Category Archives: Libertarianism

Libertarianism and liberation pt 1
via YouTube Capture.

By: Bruce Majors

Excerpt from:
Libertarianism and liberation pt 1 - Video

WOW MUST SEE George Galloway vs. Libertarianism : Ron Paul " MLK day is hate whitey day " !
1 strike PLZ sub to my back up channel http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC06StA75rt3uUM_EKXC413g Join Cip n Kev on our Radio show G.U.N.N Sundays 6pm - 8pmUK t...

By: cip1883

Follow this link:
WOW MUST SEE George Galloway vs. Libertarianism : Ron Paul " MLK day is hate whitey day " ! - Video

The Case Against Libertarianism (Starmexus Classic)
I was watching some old videos from back in the day when I was starmexus. I realized that many of my arguments still apply today.

By: Yewon2001

See more here:
The Case Against Libertarianism (Starmexus Classic) - Video

RE: Debunking Libertarianism Part 1
http://neoclassicalginger.blogspot.com/ In this Video I go over argument by argument of Jason Unruhe #39;s Debunking Libertarianism video. All footage in questio...

By: neoclassicalginger

Follow this link:
RE: Debunking Libertarianism Part 1 - Video

There isn't much political logic to dredging the old scandal upexcept as a move to shore up his credibility with social conservatives skeptical of libertarianism.

In recent weeks, one Republican after another has come forward to rebut the Democratic claim that the GOP is waging a war on women. The responses have ranged from homey (Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers responding to Barack Obamas State of the Union address by noting that shed given birth just eight weeks earlier) to creepy (former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee saying Democrats think women cant control their libidos.) But perhaps most puzzling has been the tack taken by Rand Paul, who in interview after interview after interview has accused Democrats of hypocrisy for claiming to support womens rights while giving Bill Clinton a pass for his predatory behavior towards Monica Lewinsky.

Yes, Monica Lewinsky, who enjoyed her 15 minutes of fame 16 years ago. Luckily for Democrats, Paul hasnt cottoned on to their affection for John F. Kennedy (naked White House pool parties with suspected communist spies) and Franklin Roosevelt (died in the presence of his mistress).

It doesnt take long to grasp the flaws in Pauls strategy. For starters, Clintons infidelities didnt hurt his popularity at the time. Between January 1998, when the Lewinsky scandal broke, and February 1999, when the senate voted not to impeach him, Clinton registered the highest approval ratings of his presidency:

And women backed him at higher rates than men. Hillary Clinton, who many consider Pauls real target, registered her highest popularity during that same period:

Once the impeachment circus ended, Bill Clintons popularity did dip, leading some to suggestas they continued too throughout the 2000 campaignthat the country was suffering Clinton fatigue. But the problem for Paul is that these days, Americans seem fatigued with the fatigue. A July 2012 Gallup poll found Clintons approval at an impressive 66 percent, higher than it had been since he left office. Among women, Clintons approval rating was 63 percent. It was 44 percent among Republicans. By comparison, President Obamas most recent approval ratings are 43 percent among women and 12 percent among Republicans. Which helps explain why Paul is the only prominent figure in todays GOP spending as much time attacking the last Democratic president as the current one.

So why the anti-Clinton offensive? Because Paul isnt speaking to most Americanshes speaking to the Christian right. Paul is presumably well aware that while economic conservatives loved his father, social conservatives did not. In the Iowa caucuses, for instance, Ron Paul won 28 percent among voters who said the deficit was their primary issue but only seven percent among those who said it was abortion.

For months now, Rand Paul has been trying to make inroads where his father did not. Last June, at a conference organized by former Christian Coalition Executive Director Ralph Reed, he put a new twist on his skepticism about foreign aid, arguing that America is funding Islamic regimes that oppress Christians. There is a war on Christianity, he insisted, and your government, or more correctly, you, the taxpayer, are funding it. Last October, he told students at the Jerry Falwell-founded Liberty University that America is in a full-blown spiritual crisis. And last week, he told the anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage American Principles Project that Libertarian doesnt mean libertine I dont see libertarianism as, you can do whatever you want. There is a role for government, theres a role for family, theres a role for marriage, theres a role for the protection of life.

Pauls effort to revive Lewinsky-gate is best seen as part of this effort. Given that one of his key selling points in the GOP primary will be his (relative) support among younger Americans, Paul cant exactly crusade against gay marriage or the legalization of pot. Bashing Bill Clinton provides a politically safer way to champion moralism. It certainly helped George W. Bush, who in 2000 won Christian right votes, despite playing down social issues, because he played up his personal, anti-Clintonian religious and moral code. Paul seems to be attempting something similar, telling Maureen Dowd, In my small town, we would disassociate, we would in some ways socially shun, somebody that had an inappropriate affair with someones daughter or with a babysitter or something like that. (Paul actually lives in the third biggest city in Kentucky, but you get the point).

Pauls anti-Clinton gambit reminds us that, ideologically, the GOP is divided into three parts, not two. Theres a Tea Party wing focused primarily on debt and the size of government, a socially conservative wing concerned primarily about abortion and the governments alleged hostility to people of faith, and a party establishment thats more hawkish on foreign policy and more willing to make the ideological compromises necessary to win. Pauls challenge is to solidify his support among the first group while making gains with the second two. Its no coincidence that as he was courting social conservatives last week by bashing Bill Clinton, he was courting establishment hawks by writing a letter to Obama arguing that only Congress should have the power to lift sanctions on Iran.

View post:
Why Is Rand Paul Talking About Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky?

libertarianism,political philosophy that takes individual liberty to be the primary political value. It may be understood as a form of liberalism, the political philosophy associated with the English philosophers John Locke and John Stuart Mill, the Scottish economist Adam Smith, and the American statesman Thomas Jefferson. Liberalism seeks to define and justify the legitimate powers of government in terms of certain natural or God-given individual rights. These rights include the rights to life, liberty, private property, freedom of speech and association, freedom of worship, government by consent, equality under the law, and moral autonomy (the pursuit of ones own conception of happiness, or the good life). The purpose of government, according to liberals, is to protect these and other individual rights, and in general liberals have contended that government power should be limited to that which is necessary to accomplish this task. Libertarians are classical liberals who strongly emphasize the individual right to liberty. They contend that the scope and powers of government should be constrained so as to allow each individual as much freedom of action as is consistent with a like freedom for everyone else. Thus, they believe that individuals should be free to behave ... (200 of 4,040 words)

Original post:
libertarianism (politics) -- Encyclopedia Britannica

Internet-savvy Tea Party activists have shoved the once small-government fringes of the Republican party into the spotlight, with Libertarian-leaning Sen. Rand Paul a leading figure.

At the State of the Net Conference, I spoke with this new leader in the Republican party, asking about what life wouldbe like for innovators if he and his small-government brethren continue their rise to power.

I kept it deliberately philosophical to understand how Paul will view issues in the future. Here are a few take-aways.

Science Funding, If You Can Find It

The real explosion of the Internet was the lack of control, argues Paul, in response to my question about if the Internets origins in military labs proves that government is essential to American innovation.

Paul maintains that we shouldnt overestimate the need for government to support Silicon Valley. But, hes a fan of federal-funded science and technology, just so long as it doesnt add to the countrys trillion-dollar-sized debt. Id rather spend the money on R&D if theres not a marketplace for that, he says.

Paul is admirably consistent here; scientistsfreaked out over one of his early budget proposals to slash R&D funding, but calmed down after he brokered a deal with Democrats that would slightly increasefundsfor higher education and research (by finding other programs to cut, of course).

Civil Liberties Galore And No Killing Of Hackers

Paul infamously said that whistleblower Edward Snowden and intelligence director James Clappershould share the same jail cell(Clapper for lying to Congress). I pressed Paul on how he would treat information activists.

There do have to be some rules and there are some problems with disclosing secrets and people could die, he warns. But, security hawks are calling for the death penalty for Edward Snowden, and I think thats inappropriate.

See the original post:
One Silicon Valley, Under Libertarian Hero Senator Rand Paul

The idea that one may get along without the help of others is so obviously false that its affirmation amounts to a confession of some form of ignorance at best. One cannot grow to adulthood without help from others. That should settle the matter. Apparently however, some adults believe themselves capable of getting along without the help of others. To this I would simply say Show me. Can the entrepreneur get along without customers, or the industrialist without workers? The simple truth is, they cannot. Yet somehow I dont expect the simple truth to be taken seriously, which is a sign of something. They tend to regard their customers or workers as interchangeable parts. They tend to think that they are therefore more needed than in need. But this is not the normal state of affairs. Yes, the addict needs the dealer more than the dealer needs him. But non-addicts do not need the dealer at all. Likewise, those not addicted to convenience can do without the vast majority of what the industrialist and the entrepreneur have to offer. Now all of this is rather obvious. What blinds us to it is our addiction to convenience. (I say our to include myself as such an addict. My only advantage is to have recognized the problem.)

Like Loading...

. Bookmark the

.

Here is the original post:
Libertarianism | graalbones

Harvard Law Professor (and recent OIRA head) Cass Sunstein has had some columns lately on Bloomberg View that seem to be squarely in my wheelhouse as an originalist and a libertarian. The most recent one is Resist the Sirens Call of Originalism. Before that was How to Spot a Paranoid Libertarian.

The columns have a striking similarity, in that they both attack extremist or caricatured versions of originalism and libertarianism, and appear to concede that the moderate version has some virtues.

Paranoid libertarianism, says Sunstein, is defined by five characteristics: 1, a belief that government will inevitably abuse its authority in any given area; 2, a presumption of bad faith by government officials; 3, a sense of victimization; 4, a refusal to engage in tradeoffs; and 5, an enthusiasm for slippery slope arguments. (These characteristics seem overlapping to me.)

Yet so far as I can tell, Sunsteins criticism of the category has nothing to do with non-paranoid libertarians, or with those who identify as classical liberals. For a good example on the other side, see this recent column by Richard Epstein, who distinguishes classical liberalism from libertarianism.

It is a little less transparent, but the same thing seems to be going on in Sunsteins column on originalism. Sunsteins three objections to originalism are 1, that the Constitution itself may not embrace originalism since it uses abstract terms; 2, some things (like wire-tapping) were unanticipated by the framers; and 3, originalism would deeply unsettle modern law, unless it embraces precedent, in which case it doesnt count as originalism.

Objections 1 and 2 are simply not true of most sophisticated originalists, who acknowledge that when a constitutional provision was intended to have broad or evolving scope, the originalist thing to do is to give it broad or evolving scope. (This also makes it easy to accommodate new situations.)

To be sure, originalists do sometimes argue that people like Sunstein are far too quick to assume that a provision is broad and abstract, but this a difference in application, not theory. Serious originalists ought to agree with Sunstein that a provision should not be interpreted to be more originalist than it was originally intended to be.

Objection 3 brings us back to a recurring theme of my recent originalist posts. Critics of originalism dont get to just declare that embracing precedent which nearly all originalists do, to differing extents is not the originalist position. Or if they do wish to define originalism so as to exclude most of its practioners, then they ought to be clear that they are attacking only an extreme version of the theory.

So it seems to me that the upshot of Sunsteins columns ought to be: extreme originalism and paranoid libertarianism are bad, though regular originalism and libertarianism are (apparently?) fine. Yet I fear that by the fallacy of mood affiliation, readers may think Sunstein has also struck a blow against regular originalism and regular libertarianism.

More:
Thoughts on Cass Sunsteins criticisms of libertarianism ...

February 6, 2014|5:20 pm

Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul addresses the American Principles Project Annual Gala in Washington, DC on Wednesday night.

WASHINGTON U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) argued for libertarianism, saying it is compatible with Christianity and will help Republicans win elections and attract minorities, at the gala for The American Principles Project, a socially conservative group founded by Robert P. George.

"There are some issues that can move the party forward, and some of those issues I would call libertarian issues," Paul declared. He admitted that "to some that's a bad word, but to others I think it's a word that may expand the party."

Paul argued that these issues do not have to come at the expense of social issues, such as life and marriage. "Libertarian and liberty doesn't mean libertine," he argued. The Senator referred to Don Devine's book America's Way Back, explaining that liberty and tradition go hand in hand.

Freedom and Tradition

"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," Paul declared. He claimed that, in libertarianism, there is a role for government, family, marriage, and the protection of life. "I asked last year at the March [for Life], 'Can a nation or a civilization long endure that doesn't respect life?' I don't think they can."

Paul also emphasized the marriage issue. "I think marriage is important, not only for social and religious and moral reasons, but it's incredibly important just for economic reasons," the Senator declared. He cited Charles Murray's book Coming Apart, explaining that the rich and the poor live in "two worlds" with different choices. "There's enormous amounts of poverty in the world that doesn't make it to college and doesn't get married," Paul summarized.

"This isn't a problem that government can always fix," the Senator warned, "but we all need to be part of trying to fix it."

Christian Forgiveness

Read more here:
Rand Paul: Libertarianism is Compatible With Christianity, Will Help Republicans Win Elections, Attract Minorities