Category Archives: Libertarianism

Nena Bartlett on "big picture" libertarianism
at LibertyFest.

By: Bruce Majors

Visit link:
Nena Bartlett on "big picture" libertarianism - Video

The BFP Roundtable Debates Anarchism, Socialism and Libertarianism
SUPPORT BFP: http://ur1.ca/ge4h7 In this edition of the BoilingFrogsPost.com Roundtable, James Corbett, Sibel Edmonds and Peter B. Collins welcome Andrew Gavin Marshall for a discussion of...

By: boilingfrogspost

See the rest here:
The BFP Roundtable Debates Anarchism, Socialism and Libertarianism - Video

Every election, America faces a battle between two dominant political parties, which in turn divides America. We bicker about the opposing partys policies and are distracted by trivial matters. We then elect a new president who typically behaves similarly to the one prior. Four or eight years down the road, half the country regrets who they cast their vote for. This scenario has essentially been an ongoing ordeal for decades. The American people have let the establishment of the two dominating parties overshadow the possibility ofnew voices in American politics. But there is a fresh alternative to the Democrats and Republicans we have all come to love and hate: Libertarians.

Putting aside talking points from watching an hour of MSNBC or Fox News, what are the legitimate differences between Democrats and Republicans? Well, lets start with Americas history of military interventionism. Many people consider Democrats to be anti-war, whereas Republicans are considered warmongers hence the anti-Condoleezza Rice sentiment among the University faculty. However, since World War II, history in the White House has shown an overwhelming pursuit of war, regardless of which party held office.

For example, our current president continues Middle Eastern interventionism, global spying programs and unrestricted drone use, and he is a Democrat. Somalia intervention was under Bill Clinton, a Democrat. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars were under George W. Bush, a Republican. The Gulf War was under the President Bush senior, also a Republican. The Vietnam War was started under John F. Kennedy and continued through Johnsons administration. Both were Democrats. It was Franklin D. Roosevelt who established the Japanese internment camps across the United States through executive order. The striking similarity in both parties foreign policy suggests the need for a new party that would boldly proclaim their pro-diplomacy, pro-peace and anti-war policies.

Similarly, both political parties have enacted social programs costing the nation billions of dollars, which hinder prosperity. Social Security was established by FDR in light of the depression to secure finances for most Americans. A program generally deemed successful in the 20th century, is now seen as one of the largest threats to the nations financial wellbeing. Today, the pool of resources set aside to pay for Social Security is used for other back-door deals in Washington. We are a generation of taxpayers who are paying into a system we will not redeem the benefits from. A modern example of this is the Affordable Healthcare Act, or Obamacare. Our current Democratic president championed this health care reform package, but the idea of universal health care in America actually stemmed from the circles of D.C. Republicans some decades ago. A social program championed by Republicans that has already failed is the No Child Left Behind Act. This system of standardized testing in public schools was scrapped under the Obama administration from the 2009 stimulus package. It was replaced by a new system of standardized tests called the Common Core. These complicated social programs work against liberty and prosperity, the essential principles of libertarianism.

Democrats and Republicans have been on the wrong side of history for quite some time, whereas Libertarians have been consistent in advocating for all liberties for decades. Years before it was even mentioned in democratic circles, libertarians have been advocating for marriage rights due to their understanding that the government does not belong in ones bedroom. Similarly, as the United States has increased its war on drugs especially since the Reagan administration, libertarians have been advocating for the decriminalization of marijuana. This comes out of concern over Americas astronomical incarceration rate. In light of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars when the two main parties united, libertarians stood strong and opposed the Mid-East conflicts.

The Libertarian Party has the potential to be the party of grand compromise in a time when America could use it most. As the nation is split between which liberties to advocate for, economic or social, libertarians advocate for both. Seeing liberty as a whole truth, you will always find a libertarian that stands for transparency, privacy, individual rights, prosperity and peace.

Matthew Boyer is a School of Arts and Science sophomore with a major in political science and a minor in German. His column, Legalizing Life, runs on alternate Wednesdays.

See more here:
Libertarianism offers fresh perspective on politics

Craig residents Sacha and Travis Mero are running for House Representative District 57 and for Congressional District 3, respectively.

The married couple doesnt anticipate easy wins, but they do want to get the message out about Libertarianism and challenge the two-party system. They both got the go-ahead at the Colorado Libertarian caucus in April and will be on the November ballot.

Sacha Mero ran for the District 8 State Senate seat in 2012, and said she got 4.5 percent of the vote without any campaign funding.

That just shows how much people are fed up with our two-party system, she said.

But, now the two are working together and setting up a local Libertarian group to garner more support.

This time, we have a lot more organization, Travis Mero said.

Theyre talking to people in the districts, campaigning and raising funds. Their goal is to challenge voting along a party line and to start conversations.

A lot of people will find they lean Libertarian, Sacha Mero said.

The Meros said thats because Libertarians fall in the middle on a lot of issues. Libertarianism is about personal liberty and limiting government power, Sacha Mero said.

The couple is for broad Second Amendment rights, same-sex marriage, a womans right to choose and the legalization of drugs. They want to limit government reach, empowering local governments to have the most power.

See the rest here:
Two Craig Libertarian candidates are running for state legislative offices

Libertarianism- Jeff, Ashley, Cheyenne

By: Julie Phelan

The rest is here:
Libertarianism- Jeff, Ashley, Cheyenne - Video

The Synthesis of Rights and Consequences (with Tom G. Palmer)
Typically we think of justifications for libertarianism as falling into one of two kinds of categories: consequentialism and rights-based. Are these two justifications necessarily at odds with...

By: Libertarianism.org

Visit link:
The Synthesis of Rights and Consequences (with Tom G. Palmer) - Video

Is Libertarianism a Utopian idea ? Countering Stefan Molyneux #39;s straw man.
Is Libertarianism a Utopian idea ? Countering Stefan Molyneux #39;s straw man.

By: notregme

Originally posted here:
Is Libertarianism a Utopian idea ? Countering Stefan Molyneux's straw man. - Video

Submitted by Logn Albright of the Mises Canada blog,

As libertarianism begins to gain in popularity and seep into the youth culture, there is increasing pressure from certain strains of the movement to attempt to modify the theory and transform it into something that it is not.

To begin with, let us examine what is meant by the term libertarian, what its limits are, and what it attempts to explain. Libertarianism is exclusively a political philosophy describing the legitimate use of force in society. It claims that humans have the right of self-ownership, and that theft, assault and other forms of aggression violate this right, except in the case of legitimate self-defense against an aggressor. This is where the philosophy begins and ends, and although some libertarians dispute the circumstances under which force is acceptable (the Night Watchman state versus no state at all), it still has the legitimate use of force as its core.

It is not an economic philosophy, although its conclusion tends to support free market capitalism due to the lack of coercion inherent in such a system. Still, there is no dictum against collective ownership so long as it is voluntary. This is what anarcho-communism is all about.

Similarly, libertarianism has little to say about politics except for what follows directly from its central precept. Taxes are immoral because they involve coercion. Democracy is no better than dictatorship if it imposes the will of the many onto the few by force. And so on.

But because libertarianism has become fashionable among a certain segment of the population, and because we wish to expand the movement and convert others to it, there has been a push to expand this simple definition into a more holistic ethical code encompassing every aspect of life, almost akin to a religion. We are told that non-discrimination based on superficial characteristics like race and sex is an inherently libertarian position. It is not. So long as discrimination does not violate anyones rights of self-ownership, the theory simply has nothing to say about it (although we can observe that a capitalistic system is unlikely to encourage such behavior due to the way it tends to impact profits.)

Where these well-meaning meddlers go wrong is in assuming that just because libertarianism per se doesnt have a position on racism, that libertarians qua human beings do not have such a position either. This is absurd. Libertarianism is by its nature a narrow philosophy, with plenty of room to coexist along with other philosophies as well. Just as being a vegetarian does not exclude one from being Jewish, so does being a libertarian not exclude one from being a humanitarian.

We are more than a simple political philosophy, and while this defines the moral lens through which we see much of the world, it is not the totality of our being. For example, libertarianism has nothing to say on the subject of suicide. If we own ourselves, we have the right to terminate ourselves. Period. However, no libertarian I have ever met would encourage such an activity, and most would find it utterly reprehensible. The point is that you can hold a belief that something is wrong without having to fold it into a specific political philosophy where it has no business being.

Granted, certain ethical outlooks fit nicely within libertarianism while others do not. Kants categorical imperative that we treat humans as ends in themselves rather than means to an end works well, as does the Biblical Golden Rule, treat others as you would like to be treated. They are not explicitly part of libertarian theory, but they are compatible with it.On the other hand, one would be hard pressed to combine a restrictive set of laws, such as Sharia, with the non-aggression principle.

The trouble is that by attempting to redefine a narrow political philosophy to encompass all things that we like and think are nice like non-discrimination, like treating people as ends rather than means we dilute its power and simplicity. We destroy what makes it great. Once we proceed down the road of declaring everything we think is good to be libertarian, we will quickly find that libertarianism suddenly has no meaning at all.

Read more from the original source:
As libertarianism begins to gain in popularity and seep into the youth culture, there is increasing pressure from ...

Submitted by Logn Albright of the Mises Canada blog,

As libertarianism begins to gain in popularity and seep into the youth culture, there is increasing pressure from certain strains of the movement to attempt to modify the theory and transform it into something that it is not.

To begin with, let us examine what is meant by the term libertarian, what its limits are, and what it attempts to explain. Libertarianism is exclusively a political philosophy describing the legitimate use of force in society. It claims that humans have the right of self-ownership, and that theft, assault and other forms of aggression violate this right, except in the case of legitimate self-defense against an aggressor. This is where the philosophy begins and ends, and although some libertarians dispute the circumstances under which force is acceptable (the Night Watchman state versus no state at all), it still has the legitimate use of force as its core.

It is not an economic philosophy, although its conclusion tends to support free market capitalism due to the lack of coercion inherent in such a system. Still, there is no dictum against collective ownership so long as it is voluntary. This is what anarcho-communism is all about.

Similarly, libertarianism has little to say about politics except for what follows directly from its central precept. Taxes are immoral because they involve coercion. Democracy is no better than dictatorship if it imposes the will of the many onto the few by force. And so on.

But because libertarianism has become fashionable among a certain segment of the population, and because we wish to expand the movement and convert others to it, there has been a push to expand this simple definition into a more holistic ethical code encompassing every aspect of life, almost akin to a religion. We are told that non-discrimination based on superficial characteristics like race and sex is an inherently libertarian position. It is not. So long as discrimination does not violate anyones rights of self-ownership, the theory simply has nothing to say about it (although we can observe that a capitalistic system is unlikely to encourage such behavior due to the way it tends to impact profits.)

Where these well-meaning meddlers go wrong is in assuming that just because libertarianism per se doesnt have a position on racism, that libertarians qua human beings do not have such a position either. This is absurd. Libertarianism is by its nature a narrow philosophy, with plenty of room to coexist along with other philosophies as well. Just as being a vegetarian does not exclude one from being Jewish, so does being a libertarian not exclude one from being a humanitarian.

We are more than a simple political philosophy, and while this defines the moral lens through which we see much of the world, it is not the totality of our being. For example, libertarianism has nothing to say on the subject of suicide. If we own ourselves, we have the right to terminate ourselves. Period. However, no libertarian I have ever met would encourage such an activity, and most would find it utterly reprehensible. The point is that you can hold a belief that something is wrong without having to fold it into a specific political philosophy where it has no business being.

Granted, certain ethical outlooks fit nicely within libertarianism while others do not. Kants categorical imperative that we treat humans as ends in themselves rather than means to an end works well, as does the Biblical Golden Rule, treat others as you would like to be treated. They are not explicitly part of libertarian theory, but they are compatible with it.On the other hand, one would be hard pressed to combine a restrictive set of laws, such as Sharia, with the non-aggression principle.

The trouble is that by attempting to redefine a narrow political philosophy to encompass all things that we like and think are nice like non-discrimination, like treating people as ends rather than means we dilute its power and simplicity. We destroy what makes it great. Once we proceed down the road of declaring everything we think is good to be libertarian, we will quickly find that libertarianism suddenly has no meaning at all.

Go here to see the original:
What Libertarianism Is Not

Mark Driefus makes a post about libertarianism
ELMONT!

By: Blessy Elsa Kurian

See the original post:
Mark Driefus makes a post about libertarianism - Video