinated people themselves, Somin said. It also protects others in the community. That makes it different from primarily paternalistic restrictions on liberty, such as, say, requiring motorcycle riders to wear helmets.

Somin said said he would feel differently about imposing a requirement on the public at large, rather than making the vaccines a condition for engaging in certain activities, in part because it would be a law enforcement nightmare. Somin also noted that many of the mandates are coming from private-sector companies acting on their own.

American laws and courts have long given private companies all kinds of leeway to dictate terms of employment, as well as whom they serve as customers. Libertarians like Somin are especially reluctant to see that erode, because they believe owners, workers and consumers end up better off when corporations operate with fewer restrictions.

Where The Debate Goes From Here

One group that would be happy to cut down on management discretion over employees are labor unions, and thats a big reason so many unions representing teachers, health care workers and other sectors subject to the mandates have been fighting them.

The unions are also representing workers who, in many cases, are genuinely fearful of the vaccines. This is especially true for the health care unions whose memberships include large numbers of Black Americans, whose vaccination numbers nationwide have lagged in part because of deep distrust of the medical establishment that has built up over the centuries.

Of course, from a public health perspective, thats all the more reason to impose the mandate: to boost vaccination among people who take the pandemic seriously and are part of communities that have suffered disproportionately from COVID-19. And thats not to mention the biggest reason, which is that unvaccinated health care workers are a direct threat to the safety and well-being of patients.

Still, many of the unions fighting the requirements are focusing more on the specifics of verification and exceptions to the rules.Thats different from the categorical rejection of mandates you hear from Cruz, DeSantis and the other Republicans. And although the unions certainly represent a lot of members, those GOP officials have a lot of influence especially when it comes to the part of the population most hostile to getting vaccinated.

Calling all HuffPost superfans!

Sign up for membership to become a founding member and help shape HuffPost's next chapter

Read the original here:

Opponents Of COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates Have A Curious Definition Of 'Freedom' - HuffPost