Category Archives: Libertarianism

Cathy Reisenwitz vs Julie Borowski on Stossel Debating Privilege and Libertarianism
http://cathyreisenwitz.com @CathyReisenwitz http://www.youtube.com/user/TokenLibertarianGirl @JulieBorowski.

By: Cathy Reisenwitz

More here:
Cathy Reisenwitz vs Julie Borowski on Stossel Debating Privilege and Libertarianism - Video

Atheism and Libertarianism 10: Belief in Belief
Part 10, covering what Daniel Dennett calls "belief in belief." They may THINK they believe in God or the state, but the evidence shows they really don #39;t. "T...

By: Shane Killian

Read the original post:
Atheism and Libertarianism 10: Belief in Belief - Video

"Oliver Stone, Ayn Rand Pop Art, "Second-Wave Libertarianism": #ISFLC2014
Left-wing moviemaker Oliver Stone talking about his support for Barry Goldwater and Ron Paul. Student for Liberty #39;s Alexander McCobin laying out the basics o...

By: ReasonTV

More here:
"Oliver Stone, Ayn Rand Pop Art, & "Second-Wave Libertarianism": #ISFLC2014 - Video

Evidently sensing that the Republican Party may be in some kind of crisis, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., argued at a recent fundraiser that the GOP should embrace the tenets of his pet political philosophy, libertarianism. But Paul didnt just suggest a conversion from long-held Republican values to libertarian ones; rather he tried to make the case that libertarian values are already consonant with the moral systems that underpin many foundational Republican positions. One of his main rhetorical goals was, therefore, making Christianity and libertarianism seem compatible, to attract traditionally Christian GOP supporters to libertarian ideas.

Even leaving aside the bizarre gesture of pure convenience to Christianity, which seems to have been brought in here as a post-hoc rhetorical flourish to do little more than sweeten the libertarian pot, Paul didnt make a great case for the actual compatibility of Christianity and libertarianism.

Libertarian and liberty doesnt mean libertine, Paul claimed at the gala for the American Principles Project, referring to the tendency of libertarians to prefer government not intervene in various spheres of life, often including the realms of marriage, contraception and abortion. Paul was unclear as to whether he believes the state should have a role in the regulation of marriage and abortion, saying instead, rather cryptically, that Freedom needs tradition to give it its balance and its stability, its sense of family and community, but tradition needs freedom to invigorate it and give it spirit and excitement.

If what Paul intends to say here is that Christianity and libertarianism are amenable to one another because Christianity provides the moral compass libertarianism doesnt have that is, that one can protect marriage and defend against oft-objected to practices like abortion through the selective reference to Christian values by otherwise libertarian political agents the question is: Why would someone with such a commitment to Christianity ever commit themselves to a political philosophy without a similar commitment?

That libertarianism needs the moral framework of a separate philosophy imported into it to prevent it from becoming, as Paul put it, libertinism only indicates that libertarianism itself does not begin from the moral framework of Christianity. Instead, it requires that Christian ethics be tucked into it after the fact, if theres anywhere for them to fit. GOP Christians tempted by Pauls proselytizing should ask themselves this: If libertarianism arises out of a wholly separate ethical framework than Christianity, what authority underlies that framework, and why should they, Christians, respond to it? Moreover, why make oneself beholden to a philosophy that uses Christianity as a mere instrument to support itself morally, rather than one that responds to Christianity as its ultimate and final ethical authority?

When it came to the difficulties Paul had in making his Christo-libertarian case, this was only the tip of the iceberg. In arguing for his oft-cited policies of prison and sentencing reform, he said, As Christians who believe in forgiveness, noting that overly long sentences and penalties such as felon disenfranchisement violate that principle and harm those who deserve a second chance. Here, Paul seems right on the money: The reality for Christians is that the guiltiest are those most in need of mercy and forgiveness, and our current justice system promotes neither value, resulting in the unnecessary destruction of so many lives and communities.

Yet Pauls reasoning here doesnt stand up to the scrutiny of consistent application, which weakens his claim that libertarianism and Christianity are well-committed philosophies. Hes willing, for example, to have mercy on those guilty of crimes by reducing prison sentences, returning felons the right to vote, and doing away with mandatory minimum sentences. This all fits well with Christs call for service to the least of these outsiders, criminals, the poor, the hungry, the sick. But what does Paul imagine in terms of shaping the state to show mercy to people in those other categories? What provisions should the state make for, say, the sick and the poor?

In these arenas, Pauls interest in mercy and the justice of the Gospel seems to mysteriously dry up.

Consider his policy on the delivery of healthcare, as described to a group of University of Louisville medical students in 2013: I think we as physicians have an obligation. As Christians, we have an obligation I really believe that, and its a deep-held belief But I dont think you have a right to my labor. You dont have a right to anyone elses labor. Pauls gambit here was to define healthcare not as a right but as something altogether different and unenforceable. Of course, no one proposes any healthcare policy that would force doctors to labor, only those that would offer doctors money to work, a system under which they already presumably operate; in universal healthcare plans, the payment would just come from a different source than insurance companies or individuals. But Paul is clear: While physicians might have some kind of vague moral obligation to lend a hand to the poor, the state should not, in his view, legitimize that duty by expanding universal healthcare to all. Why the state should exemplify and extend Christian forgiveness and mercy to the criminal but not the ill is anyones guess.

The same curious hesitance toward outreach applies to Pauls policies on poverty. His solution for aiding the impoverished in America? Economic freedom zones, or areas targeted for tax decreases and other incentives to create jobs and generate wealth. Unfortunately for Paul, this hands-off approach to reducing poverty has been tried, tested and proven to fail, featuring no significant difference in economic growth or job creation inside the enterprise zones from the surrounding area.

See the original post here:
Rand Pauls audacious new sham: A phony religious epiphany

This Wednesday I stumbled upon an article in Richmonds Style Weekly magazine covering the Feb. 8 convention of the Libertarian Party of Virginia. According to the articles author Tom Nash, this convention was the biggest and most important for Virginia Libertarians for quite some while. Given the recent relative success of the partys gubernatorial candidate Robert Sarvis (who made his mark by running a seemingly honest, intellectual campaign and winning 6.5 percent of the vote), Nash contends that the party hopes to maintain this momentum by having as many Libertarians as possible on the upcoming ballots.

Apparently, the tactic to achieve this involves inviting everyone on the partys email list to run for office, even if they have no chance of winning. One person who received this invitation was a high school student from the Maggie L. Walker Governors School for Government and International Studies. The student told Nash that he would consider running for office after finishing college.

Anyone who knows me also knows that my politics tend to fall so far left that they occasionally slip off the scale into an alternate universe where the gender binary has been all but eradicated, socialism reigns and everyone is free to sip tea and play with their cats in a borderless world of total equality.

Needless to say, libertarianism is not always consistent with these ideals. I do, however, hold a soft spot in my heart for the well-intentioned rationality of the party, so Nashs article made me wonder how many capable, up-and-coming young people might be drawn into politics by what is essentially a power vacuum in the Libertarian party.

One member of the University of Richmonds chapter of Young Americans for Liberty, Kelly Farley, WC17, said she planned on pursuing business as a career, but could easily see herself in politics: Libertarians are the party of the individual, liberty and, in my opinion, self-responsibility. I would be honored and proud to represent the libertarian opinion some day.

Another UR student, Martha Ashe, WC15, said that although she identified with the Libertarian party philosophically, she chooses to vote Republican because she is fiscally conservative and the party has more traction. She said, While I dont think I would ever run for politics, if I did, it would be hard for me to run as a Libertarian because I dont think the party has as much traction at this time. Ashe added, however, that she is confident we are trending toward a greater support of libertarianism: I do believe that most young people in my generation are Libertarian, whether they realize it or not, and that as my generation matures, the libertarian party will start to gain popularity.

While the upper levels of the two dominant parties in this country can seem like private clubs that require 80 percent networking and 20 percent underhanded dealing to gain entry, it might be that all it takes in Virginias Libertarian party right now is to show up.

Since the platform tends to attract a mixture of young people who are intelligent, ambitious or radical (and occasionally all three), I can happily picture a future where the party is dominated not by gun- and flag-toting old men, but by recent college graduates with clear plans for a more free country. Whether or not I support the whole ideology, I would rather have a relevant faction of young, educated people than not.

Read the original:
Recruiting the next generation of political leaders

FFF Webinar: Libertarianism: The Moral and the Practical

By: The Future of Freedom Foundation

See more here:
FFF Webinar: Libertarianism: The Moral and the Practical - Video

Libertarianism and liberation, part 2
via YouTube Capture.

By: Bruce Majors

Here is the original post:
Libertarianism and liberation, part 2 - Video

(Thinkstock Image)

On Saturday, about 1,500 students from all over the world gathered to discuss freedom at the Students for Liberty Conference in Washington, D.C.

Economist Donald Boudreaux showed the students a department store catalog from 1958 to underscore how the free market, while contributing to income inequality, also dramatically improved the lives of the poor: "The typical American worker back then had to work 30 hours to buy this vacuum cleaner. Today, a worker has to work only six hours to buy a much better vacuum cleaner. And that's true for clothing, food, all sorts of things."

That's how free markets work: quietly, gradually improving things. That doesn't always appeal to impatient young people or to radical old people who fancy themselves social engineers who should shape the world.

Such social engineering is revered on campuses. A student from Quebec complained that economists about whom his fellow students learn are "Keynesians, who believe that breaking windows is good for the economy, or neoclassicals, who believe in unrealistic assumptions like perfect competition and perfect information."

If there were a part of America for which the American students at this conference felt a special pride, it was the Constitution. "The Constitution of the United States is a promise about how government power will be used," Timothy Sandefur, author of The Conscience of the Constitution, told them. "A promise was left to us by a generation who lived under tyrannical government and decided they needed a framework that would preserve the blessings of liberty."

These students appreciated that inheritance, although they said the Constitution is rarely discussed at their schools. They surprised me by knowing the correct answer to my question: How often is the word "democracy" used in the Constitution?

Answer: never. The founders understood that democracy may bring mob rule tyranny of a majority. So the Constitution focuses on restricting government to secure individual liberty.

If anything, these students were stauncher in their defense of liberty than the Founders.

Kelly Kidwell, a sophomore from Tulane University, said, "Regardless of what its intent was, we still have the [big] government that we have now so the Constitution has either provided for that government, or failed to prevent it."

Visit link:
Students for Liberty conference shows a young approach to libertarianism

February 18, 2014|9:30 am

Leah Stiles Hughey speaks at the Christianity and Libertarianism Panel at the International Students for Liberty Conference while her husband, Jason Hughey, and Philip Luca look on in Washington, D.C. Feb. 15, 2014.

Correction Appended

WASHINGTON Young Evangelicals argued that Christianity and libertarianism are compatible, and some even claimed that Christians should advocate for libertarian causes.

"Christians actually ought to feel outraged that the redemptive power of charity has been taken from us and given to an unfeeling, coercive state," Leah Stiles Hughey declared at a Saturday panel at The International Students for Liberty Conference. She claimed that when government gets involved in giving to the poor it denies the God-given human dignity of both giver and receiver.

Hughey's husband Jason explained that "the Bible is not a book of political theory." Nevertheless, "there are themes we get from the Bible that give a good foundation for Christians to embrace libertarianism or even anarchy," Jason Hughey said.

The Hugheys and three other panelists provided 5 reasons why they believe Christians can be libertarian in their political beliefs.

1. Christianity Celebrates Voluntary Action, Value Creation

Jacqueline Otto Isaacs speaks at the Christianity and Libertarianism Panel at the International Students for Liberty as Elise Amyx and Taylor Barkley look on, Washington, D.C. Feb. 15, 2014.

Jacqueline Otto Isaacs, a blogger at Values & Capitalism, explained that the Christian worldview also supports libertarianism. "The message of the Gospel, the good news, is that salvation from our sins is offered through Christ this salvation is voluntary and individual, and this is the core message of Christianity," Isaacs declared.

Link:
5 Reasons Christianity and Libertarianism are Compatible, Young Evangelicals Say

How to Talk to Left and Right About Libertarianism: Anthony Gregory on the Tom Woods Show
Anthony Gregory joins Tom to talk about how libertarians can reach the Left and the conventional Right. Subscribe to the Tom Woods Show: http://www.TomWoodsR...

By: TomWoodsTV

View post:
How to Talk to Left and Right About Libertarianism: Anthony Gregory on the Tom Woods Show - Video