Category Archives: Libertarianism

Douglas Carswell, a libertarian, won the Clacton-on-Sea by-election after defecting from the Conservatives to Ukip(Reuters)

This is the Dawn of the Libertarian. Young people just don't love the state in the same way their parents and grandparents did.

Generation Y, the under-thirties, is far more liberal than past generations. If the polls are to be believed, they are the most liberal generation in Britain's history. In both social and economic senses: they believe not just in drug decriminalisation, but lower taxes too.

"We do not pretend to know what is best for everyone, and so we feel that decisions are ideally taken by the persons directly affected by them," said Mark S. Feldner, president of Cambridge Libertarians, a group for students at one of the world's best universities.

"This scepticism about concentrated power, central planning and top-down regulation also encourages individuals to accept responsibility for their own actions."

Feldner was one of the Generation Y libertarians interviewed for an IBTimes UKfeature on the rise of libertarianism among young people in the UK.

And Douglas Carswell, a libertarian defector from the Conservatives to Ukip, just increased his parliamentary majority in a Clacton-on-Sea by-election. He's now Ukip's first elected MP.

But what do you think? Take our poll and show us.

Excerpt from:
Douglas Carswell Wins Clacton for Ukip: Are You a Libertarian? [POLL]

Lew Rockwell discusses the life and works of Murray Rothbard with Tom Woods.

Tom Woods: In two minutes or less, why is Rothbard important to begin with?

Lew Rockwell: Well, Rothbard is important for a couple of reasons. First of all, because he was such a significant scholar as an economist, as an historian, as a political philosopher. He was an original thinker, and a very compelling thinker, a man who created, among other things, modern libertarianism, by combining nineteenth-century American anarchism and Austrian economics and natural law based in Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas. And really its a durable and fascinating philosophy. It explains what we need to be concerned about; in a sense it explains how to proceed. Its extremely compelling. Everything of Rothbards was compelling.

If you speaking to the people listening to us havent read Rothbard, just pick up anything by Murray, and its all for free online at mises.org, and theres a lot at LewRockwell.com as well. Just take a look at any essay of Murrays, lets say The Anatomy of the State, which is one of his famous essays. Youre immediately pulled into it. Hes so clear. Hes so logical; hes so persuasive. Youll never be the same again. I mean, this is true of many, many of Rothbards works; they really are life-changing, based on the immense knowledge that he had.

And this is somebody, so far as I can tell, who knew everything. Now of course Im exaggerating, but only slightly. In the areas that he was interested in, he pretty much knew everything just such deep and well-analyzed and rigorous knowledge. He read everything; he remembered everything. If you were in his apartment which was full of books, almost humorously full of books and you were asking Murray a question, hed say, well, you know, thats covered in that particular book on that shelf, there it is, the third one from the left, chapter 3 and pages 29-36. I mean, he had that kind of knowledge.

Yet he was a humble guy, not at all arrogant, one of the most charming people you could ever meet, extremely funny; he was like a standup comedian in addition to all his scholarly abilities and his teaching abilities, very charming, very welcoming, and never put down students. I think of him in contrast to Milton Friedman, who was a brilliant guy, too, but was famous for humiliating a student who asked a question Friedman either thought was stupid or he didnt like the question for whatever reason. Rothbard was never like that. He was just a great human being as well as just, I think, no question one of the extraordinary men of the twentieth century, and maybe will in the future come to be seen as an extraordinary figure over a much broader time span.

TW: Before we get into the overview of his life, I want to say something, before I forget, about Rothbard that I dont think Ive ever said before. When you look at what he was engaged in doing in his scholarly work, as opposed to the various popular articles he would write for periodicals, he could write scholarly work that was respected by the academic community. For example, his book The Panic of 1819 got very good reviews in the professional journals, published by Columbia University Press, great. But a lot of the rest of his scholarly work, like Man, Economy and State, The Ethics of Liberty, a lot of this stuff, he knew for a fact there would be no academic audience for it; if there were, it would be only an audience that would condemn him. Theres no popular audience for this scholarly work either, so whos he writing this for? And the answer is he can only be writing for posterity, and I suppose to a lesser degree for himself, for the sake of the ideas. He did this knowing full well hes not going to be appointed chairman at the economics department at Harvard; hes already been purged from National Review, so libertarian economic ideas or at least his name expressing those ideas is not going to be welcome in that magazine, and yet he kept on churning out an enormous amount of output without getting the commensurate reward. And he kept on doing it and kept on doing it.

Today you and I have instant gratification: you write an essay it goes up on the Internet. The next day, people write you emails telling you how great you are. He didnt have that kind of feedback; he didnt have that kind of audience; he didnt have that kind of technology. And look what he produced.

LR: Well he really was such an extraordinary guy, and of course he enjoyed money; he loved buying books, for example. But money was not the chief motivator in his life. Of course this is one of the ways in which Austrian economics differs from mainstream economics: we dont think of man as homo economicus; there are other things that motivate people besides money, although again money is a great thing, its necessary. Murray taught for a very long time at a very minor school in New York, Brooklyn Polytechnic, only getting a job there because he was such an expert exponent of the case against the Vietnam War. And of course, like everything else Murray got interested in, he knew everything about it. He knew everything about the history of Vietnam, the previous interventions, all the people that were important on the North Vietnamese side, the Viet Cong, the South Vietnamese, the American government, the French government and so forth. He felt they were so impressed by him that he felt that they sort of overlooked or didnt really care about his other views. Later, when they realized what his other views were, they never would have hired him because it was pretty much a left-wing outfit. He made at the height of his income there at Brooklyn Polytechnic, $26,000 a year. So he never had much money, exactly like Mises when he famously told Margit, the woman who was going to be his wife: I just want to warn you Im going to write much about money, Im not going to have much of it.

TW: (laughs) Thats exactly it.

Read more:
Murray N. Rothbard: The Man and His Work

Google Chairman Eric Schmidt on the Libertarianism of the Tech Industry
"How Google Works" co-author and Good Chairman Eric Schmidt joins Glenn Beck to talk about how to run a business well, and the libertarianism inside the tech industry. See more: http://TheBlaze.co...

By: TheBlaze

See the original post:
Google Chairman Eric Schmidt on the Libertarianism of the Tech Industry - Video

Christian conservatives are often the subject of study by academics, who seem to find their culture as foreign as that of Borneo tribesmen. And this is a particularly interesting time for brave social scientists to put on their pith helmets and head to Wheaton, Ill., or unexplored regions of the South. They will find communities under external and internal cultural stress.

It is fair to say some cultural views traditionally held by evangelicals are in retreat. Whatever the future of political libertarianism, moral libertarianism has been on the rise. This is perhaps the natural outworking of an enlightenment political philosophy that puts individual rights at its center. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy described this view as the right to define ones own concept of existence.

Traditional religious views involve a belief that existence comes pre-defined. Purpose is discovered, not exerted. And scripture and institutions a community of believers extended back in time are essential to that discovery. This is not the spirit of the age.

It was not really the spirit of any age. But many evangelicals believe it was, subscribing to the myth of a lost American Eden. There has certainly been a cultural shift in America on religion and public life. But it has largely been from congenial contradiction to less-sympathetic contradiction. There is more criticism of the veneer of Protestant spirituality in public places. There is also a growing belief that individual rights need to be protected, not only from the state but from religious institutions that dont share public values.

The reaction of evangelicals to these trends varies widely. They can accommodate to the prevailing culture, as many evangelicals have already done on issues such as contraception, divorce and the role of women. Or they can try to fight for their political and cultural place at the table, as other interest groups do.

A recent study, Sowing the Seeds of Discord, by a group of scholars associated with the Public Religion Research Institute, describes a mix of reactions. There is some evidence that younger evangelicals are more socially accepting of social outgroups, including gays and lesbians. But there is no evidence this shift is changing political allegiances. White evangelicals remain reliably and monolithically Republican.

My interpretation: Even as some evangelical cultural views change along with broader norms, the Democratic Party is still viewed as a hostile instrument of secularization.

But the most interesting finding of the study concerns where disaffection with conservative politics is developing among evangelicals. On a number of questions Should under God be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance? Does religion solve more social problems than it creates? evangelical millennials expressed more negative views on the social role of religion according to an unexpected pattern. Those who lack friends and ties outside evangelicalism are more critical of traditional evangelical views.

My interpretation: A desperate, angry, apocalyptic tone of social engagement alienates many people, including some of the children of those who practice it.

Conservative evangelicals are responding to a culture that does not always share their values. But a purely reactive model of politics is not attractive, even internally. And the problem is not only strategic but theological. A Christian vision of social engagement that is defined by resentment for lost social position and a scramble for group advantage is not particularly Christian.

See the original post:
Michael Gerson: Introspection time for evangelicals

Environmental Degradation: Libertarianism #39;s Achelies Heel
Are Libertarians really so pro-market?

By: Activeassholeonroids

Continue reading here:
Environmental Degradation: Libertarianism's Achelies Heel - Video

The libertarian sentiment reflects the pitchfork politics that gave rise to the Tea Party on the right and the Occupy movements on the left that were both fuelled by public disillusion with the power of conventional politics to deliver anything other than the stagnant status quo.

Measuring the potential electoral impact of libertarianism is difficult precisely because it cuts across traditional party lines, which is both its protean strength and political weakness in an era of big money politics.

Put a capital 'L' on libertarianism and it largely evaporates Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate in 2012, won only 1 per cent of the popular vote (1.2m people), but research by the Cato Institute, the libertarian think-thank, points a much deeper pool of Americans with libertarian leanings.

When they asked voters if they considered themselves "fiscally conservative and socially liberal also known as libertarian", some 44 per cent of Americans were happy to be placed in that category.

The politician most obviously trying to capitalise on the idea that Americans aren't quite so easily pigeonholed into red and blue boxes is Rand Paul, a Republican senator from Kentucky who the bookies rate as a leading contender for 2016.

As the son of veteran libertarian Ron Paul, his formula will be to bring libertarian ideas off the fringe where his cranky dad always languished and into the mainstream, tapping that well of disaffection that resonates across party lines.

The younger Paul has demonstrated a knack for cutting through when it comes to popular issues.

When riot police overstepped the mark in Ferguson, Missouri following the shooting of a black teenager this summer, it was Mr Paul who spoke out about the obscene militarisation of American police forces, hitting a sweet spot with both young liberals and conservative anti-big government types.

In the same vein and in a rare moment of bipartisanship, Mr Paul is working with a Democrat colleague to end the mandatory sentencing laws that are clogging up America's bloated and broken jail system with non-violent offenders, at vast cost and to little good effect.

It is a bold gambit that could resonate both with minorities particularly African-Americans who are disproportionately sentenced and the young drug decriminalisation lobby which has gathered strength since Colorado and Washington state legalised marijuana in 2012.

The rest is here:
American Way: between Democrats and Republicans, a libertarian "third force" is emerging

All About - Libertarianism
What is Libertarianism? A report all about Libertarianism for homework/assignment Libertarianism (, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as...

By: All About

The rest is here:
All About - Libertarianism - Video

TIME Ideas faith The New Archbishop of Chicago Is a RadicalAnd Thats a Good Thing Archbishop-Elect Blase Cupich speaks to the press on September 20, 2014 in Chicago, Illinois. Scott OlsonGetty Images

Robert Christian is the editor of Millennial, a PhD Candidate in Politics at The Catholic University of America, and a graduate fellow at the Institute for Policy Research and Catholic Studies.

Pope Francis did not waste any time laying out his vision for the Catholic Churcha church of mercy, of and for the poor, where there is a culture of encounter, rather than indifference or culture war. He has modeled humility, simplicity and dialogue, but his vision for Church is radical, and his latest appointment reflects that radicalism and is set to reshape the American church.

For Americans, no part of Pope Francis message has been more challenging than his critique of radical individualism. Individualism seems rooted in the American DNAand we see it reflected in our politics, from the rise of the Tea Party to the rhetoric of pro-choice activists. Our fiercest fights are over rights, real or imagined, while the responsibilities associated with rights are often left out of the discussion entirely. We seem to understand the need for a vibrant civil society in our democracy, but we still end up bowling alone.

Pope Francis offers a different vision, one that is incompatible with our excessive focus on autonomy, choice and individual self-interest. Cardinal Sean P. OMalley of Boston, a prominent figure in the American church, shares this vision and has also denounced the extreme individualism of our age. But now, with the selection of Blase Cupich as the next archbishop of Chicago, Pope Francis has given OMalley a key ally and shown his willingness to translate the Francis effect into episcopal appointments, a move that will reshape the face and the focus of the Church in the US.

Bishop Cupich has been labeled a moderate by some who are analyzing the appointment through the prism of American politics. In some sense this is true. He is committed to finding common ground and engaging in civil dialogue. He rejects the confrontational brand of politics associated with the culture war.

But Pope Francis message is fundamentally radical, and Cupich, like Cardinal OMalley, embraces that radicalism. This approach is rooted in a commitment to reaching out to those on the margins and peripheries and results in radical policies that fully reflect the dignity and worth of the vulnerable and poor. Given the inequalities that exist in our society, this vision is profoundly egalitarian. While Cupichs pastoral skills undoubtedly made him appealing to Francis, his appointment signals the depth of Francis commitment to reorienting the focus of the Church to those at the margins.

In terms of the personal lives of American Catholics, this approach challenges our materialism and consumerism. It challenges those who see Catholicism as something that is done for an hour on Sundays, instead demanding that all Catholics live it out in their day-to-day lives. It is a challenge to reject living a safe, self-absorbed existence and get outside of our comfort zones.

In terms of politics, what is offered is a communitarian approach that is rooted in solidarity rather than enlightened self-interest, in personalism rather than the bourgeois liberalism of the left and right. It aims for the global common good and calls for the radical transformation of existing social structures, both in the United States and internationally, that foster economic and social injustice, along with the social exclusion of the poor and vulnerable.

In response to the epidemic of radical individualism, OMalley argues, The Churchs antidote is community and solidarity. Bishop Cupich has challenged both individualism and the libertarianism that often follows in its wake. At a recent conference that contrasted Catholic thinking and libertarianism, he said, By uncoupling human dignity from the solidarity it implies, libertarians move in a direction, that not only has enormous consequences for the meaning of economic life, and the goal of politics in a world of globalization, but in a direction which is inconsistent with Catholic Social Teaching, particularly as it is developed by Pope Francis.

Originally posted here:
The New Archbishop of Chicago Is a RadicalAnd Thats a Good Thing

Out of Left Field - Libertarianism
Minimum government, maximum freedom! Here we discuss why we believe libertarianism doesn #39;t make a bit of sense.

By: Out of Left Field Podcast

Read this article:
Out of Left Field - Libertarianism - Video

Christian conservatives are often the subject of study by academics, who seem to find their culture as foreign as that of Borneo tribesmen. And this is a particularly interesting time for brave social scientists to put on their pith helmets and head to Wheaton, Ill., Colorado Springs or unexplored regions of the South. They will find a community under external and internal cultural stress.

It is fair to say that some cultural views traditionally held by evangelicals are in retreat. Whatever the (likely dim) future of political libertarianism, moral libertarianism has been on the rise. This is perhaps the natural outworking of an enlightenment political philosophy that puts individual rights at its center. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy described this view as the right to define ones own concept of existence.

Whatever else traditional religious views may entail, they involve a belief that existence comes pre-defined. Purpose is discovered, not exerted. And scripture and institutions a community of believers extended back in time are essential to that discovery. This is not, to put it mildly, the spirit of the age.

It was not, as far as I can tell, really the spirit of any age. But many evangelicals believe it was, subscribing to the myth of a lost American Eden. There has certainly been a cultural shift in the United States on religion and public life. But it has largely been from congenial contradiction to less-sympathetic contradiction. There is more criticism of the (thin) veneer of Protestant spirituality in public places. There is also a growing belief that individual rights need to be protected, not only from the state but also from religious institutions that dont share public values. In the extreme case, this means that nuns who dont want to participate in the provision of contraceptives are interfering with conceptual self-definition.

The reaction of evangelicals to these trends can (and does) vary widely. They can accommodate to the prevailing culture, as many evangelicals have already done on issues such as contraception, divorce and the role of women (without talking much about it). Or they can try to fight for their political and cultural place at the table, as other interest groups do.

A recent study, Sowing the Seeds of Discord, by a group of scholars associated with the Public Religion Research Institute, describes a mix of reactions. There is some evidence that younger evangelicals are more socially accepting of social outgroups, including gays and lesbians. A higher proportion of evangelical millennials (more than 40 percent) support gay marriage than do evangelicals overall. But there is no evidence this shift is changing political allegiances. White evangelicals remain reliably and monolithically Republican.

My interpretation: Even as some evangelical cultural views change along with broader norms, the Democratic Party is still viewed as a hostile instrument of secularization a perception reinforced by the health-care mandates of the Obama era.

But the most interesting finding of the study concerns where disaffection with conservative politics is developing among evangelicals. On a number of questions Should under God be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance? Does religion solve more social problems than it creates? evangelical millennials expressed more negative views on the social role of religion according to an unexpected pattern. Those who lack friends and ties outside evangelicalism are more critical of traditional evangelical views. Millennials, according to the study, react more negatively and see less value in religious socialization when they have more homogenous networks . The authors believe this small but significant shift represents a rejection of the embattled, political subculture of their parents.

My interpretation: A desperate, angry, apocalyptic tone of social engagement alienates many people, including some of the children of those who practice it.

Conservative evangelicals, like other religious people before them, are responding to a culture that does not always share their values. But a purely reactive model of politics is not attractive, even internally. And the problem is not only strategic but theological. A Christian vision of social engagement that is defined by resentment for lost social position and a scramble for group advantage is not particularly Christian.

Read more:
Gerson: Introspection time for evangelicals