Category Archives: Libertarian

Many more identify with the philosophy, but that hasn't translated into successful candidates at the national, statewide, or local level.

Next with Kyle Clark , KUSA 9:37 PM. MDT April 12, 2017

KUSA - One in one hundred voters in Colorado is registered Libertarian. Many more identify with the philosophy, but that hasn't translated into successful candidates at the national, statewide, or local level.

"The ideas are popular," says the newly-elected chairman of Colorado's Libertarian Party, Castle Rock realtor WayneHarlos.. "But there's the wasted third-vote syndrome that is really raising its head within the Libertarian Party."

Harlos acknowledges a similar issue within the Green Party, especially nowadays he says, when constituents wants to want to vote "against" somebody instead of "for" somebody in a what continually feels like a two-party system.

If you're wondering if you fall on the Libertarian spectrum,Harlosdescribes classifies the members of his party as being fiscally conservative and socially tolerant.

"The progressives would have you believe that we have to fund a lot of government social programs through tax pay forfeiture, if you will," he says. "The Libertarians believe in the social rights and social opportunities for people, but they don't believe in the government funding of those programs."

The chairman defines success over the next few years as getting out the message, and help voters understand Libertarian goals. The Colorado delegation has done so recently by setting up booths both at Pride Fest, and gun shows. So, there ya' go.

Take a listen to our full interview with Wayne Harlos:

#heynext Tweets

2017 KUSA-TV

Original post:

Why don't more Coloradans identify as Libertarians? - 9NEWS.com

The Tennessee Valley Chapter of the Libertarian Party of Tennesseewill be hosting the State Libertarian Party Chairman, Tom Arnold, as guest speaker on April 18 at 6:30 p.m. at the Casual Pint, 5550 TN-153 in Hixson.

Mr. Arnold became involved with the Libertarian Party in 2012. He is working toward free and fair ballot access for everyone. He said hopes to have Libertarians on the ballot across Tennessee in the next two years.

"Tom has a heart for young people. He is focused on mentoring the future leaders of the party to redirect the current course of government. His goal is that we could live free from as many governmental constraints as possible.

"Tom was born on the fourth of July and has been a lover of liberty ever since. He is an eighth generation Tennessean and currently lives with an addlepated Sheltie on a 13 acre farm in Jackson county. Tom is a philosopher, poet, political hack, farmer and highway contractor," officials said.

Mr. Arnold said his favorite quote on liberty is from Walt Whitman's Caution:Resist much, obey little; Once unquestioning obedience, once fully enslaved; Once fully enslaved, no nation, state, city, of this earth, ever afterward resumes its liberty.

Excerpt from:

State Chairman Tom Arnold Speaks To The Tennessee Valley Libertarian Party - The Chattanoogan

Being Libertarian

Libertarianism & Feminism Being Libertarian That feminism and libertarianism seem to be at odds with each other, in the current U.S. political climate, is something that has recently perturbed me. On the surface, the two ideologies share many commonalities such as equal opportunity and ...

The rest is here:

Libertarianism & Feminism - Being Libertarian

The Liberty Conservative

Libertarian Budget Director Mick Mulvaney Rising Star In Trump ... The Liberty Conservative Budget Director Mick Mulvaney is "on the rise" within the White House, according to a report by Politico on Tuesday. "When thinking about up and comers in the ... and more »

Visit link:

Libertarian Budget Director Mick Mulvaney Rising Star In Trump ... - The Liberty Conservative

Being Libertarian

I'm A Libertarian Calling For Universal Healthcare: Here's Why! Being Libertarian What I'm proposing probably won't make me the most popular libertarian in the world, but I'm looking for something which is actually going to pass and still manage to do some good. So, this article won't be about abolishing Medicare or Medicaid, nor ... The Future of Brand ManagementMorning Consult How Voters Feel About Their Senators Ahead of Election Day (September 2016) - Morning ConsultMorning Consult all 39 news articles »

Go here to read the rest:

I'm A Libertarian Calling For Universal Healthcare: Here's Why! - Being Libertarian

Estes defeated Democrat Jim Thompson, a civil rights attorney and Army veteran, and Libertarian Chris Rockhold.

The seat was considered to be by Republicans a straight win -- until an energized Democratic base left Estes with a smaller advantage.

Trump tweeted about the race Tuesday morning, urging voters to get out and support Estes over his Democratic challenger.

On Monday, Estes had another influential GOP name stumping for him -- Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. Cruz, who won the state in the 2016 Republican primaries, introduced Estes at a rally and called on district residents to turn out to vote for the Republican.

"Today the eyes of the whole country are upon Kansas," Cruz said at the rally. "This election, this special election tomorrow, makes a difference."

Also, the National Republican Congressional Committee spent nearly $100,000 on ads in the closing days.

Trump congratulated Estes on Wednesday: "Great win in Kansas last night for Ron Estes, easily winning the Congressional race against the Dems, who spent heavily & predicted victory!"

The district is solidly Republican -- Trump won the district in the general election by 27 points and 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney won the district by eight points. A Democrat hasn't represented the district since Dan Glickman was ousted in the 1994 Republican wave election.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Campaign Committee has not spent money to help Thompson at all -- and the Kansas State Democratic Party rejected his requests for funding mailers.

The rest is here:

Republicans keep Kansas House seat in special election - CNN

"He had a real opportunity to demonstrate that he is on the side of liberty," says Wayne Hoffman, director of the Idaho Freedom Foundation. "He failed miserably."

The most recent outrage: Otter's vetoes of a cosmetology licensure bill and a civil forfeiture bill. Both are key issues for libertarians, who argue that requiring licenses for jobs like "barber" or "makeup artist" end up punishing entrepreneurs and newcomers, in order to artificially shield established businesses from would-be competition.

Meanwhile, when they look at civil forfeiture where police can seize cash and other personal property without a conviction if they suspect it may be connected to certain crimes they see serious due-process violations.

"Idaho Governor Flips Off Libertarians With Both Hands, Vetoes Asset Forfeiture AND Licensing Reforms," reads a headline at the libertarian Reason magazine. The subhead reads: "Is he trying to make libertarians angry, or is he just a puppet of special interests?"

North Idaho Rep. Vito Barbieri is not exactly a libertarian. (Here he is expounding on Islama couple of years ago, for example.) But a recent Facebook post showed just how little respect some conservatives have for the Republican governor.

"Governor Otter hasn't a Republican bone in his body, acting more like a public school teacher bent on growing the Administrative State over public interests, than a Statesman with character, guts, and vision," Barbieri writes. "[Republicans in Name Only] like Otter put State needs first, Administrative bureaucrats second, and taxpayers last. It's too bad we have to wait two more years to put this self-proclaimed libertarian cowboy out to pasture." Compared to some attempted civil forfeiture reforms, like those that require a guilty verdict before any property is taken, the Idaho bill was modest. It would require more evidence that property had been associated with a crime than simply proximity. And it would require law enforcement agencies to start tracking how much civil forfeiture money is being collected, and what it's being spent on.

"We ask law enforcement to explain how they utilize civil asset forfeiture," Hoffman says. "They dont have an answer. They cant really find out."

The bill was popular in the legislature. Nobody in the Idaho Senate voted against it, and only a handful of state representatives, including Coeur d'Alene Reps. Luke Malek and Paul Amador, voted against it in the House.

But in Otter's veto message, he called the bill a solution in search of a problem.

"There have been no allegations that Idaho law enforcement officers are illegally or inappropriately seizing property from alleged drug traffickers," he says in a statement.

The accuracy of that statement depends on the definition of "inappropriate."

An investigation in the Twin Falls Times-News revealed a case in 2010, when Twin Falls County Sheriffs deputies raided the home of a couple they suspected were selling drugs. Theynetted a small baggie of marijuana and$12,010 in cash. The couple was never charged with anything, but the sheriff returned only $3,000.

Then there's an anecdote shared by theDKT Liberty Project, which alleges that Idaho State Police pulled over a 35-year-old driver and searched his car when they were alerted by drug-sniffing dogs.

"Although they didnt find any drugs, they did find $4,200 in cash, which the man had set aside to pay for his divorce lawyer," writes AC Bushnell, program director for the Liberty Project. The state patrol refused to repay the money.

Otter argues that if you're selling drugs, you should be afraid of losing your property.

"It is my view that it is right and proper for drug dealers to have a healthy fear of losing their personal assets if they are caught breaking the law," Otter continues. "But while seeking to ease those fears, this legislation goes even further by placing an annual reporting requirement on law enforcement."

Reason writer Eric Boehm responds with snark.

"Who needs accountability from the police?" he writes. "Certainly not Otter, who seems willing to believe anything the law enforcement special interests' lobbyists tell him."

The cosmetology bill, meanwhile, was a little more controversial, but still received broad support. It would have combined the barber and cosmetology boards, reduced the hours required for a license, and exempted some stylists like wedding makeup artists or people demonstrating hair curlers at malls from the licensure requirements.

Otter's biggest objection was to an amendment that allowed the board to retroactively reinstate an expired license.

"I will not allow the State of Idaho to be subjected to legal liability for falsely representing the licensure status of those seeking federal student loans for their training," Otter writes in his veto statement.

"That is clear and complete horseshit," Hoffman says. He cites an example of a person who ran a cosmetology college in Twin Falls and ended up losing accreditation because his licensing agreement had lapsed.

"A libertarian governor would say, 'Oh my gosh, we drove him out of business!'" Hoffman says. "What can we do to save this businessman in Twin Falls from having to go under?"

Earlier this year, Hoffman and Reason also took aim at Otter's vetoof a bill allowing the use of Cannabidiol oils.

As for Barbieri? Here's Vito on the vetoes:

Otter's Veto stamp proves once and for all RINO's have a perfect example from which to emulate their talk of citizen liberty while acting to empower bureaucrats.

Tax food? No problem. It's a steady source of Revenue for the Bureaucratic State.

Protect licensing Boards, limit competition, and regulate dangerous occupations like sign language and hair cutters? Certainly! Gotta consider those self-serving 'stakeholders'!

Two of Otter's recent Veto's have the same ideological base as his Veto seven years ago of the State Nullification effort: They ALL protect the status quo with the effect of limiting legislative power to represent the taxpayers of Idaho.

RINO's like Otter put State needs first, Administrative bureaucrats second, and taxpayers last.

It's too bad we have to wait two more years to put this self-proclaimed libertarian cowboy out to pasture.

Go here to read the rest:

Idaho libertarian conservatives furious about Otter's vetoes of licensing, civil forfeiture - Pacific Northwest Inlander (blog)

Rare.us

The Syrian airstrikes have ramped up the neocon vs. libertarian ... Rare.us The ongoing debate over the U.S. airstrikes on Syria last week has brought to the forefront a foreign policy battle that had been raging within the Republican ... and more »

Read this article:

The Syrian airstrikes have ramped up the neocon vs. libertarian ... - Rare.us

Being Libertarian

The Effect of Government Regulation is Mass Incarceration Being Libertarian Within political circles throughout the United States there has been an indefatigable debate on the role government should play in the economy. There are libertarians and conservatives that are proponents of limited government; socialists and welfare ...

See the rest here:

The Effect of Government Regulation is Mass Incarceration - Being Libertarian

Editors note: The following article was submitted before the Trump administrations decision to attack Syrian military targets.

Libertarians are, as we all know, anti-war. And for very good reasons, even the good wars can have terrible consequences such as the Japanese-American internment camps during WWII. War has long been an excuse by governments to clamp down on the rights of its citizens, or even to remove political opponents outright. And then you have the horrors of actual combat: countless soldiers killed in conflicts they dont understand, countries destroyed, displaced nations of people and ruined economies. Anything short of an extreme aversion to starting wars is outright irresponsibility.

But not everyone cares about those consequences. North Korea invaded South Korea, and dictators use machine guns on protestors. Time and again, the enemies of liberty have proven more than willing to resort to violence to gain and keep power.

And yet, how do most libertarians respond to Bashar al-Assads atrocities, such as massacring 13,000 of his own people in a single prison? The better of us say not my problem. The worst of us hope he succeeds, and criticize Western governments supporting Syrians trying to oust him. After all, they say, hes better than ISIS right? That the various factions in Syria are currently fighting over ISISs corpse shows that assessment is also so, so wrong.

To me, the libertarian debate about Syria should be do we support the FSA or SDF more? I should never have had to make a case against a murderous authoritarian dictator to libertarians. It was this issue which first got me questioning the libertarian perspective on foreign policy. After a while, I realized that we are in fact more anti-war than pro-liberty. Ive already made the case for why we should be anti-war, but then we are also anti-taxes. Very few of us support actually abolishing taxation (despite it being theft, of course). We simply have a very healthy skepticism about it; I propose the same response to war.

Hearing libertarians talk about why we shouldnt be fighting for liberty abroad (or supporting freedom fighters), I get the vibe of A single American life or dollar is too high a cost to pay in a conflict that doesnt directly affect us. It is often heavy with implication that the liberty of people in our nation is worth more, much more, than the liberty of those abroad. If that sounds familiar its because weve heard this before.

Libertarians and nationalists have the exact same foreign policy for nearly identical reasons. If thats not raising alarm bells for you, it should. We are completely opposed to them. Nationalists are, I firmly believe, one of the greatest threats to liberty that we currently face. Ignoring the cause of liberty abroad is distinctly un-libertarian because it is anti-liberty and a better libertarian case can be made for globalism (and global thinking) than isolationism or America-Firstism.

Something else I hear rather frequently is that our interventions dont work. I believe this is mistaken, or at least relatively so. For those who lament that the Middle Eastern countries weve intervened in are not yet democratic paradises, I implore you to look at South Korea. After the US and UN fought and bled to keep it free, going up against the massive Chinese army and sometimes the Soviet air force, it took a long time to see a return on that investment. The country was even a dictatorship for some time, and the economy took decades to significantly improve. Now, the Korean peninsula is a testament to the superiority of capitalism and the recently impeached president is proof of how strong its democracy is.

I often hear people talk about the disaster that the Libyan intervention was, but I believe this is a poor assessment. Handily, we have a perfect example of what would be happening right now if Gaddafi hadnt been deposed early on: Syria. Endless parallels exist: largely non-ideological authoritarian dictators, countries drawn up with arbitrary lines, the exact same pro-democracy/liberal/libertarian movement demanding reformsI could go on for ages. Libya isnt in great shape; the situation there is volatile and precarious. But Islamists have been almost eradicated militarily, whereas in Syria they are well established within both regime and rebel forces. There are also the death toll and humanitarian situation, which is many times worse in Syria. If it werent for the intervention, Libya would be what Syria is now and with an intervention, the current situation in Syria could have been avoided.

It is for these reasons that I believe we libertarians need to craft our own foreign policy. We need a departure from the anti-liberty policies of isolationist nationalists, but nowhere near the war hawkishness of the neocons. So, what should this foreign policy look like? I have a few ideas.

There is no weapon or wall that is more powerful for American security than America being envied, imitated and admired around the world. Garry Kasparov

Ive focused fairly heavily so far on war and conflict, but foreign policy encompasses so much more than that. Another area where we should depart from the nationalists is our approach to intergovernmental organizations such as the UN and NATO. As libertarians, we need to be wary about them gaining too much power, but without ignoring the immense good they can do. The UN does a lot of fantastic humanitarian work, and both organizations are very useful for reducing or averting conflict amongst their members, and, in NATOs case, deterring Putins imperialism.

Another area of use is foreign aid, be it financial, arms, supplies etc. With the exception of humanitarian aid, only giving them to non-authoritarian countries incentivizes peaceful reforms. During the latter part of the Obama administration, he tried to provide support to some of the remaining Communist countries in Southwest Asia, to turn them into allies against China. I propose doing the opposite, supporting capitalist and democratic countries in the Pacific region. Spurning countries that compromise our values gives people in oppressive countries something to strive for. Despite obviously not being an-cap friendly, these strategies can help reduce war and improve global liberty at relatively little cost.

As I have stated, war can only be a last resort. At present, one of my greatest concerns is the potential for a war with Iran. While Iran is a brutally authoritarian theocracy, I believe peaceful reform is possible, and the mere existence of an authoritarian government is not justification for starting a war. Iraq is a superb example. The US invasion was completely unjustified, and care needs to be taken to ensure that the mistake is not repeated. Despite Saddam Hussein being a ruthless dictator with a penchant for invading other countries as well as crimes against humanity, that simply wasnt enough in and of itself to warrant foreigners starting a war.

Almost ten years after the Iraq invasion, the Arab Spring occurred and added a layer of complexity to the dynamic of the Middle East which libertarians have abjectly failed to address. We saw Western bombs and arms used in wars against Arab dictators, and sure enough, there were similarities to Iraq. But the Arab Spring wasnt an unprovoked invasion motivated by, at best, incompetence; it was a grassroots, peaceful, pro-democracy, even libertarian, movement demanding reforms from dictatorial regimes across the Arab world. We libertarians should have been as proud and happy about this movement as unsurprised when the governments responded to the protestors with machine guns instead of reforms. Instead, when the people returned with weapons of their own to fight for their rights and liberties, we completely turned against them. The only concept more foreign to us than liberty or death is helping them achieve liberty and avoid death. Some even talk about how these tyrants are the best hope for stability in the region and that overthrowing them is that last thing we should want.

So, what should we have supported doing in response to these wars? I would like to refer back to the American Revolution, one of the most celebrated historical events by American libertarians. Like the Arab Spring, it started with a largely peaceful and political libertarian movement, and spiraled into war when the government cracked down. It had a grassroots movement, political support, and former military personnel like Washington. However, what is often overlooked is the American Revolution would have been a failure if not for large quantities of French arms, money, and the direct assistance of their navy. This is exactly what I propose. No starting wars, avoiding boots on the ground at all cost. But should it come to war, and a popular movement tries to depose an authoritarian government, providing support would be remarkably easy and cheap for us and makes all of the difference for them. This includes providing arms, air support, logistics and supplies. Doing our utmost to screen the recipients of arms is also incredibly important. Just as I am adamant that supporting authoritarian regimes to fight terrorism is not worth it, the inverse in true as well.

Tyranny or terrorism? Neither, always neither. If you condone, excuse, or normalize either, then you are NOT a voice for liberation. Iyad el-Baghdadi, self-proclaimed Islamic Libertarian and Arab Spring activist.

* Caleb Horner is a college student and a relatively new member of the liberty movement. He loves to explore history, politics, philosophy and economics in his spare time.

Like Loading...

The rest is here:

Is Liberty Worth Fighting For? Rethinking Libertarian Foreign Policy - Being Libertarian (satire)