Category Archives: Libertarianism

The Word That Best Defines Libertarianism Is Non Intervention Ron Paul1].3gp
The Word That Best Defines Libertarianism Is Non Intervention Ron Paul1].3gp.

By: Ayesha Noreen

More here:
The Word That Best Defines Libertarianism Is Non Intervention Ron Paul1].3gp - Video

WATCH Krauthammer #39;s Take: Other than Obamacare, Biggest 2013 Story is Rising Libertarianism
WATCH Krauthammer #39;s Take: Other than Obamacare, Biggest 2013 Story is Rising Libertarianism WATCH Krauthammer #39;s Take: Other than Obamacare, Biggest 2013 Stor...

By: GOLDEN MAN

Visit link:
WATCH Krauthammer's Take: Other than Obamacare, Biggest 2013 Story is Rising Libertarianism - Video

Right-wing libertarian that he is, Rand Paul isnt much for using the federal government to make the world a slightly less terrible place. It was hardly a surprise, then, to find out the Kentucky senator opposed extending emergency unemployment compensation, preferring instead to let it expire for some 1.3 million in late December, with millions more to come after that. EUC is a federal government program, after all; and worse still, its one whose primary beneficiaries are the unemployed, a population with little political influence or social standing. Youd expect, in other words, Rand Paul to leave these people shuddering in the winter cold. Its what his rigid vision of libertarianism requires.

What was less predictable, however, was Pauls stated justification for opposing EUC. Rather than talk about makers and takers and the economys winners and losers, Paul attempted to repackage his laissez faire absolutism as a kind of tough love empathy. He pointed to a study that, he claimed, showed those on EUC had a harder time reentering the workforce (an interpretation one of the studys authors subsequently differed with). He talked about how those advocating for an EUC extension were doing a disservice to Americas long-term unemployed workers. He made kicking millions to the curb sound like nothing less than an act of benevolence, bordering on charity. Whether it was a feat of self-delusion or chutzpah, only Paul can really say. (My guess is somewhere in-between.)

But as is so often the case with right-wing libertarianism, Pauls flimsy moral reasoning simply disintegrates once it comes into contact with the facts on the ground. Implicit in Pauls formulation is the idea that there are jobs to be had, if only the long-term unemployed would stop relying on government checks and go and have them. Considering that the total number of long-term unemployed set to be sent adrift by the expiration of EUC is somewhere in the vicinity of 5 million, its quite likely that, in some instances, this is true. But for the vast, vast majority of those on EUC, the reality is that there simply are not enough jobs to go around. A Bureau of Labor Statistics study found the ratio of job seekers to job openings to be nearly 3-to-1, and thats the national figure in many regions, the chances of finding employment are considerably worse.

Whats more, Pauls understanding of the long-term unemployed also betrays a shameful ignorance as to what life on EUC is actually like. People on EUC arent collecting their former paycheck while sitting around and waiting for work to come to them. Theyre receiving a mere fraction of their former salary and are under constant pressure to prove that they are indeed searching for new employment. As Kim Merryman, a former water quality technician for an Indian reservation who was laid off in April, told me, Its not like [EUC] allows me to live this comfortable, cushy life. In 2012, the average weekly compensation for those on EUC was $300.

What EUC does do for Merryman and millions like her is allow her to have a roof over my head, have gas in my car, get down to the employment agency, [and] to get my rsums out. Rather than keep Merryman out of the workforce, in other words, EUC keeps her in it by helping her to continue to search for a job. Thats why economists believe ending EUC will lead to many of the unemployed simply giving up on finding a new job and dropping out of the workforce entirely. While this would technically reduce the unemployment rate, it would do little to actually improve the labor market or the economy on the whole. In fact, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, because recipients of EUC tend to, out of necessity, spend the money right away, the expiration of the program could deprive the economy of as many as 200,000 jobs and 0.2 percent of GDP.

For these both moral and technocratic reasons, extending EUC is the mainstream position. A recent poll found that 55 percent of Americans support an extension, while only 34 percent oppose one. The Rand Paul school of thought, that those on EUC are layabouts turning down work in order to bask in the glow of their government-provided largess, is, thankfully, an outlier. And theres concrete political action taking place in Washington, too. With the White Houses backing, Democrats like Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed are already trying to pass a three-month extension of EUC that will keep the 1.3 million cut off on Dec. 28 afloat while Congress hashes out a longer-term agreement. Nothings ever certain with Republicans in Congress, of course, but its in the GOPs self-interest to move the issue to the political sidelines, so theres reason for optimism that such a deal will ultimately pass.

All the same, that 1.3 million Americans have been forced to greet the new year with little to no idea how theyll next make ends meet is still a national disgrace. That so many Americans have been left to suffer through the hell of long-term unemploymentis itself a national disgrace. And even if this round of economic Darwinism proves to be short-lived, the reality ofa joblessrecovery meanstheres little doubt that millions more will soon find themselves in the impossible situation now confronting Merryman and so many like her. If thats the case, lets hope the long-term unemployed continue to have better friends in high places than the junior senator from Kentucky.

Link:
Rand Paul is totally, shamefully wrong about the long-term unemployed

Anarchism and Libertarianism

By: LuckyShitZu

See the rest here:
Anarchism and Libertarianism - Video

Krauthammer #39;s Take: Other than Obamacare, Biggest 2013 Story is Rising Libertarianism

By: National Review

View post:
Krauthammer's Take: Other than Obamacare, Biggest 2013 Story is Rising Libertarianism - Video

The libertarian or "classical liberal" perspective is that individual well-being, prosperity, and social harmony are fostered by "as much liberty as possible" and "as little government as necessary."

These ideas lead to new questions: What's possible? What's necessary? What are the practical implications and the unsolved problems?

Below are a number of different takes on the libertarian political perspective from which you can deepen your understanding;also be sure to check out the videos in the sidebar.

According to The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman, Open Court Publishing Company,1973.

The central idea of libertarianism is that people should be permitted to run their own lives as they wish.

According toLibertarianism: A Primerby David Boaz,Free Press, 1997.

Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others. Libertarians defend each person's right to life, liberty, and property-rights that people have naturally, before governments are created. In the libertarian view, all human relationships should be voluntary; the only actions that should be forbidden by law are those that involve the initiation of force against those who have not themselves used force-actions like murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, and fraud.

According to Funk and Wagnall's Dictionary

lib-er-tar-i-an, n. 1. a person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought or conduct.... advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty.

According to American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition, 2000.

Visit link:
What is Libertarian? | The Institute for Humane Studies

What is Libertarianism?

Libertarians see the individual as the basic, most essential element of society. The word roughly means believer in liberty. Libertarians believe that each individual owns his or her own life and property and has the right to make his own choices about how to live his life as long as he respects the rights of others to do the same.

Liberty is one of the central lessons of world history. Virtually all the progress the human race has enjoyed during the past few centuries is due to the increasing acceptance of free markets, civil liberties and self-ownership.

Libertarianism is thus the combination of liberty (the freedom to live your life in any peaceful way you choose), responsibility (the prohibition against the use of force against others, except in defense) and tolerance (honoring and respecting the peaceful choices of others).

Click here to view some definitions of libertarianism.

Libertarians are not left or right or a combination of the two. Libertarians believe that on every issue you have the right to decide for yourself whats best for you and to act on that belief, so long as you simply respect the right of other people to do the same.

How does this compare with the left and right? Todays liberals tend to value personal liberty, but want significant government control of the economy. Todays conservatives tend to favor economic freedom, but want to use the government to uphold traditional values. Libertarians, in contrast, support both personal and economic liberty.

Libertarianism is the only political movement that consistently advocates a high degree of both personal and economic liberty.

Modern libertarianism has multiple roots, but perhaps the most important one is the minimal-government republicanism of Americas founding revolutionaries like Thomas Jefferson and the Anti-Federalists. The core ideals of libertarianism that all men are created equal and are endowed with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can be seen in the Declaration of Independence and in the limited government established in the Constitution.

Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill are among the most famous of the 18th and 19th centuries classical liberals that developed theories on the invisible hand of free markets. More recently, libertarian philosophy has been explored and defined through Ayn Rands ethical egoism and the Austrian School of free-market economics.

See the original post:
Libertarianism - Frequently Asked Questions - The Advocates ...

From New World Encyclopedia

In English-speaking countries, libertarianism usually refers to a political philosophy maintaining that every person is the absolute owner of their own life and should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they respect the liberty of others.

Libertarianism can also be an ethical theory or stance that holds that the besti.e., best ethically speaking, or what "ought to" or "should" exist or be upheldpolitical, social, economic, and/or governmental system is the one that governs least, that provides for the greatest individual liberty, initiative, entrepreneurship, etc. Libertarian theory advocates minimizing social and governmental power, action, control, and regulation, and maximizing individual liberty and freedom. Libertarians are suspicious of the ability of government and bureaucrats to make good, wise, and informed ethical, social, or economic choices for people. Libertarians believe, instead, that people are the best judges and masters of their own self-interest, and that they make the best choices when they choose freely for themselves.

Libertarianism can be contrasted with socialismthe two are more or less opposite in their political, social, and ethical stances.

Some libertarians (as explained below) are anarchists. But it is important not to assume that libertarianism implies or is synonymous with anarchism because most libertarians do believe in and accept some minimal government and governmental powera view sometimes called the "night-watchman theory of the state."

There are broadly two types of libertarians: consequentialists and rights theorists.[1] Rights theorists hold that it is morally imperative that all human interaction, including government interaction with private individuals, should be voluntary and consensual. They maintain that the initiation of force by any person or government, against another person or their propertywith "force" meaning the use of physical force, the threat of it, or the commission of fraud against someonewho has not initiated physical force, threat, or fraud, is a violation of that principle. This form of libertarianism is associated with Objectivists, as well as with individualist anarchists who see this prohibition as requiring opposition to the state to be consistent.

Consequentialist libertarians do not have a moral prohibition against "initiation of force," but support those actions that they believe will result in the maximum well-being or efficiency for a society. Though they will allow some initiation of force by the state if they believe it necessary to bring about good consequences for society, they believe that allowing a very large scope of individual liberty is the most productive way toward this end. This type of libertarianism is associated with Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, and Friedrich Hayek.

Libertarians generally do not oppose force used in response to initiatory aggressions such as violence, fraud, or trespassing. Libertarians favor an ethic of self-responsibility and strongly oppose the welfare state, because they believe "forcing" someone to provide aid to others is ethically wrong, ultimately counter-productive, or both. Libertarians also strongly oppose conscription, because they oppose slavery and involuntary servitude.

Critics of libertarianism may point to its unrealistic view of human nature. Since human beings are fallen and prone to selfish behaviors, lacking in self-control and greedy to promote themselves at the expense of others, a condition of unfettered liberty will necessarily result in inequality and oppression of the many by a privileged few who are stronger and more ruthless. The state, in this view, has a positive role to regulate selfish and immoral behavior and to provide redress to those oppressed by economic or social circumstances. This is the essence of Jean-Jacque Rousseau's social contract, which founds the sovereign role of government on an implicit contract in which citizens surrender a measure of individual liberty for a measure of protection and greater social equality. On the other hand, elements of libertarian policy can succeed if non-governmental organizations in a society were to deliver widespread moral instruction to encourage citizens to practice self-control and embody divinity within themselves, support healthy families in which such virtues are most readily cultivated, and encourage voluntary charity to care for the less fortunate.

Note on terminology: Some writers who have been called libertarians have also been referred to as "classical liberals," by others or themselves. Also, some use the phrase "the freedom philosophy" to refer to libertarianism, classical liberalism, or both.

Original post:
Libertarianism - New World Encyclopedia

Libertarianism isn't all that conservative.

The Gadsden Flag

That's the argument former Bush Administration officials Mike Gerson and Pete Wehner offer in a new -- and important -- essay in National Affairs that posted today. Here's the key paragraph from that piece:

Responsible, self-governing citizens do not grow wild like blackberries, which is why a conservative political philosophy cannot be reduced to untrammeled libertarianism. Citizens are cultivated by institutions: families, religious communities, neighborhoods, and nations. Parents and spouses, churches and synagogues, teachers and coaches, and the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are among the foremost shapers of citizens in our republic. But government has a necessary (if limited) role in reinforcing the social norms and expectations that make the work of these civil institutions both possible and easier. That role can involve everything from enforcing civil-rights laws, to saving the elderly from indigence, to restricting the availability of addictive substances.

The Gerson/Wehner piece is an argument for government (albeit it in a limited role) and a rejection of the so-called constitutional conservative/libertarian/tea party movement that has been organized around the principle that the government that does least does best. The essay lands at a time when libertarianism is very much on the march within the Republican party -- as evidenced by the rise of both Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz within the party not to mention the fact that a majority of House Republicans voted for a measure last summer to significantly curtail the government's spying powers.

Sentiments -- voiced by Paul and others -- that the U.S. needs to rethink its role as world policeman, for example, would have been unthinkable in the Republican party of even a decade ago. (George W. Bush was re-elected 10 years ago in large part due to his focus during the campaign on his ability -- and willingness -- to do what it took to keep Americans safe in the world.) Now, Paul's views are held by an increasing number of people who identify as Republicans including, most interestingly, young people (30 and under) who have abandoned the GOP in droves in the last two presidential elections.

Gerson and Wehner, on the other hand, are part of what can be described as the establishment wing of the GOP. And, their essay is the latest sign that the establishment is striking back -- rhetorically and policy-wise -- against a libertarian/tea party movement that, they believe, has run amok over the past four years and threatens to badly damage the party's prospects heading into 2014 and,especially, 2016.

"The alternative to government overreach is not the dogmatic disparagement of government but the restoration of government to its proper and honored place in American life," Wehner and Gerson write at one point. At another, they insist: "Conservatives should offer a menu of structural reforms that do not simply attack government but transform it on conservative terms."

The broad conclusion of the piece? A philosophy that rejects government will never prevail -- no matter how much the American public dislikes the direction that President Obama has led the country. "Conservatives are more likely to be trusted to run the affairs of the nation if they show the public that they grasp the purposes of government," write Gerson and Wehner. So, from health care to immigration to education and beyond, the duo argue that the party needs to be for something rather than against (almost) everything.

Little of that argument is new or unknown to party strategists looking toward not just the 2016 presidential race but also the long term electoral sustainability of the GOP. The problem for the Wehners and Gersons of the world is that the energy of the Republican party at the moment lies with those most willing to move in complete and total opposition to Obama, not those who want to make a nuanced argument about how government isn't always bad (or good). What's an easier stump speech to rile up the base: One that savages Obamacare and the growth of government or one that argues that true conservatism is a belief in some government when and where it's necessary? You already know the answer.

Read the original post:
The Republican rejection of libertarianism. And why it probably won’t work.

Libertarianism Spreads through Social Media
John Stossel interviews Julie Borowski and Matt Kibbe from Freedomworks, who explained that the new social media on the internet is spreading new ideologies ...

By: borisgaydos

Read more:
Libertarianism Spreads through Social Media - Video