Category Archives: Libertarianism

Sen. Rand Paul has won several recent straw polls and surveys, and his brand of libertarianism seems to be on the rise in his party. But anointing him the early GOP front-runner for 2016 may be going too far.

Is Rand Paul really the front-runner for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination? Theres some chatter to that effect at the moment among Washingtons pundit class. It was sparked by last weekends victory for the Kentucky senator in another straw poll, this one at the Northeast Republican Leadership Conference. Then CNN/ORC released a poll on Sunday with Senator Paul leading the list of potential nominees for GOP and GOP-leaning voters.

Washington Editor

Peter Grier is The Christian Science Monitor's Washington editor. In this capacity, he helps direct coverage for the paper on most news events in the nation's capital.

Subscribe Today to the Monitor

Click Here for your FREE 30 DAYS of The Christian Science Monitor Weekly Digital Edition

As CNN notes, thats a feat that Pauls father, Ron Paul, never accomplished in all his years running for president.

Plus, Paul is already making good use of his fathers base of committed donors, notes Washington Post political expert Chris Cillizza. Hes done well in the early-voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire. Pauls brand of libertarianism seems to be on the rise in his party, particularly among young Republicans.

Its past time people start taking him seriously as a potential Republican nominee, Mr. Cillizza writes.

Well, sure. Paul himself seems intent on making a serious run. Where his fathers presidential efforts seemed more purely ideological, based on promoting the libertarian brand, Paul is doing the sort of stuff you do if you actually plan on trying to win the thing. Thus hes established an alliance of sorts with the very establishment Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, his fellow Kentuckian.

Read more from the original source:
Rand Paul 2016: Front-runner or overrated?

Poverty is back in the news, for several reasons. The first is the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon Johnsons 1964 War on Poverty speech. In addition, Republican congressman and 2012 vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan has released a much-criticized report about federal poverty programs. In 2012 the Romney-Ryan ticket suffered from Mitt Romneys dismissive comments about the 47 percent and conservative caricatures of the poor as welfare-dependent moochers and takers. Ryans attempt at a version of what George W. Bush called compassionate conservatism appears to be an effort at rebranding the right as something other than an alliance of Have-Lots and Have-Somes against Have-Nots.

Public debate about poverty typically focuses on the causes of poverty, rather than the cures. The causes of poverty are many and various. You may be poor because you are the child of poor parents; or because you grew up in an economically distressed urban or rural region; or because you were bankrupted by unexpected medical bills; or because you lost all your money gambling on imaginary real estate in Second Life (this actually occurred, in a case of which I know). Because poverty has multiple causes, policies must be equally numerous, if the goal is to avert or prevent poverty in the future.

But its not necessary to avert or prevent poverty in the future in order to cure the poverty that already exists in the present, for whatever reason. Let me illustrate this point with an example. The treatment of victims of gunshot wounds in the emergency room may be identical even though one gunshot wound was caused by a shooting in the course of a robbery, another by a failed suicide attempt and a third by reckless play with a firearm. Doctors and nurses can treat the victims of the gunshot wounds now, while leaving others to propose better policing, better suicide-prevention counseling and better firearm safety training in the future.

Fortunately, drastically reducing existing poverty in the U.S. is not a difficult intellectual problem, even though it is a difficult political problem. With sufficient political will, we could slash existing poverty in the U.S. very quickly, while simultaneously trying to prevent as much poverty as possible in the future. Some public policy problems, like averting global warming or regulating shadow banking, are incredibly complex. By comparison, antipoverty policy is simple.

We know exactly what we need to do to radically reduce poverty in America. We know that it could be done, and we know how to do it, because many other First World democracies have slashed poverty already.

Among developed nations, the U.S. is an outlier in having a high proportion of its population living in poverty. Among the 34 member nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), in 2010 on average 11.1 percent of the population suffer from relative income poverty. In the U.S. , however, the number is 17.4 percent. Among developed countries, only Chile (18%), Turkey (19.3%), Mexico (20.4%) and Israel (20.9%) have more of their people living in poverty, according to the OECD.

The low-poverty nations tend to be Scandinavian countries like Sweden (9.1%), Norway (7.5%), Finland (7.3%) and Denmark (6.0%). Some on the right argue that it is wrong to compare small, relatively homogeneous countries with a giant, pluralistic, continental society like the U.S. Others argue that the English-speaking countries as a whole are willing to tolerate more poverty and inequality than the Nordic social democracies.

The numbers dont support these arguments. Among the most populous Western states are France (7.9%) and Germany (8.8%), both of which have around half as many people in poverty as the U.S., notwithstanding their own growing immigrant populations. And while all English-speaking countries tend to be less statist than continental European societies, all of the other anglophone nations have considerably less poverty than the U.S., including Australia (14.4%) and Canada (11.9 %). Indeed, three English-speaking countries Ireland (9.0%), the UK (10.0 %) and New Zealand (10.3%) have fewer citizens in poverty than the OECD average in 2010 of 11.1%.

How do other countries do it? They dont necessarily have fewer poor people to begin with. According to an OECD study, with respect to pre-tax, pre-transfer poverty, the U.S., at 13, ranked in the middle of 26 high-income nations. When it comes to post-tax, post-transfer poverty, however, the U.S. was nearly the worst, second only to Israel.

The difference is entirely the result of government social spending on the poor mostly in the form of transfer payments, like public pensions, unemployment insurance, child subsidies and/or wage subsidies. Many other developed democracies start out with lots of poor people, just like the U.S. But the countries with big welfare states remove most of them from poverty. The American welfare state does lower the poverty rate but not enough. The American welfare state is way too small to be effective in doing its job of lowering poverty.

Excerpt from:
Paul Ryans worst nightmare: Heres the real way to cut poverty in America

Bryan Cutsinger "Philosophic Structure of Libertarianism" March 8, 2014
Bryan Cutsinger "Philosophic Structure of Libertarianism" March 8, 2014.

By: Liberty Toastmasters North

Original post:
Bryan Cutsinger "Philosophic Structure of Libertarianism" March 8, 2014 - Video

Snowden's leaks about NSA surveillance have launched a broad discussion about civil liberties, and Rand Paulis using civil liberties and NSA overreach as themes with which to frame his brand of libertarianism.

Will Edward Snowden affect the 2016 presidential race? Yes, its early yet, so in some ways the question appears very premature. But Snowdens leaks about the extent of National Security Agency surveillance have launched a wide-ranging discussion about civil liberties in the US. And its already clear that the issue could play a part in the contest for the Republican presidential nomination in particular.

Washington Editor

Peter Grier is The Christian Science Monitor's Washington editor. In this capacity, he helps direct coverage for the paper on most news events in the nation's capital.

Subscribe Today to the Monitor

Click Here for your FREE 30 DAYS of The Christian Science Monitor Weekly Digital Edition

Thats because Sen. Rand Paul (R) of Kentucky is using civil liberties and NSA overreach as themes with which to frame his brand of libertarianism. This was on full display at the just-completed Conservative Political Action Conference in suburban Washington, D.C. Senator Pauls speech was almost entirely about the NSA and what he sees as its infringement on the rights of Americans.

Paul said the American Revolutions sons of liberty would make a bonfire of the secret orders that authorize NSA actions. In a reference to NSA monitoring of cell phone metadata, he said that I believe what you do on your cell phone is none of their [expletive] business.

Paul brought up the lawsuit hes filed against the NSA for its activities, and said he was talking about electing lovers of liberty, not just Republicans.

Dont forget, there is a great battle going on for the heart and soul of America, Paul said.

See more here:
Will Edward Snowden affect presidential race? Rand Paul hopes so.

Snowden's leaks about NSA surveillance have launched a broad discussion about civil liberties, and Rand Paulis using civil liberties and NSA overreach as themes with which to frame his brand of libertarianism.

Will Edward Snowden affect the 2016 presidential race? Yes, its early yet, so in some ways the question appears very premature. But Snowdens leaks about the extent of National Security Agency surveillance have launched a wide-ranging discussion about civil liberties in the US. And its already clear that the issue could play a part in the contest for the Republican presidential nomination in particular.

Washington Editor

Peter Grier is The Christian Science Monitor's Washington editor. In this capacity, he helps direct coverage for the paper on most news events in the nation's capital.

Subscribe Today to the Monitor

Click Here for your FREE 30 DAYS of The Christian Science Monitor Weekly Digital Edition

Thats because Sen. Rand Paul (R) of Kentucky is using civil liberties and NSA overreach as themes with which to frame his brand of libertarianism. This was on full display at the just-completed Conservative Political Action Conference in suburban Washington, D.C. Senator Pauls speech was almost entirely about the NSA and what he sees as its infringement on the rights of Americans.

Paul said the American Revolutions sons of liberty would make a bonfire of the secret orders that authorize NSA actions. In a reference to NSA monitoring of cell phone metadata, he said that I believe what you do on your cell phone is none of their [expletive] business.

Paul brought up the lawsuit hes filed against the NSA for its activities, and said he was talking about electing lovers of liberty, not just Republicans.

Dont forget, there is a great battle going on for the heart and soul of America, Paul said.

Read this article:
Will Edward Snowden affect presidential race? Rand Paul hopes so. (+video)

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

National Harbor, Maryland (CNN) -- It would be a mistake to read too much into the speeches, breakout sessions and late-night parties that took place at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference.

Thousands of right-leaning activists made the pilgrimage here this year, to a convention hall outside the nation's capital. They were greeted, as they are every year, by a bevy of candidates, bloggers, political operatives and more than a few hucksters out to make a buck.

But it's tough to glean any sweeping insight into the state of the conservative movement just by hanging out at CPAC for a few days and talking to its most rock-ribbed and outspoken partisans.

And yet: The confluence of big name Republican speakers -- many of them potential White House contenders -- makes the three-day event impossible to ignore.

CPAC crowd chants, 'Run, Sarah, run!'

Here are five big takeaways from CPAC 2014:

1. This is Rand's house: Rand Paul's blowout win in the presidential straw poll Saturday -- he won more than a third of the vote, easily besting second-place finisher Ted Cruz -- cemented his place as the King of CPAC.

Rand Paul convincingly wins CPAC straw poll

Paul's address here on Friday, unapologetically heavy with libertarian sentiment, was far and away the best-received speech of the weekend. The room was packed and Paul, wearing jeans, was interrupted repeatedly by standing ovations. After his appearance, he joined his wife, Kelley, across the street from the convention center at a packed restaurant for an open bar happy hour with fired-up supporters.

Originally posted here:
5 things we learned from CPAC

SFL Webinar Series: "Libertarianism and Peace" with Tom G. Palmer
Students For Liberty joined students from all over the world on Thursday February 27th at 8pm ET for a webinar discussion led by Dr. Tom G. Palmer, Executive...

By: StudentsForLiberty

Read the rest here:
SFL Webinar Series: "Libertarianism and Peace" with Tom G. Palmer - Video

Explaining Libertarianism to Politicians Stefan Molyneux for the Brazilian Mises Institu
Stefan Molyneux, host of Freedomain Radio, discusses philosophy, atheism and libertarianism with a variety of Brazilian politicians, academics and intellectu...

By: Slyvia Ventura

See more here:
Explaining Libertarianism to Politicians Stefan Molyneux for the Brazilian Mises Institu - Video

Libertarianism - Cast your Vote!
Edited by Alex Gonzalez Featured: Jake W. Calle, Robert Styles, Ben J. Jackson #46.

By: Alex Gonzalez

Read more here:
Libertarianism - Cast your Vote! - Video

Freedom or Slavery? The Debate between Libertarianism/Voluntarism and Social Democrats/Socialists
Corey from newamericangovernment.org address the lack of clearness of terms that socialists use when debating vs libertarians. Read more about libertarianism...

By: governmentrepair

See more here:
Freedom or Slavery? The Debate between Libertarianism/Voluntarism and Social Democrats/Socialists - Video