Category Archives: Libertarian

Nassim Taleb, hedge-fund adviser and author of The Black Swan, may be a prophet of doom when it comes to the perilous state of financial markets, but, in a rare splash of cheer, he says hes optimistic about the future overall.

He recently went on Ron Pauls Liberty Report to spread his rosy view of what lies ahead, which he described as a libertarians dream:

So what needs to be destroyed, exactly?

Taleb, like the man he supports in the White House, probably wouldnt miss the New York Times NYT, +0.00% too much if it were to disappear.

We have today so many people sitting in the New York Times Washington office, in an air-conditioned office, who can dictate foreign policy with zero risk, he said.

Taleb added that we are no longer victims of the New York Times, thanks in part to Twitters role in shaking up the traditional news flow.

Another entity hed be fine without, of course, is the Federal Reserve. He used this metaphor to describe whats been happening in recent years.

Without the Federal Reserve, Taleb said that the price of money would be negotiated between people.

He pointed to bitcoin BTCUSD, +3.41% which continues to explode to new highs, as part of some sort of organic order in the future.

You cannot have incompetence, serial incompetence, for such a long time without some kind of pushback, Taleb said.

Watch the full interview:

See original here:

Nassim 'Black Swan' Taleb says the future will be 'a libertarian's dream' - MarketWatch

The Liberty Conservative

Trump Administration Unveils The Most Libertarian Budget In History, But Will Congress Approve It? The Liberty Conservative The only thing standing in the way of this libertarian budget is Congress. The Trump proposal may be too ambitious to be palatable for Congress. In spite of the Congress being dominated by Republican lawmakers, they have been reticent to making even ... Trump Proposes $3.6 Trillion Cut To Welfare StateThe Libertarian Republic all 1,241 news articles »

Visit link:

Trump Administration Unveils The Most Libertarian Budget In History, But Will Congress Approve It? - The Liberty Conservative

Luke Garrison (@_lukegarrison) is currently studying criminal and constitutional law at Seattle University Law School. He holds his bachelors degree in psychology/pre-law from The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. where he concentrated in social psychology.

Being the genuine black sheep that is a conservative theatre nerd from New York, he had to begin defending his political and ideological positions from a young age. As a born and raised conservative Republican, Luke had been familiar with some libertarian ideology for many years, though he hadnt started considering the party seriously until the 2016 election. After a few too many last straws, Luke recently divorced from the Republican Party over matters of fundamental values, namely that it stands for nothing.

As an aspiring constitutional scholar, Luke is a staunch defender of originalism. He also is an outspoken advocate for free speech, Second Amendment rights, the right of humans not to be murdered in the womb, Peace through Strength, free market capitalism, and repealing the Sixteenth Amendment to begin the return of a very small federal government. He rejects the dangerous ideology known as progressivism, and is against isolationism in almost all circumstances. He believes in principles should be more important than party loyalty, which has led away from both major parties.

Some of Lukes modern political influences include Thomas Sowell, Antonin Scalia, Ronald Reagan, Ayn Rand, Mark Levin, and Ben Shapiro.

In addition to his political/legal studies, Luke is a classically-trained baritone who has been performing in musical theatre, opera, and choirs since the age of 3. He began performing professionally in high school and has worked in New York, D.C., Virginia, and Connecticut as a singer and actor. His favorite musical is Les Miserables, which he has seen and listened to countless times, been cast in two productions, and yet still always cries at the end.

In his spare time, Luke enjoys singing with his family and talking philosophy, politics, and religion with anyone who will listen over a strong, dark beer and the occasional cigar. He can usually be found debating statists from both the right and left both in person and online. Luke is a Roman Catholic and the father of a beautiful daughter. He can be reached on Twitter @_lukegarrison, or via email at [emailprotected]

Read more:

Luke Garrison - Being Libertarian

I receive far too many rations of shit from my fellow libertarians for pointing out things that President Cheeto is doing to further libertarianism. Specifically, he is reducing government regulatory intrusion into business, he is calling out the corrupt and disingenuous press, and he is doing his damnedest to throw a monkey wrench albeit incoherently at times [like, all the time] into the unelected bureaucracy that actually runs everything political in this nation. The Swamp, the Deep State, whatever you want to call it.

The rations of shit I receive go like this, Yabbut, yabbut hes not a libertarian you have no grounds to support him!

I never claimed, nor have I ever implied, Donnie Combover to be a libertarian. He is libertarian only to the degree that libertarian ideals are not inconsistent with his own priorities. Ive simply acknowledged that some of the things hes doing are in our favor. Until libertarians stop gazing into their navels and create a cogent, coherent political philosophy that deals with reality in a manner that large numbers of our fellow citizens can accept, the only way libertarians will get any part of their philosophy enacted is by such coincidence. As long as Trump is doing those things that I and we favor, I will acknowledge that hes doing them. as should every other libertarian, frankly. Intellectual honesty counts for something.

The next ration of shit I am attempted to be force-fed is, Yabbut, yabbut hes doing X, Y and Z that are very very anti-libertarian!!

No kidding, and when the subjects of X, Y or Z come up as they have many times I will be found among the libertarians criticizing his policies or other efforts. To be honest, I will criticize those efforts substantially more intelligently than most other libertarians can muster, judging by what Ive seen from fellow libertarians. For I will criticize those policies, whether directly from him or from those in his administration, consistent with libertarian philosophy, and not from a position saturated with personal desire.

Case in point: the caterwauling over the directive given to federal prosecutors to advise mandatory minimum sentencing laws be invoked once more upon drug offenders. We had just gone through an eight year hiatus from those laws under the Justice For Sale Barry Hussein administration. I will say once again: the Attorney General does not have a legitimate luxury of picking and choosing which laws he will enforce, contrary to what Shyster Generals Holder and Lynch claimed. The Executive branch is the law enforcer, not the law maker, nor the law reviewer. If laws are stupid, then it is the legislatures obligation to correct them. If laws are unconstitutional, then it is the courts duty to nullify them. I understand that mandatory minimums are stupid but, libertarians, please remember what political philosophy you claim to support. Stop justifying a government that does what it wants despite the rules it must follow.

Besides which, because the nation is now beginning to wake up to the dual realities that mandatory minimums are stupid, and that drug prohibition in general and marijuana specifically is stupid AND not a legitimate federal power in the first place, the draconian enforcement of mandatory minimums on drug offenders may just push enough of our major-party fellow citizens out of their statist stupors to support a widespread correction of the matter. But in the mean time, lets pretend were better than idiot liberals.

Its often at this point of the conversation that I point out that among the non-libertarians are both Ron and Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, and Justin Amash. They, also, are simply doing a few things that lie coincidentally in the direction of libertarian ideals. These individuals are simply more libertarian than, say [and my apologies for once again picking on liberal democrats], Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, Chuckles Schumer, John McCain, Lindsey Graham

But libertarians they are not. If Rand Paul were a libertarian, he would not continually sponsor tepid legislation that would permit the courts to ignore mandatory minimums if, like, no one had a problem with it, or anything. Hed instead sponsor a law that would completely rescind mandatory minimums. And hed also sponsor legislation taking drug criminalization out of the hands of the federal government and its unelected DEA dictators.

Similarly, if Justin Amash were a libertarian he wouldnt be playing into the hands of the Deep State swamp by enabling the swamps frantic histrionics over a political outsider threatening the Deep States unelected way of life. Libertarians who are libertarian are noticing that the appearance of impropriety is suddenly an impeachable affront to our form of governance when it has never been before.

Libertarians who are not libertarian, though, are lauding Amash for having the principle to acknowledge that the corrupt FBI director being fired for being corrupt looks bad enough to be impeachable, so therefore it is. It looks bad because the corrupt FBI director was in charge of the agency investigating the allegations of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign to swing the election to Trump. It becomes Obstruction of Justice i.e., inappropriately using the influence of the position of President to sway the activities of others.

Those investigations are continuing. Firing Comey didnt even provide a speed bump to them. The looks bad argument is thus unsupportable. No justice was obstructed there nor, by the looks of it, will it ever be.

Russia could not have swung the election by any illegal means in the first place. Everyone with at least two brain cells to rub together in sentience understands this which necessarily excludes most liberals. The Deep State swamp understands this as well, but theyre too busy whipping up their insentient supporters to care.

For the record, the only two ways of illegally swaying an election are as follows: 1] Rig the vote-counting mechanisms so that 2+2=5 in Column A but 2+2=3 in Column B. This did not happen; all precinct totals were tallied multiple times and thanks to Jill Stein tallied once again just to make sure. AND 2] Create individual votes that do not belong, or alter individual votes after they have been cast. Because the US no longer uses paper ballots, altering votes after they are cast is simply impossible. But it is very possible to create votes that do not belong by voting multiple times under false names, or in multiple locations. I dont think I need to remind anyone of which political party does not wish to have Voter ID laws to reduce the occurrence of improper voting

No. If Russia did anything, it was to serve as a conduit for, or even instigator of, political espionage that made internal democrat party data public. data that made Hillary Medusa Clinton look like the manipulative, drunken, corrupt, vile-tempered shrew she is. Data that pointed out who manipulated her own partys primaries to the dismissal of the socialist twit Bernie Trotsky Sanders. In other words, if Russia did anything at all, it did what a free and independent press would have done to the democrats, just as they had been doing to the republicans, were there a free and independent press in the United States to do it. But of course there isnt, because they are corrupt and disingenuous as all libertarians understand.

Nonetheless, the libertarian hero, Justin Amash, abets the corrupt and manipulative unelected Deep State swamp by signing onto their frantic hyperbolizing about the looks of impropriety. And he is called principled for doing so.

Yet where was Amash during the Barry Hussein administration when Barry impropriously attempted to manipulate a federal court reviewing his Obamacare, by claiming that courts do not have the Constitutional authority to review legislation for constitutionality? The answer is: he was in Congress saying nothing about it. He was especially not saying that Barry Husseins infantile challenge to the federal courts was a bad looking attempt at Obstruction of Justice at least as onerous as Trump firing the corrupt and mealy-mouthed FBI director Comey. Amash didnt have principles at this point.

Where was Amash during the Barry Hussein administration when Barry created, and validated, a treaty with Iran to the exclusion of the Senate which is Constitutionally required to ratify all treaties prior to their validation? The answer is: he was in Congress saying nothing about it. He was specifically not saying that the Iran deal was a thorough subversion of the Constitution by power manipulation and thus comprised an actual threat to the republic. Actual power manipulations are significantly greater than the mere appearance of power manipulation. Amash didnt have principles at this point either.

Where was Amash from the winter of 2015 to the late summer of 2016 when Medusa was found with tens of thousands of emails from her days as Secretary of State sloughed off onto a private, unsecured computer server hidden in her bathroom, among which were hundreds of classified conversation threads and significantly more damning evidence that the Clinton Foundation was selling foreign policy considerations to the highest foreign bidder, to be delivered upon the election of Medusa as President? Answer: he was in Congress saying nothing about it. Still no principles to be found in Justin Amash.

Where was he when Medusas husband, Cuckold Bill, visited Barry Husseins second Shyster General, Loretta Lynch, who was in charge of investigatingthe mishandling of classified information by ex-government officials to talk about grandchildren? By coincidence, or not, it was immediately afterwards that any meaningful investigation into Medusas classified data problem and her sale of future US foreign policy was dropped onto the lap of the same corrupt FBI director Comey. Amash was in Congress saying nothing about it. Still no principles.

Where was he when the corrupt FBI director Comey invented a brand new caveat under the mishandling of classified data laws saying that even though Medusa did in fact violate the same laws that hundreds of normal people are in prison for violating, and thousands more have permanently lost their clearances and can never hold a job for the government again, somehow, because Medusa did not intend to violate the law, there was no prosecutable violation of the law? He was in Congress saying nothing about it. A continuation of no principles.

If Amash not to mention his libertarian acolytes wish to claim that holding our government officials feet to the fire in the face of appearance of impropriety is a libertarian principle, I will eagerly agree. Government officials in a free society are required to be beyond reproach. whether they are elected, appointed, or hired But Amash did not realize he had a principle on this subject until Trump fired the corrupt FBI director for being corrupt.

The sad fact of the matter is, there isnt a government official whose actions are anything but reproachable. This includes Amash, Massie, either of the Pauls and certainly includes Trump, his imperious authoritarian predecessor, and his drunken, psychotic challenger.

But Amash doesnt stand on principle, here. He forfeited any claim to principle when he sat idly by during the reign of Barry Hussein silently watching the guy, and virtually everyone under him, abuse their power. I do not accept that Amash suddenly found Mises and became a born-again libertarian. Anyone who claims Amash is acting to further libertarian philosophy for any reason other than coincidence is delusional. Amash is furthering libertarian ends only insofar as they are not inconsistent with his own priorities which in this case is significantly more consistent with protecting the Deep State swamp.

Except for protecting the Deep State swamp, hes not much different from Trump.

Here is the original post:

I Know Why the Caged Libertarian Chirps - The Libertarian Republic - The Libertarian Republic

Libertarian congressional candidate Mark Wicks and a few supporters had been standing around a Whitefish parking lot for more than half an hour before the first contestant rolled up. Wicks, a rancher and mailman from Inverness, was hosting an "ugly truck" competition outside the Firebrand Hotel in an attempt to capitalize on the rare bit of attention the political newcomer had mustered. During the only televised debate between special election candidates, on April 29, Wicks had delivered a zinger comparing his opponents to vehiclesGianforte a "country club" sedan, Quist a half-ton pickup with nice speakers but little torquewhile branding himself the "work truck." In Whitefish, he had "Send the Work Truck" T-shirts for sale and a campaign stunt that managed to draw as many reporters (three) as actual trucks.

That was enough to attract Don Anderson, a Libertarian who lives down the street, and his 150-pound Newfie, Shadow. Anderson didn't know much about Wicks, but said that the "basic statements" he'd heard, like eliminating the U.S. Department of Education, are "so consistent with the Libertarian philosophy."

State Libertarian party stalwarts are less sure about Wicks. Behind the scenes, his unconventional campaign and sometimes confusing platform is roiling Montana's only recognized third party, exacerbating a power struggle that's emerged in the absence of former standard-bearer Mike Fellows, who died while campaigning last September. The wheels fell off May 8, when party chair Ron Vandevender resigned during the homestretch of the party's first major race since Fellows' death.

"I'm not real fond of his ideas," Vandevender says of Wicks. "I don't think he's hard libertarian. I think he's more in line with this, 'I got to do what I got to do to get a vote.'"

Under Fellows, the Libertarian party and its agenda of personal freedom and limited government became a consistent, if minor, factor in state politics. Fellows ran for office every cycle for 20 years, including five bids for the U.S. House. Wicks is new to libertarian politics, but he possesses many of the personality quirks that typically signify a true believer. He named his youngest daughter Liberty. In 2012, he self-published a post-apocalyptic novel about a Montana ranching family titled Wrath of the Dodo. (A prefatory author's note warns that "a lot of the government policies and standard operating practices in this country need to change before we find ourselves living in a third world country.")

Protests in the wake of Donald Trump's election as president convinced Wicks the country needs "calmer heads," like his, to help it get back on track. He describes his philosophy as "libertarian mixed with common sense." He credits his rural lifestyle with allowing that philosophy to take form.

"If you're farming, you're going around in circles, so it gives you a lot of time to think," he says.

The resulting platform can be difficult for some of his harder-line libertarian peers to parse. Wicks supports federal subsidies for wind energy, and he also supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He touts faith-based private health cooperatives, while maintaining that the federal government should regulate prescription drug prices. He's expressed support for intervention in Syria and for building a border wall.

"Honestly, and a lot of libertarians feel the same way ... Mark doesn't represent all the libertarian values," says party member Joe Paschal, of Townsend. "He's sort of a Republican, alt-right kind of guy."

Wicks earned the nomination in March at the party's first-ever state convention, beating Paschal in the last round of voting. As a way to begin rebuilding the party without Fellows, Vandevender says, he tried to make the convention inclusive by allowing county committees to seat delegates, even if they hadn't filed the requisite elections paperwork. Doing so, he says now, may have been a mistake. Wicks won on a 9-7 vote. Wicks' son was one of the delegates, party communications director Michael Fucci confirms.

Wicks has campaigned on his own, without a manager, between mail delivery routes and while traveling for his daughter's sports tournaments. His campaign has raised $2,030all in individual contributionsas of May 5, Federal Election Commission records show. Wicks hasn't had the benefit of a party mailing list, which he says is one of the items tied up in legal issues surrounding Fellows' deathor of state party money, of which Vandevender says there is none. In their stead, Wicks is trying to harness social media to generate momentum from his public debut on the debate stage in late April.

Among his supporters is former Bozeman mayor Jeff Krauss, who was mingling in the Whitefish parking lot after speaking at the Flathead County Libertarian Party's "Liberty Think Bash" the night before. As he told the Indy of his support for Wicks, a local party official asked if the campaign had publicized the endorsement. It hasn't, but an endorsement from Vandevender is spotlighted on Wicks' campaign site. It may need some revision.

"I'm looking at my ballot on the table," Vandevender says. "I'm going to do a write-in, or I'm going to burn it."

View original post here:

How Mark Wicks wrapped Montana's Libertarians around the axle - Missoula Independent

A political party that gained increased attention during last years divided presidential election is coming to Morgan and neighboring counties.

Ben Cox is spearheading the establishment of a Libertarian Party organization as an option for those looking for something other than Republican, Democrat or independent affiliation.

The Libertarian Party was started in 1971 in Colorado to promote the political ideologies of increased civil liberties and non-government intervention. Cox said during the last election cycle there seemed to be more people interested in something more than what the two major political parties offered.

Illinois saw a huge jump in support for third-party groups, Cox said. The Libertarian Party is trying to become [more] established in the state. The best way to create change is to give people another choice.

The are eight Libertarian Party officeholders in Illinois and about two dozen county or university party chapters. In the November election, Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson received almost 4.5 million votes about 3.27 percent of the total.

Were not only trying to set up the group, we want to give people a third option, he said. The party is considered more fiscally conservative than the Republicans and more socially liberal than the Democratic Party.

Once established, Cox said the group will be working on awareness.

We want to get people involved, show them what were about, Cox said. You only get particular views in the national media.

Typically, the group is in support of limitations for government, pro-choice for women and believe there are other options to help people in need without socially funded programs.

We dont think the government should tell people how to live their lives, Cox said.

The first meeting has not been set, but likely will be in June.

http://myjournalcourier.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/web1_web-libertarian_porcupine.jpg

Samantha McDaniel-Ogletree can be reached at 217-245-6121, ext. 1233, or on Twitter @JCNews_samantha.

.

Read this article:

Libertarians bring political party to region - Jacksonville Journal Courier

Being Classically Liberal/FacebookActress Jennifer Lawrence is in the news this week for a number of reasons, including her impromptu performance at a Vienna strip club and her stepping out in a $700 Dior T-shirt that proclaims "We Should All Be Feminists." The Daily Mail even devoted a whole article to the shirt, noting that "the 26-year-old actress beamed as she left the set of her film Red Sparrow with her dogand a balloonin tow." But the Mail fails to note the other thing that J-Law was spotted carrying: a book with famed Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises on the back cover.

The Facebook group Being Classically Liberal first noted Lawrence's reading material yesterday, suggesting that perhaps she had picked up the von Mises book Socialism thinking it took a positive view of the subject. Lawrencestar of a slew of recent hit movies, including Joy, The Hunger Games, and American Hustlehas been outspoken in her criticism of conservative politicians (The Daily Beast even deemed her "Hollywood's Next Big Power Liberal").

But some crowdsourced sleuthing revealed that Lawrence's book isn't by von Mises but about him and other Austrian School economists. The bookInvisible Hands: The Making of the Conservative Movement from the New Deal to Reaganwas written by New York University professor Kim Phillips-Fein and looks at the rise of free-market economics in post-New Deal America and the role that businesses played in shaping mid-20th Century conservatism.

"Starting in the mid-1930s, a handful of prominent American businessmen forged alliances with the aim of rescuing Americaand their profit marginsfrom socialism and the 'nanny state,'" says the publisher's blurb for the book. "Long before the 'culture wars' usually associated with the rise of conservative politics, these driven individuals funded think tanks, fought labor unions, and formed organizations to market their views."

So does this mean Lawrence is rethinking the reflexive Hollywood hate for free-market capitalism? It's probably a bit too soon to roll out the libertarian welcome mat just yet; for all we know, Lawrence is reading Invisible Hands as some sort of resistance manual, or doing research for a role in an exciting new film about economic theory. (OK, probably not that last one.) But, hey, you know what they say: Once you go Austrian School...

No? Nobody says that?

Whatever, look, Jennifer Lawrence is holding a book with Ludwig von Mises on it! Happy weekend, y'all.

See original here:

Jennifer Lawrence, Libertarian Feminist? - Reason (blog)

The nations top law-enforcement officer shouldnt have flagrant disregard for constitutional protections.

Former senator Joseph Lieberman on Capitol Hill in June 2015. (CQ Roll Call via AP Images)

Any discussion of President Donald Trumps appointment of a new FBI director should start with an acknowledgement that he shouldnt be allowed to do this. Yes, Trump has the statutory authority, but he reportedly tried to secure a loyalty oath from then-Director James Comey and directly asked him to stop investigating former national-security adviser Michael Flynn. Then Trump fired Comey and admitted that when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story.

In a rational political system, Trump would have forfeited his standing to choose a new director. Congress should have demanded that Trump, at most, be allowed to pick from a list of names generated by members of the House and Senate judiciary committees, or by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

Instead, Trump will reportedly tap former senator Joe Lieberman for the position. Its an awful choice from any angle. Lieberman works at a law firm that has represented Trump since 2001, which should be an immediate disqualifier, since the FBI will continue to investigate Trumps campaign and potentially obstruction of justice by the president himself.

A politician has never served as FBI director, and breaking that precedent under these circumstances would be particularly egregious. Not only is Lieberman a politician, but hes openly loyal to Trump and the GOP: Lieberman endorsed John McCain in 2008 and introduced Sarah Palin at the Republican National Convention. He showed up at Trump Tower after the 2016 election and has been touting some of Trumps cabinet picks, testifying on behalf of nowEducation Secretary Betsy DeVos at her Senate confirmation hearing.

But Liebermans record on civil liberties is the single most alarming thing about his selection. Throughout his career in the Senate, Lieberman consistently showed a disregard for basic Constitutional protections and ambitiously pursued expansions of the governments ability to surveil and detain Americans without judicial review. He has also advocated investigating news outlets for reporting on classified information, and once defended waterboarding by saying its not like putting burning coals on peoples bodies. Combined with his near-demagogic focus on Islam as a radicalizing force, Lieberman is a wildly bad pick for the nations top law enforcement officer.

In 2010, Lieberman and McCain introduced the Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution Act. Conservatives were up in arms at the time that the Obama administration chose to prosecute Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in civilian courts for planning a Christmas Day terror attack. The Lieberman/McCain bill would have granted the government power to indefinitely detain terrorism suspects without a trial or even a charge. If the government determined, in an unreviewable process, that someone was an unprivileged enemy belligerent, then the legislation required the suspect be placed in a military tribunal.

At the time, Glenn Greenwald dubbed it probably the single most extremist, tyrannical and dangerous bill introduced in the Senate in the last several decades. The ACLU said the legislation flies in the face of American values and violates this countrys commitment to the rule of law.

Lieberman brushed off any such concerns. In a press conference to introduce the bill, he acknowledged that suspects might be held for years and years without a charge, but said I know that will bethat may bea long time, but thats the nature of this war. Fortunately, the bill never became law.

One year later, Lieberman joined Representative Peter King to hold a grotesque joint hearing purporting to investigate how homegrown Islamic extremists were targeting and even infiltrating the US military. It was part of Kings series of 2011 hearings on domestic terrorism, which Muslim groups and civil libertarians blasted as prejudicial for an excessive and near-exclusive focus on Islam as a radicalizing force. Despite this ongoing criticism, Lieberman agreed to co-chair one such hearing, and in his opening statement declared that our government and especially the Defense Department must recognize who the enemy isnot a vague notion of violent extremism, but violent Islamist extremism specifically.

Earlier this year, Lieberman defended Trumps Muslim ban and said he was glad Trump kept his campaign promise.

Lieberman also worked assiduously to expand the governments surveillance powers. The Lieberman-Collins Cyber Security Act would have eliminated many barriers preventing companies from sharing data on web users with federal law enforcement. The bills vague language permitted companies to share user information with the government without judicial review, and any sort of information could be shared, even if it wasnt related to cybersecurity. The bills language said that as long as information appears to relate to a crime even in the future, companies could give it to the government.

They would allow law enforcement to look for evidence of future crimes, opening the door to a dystopian world where law enforcement evaluates your Internet activity for the potential that you might commit a crime, Senator Ron Wyden warned of substantially similar provisions in a House version of the bill. The Electronic Frontier Foundation said Lieberman-Collins compromises core American civil liberties in the name of detecting and thwarting network attacks. It never became law.

THE STAKES ARE HIGHER NOW THAN EVER. GET THE NATION IN YOUR INBOX.

In 2008, Lieberman voted in favor of Section 702 of the FISA Amendment Act, and for a five-year extension in 2012. This is the provision that the National Security Agency used to justify collection of mass phone calls and e-mails made by American citizens. When the full extent of NSA collection was exposed after Lieberman left the Senate, he defended the program and said, If you weigh the risks of compromising phone records against the enormous benefits, I think youll find it justified.

A Lieberman appointment should also alarm journalists. In 2010, when Wikileaks released a tranche of State Department cables, Lieberman suggested that news outlets that covered the leak should be prosecuted. I certainly believe that WikiLeaks has violated the Espionage Act, but then what about the news organizationsincluding the Timesthat accepted it and distributed it? he said. To me, The New York Times has committed at least an act of bad citizenship, and whether they have committed a crime, I think that bears a very intensive inquiry by the Justice Department.

Trump reportedly quizzed James Comey about the possibility of arresting journalists for reporting on classified material, and based on these 2010 comments, it would appear Lieberman is at least open to the idea.

Throughout his career, Lieberman has demonstrated disrespect for constitutional safeguards and a wide, almost authoritarian deference to the federal governments law-enforcement and military powers. In 2005, Lieberman declared that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nations peril. What little credibility Trump has left would be badly damaged by selecting Lieberman to head the FBI, though its not terribly surprising Trump likes him so much.

The rest is here:

Joe Lieberman Is a Civil Libertarian's Nightmare - The Nation.

The Cuban government probably did not expect to inspire the creation of a dissident political party when it arrested libertarian activists Ubaldo Herrera Hernndez and Manuel Velzquez Visea in February. But a Partido Libertario Cubano - Jose Marti, named after the famed 19th century hero of Cuban independence, did launch itself this month in response to the (Raul) Castro regime's actions.

Partido Libertario Cubano Jose Marti Facebook

According to a report from Zachary Foster, with the Nevada Libertarian Party in America who is in contact with the Cubans, the activists were arrested initially on charges of assault on a state agent, which they insist are falsified and refer merely to refusing to show I.D. when asked by that agent outside the Benjamin Franklin Library, a site opened by libertarian activists in December to distribute libertarian literature.

According to a press release from Foster, the actions that brought on their arrest were actually "exchanging books about free markets and limited governments, which is antithetical to the regime's revolutionary socialist doctrine."

This week, activists of that Party began peppering Havana with poster images of the arrested men and the slogan "Freedom for Ubaldo Herrera Hernndez and Manuel Velzquez Visea, libertarians unjustly imprisoned for defending the ideas of freedom."

In a column in the PanAm Post (English via Google Translate), Nelson Rodriguez Chartrand insists that both men have been abused in custody and reports:

"The Cuban Libertarian Party - Jos Mart , takes full responsibility and pride in the authorship of this peaceful demonstration of freedom, fully aware of the right that we are as human beings to express and express ourselves freely, at the same time as absolutely responsible to the Government of Cuba , For any retaliation that may be brought against any member of our organization, "said its president, Mrs. Caridad Ramrez Utria, moments before carrying out such a peaceful initiative.

Caridad Ramirez Utria, according to the Pan-Am Post report, was "part of the peaceful grouping Ladies in White who fights for the freedom of political prisoners" and was beaten by state police and sent to the hospital last year. from the street.

The Libertarian Party's National Committee in America has condemned the activists' arrest.

Marian Tupy wrote for Reason last year on the lies the Castro regime tells about its accomplishments.

See the original post here:

Cuban Libertarian Party Launched After Arrest of Libertarian Activists - Reason (blog)

Being Libertarian

Announcing Coraxconf 2017 International Libertarian Conference Malta July 28-30 Being Libertarian Some famous libertarians have already been announced as speakers, including Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Adam Kokesh, and Julie Borowski. But what is Corax? How come they have such a cool conference? And what are they doing on a small island in the ...

See the article here:

Announcing Coraxconf 2017 International Libertarian Conference Malta July 28-30 - Being Libertarian