Category Archives: Libertarianism

Ayn Randis not afeministicon, but it speaks volumes about theInternetthat some are implicitly characterizing her that way, so much so that shes even become a ubiquitous force on thememecircuit.

Last week, Maureen OConnor ofThe Cutwrotea piece about a popular shirt called the Unstoppable Muscle Tee, which features the quote: The question isnt who is going to let me, its who is going to stop me.

AsThe Quote Investigatordetermined, this was actually a distortion of a well-known passage from one of Rands better-known novels, The Fountainhead:

Do you mean to tell me that youre thinking seriously of building that way, when and if you are an architect?

Yes.

My dear fellow, who will let you?

Thats not the point. The point is, who will stop me?

Ironically, Rand not only isnt responsible for this trendy girl power mantra, but was actually an avowed enemy of feminism. AsThe Atlas Society explains in theirarticleabout feminism in the philosophy of Objectivism (Rands main ideological legacy), Randians may have supported certain political and social freedoms for womenthe right to have an abortion, the ability to rise to the head of business based on individual meritbut they subscribed fiercely to cultural gender biases. Referring to herself as a male chauvinist, Rand argued that sexually healthy women should feel a sense of hero worship for the men in their life, expressed disgust at the idea that any woman would want to be president, and deplored progressive identity-basedactivistmovements as inherently collectivist in nature.

How did Rand get so big on the Internet, which has become a popular place for progressive memory? A Pew Researchstudyfrom 2005 discovered that: the percentage of both men and women who go online increases with the amount of household income, and while both genders are equally likely to engage in heavy Internet use, white men statistically outnumber white women. This is important because Rand, despite iconoclasticeschewingideological labels herself, is especially popular amonglibertarians, who are attracted to her pro-business, anti-government, and avowedly individualistic ideology. Self-identified libertarians and libertarian-minded conservatives, in turn, were found by a Pew Researchstudyfrom 2011 to be disproportionately white, male, and affluent. Indeed, the sub-sect of the conservative movement that Pew determined was most likely to identify with the libertarian label were so-calledBusiness Conservatives,who are the only group in which a majority (67 percent) believes the economic system is fair to most Americans rather than unfairly tilted in favor of the powerful. They are also very favorably inclined toward the potential presidential candidacy ofRep. Paul Ryan(79 percent), who is well-known within the Beltway as anadmirerof Rands work (oncetellingThe Weekly Standardthat I give outAtlas Shrugged[by Ayn Rand] as Christmas presents, and I make all my interns read it.).

Rands fans, in other words, are one of the most visible forces on the Internet, and ideally situated to distribute her ideology. Rands online popularity is the result of this fortuitous intersection of power and interests among frequent Internet users. If one date can be established as the turning point for the flourishing of Internet libertarianism, it would most likely be May 16, 2007, when footage of formerRep. Ron Paulssharp non-interventionist rebuttalto Rudy Giuliani in that nights Republican presidential debate became a viral hit. Ron Pauls place in the ideological/cultural milieu that encompasses Randism is undeniable, as evidenced byexposeson their joint influence on college campuses and Pauls upcomingcameoin the movieAtlas Shrugged: Part 3. During his 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns, Paulattractedconsiderableattentionfor his remarkable ability to raise money through the Internet, and to this day he continues to root his cause in cyberspace through a titularonline political opinion channelwhile his son,Sen. Rand Paul, has made no secret of his hope to tap into his fathers base for his own likely presidential campaign in 2016. Even though the Pauls dont share Rands views onmany issues, the self-identified libertarians that infused energy and cash into their national campaigns are part of the same Internet phenomenon as the growth of Randism.

Visit link:
The meme-ification of Ayn Rand: How the grumpy author became an Internet superstar

The place we might hope to get to after weve dealt with all our stupidities Iain Banks on the Culture stories. Photograph: Murdo MacLeod for the Guardian

If the death of Iain Banks last summer left a giant, Culture-shaped hole in your life, it is really worth sampling these hugely detailed and lengthy interviews with the late, great man. Conducted by Jude Roberts for her PhD in 2010, the interviews have just been published by the excellent speculative fiction magazine Strange Horizons, as part of a funding drive that has raised more than $15,000 (9,500) to pay for the magazines 15th year of publication.

The full, strident, and often playful answers he gives here are entirely characteristic of his writing and persona more generally, says Roberts; and its true, many of Bankss answers are a joy.

Many critics and reviewers have claimed that the Culture represents the American Libertarian ideal. Given that this is clearly not the case, how do you characterise the politics of the Culture? asks Roberts. Really? I had no idea, replies Banks. Lets be clear: unless I have profoundly misunderstood its position, I pretty much despise American Libertarianism. Have these people seriously looked at the problems of the world and thought, Hmm, what we need here is a bit more selfishness? I beg to differ.

We also learn that Banks started work on a Culture-English dictionary. I was doing it as a laugh, as a sort of tiny hobby, for a brief while. It was quite fun working out how much information you could pack into a nonary grid but it was always going to be too big a job, and it all felt rather arbitrary, just pulling phonemes out of the air and deciding, Right, thats what General Contact Unit is in Marain (something like Wukoorth Sapoot-Jeerd, if memory serves).

And that the Culture stories are me at my most didactic, though its largely hidden under all the funny names, action, and general bluster. The Culture represents the place we might hope to get to after weve dealt with all our stupidities. Maybe. I have said before, and will doubtless say again, that maybe we that is, homo sapiens are just too determinedly stupid and aggressive to have any hope of becoming like the Culture, unless we somehow find and isolate/destroy the genes that code for xenophobia, should they exist.

It emerges that Banks doesnt think much of work by Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, or Emanuel Levinas (or any other continental philosophers). The little Ive read I mostly didnt understand, and the little I understood of the little Ive read seemed to consist either of rather banal points made difficult to understand by deliberately opaque and obstructive language (this might have been the translation, though I doubt it), or just plain nonsense. Or it could be Im just not up to the mark intellectually, of course.

Theres more so much more. Its got me itching to crack open my old copy of Consider Phlebas, and start the whole thing all over again. Although, is my favourite Culture novel The Player of Games? Decisions, decisions.

See the original post:
Iain Bankss Culture lives on

The Holy Father spoke to an association of Italian doctors last week and his words could not have been more clear. Here is the lead paragraph from the Vatican Insider report:

Fidelity to the Gospel of life and respect for life as a gift from God sometimes require choices that are courageous and go against the current, which in particular circumstances, may become points of conscientious objection, Francis said in todays address to the Italian Catholic Doctors Association. The dominant thinking sometimes suggests a false compassion, that which retains that it is: helpful to women to promote abortion; an act of dignity to obtain euthanasia; a scientific breakthrough to produce a child and to consider it to be a right rather than a gift to welcome; or to use human lives as guinea pigs presumably to save others, the Pope said in his speech.

If anyone doubted Pope Francis pro-life commitment, these words should squash their reservations.

Some pro-life Catholics were worried when Pope Francis said last year that the Church should not obsess only about abortion, contraception, and same-sex marriage. Their worry was in direct proportion to the degree that these same critics had obsessed about the triumvirate of issues which, with euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research, were listed as the five non-negotiable issues by Professor Robbie George, a meme that caught fire in conservative Catholic circles. I pointed out at t he time that, in a sense, none of the Churchs teachings are negotiable, and that this meme amounted to a reduction of Christian ethics to political efficacy. But, there was never any doubt the pope was firmly committed to the pro-life cause. Anyone who has read and pondered the Scriptures must perform some strange intellectual somersaults to be other than pro-life.

These same pro-life advocates who criticized the popes comments on obsession have also tended to dismiss, downplay, or derogate Pope Francis consistently trenchant criticisms of the modern economy and his commitment to social justice. This, too, betrays a political agenda not a sound doctrinal or theological stance. The Churchs pro-life concerns are linked in their essence with the Churchs commitment to social justice.

Now available! National Catholic Reporter at Fifty: The Story of the Pioneering Paper and Its Editors

Buy it today!

In 1997, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops passed a document on Hispanics and the New Evangelization that included this paragraph:

In our country, the modern, technological, functional mentality creates a world of replaceable individuals incapable of authentic solidarity. In its place, society is grouped by artificial arrangements created by powerful interests. The common ground is an increasingly dull, sterile, consumer conformism visible especially among so many of our young people created by artificial needs promoted by the media to support powerful economic interests. Pope John Paul II has called this a culture of death.The New Evangelization, therefore, requires the Church to provide refuge and sustenance for ongoing growth to those rescued from the loneliness of modern life. It requires the promotion of a culture of life based on the Gospel of life.

The phrase culture of death may have been used by partisans to equate with party of death when speaking of the Democrats Cardinal Burke used that unhappy phrase but that equation was always wrong.

View original post here:
Our Pro-Life Pope

Ayn Randis not afeministicon, but it speaks volumes about theInternetthat some are implicitly characterizing her that way, so much so that shes even become a ubiquitous force on thememecircuit.

Last week, Maureen OConnor ofThe Cutwrotea piece about a popular shirt called the Unstoppable Muscle Tee, which features the quote: The question isnt who is going to let me, its who is going to stop me.

AsThe Quote Investigatordetermined, this was actually a distortion of a well-known passage from one of Rands better-known novels, The Fountainhead:

Do you mean to tell me that youre thinking seriously of building that way, when and if you are an architect?

Yes.

My dear fellow, who will let you?

Thats not the point. The point is, who will stop me?

Ironically, Rand not only isnt responsible for this trendy girl power mantra, but was actually an avowed enemy of feminism. AsThe Atlas Society explains in theirarticleabout feminism in the philosophy of Objectivism (Rands main ideological legacy), Randians may have supported certain political and social freedoms for womenthe right to have an abortion, the ability to rise to the head of business based on individual meritbut they subscribed fiercely to cultural gender biases. Referring to herself as a male chauvinist, Rand argued that sexually healthy women should feel a sense of hero worship for the men in their life, expressed disgust at the idea that any woman would want to be president, and deplored progressive identity-basedactivistmovements as inherently collectivist in nature.

How did Rand get so big on the Internet, which has become a popular place for progressive memory? A Pew Researchstudyfrom 2005 discovered that: the percentage of both men and women who go online increases with the amount of household income, and while both genders are equally likely to engage in heavy Internet use, white men statistically outnumber white women. This is important because Rand, despite iconoclasticeschewingideological labels herself, is especially popular amonglibertarians, who are attracted to her pro-business, anti-government, and avowedly individualistic ideology. Self-identified libertarians and libertarian-minded conservatives, in turn, were found by a Pew Researchstudyfrom 2011 to be disproportionately white, male, and affluent. Indeed, the sub-sect of the conservative movement that Pew determined was most likely to identify with the libertarian label were so-calledBusiness Conservatives,who are the only group in which a majority (67 percent) believes the economic system is fair to most Americans rather than unfairly tilted in favor of the powerful. They are also very favorably inclined toward the potential presidential candidacy ofRep. Paul Ryan(79 percent), who is well-known within the Beltway as anadmirerof Rands work (oncetellingThe Weekly Standardthat I give outAtlas Shrugged[by Ayn Rand] as Christmas presents, and I make all my interns read it.).

Rands fans, in other words, are one of the most visible forces on the Internet, and ideally situated to distribute her ideology. Rands online popularity is the result of this fortuitous intersection of power and interests among frequent Internet users. If one date can be established as the turning point for the flourishing of Internet libertarianism, it would most likely be May 16, 2007, when footage of formerRep. Ron Paulssharp non-interventionist rebuttalto Rudy Giuliani in that nights Republican presidential debate became a viral hit. Ron Pauls place in the ideological/cultural milieu that encompasses Randism is undeniable, as evidenced byexposeson their joint influence on college campuses and Pauls upcomingcameoin the movieAtlas Shrugged: Part 3. During his 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns, Paulattractedconsiderableattentionfor his remarkable ability to raise money through the Internet, and to this day he continues to root his cause in cyberspace through a titularonline political opinion channelwhile his son,Sen. Rand Paul, has made no secret of his hope to tap into his fathers base for his own likely presidential campaign in 2016. Even though the Pauls dont share Rands views onmany issues, the self-identified libertarians that infused energy and cash into their national campaigns are part of the same Internet phenomenon as the growth of Randism.

Read the rest here:
How Ayn Rand became an Internet superstar

The fallout from the ill-conceived, poorly construed and seemingly never-ending war on terror has been decisive. Americans now hold an aversion to large-scale ground troop intervention, especially in the Middle East. According to a recent CNN poll, less than 40 percent of Americans favor sending ground troops back into Iraq to battle the Islamic State. However, 75 percent think it is likely or somewhat likely that combat troops are going to be sent into Iraq or Syria.

I have conflicting views on what policy action the U.S. government should seek. The libertarian ideologue within me does not believe in this form of formal, governmental intervention. However, I will endeavor to explain three beliefs. First, not all interventions are created equal. Second, the Islamic States systemic human rights violations and commitment to ideological repression are a travesty that is impossible to ignore. Third, I think intervention might be justified, based on limited-government principles.

As demonstrated by the Vietnam and Iraq wars, intervention can do more harm than good. The fervent anti-Communism that shrouded President Lyndon Johnsons geopolitical decision-making created conditions where Johnson felt that intervention was not only inevitable, but required.

Furthermore, President George W. Bushs assertion regarding the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq proved to be largely false. In fact, Saddam Hussein did not have modern large stockpiles, as the Bush administration contended. U.S. troops did find these weapons, but they were remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West, the New York Times reported. It appears that in these two interventions, data was misconstrued and the decision to intervene was ill-conceived.

According to the Huffington Post, a video has emerged that has a suspected Islamic State fighter describing how he sold Yazidi girls, belonging to an Iraqi minority group, into the slave trade. According to representatives of the Yazidi community, 7,000 Yazidi girls have been kidnapped. On Mount Sinjar, where the Islamic State has surrounded more than 10,000 Yazidis, ISIS forces are taking over Yazidi villages near the mountain one after another, killing the men and selling the women and children into the slave trade, the Daily Beast reported. The Yazidis have also been forced to convert or be killed, Mona Siddiqui wrote in an opinions column for the Guardian this summer.

The Islamic States intentions are expansionary and oppressive and go further than other regimes to violate basic human liberties. In Jason Brennans book Libertarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know, he describes libertarianism as an ideology that promotes radical tolerance. The Islamic State promotes radical intolerance. According to an Australian government report that cited Islamic State public statements, the Islamic State promotes sectarian violence and targets those who do not agree with its interpretations as infidels and apostates.

Therefore, I believe one can justify a more forceful intervention on some form of libertarian grounds. Libertarians, or classical liberals, share a strong belief in the right to enter into consensual contracts and the right to live free from coercion. Libertarian economist Milton Friedman describes the role of government in his book Capitalism and Freedom as a forum for determining the rules of the game and as an umpire to interpret and enforce the rules decided on.

Iraqs constitution affirms individual rights. For instance, Article 23 of the Iraqi constitution affirms that personal property is protected and no property may be taken away except for the purposes of public benefit. Furthermore, Article 7 states that no entity or program, under any name, may adopt racism, terrorism (and) the calling of others infidels in Iraq.

Under the Islamic States rule, Iraq will be unable to act as an arbiter of these fundamental freedoms and aggressions that are clearly being committed. Though former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki took sectarian positions, the aspirations of the Iraqi government in the 2000s were based on liberal values of liberty and freedom. Therefore, if the Iraqi government needs assistance to facilitate its primary function as an arbiter and protector of rights, why cant external governments help it restore its duty? Is there not a moral duty to enter into a contract with the Iraqi government to help it try to restore some commitment to liberal values?

The answers to both of these questions are incredibly unclear. One could argue that an unequivocal ground troop invasion could lead to a restoration of a government founded on liberal principles and restore the nature of government as an umpire through the vehicle of a contract between the Iraqi and American governments. But if the recent history of American intervention is any indication (think Somalia and Iraq), a lack of consequential understanding of the region married with lack of substantial support within Iraq could lead to a futile enterprise that actually does more harm than good. Thus, based on this libertarian framework there is a justification for intervening to fight the Islamic State.

See the original post here:
Rotenberg 17: 51 shades of gray

Libertarianism Explained: American Government Review
Nailing down the basics on the political ideology known as Libertarianism. Take the Political Compass Test here http://www.politicalcompass.org/test Subscribe to HipHughes History, it #39;s stupid...

By: Keith Hughes

Go here to read the rest:
Libertarianism Explained: American Government Review - Video

Libertarianism at the Supreme Court: Obamacare Under Fire, Gay Marriage on the Rise
Libertarianism at the Supreme Court: Obamacare Under Fire, Gay Marriage on the Rise.

By: Aboulissan

Go here to see the original:
Libertarianism at the Supreme Court: Obamacare Under Fire, Gay Marriage on the Rise - Video

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Editor's note: Eric Liu is the founder of Citizen University and the author of several books, including "A Chinaman's Chance" and "The Gardens of Democracy." He was a White House speechwriter and policy adviser for President Bill Clinton. Follow him on Twitter: @ericpliu. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

(CNN) -- Voter turnout was terrible last Tuesday. As President Barack Obama lamented in his post-election press conference Wednesday, two-thirds of voters chose not to vote, making it perhaps the lowest midterm turnout since the 1940s. Conventional wisdom says low turnout favors Republicans, and it did last week. But the days when one party sees low turnout as being in its own interest might be drawing to a close -- and it may be Republicans who will drive the change.

Eric Liu

First, some context. Midterm electorates are typically smaller, whiter and older than presidential electorates. In recent years, the GOP has worked hard to ensure that its shrinking, white, aging base turns out in disproportionately large numbers. And even though there are plenty of Republican leaders who'd like to see their party become younger and more diverse, the practical pressures of here-and-now politics have led them to go into campaigns with the voters they have, not the ones they wished they had.

But on Tuesday, the wishes of those Republicans hoping to expand the base started coming true -- at least on the margins, and enough to suggest a new way forward. While Republicans extended their dominance among older white voters, they also made modest inroads with Latino and Asian-American voters, partly by downplaying the nativist messages of past cycles and partly by exploiting frustration with the Obama administration.

Several new-generation black, Hispanic and Asian Republican candidates were also elected across the country. Meanwhile, GOP leaders such as Sen. Rand Paul have been engaging millennial voters on campuses and elsewhere with an unapologetic libertarianism that resonates with some young people.

As a result, it's possible for a smart Republican to see 2014 not only as a win, but as a hint of how the party could prevail in 2016 as well. To put it simply, the GOP might soon see it as in its own interest to boost turnout among young voters and voters of color, instead of writing them off or, as still happens too often, blocking them from voting at all.

This would be a major departure, to be sure. We're still a long way from a heartfelt and well-executed effort to expand the GOP demographic base. And even if party leaders want it, there are still too many voters who vote Republican precisely because they fear or blame the very people the leaders want to bring into the tent.

Still, it's at least becoming possible now. There is an opening among Latino, Asian and young voters. And it would be fantastic for the country if Republicans pushed to exploit that opening.

Read more from the original source:
New GOP could shake up politics

In a column written just before the election, prominent Harvard Law School Professor and former Obama administration official Cass Sunstein channels the great libertarian economist F.A. Hayeks classic critique of conservatism in his advice to the new GOP majority in Congress:

Instead of conservatism, Hayek argued for a principled commitment to liberty an approach that would sharply constrain government and take an essentially radical position, directed against popular prejudices, entrenched positions and firmly established privileges. Its fair to say that in the current period, Hayeks radical position would entail a strong commitment to free trade, a rejection of protectionism, decreased regulation, deep skepticism about occupational licensing (and other barriers to entry), a firm commitment to religious liberty, and less frequent appeals to patriotism as a substitute for freedom-protecting reforms

In his short essay, Hayek did not deliver a knockout punch against conservatism. But he did land some powerful blows, not least in his objection that conservatives cannot easily work with people whose values differ from their own.

In the coming period, however, Republicans will be under increasing pressure to define themselves affirmatively rather than by opposition. One of their chief goals should be to identify freedom-promoting initiatives that might attract support from people who cannot, by temperament or otherwise, be counted as conservative. They would do well to begin with a close reading of Hayek.

Sunsteins advice that the GOP pursue a radical Hayekian libertarian agenda may be in some tension with his recent critique of paranoid libertarianism, (which I commented on here). Still, I agree with him that Hayeks critique of conservatism remains relevant today. And I would be very happy if the new Republican-controlled Congress were to advance Hayekian reforms of expanding liberty and cutting back government regulation, while also eschewing appeals to nationalism.

Obviously, however, the GOP does not consist solely or even primarily of libertarians who feel the same way as I do. It has many other elements, including a still-strong social conservative contingent that party leaders must cater to in order to hold their coalition together. I am also skeptical about how much support a radical libertarian agenda (or even a moderate one) would attract from Sunsteins fellow liberal Democrats.

That said, I think it is possible to envision the GOP evolving in a more libertarian direction over the next few years. With the very important exception of immigration, the party emphasized libertarian ideas far more than social conservative ones in the fall election. Significantly, they did not even make much of an issue out of the rapidly growing trend towards acceptance of same-sex marriage and marijuana legalization.

Some Republicans have even begun to rethink the War on Drugs and the mass imprisonment it generates. The Tea Party the most dynamic part of the GOP in recent years has largely focused on fiscal and economic issues, and has a substantial libertarian component (though it also has many social conservatives in its ranks).

Meanwhile, younger Republicans are far more socially liberal than their elders. For example, a recent survey finds that 61% of 18-29 year old Republicans support same-sex marriage, and many also support marijuana legalization. Generational succession will likely give such views greater weight in the party over time. By contrast, young Republicans are generally no less suspicious of government spending and economic regulation than older ones. The GOP is still very far from being a libertarian party, and it may never fully become one. But it could well become significantly more libertarian over the next few years than it has been at any time in the recent past.

It is also possible that libertarian-leaning Republicans can cooperate with liberal Democrats on some issues, including cutting back on the War on Drugs, and NSA surveillance, among others. At the same time, past attempts to build a liberaltarian alliance have had only extremely limited success, in part because the gap between libertarians and the left on many issues is very large.

Link:
Volokh Conspiracy: Cass Sunstein channels Hayek

Kyrie Eleison [Totalitarian Libertarianism]
Kyrie Eleison [Totalitarian Libertarianism] Havoc Unit 2012 Havoc Unit Released on: 2012-06-08 Auto-generated by YouTube.

By: Havoc Unit - Topic

Read the original here:
Kyrie Eleison [Totalitarian Libertarianism] - Video