Category Archives: Libertarian

As dawn broke on the final day of voting in election 2020, Libertarian Party (L.P.) presidential nominee Jo Jorgensen was polling nationally at around 1.8 percent, and above the margin between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden in five states: Ohio, Texas, Georgia, Iowa, and (in scant polling) Alaska.

That's a far cry from 2016 Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson's last pre-election polling average of 4.8 percent, or even the former New Mexico governor's disappointing-to-many final tally of 3.28 percent.

"Beating Gary's last numbers would be success," Jorgensen told Reason's Eric Boehm one month ago, while also complaining about not being included in nearly as many polls this cycle. "I'm hoping to beat his second run. But, you know, put it this way: I will consider it not a success if I don't at least his beat his numbers from his first run."

Johnson's 2012 exertions won him 0.99 percent of the national vote, or just a hair under the L.P.'s then-record haul of 1.06 percent in 1980, in a ticket headed by Ed Clark and financed by deep-pocketed vice presidential nominee David Koch (yes, that one). So what Jorgensen is saying that anything below 1 percent would be a disappointment.

Certainly, many Libertarians would consider even a 1.1 percent showingjust one-third of 2016!to be a bummer, while many two-party voters (including not a small number of self-described small-l libertarians) would use it as an opportunity for ridicule, or at least critique of how the party always seems to squander its opportunities. Democrats and Republicans aren't even talking about reducing government and expanding freedom anymore, in a country where those issues have resonated historically, and all you got was this lousy one percent?

But as the clock ticks toward the first poll-closings at 7 p.m. eastern, I would suggest at least entertaining another interpretation. Maybe 1.1 percent in this third-party-unfriendly environment would be an accomplishment, cementing the L.P.'s transformation over the past decade from a mostly non-podium performer that couldn't win over even half of a percent of the electorate from 19842008, to the third party in the United States. (Yes, yes, insert "tallest dwarf" joke here.)

Consider: As of late October (per the indispensable Richard Winger), in the 32 states that register voters by party, there were 47.1 million Democrats, 35 million Republicans, and 33.7 independents. Libertarians, while a distant third at 652,000, towered above Greens (240,000), the Constitution Party (130,000), the New Yorkbased Working Families (50,000), and the desiccated husk of Ross Perot's Reform Party (9,000).

Jorgensen, with a fraction of the name recognition of 2008 Libertarian nominee Bob Barr (then an ex-GOP congressman who made his name in the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton), is polling ahead of all third-party and independent presidential candidates in every state except New York (where, after just two polls, she trailed independent Brock Pierce and Green Party nominee Howie Hawkins). This on the heels of Gary Johnson beating all third-party comers in all 50 states.

Barr, on the other hand, finished with just 0.4 percent of the vote, behind the 0.56 percent of four-time independent candidate Ralph Nader, who Barr beat in just six states.

When Jorgensen, the party's vice presidential nominee in 1996 (Harry Browne won just 0.5 percent of the vote that year, behind both Nader and Perot), finishes in third place tonight, that will mark the third consecutive presidential bronze medal for the L.P.something no political party has pulled off since the Socialists between 19161932.

Put another way, of all voters who selected neither a Democrat nor a Republican for president, 57 percent of them chose a Libertarian in both 2012 and 2016, the party's highest-ever such share, topping Ron Paul's 48 percent in 1988. Polling suggests that Jorgensen is likely to repeat that performance, even with such luminaries as Kanye West on some ballots. The dominant alternative to the political status quo is called "Libertarian."

And contrary to a common critique, it's not just about presidential elections. The party has more than 200 elected officials, mostly in state and local positions, though since April their ranks have included for the first time a sitting (if lame-duck) member of Congress, Rep. Justin Amash (LMich.). Elected Libertarians do useful stuff, like pass occupational licensing reform, remove ancient prohibitions from the books, and reform public-sector pensions.

That sound you hear is aggressive eye rolling from Democratic and Republican voters, who are busy battling the most important election in the history of mankind, and have no patience left for political LARPers. And fair enoughmarginal blocs will always be treated marginally, at least until we're needed to help push through the types of libertarian reforms that major-party politicians talk about but rarely accomplish: ending the drug war, bringing the troops home, reducing the size of government, protecting free speech, even helping improve infrastructure.

But the more that libertarians retain their own discrete political identity, rather than latching on like barnacles to the rusty tankers of the two major parties, the more likely that their affections will be solicited, rather than taken for granted. President Donald Trump is out there stressing anti-war themes to 2016 Johnson voters, and that's not a bad outcome at all (if inferior to actually ending our Forever Wars).

The past week has featured many semi-prominent libertarian media personalities ripping each other's faces off (rhetorically) in advance of the election. It will ever be thushave you met libertarians? There is a powerful lure to be part of something that could be, if you squint at it just right, characterized as winning. It would be pretty to think that this Republican or that Democrat is gonna really do the libertarian things just as soon as he/she wins the next election.

In the face of those temptations, and the motivating negative polarization of seeing awful politicians and ideologies in or near power, it's a wonder there's much of any third-party juice left four years after a bitterly divided election. If in this context, a relative no-name candidate produces the party's second-best-ever result, while beating all other third partiers in all 50 states, I'd call that an accomplishment.

Who knows if and when our 19th century political groupings will transmogrify into something new, or even perhaps stumble off into the sunset. When that day nears, people will be looking anew toward the next available alternative. Right now, for better and for worse, wartsso many warts!and all, that alternative is called "Libertarian." And will be on Wednesday, too.

Read the original:

Maybe Jo Jorgensen Finishing With 1% Would Actually Be Pretty Good? - Reason

Liz Terwilliger, Libertarian candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from PAs 12th District, and Noyes Lawton, Libertarian candidate for PA State Representative from District 68, met with residents at Clock Works Coffee in Westfield.

Discussion included topics of small businesses, difficulties getting signatures during the COVID-19 season, inflation and over-regulation.

The Oct. 28 event was held so locals could share what was on their minds before the election. Terwilliger and Lawton both said they have tried to help people understand there are parties for election other than just Republican or Democrat.

We need to start discussing everybody. It doesnt matter what party. We need to talk to each other and come up with solutions. I think through conversation we will have solutions, said Lawton.

The candidates agreed that people of opposing views today are yelling at each other instead of talking. They said its important to talk to find solutions, rather than team-picking. If there can be civil conversations, areas of agreement can be found.

Even though strong emotions can be generated, we need to let each other be human so that we can have a conversation and not just shut down. Lets have a conversation so we can see each others point of view, said Terwilliger.

Lawton said it is important to pay attention to local elections. The decisions of the state representatives and county commissioners have a more immediate impact on community residents versus the decisions of the president, which are watered down and filtered through federal and state departments.

We have become addicted to government and, as soon as we have a problem, we say, Whats the government going to do to fix the problem? instead of saying, What am I going to do to fix the problem? or What are we as a community going to do to fix the problem? said Lawton.

Terwilliger said the community needs to serve the community rather than looking to the government to take over. She said it is important to have representatives who are representative of the people and not just the party or finances.

One of the reasons that I want to keep doing these kinds of things is to keep people connected and have these kinds of conversations about what people would like to see. It is important to be in touch with constituents, said Terwilliger.

The Libertarian candidates said as long as people do not take what does not belong to them and do not hurt people or infringe on their rights, they want people to live their life.

Continued here:

Libertarian candidates share conversation and coffee - The Wellsboro Gazette

LITTLE ROCK Ricky Dale Harringtons landslide loss to Republican U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton on Tuesday represents a high-water mark, thus far, for the Libertarian cause in Arkansas and across the nation.

In unofficial returns, with 2,545 of 2,575 precincts reporting, it was:

Cotton.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 787,542

Harrington. . . . . . . . . . 393,110

The former prison chaplain from Pine Bluff, thus far, had 33.3% of the vote. Two-thirds of the ballots were for Cotton, a first-term incumbent from Little Rock.

Its a record for a Libertarian U.S. Senate candidate anywhere in the United States. Ever. So were absolutely enthusiastic and appreciative of that showing, said Joe Bishop-Henchman, the national party chairman.

Brian Colas, Cottons political director, said 66.6% is also a high water mark for an Arkansas Republican in a major statewide race.

We wanted to break 60%. We broke 66%, he said. Were thrilled.

Both sides fared well because they didnt have to split votes with a Democrat.

Josh Mahony of Fayetteville, the partys only candidate, dropped out of the race hours after the filing deadline. Dan Whitfield, a Bella Vista independent, failed to collect enough signatures to qualify for the ballot.

That left voters with just two options: Cotton or Harrington.

Until now, Alaskan Joe Miller was the top-performing Libertarian Senate candidate; he captured 29.2% of the vote when he ran in 2016.

Miller was well-known by voters hed lost a Senate bid in 2010, despite winning the Republican Party nomination.

Harrington, on the other hand, was a political newcomer.

Despite having minimal name recognition and even less money, Harrington, 35, captured nearly as many votes in Arkansas as Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.

He easily outpaced other Libertarians on the Arkansas ballot, including the partys presidential nominee, Jo Jorgensen of South Carolina, who finished with 13,024 votes.

Cotton was leading in 72 of the states 75 counties, but Harrington finished ahead in Pulaski, Jefferson and Phillips counties. All three are Democratic strongholds.

Hal Bass, a political science professor emeritus at Ouachita Baptist University, portrayed Tuesdays vote as an aberration.

It was just a protest vote by Democrats, he said.

That does not indicate that there is a Libertarian constituency of that magnitude in Arkansas. It does indicate that theres an anti-Cotton constituency of that magnitude in Arkansas, he said.

Harrington, who could not be reached for comment Wednesday, fared relatively well despite being heavily outspent.

His campaign had collected $68,191 as of Oct. 14; Cotton had collected more than $12.8 million.

Harrington surpassed the most recent pollsters predictions.

A Talk Business & Politics-Hendrix College survey Oct. 19 Monday showed Cotton winning, 62% to 27% with 10% undecided.

The Arkansas Poll, released Oct. 28, had Cotton even further ahead, 75%-20%.

Cottons internal polling had pointed to a closer race. In the closing days, he made repeated trips to Arkansas, while also working elsewhere to push for continuing Republican control of the Senate.

Rather than criticizing his opponent, Cotton talked about his own record and priorities. The campaign knew that the vast majority of Arkansans agreed with Sen. Cotton on the issues, so thats what our campaign prioritized, Colas said.

In addition to campaigning in Arkansas, Cotton also campaigned for vulnerable Senate colleagues, making stops in Georgia, Montana, Colorado and elsewhere.

Most of the candidates he backed ended up winning.

Go here to see the original:

Cotton win good news, say parties of two rivals - Arkansas Online

It seems that internet friends and atheist You Tube sensations CosmicSkeptic and Rationality Rules have either read my book at some point or are just hitting a rich vein of Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) criticism by mutual awesomeness.

I recently posted about my thoughts concerning CosmicSkeptics debate with William Lane Craig and you can see my three videos I did on the subject here.

Rationality Rules (RR) recently did a couple of videos showing how the KCA and libertarian free will are incompatible, something that features as a strong claim in my book Did God Create the Universe from Nothing? Countering William Lane Craigs Kalam Cosmological Argument(UK). See my posts here:

Rationality Rules (aka Stephen Woodford) just responded to an apologist defending the coherence of the KCA and libertarian free will in his video here:

I was particularly intrigued with this video, not just because I was conceited enough to think that RR had read my book, but more importantly due to the T-shirt he was wearing: A Fallen Acorn brewery one. Fallen Acorn is my local beer/brewery in Gosport that was so named for the metaphor by point of fact it was the resurrection of the previous brewery, the Oakleaf Brewery, that went under. I love the name and what they are doing with their beers. So for him to wear the T-shirt made me think he was local to me. I shot him a message that he immediately returned asking if he had read my book and whether he was local, vis-a-vis the T-shirt. To my disdain, he had not heard of my book (though promised to grab a copy), but to my joy he is not only local to me, but actually designed the brewerys logo!

The long and the short of it is that we may well do a video together discussing the Kalam and drinking ale, after having a brief discussion, united by the love for good beer and the contempt for rubbish apologetics.

This is a win win. Tippling AND philosophising. Whats not to like with that?

Stay in touch! Like A Tippling Philosopher on Facebook:

Here is the original post:

Libertarian Free Will and the Kalam, Revisited | Jonathan MS Pearce - Patheos

But Chen claims that Oceanix City will be different, partly because of lessons hes learned from working with TSI. During his time as Tahitis minister of tourism, Collins Chen helped connect his native French Polynesia with TSI to establish a self-sufficient floating city within the territorys Special Economic Zone and to test its viability as a climate-change solution. After both parties signed an MOU in early 2017, Collins Chen co-founded the Blue Frontiers company to develop and construct The Floating Island Project.

Mounting opposition from Tahitian locals to what appeared to be a floating tax-free haven for the wealthy, however, ended government support for the project in 2018. Borrowing elements from the failed project, Collins Chen moved on to found the floating cities company Oceanix, which he says will be free of the political baggage that sank the French Polynesian prototype.

Unlike TSIs autonomous libertarian utopias, Oceanix settlements will be floating extensions of host nations and subject to government rule. Most importantly, he adds, Oceanix City is being developed with a focus on egalitarian principles and environmentalism, rather than governmental reform and a bias towards the wealthy.

Oceanix has put together an impressive teamincluding MIT scientists and Danish architecture firm Bjarke Ingels Groupto develop designs based on TSIs principles of modularity and self-sufficiency. Created to withstand extreme climate events such as Superstorm Sandy, an Oceanix City comprises hexagonal modules constructed from hollow concrete caissons that buoy the flood-proof city upwards in the event of rising waters.

Since the company will market the Oceanix City concept to governments worldwide, modularity is a key feature of the customizable design. Prefabricated off site, the 4.5-hectare floating platforms, which house 300 people each, can be joined together in a variety of configurations, with modules added or subtracted as needed. Six combined modules form a village, while six connected villages add up to an Oceanix City of 10,000 residents.

In reframing floating cities as a climate-change solution, Oceanix has earned support from the UN. Packed to the gills with sustainable techfrom locally grown food to water-to-energy plants, Oceanixs floating city redesign promises zero-waste, self-sufficient living. One notable example is the unique application of Biorock to anchor the settlements while simultaneously creating artificial reefs for marine ecosystem regeneration. Developed in the late 1970s, the mineral-accretion technology uses electric currents in seawater to crystallize dissolved minerals into heavy limestone coatings that are two to three times stronger than ordinary concrete.

More:

Floating Cities and Sea-Level Rise - an unsinkable idea - Anthropoce

How long has Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden been in the political game? Long enough to have been at the center of a smear campaign during the Senate confirmation hearings of the longest-serving member of the current U.S. Supreme Court.

The 1991 showdown over Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas is mostly remembered today for the accusations of sexual misconduct leveled by Anita Hill. But the hearings actually kicked off with Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Joe Biden trying to discredit Thomas as a crazy libertarian and reckless judicial activist.

"I assure you I have read all of your speeches, and I have read them in their entirety," Biden told Thomas shortly after the nominee's opening statement. "And, in the speech you gave in 1987 to the Pacific Research Institute, you said, and I quote, 'I find attractive the arguments of scholars such as Stephen Macedo who defend an activist Supreme Court that would'not could, would'strike down laws restricting property rights.'"

"It has been quite some time since I have read Prof. Macedo," Thomas replied. "But I don't believe that in my writings I have indicated that we should have an activist Supreme Court."

Biden claimed that he didn't buy it. "Quite frankly, I find it hard to square your speeches," he told the nominee, "with what you are telling me today."

Thomas gave the speech in question at the Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco on August 10, 1987. It touched on a number of issues, including the views of Stephen Macedo, then an assistant professor in the government department at Harvard University and the author of The New Right v. the Constitution, a 1987 book published by the libertarian Cato Institute. The book made a case for "principled judicial activism."

Macedo's book was basically an extended critique of Robert Bork, the highly influential conservative legal thinker who championed a thoroughgoing doctrine of judicial deference. The "first principle" of the U.S. system, Bork insisted, was majority rule, not individual rights. What Bork's view meant in practice was that the federal courts should defer to lawmakers in most cases. "In wide areas of life," Bork argued, "majorities are entitled to rule, if they wish, simply because they are majorities."

Macedo advanced the opposite view. "When conservatives like Bork treat rights as islands surrounded by a sea of government powers," he countered, "they precisely reverse the view of the Founders as enshrined in the Constitution, wherein government powers are limited and specified and rendered as islands surrounded by a sea of individual rights."

Which brings us back to Thomas. Here is his 1987 Macedo quote in full:

I find attractive the arguments of scholars such as Stephen Macedo who defend an activist Supreme Court, which would strike down laws restricting property rights. But the libertarian argument overlooks the place of the Supreme Court in a scheme of separation of powers. One does not strengthen self-government and the rule of law by having the non-democratic branch of the government make policy. Hence, I strongly support the nomination of Bob Bork to the Supreme Court. Judge Bork is no extremist of any kind. If anything, he is an extreme moderate, one who believes in the modesty of the Court's powers, with respect to the democratically elected branches of government.

So yes, Thomas said he found Macedo's arguments "attractive." But then Thomas immediately faulted Macedo and endorsed Bork, the very figure that Macedo was trying to bring down. In other words, Biden ripped Thomas' words out of context to give them the opposite meaning of what Thomas actually said.

The whole episode reflects poorly on Biden.

Visit link:

When Joe Biden Tried To Paint Clarence Thomas as a Crazy Libertarian - Reason

From Mark Glogowski, Ph.D., Libertarian candidate for NY State 139thAssembly District:

One of the most important issues I believe we face is the unconstitutional tyranny of our current taxation situation. Having an ally in your Assembly is crucial to correcting this. Being realistic, it will take time to unweave the tangled interrelations between government agencies and departments that have been created since the 16th Amendment was ratified, but it is doable. It will take time to get our obese government trimmed down to be lean and efficient, and with a lower appetite for taxes, but it is achievable.

There are several ways we can begin this process. The first is to get the state to operate within a balanced budget by cutting spending, not increasing taxes. We need a legislature that is aware of and pursues nongovernmental options when issues are being considered. A legislature that is willing to hear and apply Libertarian solutions, thus eliminating the need for the wealth of the people to support the governments involvement.

Here are just a few places and activities we could proactively begin:

Lets put a stop to government wasting your hard-earned money. If we are successful we will see more activity by private enterprise to help spur the economy and build a better community, such as the grant program set up by Heritage Wind.

All these barriers were placed by generations of Democrat and Republican politicians. You cannot employ the same thinking to change as was used to create this mess.

Support my efforts to become your NYS Assemblyman and I assure you, restructuring our financial (tax) structure, rescinding the 16thAmendment, and restoring financial barriers to taxing will be among my top objectives. As your Assemblyman, I will work to initiate a call to rescind the 16thAmendment and will seek the support of the Assemblies in 35 other States. I will work to give you back control over your wealth and possessions.

Vote Libertarian

Vote for Mark Glogowski for Assembly, District 139

Read more about my positions on other important issues at: http://www.glogowskiforassembly.com

See the rest here:

Libertarian Assembly candidate calls for line item veto to rein in spending, elimination of property taxes and more to get rid of 'tyranny' and bloat...

On Wednesday, U.S. Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., and chairman of the House Judiciary Committees antitrust subcommittee, opened a half-virtual hearing on Online Platforms and Market Power with a combative opening statement: Our founders would not bow before a king. Nor should we bow before the emperors of the online economy.

That set the tone for the hours of sharp questioning of four of the wealthiest people on the planet: Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Tim Cook of Apple, Sundar Pichai of Google and Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, whose companies have a combined market value roughly equivalent to the GDP of Japan.

Given the history of Silicon Valleys relationship with Washington, the intensity and precision of some subcommittee members questions were remarkable. It is a sign that significant tech regulation may be closer than we think.

Despite its techno-libertarian image, the tech industry has had close political ties for decades and remarkable success in getting what it wants.

In the late 1970s, venture capitalists and semiconductor chief executives got Capitol Hill and the Carter White House to agree to tax cuts and looser financial regulations. In the 1980s, a group of young legislators became such boosters of the industry that they were known as Atari Democrats. Ronald Reagan extolled Silicon Valley entrepreneurship and helped tech companies fend off Japanese competition.

The bipartisan love affair intensified in the 1990s as Bill Clinton and Al Gore invited tech executives to shape early internet-era policymaking. Newt Gingrich, then the Republican speaker of the House, talked up cyberspace and formed close alliances with libertarian-minded tech thinkers. His partys leaders convened high-tech summits on Capitol Hill.

The lightly regulated online economy we have today is a product of that decade, when Silicon Valley leaders persuaded starry-eyed lawmakers that young, scrappy internet companies could regulate themselves.

Washingtons embrace of tech continued even as questions emerged about the industrys wealth and power. A 2013 Senate hearing to interrogate Cook about Apples tax avoidance quickly was sidetracked by lawmakers gushing to the chief executive about his companys innovative products. Pichai faced tough questions at a 2018 House Judiciary hearing, but also was showered with praise.

Google is still the story of the American dream, declared Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte of Virginia, the committees chairman at the time.

Those days seemed a dim memory Wednesday. Instead, the mood recalled the traffic safety debates of the mid-1960s that helped catalyze significantly more regulation for the auto industry. After a steady drumbeat of studies and some short-lived congressional inquiries, traffic safety exploded into the public consciousness starting with Senate hearings in the summer of 1965, where top auto executives faced sharp questions about their lax approach to safety.

The evening network news programs showed Robert F. Kennedy, a newly elected senator from New York, grilling the leaders of General Motors about the tiny amount the company spent on safety research. Later that year a young lawyer advising the Senate committee, Ralph Nader, published a blockbuster expos of the industry, Unsafe at Any Speed.

This combination of political and media scrutiny led to passage of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, which mandated seatbelts and additional car safety features, as well as road improvements like guardrails and traffic barriers.

Wednesday felt like Big Techs Ralph Nader moment: the pointed questioning by committee members, notably its Democratic women like Reps. Val Demings of Florida, Pramila Jayapal of Washington, Lucy McBath of Georgia and Mary Gay Scanlon of Pennsylvania; the crescendo of investigative journalism that, in part, led to this weeks hearing by shining a critical light on Big Techs practices. And now, this House subcommittee is merely one of several legislative or regulatory bodies considering limits on Big Techs power.

There are of course many reasons tech regulation may not come to pass. The issues at stake are wickedly complex, and quite different for each of these companies, something chief executives sought to underscore in the hearing.

It appears to me, Bezos observed, that social media is a nuance-destruction machine, and I dont think thats helpful for a democracy. (Zuckerbergs reaction to that statement sadly was not visible to the audience.)

Large tech companies also have prepared for the regulatory onslaught by starting some of the most well-funded lobbying operations in Washington. They learned a lesson from Microsoft, whose presence in the capital before its antitrust case in 1998 consisted of one employee who worked out of the back of his car because he lacked proper office space.

Although the trial didnt end with Microsoft being ordered to break itself apart, it taught the company that government regulators needed to be taken seriously. And as a result Microsoft tamped down its most aggressive market practices, and escaped much of the yearslong policy scrutiny now facing its peers.

Then there is the sticky problem of public opinion. During other seminal moments carmakers in the 1960s, tobacco in the 1990s the problems posed by unregulated bigness were clear-cut. Cigarettes killed people. Cars were unsafe.

Techs consumer dangers are harder to see and acutely feel on an average day: misinformation, an incomplete search result, a unfairly promoted link, privacy erosion, a skewed algorithm. We may wish we used our smartphones less, or worry about what overuse of social media is doing to our communities and brains.

But we still routinely check our Facebook pages, buy apps via Apple, and click buy on Amazon Prime. Even if, as some representatives noted, we do so because we have little alternative.

What happens next will depend on many things, including the November election. But this week marks the end of Washingtons great love affair with tech, one that helped make these companies bigness possible in the first place.

Margaret OMara is a contributing opinion writer for the New York Times and a history professor at the University of Washington in Seattle. She is the author of three books, most recently The Code: Silicon Valley and the Remaking of America, and has published widely on the history of the high-tech economy.

See the article here:

OPINION EXCHANGE | The last days of the tech emperors? - Minneapolis Star Tribune

The economist James Buchanan, who along with Gordon Tullock founded the public choice school of economics, shares with Murray Rothbard a trait rare among his fellow economists. Like Rothbard, he is interested in political philosophy. He doesnt agree with Rothbards anarchism, and Id like to discuss one of his arguments on this issue. Buchanan rests his case on an odd view of ethics, and this leads him astray.

According to Rothbard, each person is a self-owner and can acquire unowned property through Lockean appropriation. Persons, if they wish, can hire agencies to protect themselves, but a monopoly state cannot justly seize control of defense and protective services and tax people to pay for these services.

Why does Buchanan reject this? The basic problem he finds with this view is that people wouldnt agree on the boundaries of rights. A Rothbardian world, he thinks, would be chaotic. In A Contractarian Perspective on Anarchy (Nomos, vol. 19, Anarchism, (1978)), he says:

I stated earlier that the primary value premise of individualism is the moral equality of men as men, that no man counts as more than another.The libertarian anarchist accepts this framework, but in a much more restricted application than others who also fall within the individualistic set. The libertarian anarchist applies the moral equality norm in holding that each and every man is equally entitled to have the natural boundaries of his rights respected, regardless of the fact that, among persons, these boundaries may vary widely. If such natural boundaries exist, the contractarian may also use the individual units defined by such limits as the starting point for the complex contractual arrangements that emerge finally in observed, or conceptually observed, political structures.

Buchanan doesnt write in an easy-to-understand style, so Id like to pause and explain his comment. (You might object that I dont write in an easy-to-understand style either.) Buchanan is saying that libertarians believe that everybody has the same rights but are willing to accept large inequalities in property and income. Contractarians like Buchanan could agree with this libertarian starting point, so long as there are objective ways of figuring out the boundaries of rights.

And this is exactly what he denies. In his opinion, objective boundaries of rights dont exist. He says,

What is the ultimate test for the existence of natural boundaries? This must lie in the observed attitudes of individuals themselves.In rejecting the extreme claims of the individualist anarchists, we should not overlook the important fact that a great deal of social interaction does proceed without formalized rules. For large areas of human intercourse, anarchy prevails and it works.In the larger context, however, the evidence seems to indicate that persons do not mutually and simultaneously agree on dividing lines among separate rights.

Buchanan thinks that people wouldnt agree about rights boundaries. For this reason, we need to have a state to settle these boundaries. He relies in this argument on a questionable conception of moral theory. Rothbard thinks that there is an objectively correct libertarian legal code that specifies the rights people have. Whether this code is correct does not depend on peoples agreeing to it. If they dont acknowlege it, they should. The code doesnt settle all disputed questions, but if you accept what Rothbard says, Buchanans argument for a state fails. Buchanans argument for a state depends on substantial disagreements about rights that people couldnt settle under anarchism, and he hasnt shown that there would be this level of disagreement if Rothbards system were in place.

Now we come to the heart of the dispute between Buchanan and Rothbard, and this is where I think that Buchanan has a mistaken notion of moral theory. In what is for him an expression of passion, he says of people who claim to judge on behalf or others what is in their interest, If God, in fact, did exist as a superhuman entity, an alternative source of authority might be acknowledged. But, failing this, the only conceivable authority must be some selected individual or group of individuals, some man who presumes to be God, or some group that claims godlike qualities.) Those who act in such capacities and make such claims behave immorally in a fundamental sense; they deny the moral autonomy of other members of the species and relegate them to a moral status little different from that of animals. Its clear that he would extend this condemnation to cover claims to know the moral truth about what people should do apart from their consent.

In other words, if you say that there is an objective law code that should prevail, regardless of whether people agree to it, you are immorally claiming to be better than other people. But in what way are you claiming to be better than other people any more than, say, an economist who advances a theory of how to analyze government is claiming to be objectively better than other economists who disagree with his theory? Buchanan would answer that this response misses the fundamental point. There are objective standards in science, but morality isnt a science. There is nothing beyond peoples value judgments.

But that is a view of morality that needs to be defended by argument. It cannot simply be taken as given. That doesnt show Rothbard is correct, but to refute him you would need to look at his reasons in defense of his view of libertarian rights and their proper boundaries. Its isnt enough to aver that if you claim to know moral truth you are claiming godlike powers.

There is a further problem with Buchanans view. From the vehemence with which he asserts the value of individual autonomy, it would seem that he takes this to be more than a personal preference. Is he claiming godlike powers or claiming to be morally better than others who interpret autonomy differently from him, or deny its value altogether? (Rothbard would be in the first group.) Buchanan would appear to grant himself immunity for behavior like that for which he indicts others.

You can learn a lot from reading Buchanan, but you wont find in his work a good reason to reject libertarian anarchism.

Read more from the original source:

Buchanan and Anarchism | Mises Wire - The Shepherd of the Hills Gazette

Libertarian-leaning Rep. Thomas Massie (RKy.) has crushed his opponent in the Republican primary for the Northern Kentucky seat he's represented since 2012. It was one of two notable victories for GOP primary candidates against more overtly Trump-aligned challengers.

By early evening, Massie had wracked up 88 percent of the unofficial vote against Todd McMurtry, a lawyer who represented Covington Catholic student Nick Sandmann in his lawsuit against media outlets. The official results won't be released until June 30, when election officials have had enough time to count mail-in ballots.

Massie's libertarian streak and willingness to buck Republican leadership have earned him explicit rebukes from President Donald Trump in recent months, something McMurtry did his best to capitalize on.

When Massie held up the passage of the $2.2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act in Marchinsisting that the pricey legislation receive a roll call voteTrump called him a "disaster for America" on Twitter, and demanded his expulsion from the Republican Party.

Massie, in turn, made much of McMurtry's own social media activity. The lawyer had made several comments that were critical Trump. He'd also approvingly tweeted out a blog post primer on the alt-right and called for resistance to the "demonization of white people."

Those posts saw several Republican House members withdraw their endorsement of McMurtry, and cleared the way for Massie's victory.

Former Marine fighter pilot Amy McGrath is also leading in Kentucky's U.S. Senate Democratic primary against progressive challenger Charles Booker. Provided she maintains her lead once all the mail-in ballots are counted, she'll go on to face incumbent Sen. Mitch McConnell (RKy), who also won his primary tonight.

Trump's endorsement of businesswoman Lynda Bennett also failed to prevent her stunning loss tonight to 24-year-old real estate investor and motivational speaker Madison Cawthorn in the Republican primary for North Carolina's 11th congressional district.

That seat was vacated earlier this year when former Rep. Mark Meadows (RN.C.), one-time head of the House Freedom Caucus, resigned to take up the position as Trump's chief of staff. Despite endorsements from Trump, Meadows, and Sen. Ted Cruz (RTexas), Bennett received 35 percent of the vote in the two-person run-off election.

According to the Charlotte Observer, Meadows' apparent manipulation of the process to make Bennett his handpicked successor angered local Republicans. Cawthorn re-framed Bennett's many high-profile endorsements as proof that Bennett would be beholden to Washington elites.

Provided he beats Democratic candidate Moe Davis in November, Cawthorn will become the youngest member of Congress.

Read the original:

Trump Wanted To 'Throw Massie Out of Republican Party!' but the Libertarian-Leaning Congressman Just Won His Primary Anyway - Reason