Category Archives: Libertarian

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

ALEXANDER SALTER| Lubbock Avalanche-Journal

Libertarianism is a rational reconstruction of Americas founding principles. In other words, its as American as apple pie. You dont need to take my word for it. The Declaration of Independence proclaims the importance of liberty in virtually every sentence.

Remember, the United States was born in an uprising against tyranny. This basic fact reveals why libertarianism matters for contemporary American politics. Regardless of the questionable prudence of securing liberty through rebellion a strategy that has a rather unimpressive track record the American colonists-turned-citizens won their freedom, including the right to govern themselves. Both freedom from any government, as well as the right to choose our government, are important components of liberty, and hence libertarianism.

We all know the Declarations most famous passage: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. This is a beautiful and concise statement of the essence of libertarian philosophy. All human beings have rights upon which no agent, public or private, may trespass. Our rights are not handed down to us by the government. We possess them in virtue of our humanity and the inherent dignity that comes with it.

Furthermore, to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. We take this idea for granted today. But it was quite radical in 1776! In declaring to the world their reasons for seeking independence, Thomas Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers asserted the state exists to serve man, not man to serve the state. The Founders believed in virtue and piety. They would never reject their civic duty or moral obligation to serve their fellow men. Instead, they asserted a limited scope for government in securing human flourishing. As Jefferson wrote elsewhere, defenders of liberty deny anybody is born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.

Governments everywhere too easily become oppressive. Power tends towardconcentration, and the state is the ultimate form of coercive power. When the government oversteps its bounds, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Obviously, this is an extreme remedy. Losing an election, or even several elections, isnt a good enough reason to grab your musket. Nevertheless, a core tenet of libertarianism is citizens right to discipline the state when it tramples human dignity.

These three principles animate libertarianism. Libertarians passionately believe in mans natural rights, foremost among them the right to be free from force and fraud. Libertarians assert an instrumental function for government: Its to be judged according to its defense of natural rights. And libertarians hold government officials are agents of the citizenry, nothing more. Hence if politicians and bureaucrats get too big for their britches, its good and just to send them packing. Libertarianism is nothing more than a consistent witness to, and defense of, the Principles of 76.

Libertarians ideological foes often claim they believe in these principles. Conservatives (the right) and progressives (the left) each see themselves as the inheritors of the American tradition. But in crucial ways, both violate natural rights by using government coercion to advance their own goals. Conservatives are far too quick to overlook rights violations committed by domestic law enforcement and the military. Progressives ignore the ways their reckless taxing, spending, and regulatory plans violate property rights. Even more concerningly, both deny the right to speak and gather freely when they disagree with the speakers and gatherers purposes.

For libertarians, all rights violations are unacceptable. If we only defend peoples rights when we like what theyre doing, then we dont really believe in universal human dignity. Instead, we believe in a transitory and conditional dignity, which exists only if other people like what we like and do what we do. Nothing could be more inimical to freedom. Nothing could be more un-American. The Founders rightly rejected this servile philosophy. Libertarians honor them by continuing their work.

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction, warned President Reagan. This is why we need libertarianism. Citizens must never rest on their laurels. Freedom wasnt achieved once and for all in 1776. Liberty must be fought for, protected, and passed on to our posterity. Thankfully, we dont need an armed uprising or a divisive, us-versus-them mentality to keep our freedoms. For all its faults, the American political system is responsive to the demands of its citizens. Liberty is a fire that has lit the minds and hearts of men for hundreds of years. Libertarians are proud to tend that flame, in the hope that equal liberty for all may one day be ours.

Alexander William Salter is the Georgie G. Snyder Associate Professor of Economics in the Rawls College of Business at Texas Tech University and the Comparative Economics Research Fellow at TTUs Free Market Institute.

More:

Salter: The principles of '76: libertarianism and the Declaration of Independence - LubbockOnline.com

Coprophagic cynicism: Aditya Chakrabortty is in a fine fury (After Covid, the climate crisis will be the next thing the right says we just have to live with, 22 July). He identifies the ideology of extremist individualism that has broken the social contract that underpinned postwar Britain as a welfare state, and is now trying to dismantle our care and responsibility for each other.

They may not succeed in that, but we cannot go on pretending that there is no alternative to the market fundamentalist ideology that promises global disaster on at least two fronts. As an 80-year-old with inoperable cancer, the full shit may not hit my fan, but my grandchildren are being condemned to it. I share your rage, Aditya, and it is not only reserved for the Tories. John AirsLiverpool

In reference to Aditya Chakraborttys enlightening column, this immoral government utilises a sort of bastardisation and ruination of true libertarianism, which relies on the tenet of the harm principle. Theyre authoritarian on cultural issues, social issues, immigration, asylum, international treaties and borders (though not during pandemics, of course). When it comes to money, public health, tackling the climate emergency etc, theyre laissez-faire or hybrid libertarian. In every way, theyre wrong. They are far more efficient at acting on issues surrounding statues and knees than they are on topics such as Covid and climate change. I find the governments approach weak, divisive and repugnant.Sebastian MonblatLondon

Social psychologists have long taught us that social and political attitudes tend to cluster in syndromes, so that its very likely that those who hold libertarian views on Covid will also be climate change sceptics, as Aditya observes. He describes a growing extremist individualism an ideology that claims to be about freedom when really it means selfishness.

Another way of putting this is that there is an important distinction to be made between the libertarian and the psychopath, in that genuine libertarians respect the freedom of others, whereas psychopaths think only of their own. Psychopaths may imagine themselves, and convince others, that they are the former when they are in fact the latter. The imperative is to keep the psychopath out of power; easier said than done, but a good start would be to be clear about the difference.Dr Michael Briant Cambridge

Aditya Chakrabortty is right to draw attention to Boris Johnsons vacuous repetition of the mantra If not now, when? to justify his experiment in achieving herd immunity by encouraging the spread of Covid, and to attribute his actions to the propitiation of extremist individualism. Whatever the Talmudic sage Hillel meant by the aphorism attributed to him, it would hardly have encompassed removing restrictions in the face of increasing infections, given he equated saving one life to saving the whole world. Such a notion is evidently foreign to a mask-averse prime minister happy to risk other peoples health by allowing aerosol transmission in enclosed spaces, who views octogenarians as expendable.

Labour has correctly identified freedom day as reckless, but has lacked clarity in not having called in advance for this to be postponed. It is essential that Keir Starmer now gets ahead of the curve and calls for management of the crisis on the basis of collective responsibility rather than Tory selfishness.Dr Anthony Isaacs London

Have an opinion on anything youve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication.

Read more here:

Living with Covid and extreme individualism - The Guardian

Ive never quite understood why cryptocurrencies are worth anything. Of course, the untraceable payments are worth a lot to ransomware hackers, cyber criminals and money launderers. But dollars, euros and yen are backed by nations respective treasuries. If someone invents a cryptocurrency, any value is based solely on convincing others it has value. But is it a usable means of exchange? International banking officials say cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin are speculative assets, not sustainable, usable money.

Yet the epidemic of hugely disruptive ransomware attacks in recent months on JBS Foods, a major meat processor; on Colonial Pipelines, our critical infrastructure, causing gasoline shortages for weeks; and on 1,000 or more U.S. businesses on July 4 highlights the enormous risks. Moreover, hundreds of small towns, hospitals, school districts and small businesses have been hit by the ransomware epidemic all enabled by cryptocurrencies.

How should governments respond? Besieged with cyberattacks, the Biden administration has been struggling with this question of cybersecurity with few clear answers. Cyber offense still seems to beat cyber defense.

As the eminent economic analyst Martin Wolf outlined in a recent Financial Times essay, the risks and chaos of a wild world of unstable private money is a libertarian fantasy. According to a recent Federal Reserve paper, there are already some 8,000 cryptocurrencies. Its a new mom-and-pop cottage industry.

How should governments respond? Wolf argues that central banks (e.g., the U.S. Federal Reserve) should create their own official digital currencies central bank digital currencies (CBDC) and make cryptocurrencies illegal.

Ive been asking the same question: Who needs cryptocurrencies? Apart from the nasty uses and wild speculative value swings, data mining to produce bitcoin is a serious environmental hazard, using huge amounts of electricity by rows and rows of computers.

Governments should guarantee safe, stable and usable money. Already, according to the Atlantic Council GeoEconomics Center'sCBDC Tracker, 81 countries representing 90 percent of worldgross domestic product are at various stages of researching and exploring the adoption of digital currencies.

The four largest central banks the European Central Bank, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan and the U.S. Federal Reserve are all exploring CBDCs, though the U.S. lags behind. Meanwhile, China is already digitizing its currency, the RMB, and allowing foreign visitors to use it for payments. Though China is still a long way from having an international reserve currency to rival the dollar, its digitized RMB is a step in that direction.

Nonetheless, caution is well advised, as there are important, complex issues that must be sorted out before launching an official digital currency. These issues include equity: Should the digital dollar be available to all or just used for certain business transactions? I would argue it must be for all. Should a U.S. CBDC augment cash or totally replace it, and would there be a transition period? Then there is the impact on private banks: Should individuals have bank accounts with the Fed rather than private banks? What should be the relation between private banks and the Fed with regard to currency? Should businesses have digital wallets? How would international payments work?

And not least, there is the question of privacy and surveillance. A digitized dollar would likely make it hard to dodge taxes with untraceable cash. But just how traceable would the public and Congress accept a CBDC to become? Would the fact of a CBDC making transactions safer, faster and cheaper be worth some trade-off?

Then there is the question of whether the worlds major powers would cooperate in outlawing cryptocurrencies and reach agreement on rules and regulations of CBDCs. China, always with an eye on control, has indicated skepticism, if not disdain, toward cryptocurrencies. Indeed, that was one driver in Beijings swift move to digitize the RMB. This could be an area of U.S.-China cooperation worth exploring.

If China were on board, the possibility of a U.N. Security Council resolution to ban cryptocurrencies could be in the cards. That would be a foundation for taking the issue to the Group of 20 to make it a global norm.

For now, there are a whole lot more questions than answers. But the insidious new industry of cyber hacking and ransomware is an unacceptable disruptive threat to American economic security. It is a problem that is growing, not subsiding. And the proliferation of do-it-yourself digital currencies is a serious and bad omen for global financial stability.

Yet amid an international order that is fraying and fragmenting, its an open question whether such threats are enough to catalyze sufficient international cooperation. I suspect that with a little U.S. leadership, jump-starting financial diplomacy would go a long way. Certainly, its a good test for President BidenJoe BidenTrump hails Arizona Senate for audit at Phoenix rally, slams governor Republicans focus tax hike opposition on capital gains change Biden on hecklers: 'This is not a Trump rally. Let 'em holler' MOREs efforts to align democracies.

Robert A. Manning is a senior fellow of the Brent Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He was a senior counselor to the undersecretary of State for global affairs from 2001 to 2004, a member of the U.S. Department of State policy planning staff from 2004 to 2008 and on the National Intelligence Council strategic futures group from 2008 to 2012. Follow him on Twitter @Rmanning4.

See the rest here:

Bye-bye, bitcoin: It's time to ban cryptocurrencies | TheHill - The Hill

by: FOX59 Web, Nexstar Media Wire

The FBI received several tips that the man posted images and video on his Facebook and Instagram accounts that showed him in Washington, D.C. and inside the Capitol building after it had been breached by rioters on January 6.

BLOOMINGTON, Ind. (WXIN) An Indiana man has been charged in connection to the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on January 6.

28-year-old Antony Vo, of Bloomington, has been charged with the following:

The U.S. Capitol was breached on January 6 following a rally held in support of President Donald Trump. The insurrection happened as a joint session of Congress was held to certify the vote count of the Electoral College regarding the 2020 presidential election. A crowd bypassed U.S. Capitol police and forced entry into the U.S Capitol building, sending members of Congress evacuating the chambers.

The FBI received several tips that Vo posted images and video on his Facebook and Instagram accounts that showed him in Washington, D.C. and inside the Capitol building after it had been breached by rioters on January 6.

One tip came from someone who knew Vo from Indiana University, and another person who had attended high school with Vo also came forward.

According to court documents, both witnesses said they recognized Vo as the person in the photos in D.C. and said Vo was known to engage with conspiracy theories. They said Vo was an avid supporter of former President Trump and followed libertarian ideologies.

Federal authorities said one of the photos from Vos Facebook was taken inside the Capitol building after it was breached and featured Vo and a woman believed to be his mother. We have blurred the photo since the woman has not been charged. The same woman was also featured on Vos Instagram stories.

Law enforcement obtained a search warrant for Vos social media accounts and found he had multiple conversations on Facebook and Instagram acknowledging he was in the Capitol building on January 6. He sent photos to several people as proof.

Court documents detailed that Vo wrote in one conversation, President [Trump] asked me to be here tomorrow so I am with my mom LOL. In another, Vo claimed, My mom and I helped stop the vote count for a bit.

Vo also wrote that he was let into the Capitol building by police, as evidenced in this exchange:

Vo: they [the police] pretty much opened up for usFriend: The police opened the gate?! I didnt hear that anywhere!Vo: yeah they stood down and retreated after we clearly outnumbered them

FBI investigators were able to determine a cell phone associated with Vos phone number identified as having utilized a cell site consistent with providing service to a geographical area that included the interior of the Unites States Capitol Building on January 6 around the time of the insurrection.

Vo is the seventh person from Indiana to be arrested in connection to the Capitol riot.

Read the original post:

Man charged in Capitol riot investigation said Trump asked me to be here, documents show - KRON4

Mr. Sherman, a Korean War veteran, nodded along. It was a shame it had to happen, he said of the Jan. 6 assault, adding that he used to get very upset with some of Mr. Trumps remarks.

But the former president had been effective, he said. In my whole life Ive never been able to see someone accomplish so much, Mr. Sherman added, citing low unemployment rates and a strong economy. The bottom line was, did he get the job done?

Penny Ford, a Mount Pleasant resident who attended the event with her husband, Jim Ford, gave a more grudging assessment, explaining that they had winced at Ms. Maces comments about the former president. Still, she said, the congresswoman was the best we have at the moment.

Ms. Ford said they would prefer to be represented by someone like Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio a staunch Trump loyalist who helped plan the challenge to Mr. Bidens election in the House or Senator Ted Cruz of Texas who led the effort to invalidate it in the Senate and said they would consider voting against Ms. Mace next year if I had a choice for someone else.

The first woman to graduate from the Citadel, Ms. Mace based her winning 2020 campaign on her up-from-the-bootstraps biography, detailing her journey from scrappy Waffle House waitress to statehouse representative. She bested Mr. Cunningham, who had been the first Democrat to hold the seat in nearly four decades, by just over a percentage point.

On the campaign trail, Ms. Mace walked a careful line, balancing her libertarian streak with a more pragmatic approach, playing up a history of speaking up against members of her own party and reaching across the aisle.

And in the days after the Jan. 6 attack, she was unsparing in her language. What was necessary, Ms. Mace said then, was nothing short of a comprehensive rebuilding of the party. It was a time for Republicans to be honest with their voters, she said: Regardless of the political consequences, Im going to tell the truth.

Read more from the original source:

Nancy Mace Called Herself a New Voice for the G.O.P. Then She Pivoted. - The New York Times

EXCLUSIVE Americans for Prosperity (AFP), the powerful fiscally conservative and libertarian political advocacy group, is taking aim at what it calls Sen. Bernie Sanders "health care heist" in a new seven-figure ad blitz that aims to stop the $3.5 trillion spending plan that Democrats are trying to pass through Congress.

AFP says their campaign, shared first with Fox News on Wednesday, will target districts represented by 13 House Democrats that Republicans consider vulnerable in the 2022 midterm elections, when the GOP is aiming to win back majorities in both the House and the Senate. And they say it includes digital and radio ads, mail and phone calls to lawmakers offices, townhall events, and direct outreach to lawmakers.

TRUE COSTS OF DEMOCRATS' SPENDING PLAN COULD TOP $5 TRILLION: ANALYSIS

Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont and two-time Democratic presidential candidate, is chair of the Senate Budget Committee and is the lawmaker tasked with overseeing the massive budget resolution bill introduced last week by Senate Democrats.

Americans for Prosperity, the powerful fiscally conservative and libertarian political advocacy group, is taking aim at what it calls Sen. Bernie Sanders "health care heist" in a new seven-figure ad blitz that aims to stop the $3.5 trillion spending plan that Democrats are trying to pass through Congress. (Americans for Prosperity (AFP))

The measure would include nearly all key elements of President Bidens American Families Plan, including the creation of a national comprehensive paid family and medical leave program, funding for free universal preschool for three and four year-olds and free community college for all students. And it expands the number and amounts of Pell Grants, extending the child tax credits that were included in the COVID relief package, and funding for numerous clean energy programs.

AFP AD BLITZ TARGETS DEMOCRATS OVER BIDEN'S COVID RELIEF LAW

But the measure also includes expanding Medicare coverage for hearing, vision, and dental, which Sanders has long championed. To pay for their plan, Democrats are calling for tax hikes on corporations and the wealthiest earners, as well as beefing up the IRS in order to generate more revenue by cracking down on people who cheat or underpay on their taxes.

If it eventually becomes law, the measure would become the biggest expansion of the federal governments social safety net in many decades.

"This is, in our view, a pivotal moment in American history," Sanders emphasized as he spoke with reporters last week.

AFP MAKES PUSH TO PROTECT SENATE FILIBUSTER

But AFP president Tim Phillips warned that "lawmakers need to wake up and understand that Sen. Sanders and his allies are using the guise of infrastructure to plot the biggest expansion of government-run health care in over a decade."

"If members of Congress dont take this government health care takeover seriously, America will be one step closer to a single payer system that forces patients to give up the health care they like and saddles future generations with trillions in new debt," Phillips argued in a statement to Fox News.

And he urged that lawmakers from both parties "should roundly reject Sen. Sanders health care heist and instead work to give Americans a personal option that fixes whats broken with health care while keeping what works for millions of individuals and families."

AFP has long argued for reforming health care to make it more affordable for Americans without relying on more government spending or tax hikes.

AFP says the ads will run in districts represented by Democratic Reps.CindyAxne(IA-03),Carolyn Bourdeaux(GA-07),Angie Craig (MN-02), LizzieFletcher(TX-07), Andy Kim (NJ-03),Ron Kind (WI-03), AnnKirkpatrick(AZ-02), ElaineLuria(VA-02), TomMalinowski(NJ-07), StephanieMurphy(FL-07), Chris Pappas (NH-01),Elissa Slotkin (MI-08), and AbigailSpanberger (VA-07).

CLICK HERE FOR THE FOX NEWS APP

The group says the digital ads and calls to the lawmakers offices will begin on Wednesday, with the other elements in the campaign following shortly.

The new campaign by AFP follows a similar seven-figure effort earlier this year to spotlight what it considered the "harmful provisions" in the massive $1.9 trillion COVID relief package, formally known as the America Rescue Plan, that was passed along party lines and signed into law by Biden.

See the original post here:

Major conservative group spotlights Sanders health care heist in new ad blitz - Fox News

Virtually every person wants access to quality healthcare at an affordable price. Libertarians think the best way to achieve this is by removing government interference and enabling free markets.

Government inappropriately controls our healthcare in many ways:

Currently, the healthcare industry is virtually monopolized by the government and a handful of insurance companies. They hold the checkbook and wield it for their own benefit.

Each year, the government sets prices that they will pay providers including doctors and hospitals. Each year, these payments increase at less than the cost of inflation, while the cost of providing medical care increases by a far greater amount. This has unpleasant consequences for everyone.Providers are incentivized to do what is quick and cheap, not what is in the best interest of a particular patient. Doctors are forced to reduce the time they spend with patients, and this reduces quality of care. Hospitals are discouraged from upgrading facilities, and this reduces quality of care. Worse yet, insurance companies often set their payments according to the governments prices. This regular ratcheting down on payments to providers, while actual costs to provide care increases, makes providers less able to provide high quality healthcare.

Government also regulates where medical facilities can be built, who can build them, and when. The process for applying for permission to build facilities is very costly and very slow, thus it favors the biggest corporations and prevents smaller organizations from opening new facilities that could serve patients. This greatly limits patients access to medical care and increases costs compared to a system where government permission was not required.

Institutions such as the Food and Drug Administration also limit cost-effective access to quality care. The approval processes for new drugs and technology is lengthy and expensive. Because of this, the process favors the biggest companies with the most lawyers. There are many stories of patients dying while waiting for approval of a new device or medicine. Instead, Libertarians call for free-market testing which will be inherently incentivized to be efficient and fair in their processes. Additionally, Libertarians believe in the Right to Try, especially in situations with a terminal diagnosis. The government must not be permitted to deny patients access to new medical advances.

Tort reform would also greatly reduce the cost of health care. The current tort system raises the cost of care byencouraging unnecessary testing and procedures which increase the costof medical care by forcing medical teams to devote significant time and resources to preventing or defending against unwarranted legal actions. When legitimate claims arise, they should be taken seriously and resolved fairly through the courts. However, frivolous and fraudulent claims should not be tolerated, as our current system does. These disparage our healthcare providers and the quality of medical care they can provide and that we can receive. Libertarians oppose fraud in all forms.

In short, Libertarians believe that each personhas the right to make their own medical decisions. Libertarians support removing government meddling from healthcare. We think this and tort reform arethe best ways to improve quality of healthcare, increase access to healthcare, and decrease prices of healthcare in our country.

See more here:

Healthcare | Libertarian Party

Former San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer's campaign is in a dispute with state officials over whether he can be listed as the city's retired mayor on the ballot for the recall election of Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Each candidate is listed with a job title or other descriptor, but they are not allowed to use the word former. Faulconer's campaign requested he be listed as San Diego's retired mayor, which state officials are now disputing, Faulconer spokesman John Burke said. He left the office in 2020, and referencing his prior role would help boost his name identification.

Burke said the campaign plans to sue the Secretary of State's office.

"It defies common sense that KevinFaulconerwouldnt be allowed to use retired San Diego Mayor as his ballot designation, where he was elected and re-elected, leaving office only at the end of last year," Burke said in a written statement. "This is not fair to voters who should be given accurate information as to who the candidates for this recall actually are. Our campaign is suing the Secretary of State to ensure that this is rectified."

Faulconer isn't the only candidate upset with the list of 41 candidates released Saturday by the state. YouTube creator Kevin Paffrath said he planned to sue to get his YouTube nickname on the ballot.

And, conservative talk radio host Larry Elder was left off the ballot because state officials say he submitted incomplete tax returns, a requirement to run. Elder maintains he should be included and says he'll go to court to get his name on the ballot.

The list of candidates includes 21 Republicans and eight Democrats, one Libertarian, nine independents and two Green Party members. The list has a range of candidates from the anonymous to the famous, including an entertainer known for putting herself on Los Angeles billboards in the 1980s and others with eye-catching names, like deputy sheriff Denver Stoner, and Nickolas Wildstar, who lists himself as a musician/entrepreneur/father.

Also listed is Olympian-turned-reality-TV-star Caitlyn Jenner, who was reportedly in Australia filming a reality show at the time the list was released, though she tweeted Friday that she and her campaign team are "in full operation."

Voters will be sent a ballot with two questions: Should Newsom be recalled, and who should replace him. If more than half of voters say yes to the first question, then whoever on the list of potential replacements gets the most votes is the new governor of the nations most populous state. With numerous candidates and no clear front-runner, its possible the someone could win with less than 25% of the votes.

Ballots will start going out next month in the mail, and the official election date is Sept. 14.

Read this article:

Faulconer Campaign in Dispute With State Over Title on Recall Ballot - NBC San Diego

Recently, there have been increased calls to boycott or otherwise penalize the Federalist Society (a conservative, libertarian, nonpartisan, nonprofit legal organization). The grounds for the boycott are straightforward: Without question, some of the Societys leaders and most prominent members took part in the shameful efforts to overturn the 2020 election, and fuel the January 6, 2021 insurrection. In a piece for Slate, Nicolas Wallace contends that because the Federalist Society, as an organization, has not condemned the insurrectionist in its ranks, it should not occupy a place of respect in the legal community.

Mr. Wallace has personal experience with Society members behaving badly, and he pens an interesting and intelligent piece. On its own, it drives me to deeper reflection. But his opinion is likely not an outlier. It is already being echoed by law professors I respect immensely, and whose opinions I normally share. Whats more, on top of 2020s parade of horribles, the Federalist Society's key role in identifying, vetting, and pushing forward President Trumps federal judicial nominees has already made it a top-tier villain for many Democrats and progressives. The Federalist Society has become one of the few secular non-profit organizations to penetrate the everyday political discourse of ideological and partisan foes.

The Federalist Society was founded in 1982 in response to the domination of liberals and progressives in the legal academy and the practice of law. It now includes more than 75,000 law students, professors, lawyers, and judges. Here in Nevada, the Federalist Society has Reno and Las Vegas chapters for Nevada lawyers. And UNLVs Boyd Law School, the states only law school, has a robust student chapter as well. All three chapters regularly host speaking events and meetings.

I serve as a board member for the Las Vegas chapter, and the Society had a positive influence on my years as a student and a lawyer. My long association with the organization and my past service as a Republican election law attorney, notwithstanding, I spent most of 2020 publicly challenging and condemning President Trumps efforts to disenfranchise voters, sow distrust in our elections, and ruin democracy in Nevada and across the country.

On this news site alone, I wrote at least eight different pieces in praise of Nevadas electoral system, its officials, and its results, while also critiquing President Trumps legal positions and efforts. I defended Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske and her team. I also wrote pieces in support of expanding the franchise, the value of voters, moderation, immigration, waiting on confirming Justice Ginsburgs replacement until after the election, Gov. Steve Sisolak, and U.S. Sen. Harry Reid. I endorsed and voted for President Biden, too.

I left the Republican Party in August of 2020 specifically because of President Trumps anti-democratic actions and rhetoric, and the harm it was causing Nevada. Given my previous partisan work and affiliations, you can imagine how my opinions and efforts were received. I have walked away from my party, and much of my former political life, but I did not and will not walk away from the Federalist Society.

The Society played an important part in my intellectual growth. I disagree regularly, and I know that my personal politics diverge sharply from the vast bulk of its members. But the Federalist Society taught me important lessons: personal politics and judicial duties need not (and probably shouldnt) be the same thing. The rule of law should transcend and restrain a judges partisan inclinations and preferred policy outcomes. In America, we accept no kings, whether they wear gold crowns or black robes. These are fundamental truths the Federalist Society has instilled in me and that will not change even as other Society members sail on sour ideological winds.

Furthermore, I like having ideas and preconceptions tested especially my own. Just last week, I spent my lunchtime enjoying too much meat from Fogo de Chao and listening to the brilliant Georgetown Law School Professor (and longtime Society member) Randy Barnett. He has a new book coming out in November titled The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment: Its Letter and Spirit. Based on his presentation, it looks like the book will attempt to get the radical history behind the 14th Amendment right and challenge conservatives and libertarians to actually embrace the fight for justice under the law. I cant wait to read the book.

But it is not just the Federalist Societys intellectual airs that makes it worthy of defense. Many of the Societys members erred tremendously in 2020, but many stood strong as well. Quite a few of the judges who rejected Trumps efforts to overturn the election were members of the Federalist Society. These judges often rejected President Trumps specious argument on grounds rooted in Federalist Society principles. In Nevada, many Republican state court judges all of whom are elected and some of whom I know largely agree with the Federalist Societys philosophy also held fast under intense pressure. Law, not politics, ruled.

Among the many things the 20th Century got wrong was the idea that you could solve complex problems by drawing lines on maps and separating people.Whether it was an effort to untangle some of the horrors of Colonialism, or to preempt some of the expected problems of the Cold War, world leaders thought partitioning countries, communities, and persons a useful remedy. In hindsight, such division proved catastrophically poor medicine, and almost always made things worse.

This history of geopolitical and human partition provides an admittedly crude (and limited) caution about social partitioning today. It is not new borders between countries that worry me, but the new metaphorical borders we are erecting between each other. We are engaged in all sorts of voluntary and involuntary sorting along political and ideological grounds. And we Nevadans are no exception. More and more of our civil, social, religious, and even private lives are quarantined from non-believing outsiders.

I would hate for groups like the Federalist Society to voluntarily or involuntarily exit Nevadas polite legal community. In the long term, such separation rarely works, and usually backfires. Life is messy, and so is the practice of law. None of us know as much as we think we do. Like it or not, all we have is each other. And mixing together, even to passionately disagree, might be the most pro-democracy step we can take.

Daniel H. Stewart is a fifth-generation Nevadan and a partner with Hutchison & Steffen. He was Gov. Brian Sandovals general counsel and has represented various GOP elected officials and groups.

See more here:

Social partitioning - The Nevada Independent