Category Archives: Libertarian

Freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are in direct synonymy with the Libertarian Party. Libertarians are strong advocates for civil liberties and the eradication of intrusive, big government. Uninformed persons retain the wretched habit of mistaking libertarian principles for anarchic ones. Erroneous assertions of open borders supporting libertarian values is a common ailment among people who are unfamiliar with American political ideologies. The state of open borders places any nation in peril and should not be mistaken for amicability or tolerance.

First and foremost, a nation of open borders is a nation of sitting ducks. Borders shield Americans from the Islamic State, Jihadists, and other terrorists who aim to annihilate our way of life. True libertarians champion for freedom and the civil rights which make America great. Without the proper protection, all of these liberties would be trampled on. For instance, we the people lock our doors at night to shield ourselves from potential danger. Imagine if we left our doors unlocked, or removed them all together. Rapists, murderers, and vigilantes would have access to our families, personal property, and other treasures. Secure borders shield our nation from foreign threats just as locked doors shelter us from domestic threats.

Those who advocate for open borders are not libertarians, nor should they refer to themselves as such. The flagrant notion of open borders appeals only to extreme leftists or anarchists. Leftists foolishly believe borders symbolize bigotry, xenophobia, and intolerance, although they might subscribe to a different philosophy if they were mandated to remove their doors from their hinges and remain in their homes. Anarchists endorse the absence of borders with the misguided credence that any form of government intervention is a detriment to freedom. The premier dissimilarity between libertarians and anarchists is while libertarians advocate for a small, limited government, anarchists promote the elimination of government.

Anarchists are woefully illogical and precariously misguided in their twisted beliefs. They fail to comprehend that absence of borders leaves America vulnerable to disease, terrorism, and other fatalities. The key flaw in anarchism stems from the belief that freedom is an offshoot of the absence of government. The idealized version of government is expressed in a quote from Rand Paul: I want a government so small that I can barely see it. Rand Paul is an outstanding politician and should have represented the Libertarian Party in 2016, instead of Gary Johnson.

The absence of government is equally as dangerous as an oppressive government; both systems result in the same outcome. An utter lack of government permits murders, rapists, pedophiles, and other sadists to run amuck without facing any consequences. If government is too powerful, then citizens are subjected to tyrannical dictators and criminals in expensive suits. The Horseshoe Theory is the most applicable assertion when discussing the relationship between a complete lack of government and an all powerful government. The Horseshoe Theory dictates that ideologies on extreme contrasting sides of the political spectrum are merely two sides of the same coin.

The need for secure borders in America is nonnegotiable. A plethora of policies are open for discussion and might even benefit from certain alterations, but national security does not fall into this category. We either have a country or we do not. Borders protect and enforce our cherished libertarian values. Freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are only practical because of the American way of life, which rapidly deteriorates without borders.

Gabrielle Seunagal is a sassy and outspoken freelance writer. Her favorite hobbies outside of writing are working out at her local gym and traveling.

Image: Rob Osborne

Like Loading...

Read the original here:

Open Borders and the Existence of Government - Being Libertarian - Being Libertarian

We live in a time of great tumult. The things that we believed were true turned out to be false. Facts became lies and lies became facts. The people we depended on to obtain the enlightenment of truth conspired to keep us in the dark. The tentacles of government maneuvered in the background while the people were preoccupied with a material world. These tentacles engendered dissent, enveloped freedom, and enriched themselves. Slowly, the fabric binding our liberty to our souls was stolen from us like a wolf stalking a flock of sheep. We were easy pickings. We entrusted the leaders of our society to act in our best interest. Armed with the public trust, the government endeavored to rob us for the fools that we became. We expected the government to do the work of missionaries and saints. We blindly supposed that there were road blocks preventing the government from traveling down the highway to tyranny. But, a starving man will always find a way to eat food. We refused to listen to calls off in the distance, warning of the impending salvos proclaiming tyranny. We dismissed them as irrational and then sent them on their way. Unchecked power, corruption,and greed have endangered our republic. Institutions with a vital public interest to serve have instead served themselves.

Guarantees of these institutions have come at a high price. Yes, there is still money in your bank account, the traffic lights prevent chaos, you have food and water in your house, and schools for your children. What price did you pay to ensure that the faculties of government could provide you with a false sense of security while they pillage your liberty?

Our existence ensures our natural rights of life, liberty, and property. You have the right to exist; no one can take that right away from you without the discourse of due process of law and government is supposed to exist so that no one violates your right to life, and that you do not violate anothers life.

You have the right to freedom insomuch as you can intrinsically say, think, buy, sell, and create a life of your choosing, and insofar as you do not impede upon anothers right to act as you do. Government protects liberty by ensuring privacy. Think of freedom esoterically as an ancient warrior: to protect yourself from tyranny, you are armed, hand in hand, with liberty and privacy, as a sword and shield, respectively. When privacy is violated, liberty undoubtedly is taken.

Property ensures economic activity and rent-seeking behavior. Without insurances on property, verifying ownership of goods and services would impede upon transactions between consenting parties to exchange agreed upon goods and services. We are surely endowed with more rights, but these rights constitute the basis for the foundation and formation of government power. In other words, society functions best when these rights are ensured. When our rights our ensured, society can function with order.

We must sacrifice for there to be an orderly society. We all forfeit the same amount of rights and are imposed with the same duties. This has evolved from a state of nature as civilization has progressed. We are unconsciously bound to the sovereign will of order while sacrificing freedom. Take for instance, riding the subway. We sacrifice personal space and freedom to travel where we want, but we gain convenient and easy transportation. Our rights are bound by the same relationship as you have when riding the subway. This is a social contract. Government and our rights are two different sovereign entities, just as you and the train are two distinct beings. The train is a compilation of different parts, much as a government is a sum of different parts, and you are a metaphysical being (you are you, but you cannot prove existence beyond the pure notion, I am thinking, therefore I exist, which is also the basis for your rights). Therefore, there is an escrow of trust between government and rights which necessitates a social Contract. A breach of the social contract occurs when the sacred trust between government and rights has been broken.

Our leaders have taken us for pawns, pieces to be moved on a chess board. Governing has become a game. While we have been insidiously appeased by a mass media industrial-complex, our government has made overtures toward surveying us, seizing our rights, and disarming the very institutions that ensure our protection. In the background, agents of dissent have covertly undermined attempts toward progress, civility, governance, and liberty. Look at the world around you and see that our cities are in decay, our schools teach utter nonsense, and chaos seems to be around every corner. Now ask, Why? People who are uneducated about their rights and liberty make good drones.

It is the duty of the people to show where power is vested and who truly owns the seats of power. We are not pawns on a chess board, we are the people en masse. Thomas Jefferson said, When the people fear the government, thats tyranny; when the government fears the people, thats freedom.

I remain, Sir,

Your Humble Servant,

Silence Dogood

Featured image: http://www.overwatchdesigns.com

* Sean Dwyer is a follower of Paine, Friedman, Hayek, and Mises. He studied economics, political science, and math at Western Michigan University. Fortune favors the bold.

Like Loading...

Read this article:

A Call to Arms: Response to CIA Wiretapping - Being Libertarian

It is well known that the two Koreas have co-existed in a state of mutual disdain for each other since the end of combat operations in the region, just over 60 years ago. North Korea, backed by China, and South Korea, backed by the U.S., have constantly perceived any military buildup performed by the other to be aggressions on their respective sovereignties. This usually results in the nation that feels threatened engaging in a retaliatory action involving some form of military posturing that escalates tensions in the region for a time.

The most recent example of this scenario occurred Monday, March 6. According to a report by The Guardian, North Korea fired four missiles in response to an annual military exercise between South Korean and American forces. Meanwhile, according to Reuters, the U.S. has begun the installation of the Terminal High Altitude Defense anti-missile system, otherwise known as THAAD, in South Korea as a defense against the North. The military exercises, firing of missiles, and installation of THAAD are causing tensions to rise drastically between the countries involved in the region. According to the same Reuters article mentioned above, the North and South have expelled each others diplomats and prohibited the exit of each others citizens. Furthermore, China and South Korea have now entered into a diplomatic standoff with each other, which even involves China closing down some of the South Korean Lotte Groups retail stores.

All of these factors definitely make for a precarious situation among the four nations involved. However, it appears China is not yet ready to throw in the diplomatic towel. China has expressed frustrations with North Koreas attempts at developing a nuclear missile program and has even halted the import of coal for a year in an effort to get the North to abandon its nuclear weapons program.

China has recently offered a possible diplomatic solution to this whole situation. The Associated Press reports that Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi has suggested that North Korea might stall its missile programs if the U.S.s and South Koreas military exercises are also stalled. It would seem that Wang and China would like for all the parties involved to sit down and discuss the issues between them. This offering by China may not only be a way to avoid conflict, it may also pave the way for a more peaceful co-existence in the region and provide the U.S. with the perfect opportunity to extricate itself permanently from the affairs of East Asia.

The U.S. has been presented with an amazing opportunity. Wangs solution is brilliant, as it has not only North Korea, but also the South and the U.S. end their strategic posturing. This simple act would not only show that all countries involved are willing to come together and work out their differences peacefully, but may also be the only chance for the U.S. to begin pursuing a non-interventionist policy in East Asia.

Chinas solution of having both sides halt their respective military activities would easily open the door to the lessening of hostilities in the region. With the lessening of hostilities, the next step would be to begin removing U.S. troops from the region in order to de-emphasize the threat a foreign army presents. This would establish an atmosphere where the work for peace could truly begin. This work toward peace should place emphasis on trade, for nations who are engaged in trade with one another are far less likely to go to war with one another.

Of course, the odds of North Korea accepting anything close to a peaceful solution are probably extremely long. However, this does not mean that the U.S. should not pursue the present opportunity. Any opportunity for peace, no matter how slim the chances, should never be ignored.

The U.S. military has been in and around the Korean Peninsula for over 60 years. Official policy is that U.S. troops are there to deter the North from invading the South. During that whole time, however, North Korea has done nothing more than isolate itself from the international community and act hostile to the presence of a foreign army near its borders. The interventionist policy of the U.S. is not working. North Korea will never be made less extreme by the military might of a foreign nation. The only way to accomplish that goal is through trade. The U.S. should significantly reduce its military presence in the region. Then, it should begin encouraging more trade in the area. China is already one of the U.S.s largest trade partners. There is no reason to think that China would say no to more trade with the U.S. Plus, once the U.S. ended its military intervention in the region, China and South Korea would no longer have reason to remain in a diplomatic standoff. They would begin engaging in business with each other again. Soon, North Korea would either have to watch everyone around it prosper or end its isolationism in order to join in.

However, none of this will ever have the opportunity to happen if the U.S. and South Korea brushed aside Chinas offer. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that they accept the offer for peaceful diplomacy. A peaceful solution must be sought, or we will see this opportunity slip away without another one in sight.

Libertarians everywhere would love to see the U.S. adopt a non-interventionist foreign policy. We all believe that such a policy would be ideal for this country. However, such a thing will not happen overnight. It will take liberty lovers pushing to slowly chip away bit by bit the interventionist policy of our leaders before our dream can be accomplished. Today, we have presented before us one such opportunity. Let us not allow it to go to waste.

Jon Swain is a recent convert to the liberty movement after becoming disillusioned with Republican politics in the 2016 election cycle. He is currently earning his B.S. in Kinesiology from Mississippi State University and plans to pursue a Masters of Science after graduation.

Photo: Ed Jones

Like Loading...

More:

Peace in Korea - Being Libertarian

Gov. Roy Cooper was talking like a libertarian.

He probably didnt even realize it.

About a week ago, in his State of the State address, Cooper talked about many things. He discussed his budget plans and House Bill 2. He talked about education and the need to recruit the best teachers. To raise teacher pay. He addressed the need to help small business and about lowering the states unemployment rate.

He talked about Mackenzie Hinson, a 12-year old girl from Grantham who founded Make A Difference Food Pantry in her community.

Mackenzie stood in the Senate gallery, obviously a little nervous and probably embarrassed by the attention.

Lawmakers, led by the governor, stood to applaud.

Cooper spoke of the states resilient spirit and called Mackenzie remarkable.

An inspiration.

Hurricane Matthew struck coastal North Carolina in October and caused, according to some estimates, $2 billion in damage, as well as 28 deaths. This placed Matthew among the worst natural disasters in state history, surpassed perhaps only by 1999s Hurricane Floyd.

The state and federal governments have committed hundreds of millions toward recovery.

Mackenzie committed her valuable time and energy.

After the storm, Cooper said, Mackenzie and her band of volunteers got busy replenishing the pantry and offering whatever help they could provide.

Mackenzie and her team were not deterred, Cooper said in his speech. With the help of businesses and volunteers, they restocked and got to work. After Hurricane Matthew, Make A Difference Food Pantry was open for 42 straight days, serving 6,914 hot meals and distributing food boxes and toiletry items to over 8,000 people in Wayne, Johnston, and Sampson counties.

Mackenzie didnt wait for the government to arrive on its proverbial white horse. To tell residents everything would be OK. She and her friends took care of all that on their own.

Which is how its supposed to work.

John Locke argued, as the Cato Institutes David Boaz writes in Libertarianism: A Primer, that we establish government so that we may be secure in our lives, liberties, and properties as we go about the business of surviving and flourishing,

We cant do that alone, of course. We need a community, whether thats defined as a town, a family, a church, or common goals, and common beliefs.

Those associations, Boaz writes, form the basis for the idea of a civil society. The idea that neighbors and communities will step in to help in times of need. The government, or state, only impedes this process. In other words, government can interrupt and even eliminate charity.

When a real need exists people not necessarily government will step in for the benefit of friends and neighbors. People like Mackenzie.

Many news stories falsely reported President Trump wanted to drastically cut funding for Meals on Wheels programs. But, as Walter Olson wrote in National Review, the meals program gets much of its money from the Older Americans Act, and not from Community Development Block Grants, which, as Reason magazine writes, is ripe with cronyism and pork-barrel spending.

Yet news whether biased, misguided, or just wrong travels fast.

The Washington Post reported that, according to Meals on Wheels, the group has taken in more than $100,000 since the White House announced plans to eliminate the Community Development Block Grant program on Thursday compared with about $1,000 on a normal day.

Mackenzie should be proud.

By following your example, Cooper said, we will rebuild our communities and be a stronger state than ever. Good work, Mackenzie.

Its a great irony a progressive governor calling on a young resident who exemplifies the best aspects of the libertarian spirit.

Whether that was Coopers intent isnt clear.

http://robesonian.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/web1_john-trump-2106-1024683201732391134853.jpg

John Trump has worked as a reporter and editor for newspapers in North Carolina and throughout the country for more than 30 years.

.

Read more:

Robesonian | Cooper hits libertarian chord - The Robesonian

The Libertarian Party has officially chosen Im THAT Libertarian as the next slogan for their biannual national convention in remembrance of 2016 Presidential hopeful Marc Feldman, who passed away last year. He gave an impassioned speech that was widely seen as one of the highlights of the conference.

At a tumultuous and divisive Libertarian National convention that caused bitter divisions within the party, Feldmans unifying, passionate message was an across-the-board hit. A relative unknown at the time going up against several noteworthy competitors with national profiles, Feldman stole the show with his closing remarks even his rivals were laughing and applauding. Tragically, he would pass away a month after the convention of natural causes at the age of 56.

Im that no pain, no gain, get those petitions signed in the rain Libertarian, Feldman said to raucous applause during a Presidential debate at the convention. That sorry, Im not sorry libertarian. That cant stand the infringements and abuses libertarian. That right here, right now, no excuses libertarian. Im that libertarian!

The entirety of Feldmans speech can be viewed here:

The results were announced after a fundraising drive in which a handful of slogans were presented and the winner was decided by the donations of interested members. Im THAT Libertarian beat out the other options of Building Bridges, Not Walls, Pro-Choice on Everything, Empowering the Individual, and The Power of Principle. In total, the party raised $15,395 in funds to help offset the cost of next years convention with $6,222 coming from donations in support of the winning slogan.

The 2018 Libertarian Party National Convention will be held in New Orleans, Louisiana from June 30 through July 3, 2018. They will select the body of the Libertarian National Committee (LNC), and attend to other party matters in preparation for the mid-term elections.

Original post:

I'm THAT Libertarian! Libertarians Honor Marc Feldman With New Convention Slogan - The Liberty Conservative

The demonetization of high-denomination notes of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 by the BJP-led Government of India in November last year sent shock waves across the country. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in his 2017 New Years speech, dubbed this move as a historic rite of purification, giving it a religious aspect. In the same speech, Modi struck a philosophical note by claiming that humans are inherently good, but over time, evil creeps into societies. He later clarifies that evil is synonymous with corruption, black money and counterfeit notes.

But, judging by the prominent place black money takes in his speech, one can safely assume that the government stripped two currency notes of their legal status principally to undermine Indias underground economy. Black money can be defined as income illegally obtained or not declared for tax purposes. The second part of the definition is often ignored by governments.

In his essay The Underground Economy Hans F. Sennholz accurately predicted this stance of governments when he wrote:

Government officials and agents are ever eager to lump both together, the criminals and their organization with the producers in the underground. Both groups are knowingly violating laws and regulations and defying political authority. But they differ radically in the role they play in society. The underworld comprises criminals who are committing acts of bribery, fraud, and racketeering, and willfully inflicting wrongs on society. The underground economy involves otherwise law-abiding citizens who are seeking refuge from the wrongs inflicted on them by government.

True to Sennholzs prediction, Modi, in his speech, said, It is accepted the world over, that terrorism, Naxalism, Maoism, counterfeit currency trade, drug trade, human trafficking all of these depend on black money. The underlying assumption in this argument that black money serves only criminals is incorrect. There are doctors, lawyers, accountants, and businessmen who seek refuge in the underground economy because of the enormous burden of taxation. Tax is a legalized form of theft and it reduces the marginal utility of productive efforts. In other words, the will to do productive work is lessened because the returns on productive work is reduced. Therefore, the only way such money can be brought into the formal economy is by reducing tax rates across all income groups.

Modi supports his flawed argument with several flawed premises. Economists agree that when cash is outside the formal economy, it is a cause of worry, he said. This is clearly an appeal-to-authority logical fallacy since he fails to mention which economists find it worrisome. There, certainly, will be economists who will be on board with governments agenda to capture money that escaped taxation.

Modis reason for why he wants to incorporate black money into the economy is, When it joins the mainstream, it is an opportunity for development. That is Orwellian double-speak for government spending and it ought to be seen for what it really is: an opportunity to provide even more subsidies to the partys voting blocs. Government spending distorts the economy, and contrary to popular belief, it does not lead to economic growth. True growth is fueled by growth in valuable goods and services in any economy.

Modi declared that inflation is the fallout from an increase in black money in the economy. The excess of cash was fueling inflation and black-marketing, he said. It was denying the poor their due. Granted, monetary inflation erodes the value of money and the poor are hurt most by it, but it is futile to blame black money for it. Monetary inflation is caused by an excess of money and credit circulating in the economy, and it is the Reserve Bank of India, with its market-distorting interest rate cuts, that ought to be blamed.

Another major activity of an underground economy is economic production that flouts minimum wage laws. Minimum wage laws are a form of price control. About minimum wage laws, Sennholz stated:

Minimum wage laws are nothing more than government orders to workers that they must not work for less than the stated minimum, and to employers that they must pay the minimum, or not employ at all. But such mandates may deny millions of workers the right to work, which is synonymous with the basic right to sustain their lives through their own efforts.

Indias Minimum Wages Act of 1948 specifies minimum wages on a per day basis. Last year, Rajasthans state government set Rs. 5,642 (approximately $84.6) per month as the minimum wage for housemaids. In a country where 828 million people (or 75.6% of the population) live below $2 a day, paying a housemaid $84.6 per month seems like a ludicrous proposition.

Underground economies have existed since the dawn of civilizations and they serve a useful purpose. The government would do well to realize that the road to prosperity does not begin with shredding currency notes, increasing taxes and attacking the underground economy.

Sriparna Neogi has a Masters degree in Business Administration. She works as an analyst in one of Indias largest e-commerce companies.

Image source: https://www.pexels.com/search/rupees/

Like Loading...

Read the original here:

Demonetization: A Thinly-Veiled Attack on India's Underground ... - Being Libertarian

Im going to say this as simply as possible: Rand Paul is the best member of the Senate and the most libertarian leaning senator in over half a century, comparable to Robert Taft, who was the Senate Majority Leader in the early 1950s. Rand Paul was this man who in 2009 I remember seeing announce a bid for the Senate and felt it was kind of a long shot. He went up against a popular statewide-elected Republican in a primary, and via small online donations, a realistic take on libertarianism that fits the demographics of Kentucky, and a ton of work from volunteers, he won both the primary and general elections in landslide wins. He was elected to the Senate and for the last six years proposed countless bills on criminal justice reform, economic reform, the best foreign policy the post-9/11 Senate can offer.

But, libertarians now are just being hostile to him like they had been to Bill Weld, Gary Johnson and anyone wanting to expand the base so it isnt just a club on the Internet, and it freaking sucks.

First off, Rand Paul isnt perfect. Hes human, he has a tough job and is trying to be many things to many people, which is how mistakes happen. One of those mistakes was the abortion known as his 2016 campaign. It was the Land of Boring where he just acted like a regular Republican, had horrible media content, a detached staff, lack of ability to fundraise and focused on C level issues people dont care about, such as Planned Parenthood and the NSA, which proved to be yawn topics. The campaign peaked with a CPAC, and the Flat and Fair tax plan, which was a pretty awesome proposal, but fell flat with a campaign focused on making useless phone calls to talk about how Rand was your ordinary anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-abortion and anti-legalization Republican. I was 100% aware the campaign was not a success.

I wanted a Rand Paul whod just come out and say gay marriage should be legal and not half-ass it with, We should have nameless civil unions nationally!

I wanted a Rand Paul who would say Immigration is a free market and Im proud Ive introduced amendments to make it simpler!

I wanted a Rand Paul who would go up on the debate stage and say Let me make something clear. Black Lives Matter and thats why Ive proposed all my criminal justice reform laws!

I wanted a Rand Paul whod be like Donald Trump was in the debates, looking Jeb Bush in the eye and saying Your legacy and your team is the team who screwed America on Iraq.

I wanted a Rand Paul who would actually have more clear solutions on energy, education and health care, similar to what he had on taxes.

I wanted a Rand Paul which bragged about how hes had bills co-sponsored with everyone from Ted Cruz to Barbara Boxer and hes the most bipartisan senator.

But, heres what I like about Rand Paul:

Rand Paul is awesome on fiscal issues. Hes by far the most fiscally conservative member of the Senate and has time after time proposed balanced and simple budgets.

Rand Paul is basically the lone fighter in the Senate on the NSA and poor data collection.

Rand Paul works with everyone and has co-sponsored bills with Cory Booker, Ted Cruz, Mitch McConnell, Barbara Boxer, Pat Leahy and others.

Rand Paul is Americas Black Lives Matter senator. He wrote a chapter in his book praising the movement for bringing up valid issues in America, had the guts to go out and take a meeting with Al Sharpton, and talks about criminal justice issues, admitting our legal system is rigged against the poor and minorities; middle class white people do drugs and other crimes just as much, but never get the same searches or penalties as poor minorities.

Rand Pauls foreign policy proposals, while not perfect, is the best option we have.

I like everything hes done in the Senate and dont think it was a bad idea he voted for Jeff Sessions and Betsy DeVos. I hated them and Im pretty sure deep down he did also. However, when hes trying to repeal and replace Obamacare, cut spending, cut regulation and not go to war, him being blacklisted by the new administration for voting against Sessions and DeVos would have sidelined his voice and advocacy.

But, there are so many libertarians that hate Rand Paul, and to them I say: shut the hell up! If youre so much better than Rand, Bill or Gary, go elect your own little purist to office and see how many reforms can get done. However, until that point, realize managing a state or an office in the US Senate is a lot different than talking about Murray Rothbard on some podcast!

This post was written by Charles Peralo.

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

Like Loading...

Go here to see the original:

If You're a Libertarian & Hate Rand Paul, You're the Problem - Being Libertarian

National Libertarian Party vice chair Arvin Vohra, a former candidate for the U.S. Senate in Maryland, is the keynote speaker at the Colorado Libertarian Party Convention March 24-26, 2017, in Westminster. (Photo courtesy Arvin Vohra)

The vice chair of the National Libertarian Committee and a frequent candidate for federal office in Maryland, Arvin Vohra, headlines a diverse group of speakers including past presidential candidates this weekend at the Colorado Libertarian Party convention in Westminster, the party announced.

The partys convention runs Friday-Sunday, March 24-26, at the Westin Hotel in Westminster the home of Libertarian Party co-founder David Nolan and, in a distinction it shares with Colorado Springs, the birthplace of the party. The weekend is filled with speeches, panel discussions and entertainment, including casino-style games and dancing to a live band.

The party will elect state officers and consider its platform and bylaws in the morning on Saturday and Sunday. Anyone can attend these functions, but only Colorado residents registered as Libertarian for at least 90 days can participate. Tickets for other convention events, including Saturdays banquet and keynote address, are available at the state partys online store.

Vohra, an author and founder of the Vohra Method education service, ran for the U.S. Senate in Maryland last year as a write-in candidate and ran for two different congressional seats in the state the two elections before that. His main campaign themes have been eliminating the federal income tax, ending the drug war, repealing gun free school zones and cutting military spending by at least 60 percent.

Publisher and pundit Austin Peterson, who came in second to former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson in last years crowded Libertarian presidential primary conservative leaders Mary Matalin and Erick Erickson were among those endorsing his presidential bid is also slated to speak.

Coloradan Matthew Hess, a systems administrator and former gubernatorial and congressional candidate, is a recipient of the Presidential Volunteer Service Award and a past candidate for Douglas County commissioner. His philosophy, he says, is spreading the message of freedom and liberty in Colorado, reversing the gun control legislation, cutting taxes and getting government out of the way of businesses.

Another speaker, Nebraska state Sen. Laura Ebke, was elected to that states non-partisan legislature in 2014 and then changed her registration to Libertarian last year. She was a state leader of Ron Pauls presidential campaigns in 2008 and 2012 and founded the Republican Liberty Caucus of Nebraska. Last year, she led the effort to ban civil forfeiture in the state.

Steve Kerbel, another 2016 Libertarian presidential hopeful, is also scheduled to speak. The author of Take Everyman Down, described as an eye-opening piece showing who is truly responsible for the condition of our country, Kerbel runs the Truth in Polling nonprofit and plans to support ballot initiatives to promote liberty nationwide.

The convention will also include a discussion about alternative voting methods, such as Approval Voting and Ranked Choice Voting.

ernest@coloradostatesman.com

approval voting, Arvin Vohra, civil forfeiture, Colorado Libertarian Party, David Nolan, Erick Erickson, Gary Johnson, Laura Ebke, Libertarian Party, Mary Matalin, matthew hess, Nebraska, ranked choice voting, Westminster

Read the original post:

National vice chair among liberty luminaries set to speak at state ... - The Colorado Statesman

MSNBC has been on a bit of a tear recently, enjoying historically high ratings (high for MSNBC, at least; its not comparable to the series finale of M*A*S*H or anything). Anywhat, the network has been steadily gaining viewers ever since Donald Trump pussy-grabbed his way into the White House, and Rachel Maddow has been enjoying a serious ratings surge ever since her Trump 2005 tax return report flopped. Funny thing about the media: sometimes the best way to gain a larger audience is to disappoint your core audience. It reminds me of The Producers when Leo Bloom tells Max Bialystock a producer could make more money with a flop than a hit.

Maddow is now currently neck and neck with her conservative time-slot rival, Tucker Carlson, who anchors Megyn Kellys former time-slot. The irony here is Maddows TV career essentially began as a guest panelist on Carlsons MSNBC show calledwait for itTucker, which is both a noun and a verb.

I can think of plenty of cable news talking heads more cloying and strident than Maddow; just because she and I do not share a common ideology does not mean I cant or dont appreciate the way she conducts her news/opinion show. In other words, shes not insufferable to watch like Greta Van Susteren, Sean Hannity, Lawrence ODonnell or Chris Hayes.

The problem with Maddow is her broadcasting career cant, and will not, live up to her true talents and aspirations. Maddow holds a DPhil in politics from Oxford, an undergrad degree in public policy from Stanford, and is a goddamn Rhodes Scholar. What is she doing hosting a 9pm cable news show?

Most likely, shes in it for the money, praise, and fame, as well she should be. We all want pats on the back and a nice paycheck. But I get the sense that when the ratings came in for that Trump tax broadcast, as well as subsequent ratings, she had to smile and nod and touch the arm of the E.P. to show her appreciation for her newfound popularity, but deep down she was thinking, Jesus Hula-Hooping Christ, I cant get out now. Im in it for the long-haul.

When Rachel Maddow started her broadcasting career while working on her doctorate, it was to put food on the table and a roof over her head, but now shes stuck. Shell renew her contract with MSNBC because theyll throw a bag of money at her. Shes worth the money theyll offer, but she should value herself more as a brain than as just a mouth.

Tomi Lahren has reportedly been allegedly suspended for possible comments she supposedly made during her guest appearance on The View. Those comments were, Blah blah blabbedy blahIm for limited government, so stay out of my guns, and you can stay out of my body as well blah. My sources inform me that afterwards, Glen Beck threw holy water in Tomis face, but the sanctified liquid did not achieve its desired effect of reverting Tomi from pro-choice to pro-life. Instead, it only made Tomi sexier.

Where I feel bad for Maddow (Can I call you Rachel?), I dont feel bad for Tomi. Tomi has either been fired from The Blaze, or Beck wont renew her contract; either way, she now has options. Shes probably squirreled away some money, and can take a year or two to work on a book, refine her ideology and presentation thereof, and reinvent herself to continue her career (unlike Maddow, whose continued employment will only lead to the continued stagnation of her mind, body and soul). Im jealous of Tomi, for reasons other than her luscious blonde locks and ability to walk in heels without turning her ankles.

Shes already been a guest on FOX News shows; in a few years shell probably have her own show, or better yet, will be a regular guest upon the spectrum of that channels programming, and not be saddled with carrying her own time-slot.

In fact, if Tomi wants to be pushed to the front of the line of hot FOX News broads, shed get a law degree, get married, have kids and return to work as shes nearing middle age (Ive done the research).

I find it deplorable that comments Tomi made on another TV show wherein she described her personal conservative ideology is what lead to her becoming persona non grata at The Blaze, whereas Maddows career has been advanced by her craven, and critically derided, attempt at ratings. A woman who speaks honestly of her conservatism is let go by her employer, while another woman who made a spectacle of herself (but who is by all accounts smart enough to have known she should have avoided this ridiculousness) is reaping a larger audience. Who won here? Certainly not opinion journalism.

Of The Great Tomi Lahren Unraveling of 2017, Tomi herself tweeted, Listen, I am not glorifying abortion. I dont personally advocate for it. I just dont think its the governments place to dictate, and Reasons Elizabeth Nolan Brown wrote:

And even if one does believe that abortion is an immoral practice, it doesnt necessarily follow that one must wish it banned completely. There are plenty of pro-life Americans who believe a blanket ban on abortion is not the best way to end the practice, given how black markets work. They instead strive to end abortion through changing hearts and minds, advocating better pregnancy-prevention methods, working to expand adoption options, and things like that.

Which of course brings me to social conservatism (I know, I know, not my best transition ever). A few weeks ago, Being Libertarians Editor-in-Chief Martin van Staden, the Colonel Potter to my Hawkeye Pierce, wrote Social Conservatism and Libertarianism Are Not Mergeable So Stop Trying. Before he published his article, Martin asked for my input, and it was then that I decided I wanted to write a response, but I dont want to write an insufferably long paragraph-by-paragraph critique of Martins article. If youre looking for that, read Jared Howes Conservatism and Libertarianism: Mutually Exclusive or Inherently Inseparable?

Essentially, van Stadens thesis is social conservatism is the merging of traditionalism, much of which is derived via religion (though you can arrive at the same conclusions via a secular avenue), with state authoritarianism, and hes not wrong. However, the root of social conservatism is not politics. Rather, it is a form of selfism, or selfishness, a behavior defined by self-discipline, self-reliance, self-respect, and self-denial. Social conservatism essentially seeks to impose private pro-family, civil, and religious values into the public sphere. That many practitioners of traditionalism seek to impose it onto their neighbors is unfortunate, though I believe most who wish to enforce social conservatism due so because they genuinely believe it is a way to live that leads to economic prosperity and happiness and fulfillment.

Should the state advocate traditionalism in furtherance of maintaining a stable society that can more easily self-perpetuate? I readily admit that I would prefer this, but before you rush to the comments section to denounce me, keep in mind there is a difference between state coercion and politicians advocating and leading by example. If were going to have a state, it should be one that at the very least advocates for traditional family values from which stability, self-reliance and basic morality emanate, doctrines that espouse the essentialism of not violating yourself nor your neighbors rights to life, liberty, property and safety, attempting to keep yourself free from substance addiction, and following the basic pattern of graduating high school, then going to college/getting a job, then getting married, and then having children. Anarchists argue that we do not require a State; we minarchists argue we require an incredibly limited role of the State. In any event, if we individuals wish to pursue market-based solutions, then we are much better off with social conservatism than to be socially liberal. It is well-documented that individuals who hail from stable, two parent households stand a much better chance of survival and success within the private sector.

If libertarians want to live free of government paternalism, with no welfare and entitlement state, its citizens need parents who raise them with traditional family values so they stand a better chance of being self-reliant.

And thats the way it is, as far as you know.

These images are brought to you by Being Libertarians very own Dave Van Englehoven & Terry Sparkman, who both appear in this music video.

This post was written by Dillon Eliassen.

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

Dillon Eliassen is the Managing Editor of Being Libertarian. Dillon works in the sales department of a privately owned small company. He holds a BA in Journalism & Creative Writing from Lyndon State College, and needs only to complete his thesis for his Masters of English from Montclair State University (something which his accomplished and beautiful wife, Alice, is continually pestering him about). He is the author of The Apathetic, available at Amazon.com. He is a self-described Thoreauvian Minarchist.

Like Loading...

Continued here:

Shortcuts & Delusions: MSNBC, Tomi, and Social C - Being Libertarian

Photo courtesy of Mark Wicks via Facebook

Theres a congressional election coming up on May 25th and three candidates are currently out barnstorming the state to gather votes and remind people that the special election actually exists.

Republican Greg Gianforte and Democrat Rob Quist have big-name parties to help promote their message and a head start. Libertarian Mark Wicks was picked at a nominating convention on Saturday March 11, nearly a week after his competitors, and now hes out explaining how he differs from the crowd.

With Gianforte theres a lot of stuff I agree on, but I think he goes a little too far right, Im a little more friendly to some of the alternative communities than I think he will be, Wicks said. With Quist, Im not in favor of sanctuary cities, I think we need to know whos coming into our country, I also know that immigrants are some of the best people we have in this country, but weve gotta know whos here.

Wicks says says he originally thought the special election would give a Libertarian an advantage, but now says that the short time-span of the special election makes it even more difficult to run a successful third-party campaign. Still, Wicks is using the outcome of the last general election as part of his campaign.

This campaign is a little different, you know, usually we dont know what the balance of power is going to be on election day: its all up in the air, every congressional seat is up in the air, but this time we know what the balance of power is going to be, if there is one more R or one more D its not going to change the balance of power.

Wicks says he would most likely caucus with the Republicans if elected and argues that a Libertarian in Washington D.C. would get more air time and coverage for Montana interests, because of the unique nature of his third-party role in congress.

See the original post here:

Montana Special Election Makes Tough Campaigning for Libertarian Candidate - Newstalkkgvo