Category Archives: Libertarianism

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul is, from all indications, planning to run for president in 2016. Yet while Tea Party Republicans love Paul in part for his known affinity for libertarianism, that same reputation poses a bit of an obstacle for Paul when it comes to wooing social conservatives, who tend to see libertarianism as morally bankrupt and depraved. If Paul wants to have any shot at being the GOPs nominee in 2016, hell have to either win over, or at least placate, these still-vital members of the GOP coalition.

Thats the context you need to understand to interpret Pauls recent speech for the American Principles Project(APP), a right-wing activist group that holds very conservative views on abortion and same-sex marriage.

While speaking to the APP, the anti-choice Paul tried to assuage his audiences fears by insisting that libertarianism and social conservatism can work together in perfect harmony. To some, thats sort of still a bad word, Paul said of libertarianism. To others, its a word that may expand the party.

Libertarian doesnt mean libertine, Paul continued. To many of us, libertarian means freedom and liberty. But we also see that freedom needs tradition.

Paul then tried to tie his support for prison reform as fundamentally Christian in nature. I think there are things we can and should talk about, as Christians, who believe in forgiveness, Paul said.I think the criminal justice system should have some element of forgiveness.

Hoping to seal the deal, Paul then played his trump card: implicitly comparing himself to Ronald Reagan.

Everybody else told Reagan to shut up, too, he said. They said, Shut up and wait your turn.

See more here:
Rand Paul tries to sell social conservatives on libertarianism

Sen. Rand Paul on Wednesday outlined his vision for the future of the Republican Party, offering a conservative case for embracing the libertarian-leaning wing of the GOP, of which he is a pillar.

Paul, a Kentucky Republican and possible 2016 presidential contender, outlined several more libertarian issues that could help the party move forward during a speech at a patriotically themed gala in Washington.

To some thats sort of still a bad word, Paul said of libertarian. To others its a word that may expand the party.

(PHOTOS: Highlights from Rand Pauls filibuster)

In the speech sponsored by the American Principles Project, a deeply conservative organization with a special focus on social issues, Paul offered up jokes and wry commentary. But he also sought to bridge the oft-perceived gap between libertarians and strict social conservatives.

Libertarian doesnt mean libertine, he said. To many of us libertarian means freedom and liberty. But we also see that freedom needs tradition.

He added: 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.

Paul stressed that the value of marriage is economic, as well as moral and religious, and that those virtues can be communicated through families and communities as well as through the government.

(QUIZ: Do you know Rand Paul?)

He also singled out criminal justice reform as one area that could help the Republican Party expand and improve its brand.

See the original post here:
Paul: 'Libertarian' isn't 'libertine'

Five Stupid Things About Libertarianism REBUTIFIED!
This is a response to Steve Shives "Five Stupid Things About Libertarianism". See the original here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJwN-EwBOgM Download MP3 ...

By: Counter Intuition

Read more here:
Five Stupid Things About Libertarianism REBUTIFIED! - Video

Adam Kokesh on libertarianism
Adam Kokesh mulls out what it really means to be a libertarian. In Cedar Rapids iowa.

By: truther1776

Original post:
Adam Kokesh on libertarianism - Video

How the West Virginia Chemical Spill Explains the Problem With Libertarianism

By: Occupy Democrats

View original post here:
How the West Virginia Chemical Spill Explains the Problem With Libertarianism - Video

NEW YORK, Feb. 4 (UPI) -- Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro penned a blog post on the National Reviews website where he blamed the death of actor Philip Seymour Hoffman on the broken leftist culture that dominates Hollywood.

Hoffman was found dead on Sunday in his Manhattan apartment from an apparent heroin overdose.

Shapiro was complimentary of Hoffmans skills, calling him one of the most talented actors of his generation, a leading man without leading-man looks, an actor whose magnetism onscreen sprang from intelligence and fervor rather than appearance.

He then quickly changed gears to rip the culture in Hollywood.

Libertarianism becomes libertinism without a cultural force pushing back against the penchant for sin; Hollywood has no such cultural force, Shapiro wrote. In fact, the Hollywood demand is for more self-abasement, less spirituality, less principle, less standards.

The 46-year-old actor starred in films including Capote, Almost Famous and Boogie Nights.

The post concluded:

No one knows what sort of demons plagued Seymour Hoffman. But without a sound moral structure around those in Hollywood who have every financial and talent advantage, the path to destruction is far too easy.

[National Review]

Continued here:
Ben Shapiro blames Philip Seymour Hoffman's death on 'broken leftist culture'

Drawing from his comprehensive, star-studded course at The Citadel, Mallory Factor, the New York Times bestselling author of Shadowbosses, brings together a fascinating and diverse range of essays from leading figures and activists which explore and illuminate the conservative intellectual tradition in American politics. The Big Tent offers a panoramic portrait of the intellectual history of the conservative movement. Some of the leading lights of the Right offer an unparalleled introduction to conservative figures and ideas, from the Revolution to William F. Buckley; Barry Goldwater to the Reagan Revolution; Libertarianism to the War on Terror.

Mallory Factor is the John C. West Professor of International Politics and American Government at The Citadel and is a FOX News contributor. He is the co-founder and co-chair of The New York Meeting, a nationally-recognized gathering of elected officials, journalists, business leaders and conservative authors in New York City. He is also the co-founder and chair of a similar meeting in Charleston, South Carolina. A member of the Council on Foreign Relations, he served as Vice-Chair of the Council on Foreign Relations Task Force on Terrorism Financing. He previously served as chairman of the Free Enterprise Fund, a free market "do" tank advocating economic growth, lower taxes and limited government, and brought the Constitutional challenge to the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board to the Supreme Court.

Mallory FactorEditor

Director, Lectures & Seminars Read More

Read the original:
Big Tent: The Story of the Conservative Revolution As Told by the Thinkers and Doers Who Made It Happen

Sink Attempts to Derive The Difference Between Libertarianism And Libertarianism

By: RisingICYMI

Read more:
Sink Attempts to Derive The Difference Between Libertarianism And Libertarianism - Video

Sham Liberalism Falling, True Libertarianism Rising
The Alex Jones Show 1/31/14.

By: kaptainglom

Read more from the original source:
Sham Liberalism Falling, True Libertarianism Rising - Video

The rise of behavioral economics has long been seen by statists as a body blow to libertarianism. By arguing that people are irrational consumers who are easily manipulated, behavioral economics seems to argue for state intervention to save us from ourselves. In his best-seller Predictably Irrational, behavioral economist Dan Ariely claims that irrational consumers invalidate arguments in favor of the free market, namely those that ague that free consumer choice leads to the most efficient and productive economy. Since consumers are irrational, Ariely claims, we need the government to step in and regulate the economy.

For many, more government is a reasonable conclusion from Arielys premise of consumer irrationality. If consumers cant rationally select the goods and services they need, than perhaps government can choose more wisely for them. But when you look deeper, behavioral economics provides a convincing indictment of the political system.

Behavioral economists claim that consumers cannot rationally pick products in the free market. But if thats the case, what makes us qualified to pick the elected officials who promise to run our lives for us? Within Arielys analysis, two issues the power of free and the concept of herding point out how the premise of consumer irrationality undermines any faith in the concept of electoral politics.

Behavioral economists argue that consumers lose their minds when were confronted with the word free. In Predictably Irrational, Ariely argues that free, is an emotional hot button a source of irrational excitement. To prove his claim, he cites an experiment where consumers were first asked to choose between a $0.01 Hersheys kiss and a $0.30 Lindt truffle. Consumers chose the Lindt by big margins, because at $0.30 a Lindt truffle is a steal. But when the experimenters lowered the price of each product by $0.01, so the Lindt became $0.29 and the Hersheys kiss became free, the number of consumers choosing the Hersheys more than doubled.

According to Ariely, the lure of getting something for free short-circuited peoples rationality and caused them to choose a worse product, just because it was free.

Before we go on, we must note that Arielys conclusion that our love of free is irrational ignores the idea of subjective value. If consumers get a certain thrill from obtaining a free product, then consumers are simply making the rational calculation that the value of the thrill exceeds the value of the Lindt chocolate. Ariely defines the excitement created by the word free as irrational, but the excitement is simply part of the calculation made by consumers. For Ariely, the value of a product only counts if it can be calculated in dollar figures, but of course, we know this is not true.

Whether we call it irrational or not, though, theres little doubt that the term free has a huge bearing on peoples mental calculations. But if people are as obsessed with free as Ariely claims, why then can we be qualified to vote? How can we as consumers be trusted to choose between politicians who offer us free healthcare, free welfare benefits, a free pristine environment, or free money? Faced with a reasonable, smart politician who promised us government services we would have to pay for, and a less qualified politician who lied and promised us free government, Arielys experiment suggests that consumers would irrationally choose the latter. But irrational political consumption undermines any argument for a big, democratically-elected government because it rejects the ideal that well elect the best and brightest to lead us.

Behavioral economists also stress the concept of herding: people attach value to something that other people attach value to. Ariely brings up the example of restaurant lines. If you see five people waiting in a line outside a restaurant, you might think, wow, that restaurant has five people waiting to get in; it must be great! You might get in line. The next person to come by, seeing now six people outside the restaurant, will then think the same thing. Both of you get in line, but neither of you knows if the food inside is even any good. Consumers line up, not because they know they want the product theyre lining up for, but because the product is popular.

To the extent that this concept is real, it too is an argument against big representative government. It implies that voters will choose their candidate not according to who is best but according to who is most popular. People will vote for Obama because their friends did, but their friends may have voted for Obama because of the herding factor as well. According to behavioral economics, we could expect plenty of people to vote for Obama (or Romney, or any other candidate) without having any good reason to do so.

A functional republic relies on a rational, smart electorate to choose its leaders. Thats why so many people trust big government they trust the purifying effects of the electoral process, and trust that the best and brightest will win voters trust and be elected to office. From there, the best and brightest can wisely manage the country and the lives of its citizens.

Read more:
Behavioral Economics and Irrational Voters