Category Archives: Libertarian

they faced repeated and intense backlash from some professors and students

So many progressives dont even seem to understand what Libertarians believe. If they did, more college students would probably be Libertarians.

The College Fix reports:

Students launch libertarian club at small Oregon college and get harassed, investigated, condemned

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.

Read more here:

New Libertarian Student Club at Linfield College Harassed and Condemned - legal Insurrection (blog)

who wants diabetics to die as punishment for their sins of sloth and gluttony, the Trump Administration makes clear that this will be Administration policy too.

It needs to be clearly understood that the American Taliban Christians in the ranks of Trump defenders will support the denial of health care to every person whose illness they deem to be a divine judgment for sin. As court prophets to the rich and powerful, such prolife Christians will tell cancer victims, diabetics, the obese, pregnant women, STD and AIDS victims and a host of others that they are parasites who brought it on themselves and who should be punished with denial of health care because a just and righteous God wills it.

And all the while they pronounce death and judgment on the lebensunwertes leben in the name of a false Jesus, these Christians lie that it is a state social safety net and not their own brutal and vindictive hearts that keeps them from otherwise being as generous to sick as St. Francis of Assisi. Who do they think they are kidding?

Here is the original post:

On the heels of my conversation with the Good Catholic Libertarian - Patheos (blog)

There has been debate this week about how many libertarians there are. The answer is: it depends on how you measure it and how you define libertarian. The overwhelming body of literature, however, using a variety of different methods and different definitions, suggests that libertarians comprise about 10-20% of the population, but may range from 7-22%.

Furthermore, if one imposes the same level of ideological consistency on liberals, conservatives, and communitarians/populists that many do on libertarians, these groups too comprise similar shares of the population.

In this post I provide a brief overview of different methods academics have used to identify libertarians and what they found. Most methods start from the premise that libertarians are economically conservative and socially liberal. Despite this, different studies find fairly different results. What accounts for the difference?

1) First, people use different definitions of libertarians

2) Second, they use different questions in their analysis to identify libertarians

3) Third, they use very different statistical methods.

Lets start with a few questions: How do you define a libertarian? Is there one concrete libertarian position on every policy issue?

What is the libertarian position on abortion? Is there one? What is the libertarian position on Social Security? Must a libertarian support abolishing the program, or might a libertarian support private accounts, or means testing, or sending it to the states instead? A researcher will find fewer libertarians in the electorate if they demand that libertarians support abolishing Social Security rather than means testing or privatizing it.

Further, why are libertarians expected to conform to an ideological litmus test but conservatives and liberals are not? For instance, what is the conservative position on Social Security? Is there one? When researchers use rigid ideological definitions of liberals and conservatives, they too make up similar shares of the population as libertarians. Thus, as political scientist Jason Weeden has noted, researchers have to make fairly arbitrary decisions about where the cut-off points should be for the libertarian, liberal, or conservative position. This pre-judgement strongly determines how many libertarians researchers will find.

Next, did researchers simply ask people if they identify as libertarian, or did they ask them public policy questions (a better method)? If the latter, how many issue questions did they ask? Then, what questions did they ask?

For instance, what questions are used to determine if someone is liberal on social issues? Did the researcher ask survey takers about legalizing marijuana or did the researcher ask about affirmative action for women in the workplace instead? Libertarians will answer these questions very differently and that will impact the number of libertarians researchers find.

While there is no perfect method, the fact that academics using a variety of different questions, definitions, and statistical techniques still find that the number is somewhere between 7-22% gives us some idea that the number of libertarians is considerably larger than 0.

Next, I give a brief overview of the scholarly research on the estimated share of libertarians, conservatives, liberals, and communitarians in the American electorate. I organize their findings by methods used starting with most empirically rigorous:

Ask people to answer a series of questions on a variety of policy topics and input their responses into a statistical algorithm

In theses studies, researchers ask survey respondents a variety of issue questions on economic and social/cultural issues. Then, they input peoples answers into a statistical clustering technique and allow an algorithm to find the number of libertarians. This is arguably the strongest method to identify libertarians.

Ask people to answer a series of questions on a variety of policy topics and plot their average responses on a 2-dimensional plot

In these studies, researchers 1) average responses to multiple questions on economics and then 2) average responses to multiple questions on social/cultural/identity/lifestyle issues. They then take the two averaged scores to plot respondents on a 2-dimensional graph (Economic Issues by Social Issues).

Ask people to answer a question about economic policy and a question about social policy

While not as rigorous as asking people multiple questions, this is another quick way to observe the diversity of ideological opinion in surveys.

Ask people if they identify as libertarian and know what the word means

The Pew Research Center found that 11% of Americans agree that the word libertarian describes me well and know libertarians emphasize individual freedom by limiting the role of government.

Ask people if they identify as socially liberal and fiscally conservative, an oft-used definition of libertarianism

A 2011 Reason-Rupe poll found that 8% of Americans said they were conservative on economic issues and also liberal on social issues. But the same method found 9% identified as liberal on both social and economic issues, 2% identified as liberal on economic issues and conservative on social issues, and 31% identified as conservative on both social and economic issues. They remaining respondents were somewhere in the middle. These results are consistent with polls from Rasmussen, and Gallup which finds a public preference for the word conservative over liberal. This means many people who endorse liberal policy are inclined to self-identify as moderate or conservative.

Conclusions

In sum, the overwhelming body of empirical evidence suggests that libertarians share of the electorate is likely somewhere between 10-20% and the conservative and liberal shares arent that much greater. Libertarians exist, quite a lot, but you have to know what youre looking for.

Read the original:

How Many Libertarians Are There? The Answer Depends on the Method You Use - Cato Institute (blog)

Former Treasurer for the Polk County Libertarian Party of Polk County arrested for stealing funds from the party's ... The Daily Ridge Hamlin was elected as the treasurer of the Libertarian Party of Polk County in 2014 and was tasked with maintaining the savings and checking account for the Party. Beginning in January of 2015, Jason Hamlin began using funds from these two Party ...

View original post here:

Former Treasurer for the Polk County Libertarian Party of Polk County arrested for stealing funds from the party's ... - The Daily Ridge

Im paying too much to be forced to read ideological garbage

After he cut the microphone for the high school valedictorian who criticized the authoritative attitude of administrators, guaranteeing the suppression would go viral, Wyoming Area Secondary Center Principal Jon Pollard told the new graduates to watch what you put on social media.

Its advice that would have been better directed to another young person who showcased her narrowmindedness and disinterest in hearing other perspectives on Twitter.

University of St. Francis student Jennifer Martin tweetedWednesday that her professor (an adjunct, it turns out) gave her an assigned reading on national health care systems from the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank that is widely respected in D.C. for the quality of its research and thought-provoking events (one such event covered here last fall).

Cato also got tens of millions in fundingover the years from Charles and David Koch, the billionaire brothers who are active in Republican politics, and it was co-founded by Charles four decades ago.

This was enough for Martin to declare that her professor had committed an academic sin, and she would get this person in trouble for giving her ideological garbage from a conservative propaganda machine to read. (Never mind the Kochs sued Cato for control of a board seat five years ago, and the settlement protected Catos independence.)

She even pinned it to the top of her Twitter feed.

What followed was a mostly civil back-and-forth between Martin a self-described liberal lover who claims repeatedly she would feel the same about reading a liberal think tank and some names that might be familiar to College Fix readers.

Former Fix writer Nick Pappas quipped: If I had to read the writings of communists, and listen to the words of terrorists, you can read what a few liberatarains [sic] think.

They argued a bit, with Martin saying Cato was not a reputable source and its article omitted data to push the limited govt agenda, and Pappas saying that Martin was setting an unrealistic standard for any article. (Current Fix writer Kayla Schierbecker joined in with a quip, too.)

Group blog Popehat, a great source of First Amendment-related posts, joked that If its any comfort its pretty clear you wont be able to understand [the article] well enough to be corrupted by it.

Various professors and young academics joined in to encourage Martin to broaden her reading to things she disagrees with and formulate thoughtful critiques.

The student kept insisting that political think tanks are not educational, but that she read the Cato article and it confirmed her view that Cato is political propaganda.

Philosophy professor Francis Beckwith of Baylor University (with whom I have a past connection via another think tank, the Discovery Institute) thanked Martin for giving him a good example of the genetic fallacy for his class.

Most responses were simply bemused. Charles Cooke is National Review Onlines editor, by the way, and the Niskanen Center (Will Wilkinson) is a much younger and explicitly activist libertarian think tank.

Before I go any further: The universitys website has no record of this professor Fran Steel that I could find, nor does Google, and USF (a Catholic institution) has not responded to my query as of late Wednesday.

But Martin refers to the professor further down the thread as an adjunct, and this could be an online class. USF is based in suburban Chicago, but it also has a healthcare-focused campus in Albuquerque, which would explain why Martin was offered a reading on healthcare policy.

We werent all sure at The Fix whether this was even a real argument by Martin, or if it was a prank or parody. It fits every stereotype we have of students who refuse to engage with an argument based on some wholly subjective standard (its not responsible, as Martin says).

And we do have trouble believing shed really object to reading an article in, say, a Center for American Progress publication. Heres another Martin tweet that is posted on her front page.

What is encouraging about this thread is Martin keeps engaging with critics even as she says she shouldnt have to engage with Cato because of its (complicated) Koch relationship.

And given everything you hear about trolling and the inability of people of different views to have a civil conversation on anything, this is a pretty damn civil argument.

Lets hope Martin learns from this experience and becomes eager to explain why an argument is wrong, using her own responsible data, and not simply why the source of the argument invalidates it.

LikeThe College Fixon Facebook/Follow us on Twitter

IMAGE:Yepifanova Olena/Shutterstock

About the Author

Associate Editor

Go here to read the rest:

Student tries to get professor in trouble for assigning her libertarian reading - The College Fix

Is there room for another heel in the Illinois governor's race?

Former pro wrestler Jon "The Illustrious One" Stewart says yes and he's looking to put his rivals for the Libertarian Party nomination in a half nelson, then body-slam Bruce Rauner and whoever the Democrats select in the general election.

"Politics is wrestling with suits and ties on," Stewart, 50, told Chicago Inc. "I'm comfortable on a mic, and I'm not afraid to tell the truth."

It isn't The Illustrious One's first run for elected office. Back in 1997, he unsuccessfully ran as a Republican for the state House on the North Shore with a little help from President Donald Trump's counselor Kellyanne Conway.

"I was her first political client," said Stewart, who lives in Deerfield and now runs his family's used-car dealership. "She's probably one of the smartest people I've ever met so I'm not surprised she has got to where she is.

"I'm a little like her we both speak our minds, and sometimes we might speak out of turn, but we are not afraid."

But by Stewart's own admission, the best-known episode of his colorful life came in 2006 when he was mistaken for longtime "Daily Show" host Jon Stewart by a high school in Utah that accidentally booked him for a fundraising gala.

Stewart later took an unsuccessful stab at running for Congress as a Republican, before a falling-out with the late then-Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka led him to join the Libertarians in 2011.

Like Conway, Stewart remains a fan of Trump, who himself has dabbled in the pro-wrestling world. Stewart said he voted for Trump after previously backing Barack Obama because Trump is a necessary "Molotov cocktail thrown into the system in Washington, D.C."

That could cause problems for Stewart at the state Libertarian convention in March 2018, when party members will select their candidate in a caucus and might hold Stewart's failure to support Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson against him.

Two other Libertarian candidates, Matt Scaro and Kash Jackson, have also announced runs, and Illinois Libertarian Party Chairman Lex Green said Stewart "has to overcome" the irritation of party workers who spent $100,000 getting Johnson on the ballot in Illinois.

"But Jon is a good candidate, and there are many pragmatic libertarians who may be able to look past that," Green said.

Stewart is hoping that policies including a Trump-like plan to send 300 federal officers into Chicago's Englewood neighborhood to combat violence and replacing pensions with 401(k)s for new government hires will sway voters.

And he pointed to the 1998 election of former wrestler Jesse "The Body" Ventura as governor of Minnesota, as well as Trump's recent victory, as evidence of an enduring appetite for outsider candidates.

"When I first ran in the North Shore, I think most people were expecting a bleached blond guy in a leather motorcycle vest to show up, so they were surprised to find someone in a shirt who was engaged on the issues," Stewart said.

Though his campaign doesn't have much money, car dealers across the state have vowed to back him, he said, adding that people who underestimate him will be "surprised."

"The state's politics aren't working it's surreal at this point," he said. "How can the Democrats and the Republicans say, 'Give us one more chance?'"

kjanssen@chicagotribune.com

Twitter @kimjnews

Original post:

Former pro-wrestler with ties to Kellyanne Conway seeks Illinois governor nod - Chicago Tribune

The Libertarian Party of Jasper County recently celebrated its official recognition by the Libertarian Party of Indiana. Though the local party's precise number is small, members are planning events to spread the message of libertarianism, and several initiatives for county politics may be arriving in the near future.

Loren Berenda, a Shelter Insurance Agent and former law enforcement officer, is the local party chairman. He believes that the party first began to find momentum in Jasper County during the 2016 presidential election, if only due to the unpopularity of the major party candidates. Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson collected 620 votes from the county, according to courthouse records.

"I know there's a lot of locals who weren't happy with Gary Johnson," Berenda said. "But it was an alternative to Hillary Clinton. And then, obviously President Trump had a lot of negative publicity that was coming out...A lot of people just pushed Gary Johnson's box as a protest to the other two."

The number of voters doesn't have to reflect the exact number of registered party members, and it did show potential interest in Libertarianism from locals. So, local party members decided to try for official recognition from the state-level party. Read the full story in the print edition or by subscribing to the e-edition.

View post:

Jasper County Libertarian Party gains official recognition - Newsbug.info

Had a typical conversation with a Libertarian about the question of health care as a right. He was a typical Catholic dissenter from the Churchs teaching on this point, offering the typical Libertarian falsehoods like:

The reason this is a lie is that health care is not charity. It is, as the Church teaches, a right.

The Libertarian lie in reply to this is twofold.

The reply to these lies is twofold as well:

The reason health care is a right is that life is a right and health is simply a corollary of that. And because health care is a right, guaranteeing access to it, like guaranteeing the right to be born, is a matter of justice, not charity, too. And since it is precisely the business of the state to secure justice, it is the rightful business of the state to secure access to health care for all.

My Libertarian correspondent would have none of this, of course, and emitted the customary lie of Libertarians that state involvement in health care robbed him of the power to glow with the burning personal charity that would consume his heart for the poor and sick, did not the state remove a buck and half from his paycheck in brutal act of violent theft. The poor and sick would see the dawn of a new Millennium of care for all their needs at the hands of a Marching Army of Living Libertarians Saints more generous than St. Francis of Assisi if the state and its monstrous confiscatory powers were not aided by the liberal cabal Catholic bishops in calling for universal health care (as they have, in fact, done for a century).

But then the mask suddenly slipped and he wrote:

Youre an economic buffoon who also happens to be guilty of the sins of sloth and gluttony. You and your following should be ashamed of yourselves for demanding the robbery of the material wealth of the productive.How much of your health care is a right? Youre obese. Should we be forced to pay extra for your sins of gluttony and sloth?

And there it was. All the burning charity suddenly evaporated and made clear that the use of medicine as a weapon to punish the lebensunwertes leben is one of the many charming features of Libertarianism. You know, like this:

I remember when Catholics were all up in arms about death panels. Turns out the only real problem was that guys like my deeply, truly Catholic Libertarian reader wanted to make sure that *he* got to chair them.

And thats the thing. With very few exceptions, Libertarianism is a philosophy which, in contests between the wealthy and powerful vs. the poor, virtually *always* sides with the powerful and declares any state action on behalf of justice for the defenseless to be violence while all violence against the weak is the invisible hand of the market.

Mixed with a smug real Catholic pride, it assumes all illness is Gods punishment for sin and wants to see the wrath of God run its course on those guilty of (in this case) gluttony and sloth (like he knows one damn thing about me and is competent to render such a verdict on the life of a total stranger). This Libertarian Judge of Souls wants diabetics (or anybody else they deem guilty of health-related sins, whether sinfully pregnant women, sinfully sick smokers, sinfully obese cubicle workers or sinfully sick AIDS patients) to die as punishment rather than he pay one damn penny to help their treatment. And he wants everybody to believe that this is all because he is more personally generous than St. Francis of Assisi, but the state gets in the way of his holy charity. These guys are so full of crap and such massive and vindictive narcissists, it takes your breath away.

See the article here:

When the Libertarian Mask Slips and the Eugenicist is Revealed - Patheos (blog)

Capitalism has been, perhaps, the most misconstrued and misused term Ive ever come across. For an average person, capitalism is evocative of extraordinary images of colonialism, suffering and slavery, or the sight of a billionaire whose convoy passes through the streets, whose sidewalks have been an unfortunate residence to many. Those willing to ponder about capitalism often come across those who carry the same misconceptions and misinformation. The misinformation about capitalism proliferates among people and only worsens when people use emotionally appealing arguments that often treats reason as a secondary. And as a consequence, today, here we are in a world where people take moral refuge in glorifying socialism. These socialist sympathizers who practice Marxism in every policy they propose forget that the very Russia that they thoroughly detest has socialism and Marxism in its roots. George Santayanas aphorism that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

If youre like me, then to you the absolute of capitalism would be a utopia where you have the freedom as an individual to mind your own business, both figuratively and literally, without the fear of being unfairly squashed by a government gavel. But this perception was most likely not something that you always had, thanks to liberal indoctrination. To those who have been liberally indoctrinated, the rights desire for capitalism would mean an authoritarian state where the poor are exploited for the benefit of the rich, where theyre destined to remain poor forever. The disconnect is this: when the left hears capitalism, what they think about is corporatism. So, they think of an authoritarian state run by the corporations that want to exploit ordinary men for their profits. The lefts prescribed solution to this is to have an authoritarian state run by the ordinary man in the form of a collective that wants to exploit corporations for their profits! Which is retributive justice. Mike Buchanan, a British politician, argued that if we were going in for retributive justice then perhaps each black American should be given a white slave. So we ought not be emotional, but rather rational about it because the political system effects all our lives. The rational way to go about it is to have a political system where the businesses have their freedoms and so does the ordinary man, and they deal with each other with mutual consent. Wherever there is coercion against one another, the government jumps in to resolve the dispute through law and order. Which is what capitalism is all about, its freedom. Free markets give everybody the freedom and the opportunity to be rich or poor. Because of these differences in the perception of capitalism, when the left and right debate each other, its not a discussion, its a confrontation.

This phobia of capitalism understandably comes with history. A history filled with enormous suffering caused by colonialism and slavery, where businessmen were addressed as capitalists has indeed left an indelible mark in peoples minds. While the leftist intelligentsia makes vitriolic attacks on capitalism for its dark history, they conveniently push under the rug the evils of socialism, claiming that it was actually this divine concept that went terribly wrong every single time. This adulterated history caused the phobia of capitalism, which is not unique to the west, by the way.

India, after independence from the British empire, was shattered in all forms, having gone from being the richest country in the world at that time to one of the poorest[1], adopted the Soviet Unions economic model and an isolationist foreign policy in the hopes of confronting this plight. The Indian leaders were unwilling to allow privatization and open up to the rest of the world. They were infused with concerns and skepticism of allowing foreign companies to do business in India. Because the last time, when India paved the way for a foreign company to do business on its land, it ended up being colonized for the next two hundred years. This went on until the highly propagandized paradise of the Soviet Union finally collapsed in the 90s. India was also heading towards an economic fiasco. This socialist approach had to be changed and capitalism had to be embraced. The game-changing economic liberalization took place where private companies could be established, markets opened up to foreign trade, and India started getting increasingly capitalist. Fast forward 26 years, and it has maintained consistently higher rates of GDP and is the 7th largest economy. Its at a point where one wouldnt have anticipated a couple of decades ago. This only goes to show, as Shashi Tharoor puts it, that sometimes history can teach you the wrong lessons.

If youve been following Reuters on Facebook, or the folks in Hollywood who give cosmic importance to politics over their movies, then you must have witnessed a series of articles regarding the Trump administrations repeal of regulations. There has been some new repeal, or at least a proposal, almost every day, and this went on for quite some time. For every article that said there has been a repeal of a certain regulation, it was showered with angry reactions. For instance, if it were a certain social program, the reaction was that Trump did it because he hated the women and poor. if it were the repeal of a certain environmental regulation, the reaction was that trump did it because he hated the environment. Now I know we all care for the environment, but the principle remains the same. The comments were filled with grief and contempt for allowing corporations more room in their profit-making endeavors. This frustration is a consequence of a conclusion based on the conflict of the lefts adopted morality from altruism, where you are virtuous when you do things for people around you and hold no expectations in return, and then apply it to economics, where the businesses work exclusively on self-interest and profit.

This mind-set that removing a regulation would give more room for self-interest, and hence more evil, is the source of all arguments to justify the use of law-making as a weapon for combating the so-called evil. This stems from the notion which is at the core of every leftist, the idea that human beings are inherently evil in nature and therefore they must be controlled and corrected by the rest of the society. So, according to this philosophy, your sacrifice for others makes you a good person, but working for your benefit and self-interest makes you a bad person, which is incompatible with businesses. This is an artificial construct that goes against the natural survival instincts of species and therefore the conclusion is to make human beings good by the use brute force. A lefts version of original sin. They denounce religion, even ridicule it, but then practice the same principles, however, by replacing God with government. Although today, some would argue that to the left, government is not just god, but a mom and a dad. And thats why the left would cheer for Bill Gates when he invents Windows and makes all our lives better, but would detest him when they see him make huge money out of it. He is good as long as he keeps talking about donating and helping the needy, but would turn out to be an evil person as soon as he thinks well for himself. The societys imposition on you to have you exhibit remorse for the crime of being successful. Their apprehension for freedom is what drives them. And thats why the left advocates for more regulations and bigger government. This is the difference between the leftists and the right-libertarians. The libertarian right doesnt believe that human beings are inherently evil in nature and are against the imposition of their morality on others.

Another reason, apart from history and philosophy, would be envy. As Ayn Rand put it, Today youre supposed to apologize to every naked savage anywhere on the globe, because you are more prosperous. Because you earned the money, you have to feel guilty and apologize for it while he hasnt and doesnt intend to learn from you, he just wants your money.

This is the most vindictive, collectivist, and uncivilized behavior of all. They pass a law that seems so kind and compassionate and the society applauds the government for passing such a law, which potentially wins it a number of votes. You are fine as long you comply, but the moment you dont, the next thing you see are guns and handcuffs. There is no other way out because every law is indeed a governmental enforcement. They are carried out at gun point, there is no room for your opinion. And what is the outcome? If you dont comply, you are the evilest person. If you do comply, however, you are fine, but you have to sacrifice and suffer enough in order to satisfy the rest to be applauded as a good person.

Whats more striking is that this is not attacking man for his mistakes or his crimes, but for his success and for his virtues. Its not caring for the needy and poor, its the hatred of the good for being the good. The problem is that the left considers ones prosperity as evil. The richer and more successful you are, the eviler you are to the left, and you must be dragged down since many others are living far worse off than you are. But if you do remain poor, then they love you and care for you, and will fight on your behalf to tax the rich and distribute that money to you. If this is not parasitic, I dont know what is. The poor and the needy is not a reason, but an excuse to moralize and justify their atrocities against the successful.

We need to protect our freedoms from the leftist depredations. I hold adulterated history, self-destructive philosophy, and the tribal instincts of human beings as the primary reasons why the left hates capitalism. This leaves out many other reasons, such as the emotional-appealing left vs the logical right, the top 1% fallacy, and the deceptive term crony-capitalism. But these are only 3 of the top reasons why the left hates capitalism, i.e., freedom.

* Abhilash Korraprolu does libertarian political commentary on the YouTube channel: Al Righty.

[1] British economic historian Angus Maddison in his book The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective has demonstrated, Indias share of the world economy was 23 per cent, as large as all of Europe put together. (It had been 27 per cent in 1700, when the Mughal Emperor Aurangzebs treasury raked in 100 million in tax revenues alone.) By the time the British departed India, it had dropped to just over 3 per cent. Excerpt from: Shashi Tharoor. An Era of Darkness: The British Empire in India.

Like Loading...

Read the original here:

Why Leftists Hate Capitalism - Being Libertarian

For the past few decades it seemed like hardcore socialism was a thing of the past in the United Kingdom.

The Conservative and Labour parties had both accepted a liberal consensus that markets were good, and that aggressive redistributive policies and nationalization of industries was bad for everyone.

Yet a shocking election result on June 8 has made the green and pleasant land see red again.

Its true that the Conservatives won the most seats in the election, but their slim majority was erased. They will now serve as a minority government and rely on the Democratic Unionist Party a Northern Irish political party with a reputation for corruption, thuggery, and a social conservatism that would make Republicans in the Deep South blanch.

U.K. elections have to happen at least every five years, but unstable governments can collapse at any time. So despite the results of this election, another could be not far down the road. In fact, given Prime Minister Theresa Mays embattled condition, another early election could be in the cards in just a couple years.

With the Conservative image now severely tarnished, and Labour riding high, it is no longer impossible to imagine that the current Labour leadership could form the next government and that is a problem.

Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the opposition, spent many years isolated to the left-wing lunatic fringe of the Labour Party. Yet his late blooming has left many aghast, even within his own party.

Elected leader after the 2015 election, on the back of protest votes, Corbyn has been viewed by the majority of his own parliamentary party as a usurper. Yet his deft work building up grassroots supporters within the party kept him in charge. The election this month was supposed to be his death-knell; with him and his host of socialist crazies sent packing by Middle England. That, of course, did not go as planned.

Instead, Labour increased its seat total, which is astounding considering a month before the election many polls showed them losing more than 50 seats. Corbyn has, of course, taken this as validation for his brand of politics, and his critics within the party have been silenced.

The danger is now very real that Corbyn and his allies could actually govern the country one day. In a matter of months, the Overton Window has shifted further than it has in years. Marxism is back on the menu.

John McDonnell, Corbyns top deputy and the likely finance chief in a Corbyn government, has openly admitted he is a Marxist. Corbyn and his friends have long lambasted capitalism, in all its forms.

Should they come to power, it could mean a radical reversal of Britains progress since the 1970s.

Almost everything about British politics today has a 70s feel to it. The Conservatives are committed to a big government right-wing policy while Labour has aggressively embraced its socialist roots. Corbyn wants to re-nationalize industries and re-empower labor unions, just as a start. He is also vigorously anti free-trade.

Now Corbyn is validated to continue to deliver on that agenda should he come to power; and now the MPs who still believe in Tony Blairs New Labour approach, one that accepted that free markets are a prerequisite for a prosperous economy, have little political capital.

Corbyn was supposed to be discredited. Instead, he is the most popular leader in the country.

He can look forward to years of political turmoil in the government with a high level of dysfunction in the Conservative Party as it sorts itself out and tries to govern and negotiate Brexit. His day may yet come when he actually becomes Prime Minister. That however, would mark a disaster for the U.K. and for the community of market-friendly nations.

Theresa Mays brand of conservatism is far from libertarian or liberal, that is true. But given the now very real and terrifying alternative, any lover of personal freedom should shudder at the thought of it.

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...

View post:

Marxism Returns to the UK The Right Engle - Being Libertarian