Category Archives: Libertarian

Just-Flipped-to-Libertarian State Representative Brandon Phinney

The Libertarian Party of New Hampshire held another press conference today announcing the awesome news that now a THIRD sitting state representative has flipped parties to the LPNH! The LPNH has already made two previous historic announcements earlier this year with state representatives Caleb Dyerof Pelham and Joseph Stallcop of Keene changing from republican and democrat respectively to the Libertarian Party of NH and then forming a Libertarian caucusin the state house for the first time in twenty years.

Representative Brandon Phinney, who was elected in 2016 as a republican, said during his official announcement at todays press conference, that the republican party leadership has been chastising their legislators for not following the leaderships demands. Phinney said in his speech that he was stifled by party leadership and that he and the other liberty minded reps were labeled terrorists! He said, What I found was that both parties were seeking to manipulate the potential legislation and the legislative process for political gainI was not elected to do the bidding of a political party at the expense of my principles. He finished his speech by saying, Integrity and a clear conscience is desperately needed in the New Hampshire house and together with representatives Dyer and Stallcop, I believe that our cause will ignite a shift in political affiliation in this state.

Phinney was joined in speaking by the chairman of the national Libertarian Party, Nicholas Sarwark, who came up from their offices in DC to help commemorate the occasion. In his speech, Sarwark delivered an invitation to legislators, politicians, and others saying, if youre tired of living a lie, if youre tired of standing up for things you dont believe in, come out of the closet. Become a libertarian. Come home. It was Sarwarks first time visiting the Live Free or Die state. Heres the full press conference from this morning in Concord:

So, now the LPNH has three sitting state representatives in the NH state house, and this has all transpired within six months! Thats three more Libertarian state reps than the rest of the 49 states have, combined! If it seems like all this success came out of nowhere, youre right. Until September of last year, the LPNH was basically a dead organization until a couple of guys who moved to NH as part of the ongoing NH Freedom Migration, Darryl W Perry and Rodger Paxton got elected to chair and vice chair of the party and proceeded to breath new life into the organization.

Can the party maintain this amazing pace? How many more reps will flip before the next election in 2018? Thanks to the diligent research of hate group Granite State Progress we know there are approximately fifteen current sitting state reps who are Free State Project participants or friends, so there are many other potential Libertarian Party of NH converts still out there in the state house.

The national Libertarian Party has NEVER had the level of success in its over four decades in existence as the NH Freedom Migration has has in about a decade. We continue to prove that concentrating activism in one geographic area is a successful strategy, and todays announcement is yet another feather in our cap. Liberty is winning here, and we can have bigger and more impactful successes if you come join us. Here are 101 reasons why you should start planning your move to New Hampshire ASAP.

See the original post:

Third Sitting New Hampshire State Rep Flips to Libertarian Party! - Free Keene

Being Libertarian

Obamacare: Perception is Reality Being Libertarian Perception is reality. The age-old adage has been used and abused by everyone from our politicians to totalitarian dictators. In George Orwell's novel 1984, the protagonist, Winston, lives in a dystopian future where government controls all aspects of ... The Latest: Trump optimistic on health care; some doubtfulCharlotte Observer Mitch McConnell's health care rewrite looks as 'mean' as House versionBaltimore Sun Discussion Draft - Senate Budget CommitteeSenate Budget Committee The Hill all 10,457 news articles »

Continued here:

Obamacare: Perception is Reality - Being Libertarian

Being Libertarian

Why Democracy Fails and Republicanism Succeeds Being Libertarian Jacob Tabb is a minarchist libertarian committed to ideals of republicanism over democracy, freedom to the utmost extent for all, and ending government corruption which prevents liberty in the forms of social and economic terms. He is the owner of an ...

More:

Why Democracy Fails and Republicanism Succeeds - Being Libertarian

In the long-run, capitalism will always triumph for one reason: It actually responds to peoples desires even the people who call themselves enemies of capitalism and want to see it torn down.

My favorite case-in-point of this phenomenon is the famous and ubiquitous Che Guevara t-shirt.

Spend some time walking down a major city street anywhere in the country, or stroll through a college campus on a summer day, and you are bound to see some guy or gal sporting the likeness of the famous communist revolutionary. Che has been an enduring symbol for leftist activists, despite his bloodthirsty record of violence and inhumanity.

Ive heard plenty of libertarians and other advocates of liberty lament the continued popularity of Ches image; they list off his atrocities and hideous social views with aplomb.

But anger at the endurance of the Che t-shirt misses a crucial point: That it represents the ultimate power of capitalism.

It is the power to transform the most potent symbols of opposition to itself, into commodities that can be bought and sold in the marketplace. In other words, capitalism has turned its foe into another product to be sold within its own system.

The market does not have feelings and does not care about what the symbol of Che represents (if it represents anything). Symbols are just signifiers, brands even, and those can be bought and sold.

Every time some armchair leftist or college brocialist dons the image of Che, they are in fact neutering the ideology they purport to believe in.

When the young people, who Che might in another time have tried to galvanize to violent rebellion, buy shirts and other paraphernalia with his visage they are tacitly buying into the capitalist system. When Che and his ilk became fashion symbols, rather than political symbols, they were utterly defeated. Better than killing them or reducing their monuments to rubble, turning them into pieces of memorabilia was the ultimate insult and final defeat.

That is the beauty of the free market: It can transform an intractable enemy into harmless kitsch.

Supporters of liberty and the free market might understandably be irritated by Americas youth running around with the image of a monomaniacal war criminal blazoned on their chests, but they should bite back their bile and instead rejoice.

As Che has become a popular image, the image of the revolutionary has lost all the symbolic power it once might have claimed.

A couple of generations ago, radical socialism was a common part of the zeitgeist of the American youth, with college campuses serving as breeding grounds for genuine radicalism and acting as the chief apologists for the totalitarian regimes of Cuba, the Soviet Union, and China.

Today, a lot of leftishness is still there, but it has been beaten into a feeble identity politics that is hopelessly incapable of achieving anything of substance.

People on the political right often rail against the liberal bastions of academia, and they are not completely wrong to do so. To be sure, the political products of the academic world, such as President Obama and Senator Elizabeth Warren, serve as cautionary tales to voters thinking about giving real power to the scions of the ivory towers. But they are nowhere near as threatening as the sorts of firebrand spokespeople produced by the hallowed halls of academia only a few decades ago.

Socialism in America, and around the world, has had to respond and adapt to the overwhelming power of the free market. In the marketplace of ideas, socialism is outdated and doomed to go out of business. In response, socialist thinking has shifted, softened, and come to accept at least parts of the capitalist system as essential to maintenance of prosperity.

We should call that a tentative victory for liberty, if not a total one. Even the most entrenched socialist parties around the world have had to accept the reality of markets.

Capitalism is the only serious game in town. Whats left of true radical leftism is just empty and deflated symbols, like t-shirts featuring half-forgotten political dissidents.

This post was written by John Engle.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

John Engle is a merchant banker and author living in the Chicago area. His company, Almington Capital, invests in both early-stage venture capital and in public equities. His writing has been featured in a number of academic journals, as well as the blogs of the Heartland Institute, Grassroot Institute, and Tenth Amendment Center. A graduate of Trinity College Dublin, Ireland and the University of Oxford, Johns first book, Trinity Student Pranks: A History of Mischief and Mayhem, was published in September 2013.

Like Loading...

Excerpt from:

Why I Love Che Guevara T-Shirts - Being Libertarian

From the time we are born, we are conditioned through force and manipulation to comply with just about everything dictated by figures of authority. Is it any wonder then, why so many of us believe everything we are told by our government?

The fact is that compliance and discipline are necessary skills to survive in our society. Without knowledge of the rules and tools necessary to function successfully a person will never get the chance to become successful because the various systems of enforcement will make it impossible.

Your parents protect you against physical hazards by teaching you to avoid them. This is compliance with basic common sense. Dont put your fingers in a light socket, that makes sense. Dont eat rat poison, this too makes sense.

Soon enough youre off to school, where rules become the focus. Be on time. Do your assigned work. Be reliable. These ideas condition you to be successful at a job. If you are not timely and reliable, you will not succeed at your job, thus they are important skills, imperative to success.

But what happens when the information disseminated to you, from sources that are supposed to be trustworthy, is false or inappropriate, but you have been taught to accept the veracity of everything you hear from these sources?

What happens when your teacher spreads information that is blatantly false? If you fail to answer test questions that include this false information in the way you were taught, there is a penalty. Your grades will suffer. You may be disciplined. You eventually come to the conclusion that compliance makes your life easier and brings better results.

I suppose I was always a fighter.

As I began writing this essay, I remembered something that happened to me in the 7th grade.

My teacher created a program called IALUAC, which stood for, I am lovable, unique and courageous, sounds innocent enough.

Part of this program included a requirement to write a five paragraph essay that told the teacher about your biggest problems. Even at this young age, I felt that my problems were none of my teachers business. So I wrote the paper, making up silly meaningless problems and in the conclusion I said something to the effect of my biggest problem was coming up with problems to put in that essay.

Essentially, I said that my personal life is none of your damn business! This did not go over well. Between the repeated summons to counselors, my parents being called in to school, and what seemed like a month of harassment, I was taught not to think for myself and instead to comply.

The system was created to beat us all into compliance with authority. This is why the abuse of authority is the most unforgivable crime.

Enter President Richard M. Nixon, a prime example of the abuse of authority.

President Nixon was prosecuting a war in Vietnam, a war which was extremely unpopular. He saw that some of his harshest critics were Hippies and People of Color. Nixon clearly had a problem with being challenged, so he felt it was appropriate to attack his critics as his aide John Ehrlichman states in this 1994 quote, We knew we couldnt make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communitiesWe could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.

If we study the effects of this example of abuse of authority the trail is mind boggling and fraught with decades of carnage.

The anti-drug campaign was part of all of our lives. Millions of people still believe what they were forced to believe for Nixons personal benefit. In school, we were taught and taught again of the dangers of drugs unsanctioned by the state, while some of us took the legal equivalent of methamphetamine just to make us conform to the system.

We wrote essays, prepared skits, and so much more that parroted back the dangers of certain drugs. I did avoid the use of drugs, but that had nothing to do with school, that was due to a combination of efforts from my Mother and the fact that I really was not interested in trying them to begin with. I was not an addictive personality, so drugs were never an issue to me.

I do not make the argument that drugs cannot be harmful, but it is well known that many more people die from legal drugs under the supervision of a doctor than illegal drug abuse.

The government sanctioning of a substance does not guarantee its safety, and the illegal nature does not mean it is unsafe. I would prefer that drugs were not abused, regardless of their legal status, but this is not the world we live in.

So, as Nixon wanted, the war raged on and he won office and was re-elected. His little white lie started landing people in jail and ruining their lives, this mushroomed into what we have today millions of Americans with criminal records who harmed no one and over a trillion tax dollars spent on a War on Drugs that did not decrease usage at all; forty years of misinformation, and for what? So that a dead president that resigned in disgrace could keep his job.

This is why abuse of authority in government is far more treasonous than the actions of a person such as Edward Snowden, whose only crime was telling the American people that the NSA was violating the constitution and abusing their authority.

If you were to expose a lie from a dictator, that dictator would have you killed. If you expose a lie or violation of your government, your government will try to do the same: ask Mr. Snowden, who is exiled to Russia instead of being able live at home and receive the congratulations of the people who are grateful for the risk he took in exposing the truth.

Compliance is paramount to government. If you fail to comply with their requirements, you will pay a severe penalty.

So, how can we solve the problem of abuse of authority vs. the necessity of compliance? Comply with the realities of the world, but dont bury your head in the sand and ignore what is really going on around you. Pay attention to what is really happening. Dont let drug-war-style brainwashing blind you to certain realities that government has used to bolster their revenue, power and control over you; thus solidifying their grip on power and job security as Nixon did so long ago.

Consider a few conventional items required by government today and you may notice that these are also abuses of authority. These abuses of authority may not be as egregious and destructive as Nixons War on Drugs, but they are still violations of your rights and some are out right theft.

If you make the connection that you have been manipulated, through the system, to believe what you are told by your government, you will never make the connection that these things really do happen. They are wrong and are designed to strengthen governments grip on you. You are more likely to believe that these were done in the interests of protecting you than to see the truth:

Can the people overcome this combination of forced indoctrination of the activities of government; combined with misinformation about their abuses of authority? I fervently hope so.

What plan can I offer to allow for the discipline necessary for survival to be part of us, without the brainwashing that results in most of us not seeing reality? This is the $64,000 question.

It is a given that government controls the schools. It is a given that government controls the curriculum in those schools. It is a given that people who speak in opposition to the lessons crucial to sustenance of the power of government are punished. It is a given that the people are forced to accept lies with respect to the abuse of government authority or pay the consequences.

The media is a willing partner as well. Mass media is used for the purpose of reinforcing any lies that cover up the motivation of the abuse of authority as well. We are constantly bombarded with false and manipulative information from all angles. It appears that there is nothing we can do.

Believe it or not, the answer to this is twofold social media and the closure of the Department of Education.

The closure of the Department of Education is pretty obvious, in that the decentralization of control of education would allow for less central control of curriculum. The effect of social media is why the fake news propaganda is swirling around in Washington D.C. There is an inconvenient barrier to complete control of the news media and it resides in the first amendment to the constitution. That barrier is Freedom of the Press. The fake news campaign is a precursor to an attack on freedom of the press.

If we remain steadfast to the protections included in the Bill of Rights, which our government sees more as a hurdle than a barrier, I see the pendulum swinging back in the direction of the people.

Heres how:

While mainstream media (MSM) still reports what they are instructed to report, and while schools still disseminate the same, it is social media that allows the people to interact with each other on a large scale. The people are not happy, and while the MSM encourages them to blame another political party that actually works in concert with their own, they really do not know why the people are so unhappy. I believe that most people smell a rat and are looking for the truth that is being shielded from them.

Social media, as long as it is allowed to operate freely, is the leader in the dissemination of truth (as long as the reader has the ability to filter out the crazy stuff).

This is fact: mainstream media may indeed succumb to the misinformation provided to it by our government, but they are in business for profit. If they are forced to choose between losing money and ceasing to exist or continuing to disseminate lies, they must choose survival.

As the people learn more of the truth of the current situation and make the connection that they are being lied to, they will seek out alternative sources of information. While many people prefer to hear lies that support their views, I believe that more people want to know the truth, because the truth en masse can lead to better decisions and a better life.

As this truth is uncovered, they will make decisions to stop electing politicians who believe in mass manipulation as the way to achieve their personal goals while in office.

The people will demand truth from mainstream media at some point in time, and if they fail to provide what their customers demand, these entities will fail and their new competitors will soar.

So as wacky as social media may seem, it is a vital key to freedom.

This post was written by Steve Kerbel.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

Steve Kerbel is a businessman, author, and former Libertarian Party candidate for President of the United States.

Like Loading...

Go here to read the rest:

An Unexpected Key to Freedom - Being Libertarian

Last week marked the one year anniversary of the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando. The last month and a half has brought multiple terrorist attacks to the UK alone. The last few years have seen a dramatic rise in the frequency of these attacks both abroad and on our soil. On Tuesday there was an attempted suicide-bombing in Brussels.

Sadly, many of us are adjusting to the idea that this is becoming just part of our day-to-day life, and we just need to get used to it. It is unfortunate that we have no way of identifying the threat and preventing the attacks. Its too bad there is no common factor that links these attacks together. Its too bad these murderers pledge allegiance to only themselves, showing their devotion to being a lone wolf. It is good, however, that we can rule out one possible cause. Not only have we heard it from the left and their media, but before each violent slaughter, the attackers usually shout This has nothing to do with Islam.

Now, I already see you scrolling to find the comment section and telling me what an intolerant, hateful, racist, Islamophobic, bigot I am. Well, you can go ahead, but Ill clarify the pertinent point: I am not advocating hatred or discrimination against Muslims or Middle-Eastern People, at any time, for any reason. However, I am advocating an honest conversation about ideologies and systems of government without being censored. There is no question that there is an overwhelming number of Muslims who are not violent or evil. There is also no question that those countries with a centralized, Islamic government rooted in Sharia law violate human rights on a regular basis and desire domination of the west to establish a world-wide Caliphate.

The wests hesitancy to discuss the ideological flaws of Islam shows yet another success of the lefts ability to control the narrative. For obvious reasons, when you look at our countrys history, being called a racist is one of the most damning labels on a societal level. The left knows this. They do their very best, and are usually successful, in finding a way to label all of their political enemies racist in an attempt to shut down or derail the discussion, even if the discussion has nothing to do with race. This is especially true when trying to have a discussion about the dangers of Islam. It is easier to just continually attack someones character than it is to defend an ideology that you know is indefensible.

I want to quickly address a few myths perpetuated by the left regarding Islam. First, that the number of Muslims who exercise a literal translation of the Quran is insignificant. According to Pew Research, a significant majority of Muslims, who dont necessarily live in a place with institutionalized Sharia, support Sharia law as an effective legal code and favor harsh, capital punishment for the infidels that violate the tenants of Islam. Here are just a few examples:

There are roughly 81 million Muslims in Egypt, which means over 71 million people support Islamism and capital punishment for violating Islamic code in Egypt alone. Billions of Muslims worldwide support genital mutilation and the literal caning of women in the streets for speaking to a man that isnt her husband, and support repressing other womens rights including driving a car or owning property, as well the extinguishing of all political and religious minorities, and the public execution of LGBT people. Why do the same progressives, feminists, and social-justice warriors who claim to care about perceived oppression, bigotry, misogyny, and homophobia in the United States close a blind eye to the heinous injustices in Islamic countries?

Keeping those statistics in mind, Id like to address the other non-sequitur coming from the left: the idea that ISIS is comparable to the Westboro Baptist Church or the KKK. The WBC consists of about 12 inbred people, and the idea that the KKK is still thriving in America is a fantasy. In addition, a basic study into the teachings of Christianity will show you why this is lunacy. These groups act in direct opposition to the teachings of the Bible. While the Old Testament is filled with one-liners that you could pull both in and out of context, what Islam apologists fail to realize is that the Old Testament is not the governing rulebook for Christianity, the teachings of Jesus Christ are. For Christians, Jesus came to fulfill or complete the Old Law, and the actions taken by these small numbered radicals are certainly in conflict with His teachings. Christian churches across the globe are not preaching in defense of the WBC or KKK, they in fact preach the literal opposite. On the other hand, Sharia law and the violence and jihad it encourages is formed directly from instructions in the Quran and the Hadith, and is supported and preached daily to billions of followers.

By refusing to see Islams role in the imploding of the Middle East, as well as the dangerous spread of terrorists to the west, the left prevents the reform that Islam needs. Unlike Christianity, which Islam apologists will continuously make illogical analogies to, there has never been a reform to Islam. While the medieval era featured Christianity as a political ideology, separation of church and state is a core tenant of the Judeo-Christian founded West. While the number of Christians in any given society may be the majority, the practicing of faith is mainly done in private, in homes or churches. No major Islamic school of thought has sought to separate the private spirituality of its members from the public Islamic state. Islam, as many Muslims practice it, is a totalitarian ideology. In their eyes, there can be no separation.

On another interesting note, leftists will go blue in the face telling you that Islam has nothing to do with the atrocities literally committed in its name, and then in the same breath tell you that Donald Trump is responsible for every crime committed by white men since he has been on the campaign trail because of his dangerous and hateful rhetoric. Those are some impressive mental gymnastics.

Youve heard the saying the enemy of your enemy is your friend. This has led to many nefarious partnerships throughout history, some recent examples include the Republican Party with Donald Trump and the modern-left with Islamism. We are seeing Republicans bend their principles at will to Trumpism, and we are seeing the left begin to normalize and mainstream violence towards those with whom they disagree. It is easy to forgive or overlook someones flaws if you feel that youre working towards the same goals. The left believes the ends justify the means. The left discourages and represses free-thinking. The left preaches a deep hatred of the western Judeo-Christian society, traditions, and values. So, why is the left directly preventing the much-needed reform of Islam? They certainly dont want to admit it, and I know this sounds extreme, but Id encourage you to think hard on this proposal: leftists are more ideologically aligned with ISIS than they are with the Americans on the other side of the aisle.

Like Loading...

Read more here:

Why is the Left so Dishonest about Islam? - Being Libertarian

From: C Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 10:19 AM To: wblock@loyno.edu Subject: Involuntary Commitments blog on Lewrockwell Professor Block, I wanted to thank you for your recent post on lewrockwell about Involuntary Commitments (https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/involuntary-commitments/). Yours is the first post that Ive seen in all these years that addresses what Ive seen as a real weakness in the libertarian community. Ive had enough interactions with people to know that many people need help to pull themselves up. Whether its because of mental illness, traumas suffered, circumstance, an unlucky turn, you name it, life isnt easy. Life is hard and some people get crushed underneath it. I suppose Ive reached a point where the further away the government were talking about the more strict libertarian I am, but the closer to home were talking about the more pragmatic I become. Welfare at the federal level versus the local city or town level are two completely different things. Ive seen too many people beaten down by the government school system, or the drug war, or poverty, or abuse, (and yes, as you mention much of this would be alleviated by a more libertarian system) that if some of my local tax dollars goes to fund a local abused womans shelter, or a local foodbank for the homeless, or a reading program at the local library to help children, yeah, I can get behind that. I think that where Libertarians shine brightly is in understanding the big picture, the core principles that drive big problems. But sometimes I also think that after years (or decades) of seeing all the horrible things that government has done, it becomes easy for libertarians to stick their nose up at the world (and the people suffering in it) and subtly confuse their deep understanding of what ails the country with genuine compassion. Your comments were the first Ive seen that broaches this topic. Sincerely, the 80% Libertarian. C

Dear C: Without government, the poor would be much better off. The state takes half the GDP and wastes most of it. They use a lot of their share of our production to regulate us, and make us even less efficient. Even so, charitable giving is generous. Without the statists, it would be much higher. I dont think we need fear for the plight of the helpless in the free society. Nor am I a big fan of federalism; let the cities and states solve problems, not the federal government. The state is the state is the state; it is evil at any and all levels. Yes, other things equal, we libertarians expect better from local than central governments, but this is not always the case. President Reagan once threatened NYC with dire consequences for their local rent control ordinances. I favored him over them in that episode. Hopefully, this experience will now raise you to 81% libertarian, or more.

Readings. On federalism: Block, Walter E. and Stephan Kinsella. 5/24/05. Federalism. http://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block48.html

On charity, poverty:

Anderson, G., 1987; Anderson M., 1978; Beito, 2000; Block, 2001, 2011; Brown, 1987; Delery and Block, 2006; Elder, 2016; Hazlitt, 1969; Higgs, 1995; Knight, Simpson and Block, 2015; LaBletta and Block, 1999; Moscatello, McAndrews and Block, 2015; Murray, 1984, 2006; Niskanen, 2006; Olasky, 1992; Piven and Cloward, 1993; Richman, 2001; Rothbard, 1996, 1998; Sowell, 2014; Tucker, 1984; Williams, 2014. For a critique of Murray, 2006, see Gordon, 2006.

Anderson, Gary M. 1987. Welfare Programs in the Rent Seeking Society, Southern Economic Journal, 54: 377-386

Anderson, Martin. 1978. Welfare: The Political Economy of Welfare Reform in the United States, Stanford: Hoover Institution

Beito, David. 2000. From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Block, Walter E. 2001. Transfers in Kind: Why They Can be Efficient and Nonpaternalistic Comment, International Journal of Value-Based Management, pp. 191-199; http://www.walterblock.com/publications/transfers_in_kind.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2011. Toward a libertarian theory of charitable donations. Economics, Management, and Financial Markets. Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 9-28; http://www.addletonacademicpublishers.com/abstracts/economics-management-and-financial-markets/volume-64-2011/toward-a-libertarian-theory-of-charitable-donations-to-criminals-governments.html; http://www.addletonacademicpublishers.com/component/option,com_sectionex/Itemid,103/id,23/view,category/#catid143

Brown, Arnold. 1987. The Shadow Side of Affluence: The Welfare System and the Welfare of the Needy, Fraser Forum, October.

Delery, Jeanette and Walter E. Block. 2006. Corporate Welfare, Markets and Morality; Vol. 9, No. 2, Fall, pp. 337-346; http://www.acton.org/publicat/m_and_m/new/index.php?mm_id=6; http://www.acton.org/publicat/m_and_m/new/article.php?article=37; http://www.acton.org/publicat/m_and_m/pdf/9277645.pdf

Elder, Larry. 2016. Black fathers matter. June 13; http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/marriage/black-fathers-matter.html

Gordon, David. 2006. A Man, A Plan, A Flop. Mises Daily. April 24; http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=296; http://mises.org/daily/2118

Hazlitt, Henry. 1969. Man vs. the Welfare State. New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House.

Higgs, Robert. 1995. The Myth of Failed Policies. The Free Market. June. Vol. 13, No. 6. http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=239&sortorder=articledate

Knight, Victoria*, David Simpson*, and Walter E. Block. 2015. Welfare: The Negative Societal Effects. Acta Economica et Turistica. Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 77-93; http://141.164.71.80/exchange/walterblock/Inbox/Re:%20%20_x003F_Welfare:%20The%20Negative%20Societal%20Effects._x003F_%20Acta%20Economica%20et%20Turistica-2.EML/1_multipart_xF8FF_2_AET%20Vol%201%20No%201.pdf/C58EA28C-18C0-4a97-9AF2-036E93DDAFB3/AET%20Vol%201%20No%201.pdf?attach=1; http://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=toc&id_broj=12165; http://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=clanak&id_clanak_jezik=221911

LaBletta, Nicole and Walter E. Block. 1999. The Restoration of the American Dream: A Case for Abolishing Welfare, Humanomics, Vol. 15, No 4, pp. 55-65

Moscatello, Rick, Megan McAndrews* and Walter E. Block. 2015. Satisfied with Poverty: An Argument for Ending Welfare. Journal of Leadership and Management; Vol. 3, No. 5, http://leadership.net.pl/index.php/JLM/article/view/75; reprinted in Leadership and Management: Emerging, Contemporary, and Unorthodox Perspectives, Szpaderski, Adam and Christopher P. Neck, editors

Murray, Charles. 1984. Losing Ground: American Social Policy from 1950 to 1980, New York: Basic Books

Murray, Charles. 2006. In Our Hands: A Plan to Replace the Welfare State. Washington, D.C.: The AEI Press

Niskanen, William. 2006. Build a Wall around the Welfare State, Not around the Country, Cato Policy Report. September/October; http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/build-a-wall-around-the-welfare-state-not-around-the-country/

Olasky, Marvin. 1992. The Tragedy of American Compassion, Chicago: Regnery Gateway.

Piven, Frances Fox and Richard Cloward. 1993. Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare, New York City, NY: Vintage.

Richman, Sheldon. 2001. Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State. Future of Freedom Foundation

Rothbard, Murray N. 1996. Origins of the Welfare State in America, The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 12, No. 2, Fall, pp. 193-230

Rothbard, Murray N. 1998 [1982]. Welfare and the Welfare State. In The Ethics of Liberty, Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press, pp. 160-193; http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp

Sowell, Thomas.2014. Welfare does not work. http://www.targetliberty.com/2014/11/thomas-sowell-welfare-does-not-work.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TargetLiberty+%28Target+Liberty%29

Tucker, William. 1984. Black Family Agonistes, The American Spectator, July, pp. 14-17.

Williams, Walter E. 2014. Black People Duped. March 4; http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/03/walter-e-williams/black-people-duped/

Walter Williams documentary: http://www.suffernofoolsfilm.com/preview.php

1:11 pm on June 11, 2017 Email Walter E. Block

The Best of Walter E. Block

Please follow and like us:

Read the original post:

Walter Block - Austrian Economist and Libertarian Theorist

Young Americans for Liberty at Linfield College compared to terrorists, accused of threateningschools safe spaces

All they wanted to do was promote free speech and intellectual diversity. Instead their activities were condemned and shut down by professors and students.

So say members of the Young Americans for Liberty campus club at Linfield College, who tell The College Fix their efforts were stifled and stymied through fear and intimidation, administrative power, and student hysteria at their small school in McMinnville, Ore.

The liberty-loving students say they faced repeated and intense backlash from some professors and students after launching their club this past spring mostly notably their event with controversial Professor Jordan Peterson was canceled by campus leaders. Peterson is the University of Toronto psychologist recently famous for his opposition to the requirement of made-up gender pronouns.

The student group was also investigated for circulating a free speech ball on which someone drew Pepe the Frog, the unofficial alt-right mascot. After an investigation, during which YAL leaders were called in and interrogated, the student who drew the image was forced to write a conciliatory essay.

Another of their events, a screening of The Red Pill,a documentary on mens rights activists and critical of the contemporary feminist movement, drew even more ire from campus leaders, with one even likening the libertarian students events to terrorism recruitment.

The associate dean of faculty wrote in the Linfield Review: Just as becoming a terrorist is a gradual, step by step process, people do not become part of the alt right overnight. These events represent a kind of soft recruitment into more extremist ideas.

Another professor accused YAL of threatening the schools safe spaces.

In response to these controversies, a recent campus survey found that there should be some restrictions of speech, people should watch their language as to not offend anyone, and that offensive speakers should not be restricted, the Linfield Review reports.

Coming out against [campus leftists] is going to subject you to some real trouble, recent graduate Parker Wells, a member of Young Americans for Liberty, told The College Fix. Theres a real climate of fear for people who are outside of the normal liberal campus way of thinking. People are not comfortable saying what they think.

Pervasive left-wing campus culture

In telephone interviews, Wells and rising sophomore Keifer Smith (pictured) said it was their schools pervasive, left-wing campus culture that led them to help launch the Young Americans for Liberty club.

They said they were inspired by the lack of intellectual diversity at the private liberal arts college, which enrolls about 2,800 students and pledges to create global citizens out of its pupils, according to its website.

There was a lot of complaining that the campus was moving too far in one ideological direction, Wells said.

He added he felt there was a strong left-wing culture established by professors that felt nearly impossible to escape. For example, during a wine course he took the professor went on a forty-five minute lecture about the wage gap. You cant really escape a certain set of ideas no matter where you go.

So they launched Young Americans for Liberty. Wells became its events coordinator, Smithits vice president.

Then all hell broke lose.

The saga of the free speech ball and Pepe the Frog

The groups first event of the year was a free speech ball on April 12. To playfully promote free speech and free expression, group members set up a large beach ball on campus upon which students could draw or write anything they wanted.

When students came up to the beach ball, YAL organizers gave out fliers advertising the other events they would be hosting the Peterson lecture and The Red Pill mens rights documentary screening.

On the ball, one student drew Pepe the Frog the notorious image that some deem to be representative of the alt-right. The view that Pepe is a hate symbol is evidenced by the Anti Defamation Leagues inclusion of Pepe in its list of general hate symbols. However, the ADL explicitly notes that the majority of uses of Pepe the Frog have been, and continue to be, non-bigoted.

While Pepes presence on the ball did not immediately spark any censure in fact, many students found it hilarious, Wells said when the image of Pepe on the beach ball wound up on Linfields Instagram, censorship, slander against YAL, and an administrative investigation into the group ensued, according to Smith and Wells.

Linfields President, Thomas Hellie, received a number of emails from people outraged that Pepe an (alleged) symbol of racism and white supremacy was on the ball. Hellie took down the instagram post and told the Linfield Review that As soon as it was pointed out that the photo included the image, the Instagram post was removed.

The Linfield Advisory Committee on Diversity then held a free speech forum for the whole campus the Monday after the free speech ball. The diversity committee told YAL that it would not specifically focus on their group or the free speech ball, but that it would be an opportunity to talk about free speech in general.

However, according to Smith, the forum turned into three and half hours of 90 students and professors interrogating and slandering members of Young Americans for Liberty.

The two men said English Professor Reshmi Dutt-Ballerstadt alleged that YAL is funded by conservative dark money and funded by alt-right white supremacists. Wells and Smith both reject these claims.

There is absolutely no evidence to support that, Smith said.

But extremely problematic is how Dutt-Ballerstadt described the libertarian clubs invitation to Peterson and its screening of The Red Pill in an interview with the Linfield Review.

Problematic because neither Peterson nor the film will be promoting dialogues about gendered inclusions but rather be promoting a dangerous and offensive logic of gendered exclusions, said the English professor, who is also co-coordinator of the Gender Studies Program. The promotion of such exclusionary practices greatly threatens safe spaces for our students, staff and faculty who belong to marginalized groups and violates our ethos of upholding mutual respect on our campus.

Free speech is penalized

After the free speech forum, Wells said, the administration called in every member of YAL for one on one interviews and asked us who drew the frog? After administrators found out who it was, they made the student write an essay about the Pepe incident. (This student preferred not to be identified so as to avoid outrage from other students.)

During the developing controversy, Professor Peterson, in comedic opposition to the existence of safe spaces on college campuses, tweeted: Im violating some more safe spaces soon: Linfield College, April 24.

After this tweet, the Associated Students of Linfield College, citing Petersons violation of Linfields harassment policy and Petersons lack of punctuality in turning in an application it was a day late canceled the talk.

A spokesperson from Linfield stated in an email to The College Fix: There are always conditions for funding. Dr. Peterson and the student organization failed to meet any of the conditions set forth, and ASLC responded by removing its sponsorship and cancelling its funding.

Wells (pictured with Peterson) said that the college has happily looked over such lateness in the past, and it is by no means a precedent for canceling a talk.

Nonetheless, the show went on. Peterson and YAL rented space at the Evergreen Aviation Center Museum grounds and, according to Smith, about 400 fans showed up, and more than 300 people watched it on livestream. The talk was exceedingly well received: Peterson received a standing ovation and the lecture has since been watched more than 86,000 times on YouTube.

As for Linfield cancelling his speech: You were obviously just looking for any excuse, said Peterson in his YouTube response to Linfield.

MORE:College disinvites professor who wont use gender-neutral pronouns because of safe space joke

More trouble ahead

But even during this success, YAL still faced hostility from students.

After Petersons lecture, people congregated in the theater discussing the talk. Wells says that a student at Linfield who he had never spoken to went directly up to him and said, Hey. I appreciate what youre doing here, but seriously fuck you. Putting his middle finger right in Parkers face he said, I think youre just doing this for yourself and you dont care about how it effects other people. And for that all I can say is fuck you.

They also didnt win over many left-leaning ideologues on campus for their May 2 screening of Cassie Jayes The Red Pill.

Professor Dutt-Ballerstadt, in an op-ed in the Linfield Review, rhetorically suggested the YAL events promote racism, homophobia, transphobia, bigotry, misogyny, rape culture, violence against women and a disregard for disabled individuals on our campus.

She continued: The agenda of groups like Alt-Right and campus clubs that are either supported by the Alt-right or providing a platform for the Alt-Right is clear. They want to challenge college campuses for their numerous diversity and inclusion initiatives that provide a legitimate space for ideas and knowledge base that have been historically marginalized and excluded.

Dutt-Ballerstadt did not respond to a request by The College Fix for comment. Linfields media spokesperson Scott Nelson did not respond to a question aboutDutt-Ballerstadt.

Wells also alleged that students were worried about being publicly associated with YAL not only due to social pressures, but due to possible negative academic consequences.

Ive heard this from multiple students in multiple professors classes. And its really not that surprising when you look at whats been said. If youre a freshman and you read what Professor Dutt-Ballestadt said then you wouldnt dare tell her that you had any part of the YAL, he said.

Meanwhile, in the Linfield Review, professor and Associate Dean of Faculty Dawn Nowacki wrote: Overt white supremacism, misogyny, and hatred of LGBTQTI people have not been strongly expressed in the events organized by the Young Americans for Liberty. In fact, these efforts are a lot more subtle. Just as becoming a terrorist is a gradual, step by step process, people do not become part of the alt right overnight. These events represent a kind of soft recruitment into more extremist ideas.

But a Linfield spokesperson stated in an email to The College Fix that the claims of suppressing intellectual diversity are not true.

I flatly rejected the notion that speakers on campus reflect a political homogeneity. Among conservative and libertarian speakers Linfield has hosted in recent years are Jim Hoffman (twice), Steve Knott, Justin Dryer, Tom Palmer, Mark Blitz, Peter Berkowitz, Mark David Hall, Jason Brennan, Chris Preble, Patrick Allitt and Michael Zuckert. All have strong conservative credentials. Huffman is not only a constitutional scholar, but was also a Republican candidate for attorney general of Oregon. We have hosted these speakers because we believe its important to have a civil debate on our campus. We have also hosted liberal speakers for the same reasons, said Linfields spokesperson Scott Nelson.

Lasting impact?

At the end of the day, efforts by the Young Americans for Liberty at Linfield College have helped pave the way for intellectual diversity and free speech, said its president Lucas Carter in an op-ed in the Linfield Review.

Among other things, a conservative equivalent to Young Americans for Liberty, known as Turning Point USA, has spruced up on campus and there is word that a democratic socialist club is in the works, Carter stated. This is exactly what we wanted and we couldnt be any more proud to have pushed Linfields culture in this direction to be able to discuss such variety of views. That is true diversity. Relating back to the previous paragraph: It mightve been a bumpy road, but our activism ultimately paid off and helped foster a culture of respect for the Linfield community.

MORE:Student government rejects Young Americans for Liberty chapter: Its dangerous

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

About the Author

College Fix contributor Max Diamond is a recent graduate of Reed College and a freelance writer and editor in New York City.

See the rest here:

Students launch libertarian club at small Oregon college and get harassed, investigated, condemned - The College Fix

Hello, and welcome back to this very special edition of Doth Protest Too Much, where I, David, take pot-shots at politics and hot button topics of great concern to the world as we know it.

One of these overlooked phenomena, which must be aptly addressed, is that of Australias longstanding drinking culture; which consists of drinking until you make Charlie Sheen look sober, dropping your dacks to the Eagle Rock and swigging cheap bags of cask wine (goon bags) with no repercussions.

All of this brings to mind a singular pertinent question in the minds of all libertarians: Why in the hell is this a libertarian issue?

Given the reputation of libertarians as hands-off people, unwilling to do anything for the benefit or the greater good, its time that we break down that stereotype and advance our own cause starting with this one topic in particular: How do we make societal progress in removing alcohol poisoning from the sphere of Australian culture?

The answer is incredibly simple, my friend.

The reason why the growth in sales of cask wine has boomed, and created such a thriving industry, is inherent in the tax rate, as cask wine is only taxed five cents per standard drink, which explains how four litres of white wine is readily available for the price of ten dollars.

Comparatively, a six pack of full strength beer (just under two litres) will cost $24.70 and will be subject to forty six cents of taxation on each standard drink.

Pre-mixed drinks (commonly referred to as Alcopops within Australia) are subject to a dollar and four cents of taxation for each standard drink, which makes a ten-can pack of the tangy soda, Smirnoff Ice Black, a whopping 41 dollars.

Having already established the cost/ratio difference to be considerably uneven in Australian taxes, the inner machinations of a youth looking to get tipsy seem to be common sense, although we are yet to factor in the alcohol percentage of these drinks.

The beer ($24.70 for 1.98 litres) has an alcohol percentage of 5.2%.

The pre-mixed Alcopop ($41.00 for 3.75 litres) has an alcohol percentage of 6.5%.

The cask wine ($10 for 4.0 litres) has an alcohol percentage of 9.5%.

A simple crunch of the numbers demonstrates how an uneven and faulty tax system has left exploitable loopholes for those looking for a quick and demonstrably dangerous buzz.

What can we do to curb the death-count? Should we enforce a higher taxation on cask wine?

Hell no!

The answer is to drop the tax on products with lower alcohol content and re-work the Australian identity to consume bottles designed for moderation rather than nebulous chrome blobs of morning regret.

We should protect our youth by accommodating their empty pockets rather than the governments flawed attempt at stopping rampant Australian alcoholism.

Perhaps Im completely wrong, perhaps Im right or perhaps I doth protest too much.

I need a drink.

This post was written by David McManus.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

David McManus has an extensive background in youth politics and of advocacy with regards to the libertarian and anarcho-capitalist movements. David draws his values from the works of Stirner, Hoppe and Rothbard. He is currently a student in Australia with a passion for writing, which carries into a healthy zest for liberty-based activism. Despite an aspiring career in politics, he considers himself a writer at heart with a steady niche for freelance work.

Like Loading...

Continued here:

Doth Protest Too Much: Gooney Tunes - Being Libertarian

The fire that consumed Grenfell Tower last Wednesday was an unimaginable sort of horror. Parents threw children out of windows to onlookers below; entire households perished; there are reports that no one from the top three floors survived. The death toll is still increasing. It was almost certainly the worst fire in the United Kingdom in decades.

And it was entirely preventable. For an additional 5,000 (about $6,400) the apartment block could have been refurbished with fire-resistant cladding, rather than the highly flammable materials banned in the United States and Germany that were used instead, and that probably transformed a run-of-the-mill high-rise fire into a national tragedy. For 138,000 ($176,000), the entire building could have been retrofitted with sprinklers. Residents had complained for years that the building was unsafe and could not be safely evacuated in the case of a serious fire.

It should not be shocking, then, that Megan McArdle has received a blizzard of rebukes for suggesting that it may be misguided to criticize the London authorities for not installing sprinkler systems. McArdle does not make any conclusive claims about the sprinklers: She acknowledges that the former housing minister who decided not to require developers to install sprinklers may have made the wrong call. But, McArdle argues, all expenditures must be justified and balanced against the possible trade-offs: Every dollar [the government] spends on installing sprinkler systems cannot be spent on the health service, or national device, or pollution control. And McArdle, as a good libertarian, points out that requiring developers to install sprinklers would increase rents and impose other costs, while leaving the issue unregulated would allow potential tenants themselves to choose whether sprinkler systems and other safety features are worth the cost.

McArdle was savaged on social media for these transparently reasonable sentiments; one particularly asinine Slate article was mockingly titled, Would I Cross the Street to Spit on You If You Were on Fire? Theres Always a Trade-Off. People dont, it turns out, particularly appreciate the notion that safety is a trade-off; they particularly dont appreciate hearing about the importance of such trade-offs in the aftermath of an unbearable tragedy. At times like these, people want to hear about requisitioning the empty houses of rich people, as Jeremy Corbyn suggested. They want to hear about greedy developers going to prison; they want politicians unseated. People want something to be done, even if that something doesnt make much sense or will not be particularly helpful.

This, of course, is a problem with people, not a problem with Megan McArdle, whose column appeared obnoxious precisely because it was reasonable and levelheaded at a time when one is not supposed to be either. McArdle is right that there is always a trade-off and that the government should install sprinklers in public housing only if that is the best use of the money. McArdle is right, too, that requiring developers to install sprinklers in every single building would price low-income households out of units they could otherwise have afforded, and would deprive people of the ability to determine for themselves what level of risk they are willing to pay for.

But McArdles analysis is incomplete. Any perfect cost-benefit analysis, after all, should take into account not only the fiscal costs and benefits directly implicated in a decision but also the costs and benefits associated with the long-term repercussions of the decision.

In this case, the decision not to install more expensive cladding at Grenfell was a catastrophic failure for the cause of responsible governance. The tragedy has galvanized England and will almost certainly bring in its wake a less compromising, and less proportionate, attitude toward building regulations. A flurry of laws will surely be passed to assuage the horror and the sense of national culpability. Some of these laws may be reasonable and well designed, but it is likely that most will not be. And that is the best-case scenario. Londons mayor, Sadiq Khan, has suggested that the tower blocks of the 1960s and 70s, which provide low-income housing to thousands in a city with a severe housing crisis, may be systematically torn down. And if, as seems possible, the Grenfell fire leads to the fall of Theresa May and the rise of Jeremy Corbyn, then a libertarian approach to building regulations will ultimately have produced the first genuinely left-wing government the United Kingdom has seen since 1979.

There is very little that is worse for skeptics of big government than a tragedy. Since people demand action after a tragedy, tragedies tend to lead to greater regulation, and regulation is subject to a ratchet effect: Once regulations are passed, they are hard to reverse and the new regulatory climate becomes normal. The political effects of a tragedy can shape society for decades it was the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory in lower Manhattan that brought about new regulatory standards in factories, and the Titanic changed maritime safety forever.

It stands to reason, then, that conservatives and libertarians have an interest in promoting modest, cheap, and popular safety rules and regulations. If the United Kingdom had banned the flammable cladding used in Grenfell, as America and Germany had, no one would be talking today about tearing down low-income housing across London, and the cost would be only a few thousand pounds more per development. If the authorities had prevented factories in lower Manhattan from locking their employees in, the garment workers would probably never have unionized. If the Titanic had been forced by law to carry enough lifeboats, maritime regulations would probably be far simpler today.

Libertarians in particular will find these preventive regulations difficult to stomach. But most of the world is not libertarian certainly, not after a trauma of this magnitude and so, difficult to stomach though they may be, safety rules and regulations, carefully chosen and managed, are a worthwhile investment in a slightly more libertarian future.

READ MORE: Assigning Blame for Londons Tower Inferno The Tragedy of Grenfell

Max Bloom is an editorial intern at National Review.

Read more here:

What Conservatives and Libertarians Should Learn from Grenfell - National Review