Category Archives: Libertarian

Senator Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in Washington, D.C., April 10, 2019(Erin Scott/Reuters)Conservatives should be able to find it

In his speech to the Republican convention in 1988, George H. W. Bush said, I want a kinder and gentler nation. Nancy Reagan, the wife of the man he was trying to succeed, reportedly had an acerbic reaction: Kinder and gentler than whom? When Bushs son ran for president in 2000 as a compassionate conservative, others on the right were similarly unimpressed. Were plain old conservatives to be considered uncompassionate?

Senator Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) should have known what to expect, then, when in early November he spoke at Catholic University of America in favor of what he called common-good capitalism. Free markets have been serving the common good just fine, thank you, came the retort from many conservative and libertarian critics of the senator. If they look past a few mostly rhetorical points, however, the critics and Rubio may see that they can find common ground.

The goal of his speech was to contribute to our countrys holding together rather than to identify a third way forward between the two prevalent schools of thought in our politics or to define a post-Trump conservatism for the Republican party, Rubio insisted. But these alternatives are not incompatible with one another, and surely one of Rubios purposes was indeed to chart a course for conservatism after Trump.

That purpose presupposes, correctly, that conservatisms definition is up for grabs: that Trumps election exploded one definition but that Trump has not replaced it, at least in any detail. Even though Rubio mentioned the presidents name only once, while disavowing the goal of looking past him, Trump was in the background the entire time.

As the examples of the Presidents Bush suggest, though, there is by now a long history of Republicans attempting to create a governing majority for conservatism, or just to win elections, by softening its devotion to limited government and markets. Running in 1980, Ronald Reagan took care not to present himself as Barry Goldwater redux: He was not a threat to Social Security or Medicare, and his tax cuts would generate enough growth to avoid a painful retrenchment of the welfare state.

Later came Pat Buchanans conservatism of the heart complete with frequent invocations of Franklin Roosevelts line about the occasional faults of a benevolent government paling beside the constant ones of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference and Bushs compassionate conservatism.

As unusual as he is in many respects, as much of a jolt as he has given to the political system, Trump fits this pattern. He did not change a comma of Republican orthodoxy on social issues. But he ran as a Republican who would protect the elderly from entitlement cuts and manufacturing workers from imports.

In each case, politicians have thought, or intuited, that the great stumbling block between conservatism and voters was the fervor of conservative opposition to government activism. But the changes that these politicians attempted to make to conservatisms approach to markets have varied, as have the justifications they used and the results they got. So the nature of the pushback that each attempt received has also varied.

In the debate over Rubios speech, nine questions have divided conservatives. He has the better of the argument on some of these questions, but not all of them.

First: Should government intervene in markets to advance the common good? Here the debate has been inefficient in just the way a light bulb can be: The ratio of heat to light is higher than need be.

A common good is simply a good that individuals, families, and other subgroups within a society cannot obtain on their own. Assuming, for example, that a government must superintend the building of roads in order for a nation to flourish, it is advancing the common good by doing so. In moments of rhetorical abandon, some of Rubios critics might say that government exists only to protect individual rights. But none of them seriously denies that there is such a thing as a common good or that government should seek it.

The common good includes such prerequisites for functioning markets as the rule of law. And while Rubio did not emphasize these points, perhaps taking them for granted, the Catholic social thought on which he drew respects private property, contracts, and subsidiarity (the notion that it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do, to quote the 1931 encyclical Quadragesimo anno). That government should pursue the common good does not entail collectivism or a denial of the intrinsic importance of individuals, families, businesses, or churches. It does not imply the subordination of these things to the state any more than the rule of law does.

Second: How badly has our economy been performing? At Catholic University, Rubio was as grim as any of the Democrats running for president. The economy, he said, has stopped providing dignified work for millions of people. As a result, families splinter and children fall into poverty. We have witnessed an economic implosion. Our economic order, regardless of where we happen to be in the business cycle, is bad for America. While Rubio himself did not broach the topic, conservatives sympathetic to his argument have also asserted that wages have barely risen in 40 years.

The senator and his fans are, as the critics say, scanting our economys real achievements. Wages and benefits, when accurately adjusted for inflation, have risen, and not just for the highest earners. The child-poverty rate, with the same adjustment for inflation and including government benefits, is probably at an all-time low.

This question isnt decisive: Even if the economy has enabled many blessings, it might be possible to undertake reforms that would yield more of them; and even if our performance has been as bad as Rubio suggests, it does not mean he is on the right track in fixing it. But an accurate assessment of the economy is necessary to get a sense of the scale and nature of our problems, and Rubios is too pessimistic.

Third: How important is economic growth anyway? Rubio repeatedly points out that it is not enough. It wont by itself lead to dignified work, and it must be harnessed and channeled to the benefit of our country. In this speech, his emphasis was entirely on the channeling and harnessing of growth and not on the fostering of it. He may have chosen to focus on what he believes conservatives need to be persuaded to see rather than on what they already apprehend. But it was a mistake on his part. A healthy labor market that lets people find dignified work is surely correlated with economic growth, so encouraging it has to be an important element of the pursuit of the common good. (Saying that the economy should provide this work, as Rubio does, is not the most dignifying way of looking at it.)

The critics go too far in the other direction. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, William McGurn suggests that families would be better off with higher economic growth than with tailored tax credits tailored, that is, to benefit parents. Every pro-growth tax reform of the past 35 years has included this kind of pro-family policy, though, so the alternative that McGurn posits may not actually exist. It is also difficult to imagine a pro-growth tax reform that would benefit a family budget as much as an extra $1,000 in tax relief per child each year.

Fourth: To the extent the economy has been unsatisfactory, how many of our dissatisfactions are the result of trusting free markets too much? Listening to Senator Rubios speech, you would think we lived in a laissez-faire country. Looking at Senator Rubios legislative record, on the other hand, you would know better: He has again and again proposed reforms to existing government policies in the hope of improving American life. But if, as Rubio the legislator believes, our higher-education policies are an important obstacle to opportunity for all, then perhaps Rubio the speaker is giving us a misleading picture of our countrys problems when he dwells exclusively on the need for markets to be guided.

Fifth: Should companies be run for their shareholders? Rubio argues that we have taken the concept of shareholder primacy too far. Earlier this year, the Business Roundtable, a nonprofit group composed of nearly 200 top corporate executives, issued a new statement on the purpose of the corporation that abandoned any reference to that concept and instead said that companies should serve customers, employees, suppliers, communities, and shareholders, listing them in that order. The Wall Street Journal ran several editorials calling the statement a craven abandonment of free-market principles, and Rubio has been critiqued in similar terms.

The statement was, however, an accurate description of how business leaders see their role: They see companies as having multiple purposes, and they judge their success accordingly. Rubio speaks a bit more stringently of companies obligations to people other than their shareholders. Presumably he believes that government policies and our shared cultural understanding should encourage corporations to fulfill these obligations. If he means more than that if he wants to change the fiduciary responsibilities of corporate managers, for example he should say so.

Sixth: How should economic policies change to promote the common good better than they currently do? The critics so far have largely not argued that the principles Rubio has outlined, such as that government should pursue the common good, are wrong. Instead, they suggest that in practice a government run on these principles would be overbearing and destructive. But the specific policies that Rubio himself has advocated as parts of a politics of common good are not especially radical from a free-market point of view.

In his speech, Rubio mentioned a few of these policies: the child credit; an option to take Social Security benefits early to finance costs associated with the birth of a new child; an immediate write-off for the costs of business investment; a revamping of the Small Business Administration to support innovation; and the nurturing of a domestic rare-earths industry for national-security reasons. Most of these policies are defensible, if not quite natural, within a libertarian framework; all of them have ample and recent Republican precedents.

Seventh: Assuming that in principle the federal government has a broad role in pursuing the common good, is it prudent to grant it that role? Kevin Williamson, my libertarian-minded colleague at National Review, scorches Rubio for advocating quotas and price supports for sugar producers in his home state and especially for claiming a national-security justification for these policies. It would be too facile to move from the fallibility and corruptibility of government to the conclusion that governments should content themselves with being night watchmen. But notably absent from Rubios speech is the notion that what we know about government should make us cautious and restrained with respect to government power.

Eighth: How many of our problems are economic to begin with? Our falling life expectancy and birth rate are surely an indictment of something about our society, and it would be foolish not to look at economic trends and policies for part of the explanation. Even causes that on their face are non-economic are probably related to economics: A decline in manufacturing jobs in a community may well contribute to rising opioid abuse and falling marriage rates. Rubio, though, speaks as though economics were everything, which is a particularly glaring defect in a speech that attempts to articulate a view of government that breaks free from materialism.

Ninth: Is this really the future of the Republican party? Republican voters have never been the dogmatic free-market fundamentalists of caricature which is why all those previous attempts to redefine the party were conceivable and sometimes partially successful. The Republican coalition is changing, with a smaller proportion of its members having college degrees than in the past. As a result, it is becoming more open to policies that aim to protect the economically insecure.

But todays Republicans are still recognizably descended from yesterdays. Most of the people who voted for Trump in 2016 voted for Mitt Romney four years earlier. The party still favors tax cuts, which helps explain why Trump signed them. It still responds favorably to Reagans joke about the nine most terrifying words in the English language: Im from the government, and Im here to help.

In his Washington Free Beacon column, Matthew Continetti examines survey data on Republicans and finds that market skeptics are a minority, albeit an important minority. The part should not be mistaken for the whole. Thats true of the Republican coalition and true as well of the fragments of political philosophy that Senator Rubio has boldly sought to recover.

View post:

Common Ground on the Common Good - National Review

Former Saline Mayor Gretchen Driskell announced her candidacy Wednesday for the United States House of Representatives, seeking to represent Michigans 7th Congressional District.

It's the third time Driskell has run against incumbant Republican Congressman Tim Walberg, now in his sixth term of office in the U.S. House.

In 2016, Walberg won 55.1% to Driskell's 40% (with Libertarian Ken Proctor garnering 4.9% of the votes. )

In 2018, Walberg's margin of victory over Driskell was narrower, 53.8% to 46.2%.

Driskell issued a press release explaining why she is running:

Im running for Congress because Michiganders know that Washington is broken and we need someone who will work for us. Here in Michigan we have been sending the same representatives to Congress and things are getting worse for most people in our community. After 27 years in office, Congressman Walberg is part of the problem. He spends his time playing political games and bickering, not working to solve our problems. As a nonpartisan mayor, I had to balance the budget, make tough decisions, and deliver results for people in our community. I didnt know peoples political party, nor did I care. We just got things done together. If elected to Congress I will bring that same leadership to Washington and start getting things done for all of us, here in Michigan.

Driskell's statement says if elected, she would focus on creating higher-wage jobs, affordable and accessible health care, lowering the cost of prescription drugs, and ensuring a secure and dignified retirement.

Driskell was the first female mayor of Saline and the longest-serving mayor of Saline before representing the 52nd District in the Michigan State House.

Prior to his time in public office, Walberg served as a pastor in Michigan and Indiana, as president of the Warren Reuther Center for Education and Community Impact, and as a division manager for Moody Bible Institute.

He also served in the Michigan House of Representatives from 1983 to 1999.

Walberg spokesman Dan Kotman issued this statement:

"It appears perennial candidate Gretchen Driskell is not satisfied with wasting millions and losing big twice, but first she must defend her failed record in the Democratic primary. While Driskell's party continues their political impeachment hearings, Congressman Walberg is focused on bipartisan solutions to grow good-paying jobs, protect the Great Lakes, and bring down the cost of prescription drugs."

Michigans 7th District encompasses Branch, Eaton, Hillsdale, Jackson, Lenawee, and Monroe Counties, along with parts of Washtenaw County.

Want to support reporting like this? Consider making a gift to Michigan Radio today.

See original here:

Democrat Gretchen Driskell to try a third time to unseat Tim Walberg in 7th Congressional District - Michigan Radio

Andrew Yang spoke during the NCAAP Economic Freedom Presidential Town Hall on November 2, 2019. (Reuters Pictures / Brian Powers/The Register, Des Moines Register)

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

The most striking moment so far in Andrew Yangs unlikely yet resilient presidential bid came in the fourth Democratic debate, when someone else was asked about Yangs signature issue. Addressing Elizabeth Warren, moderator Erin Burnett said, You wrote that blaming job loss on automation is a good story, except its not really true. So should workers here in Ohio not be worried about losing their jobs to automation? The candidates response was a slurry of by golly, gee, and I have a plan to fix that sloganeering that focused on legitimate concerns about trade policy as it has affected industrial workers but never got around to answering the question. Warren wasnt wrong to criticize the giant multinational corporations whove been calling the shots on trade. Its just that she seemed to be giving a 1993 answer to a question about 2023.Ad Policy

That gave Yang a narrow opening to plead with his fellow Democrats to start thinking about the future. Senator Warren, he said, Ive been talking to Americans around the country about automation. And theyre smart. They see whats happening around them. Their Main Street stores are closing. They see a self-serve kiosk in every McDonalds, every grocery store, every CVS. Driving a truck is the most common job in 29 states, including this one3.5 million truck drivers in this country. And my friends in California are piloting self-driving trucks. What is that going to mean for the 3.5 million truckers or the 7 million Americans who work in truck stops, motels, and diners that rely upon the truckers getting out and having a meal? Saying this is a rules problem is ignoring the reality that Americans see around us every single day.

So I understand that what were all looking for is how we strengthen Americas middle class, replied Warren, who then explained her plan to extend the solvency of Social Security. She never got to the automation question, except to say, I want to understand the data on this. That should have put the spotlight back on Yang, a 44-year-old entrepreneur who can point to so many studies on how automation already has displaced workers and will continue to do so that his campaign slogan is MATH. Instead, following the common practice of 2020 Democratic debate hosts, Burnett shut the conversation down just as it got interesting.

When I asked Yang a few weeks later about the exchange with Warren, he said, That was surprising to me, given that she is one of the better, I believe, thinkers in the Democratic Party on many of these types of issues. The moment when the themes of his campaign finally hit the national stage was very edifying and a little bit disappointing, frankly, he admitted. A first-time candidate running whats been described as a pirate ship campaign, Yang worries that our political process is not really well designed for us to get into the weeds on what the data look like in automation and many other subject areas. MORE FROM John Nichols

As someone who has written a great deal about the future of work, and about how automation influences politics, I share his frustration. Like Yang, I believe Donald Trumps reactionary politics fills a void created by the Democrats failure to wrestle with next-economy issues. Yet I dont believe Yang is wrestling with those issues as ably as tech-savvy members of Congress, like Representative Ro Khanna, or progressive leaders in the UK and Germany.

What worries me is that Yangs gimmicky campaignin the third Democratic debate, he announced a scheme to select 10 families at random and give each of them $1,000 a month over the course of a year to illustrate his flagship universal basic income (UBI) proposalis better at identifying problems than solving them. When I put this concern to him, he pushed back, arguing that his approach is showing results. Hes been on the cover of Newsweek. Polls put him in the middle of a crowded pack (and closer to the top among young voters), even if hes far behind the candidate he said he favored in 2016, Bernie Sanders. Yang raised $10 million in the last quarter, enough to staff up and launch a slick $1 million ad buy in Iowa, with commercials produced by the same consultants who aided Sanders in 2016. Andrew Yangs campaign, declares The Week, has gone mainstream.

But is Yang ready for prime time? He has staked his campaign on an old ideaproviding every adult American with that $1,000-per-month Freedom Dividendthat would cost a lot ($2.8trillion each year, according to the Tax Foundation) and would be offset by a potentially regressive value-added tax on consumption, a commendable financial transactions tax, and the hope that giving away money would stimulate economic growth. Great progressive thinkers like the late Erik Olin Wright have long argued for UBI as a response to automation-related displacement, but so, too, have government-hating libertarians. Yang identifies himself as a progressive and said he favors human-centered capitalism. But his plan sounds a little libertarian when his campaign website explains his UBI proposal this way: Current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionallymost would prefer cash with no restriction. I asked Yang about the progressive-versus-libertarian debate. We can do a best-of-both-worlds approach, he replied. Im certainly not one of these ultraconservative types who wants to dismantle every social program on the books. I think that we need to lay a foundation in the form of those dividends and then see what the additional problems are and try to solve those as well.

Thats too vague and unsettling for those of us who believe that if UBI is tried in a big way, it must be associated with a muscular social welfare state. Also worrisome is the Yang campaigns argument that the Freedom Dividend fits seamlessly into capitalism and can support and preserve a robust consumer economy. Im not sure thats a worthy goal, but I am sure that this response to automation is too casual and ill-defined.

Yang has earned his moment. I agree with author Martin Ford when he says, Andrew Yang, and his warnings about the impact of AI and automation, should be taken seriously. But Yang still hasnt quite reached the solutions stage of the debate.

See the article here:

Yang Doesn't Add Up - The Nation

Lincoln Chafee isnt quite ready to announce a longshot bid for the White House as a Libertarian candidate next year, but the former Rhode Island governor and US senator appears to be taking steps to prepare for the race.

Chafee was in Miami over the weekend for the quarterly meeting of the Libertarian National Committee, where he became a life membership level donor and met with party activists, according to Christopher Thrasher of Ballot Access Marketing, a consulting firm that helped get Gary Johnson and Bill Weld on the ballot in all 50 states in 2016.

In September, Thrashers company registered LincolnforLiberty.com, and Chafee now goes by @LincolnforLiberty on Facebook. A separate Facebook page called Virginia for Lincoln Chafee 2020 was created last week.

Reached Monday, Chafee declined to confirm that he intends to run for president, but he acknowledged that if he does run for office again, it will likely be for commander in chief.

Its early, Im just getting to know them, Chafee said, referring to the Libertarian Party.

Chafee was a Republican mayor of Warwick and remained with the party during his time in the Senate, but he later won the governors office as an independent. He joined the Democratic Party while he was still in the governors office, and then ran for president in 2016. He has since taken up residence in Wyoming, where he registered as a Libertarian.

There are 43 Libertarian candidates who have filed paperwork to open a presidential campaign account for 2020, but none of them have reported significant fund-raising totals, according to the Federal Election Commission.

NEED TO KNOW

Rhode Map wants to hear from you. If youve got a scoop or a link to an interesting news story in Rhode Island, e-mail us at RInews@globe.com.

As if you needed one more reason for why its better to live and work in Rhode Island, you must check out the Globes Spotlight series highlighting whos to blame and what can be done to address Bostons traffic crisis. (Note to Boston readers: We have so many parking spots in Providence.).

With week two of the public hearings for the impeachment inquiry beginning today, I wanted to know what our congressional delegation is hearing from constituents in Rhode Island. (Spoiler: Not much.)

Ed Fitzpatrick reports North Providence Police Chief Col. David Tikoian is set to retire on Jan. 1 after helping to turn around the troubled department.

Fun story from Max Jungreis: Former Patriots star Ty Law has found a second career by building an empire on trampoline parks around the country. And the first one opened in Warwick seven years ago.

Ben & Jerrys is being sued for claiming the milk used in its ice cream comes exclusively from happy cows and so-called humane Caring Dairy farms. Seriously.

WHATS ON TAP TODAY

Each day, Rhode Map offers a cheat sheet breaking down whats happening in Rhode Island. Have an idea? E-mail us at RInews@globe.com.

Lieutenant Governor Daniel McKee will launch the International Economic Ambassadors Initiative this morning to invite community leaders to use their international networks to attract investment to Rhode Island.

The special legislative task force on Rhode Islands education funding formula meets at the State House this afternoon. Heres the agenda.

The state is supporting Roger Williams Universitys effort to open a charter school in Providence that would focus on serving English learners. The Council on Elementary and Secondary Education will discuss the school at a meeting tonight.

This afternoon at Rhode Island College: Theres a forum designed for youth and the community to discuss the Providence schools takeover.

Enjoying Rhode Map so far? Do us a favor and encourage your friends to sign up here.

Thanks for reading. Send comments and suggestions to dan.mcgowan@globe.com, or follow me on Twitter @DanMcGowan. See you tomorrow.

Please tell your friends about Rhode Map! They can sign up here. The Globe has other e-mail newsletters on topics ranging from breaking news alerts to sports, politics, business, and entertainment -- check them out.

Read more from the original source:

Lincoln Chafee is doing things that presidential candidates do - The Boston Globe

According to an October Rasmussen poll, 38% of likely voters say theyre to vote for someone other than President Trump or the Democratic presidential nominee in the 2020 US presidential election.

In a three-way presidential race, 38% constitutes a winning plurality, assuming its distributed among the states such that the Electoral College outcome reflects it.

As a long-time activist in Americas largest third political party, the Libertarian Party, Im prone to find that number encouraging.

On the other hand, Ive seen numbers like this before and Ive watched them not pan out on election day.

Heres why:

Pluralities or majorities of independent, swing, and even Democratic and Republican voters always respond positively to polls asking them, generically, about the desirability of a third party in American politics.

But generically and specifically are two different animals.

America already has numerous third parties. In addition to the Libertarians, we have the Greens, the Constitution Party, and a wide assortment of ideological parties across the spectrum from openly socialist to openly fascist. Even the Prohibition Party, founded in 1869, still nominates a presidential slate every four years.

But most voters who perennially say they dont want a Democrat or Republican for president next time dont agree on a specific alternative. They either vote for the Democrat or Republican for president, or just stay home, when election day rolls around.

Even in 2016, when the major parties each chose widely disliked and distrusted presidential candidates, only about 5% of those who voted strayed outside the major party fold.

Why dont third party candidates do well, especially at the presidential level? A number of factors play into the poor results.

One is that third party candidates, already far out-spent by the Democrats and Republicans, have to spend lots of the money they raise just getting on ballots. Their actual campaign budgets amount to rounding errors compared to those of their major party opponents. Even those who might prefer a mouse to a whirlwind have trouble hearing the offerings of the former over the din of the latter.

Another is a fear factor, naturally occurring but energetically encouraged and cultivated by the big players. Dont spoil the election. Vote against the major party candidate you fear most, rather than for the minor party candidate you like best. Your only real alternative is the lesser evil.

A third problem is bad voting systems. Ranked choice voting would allow those fearful voters to choose the candidates they prefer while remaining confident that if their first choices failed, their second choices wouldnt be eliminated.

Next year, voters will be told by the major parties that they must choose either four more years of the banana republicanism they chose in 2016, or a buffet of microwaved and re-heated 50- and 80-year old New Deal and Great Society programs doused with supposedly progressive sriracha.

That wont be the case. Third party options will likely be on offer in all 50 states. The 38% of voters who claim to want one should actually choose one instead of finding reasons not to.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

The rest is here:

Voters say they want a third party. They should vote accordingly. - OCRegister

There is undoubtedly a mental health epidemic in the United States and throughout the world. However, in many areas especially the US governments are not taking the necessary steps to help improve the problem.

Research has shown that there are a number of factors contributing to this. Many people think the problem is getting worse because of the stigma associated with mental health, but thats not necessarily the case. In fact, its much more likely that the issue is the result of bad government policy.

Stigma is certainly a problem that needs to be addressed, but stigma becomes a convenient scapegoat for a government to redirect their own failure onto the people. By suggesting that mental health would be improved if people were just more willing to talk about it, then the mental health problem wouldnt be so bad.

Right? Partially. But a more significant improvement would occur if the government improved their policy and led to reform of the mental health system and various policies. Well talk about that in this article.

Problems With Americas US Mental Health Policy

There are a significant number of problems that interfere with peoples ability to seek mental help in the US. Some of the most obvious issues that are currently affecting the nation include:

The number of beds available for mental health patients has dropped a whopping 17% since 2010. There are now only 11.7 beds per 100,000 people, which is far less than other first-world countries.

-About two thirds of medical doctors and unable to find mental health care practitioners for their patients after diagnosing them, suggesting that there is little to no policy in play for helping terminally ill patients cope with their conditions.

-Between 2009 and 2012, there was $5 billion cut from mental health programs across the country. More than 4,500 beds for mental health patients were removed.

-There are more and more people becoming homeless throughout the nation. While the official statistic says there are about 650,000, homeless organizations believe that there may be closer to 3.5 million.

-The public schooling system is woefully inadequate at educating students about the inevitable perils of mental health problems at different times of their lives.

These problems, as you can imagine, present tremendous barriers for people in the United States who are hoping to manage their mental health problems. Theres little doubt that the US needs at least a bit of reform in their mental health policies.

So what are people doing instead?

People Are Taking Mental Health Into Their Own Hands

While the government may seem to be a bit negligent in regards to the mental health of the population, the people are not. People are deciding that even if the government isnt going to help them work through their mental health problems, theyre going to do the best that they can on their own.

So what does this entail? There are a number of things, but two are most prominent:

-People are beginning to look at more self-care options. People are deciding to follow self-help programs, and learn to take care of themselves better. This works as both a preventative measure and a curative that can help people work through mental health issues.

-People are beginning to educate themselves on mental health issues. More and more information is available on various mental health websites than ever before, which makes access to educational materials a breeze. Such websites include Psycom, Help Guide and E-counseling.

-People are able to learn about mental health issues like anxiety, depression, and other problems on the internet or by accessing books in the library.

Conclusion

While people are taking their mental health into their own hands, this shouldnt have to be a long-term solution for enhancing mental health. The government needs to reform policies to make mental health care available to more people before the problem gets any worse.

Original post:

The Government is Failing the Mental Health Epidemic. - The Libertarian Republic

Rick covering 2010 tea party convention in RVA (photo by Lynn R. Mitchell)

It was with shock and sadness that we learned this afternoon of the passing of our longtime Bearing Drift colleague Rick Sincere. A professional writer, editor, and talented on-air personality, Rick had contacts far and wide that were useful in his writing, and while producing and hosting Bearing Drifts weekly radio show, The Score. What now will be his final edition of The Score that was published Sunday is a perfect example of the extended network of contacts and friends that he enjoyed.

Ricks list of journalistic accomplishments is long author of two books, articles on foreign and domestic policy issues that appeared in the Roanoke Times, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Wall Street Journal, Washington Examiner, Washington Star, Washington Times, and numerous other publications.

As a journalist, he covered the 1996 Democratic National Convention, 1996 New Hampshire presidential primary, numerous Libertarian Party national conventions and state political conventions, and presidential and vice-presidential debates. He interviewed members of Congress, governors, state legislators, local elected officials, and political candidates.

Rick was a joy to work with with a kindness that extended to everyone. As word spreads and the tributes begin to pour in, Bearing Drift mourns with his sister at the unexpected loss of a friend, colleague, and talented member of the political community. We will miss him.

WINA has a brief notice of Ricks passing.

Facebook is filling with memories from the many people who knew, respected, and worked with Rick throughout the years. Here are a few.

Coy Barefoot:

I have only just learned that my very dear friendRick Sincerepassed away in his sleep last night. No other details are known at this time. My sincere condolences and thoughts go out to his sister, his extended family, and the many, many friends across Virginia who knew and loved Rick so much.

The former Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Virginia, long-time member of the City of Charlottesville Electoral Board, and one of the first truly online journalists in the state, Rick joined me on my radio and TV programs countless times over the years. In addition to being an astute observer of all things political, Rick was a great champion of liberty, democracy, human and civil rights. The world is a better place today because Rick Sincere fought so earnestly for causes in which he so sincerely believed. Safe travels my friend. You will be missed.

Jackson Landers:

RandomRick Sincerememory: The time he told me to put on a suit and meet him in Dupont Circle, where he took me to the Embassy of Gabon to meet with the Ambassador and present him with a signed copy of a book Id written. There is definitely nobody else in my life now who is likely to do that.

Jim Hoeft:

When I think of Rick Sincere, I think smart, loyal, reasoned, and principled. I have known Rick for as long as I have been in Virginia blogging and podcasting, but he was making his mark and leaving his legacy long before we ever met.

With our shared interest in social media, but also foreign affairs and public relations, he was always an easy person for me to have a conversation with and not because we always agreed. It was when we did not see eye-to-eye that Rick always showed his true character not devolving into a useless, unproductive shouting match but demanding, through his example, that the conversation proceed cogently andcollegially. Rick had the innate ability to connect with anyone, while also being tenacious and prepared to secure an interview or report on a story.

I was incredibly honored to call Rick a friend and I echo the thoughts of so many others who had the pleasure to have hadRickin their lives. This is simply stunning news.

When we celebrated BDs anniversary, Rick left a very important comment. Rick wrote, I didnt realize fifteen years can breeze by like this.

Neither can I. You have left us too quickly, but I am so glad to have known you and the example you set.

Fair winds and following seas, Rick.

Brian Schoeneman:

Very saddened and surprised to hear of the passing of my very good friendRick Sincere. Rick and I knew each other for almost a decade, starting out as colleagues in the Virginia blogosphere, and then ending up on the same team atBearing Drift. He and Jim Hoeft taught me everything I ever learned about podcasting, and he was one of the best Virginia political interviewers I ever saw. He had his recorder with him everywhere and it never ceased to amaze me how easily he gotGovernor X or Senator Y to do an interview with him, no matter when or where (this photo is living proof). I remember fondly us tag-teaming more than one RPV Advance, lugging bottles of booze up to the Homestead for a hospitality suite. He was one of the best one of the only libertarians I knew who didnt want to hit me with his car and I cant believe hes gone. Literally just talked to him yesterday.

Shaun Kenney:

Still reeling a bit from the news that CharlottesvillesRick Sincerepassed away unexpectedly last night.

Between radio shows and as a fellow political writer in Virginia, Rick was well liked across the political spectrum always kind, never out of place, and deeply principled to both his Catholic faith and his libertarian principles and in a manner that exemplified the very best of the Jesuit tradition.

There are few people in this world whom you can count on to beconsistently kind, generous, thoughtful souls. Rick was just happy to be where he was, always ready to lend his opinion, but never in an obtuse or critical manner.

Godspeed, Rick.

Doug Mantaconis:

I metRick Sinceremany years ago when he was helping to organize a chapter of the Republican Liberty Caucus in Virginia and we reconnected here online years later when he was living down in Charlottesville. He was also a frequent commenter in the comment threads here as some of you may recall. Sadly, during that whole time, I didnt catch up with him even though he was a frequent visitor up to Northern Virginia. I did meet up with him again at a Cato Institute event about ten years ago, but that was it. The reasons dont matter and they mostly my own fault for not reaching out to people being the introvert that I am. As a result, I guess you could say we were Facebook friends but that was about it.

Thats why it was sad to read this afternoon that he had passed away during the night. He wasnt much older than I am so that hits home in and of itself. So long, Rick. Youll be missed.

Krystle Weeks Gabale:

Im still in shock over the passing of my friend,Rick Sincere. When I lived in Virginia, he was a great writing mentor and was so kind. I still remember covering many political events with him as a writer for Bearing Drift and my former site. He will be missed. RIP Rick.

Sandy Liddy Bourne:

I am so sorry for your loss. Rick has to be one of the nicest people I have ever met. Be at Peace.

Erich Reimer, Former Charlottesville City Republican Party Chair:

I had the pleasure of working with Rick in Charlottesville politics for several years. We served together on the Charlottesville City Republican Partys Executive Committee and worked together when I was Chair, in which he and I aligned on many issues and supported one another.

He always stood out as an honest, fair minded, firmly grounded, optimistic, and integrity-driven fighter for human freedom. His passing is far too soon and leaves a void for those who believe in values-driven governance that builds up rather than tears down.

Look here for Ricks work on Bearing Drift.

View original post here:

Bearing Drift, Online Community Mourn the Passing of Colleague Rick Sincere - Bearing Drift

Gabriel Nadales, former Antifa participant turned conservative activist, delivered a speech Thursday titled Behind the Black Mask in Reavis Hall.

In his speech, Nadales discussed the ideology, history and tactics of Antifa, a militant anti-fascist movement, and advocated against the silencing of free speech to a nearly full classroom of students.

The event was hosted by NIUs chapter of Young Americans for Liberty, a youth organization with the purpose of advancing libertarian values on college campuses and in electoral politics, according to its website. Those in attendance were welcome to pizza and soft drinks.

Nadales described Antifa as a call to action" that brings together activists from various far-left groups and backgrounds, rather than an organization.

You find a network that is already existing, that [has] a lot of friendly people to your cause, he said. Youve talked to them and you call and you essentially activate them. Then, all of a sudden, they abandon their ideologies and come together as the collective that is Antifa, with the mission of shutting down an event or fighting against a specific group of people.

On the matter of history, Nadales said Antifa claims its roots come from Antifaschistische Aktion, a now defunct political organization that was affiliated with Germanys Communist Party in the early 1930s. He said because the organization was wiped out with the rise of the Nazi Party in Germany, it has no direct connection to the current Antifa movement.

Nadales also discussed some of Antifas tactics. He said the movements purpose isnt to engage in political discussion, but rather to silence opponents and cause a scene through violence and de-platforming, which aims to interrupt or deny the speech of a controversial figure through forceful means.

The tactics of Antifa are to threaten and use violence to terrorize people to force them into submission, he said.

Nadales said he became politically active during high school in 2009 when he attended a teachers demonstration against then-California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. By 2010, he had developed a hatred for the United States and became involved with Antifa, he said.

I hated America so much that I refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, he said. That got me in a hell of a lot of trouble.

Nadales said he wouldve faced serious consequences from the school board but avoided punishment by threatening a lawsuit.

That was the very first time that I really felt that an adult who was in a position of power really feared my words, he said. The irony is not lost on me that, even though I said that I hated America with a passion, I was using its laws to defend myself.

Nadales criticized past actions of his. He shared a story of when he stole a bike and smashed a McDonalds window with a rock in protest of the corporation. He said years later he felt guilty about his destruction of property and talked to his father about it.

[My dad] told me that doing things like this doesnt hurt the corporation; it hurts the employees who are told to go home for the day, he said. It hurts the families whose paychecks are now a day or two smaller. It also hurts the owners and the consumers who sometimes have to increase the prices to make up for the thousands of dollars they lost. Destruction of property hurts real people.

Nadales said his ideological shift toward conservatism happened during his senior year of high school in 2012, when he became fascinated with economics. It was then he was introduced to the writings of libertarian economists Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell.

When I was introduced to these ideas, I found them interesting, but I wasnt persuaded, he said. I just thought they were cool, so I wanted to talk to people about it.

Nadales said this was how he came across Adam Weinberg, former field coordinator at the Leadership Institute, who convinced him to start a chapter of Young Americans for Liberty at Citrus College, where Nadales was attending school, in 2013.

The Leadership Institute is a conservative nonprofit whose mission is to expand and improve conservative activism, according to its website. Nadales is now a regional field coordinator for the organization.

[Weinberg] is a great person who took the time to really listen to me, Nadales said. He never once called me a communist pig. Instead, he would ask, Well, thats very interesting; have you ever thought about this [other theory]?

Nadales said administrators at Citrus College attempted to dismantle his chapter of Young Americans for Liberty and were responsible for frequent adviser turnover. In 2014, a member of his chapter filed a First Amendment lawsuit against the college regarding an incident where he was restricted from collecting signatures.

When we sued, people hated us even more, he said. The student government would routinely talk about us behind our backs. We believe that the Board of Trustees hired a spy photographer to really take pictures of us. Because multiple times at events, whether it be a big one or a small one, when the lawsuit was pending, there was always a photographer.

Citrus College awarded $110,000 in a settlement to the student who filed the lawsuit. Nadales said he received no money but was glad the college overturned some of its policies on campus, including one requiring all flyers be approved before posting.

During the Q&A segment of the presentation, a couple of students objected to Nadales use of the term leftists in his speech to describe left-wing activists who use methods of violence and intimidation. Nadales said he made it a point to separate the terms liberal and leftist, as he believes liberals arent necessarily violent.

One student, who said he considered himself a non-violent leftist, said he didnt believe it was fair of Nadales to repurpose a word that has meant something different for centuries. Nadales defended his use of the term and said meanings of words change over time, and conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, among others, has used leftist in this way.

More here:

Conservative activist speaks out about experience | News - Northern Star Online

Even before Gorsuch heard his first case as a Supreme Court justice in April 2017, it was clear from his decade on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit that such attacks were unwarranted. Far from screwing over the little guy at every opportunity, he had shown unusual sensitivity to the predicament of vulnerable people confronted by implacable and frequently inscrutable agents of the state. Among the folks that Trump had on his short list, observes the Ohio State University law professor Douglas Berman, Gorsuch seemed more defendant-friendly than most of the others, and thats carried over to the Supreme Court.

During Gorsuchs first two terms on the Court, he took positions that should be applauded by people who care about criminal justice and civil liberties, including the critics who were so quick to condemn him as a heartless authoritarian. Except for capital cases, where he doesnt seem to have much of an affinity for the defense position, Berman says, Gorsuch is distinctly concerned about safeguarding defendants procedural rights. While judges across the spectrum have long been willing to compromise civil liberties in cases involving unpopular defendants such as drug dealers and sex offenders, Berman notes, Gorsuch has, to his credit, said, No, no. The rules are the rules.' His work shows that an honest attempt to apply the original public understanding of constitutional provisions frequently yields libertarian results, limiting government power and protecting individual rights.

Thats not to say Gorsuch himself is a libertarian. In his 2006 book on assisted suicide, he explicitly rejected the libertarian principle that would require legalization of that practice.

Original post:

Neil Gorsuch is better on civil liberties than his critics want to admit - Hot Air

We live in a partisan age, and our news habits can reinforce our own perspectives. Consider this an effort to broaden our collective outlook with essays beyond the range of our typical selections.

From The Foreign Policy Establishment Is Hijacking Impeachment, by Jeet Heer in The Nation.

The context, from the author: President Donald Trump should be impeached for using his office for corrupt purposes not for challenging the national security consensus.

The excerpt: Trump should not be impeached because he upset the national security establishment. Presidents have not just the right to disregard that establishment but, in fact, would usually be wise to do so. ... Even the fact that Trump runs a messy White House where goons like Giuliani are elbowing career diplomats isnt really a good reason to impeach him. Giuliani is repugnant, but theres ample precedent for a White House with private back channels.

From Come on Down and Testify, Donald Trump! by Matt Ford in The New Republic.

The context, from the author: The House Intelligence Committee should give the president a chance to clear up this whole Ukraine matter with his first-hand knowledge.

The excerpt: If the president feels that strongly about it, the House of Representatives should give him the opportunity to make his case in person before lawmakers and the American public. It would be extraordinary for a president to testify before Congress on any matter, let alone his own impeachment. But its not without precedent.

From How America Ends: A Tectonic Demographic Shift Is Under Way. Can The Country Hold Together? by Yoni Appelbaum in The Atlantic.

The context, from the author: Democracy depends on the consent of the losers. For most of the 20th century, parties and candidates in the United States have competed in elections with the understanding that electoral defeats are neither permanent nor intolerable. The losers could accept the result, adjust their ideas and coalitions, and move on to fight in the next election. The stakes could feel high, but rarely existential. In recent years, however, beginning before the election of Donald Trump and accelerating since, that has changed.

The excerpt: The history of the United States is rich with examples of once-dominant groups adjusting to the rise of formerly marginalized populations sometimes gracefully, more often bitterly, and occasionally violently. ... But sometimes, that process of realignment breaks down. Instead of reaching out and inviting new allies into its coalition, the political right hardens, turning against the democratic processes it fears will subsume it. A conservatism defined by ideas can hold its own against progressivism, winning converts to its principles and evolving with each generation. A conservatism defined by identity reduces the complex calculus of politics to a simple arithmetic question and at some point, the numbers no longer add up.

From A Defining Statement of Modern Conservatism, by Rich Lowry in the National Review.

The context, from the author: A Time for Choosing is a brilliant libertarian speech. But Ronald Reagan couldnt have foreseen the toxic individualism that challenges us today.

The excerpt: The deeper current issue is that the chief suppressant of human flourishing may be not our overweening government but our tendency toward toxic individualism we are now a people largely disconnected from marriage, church, and workplace, and too many American sink into self-destructive behavior and despair.

From The Impeachment Circus Is Keeping Congress From Doing Its Real Job, by Tristan Justice in The Federalist.

The context, from the author: The American people would be better served if Democrats worked with the president rather than spending three years drumming up conspiracy theories.

The excerpt: The fact is, impeachment brings legislating to a grinding halt. The American public would be better served if Democrats followed the will of the people and came to the table to work with the constitutionally elected president rather than spending three years drumming up conspiracy theories to reverse the results of a free and fair election.

From Iraq: Is This What Winning Looks Like? by Kelley Beaucar Vlahos in the American Conservative.

The context, from the author: For ordinary Iraqis, their liberation turned out to be a purgatory, with a corrupt authoritarian elite at the helm.

The excerpt: Its more than worth noting that the United States spent billions of dollars and sent thousands of troops, contractors, consultants, diplomats and all manner of do-gooders over to that country between 2003-2009 to help set up a stable, democratic government. Many of us knew it was a farce to begin with since we never asked the Iraqis what they wanted.

More here:

Heres what to read from the left and the right this week - Tampa Bay Times