Category Archives: Libertarian

Radical-right vote

If Montanas radical-right (RRs) want to elect Anne Bukacek to the PSC, they better support Ryan Zinke for Congress. Because RRs are only 20% of the Republican Party, Bukacek needs R votes to win, and Zinke can use RR votes to assure he wins.

Ryan Zinke is an intelligent, dependable, solid American. Trump-haters like Marc Racicot and Bob Brown are RINOs who will vote for Trump-hater Tranel rather than Trump-supporter Zinke.

Do we want to elect a Trump supporter or a Trump hater to Congress? As a conservative Republican, I am voting for all the Rs on my ballot.

Recall the disasters of 2012 when RRs voted Libertarian. Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes called Republican Denny Rehberg a traitor and me a quisling because I supported Rehberg. RRs voted 6.7% Libertarian to give Democrat Jon Tester a 3.5% margin over Rehberg. The hate-voting RRs torched Montana, America, and themselves by putting Tester in the Senate for 12 years.

In the 2012 governors race, Democrat Steve Bullock beat Republican Rick Hill by 1.6% while 3.8% voted Libertarian. Rhodes and Oath Keepers National Chaplain Chuck Baldwin campaigned against Romney for president. They got their wish in Obama.

After years of professing freedom, RRs voted to be slaves. Their John Birch Society was a diversion because its leaders will not endorse Republicans.

The Positive Voting Mantra (proposed by Aristotle and supported by todays Christian churches) says, Our moral duty is to vote to achieve the most possible good, which eliminates voting for candidates who cannot win, and eliminates mandatory conditions.

Yes, we are morally obligated to vote for the lesser of two evils. If you believe, as RINOs Mark Racicot and Bob Brown do, that Monica will achieve the most possible good, then vote for her. But dont waste your vote on a Libertarian.

So, do you RRs want to elect Anne? If so, you (Jim White, Chuck Baldwin, Anne and other RRs) must show your support for Ryan Zinke for Congress.

Real Patriots vote for Republicans.

Ed Berry, PhD, Bigfork

Over the past eight years it has been my privilege to represent the people of House District 7 in the Montana House of Representatives. It has been an honor to serve you and to have enjoyed the continued support and confidence of so many in our district.

As my service comes to an end it is important to me to endorse a candidate that I feel will represent this

District and its interests going forward. For me that person must have the experience, energy, character and vision for the job, and they must put the people of Kalispell first. It must be someone that has a heart for service and isnt afraid to work with anyone to solve problems, has a conservative approach to governing and who knows Kalispell and the Flathead.

Thats why I am endorsing Courtenay Sprunger to be your next representative for House District 7.

Courtenays family has a long legacy of service in the Flathead. She has served our community in many roles including as President of the Kalispell Chamber Board, in numerous service organizations and as a tireless advocate for our valley and its people.

Courtenay has a business on Main Street in Kalispell and a vision to solve tough issues like jobs, public safety, education, infrastructure, and housing with an eye toward limiting the size of government while still getting results that matter.

Im grateful to all of you that have offered me your support, encouragement and advice. I am confident you will find that Courtenay is up to the task of being a champion for you and our community and Im asking that you vote for her as your next representative. It is my honor to offer her my support and endorsement.

Rep. Frank Garner, R-Kalispell

Inquiry and comparison, two helpful methods to use when evaluating individuals vying for the same position, in this case for membership on the Public Service Commission.

One is a physician, trained in clinical skills to diagnose and treat the human body, the other is a financial analyst, educated and experienced in matters of economic significance and strategic planning.

As a surgeon and, later in my career, a health system executive, I possess an understanding and knowledge of what each of these persons claims as qualifications to be elected to the PSC.

John Repke, with over 40 years of career knowledge obtained in corporate finance and possessing an MBA in Finance, has experience directly related to the challenges faced by the PSC. Clearly, he has the background to provide better representation for those of us seeking fair, equitable and well-informed decisions from the Commission.

Dr. Wayne A. Miller, Kalispell

View original post here:

Letters to the editor Oct. 13 | Daily Inter Lake - Daily Inter Lake

Only a few years after its greatest triumph, the Libertarian Party is collapsing, torn apart by an insurgency of alt-right sympathizers with racist tendencies. Libertarianism, the idea that state power must be absolutely minimized, relies on ideas of individual rights that seem flatly inconsistent with racism. And yet libertarian rhetoric has always had powerful attractions for those who wanted to resist racial equality. How is that possible?

There is in fact a connection, but it is one of psychology and political history rather than logic.

I just published a history of libertarianism. The book is a critical introduction to this ideology, which has done so much to shape American politics. I focused on its major thinkers Hayek, Friedman, Epstein, Rothbard, Nozick and Rand and sought to address their strongest arguments. None of them were racists, and most rejected racism vehemently, so I largely ignored the linkage with racism. Yet now it presents itself.

In May, the party was taken over at its national convention by the so-called Mises Caucus, a far-right group, some of whose members have been associated with racist and antisemitic ideas. The caucus is named after the libertarian economist Ludwig von Mises, whose philosophy was pretty crude (as I explained in the book) but who firmly condemned racism.

On Martin Luther King Jr. Day this year, the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire tweeted (in a later deleted post) that America isnt in debt to black people. If anything its the other way around. Caucus members have called for violent repression of antifa and Black Lives Matter protesters. The new leaderships first and most prominent decision was to remove from the party platform language declaring, We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant.

As a result, the party is facing mass defections. In 2016, Gary Johnson was the most successful Libertarian presidential candidate in history. He got almost 4.5 million votes (3.3 percent of the votes cast, three times more than any previous Libertarian candidate, including Johnson himself in 2012).

The crackup is in part the result of crass political machinations. The insurgents are funded by donors who have been close to former President Trump, suggesting that the takeover is part of a coordinated Republican stratagem to destroy a party that has been draining away Republican votes. If Trump had gotten every Libertarian vote in 2020, he would have won. The chairman of the New Mexico Libertarian Party wrote that the leadership has adopted messaging and communications hostile to the principles for which the Libertarian Party was founded, serving no purpose other than to antagonize and embarrass. That may indeed be the purpose. Battles for control of the state party are also happening in Virginia and Massachusetts.

This stratagem would not be possible unless the alt-right people were available for recruitment. There is a reason why they joined the Libertarians instead of the Greens, another third party whose principles are equally antithetical to them.

The connection between libertarianism and race dates back to 1964. After he had the Republican presidential nomination, Barry Goldwater (himself no racist) voted against the Civil Rights Act on libertarian grounds: In a speech co-authored by future Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, he said that the freedom to associate means the same thing as the freedom not to associate. In so doing, he transformed the Republican coalition. Eisenhower had gotten about 40 percent of the Black vote in 1956; Nixon in 1960, about a third; Goldwater, 6 percent. Goldwater was the first Republican ever to win in Georgia and the first since Reconstruction to carry Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina. Richard Nixons eagerness to woo the voters who had supported George Wallace in 1968 consolidated the racial polarization of American politics.

Racism seems to be part of libertarianisms appeal to some Americans. It is easier to oppose government power if you dont like what that power will be used for. Some of the libertarian leadership noticed that and has made racist appeals for decades. Some libertarians even dream of abandoning the state for clusters of self-governing enclaves, some of which could be all white. Ayn Rand called racism the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. But her condemnation of unproductive, parasitic moochers has more resonance when you think you know who those people are.

Libertarianism offers a peculiar vision of the heroic solitary individual who sustains himself without any external support. It says, I dont depend on anybody. I can take care of myself. This fantasy of autarky can also involve the capacity to separate from people one doesnt like. It denies any obligation to them that might be based either on shared membership in a community or on a history of wrongs that one has involuntarily benefited from. The fantasy is easy to swallow if it means that one gets to keep more of what one has. Here as elsewhere in libertarian thought, there is an active partnership between delusion and greed.

Andrew Koppelman, John Paul Stevens Professor of Law at Northwestern University, is the author of Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martins Press).Follow him on Twitter@AndrewKoppelman.

Go here to read the rest:

The Libertarian Party is collapsing. Heres why - The Hill

'Growth, growth, and growth'. It is, not to put too fine a point on it, a terrible political slogan. Abstract, indistinct, and drawing attention to the glaring economic failure of the past 12 years of Conservative government.

Liz Truss' attempt this week to position her government as the standard bearers of economic growth, bravely standing up to the nefarious forces of the 'anti-growth coalition' is a classic 'enemies of the people' style attempt at populist division, lumping together "Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP, the militant unions, the vested interests dressed up as think-tanks, the talking heads, the Brexit deniers, Extinction Rebellion" with anyone else who disagrees with the government so as to brand them all as enemies of prosperity.

But as with so much of the new government's agenda it is guilty of over-reaching. As the FT's Jim Pickard noted, it is "ludicrous to argue that anyone who doesn't support your particular economic plan must somehow be anti-growth - if you don't use *my* cake recipe you must be anti-cake".

Of all the anti-growth agitators listed by Truss only Extinction Rebellion could reasonably described as being opposed to growth, and even they are often simply in favour of a different, better kind of growth. Moreover, as I've argued many times before, if the economy is not growing is it not more likely to be the fault of those in actual power than the naughty scamps with placards?

As for the rest of the 'anti-growth coalition', Truss' focus on growth allows the opposition to fight on a territory it would happily choose and offers a daily reminder that the most powerful members of the anti-growth coalition are to be found on the government's own benches. The biggest drag on growth currently is to be found in the form of flatlining productivity, crumbling infrastructure, lengthening NHS waiting lists, soaring mortgage repayments, inefficient homes, nimby MPs, a hard Brexit deal that is set to knock four per cent of GDP, and a Prime Minister who genuinely abhors the sight of solar farms on under-productive agricultural land. Responsibility for all these barriers to growth and many more can be reasonably laid at the door of the Conservative government.

However, the biggest problem with Liz Truss' growth plan is to be found not in its ham-fisted political positioning, but in the fundamental inconsistency between the government's ideological impulses and its stated goals. The plan won't work. And it won't work because it completely misunderstands how modern business and modern economies succeed.

Nowhere is this incoherence better illustrated than in the government's confused approach to the green economy.

One of the few industrial success stories of the past decade has been provided by the offshore wind sector where a combination of direct funding, competitive subsidy auctions, and stable regulatory frameworks has served to drive regional investment, create jobs, and slash costs and emissions. Similarly, just before Liz Truss' speech this week, the UK auto industry confirmed it had sold its millionth plug-in vehicle, again underlining how it is electric vehicles that have provided the only bright spot for the sector over the past few years.

Everywhere you look in the green economy it is the same story. Study after study demonstrates how a national energy efficiency upgrade programme and zero carbon home building blitz delivers a better return on investment than any other infrastructure programme. Onshore renewables projects provide the cheapest and quickest form of new power capacity. Hydrogen, CCS, battery, smart grid, and nuclear projects are all in the pipeline or ready to go, providing a route for long term industrial competitiveness, energy security, and job creation. Public transport, mobile, and broadband connectivity boast enormous potential to unlock rural and regional productivity. Regenerative agriculture and negative emissions projects provide a means of bolstering climate resilience and food security.

These projects and thousands more like them would not only drive economic growth, but they would drive the right sort of economic growth. Growth that would be sustainable in every sense of the word, unlocking huge co-benefits through improved health, enhanced energy security, greater energy efficiency (or should we call it energy productivity?), better climate resilience, and increased competitiveness and export potential.

The Truss administration insists it remains supportive of this agenda. But its initial focus on taking office has been on pursuing a fracking revolution that will never happen and ordering yet another review of net zero, environmental rules, and farming subsidies that will burn through at least one per cent of the available time to meet the UK's climate targets and potentially result in the sacrificing of crucial policies on the altar of small state ideological purity. A government that has promised to prioritise growth is deferring and diluting decisions that could help drive rapid growth with near immediate effect.

Meanwhile, at both the practical and the ideological level Truss' growth plan is as likely to hamper growth as it is to stimulate it.

Kwasi Kwarteng's fiscal irresponsibility fuels market instability and pushes up interest rates, driving up the cost of the capital investments that are essential for both driving growth and delivering on the UK's net zero goals. At the same time, the ideological disconnect between what the bleak economic and security situation requires and the Prime Minister's impulses further undermines growth prospects. To take just one example, the only reason the UK is refusing to emulate its neighbours and call on the public to save energy in response to the very real risk of blackouts this winter is found in Truss' insistence that she is "not going to tell you what to do".

It is worth underpacking the ideology behind Number 10's reported decision to block plans for a modestly funded 15m public information campaign to encourage people to save energy this winter. The Prime Minister has decided that households should be completely free to use as much energy as they choose even if it means we all suffer blackouts. It is 'there is no such thing as society' as policy choice. The only thing that will be allowed to encourage people to use less energy will be the price signal, except that price signal has been drastically diluted by a government intervention that will cost the taxpayer up to 150bn. The whole sorry mess is as ideologically incoherent as it is economically and politically nonsensical.

It is also important to stress how all of the UK's allies and competitors, as well as the vast majority of the business community, now understand that government has a central role to play in driving sustainable economic growth. The EU and US response to the global energy crunch has been to visibly double down on the net zero transition and rapidly adopt policies and public spending that will mobilise multi-billion dollar investments in low carbon infrastructure. China continues to quietly accelerate its renewables and EV revolution. Even Singapore is not the libertarian fever dream it is painted out to be.

Meanwhile, everyone from the CBI to the IMF to the boss of Shell implores the government to fast track the net zero policies, effective regulations, and windfall taxes that can simultaneously drive growth, enhance energy security, and slash emissions.

Earlier this week one of the Institute of Economic Affairs' apparatchiks, Kristian Niemietz published a revelatory twitter thread in which he argued that the "downfall of Trussism and Kwartengism" was the result of the leftward drift of elite opinion. "In the past, you might have expected those people to be quite sympathetic to a Truss-Kwarteng agenda," he argued. "Truss and Kwarteng are broadly economically liberal, but there's nothing Ukippy-Gammony about them. They might describe themselves in terms that FT/Economist/Times readers like. The trouble is that those people only have skin-deep convictions. They're obsessed with 'respectability'. They'll always adopt the opinions that are considered 'sensible' and 'nuanced'. There was a time when economic liberalism could have ticked those boxes. That time is over Economic liberalism has lost all Upper Normie support."

Leaving aside for a second that economic liberalism's apparent casting out by the elite has been so successful that its leading acolytes are currently Prime Minister and Chancellor and its party of choice has been in government for 12 years, there is an alternative explanation for the political and economic elites' apparent disengagement from economic liberalism which Niemietz and his Tufton Street allies refuse to consider: it doesn't work anymore, if it ever did.

Elite opinion is shifting, not because it is shallow and obsessed with the zeitgeist, but because reality has shifted. The climate crisis is real, as is the remarkable competitiveness of clean technologies, and the threat to democracy from populism and authoritarianism. Market forces can help, but they can only do so much in response to these challenges. The combination of polluting externalities and the risk of free riders in the industrial transition means governments are required to catalyse investment in public goods, set effective market rules, and police them. True economic liberals used to understand this, until libertarianism made too many of them forget it. The problem with libertarianism is you eventually run out of biosphere to despoil.

This does not mean only left-wing governments can now deliver economic growth and effective climate action. Far from it. There are plenty of centre-right, market-led policies that can help drive green growth and accelerate the net zero transition. But raw libertarianism of the kind favoured by many of Truss' allies and advisors is incompatible with modern sustainable economic growth. You can't fund tax cuts on the never-never, you can't deregulate regulations that have already been removed, you can't cut state apparatus that is already on its knees, you can't decarbonise while digging up ever more oil and gas. It is a recipe for instability and suffering. It will fail on its own terms.

The IMF, the International Energy Agency, the UN, the world's top financial institutions, pretty much every leading corporate on the planet, these organisations are not advocating for a green growth path enabled by a proactive government because they have become a 'woke' arm of Greenpeace, but because it is what proven economic and physical reality dictates as the most sensible course of action. Elite opinion used to support colonialism, workhouses, and a whole lot more besides. Times change. The fast-dawning reality is that libertarianism and its shrink the state impulses are fundamentally ill suited to the needs of the 21st century, whatever social media edge lords and demagogic Republicans say to the contrary. Truss' preferred approach to any and all challenges is just not compatible with an era of climatic instability, rapid industrial transformation, and great power geopolitics

The government is right to go for growth, growth, and growth. The problem is that like the rest of its political operation, its preferred growth model looks doomed to failure.

A version of this article first appeared as part of BusinessGreen's Overnight Briefing email, which is available to all BusinessGreen Members.

Link:

Liz Truss, libertarianism, and the real anti-growth coalition - http://www.businessgreen.com

Wars cannot be fought successfully by libertarians. They demand collective effort, shared sacrifice, strategies for deploying scarce economic resources and collaboration with allies. All are anathema to a libertarian like the prime minister, Liz Truss.

State initiative inviting collective effort and sacrifice is off-limits as nannying. Demands on the better-off and on companies enjoying extreme windfall profits to share their proper burden are vetoed as coercive and confiscatory. Even working with the foreign other is regarded with suspicion as a constraint on sovereignty. Put not your trust in libertarians especially in war.

It may be indirect, but Britain is in a war against Russia. But we are the country taking the winter threat of Putin-induced energy shortages least seriously. We are alone in not asking for energy savings or efficiencies from business or households in exchange for the generous bounty of an indiscriminate price cap offered to everyone regardless of circumstance. With negligible capacity to store gas ourselves, we depend on the kindness of EU countries to help us if Putin turns the screw on gas supplies this winter. And we are the country whose incredible fiscal policy stupendous tax cuts at the same time as huge spending on an indiscriminate energy cap is cast as if the world were as placid as a millpond, so provoking contagion in the financial markets that risks damage to our allies.

The emphatically non-libertarian Biden administration openly regards Truss as out to lunch but so do former friends in the EU. The design of Trusss energy price guarantee package, up to 150bn, is regarded with incredulity. Her veto of a 15m public information campaign designed to suggest how citizens might save energy because it represented a state intrusion into personal space is an accurate window into Trusss worldview. She truly believes this libertarian nonsense.

In her world, there can be no collective endeavour to save energy and no fair sharing of sacrifice. Thus, it is illegitimate to tax the windfall profits of energy companies, let alone curb the speculative activity of energy traders bewildered by the scale of the profits they are making. This would improperly confiscate profit, which is the driver of all human activity: any obligation to society or others is delusional.

Thus the outgoing CEO of Shell, Ben van Beurden, may say publicly, as he did last week, that the market cannot be allowed to operate to hurt the weakest: One way or another, there needs to be government intervention... that somehow results in protecting the poorest. And that probably means governments need to tax people in this room [of energy companies] to pay for it I think we just have to accept [that] as a societal reality.

But Truss lives in the parallel universe of libertarian Ayn Rand novels in which alleged societal realities are the enemy of the moral imperatives of choice, personal freedom and individual responsibility. In her view, Van Beurden suffers from false consciousness, as Marxists used to say of workers content to live with capitalism. Shell may have got lucky with the oil price, but its sole responsibility is to distribute its profits, however excessive or lucky, to shareholders who will spend it as they think fit or invest in what it considers likely to yield profit in future. It must and should not worry about those realities. She doesnt. So why should Shell?

Thus the irresponsible approach to energy. Capping the unit cost of energy so that the average bill is 2,500 per household this winter is certainly better than no cap, but for the 10.5 million people on absolute low incomes after housing costs, bills on that scale remain impossible. They should have had more relief, the better-off, less. Further windfall taxes should have been levied on energy companies, as Shells CEO suggested, and a huge campaign launched on energy saving. The government should set an example; following Germany, France and Spain, no public building should be heated above 19C. There could be traffic speed limits and restraints on lighting buildings, adverts and shop fronts. EU states are setting targets for reducing energy usage by 8%-10%. Why not Britain? The whole package could have been targeted and cheaper, and the billions saved could have been spent on a mass programme to scale up the insulation of our hopelessly energy-inefficient housing stock.

No dice. Instead, our government is praying that we will avoid the National Grids extreme scenario of Putin-induced, Europe-wide energy shortages and France, Belgium and Holland being incapable of supplying us electricity in the winter, which would force a succession of three-hour rolling blackouts. But France has signalled that it may not be able to export energy this winter and Putin, after a fall in gas prices over September, is all but certain to reproduce what he has done with Opec and impose gas shortages or even no gas on Europe. The extreme scenario is all too likely.

Worse, as the Bank of England told the government last week, its mini-budget of 45bn of tax cuts on top of this carelessly expensive approach to energy nearly triggered a financial implosion. Yet the markets are now learning that Truss wants to use investment zones to butcher up to another 12bn of corporation tax revenue even as the Bank comes to the end of its emergency gilt-buying programme. Trusss Britain is a hotbed of financial instability.

Yet the country and the Conservative party are chained to this imbecilic policy framework for at least the next two years. It may lead to political annihilation for the Tories at the next general election, but the damage that is being done remains colossal and hard to repair. Even the chancellor, vainly trying to cap the number of investment zones, and Jacob Rees-Mogg, suffering a veto of his proposed energy public information campaign both fully paid up members of the right must be dazed by the ideological obstinacy of their leader. The only silver lining is that Britain, after this, will never again flirt with toxic libertarianism.

Will Hutton is an Observer columnist

This article was amended on 9 October 2022. An earlier version referred to the government capping energy bills at 2,500 per household this winter. The energy price cap announced by Liz Truss is a limit on the unit cost of electricity and gas, not on overall bills; the 2,500 a year figure relates to the average amount that a typical household will pay under the new cap. This has been corrected.

Follow this link:

We are the country taking the energy crisis least seriously. Even Shells boss is baffled - The Guardian

Have you lost friends over politics? If so, theres a show I want to introduce to you.

There are four things you should do, in conversation, to avoid arguments. You can do these things and become even more persuasive at the same time.

Would you like to know what those four things are?

Recently, I came across a podcast episode that I want to share with you. I want to share it because it matches the classical spirit of the Advocates for Self-Government. Our organization was founded by a salesman to help people get better at selling Liberty.

I came across this episode because its host, Jim Babka, is the editor-at-large here at The Advocates. His show is called Gracearchy with Jim Babka.

Gracearchy is a neologism about ending the blame and scapegoating that is typical in politics, and replacing it with genuine understanding. If you listen to a few episodes, youll quickly gather that the host is a voluntaryist libertarian.

Recently, Jim interviewed Duane Lester, Director of Issue Education for the Grassroots Leadership Academy. Together, they explored more gracious political conversation.

And you can learn these four powerful techniques by watching or listening to this episode of Gracearchy with Jim Babka. Once youve got these down, you can rinse and repeat for each conversation you have.

Duane also explained how to apply the three languages of politics without trying to use a language other than your own. This insight will allow you to still be yourself yet state your own views more clearly than ever.

Duanes training sessions draw crowds at conferences around the country. If you would like to have him come train your local group in these techniques, you can also find out how to do that by watching the show.

More Persuasion: Less Fighting

Youll find Duanes advice to be quite practical and instantly useful.

And Jim has been called an outside the box thinker. His new show reaches a niche audience. I encourage you to check it out on YouTube, and even do as I have Click the bell and subscribe to AHO Network, which hosts this show.

Mike SerticPresidentAdvocates for Self-Government

Read the original:

How to sell freedom without fighting | The Advocates for Self-Government - The Liberator Online

End the hatred and the violence!

I didnt intend to research Kentucky Senator Rand Pauls father Ron Paul. I initially was reading about the early life of Oath Keeper Stewart Rhodes (Im assuming we all know he shot himself in the eye), and was surprised to learn that Rhodes had worked for Congressman Ron Paul in his Texas, and Washington D.C. offices and had been a volunteer in Montana during Ron Pauls 2008 presidential campaign.

I didnt think it was explosive information until I read the February 1, 2022 DK diary by David Neiwert in which he interviewed Rhodes ex-wife Tasha Adams. The way Adams explained it, the Ron Paul presidential campaign of 2008 was the seminal event that caused Rhodes to start the Oath Keepers.

What Adams said was: I think what he [Rhodes] saw was the energy of the Ron Paul movementhe saw the money, he saw the youth, he saw the people willing to donate their hours and their time, andyou know, typical narcissists, thats what they do, they absorb energy from people, right?and so I think he saw all that energy, he saw all that and he wanted to find a way to take it for himself.

It was news to me that when Rhodes founded the Oath Keepers in 2009, he went after the veterans, military personnel, and police officers he and Adams had met during the campaign, who were drawn to Pauls libertarian views. In fact, Rhodes focused on recruiting and encouraging them to remain true to the oath they swore to defend the Constitution and to disobey orders they considered illegal. Rhodes badly wanted to be their leader, and recruited many of them, who had nowhere to go after Pauls campaign ended in 2012, and before Trump declared his intention to run for president in 2015.

When I looked up Ron Paul, I was flabbergasted. I knew that he had been a Libertarian Congressman who had run for president three times; twice against former President Obama. What I didnt realize was that the former Air Force flight surgeon and OBGYN, was the orchestratorof a well-organized grassroots movement that had attracted some people who would later join the Oath Keepers and others who were just like the MAGAs, without the moniker or the caps. Neither did I know that for decades Paul had published (They were written under his name although he said he neither wrote them nor read them) and profited from political newsletters that were chock-full of conspiratorial, racist, and anti-government ravings. Just like Trumps slurs and lies, Pauls newsletters slurred and lied about revered people, like the Rev. Martin Luther King, and others.

According to author James Kirchick, who exposed the newsletters, and did a broader investigation into Pauls history of associations with all manner of groups and individuals on the extreme right, Ron Paul was truly an Angry White Man, and that was the title of Kirchicks book about him, which was published on the day of the 2008 New Hampshire primary.

Before writing this diary, I knew nothing about the United States Libertarian Party, which defines itself as a party that promotes civil liberties, non-interventionism, laissez-faire capitalism, and limiting the size and scope of government. But, if the behavior of the right- wing Libertarians can be used as an example, they are all angry white people. During the Trump years, I had no idea that the MAGAs who participated in the Insurrection;refused to wear masks,get vaccinated, stop attending huge COVID spreading events, stop harassingparents in school board meetings and at schools, stop threatening and harassingelection workers, hospital doctors and nurses,politicians, POC, Muslims, Jews, and LGBTQ children and adults possibly considered themselves to be right-wing Libertarians. To me, they just were/are lawless, racist, violent, intellectually challenged, selfish, amoral, anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim, homophobic, misogynistic, anti-American Republican gun-toting extremists, seditionists, and/or domestic terrorists. And, I still believe thats true. I also didnt know that Libertarianism means that you believe in Originalism regarding the Constitution, which is the position of Clarence Thomas and Ron Paul, such odd bedfellows.

As a Congressman, Ron Paul's nickname Dr. No reflects both his medical degree and his assertion that he would "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure was expressly authorized by the Constitution. This position frequently resulted in Paul casting the sole "no" vote against proposed legislation. And, it meant that Justice Clarence Thomas, for most of his SCOTUS career until recently, also voted alone, even when he agreed with other conservatives because he made up his Originalist positions.

When Ron Paul launched his third and final presidential campaign in 2012, according to Mother Jones, his extremist positions were met with jeers from the party establishment. To name a few of Pauls positions: He didnt believe in the IRS or the Federal Reserve. He wanted to abolish half of federal agencies, including the departments of Energy, Education, Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and Labor; Eviscerate Entitlements (He said Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid were unconstitutional), Enable State Extremism (Allow states to set their own policies on abortion, gay marriage, prayer in school); Legalize Prostitution; Legalize Drugs (including cocaine and heroine); Keep Monopolies in Tact (Remove federal anti-trust legislation); Stop Policing the Environment; Get Rid of the Civil Rights Act; and End Birthright Citizenship, among other things. And, his foreign policy was American Isolationism.

And, the people who supported Paul, among others, were survivalists, white supremacists, anti-Zionists, anti-government extremists (who wanted no legal restraints), American Isolationists, Libertarians, conservatives, people in the military and law enforcement (they were some of his largest donors), young, disaffected Democrats and independents who loved his isolationist stance on foreign policy and libertarian approach to social issues, anti-war activists, and rich folks (who wanted no governmental restraints to restraintheir greed and hunger for power). I would imagine he also appealed to racists, homophobes, misogynists, and evangelicals. In effect, they were just like current day MAGAs and members of the Republican cult, although there were far fewer of them back then. (They must not believe in birth control or abortionbecause they seem to have experienced exponential growth.)

And, their behavior during Pauls campaign was similar to how Trumps MAGA supporters behave. Pauls boisterous supporters raised hell in caucus states. His cheering throngs were loud and clear at the presidential debates. And, even after Paul withdrew, the feeling was that his followers would continue to make nuisances of themselves at state conventions.

When Paul was asked what he wanted from a campaign, that he couldnt win, he said he wanted his followers to run for office, win, and continue to do that to expand the movement and its influence in government. At the time, main stream Republicans felt that Ron Paul and his followers would fade out of the picture. Four years later, the coalition of people Paul had gathered together had greatly expanded, and they elected Trump as president.

After reading all that I did, what I dont understand is why former Congressman Ron Paul never has never been publiclyblamedandpilloriedrighteously castigated for the inestimable damage his actions, newsletters, opinions, and followers have doneto our democracy, democratic institutions,and to human decency within our country. He also hasnt been publicly identified in MSM for being Stewart Rhodes role model. Nor has Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, his son the obstructionist, been tarnished for his fathers actions,opinions, and behavior, which is consistent with his own, although he has tried to rebrand himself for a larger audience. But, we should never forget how dangerous they both are.

As James Kirchick so eloquently wrote in 2018 when his book Angry White Man, was published: Long before Donald Trump emerged as the most prominent purveyor of a racist conspiracy theory concerning the countrys first black president, played political footsie with white supremacists, condemned globalism, sold himself to the masses as a guru of personal enrichment, attacked American allies as scroungers, and made overtures to authoritarian regimes like Russia, there was Ron Paul. The ideological similarities between the two men, and the ways in which they created support, are striking.

Original post:

Rand Paul's daddy Ron Paul, the Angry White Man, who spawned a generation of obstructionist haters - Daily Kos

Republican state Sen. Bruce Thompson, Democratic state. Rep. William Boddie and Libertarian Emily Anderson, a digital print operator at a publishing company, are running to replace Butler.

With the start of early voting approaching, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution spoke to Thompson and Anderson. A spokeswoman for Boddie said he was unavailable to talk with the AJC.

In a previous interview, Boddie said he wanted to restore trust in the agency, improve its technology and expand its historical role by providing more support for working parents and gig workers, who are typically not covered by the states unemployment insurance fund.

Thompson, who frequently cites his military and business experience, said he differs with his rivals on how to manage the department, but not on the need for change.

I think whether you are a Democrat or Republican that you agree that during the pandemic, the (Labor Department) failed the citizens of Georgia, he said. We can agree there needs to be a significant improvement.

That improvement will be partly about processes and potentially about the 1,134-person staff, said Thompson, who said he started, ran and eventually sold a number of companies, including Coverstar Automatic Covers, which sells covers for swimming pools, The Thompson Group Insurance and Bruce Thompson State Farm insurance company.

Despite contentious races at the top of the ballot for governor and the U.S. Senate and his own robust conservatism, Thompson said he doesnt think the office needs to be partisan. And despite his harsh criticism of the agencys past performance, he said he believes he can work with staffers.

Well do an assessment, he said. We plan to challenge them, but I want to be a cultivation agency, highlighting people and helping them.

Anderson, the Libertarian candidate, said she thinks the agency is understaffed.

I went to a career center years ago and I only went because I couldnt get anyone on the phone, she said. It was just compounded by the pandemic.

She said if elected, she would ask department staffers for ideas because they know the system best.

Where can we cut red tape? Where can it be streamlined to get you your benefits quicker? she said.

Many of the changes needed at the Labor Department require legislative support or federal help, such as funds for better technology and a longer period for payment of benefits, but the commissioner can lobby for assistance and promote fair treatment for those who need assistance, said Ray Khalfani, an analyst with the left-of-center Georgia Budget and Policy Institute.

The North Star for governance should start with the mission to expand duration, access and benefit levels, he said.

Because the Legislature has shifted workforce development to the Technical College System of Georgia, the Labor Department has seen its budget cut from $114.4 million during the past fiscal year to $51.6 million, officials said. Accounting for much of that cut was the narrowing of the agencys responsibilities, making its main mission the vetting of applications for jobless benefits and making sure that valid claims get paid.

In the years after the 2008-09 recession, that task wasnt so demanding. But then came the pandemic.

Much of the economy was at least temporarily shut down, and hundreds of thousands of Georgians were tossed out of work. The number of claims in an average week went from less than 5,700 to more than 215,000 for the next three months. It stayed in six figures until July 2020. While the federal government passed a series of emergency measures, it was left to the states to execute the new programs.

The Georgia Labor Department, with about half the employees it had during the previous recession, was overwhelmed.

Legislators, journalists and social media feeds were flooded with complaints from frustrated and scared workers waiting for benefit payments even as officials struggled to screen out thousands of fraudulent claims.

Another wave of layoffs may be on the horizon. While the weekly claims for jobless benefits are nearly as low as pre-pandemic, the economic outlook has grown murky with the Federal Reserve raising interest rates in an effort to stifle inflation by slowing the economy.

The candidates are slated to appear in an Atlanta Press Club debate on Oct. 18.

Here is the original post:

Labor commissioner's race: Down-ballot and up in the air - The Atlanta Journal Constitution

Published: 9/11/2022 10:04:13 AM

Modified: 9/11/2022 10:00:17 AM

The primary election will be held Tuesday, Sept. 13. Times vary among polling places. You can find where and when polls are open in your town as well as see a sample ballot by checking the Secretary of State website (sos.nh.gov/elections/voters).

Because 2020 had a decennial census, boundaries of districts have changed, so you may not be voting for the same office that you did two years ago. Note that boundaries of the 10 wards in Concord changed a bit so theres a chance city residents wont be going to the same polling place as they did the previous election. Check the website to find out. The boundaries of Franklins 3 wards did not change.

Q. Judging from all the campaign signs, theres an election coming up but I havent been paying attention. Whats it all about?

This is the party primary. It chooses which people will be the Republican and Democratic candidates on the ballot in the general election in November.

They are the only two parties on the state ballot, by the way. The Libertarian Party was on it for a couple of elections but it fizzled out and many of its candidates moved to the GOP.

Q. Sounds like fun. Can I vote in it?

Any U.S. citizen living in New Hampshire who is at least 18 years old can vote. That includes people attending college in the state as long as this is your legal domicile. Its a little complicated; check details at the Secretary of State website (sos.nh.gov/elections/information/faqs/voter-registration-and-motor-vehicle-law).

You dont even need to have a permanent residence; the homeless are allowed to vote.

If youre a registered Republican or Democrat you have to vote in that partys primary. If youre an independent, like roughly 40% of New Hampshire voters, you can vote in either party primary only one, however; you cant vote in both and then re-register as an independent before leaving the polling place.

You can register as a voter at your polling place on the day of the election but bring the correct paperwork. That includes a legal ID such as a drivers license, proof of citizenship such as passport, naturalization papers or birth certificate, and evidence of living in the state such as a utility bill with your address on it or a rental agreement.

If you dont have access to the paperwork you can fill out an affidavit that affirms your status. Next year that will force you to vote on a so-called affidavit ballot but this controversial new law is not in effect in 2022.

You can vote also by absentee ballot if you have a legitimate reason not to be at the polls on Tuesday, such as being out of town or having a disability. The Legislature decided, however, that concern about COVID-19 exposure is no longer a legitimate reason.

Dont dawdle, however. Your ballot needs to physically be in the hands of your local town or city clerk by 5 p.m. on Election Day. New Hampshire no longer counts ballots postmarked on Election Day if the post office delivers them after the 5 p.m. deadline.

Q. This is just a party primary, though. Does it matter?

You bet it does.

Party primaries are at least as important as general elections because they shape the direction that the two political parties want to take. For people who vote straight party tickets in the general election, the primary is really the only time they can make a choice.

Thats especially true for New Hampshire Republicans this year, who have a number of wide-open races for seats high up on the ballot such as U.S. Senate and Representative. Democrats have more choices down lower on the ballot, where more GOP incumbents hold sway.

Many argue that party primaries are a big reason for the divisiveness that has infected American politics.

The number of people who vote in party primaries is relatively low turnout well below 20% is common in New Hampshire which gives more weight to people whose desire to push their comparatively extreme opinions means they never miss an election. This means that moderate candidates have a harder time getting on the ballot in November.

That is one argument for ranked-choice voting, a system used in Maine and Alaska. Ranked choice and other similar systems count a secondary vote when nobody wins a majority, forcing candidates to appeal to a wider range of people even in party primaries.

Read this article:

Everything (well, many things) you wanted to know about Tuesday's party primary election - Concord Monitor

All of us have been doing it this year: talking about the war in Ukraine.

Europe was the center of two global wars and now has its biggest war since World War II. A war that has disrupted global trade and caused spikes in fuel and food costs around the world. A war that has seen horrific atrocities. A war that has created 10 million refugees. A major modern war where the United States does not have direct military involvement.

It is well known that non-aggression is a core principle of libertarianism and that we are decidedly anti-war. Unfortunately we are often presented with a false dichotomy of how this works in practice: supposedly we must either take the position of the duopoly on wars of aggression, imperialism and the military industrial complex, or that we must seek to be a completely non-interventionist country waiting for foreign oppressors to murder our families before we can respond.

However, these are not our only options when dealing with foreign aggression, and we need to be able to present pro-liberty options, of which there are many. If we decide that the United States should support Ukraine against their Russian aggressor, there is still the question of what American support for Ukraine should look like from the point of view of a libertarian defense of non-aggression.

Within libertarian principles, any intervention must be consistent with the principles of non-aggression and consent. The American draft, aggression against innocent third parties, and wealth confiscation of Americans violate these principles.

Violations are happening right now, and to be effective in pushing back, we need to offer alternatives that are neither doing nothing nor all-out war. We have three options as a nation that we can use: embargoes and sanctions, letters of marque and reprisal, and material aid.

It is immoral to trade with bandits, thieves, or those responsible for slave labor. As such, libertarians can advocate for embargoes or sanctions against these activities and demand restitution for the victims (in this case Ukraine and its trading partners).

When a state like the Russian Federation deliberately obscures its theft by mixing morally created products and services with stolen products and services then we are right to sanction or embargo all of the comingled goods and services.

Furthermore, it is immoral to sell something knowing that it will be used to commit acts of aggression. You are free to give someone your firearm because it is your property, but you become an accessory to murder if you know they intend to use it to commit murder.

However, it is wrong under American principles to single out individuals who have done nothing wrong. Russian oligarchs deserve a day in American courts to show they have not been profiteering off of theft and murder; they deserve a right to due process the same as everyone else.

Now, the long practiced pro-Russian counter argument is whataboutism. For instance, what about the United States selling arms to authoritarian regimes in the Middle East that murder civilians? What about selling guns to the ATF that they illegally give to cartels? Yes, we need to oppose all of those things too, and we need to be consistent about it. Embargoing all such regimes and the ATF makes that libertarian argument stronger instead of weak and hypocritical.

Marque and Reprisal is a license to outsource military action to a third party without direct involvement. It is covered in the U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8, clause 11 as:

[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; . . .

It is often derided as being legalized piracy, but it is actually the opposite. Marque and Reprisal was passed by Congress and signed by President Thomas Jefferson during the Barbary Wars to fight the Barbary pirates.

Those who kill and steal should not be protected by national laws from stealing and killing. As an alternative to occupying Iraq and Syria to fight ISIS, we could have passed letters of marque and reprisal making it legal for Americans to voluntarily fight ISIS without legal repercussions back home.

While this has limited usefulness against Russia, we should never forget that this is a tool we have to not start wars while also not ignoring aggression. Congress can declare open hunting season on the enemies of peace.

Finally, offering material aid for the purpose of defense is justified, while weapons sales for aggression are not. Just as it would not be morally wrong for your uncle to give a firearm to a friend of yours who had their house repeatedly burglarized. However, that doesnt make it okay for Uncle Sam to steal the money for that firearm from your wallet.

The problem of giving material aid to Ukraine isnt the aid, its how it is funded on the backs of struggling Americans. According to the 61st NDAA bicameral agreement, the United States will spend 777.7 billion dollars on the national defense budget for the fiscal year 2022. This money isnt just used to defend the United States from threats like Russia and China, we also use it to defend Europe and invade foreign nations for nation building exercises.

We need to stop, and Russias war in Ukraine provides us with an exit opportunity. Instead of increasing the budget to replace what we are giving Ukraine, we should draw down the military permanently. We should plan on giving Ukraine enough aid to reduce the future Russian military threat to both Ukraine and the United States.

If we were to reduce the 2023 NDAA to $500 billion, we could afford a one time donation this year of $250 billion to Ukraine and still substantially reduce the ongoing federal deficit. We need to remain focused on the fact that Bidens error from a pro-liberty perspective isnt helping a defender against a military aggressor. Bidens error is financing it with more inflation and debt.

We must stand up for the non-aggression principle. Whenever we are faced with the false dichotomy of war or pacifism, we must demand that we follow American principles and consider alternatives.

A range of issues related to liberty will be covered at Students For Libertys flagship event, LibertyCon International. If youd like to attend LibertyCon International in Miami this October, be sure to click on the button below to register and book your room with the discounted rate. You can use the code LEARNLIBERTY for 50% discount on your tickets!

We look forward to seeing you there!

This piece solely expresses the opinion of the author and not necessarily the organization as a whole. Students For Liberty is committed to facilitating a broad dialogue for liberty, representing a variety of opinions.

Read the rest here:

Libertarian alternatives to war with Russia - Learn Liberty

The limited government libertarians are at it again at the Department of Public Instruction hearing in Bismarck on Sept 9. Tony Gehrig fan, Jodi Plecity, wants a state-ran [sic] body to enforce her tedious rules and regulations of historical political correctness.

Fargo Republican Rep. Jim Kasper isnt satisfied with the law he wrote to ban CRT . It seems his frantic slapdash effort to abolish CRT was not good enough. He did, however, admit to not knowing much about it, only knowing what he heard or read about it, somewhere, sometime. Well golly, not this time. The Forum said in its article hes putting his foot down! He plans to add teeth to the ban so that complaints can be investigated and violators can be punished.

Big Police State Government, also brought to you by the GOP.

What the powers that be in North Dakota fear is the ugly history of capitalism being revealed. Their wondrous industrial capitalism that lifted humanity out of poverty began in the early 1800s. The Manchester UK cotton mills were their flagships. These were worked 14 hours a day, 6 days a week by impoverished and mostly Irish women and children. What of the cotton that also fueled this? Grown by masses of kidnapped and enslaved Africans on stolen Indigenous land. This is what the GOP and their libertarian cohorts want to cover up.

Ron Gaul lives in Fargo.

This letter does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Forum's editorial board nor Forum ownership.

Read more:

Letter: Here's what the GOP and 'limited government' Libertarians don't want you to know - INFORUM